Choice for them but not for you
Ever wonder why both the Clintons and the Obamas decided to send their kids to Sidwell Friends School?
Because they care about their own kids enough to find them the best school — even if they don’t care enough about your kids to let you do the same.
Sidwell Friends is a real school, with a demanding curriculum. No basket-weaving nonsense – math, Latin, Chinese, marine biology, English lit, accelerated chemistry, conceptions physics. And worship.
Even at Sidwell, there is a tinge of political correctness. (Modern Quakers do, after all, tend to be a liberal sect.) But look at the curriculum. If most Americans had the choice, wouldn’t they want to send their kids to a place like this?
Where’s the sex ed? How else are students going to discover their sexual preferences and learn things like how to put condoms on a banana? Obama is on record that sex ed needs to be taught beginning with kindergarten.
I guess when he said change he was only talking for himself and his family.
Sending presidential kids to public schools would be disruptive. Jimmy Carter did it, and it didn’t work out so well.
Last I heard, Obama was in favor of vouchers.
And I believe the tuition there might be a limit on the whole “choice” thing – don’t you think?
Yeah right, Obama is sending his kids to an elite private school to protect other peoples children. Obama is the product of elite private schools so why would we expect him to put his kids into the public system the rest of us must endure.
wolfpack-
You’ve gotta pick a theme, man. Either he’s a hoity-toity elitist or a closeted muslim terrorist. You’re kind of a moving target.
And also, not very smart.
Steve T.- “muslim terrorist” . Care to show any basis for this? Not that facts were ever required for your posts.
Do as I say, not as I do will be Obama’s common theme.
There are a number of things that are wrong about this post.
1) I don’t believe most parents are pushing for their children to take intellectually demanding, rigorous courses. Certain parents are, but it’s not the norm. Unfortunate, but true.
2) The curriculum document you speak of so approvingly is not profoundly different from many AA schools in Montana. There are more elective choices and more languages than most of our schools, but I think if you actually looked at a school curriculum document, you will see that Montana students are given incredible opportunities for challenging, interesting courses. Our top students leave our schools having completed advanced studies in science, literature, music and art.
3) Sidwell costs $29,000/year. Montana schools receive in the neighborhood of $9,000/student each year. Public schools are faced with enormous financial obligations for students with special needs and the difficulty of teaching a very wide range of students. Sidwell can choose not to do either. It seems obvious that having triple the resources per student available would allow public schools to do incredible things, given that we already offer a great of what schools like Sidwell do now.
Competition is the only thing that will force schools to get better. We can choose five hundred different brands of cereal for our kids, organic, extra bran, hot, cold, sweetened, unsweetened, whole grain, sugar pops, etc, but we are stuck with only one kind of school, and it’s an old UAW controlled factory that churns out Edsels.
I think Pogie raised the most important reason that the public school system is producing a less than stellar product: the consumers of that product are not demanding better. As long as parents are ok with their kids’ mediocre academic performance, the rest of us can holler, wring our hands, write letters to the editor and complain and nothing will change. The education system isn’t inherently incapable of educating our kids, but as long as we (as parents) don’t care if our children can read well, write a complete coherent sentence, balance a checkbook, or research a subject objectively, analyze data, or communicate an idea and present a rational argument in support or opposition to an issue, the public school system will give us whatever we are willing to accept. After all, they’re turning out pretty impressive athletes.
If the public thought there was any value to a public school education, they’d pour money into the system.
That’s certainly sophisticated analysis.
Couple of problems with the latter comments.
First, yes, a good bit of the problem is with parents who don’t really give a flip, or who believe that their little dullard is really smart, and who will oppose to the death (or to a lawsuit) any attempt to make the little brat behave.
But in fact, doing anything about the policies and/or curriculum is out of the parent’s control. In fact, it’s largely out of the school board’s control too. Part of the results of more and more and more control being concentrated in the hands of the states and the feds, meaning local control is an obsolete concept. Unfortunately.
Part of that is due the the — dang it! UNCONSTITUTIONAL — Federal Dept. of Education and the unelected unaccountable blatherskites who staff it.
And some of that got lots worse with the No Child Left Behind (and No Child Gets Ahead Either) Act, another UNCONSTITUTIONAL intrusion on matters reserved to that states and to the people.
Part of it is due to the blithering idiots whose idiocy is revealed by the fact that the School of Education on any university campus has the lowest average IQ on campus. True for students and for faculty as well. (Look up and read the works, all of them, of the late Richard Mitchell). Which groups, in turn, barely literate themselves, control the credentialing system for teachers. Ensuring faddism and Political Correctness, and an inability to teach reading and arithmetic.
As far as ”pouring money into the system”, we already do. Money going in has been increasing for decades. As results go down. Perhaps dumping truckloads of money on nitwits is not the answer?
Perhaps I should’ve said “willingly pour money into the system.” What Pogie doesn’t get is that people resist spending money on things that don’t work. Econ 101. If they were getting a good product out of the public school system, they’d willingly pour money into the system. But the way things stand now, and the way things have been for years, the money is going down a rat hole. So the free market steps in and offers a better product. Money flows into things that work.
The dean of the MSU teachers college once told me that entering teachers had the lowest SAT scores of any group at the university—except nursing school students! The first thing these teachers do after graduation is join the teachers’ union. End of story. It’s all downhill for the taxpayer after that.
Rook, is Steve T. a teacher?
I don’t know. But, sadly, he sounds like one.
I do know his father is a rocket scientist…
According to “The Conspiracy of Ignorance: The Failure of American Public Schools”, by Martin Gross, ” … (M)ost teachers and administrators come from the bottom third of their (high school) class and are outscored on the SAT tests by their own college-bound students.”
Lawrence W. Reed in “The Problem of Education Doesn’t End at the 12th Grade” (Jan. 1997 issue of The Freeman, published by the Foundation For Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, NY) writes, “Indirectly but decisively, children are being shortchanged by the system that teaches the teachers who teach the children-higher education.”
He goes on, “Close inspection suggests that the problem is not that too few teachers are graduating with good grades and degrees in education: the problem is what goes on in the courses they take from university departments of education.”
I don’t disagree with the argument that we have too many weak students leaving college with education degrees and becoming teachers. I do wonder, however, how conservatives propose to address that by cutting education funding?
I see a lot of typical right wing blathering in this comment thread – appeals to authority, misleading quotes, circumstantial evidence based on supposed first hand experience. It’s typical anti-education fare. But you’re missing actual proof of what you’re saying.
And you all have summarily (and typically) ignored Pogie’s assertion that Montana schools are more efficient than the private school that Rob throws out there as if $29,000 a year is a “choice” for any of us. And you’ve ignored the fact that Obama has been a staunch advocate for vouchers.
I will tell you this – there are a lot of problems with the ways teachers are educated. The School of Education at the University of Montana was pretty crappy – there’s Professors in that department who are there because they couldn’t handle it in Public Schools so decided to get their Doctorate instead. The main problem is that prospective teachers are not given enough time in an actual classroom – and the education courses that are taught were thought up by a bunch of bureaucrats who didn’t have enough time to, you know, actually develop curriculum standards for them.
But here’s the thing – there’s something about being a teacher – you either got it or you don’t. Nobody “taught” me how to teach in the School of Education – I’m not sure that it’s possible. You just get in front of a classroom, get used to it, and see if you can keep students engaged. I wouldn’t be surprised if half of the people that I went to the School of Education with in Missoula are working in grocery stores right now. the job itself filters out something like 80% of teachers in their first five years. Sure, some bad ones stay on – but the ones who are good at it are more likely to stay than the ones who aren’t.
I’m not saying our system isn’t broken – it is. There needs to be stricter standards in place to ensure that the bad teachers are filtered out and that the good ones are encouraged to stay on (merit pay and stricter tenure standards come to mind). There’s a lot of work to be done, and although I’m not sure it’s up to Obama – I hope the next few years brings about a commitment from everyone involved to improve our education system.
So – in other words – we have a problem here. But the way you guys can just sit around from your high perches and talk about how stupid teachers are and how you heard about this one thing this one time where this one teacher did this really thing simply amazes me. You all have an amazing ability to criticize entire groups of professionals based on some very shaky stuff. You have no solutions – your position for fixing the school system is thus:
“TEACHERS SUCK!!!”
I can almost hear the echos in the vast right-wing echo chamber. Grow up. Come up with some real solutions or get into the education system and fix it yourself.
[...] The last time we had an education week at the site was during the last legislative session, and it seems appropriate to revisit the issue now, given funding concerns in the state, and Rob Natelson’s call for $29,000 investments per student. [...]
It’s ironic to hear about others needing to grow up from Steve T. Was name calling a a debating technique taught in education classes at Missoula?
Steve said: “You all have an amazing ability to criticize entire groups of professionals based on some very shaky stuff.”
Hell, you ought to be in the newspaper biz. The blogosphere is home to approximately 450 million people who know more about how I should do my job than I do. And only about three dozen of them have ever let the world know their names. Ah, well. A man’s gotta have a hobby.
Yea Ed, Joe the plumber let go with his real name, and look what that got him. By the way, how do we know that Ed Kemmick is not an alias?
First off, increasing tenure simply means that the really awful teachers are there forever. Yes, it does mean that a good teacher is protected from summary dismissal for the offense of flunking the brat son of the Politically Prominent (my own mother, a reasonably good teacher, went through that exercise).
Part of the problem is this whole issue of credentialism. Most of the faculty in the college of Education in the university of your choice has probably never once tried to teach a real kid to read in a real classroom. Or to maintain order in a room full of energetic 9-year-olds. Yet these dwarts, over-full of the idiot theories of Dewey, et al, have the say on who may and may not be credentialled. Acting as gatekeepers to ensure that, so far as is possible, the classrooms are staffed by those as dull and insipid as themselves. Yes, good ones do get through. But how many good ones are discouraged from even trying? For that matter, I have yet to see proven the theory that a 4-year degree ensures a good teacher while the 2-year degree once granted by a ”Normal School” is insufficient. Yet that is generally what is implied by ”better teachers”. It’s not so, it just means that they are more thoroughly indoctrinated and have a heavier student loan to pay.
And all of this ignores the very real issue of local control, or, rather, the lack of it. Local control at least ensures that idiocy stays within that town or township and does not metastasize. Now, with ever greater centralization of control, parents rightly perceive that they are powerless and that their input is not welcomed, nor wanted, nor effective.
No.
DEMOLISH the Federal Dept. of Education. Tear down most of the ones in the state capitols as well. And, for good measure, turn the Schools of Education, the lair of the idiots who masquerade as teacher trainers, into bordellos or flophouses. At least they’ll be somewhat useful then.
How do you know it’s not an alias? It ain’t rocket science, “Bid” Swede. Just drop me an e-mail at the Gazette and I’ll tell you whether I actually posted a comment.
Look at what it got Joe? It got him a good job. He’s not good, but the pay is.
Jealous?
I wouldn’t be Joe for all the shekels in Israel — not Joe the Unlicensed Plumber or Joe the Clueless Correspondent.
Poor Ed! It is SO tough being a journalist now that others can have a voice! You are a decent reporter but the vast majority of your colleagues are lazy morons. I laugh at the poorly thought claim (see the writer of this original post for more information) that reporters are part of some leftist conspiracy… most reporters (Lee newspapers… I am talking largely about you) couldn’t figure out left-to-right on the political spectrum to save their lives.
On the topic of education? Public schools aren’t going to get a damn bit better until we get rid of the large number of dolts that teach in schools. It isn’t about accountability. It isn’t about evaluation. SAT scores be damned: I want people in the classroom that can actually teach their assigned content. Who is responsible for that? Well, we as a society are largely responsible. Every parent that gets mad because little Johnny can’t play basketball because he is flunking English complaining… and that teacher who gets learned on? Society’s fault. Little Sally has a learning disability so we assign her a dense special education teacher that writes her a free pass from the teachers and classrooms that provide her any challenge. Society’s fault. Bob the football coach gets hired to be the o-line coach… but some incredibly ignorant college gave him a history degree, so now he gets to show videos for 6 periods a day. Can’t fire him though, we went 8-2 last year! Society’s fault. The textbooks are bland and boring? Try the idiots that run around accusing liberal bias (you know…saying Columbus was slave trader is LIBERAL BIAS! OMG!) so the textbook companies fall all over themselves to make the books devoid of controversy and at the same time, interest? Society’s fault.
Worse part? Every proposal for getting rid of the awful teachers? Have to be largely carried out by awful administrators. Most Superintendents in Montana were lousy teachers themselves. Lead away! Most of the awful teachers? They get great reviews.
Well, hard to argue well-researched analysis like that. Given that the last poster seems to know every school district and teacher in the state.
Let’s be constructive. I agree that schools need to improve, but this kind of illogical condemnation doesn’t accomplish anything. Given all the critics of education out there, it seems that one of you fine anonymous people should have a solution. Perhaps that’s a bit more complicated.
Ed, it’s in the realm of possibility that I beat up on journalists to deal with the psychological trauma of being beaten up as a teacher all the time. If so, I apologize.
At least I don’t do it anonymously.
Some excellent exchange, even if sometimes more heat than light. Just a few quick comments:
1. Yes, Sidwell is expensive. But most private schools are not. Loyola, for example, is probably the best high school in Montana (I believe this both on anecdotal and test score evidence), but it spends a good deal less per pupil than the public schools. So do most private schools.
2. Yes, many parents are not demanding enough. But have you ever tried to get change in the public school system by political action? It is very difficult, so many parents give up.
3. In any market, though, it takes only a minority of consumers to assure quality. Economists call them “market monitors” (the serious types who actually calculate how many ounces of peas they are getting per dollar). In a market of educational choice, you’d only need a significant minority of parents to demand quality before you get it.
4. Finally, yes — I’m familiar with the curricula of Montana AA public high schools, since two of my daughter have gone to them. Probably some D.C. high schools offer as much also. But you don’t see the Obamas or Clintons sending their kids there, do you?
Pogie- My first suggestion would be to make union membership truly voluntary and get rid of the union’s educational policy politicking. A member can opt out but is still obligated to pay collective bargaining fees that are almost as high as full dues but without voting rights. It’s obvious that much cost shifting is done to camouflage politicking costs as collective bargaining costs.
When the union steps into educational policy an inherent conflict of interest ensues. Some issues are a balancing act weighing educator interests verses student interests and the union has no child only advocates. What else explains how we end up with below grade level children able to test proficient on our state CRT tests. The tests were clearly created to make schools look good not to properly evaluate kids. Shell games like this are at the root of many critics suspicions of the educational system.
Big Swede:
“Ed Kemmick” is the pseudonym of Ward Churchill.
Reading proficiency is not Don’s strong suit. It’s “Bid” Swede on this thread.
Rook, I was thinking about photoshopping Ed’s picture, giving him some sunglasses and a AK-47.
And Ed’s right, its “Bid”, but that will soon change, in an effort to remain concealed in secrecy.
Maybe it should be Ask Swede instead of Bid Swede. Heh heh.
Rob, So what’s your point? Do you believe that Obama thinks your kids shouldn’t be allowed to go to Loyola?
David:
Good to hear from you!
No, I would have thought my point was obvious: The well-to-do, like the Obamas and the Clintons, can afford choice in education, which they exercise either by sending their kids to private schools or by strategically purchasing homes in certain districts. The less-well-to do cannot, although they are taxed heavily to support the government system — both indirectly and in direct property taxes if they own a home, and indirectly if they do not. Yet the Obamas and Clintons oppose choice for those people.
There are two solutions: (1) eliminate the public school system, cut taxes, and let people buy their own education (perhaps with tuition assistance for the poor) — the system that prevailed in most of America before about 1880, or (2) allow parents to allocate at least some of their share of the taxes they pay to the schools of their choice, public or private, though a voucher or refundable tax credit system. I favor Solution #2, using the tax credit approach.
Some version of Solution #2 generally prevails in Canada and Europe. I find it interesting that the same people who talk about us adopting the Canadian or European health care system never say a word about adopting their education systems.
[...] LOL. Hat tip Pogie. [...]
The public schools in D.C. are funded by Congress just like all the municipal services in the District. Most of which have major problems.
As I have said before: http://www.steve4hd96.com/?cat=8
The problem with the American education system is that it is designed to do two things well – protect incompetent teachers, and inculcate our children with the prescribed values as determined by the curriculum developers. If children are actually educated, it is a bug of the system, not a feature.
We no longer try to instill excellence in our students. My daughter, who is a teacher, says that part of the problem is that they spend so much time making up for the failures of the parents, whether through nutrition, emphasizing learning, or even just basic manners, there is very litlle time left for actual learning.
But we have designed an educational system for the Industrial Age, and the professionals are not calling fro improvements necessary to meet today’s challenges. Teachers, by virtue of their monopoly should be calling fro strict reform of their system. Instead, they just call for more money.
I have a better idea, professor, which is a variation on your Solution #1: End the public school system, and let private industry pay for each child’s education.
My hypothesis is that, in a capitalist system, every capitalist stands to benefit from having educated workers.
This is actually the original rationale for educating the masses, which can be traced to the Industrial Revolution in England. As machines became more and more complex, and the factory system overtook the cottage system of manufacturing, it was quickly discovered that workers needed to follow written instructions, such as those for operating or servicing machines or for following blueprints and other written materials. But the majority of workers could not read. In fact, many of them could not even tell time, which was critical to the organization of factory production.
The first “public schools” in England were merely holding pens for children whose parents were working in a factory nearby. (Some things never change.) When the first Factory Acts and other do-gooder legislation were passed, it was decided that the children ought to learn something while they were waiting for their parents to finish their shifts. Thus reading and writing lessons were introduced. (It is interesting to note that an audit of these factory school teachers, one year after the laws were introduced, discovered that many of the teachers themselves were illiterate. Some could not even sign their own names. Again, some things never change.)
The point here is that, at this early stage, the factory owner paid for this education, as meager as it was. And I see no reason why the modern equivalent of such a system, with adjustments as needed, cannot be implemented today. Each student, from the lower grades on to the college level, could be sponsored by a company, i.e., the company would pay for the student’s education (or educate the student directly) with the understanding that upon graduation from high school, vocational school, or college the student would be hired by the sponsoring company.
The way things stand now, we are either educating a mass of people who need little or no education, or we are educating them in ways that will be of no use to them as working adults. It’s all a gamble for the students, the parents, and the taxpayers if the education will pay off. The capitalist, who cannot survive without educated workers, risks nothing yet always receives the reward.
I think Montana schools do a pretty good job of educating students for the money we spend on them. My kids’ teachers were all above average.
One thing that could erode the quality of education is this new emphasis on Indian Education. Some Indian education would be fine, but the amount they describe sounds like overkill. It sounds as if most courses in all grades are going to have Indian education aspects to them, with field trips and groups brought in and all sorts of activities, according to what we’ve been hearing from OPI.
But every time you take a day to take kids on a field trip to the Ulm pishkun, for example, that’s a day you are taking away from fundamentals. Again, a little of this is fine, but the amount they’re talking about makes me wonder if kids will get shortchanged on the basics. Probably most kids would be happy to have more field trips and fewer math lessons, but I’m not sure that’s the best thing for society.
Indian Education
=
“About some useless information
Supposed to fire my imagination”
Interesting blog post. What would you say was the most important marketing factor?
This article was extremely interesting, especially since I was searching for thoughts on this subject last Thursday.
wow, looking at this post I now understand why this approach is very important mankinds well being, thank you! Thanks