Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 9:43 AM
Will left this comment at February 10, 2006 9:51 AM
I'm having a bit of a hard time with your entry. I'll start with a few questions:
1) If not compulsory education, then what?
2) Without using public schools as a means of preparing students for the world, what would you suggest as an alternative?
3) As a student in middle school and high school I learned many things that I've felt have enriched my life greatly which would have been impossible to understand without an elementary school education to prepare me for those institutions. Since you did not get the same value from your schooling, does that trivialize my schooling?
4) Beyond teaching kids on a basic level how to cooperate in a classroom so that important work can get done, throughout my entire K-12 education I was exposed to information and critical thinking skills dealing with when it may be appropriate not to conform including:
Issues of slavery; Thoreau's Civil Disobedience; Martin Luther King Junior's civil disobedience centered around his Letter from Birmingham Jail; the Vietnam war and questions of draft-dodging; ethical dilemmas posed in health classes, psychology classes, humanities classes, and others with open-ended discussions that allow for different points of view; and many others.
Society doesn't function without a degree of cooperation, and particularly in the younger years of elementary school work is done to show kids how to do that. As students enter middle school and high school, they are required to be challenged to confront issues of when to obey and not to. I know this for a fact, because it is included in the Oregon Social Science Stardards of education that I have to follow as an educator.
The question is this: without learning in a formalized setting how to cooperate with others, where else are people going to learn these skills? Even indigenous tribes have basic education to teach children how to function cooperatively in their society.
And to follow: with all of my education that challenged me to make choices about what I choose to follow or not - does that mean nothing compared to the pressures to conform that you write about?
5) Taylor Gatto's article discusses some shortfalls to education, but he brings up the point that education is supposed to prepare people to be employees and consumers. If one does not use school to prepare himself for the workforce, what will he do instead? We have more people than we have jobs, and it is more and more difficult to pick the right candidates for jobs as it is... the work force is a necessarily heirarchical system when based in capitalism. School, for better or worse, helps employers make decisions about who to hire.
6) What role does the family have in bridging schoolwork with preparing students for the world?
I understand that there are problems with public education, and nearly every educator I work with can list a few of them: class sizes are too large, No Child Left Behind forces teachers to be accountable but without the resources to achieve the ends desired, students have different learning needs and it is nearly impossible to address all of those needs for all of the students, and others.
Is the solution to do away with compulsory education, or to reform education?
Also, is schooling necessarily the same dreadful thing that you experienced, or does it differ person-to-person and region-to-region as well as school-to-school and teacher-to-teacher?
Is it possible that your opinions would be totally different if you had the same teachers and classes that I had?
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at February 10, 2006 6:43 PM
Will,
Everything that compulsory schools did for you, other institutions or arrangements could have done more efficiently and humanely. I envision a free, open marketplace with a multitude of options for the education of children, teens, and adults. For example, what if your parents homeschooled you or had you tutored in reading, writing, arithmetic, and reference skills, and then set you loose in the library to study whatever subjects happened to interest you? (Tutors cost money, but your folks would have had more to spend on you if they hadn’t had to pay for schools through their taxes.) If they were concerned about your social development, they could have enrolled you in a Sudbury-model school. These schools have no mandatory classes or curricula; students of all ages spend their time as they wish. Public schools have puppet “student governments,” but kids in Sudbury schools actually get to vote on the school’s rules. They rule wisely, prohibiting and punishing all the obviously unacceptable behaviors like fighting, stealing, destruction of property and so on. Except for those sensible prohibitions, it’s pretty much do what thou wilt. Wouldn’t your childhood have been happier at such a school?
I’m not impressed by the fact that Thoreau, Gandhi, and King are on some public schools’ curricula. Individuals and institutions don’t always practice what they preach. A kid that doesn’t want to sit through a lecture on civil disobedience is labeled a troublemaker, and hardly anyone sees the irony. In The Teenage Liberation Handbook, former high school teacher Grace Llewellyn reports that, to her shame and regret, she couldn’t help becoming a petty classroom dictator under the public school system—and she believes in civil disobedience as firmly as you do, Will.
Will left this comment at February 11, 2006 10:24 AM
Well, I really don't see how my public schooling would have been any happier in a place like that, honestly. I know all about Sudbury-type schools, and the general consensus I've heard from people who've dealt with schools like that is that the kids that want to use the schools in the right way do, and those that don't want to don't. I'm doing all kinds of google searches, as well as site searches for absolutely any information on what kind of lives these kids have after graduating from Sudbury school. There's nothing - no numbers on the percentage that go to college, no state testing numbers on math and reading scores, no stats on careers these people end up in, and no stats on average income of students that graduate.
Sure, the school sounds good on its face, but there's absolutely no research to back up its claims.
There are a lot of worries that I have with such a school. For instance, they claim that students can basically learn whatever they want quickly if they're interested in it. The model of public school is to build students up over time, and I find it difficult to believe that all students, if even a majority could do that without the scaffolding to build schemas that public schools naturally do. I'm also worried that the staff aren't certified educators. I've gone through the process of getting a master's degree to teach, and I've got to say that there are some key important things to understand about what learning is on a basic level and how people learn that is important. Without that background, I would imagine that most of the staff at Sudbury who are elected have good personalities and relate well with the kids, but their lack of expertise is troubling.
And maybe you won't like this, but I don't think that the schooling process should be fundamentally a happy experience. It should be a fundamentally a challenging experience full of experiences that aren't fun and require students to overcome difficulties. How does a school like Sudbury prepare people to work in jobs that involve people doing things that they don't want to do? Jobs are full of tasks that aren't fun to do... does Sudbury prepare people for that?
Your point that public schools are full of people that don't foster skills and attitudes that we'd like is a symptom of a system that is broken. Your solution is to defund it and provide a typically libertarian alternative of marketplace choices. My solution would be to put the money back into schools that have slowly been drained since the Reagan years, and find ways to decrease class sizes, improve the education of teachers to address learning differences and techniques to address them in a classroom, and better support for special education. There already are reforms in education since you've graduated that emphasize making education more user friendly for students of all learning styles.
So, I really don't know what to say to you. Everyone knows that public education has problems. And you can always find teachers that don't do well. I just don't see that as a reason to call for the total destruction of public education, nor as a reason to claim that public education doesn't work for everyone because it didn't work for you.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at February 11, 2006 8:10 PM
Will:
Well, I really don't see how my public schooling would have been any happier in a place like that, honestly.
So you don’t mind having been chained to a desk for six hours a day, five days a week, with very little choice in what you learned and did? I don’t understand you.
It takes a maximum of 15 years for the Sudbury Valley School to prepare a new adult for the world, and the school has been in continuous operation for 38 years. That’s more than enough time for parents to know the results of the experiment. If it were a failure, the school would have gone out of business a long time ago. Private enterprises are accountable for results in a way that government bureaucracies aren’t, so I don’t put much faith in the public school reforms you speak of. I consider them about as useful as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
And maybe you won't like this, but I don't think that the schooling process should be fundamentally a happy experience.
I’m continually amazed at the human capacity to rationalize the needless suffering of oneself and others. People have several internal motives to do things that aren’t exactly fun: love, devotion, achievement. Let’s give children a chance to find these drives within themselves rather than teach them blind obedience to authority. And let’s admit that we must choose one or the other of these lessons. We can’t teach both at the same time. Doesn’t it scare you a little that the first nation to successfully implement compulsory schooling gave us Adolf Hitler?
The victory of the capitalist countries in the Cold War taught us—or should have taught us—that individual liberty is much more productive than centralized planning. This may be counterintuitive, but so is the notion that the earth revolves around the sun.
Will left this comment at February 11, 2006 10:34 PM
Private enterprises are accountable for results in a way that government bureaucracies aren’t. That's just wrong, public institutions are under much more scruitiny. I know, I've taught in public and private schools. NCLB and school boards are major factors in this.
Well, once again, I say it comes down to your solution and mine. You wish to tear down public education, and I wish to build it up. You define public school as much more oppressive than anything I've experienced as a teacher or a student, and I'm convinced that has something to do with a regional difference between where we grew up. In any event, I understand your complaints, but I also don't see the United States making it in the world economy without some sort of education system provided for all of its citizens. I would suggest that you use the democratic systems available to you to help improve these systems: letters to the editor, letters to congressmen and women, letters to the president, run to be elected to the school board, etc. - if you really are upset with education, do something proactive and positive to change it.
People are doing some really great things in public education, and if you're looking for innovation, just look at where I did my student teaching at in South Eugene High School. http://schools.4j.lane.edu/ihs/lynne_web/images/Bookletforpdf.pdf I've seen how the International High School operates, and the students love it. It is highly challenging, and the students are given a high degree of autonomy. They are given many independent projects and often use classes like universities do... the teachers provide guidance, and are available for help and suggestions, while the students do most of the work independently.
I could go on and on about this, but I don't particularly want to. I think it is unfortunate that people such as yourself view education as some sort of institution meant to simply teach people to obey. Maybe many others experience that, but it certainly doesn't have to, even in public education.
I'll leave it at that. Unless you can provide some sort of evidence that shows that public schools are more likely to produce mindless followers than other forms of education, this conversation will continue to devolve into pure opinion against pure opinion. I don't really have much interest in that right now... I know my opinion, and it will take some hard facts for me to change my mind.
Dr.John left this comment at February 12, 2006 5:31 AM
If you really want to see how stupid public schools are you only need to look at the true story of the girl with a 4.0 average who won't be allowed to graduate because she has missed too many days of school. Its rules above education every time.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at February 12, 2006 4:28 PM
Thank you, Dr. John. Obtusely rigid bureaucrats prosper in institutions that are sheltered from competition.
Will:
That's just wrong, public institutions are under much more scruitiny.
I wish to deconstruct your use of the word scrutiny. For you, it seems to mean government oversight, which has the practical consequence of taking away from kids and their parents many of the choices that are rightfully theirs. In education as in other businesses, the customer is always right. I apologize in advance, but you’re a control freak on the subject of education.
You ask for hard facts. Here’s one: Kids in countries with school choice outperform American kids on tests.
Jetting Through Life left this comment at February 12, 2006 6:27 PM
I went through public schooling and while I did very well... College I had a hard time. I learned that I didn't have the study skills I supposedly had in high school... I feel your pain.
As far as your family situation goes... I am sorry!! ***HUGS***
XXOO,
JTL
P.S. To make the mood less somber... PlayBoy -- PlayBoy -- PlayBoy!! :o)
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at February 12, 2006 7:01 PM
Thank you, JTL. You always warm my heart.
PlayBoy -- PlayBoy -- PlayBoy!!
A-ha! A subliminal message.
Will left this comment at February 12, 2006 10:42 PM
I wish to deconstruct your use of the word scrutiny. For you, it seems to mean government oversight, which has the practical consequence of taking away from kids and their parents many of the choices that are rightfully theirs. In education as in other businesses, the customer is always right. I apologize in advance, but you’re a control freak on the subject of education.
If you have to apologize in advance, maybe you know you shouldn't say it. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here - are you insulting me just to insult me? How am I a control freak? I'm not commenting in your blog to be mean or disrespectful. I'm commenting because this is something that I care about and I have a point-of-view to share that I thought you could consider. If you don't like it, you can politely ask me to stop posting on this. As you know, that works with me, I've stopped posting before when asked.
In any event, I read the article you posted and it brings up some interesting points - I'm just not so sure that they're accurate.
You might start by looking at Media Matters run-down of John Stossel's views on public education. His article is far from definitive in any way.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200003
Additionally, here's another response to the John Stossel piece that discusses the problem of picking Belgium: http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/2006/01/all-knowledge-is-incomplete-knowledge.html
Belgian's spend more of their GDP on education than we do. And the testing that they "out perform" us on according to Stossel is not exactly a blow-out difference - though it is significant enough to look at what they're doing differently. As I've said before, education in the United States is suffering and we should be worried about what we're doing to support public schools.
If you're wondering if there are other ways that Belgium "out performs" us, as I was as I read the article, this person did some research: http://www.wcpss.net/announcements/archives/2006/01/a_teachers_jour_27.html
Small class sizes, more support for learning disabilities, better contact hours for teachers to recruit better candidates, and a multi-tracked system to provide students a variety of paths in education. All of these are things I'm for, particularly if we spent a similar GDP percentage to Belgium. In fact, I would bet that even without privatizing education further, our education system would improve greatly with these changes.
Kathryn Beach left this comment at February 13, 2006 5:45 AM
Some of my observations on education:
As a college student, I volunteered in one of the city's premier day care centers (read that as expensive and with a long waiting list). I witnessed a regimentation similar to a bootcamp with children whose average age was 2. I was instructed not to hold children in my lap because I was encouraging them to expect that.
I raised my own children in a small remote rural community. Meaning a group of people living in close proximity in the hills of eastern Washington state. We began by homeschooling our children individually, although our children wandered from home to home at will so there was much overlap. Some of us homeschooled, others "unschooled" a la the philosophy of John Holt.
As our children grew older, we began gathering them in a building built purposefully to be a one room schoolhouse. At one time I "taught" 12 children of different ages. Another woman eventually took on the title of schoolmistress and taught the whole lot of them.
The oldest group decided to move on to public school when they were high school age. They were without exception all appalled at what they found. They stayed on for different reasons: social experiences, sports, electives, advanced classes, etc. but one and all were shocked at the lack of respect of teachers for students and vice versa.
One of these students went on to become salutatorian of her class. Her graduation speech was wise, thoughtful and probing; the valedictorians was lame by comparison. She ended with a huge venting of her frustration; a beautiful young woman, refusing to bow to unbending authority, ending up with an ongoing dispute with the school principal, succeeding in her goals nevertheless, and quoting Dr. Martin Luther King at the end of her salutatory address: "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, free at last!"
All of these homeschoolers, those who were academically inclined as well as those more interested in having fun :) ended up better adjusted socially, emotionally and intellectually, than any of their public-schooled fellows.
Homeschooling isn't for everyone; but choices should be. Our tiny town of less than 1000 people, with a school population from the whole county that more than doubled the population of the town every school day, also had an alternative high school. Originally intended to serve dropouts, those expelled from the regular high school, and other "at-risk" youth, eventually ended up also attracting many home schoolers who just couldn't put up with the b.s.
Also, being in Washington State, to address the concept of private funding vs. public, Bill Gates stepped up to the plate. The last graduation ceremony I attended before moving away from this town, all the teachers and administrators who had worked together to orchestrate the school's inclusion in Gates' scholarship program were asked to step forward...there were dozens of them.
Then the graduation class was asked to raise their hands if they had been accepted as a Gates' scholarship recipient; almost every student raised his/her hand. Gates put stipulations on any school accepted into his program; there had to be teacher education and adherence to certain methods of teaching. Teachers were gleefully traveling to what were called "Gates schools" that already had adopted his rules, to learn what they were doing. Things like computer literacy, student choice in many matters including governance, etc. I never much cared for Bill until he did this, high 5 to him on this project.
A much better option for many of these kids than "join the Army and see the world, meet interesting people, then kill them. Come home and we'll pay for your education, if you come home."
I've often thought that the best thing for our children would be to give them as many choices as possible and then make formal education non-compulsory. Nothing like competition on an open market, for a non-captive audience, to creat meaningful change.
A baby learns to interact with his parents, roll over, crawl, walk, talk, and explore his world not because of meaningless rules but because it's fun and compelling. Babies fall down, get hurt, think they're lost or abandoned when they wake up in a strange place or mom is in the other room. Mom is the center of the universe and responsible for all things; infants don't remain terror-stricken, toddlers are resilient, they still want to continue learning. It's schools that kill these natural desires.
The rebellious, those that drop out, have the best chance of preserving their natural instincts. Witness Einstein, Edison, and many others. It doesn't have to be this way, but MASSIVW change needs to happen.
Edison asked too many questions in school, he was disruptive and annoyed his teachers. His mother, also a teacher, could have insisted he listen and do as he was told. Instead she pulled him out and helped him find answers to his questions. He soon surpassed any help she could give him, of course.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at February 13, 2006 11:10 AM
Will,
I really didn’t intend to hurt you the way I obviously have in calling you a control freak, but I would be lying if I took the statement back. I beg your patience with my anger, which keeps me from being as polite as I would like.
The control-freak mentality I see in you is part of a greater pattern in American society. Religious right-wingers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have not cornered the market on the desire to meddle in other people’s private decisions. What same-sex marriage and Terri Schiavo are for the right, McDonald’s and cigarettes are for the left. Both sides firmly believe that science is on their side, and both sides are wrong. Both sides have grown intellectually lazy in their self-righteousness. Like characters in Greek tragedy, they cause much pain and suffering out of their failure to know themselves, in this case to know the human tendency to let sophisticated ethical reasoning degenerate into petty moralizing. Don’t think you’re immune, pal. You think you’re doing families a favor by assisting in the effort to keep children and teenagers trapped in an institution that may not suit them as well as numerous alternatives. Take a good, long look in the mirror and think about what you see there.
Josh left this comment at February 13, 2006 2:07 PM
I think I agree with your entry.
I felt the same way you did for a lot of school,
but now when I'm in school I feel neutral. I don't help either side, I just sit and observe.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at February 13, 2006 2:22 PM
Kathryn,
Thank you. Your anecdote about the crypto-fascist day-care center points to the unfortunate fact that some parents will send their children to places even more soul-killing than public school. Although I think the best policy is to accept the situation grudgingly, it might help if the law treated teenagers less like children and more like adults. As I learned too late, there is nothing inherently naïve or arrogant about adolescent rebellion against parental authority. Most human societies have considered their members adults by 14 at the latest. Childish behavior among American teens is largely the self-fulfilling prophecy of an infantilizing high-school system. Some say that the complexity of post-industrial society requires a formal extension of the life stage of learning and dependency. But modern society has continually made it easier, not harder, to manage the typical responsibilities of an adult. (When was the last time you had to hunt and gather your own food?) When parents exert inappropriate control over their teenaged children’s lives—as even the most loving parents can—teens need the legal leverage to find their own way in life.
If only my relationship with my now-deceased father hadn’t been poisoned by the helpless infantilism I learned in school, I probably wouldn’t need to preserve my sanity by picturing him taking Satan’s cock up his ass. (Readers, if I’ve held your interest this far down the thread, I figure I can trust you with this glimpse of my dark side.)
Will left this comment at February 15, 2006 10:24 PM
I'm not sure what your link has to do with me. Just because I have more liberal tendancies, doesn't mean that I am some sort of liberal extremist (such as the example in your link). I'm not one to tell people that they can't eat fatty foods, that they're immoral for it, or that porn is ruining our country. I'm not going to tell anyone that they have to do anything in their personal lives, even if it harms themselves, as long it doesn't harm others. Depriving students of education is harmful.
I think we need to start at the beginning - compulsory education means that every person is to be given an education. There is no requirement now, and I'd never encourage one, that states that students must only go to public school. This includes homeschooling as an option, and while I personally know people who's social development is majorly stunted by homeschooling, I believe that option should be available. But public education must be an option for everyone.
The reason I posted originally was that I took offense to your comment that everyone should resent their schooling just because you did.
You have made other claims that I disagree with:
1) Public school naturally teaches students blind obedience.
2) There is not enough choice in education presently available to kids in America today.
3) There is any evidence to suggest that private schools provide a better experience for students than public schools. Particularly to the degree that it is worth totally dismantling public education.
I find it incredibly weird that you blame me of moralizing, when you make a blanket statement claiming that everyone should resent their schooling.
You say, "Like characters in Greek tragedy, they cause much pain and suffering out of their failure to know themselves, in this case to know the human tendency to let sophisticated ethical reasoning degenerate into petty moralizing. Don’t think you’re immune, pal. You think you’re doing families a favor by assisting in the effort to keep children and teenagers trapped in an institution that may not suit them as well as numerous alternatives."
I have a few responses to this:
1) It seems that you're accusing me of not knowing myself, which is somehow in your mind the reason why I support public education. Those are two seperate issues, and I don't see any evidence for you claim that I don't know myself.
2) That the moral foundation for my political views regarding education is somehow petty. Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean that there is something inherently wrong with my critical thinking skills, nor with my moral judgements.
3) I understand that public education hasn't worked for everyone, and the question for how to deal with that question is a fundamentally challenging problem that has huge implications for the entire future of our country. I know all about the arguments for privatizing education, and I think they fundamentally appeal to the most selfish tendancies of people - "my education and the education of my family is more important than others". Improving public education is an appeal to the well-being of everyone. It is an appeal to the equity of educating the poor, the disenfranchised, the middle-class, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and so on in an arena where we have equal footing. It provides everyone an opportunity, or, at least, it can with enough resources put into it.
The marketplace argument for privatized education fundamentally is going to miss a portion of our population that is poor, repeatedly disenfranchised, and fed up with mainstream culture. Already in private schools, the "better schools" extract fees that are unbelievably high - trust me, I know, I work for one.
You seem to think that the marketplace will somehow balance out and stay affordable for the lower classes if education is privatized? What will keep the price down for the majority of people living in our country? How will quality be ensured for everyone? Or, better yet, how will we be ensured better quality than we have now?
For my money, and for my strong beliefs that this country should fundamentally serve everyone... the second that education gets too expensive for even one student to be able to attend school, we've failed. And if that is not the case, just as bad would a cheap system for the lower class that is - by far - sub par, with nothing that can be done about it in those communities. Privatizing education would create regional elitism and undesirable places (such as certain inner-cities, and extreme rural areas) wouldn't draw in the best businesses because businesses don't go to where profitability is limited. The marketplace model for education has a lot of holes, in my view.
Does that view mean that my "sophisticated ethical reasoning" has "degenerated into petty moralizing"? - No.
It just means that I have good reasons to disagree with you. I think they're good ones, feel free to disagree... but I hope you realize that my reasons are sound.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at February 18, 2006 8:43 AM
Will,
I see many parallels between your modus operandi and those of Spurlock, Shapiro, and other dangerous moralists:
Compassion in theory; cruelty in practice. Drug warriors don’t want heroin users to benefit from needle-exchange programs, because “it sends the wrong message about drugs.” Lots of people will get AIDS and hepatitis, but at least the appropriate message has been sent. Those drug warriors probably argue in good faith, but they’re oblivious to the harm they do to those they believe they’re helping. I’m sure you sincerely wish to help the poor, but you support a system that hurts them. As long as poor families are forced to finance public schools through their taxes, they won’t have enough disposable income to send their children anywhere else. Whether you admit it or not, you’re taking choices away from them (but not from wealthy families). Private schools for the poor may never be quite as nice as schools for the rich—c’est la vie—but competition amongst each other would help keep quality up and tuition fees down. At least you’re not a selfish capitalist like me.
Endless devotion to failed policies and programs. The United States had the good sense to end the disastrous policy of alcohol prohibition a long time ago. But the prohibition of some other drugs continues. Reported declines in drug use indicate the success of the drug war; reported increases mean that we need to escalate the war. Either way, the drug war gets more and more expensive and intrusive. A similar heads-I-win, tails-you-lose logic shapes public school reform, making public schools ever costlier, more restrictive (e.g. uniforms and standardized tests), or both.
Condemnation of ordinary human desires and preferences. Fast food and porn are not naturally occurring objects, yet humans have a natural tendency to enjoy the experiences they generate. Even if Spurlock and Shapiro succeeded in banning the sexy hamburger commercials they both hate, they couldn’t stop people from wanting these things. Call it selfish if you like, but humans tend to have more concern for their own children than for children in general. That’s why laws against nepotism are arguably necessary but difficult to enforce, and why the utopian kibbutzim of Israel abandoned the practice of keeping children away from their parents. Let’s allow people to care a bit more for kin than for strangers. They’re only human.
Again, I ask you to look in the mirror.
Will left this comment at February 18, 2006 11:35 AM
My response to you is look in the mirror also.
Compassion in theory; cruelty in practice. Your theory of unlimited libertarianism sounds good in theory, but in practice it will nearly always create a huge divide between the haves and the have-nots. I would say that you're easily guilty in what you claim that I am guilty of. In response to my concerns about how privatized education will fundamentally fail many people in poorer communities, and in rural communities, your response is that I'm like people who are against needle-exchange programs. It doesn't make sense. A wholly privatized system cannot serve those who are already underprivileged, for reasons stated before that you've chosen to ignore. You stated "but competition amongst each other would help keep quality up and tuition fees down" - I explained to you in my previous post why that won't be true, and you convienently have chosen not to respond to that. Rural schools won't get any competition, because multiple school models won't draw enough students to make it profitable for private businesses. Urban schools located in poorer areas won't attract competition for the same reason that they don't attract business in the first place - a general lack of capital in those areas, mixed with a lack of desire for trained professionals to teach there. An incentive program is needed to get good teachers in poorer areas, and privatized education will ensure the opposite will happen.
Endless devotion to failed policies and programs. Quite simply, that's not true. I have told you repeatly that I am for reforms. And none of that NCLB bullshit. Starting in the Reagan years, funding for schools has decreased while demands on teachers have increased. My devotion to public education starts with the premise that it can be much better, and we should do those things to make it better. Additionally, I've stated that there are other options already for people who want to use them, and I've no desire to take those away. To compare this stance to prohibition goes beyond comparing apples and oranges.
Condemnation of ordinary human desires and preferences. Well, believe it or not, our society prefers to spend public money on education:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 30-April 2, 2000. N=1,083 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you think federal spending on education should be increased, decreased or kept about the same?"
Increased 65%
Decreased 8%
Kept the same 26%
No opinion 2%
"Would you support or oppose a plan to reduce federal education funding to school districts whose students don't improve on standardized tests?"
Support 36%
Oppose 61%
No opinion 3%
People value education in the United States, and when poll numbers are down on public education that isn't because people are against public education for the most part - it is because people are upset with how the government has handled it. Of course, people believe it can be fixed. There's no reason not to believe that it can. We were the leaders in the world on education for quite a while, we know it can be done. And we're constantly doing research that is getting incorporated into education programs to make teachers better.
Another poll shows that the majority of people are satisfied with public schools in the U.S. -
Confidence in Public Schools
You, along with 19% of America are completely dissatisfied. I normally don't like bringing in polls, but I feel that it is necessary because you are making claims about "ordinary human desires and preferences". Well, Americans quite ordinarily support public education, quite ordinarily want it funded, and are ordinarily satisfied by what they see. Viewing the first poll, one could assume that of those people, the majority want more funding in education.
One of my favorite polls shows that a huge majority of parents give the schools that their children go to high ratings, even when they feel that the nation's schools aren't doing well:
Percentage of parents giving their children’s school an A or B versus the public giving the nation’s schools an A or B
ETS Survey, 2004:
Parents on children’s schools:
67 percent say A or B
Public on nation’s schools:
22 percent say A or B
Most people actually like the schools they send their kids to. And that right there tells me that America is no where close to giving up on public education as easily as you would.
Finally, you say "Call it selfish if you like, but humans tend to have more concern for their own children than for children in general." - That's true, but it is also true that humans tend to care for the welfare of other children in their communities. If you are an advocate of overturning that, then you are completely uncivic-minded. By saying, "Let’s allow people to care a bit more for kin than for strangers." you are admitting privatization will not benefit certain groups of people. You approach education from a perspective of privilege. I cannot continue to argue against you if your basic premise assumes that education is for those who have the proper backgrounds to fully enjoy the fruits of education. That premise is fundamentally classist and racist on its head, intentionally or not, simply because of the nature of the make-up of our country and how our economy works.
Which brings up a question of curiosity for me - would you classify yourself as a Social Darwinist or not?
Regardless, your complaint referring to me as a moralist seems so hypocritical to me. Your ethical reasoning has led you to a position of removing an institution that 67% of people are favorable with for their children. You talk about choice, well, shouldn't public school be a choice then? And will it continue to be a choice once private schools overrun public schools draining tax resources from it? This is a rocky journey that you're advocating for which involves a lot of risk, and - by necessity - some will be forced to be losers in this system.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at February 19, 2006 3:08 PM
Will,
Thank you for the LiveJournal link.
To clarify, I don’t believe we need to demolish the currently existing public schools. I think they should simply be privatized. The only necessary functional change for parents who want to keep sending their kids there would be payment through tuition rather than through taxes. Although I wish they wouldn’t subject their children to such an authoritarian environment, I’m willing to let them on general libertarian principles.
I think you underestimate the power of capitalism to provide more and more goods and services to more and more people. The March issue of The Atlantic Monthly has an article (also in print) stating accurately that capitalism doesn’t quite get the respect it deserves—even from its greatest beneficiaries. (Hat tip: Hit and Run.)
No, I do not call myself a Social Darwinist. I consider myself realistic about the limits and imperfections of all known remedies for the enduring problem of economic inequality. It may be counterintuitive that capitalism is the least imperfect of the remedies we have so far discovered. But it’s also counterintuitive that the earth revolves around the sun.
Will left this comment at February 19, 2006 9:26 PM
Well, I'm not an Atlantic subscriber, but regardless, I've never said I was anti-capitalism. I'm pro-regulated capitalism.
Certain things ought to be subsidized (such as food) to keep prizes low and production at reasonable levels. Certain things ought to have tariffs on them to encourage buying American-made goods instead of foreign goods. Foreign debt in formerly colonized nations and the poorest nations in the world ought to be relieved or forgiven because it could be done easily and would help even out the world economy more equitably - or, at the least, provide nations with some leverage to help deal with poverty. The WTO, IMF, and World Bank ought to stop blackmailing poorer nations into taking loans to keep their economies afloat at the expensive of losing autonomy of their economies. Regulations should be put in place and enforced to penalize and prevent companies from polluting our environment and ruining the "commons". Economic sanctions can and should be used to leverage nations that commits acts of terror, genocide, and other atrocities.
That being said, a lot of interference in the market economy that is being done shouldn't such as corporate welfare like the $7 billion going to oil companies this year for free from the government.
Regardless, as you probably know - from a capitalist perspective - a fully-funded free education for everyone is a fundamental cornerstone for capitalism according to many economists because that provides the backbone from which a skilled workforce can be in place to do jobs across the spectrum. Many of the most fervent capitalist economists believe this, and it is a key component throughout the capitalist theory canon starting with Adam Smith.
Regarding your comment that - "I think they should simply be privatized. The only necessary functional change for parents who want to keep sending their kids there would be payment through tuition rather than through taxes." The math does not add up in this case. Money goes into taxes from wealthy, middle-class, and poor and from parents and non-parents. Removing that tax money and putting it in the hands of parents gets rid of a large amount of money in the system. Additionally, as I've continued to state, poorer families in poorer communities would not get the same sort of businesses entering their communities to serve them as wealthier communities. Functioning from a position of profit fundamentally changes the goal of education and adds another element where money that could go into classrooms would leave - shareholders, CEOs, etc.
I would like for you to consider the process of privatization, because you state it wouldn't involve demolishing currently existing schools. How wouldn't it? Maybe the buildings would still exist, but what else would be left? You'd replace the school boards, superintendents, and other staff with an executive model of some sort. That would immediately change the flavor of schools to be something completely different than it is now. Where would the start-up money for enterprising businesses wanting to cash in on the privatizing schools crowd come from? What would the gap from tax money be filled with for poorer individuals (currently in Oregon each student is worth approximately $5000, $10,000 or so for a special ed student in public schools)? You know that some families barely make enough money to pay rent each month and live on $10,000-$15,000/year... how could they possibly afford to send their children to school? Particularly if they have more than one or two kids...And speaking of special ed kids - what schools would take special ed kids? what incentive would they have? There are so many pragmatic problems with privatization from the start... I don't see how it could solve the problems that you see any better than reforms in public education could, let alone how privatization wouldn't cause more problems on its own. There are so many issues, and I've yet to hear answers to these questions that are even mildly satisfying.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at February 20, 2006 10:06 AM
Will,
I fear that if we carry the debate any further, we’ll either repeat ourselves or wander off the topic of my post. For my last word on the subject, I’m willing to buy you a subscription to Reason: Free Minds and Free Markets. You can give me your name and postal address through the email link on my Blogger profile page. If you decline the offer, I’ll take no offense.
In any case, I thank you for your contributions to this thread.
Doctor Marco left this comment at March 15, 2006 7:13 AM
This is a copy of the reply in Female Misogynist
Brian423: Thanks for taking interest in my comment. I took the time to read your post and the subsequent comments. I must tell you that with respect to education I disagree almost entirely with you. What I agreed is that the goal should be the creation of free thinking minds (or at least that is what I understood). Free-thinkers are highly disciplined people. By that I mean mental discipline. An ability to analyze things, arrive to conclusions, formulate hypothesis, create variants with the goal of answering questions or achieving goals. If a child grows wild as I understand you favor, you do not create free-thinkers, you create sheep, cattle instead of leaders.
With respect to ADHD, the medical advances have gone beyond my easy understanding (I am a nephrologist). We are not at a point in which a random individual can elaborate a theory about children "wanting to be free" without having a biochemical, pharmacological, medical, neurological and psychological education
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at March 15, 2006 9:59 AM
Readers,
Doctor Marco refers to a thread of comments at another blog.
Doctor Marco,
You mistake me for a Rousseauist. If you think I want children to “grow wild,” please re-read my praise for the order, structure, and discipline of Sudbury-model schools.
Before you can teach independent thought, you have to practice it. For a freethinking atheist, you seem quite under the hypnotic spell of other people’s badges of authority. Physician, heal thyself! Where you see the Great and Powerful Oz, I see a little man behind a curtain. As this article explains, the typical diagnosis of ADD or ADHD has no biochemical or neurological basis at all.
Doctor Marco left this comment at March 16, 2006 10:05 PM
I am sorry, but the credentials of the author you showed do not include biology, biochemistry, or any of the neurosciences. Behavior depends on neurotransmitters, you have to understand them to understand what we are talking about. What is next? Are you going to say that schizophrenia is a disease of the soul? Are you going to say that depression is just a sadness that has to be cured with will and strength? What about manic people? I get the impression that you do not respect physicians and the science behind them
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at March 17, 2006 10:22 AM
Doctor Marco,
I do think that most mental illnesses aren’t true illnesses. Here’s why.
Doctor Marco left this comment at March 17, 2006 5:32 PM
You seem to have an appetite for conspiracy theories. We speak different languages. I tried to understand you but you seem to have a unique set of beliefs.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at March 18, 2006 2:47 PM
Doctor Marco,
Nobody here said anything about a conspiracy. Questioning the standard practices and underlying beliefs of a profession does not amount to a conspiracy theory.
Alan left this comment at August 14, 2006 11:35 AM
Will said, "If not compulsory education, then what?" My answer would be non-compulsory education
http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/
Also, compulsory education sucks, see John Holt's book "Why Children Fail".
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at August 14, 2006 2:13 PM
Thanks, Alan. I haven’t read any of Holt’s books, but I’ve read good things about him in The Teenage Liberation Handbook.
Ron Amos left this comment at February 4, 2007 2:37 AM
There are so many things wrong with the current education system as it has existed since it's orgins in Bismarkian Germany and as it has expanded across the Globe from that beginning..that I can barely hold myself in check when confronted with any aspect of it.
1st and perhaps most important is it's compulsory nature.. this teachs that it's alright to force the human mind, the mind of the child who is forced to attend school whether he wants to or not and 2nd the minds of the parents who are forced to pay for the education by way of taxes whether they approve of the education being offered or not.
Then there are the primary lessons that one learns while being schooled, primarily passivity and obedience..You sit down and shut up for 50 minutes out of every hour and do this for 6 or seven hours a day. This requires that you learn to be passive, if you don't learn this lesson you are forced to learn it anyway by way of punishment or by way of psycho-active drugs..then you are taught obedience, you are not to speak unless asked to and you are limited to asking question and have to raise you hand even then.
So from the begining of the first day of school you are taught "Force Rules", you are taught to be "Passive" and you are taught to be "Obedient".
This isn't learning to be a willing worker, it's instead how to be an obedient slave to whatever the Business/State/Church requires of you.
left this comment at December 26, 2007 7:58 AM
I find this story very interesting. But the "snapshot" feature is terribly annoying.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at December 26, 2007 8:43 AM
Anonymous,
To turn off my Snap Shots, you can click here.
left this comment at December 26, 2007 10:24 AM
I had a lot of similar experiences. I have some similar feelings at my blog.
http://boysite.info/blog/2007/04/
left this comment at December 26, 2007 4:55 PM
I believe there are some mistakes in your assumptions about public schools. Studies have been released about alumni success and happiness in various books the school has published. The books can be found for purchase be at the school's website. The most recent one being "Pursuit of Hapiness"
pbuxton left this comment at October 17, 2009 1:19 AM
Brian, this is an interesting blog and I wish I had seen this sooner.
Like you, I had an awful time in public school. I've often felt like T.H. White's Merlin, who aged in reverse (though I've always been a prankster). Seemingly, my social skills developed in my thirties while my mental abilities grew most from 8-22.
My parents had no idea what to do with me, or for me, and the schools were even worse. I attended a private school for half a year and it was little better. (I wonder, looking back, if it wasn't simply a Judenfrei and troubled-rich kid school, as some Arab students were there and the public schools were, say, 25-33% Jewish.)
I was writing zombie stories in 2nd grade and in trouble most of the time. When I finally dropped out in my senior year, I was completely alienated from academia (and a good bit of society).
I recently reestablished contact with an old friend from those days. We have a lot in common: most specifically, we've staggered from one underemployment to another, capable of standing never more than 2.5 years in any job, and usually less.
I do not blame compulsory schooling; I blame the tax structure that makes private school so expensive, and the regulations that keep bright nonconformists out of workplaces. There is no reason I could not have been doing simple Unix sysadmin tasks at the age of 13. (Under close supervision, of course, as I was both responsible and immature, often spectacularly so. ;-)
These days I am still swimming upstream: living hand-to-mouth but reading lots, both bisexual and Republican. We owe, not only to students like me, but to the kids who's schooling I constantly interrupted, a better deal than the crap sandwich they're currently being force-fed.
Unlike a lot of Republicans, I support NCLB, and I have no problem with an unfunded mandate. (Seriously, one might say the HIV/hepatitis tests they run on your donated blood are an unfunded mandate, as they'll tell you you have hep but not pay for your treatment. DUH) NCLB shows us how bad the problem is; but it also reminds us that schooling is no mystery and that any kid who can pass those tests is, in fact, rather educated.
Here's hoping our nation takes that flag forward again.
-p
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at October 17, 2009 9:12 AM
Thank you for telling your story.
SINVILLE left this comment at November 28, 2009 9:53 PM
"Or am I just a wimp for resenting them so?"
"I let them pick on me like crazy...
I did almost nothing to prepare myself...
I saw no need for a ...
groveling I had taught myself...
I let them walk over me...
I took most of their insults..."
YES.
Btw, the blog kept me entertained for hours.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at November 29, 2009 10:51 AM
Readers,
The above quotation “Or am I just a wimp for resenting them so?” comes from me in a comment thread at another blog, where the above commenter calls herself Mary STACK (capital letters in the original). I have to admit that she may have given me something to think about.
« Home
Will left this comment at February 10, 2006 9:51 AM
Josh left this comment at February 13, 2006 2:07 PM
