# Obama's Betrayal of Public Education



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2008)

I hoped it would be different.  I really did, but this is enough to shake my "faith" in that dream.

http://www.truthout.org/121708R



> Barack Obama's selection of Arne Duncan for secretary of education does not bode well either for the political direction of his administration nor for the future of public education. Obama's call for change falls flat with this appointment, not only because Duncan largely defines schools within a market-based and penal model of pedagogy, but also because he does not have the slightest understanding of schools as something other than adjuncts of the corporation at best or the prison at worse. The first casualty in this scenario is a language of social and political responsibility capable of defending those vital institutions that expand the rights, public goods and services central to a meaningful democracy. This is especially true with respect to the issue of public schooling and the ensuing debate over the purpose of education, the role of teachers as critical intellectuals, the politics of the curriculum and the centrality of pedagogy as a moral and political practice.



In other words, the dumbing down of America continues.  Schools will be converted into corporate training grounds and students will be nothing more then human resources.  It's the 19th century Industrial Utopian dream come true.

Education is NOT about training workers.  It's about awakening the intellect and providing the resources to be the person you want to be!  



> Without irony, Arne Duncan characterized the goal of Renaissance 2010 creating the new market in public education as a "movement for social justice." He invoked corporate investment terms to describe reforms explaining that the 100 new schools would leverage influence on the other 500 schools in Chicago. Redefining schools as stock investments he said, "I am not a manager of 600 schools. I'm a portfolio manager of 600 schools and I'm trying to improve the portfolio." He claimed that education can end poverty. He explained that having a sense of altruism is important, but that creating good workers is a prime goal of educational reform and that the business sector has to embrace public education. "We're trying to blur the lines between the public and the private," he said. He argued that a primary goal of educational reform is to get the private sector to play a huge role in school change in terms of both money and intellectual capital. He also attacked the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), positioning it as an obstacle to business-led reform. He also insisted that the CTU opposes charter schools (and, hence, change itself), despite the fact that the CTU runs ten such schools under Renaissance 2010. Despite the representation in the popular press of Duncan as conciliatory to the unions, his statements and those of others at the symposium belied a deep hostility to teachers unions and a desire to end them (all of the charters created under Ren2010 are deunionized).



Ending teacher's unions.  Turning schools into businesses.  For my conservative brother's this sounds like a dream, but, mark my word, this will put the final nail in the coffin of American Inventiveness.  Here's why.

Employees didn't make this country great.  Inventive, creative, imaginative minds did.  Individual open source education that is flexible to student needs at specific times and places is the only way to for innovation to really prosper.  This is the type of schooling that made our country great.  

Corporate schools will make this impossible.  Corporations are interested in innovation that they can control.  Innovation they can dominate.  A small fraction of people will be allowed to do this.  The rest of the proles will get standardized tests and an even more watered down gruel of material that should have fed the imagination.



> At the heart of Duncan's vision of school reform is a corporatized model of education that cancels out the democratic impulses and practices of civil society by either devaluing or absorbing them within the logic of the market or the prison. No longer a space for relating schools to the obligations of public life, social responsibility to the demands of critical and engaged citizenship, schools in this dystopian vision legitimate an all-encompassing horizon for producing market identities, values and those privatizing and penal pedagogies that both inflate the importance of individualized competition and punish those who do not fit into its logic of pedagogical Darwinism.[12]



Well said.



> In spite of what Duncan argues, the greatest threat to our children does not come from lowered standards, the absence of privatized choice schemes or the lack of rigid testing measures that offer the aura of accountability. On the contrary, it comes from a society that refuses to view children as a social investment, consigns 13 million children to live in poverty, reduces critical learning to massive testing programs, promotes policies that eliminate most crucial health and public services and defines rugged individualism through the degrading celebration of a gun culture, extreme sports and the spectacles of violence that permeate corporate controlled media industries. Students are not at risk because of the absence of market incentives in the schools. Young people are under siege in American schools because, in the absence of funding, equal opportunity and real accountability, far too many of them have increasingly become institutional breeding grounds for racism, right-wing paramilitary cultures, social intolerance and sexism.[13] We live in a society in which a culture of testing, punishment and intolerance has replaced a culture of social responsibility and compassion. Within such a climate of harsh discipline and disdain for critical teaching and learning, it is easier to subject young people to a culture of faux accountability or put them in jail rather than to provide the education, services and care they need to face problems of a complex and demanding society.[14] What Duncan and other neoliberal economic advocates refuse to address is what it would mean for a viable educational policy to provide reasonable support services for all students and viable alternatives for the troubled ones. The notion that children should be viewed as a crucial social resource - one that represents, for any healthy society, important ethical and political considerations about the quality of public life, the allocation of social provisions and the role of the state as a guardian of public interests - appears to be lost in a society that refuses to invest in its youth as part of a broader commitment to a fully realized democracy. As the social order becomes more privatized and militarized, we increasingly face the problem of losing a generation of young people to a system of increasing intolerance, repression and moral indifference. It is difficult to understand why Obama would appoint as secretary of education someone who believes in a market-driven model that has not only failed young people, but given the current financial crisis has been thoroughly discredited. Unless Duncan is willing to reinvent himself, the national agenda he will develop for education embodies and exacerbates these problems and, as such, it will leave a lot more kids behind than it helps.



In his conclusion, the writer reveals himself to be a typical liberal.  He doesn't understand that he really is on to something, but his bias against what he sees as conservative gets in the way of him seeing it fully.  The bottom line is that both sides created this at the behest of the same masters.  The writer is a tool, but he's got something to say.  My hope is that people can take the nuggets of wisdom and throw out the partisan crap.  We need to wake up from this left/right paradigm Hegelian Dialectic.  There is a reason why both the "left" and the "right" are pushing the same kind of schooling.  

"Real" schooling would put a stop to this in a decade.


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 18, 2008)

Yea after seeing this I would recken he will be trying to crush all teachers union, so much for education.


----------



## crushing (Dec 18, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Yea after seeing this I would recken he will be trying to crush all teachers union, so much for education.


 
The union is more about collective bargaining and gaining tenure (sometimes despite performance), and not necessarily about improving education.

Even if the union stands in the way of improving education, I highly doubt President Obama will be busting or crushing them.


----------



## Hand Sword (Dec 18, 2008)

Get used to it all.

Then..."I'll bring the troops home immediately" and "I'll end the war"

Now.. "We have to show some flexibility on that issue"

Then.. "I'll tax the rich, etc....."

Now... "That might have to be put off for at least another year"

I don't vote and don't really trust either side, but when you just retread with past regime people and philosophies instead of really being about change, I'm not surprised.  Expect more!


----------



## kidswarrior (Dec 18, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> In other words, the dumbing down of America continues.  Schools will be converted into corporate training grounds and students will be nothing more then human resources.  It's the 19th century Industrial Utopian dream come true.


From my tiny perch, we're already there, brother. Been there for almost a decade now...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2008)

Education in the US has been broken for 60 years.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2008)

There are a lot of other, better qualified, people out there.  People who better suit the needs of the country.  Write your senators and tell them not to confirm Duncan.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 18, 2008)

Education is still principally locally controlled.

The teachers' unions are a problem...they have to be reconsidered.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2008)

arnisador said:


> Education is still principally locally controlled.



If schools are predominantly under local control, then why do all schools look and act the same?  There are some exceptions, but mostly, schools have the kind of format and curriculum regardless of where you go.

One would expect to see more differentiation in terms of schooling under a system that really was controlled at the local level.

In my experience, the only thing that is really under local control is the money.  Local people pay for schools, but they have very little say in how they are run.


----------



## crushing (Dec 18, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> If schools are predominantly under local control, then why do all schools look and act the same? There are some exceptions, but mostly, schools have the kind of format and curriculum regardless of where you go.
> 
> One would expect to see more differentiation in terms of schooling under a system that really was controlled at the local level.
> 
> In my experience, the only thing that is really under local control is the money. Local people pay for schools, but they have very little say in how they are run.


 
http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2008/nr081216.html


----------



## Nolerama (Dec 18, 2008)

As frightening as this appointment may be, I still think there are two sides to every coin.

There's argument that corporately restructuring schools pose a threat to creativity and individualism. In some ways, I agree, but then again creativity and individualism are coveted on a corporate level as well.

And what about competition? The corporate world is cutthroat and heartless at times. Why not expose children to that sort of reality early on?

There are some families out there who look at education as a tool to elevate their children from their position, and not a sanctuary for individualism, creativity, and innovation. Nothing more.

IMHO, American public schools are horrible and an embarrassment to the rest of the world. If the status quo isn't working, why not radical change? I would rather see the effort for a restructuring occur, and immediately learn/fix the problems that are encountered than endless deliberation over the quality of schools, and have nothing done about it.

But who am I to talk? In the event that I ever procreate, I'm sending the kid to a private school.

Because that's the culture we live in now: public schools are a lacking backup to a lack of money.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 18, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> If schools are predominantly under local control, then why do all schools look and act the same?



Here in IN at least we have a fair number of magnet/charter schools that really are different, up to and including one that is two days a week in-school and three days a week online from home.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2008)

Maybe the Big O and his new Ed Czar can pass more great stuff like LBJ's "Elementary and Secondary Education Act" (1965), or great things like "Title 1" and "Head Start".  What's the score on those? $10 Trillion, and the US drops from #1 to #27? Maybe they can call it "No Child Left Behind".  Oh wait.  That one already was tried, and like a concrete glider, it didn't fly.

Maybe dropping all the BS, returning to what was working in 1950 would be a good starting point?


----------



## Kreth (Dec 18, 2008)

arnisador said:


> The teachers' unions are a problem...they have to be reconsidered.


Unions, IME, largely benefit the union officials, rather than the members.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2008)

Unions should be outlawed.  Subject for another thread though.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 18, 2008)

It's an excellent strategy of maintaining control and power; keep them dumb and docile.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2008)

arnisador said:


> Here in IN at least we have a fair number of magnet/charter schools that really are different, up to and including one that is two days a week in-school and three days a week online from home.



That's good.  I'm glad to read that more options are appearing.  My guess is, however, that the vast majority of IN kids still go to a "traditional" school.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Unions should be outlawed.  Subject for another thread though.



Sounds like a good thread.  I'd like to hear your argument on why you think someone's freedom to organize and associate should be taken away from them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2008)

Short version: Because I hate Socialism.  Long Version, I'll try and wrap that article up this week.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Maybe dropping all the BS, returning to what was working in 1950 would be a good starting point?



I agree with dropping all of the BS, but I think 1950 isn't far enough.  I think you need to go back before WWI in order to find an education system that was directly linked to families, responded to their needs, and really was child centered.

That is what we need now.  We don't need standards, we don't need conformity, we don't need to groom people to be managed like sheep.  Look at where that's led us?

We don't have a real economy any more.  Real people don't invent things that radically change our lives (unless they are poorly schooled).  People don't produce things.  They just consume.  In this sense, all of our prosperity in the last thirty years, has been nothing but sleight of hand.  People get rich by moving money around, not by actually building or producing things of value.  

It's all coming to an end, IMO.  This recession, this nightmare of fiat fractional money, is just the beginning.

In order to reclaim our place, we need to radically rethink school.  IMO, it shouldn't be a playground for corporate elite to train employees.  It should be a place to awaken the individual, a place that actualizes dreams.  School should be "open source" so that there is freedom to draw form everywhere to be what you want to be.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Short version: Because I hate Socialism.  Long Version, I'll try and wrap that article up this week.



Kewl.  I personally think that Unions are a form of democracy and are an expression of individual freedom.  The problem with the teacher's union is the collusion between it, corporations, and government.  It doesn't represent teacher's anymore.  It just takes your money and pushes the corporate status quo.

This is why I am no longer part of the Union.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 18, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Short version: Because I hate Socialism. Long Version, I'll try and wrap that article up this week.


 
Oops, now you've done it - said the "S" word.  Now we can expect the obligatory "you clearly don't understand socialism or you would love it too and btw East Bumfugaloo has had socialism on a limited scale for over forty years and we love it even though the waiting list to see the doctor is longer than the metastasis rate for cancer" responses.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2008)

I'm tangenting, and I apologize.
If Union membership was optional, it would be, but when it's required, it's not. When it's forced on people, it's even less so.  Again, big article, sometime soon.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 18, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> I personally think that Unions are a form of democracy and are an expression of individual freedom.


 
Would agree, IF an individual had the choice not to join the union and the employer had the choice to hire non-union personnel.  Without that, a union is a labor monopoly and there's nothing democratic about that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2008)

IMO, the choice of Duncan solidifies the thought that schools are meant to train employees for jobs.  Schools are not meant to train individuals for any sort of independent life.  They are not to encourage people to think outside the box unless it is to choose this job or that job.  Schools are not going to teach students anything more then it takes to train a person for a job.  It sounds so horrible when you type it because it means that all forms of art, humanities, anything that stirs the mind to embrace beauty will be thrown out in favor of good pragmatic business management.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 18, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> IMO, the choice of Duncan solidifies the thought that schools are meant to train employees for jobs. Schools are not meant to train individuals for any sort of independent life. They are not to encourage people to think outside the box unless it is to choose this job or that job. Schools are not going to teach students anything more then it takes to train a person for a job. It sounds so horrible when you type it because it means that all forms of art, humanities, anything that stirs the mind to embrace beauty will be thrown out in favor of good pragmatic business management.


 
Everybody works for a living.  That's reality.  It is a far better use of our resources to prepare them for that than to produce a bunch of unemployable aesthetes.


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 18, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> I agree with dropping all of the BS, but I think 1950 isn't far enough.  I think you need to go back before WWI in order to find an education system that was *directly linked to families, responded to their needs, and really was child centered*.


Bolding mine.
See, there's part of the problem right there. Families aren't even family centered anymore. To take things back to a time when education was working would mean taking the American family back to a time when it was working.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Everybody works for a living.  That's reality.  It is a far better use of our resources to prepare them for that than to produce a bunch of unemployable aesthetes.



How about people who can create their own living?  Learning how to do a job is very specialized.  It's almost always taught when you get hired.  The point corporate control isn't about teaching employees, or I should say, it isn't totally about that.  Its about eliminating competition.  Its about degrading the mind so that individuals do not produce too much.  It's about teaching children to be managed, in other words, social control.  

The down side to this is that it kills innovation, creativity, and individualism.  The upside is that well managed people are predictable and they fit into predictable niches.   People can decide to work for someone else if they wish, but, IMO, they shouldn't be forced into that decision by denying them the tools to do differently.

This idea is very similar to your comment about people an unions.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 18, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> *How about people who can create their own living?* Learning how to do a job is very specialized. It's almost always taught when you get hired. The point corporate control isn't about teaching employees, or I should say, it isn't totally about that. Its about eliminating competition. Its about degrading the mind so that individuals do not produce too much. It's about teaching children to be managed, in other words, social control.


 
I'm not entirely following your argument, but it sounds like you are skating near conspiracy theory territory.  Are you talking about entrepreneurship?  You want more business-oriented training?  I guess I'm not understanding the distinction you are making with the phrase "create their own living".  And I don't get how they are "eliminating competition".  Please give an example.



maunakumu said:


> *The down side to this is that it kills innovation, creativity, and individualism.* The upside is that well managed people are predictable and they fit into predictable niches. People can decide to work for someone else if they wish, but, IMO, they shouldn't be forced into that decision by denying them the tools to do differently.
> 
> This idea is very similar to your comment about people an unions.


 
I think the founders of Google and Napster would disagree with you.  As would the employees of the many video game companies that have established for themselves a multibillion dollar industry.  Or the many, many musical acts you can find listed on iTunes.  We suffer from no dearth of innovation, creativity, or individualism.  They didn't need special tools.  You can't teach that sort of thing anyway.  

People can find many avenues to express themselves, but few of these provide any sort of meaningful subsistence.  One the other hand, gainful employment *can* absolutely allow people to develop their creative selves.  I study martial arts, make beer, play a little guitar, and I'm working on a story that at this rate will probably never be written.  Besides all that, I have a family that I can spend time with and take vacations with.  My job enabled me to do that.  The education I received allowed me to get this job.  I just don't see your point.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 18, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Maybe dropping all the BS, returning to what was working in 1950 would be a good starting point?



You mean that bucolic era of education when only 50% of adults graduated from High School? LINK

The perception of our education system back then as working well is mostly a product of nostalgia and Golden Age thinking.  We educated far fewer people, and of those, only half made it through High School (it is about 85% now).  We also had far fewer college attendees and graduates.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 18, 2008)

My understanding of the Duncan pick is that he was a threading-the-needle choice between the hard core reformers and those for the status quo, such as the unions and other concerned groups.  As such, he may be able to forge a consensus that a partisan from one side or the other would not be able to build due to lack of trust from the other side. 

We shall see.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 18, 2008)

Oh don't worry, we'll all of us be finished long before any change has time to take place.


----------



## ArmorOfGod (Dec 18, 2008)

Shouldn't we wait until he has been president for a few days or weeks before we decide he has betrayed something or done a bad job?

AoG


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 18, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm tangenting, and I apologize.
> If Union membership was optional, it would be, but when it's required, it's not. When it's forced on people, it's even less so.  Again, big article, sometime soon.



I'll run off on this tangent with you for a bit. If union membership were optional, a great many would opt out when it comes time to march in the snow with picket in hand; however, they would opt back in to collect the raise.

I've met a few teachers over the years who resent being in a union because they are professionals. I point out that nurses are organized, as are other professionals. Even college and university professors -- though not legally professionals -- are unionized. Interestingly, few of these colleagues have embraced the idea of applying to teach at a private school, where their employment could be renewed or rescinded in any given year.

Why? Because teachers in my province and country were paid very poorly and the profession lowly regarded by we got organized. Take away the unions, and teachers might as well be seen as domestic or service workers. I could easily foresee teacher employment turned into a popularity contest.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> I'm not entirely following your argument, but it sounds like you are skating near conspiracy theory territory.



Something can't be conspiratorial if its not secret.  Also, there are somethings that people just don't know about, it doesn't mean that they are secret.

Anyway, here is a good book for you look over. 



CoryKS said:


> Are you talking about entrepreneurship?  You want more business-oriented training?  I guess I'm not understanding the distinction you are making with the phrase "create their own living".  And I don't get how they are "eliminating competition".  Please give an example.


 
Here's a good post on the matter.  All of this stems from overproduction or overcapacity.  It takes so much capital accumulation to mass produce that you need to limit competition in order to form a mass industrial society.



CoryKS said:


> I think the founders of Google and Napster would disagree with you.  As would the employees of the many video game companies that have established for themselves a multibillion dollar industry.  Or the many, many musical acts you can find listed on iTunes.  We suffer from no dearth of innovation, creativity, or individualism.  They didn't need special tools.  You can't teach that sort of thing anyway.



You can't teach those things, true, but you can go out and learn them.  How about a system that allows you to go out to learn the information that you want to learn.

BTW - a lot of the most creative people we see in our society were never schooled very well.  Your examples above, especially considering Napster, support this.

Well schooled does not always equal educated.



CoryKS said:


> People can find many avenues to express themselves, but few of these provide any sort of meaningful subsistence.  One the other hand, gainful employment *can* absolutely allow people to develop their creative selves.  I study martial arts, make beer, play a little guitar, and I'm working on a story that at this rate will probably never be written.  Besides all that, I have a family that I can spend time with and take vacations with.  My job enabled me to do that.  The education I received allowed me to get this job.  I just don't see your point.



I'm happy that worked out so well.  I guess I just would like to see more options for children not less.  I would like to see more avenues for creativity to develop, not more tests.  I'd like to see more general availability of resources for learning, not targeted and directed investments.  I happen to see learning and education as the prime responsibility of society.  It doesn't have to be a federal responsibility, but it needs to be our top priority.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that if we diversify the way we educate our children, we'll end up creating more opportunity.  

Does that make sense?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2008)

I'll pick up the union thread in a couple, soon as I finish my research. 


To fix education:
Johnny must read.
He must want to read.
He must have things to read.
Once reading, he must be able to count.
He must want to be able to count.
He must count.
Now that he can read, and count, he must write.
He must want to write.
He must have stuff to write about.
Being able to read, and write and count, now he must think.
He must think, he must think for himself, he must be encouraged to think for himself.

Rule 1 in school - No Talking.
Rule 2 in school - No Note Passing
Rule 3 in school - Conform.

I'm waaaaaaay over simplifying here, but when Johnny can't read/write/count and takes pride in that, and is in an environment that reinforces that, and the system is designed not to encourage Sara who was reading the NY Times at 5, but is still fighting to get Johnny to add 5+5 at 15......


----------



## kidswarrior (Dec 18, 2008)

I ran out of passion about the state and direction of education policy one decade, two books, and a dozen articles ago. But I applaud you all for continuing the debate.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 18, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> If union membership were optional, a great many would opt out when it comes time to march in the snow with picket in hand; however, they would opt back in to collect the raise.



Well, if that's their level of commitment...give the raise only to those who bargained collectively. The others are, indeed, on their own. Make opting-in an annual thing, like health care changes etc.



> I've met a few teachers over the years who resent being in a union because they are professionals.



Yup.



> Even college and university professors -- though not legally professionals -- are unionized. Interestingly, few of these colleagues have embraced the idea of applying to teach at a private school, where their employment could be renewed or rescinded in any given year.



College professors do indeed consider themselves professionals--they're not _licensed _professionals. For the most part, only state schools have unions and not even all of those. Most schools do not have professors' unions. Tenure is as strong at private colleges (not high schools) as at public ones.



> Why? Because teachers in my province and country were paid very poorly and the profession lowly regarded by we got organized. Take away the unions, and teachers might as well be seen as domestic or service workers. I could easily foresee teacher employment turned into a popularity contest.



The popularity contest part is an argument for unions--but then, it applies to a great many workers. There's a stronger-than-usual argument for teachers as teaching styles can vary so widely, but it's hardly a given.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2008)

I posted my union article, lets move the Union discussion over there and leave this one for the Obama/Education discussion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2008)

In 1976, the Amish did battle with the state of Wisconsin in the court case Yoder vs. Wisconsin.  Apparently, they did not like the State way of doing things and felt that they were under bureaucratic assault.  

There grievances were as follows...

1.  They stated government schooling was built on the principle of the mechanical milk separator.  It whirled the young mind about until both the social structure of the Amish community, and the structure of the private family life, were fragmented beyond repair.

2.  Schooling demanded separation of people from daily life.  It divided the world into disciplines, courses, classes, grades and teachers who would remain strangers to the children in all but name.

3.  Religion was separated from family and daily life and was just another subject for critical analysis and testing.

4.  The constant competition was destructive, leaving a multitude of losers, humiliated and self-hating, a far cry from the universal commitment Amish community life requires.

They won a compromise with the State of Wisconsin and developed the following school model for their community.

1.  Schools within walking distance of home.

2.  No school to be so large that pupils had to be sorted into different compartments and assigned different teachers every year.

3.  The school year would be no longer then eight months.

4.  Important decisions would be under parental control, not that of bureaucrats.

5.  Teachers hired were to be knowledgeable in, and sympathetic to, Amish values and rural ways.

6.  Children were to be taught that wisdom and academic knowledge were two different things.

7.  Every student would have practical internships and apprenticeships supervised by parents.

In my honest opinion, this sounds like a pretty good idea for schooling.  I think you could tweak this idea to fit in a lot more places then just in Amish communities.  It might not work everywhere, but I think that ideas like this are things that should be looked at as we contemplate how to fix education.

Now, imagine how hostile Duncan would be to an idea like this.  He sounds like the corporate manager that demands everything fit into particular cogs and that children are to be treated as human resources.  I could be wrong and we may see something really innovative come out of the DOE, but I don't think I am in this case.  Obama hasn't really given me any indication that he wants to do anything radically different from what we are doing right now.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2008)

Looks like after years of screwing up, Buffalo's going to return to something that worked. Not a perfect plan, but it's a start. Unless they screw this up too.

*Neighborhood schools could be returning to Buffalo*

 Neighborhood schools, a vanishing educational and community tradition, may have a new future in Buffalo. Superintendent James A. Williams said he wants a review of the district's enrollment and busing policies next spring, with changes aimed for next September. (Updated: 08:35 AM)


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2008)

That's great to hear.  The children of Buffalo will benefit.  The downside is that it will be expensive.  Neighborhood schools mean having more, smaller, buildings open and housing fewer students.  This plan will raise taxes.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 19, 2008)

You missed the note, our gov. is looking to double em next year.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 19, 2008)

arnisador said:


> Well, if that's their level of commitment...give the raise only to those who bargained collectively. The others are, indeed, on their own. Make opting-in an annual thing, like health care changes etc.



Makes for a volatile working environment and would prolong contract negotiations. Work to rule would be disastrously inequitable. As I mentioned, a licensed teacher can get a job in a private school and not be bothered with unions.



> College professors do indeed consider themselves professionals--they're not _licensed _professionals. For the most part, only state schools have unions and not even all of those. Most schools do not have professors' unions. Tenure is as strong at private colleges (not high schools) as at public ones.



Our profs are unionized. They can also achieve tenure. There's no such thing as tenure in my profession; however, as one accrues seniority, ones position is more secure.



> The popularity contest part is an argument for unions--but then, it applies to a great many workers. There's a stronger-than-usual argument for teachers as teaching styles can vary so widely, but it's hardly a given.



I wouldn't say it's a given, but my gut tells me that there are, sadly, many parents who drop their kids at school, so they can go to work. It's up to the profession to remind everybody that we're not the nanny. In general, I would say North Americans have a consumeristic view of schools. 

To give you an example, a previous government in Ontario unleashed a huge package of reforms on Ontario education, including a new funding formula (which never worked), common curriculum, standardized testing, and accountability initiatives. Part of this package would have given parents the right to evaluate teachers. Naturally, my union fought it. School boards, the management of teachers, essentially circumvented the plan as well -- they weren't crazy about it either. We came perilously close to having what amounts to a popularity contest.

The problem with the customer service view of education is simply this: my job isn't to please parents. Nothing makes me happier than to have productive communications with families and to find them satisfied with what my colleagues and I provide. It's a public service, like a city bus, not a customer service, like a limo. The rider doesn't dictate the ride.


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Dec 20, 2008)

I say we should have Public Schools, Public Healtcare, Public Transporation, Public Housing and Public Libraries in America who agrees with all I just said?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2008)

Yoshiyahu said:


> I say we should have Public Schools, Public Healtcare, Public Transporation, Public Housing and Public Libraries in America who agrees with all I just said?


Sure, I love high taxes. Who doesn't? 
Power to the People, Tovarishch.

Course, public schools are a failure, public health care a joke, public transportation a mess, public housing a disaster, and don't get me started on public libraries.

I'll stick to private school, private health car, owning my own car and home, and buy my own books thanks.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Dec 20, 2008)

The problem with Public schools will never be solved.
My kids all will attend private schools and be educated as I see fit.
I really could care less if public schools just train corporate employees, and people to fit into the cog so to speak. I mean after all my kids are going to need people to work for them, and serve them food when they go out to eat.

There will never be a problem with the edge America has, more people are turning to private schools then ever before, Charter schools, and other sources of education. These parents are the ones who actually care and know enough to point their kids in the right direction.

I am not an Obama fan by any means, but the blame needs to be put on Parents, and ignorance. Too many parents dont care, and simply look at school as free daycare. But while their kids are there they expect them to be taught morals, education, common sense, to be fed, cared for, and shown and given everything that a parent should be doing.

Fix the parents first, then fix the schools.

I really don't care if other peoples kids are stupid. when I am old I am going to still want someone to cook my food, clean my house, cut my lawn, and work for me. I just need them smart enough to conquer the job at hand.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 20, 2008)

Yoshiyahu said:


> I say we should have Public Schools, Public Healtcare, Public Transporation, Public Housing and Public Libraries in America who agrees with all I just said?


 

People might if you argued for it. We already have all that and I can argue why it should continue but I think people are looking for reasons why they should consider believing in what you do.

Our public schools however are, confusingly, fee paying ie Eton, Winchester, Rugby Schools.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2008)

The problem with this attitude is that it encourages tyranny.  If you are a smart person surrounded by idiots and the idiots respond to idiotic tyrannical messages crafted by societal elite, then you are worse then a sitting duck.  YOUR LIFE depends on playing dumb when you know that all of this could be different.  That all of it is completely wrong.  Might as well get the rope now and hang yourself in shame because the mass of idiots surrounding you will catch on that you are somehow different then them...and they will do it.

That my friends is the horrible future of this country unless we make a real effort to awaken the minds of every person in this nation.  Our freedom can't afford to have elite decision makers dumb us down into human resources.  And if you think there is room at the top of the pyramid for you, you better learn some statistics.

A free society cannot afford mass dumbness.


----------

