Back to main page.

Comments

The whole question of the value of public schools fascinates me.

I was brought up entirely in public schools from bottom to top. I am a direct mathematical descendent of Carl Gauss (and if you don't know what that means, you haven't studied enough math) and I achieved this entirely within the public schools.

I strongly favor the public schools abstractly because I believe they are necessary for democracy. To the extent that large numbers of parents opt out of the public schools through placing their kids in private schools or homeschooling that will seriously weaken our democracy.

My observation is that there has been a serious movement afoot to destroy the public schools ever since Southern schools were required to be integrated. Required to bring blacks up to snuff in the public schools at the behest of do-gooder Northerners, many white Southern parents simply decided to take their toys and play elsewhere. Then the movement started to snowball nationwide.

The truth is that the value of the public schools will be a function of what we believe the value will be. Just as our government will be as corrupt as we believe it to be. If corruption is absolutely unforgiveable, we won't have much; if public schools are expected to be excellent, they will be.

I've just been reading a biography of John Adams, who viewed widespread public education as an absolute essential for the new state. If we allow our public schools to deteriorate we are very likely to turn ourselves into a snake-pit like Mexico, with hired bodyguards necessary for all the rich kids and no middle class. Is that really what we wish?

-- WichitaBoy - 12 Jun 2005

Hi Wichita Boy!

Which bio of Adams are you reading?

I've become a proponent of school choice.

Here's Friedman's latest op-ed on the subject (I'll probably post this up front, too):

Free to Choose.

I'll get around to posting some passages from ANIMALS IN TRANSLATION that relate to this at some point, as well.

I'm strongly in favor of the 'Temple approach,' which is to create very simple 'audits' for quality----which means very simple audits for output, not input.

Let the teachers teach in any way that works for them and their students; don't micromanage them or their students or the parents.

Just set the outcome: here's what kids need to master, and here's when they need to master it.

-- CatherineJohnson - 12 Jun 2005

I'll rustle up Caroline Hoxby's research on vouchers, too. Amazing. She found that public schools get much better when you have school choice.

I think she also ran a simulation of vouchers and found that you get more equality between and among public schools as well.

-- CatherineJohnson - 12 Jun 2005

IIRC, she found a phenomenon where people who are able to just barely make it into the rich suburbs, in order to send their kids to the rich suburban schools, don't move once they have vouchers, and instead stay in their communities . . . something like that.

I'll find it.

-- CatherineJohnson - 12 Jun 2005

Wichita Boy,

In our northern neck of the woods, the exodus to private schools (fastest growing in grades K-8) has nothing to do with race or religion, but everything to do with low and fuzzy expectations. Many of the people sending their kids to private schools grew up in public schools. As just one anecdotal example, our public school's third grade web site had some remarks about making sure that all kids have mastered their adds and subtracts to 20 by the end of December. This is third grade! Parents try to change things, but nothing happens. It is a monopoly. I have seen parents, who have been the backbone of public schools, throw up their hands and pull their kids out. You have to consider what is more important; some vague ideal of "public education", or the best educational opportunity for each child. My vote is for the latter and that is why I am all for choice.

-- KtmGuest - 13 Jun 2005

It's worse than a monopoly, I think, but I've forgotten the terms for 'worse than a monopoly.'

Oligopoly?

Hegemony?

You have to get back to grad school Marxism to really put a label on it!

update: Ed says it's worse than hegemony. The 'Bourdieusian' term would be domination, as in cultural domination.

-- CatherineJohnson - 13 Jun 2005

The NY Math Forum list has made me aware of the enormous influence of corporate & government foundations.

Grants go to constructivists.

Lots of grants.

Then the fact that you've had a grant from the NSF is a resume item putting you in line for more grants.

And the people who evaluate the grants -- your peers, as in peer-reviewed -- are also constructivists.

It's a whole big industry of Legitimacy.

That's why we've got enforced constructivism in NYC now. Bloomberg came in saying he was going to get rid of the school board and manage the schools the way a business would.

Apparently, the way a business would manage things is to hire people with a lot of NSF-funded grants on their CVs, and turn the whole thing over to them, lock, stock and barrel.

-- CatherineJohnson - 13 Jun 2005