Obama's Betrayal of Public Education

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ArmorOfGod]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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.