In regards to public education...

[Os Cangaceiros]

I watched some TV show last night about Michelle Rhee, who was appointed head of Washington DC schools (DC schools are notoriously bad) and basically ruled with an iron fist, firing hundreds of school district bureaucrats, teachers, principles, and closed over 20 schools.

Anyway, her argument on the show was that the children were way more important than the careers of individuals, and that people who didn't raise test scores etc. deserved to be fired. She also gave pretty generous cash bonuses to schools and individuals who improved their scores, though.

She took a lot of heat from teacher's unions, though. But honestly I thought that the excuses that the teacher's union leader gave in his interview were somewhat pathetic. Although Rhee did come across somewhat as a coldhearted autocrat who steamrolled over any opposition to her policies, I'd guess that the average viewer would agree with her rationale more than that of the teacher's union rep. I'm sure there's more to this debate that I'm not realizing though. How should a leftist approach the debate regarding "meritocracy" in teaching, and the erosion of worker's rights on the job etc?

[skitty]

I think there's more than enough blame to spread around; and isn't half the battle being lost at home? I know many teachers take work home with them and spend their own money on supplies for students.

[#FF0000]

I imagine it'd start by pointing out the Rhee's atrocious record before taking over DC schools and the massive cheating scandal that took place during her time in the DC school district.

Then it'd probably move on to discussing StudentsFirst, her dubious "reform" organization. Studentsfirst hands out grades to each state based on how well they go along with the organizations idea of reform -- that is, based on how much money is given to charter schools, based on how easy it is for teachers to be fired in the state, etc. etc. etc.

These grades are basically all over the place. Some of the states with the best performing schools (Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts) received an F or D- grade from StudentsFirst while states with abysmal schools like Florida got the highest ratings from the organization.

Plus there's the fact that charter schools that work on Rhee's model perform worse than public schools in the first place.

So yeah, the leftist approach should really just focus on the point that Michelle Rhee's proposed solutions to whatever problems American schools are facing don't work.

(Also it'd probs look at the rates of child poverty, food insecurity, etc. and how those affect performance)

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I don't know anything about DC's schools in particular or the person in question, but ...



I would be sure to mention that public schools are predominantly funded by property taxes, disproportionately impacting poor areas re: funding for supplies. Also, this negative effect is compounded by the fact that in poor areas parents are more likely to be working nights, odd shifts, unable to help their children with homework and provide additional instruction outside of school that more affluent families can provide. This leads to the schools that are already worse off re: funding, to report poorer student performance, and as a result have action taken against them via No Child Left Behind, exacerbating the problem.

Then there's the issue of most of the funding in school districts going to administration and not to the actual classroom.

[Os Cangaceiros]

^In regards to the cheating scandal, they did cover that issue. Although in her defense, I don't think she had anything to do with it directly, it seemed like the result of corrupt school faculty on a much lower level.

[NewLeft]

did you watch waiting for superman? merit pay will always put teachers who work in schools where most kids fail at a disadvantage, a teacher would literally have to go well out of their way to turn the kids into high scorers, you're asking more from these teachers than you are from teachers at schools were kids generally do score well. also the whole union busting to ram through charter schools should be opposed, for every charter school performing well, there's two that do not.

[#FF0000]

^In regards to the cheating scandal, they did cover that issue. Although in her defense, I don't think she had anything to do with it directly, it seemed like the result of corrupt school faculty on a much lower level.

Maybe so but it certainly paints a different picture of her miraculous turnabout of DC schools, I think.

[AtarashiiSekai]

As a high-school student, I don't with merit pay or any of that nonsense. Test scores are npt even a reasonable measure of student progress, cost the states a ton of money, are private industries, and unreliable at best. I did my large senior project on the dangers of standardized testing and how we can improve our schools. The damage and stress we are causing students has a tremendous psychological, physical, and social effect on students. My research also went into human nature and how we can best use it in schools to make them a better place. Stress and anxiety causes us humans to be selfish and violent, and that is being promoted in our schools with the rise of standardized tests and competitive environments.

[Art Vandelay]

In all honesty due to the superstructure of bourgeois society, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie will forever be unable to produce anything but what it currently does. There is a serious crises in the education system (in Canada, let alone the U.S.A.) and it is designed to produce workers who will accept increasingly dead end jobs.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm not sure if I understood this correctly...but

One of the things these so-called reformists propose is that school funding be based on test scores, no? I never understood how that idea made any sense to any policy maker or the public. Wouldn't some of the lower-preforming schools may actually be in need of better funding (and things like smaller class sizes, etc)? Like, it makes no sense to curtail the funding of schools that are doing badly while increasing funding for schools that are already doing well...who the fuck though that would actually make things better? I hope I heard wrong, but so far I gotten this understanding that this is what the education "reformists" want and it's just seem insane that people honestly think that's reform that would help public education.

I feel it's more of a cover for a classist ploy so to defund schools in poor areas so to increase funding in schools in more well-off areas/demographic being passed around as "education reform."

[BIXX]

I am a member of a Student Union, and one of our goals, whether or not it is unrealistic, is the complete elimination of standardized testing. These tests tell more about where you live and how much your parents make than your ability to learn. In my city, you can't graduate unless you pass every single standardized test. This is designed to keep kids who live in poorer neighborhoods from rising up, and ends up being incredibly racist, seeing as minorities tend to make less money than the white population. Kids who live in poorer neighborhoods have a lot going against them when it comes to standardized tests. First, they have bigger things to worry about than training to take some test. Also, their schools aren't funded as well, and eventually get marked as failing, then closed down. This just continues the trend of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer.
I really think it's time for an educational revolution in our country, where instead of training kids to take a test, we give them a holistic educational experience that fits their needs enough to the point where children are encouraged to work hard, and be self motivated. I feel like just because someone isn't as smart as me, or I'm not as smart as them, or their family doesn't have as much money as mine, or vice versa, doesn't really dictate where we should be able to go in life. I think it should be based on effort. Of course, it's hard to prove whether or not a student is trying, but I think my point is clear.
I personally do not agree with a lot of how the Teacher's Union here works, because I've had abusive teachers before that they would stand up for even though due to those teachers I can't operate normally in a class environment (either incredibly hostile toward a teacher, despite the fact that they don't deserve it, or too afraid to talk to them or ask for help in understanding something, rarely can I just be a normal student). I feel like a Teacher's Union is important, but there definitely needs to be changes, otherwise I often find myself not supporting them.