Stephen Krashen, a professor emeritus at the University of Southern California and a noted linguist and researcher, wrote the following commentary:
“Hanushek, Peterson and Woessmann (2014) claim that when we examine students from “advantaged” families, American students do poorly in math: Our rich kids do worse than rich kids from other countries. Hanushek et. al. conclude that this shows that poverty is not the only factor affecting school performance. Their conclusions are based on their analysis of data from the 2012 PIRLS examination, tests given to 15-year-olds in a large number of countries.
“Berliner (2014) argued that Hanushek et. al. used an invalid measure of “advantaged”: at least one parent who graduated college. He also argued that a more valid measure is parental income. Many college graduates, Berliner pointed out, are not in high-income professions.
“Here is Berliner’s paper, followed by my analysis, confirming that Berliner is, for the most part, right: Parental education is not the way to define “advantaged.” Poverty, defined by parental income, predicts math and reading achievement for 49 states in the US even when parental education is controlled, and predicts math achievement on international tests.
“Berliner, D. 2014. Criticism via Sleight of Hand https://dianeravitch.net/2014/07/29/david-berliner-responds-to-economists-who-discount-role-of-child-poverty/
“http://skrashen.blogspot.com/2014/08/do-american-rich-kids-do-worse-on_3.html”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I have no research studies to back my claims. However, in teaching in urban, rural, and suburban districts, I found that motivation is the key to learning. Motivation can be fueled by poverty, interest, family connections, hunger, money, culture. It is different for each person.
However, with a desire for easy money being the primary focus if life in the United States, the desire to obtain a grade from whatever means can be the goal of many. It is often pushed by the students. Learning and education, real comprehension and understanding are secondary to getting a certain grade and lauding a student’s success on a bumper sticker.
If you look at certain demographics, you see a work/study ethic that surpasses the typical majority population’s desire to actually know anything. Many focus on sports with hopes for scholarships. Then those with the scholarships have to be tutored to stay in college.
Our values are not what we pretend that they are. We are seeking easy money and an easy future for our kids with networking and fraternal or sports groups leading the way.
In avoiding all that bull, I actually cost myself earnings and the same is true of my kids. They are honest, decent people, but they don’t have the chance to network their way in this sham of a work ethic culture. They behaved correctly, but in a morally blind society, it doesn’t pay off financially.
LikeLike
So, wait. Another study which cherry-picks information and distorts results in order to get the finding it wants? From Eric Hanushek? The creator of “days of learning gains”?
Shocked.
Seriously, does anyone trust any study from any camp any more?
By the way, wealth is advantage. College education is no guarantee of wealth. As evidenced by the large number of STEM graduates not employed in STEM fields right now. (According to this study, Bill Gates’ kids would NOT be advantaged because he’s a college dropout. Correct?)
LikeLike
Steve K, I agree. Can we really trust any study now, since they all seem biased?
After teaching in Title I Schools for many years, I began to realize the kids were most impacted by how their parents perceived themselves. If parents saw themselves as victims of poverty, trapped and helpless to do anything about their situation, the kids had low self esteem. If parents saw themselves as capable and dealt with their poverty as a temporary situation that did not keep them from trying to better themselves, the kids saw themselves as capable and had higher self esteem. In most cases it was the newly immigrant families who perceived their poverty as a temporary situation and maintained a more positive attitude which was reflected in their children.
I think it is the attitudes of people who live in poverty and see their situation as hopeless that causes “learned helplessness” for many children. It is so important that kids have other positive adults outside their family to give them ongoing encouragement and hope.
It is also good to remember that poverty doesn’t always refer to physical necessities. Some of my students whose parents had high income levels and all the physical comforts still lived with emotional neglect from detached or workaholic parents. Those suffered the same low self esteem as children who lived in poverty. My observations tend to match studies that show “how children learn to perceive themselves at an early age is a reflection of how they think their parents perceive them”. If they are emotionally neglected, it doesn’t matter if they live in wealth or poverty, they will suffer the same low self esteem.
LikeLike
We have to establish in each case whether the “hopelessness” is just an attitude or based on a reality of little opportunity to escape poverty.
Never underestimate the opportunities that exist for the entitled to receive educationally enriching experiences, intern at the firms of connected family members or live free of harassment in quality school districts. My own school district tried to cancel free buses in an effort to raise test scores at certain elementary schools. It’s a different world from my own, comfortable middleclass upbringing.
LikeLike
“By the way, wealth is advantage.”
I do wish these studies used wealth instead of income as the indicator of relative poverty or affluence.
LikeLike
I’m not an expert in this area but I think the argument from the other side is that though low poverty kids in US may do well compared to the international average, poverty is not so much a determinant of success in other countries. Is this true, and if so, it be a matter of a more inequitable education funding system in the US. What might be explored is how high poverty US kids do compared to high poverty kids in other countries, and the same comparison for low poverty kids.
LikeLike
More junk science. We could probably correlate test scores to eye color. Again, correlation is not causation. And the measures of student learning are suspect. The models are flawed. The idea poverty does not negatively impact people defies rational thought. These “let them eat cake” studies are just 1%ers trying to justify our eroding society due to massive income inequality.
LikeLike
We can, of course, show that poverty is correlated with poor performances on tests, but there is no reason to conclude from that finding that poverty causes low performance on tests.
LikeLike
Excellent comment. The K-12 experts still do not seem to understand the difference between the measures of reliability( reproducibility) and validity( causation). If the experts would evaluate the quality of the schools attended by the rich and poor students, as measured by the amount of “social promotion”( percent NAEP proficiency) occurring at each school, the obvious results documents that poverty related to student academic success is meaningless, but is applied by K-12 educators and experts, as an excuse to allow promotion by attendance to occur instead of the federal and three state laws (California) of promotion by proficiency. Research documentation of the above comments are available from retired instructor/researcher at ekangas@juno.com
LikeLike
ekangas2014,
Noel Wilson has destroyed the validity and reliability of these supposed “measures”, i.e., standardized tests. Since the tests are completely invalid any results gleaned/determined from said tests is by definition invalid and therefore unreliable.
Have you read Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error?
LikeLike
Duane,
My foster son’s learning disabilities were diagnosed and documented in part using standardized exams. Should I expect that his short term memory will rise above the level of an Alzheimer patient in the near future? Are those exams illegitimate?
LikeLike
A diagnostic test is different than the types of test used in these comparisons. I don’t have a problem with diagnostic tests which are not “standardized” in the fashion that these “achievement” type tests are.
LikeLike
Dianne,
Please explain which of your points in the standardize does not apply to a standardized exam that is used to diagnose learning disabilities?
LikeLike
Diagnostic tests determine future teaching by determining need. They are formative.
These Pearson tests are used punitively to determine effectiveness of sciils and teachers, and they will ultimately presume to determine whether a student may go to college. They are summative.
This has been apparent on this blog and elsewhere for over two years.
LikeLike
Deb,
Those points are irrelevant to Noel Wilson’s argument He and Duane believe they apply TO ALL standardized tests. The pour poses to which they will be used is IRRELEVANT to the fundamental epistemological mistake that Wilson claims to have discovered.
LikeLike
Duane,
Sorry about the autocorrect.
LikeLike
Duane, what’s a standardized test versus a diagnostic test?
LikeLike
While there are obvious overlaps, there are distinct differences, too.
Before I begin, a diagnostic test may be both diagnostic and standardized. The Woodcock Johnson, for instance, is both. It was set up to be both. All standardized tests may not be diagnostic, though. State tests and the SAT are standardized but not diagnostic. A state test or SAT test may be used like a diagnostic assessment, but their creators did not intend them to serve that purpose.
The differences:
A diagnostic test usually involves some type of referral with adult input (teacher input/ resource teacher input/ district psychologist input and parent input), AND student in-class performance and achievement (grades). Most of these tests have both oral and written components and they are adaptive/allow for ability leveling. A diagnostic test is used for one of the measures to PLACE students in SPED (and to remove them), GATE, math leveling, ELA leveling, or ELL leveling, for instance. Be aware that a diagnostic test is not the only measure used to determine student placement. In order for students to be PLACED, for example, students must have a certain score on the test AND they must meet all other adult input requirements AND they must qualify in the performance AND achievement areas. For SPED, for instance, if the student scores low on the test and has low performance and achievement, then that student may not qualify for SPED services (there’s no discrepancy/she didn’t score low enough and she is working at her ability level). These tests, because they are meant to be used with other inputs, provide a little objectivity to the placement and serve a useful purpose. While individual tests are expensive, because all students are not tested annually, these tests do not cost states or districts that much money.
A general standardized test (state tests, for instance) does not require teacher or parent input or referrals. They are not used in conjunction with any other input for placement. They are usually sole, stand-alone measurements and, as of right now, none of them are adaptive or allow for ability leveling (the claim is that they will supposedly be next year, however; I find this doubtful). It does not take into account student in-class performance nor does it address student achievement. These type of tests are like car oil dipsticks with no other input or observation (they may give us approximate knowledge about the amount of oil or the quality of oil but not both). Supposedly, they give us approximate knowledge for what students know for summative purposes but they do not always match up with in-class performance nor achievement (this is why we have students earning Basic on these tests while getting B’s or A’s in those classes or students scoring Advanced but class performance is weak and so is achievement). While they can be used to spotlight which student may need diagnostic assessment services, they are not used and should not be used for diagnostic purposes. They are typically used before diagnostic assessment begins in the first place (ex: Tim scores BB in both ELA and math, so he is automatically referred for the battery of diagnostic assessment). And because of security and time constraints, teachers cannot use these tests to better help students with what they do not know in a formative manner. These tests have very limited practical uses, yet because of their annual mass use, they end up being the most expense assessments states require (between 20 and 35 dollars per student test annually).
Measurement specialists have frequently stated that standardized tests can be set up to determine what students approximately know OR how well teachers approximately teach. However, the same test cannot be used to do both simultaneously in the same approximate manner. VAM proponents frequently and fallaciously assume that they can do both at the same time. Does Chetty et al. make this mistake?
LikeLike
The Morrigan,
I think it would be useful to point out where Noel Wilson makes ANY of these distinctions. Your post is about the periphery of the exam, not about the core finding that my foster son has the short term memory of an Alzheimer’s patient. Please address the points that Duane posts (for god’s sake we have read them frequently enough) and explain why using these standardized exams is not a fundamental epistemological error. Is it because the “score” was only a description of the interaction at the time (Duane point 2 in the traditional post). Is it because the frame of reference (can he remember directions to the store) has a source of error (Duane point 3)?
I would like nothing in this world better than learning that the standardized exam results are illegitimate and that my foster son, in fact, does not suffer from a myriad of learning disabilities.
As a preview, the next issue will be why using standardized exams to diagnose my middle son as a gifted student made a fundamental epistemological error.
LikeLike
Simply put, diagnostic tests are used to assess the students’ level, ability, areas of concern, and provide information to the teacher and district and parents as to what the child needs for success. Of course, the are standardized in the sense that they are scored and compared and normed as to the level that the student is learning.
But that isn’t the setup for punitive Pearson tests that are designed to determine which students are “failing” and which teachers are deficient. The standardized tests that Ohio has used are punitive and summative, not formative or diagnostic. The difference is in the types of questions, the standards evaluated, and the interpretation and usage of the results. These Pearson tests aren’t designed to help the student gain knowledge, except there is an opportunity to retake the tests so that the student is a better test taker. They aren’t designed for teachers to use as a teaching tool.
LikeLike
Deb,
It does not matter what use the test is put to, if you believe Wilson ALL tests suffer from the same epistemological mistakes. Perhaps you should read Duane’s posts again.
LikeLike
Sorry, TE, but I was addressing FLERP’s question. It is the one directly above mine. I felt reasonably confident I could answer that one for Duane.
While Duane has written extensively about Wilson and you have written about your foster son here, I feel uncomfortable addressing these points because one is your personal situation with your foster child and the other is that I have never read Wilson myself (sadly, I’ve only read excerpts from Duane’s posts). I find these types of argument mine fields and because of that, I avoid them.
You may certainly extrapolate what I wrote and apply it to your points in whatever manner you feel appropriate (as you did just now) but it was not my explicit intention to address you or your points. I was simply addressing FLERP’s question.
LikeLike
TheMorrigan,
I find myself the victim of the email notification. I apologize.
Sweeping general claims like those made by Wilson are often discomforted by actual facts on the ground. I think it wise to avoid claiming that standardized tests are, in Duane’s words, “epistemological mistakes”.
LikeLike
It doesn’t get more basic than this—
Principle of Data Interpretation#4: “When comparing groups, make sure the groups are comparable.”
(Gerald Bracey, READING EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH: HOW TO AVOID GETTING STATISTICALLY SNOOKERED, 2006.)
BTW, the link in the posting should be—
http://skrashen.blogspot.com/2014/08/do-american-rich-kids-do-worse-on_3.html
Note how the accountabully underlings of the charterites/privatizers think that data analysis consists of cherry picking* whatever numbers and stats serve your predetermined conclusion, then doing a victory dance when when you “prove” yourself right. *Also known as Chetty Picking.*
For example, eligibility for reduced- and free-lunches covers a very wide range of students, and the $$$$ range is big enough to call for great caution and care in using those labels as proxies for poverty and low-income backgrounds.
But then again, when it comes to massaging and torturing numbers and stats, the enablers of mathematical intimidation and obfuscation fiercely maintain that admonitions are really—Rheeally!—encouragement:
“He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts — for support rather than for illumination.” [Andrew Lang]
😏
LikeLike
Gonna be hard to say “Johnsonally” for Rheeally. Boy, by changing her name she will take out some of the verbal fun we’ve been having-really, not Johnsonally.
LikeLike
Well, in the 90s our school forbade those “Johnson” t-shirts. Sorry to break you rule, Diane, but after what Rhee-who-cannot-be-named has done to public education, DC teachers via bogus VAM scores, and especially to students through endless testing, the pun on Johnson does not seem that scandalous.
LikeLike
Duane Swacker and Nimbus: oh ye of little faith!
Let me clue you in: an iconic figurine of self-proclaimed “education reform” has more staying power than a Higgs Boson. For example, we can now describe the self-deluding educrats and edufrauds and edubullies as generating their own Rheeality Johnson Distortion Fields.
😕
And when you read of 100% graduation rates this week of the students who were enrolled last week [forget that matter of how many from the ninth grade cohort survived to graduation] we can describe it thusly: the charter school did a Johnson! Rheeally!
😱
But not really…
😡
No, 13th percentile to 90th percentile and the Miracle of Masking Tape and Teflon Testing Scandal will live on forever. Identified by name.
Oh, how an old dead Greek guy knew the type:
“How vain, without the merit, is the name.” [Homer]
😎
P.S. For those wrapped up in their CCSS ‘closet’ reading, one way to interpret Homer’s remark is that the brandname “Rhee Johnson” is priceless. ¿? That wasn’t on the test prep? Priceless = without price, worthless, of no value.
😒
LikeLike
How “smart” children are is a result of self perception, not wealth. Motivation is influenced by self perception. Negative self-images can arise from a variety of factors besides poverty. A prominent factor, however, is personality type. Perfectionists, high achievers, and those with “type A” personalities seem to be prone to having negative self-images. This is because such people constantly set the standard for success high above a reasonable, attainable level. Thus, they are constantly disappointed in this “failure.”
In this sense, the CCSS obsession with high stakes testing and performance ratings is causing more low self esteem for children than poverty.
LikeLike
In many of the wealthier countries of western Europe, university or college education is often tuition free or very inexpensive. Why wouldn’t you judge the wealth of an individual by their income? You have some college graduates, one earning $50,000 per year, another has an income of $600,000 per annum and a hedge fund manager with an income of millions.
LikeLike
Krashen is right!
LikeLike
The average person in the US reads at about a 5th grade level and the average attention span on the internet is less than 30 seconds.
Therefore, how can we write the information in this report in 300 words or less so the average person can understand what it means?
LikeLike
Sources, for your arguments, please?
LikeLike
http://www.impact-information.com/impactinfo/literacy.htm
LikeLike
That 5th grade number I mentioned came from when I was working toward my BA in journalism. We were told that newspapers focused on a reading audience that read, on average, at a 5th grade level—-that was in the early 1970s. The reasoning for this was that it was believed at the time that the average reading level in the United States was 5th grade.
This information that I just found may be more appropriate for today:
Prose, Document and Quantitative Literacy Levels (Figure 2)
Level 1: 0-225
Level 2: 226-275
Level 3: 276-325
Level 4: 326-375
Level 5: 376-500
[Figure 1.1] This chart shows the percentage of the population at each Literacy Level:
For Prose average proficiency was 272,
Document was 267
Quantitative was 271
The average prose proficiency of adults who did not go beyond eighth grade was 177, compared with 270 for those who completed high school but went no further, 322 for those whose highest level of education was a four-year college degree, and 336 for those
who had completed some graduate studies beyond the four-year degree.
Similar patterns are evident on the document and quantitative scales,
where those with higher levels of education also displayed more advanced
literacy skills.
Stated another way, the difference in average prose proficiencies between
those who completed no more than 8 years of education and those who had
completed at least some graduate work is nearly 160 points. This translates to a
gap of roughly three proficiency levels, representing, on average, a very large
difference in literacy skills and strategies. (Figures 1.3 & 1.4—1.6 is is also interesting as it compares average literacy proficiencies by race/Ethnicity)
Pull quotes from: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf
To compare the five literary levels to U.S. Grade Levels, I found this information:
NAEP
Literacy Levels
ETS
Proficiency
Scores
U.S. Grade
Levels
1 – Rudimentary, 150–299, grades 1–2
2 – Basic, 200–249. grades 3–6
3 – Intermediate, 250–299. grades 7–11
4 – Adept, 300–349, grades 12–15
5 – Advanced, 350–500, grade 16+
Click to access Literacy.pdf
Note: As you can see, all three averages fall in level 3, Intermediate. Therefore fifth grade is too low today to represent the average reader in the United States [8th or 9th grade would be more appropriate], and according to the definition, Level 3 is “Roughly the skill level required for successful secondary school completion and college entry.”
LikeLike
Here is the press release from harvard on the book in question
Endangering Prosperity: A Global View of the American School
Eric A. Hanushek, Paul E. Peterson, and Ludger Woessmann
(Brookings Institution Press, 2013)
Read the press release
Visit the publisher’s webpage
Visit the official book webpage
The relative deficiencies of U.S. public schools are a serious concern to parents and policymakers. But they should be of concern to all Americans, as a globalizing world introduces new competition for talent, markets, capital, and opportunity. In Endangering Prosperity, a trio of experts on international education policy compares the performance of American schools against that of other nations. The net result is a mixed but largely disappointing picture that clearly shows where improvement is most needed. The authors’ objective is not to explain the deep causes of past failures but to document how dramatically the U.S. school system has failed its students and its citizens. Endangering Prosperity is a wake-up call for structural reform. To move forward to a different and better future requires that we understand just how serious a situation America faces today.
This book was envisioned as a redeclaration of A Nation at Risk. The same old saw, repackaged. Teachers and kids are the major influences on our economic fate and now our fate in a “global” context. I demand to see the elementary school, middle or junior high grades, and high school grades of everyone hired to teach at elite private universities, grad schools, and affiliated think tanks who have keep beating this drum. Unless these grades are 100% pure grade A, honors courses, top talent quality, they should all be fired. Then our economy will be strong.
LikeLike
To me, it has always been about priorities. What is our #1 priority as a parent? We are all different, but as a culture we are obsessed with money, leisure, appearances, sexiness, materialism, athleticism, celebrity, and fame. We do not truly put education as a real priority. Yet many pay lip service to doing so. We salute and honor and forgive anyone who “makes it” as icons of our admiration. We push our children to play competitive sports, often at a detriment to their health/safety. We push our girls to be dancers and dress them with clothes from Victoria’s Secret when they should NOT be looking sexual. We dress kids to look like miniature rock stars or line dancers or models or jocks. We allow our children to operate in cliques and gangs. We put them into after school organizations and are afraid to let them roam the neighborhood. We spend a fortune on getting them the toys and electronics they want. We must keep up with the Joneses.
Note: not everyone does this. But so many do that this is the public school culture. I watched it for 40 years. I experienced it as a child and through college. If you don’t play the social games right, you are ignored and left behind. Or you are made fun of. Or your kids are considered dorky nerds. And, even if your kid has potential, the crowd rule holds many if them back.
Think of the way “math smart” girls have been treated through the years. Even now, when girls are interested in STEM subjects it has to bevsold to them.
Add to this the difference in income/wealth/opportunity that takes place within a suburban school. Multiply that difference when trying to “judge” behaviors and performance in an urban or isolated rural school district.
Sure, poverty is a huge problem. It impedes learning if you are ostracized, hungry, unclean and tired. Compare those outcomes with advantaged children, and it is not going to be “pretty” or even tolerable to consider. But again, those families and parents have their priorities. Survival being a huge factor. Even so, they want their kids to have a chance in the wider world.
To place the burden of blame for the ills of our society upon the teachers and educational system is simply wrong. Sure, we contribute to this culture. And, I don’t think those who are part of the private school or virtually gated cities for the monied class have one clue about what suburban or rural or inner city schools are like. They have different struggles. But we have chosen to live and create this culture …a sham culture where we do our best to hide the fact that we aren’t “better than” anyone else. Some of us do believe we are: smarter, wiser, prettier, stronger, more clever, sexier, more worthy, more deserving, etc.
With some, there is a figurative stomping of the foot, proclaiming that “they” are inferior and don’t deserve equity in education or opportunity. “They” certainly shouldn’t have a chance or own a flat TV or cellphone. “They” should just be avoided. That is the way many view “them”. That is why so many charter schools are a farce because they only pretend to care about the inequities. They pocket the money and move on because the laws often allow them to.
We have a cultural problem. We are fed lies of all sorts every day. During the political campaigns I am appalled at the blatant deceit that is broadcast and paid for by dollars from people with an agenda to recreate America. And some follow and listen and donate. But it will not solve the problem.
Take politics out of education. Care about the whole kid. Teach with love. Bring the whole child forward, at his pace, in her interest, with goals of a civil society, not a further segregated, hateful, jealous, angry one.
LikeLike
Laura Chapman,
These authors have been moaning about the deficiencies of the schools for decades. They never explain how the U.S. became the most powerful nation in the world if our population is so dumb. At some point, this constant negativism has to be re-examined or seen as part of the privatization movement, even though there is zero evidence that nations with charters and vouchers perform better. And there does seem to be an absence of evidence that low or mediocre scores on international tests determine the future of our economy.
LikeLike
Using the logic of the reform clowns, one could argue that living with a parent or having a parent involved in a child’s education is an advantage. What bogus “scholarship” they pass off. If tenured, it should be rescinded and they should be ousted out. Immediately and with out “due process”. Turnabout is fair play..now. Isn’t it?
LikeLike
I need a flowchart to keep track of this stuff. Krashen comments on Berliner’s reply to Hanushek, Peterson, and Woessmann’s rebuttal of Berliner and Glass. And the conclusion is . . . Americans aren’t stupid? Hanushek’s conclusion that “poverty is not the only factor affecting school performance” is wrong? Income is a stronger predictor of PISA scores than parents’ education? Parents’ education has no meaningful correlation with PISA scores? And where’s Glass in all this, damn it!
LikeLike
FLERP, just remember this: nearly a quarter of our children live in poverty. Poverty is a predictor of low test scores. Not every poor child will do badly in school, but homelessness and hunger are obstacles to a academic achievement.
LikeLike
Thank you Deb and Shully for your accurate and keen observation in students. It is necessary to remind all cherry-picker or seasonal or snobbish-convenient researcher regarding the tried and true tenets of education in a democratic society from Dr. Edward Berger, as follows:
The tried-and-true tenets of education in a democratic society:
“” We do not experiment on children.
” We honor and get to know each child, even those who are hurt and will not score well on summative tests. Unless the system is overloaded — not enough resources and too many children assigned to a teacher — no child is left behind.
” We honor a long history of One Nation united by our education system through common values, comprehensive curriculum, one overall language, and free K-12 education for every child.
” We reject the false assumption that schools can be run for profit. Profits take money away from children/schools. These are dollars that must go to services for children.
” School governance must follow democratic principles, starting with elected officials and elected school boards, and not mayoral control, politically appointed czars, or would-be oligarchs from the Billionaire Boys Club (think Eli Broad).
” We have a proven system of certification and competence. Educators are constantly evaluated by parents, administrators, peers, and students. This is the reason there are very few “bad” teachers.”
Most importantly, each human being is composed of body, mind and spirit which are enhanced or influenced by both inner and outer conditions, such as karma and environment where that person live in, learn and accustom to.
In conclusion, the research will be false in assumption or comparison without an equal foundation of time and space. Back2basic
LikeLike
M4potw,
What did you think of my response to Dr. Berger’s points in the other thread? I am especially interested to know if you think they should be required of all students educated in a democracy or just those whose families are unable to pay for a private education.
LikeLike
Of course Eric H. will spin anything to get his $2,500 per day (like he did in NJ) consulting fee to sell the “zip code doesn’t matter” message that became a calling card for politicians, corporate magicians and education commissioners.
LikeLike
Andrew Rinko: Ok, I’m going to go a little controversial here.
“You can cuss out colonialism, imperialism, and all other kinds of ism, but it’s hard for you to cuss that dollarism. When they drop those dollars on you, your soul goes.” [Malcolm X]
Not a very very old and very very dead and very very Greek guy, but something to think about, because $2500@day is a whole lot of benjamins…
😎
LikeLike