Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Please Recognize our Progress"
The American Federation of Teachers uses crappy Internet animation to defend their prerogatives against the testing standards of No Child Left Behind. As Ryan Sager, from whom I got this link, put it: "The teachers unions have absolutely, positively lost their Goddamned minds."
If your boss or co-workers are sane, I'd have to categorize this one as not work-friendly.
Lisa Snell gave a metaphorically animated attack on No Child Left Behind from a different perspective in the October 2004 issue of Reason, arguing that NCLB isn't tough enough on failing schools.
|2.9.06 @ 2:47PM|#
I suppose it's a good thing my anti-virus security stuff won't let me install anything with "ActiveX", huh?
|2.9.06 @ 2:52PM|#
Jennifer, I suspect your formerly schoolteaching head would explode if witness to this.
|2.9.06 @ 2:53PM|#
Not work friendly? How about that half-naked babe on the right hand side of the page for the past few days? It's making it difficult to read Reason at work.
Baylen Linnekin|2.9.06 @ 2:53PM|#
This is the most offensive cartoon that does not feature Muhammad I have ever seen.
|2.9.06 @ 3:03PM|#
I'm with you fishfry. I need to look over my shoulder everytime
I go to this website. This just after my company gave a sexual
harrasment lecture last week.
She is HOT though!
|2.9.06 @ 3:05PM|#
I overrode the ActiveX thing and installed it anyway.
Holy.
Fucking.
Christ.
Are these people idiots? "Let's measure progress?"
BULLSHIT. What matters is how well you do, not how much better you
did than before. "Measure progress?" So if a kid starts grade 12
completely illiterate and ends the year reading at a second grade
level, he's made more progress than a kid who starts at an
11th-grade level and ends at a twelfth-grade level. Is that all
that matters? Instead of "measure progress," how about "not letting
them progress into a grade until they damn well belong
there?"
And what's this complaint about testing taking "too much time?" If
kids have no time for anything other than schoolwork, maybe you
should spend MORE time focusing on math and writing and reading,
and less time focusing on Diversity and Self-Esteem and We're All
Unique and Beautiful Like Fucking Snowflakes, and all the other
feel-good hand-holding crap that infests the schools these
days.
Also, if you're trying to persuade adults to see things your way, a
flash animation out of some horrible Sesame Street feverdream is
probably not the best way to do it.
My blood pressure just went up five thousand percent.
|2.9.06 @ 3:07PM|#
I'd also like to point out to the idiot authors that No Child Left Behind was also "well-intentioned." So now all of your complaints are automatically unjustified, right?
|2.9.06 @ 3:24PM|#
God help me, I'm actually going to go left this one time.
I'm engaged to a public school teacher (she teaches Latin and
English). I know for a fact that she's an excellent teacher. I know
that she works very hard and cares a lot for her kids. She's also
strongly considering quitting the profession, no small part due to
NCLB.
NCLB is obsessed with test-taking, and not actual learning. It is a
one-size fits-all device. My fiance has absolutely no leeway to
teach her classes as she sees fit.. to be creative and make the
experience more enjoyable for her kids. She is tasked to create
robots.. faceless parts of a huge national test-taking
machine.
Yes, that web animation is totally retarded. But not all teachers
are incompetant or "insane". As Jennifer can attest, teachers get a
ton of shit from all sides - kids, their parents, the school
administration, and now the national standards. It's a totally
thankless job, and that's a shame.
|2.9.06 @ 3:25PM|#
I'd say that a school that gets a 10th grader who can't read,
after nine years somewhere else, and has him reading at a second
grade level by the end of the year is doing a pretty good
job.
My city has a lot of refugees from SE Asia. Often, an older kids
comes into the system with very limited English skills. My state's
standardized tests, on the other hand, simply rank schools by the
snapshot of how 10th graders do on test day. I don't think this
practice serves the purpose of measuring how well the school does
its job.
|2.9.06 @ 3:26PM|#
What.
The.
FUCK.
I don't even know what point of view they're coming from. I do,
however, think NCLB is absurd, as is the notion that standardized
testing is the be-all, end-all of education. Also, the idea that
every child will be 'proficient' is mind-bendingly stupid. Much
like that video.
|2.9.06 @ 3:32PM|#
My city has a lot of refugees from SE Asia. Often, an older
kids comes into the system with very limited English skills. My
state's standardized tests, on the other hand, simply rank schools
by the snapshot of how 10th graders do on test day.
Which is yet another reason why we need to end this ridiculous idea
of age segregation in the schools. If you are fifteen years old and
have such severely limited English skills then you don't belong in
high school by simple virtue of your age.
MNG, I agree that there are serious problems with standardized
testing, but not as bad as the problems they were designed to cure.
If all students have to pass a test before being promoted to the
next grade, that will go a long way toward ending the idiocy of
social promotion.
|2.9.06 @ 3:37PM|#
how about "not letting them progress into a grade until they
damn well belong there?"
The other day I read an article about some trouble at a school in
DC involving some 10th graders. Near the end of the article it came
to light that one of the 10th graders was 19 years-old.
It occurred to me that maybe this could be taken a bit too far. Can
you imagine being 15 years-old and sitting next to a 19 year-old
thug in your class? I doubt there would be much "progress" in that
situation.
|2.9.06 @ 3:43PM|#
The other day I read an article about some trouble at a
school in DC involving some 10th graders. Near the end of the
article it came to light that one of the 10th graders was 19
years-old.
The solution there is to "progress" the lad outa school. At a
certain point one must admit that some can only go so far.
|2.9.06 @ 3:43PM|#
Mk-
Your example explains why we also need to end this lunatic idea
that every single person in the country will get an academic
education and grow up to work with their brains, rather than their
hands. Bring back vocational ed (and have it be a serious
curriculum, not a dumping-ground for troublemakers).
That 19-year-old tenth grader may be stupid, or he may simply have
no interest in learning. In either case, it doesn't sound like he
belongs there anyway.
The school where I taught finally expelled a 19-year-old freshman,
because I think the law is you can only stay in high school until
you are 21 or 22; whatever the limit, he'd reached the point where
it would be impossible for him to graduate on time anyway.
|2.9.06 @ 3:49PM|#
Jennifer,
Maybe up to a point. But what is served by putting a smart,
knowledgeable 15 year old in a class full of 7 year olds, just
because his fluency is in another language? Tracking him into
classes with peers in a similar predicament would probably make
more sense - no?
|2.9.06 @ 3:49PM|#
Kevin gets the 'most accurate prediction' award of the
day...
It occurred to me that maybe this could be taken a bit too far.
Can you imagine being 15 years-old and sitting next to a 19
year-old thug in your class? I doubt there would be much "progress"
in that situation
Kinda depends if the 19 year old wanted to be there or not. If so,
wouldn't be that much different than being a 18 yr old freshman
sitting next to a 40 yr old freshman who had never gotten around
going to college prior. However, if the 19 yr old was effectively
institutionalized by being forced to be there, that would be
different. That said, at age 18 one can bail without any parental
permission, so I don't think this is a real situation.
While I do agree that there should be some flexibility in regards
to tying age to grade, my thought is that there would be an issue
with, say, a 13 year old in a third grade class with a bunch of 8
year olds. Perhaps if they miss twice they go on a different track
to a different school. Obviously, private schools generally don't
have to deal with this, as they just dismiss the students and they
have to fend for themselves.
|2.9.06 @ 3:52PM|#
Normally, I'm realistic enough to recognize that teachers have a rational self-interest in protecting their turf but this is just embarassing.
|2.9.06 @ 4:18PM|#
But what is served by putting a smart, knowledgeable 15 year
old in a class full of 7 year olds, just because his fluency is in
another language?
Nothing, which is why we need to ditch the entire system of
assuming that all seven-year-olds are at the same level and should
be grouped together. End age segregation and group kids based on
their strengths and weaknesses, rather than based on how long
they've been on earth.
And here's another benefit--many people like to talk about how
school is important for "social skills." Which social skills have
more real-world application--the ability to interact with people
from a variety of age groups, or the ability to interact with
people who are all within six months of your own age?
|2.9.06 @ 4:18PM|#
Sigh, do the teachers actually want people to take them
seriously? Becuase this certainly isn't the way to do it. I'm all
for getting rid of the NCLB, and you'd think that teachers who have
to deal with its one-size-fits-all constraints and bureaucratic
rigidity would be able to make some cogent points.
On the other hand, who doesn't love singing animals?
Jeff Smith|2.9.06 @ 4:19PM|#
The video captures the intellectual level of most education
policy really well. I also like the idea that a "union of
professionals" - something that makes about as much sense as a
"street gang of music theorists" - thinks that a singing cartoon is
the correct way to discuss policy issues.
I must complain, however, about the person who complained about
adding value. Schools and school districts differ a lot in terms of
the raw material they have to work with in terms of ability and
parental support. Simply comparing schools based on outcomes
ignores that. Limited conditioning on observables helps, but trying
to get a "value-added" measure is not a bad idea, if it is done
correctly. Of course, contrary to the video, a value-added measure
will do nothing to reduce the emphasis on teaching to the test that
NCLB already induces.
For those who would like to read more from a reasonable
perspective, head to Eric Hanushek's web page. He is an economist
at the Hoover Institution at Stanford who studies this stuff and is
a very reasonable guy. We disagree at the margin about NCLB but he
gives by far the most rational defense of it.
Jeff
|2.9.06 @ 4:28PM|#
"And here's another benefit--many people like to talk about
how school is important for "social skills."
Every time I hear some idiot spout that line, I want to inflict
physical pain on them.
But I guess the nerds and social rejects need to learn their place
in the pecking order.
|2.9.06 @ 4:28PM|#
"Your example explains why we also need to end this lunatic idea
that every single person in the country will get an academic
education and grow up to work with their brains, rather than their
hands. Bring back vocational ed (and have it be a serious
curriculum, not a dumping-ground for troublemakers). " posted by
Jennifer
Excellent point, Jennifer. But, there are no need for tradesman
anylonger in the US, that is what immigrant populations are for
(tongue in cheek, people, tongue in cheek)
The subject of NCLB makes my head explode.But only after my blood
boils and the flesh peels off of my bones.
I work in educational research - the "achievement gap" and NCLB are
the only things on which my department concentrates. It makes my
head spin. Its about throwing money at whatever perceived panacea
the government can find, and making sure all kids have the same
knowledge and the same achievement and that they all get into
excellent colleges - I suppose it�s a way to take the definition of
"egalitarian" to its nth degree.
We all know that we are NOT created equal, otherwise, I would be
able to sing opera like my sister in law and do math like my best
friend, rather than require a calculator to balance my checkbook
and croak like a frog in the shower.
To your point about working with your hands, I have known smarter
people in my lifetime who have barely gotten out of high school,
but who do the most exquisite craftsmanship with wood, metal and
stone. My boyfriend finished only 2 semester's of college before
learning a trade, and he makes more money building than he did when
he had a management job with one of the huge telecom-of-the-month
companies a few years back. He enjoys his job more, as well.
I think of the end of Office Space and get inspired: I'm outside,
getting exercise, breathing fresh air, and makin' bucks. Fuckin a,
man. Fuckin a.
Emphasis on education for all is not a bad thing, emphasis on the
same KIND of education for all is ridiculous. With all of the
research being done on learning styles, disabilities, I can't
believe the gov't is still trying to construct a one-size-fits-all
test to a population made up of infinitely varied individuals.
|2.9.06 @ 4:32PM|#
Emphasis on education for all is not a bad thing, emphasis
on the same KIND of education for all is ridiculous.
I fully agree. I've said here many times: expecting every single
kid in America to meet the exact same academic standards is as
insane as expecting everybody to meet the same athletic standards.
I doubt even the most entrenched Educational Ed idiot would agree
that all students must be able to bench-press 200 pounds, run a
six-minute mile and throw a discus 100 yards before being allowed
to graduate, but one-size-fits-all standards for intellectual
achievement strikes them as perfectly reasonable.
|2.9.06 @ 4:34PM|#
Every time I hear some idiot spout that line, I want to
inflict physical pain on them.
Me too. And the "social skills" you learn in modern American public
schools have no application whatsoever in the real world.
|2.9.06 @ 4:43PM|#
"And the "social skills" you learn in modern American public
schools have no application whatsoever in the real
world."
Yeah, it's nowhere near as arbitrarily tribalistic.
|2.9.06 @ 4:55PM|#
Also, Mediageek, I'd imagine that relatively few corporations keep stupid bullies with no skills on staff for the sole purpose of inflating the performance of the Official Company Football Team. Nor do corporations generally expect high-achieving workers to dumb themselves down so that the stupid workers don't feel so bad.
|2.9.06 @ 4:58PM|#
Jennifer,
The difference between a 17 year old student and an 8 year old
student aren't just the knowledge they have in their brains. Their
brains work differently, and they require different educational
environments and practices - even if they have the same degree of
knowledge going into class.
|2.9.06 @ 5:01PM|#
The difference between a 17 year old student and an 8 year
old student aren't just the knowledge they have in their brains.
Their brains work differently, and they require different
educational environments and practices
The "Different brains require different educational environments
and practices" is exactly the argument the teachers are using
against the NCLB act. Only they're using it to explain why all kids
in the same age group shouldn't be held to the same standards,
either. Since it's impossible to custom-make a separate educational
plan for every single student in the country, grouping kids by
ability would at least hurt less of them than grouping kids by
age.
VM|2.9.06 @ 5:02PM|#
sic the HAPPY TREE FRIENDS on those fuckers.
mein gott.
this reminds me of some of the EU brainwashing shit.
THIS IS STEVEN CRANE'S FAULT. LET US DEMAND THAT HE GIVE US THE 45
SECONDS OF OUR LIFE BACK
evil.
|2.9.06 @ 5:05PM|#
Ahhh, Jennifer,
It is good (for the children) that you've gotten out of teaching.
Your ideas on the subject never fail to impress me with their lack
of consistency or depth.
To quote you
"I've said here many times: expecting every single kid in America
to meet the exact same academic standards is as insane as expecting
everybody to meet the same athletic standards."
"Instead of "measure progress," how about "not letting them
progress into a grade until they damn well belong there?"
And these are only 90 minutes apart.
NCLB doesn't even begin to address the issues that plague troubled
schools in our country. Individualized measures of progress are a
reasonable way to determine if a student "damned well belongs" in
the next grade. Otherwise you are advocating the NCLB approach.
Age-base promotion and progress-based promotion are not the same
thing.
Try just once, I dare you, not to comment on an educational
thread.
|2.9.06 @ 5:09PM|#
"I've said here many times: expecting every single kid in
America to meet the exact same academic standards is as insane as
expecting everybody to meet the same athletic standards."
"Instead of "measure progress," how about "not letting them
progress into a grade until they damn well belong
there?"
How do these contradict each other, Mainstream? Not every kid can
meet the same athletic standards, and not every 17-year-old can do
what is considered 12th-grade work.
|2.9.06 @ 5:13PM|#
An empty heart takes center stage. It retracts blood and faces the crowd with a vehemence and states the fallacies of isolated recrimination like a new god.
|2.9.06 @ 5:20PM|#
Jennifer,
I think a little of both might be the answer. Maybe break the kids
up into four year groupings by age, but then have the kids in those
four grades break up into classes by knowledge and ability.
That way you don't end up with Young Einstein and Young Dubya
taking Alegbra One in the same year, and you also don't end up with
some teenager who's already behind sitting in a class full of 9
year olds and saying 'screw this.'
|2.9.06 @ 5:21PM|#
Me too. And the "social skills" you learn in modern American
public schools have no application whatsoever in the real
world.
I disagree, unfortunately. I've often said that high school never
actually stops. Roles may be reversed, but the methods we learn to
interact with each other during school are firmly ingrained in our
society. You'll always have the popular and the non-popular, people
will always play favorites and tolerate all sorts of crap for
reasons completely unrelated to performance, people will gossip and
perform petty acts of malice, and people will always form their
cliques and shun the "unacceptable" even if they've learned to be
more subtle about it.
What I've never been able to decide is whether these traits are
solely characteristic of humanity, or whether our system plays a
more active role in determining how we behave in semi-closed social
environments. In other words, do we cause high school or does high
school cause us?
Regardless, I certainly believe that schools do teach kids social
skills that have real world applications. The only problem is that
I don't see that as a good thing.
|2.9.06 @ 5:22PM|#
Jennifer,
"not every 17-year-old can do what is considered 12th-grade
work."
The implication is that 12th-grade work is considered to be the
same for all 12th graders, no matter their age (a strawman you use
in your arguments that is beside the point). It is implying that
you shouldn't be in 12th grade unless you are able "to meet the
exact same academic standards" as other 12th graders. So the
question is, what if you are never able to meet the exact same
academic standards in a narrowly defined range of the curriculum?
Do you not get to go to 12th grade because you suck at Math, even
if you are gifted in other areas of the curriculum?
Think the problem ALL the way through before continuing your
rant.
|2.9.06 @ 5:26PM|#
you also don't end up with some teenager who's already
behind sitting in a class full of 9 year olds and saying 'screw
this.'
Well, if we truly got rid of age segregation then chances are it
wouldn't be a lone teenager in a class full of nine-year-olds, but
a teenager in a classful of students of widely varying ages. And
such a system, as opposed to the current age-related one, would be
more personalized, in that kids could learn more at their own pace
rather than at the pace considered the average for their age
group.
I think we should also consider the possibility that, just as not
every kid is going to get a PhD, so too not every kid will get a
high school diploma. There are a lot of good jobs out there that
don't actually need one, anyway.
|2.9.06 @ 5:28PM|#
So the question is, what if you are never able to meet the
exact same academic standards in a narrowly defined range of the
curriculum? Do you not get to go to 12th grade because you suck at
Math, even if you are gifted in other areas of the
curriculum?
I don't know if you realize this, Mainstream, but in modern high
schools it is indeed possible to fail one class while passing
others, so that this hypothetical kid of your could, indeed, take
twelfth-grade courses in English and history while still repeating
freshman or sophomore math.
Exactly what point are you trying to make, here?
|2.9.06 @ 5:35PM|#
And by all the way through I mean, how are you going to
determine when someone has met enough goals to be considered a HS
graduate, even if you get rid of distinctions like 10th grader? How
will you measure skill? How will you manage serious issues
involving dangerous behavior of 17 year-old around 6 year olds? How
will your idea be implemented in terms of what is known about
developmental/cognitive/emotional differences in the needs of a 17
year old and a 9 year old? Does the 17 year old have to stay in a
class with one teacher all day like the 9 year old? Does he get
recess? Do we have to have all levels in the same building? or will
the 17 year old have to go across town to the 4th grade class for
his math instruction?
Solutions can be found for all of these issues, but they are not as
easy or unidimensional as your characterization of the issue.
Again, I dare you to spend the time you would ranting on
educational threads reading some current research in the area of
cognitive development and learning.
|2.9.06 @ 5:44PM|#
how are you going to determine when someone has met enough
goals to be considered a HS graduate, even if you get rid of
distinctions like 10th grader?
Decide which skills are required to qualify for a diploma, and then
give the diploma when said skills are achieved.
How will you measure skill?
Same way we do it now--tests, quizzes and the like.
How will you manage serious issues involving dangerous behavior
of 17 year-old around 6 year olds?
A seventeen-year-old who is the acedemic equivalent of a
six-year-old has no business getting an academic diploma anyway,
which is why I've called for a return to vocational ed for kids who
would benefit by it.
How will your idea be implemented in terms of what is known
about developmental/cognitive/emotional differences in the needs of
a 17 year old and a 9 year old?
What, pray tell, should be different about the way you'd teach long
division to a nine-year-old versus a 17-year old?
Does the 17 year old have to stay in a class with one teacher
all day like the 9 year old?
With the end of age segregation, the nine-year-old won't be in the
same room all day, either.
Does [the 17-year-old] get recess?
Sure, why not? Even adult employees get coffee breaks; everybody
needs a little downtime now and then.
Solutions can be found for all of these issues, but they are
not as easy or unidimensional as your characterization of the
issue.
Not, they are "not as easy or one-dimensional and your
portrayal of my characterization of the issue."
|2.9.06 @ 6:00PM|#
Maybe it really stands for (N)o (C)hristian (L)eft
(B)ehind?
That probably only makes sense to me but then again I'm a product
of public schooling if that isn't painfully obvious by now.
|2.9.06 @ 6:00PM|#
MainStreamMan, one might not require all students to reach the
same level in math. I don't believe any (or at least not many) high
school require more than a couple years of math. Further, if one
were to match an individual student's curriculum to that
individual's strengths, then their might be a math and science
track, an English track, a foreign language track, etc. as well as
nonacademic trades tracks.
What good would it do someone to get to the twelfth grade be passed
through a math class that they didn't deserve to pass and go on to
be a working adult who never actually would use that math. I
suppose it would provide employment to a math teacher.
|2.9.06 @ 6:19PM|#
Jennifer,
Again,
"What, pray tell, should be different about the way you'd teach
long division to a nine-year-old versus a 17-year old?"
When you can answer this question for yourself, you might be able
to come up with a better way to address the issues. The cognitive
skills that a 9 year old and a 17 year old bring to the table are
quite different and warrant different approaches.
"With the end of age segregation, the nine-year-old won't be in the
same room all day, either."
Ahh... but the stable environment provided for children at this age
facilitates learning. They learn better because they are not forced
to negotiate the ever changing demands of multiple teachers across
the day. 17 year olds handle this better due to
maturity/experience.
I have spent much of my career implementing structural changes to
schools and school systems. Few high schools use age-based
promotion. Your ideas, and responses above, are like the NCLB act
in that they apply a single principle to solve problems that occur
due to multiple factors.
There is nothing wrong with age promotion, or its elimination if
implemented in a system that supports learning in optimal ways for
the students faced with learning in that system. But to think that
age promotion (or lack of criterion standards for promotion) is
even a major element limiting student success in most schools
demonstrates a simplistic understanding of the issues.
Design your age-less school system, but please look at the history
of the idea. It has been done with varying degrees of success in
recent history. Most systems revert to some form of age-based
grouping eventually... because it make sense for the vast majority
of students. Nothing in the current system, as you rightly point
out, prevents a 12th grader from taking freshman math... or even
remedial math at a 8 year old level, within an age-appropriate mix
of other students struggling with the same subject.
The contradiction you are missing in your own argument is found in
these statements..
"Decide which skills are required to qualify for a diploma, and
then give the diploma when said skills are achieved."
You can't argue for this criterion for a diploma witout "expecting
every single kid in America to meet the exact same academic
standards" which you claim to oppose.
So again, if you oppose everyone fitting into the same box, how do
you decide who graduates. It will end up involving individualized
criteria for each child based on their progress along multiple
dimensions of learning. Some will graduate with one set of skills,
some with another.
"A seventeen-year-old who is the acedemic equivalent of a
six-year-old has no business getting an academic diploma
anyway"
Is this true even if it is only in one subject? How often does your
typical American use math skills beyond division (8 or 9 year old
skills, sure, but same point)? I seem to remember you arguing quite
long and hard that higher math skills didn't matter in daily life
in a recent rant on education. Are you changing that
position?
I realize I am pissing you off here by blowing off your opinion as
uninformed an not well thought out. I also realize that I haven't
offered you any solutions of my own (or put much thought into my
own posts). Not my job. I just want you to take a step back and
think about whether you really are that informed regarding
educational issues just because you used to be a teacher. Remember,
teacher is the second most common job in the country. Having done
the job makes your level of knowledge about average... which is, in
most cases, not that well informed.
The dare stands.
nmg|2.9.06 @ 6:25PM|#
Every single problem that people have with public schools is so
easily solved by school choice that I have to wonder if anti-choice
folks are deliberately evil.
nmg
|2.9.06 @ 6:30PM|#
FinFang
Your points are well taken. The point is, that is not currently
happening in most high-schools. Age-based grade promotion may occur
at younger ages, but most HS classes already require criterion
standards be met for passing. This is a separate issue from
deterimining which skills are required for graduation from
HS.
My main point here is that age-promotion is a strawman just as much
as is the lack of accountability claimed by Bush when implementing
the NCLB. Since they aren't the problem in the vast majority of
cases, they are not worth discussing.
Think teacher education, local control, individualized educational
programs and the like and you may go further to find solutions for
your particular school's issues. No across the board suggestion
will make much of a dent since there isn't a unitary problem
plaguing our schools.
|2.9.06 @ 6:41PM|#
nmg
"Every single problem that people have with public schools is so
easily solved by school choice that I have to wonder if anti-choice
folks are deliberately evil."
Few oppose school choice. Many oppose school vouchers as a
mechanism for that choice. Most voucher programs supplement choice
for the well off at the expense of the poor. Remember, as soon as
you agree to pay for all children's education using tax money, the
goal should be to provide the best education for the most children
at the least cost. Competition between schools doesn't always
foster improvement because there is little reward for winning, and
few stakes for losing (you might shuffle teachers and
administrators, but there will always be a bell curve and only the
most egregious cases will be fired... this already happens in most
school districts).
Opposition to a particular choice program is very likely not the
result of evil intentions, but careful considerations of the
implications of the particular plan. There are no blanket solutions
when there is no single problem facing the systems across the
country.
|2.9.06 @ 6:43PM|#
Everyone is missing the point.
If education is private, you can decide exactly what sort of
education is good for your child. Touchy feely parents can send
their children to schools that teach them high self esteem, and
make them feel good about themselves, and grade them on their
"progress" and "effort". Other parents can send their kids to more
structured schools with a heavy emphasis on math, science,
language, etc. With a choice, there is something for everyone. In
the current Soviet style educational system we have, there is no
choice. Education is determined by the economic interests of the
teachers unions.
Public education in the U.S. is a failure. There is no way to
overhaul it, no way to fix it. It has CRIMINALLY failed (if it was
a private industry, most of the people involved would be in prison
right now). American students are the laughing stock of the world.
They are recieving a third world education, that costs more than
just about any other nation. This isn't about funding, because even
public schools in rich neighborhoods would be considered the lowest
of remedial education by the standards of the industrialized world.
In short, the public school system teaching Americans to be idiots,
and there is no hope of changing the current system.
Sending a child to an American public school amounts to criminal
child abuse. The only people recieving real educations in the U.S.
are in private schools. For those of you who want a public
education system, maybe it is possible if we get rid of the one we
have now, and create one from scratch. But building an entirely new
education system from scratch will take at least 5 or 10 years. In
the meantime, do you want poor kids to recieve educational torture
and handicapping in a public school, or recieve education in a
private school?
Private education is the only educational system we have in
America. "Public Education" is a myth. It does not exist. So the
question is do we create policices that help kids get a private
education, or do we deny them an education by sending them to a
government Child Warehousing Facility.
|2.9.06 @ 6:50PM|#
Rex
I think you are falling into the same simple-minded trap that
Jennifer is falling into. Your view of education seems to be based
on what you read in the media, or possibly what you experienced as
a student.
There are many excellent public schools in America. Many districts
are excellent as a whole and even some state (like Iowa) out
perform even the best educated countries on all fronts.
If you think that there is ONE problem with a huge collection of
diverse systems, you are suffering from myopia. Public education
works in some places and doesn't in others. Pay to learn is used in
many third world countries. That free-market approach to learning
doesn't do a good job of educating the masses.
I think you suffer under the weight of your own mythology.
MP|2.9.06 @ 7:21PM|#
There are many excellent public schools in America. Many
districts are excellent as a whole and even some state (like Iowa)
out perform even the best educated countries on all
fronts.
Statistical outliers are irrelevant.
Few oppose school choice.
What is your evidence for that? There has never been an inkling of
support from teacher's unions for Friedman style universal
vouchers, or for the tax credit alternative. If you are defining
choice as a freedom to choose among the monopolistic offerings of
the state (which, BTW, even that choice doesn't exist), then you
are completing missing the point of re-awakening market competition
in American education.
|2.9.06 @ 7:37PM|#
MP
Are you suggesting as a libertarian that a centrally imposed
solution will work for the vast majority of locally controlled
educational systems?
Vouchers do not get rid of the problems most school districts face
because they don't even address them. The difference between
private schools and public schools only lasts as long as you have
the public schools which provide services to the most difficult to
educate being compared to private schools which can restrict
enrollment to those that are successful or motivated.
The problem with Friedman's solution is that it attempts a blanket
solution to address a vast collection of issues that result from
mandatory education laws, local conditions, and differing values
across communities. Some systems handle the challenges, some don't.
Fix the broken ones, but why force a change on the systems that are
working?
Imposing a federal level entitlement program on local schools is
silly. That is what voucher's amount to... educational
medicaid.
The quite common programs that offer parents the ability to enroll
their children in any public school within their district, when
paired with charter schools, magnet schools, and a focus on
accountability are typically implemented locally and for that
reason are more likely to be successful than silly federal level
meddling like NCLB or a requirement to universally offer
vouchers.
When finances are not the issue, changing the structure of finances
will not solve the problem. As long as school is publically funded,
it is public education. Privatizing the service delivery certainly
doesn't assure quality. Look to military contractors for an example
of how much sense that makes.
Fucking amazing the lack of thought that goes into the issues
surrounding education... that is the primary issue.
|2.9.06 @ 7:41PM|#
PS,
Teacher's unions are a red-herring. You've been watching too much
of the Stossel reportage. They might be a problem in NYC and other
strong union states, but they ain't the issue for most
districts.
Don't think their lack of support for your particular version of
choice amounts to a measure of the support for the general idea
across educators.
|2.9.06 @ 7:53PM|#
Good god, who wrote that piece of shit? I haven't heard anything so pathetic since the Capitol Steps.
|2.9.06 @ 7:57PM|#
Young Einstein and Young Dubya
Just can't get through the day without a gratuitous Bush slam, can
you? So how did you compare to Young Einstein, Young Joe?
|2.9.06 @ 9:03PM|#
It occurred to me that maybe this could be taken a bit too
far. Can you imagine being 15 years-old and sitting next to a 19
year-old thug in your class? I doubt there would be much "progress"
in that situation.
i remeber in collage i was only a tender 19 year old...and they
made me go to classes with 25 30 sometimes even 40 year
students...they always took my lunch money...it was awful.
|2.9.06 @ 9:42PM|#
I was following you, MSM -- not agreeing, but following. And
then you veered off into some bizarre territory that included
'letting people choose what school they go to would not produce
better outcomes than forcing people to go to a particular school
*or* pay for schooling twice.'
I look forward to the day that I get to pay tuition for my future
child's private schooling, and I get to pay taxes to send the
neighbor's kid to a shitty public school, too.
Remember: the point of vouchers is not to privatize education. The
point of vouchers is to allow parents to choose from among many
schools, rather than being compelled (by law or taxes) to send
their child to a particular school.
Libertarians would rather privatize education, and in that you are
entirely correct: vouchers are by no means a free market solution.
What they are is less offensive than the existing system, where
failure is not only tolerated, it is rewarded, and where perverse
incentives give schools reasons to never, ever improve.
But don't let me stand in the way of your oh-so-erudite rants.
Please, go on insulting the intelligence of a regular poster who
often has interesting insights to offer. This is the first thread
in which I've read *your* $0.02; I hope I get to read more of it in
the future, because I deeply appreciate someone who's willing to
put so much thesaurus work into an internet debate.
|2.9.06 @ 10:07PM|#
I was that 30 year-old Joshua and no you can't have your lunch money back. I needed it to buy psoriasis medication.
|2.9.06 @ 10:08PM|#
The AFT is a union. Unions promote and protect the interests of
union members, period. If the interests of schools or students
happen to coincide with teachers' interests, well and good. But
whenever they conflict or are perceived by the rank and file to
conflict, the union will unswervingly sacrifice the interests of
students in favor of its members.
Or did I miss something?
|2.10.06 @ 2:50AM|#
Mainstream:
Can you back this up? It is my opinion that teacher's unions are
pretty much the same everywhere - same lockstep pay scales, same
protection of the ignorant teachers, same opposition to any
substantial chance except more pay and benefits.
Teacher's unions are a red-herring. You've been watching too
much of the Stossel reportage. They might be a problem in NYC and
other strong union states, but they ain't the issue for most
districts
Also, you also make a couple of comments about vouchers that I
disagree with. First, you seem to claim that this would be federal.
It hasn't been that way so far, nor should it be. Second, you
claimed that they benefit the rich. Again, if there were full
vouchers for everyone (by which I mean 100% of the cost of the
local public school) why would this be any more beneficial to the
rich than the poor? I agree, half-assed vouchers do help the rich
more, but whose fault is that? It is the fault of those who oppose
vouchers!
|2.10.06 @ 8:03AM|#
I'm almost certain that "Mainstreamman" is Hak.
Dude, you should stop playing games by hiding behind different
handles. Grow some balls.
MP|2.10.06 @ 8:28AM|#
Are you suggesting as a libertarian that a centrally imposed
solution will work for the vast majority of locally controlled
educational systems?
How are vouchers "centrally imposed"? If you accept the need to
ensure that educational opportunities exist for all children, then
a voucher system simply changes the distribution mechanism of the
funds already being collected from being a top down bureaucratic
solution to a bottom up consumer driven solution.
Vouchers do not get rid of the problems most school districts
face because they don't even address them.
Vouchers are simply a mechanism to introduce competative market
forces into education. These aren't a panacea to all problems
either, but competition is far superior then a bureaucratic
superstate.
The difference between private schools and public schools only
lasts as long as you have the public schools which provide services
to the most difficult to educate being compared to private schools
which can restrict enrollment to those that are successful or
motivated.
Here you make an assumption that private schools that accept
vouchers would be allowed to restrict enrollment, vs. having to
either do a first come/first served or a lottery enrollment. That's
a rather large assumption. You can't simply assume that today's
environment would remain unchanged after a transition to a
universal voucher based environment. Furthermore, there can't be
one size fits all vouchers due to the issue of special needs
children. And finally, don't assume that the current state of
education regulations are compatible with a universal voucher
program. They are not, particularly when it comes to special needs
issues.
The problem with Friedman's solution is that it attempts a
blanket solution to address a vast collection of issues that result
from mandatory education laws, local conditions, and differing
values across communities. Some systems handle the challenges, some
don't. Fix the broken ones, but why force a change on the systems
that are working?
Bureaucratically driven "fixes" rarely work because of the lack of
a true incentive mechanism. You can't simply rely on the good will
of all those who exist in the education establishment. That's not
to say that there isn't a lot of good will, but that is not a valid
incentive mechanism. Public Choice theory shows that quite
clearly.
Imposing a federal level entitlement program on local schools
is silly. That is what voucher's amount to... educational
medicaid.
Who ever said anything about Federal? Not Uncle Miltie, and not me.
The Federal government has zero Constitutional authority to poke
around in education. The "General Welfare" clause basis is crap.
Education funds are already collected at the local and state level
via taxes. It is simply a matter of re-allocating those funds
directly back to parents instead of to bureaucrats.
The quite common programs that offer parents the ability to
enroll their children in any public school within their district,
when paired with charter schools, magnet schools, and a focus on
accountability are typically implemented locally and for that
reason are more likely to be successful than silly federal level
meddling like NCLB or a requirement to universally offer
vouchers.
I think NCLB sucks. I think the Dept. of Ed. sucks. I don't think
the Federal government has any authority to mandate vouchers, and
wouldn't support such a mandate even if they did have the
authority.
When finances are not the issue, changing the structure of
finances will not solve the problem. As long as school is
publically funded, it is public education. Privatizing the service
delivery certainly doesn't assure quality. Look to military
contractors for an example of how much sense that makes.
Making something private does not make something problem free. But
competition is far superior to government monopoly. TSA
anyone?
Fucking amazing the lack of thought that goes into the issues
surrounding education... that is the primary issue.
What is amazing is your sheer lack of respect for people with
dissenting opinions.
Teacher's unions are a red-herring. You've been watching too
much of the Stossel reportage. They might be a problem in NYC and
other strong union states, but they ain't the issue for most
districts.
Don't think their lack of support for your particular version
of choice amounts to a measure of the support for the general idea
across educators.
I get to read all the union newsletters and get plenty of educator
feedback through the people I know in education. And yes, I live in
CT and work in NYC, so maybe my view is skewed by the overly
statist nature of these environments. But frankly, I'm not trying
to solve issues in Nebraska.
MP|2.10.06 @ 8:31AM|#
I'm almost certain that "Mainstreamman" is Hak.
Dude, you should stop playing games by hiding behind different
handles. Grow some balls.
mng, now why go there? Gunnels has used the Hakluyt ID consistently
for almost a year now. Really, there's no need to throw out an
insult just because you may not like him.
|2.10.06 @ 9:00AM|#
Age-based grade promotion may occur at younger ages, but
most HS classes already require criterion standards be met for
passing.
In theory, yes. In practice, we're still handing out diplomas to
kids who haven't met those standards. You know those colleges who
have to have "remedial writing" and other remedial courses to get
their students ready for basic freshman work? Those remedial
students are high-school graduates, who supposedly should have
learned those basic skills in high school.
if you oppose everyone fitting into the same box, how do you
decide who graduates. It will end up involving individualized
criteria for each child based on their progress along multiple
dimensions of learning. Some will graduate with one set of skills,
some with another.
And what's wrong with that? Better than the one-size-fits-all
educational standards we've got now. I like FinFangFoom's idea
about different tracks--some kids emphasis math and science, some
emphasize vocational study, some emphasize English and languages,
and so forth.
|2.10.06 @ 9:28AM|#
MP:
I have no respect for someone who trashes their own reputation and
then tries to pretend they are someone else.
If "MainstreamMan" isn't Gunnels then I'll apologize to the
jerk.
|2.10.06 @ 10:56AM|#
I'm still amazed that of all these posts no one has suggested
that compulsory education might be most of the problem.
It's not that public schools are one-size-fits-all as much as they
are Wal-Marts: they have a gigantic variety of low-cost,
average-quality-at-best options with almost no attention paid to
individualized customer service. And privatizing wouldn't make the
problem go away completely as there are bound to be crummy private
schools. Forcing people to go to school results in a lot of bad
schools because there are so many captive customers. We wind up
watering down the schools for the students who want to go and learn
because the schools are forced to spend so much time and effort
(i.e. money) on students who wouldn't be there if they weren't
compulsed to be there.
I look at joe's example of SE Asian students and my first reaction
is "Why the heck are they in the same schools as people who aren't
struggling with the language?" If the town wants to make it a
public priority, let's get these kids into some specialized
programs to get them up to speed first, then get them into the
general school population. I don't care if they're in the same
school buuilding or not, but why the heck are they being included
in the same school measurements as schools in other towns that
don't have the same issues? We keep measuring, measuring,
measuring, we keep testing, testing, testing, but we aren't
actually producing anything except test results. The schools have
devlolved into a giant social science lab with union
technicians.
|2.10.06 @ 6:29PM|#
Jennifer,
This is what I've been trying to point out to you.
You responded to my
"Some will graduate with one set of skills, some with
another."
With
"And what's wrong with that?"
Nothing. It is, however, the position you've been arguing against
throughout the thread. You can't have it both ways. Either you
believe that all student must meet the same criteria (like the NCLB
crowd), or you think that there should be some more flexible
individualized process for determining who graduates. Again, in
practice, once students reach about 7th or 8th grade, very few
benefit from age-promotion, so that is a non-issue.
As far as remedial college programs, having spent a good deal of
time teaching them, I think as many of my students have been older
adults brushing up on rusty skills as freshman coming to college
without the skills the college requires.
Education is a process, not a product. A product centered view
doesn't help the debate.
|2.10.06 @ 6:42PM|#
MP.
I must admit I haven't looked at Friedman's proposal in detail in
quite awhile, but I read "Universal Vouchers" as a position
indicating that you think it should be applied to all school
districts across the country to solve all school districts problems
(if you mean vouchers for everyone, then you are not talking about
something much different than what we've got... tuition free). If
your position is that vouchers will solve national education
problems... it is central-thinking, whether you implement it one
district at a time or through a federal mandate.
If you are advocating that each district should work locally to
solve the problems they face, then you have my backing. If you are
suggesting that any ONE idea, like vouchers, are going to have an
across the board impact, you are being dogmatic. Competition
requires that there be stakes for the winner and the loser.
Privatization schemes for education are far more likely to look
like private prisons (not a very successful experiment so far) than
they are ___________(fill in your favorite success story).
I worked in NYC public schools briefly. They are not in any way
representative of schools across the country. Nor are any other of
the schools I have worked in across the western US. Each district
faces unique challenges and needs to work locally to solve the
problem.
Education is not a national problem. It is a local problem. That is
why discussion that start with the presumption that they know THE
PROBLEM with education in the country make me soooo mad. That's why
I, unfairly maybe, heaped abuse on Jennifer (she explains THE
PROBLEM a lot).
I must admit to using overly aggressive language yesterday in my
posts. No excuse, just happens sometimes. I hold a lot of respect
for the H&R crowd, or I wouldn't bother reading or posting.
|2.10.06 @ 6:52PM|#
Chad:
"Again, if there were full vouchers for everyone (by which I mean
100% of the cost of the local public school) why would this be any
more beneficial to the rich than the poor?"
That is the current system. Tuition free education based on pooled
resources. Arguments can be made that the service delivery by a
government institution is the problem, but I think that if you had
fully government funded schools with delivery by private companies,
you get the worst of both worlds in many cases... inefficient
oversight by the government who is paying the bills, and money that
goes towards the bottom line for the company, without services to
the kids. It is an extra layer of red-tape and a middle man with no
real benefits.
In an across the board voucher program, the low income folks are
going to end up in the closest, cheapest, looks-just-like-public
schools, while the rich get a voucher to subsidize their education
at a better school with higher tuition. The competition doesn't
have enough stakes in it to provide for solutions for poor students
in many communities.
|2.10.06 @ 6:55PM|#
Russ2000
Indeed a big part of the problem. But I think we need to think
about why we got to mandatory education laws in the first place.
Modification rather than elimination will make more sense for most
communities. Most allow students to drop out at 16. I am wondering
what lowering that to 14 would do for overall drop out rates.
My experience is that the truly extreme behavior problems/ kids
that don't want to be there, end up in the penal system before 14
anyway, and that most 16 year olds who want to drop out, can't
because their parents won't let them.
|2.10.06 @ 7:49PM|#
Isildur
"'letting people choose what school they go to would not produce
better outcomes than forcing people to go to a particular school
*or* pay for schooling twice.'"
That is not what I said. I said that vouchers do not provide the
best mechanism for that choice. I said few oppose school choice.
When I say that I mean it. I work in education and have been
involved in large scale restructuring of several districts (both
rural and urban) and I have seen few who oppose school choice. Many
oppose vouchers as the mechanism for that choice because most
proposed systems end up being a choice only for a few motivated
parents. I have never seen a voucher system that solves issues for
the kids who have parents that are too busy or too unskilled to
figure out which school is best for their needs. I don't oppose
vouchers as a principle, really (they are just inefficient...money
has to go to administering them). But I have not seen a proposed
system that would result in anything substantially different than
what we've got now. There are not enough stakes in the competition
for problem/difficult students/communities for a simplistic step
like vouchers to lead to real solutions...in most cases. Public
schools work well in many communities. They work when the community
is involved, when the school board is involved, when parents are
involved. Most voucher proposals don't address the level of
involvement parents and communities have in their schools. They
just shift around the paper work a little.
|2.11.06 @ 6:34AM|#
Personally, I'd like to see a more personalized education system
available for kids. Elementary schools can expose kids to lots of
different activities while, at the same time, teaching them the
basics. Then, by the time kids reach high school, they'll hopefully
have an idea of the types of things they like to do and can be
encouraged to pursue them. That way, kids who don't have strong
math skills can pursue literature or the social sciences while only
fulfilling a very basic math requirement, and vice versa for kids
with strong science or math skills who are complete bozos in
history and english class.
Of course, this kind of system would be expensive. There's no way
politicians or taxpayers would be willing to pay for it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245