Peter Greene nails it with this post.
Students are not assets. Students are not
global competitors. Students are… well, children? People? On a
Gates Foundation website, seeking to persuade bussinesses how much
America needs the Common Core–even though it has never been
field-tested to gauge its real-world consequences–Alan Golston
wrote this execrable sentence: “Businesses are the primary
consumers of the output of our schools, so it’s a natural
alliance.”
Greene almost jumps through the page–or, the
Internet–shouting NO!
He writes: “Output of our schools. Students
are not output. They are not throughput. They are not toasters on
an assembly line. They are not a manufactured product, and a school
is not a factory. In fact, a school does not create “output” at
all. Talking about the “output” of a school is like talking about
the “output” of a hospital or a counseling center or a summer camp
or a marriage. When talking about interactions between live
carbon-based life forms (as in “That girl you’ve been dating is
cute, but how’s the output of the relationship?”), talking about
output is generally not a good thing. Primary consumers. Here’s
another thing that students are not– students are not consumer
goods. Businesses do not purchase them and then use them until they
are discarded or replaced. Students are not a good whose value is
measured strictly in its utility to the business that purchased
it.”
How to say it nicely: the utilitarian view of education is
getting out of control, warping the ability of intelligent people
to see students as humans like themselves, not as economic goods
for the marketplace. Corporations are not people, but students are.
Each one is unique.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
A rare moment of inadvertant candor.
Given enough rope…
LikeLike
Once again, from Alan Jones:
This is the central problem (tragedy) with treating education as a production/manufacturing industry instead of a coping organization (what organizational theorists call education). The goal of a production industry is to reduce variation in processes in order to manufacture a product that customers are certain will perform according to expectations/specifications. In a coping organization you are confronted with uncertain inputs, uncertain processes, and uncertain outcomes. Added to the inability to control inputs, processes, and outcomes, what parents are looking for in schools are instructional programs that increase variation in outcomes—further develop the unique abilities, talents, and interests of their children. For this reason, as Deming attempted to point out, but which our school leadership and political class still don’t understand, is that managing a production industry and managing a school require entirely different set of intellectual and organizational tools. Not understanding the fundamental differences between manufacturing and educating is the reason that all the intellectual and organizational tools—merit base, standards, standardized testing, curriculum alignment—that the Duncan’s, Rhee’s, are implementing will fail, and in fact will result in the dysfunctional outcomes Deming describes in his books—cheating, drop outs, early exiting of teachers, etc. I would add, that the set of intellectual and organizational tools that school leaders require to lead a coping organization—schools—are not taught at all in administrative certification programs. I do provide a full description of these skills in my book: Becoming A Strong Instructional Leaders: Saying No to Business as Usual (Teachers College Press; Amazon and Kindle books).
LikeLike
Yes, Peter nailed it all right: and here is the rub. There is a fundamental disagreement that is driving all of this. We see students as human beings, with all of the goodness, uncertainty, and variation they possess. The corporate behemoth does not. As long as that is true, this is not going away without substantial and prolonged expenditures of blood, sweat, and tears. Students with special needs, whose cogs are out of alignment, not fitted properly, are defective; students who do not have enough to eat, have inadequate clothing, who are lacking adequate language skills . . . they must be retrofitted, reassigned, or cast aside to rust in the corner of life, and get along as they can when some kind soul happens upon them with an oil can.
LikeLike
Exactly. My husband used to work for Motorola, before it imploded and became three different companies. One of the big reasons the original company failed was due to the implementation of Six Sigma for the entire company. Originally Six Sigma was used in the manufacturing plant, and there is worked well where each radio or whatever was being produced had to be exactly alike with virtually zero defects. That was the point — get rid of defects. But when the company implemented Six Sigma for the rest of the company, the seeds were sown for the company’s destruction. Applying such a system to other operations does not work because there are humans involved and too many variables exist to account for in a rigid model that guides decision-making. Motorolans used to say, “be careful what you measure because the metrics become the goal.” Using Six Sigma to guide the company meant management’s view was narrowed and the company missed trends and made bad decisions. As an example, my husband led a research group and when the group would find something new the company should do, management either said, “we can’t do that because someone else is already doing it so we shouldn’t try to compete” or “no one is doing that so we’re not sure there is a market for that.” Those were the only answers that fit into the metrics. As a result, the company did nothing. Notice that Motorola had the hottest cell phone around for a while, the Razr. However, there was no follow up — they missed the market due to a too narrow view and a too rigid a decision-making system controlled by Six Sigma. My husband now has his own tech start-up which is doing well, and he and his partners, former Motorolans too, say they will not implement accountability or continuous management systems because they inhibit the creative thought process their company needs to survive. The Motorola example demonstrates an experience similar enough to schools, where children, not widgets, are involved, that we should view accountability systems which are similar enough to Six Sigma with caution. We have taken a system that was intended to get rid of defects and have applied it to the education of children. The implication is that children are defective if their learning styles and abilities don’t conform to what is required by the metrics; thus, ESE and gifted children both suffer. Furthermore, curricula is impacted so all children are stifled and shoved into a one-size-fits-all educational system. That kind of system is perfect for manufacturing widgets, but children are not widgets.
LikeLike
considering businesses and people and have no children pay the lion’s share of school costs gives them the idea that they own the output of the public schools. It is not a ridiculous way to think when they are paying so much money compared to the people using the public schools. This just highlights that we need to have a new way to fund the public schools. Otherwise, people who pay for the public schools will act like they own the quote output unquote.
LikeLike
I beg to differ. How do you figure businesses and the childless pay the “lion’s share” for public school. The majority of the population has children; the majority of businesspeople have children.. If they choose to spend extra money on private elite schools rather than their local public schools, that is a choice they make. Thank you, but I have very high property taxes, half of which, slightly more than half, in fact, go to my local schools. If Bill Gates and Eva Moskowitz want a say in what goes on in public schools, they should send their kids to them, participate in the equal democratic process, and allow for community, not corporate impunity, to run the schools.
LikeLike
I’m so tired of this notion that businesses and rich people pay most of the taxes. As a percentage of their income, which is the only metric that matters, they pay far *less*. If businesses want people to pay more in taxes (and, hence, pay more for public schools), they need to pay them better. Stop hogging all the wealth and then complaining about paying taxes on it. If you don’t like taxes, I hear Somalia is a libertarian paradise – go move there.
LikeLike
Key word in your post is “pay”. There’s two kinds of people when viewing education funding – those that value the schools as an investment and those that disdain the schools as a line item cost.
While blogdebating a local anti-levy tea party group, for fun I ran a ROI on public education including state supported universities. While the 1851ers just wanted to focus on personal characteristics for dismissive attacks, I posted a return in true business-speak roughly 11%. That rivals even a bull market.
LikeLike
There are other kinds of people who “view education funding”. Mathvale.
Now that they’ve looted our whole financial system, and bought our politicians with the proceeds, the plundercrats think they own everything. But they “pay” for everything with the wealth we, the people, produced over generations.
You box yourself in when you translate the human endeavor, of raising up our children and carrying forward our civilization, into business speak. You can debated the Koch-Brothers’ dupes on their own terms.
LikeLike
Great post and wonderful comments, yet as long as the Weingartens and Mulgrews of this country do not stand up, organize, and denounce these pro-business/anti-child reforms, fightback will be slow and painful.
LikeLike
This point cannot be overstated. It was like taking all of Bill Gates’ money away from him.
LikeLike
Of all the witty remarks that Peter Greene has written (and they are legion), “two clause clown car of wrong” is my favorite! LOL
LikeLike
Guess that makes teachers “job creators”?
LikeLike
I WISH the policy makers would realize that we really DO create jobs in a sense, instead of labeling teachers as parasitic as they do now.
LikeLike
I wish the “policy makers” were in jail, where they belong, so we didn’t have to concern ourselves so much with what they realize.
LikeLike
I wish that the policy makers were forced to send their own kids through the mess they created.
LikeLike
The quality and meaning of our lives is increasingly defined by the “mind of capitalism” and the merchant kings who align their values to the ethos of this unfettered, amoral, consumer dependent philosophy.
Our humanity is squeezed out of the work place and classroom to serve the imperatives of this corporate mammon.
LikeLike
Beautifully written!
LikeLike
Could part of the problem leading up to this situation be that we’ve run schools like factories?
Maybe we are finally realizing that a factory model doesn’t work for schools—it sends the wrong message and makes a commodity of education and the student a product.
A more artisan approach would be nice; hence, the appeal of charters (at first thought).
I would love to hear more about the “factory model” in American education for those whose history on the subject is more present in mind than it is in mine (my mind is more focused on music history, as that is what I teach).
LikeLike
Joanna, the claim that “we’ve run our schools like factories” is being promulgated everywhere by “personalized learning” vendors. Is that where you picked it up? The model they have in mind is isolated children logged on to their personalized algorithms on their proprietary learning machines.
We gather a group of children in a physical space, and adults interact with them in responsive, personal ways. Cohorts of students grow up together, since that’s the direction human children grow. Even when there are predetermined academic goals, that’s not a factory. Education “policy makers” refer to teaching as a commodity production process. That commodity attitude towards human workers is what harms our children. Teachers know it isn’t true, and it never has been in this country.
LikeLike
Chmtchr:
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me (and calmly and nicely, I might add). Yes, I did pick that analogy up from a conservative liaison. I think I recall, though, writing papers on that in education classes to get certified.
What is a better word to describe the traditional public school setting? We need a good one (sorry to use “we;” I know you don’t like being associated with me, but I am FOR public school, so like it or not we want the same thing—I just like to look at things from all sides).
Someone asked me recently what it is that Diane Ravitch stands for (because we know what she stands against. . .and I don’t like CCSS, VAM, testing or the threat of people making money on schools, or excluding children either, but am not sure what the answers are to huge urban neighborhood schools with generational poverty); I like the variety of students, faculty and activities in a public school (had a good experience in public schools growing up, have had great experiences in them teaching). . .so I said Ravitch stands for neighborhood schools and unions. Is that right?
So what kind of school is public school, if it’s not a factory model? I’m seriously looking for an descriptor there. What model is it?
LikeLike
Instead of running schools like factories (since we have off shored most of those), the educrats would have us run our schools like office cubicle farms. It is the Dilbertification of schools.
LikeLike
A structured, student centered model
LikeLike
It is the Dilbertification of schools.
Ah, that’s exactly right.
LikeLike
My school district had magnet schools for various interests when I was a kid in the 90’s, as well as teachers who were known to bring their own flair to the school: my first grade teacher taught us German for fun. We weren’t graded on it, it was something we just did. Those days are over. I wasn’t in a factory school, but that’s what they are now. Now every minute is accounted for in reading blocks and writing blocks, and while the magnet schools still exist, charters are shrinking our schools. We didn’t need charters: we had magnet schools, and no school was doing poor according to state tests. Yet they are taking over anyway.
LikeLike
*poorly
LikeLike
You are on a blog founded by a brilliant historian of American education. Suggest you start there, with her books and articles. In addition, find a book called “The Cult of Efficiency.”
LikeLike
Undoubtedly Ms. Ravitch is a staunch supporter of public education in the style of Horace Mann. She supports teachers, not unions and she views students as disciples of her worldview whom she wishes to rescue from their lives of ignorance.
Her worldview though, just as each ours does, gives her a very specific lens from which to view history. To see public education within a vacuum and not acknowledge it’s potential for serious abuse upon the human spirit limits her credibility.
Ms. Ravitch’s value on the human spirit is her own secular worldview. It permeates all that she stands for. So long as what she believes humans are and ought to be is being supported then the ends justifies the means in providing for those in need.
In doing so her willingness to wrest education from the people and put it firmly in the hands of educators has allowed her to compromise Constitutional limits of federal government upon the states in areas of education that have led us to the crisis we are currently in.
We should not wait to see if federal educational standards are good standards. In a representative republic that does not matter when we they are being imposed upon us. Ms. Ravitch’s own comment regarding Common Core “they were not grassroots; neither did they emanate from the states” has become my mantra, yet Ms. Ravitch’s behavior belies her true stance.
In numerous articles she has revealed that she held her opinion until she examined much of the Common Core curriculum. Her now vigorous fight against them is more due to her support of educators and their liberty over their craft then it is for the rights of the people to participate meaningfully in this vital part of self government.
In prioritizing what Ms. Ravitch personally holds dear over proper limits of government she and her peers have, themselves become a victims of federal/corporate tyranny.
LikeLike
Flowery yet still somehow inept Ms. Janine.
Do tell… how does your view, or lens on the world, define your beliefs regarding how we educate our children? Please define your own beliefs, the personal experiences that shaped them, your background and experience in education and your own ideas on how to proceed.
I am quite capable of deciding how to think about Ms. Ravitch without your haughty and self interested proclamations and demarcations.
LikeLike
Betsy Marshall, what is your opinion? Do tell. Or do you simply exist to deny others their opinion?
LikeLike
Here is a statement from Janine Largent: “What we need to do is preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Tolerant? I wouldn’t bet my life on it.
LikeLike
“deny others their opinion”
Who is denying anyone anything around here?
I believe Betsy asked you to define your opinion as opposed to defining Dr Ravitch’s opinion for us.
So put up or….
LikeLike
Ang, My opinion and or worldview is irrelevant to this blog. Surely, unlike Ms. Ravitch, I have very little influence in the big world of education. Suffice to say, as a citizen, mother and grandmother I do have an opinion and a worldview, as I suppose each of you reading this blog has. My greatest concern is protecting the rights of individuals to freely share information, including world views, without undue pressure from more “enlightened” individuals to liberate us from our backwards, “superstitious”, ways. My world view, whatever it may be, in a free society, should not be a threat to anyone else.
My response was to Ms. Best not Betsy Marshall. My opinion of Ms. Ravitch’s stance on education is based upon reading this blog and many of Ms.Ravitch’s opinion pieces which very clearly depict her secular worldview. Parents need to know that the primary goal of education is instilling virtue, values and yes, worldviews. That is a very powerful position for educators to be in.
Despite ever increasing, even obscene, amounts of tax dollars being spent on education, (in some urban areas up to $30,000 per child per year) despite having children entering into the institutional world of “education” at increasingly tender ages, despite cries for a longer school year and a longer school day, children on the whole are graduating with an increasing level of illiteracy. Crime and social decline persist. And apparently, teachers are the solution to all of this with the newest market according to one of the Ms. Ravitch’s latest posts the 0-6 year old age group.
After all, with a society that has all able bodied adults working someone has to raise the children. So, the cat is out of the bag, education is about raising the next generation folks and clearly, parents are too busy and too inept to do the job so get them selling some baked goods for the next field trip or better yet have them hold a few signs at the next school committee meeting and they feel like they are participating in their kids education.
Additionally, Ms. Ravitch’s frequent use of the word democracy when the word republic should be used reveals her misunderstanding of our form of government. Her promotion of an over reaching “public education” that mandates that every child be subject to a monopolized experience of education that according to Ms. Ravitch and her disciples we are to take on faith is so unlike the corporate monsters who threaten their public education monopoly that we should embrace it blindly has been largely proven a failure as evidenced by the general social degradation and increasing levels of illiteracy.
The public education experiment has failed due to a lack of clearly defined objectives and an ill defined definition of education itself which leaves our educators in the unlikely position of saviors.
LikeLike
A republic is a form of democracy.
LikeLike
“Parents need to know that the primary goal of education is instilling virtue, values and yes, worldviews.”
Can you expand on this position, please. I never looked at public education from this position. Rather, I see instilling “virtue, values, and worldviews” more as the role of the parent (and perhaps the family’s religious tradition) although I’m not sure what you mean by worldview. It sounds to me like you are talking about a moral compass. While as a special education teacher I dealt with social and emotional issues, my role was not that of a parent. My role was secular and involved with helping children to engage in socially acceptable behavior.
LikeLike
2old2teach, I think any of us can google the definitions of democracy and republic. Without question, we do not live in a pure democracy. That is how my “rights”, and yours, are protected from the whims of an uneducated majority or unfettered factions.
Ben Franklin made this difference quite clear when he answered questions regarding what form of government the founders were giving us as “a republic ma’am, if you can keep it”.
My emphasis on our having a representative republic as our form of government versus a democracy is stated to provide understanding to many who truly do believe we live in a pure democracy. When people of influence constantly utilize that choice of definition over the more specific one it can be confusing.
For the record, I am neither “right” nor “left” in my political leanings, and in fact, have a problem with the two party system in general which is unquestionable not fitting to a democracy. To me, party affiliation is a matter of how you prefer your poison. Both parties, as we are beginning to see, appear to have rather deep pocketed capitalists backing them.
Why my the emphasis on representative republic? Because the executive branch of federal government has grown so exponentially that the various departments and czars that have been established (including the department of education) are, by means of the various and in-numerous “regulations” they institute, superseding the legislative branch by effectively “creating law” without any liability at the voting booth; essentially making these czars and departments untouchable by any democratic process.
The checks and balances which our founders put in place are essential to maintaining a free society that values the dignity of “all men being created equal”. When we are not vigilant and do not remain focused on the system we are left to whine and complain impotently when the violation of the system eventually reveals it’s true despotic nature.
So, of course, I do support the art of teachers, my son is a teacher. As I also support our medical professionals, of which I am a member. For this reason I hesitate to support any system that focuses more on efficiency over humanity.
The die was cast for the American education system in October 19, 1979 when Carter founded the department of education which was established as a cabinet level agency in 1981 under Reagan. The die has been cast for our healthcare system with the passing of the affordable care act.
I am not your enemy. I have no power at all. Your enemy is complacency and possibly ignorance.
LikeLike
“For this reason I hesitate to support any system that focuses more on efficiency over humanity. ”
On this we can agree. The medical profession is drowning in documents. I found it highly amusing that the hospital had so little trust in its basic staff that the attendant that took me to x-ray had to report the time he arrived at my room, the time we left my room and our time of arrival at x-ray. I’m sure he had an elaborate time sheet that he had to sign off on throughout the day if not at the end. That is a simple example that probably doesn’t resonate much with a doctor, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they aren’t keeping track of his minutes worked since all the attendants are part-time, so they can be paid minimum wage with no benefits.
As to your dismissive rudeness about the definition of republic and democracy, you are the one who made the snide comment about Diane’s understanding of our form of government. I’m sure we all needed the lecture on the difference between a pure democracy and a representative one. I never did understand what those Senators and Representatives thought they were doing.
LikeLike
2old2teach, Regarding your query on the definition of “worldview'” and whether schools attempt to instill “virtue, value and worldviews”. I was unsure if your response was an attempt at sarcasm or truly lacked comprehension so I will assume the latter.
A worldview, is of course, the way one views the world. Your philosophy on life. Every person has one. It is the lens with which one comprehends the cosmos. How they answer the questions “why are we here?” and “where are going?”. What is “right” or “truth”, what is “moral”. Worldview is the basis by which all other knowledge is perceived.
Examples of world views include theism, atheism, deism, romanticism, naturalism, realism, absurdism, existentialism and of course, secular humanism of which Ms. Ravitch and so many other of our educational leaders subscribe. That is why she so often mocks others with differing worldviews as “superstitious”.
One could no more be able to “educate” without a firm foundation of wordview then one could live without breathing. Of course, secular humanism may be just fine by many, but don’t fool yourself into believing your children are not being “educated” in that worldview.
Public education is not neutral ground in the war of worldviews, but by implying they are somehow separate from the various worldviews and that public education can be separated from faith or philosophy is truly naive.
The roots of public education are Christian. Those original roots have been abandoned, but assuredly they have been replaced by an alternative worldview.
Under the guise of separation of Church and state the state has steadily infringed upon other worldviews by assuming the role of neutral while assuring that everyone can continue to practice freedom of religion as long as they do it in their place of worship on Sunday between the hours of 9 and 12.
They have elevated knowledge to a position of worship and relegated what is left of faith to some dusty corner where they tolerate it until finally, evolution frees man from his “superstitious” need for God.
By the way, what I call “dismissive and rude” is being called “inept” and “moronic” by those whose lack of substantive debate leads them to become “school yard bullies” resorting to name calling.
LikeLike
No, my comment was not intended to be snide. I wasn’t sure where you were coming from. As a Christian, my faith informs my view of the world. However, as a public school teacher my job is not to impose my faith on anyone. People of many different faith traditions have made and continue to make substantial contributions to the humanities and sciences and certainly cannot be excluded from any discussion of morality or ethics.
I think we part ways on the role of religious belief in public education. Public schools are not intended to have a missionary role despite the roots of public education in the U.S. Since the original colonies on the eastern seaboard were colonized by dissident Christians, our roots would understandably be Christian. However, as the colonists found, their understanding of faith was not uniform and led to the development of several different colonies. While our founding fathers were eager to prevent the rise of a monarchy, they were as concerned that this new country not be torn apart by competing faith-based visions. Most of them may have dismissed the “heathens,” but they did use a structure of government that drew heavily from the Iroquois Confederation.
I don’t know whether Diane would characterize herself as a secular humanist or not. Too me that is irrelevant. What is offensive is that you apply that tag to Diane or anyone else as if that obviously diminished their contributions to the debate over educational reform. If I am misreading you, I apologize in advance. Understanding other points of view is always colored by our own experience. Mea culpa.
LikeLike
A definite elitist. As if business is perched on a distant Mount Olympus and reaches down to indenture the mere mortals in the games of the gods. This is now our Two Americas. The people who view the students as “output” also dehumanize them. The students are merely factors of production and not deserving of the same life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as are the elite 1%ers. Every once in a while it oozes into their speech like Perkins suggesting the rich get more votes or Romney’s 47% remark.
Golston doesn’t see the truth. Businesses are the result of a collective (can I still say that word?) effort that springs from the imagination, knowledge, and perseverance if our teachers and students. A corporate titan doesn’t build their wealth and power on a deserted island.
LikeLike
“Businesses are the primary
consumers of the output of our schools, so it’s a natural
alliance.”
What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?
Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Chil- dren screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks!
LikeLike
Thanks for posting. Poetry can really say it all. I bet you give your students a well-rounded education.
LikeLike
Oh, that’s excellent, chemtchr!
LikeLike
I used to jokingly call my boys my accessories when they were little but even that sounds better than ‘output’
LikeLike
Golston’s remark is a really apt commentary on where our country is today, not where it is heading. I am reminded of these big thoughts from the founding father of fascism, Mussolini:
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
“Fascist education aims to create a complete and harmoniously developed human, a fascist one according to our views.”
LikeLike
What has happened to our country? I don’t recognize it anymore.
LikeLike
Wake up and smell the plutocracy.
LikeLike
We have a de-facto ONE PARTY system: Neo-liberals
LikeLike
It’s interesting, though, that in southern states like NC we are coming out of an era of a prevalence of one party (Democrats) that encompassed a lot of varying views under one umbrella. I just read a book about the end of the one party system in NC. We now have serious competition between Dems and Republicans; I guess that’s why it was so easy to be a Democrat for so long if you believed in traditional values, but embraced an intentional system of helping people via the government ( like public school).
I think there is more to the sense of values being attached to education by voters than is ever talked about in the education conversations. Folks who are uncomfortable with legal abortion, gay marriage, simple divorce procedures are lumped together with those who refute evolution, although they may or may not be the same folks. That is why, I think, people get surprised at black support of vouchers. And maybe the Christian Right has wanted to promote an agenda and many of them like the creation story over one of evolution. But I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. The silent majority in NC passed a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. While many of them may not like evolution being taught to their children, I do not think that is the cornerstone of who they are. But I do think they want to know their children are in schools that reflect the morals they profess. So of they are suddenly uncomfortable with public schools, I think it has less to do with curriculum and more to do with what the moral norms are of the adults modeling life for their children. This factor is widely left out of the academic debate (such as on this blog), but is really very crucial to the basis of winning support for public school or not. Do parents feel comfortable with their children going to school in buildings where they are uncertain of the moral compass?
I think American parents are constantly thinking about the moral compass that is modeled for their children.
No academic ivory tower has yet to take that subject on that I cam see. Hence we get the tests and the debates on curriculum and the battles over format for schools and the rubrics and so forth, but talk of basic values modeled for children in their moral choices remains elusive.
People glaze over these issues. Why?
LikeLike
Joanna, excellent reflections and absolutely relevant to the discussion of public education.
With an ever increasingly diverse culture it becomes difficult to provide an educational experience that does not favor one worldview over another and so has, instead, substituted a new, universal worldview and culture that is the antipathy of diversity, of which, we embrace only in form, but not in substance.
LikeLike
“Businesses do not purchase them and then use them until they
are discarded or replaced. ”
I guess Peter never worked for a fortune 500 financial, since this IS exactly how they think!
It is obvious who is behind this Education “reform”. They are only interested in “output” that is skilled in Math (finance) and that have the ability to read and interpret technical material! Any other talents are of no consequence. If the “output” is unable to do “financial” work then they should be discarded or replaced, this is the “rule of reform” and this rule is followed by many charters!
LikeLike
“Businesses are the primary consumers of the output of our schools, so it’s a natural
alliance.”
This is the saddest sentence.
Any social initiative which dehumanizes yields deleterious societal effects. The dehumanization of children causes incalculable damage.
LikeLike
The commodification of our children.
Wow.
Just wow.
LikeLike
CHILDREN? WHAT CHILDREN?
How long are they children?
They are the FUTURE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.
Their thinking skills will be used to run the country when we are too old to do it.
My grandson was a child playing with Thomas the tank engine yesterday, and he is shaving now, and tomorrow will go to college… children? What mentality does not grasp that for all of human experience the adults IN THE SOCIETY ensure that their wisdom SHAPED THE FUTURE OF THE SOCIETY…they passed it on.
LikeLike
Of course children grow up.
But while they are children it is especially incumbent upon us adults to protect them from this kind of child trafficking (and , of course, every kind of trafficking of children).
LikeLike
That is just plain WRONG! But I’m convinced that it is also an accurate description of the situation. Corporations are seeing people as commodities and cash. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
LikeLike
Thus reveals the unholy alliance between the state and corporate America. The alliance always existed and the best protection against it’s effects is a firm adherence to Constitutional principles.
Our founders, having a firm understanding of human nature, labored to create a system of government that protected against would be tyrants and mitigated the effects of factions. Sadly, many turn their heads when the violation of the checks and balances and Constitutional limits that our framers put on government are violated for their own benefit and agenda.
In doing so they have eroded the fabric of the foundation and emboldened those in power to make a laughing stock of our laws and utilize media and, yes, our public schools to indoctrinate our children to be servile subjects.
LikeLike
Unholy alliance indeed. There’s a perhaps apocryphal comment often attributed to Mussolini that fascism is to erasure of the line between corporate and state interests.
LikeLike
Actually the Supreme Court said corporations ARE people!!!
LikeLike
Execrable sentences are the primary output of CC$$, so it’s a natural alliance with eduhucksters.
LikeLike
the fact is, this statement is basically true, but incomplete: it cannot be the sole purpose or even emphasis of education, or we cheat our children out of something even more fundamental, more necessary and much more important: developing a sense of self; offering them the tools to help them grapple with the most essential questions — about life and death and purpose and meaning; developing an appreciation for beauty – the beauty we perceive in nature as well as all the awesome expressions of artistic creativity that human genius and experience have brought to life; not to mention guiding them into the importance of asking questions about good and evil, right and wrong, so they begin to develop an ethical and moral sensibility. No true education anywhere could leave out these things without committing a terrible injustice — both to the student and to society…and this is what is sorely lacking in the emphasis of the Common Core standards.
LikeLike
Today, in The NY Times, the non-educator opinion artist, David Brookes gives us an ironic title for his column which lauds the Common Core standards.”When The Circus Descends” gives us the main event, the clown act of a fool who knows nothing about learning, teaching or the war on public education. Here is the comment that I added:
“Well, as my 10 year old granddaughter says, “everyone is entitled to an opinion.” Too bad it is so uninformed and published in this prestigious paper.
Perhaps, David might go to the blog of Diane Ravitch and actually learn what teachers are saying, and the true nature of the tests, which she examines in many excellent posts. He might learn that the common core has its purpose, to test, test and test, and that a core curricula is not the same as ‘standards for learning’ or a syllabus for LEARNING Objectives!
He might even dig up the GENUINE standards — the Harvard 3rd level research on “The 8 Principles of LEARNING.” Not teaching! LEARNING, which David believes he understands.”
I highly recommend that he go to the Curmuducation blogspot, and read the essay, “The Wrongest Sentence Ever in the CCSS Debate.” Perhaps, he will gain some insight as to the philosophy that drove the non-educator businessmen who wrote the CC– this prescription for TEACHING, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH learning and everything to do with enriching those who have monetarized the education ‘industry’ http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-wrongest-sentence-ever-in-ccss.html
LikeLike
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Here was my favorite on the comment thread at the Brooks article, by ‘Mark, NY, NY’:
“We are obsessed with trying to write down what a kid needs to know and be able to do, as if, once we have that, we’ve got a guide that the teacher can safely follow. I think that any good teacher, worth his/her salt, is going to know without having it written down in a set of “standards” that a student should cite specific passages of a text in support of his/her interpretation, and should study key passages.
“To create and enforce the reading of a voluminous, self-important listing of skills such as, “Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science,” is busy work.
“Of course a student needs to know what the words mean. If a teacher is so clueless as not to know that, having it written down will not turn them into a good teacher, at least not the kind I would want my kid to have.
“p.s. I am sorry to go on about this, but what I am trying to say is that the very act of saying, in complicated educational jargon, that students should know what the words mean is itself an act of stupidity. The whole process should not be going on at this level.”
LikeLike
love it all.
LikeLike
To Spanish & French Freelancer (what a moniker)
Listen, the ‘jargon’ you describe, is the misuse of the terminology which accompanies all the state curricula SYLLABI.
You see, We teachers– who get a real education before we are thrust into our practice– learn the methodology and the management, but this is AFTER we master content, and have studied the human psyche and how THE BRAIN ACQUIRES skills and information (BOTH)
In order to write a lesson plan, the OBJECTIVES (not the curricula materials… and NOT THE STANDARDS) are spelled out in simple manuals. I have them all, from 40 years of teaching, for every subject.
Thus, when I entered my last classroom, and was given NOTHING BUT A ROOM, in which I was to ‘teach’ writing and reading, I went back to the NY State curricula GUIDE, which I was given in East Ramapo, when I taught there. All the objectives for writing and making meaning from text were there in the kin do language you describe… not because I needed to know these things, BUT BECAUSE I HAD TO BE SURE THERE WAS A CLEAR SEQUENCE FOR MY LESSONS, so the principal and parents ANY OBSERVER could see the path to the LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR SEVENTH GRADE ENGLISH!
THUS:
When I stepped in front of those sweet 13 year olds, each day, OF COURSE I knew what my objective was, .. but I also had to hand in a lesson plan which had
1- the objective.
2- the MOTIVATION
3- the activities
4- the materials
5- the follow up.
To respond to your comment: OF COURSE I knew what the kids needed to do… they needed to THINK (get the idea) , and they needed to rehearse the words which they were going to write down…talk, talk talk; and they needed to WRITE THEM DOWN, and they needed to get them ready for a reader (edit.)
BUT I NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT MY SUPERVISOR GRASPED WHAT WAS AFOOT IN THE ROOM, so I used the JARGON, and I listed each OBJECTIVE, clearly. It helped me, too, to stay on track, and not be distracted (which is easy with such lively young minds).
I used a shorthand for Learner Will be Able — LWBA.
Thus, on the day, when I wanted the kids to THINK I could not say… “The kids are going to think, today.”
Instead:
The objective was stated like this
LWBA to compare the narrative in the book “The Yearling” to the plot of the movie,and to contrast the way that the characters in the movie revealed events that, in the book, were described by narrative.
The motivation: Watching the movie and Gregory Peck (sigh) as Pa, and the story of a boy and a deer.
The activities:
1-Comparing the long scene in the kitchen (which we had read aloud in class the previous day ) with the short kitchen scene in the movie.
2- Discussing/anlayzing the scene to determine WHY it did not reflect the book’s account.
(Answer; in case you never saw or read it — The information delivered in the book as narrative, had already been developed in the movie. THE ANALYSIS of such things, offers a child the opportunity to compare and contrast and make a prediction…. we call That…thinking!
3- Synthesising : A movie would be too long if every scene in the book was faithfully re-produced.
The jargon is necessary in lesson plans and in curricula guides.
Other objectives from my plans that year… that use the jargon….
LWBA to use homophones correctly… which means that there, they’re and their cannot be used interchangeably.
LWBA to create a paragraph that has a clear topic sentence, followed by details, examples and evidence.
I taught art, too….
LWBA to draw a straight line.
LWBA to use a ruler to measure i inch margins
LWBA to design a cover for his story, which incorporates the elements of design (color, line, shape/form, texture)
The pundits who know nothing about the PROFESSION and the businessmen who care nothing about the children, are the ones who get to direct the national conversation about learning and they get to write the Curricula!
It makes me want to cry.
LikeLike
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Susan Lee Schwartz– yes yes agree with all you’ve written. The words were not mine (I was quoting a comment on the Brooks column), but I relate to your distinctions about the nature & use of ‘jargon’. In fact I’d argue every profession has it, develops & uses it as shorthand. I’m not sure this commenter even uses the term correctly; I believe he is noting the tendency of the CCSS ELA to puff out commonplace notions w/pedantry [which verbiage then, predictably, gets copied into rubrics & tests!]
Fortunately I came to education well-versed in standards/ accountability jargon from a decade in corporate life. This made me singularly equipped to ‘align’ my straightforward language-learning enrichment classes to state ed standards for the benefit of the recent crop of educrats moving into >shudder< preK.
LikeLike
Oh, here is the link to Mr Brook’s wisdom, the kind of ‘poop’ that Peter Greene has come to describe on his blog:
Perhaps, those of you who are fed up with such nonsense might explain to Mr Brooks, where he has been misled on his blog
http://brooks.blogs.nytimes.com
Maybe enough letters to the editors from YOU guys and gals… the real educators… might encourage them to pursue journalistic excellence and ensure that ‘balanced’ journalism does not give the floor EXCLUSIVELY to uninformed opinion.
here are a few places where YOU can explain the reality.
letters@nytimes.com
editorial@nytimes.com.
executive-editor@nytimes.com
managing-editor@nytimes.com
oped@nytimes.com
oneducation@nytimes.com
feedback@nytimes.com
publisher@nytimes.com
LikeLike
You know, we have some natural small “factories” on which we could test Alan Golston’s contentions. We have touched on this idea but in not quite these terms. How about we field test the reformer agenda in the private schools their children attend?! The reform makes enough to buy the schools, so I am sure they could manage to “convince” them to institute this piece of pedagogical research. After about ten years, we should have the data we need and we can replicate it in the public schools if the data supports it.
LikeLike
Great idea!
The best and brightest who attend elite schools will benefit from the creative disruptions, churn, experimentation and commodification!
After all, they deserve the best.
LikeLike
I am grateful for all the comments on this thread. Much food for thought.
Nonetheless, I remind viewers of this blog that what is under discussion is the education that self-styled “education reformers” mandate for OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN. What they ensure for THEIR OWN CHILDREN is starkly different.
Let’s look for a moment at a leader of the “new civil rights movement of our time” who is far more influential than US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
Bill Gates went to Lakeside School. Among other horrors: 79% of the faculty have advanced degrees; the student/teacher ratio is 9:1; the average class size is 16; there are 24 varsity sports offered; and perhaps worst of all, there is a “[f]ull arts program with drama, various choruses, various bands including jazz band and a chamber orchestra.”
Mr. “Stack Ranking” Himself, no shrinking violet when it comes to the rigors of rough-and-tough business management and practices, here lays into all that touchy-feely stuff:
“Finally, I had great relationships with my teachers here at Lakeside. Classes were small. You got to know the teachers. They got to know you. And the relationships that come from that really make a difference…”
Ok, I’ll admit, maybe not the best example of hard-nosed “strap up head injuries” edumanagement.
Link: http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/bill-gates-tells-us-why-his-high-school-was-a-great-learning-environment/
Onward. Surely we will find the same laser focus on outputs in his school, donchathink?
Lakeside School, “Mission”:
The mission of Lakeside School is to develop in intellectually capable young people the creative minds, healthy bodies, and ethical spirits needed to contribute wisdom, compassion, and leadership to a global society. We provide a rigorous and dynamic academic program through which effective educators lead students to take responsibility for learning.
We are committed to sustaining a school in which individuals representing diverse cultures and experiences instruct one another in the meaning and value of community and in the joy and importance of lifelong learning.
Lakeside School, “Mission Focus”:
Lakeside School fosters the development of citizens capable of and committed to interacting compassionately, ethically, and successfully with diverse peoples and cultures to create a more humane, sustainable global society. This focus transforms our learning and our work together.
Link: http://www.lakesideschool.org/aboutus
Amazingly [?] what the self-styled “education reformers” provide THEIR OWN CHILDREN would seem to meet with John Dewey’s approval. And I am willing to wager with a 98% “satisfactory” [thank you, Bill Gates!] chance of being right, that he would have recommended the same be accorded the vast majority aka OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN:
“What the best and wisest parent wants for his child, that must we want for all the children of the community. Anything less is unlovely, and left unchecked, destroys our democracy.”
So a guy born in the 19th century knows more about education and democracy and such like than the 20th-century born richest man in human history about education?
Wow! Señor Swacker, Linda, Ang, Bob Shepherd, Dienne, anybody… help me out here…
😎
LikeLike
awesome post again, KrazyTA!
LikeLike
Funny coincidence, at my State Senate hearing last month (Rhode Island), when Pause/Evaluate PARCC bills were submitted to the Senate Education Committee, a man who was testifying in support of the PARCC/Common Core expressed nearly the same sentiment. He represented the local business sector and was there on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. He seemed offended and indignant that the business sectors input has historically not been considered in Education, stating that after all, the children are the “product” that he (companies) are “buying”.
That was his exact words.
LikeLike
one last link to my comment when I posted the Brook’s punditry at Oped. where I added this ( with links):
” Peter Green makes it very clear in “The Failure of the CCSS”. Then, he might read Mercedes Schneider’s explanation of the Common Core.
“He could go and read what this Colorado teacher explains about why she resigned.
But David did not need to read Robert Shepherd’s “How to Be and EduPundit Made EZ” as he has figured it out!”
LikeLike
Those were
LikeLike
CHILDREN? WHAT CHILDREN?
How long are they children?
They are the FUTURE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.
Their thinking skills will be used to run the country when we are too old to do it.
My grandson was a child playing with Thomas the tank engine yesterday, and he is shaving now, and tomorrow will go to college… children? What mentality does not grasp that for all of human experience the adults IN THE SOCIETY ensure that their wisdom SHAPED THE FUTURE OF THE SOCIETY…they passed it on.
LikeLike
I would again refer readers to Jamie Vollmer’s revelation in his “Blueberries” story. As a CEO for an ice cream company whose blueberry ice cream was selected as “the best in America”, Vollmer tells an revealing story of what happened to him when he spoke to a group of teachers exhorting them to run their schools like they were businesses.
One part of that story from the question and answer session that followed when one of the teachers asked the following:
“Mr. Vollmer,” she said, leaning forward with a wicked eyebrow raised to the sky, “when you are standing on your receiving dock and you see an inferior shipment of blueberries arrive, what do you do?”
In the silence of that room, I could hear the trap snap…. I was dead meat, but I wasn’t going to lie.
“I send them back.”
She jumped to her feet. “That’s right!” she barked, “and we can never send back our blueberries. We take them big, small, rich, poor, gifted, exceptional, abused, frightened, confident, homeless, rude, and brilliant. We take them with ADHD, junior rheumatoid arthritis, and English as their second language. We take them all! Every one! And that, Mr. Vollmer, is why it’s not a business. It’s school!”
http://www.jamievollmer.com/blueberries.html
LikeLike
I love that story!
I wish more business people were as intelligent an Mr Vollmer.
LikeLike
Mr. Vollmer wasn’t intelligent enough to figure this out on his own, it took a Teacher to tell him what 2+2 was!
LikeLike
You are right Tim. Teachers are still trying to tell “them” that 2 + 2 = 4, but this time it seems that no one is listening.
LikeLike
Yes, Tim, but he was intelligent enough to listen to the teacher, think about what she said, evaluate the information and then change his tune!
Thats my idea of smarts!
LikeLike
It is time to end the evil state/corporate takeover of U.S. education. It’s time for teachers to retake their profession. Thanks, Peter, for another great piece!
And BTW, the extrinsic punishment and reward model that the CC$$-intoxicated Ed Deformers are pushing doesn’t work in business either. Extrinsic punishment and reward is demotivating for cognitive tasks.
LikeLike
You are right – that’s my most of the businesses who were using the Jack Welch style of management/ranking employees stopped, Microsoft itself being one of those companies. It does not work.
LikeLike
As am I.
LikeLike
This is the primary message of Ed Deform: Kids are machine parts to be identically milled by the state/corporate partnership to be obedient do-bees in the low-level service jobs they will have in the future (“Well you be taking that latte on the veranda, Mr. Gates?”)
Here: a note about the new video being featured on the CCSSO website for the Common Core:. The CCSSO video says the same thing that Alan Golston did, but in a few more words and in a professionally packaged infomercial:
LikeLike
cx: Will,not Well, of course
LikeLike
The primary message of arbitrary assignment of students to schools by street address is hat kids are interchangeable machine parts that can be easily slotted into another school if the parents move or the school board changes the catchment lines. School transition is seamless because schools are identical.
LikeLike
TE, when schools are run by the teachers in their communities, they are not identical, and neither are the classes offered nor the work done by individual students.
LikeLike
Of course traditional zoned public schools are not run by teachers, but by school boards as allowed by state regulations.
A simple empirical test. There are nearly 99,000 public schools in the United States. Can you find six traditional zoned schools among the 99,000 that are Montessori schools and six traditional zoned schools that are language immersion schools? These kind of schools are common when parents and students can choose schools. Do they exist at all when parents and students can not choose?
LikeLike
Assigning students a school by street address is only arbitrary if their street address is arbitrary. It isn’t. People choose to live in a particularly community for a constellation of reasons; their local school should be an expression of their community.
LikeLike
Peter,
Perhaps you could take up my emperical challenge and find just six traditional zoned “all and only” public schools that are Montessori schools. That would be some evidence that traditional zoned schools are compatible with at least widely accepted alternative approaches to education. If your idea that parents can just move in and out of catchment areas in order to send there students to standard alternative schools like Montessori or Waldorf or progressive schools, finding 6 out of the nearly 98,000 public schools should be easy. Unfortunately I can not help as the only Montessori school (and the only Waldorf and progressive schools as well) in my town are private schools.
LikeLike
But they aren’t widely accepted. If they were widely accepted, school boards would be installing them. Public schools, via school board election, install programs that are supported and called for by the community all the time. Want a Montessori school in your system? Round up all the taxpayers who agree that this is widely accepted and valuable approach, put up some candidates, get them elected, Montessori your heart out. Your beef appears to be that the current system does not allow you to force your fellow taxpayers to fund a program that you want and they do not. That’s a common complaint about a democratic system, but so far nobody has come up with a very satisfactory solution.
LikeLike
There are about 4,500 Montessori schools in the US, and I suspect you would find it hard to locate a reasonably densely populated area of the country without a single Montessori school.
LikeLike
I agree. I’m not sure what your point is.
LikeLike
One important concern with the CCSS voiced here is that it will impose a uniformity across schools that is not compatible with the individuality of student needs and desires. I am arguing that traditional zoned schools with their “all and only” admission standards end up imposing far more uniformity across schools than the CCSS would. The argument is that school boards will have to ensure that the arbitrary assignment of a student to a school using street address does not matter because all of the possible schools are essentially the same. The absence of traditionally zoned schools that are Montessori, Waldorf, etc supports my argument. If a school district had traditional zoned “all and only” schools that were Montessori, Waldorf, etc, that would be evidence against my argument.
LikeLike
Ah. Well, your argument only works if we assume that anything other than Waldorf or Montessori is somehow completely uniform. You seem to believe that Waldorfian individuality is the only type that counts. I disagree. Your assertion that a nationally enforced set of standards combined with de facto curriculum-by-test would somehow be less uniform that schools free to pursue local standards and priorities– well that’s just sill. It’s like saying that individual mom and pop hamburger stands would somehow have more uniformity than the McDonalds chain. And you have to know that under a CCSS regime, there’s no way on God’s green earth that there would be Montessori public schools.
LikeLike
Peter,
I am using the labels Montessori, Waldorf, and progressive to make the empirical case easier to prove or disprove. Unlabeled differences in approaches to education will be difficult to count, and we would need to be able to count schools to show that traditional zoned schools are or are not diversified. Even if traditional zoned schools are diversified only in unlabeled ways, they appear not to be diversified in these labeled ways. What is your explanation for this, given the large number of choice schools that are diversified in labeled ways?
Let me make a conjecture about school diversification and the CCSS. I predict that in five years there will be no more diversification between traditional zoned schools in states that do not adopt the CCSS than there will be in traditional zoned schools in states that do adopt the CCSS. It is not the CCSS that limits diversity for traditional zoned schools, it is the admission system.
LikeLike
It is exactly this kind of conversation that makes it hard to grasp what is actually happening.
I have several degrees, taught for over 40 years, was a celebrated educator, and I cannot grasp what the heck you are talking about.
To me, who has been teaching for so long, and has entered over ten different classrooms in several school districts, (not counting the 12 years I subbed and entered 13 elementary schools, 3 middle schools and 2 high schools in East Ramapo (which was then a top district,not the failed mire it is now) I know a thing or two about what I NEED when I am expected to ‘teach.’
The most crucial element is the OBJECTIVES.
This word is almost unheard of in all conversions, where standards and curricula are bandied about and interchangeable in the minds of most people I meet.
I have, at this moment a huge crate of CURRICULA GUIDES AND SYLLABI as I renovate my office and organize ‘my life as a teacher.” — all the materials that informed my practice. From day one in NYC grades 2 &3, the OBJECTIVES for each subject were crystal clear. Each kid leaving my class in June should be able to do this…. (LWBA to-LEARNER WILL BE ABLE TO…) I filled in the verb and wrote a lesson plan for each disciple, spelling vocabulary, critical analysis, writing to summarize, writing creatively writing to… etc.
Next door, was a teacher using the identical set of goals. Now HER standards for learning might not be identical to my own, but as professionals with education, experience and some innate intelligence, we knew what excellence looked like… what learning looked like… which BTW is the JARGON of the REAL authentic, genuine NATIONAL STANDARDS research that has disappeared from the conversation..
I can easily explain why these PRINCIPLES FOR LEARNING, disappeared despite the fact that they WERE the new standards…the actual, AUTHENTIC, GENUINE 3rd level research by Harvard with the LRDC at the Univ. Of Pittsburgh.
Click to access polv3_3.pdf
These criteria for LEARNING are GONE because they were all about learning,(what must occur for genuine learning to occur). Thus, the national narrative about TEACHING COULD NEVER OCCUR IF THEY SUDDENLY REARED THEIR HEAD. Gone would be CCSS. GONE would be most standardized tests, and the classroom PRACTICE would again be in the control of the practitioner, supported by administration for whom there were 4 OF THE EIGHT PRINCIPLES.
The real,AUTHENTIC, new standards research which cost Pew zillions, is MISSING IN ACTION, SIMPLY BECAUSE ONE of the principles of LEARNING was CLEAR ABOUT GENUINE, AUTHENTIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.. The privateers cannot have such crystal clear rubrics of assessment and still drown the children in tests. Duncan could not stand on his bully pulpit and harangue the nation about evaluating those teachers, if valid, authentic performance evaluation of students was clearly defined.
Now, gentlemen, for ten years, I have written about this in almost every blog, article and commentary I post, and in letters to both writers and editors at major newspapers, and to this day, I AM ALONE IN THIS.
I swear, if I had not spent 2 years IN DISTRICT 2 (see the accompanying pdf about writing real standards based on this work)
http://www.newvisions.org/page/-/Prelaunch%20files/PDFs/NV%20Publications/challengestandards.pdf in the LRDC workshops which documented the research about LEARNING objectives, I would think that Lauren Resnick
http://ifl.lrdc.pitt.edu/index.php/about/who_we_are/lauren_resnick(who wrote the thesis which Harvard researched) and all the people at the Learning and Research Development Center at the Univ. of Pittsburgh, (including Vicki Bill whose correspondence I have) had been sent to Mars.
Check it out!
LikeLike
I am content to wait the five years you need to see the error of your ways.Labeled differences are immaterial, and assume that local schools owe some explanation of themselves to the nation at large. They don’t, any more than any given city in the country owes the rest of the country an explanation of their local assortment of bars and restaurants.
Choice schools are labeled because that’s how you market products when you’re busy trying to sell them. Whether the labels have any validity or value is a matter for debate, but schools that depend on some sort of marketing for their income and survival will find some label to distinguish themselves form the rest of the market. This is only the first time that choice schools will waste money on things having nothing to do with actually educating students, but it will not be the last.
LikeLike
Students who live on the 500 block of my street are assigned to a different school than students who live on the 600 block of my street. Do you really think that the parents on my street would stand for those two schools offering significantly different approaches to education given the all and only nature of traditional zoned schools? The only way those two schools would be allowed to differentiate themselves from each other would be if the students on the 500 and 600 block of my street could choose to go to either school.
LikeLike
Hey, “teachingeconomist”, I don’t mean to be cruel or disrespectful, but is it because you’re so woefully uninformed or so confused that we find you on here, day after day, like a waif with his nose pressed up against the glass, hoping for some acknowledgement…or maybe just a cookie?
Look, you’re really setting up yet another of your Straw Men here; districts all throughout the country have had alternative schools within them since the late sixties. And even within more conventional public schools, there are often alternative programs.
In my school district, (Seattle) just to cite one example of thousands, we have THREE PUBLIC Montessori Schools, as in 1, 2, 3. And, you can live ANYWHERE IN THE DISTRICT and attend one of them.
We also have an entire school dedicated to Project Based Learning, STEM focused schools, schools for troubled teens, pregnant teens, and so much more. AND the school district wants to actively plan for MORE alternative schools everywhere!
And, none of them are under Private or “For Profit” Management. None of them use scabs as educators. None of them use 22 year old kids after 5 weeks of training as an actual “teacher” and none of them hate educators simply because they’re organized.
Something tells me there are more districts like this across the country.
Next time, do your homework before you try to join—and disrupt our discussion. It’s better to be prepared with the facts before opening up your mouth and making it obvious that you’re not. 😉
LikeLike
PGP,
The schools you describe ARE NOT TRADITIONAL ZONED “ALL AND ONLY” PUBLIC SCHOOLS (I apologize for the capitals, but we sometimes use to stand in for bolded text).
I am arguing that traditional zoned schools (once again, to be clear, not magnet schools like the ones you are talking about) are incompatible with the sort of diversity in educational curriculum that opponents of the common core state favor. The empirical question is if there are TRADITIONAL ZONED “ALL AND ONLY” public schools that show diversity, say some that are Montessori, some Waldorf, some progressive, others language immersion, etc. I don’t think you will find traditional zoned “all and only” public schools that are specialized. You can, of course, find many choice schools, public magnet, charter, or private, that do offer diverse approaches to education.
LikeLike
Puget Sound, your argument that there is currently significant “choice” available is the straw argument. 1. Because in general it is untrue and 2. Where choice does exist it has always been opposed by the likes of your kind.
LikeLike
I agree with TE on this. I would not be a happy camper if my zoned school were Montessori or Waldorf. There are public Montessori schools in my town, but they are magnet schools. So that is a good case for choice. As long as there remains a base neighborhood school as a choice, I think that is fine. Because some parents do value a neighborhood school and are not necessarily looking for a “specialized” school for their K-5 child.
As far as the CCSS, I believe many children (including my older siblings) learned to read via the antics of Dick, Jane and their lovely dog Spot – so maybe there was a little more uniformity than we remember prior to the CCSS?
LikeLike
PSP,
Don’t bother.
TE has been repeatedly informed of regular ,district type schools that offered all manner of choices.
Single gender, Montessori, progressive, and many other methods, styles have been cited and attested to by real teachers/parents who were there.
Often choices were experimented with within a building (parents could opt to put their child in the single gender classroom or regular classroom within the same neighborhood school, for example).
He has been told that these choices came about due to parent/community request.
TE then says that that is still not every conceivable choice under the sun. There might have been one parent who did not get their wish granted. So thusly , traditional zoned public schools are a failure and do not offer enough choice.
He then picks up his goal post and runs 100 yards back and declares victory.
Save your typing.
He is not listening/reading/getting it.
Who knows.
(Now, admittedly, at least in my district, there was more of this experimentation with different models before NCLB and RTTT. Rather obviously constant testing and accountability have enforced standardization not innovation. If anyone would like more choice, help us kill the testing monster).
LikeLike
Ang,
You might note that I am posting about traditional zoned “all and only” public schools, not magnet schools. I often defend magnet schools against posters here who criticize schools that “cherry pick” students and divert resources from traditional zoned schools.
LikeLike
Puget Sound Parent, My observation of your frequent quippy, one liners that appear more intent upon insulting posters than offering any substantive contribution to debate woefully misplaced. As much as they display evidence of your master of the Shakespearean put down they would lend more credibility to a stage show then to a productive argument. As entertaining as your insults are, time is precious could you make your point relevant to the argument be your main focus?
LikeLike
Is this the Janine Largent that states that we “need to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ”??? Or how about “Obama Manchurian candidate??? (via discussion on Patriot Update) If so Ms. Largent should not be taken too seriously.
LikeLike
Michael Brocoum,
Perfect, if not transparent, implementation of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Watch out, your Marxism is showing.
I am sure you are not saying that Christians should be denied their right to free speech or freedom of religion? I am certain you are a supporter of the bill of rights? After all, we are all fully aware that the educational folk aren’t teaching doctrine or politics. In fact, if my recall is correct. We are all about embracing diversity correct?
In regards to the Manchurian Candidate. If Obama is one it should be the left who is proclaiming it. He certainly has let you folks down hasn’t he? Bummer.
LikeLike
Obama certainly has: for reasons opposite to the Manchurian Candidate.
LikeLike
Manchurian candidate
a candidate running for office who publicly supports one group to win election, but uses his executive or legislative powers to assist an opposing group;
LikeLike
actually a communist. I suppose that’s what you were trying to imply.
LikeLike
It seems to me that at least 90% of the discussion about the CCSS concerns half of the standards. What lessons should we draw from this?
LikeLike
What part of “Businesses are the primary consumers of the output of our schools, so it’s a natural alliance,” did you not even hear?
That’s the sheep’s clothing on the Gates Foundation’s cover page for their CCSS “rollout”. The wolf underneath is the imposition of his data-driven monopoly, the coercive miseducation of our children (but not his) by force of law.
LikeLike
janinelargent, “the likes of me”. You don’t have any idea of who I am. What are you talking about.
And your laughably moronic “argument” which comes down to
1) Because I STILL insist I’m right—that there is NO CHOICE with public schools—and I don’t care about the facts and evidence to the contrary
2) People like “YOU” (even though I have no idea who you are) are always against “choice” because I say so, even though you spent several paragraphs illustrating your commitment to, and belief in, diversity of educational offerings within the public school system.
LikeLike
Teaching Economist and Concerned Mom,
Maybe I should have provided even MORE detail on this:
The public Montessori schools within Seattle are WITHIN the neighborhood elementary schools; they share common facilities like the lunchroom and playground, have the same principal—it’s all one school, but the Montessori students have separate classrooms and teachers. It works quite well.
The Montessori program is open to all children in the city/district, but there is a slight advantage for those who live within the neighborhood school zone.
So, I call that …eh, maybe The Best Of All Worlds. (I guess TE might call it “Another Reason For Me To Now Move The Goalposts Since He’s Invalidated My Latest Version Of My Ever Shifting “Argument”)
Teaching Economist…let’s cut through the bovine excrement, shall we? It all comes down to one thing for you: You detest anything “public” and anything “union”—even though there are several states and many districts that are and always have been, non-union, and they almost always perform in an inferior way to students at schools where the teachers have some modicum of job security, decent pay and benefits.
I’d actually have more regard for you if you just admitted it: The ONLY thing you’re consistent about in your hundreds of postings here is this: YOU DETEST THE VERY IDEA OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS! (Especially those that are neighborhood based and allow a supportive and loving community of families to grow and thrive together. You might want to try it sometime.)
LikeLike
The Montessori schools are an option that a public school student may choose or not. Traditional zoned schools are not optional. All students in that geographic catchment area go to the school and no student outside the catchment area goes to the school.
LikeLike
I certainly don’t detest public schools and often post here defending public magnets from posters who consider much of what public magnets do to be unethical. I just see the limitations that the traditional system of zoned schools place on the independence of each school to be different from the neighboring school.
I have certainly tried it, having gone to public school for 1-12 (a few years in a magnet program in elementary school) and having sent all of my children to traditional zoned public schools (though we did request a transfer for Jr. high so my youngest could go to the closer jr. high with his friends that lived on the next block down our street).
Any thoughts on the argument I have been giving?
LikeLike
PSP
This is just a hobby for TE. He carves a notch into his belt every time he gets someone’s goat around here. You cannot win an argument with the wind or convince it to blow your way.
LikeLike
You can certainly convince me that I am incorrect about something, it just so happens that this is not the case here, or rather no one has actually tired to address the argument I was making.
LikeLike
My sense is Janinelargent is in some capacity a member with a vested interest in the deformer crowd.
LikeLike
Michael Brocoum, If having children and grandchildren of school age is a “vested interest in education reform” then you are quite prophetic. I, however, vehemently oppose everything about CCSS from their inception, to their implementation. The incremental growth of the power of the department of education has paved the way for a monopolized public education to fall in one fell swoop to the corporate interests who lie in wait like vultures to profiteer in the created crisis. Public education should belong to the public not to Bill Gates and not to the teacher’s union.
LikeLike
Then we are in total agreement. Not sure where/why I misunderstood you.
LikeLike
janinelargent, okay now you’ve written something that I agree with.
So what people like us need to do is to stop hating each other for those things we disagree about—regardless of deep the disagreement runs—and focus on the things we DO agree on.
And one of them is clearly our opposition to the odious Common Core. Yes, it IS vile and I’m happy to see that your understanding goes beyond the surface.
If we want, we can go back to hating each other later 😉
But actually, one of the good things about the dialogue that has opened up between conservatives and progressives due to our mutual dislike of Common Core is the opportunity it also gives us for mutually respectful, non-acrimonious dialogue.
If we can see each other as fellow human beings, equally imperfect, equally frail, we can perhaps recapture and reaffirm our common humanity.
I count many, many conservatives who are family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers—even, believe it not, fellow parents who also have children at our wonderful inner-city public school and they love and support it as much as my spouse and I do.
So, while we may never agree on other things, I’m happy to live with each other’s differences in peace and harmony. That’s the way it should be.
But if and when we can help each other, let’s come together and we’ll both benefit. The Powers That Be, The Ruling Elite, The Beltway Royalty, The Corporate/Federal Government/Wall Street Alliance is HOPING that people like us hate each other and refuse to work together.
That’s their only hope. It’s an old strategy called “Divide and Conquer”.
I propose that we DON’T give them what they want. (If we do we’ll ALL be stuck with the vile Common Core for generations!)
I propose that instead, we come together with one simple, easily agreeable objective: Let’s Destroy Common Core and the plans they have for our children.
Together we can bring together a majority of our citizens, as conservatives and progressives together. And, as is already happening, the left-centrists will begin to feel our influence as the right-centrists will feel yours, and soon all of the middle will get it too.
Let’s join hands and stop Common Core. And personally speaking, I think this is a great movement that again, might lead to a more peaceful and respectful public exchange of ideas.
I think we’ve been waiting for this. We’ve had far too much bitterness and anger between “blue and red”, “left and right”, “progressive and conservative.”
Here’s an opportunity to do something to save the educational future for our children and our grandchildren’s grandchildren. And, personally, I think it’s so great…that people are FINALLY getting together. I’m serious when I say that we should consider this as one of our songs to inspire and energize our working together for a common cause: a coalition that will emerge victorious by working together.
It’s so long overdue:
LikeLike
As a Spanish teacher in a public school here’s how I see it: If I have a student whose dream in life is to sit on the beach in Jamaica and play the flute, then my job is simply to do what I can to make sure that he is the best Spanish speaker on that beach. My job is NOT to get students “career focused.” If that is what a student wants, fine, I will give him/her the tools needed to make an informed choice. However, if McDonald’s and Microsoft want highly skilled workers. then let them do the training in their own facilities, on their own time. I didn’t go into this profession merely to turn out good little worker bees whose role in society is to make the rich slightly richer and to keep the powerful in power.
LikeLike