Posts
A prominent supporter of a market-based approach to improving public schools, Sol Stern, says he no longer believes charter schools or vouchers are a "panacea."
In an article published in the latest edition of City Journal, Mr. Stern, a Manhattan Institute fellow, portrays the libertarian approach that once inspired him as a failed experiment, and urges those who agree with him to search for a "Plan B."
The idea that what public schools need is not more money but more competition has become a major school of thought in education circles — "the dominant challenge in terms of big politics of school reform," a professor of education and political science at Columbia University's Teachers College, Jeffrey Henig, said.
Mr. Stern's article appears to be the latest in a series of indications that its dominance is flagging.
C"There's a growing consensus that a market approach alone is not enough," the president of the Albany-based Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability, Tom Carroll, said. He added: "There's a need for a moment of reflection."
A Libertarian Is Searching For an Education 'Plan B'
by Elizabeth Green
January 14, 2008
letter in today's paper:
The libertarian approach to improving public schools has never in and of itself been enough to improve public schools, and it has long been obvious, as Sol Stern points out, "that curriculum and pedagogy should be considered along with market solutions" [New York, "A Libertarian Is Searching For an Education 'Plan B,'" January 14, 2008].A moment should suffice -- I love it!
For this reason the only charter schools that have succeeded are those which adopted rich content and proven teaching methods. Although Thomas Carroll rightly calls for "a moment of reflection," it should be added that a moment should suffice. There is no need to ponderously "search" for "Plan B."
While maintaining the market approach, the schools should, one, adopt E.D. Hirsch Jr.'s "cultural literacy" program, which re-establishes rigorous literature, math, etc., and, two, employ the traditional, teacher-centered pedagogies demonstrated by Jeanne Chall, in the Academic Achievement Challenge, to be effective.
CANDACE de RUSSY
Bronxville, N.Y.
Sol Stern in City Journal
pause for reflection
5 comments:
That letter is fantastic! Love it too.
"Mr. Stern's article appears to be the latest in a series of indications that its dominance is flagging."
"There's a growing consensus that a market approach alone is not enough,"
Which is it, flagging, or not enough? I'll go with the not enough. The question I have is what kind of choice are they talking about? What do they expect from choice?
Are they talking about school choice, curriculum choice, or expectation choice. We all know that the kind of choice available today is slow to offer the kinds of choices we're looking for here at KTM. That doesn't mean that choice isn't going to work. Everyone seems to be looking for the ONE thing that will fix the problem, even though there are lots of different problems. Some think that the goal of education is to fix poverty. Some think it has to be the other way around. I'm looking for lots of choices and individual educational opportunities.
"While maintaining the market approach, the schools should, one, adopt E.D. Hirsch Jr.'s "cultural literacy" program, which re-establishes rigorous literature, math, etc., and, two, employ the traditional, teacher-centered pedagogies demonstrated by Jeanne Chall, in the Academic Achievement Challenge, to be effective."
Right. And schools will still let kids slide from grade to grade without mastery. You can't legislate good schools. You can encourage good school models while you are expanding shoool choice, but choice is the only proper (with no guarantees) driving force.
By the way, what does choice mean when you're forcing Core Knowledge down their throats? If someone wants Everyday Math, then that's OK by me. There is no such thing as statistical best practices.
The debate, I gather, has been entirely about school choice, nothing more.
School choice versus accountability; those have been the two camps amongst policy wonks - especially, I gather, amongst policy wonks at the Koret Institute.
By the way, what does choice mean when you're forcing Core Knowledge down their throats? If someone wants Everyday Math, then that's OK by me.
I agree.
This is one of my chronic frustrations.
I am perfectly happy for other people to have whatever they want.
Just let me have the Core Knowledge/Saxon-or-Singapore/liberal arts education I want for my own kid.
Don't force my kid to spend 14 years of his life dropping eggs off buildings.
Ages ago I read about this school in California that was based on extreme constructivist principles and how I supported. Because if I didn't, I would be a hypocrite. When the Shoe is on the Other Foot.
The school in question is a magnet school and parents intentionally chose to place their children there because they believed in the constructivist approach. Test scores were dismal and the powers that be wanted to change the curriculum to more of a traditional approach.
Parents were outraged and rightfully so. This is bait-and-switch. Parents have a right to choose how they want their own child to be educated. I have no right to decide how my neigbhor should educate their child but I certainly have a right to decide for my children.
It goes both ways. It has to. Otherwise, what's the point?
Post a Comment