Jump to content

Public Schools, ain't failing --- Diane Ravitch


TheOldBarn
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've read some of her book, Reign of Error, and she's sure enough changed. She's gone away from the dark-side of so-called Charter School nonsense, and focused on the factual.

The truth is as we've always known it was, attempts at privatizing education from K through 12, is

foolish policy.

Our kids are smarter today, through no help by recent policy of teaching to the test. I've seen public schools that were known not to be so good change overnight by parent participation in my own neighborhood. But the problems of poor public schools are as they always have been, socioeconomic, or should we just say it, obvious!

 

When they say, throwing more money at schools will do no good, what they mean is, rich people don't want to put their own money into schools for those other kids. Single people often lament, why should I have to pay for public school when I myself have no children. It's the old wart of taking money from Peter to pay Paul, or the so-called nonsensical Libertarian view point of well, we should all pick ourselves up from our own bootstraps.

 

I work with colleagues from Finland, where they have the best schools. They are public schools.

It's part of Finland's economic policy. Finland is a small country, but the comparison can most certainly be had.

 

You see, collaboration, is grand, when the goal is to enrich the people, all the people, for the benefit of all the people. Instead, we subsidize corporate greed to no end.

 

You can not realize this with private education from K through 12. How could you, think about that...

think about how capitalism works. You get more when you pay more, how could that ever benefit all equally, and more than that, we all benefit when our citizen's are better informed.

 

What we need to do, what we've always needed to do, is target those schools in underprivileged areas, and yes, spend more, to give these kids what they need - be it good nutrition, safe sanctuaries to learn, as well as, decent jobs and hope for their parents, etc...

 

Microeconomics, macroeconomics, in the end, are about the same thing, explicitly we see the results at a later time, implicitly to our own peril, we fail to see the difference between public and private.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read some of her book, Reign of Error, and she's sure enough changed. She's gone away from the dark-side of so-called Charter School nonsense, and focused on the factual.

The truth is as we've always known it was, attempts at privatizing education from K through 12, is

foolish policy.

Our kids are smarter today, through no help by recent policy of teaching to the test. I've seen public schools that were known not to be so good change overnight by parent participation in my own neighborhood. But the problems of poor public schools are as they always have been, socioeconomic, or should we just say it, obvious!

 

When they say, throwing more money at schools will do no good, what they mean is, rich people don't want to put their own money into schools for those other kids. Single people often lament, why should I have to pay for public school when I myself have no children. It's the old wart of taking money from Peter to pay Paul, or the so-called nonsensical Libertarian view point of well, we should all pick ourselves up from our own bootstraps.

 

I work with colleagues from Finland, where they have the best schools. They are public schools.

It's part of Finland's economic policy. Finland is a small country, but the comparison can most certainly be had.

 

You see, collaboration, is grand, when the goal is to enrich the people, all the people, for the benefit of all the people. Instead, we subsidize corporate greed to no end.

 

You can not realize this with private education from K through 12. How could you, think about that...

think about how capitalism works. You get more when you pay more, how could that ever benefit all equally, and more than that, we all benefit when our citizen's are better informed.

 

What we need to do, what we've always needed to do, is target those schools in underprivileged areas, and yes, spend more, to give these kids what they need - be it good nutrition, safe sanctuaries to learn, as well as, decent jobs and hope for their parents, etc...

 

Microeconomics, macroeconomics, in the end, are about the same thing, explicitly we see the results at a later time, implicitly to our own peril, we fail to see the difference between public and private.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mainly agree. The PROBLEM though is not always that the school has too little budget or that the teachers ar ot good. The MAIN thing is that the PARENTS need involvement. I went to a Catholic high school. That scho has VERY few ddropouts or kids getting busted. A VERY high % goes to college. They OFTEN are a top school in sports...currently State Champs in Football and baseball. Parents are VERY involved.

Teachers often knew most of the parents. That's not the case with some public schools where the teachers see few parents. If the parents never bother to check in now and then...do THEY value schooling? Do they do anything about it? If in a home...there's nobody reading anything, no interest in any "knowledge" ...does the kid VALUE education?

 

CHARTER....is a scheme toward Privatize......sometimes. Sometimes it's just about making money. A community can end up having to fund bot, not sure which will have the enrollment,which gets results.So the public and Charter schools split the funds and it is not efficient, is too redundant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old Barn

 

This is really a good post. What is needed is collaboration between schools, parents, community groups, and government. If we link certain government services, while reaching out to parents, and emphasis on universal prekindergarten we can really turn things around for poor and minority kids who really suffer when public schools fail. I wish more minds would change the way Diane Ravitch 's did because charter schools are snake oil. Sorry I took so long to respond to this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mainly agree. The PROBLEM though is not always that the school has too little budget or that the teachers ar ot good. The MAIN thing is that the PARENTS need involvement. I went to a Catholic high school. That scho has VERY few ddropouts or kids getting busted. A VERY high % goes to college. They OFTEN are a top school in sports...currently State Champs in Football and baseball. Parents are VERY involved.

Teachers often knew most of the parents. That's not the case with some public schools where the teachers see few parents. If the parents never bother to check in now and then...do THEY value schooling? Do they do anything about it? If in a home...there's nobody reading anything, no interest in any "knowledge" ...does the kid VALUE education?

 

CHARTER....is a scheme toward Privatize......sometimes. Sometimes it's just about making money. A community can end up having to fund bot, not sure which will have the enrollment,which gets results.So the public and Charter schools split the funds and it is not efficient, is too redundant.

Well, yes, I would have to agree. Parent participation is paramount. See, in a private Charter school, where the parents invest their own money to a high degree, because they can, the Charter School is grand, maybe they might even bus in a few top notch poor kids to look socially mighty grand to boot - not unlike an unnamed private University, Okay Harvard...

Take the analogy of shuttle diplomacy if you will, which is intellectual speak, or jargon for imperialism.

Look, in areas where parents fail to participate, take a deeper clear eyed look, see what those parents have to deal with. Most of them didn't finish high school, let alone college. Furthermore, they didn't have a chance in heck at jumping from poverty to lower middle class. (well, there are those who most certainly did, but we fail normalcy, we let normals fail to a high regard, is what I believe.)

Look, you see this all, this very same thing in our lack of progress as a society. Even with highly skilled workers today. The other day I went to my old neighbors new house warming party, I won't say what he paid for his new opulence, but I will say I immediately

understood his newest neighbors lament. Here you have gifted engineers freaking out because they over paid, and for what?

Sure enough, you can drop sixty G's for a fine new car, or move the family to a socalled well-known great public/private school zip code where in the end you might just find the competition stifling and inconducive at risk to your own child's peril, as in, money don't buy happiness, or i.e/see all the rich wasted kids/sic.

But who are we? Ah, the catholic, for which I am one. Our junior high football team, proforma if you will, kicked ass next to most public high schools, I was a running back, and a defensive end, and believe me, as a student, I really thought the whole damn school sucked, alas, my mom couldn't afford it, so of course I was luckily subsidized. Was my mom around - no she was a nurse working. I made it all by myself, king of the world, you know --- bull crap. I don't know a lick of Latin to this very day.

 

...way too long a reply, sorry.

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The No Child Left Behind Act has accomplished the opposite of its goal.... better education. Students are required to pass regular tests for schools to qualify for federal funding in an attempt to introduce marketplace standards to education. Teachers are not trusted to do their job well. The net result is school admin prepping students specifically to answer the questions on the tests. There has been widespread cheating to obtain the tests ahead of time. As a result, little time is spent teaching a broader understanding of the subjects involved.

 

In Finland, acclaimed for its high educational standards, teachers are trusted to do whatever it takes to teach students well. "There are no mandated standardized tests in Finland, apart from one exam at the end of students’ senior year in high school. There are no rankings, no comparisons or competition between students, schools or regions. Finland’s schools are publicly funded."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...