EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
School Choice: It’s Not for Everyone, and That's the Problem
This week is National School Choice Week—a well-orchestrated PR event to celebrate “school choice.”
The week of nationwide events even kicked off with a party in New Orleans complete with performances by The Temptations and Ellis Marsalis. It’s a lot of fanfare in the name of choice. And choice is an attractive word. As American as apple pie, it’s hard to pick an argument with choice. Options, we believe, are always good.
But that’s not always the case.
When we talk about school choice—which is most often associated with charter schools—we can’t let feel-good words and a glitzy campaign prevent us from providing our children with the best education possible. That means we must ensure our public education system is excellent, equitable and accessible to all children.
Unfortunately, these goals have become obscured by “school choice,” which has become an end in itself—even garnering its own week.
School choice doesn’t magically improve education. Charter school proponents may argue that a free market, where parents get to pick and choose among educational options, will produce competition and better schools, but the data say otherwise.
Educational historian Diane Ravitch has found that study after study show that charter schools do no better than traditional public schools when it comes to learning gains. The findings are documented to devastating effect in her book, “The Death and Life of the Great American School System.”
Pointing to one major 2009 study of more than half the country’s charter schools representing 70 percent of charter-school students, Ravitch reports that “37 percent had learning gains that were significantly below those of local public schools; 46 percent had gains that were no different; and only 17 percent showed growth that was significantly better.”
The bottom line: 83 percent of charter schools are no better than traditional public schools.
That may not sound so bad but tax money—and lots of it—goes to charter schools. They also receive a little lagniappe from foundations. It means these schools usually spend much more per student than traditional public schools. In what economic system does competition mean spending more and getting the same or worse quality?
What’s worse is the impact on the students least likely to be found in schools of choice: students with disabilities, students with unmotivated parents, students living in deep poverty or students simply unable to transport themselves across town to attend a better school. These students are the ones most likely to find themselves shut out of these schools and mired in a deepening cycle of failure.
Ravitch found that charter schools, particularly those in urban districts, enroll the most motivated students, students with parents pushing them to excel. “Regular public schools in the same communities get the students who did not win the lottery, plus all the less motivated students,” she writes. And when you put these students together in a school, the peer pressure will “likely depress the academic performance of the motivated students” who didn’t win the lottery.
This is unacceptable. We should not settle for it. And we certainly shouldn’t celebrate it.
We benefit from public schools that provide all children with an opportunity to learn and flourish. Education is not a product or choice that only affects the child receiving it. It affects all of us.
Educational inequality also has a huge impact on our ability to compete globally. Many American students – those who are white or Asian and those who attend affluent schools – perform as well or better than those living elsewhere in the world, according to education expert Linda Darling-Hammond.
But the performance of children of color, and of children living in poverty, is so much lower that it drags our national averages to the bottom of any comparative list, she writes in “The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future.”
As a nation, we rely on well-educated workers. We rely on the well-engineered products they create. And we rely on the dependable services they provide. A quality education for all children is key to achieving these goals. Quite simply, all of us benefit when Johnny reads well.
If choice is good, we must ensure that every child—including the most disadvantaged and vulnerable—has access to equal choices. We must ensure every child has access to the full range of opportunities that “choice” is meant to provide. And we must ensure every child has an opportunity to receive a quality education—a concept truly worth celebrating.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
88 Comments so far
Show Allwhat do we do once our education reaches the point we understand our industrial behavior is detrimental to life?
do we change behaviors, or change educations?
we have been changing educations...
which education are we recommending as the best?
does it include violent oppression? go beyond earning potential?
The converation about public vs. charter schools (funding and administration issues) and the conversation about what the content of education should look like are two different ones.
yes, they are...
it is time to have different conversations...
if no articles are presented, one must personally put these forth...
what other comment can one make on an article that remains suspended in intellectual nowhereland?
the argument between private and public schools presupposes so many things that are not true, that to perpetuate such an argument becomes dishonest...
the first lie is that our current definition of what constitutes education is unbiased, and sufficient...
even very well-meaning individuals can teach incredibly biased points of view...some horribly damaging...
this woman may be well-meaning, but if she believes this, her education is incomplete:
~ As a nation, we rely on well-educated workers. We rely on the well-engineered products they create. And we rely on the dependable services they provide. A quality education for all children is key to achieving these goals. Quite simply, all of us benefit when Johnny reads well. ~
this view can only exist if one completely excludes physics and oppression from one's thinking...
manufacturing products is only good from a certain economic standpoint, and even then, only for a limited time, as the ecological consequences slowly mount, until, one day, environmental comeuppance...
this woman is not discussing such a comeuppance, which makes her either dishonest, or ill prepared for her subject, as she has not evaluated the manufacturing cycle from a physics standpoint, which is vital, as we are physical creatures...
Johnny reading, or not reading, doesn't seem to prevent Johnny from poisoning everything, including Johnny...
finally, schools are a well-known programming avenue by the oppressor class...
at least, this appears well-known, as a general concept...
interesting how few of those working in the schools admit such...
kind of like knowing the media lies, but still believing your favorite columnist doesn't...
this does not make such untrue, however, and this purpose, alone, negates them...
The schools are failing? You think that maybe chaotic households of poor people without a book in the house and without any structure for the children might have something to do with things? You think that maybe the fact that a lot of parents make virtually no effort to educate their kids before they hit school age might have something to do with things?
Does America have an obesity problem because of bad doctors? Are our gyms "failing"?
I love how most aspects of society have been crumbling (pushed into actually through class war) for decades - in a country that already had 'excess' factory and farm population that no one planned on providing basic services for - and when absolute miracles aren't worked in turning the descendants into upper middle class Gold Star acheivers in 4 hrs/day, 9 mos/yr (assuming the kids even bother showing up) from a standing start ... well "Our schools are failing!"
Our society is failing. Our schools are the only agencies *testing*.
My wife's a public school teacher and she is handed some teenagers with BASKET CASE parents who should not have been allowed to own a pet, and her job and the school gets evaluated on well she makes young people standardized test in hopeless situations from households where it's too loud to read and no one ever does.
You think that maybe 40 or 50 years ago that students we would have let drop out are now expected to stay to the age of 18, you think that might have something to do with things?
The fact of the matter is that public schools have better educated, better trained staffs of people than just about any other institutions we have. What they can't do is work miracles in the 30% of the time they have the kids when the other 70% of the time the kids are marinated in crappy home lives in a society which devalues being educated. The schools are generally underfunded, over- manipulated and abused. And then blamed for things well beyond their control.
I think parents should teach their children. Where do people get the idea that they shouldn’t? One answer might be from people who think that only experts can teach. That’s a lie they learned in school.
"Where do people get the idea that they shouldn’t?"
Probably from:
1) The fact that most Americans do not and have not ever gone to college, did not and have not ever had college prep classes, and are completely incompetent to teach any math with a variable, any science with a lab, any foreign language, any musical instrument, geography in general, most literature, civics and history. Parents could probably teach gym, but one wonders how many would make the effort given the looks of most people.
2) The fact that on average the educational attainment of parents is lower than that of childless people (some people even drop out of school in order to parent), which would therefore severely limit the horizons of even the brightest child. Someone with what amounts to an 8th grade knowledge base is unlikely to give their children college prep instruction.
2b) The fact that 2) and 1) combine to condemn lower class children to lower class work, having prepared them for the challenges and opportunities of the 19th century.
3) There's the "minor problem" of most adults holding jobs, especially in single parent households. It's a little difficult to teach children at home when you aren't at home (and, um, have no background in the subject...)
4) Of course public schools are mandated to provide services from trained and educated professionals to students with identified learning disabilities. These professionals have seen the same problems in dozens or hundreds of children and have years of experience working through them. This seems a better approach than an uneducated person with no experience with the issue using their child as an experiment, reinventing the wheel and hoping to get it right the first time. But hey that's me, and I'm just ***CWAZY***.
I love how this extremist right wing disregard for teachers as professionals with a skill set manifests itself in the idea that any idiot could do a better job at home. Maybe while we're at it we can end NASA and you can start a space program in your backyard with some cans and cardboard boxes. After all, it's a lie they teach in school that you can't build and launch a Hubble telescope as well as these so-called "professionals" with their fancy book-learnin' degrees.
If your interest is in having a meaningful conversation, why don't you learn some basic manners? Otherwise, you sound like a snotty kid, and I hope your good wife puts you under suspension, if not expulsion.
Can a parent who knows how to read teach her/his child to read? Yes. Even without that oh-so-ridiculously-ballyhooed education degree. Even if he/she has a job. I'm not suggesting parents can teach rocket science. I'm suggesting that the system tells the parents that teaching their kids isn't their job, and that's not right.
"Can a parent who knows how to read teach her/his child to read? Yes."
First off, many don't. Second a parent can only teach a child to read AS WELL AS THEY CAN. You're making the limits of the parent the highest point possible for the child to achieve. Great work.
Tens of millions of Americans struggle with literacy and tens of millions more are not native speakers of English. Tens of millions more on top of that have to go to work and don't have the time to teach full-time. Most of these people have working genitalia and casually squeeze out children.
"Even without that oh-so-ridiculously-ballyhooed education degree."
NO, in many cases such as dyslexia and other specific learning disabilities, any random idiot who procreated is not able to teach a child to read, at least not up to their potential, not quickly and not in enough time to allow a child to develop apace.
And it's not just a degree, is it? It's YEARS of classroom observation and practice, which you devalue. You and Chris Christie should go drinking together. I'd keep my fingers away from his mouth.
"I'm not suggesting parents can teach rocket science."
That's exactly what homeschoolers don't do, they don't teach their kids rocket science. Nor much of any other science. And what a shame. Some avoid it because they against it and many because they don't know anything about it themselves.
"the system tells the parents that teaching their kids isn't their job"
It isn't about the 'system telling the parents' anything, it's society having decided after decades and centuries of struggle that every child deserves some form of shot at an education. This isn't about the rights of the parent, it's about the rights of the child. Children have the right not to be stunted by their idiot parents. Keeping a kid home for a half-assed edjukashun in an industrial or post-industrial society is as much abuse as a beating, and equally in the community's interest to disrupt.
Homeschoolers need to stop whining about themselves and think about others for a split second. Of course if a lot of these people had done so to begin with they wouldn't be parents...
As far as my alleged rudeness, once again I have to point out that this is the internet argument fallback for anyone losing a debate badly; switch the focus to tone. I happen to think that your repeated attacks on the teaching profession and public education are the rudeness and obscenity and I think especially in this climate that deserves maximum public ridicule.
Your comment was a drive-by plug for homeschooling (a right wing serpent's egg) and a drive-by swipe at teachers and no form of appeal to "meaningful conversation."
Sorry, actualleftist.
I appreciate that this is an important topic to you, and that you're utterly convinced that you have the superior perspective.
But although you can rationalize, justify, and "explain it away" until your fingers fall off, your acerbic, self-righteous, condescending, supercilious lecturing speaks for itself.
I've come to be mordantly, if wearily, amused by the degree to which "hot topics" on this site elicit authoritarian bombast from soi disant progressives and leftists
So by all means launch another hostile, withering riposte to put me in my place and ensure that you're the last commenter standing.
And have a nice day.
"acerbic, self-righteous, condescending, supercilious lecturing speaks for itself..."
That applies only to me, and not to the casual attacks on public schools or the teaching profession - against a climate where this is the right wing drumbeat every day?
"that you're utterly convinced that you have the superior perspective"
Whereas you are not..? I've put a series of facts and links all over this thread, you come in with critique of my tone and then leave.
Lol. Lulz. Have you ever tried reading one of YOUR own bombastic, self righteous, condescending, meandering, full of hot air from your ass posts?
Well, many of my college students can’t read, not really. They’ve been twelve years through the public schools, most of them, and can’t read because they hate it so much. This includes surburban and inner-city students. They can scan a textbook for information to memorize for a test, but actual reading makes them fall asleep within minutes, as they regularly report.
Yet I know plenty of people who never went to college, or who never finished high school, who read extremely well.
And the worst of all my students are always the education majors. Sorry, but it’s true. They are the lowest scoring of any major. I’m constantly telling them to put their cell phones away. Most of them are devotees of Ritalin. They’re just there for their certificate. When they get hired, they’ll be passing out worksheets and saying “just put in a comma where you think there’s a pause,” and life goes on. I have a friend who tries to teach grammar to secondary language arts majors. They just can’t get it! They’re constantly complaining to the dean that this is too hard. Find a verb? What’s a preposition? Dean Blah-blah, this is just too hard! What’s the point?
If what you are saying is true, why can’t these parents, who have at least made it through junior high, read? Oh sure, blame it on everything else but the schools. The schools have them for 6-9 hours a day, and they abscond from the responsibility of why the students can’t read. Ridiculous!
You think the schools teach rocket science? My students very characteristically can’t do fourth grade math, and that’s not because they’re stupid. I've talked to employers trying to hire accountants complaining that the applicants can't do long division, even though they graduated college with honors.
By the way, although you and I have gone around on the homeschooling issue, my comment did not broach the subject. Try to keep on track. You embarrass yourself.
" the worst of all my students are always the education majors"
Yes, you should certainly go drinking with Chris Christie. You can bash teachers all night long.
MOST of your education students are "devotees of Ritalin"? That's credible. I imagine since you're so concerned about this issue you must be blowing whistles all over the place about this evident crisis. Any news clippings to share?
"When they get hired, they’ll be passing out worksheets and saying “just put in a comma where you think there’s a pause,” and life goes on."
There's a job waiting for you at Fox News. Pure right wing BS.
How about YOU stick to the topic that YOU introduced, the idea that American children should be "taught" at home - for free - by people who, on average, did not finish high school, and probably work one or more jobs.
"why can’t these parents, who have at least made it through junior high, read? Oh sure, blame it on everything else but the schools"
First off, why in hell is a good idea to leave the education of children to people who can't read? It's your idea, you explain it. Second, we've been through this already. The home environment is the number one determinant of how well kids will do in school. Some kids come in having gotten little sleep in a possible violent situation, in a possible substance abuse situation, in poverty or even homelessness.
Some KIDS ARE SUFFERING FROM COMMUNITY-WIDE MALNUTRITION:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57345857/high-school-football-team-battles-malnutrition/
But that's public school's fault, is it?
I'll add that the people - parents - you're advocating become "teachers" are LESS EDUCATED than your students.
This is always the right wing BS homeschool argument, in every forum, always and forever:
1) Teachers aren't qualified enough.
and yet, incredibly, at the same time
2) Parents don't need any qualifications!
Here's some examples of the experts in the public schools:
When my daughter was seven, I started reading to her the Harry Potter series. Whatever we might say about those books, my daughter was quickly reading them on her own. Her reading specialist teacher called me in to say that I shouldn't let her read things above her reading level.
I'll bet Harry Potter was above HER reading level. How stupid can you be? But she was an expert. Sure. I cited some studies on reading, which made her moronic little mouth twist. “But I'm the expert,” I could read in her eyes. “I’m not to be questioned.”
At about fifth grade, my daughter asked me to stop going to parent-teacher conferences. “You just piss them off with your questions and ideas, and I pay,” she said. Never mind that I’m an educator. I piss them off. They don’t like to be questioned.
Then, in junior high, my daughter was “educated” in diet. She came home and said that I was starving her of protein. I said, “what do you mean? We have vegetarian meals with complete protein.” She said, “my teacher says we need to eat meat every day.” This is what they call “health education.”
After all that “health education,” my students usually don’t know what a whole grain is.
Such "experts" should never be allowed near children. But hey, they’re certified.
"I'll bet Harry Potter was above HER reading level."
That's credible. What is it with homeschoolers and Harry Potter? I know a woman (mate of a friend, he's not the father) who has kept her son (who is now 17 and writes like a 5 year old) out of school for most of his life. She has him read Harry Potter and tell her verbally what happened, which is "school." She got pregnant in 10th grade and dropped out, and figures that she done did good enough, why trouble the child with learnin'?
Of course this is Pennsylvania where the Amish can credit their kids doing free farm labor as "homeschool" and then even drop out of that at 16. That really opens up worlds of opportunity for a young person!
In point of fact she's much too lazy to get a child to school in the morning with lunch prepared. She, like you, bashes teaching and teachers and schools... from the lofty heights in her case of being a 10th grade dropout.
Typical homsechool advocate/school basher, whining about your personal examples of perceived slights.
Would you care to comment on the fact that most of the students in a public school were showing up malnourished and hungry? Do you blame those teachers for that school? "Blame everything but the schools" you say - well, YES I DO. The schools are not in a vacuum.
Keep in mind that you want to leave the education of those kids to their parents, who are also malnourished and hungry. You're a genius!
"You think the schools teach rocket science?"
Mine literally did - we had a science program with a simulated shuttle launch every year. Public school, major city. I came into an Ivy League university with two AP science credits from a family in which I was the first to go to college.
“Would you care to comment on the fact that most of the students in a public school were showing up malnourished and hungry? Do you blame those teachers for that school? "Blame everything but the schools" you say - well, YES I DO. The schools are not in a vacuum.”
Yes, I do blame the schools, and they are certainly not in a vacuum beyond McDonald’s. If a school can’t even convey to students the basic facts of nutrition by age 12, then what use are they? This does not require high-tech equipment, yet it is apparently beyond the schools’ teaching capacities. Why are you blaming the parents? Aren’t they the products of the public schools themselves? Or did you miss that small point? Why are the lunches in these schools all McNuggets and fries? Why does the DOE support installing Coke dispensers at every corner? Are you going to blame that on bad parents?
Those parents aren’t against the school systems, exactly, but are products of them. And frankly, they would very much like you “educators” to go do something to yourselves, for as much as you helped them.
YOU RIGHT WING MORON, THE KIDS AND FAMILIES ARE HUNGRY AND MALNOURISHED BECAUSE ***THEY ARE POOR***.
"•The 37 million Americans served annually by Feeding America include nearly 14 million children and nearly 3 million seniors.
•Each week, approximately 5.7 million people receive emergency food assistance from an agency served by a Feeding America member. This is a 27percent increase over numbers reported in Hunger in America 2006, which reported that 4.5 million people were served each week.
•These numbers are based on surveys conducted at emergency feeding centers, such as soup kitchens and food pantries, but do not factor in many individuals also served at non-emergency locations, such as Kids Cafe programs and senior centers.
Client Households
•76 percent (10 million) of client households served are food insecure, meaning they do not always know where they will find their next meal.
•36 percent of these client households are experiencing food insecurity with hunger, meaning they are sometimes completely without a source of food.
•79 percent (11 million) of households with children served are also food insecure.
•Of the 37 million people the Feeding America network serves:
•70 percent of households have incomes below the federal poverty line.
•The average monthly income for client households is $940.
•36 percent of households have one or more adults who is working.
•10 percent of client households are homeless.
Tough Choices
Many of the client households served by Feeding America food banks report that their household incomes are inadequate to cover their basic household expenses.
•46 percent of client households served report having to choose between paying for utilities or heating fuel and food.
•39 percent of client households said they had to choose between paying for rent or a mortgage and food.
•34 percent of client households report having to choose between paying for medical bills and food.
•35 percent of client households must choose between transportation and food.
One in four client households (24 percent) do not have health insurance and nearly half of our adult clients report that they have unpaid medical and hospital bills.
Thirty percent of households report having at least one member of their household in poor health."
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/hunger-study-2010/key-findings.aspx
Go back to Harry Potter land you miserable witch.
What a nasty little man you are! I have no health insurance. I teach, but the system that you're afraid will be gone for your wife (and thus for you), milks off of those like me, who the unions have forsaken.
Given all these stats, do you assume the poor don't know how to get food? Yes they do, so far. The poor know their ways, God bless them. What the poor mainly despise are "middle class" assholes like you who think, with their health insurance and food surety, know what's best for them.
You scream at me that I'm a right-wing moron? Unbelievable.
AL: You figure name calling is helping your case?
Actual Leftist, I think you raise a number of salient points.
The "choice/home school" crowd are generally libertarians who view reality primarily through the prism of me and mine. So if anyone has an attitude, relative to the collective needs of society (i.e. The Greater Good), given their empathy deficit, THEY qualify.
This idea that "the parents" can do a good job here is ludicrous given the economic realities of our times. Most families are struggling. I guess the libertarians present in this forum (courageously doing their part to insure that public ed gets gutted.) lost sight of the recent numbers showing that nearly half the U.S. population is at or near the poverty line.
And there are PLENTY of single head of household families, too. So this idea of adding the education of the young to the chores a household requires, added to the time & energy that goes to one's job, added to the transportation time needed to get to it, etc. makes this idea ridiculous... but for those who have the time, money, leisure, full skill sets, and motivation to be Home School Teachers. That would be a minority! Plus taking this line of reasoning is right out of George Lakoff's "Framing Notebook," because it argues exclusively from the standpoint of the individual parent/family, rather than looking at what will happen to the nation, as a whole, if public school is further cut. And consider those ghettos! It's been shown that these tests mostly punish kids who are already poor by taking away their one shot (defunding their local schools) at gaining a profession. It's absolutely CRUEL to add fuel to that fire!
In a nation where there's already too much emphasis on Christian fundamentalism, and a learned fear and disgust of foreign "outsiders," futher insulating children (by educating them at home) prevents them from mixing with others unlike them... which, like travel outside the U.S. presents its own quite necessary education.
It's interesting that Brad from Cal, Drosera, Karlof1, and other teachers hardly feel the need to chip away at public school the way Elizabeth H does. It's a VERY odd posture for one who defines herself in this forum AS a teacher. I don't believe that she or Obedient Servant are ACTUAL parents. So their insight into what it might take to run a home, earn a living, and also educate the children reminds me of the nuns who used to stand in on committees appointed to comment on women's reproductive rights. (That, in fact, did take place!)
Hey, SiouxRose, look at that! We're on the same side! ;)
Actual,
Excellent comment.
Thomas Gilbert-
Elizabeth h's argument is essentially that parents have the right to determine completely how their kiddies get educated how they grow up. The child as a tabula rasa for the parent to write on. A pet, a slave. And whenever her arguments get poked full of holes, she whines and complains about how people are being rude to her.
You can't have a critical conversation on this site without people resorting to the worst kinds of rudeness. I haven't noticed by arguments getting poked full of holes because people don't argue. They just start screaming.
"The child as a tabula rasa for the parent to write on" is a horrible thing, but the child as a tabula rasa for the state to write on is a good thing?
No your arguments are regularly poked full of holes, it is when that happens that you then play thr poor bullied abused victim, just as you are doing on this thread. You have failed to refute most of actualleftists points, you have never provided a counter argument as to how parents can hope to teach a whole range of subjects beyond a very basic primary level.
" The child as a tabula rasa for the parent to write on" is a horrible thing, but the child as a tabula rasa for the state to write on is a good thing?'
yes it is a better thing. The child will grow up at some point and will have to live in society. Two, the State that you are so fearful does NOT get to write on the child as a tabula rasa via public schooling, it does not get exclusive access to the child, whereas that is precisely what do want with your homeschooling, exclusive parental determination and control of a child, thr child as the parents' property . And it is noteworthy that you do support the idea of a parent doing with a child as the parent pleases.
rfloh, Actually, there are a lot of online tools available to home-schoolers that assist in teaching subjects beyond the abilities of the parents. You argument about the state teaching kids regardless of the wishes of the parents is the kind of argument totalitarians love.
Who would have thought so-called progressives would support the rights of the state over those of the parents? What if your child is bullied in school and the school won't do anything? What if your school doesn't advise you in advance that military recruiters will be telling your kids about the wonders of military service? Or what if your state decides it doesn't want to teach kids about slavery or history from the perspective of non-europeans? What if you don't want your kid forced to recite the pledge of allegiance?
What if the schools are so dumbed down you want to teach your child so they'll get a better education?
No. You figure that state should decide. To hell with the parents.
Welcome to the machine.
"Actually, there are a lot of online tools available to home-schoolers that assist in teaching subjects beyond the abilities of the parents."
... and these are for-profit FRAUDS.
"The investigation focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that: (1) according to various academic benchmarks, K12 students were chronically underperforming their peers at traditional schools; (2) K12 has aggressively recruited students to their schools, regardless of how well-suited they might be for the Company’s curriculum; (3) as a result of K12’s haphazard recruiting process, the Company experiences student retention problems resulting in high rates of withdrawal; (4) K12 schools often have far larger student-to-teacher ratios than the Company advertises; and (5) K12 teachers have been pressured to allow students to pass regardless of academic performance, in order to receive federal funds.
On December 12, 2011, after several months of research, the New York Times published an article entitled “Profits and Questions at Online Charter Schools.” The article raised serious concerns about K12’s business practices, alleging that Company schools inflate their student rosters, are underperforming academically, have detrimental student-to-teacher ratios and gain wrongful access to public funds. On this devastating news, K12 shares collapsed almost 24%, closing at $22 per share on December 13."
http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/2012/01/k12-inc.html
For-profit frauds which the taxpayer has to fund no less.
Now that's just one of these online charlatan companies, many of the others are right wing Christian sites which only provide materials to refute evolution and deny a good deal of any American history with a fair perspective toward non-white groups.
AL, just because there are charities that are fraudulent doesn't mean all charities are fraudulent. Ditto with online educational tools. A friend of mine is using ALEKS and some other tools to home school his two kids. He thinks it's a very good program. Just doing a simple Google search I came across the following list of options:
http://www.home-school-curriculum-advisor.com/online-home-school-curriculum.html
I think parents should be free to choose how their kids are educated, unless that choice causes harm to the child. Considering the downward slide of the public schools, it may well be better for children to be home schooled.
As for parents wanting to teach their children something contrary to mainstream beliefs, I think they should have that right. Maybe they want to teach evolution is wrong, maybe they want to give kids an education that includes history from a non-traditional perspective. Maybe they live in an area that won't teach about slavery, labor or historical impact of ethnicity. Maybe they live in Texas or Arizona.
"I think parents should be free to choose how their kids are educated, unless that choice causes harm to the child."
OF COURSE THEY WILL HARM THE CHILD. BY STUNTING THEIR EDUCATIONAL HORIZONS! This is a country in which only 25% of the population has a college degree in any subject. Do you imagine that even a FRACTION of people are capable of teaching higher math AND sciences AND literature AND a foreign language just for starters?!
Why in hell do you think we have mandatory education to begin with?!
How do you reconcile that with:
"As for parents wanting to teach their children something contrary to mainstream beliefs, I think they should have that right."
What evaluation are you going to use for that? Once again, SCREW the children and the future of the society, just care about the parents' rights. Any moron who doesn't use birth control gets to determine the future, eh?
And what if the parents are doing a lousy job (AS MOST WILL), what then? Are you then going to send the kids to public school anyway, only NOW YEARS DELAYED? And will you still ride public schools for "doing a bad job" when the only kids they have are the ones the parents retarded first? Great plan you have there.
As another commenter pointed out, parents have children most of the time anyway and can teach them any number of STUPID beliefs at home. Getting the kid in school allows the kid to see more than one perspective. It's not either/or/ Leaving the kid at home gives the parent 100% control, 0% outside input.
"Maybe they want to teach evolution is wrong, maybe they want to give kids an education that includes history from a non-traditional perspective."
That's exactly what most homeschoolers do and why they do it - many of them are little better than fascists.
"Maybe they live in an area that won't teach about slavery..."
The only kids in America learning that slavery was not a big deal or even a positive thing are being homeschooled.
"Considering the downward slide of the public schools..."
Not the downward slide of society, just the schools? What in hell is wrong with you? Kids with semi-literate parents come to school hungry and you've identified schools as the problem? Have you not seen any of the MANY studies that kids using online crap like K-12 are doing WORSE than kids in public school?
"just because there are charities that are fraudulent doesn't mean all charities are fraudulent. Ditto with online educational tools"
You are either both naive and stupid or you are being deliberately obtuse.
http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/2012/01/k12-inc.html
AL, Apparently people who don't share your beliefs don't have the right to determine what is best for their children. You'd rather have the state say how their children will be educated - with the obvious exception of people with enough money to send their kids to private schools.
As I said before, totalitarians everywhere agree with you. Indians, aborigines and other minorities whose children were taken from them to be educated in the culture of the dominant cultural group (usually invaders) would disagree.
"AL, Apparently people who don't share your beliefs don't have the right to determine what is best for their children. You'd rather have the state say how their children will be educated - "
The state does not get exclusive access to kiddies. Whereas in homeschooling, the parents get exclusive access to the kiddies.
"ith the obvious exception of people with enough money to send their kids to private schoo"
I want private schools, ALL private schools closed. Immediately.
"u. Indians, aborigines and other minorities whose children were taken from them to be educated in the culture of the dominant cultural group (usually invaders) would disagree."
I'm a minority, educated in the culture of the dominant cultural group. The state getting to educate me did not prevent my parents, and also grandparents from educating me too.
rfloh: You don't want private schools, you don't want parents able to educate their kids, you don't want charter schools, you just want the state indoctrinating everybody.
That doesn't seem very progressive to me. Quite the opposite.
"you just want the state indoctrinating everybody"
Again the idiotic right wing homeschooler argument:
1) The schools can't teach anyone anything
AND YET INCREDIBLY
2) The schools are perfectly efficient propaganda machines!
Not one lick of internal logic in that. You need to pick one, are the schools incredibly good at teaching things or not?
"rfloh, Actually, there are a lot of online tools available to home-schoolers that assist in teaching subjects beyond the abilities of the parents.
No there aren't. Or more correctly, all those online tools work best, if the parent is himself / herself (very) well educated, if the parent him/herself has some background in the subject. Do you seriously believe the average American parent can teach his /her child calculus? Mechanics? Music? And no, telling the kid to go read wikipedia is NOT teaching. Computer aided teaching works best when it is used in COMBINATION with human teaching, not as a replacement.
"You argument about the state teaching kids regardless of the wishes of the parents is the kind of argument totalitarians love.""
No it doesn't. It isn't simply a matter of the rights of the parents vs the rights of the state. The rights of the CHILD are paramount. You and Elizabeth H seem to be blithley handwaving away the rights of the CHILD. The child is NOT a slave ,a pet, a property, a robot, a computer belonging of the parent. The parent does NOT have a right to do whatever s/he wants with the child. The parent does NOT have a right to treat the child as a tabula rasa, for the parent to write the parent's entire worldview on the child.
"Who would have thought so-called progressives would support the rights of the state over those of the parents"
I support the rights of the CHILD. I support the rights of the CHILD over the rights of the parents. Everyday. Twice on Sundays.
"What if your child is bullied in school and the school won't do anything?"What if your child is bullied in school and the school won't do anything? What if your school doesn't advise you in advance that military recruiters will be telling your kids about the wonders of military service? Or what if your state decides it doesn't want to teach kids about slavery or history from the perspective of non-europeans? What if you don't want your kid forced to recite the pledge of allegiance?
You drag the school to court. You can do some teaching on your own. What if the parent beats the child? What if the parent prevents the child from learning things the child wants to learn?
The school system does not have exclusive access to the child. The parent can still teach the child. Whereas in homeschooling, the parent has exclusive access.
"What if the schools are so dumbed down you want to teach your child so they'll get a better education?"
And what if the parent is so dumb that the parent cannot teach the child anything?
"No. You figure that state should decide. To hell with the parents."
What about the child? In your entire post, you rant and rant and rant about the parents' rights. What about the child's rights? Is the child just a toy? A pet? A slave? A piece of property?
"What about the child? In your entire post, you rant and rant and rant about the parents' rights. What about the child's rights? Is the child just a toy? A pet? A slave? A piece of property?"
I don't think you are saying that the child gets to make the decisions, so who does? I think that parents are a lot more concerned about the child than the state is. It is their child.
I trust the parents more than I trust the state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_boarding_schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/world/europe/21ireland.html
No one is talking about permanently removing kids from the home you moron, they're talking about giving the kid an opportunity outside of the home several hours per day, 5 days per week and 9 months/year TO ENCOUNTER ADULTS WITH A COLLEGE EDUCATION.
For many of us working class kids THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT SAVED US FROM A LIFE OF MENIAL LABOR.
You have nothing but bullshit right wing paranoid fantasies.
Those links aren't fantasies and they aren't the kinds of things right-wingers like to address. They are examples of misuse of the power of the state in educating children.
When you reach a point where you are calling people who disagree with you morons, you might want to examine what is actually upsetting you.
You are deliberately conflating removing children permanently from the home with compulsory education.
MAYBE WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE A STRAWMAN TO ATTEMPT TO HAVE AN ARGUMENT YOU MIGHT WANT TO EXAMINE WHAT IS ACTUALLY UPSETTING YOU.
ElizabethH...I like your comments. When I sent my child to kindergarden, she already knew how to read. This offended the teacher who told the class that reading before 2nd grade was prohibitted by the government. My child came home from school and asked me if she would be put in jail because she knew how to read. When I discussed this with the school principal, I was told that the teacher misinterpretted a NJ State reg which said that children should not be forced to read before 2nd grade.
I have taught on and off since 1956. I have seen good teachers and bad teachers. It is now my belief that homeschooling is usually far superior to the public system as it now exists. I also support a fair system of choice... fair to all... not the voucher system as it it usually described. One of many complaints about the government education system is the twisted view of world and US history... the brainwashing of young minds to make 'patriotic' citizens who are ready to go off and kill civilians in other lands. Everyone should be offended by that.
"reading before 2nd grade was prohibitted by the government"
'Prohibitted', eh?
"the brainwashing of young minds to make 'patriotic' citizens"
What in hell are you talking about? Are you claiming that parochial school students are less patriotic than public school students? How about military boarding school students? And last but not least how about the LUNATIC Christian right wingers who pull thier kids out of school to avoid evolution and intergration - do you imagine that they are 'less patriotic' than the average public school student?
Although I generally agree with the article, it's way too kind. The charter school 'movement' is clearly just about breaking unions and moving toward privatizing more of the commons. Most charter school fans are useful idiots, the planners have shady motivation and I wish would be called out for on that more directly.
Charter school advocates are beating the crap out of public schools and the public school advocates seem unwilling to throw the well-deserved nasty punch.
The public schools need not be weak.
You have unionized workers (unions who do nothing meaningful for the workers and raise money for their enemies like Obama) and their families and friends. You have milliions of students and their families. You have millions of former students (like me).
On the other side you have a miasma of corruption and waste of taxpayer money.
http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/
http://www.charterschoolwatchdog.com/
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/12/14/charter-schools-is-financial-mismanagement-the-issue-to-watch/
Get that message out, get a divorce from "No Child Left Alone" Obama and get some backbone.
Someone on this site is always coming up with a reason why it won't do any good to try and fight the incompetent and corrupt.
I never see, for example, an article here listing the obvious abuses and nefarious dealings of charter school officials. Instead we get coverage which suggests that they have an honest but wrong-headed difference of opinion. The gloves should come off.
The overwhleming majority of parents couldn't identify who Socrates was. Those kids are in desperate need of a school, with adults who've seen the inside of a college.
I can introduce you to a homeschooled 17 year old who knows his video games and Harry Potter and writes (that is to say prints, he doesn't know cursive) like a 5 year old. That's the typical profile of what the horizons of the average American parent will get us.
I should point out that frequently when there's an education article of any sort, Elizabeth drops by and suggests just not needing schools.
I'm having this same problem on the post office thread that's current - for some reason even people who lean left (or claim to) don't understand that public institutions are there to get the WEAKEST members of society the same services and opportunities as people whose parents know the Socratic method. The homeschool movement is another attack on the commons, and a far right abandonment of same.
"Hey what do these hot-shot teachers know? Educate your kids at home! Who needs school?! And why do my taxes pay for these schools anyhow..."
Don't worry--the homeschoolers aren't going to destroy the public schools. The public schools will continue to devolve. (They've stopped teaching cursive too.) TPTB don't want an aware, intelligent public, and the public schools do a great job of ensuring that our children will lack curiosity about learning. They're very good at spreading propaganda, creating a mindset that competition is all--and half of you are losers--oh, and if you come from a ghetto school, all of you are losers. Look at those test scores--they prove it.
Just because some people are critical of the public schools does not automatically make them right-wing. There's been a trend these last decades toward subverting progressive goals, or haven't you noticed? I'd put the schools in that category. The schools are not in a vacuum. I charge them with stupifying the nation. I charge them with creating a mindset that has increased income disparity and which lauds the rich. I charge them with failing to teach children how to think critically, to be incapable of holding a civilized conversation, to be incapable of distinguishing between truth and lies.
People are taking their kids out of schools for a lot of reasons. The schools want their kids to take Ritalin. A vast number of our students are labeled "learning disabled"--code for dumb, and the kids know it.
Yes, there are bad homeschoolers out there, just as there are bad teachers. Just because you know someone who was badly homeschooled doesn't mean that homeschooling shouldn't be an option. Some people here on CD believe that homeschooling should be outlawed, as in Germany. Great! Another freedom to take away.
"Don't worry--the homeschoolers aren't going to destroy the public schools."
That's openly a goal of many of them. In any event the thread was about how charter schools are aiming to destroy public schools, which is very obviously the goal.
"Just because some people are critical of the public schools does not automatically make them right-wing."
Constructive criticism might not, but that's not what you offer and that's not what charter schools offer. You just drive-by education threads and suggest we don't need schools at all, that somehow overworked parents in a country where a quarter of the population have seen the inside of a college are the best educational option for their progeny.
Of course many shady dealers are filling their pockets as contractors in a deliberate attempt to destroy public schools, shift public tax money to private enterprise without supervision, and destroy teachers' unions. And that's all harmful right wing BS.
"A vast number of our students are labeled "learning disabled"--code for dumb, and the kids know it."
NO THAT IS NOT CODE FOR DUMB! In a public school that results in an IEP, a legal document WHICH MANDATES THAT THE SCHOOL PROVIDE EXTRA SERVICES FROM A SPECIALIST TO HELP COMPENSATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES. Additionally it allows kids to have extra time on tests, or alternative tests to allow them to still complete the material in a way that doesn't leave them frustrated. Violating an IEP is grounds for suing a district to fork over funds to arrange an additional outside consultant to work with the child outside of school hours.
My wife is a reading specialist and deals with kids with problems such as dyslexia. If anything kids and parents are EAGER to announce what their IEPs require, and once every few months she comes home and tells me that a kid - in front of the class, no one is shamed by this - will claim their IEP rrequires additional help or time that they don't actually have coming,
"People are taking their kids out of schools for a lot of reasons."
It's basically only a few reasons:
- Right wing religious lunatics against evolution and modernity
- Right wing political lunatics against actual history and modernity
- Bigots against integration
- Control freaks and head cases who want total control of their children
- People who are just too lazy or too selfish to get up 5 days/week and make sure the child has a lunch arrangement and makes it on the bus
- Mix'n' match of the above
"Some people here on CD believe that homeschooling should be outlawed, as in Germany. Great! Another freedom to take away."
TYPICAL SELF-CENTERED HOMESCHOOLER! It's not the right of the parent that's the issue, it's the rights of the CHILD. When slavery was ended, was that taking the rights away from the slave owner?
"oh, and if you come from a ghetto school, all of you are losers. Look at those test scores--they prove it."
Then you should be against Race to the Top/NCLB, not the schools and the staffs themselves.
By the way, has it sunk in yet that the malnourished kids are from POOR families yet, who literally don't have enough food in the house, and not people hitting burger joints? I want you to answer that specifically.
When the cold war was hot we heard about the horrors of commies indoctrinating kids and teaching them to turn in their parents if the parents held anti-communist beliefs. People got upset learning about children from religious families being taught there was no god.
Back then the idea that the state had a greater right to teach children than parents was anathema.
So now, you're castigating a poster for saying parents have a greater right to teach their children than the state does.
Totalitarians everywhere agree with you.
The problem is - it's a balancing act. You don't want wack-jobs messing up their children but you don't want a totalitarian state doing it either.
As always, it's hard to define the line.
"Totalitarians everywhere agree with you."
Ctrl,
With all due respect, your above comment does not reflect, in any way, the arguments expressed by Actual Leftist. He does not deny the rights of parents, in fact he supports parental rights. The point of his argument with regard to home schooling is centered around the rights of children.( this is my understanding of Actual's comments.) The right to receive a good education.
Of course, we are somewhat off topic in that the discussion really should be about issues of creeping privatization in our education system and the erosion of our public institutions. (that which we hold in common)
Thomas Gilbert-
Dante, You are correct AL's argument doesn't explicitly state that the rights of the state are greater than the rights of the parent but her/his championing of kid's rights concludes with them being educated by the state. (S)He doesn't allow for the possibility that the child might be better of with home-schooling. AL's argument also doesn't address who makes the determination of what is best for the child but, given the list of the only reasons people home school presented by AL, I think it's reasonable to conclude AL believes the state should make the determination, in the best interest of the child.
AL sed:
""People are taking their kids out of schools for a lot of reasons."
It's basically only a few reasons:
- Right wing religious lunatics against evolution and modernity
- Right wing political lunatics against actual history and modernity
- Bigots against integration
- Control freaks and head cases who want total control of their children
- People who are just too lazy or too selfish to get up 5 days/week and make sure the child has a lunch arrangement and makes it on the bus
- Mix'n' match of the above"
Finally. Someone on this thread other than AL who gets that it is the rights of the CHILD that is paramount.
"(They've stopped teaching cursive too.) T"
Good for them. It is WAYYY past time that they stopped teaching cursive, and used the time on more useful and worthwhile things.
"TPTB don't want an aware, intelligent public, and the public schools do a great job of ensuring that our children will lack curiosity about learning."
Teaching cursive ensures our children will have curiosity about learning? And it is very revealing that you rant and rant about PUBLIC schooling. If the problem is systematic schooling, then, you need to stop both public AND private schooling. So, why is it you have no problem with private schooling?
"ust because some people are critical of the public schools does not automatically make them right-wing."
It does, if your solution is to replace public schooling with home schooling.
"There's been a trend these last decades toward subverting progressive goals, or haven't you noticed?"
No there hasn't. Political struggle is an ONGOING, NONSTOP process. The right CONSTANTLY wants to advance their goals. Similarly the left. There is no "trend". And "progressive" is an utterly meaningless term.
"The schools are not in a vacuum. I charge them with stupifying the nation. I charge them with creating a mindset that has increased income disparity and which lauds the rich. I charge them with failing to teach children how to think critically, to be incapable of holding a civilized conversation, to be incapable of distinguishing between truth and lies"
So, in your opinion, public schools are the most powerful force in society? And before you want to talk about lacking the ability to think critically, read your own posts.
"es, there are bad homeschoolers out there, just as there are bad teachers. Just because you know someone who was badly homeschooled doesn't mean that homeschooling shouldn't be an option. "
Everything has its merits and demerits. That does not mean that something are in general not better than others. Use some of the critical thinking that you claim that others lack.
"Some people here on CD believe that homeschooling should be outlawed, as in Germany. Great! Another freedom to take away."
Whose freedom? The parent's freedom? The child's freedom?