Destroying Public Education in America - by Stephen Lendman
Diogenes called education "the foundation of every state." Education reformer and "father of American education" Horace Mann went even further. He said: "The common school (meaning public ones) is the greatest discovery ever made by man." He called it the "great equalizer" that was "common" to all, and as Massachusetts Secretary of Education founded the first board of education and teacher training college in the state where the first (1635) public school was established. Throughout the country today, privatization schemes target them and threaten to end a 373 year tradition.
It's part of Chicago's Renaissance 2010 Turnaround strategy for 100 new "high-performing" elementary and high schools in the city by that date. Under five year contracts, they'll "be held accountable....to create innovative learning environments" under one of three "governance structures:"
-- charter schools under the 1996 Illinois Charter Schools Law; they're called "public schools of choice, selected by students and parents....to take responsible risks and create new, innovative and more flexible ways of educating children within the public school system;" in 1997, the Illinois General Assembly approved 60 state charter schools; Chicago was authorized 30, the suburbs 15 more, and 15 others downstate. The city bends the rules by operating about 53 charter "campuses" and lots more are planned.
Charter schools aren't magnet ones that require students in some cases to have special skills or pass admissions tests. However, they have specific organizing themes and educational philosophies and may target certain learning problems, development needs, or educational possibilities. In all states, they're legislatively authorized; near-autonomous in their operations; free to choose their students and exclude unwanted ones; and up to now are quasi-public with no religious affiliation. Administration and corporate schemes assure they won't stay that way because that's the sinister plan. More on that below.
George Bush praised these schools last April when he declared April 29 through May 5 National Charter Schools Week. He said they provide more "choice," are a "valuable educational alternative," and he thanked "educational entrepreneurs for supporting" these schools around the country.
Here's what the president praised. Lisa Delpit is executive director of the Center for Urban Education & Innovation. In her capacity, she studies charter school performance and cited evidence from a 2005 Department of Education report. Her conclusion: "charter schools....are less likely than public schools to meet state education goals." Case study examples in five states showed they underperform, and are "less likely than traditional public (ones) to employ teachers meeting state certification standards."
Other underperformance evidence came from an unexpected source - an October 1994 Money magazine report on 70 public and private schools. It concluded that "students who attend the best public schools outperform most private school students, that the best public schools offer a more challenging curriculum than most private schools, and that the private school advantage in test scores is due to their selective admission policies."
Clearly a failing grade on what's spreading across the country en route to total privatization and the triumph of the market over educating the nation's youths.
In 1991, Minnesota passed the first charter school law. California followed in 1992, and it's been off to the races since. By 1995 19 states had them, and in 2007 there were over 4000 charter schools in 40 states and the District of Columbia with more than one million students in them and growing.
Chicago's two other "governance structures" are:
-- contract (privatized) schools run by "independent nonprofit organizations;" they operate under a Performance Agreement between the "organization" and the Board of Education; and
-- performance schools under Chicago Public Schools (CPS) management "with freedom and flexibility on many district initiatives and policies;" unmentioned is the Democrat mayor's close ties to the Bush administration and their preference for marketplace education; the idea isn't new, but it accelerated rapidly in recent years.
Another part of the scheme is in play as well, in Chicago and throughout the country. Inner city schools are being closed, remaining ones are neglected and decrepit, classroom sizes are increasing, and children and parents are being sacrificed on the alter of marketplace triumphalism.
Consider recent events under Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago. On February 27, the city's Board of Education unanimously and without discussion voted to close, relocate or otherwise target 19 public schools, fire teachers, and leave students out in the cold. Thousands of parents protested, were ignored and denied access to the Board of Ed meeting where the decision came down pro forma and quick. And it wasn't the first time. For years under the current mayor, Chicago has closed or privatized more schools than anywhere else in the country, and the trend is accelerating. Since July 2001, the city closed 59 elementary and secondary schools and replaced many of them with charter or contract ones.
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
The author has problems with every aspect of our education system except two: unions and the maintaining the status quo. It would have been nice to hear his take on the role unions play in determining every aspect of running our schools. It would have been nice to hear a comment on the fact that the rise of unionism in the schools parallels the decline of education in this country.
His viewpoints coincide with those of the unions. It is clear that the teacher's unions are not acting in the best interest of the children of this country. They oppose every reform, good or bad. If we truly want to improve education in this country then we have to limit union input into the educational system.
Charter schools can be a good thing. My son transferred to one after he stood up to a teacher trying to indoctorinate him in the public schools. I was called in for a 'teachers meeting' and sat in a room full of progressive, like minded unionized robots who were interested only in making my son toe THEIR line. In stead of using what my son said as a basis for dicsussion the teacher turned the class loose on him like a pack of rabid dogs because she did not agree with what he said. My son stood up for himself and recognized what happened and kept on arguing. This was not permitted in our Fascist school systems. Submit or else, so I was called in so I could help him see the errors in his ways. Big mistake on their smug, know-it-all part. He was in a charter school the next week. The charter school he went to was entirely different. Teachers cared about the students and worked hard to ensure they succeeded. Why? Because their salary increases and their jobs depended on it. They did not have a union protecting their smug political attitudes and teaching incompetence. Teachers, students, and parents at the charter school worked on one goal, the education of that student. A marvelous school. I would suggest to the author that he go visit a local charter school and a local high school and see what the differences are if he can in one visit. Talk to the parents instead of reading so called research by politically motivated and union financed or influenced groups.
All charter schools are not perfect by any means. But in my case I am glad that I had a choice. If I hadn't been working I would have home schooled my son. It is too bad others who are trapped in union run school systems do not have a choice if their school in a cesspool of educational incompetence. The unions don't want people to have that choice because it will be their death knell and they know it. The author knows it too because that is why he finds nothing but fault with all reform efforts. He wants children under the thumb of teacher unions. Teacher unions fight against reform like NCLB because they do not want to be held accountable for educating the children they deal with. I would have loved to have worked in a job where I wasn't accoutable for what I did. Be responsible? It isn't the Progressive/union way. The author wants to make the President responsible for want goes on in the classroom or whether school XYZ is successful or not. That is flat out ridiculous. The teachers, the administrators, the parents and the students are responsible, not some out-of-touch politician sitting in Washington no matter what his or her party is.
President Bush and Senator Kennedy should be given a little credit for trying to do something to end the evil stranglehold unions have on the educational system. No one else dares to buck the unions. The Progressives sure won't so you will not see any meaningful educational reform if a Democrat gets elected. More money for education (teacher's unions) doesn't equal reform. $25,000 / child is spent in Washington DC and they have one of the worst educational systems in the US. Money is not the answer. Accountability is. Non-unionized schools are.
by
Mad Jayhawk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 205 comments)
on Monday, April 7, 2008 at 7:03:55 PM
There is no connection (unless you want to create one in your mind) between the teacher who promotes certain views in the classroom and the Unions. BTW, the comment above does not say what particular views of his son were considered and why the teacher was so upset. Big deal, really. BTW, the schools are not 'run by the unions'. They are run by school boards and those boards are elected by the local taxpayers. THAT is the problem. Public education in the US is paralysed because of the local taxes' funding. It has to be national, standardised, equal and have the same level from top to bottom. As for the non-unionised schools- private or charter- so be it if you can afford those. But unions themselves as the ones of professional people are a blessing as soon as the schools are in sorts toys of the local governments.
Returning back to the comment above: Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. You always find what you seek. Wrong method of teaching can be interpreted as 'union bias', etc. The US public education suffers from one and only one disease- IT IS NOT PUBLIC!
That's the issue. And no homeschooling can correct that.
by
Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3268 comments)
on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 8:57:19 AM
