Who is making excuses for what?

dgodon · 2012-05-24T20:52:37.335830+00:00

Great article. Really cuts to the chase about what so-called ed reformers are about.

dgodon · 2012-05-24T18:43:12.224789+00:00

That's true, there's too much sugar loaded crap foisted not just on kids but the general public - most with labels extolling their nutritional virtues. But your original comment was questioning the fruits and vegetables. These should definitely be encouraged including ones with fat (like avocados) along with other real foods.

salvia_d · 1 day

His plan doesn't sound much different than what Obama's doing. Neither will help improve public education. That Romney has the gall to say "any special interest get in the way,” and “We have to stop putting campaign cash ahead of our kids.” His plan sounds like he's doing nothing but doing the bidding of the special interests of his campaign contributors.

dgodon · 2 days

Glen Ford really lays it out very starkly.

davidwees · 3 days

Obama has been a bit of a Trojan horse regarding education. A lot of progressives lower their defenses with Obama even though his ed policies have been very much in line with conservatives.

dgodon · 4 days

Are you seriously debating the fact that there has been little to no desegregation going on the last twenty years? While it might be helpful if the Times provided sources for the reasons this isn't the case, it's likely because this point is not seriously debated. If you're debating it, you're the one who needs to provide sources, not the Times.

dgodon · 4 days

Pearson/ETS are just doing what companies are designed to do. They look to profit and influence legislation to their benefit - which may or may not be in line with the public good. That's how we've designed companies to work. Check out the book "Corporations are not People" which covers this in more depth. The individuals working there may be very nice and generally ethical people.

In this case, the market has been created largely through lobbying of these companies. It's not a natural market where educators, parents, and students are demanding these tests. In fact, Sandy Kress who was one of the architects of NCLB, is now at Pearson.

dgodon · 4 days

There's only so much public $ to go around. When we invest a significant amount in ineffective approaches, we take away from other more effective ones.

This also means that practically speaking, not everyone attending one of these is doing so entirely by choice. Moreover, winning market share does not mean these schools are doing an adequate job.

The article/program is not saying to swear off of new technology. It's simply looking what's happening with the dominant virtual schools. And, pointing out that they're largely NOT meeting students' educational needs first and foremost.

dgodon · 4 days

All of these are pretty well known facts (which you can verify without much effort via internet search). While the decisions are controversial, the fact that they happened is not very. It's not like they're referring to some esoteric research result.

duke_solaris · 5 days

Locke spends significantly more than nearby schools. As described here, "progress is coming at considerable cost: an estimated $15 million over the planned four-year turnaround, largely financed by private foundations. That is more than twice the $6 million in federal turnaround money that the Department of Education has set as a cap for any single school." Those costs pay for extra overhead of smaller schools and two psychologists and two social workers.

Refer again to More with Less or More with More & Why it Matters!.

There's no shame in spending more to provide a better education especially to high-needs students. But, without factoring spending into the discussion, promoting Green Dot as a model, is disingenuous. In fact, given how much more they spend, I seriously wonder whether regular public schools could've done even better with the extra money (either raised scores more with the same extra money or raised scores the same for more kids).

At a high-level, this kind of charter promotion looks like a bait and switch, or what I refer to as "success theater". A small percentage of charters is propped up (with extra funds) to show success and pave the way for charter expansion. A much larger percentage of charters don't get such funding benefits and tend to do no better and often worse than regular public schools. And, worse, the expansion of charters undermines regular public schools. So, the overall effect is a worse education especially for most students most in need.

salvia_d · 5 days

Very interesting. It's not just that the competition itself is hurting higher ed, but it's an ill-defined competition where the rules are fuzzy. Similar to the competition being imposed on K-12 (via Race to the Top, NCLB, newspaper rankings, etc.). Both hurt the aims of education.

duke_solaris · 5 days

This is concerning as tuition rates are skyrocketing. Another policy that exacerbates inequality.

dgodon · 7 days

Is precise alignment to ensure someone doesn't read the same book twice really the main rationale. Would it be better for students to have more say in what they read? And, for teachers to help students tailor the work to an appropriate level? Besides, the CCS itself doesn't prescribe which books to read (though it provides some examples).

As this article points out, while the CCS themselves are ok (not terrible) as guidelines, when they're combined with aligned curriculum and standardized tests that are taking autonomy away from educators.

dgodon · 9 days

Despite your eagerness to discredit Diane, she in fact did post your comment quite shortly after this comment, and as you've seen has replied to one of your comments.

dgodon · 9 days

I posted the WAPO article because it was notable that Jay Mathews agreed with what researchers (not just this one) have saying about VAM for a couple years now.

dgodon · 14 days

I agree, as I believe would the author. This is a humorous article in case it wasn't obvious.

drmomentum · 15 days

Can you clarify what you're suggesting? Are you saying to close all physical public schools (K-12 and higher-ed) and let people learn on their own via the Internet? Or use online schools (which this article points out have a terrible track record)?

dgodon · 15 days

What are other parent or teacher experiences with PTAs? Participation in PTA seems to strongly correlate with socio-economic level. This poses a number of concerns for PTA. Besides dropping membership as the economy is struggling, such schools are further disadvantaged in terms of funding and also in terms of setting PTA policy and priorities. The latter has become important as PTA has been increasingly active lobbying for policy as "the voice" of parents. This often results in wealthy parents effectively telling poor communities how to improve their schools. That's what I've seen in WA anyway.

SINET · 21 days

Looks like some really positive developments there. The video was way too "over the top" though.

Rieux_Tarrou · 21 days

Besides, if we want students to grow up playing an active role in their communities and workplaces, they will need experience doing so in school. If students are just "consumers" of school then it's unlikely they'll get this experience.

adiamante · 22 days

Your point that more evidence is needed is valid to a point. The article is obviously not intended to be a thorough investigation, but would certainly benefit from some concrete details.

I actually found the linked Common Core site to be very opaque about who is driving the standards. There's lots of fluffy words and endorsements, but the process of whether they're needed, what form they should take, etc. is largely glossed over.

There have been quite a lot of criticism that the entire effort was really driven by private interests (foundations and companies) along with politicians. Moreover, the DOE has effectively strong-armed states into adopting the CCSS. As Kohn acknowledged, some educators were involved to a modest extent, but often more in an attempt at damage control. The effort was not led by educators. One of the chief architects, David Coleman, is not even an educator.

I've heard lots of personal attacks against Kohn, but calling him an "anti-education reformer" is a new one. Talk about unsubstantiated attacks!

And, regarding your calls for measuring what actually is and is not working, where's the research supporting the CCSS? There's been no attempts to pilot them, and in fact, there's little correlation between the strength of a state's standards and student achievement; similarly across countries.

adiamante · 22 days

It's not clear you're disagreeing with Kohn here.

adiamante · 22 days

Apparently, his points were so bad you had to resort to ad hominem attacks.

BTW, Alfie did teach high-school. Moreover, he has been studying education for the last 20+ years. Besides, if this is grounds for attack, where's your attack on Duncan, Rhee, Gates, or any number of know-it-alls with little or no teaching experience imposing their will on education policy. Kohn's not even pushing to impose his will, but is simply calling for a more democratic process in formulating curricular guidelines.

adiamante · 22 days

Please clarify. Seems to me he very clearly and concisely makes policy points. You may not agree with them. Were you expecting more details? It's certainly true it's a short and not particularly in-depth discussion but that doesn't appear to be the aim.

dgodon · 23 days

Not groundbreaking, but a nice clear and concise overview.

Six-Year Club	reddit mold
Verified Email

dgodon

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login