Thanks to Michael Paul Goldenberg for sending this nifty graphic explanation of why schools cant operate like businesses, opening and closing, fighting for competitive advantage, and celebrating the few that survive competition.
No one mourns when the local shoe store fails and relocates or goes into a different line of work. But think of the disruption and anguish when the doors to the local school are closed, and it is replaced by a corporate charter school.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The monetization of our schools along with corporate incentives to make it happen is one of the dumbest moves our country has ever made. Its “products” are untold harm to thousands of children, families and communities, the destruction of middle class jobs mostly held by women, millions of dollars in waste and fraud, and increased segregation. For all of this we get meager results for a few at best, and much worse results for many. The big winners are the corporations that are hiding buckets of cash overseas. The “marketplace” is no place to raise a child!
LikeLike
Well said. What can we do to force meaningful change?
LikeLike
I think we have to remain politically active and work to vote out anti-public school forces. We have to join forces with other pro-public education and civil rights groups to ensure that all children can attend a free, well resourced public school.
LikeLike
This is a great link. And what I suggest we pay most attention to is that at this point in time, there is no agreement in the US as to what we think the job of schools should be.
These visuals dig deeply into that. And I’ve seen it at state education meetings – where our state school officials blindly run into recommending changes without stopping to ask “what is the job of the school & education?”.
What is the ultimate goal? There will be no settlement of education policy when a significant minority believes moral education is the most important while another significant minority believes it’s purely job training and another significant chunk believes that it is most critical for schools to prepare students to participate in society effectively.
Each one of those leads to entirely different schools.
In fact, if I were advising Clinton, my advice would be to step away from policy and return to the need to create a shared vision of schools in society.
Is it possible? If not, then nothing will change from the chaos in which schools currently reside. So I hope that a leader or set of leaders will take the risk and have the courage to dig into what’s really important – lead a process where we all come together to build a shared vision of why schools exist.
LikeLike
“. . . that at this point in time, there is no agreement in the US as to what we think the job of schools should be. . . “what is the job of the school & education?”.
There is some guidance toward an answer to your question Doug to be found in 20 of the 50 state constitutions. Having read and researched all 50 state constitutions for a purpose of public education here is my summation of the purpose as delineated in 80% of the constitutions that state a purpose:
“The purpose of public education is to promote the welfare of the individual so that each person may savor the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the fruits of their own industry.”
LikeLike
Thanks. Great to know. And I do appreciate that. Where the problem resides is that I doubt that the public knows that – or that many agree with it.
While I appreciate opposition to Common Core, many of those opposing it are doing so to replace it with their own religious principal based moral education. That’s not really what’s in the state constitutions.
I think it’s a very serious problem. And you point out a good place to start…like with the existing law. 🙂
LikeLike
If you would like to read the chapter of my forthcoming book that discusses the purpose of public education feel free to email me at dswacker@centurytel.net and I’ll send you the chapter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where did the idea that public education should prepare the individual to serve his community and participate in the democratic process as well come from?
LikeLike
I don’t know 2o2t.
There are five constitutions in which the language for the purpose of public education states that it is the purpose of public schooling to provide for the continuance of a democratic form of governance–something to the effect of “In order to assure that continuing democratic government obtains the state shall provide. . .”. But the majority of the stated purposes deal with schooling’s positive effects on the individual.
Yours is an interesting question no doubt!
LikeLike
Doug and others, here’s a vision of education created by the NEA and AFT presidents, some charter public school leaders and others. Reactions welcome:
Click to access A-Transformational-Vision-for-Education-in-the-US-2016.01.pdf
LikeLike
“Teachers are given an age-group cohort of children at the beginning of each school year, a standardized curriculum, and a matching set of assessments. Despite teachers’ best efforts to individualize along lines of difference, opportunities to tailor the content, pace, and method of instruction are limited. Students are expected to work with their assigned material and move along with their age cohort as the years pass. Grading and other assessment tools are designed
primarily to assess the results of learning, rather than to improve learning as it happens. ”
Wait a minute. Are you describing traditional public schools or the reform model? My wonderful progressive school system is morphing into exactly what you describe as the TRADITIONAL model under the leadership of the reform cabal where standardized test scores define success and “personalized” learning means more screen time rather than interaction with peers and teachers.
LikeLike
The statement I linked to urged that we move AWAY in district and charter public schools, from the situation where standardized test scores define success & personalized learning means more screen time.
This statement was signed by both teacher union and charter leaders.
LikeLike
I realize that. I quibble with defining the situation as part of traditional schools. I feel the same about the term “factory schools.” If you are disowning the disruptive, destructive reform model that has held sway for the past two decades, then say so. It has nothing to do with “traditional” schools.
LikeLike
I agree that both terms, “factory schools” and “traditional schools” are far too broad. They don’t accurately represent the vast diversity of approaches in district public schools.
LikeLike
And yet those terms are used to create an negative impression of public schools. I would have to be incredibly naive at this point to think that that choice of terms wasn’t deliberately selected for that purpose. If you want to create some credibility for your “movement,” I suggest you stop using the vocabulary created by those who have little interest in public education.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hear, hear. We must take back the language of education.
LikeLike
I struggle to give any credence to reports that start with “disruption” based language. Like this:
“SIMPLY PUT, the current system was designed in a different era and structured for a different society. Our economy, society, and polity are increasingly at risk from an educational system that does not consistently prepare all children to succeed as adults and is least e ective for the children facing the greatest social and economic challenges. Conversely, the Internet revolution has created a once-in-a-generation opportunity for new approaches to learning. Our growing recognition of the importance of skills and dispositions is also sparking a shi toward expe- riential learning. In short, we see both an imperative for transformation and many promising avenues for re-envisioning the learning experience.”
The incredible shiny bauble hype buried in that statement just makes my blood boil – so that it is hard to take the rest of the report seriously.
But when I read it what I read is that we should turn teachers loose to teach. Except looking at the participants my guess is the committee is envisioning all kinds of shiny bauble tech gadgets, apps, and software to do what good teachers do naturally.
Anyway, you asked for a response. I don’t doubt there is good intent behind the report. But I believe we would be wise to pay attention to Proverbs – there is nothing new under the sun.
I’m deeply involved with tech and media… and we are constantly bombarded by equivalent hype. And now we know that the hype has been wrong. And successful companies ignore it.
Thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
Joe,
See my above response to Doug for what I consider to be the purpose of public education, realizing that the devil is in the details as to accomplish that purpose.
Thanks,
Duane
LikeLike
Duane, I think that is a very well stated purpose. thanks for putting it together.
LikeLike
You’re welcome!
It sometimes seems we drift aimlessly when discussing the purpose of public education when there is guidance to be had in the state’s constitutions, which should be “THE” source as the constitutions are the legitimating source of providing public education.
My purpose is just a summary/compendium of those constitutional statements.
If you or anyone else would like to read my discussion on the purpose of public education of my forthcoming book “Infidelity to Truth: Educational Malpractice in American Public Education” feel free to contact me at dswacker@centurytel.net and I’ll email you a copy of that chapter.
LikeLike
yes please, I would like to see that chapter. My email is joe@centerforschoolchange.org
LikeLike
Will do!
LikeLike
THANKS, DIANE! Good one.
LikeLike
Yes, it is and the comments that follow in the article are excellent also!
LikeLike