The Demise of Public Education (Cathryn Crawford)

Washington Dispatch ^ | September 26, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

[Scenic Sounds]

The easiest solution is to abolish the government schools and let parents pick which school services they want their child to have.

That's an idea. Would you leave it to parents to decide whether their children need to learn anything?

[petitfour]

The problem lies within the very foundation of public education – the notion that education itself entails parenting and raising children instead of educating them. ************************ I don't recall being taught that the foundation of public education entails parenting and raising children. Is there some source for this statement? It may be true that liberals believe that educators should have a role in raising children, but it isn't THE foundation of public education.

[Sparta]

Would you leave it to parents to decide whether their children need to learn anything?

Yes. I trust most parents will see that their children get the highest quality of education possible.

[honeygrl]

"Yes. I trust most parents will see that their children get the highest quality of education possible. "

You haven't lived in Alabama before have you? I lived there a few years and the whole town I lived in was just sad. There wasn't even a private school that I knew of within driving distance either. My hubby saw a 10yr old entering as a kindergardener there once when he was at the school putting in a net connection. I subbed for 4th graders a few times and there were quite a few 12yr olds in the 4th grade. They were nearly impossible to control too until I had the principal come in one day and let them all know that whoever ended up in his office from the class was in real hot water. After that there was a dead silence and evil glare whenever one of them looked at me. (and i never subbed again once we finally moved away..it was too depressing)

[BeerSwillr]

Cripes! That article is incredible. It's certainly given me something to think about this weekend. Thanks.

[kegler4]

"Yes. I trust most parents will see that their children get the highest quality of education possible."

One result no doubt would be the establishment of a permanent subclass more "sub" that what we have now. We both know some parents wouldn't care a lick about sending children to school and others simply would never be able to afford it -- or could afford little more than basic reading and writing.

This sounds like a real bad idea to me. Can you point to a single industrialized, top-tier nation that doesn't have public schools?

When the U.S. didn't have widespread public schools it also had a bunch of illiterate people. One of my great-great-great grandfathers could do little more than sign his name. Why would it be any different today without public schools?

[petitfour]

In a socialistic system – our current public educational structure - there is no competition; therefore there is no incentive for improvement or innovation. ******************* I don't see that there is no competition in the current system. We may be headed toward a situation where there is no competition, however. In some places, there is little competition because all the schools are at the bottom. Many factors make schools competitive. Some school districts can pay more $$$$ to recruit and keep the best teachers. (There are some fine teachers in public schools.) Some school districts are located in areas where the population has a higher education and income level, AND the parents there are more prone to pour extra money into the schools. I could go on and on, but I have to GO. I'll check back later. I must say that I am unsatisfied with many aspects of public education. We have pulled two of our children from public schools, and we are homeschooling them now. We have a few others attending public schools, and they do not appear to be suffering.

[1Old Pro]

an education class that I am taking at my university

Keep up the fight. We need courageous people to stand up to the nonsense so pervasive in all aspects of education.

[marron]

I find that if I criticize the public schools to people who work there, they get very upset. They know they are doing the best they can given the circumstances...

But if I just shut up and let them talk, they start telling me stuff that makes my hair stand up. However bad I think it is, its really worse. But they cannot imagine an alternative.

You can't have a free society without an educated populace, an uneducated population requires government by an elite. So the stakes are enormous. But the current system is so bad that the risks of changing it are far less than the risk of not changing it.

Privatizing education will not help if a federal bureau dictates the curriculum, and obligates them to the same social work that the public schools are currently doing. Step one, public education must be returned to local control. Step two, we need to institute school vouchers. Private schoola are not the holy grail, but will offer a variety of competing approaches, and it is this variety that we need to encourage if we are going to find something that works. But if government supervises private education too closely, we will have gained little.

Most people are worried that we will lose our country to open borders, as people come pouring in who have no idea what this country is about, and what it takes to make it work. I have a different fear. I fear the barbarians who leave the public school system, not knowing what this country is about, and what it takes to make it work.

When we turn our kids over to people who mock our values, we commit a kind of suicide. Our gene pool lives on, but the spirit is stunted or choked off.

Educating our people to be technically competent and to have a grasp of the (small "r") republican virtues is the battlefield where we are currently losing our country. We either get control of our schools or we will lose it all.

[attagirl]

thank YOU for your openmindedness!

[aristeides]

Instead of vouchers, have state exams for students. If a student passes the exams for the year, the state then pays the student's parent(s) (or caregiver) an appropriate amount equal to the reasonable cost of schooling for the year. That means no state control over private and religious schools, and no discrimination against homeschooling parents. It also means no constitutional problem in violating separation of church and state.

[aristeides]

#71. If all government does is to dictate that students pass exams, that cannot do much harm, and will do a lot of good. Even if the content of the exams is nonsense that has to be parroted back, learning that nonsense will nevertheless train the mind, and also foster a healthy cynicism in students of any independence of mind.

[mathluv]

I will certainly start watching for her articles!

One concern that I have about schools is the amount of homeschooling. I understand the need and the frustration of parents wanting to see that their children get a good education, but is this playing into the hands of the liberals? Conservatives are basically giving up on public schools. This is very troubling. WHY DON'T WE TAKE BACK OUR SCHOOLS?

[mathluv]

I know that this is true. I am a product of public and private schools, and a former teacher. While at A&M working on my PhD in math ed, and at East Texas working on a mid management certificate, I had very few teachers as professors, and many who were just idiots.

At A&M, I taught the elementary math lab one semester. Almost none of these pre-service teachers had any idea about how to do math, much less teach it. Some of the profs have not changed their course outlines in 20 years.

[aristeides]

Maybe schools -- or at least government schools -- are an institution that made sense at a certain level of technology and economic development, but whose time has passed?

[mathluv]

I would like to see the federalization of education end. States can set some standards/requirements. School Boards should be in charge.

I say that having had a bad experience with this. A mother told me I was not doing a good job unless HER daughter made an A. I was there just for her child, not the rest. Her child was not an A student, others were. That was my last year to teach in that district. She later became Pres of the School Board.

Not all parents want the best education for their child. They just want to be able to say my child is in Algebra, or my child is gifted. The child's 'achievements' are gold stars for the parents, regardless of the ability to perform in the real world.

[aristeides]

Not all parents want the best education for their child.

But if they are paid if their child achieves a certain level on state exams, they may want that?

[KC_for_Freedom]

the teachers at the publics wchool my kids attend are VERY concerned about a firm grasp of the core curricuclum.

You are very lucky. I have taught in a very liberal public school system and the parents and kids would say I was a good and dedicated teacher. But my son went to the same school district years later and was taught to be PC and tolerant, and socialist, and diversity ruled from the first day. All work was done in groups, "because this is how things are done in industry today". We monitored and added things to his curiculum that were left out.

The problem in many districts is that the teachers, and their students campaign for the members of the school board. And they can can a principal any time they wish by going to the board.

And one more thing, in national tests where US kids usually bring up the rear, they ask the kids if they are getting a good education and the kids say "yes". In schools who beat the US every time, like Vietnam, they say their schools could be better. So the fact that most Americans like their personal schools, their personal school board, and their personal politicians does not mean that they have superior schools, boards, or politicians.

[Scenic Sounds]

Instead of vouchers, have state exams for students. If a student passes the exams for the year, the state then pays the student's parent(s) (or caregiver) an appropriate amount equal to the reasonable cost of schooling for the year. That means no state control over private and religious schools, and no discrimination against homeschooling parents. It also means no constitutional problem in violating separation of church and state.

Good post.

Now, how about kids who can and do benefit from education, but who, because they have disabilities, cannot pass state exams designed for normal kids?

And, how about kids who have parents who believe (or who act like they believe) that educating their children is unimportant and are not sufficiently motivated by an "amount equal to the reasonable cost of schooling" to provide for their kids' education?

[KC_for_Freedom]

The competition that is sorely needed is between teachers. Instead of basing pay on say how many years a teacher has taught, base it on how well the students and parents are satisfied with the teacher. Base it on scores the kids make over several years, base salary on what a teacher can negotiate between the board and the individual. In this pay teachers could take back their professionalism. And the teachers union? (I think they would hate this idea.)