Posts
Steven Greenhut asks this interesting question.
Would you trust the production of food, clothing or shelter – even more important to our well-being than education – to the same people who are producing education in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and even wealthy Capistrano Unified? I didn't think so.
[snip]
An elite group plans and directs a one-size-fits-all system. There are few choices. There are no consumers. This is a top-down, government-controlled monopoly system, with more than a little bit of coercive force at its disposal. How could a system such as this take root in a society that is supposed to pride itself on freedom and the market economy?
Increasingly, this argument makes so much sense to me.
The article is Liberate the public schools.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is an article worth reading in full. Thanks for posting it.
I think the key ingredient in the article is the realization that huge(!) amounts of money are being spent on education and the results don't improve. There should be a linkage between money and results, but there isn't. Something is fundamentally wrong.
Will full choice turn education into survival of the fittest? With apologies to Winston Churchill,
The inherent vice of full choice is the unequal sharing of brilliance; the inherent virtue of public schools is the equal sharing of mediocrity.
More money doesn't change the results and it's still survival of the fittest (with parents and tutoring). They want parents to be involved with their children's education, so give parents real power and responsibility.
Give them choice.
be warned: long comment ahead.
I'm partly on board - I support vouchers and school choice, but I don't like the idea of completely shutting down public schools. I just don't think that those should be the only options available to parents.
I think I've mentioned this before, but I think that market for schools and education is entering Long Tail territory.
KTM has turned into a pretty nifty online community here; the thing to remember, though, is that we represent a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the population. If we waved a magic wand and transformed K-12 education into what we like, probably 80% of the population would be just as dissatisfied with 'our' schools as we currently are with the existing ones. There probably isn't a single philosophy of education that could truly satisfy even 51% of the population. As long as we're wedded to the idea of a single public school system for everyone, the best case scenario is a system where the majority is vaguely dissatisfied, but not dissatisfied enough to skip town or take out a second mortgage for private school. Everybody loses, but we all lose equally, so it's ok.
Long tail economics is about delivering niche products to ever-tinier slivers of the population. In our world, that means a rigorous, integrated mathematics curriculum using evidence-based pedagogy. For others, it could be something else, including the 'fuzzy studies' which we so despise. School choice is basically an agreement to part ways, and let parents - and teachers - decide for themselves what kind of schools they like.
That brings up a second point - if school choice is going to work, it will necessarily mean a dramatic change in the way teachers are employed. If the schools are to serve ever-smaller niches, then so will teachers; that means the days where salaries are tied to seniority, and teachers tied to districts, will be gone.
Under the choice model, teachers really would be treated like professionals - for good or ill. That means exchanging stability and security for growth and opportunity. This will not benefit everyone. The pay scale will start to resemble the university level: math & science teachers - currently grossly underpaid by the market - would make out like bandits, while art, music, and humanities teachers would likely find themselves forced to either take a major pay cut, or change professions. Within individual subject areas, you'd likely see a 'superstar' system develop; this is not to say that this will be better or worse (I say better, but others will disagree), but it will be drastically different.
Anyway, I've rambled on long enough, and have to get back to work.
I'm definitely with George - choice (don't forget Charters!) would make huge changes - some good, some maybe not.
"...but I don't like the idea of completely shutting down public schools."
This probably couldn't happen for practical reasons. Expanding charters would be great only if there was much less control over charters. Charters have to be approved by our state's public school hierarchy, and the charter has to be "different". Often, the public schools look much more traditional than these schools. You have to be very careful about the charter school approach. What might look like choice, really isn't.
"School choice is basically an agreement to part ways, and let parents - and teachers - decide for themselves what kind of schools they like."
There are no best practices. If some parents like TERC, that's great, but don't force it on my son. I don't want to fight over reform math. I shouldn't have to. However, the mechanism has to break the monopoly. It has to provide real choice and it has to give the control to parents.
"...that means the days where salaries are tied to seniority, and teachers tied to districts, will be gone."
Not necessarily. When I buy a product, I care about comparing options and quality. I don't care if the manufacturer has a union or what the employee incentives are.
The arguments against choice seem to focus on potential downside effects. Some people expect guarantees, but none can be given. When towns, states, and the federal government throw astronomical amounts of money at education with little effect, then something fundamentally different has to be done.
Post a Comment