Government education and Diane Ravitch

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, April 7. 2010

Government education and Diane Ravitch

At Am Thinker. Readers know how I feel: I want the Feds out of education. Should be a local thing, in the hands of the local taxpayers.

Teaching should be a calling, not a government-unionized sinecure. What sorts of preachers would you get if you had unionized, government-employed preachers?

Or, for that matter, doctors?

Posted by The Barrister in Education at 09:52 | Comments (7) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Ah yes, Barrister, the old "too-big-to-fail" problem rears it's ugly head. Smaller IS better, particularly when the education of a child depends so much on family involvement. Unions and laws won't do it.

Children don't read when the parents spend all their free time watching TV or sitting in front of a computer. They don't read the good stuff when the only written word in the home is "People" or Golf Digest" or...name it. Children don't value reading when the parent doesn't take them to get a library card or show them how to spend $2 at Goodwill choosing discarded National Geographics for 25 cents each. Children don't value reading when the parents (PTA/PTO) don't organize a Book Fair for the school every fall and post the students' book reviews on a hallway bulletin board for others to read during the rest of the year. Great education starts small (the family) and expands (local schools) and evolves (professions and volunteers) to further enhance the community's knowledge.

I've used reading as an example, but insert math, art, sciences, music, history. geography as you choose.

I might add that children don't respect education when the parents don't show up for school meetings, don't take an interest in homework and dismiss any social problems that crop up. When a teacher is invited to dinner or to share in a family picnic or that teaacher is supported by a parent showing up to help in the classroom, a student better understands "we are in this FOR you TOGETHER."

BTW, thanks for the link to the history of the federal government's involvement in education. I was winging it at the time as I was on "a break", but that will be a useful resource.

#1 jma on 2010-04-07 11:24 (Reply)

Local is.... good sometimes.

But if we want to get back to the point where the degrees given out mean anything - and if we want to insure that Americans can trade on their credentials anywhere in the US - we need a national board of Regents.

They would do NOTHING but set curriculum standards, and run standardized tests.

One of the big holes in No Child Left Behind was the ability of states to finagle the results because there was no uniform standard.

#2 Ben-David on 2010-04-07 12:38 (Reply)

Teaching should be a calling, not a government-unionized sinecure.
The government-mandated expansion of schools' responsibility for student performance with corresponding diminishment of parental responsibility for student performance means that only those who consider teaching a calling will survive.

One point, though. Teaching being a calling and such means work weeks of sixty hours and up. One result of this: try to find teachers over 55. They are a disappearing species, at least in states with weak teachers' unions. Forty years ago one could teach school on fifty hours a week. Virtually impossible to do it these days. While it is well and good to say that teaching should be a calling, should we not be open to the idea that teachers should also be permitted a life outside teaching- which is virtually impossible with the sixty hour work week?

What sorts of preachers would you get if you had unionized, government-employed preachers?

Look at how well the established churches are doing in Europe. That will tell you.

While castrating the teachers' unions will help, it is naive to believe that weak or nonexistent teachers' unions will be the necessary step in solving the education puzzle. More like the first step in a journey of some miles. Hint: families. Hint: PC. Hint: ed schools.

It saddens me that Meta is not here for this discussion.

#3 Gringo on 2010-04-07 12:51 (Reply)

It has to come back to local control. As long as the bulk of school revenue comes from the state or feds or even from a massive school district the local school staff has no reason to make an effort.

i.e. the parents and children they see don't pay them and can't dismiss them.

Similarly, when the feds and state legislature sets the curricula - and they do almost everywhere - the parents and children have no influence whatever. The materials will be selected by politicians bribed by book manufacturers and a state education bureaucracy which has no reason to make any effort.

With local control some areas will have lousy schools. But the people there have some chance to change them. Or move to areas with better schools.

About central control: we don't have to guess. We can see the results of central control everyday. How is it working out?

#4 KTWO on 2010-04-07 14:50 (Reply)

Oh boy- did my blood pressure go up when I saw this one.

Look - you folks want to have an honest debate about education, the place of teacher unions in education, local/state/federal educational requirements, I'm more than willing to engage. I'll even be glad to provide some opposing viewpoints from both sides of the debate if you wish. I've lived and been married to this issue for over 35 years - I think I can provide some insight that you apparently seem to intentionally want to gloss over.

These kind of cheap pot shots at teachers via their representation is getting on my nerves. It's not like lawyers aren't being protected by their Democratic allies in Congress and state legislatures - that's kind of like the ultimate Union representation isn't it?

#5 Tom Francis on 2010-04-07 19:37 (Reply)

These kind of cheap pot shots at teachers via their representation is getting on my nerves. It's not like lawyers aren't being protected by their Democratic allies in Congress and state legislatures - that's kind of like the ultimate Union representation isn't it?
Good point, Mr. Woodstocker. The way the Democratic Party protects attorneys can be shown by the recent health care bill. Former Vermont Governor & DNC head Howard Dean, himself a physician, pointed out that the reason the bill didn't touch tort reform was that trial lawyers constituted a major source of funding for Democratic Party campaigns. Had Kerry won in 2004, we would have had an ambulance chaser one heartbeat away from the Presidency, courtesy of the Democratic Party.

#5.1 Gringo on 2010-04-07 21:11 (Reply)

If you want to see what a church looks like that is sucking on the government teat, look at the Lutheran church in Norway.

#6 Sven Svenson on 2010-04-07 22:41 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, April 7. 2010

Government education and Diane Ravitch