What if those making education decisions for public schools, had to be public school grads??

[Sarah Ibarruri]

Someone else posted a great blog about education, and it helped me to find a GREAT blog titled, Children Are More Than Test Scores.

Within the blog, I found an article titled:

What if? What if the education reformers had to send their children to public school?

What if only elected officials who send their children to public schools were allowed to vote on education issues?

What if only Ed Reformers who send their children to public schools could talk about education reform?

What if only education policy makers who send their children to public schools could be appointed Commissioners of Education?

What if Ed Reformers had to be public school graduates themselves?

Something makes me think things would be different.

if that were the case, then the issues we would be talking about now would be:

Equity,

Class sizes,

An army of reading and math tutors,

More art teachers,

More music teachers,

More school field trips,

More after school programs,

More play time for young children,

Inquiry,

Innovative, creative, imaginative Saturday and summer school programs,

Our school would stay open in the evenings for family activities, and adult education program,

If only these Public School Education Reformers had public schools education.

http://childrenaremorethantestscores.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-if-what-if-ed-reformers-had-to.html


Instead, the ones deciding what shall happen to public schools, are the graduates of private schools, the graduates of ivy league "legacy" schools, and the members of the 1% or their lackeys. And the only damned thing they've come up with is: TEST THE KIDS MORE!

[Mnemosyne]

1. That makes too much sense, Sarah. I agree it would be great and fair.

[yeoman6987]

27. It would totally take the President out of the decision making

We could not do that. He could not even sign a piece of legislation about education. How would federal dollars get to the public schools or at least states?

[Mnemosyne]

28. I understood this to be more of a local/state solution. nt

[LWolf]

2. What if only actual public school teachers

could make decisions about public education reform?

[hack89]

3. The people that have to pay for should have a place at the table nt

[LWolf]

8. The people that have to pay for?

Are you trying to say that the people that are paying for public education should have a place at the table?

I agree. FYI: Public school teachers pay taxes. They also have children, and most, in the 30 years and 2 states I've worked in, send their own kids to public school, so they fill the role of parent as well.

They are also the people on the front lines, and they know the realities better than anyone else at that table.

[hack89]

11. Yes - parents should have a say

the most important thing is that only elected officials should be able to set or change policy. There has to be a way to make them accountable to the tax payers.

[LWolf]

24. I disagree.

Elected officials are more accountable to big money and corporate interests than they are to actual voters these days.

Also, elected officials are not educators. They are not experts in the field. Why should they be setting policy?

[Mr_Rogers]

32. Do you hold the same thoughts on civilian leadership of the military?

Actual veterans, especially with combat experience, are at an all time low in Congress and in the general political leadership . Do you think they should reserve the right to dictate military policy, in which they have no direct experience?

That's not just theory or fiscal policy, that's actual lives on the line.

If the answer isn't immediately obvious to you then think about why the system is set up that way and you'll see why it can't just be public school teachers setting the rules and distributing the resources.

[LWolf]

35. You're kind of all over the map there.

To answer your last statement first: I don't think I said that it should be "just" public school teachers setting the rules. As a matter of fact, the example I gave you directly contradicts that statement.

If you want to play with analogies...here's what I think.

I think it should be doctors, not insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, that decide what kind of care patients get, and when. I think they should have a majority place at the table when setting the "rules" for medical care. Because yes...lives are on the line.

Military policy? As long as military policy complies with basic agreements about human rights, for example how they treat their own, how they treat the women among them, and adherence to the Geneva Conventions, I have no problem with the military deciding on military policy. That's a red herring, though. The real issue is deciding on how and when to intervene in global situations with our military, which is not military policy. That's what the politicians do, and they don't do it well. No matter who is at the top of that chain, it should be an inviolable law that our military is never used except as a final resort to defend our home. You know. The department of DEFENSE. Major stakeholders in the MIC aren't troops; they're those industrial giants at the top profiting obscenely from perpetual military action all over the globe. They should have ZERO influence on "the rules" and the distribution of resources when it comes to our military.

Just as the private political/corporate "foundations" working to privatize our public education system so that they can tap into the public monies spent on it by directing "reform" polices across the nation should have ZERO place at the table.

[Mr_Rogers]

13. They aren't exactly a disinterested party though either...

It's absolutely reasonable that someone else should be included in that conversation who can help balance the priorities and resources available.

[alp227]

21. welcome to DU. please tell us more! nt

[Mr_Rogers]

22. There's nothing more than that.

There are multiple priorities and limited resources and all parties and sides should be represented in the decision about their allocation.

[LWolf]

25. You're right about that.

I'm not a disinterested party. As a teacher, I'm more passionate about public education than anyone I've ever met outside my profession, and that includes the population of families that I've served over the decades. I've got my students' backs to the extent I'm allowed, and too often have to fight AGAINST the system to serve them.

There was a time, before the standards and accountability movement took us by the throat and strangled the life out of us, that I worked an alternative system. It wasn't a charter school; it was a fully public school, part of a regular school district. We just weren't standardized. That district gave us more autonomy, and permission to do things differently. They empowered us. Here's how it worked:

We had a strong, vigorous site council; half of the members were parents, who reported back to any parents who wanted to show up for regular parent meetings, and took feedback from the larger group back to the council. The entire staff, certified and classified, made decisions which were then taken to site council for approval. There was always one (older) student represented on the council, as well.

This school set its own calendar, its own hours, and handled its own budget. When someone needed to be hired, a couple of teachers, a classified employee, and at least one parent, along with the principal, were part of the committee that chose who to interview, conducted interviews, and VOTED about who to hire out of that pool.

This school had an open door policy; parents were encouraged to spend as much time on campus, in classrooms, as they wished, to be part of the whole day as they chose.

We had the enthusiastic support of all of our families.

Of course, this example is only one school site, at one time; not an entire system. It is an illustration of what happens when the actual stakeholders, parents and students and educators, are empowered to help set priorities and allocate resources.

Politicians and corporations aren't the stakeholders. If we are going to empower the stakeholders, a good start would be making sure that the federal and state SOEs are educators who know something about teaching and learning and what the system needs to be successful. That would be a start.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. Excellent idea, but I'll accept even public school teachers that went beyond teaching nt

[LWolf]

9. To a point.

Those of us who keep teaching have seen colleagues who spend 4-5 years in a classroom, or less, and become "experts" at telling those of us who stay on the front lines how to do our jobs from a safe distance.

The bottom line for teachers is that career "advancement" only happens if you leave the classroom, and the students, behind. If we're going to accept as leaders those that "go beyond" teaching, I think those leaders ought to work on sabbatical and go back to the classroom to reconnect with students and the realities of teaching periodically.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. "If we're going to accept as leaders those that "go beyond" teaching, I think those leaders....

...ought to work on sabbatical and go back to the classroom to reconnect with students and the realities of teaching periodically."

EXACTLY. But who will push them into doing that? That's the LAST thing they want to do. They're not dumb. They like the good life!

[LWolf]

23. It takes a restructuring of the system.

Apparently, it's not that hard to make radical changes to the system...when those changes benefit a corporate agenda rather than the system itself, anyway.

[Gravitycollapse]

4. I support public schools. But I would attend most ivy league schools in a heart beat...

For instance, my friend and I are graduates from the largest public university in the country, ASU. But he was just accepted to Harvard and he's still a huge advocate of public education.

Sooooo... yeah.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. The question was not "do you wish you could've attended a wealthy and expensive school so you too

could have benefited from the legacy-style advantages apportioned to the rich?"

[UtahLib]

5. Certainly, food for thought. nt

[Nye Bevan]

10. So, since President Obama sends his daughters to private school,

he has nothing useful to contribute in terms of policies for education?

[hobbit709]

12. Arne Duncan certainly isn't useful

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. I agree. Arne Duncan reminds me of that definition of insanity:

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

Arne has had TEN YEARS of pushing his TEST-THE-KIDS-MORE! technique, which he apparently thinks is a cure-all to help all kids become brilliant. After the 10 years, there has been no change. His method of fixing it? To have even MORE TESTING, of course!

The right wing methods of improving education which are to destroy teachers AND push tests upon kids, have failed. When is everyone going to finally wake up and realize that?

I'm wondering if someone is getting kickback$$$ from testing companies?

[HooptieWagon]

26. Bingo.

pols do get kickbacks from testing companies. Thus, the answer to every problem and non-problem will always be more testing.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. That's not a really good example, the PRESIDENT of the U.S., who requires huge amounts of security,

AND particularly because he's black in a racist nation.

Why are you defending the 1% running public schools? Is that how you lean? To the right?

[Nye Bevan]

17. Should 1-percenters such as Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and Alan Grayson

automatically be excluded from participating in education policymaking?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. YES! The ones deciding what is best in education should be TEACHERS. nt

[Nye Bevan]

19. And presumably military policy should be decided by GENERALS, ADMIRALS, COLONELS and BRIGADIERS (nt)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. This conversation has become ludicrous and it's over. I've seen your previous posts so I know nt

[liberal_at_heart]

29. Obama listens more to business leaders such as presidents of testing companies more than he

listens to teachers, parents, and students. He lives in a bubble and has no idea what is actually going on in the real world.

[LeftishBrit]

30. Sounds at first like a good idea ...

Last edited Wed Apr 30, 2014, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)

especially with all the Old Etonians fucking things up here.

UNTIL one remembers Maggie Thatcher, her schools Minister Rhodes Boyson, and Chris Woodhead, first and worst Chair of Ofsted (the current schools Inspectorate). The original 'TEST THE KIDS MORE!' axe-wielding thugs and bullies toward state schools. And all were products of state schools, and the latter two also taught in them.

I do, however, think that all government ministers should be required, as a condition for office, to make use of public services rather than buy private services to avoid them (e.g. use the NHS and send their children to state schools). You wouldn't trust a car manufacturer who refused to drive one of their own cars.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

40. I completely agree. I think public schools should be required of public servants, or they should

not hold office. If they hold it, they should send their kids to public school.

Yes, the TEST-THE-KIDS is definitely enriching the test corporations greatly. I'll bet some pockets are being nicely padded by them.

[Orsino]

31. Seems a bit unfair, as kids don't generally choose their schools.

However, it also sounds like it could only help.

[Jgarrick]

33. So because of a decision by a child's parents (going to a private school), that child will be

excluded from a particular field of employment for life.

Really?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

39. You're not wanting to get it, are you? You don't like it, and by golly, you're going to pretend you

just don't get it.

[FarCenter]

34. This would exclude all who went to catholic and other religious schools?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

37. ALL who did not attend public school. nt

[LWolf]

36. related:

Mercedes Schneider looked more closely at the 24 members of the two work groups to determine their past experience as educators, with special attention to whether they had any classroom experience.

Here are a few noteworthy conclusions based on her review of the careers of the writers of the CCSS:

In sum, only 3 of the 15 individuals on the 2009 CCSS math work group held positions as classroom teachers of mathematics. None was a classroom teacher in 2009. None taught elementary or middle school mathematics. Three other members have other classroom teaching experience in biology, English, and social studies. None taught elementary school. None taught special education or was certified in special education or English as a Second Language (ESL).

Only one CCSS math work group member was not affiliated with an education company or nonprofit….

In sum, 5 of the 15 individuals on the CCSS ELA work group have classroom experience teaching English. None was a classroom teacher in 2009. None taught elementary grades, special education, or ESL, and none hold certifications in these areas.

The makeup of the work groups helps to explain why so many people in the field of early childhood education find the CCSS to be developmentally inappropriate. There was literally no one on the writing committee (with one possible exception) with any knowledge of how very young children learn. The same concern applies to those who educate children in the middle-school years or children with disabilities or English language learners. The knowledge of these children and their needs was not represented on the working group

http://dianeravitch.net/2014/04/28/mercedes-schneider-who-are-the-24-people-who-wrote-the-common-core-standards/

That the background of those people lean heavily towards the testing industry, rather than the teaching profession, is telling.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

38. Horrific. That's like allowing welders to perform open heart surgery on Cheney nt