The money trail is the one that confuses me the most. And I know more about it than most people, thanks to sites like KTM.

Who funds NSF? Besides Gates, I mean. What's in it for them? They just give and give and then what?

Who exactly gets the money for developing curriculums like Everyday Math? U of C? The authors? I know it's in the millions, but for what, exactly? And shouldn't the taxpayers know about this since they're asked to fund a referendum or a tax hike nearly every election?

In Illinois, many of the referendums didn't go through and newspapers reported breathlessly about all of the sports, arts, and music departments that were slashed, not to mention the schools that cut hours and even days. This was enough to scare people into constantly voting for tax hikes on themselves regardless of their circumstances (or their neighbors')lest their schools return to the world of the little red schoolhouse.

The curriculums also have to be "implemented," meaning that teachers spend a lot of time being "trained," and often missing classes. What is the cost of that? God knows, we parents also have to be "trained" so that we will give up on that old "kill and drill" thing we've been depending on since the beginning of mankind.

Maybe a "Follow the Money" page for various states and/or curriculums would be good. But how do you find out about these things since it's all so secretive?

-- SusanS - 14 Oct 2005

I am mostly pessimistic at this time. There may be some success when schools agree to pilot Saxon or Singapore Math, but it's not clear that this will become widespread. The problem is not which math curriculum to choose, it's the system and their fundamental assumptions. They would find some way to "balance" Saxon or Singapore Math. I don't believe that the public school system wants to change itself and I don't really think it can be forced to change. If our town elected a new slate of school committee men and women intent on changing the schools to a "Core Knowledge" curriculum with no spiraling or social promotion, they would have to get rid of 90 percent of the teachers. It won't happen.

I think the only way to real change is through free choice, not just within the public school system, but to have the money follow the child. I had hopes for charter schools, but they are severely restricted in many states and some states are talking about moratoriums. In our state, charter schools have to be "different" and have to be approved by the public school hierarchy. They would never allow a charter school to be created that set higher standards, even though it would have to be open to all students. The charter schools we get are often as fuzzy or worse than the public schools. Many of them have un-schooling philosophies (which may work for some kids). I won't take that chance with my child, thank you.

Public schools will never (if they can help it) allow unlimited or uncontrolled charter schools. If they were allowed, I can tell you that there would be one started up in our small community by the beginning of the next school year. I'm sure this would be the case all around the country. Twenty-five percent of the kids in our town go to other schools at great expense. The biggest common reason is to get higher expectations. If a new charter school with higher, more concrete standards were to be started in our town, it would cause a big commotion. Everyone would apply. I would love to see this, but it won't happen. At some point, many would realize that most of the twenty-five percent of private school students would come back to the charter school, requiring a huge increase in property taxes. Two-thirds of our property taxes go to the public schools. Actually, I find it very odd that people complain about every last dime of the school budget, but fail to see the enormous tax subsidy made by parents forced to put their kids into private school to get a proper education. (Who cares about those darn elites, anyways.) Charter schools, with their mandatory open enrollments, might be the best solution, but they have to be free of all restrictions on their charters.

I am pessimistic because I don't see any mechanism for change. Perhaps with the internet (and places like KTM, NYC-Hold, and Mathematically Correct) enough parents will be empowered to reach some critical mass. However, many of these parents (like me) see that they cannot make fundamental changes to the system, so they put their kids into private schools. Twenty-five percent of the kids in our town go to other schools at great expense and we haven't achieved a critical mass!

On the other hand, who am I to tell our public schools what constitutes a good, basic education? If I want change, there is a process. If we want, the town (via the school committee), can make those changes. However, the cards are stacked against this. State requirements and union rules also limit changes. Add to this a big dose of political correctness and social philosophy, and most of those with differing opinions just go away quietly.

Math might be different. I could make an argument based solely on its cumulative nature to show that more is needed in grades K-8. Unfortunately, enough kids do well in high school college prep math (probably due to outside help) that many people don't see that there is a problem. If a problem is acknowledged, then they will say (and have said) that they are looking into the problem. In other words, go away, we will deal with it. That still leaves English, history, geography (superficial knowledge), science, art, music, etc. to worry about. Math is important, but we are really talking about fundamental differences in what constitutes a good basic education.

This is all about power, control, money, and educational and social philosophy. I really don't want to "beat" them and be the one in control for all. I want the control (and onus) to be with the parents. I want the money to follow the child wherever the parent wants.

Some argue that supply won't meet demand. I really doubt this. With public school costs exceeding the costs of many private schools, I think the opposite will happen. There are no guarantees that the schools will be better, but at least it is a better mechanism for improvement than NCLB or leaving it up to the schools themselves.

Some argue that many parents don't have the knowledge to pick out a good school. They need a public school system to do it for them. However, it doesn't take a lot of knowledge to decide whether school A is better than school B. Considering that much of K-8 education is based on opinion, those with knowledge are left with no choice.

Some argue that free choice will leave only the worst students (in one way or another) in public schools. (Why would this happen in the first place if the public schools were so good?) But these students deserve the best education you can give them. Kids are important, not some vague concept of public schools. If these kids would do better in some other school, then nothing is stopping them from helping the students and their parents with that placement. Schools should be driven by the best students, not controlled the worst.

Arguing about constructivism or basic assumptions is playing their game by their rules. I don't want to play their game. I want to ignore them. Unfortunately, most all K-8 schools (public and private) are dominated by ed school graduates, so I'm forced to play the ed school game whether I want to or not.

-- SteveH - 14 Oct 2005

Arguing about constructivism or basic assumptions is playing their game by their rules. I don't want to play their game. I want to ignore them. Unfortunately, most all K-8 schools (public and private) are dominated by ed school graduates, so I'm forced to play the ed school game whether I want to or not.

And then when you do argue against constructivism, as well as trying to do what Steve suggests (i.e, make arguments based solely on math's cumulative nature to show that more is needed in grades K-8), the educationists in power claim you are talking "ideologies". They claim to have the test results to show their programs are working. That's a whole other can of worms. Arguing that the test results show the effectiveness of Sylvan and others, is hard to prove.

Arguing with the educational bureaucracy is like punching a giant marshmallow. The punch is completely absorbed and there's nothing to show for it. Actually it's more like punching the Pillsbury dough-boy. Same as the marshmallow except there's that maddening giggle at the end.

-- BarryGarelick - 14 Oct 2005

"Actually it's more like punching the Pillsbury dough-boy. Same as the marshmallow except there's that maddening giggle at the end."

Perfect!

At our public school, I would get the smile and nod. "We are working on it".

-- SteveH - 14 Oct 2005

"'Spoon feeding, in the long run teaches us nothing but the shape of the spoon.'"

"There is no spoon."

We have spoon-shaped molds, hammers, and spoon blanks, and if we pound on those blanks for long enough, then we have spoons.

[I think that would be the metaphorical hammer of drill. Aieee, get the orthopedist; I've hyperextended my metaphor. I hate it when that happens.]

"Spoon!" -- The Tick

-- DougSundseth - 14 Oct 2005

well.....I find ed politics pretty murky (our end of it, that is)

One thing I have learned, extremely late in the day, is that, in politics, it's important not to.....let the other side set the terms of debate.

This happens to me constantly, in CSE meetings.

Here's an example.

We're having a terrible time getting a 'transition' program for Jimmy. Jimmy is 18 now; by federal law, he was entitled to such a program at age 14.

So this is not an area of ambiguity.

Here's the kind of thing that happens to me, which I may finally have figured out.

We've just had yet another CSE meeting, to which we brought an advocate.

At one point in the meeting the school was seriously suggesting that Jimmy would walk into the village maybe once or twice a week, weather permitting, and go do some kind of job or work in some local shop.

Walking into town means walking down, & back up, an immense hill most adults can barely puff their way up. It's unbelievable. Last winter I used to walk Jimmy up that hill to try to get him some exercise, and people were so stunned we were doing it I had one mom tell me, "You're my hero."

It's a HUGE hill. AND steep, AND icy in the winter. Ed fell there last winter, as a matter of fact. (After the meeting the special ed person told me she'd specifically changed staff just to get some adults who would be capable of climbing the thing.)

oh--and, plus--Jimmy now has a seizure disorder, and is suspected of having 'autonomic dysfunction,' which, in his case, means quite possibly a dangerous sensitivity to heat. (A 12-year old perfectly health autistic boy here in Westchester had seizures and died of hyperthermia after walking up a gentle incline with his dad in 72-degree weather. Jimmy himself pours sweat in temperatures I don't even feel.)

OK, so the 'plan' is that Jimmy, with his seizure disorder & his suspected autonomic dysfunction, will walk down that hill to town to get some job experience when weather permits.

Ed and I respond.

Walking into town once or twice a week when the weather's good isn't going to prepare Jimmy for a job, we say.

Here's where I get derailed.

The BOCES head, a woman I like very much, says to me, "Work isn't everything in life. Jimmy has to have a fully rounded life. He has to have recreation, he has to have friends, he has to have a place to live. He has to have a full life."

That is off-topic.

'Work isn't everything in life' is off-topic to the subject of one or two days a week we'll walk into the Village if the weather's good.

My problem, at this point, is that I will engage.

I will jump in, and attempt to show the speaker the flaw in her logic.

Finally, finally, finally, at this meeting, I got it.

Don't engage.

Stay on message.

Ed is extremely good at that, and obviously the advocate (who is an attorney) was doing exactly the same thing, and suddenly, I got it.

My job isn't to win an argument.

My job is to keep repeating myself.

-- CatherineJohnson - 14 Oct 2005