SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Diane Ravitch, a top public education advocate, reports via AlterNet:
This month, the Public Broadcasting System is broadcasting a "documentary" that tells a one-sided story, the story that [Trump's Secretary of Education] Betsy DeVos herself would tell, based on the work of free-market advocate Andrew Coulson. Author of "Market Education", Coulson narrates "School, Inc.", a three-hour program, which airs this month nationwide in three weekly broadcasts on PBS.
Uninformed viewers who see this slickly produced program will learn about the glories of unregulated schooling, for-profit schools, teachers selling their lessons to students on the Internet. They will learn about the "success" of the free market in schooling in Chile, Sweden, and New Orleans. They will hear about the miraculous charter schools across America, and how public school officials selfishly refuse to encourage the transfer of public funds to private institutions. They will see a glowing portrait of South Korea, where students compete to get the highest possible scores on a college entry test that will define the rest of their lives and where families gladly pay for after-school tutoring programs and online lessons to boost test scores. They will hear that the free market is more innovative than public schools.
What they will not see or hear is the other side of the story. They will not hear scholars discuss the high levels of social segregation in Chile, nor will they learn that the students protesting the free-market schools in the streets are not all "Communists", as Coulson suggests. They will not hear from scholars who blame Sweden's choice system for the collapse of its international test scores. They will not see any reference to Finland, which far outperforms any other European nation on international tests yet has neither vouchers nor charter schools. They may not notice the absence of any students in wheelchairs or any other evidence of students with disabilities in the highly regarded KIPP charter schools. They will not learn that the acclaimed American Indian Model Charter Schools in Oakland does not enroll any American Indians, but has a student body that is 60 percent Asian American in a city where that group is 12.8 percent of the student population. Nor will they see any evidence of greater innovation in voucher schools or charter schools than in properly funded public schools.
[...] This program is paid propaganda. It does not search for the truth. It does not present opposing points of view. It is an advertisement for the demolition of public education and for an unregulated free market in education. PBS might have aired a program that debates these issues, but "School Inc." does not.
It is puzzling that PBS would accept millions of dollars for this lavish and one-sided production from a group of foundations with a singular devotion to the privatization of public services. The decision to air this series is even stranger when you stop to consider that these kinds of anti-government political foundations are likely to advocate for the elimination of public funding for PBS. After all, in a free market of television, where there are so many choices available, why should the federal government pay for a television channel?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday June 19 2017, @12:25AM (6 children)
It's an opinion piece.
I would've hoped for an article that points out the upcoming show, perhaps provides a little bit of background information, then let us discuss amongst ourselves. To me, this article is simply telling me what I should think.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @12:49AM (5 children)
Diane Ravitch is an experienced educator and was an appointee of G.H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
She also briefly advised the Dubya campaign.
She was the architect of the No Child Left Behind program.
She became its strongest critic when she saw that it didn't work.
Administrations are still, however, giving money to Pearson and other standardized testing/standardized syllabus outfits (privatizing education).
She is telling you that that stuff doesn't work and is a waste of your money and that the TeeVee program is propaganda.
If you want corporate propaganda pushing something that extracts wealth while doing an inferior job, For-Profit Media is full of that.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @02:44PM (4 children)
In other words:
Establishment educator with track record of bipartisan, federally-based institutionalism in education declares that outsider plan for reviewing her legacy is bad.
Wow. Who could have imagined that establishment figures might object to their favourite systems being torn up by the appointees of an administration elected by the angry and disenfranchised? I'm ... I'm in shock. I need some beanbags and Sesame Street.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @10:25PM (3 children)
The numbers are in.
The Reactionaries'/Neoliberals' "alternatives" are -less- effective.
Again: The "alternatives" are about busting unions and extracting wealth.
Big surprise. (NOT).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:45AM (2 children)
Nope, so far the best outcomes belong to drill-'em-hard private schools, and homeschoolers.
Those are not in Ravitch's game plan. They weren't in Obama's game plan. They showed no sign of being in Bernie's game plan, and for that matter not in the ICFI's game plan either. They're so far only in the game plans of parents willing to dedicate a hell of a lot of time and/or money to the education of their kids, and often in the teeth (in the case of home schoolers) of substantial institutional resistance. Betsy, for all the criticisms, does not appear to care about shutting either of those options down.
Score so far:
the pro-federals and collectivists: 0
Betsy de Vos: 1
As for "busting unions and extracting wealth" I propose we split the difference, and start busting the unions that are extracting the wealth. Particularly the politically dominant, legislatively untouchable, unopposed unions that show less interest in the future of the country and its population than in entrenching their own power, funding themselves with mandatory contributions ultimately drawn from tax monies.
But you like those kinds of unions, don't you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:46AM (1 child)
Apples to oranges.
the pro-federals and collectivists: 0
Betsy de Vos: 1
DeVos hasn't accomplished shit yet.
All she has done so far is make speeches where she was booed soundly.
Now, for a little honesty about your examples:
Excellent teacher:student ratios: 1
Poorer teacher:student ratios and overabundant, overpaid, underqualified administrators: 0
Hint: It could only be "collectivist" after the top-down structure was eliminated.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:33AM
True, Betsy hasn't accomplished shit yet. Good eye there, Sparky. However, she also has not gone to work trying to tear down the few things that are working well - which is putting her solidly over the teachers' unions and their pet poodles.
Trying to explain outcomes solely in terms of ratios is just not meaningful. You can have three teachers watching a disenchanted kid from a broken home with an uncaring parent, and they won't achieve much if anything unless they somehow become surrogate parents (odds are low - nice when it happens). You can have one motivated kid in a class of fifty with engaged, involved parents and that kid will shine. It's frankly something of a crapshoot, and while you improve your odds (a bit) with ratios, you also improve your odds with tight, even strict discipline, and highly motivated teachers.
Net result: Betsy is STILL batting a better average just by not declaring that the best options should be off the table.