http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/03-4
I read this article today and thought immediately of PTL. There is something perverse about describing education in economic terminology, teachers as "producers," students as "consumers," and applying the mythological "free market" to higher education. This is especially disturbing in light of a recent lawsuit being brought against a for-profit college chain under allegations of fraud. Is this the "free market" we want in charge of our education?
There is little doubt that privatization is actually harmful to the consumer when it comes to services. Medicare's administrative costs are a fraction of those of the private insurance industry. Privatization is proving a blow to public libraries. And of course, for-profit colleges suck up federal dollars to give worthless degrees to students who are then forced to default on their loans because they cannot find a job (as the article on fraud mentions, for-profit colleges make up 12% of the students in higher education, but takes in 25% of federal education aid, and 50% of students who default on education loans attended for-profits).
To end with a question: Is it wise to treat a school like a business?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
A New Measure for Classroom Quality
A recent article in the New York Times addresses one of the key elements of the education reform "debates" that have been going on of late -- specifically, how to address the quality of a teacher.
The article puts forward a simple method of measuring teacher quality: amount of instruction time. In brief, the author suggests that an effective way to measure teacher performance is how much class time is spent on instruction vs time spent trying to maintain order, conduct non-instructional classroom business, etc. In addition, making the teachers available to students for remedial instruction and tutoring, as well as availability of online resources for tutoring, would help narrow the gap education gap between those children of rich, highly educated families and poor, less-educated families.
On the surface, this seems like a good idea. There is certainly no denying that more efficient delivery of content, and availability of extra help resources would be a boon to students. However, there are practical problems with some elements. The assumption that poorer students will have access to the internet outside of school may well be a dangerous one to make, and the success of efficient delivery of material is still dependent on the students being able to actually come to school in the first place (and be motivated to do so). These extra resources, and focus on efficient teaching, are nice, but resources that are unused are of little value. Great ideas overall, but I doubt that they will be effective alone.
To end with a question: How might we best encourage underperforming students to take advantage of educational resources to supplement their education outside of the classroom?
The article puts forward a simple method of measuring teacher quality: amount of instruction time. In brief, the author suggests that an effective way to measure teacher performance is how much class time is spent on instruction vs time spent trying to maintain order, conduct non-instructional classroom business, etc. In addition, making the teachers available to students for remedial instruction and tutoring, as well as availability of online resources for tutoring, would help narrow the gap education gap between those children of rich, highly educated families and poor, less-educated families.
On the surface, this seems like a good idea. There is certainly no denying that more efficient delivery of content, and availability of extra help resources would be a boon to students. However, there are practical problems with some elements. The assumption that poorer students will have access to the internet outside of school may well be a dangerous one to make, and the success of efficient delivery of material is still dependent on the students being able to actually come to school in the first place (and be motivated to do so). These extra resources, and focus on efficient teaching, are nice, but resources that are unused are of little value. Great ideas overall, but I doubt that they will be effective alone.
To end with a question: How might we best encourage underperforming students to take advantage of educational resources to supplement their education outside of the classroom?
Sunday, May 1, 2011
On Private Vs Public Schooling: A Response
Shelby asked: "Which would be the more effective route to take for educational reformation: more alternative, private schools, or revamping public schools?"
As I have mentioned numerous times before, I am a product of private education (parochial school for K-8, Catholic prep school for 9-12). My parents insisted on sending me to private schools because of the sorry state of our town's public schools (the public high school in my hometown lost its accreditation when I was applying to private high schools). I have never been in a public school, so my only experience with the public education system is indirect, through articles and books describing it.
Despite this, I am a firm believer that effective education reform must make revamping our public schools a key facet. As Shelby pointed out in her post, not all (or even most) people can afford a private education for their children. Indeed, I am convinced that one of the key factors in the success of private over public education is that private schools tend to have far better resources than public schools. As I view education as a public good, our education reform efforts must necessarily rely strongly on public schools.
I was originally going to blog about the article that Shelby linked (I'll provide the link here, as well, since I will draw that in). Our teachers are, without a doubt, woefully underpaid and underprepared for the challenges that they are faced with, especially considering the growing hostility that state and local governments seem to be showing towards them. We do not pay our teachers enough to make a living, we don't give them enough resources to properly teach, we stick them with far too many children to teach, and then demonize them as "bad teachers" when their students fail.
However, this emphasis on schools may be missing the elephant in the room. In a letter to the editor to the NY Times, one teacher asks "what am I to do with the one [student] who spent two weeks in a mental hospital, the two who have run away, the one with no ride to school, the three who have been suspended for drugs and the countless others who attend class only one or two days a week?"
School is an important place to try to improve. But investment in to schools will be inadequate unless we couple it with a renewed War on Poverty and work to provide a better home life for our nation's poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
To end with a question: Can education alone counter the deleterious affects of poverty?
As I have mentioned numerous times before, I am a product of private education (parochial school for K-8, Catholic prep school for 9-12). My parents insisted on sending me to private schools because of the sorry state of our town's public schools (the public high school in my hometown lost its accreditation when I was applying to private high schools). I have never been in a public school, so my only experience with the public education system is indirect, through articles and books describing it.
Despite this, I am a firm believer that effective education reform must make revamping our public schools a key facet. As Shelby pointed out in her post, not all (or even most) people can afford a private education for their children. Indeed, I am convinced that one of the key factors in the success of private over public education is that private schools tend to have far better resources than public schools. As I view education as a public good, our education reform efforts must necessarily rely strongly on public schools.
I was originally going to blog about the article that Shelby linked (I'll provide the link here, as well, since I will draw that in). Our teachers are, without a doubt, woefully underpaid and underprepared for the challenges that they are faced with, especially considering the growing hostility that state and local governments seem to be showing towards them. We do not pay our teachers enough to make a living, we don't give them enough resources to properly teach, we stick them with far too many children to teach, and then demonize them as "bad teachers" when their students fail.
However, this emphasis on schools may be missing the elephant in the room. In a letter to the editor to the NY Times, one teacher asks "what am I to do with the one [student] who spent two weeks in a mental hospital, the two who have run away, the one with no ride to school, the three who have been suspended for drugs and the countless others who attend class only one or two days a week?"
School is an important place to try to improve. But investment in to schools will be inadequate unless we couple it with a renewed War on Poverty and work to provide a better home life for our nation's poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
To end with a question: Can education alone counter the deleterious affects of poverty?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)