FREE ENTERPRISE AND EDUCATION

On Aug 20^th, there was what I though was a significant exchange dealing with primary education. I repeat it here on this web site thus call attention to the entire exchange on +Google Discussion section: +Education Revolution in the General Discussion section. The exchange points out the differences between conservatives and liberals. In essence, regardless of politics, we both want our children to have the best education possible. The Difference is that conservatives want the best education for their children where as liberals want he best educations for all children—there is a stark difference. This discussion clearly point out that difference.

I pushed back on the results of a recent Gallup Annual Survey on the Public’s Attitude about, which showed 68% of parents “do not believe that standardized tests help teachers know what to teach”. I do not agree with the poll results but have no choice but to believe the accuracy of the result, therefore, I addressed the consequences of parents’ attitudes on education. It was the political implications of the response to my remarks I found interesting and enlightening as to why the strong right wing bias is getting public education in trouble.

I agreed with the contributors initial response on the Google site, “Without standardized testing and the precious information it yields we would have no way to determine international and intra-national rank lists on a subject by subject basis to gauge competitiveness and to identify where in the world kids are learning best with a view to emulating the best of the best (were appropriate), determining which of the many curricula is best for both student engagement and objective success among heterogeneously performing groups of students among differing socioeconomic backgrounds . . .”.  OK up to this point but then the respondent launched into a tirade against unions and teachers.

The respondent accurately identified multiple solutions and suggested responses; fire poorly performing teachers, identify waste in the system, allocate resources, better pay for educators, and a whole litany of good things; things that should be done. He talked about shrinking resources without saying why resources are shrinking, which is that conservatives want to cut taxes as though there is not connection between the problems and tax income. Seemingly in verification of that lack of understanding, he wrote, “to make the case for bold changes such as significant tax rebates for home or small group schoolers [sec]and reallocating funds from underachieving schools to overachieving charter schools; and so on and so forth”. Of course, the implication is that it is not good for children to be in public school.

I responded: “I agree with some of what you say, however . . . your 220 word sentence seems to endorse what some of us feel is at the heart of the problem with public education”—he had written his response as a very long sentence. We all recognize that there is a need “to design innovative learning techniques and environments that will maximize each group’s potential”. Then you seem to launch into an argument in support of making “bold changes such [as] significant tax rebates for home or small group schoolers [sic] and reallocating funds from underachieving schools to overachieving charter schools”. The correctness of tax rebates, on top of voucher programs, both of which remove funds available public schools and move them into private programs, is debatable. The obvious result of doing these things is that there is even less support for under achieving schools, which often happens to be the very schools for students who come from poor neighborhoods. This is what the anti bussing program is all about; do not waste “your tax” money on buses; this keeps poor children in poor neighborhoods.”

His response, in addition to some bantering about my English and criticism of his long sentience was, “Parents and students simply want educational choices available to them so that they can take advantage of the option(s) that best meet the needs of the individual learner. On the whole, they couldn't care less about the latest ridiculous demands of a self-interest group whose principal task is to maintain the status quo from which union members greatly benefit over against what is best for students and their families.” The respondent went on to claim teacher unions “have a monopoly on the education sector”. By controlling what is tantamount to a monopoly on the education sector “they stifle competition, innovation as well as the cognitive and overall growth of Canada's youth.” This is the standard hate the union spiel of conservatives.

The writers most telling sentence was, “The irony is that teachers are as much victims as the children they claim to educate since the CBAs [I have no idea of what the acronym means] quickly snuff-out great ideas and authentic enthusiasm possessed by younger teaches as they enter the profession having unwittingly participated in the union's nefarious activities designed to create a quagmire of unmerited privilege based entirely on seniority rather than performance, general fecklessness encouraged by a culture of mediocrity supported by a bloated bureaucratic system lead by weak-willed ineffective managers who generally care more about counting down the days to their very comfortable retirement.”

In summary, what I took his statement to mean is that the problem in education boils down to teachers and “weak-willed ineffective managers”. On this blog site, firetreepub.blogspot.com, I have repeatedly made the point, conservatives think something is right or is working only if they are in charge. To me, the correctness of tax rebates, on top of voucher programs, which remove funds from public schools and move them into private programs, is the center of the debate. The obvious result of doing these things is that there is even less support for under achieving schools. This is what, for example, the anti bussing programs are all about; save “your tax” money by keeping poor children in poor neighborhoods where under achieving public school keep impoverished; thus, forcing parents to want to end their children to charter schools.

The only reason there are charter schools in poor neighborhoods and special needs students, and that is where they often are located, is because corporation, headed by conservatives, who are making big money off taxpayer dollars that should be going to the public school. As time goes on, it is predictable; polls will reveal educational standards are failing in both public school and charter schools (all of them) but are getting better and better in expensive private schools. Now that the greedy genie is out of the bottle, free enterprise in education—education FOR PROFIT—will only work if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Education only works for everyone if it is socialized, which it is in a democracy. Income disparity, better known as Reaganomics, has affected university level education in a big way, and is now eroding away primary education; you want your six children to be physicians? It will cost you $50,000 a year tuition for four years for each child not counting premedical years; in case you didn’t do the math it adds to over $1,200,000.00 just for med school. Did I mention they will be competing for entrance to college against children who were educated in privates schools; as they say; good luck.

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated