Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by n1 on Sunday June 18 2017, @11:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the telling-half-the-story dept.

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:11AM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:11AM (#527720)

    If that was true, they'd immediately improve the teacher:student ratio.
    It's the #1 most effective measure, proven time and again.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @06:12AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @06:12AM (#527765)

    So what are you proposing? Force every six figure administrator to teach classes? Or halve their salaries to hire more teachers?

    Or what? Who's paying for this? Or will there be teaching conscription? How is this going to work?

    Numbers. Details. Specifics.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @07:18AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @07:18AM (#527791)

      Force every six figure administrator to teach classes?

      They aren't able to.

      I was just reading another of Ravitch's articles. [commondreams.org]
      A retired teacher with 30 years experience had to go back to work where she ran into the Teach For America bunch.

      I joined a staff of over 50 teachers in a K-6 school with mostly young teachers (less than 10 years experience), TFA teachers, administrators with NO teaching experience and no teacher’s license

      ...and those administrators are clearly overpaid.
      It's rare when I see a USAian biz/org with an organizational chart that isn't top-heavy with bodies and WRT salaries.

      Specifics

      There are examples around the globe of people succeeding at every single thing imaginable.
      "USAian Exceptionalism", however, keeps those ideas from ever being implemented here.

      Paying workers a living wage, not overpaying executives, and better teacher:student ratios are among those.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @01:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @01:35PM (#527891)

        Does not answer the question.

        Where are you proposing to get the resources to do this? How will those people be paid? Simply blandly asserting that it should be done does not constitute a plan.

  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 19 2017, @02:51PM (11 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday June 19 2017, @02:51PM (#527929) Journal

    I was mostly referencing PARENTS and families who are looking at a local public school and are willing to "try anything else," e.g., some sort of lottery into another type of school, even if that option may not offer the best answer. Most parents don't have the ability to force their local public school to change teacher ratios. They may be able to go to a schoolboard meeting and fight against overpaid administrators or whatever.

    But the thing is -- while reducing administrators/administration salary may help somewhat, you're not going to magically make a better student-teacher ratio appear with the funds that exist. You do realize that there are significant teacher shortages in many parts of the U.S., particularly for science and math teachers? We're looking at least 60,000 classrooms [washingtonpost.com] that don't have a permanent teacher as-is and that number is getting worse. And you know where teachers don't want to teach if they have a choice? Inner city schools, schools with known problems, schools that have high at-risk student populations.

    That's how I ended up teaching high school for a couple years. I had finished my undergrad and was considering grad school options and thinking about other career options, and I heard a news report on the first day of school saying that 1800 teaching positions were unfilled on the first day of school in the state I was living in at that time. That's not 1800 "unqualified" teachers without certification or an appropriate degree or whatever -- that was 1800 classrooms that opened on the first day of the school year with a "substitute" teacher in the classroom. They simply couldn't find people, even people to put in under a so-called "emergency permit" where they weren't certified but were committed to become certified within a few years. I walked in and got hired in the first job I interviewed for -- even though I wasn't certified and had no classroom experience. I was teaching algebra II and geometry, and the previous teacher had quit in the first few weeks of the school year out of frustration that her algebra II students didn't know basic algebra I. Why? Because most of them had a substitute teacher the whole year, so they didn't learn anything. The teacher I replaced wanted to force the students to do remedial work or modify the curriculum, but she was told the students had officially "passed" algebra I, so they couldn't be required to do that. So she quit. And the district managed to find some "warm bodies" to actually fill their classrooms, but around the same time they hired me, they hired a psychology major teach "general math" to high school kids in the room next to me. My impression is those kids didn't learn any math the whole year -- but that was the best that school could find that year.

    Those are the realities. Educated people -- particularly with math and science backgrounds -- can find much more lucrative jobs. Why would they teach?

    So yeah, it's all well and good to say "Just improve student-teacher ratio!" How? Where are you getting these magical teachers? Oh, and something close to 50% of teachers leave the profession within 5 years. Attrition is horrible. Again, it's easy to say "Just get more teachers." And I don't disagree that's one of the most effective improvements you can often do. But where do you get them? How do you get them to stay? How do you pay for them?

    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 19 2017, @03:10PM (10 children)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday June 19 2017, @03:10PM (#527948) Journal

      And just to be clear, I had better career options at that time too. The ONLY reason I chose to do what I did was because I was shocked at the state of education and the numbers of unfilled positions, and I wanted to "do something" about it myself. So, I sacrificed a better salary for a few years and "gave back" to the public school system that had educated me. (Not literally my public school, but you get my point.)

      That's the kind of stuff the U.S. is relying on now for teachers -- people who voluntarily sacrifice a better career to become a teacher. Oh, and also people too stupid to find a better career. And believe me when I emphasize the "too stupid" thing. I admired a lot of my colleagues for their dedication as teachers, but I went through a certification program and had to sit through classes with these people. I know exactly the level and ability of those who were aspiring to teach high school math and science. There were some good, intelligent people who often were early retirees from tech jobs who wanted to "give back" -- they actually knew stuff. The younger folks were mostly those who barely made it through their science or math degree programs in college. I vividly remember in my science certification classes when we were required to do a "lesson" for the rest of the certification folks. I remember one person -- who had a science degree! -- attempt to do a lesson on basic vectors, and had no clue what he was talking about. I remember another who tried to teach how do some basic physics problem about velocity, acceleration, and distance/time stuff, and fumbled repeatedly along the way. (These were prepared lessons.)

      These are the people who are aspiring to be teachers. Many of them are dedicated to kids and will try their best. But even among the few math/science folks you can attract to teaching, simply putting more of those people who barely made it through a science degree in a classroom is unlikely to improve education.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @10:12PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @10:12PM (#528180)

        LeBron James makes $30.96M/yr to throw a ball through a hoop.

        There are also people who live lavish lives whose most difficult task in life to date is walking to the mailbox to collect a dividend check.

        ...meanwhile, the people charged with molding the next generation of citizens are paid peanuts when compared with someone with similar levels of education and training.

        USA truly has a screwed-up set of values.

        ...and this goes back to Reconstruction and Jim Crow, when education funding _could_ have been made a statewide or nationwide thing but was instead left as a -local- matter.
        This allowed for increasingly-effective segregation and a multi-generational lack of upward socioeconomic mobility, where the impoverished (Black) areas wouldn't have sufficient revenues to provide an education equal to what the more affluent (White) kids got^W get.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:36AM (8 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:36AM (#528246)

          "LeBron James makes $30.96M/yr to throw a ball through a hoop."

          Not quite true. If he does it in a basement off the grid, nobody cares. He does it live on TV against determined opposition while crowds cheer. The man's an entertainer. I'm not a sportsball fan, but at least I recognise that millions of people nationwide have an interest in the big guy shooting hoops. If he can turn that into a career shooting hoops and getting rich? More power to him.

          As for all the people collecting dividends, if they decided en masse to withdraw from all markets and live off their seed corn, we'd have a really big problem. Now, you may not like the notion of private property that enables them to do so ...

          (Can I hear a "Property is theft, man!" from the crowd?)

          ... but until you come up with a better scheme for resolving conflicts of interest with respect to access to assets, this is what we have.

          And it has worked so well, on balance, compared to every single other system tried, that any claims to a better plan will have to withstand substantial scrutiny before getting widespread implementation.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:30AM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:30AM (#528295)

            The Panic of 1837 (which lasted until 1842)
            The Long Depression 1873 - 1896
            The Great Depression (with a 25 percent unemployment rate)
            The Bush-Obama-Trump Depression 2007 - ???? (with a non-participation rate[1] of 23 percent that's not changing--not to mention poverty-wage McJobs replacing manufacturing jobs, which have been offshored)

            [1] That used to be called the unemployment rate before Slick Willie queered the counting method.

            ...and don't forget the recessions that have occurred every few years between the giant failures.

            Your definition of "has worked so well" is vastly different than mine.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:21AM (6 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:21AM (#528342)

              If you're going to quote, quote the relevant section.

              "And it has worked so well, on balance, compared to every single other system tried..."

              Go on. Show me any other approach to asset access conflict management that has outperformed the concept of ownership - private ownership, at that - in terms of fostering societal advancement and standards of living. Or, hell, even matched it.

              Best candidate I've been able to find from history in terms of creating wealth (and it wasn't even close) is feudalism under certain conditions. But I await your carefully-researched answer. And no, cooperatives that base their regime on private ownership of assets like Mondragon are part of the system you despise in that sense, not a contraindication.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:53AM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:53AM (#528348)

                You could say the same thing about feudal economies and the slave economies which they replaced.
                Those are anachronisms, as is Capitalism, which was the next thing tried.

                Now that Capitalism has demonstrated what an unstable, exploitive, dead-end-for-most system it is, the next logical step is an egalitarian system without exploitation.
                The term "Socialism" has a nice ring to it.

                Show me

                Mondragon and the thousands of (Socialist) worker-owned cooperatives across the planet are doing just fine.
                Collective ownership of the means of production by the workers.
                Decisions made democratically: One worker==One vote.
                (Not Oligarchy.)

                You seem to want to put words in my mouth advocating top-down State Capitalism.
                I have said numerous times before that I am opposed to that.

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:39PM (4 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:39PM (#528459)

                  Cooperatives depend upon conflict resolution with respect to access to assets same as anyone else. If they're doing it within the framework of private ownership, regardless of cooperative figleaves, it's not an argument against private ownership.

                  In fact, technically, it's an argument for private ownership because of the way that you can use it to emulate other structures.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:37PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:37PM (#528676)

                    When you have presented an example of a co-op voting to send their jobs overseas, we'll have something to talk about.

                    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22 2017, @02:21PM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22 2017, @02:21PM (#529505)

                      So you're OK with private ownership as long as it supports nice, virtuous cooperatives.

                      Fair enough.

                      This also allows for the accumulation of capital. In fact, people working for cooperatives can accumulate their pay, invest it in side jobs or their family's activities or whatever, and potentially end up filthy, stinking rich capitalist pigs.

                      In fact, those same capitalist exploitation skeksis can even use them to found other cooperatives. For shame!

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22 2017, @07:04PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22 2017, @07:04PM (#529620)

                        The system that I advocate only values labor.
                        Someone sitting on his ass, waiting for a dividend check plays no part in it.

                        In a Socialist system, (Group) Entrepreneurship by The Workers has value.
                        Idle Capitalists who attempt to profit via exploiting the labor of others are unnecessary.
                        There are tons of examples globally.

                        Your attempt to draw parallels between bottom-up collective ownership and top-down concentrated wealth and power are an old trick of The Oligarchs.
                        That doesn't hold water.
                        The 2 aren't anything alike on any real level.
                        Unless a system empowers The Workers and adds stability to the community, it's still the same old exploitive thing.

                        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @05:33AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @05:33AM (#529853)

                          Good try at avoiding the point.

                          Conflict of interest with respect to access to assets. Decided how? Cooperatives such as Mondragon use the system of private ownership. You have yet to propose another, unless "The system that I advocate only values labor." means something that is as yet unclear.

                          Private ownership allows for the creation of cooperatives. Case in point: your favourite Mondragon.

                          And, quite frankly, if only valuing labour means that a bunch of people can suddenly decide that they don't like what I do, and remove all access to assets from me, well, I've lived in that society before. It sucked immense dick. I left it.

                          Anyway, the good news is that the bulk of people in the world don't really seem to agree with you, so I guess you'll have to keep grabbing at that golden apple.