We all complain about taxes and we all would like to pay less taxes or none at all.
But what happens when we pay less taxes?
We won’t have the public streets and highways that we want to be in pot-holeless condition.
We wont’t have fire departments coming to put out our house-fires or the neighbors’ house-fires that might expand to our house. Does that give you a clue why tax supported fire departments are a good idea? If not, consider how safe your house would be if you were the only one on your block who paid the fire department.
The same holds for police and snowplowing and street cleaning and … Would you want to be responsible for clearing the snow from the street in front of your house?
And the irony of ironies is that the “conservatives” who complain the loudest about taxes for things they don’t like want to to throw money at the military, especially if it means a military base in their district.
Oh, yes! If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you're rich, maybe your daddy paid the teacher. If you're not rich, hundreds and thousands of tax-paying citizens paid the teacher. Or, the poor kid whose education you helped pay for in your middle-age may be the doctor that saves your life in your old age.
Showing posts with label public schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public schools. Show all posts
Monday, February 05, 2018
Thursday, February 09, 2017
Failing public schools?
“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” Falsely attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.” - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf
For more on both of these quotes, see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels.
“Failing public schools” is a sweeping statement that implies no public school is doing its job.
But nobody ever turns it around and says much about failing parents or bad peer pressure. If a family constantly has the TV on, how well can a student do homework? If peers constantly bad-mouth school, how much grit does it take to ask questions in class? If a home has lots of lead contamination, how much can schools do to increase a student’s cognitive ability?
I think the “failing schools” mantra is pushed by those who don’t want to pay taxes to educate all the children and those who want to make a profit by taking away students from the public schools.
Well, my parents were products of public schools. My wife and I are products of public schools. Our two children are products of public schools. Our grandchildren are products of public schools. Two of these are products of Japanese public schools, but they are welcome as visitors to U.S. public schools.
If public schools have failed, it is not teaching enough civics. We have to look no farther than “president” Donald Trump to learn how badly private schools have taught civics.
See also “Charter School Achievement: Hype vs. Evidence”.
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.” - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf
For more on both of these quotes, see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels.
“Failing public schools” is a sweeping statement that implies no public school is doing its job.
But nobody ever turns it around and says much about failing parents or bad peer pressure. If a family constantly has the TV on, how well can a student do homework? If peers constantly bad-mouth school, how much grit does it take to ask questions in class? If a home has lots of lead contamination, how much can schools do to increase a student’s cognitive ability?
I think the “failing schools” mantra is pushed by those who don’t want to pay taxes to educate all the children and those who want to make a profit by taking away students from the public schools.
Well, my parents were products of public schools. My wife and I are products of public schools. Our two children are products of public schools. Our grandchildren are products of public schools. Two of these are products of Japanese public schools, but they are welcome as visitors to U.S. public schools.
If public schools have failed, it is not teaching enough civics. We have to look no farther than “president” Donald Trump to learn how badly private schools have taught civics.
See also “Charter School Achievement: Hype vs. Evidence”.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
A rebuttal of the Star Tribune misuse of the term “free market”
I submitted the following commentary to the Star Tribune a day or two after D.J. Tice’s column which I considered another misuse of the term “free market”. I have not seen it published yet. Could it be that “free marketers” don’t like reminders of true free markets?
D.J. Tice’s column “ A foolish system and your money …” leads me to believe he is one of those who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I wonder if he has considered the number of times in a day that he has benefitted from public goods.
Did he drive on a freeway to work? Did he pay the full cost of his share of the road, the full cost of the pollution from his car, and the cost of the loss of tax revenues from the houses that once were above the trenches that divide up our cities?
Did he take a bus to work? His fare would have only paid part of the cost. But the bus is a public good in that it reduces the number of cars on the road. If he had to pay the full cost of his bus ride, he probably wouldn’t take the bus.
Did he walk to work? Did he pay a toll for the sidewalk he used? Did he put a coin in the traffic lights so that he could cross the street?
Let’s hope that his house never catches fire. He would not be happy paying the full cost of the fire department response. If his neighbor had the misfortune of a fire, would he help pay the cost of the fire department whose response kept the fire from spreading to his house?
I am a graduate of the Cleveland Public School System. I doubt that my mother could have afforded the full cost of the schooling that qualified me to attend college. Many other people, some childless, helped pay the cost of my education.
I could not have afforded the tuition at Case Institute of Technology. A foundation paid full tuition the first year. I flunked out of Case but the foundation kept paying a fraction of my tuition at Ohio Wesleyan University. At both schools, many donors provided money to keep the tuition down somewhat. Three-percent federal loans also helped. I managed to get back to Case for graduate school with a graduate assistant position. I doubt any of the work we did paid in full for our jobs and tuition.
Companies are demanding more and more highly specialized “skills”, but they are not willing to train people. They expect the public schools and the colleges and universities to train these employees. But they don’t want to pay the taxes for the public schools and colleges, institutions that would help those who can’t afford the elite institutions. The smaller the pool of potential employees, the harder it is to find “qualified” employees.
Could he pay out of pocket for each and every medical visit he needed: office or hospital? For those of us with well-paying jobs, health insurance pays for a chunk of the care, if not all. But what about people who have jobs with no health insurance? Has he considered that their lack of health insurance benefits him with lower prices? (Or the owners with much higher profits.)
What if there were a deadly epidemic that had no respect for wealth? How might such an epidemic start? Maybe those who first became ill could not afford the health care, health care that would have reduced their chances of spreading their disease.
Modern economies run a large array of public goods: roads, schools, police, fire, and regulatory inspections. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes supposedly said, “I like taxes; they buy me civilization.”
D.J. Tice’s column “ A foolish system and your money …” leads me to believe he is one of those who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I wonder if he has considered the number of times in a day that he has benefitted from public goods.
Did he drive on a freeway to work? Did he pay the full cost of his share of the road, the full cost of the pollution from his car, and the cost of the loss of tax revenues from the houses that once were above the trenches that divide up our cities?
Did he take a bus to work? His fare would have only paid part of the cost. But the bus is a public good in that it reduces the number of cars on the road. If he had to pay the full cost of his bus ride, he probably wouldn’t take the bus.
Did he walk to work? Did he pay a toll for the sidewalk he used? Did he put a coin in the traffic lights so that he could cross the street?
Let’s hope that his house never catches fire. He would not be happy paying the full cost of the fire department response. If his neighbor had the misfortune of a fire, would he help pay the cost of the fire department whose response kept the fire from spreading to his house?
I am a graduate of the Cleveland Public School System. I doubt that my mother could have afforded the full cost of the schooling that qualified me to attend college. Many other people, some childless, helped pay the cost of my education.
I could not have afforded the tuition at Case Institute of Technology. A foundation paid full tuition the first year. I flunked out of Case but the foundation kept paying a fraction of my tuition at Ohio Wesleyan University. At both schools, many donors provided money to keep the tuition down somewhat. Three-percent federal loans also helped. I managed to get back to Case for graduate school with a graduate assistant position. I doubt any of the work we did paid in full for our jobs and tuition.
Companies are demanding more and more highly specialized “skills”, but they are not willing to train people. They expect the public schools and the colleges and universities to train these employees. But they don’t want to pay the taxes for the public schools and colleges, institutions that would help those who can’t afford the elite institutions. The smaller the pool of potential employees, the harder it is to find “qualified” employees.
Could he pay out of pocket for each and every medical visit he needed: office or hospital? For those of us with well-paying jobs, health insurance pays for a chunk of the care, if not all. But what about people who have jobs with no health insurance? Has he considered that their lack of health insurance benefits him with lower prices? (Or the owners with much higher profits.)
What if there were a deadly epidemic that had no respect for wealth? How might such an epidemic start? Maybe those who first became ill could not afford the health care, health care that would have reduced their chances of spreading their disease.
Modern economies run a large array of public goods: roads, schools, police, fire, and regulatory inspections. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes supposedly said, “I like taxes; they buy me civilization.”
Thursday, February 05, 2015
People, government, and spending money
“The people know how to spend their money better than the government.” Really?
A Minnesota politician was quoted last month stating some variation of this Libertarian statement, but I can’t find it in a search of the Duluth News Tribune or the Star Tribune. This mantra keeps popping up when a Republican doesn’t like a particular program or a given tax. Funny how they rarely apply it to the bailout of the big banks. And it never applies to any government activity that they support.
Let’s start with the military budget. Do the people really know how to spend their money on the military better than the government does? Those who spout my introductory statement seem to want to throw even more money at the military budget. Regardless of your attitude toward the military, it is in the Constitution that the government should spend money on the military: “provide for the common defense”. I don’t think the signers meant for the government to take up a collection to support our numerous wars. Wars are often strongly supported by those who make the claim about the people knowing best how to spend money.
If your house were burglarized, would you want to be responsible for paying for an investigation, a trial, and a prison term for the culprit? Would you want to have to buy insurance to ensure the thief was brought to justice? We buy insurance to cover the loss, but we pay taxes for a criminal justice system. Who runs the criminal justice system? The government. Who runs on platforms of “tough on crime”? Those who are first to put government down.
If your neighbor’s house catches fire, do you want to pay for your private fire department to ensure the flames don’t reach your house? Government pays for and organizes fire departments that are a phone call away for taxpayers and tax dodgers alike. Even when local fire departments are all volunteer, they seek support from local taxes and state and federal grants.
We complain about the condition of our streets and the congestion of our freeways. If we know best how to spend our money, do we want to be responsible for the condition of the streets in front of our houses? You pay for a nicely paved street in front of your house, and your neighbor leaves the street a muddy mess. We need government to co-ordinate this so we don’t get our cars stuck in the mud.
We go to restaurants and buy groceries without giving any thought to the cleanliness or condition of the food. Most restaurateurs and grocers are scrupulous about what they provide, but they aren’t in control of every step of processing the food or even have the time or means to give a thorough quality check. Government provides some oversight with food inspections, for example, in meat-packing plants. Many corporations complain about this government “intrusion”, but without it we would have many more food-borne illnesses. Think about Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”. Think about the City of Duluth closing a couple of local restaurants because of numerous health violations. Would “the people” have all the resources to make these checks?
Corporations complain about the lack of “qualified” employees, but they complain about the taxes to train these “qualified” employees. Industrialized countries invest heavily in public education supported by taxes. And they provide a range of subjects that provide skills to learn more about technical subjects and about subjects that make for better informed citizens. What if education were only supplied by parents, either directly or by paying tuition to schools. First, few parents know enough about all the subjects to fully education their children. Second, many parents don’t have the resources to pay tuition for professional teachers. Think of the literacy rates in countries where parents must pay school fees. Only the well-off in these countries are sufficiently literate.
Speaking of education, a parallel statement to the one about spending money is that “parents know best what is good education for their children”. A close example is the sweeping generalization that “Parents know kids don’t need Common Core, so politicians should listen”, Ben Boychuk, republished in Duluth News Tribune, February 1, 2015.
We were involved in helping our children with schoolwork, but we didn’t even pretend to know how to teach them the various subjects they took. Except for the six years we lived in Europe, we sent them off to the local public schools. In Europe, we sent them to Anglo-American schools because we expected to be in a given country for only two years. About the only curriculum shock I had was when our daughter showed us the catalog for American history. Rather than an overview, she had to select one or two narrower subjects, such as Andrew Jackson.
My own education experiences were more self-directed or teacher-encouraged than parentally involved. My mother encouraged my brother and me to do well, but I doubt she knew much about what we learned or how we learned it. For the most part we went to schools in the neighborhood. However, we rarely stayed in the same neighborhood for more than three years. When we moved after I started high school, I selected an out-of-area high school to be with friends who I had known before. And as Robert Frost wrote, “that made all the difference”.
It was Mr. Rush, a math teacher who punctuated his remarks with “when you go to Case”. Six of us in my class went to Case Institute of Technology. It was Mr. Cameron, the assistant principal who recommended that I apply for a Huntington Fund scholarship, which paid full tuition my first year.
Thank you, government, for spending so much money on me to get to that point.
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-02-05 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/02/05/4777_people_government_and_spending_money.
A Minnesota politician was quoted last month stating some variation of this Libertarian statement, but I can’t find it in a search of the Duluth News Tribune or the Star Tribune. This mantra keeps popping up when a Republican doesn’t like a particular program or a given tax. Funny how they rarely apply it to the bailout of the big banks. And it never applies to any government activity that they support.
Let’s start with the military budget. Do the people really know how to spend their money on the military better than the government does? Those who spout my introductory statement seem to want to throw even more money at the military budget. Regardless of your attitude toward the military, it is in the Constitution that the government should spend money on the military: “provide for the common defense”. I don’t think the signers meant for the government to take up a collection to support our numerous wars. Wars are often strongly supported by those who make the claim about the people knowing best how to spend money.
If your house were burglarized, would you want to be responsible for paying for an investigation, a trial, and a prison term for the culprit? Would you want to have to buy insurance to ensure the thief was brought to justice? We buy insurance to cover the loss, but we pay taxes for a criminal justice system. Who runs the criminal justice system? The government. Who runs on platforms of “tough on crime”? Those who are first to put government down.
If your neighbor’s house catches fire, do you want to pay for your private fire department to ensure the flames don’t reach your house? Government pays for and organizes fire departments that are a phone call away for taxpayers and tax dodgers alike. Even when local fire departments are all volunteer, they seek support from local taxes and state and federal grants.
We complain about the condition of our streets and the congestion of our freeways. If we know best how to spend our money, do we want to be responsible for the condition of the streets in front of our houses? You pay for a nicely paved street in front of your house, and your neighbor leaves the street a muddy mess. We need government to co-ordinate this so we don’t get our cars stuck in the mud.
We go to restaurants and buy groceries without giving any thought to the cleanliness or condition of the food. Most restaurateurs and grocers are scrupulous about what they provide, but they aren’t in control of every step of processing the food or even have the time or means to give a thorough quality check. Government provides some oversight with food inspections, for example, in meat-packing plants. Many corporations complain about this government “intrusion”, but without it we would have many more food-borne illnesses. Think about Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”. Think about the City of Duluth closing a couple of local restaurants because of numerous health violations. Would “the people” have all the resources to make these checks?
Corporations complain about the lack of “qualified” employees, but they complain about the taxes to train these “qualified” employees. Industrialized countries invest heavily in public education supported by taxes. And they provide a range of subjects that provide skills to learn more about technical subjects and about subjects that make for better informed citizens. What if education were only supplied by parents, either directly or by paying tuition to schools. First, few parents know enough about all the subjects to fully education their children. Second, many parents don’t have the resources to pay tuition for professional teachers. Think of the literacy rates in countries where parents must pay school fees. Only the well-off in these countries are sufficiently literate.
Speaking of education, a parallel statement to the one about spending money is that “parents know best what is good education for their children”. A close example is the sweeping generalization that “Parents know kids don’t need Common Core, so politicians should listen”, Ben Boychuk, republished in Duluth News Tribune, February 1, 2015.
We were involved in helping our children with schoolwork, but we didn’t even pretend to know how to teach them the various subjects they took. Except for the six years we lived in Europe, we sent them off to the local public schools. In Europe, we sent them to Anglo-American schools because we expected to be in a given country for only two years. About the only curriculum shock I had was when our daughter showed us the catalog for American history. Rather than an overview, she had to select one or two narrower subjects, such as Andrew Jackson.
My own education experiences were more self-directed or teacher-encouraged than parentally involved. My mother encouraged my brother and me to do well, but I doubt she knew much about what we learned or how we learned it. For the most part we went to schools in the neighborhood. However, we rarely stayed in the same neighborhood for more than three years. When we moved after I started high school, I selected an out-of-area high school to be with friends who I had known before. And as Robert Frost wrote, “that made all the difference”.
It was Mr. Rush, a math teacher who punctuated his remarks with “when you go to Case”. Six of us in my class went to Case Institute of Technology. It was Mr. Cameron, the assistant principal who recommended that I apply for a Huntington Fund scholarship, which paid full tuition my first year.
Thank you, government, for spending so much money on me to get to that point.
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-02-05 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/02/05/4777_people_government_and_spending_money.
Monday, December 01, 2014
George Will and “Failing” schools
Here’s another letter to the editor that probably wasn’t published. This was in response to George Will’s “Tall Order for a Few Federal Dollars”. It was published in February 2001. The only easily available copy I could find was from the Southeastern Missourian, 2001-02-03 at
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=20010203&id=H60fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ftYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2443,4795189
The text of my letter, dated 2001-02-03 follows.
I am amazed how ideology leads a deep thinker like George Will to be as shallow as he is in “Tall Order for a Few Federal Dollars”.
At the beginning of his article, he talks about “failing schools” and how transfers to other public schools or vouchers to private schools would allow students to leave these failing schools. He goes on to list what factors lead to students’ success but he says that schools can only influence one of those factors and that additional resources won’t change any of these factors.
He also compares the “success” of private schools to the “failure” of public schools but with a superficial assumption that the student populations are identical.
He gives a measure of the skills of public school teachers without examining whether his measure is appropriate to what the teachers are doing. He also links that measure to a comparison of “cognition” of American students with that of students in other developed countries.
Furthermore, he uses that measure to show that class size won’t make any difference.
From his article and from a couple hours of newspaper and Web research, I see a different picture.
First, if students are allowed to leave “failing schools”, which students will leave? The “failing” students who are most in need of “better” teaching, or the successful students who have the advantage of the five factors of
- number of parents in home
- days absent from school
- hours spent watching television
- quantity and quality of reading matter in home
- amount of homework
If the successful students leave, won’t the failing schools fail even more? If the failing students leave, won’t they be taking their problems to other schools and lead those schools to “fail”?
Will ignores that additional resources can change four of the five factors, including the only one he says that the schools can control - amount of homework. If classes are smaller, then teachers can give and check more homework. Schools can influence absenteeism with truant officers and counselors, neither of which work for free. Schools can help reduce hours spent watching television by providing more after school activities; activities like sports, music, and theatre cost money in material and staff time. Schools can provide a quantity of quality reading matter, but books and librarians cost money. The only factor additional resources can’t change is the number of parents.
Will writes that most failing schools serve inner-city children but inner-city Catholic schools “do better with fewer resources”. Are the public schools and the Catholic schools serving students with the same lack of success factors? Because some parents choose to send their children to Catholic schools, might more of the success factors be present in those families? Will doesn’t raise this question. Furthermore, the Catholic schools can select their students; the public schools have to take all students.
Will states that “38 percent of American teachers had college majors in academic subjects” and implies that majoring in education makes a teacher inadequately trained. However, most schools don’t get deeply into “academic subjects” until junior high. Many elementary teachers teach a wide range of subjects, especially in the lower grades. In 1997 there were about 1.2 million secondary public and private teachers and about 1.85 million elementary teachers. That means about 39% of the teachers were junior and high school teachers. That is rather close to the percent of teachers who had a major in an academic subject.
Will relates his perception that too few teachers had academic majors to how “American students’ cognition [compares] with students around the developed world”. Again, is he comparing similar groups of students? The Department of Education warns in Digest of Education Statistics 1999, Chapter 6 - International Comparisons of Education (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/digest99/chapter6.html) “...international data users should be cautioned about the many problems of definition and reporting involved in the collection of data about the educational systems in the world.” Could it be that different kinds of students are being measured in different countries? For example, are the students being measured in some countries only those on an academic track as opposed to all students in the U.S.? If all students are being measured in those other countries, do they have the same mix of socio-economic classes as the U.S. does? More specifically, is there a large portion of students who lack some of the five significant success factors?
Finally, Will claims small class size “simply increases the attention each pupil gets from an inadequately trained teacher.” The Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program in Wisconsin has shown that smaller class sizes give better results (Duluth News-Tribune, Jan. 18, 2001). As one teacher put it, with larger classes “it's a lot of tying shoes”.
Follow up email to the Washington Post:
In today's Star Tribune I found a more factual rebuttal than mine to George Will's Feb. 1st column on education. It is about the ACE (A Commitment to Excellence) program in Minneapolis. [The link I had no longer works. The article was from 2001-02-04.] In short, it is about a program that targets at-risk black males to give them tutoring and counseling to help them succeed. The $500,000 program is sponsored by the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Public Schools, and Hennepin County Children and Family Services.
You can find a link to the start of the article at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-69979742.html.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=20010203&id=H60fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ftYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2443,4795189
The text of my letter, dated 2001-02-03 follows.
I am amazed how ideology leads a deep thinker like George Will to be as shallow as he is in “Tall Order for a Few Federal Dollars”.
At the beginning of his article, he talks about “failing schools” and how transfers to other public schools or vouchers to private schools would allow students to leave these failing schools. He goes on to list what factors lead to students’ success but he says that schools can only influence one of those factors and that additional resources won’t change any of these factors.
He also compares the “success” of private schools to the “failure” of public schools but with a superficial assumption that the student populations are identical.
He gives a measure of the skills of public school teachers without examining whether his measure is appropriate to what the teachers are doing. He also links that measure to a comparison of “cognition” of American students with that of students in other developed countries.
Furthermore, he uses that measure to show that class size won’t make any difference.
From his article and from a couple hours of newspaper and Web research, I see a different picture.
First, if students are allowed to leave “failing schools”, which students will leave? The “failing” students who are most in need of “better” teaching, or the successful students who have the advantage of the five factors of
- number of parents in home
- days absent from school
- hours spent watching television
- quantity and quality of reading matter in home
- amount of homework
If the successful students leave, won’t the failing schools fail even more? If the failing students leave, won’t they be taking their problems to other schools and lead those schools to “fail”?
Will ignores that additional resources can change four of the five factors, including the only one he says that the schools can control - amount of homework. If classes are smaller, then teachers can give and check more homework. Schools can influence absenteeism with truant officers and counselors, neither of which work for free. Schools can help reduce hours spent watching television by providing more after school activities; activities like sports, music, and theatre cost money in material and staff time. Schools can provide a quantity of quality reading matter, but books and librarians cost money. The only factor additional resources can’t change is the number of parents.
Will writes that most failing schools serve inner-city children but inner-city Catholic schools “do better with fewer resources”. Are the public schools and the Catholic schools serving students with the same lack of success factors? Because some parents choose to send their children to Catholic schools, might more of the success factors be present in those families? Will doesn’t raise this question. Furthermore, the Catholic schools can select their students; the public schools have to take all students.
Will states that “38 percent of American teachers had college majors in academic subjects” and implies that majoring in education makes a teacher inadequately trained. However, most schools don’t get deeply into “academic subjects” until junior high. Many elementary teachers teach a wide range of subjects, especially in the lower grades. In 1997 there were about 1.2 million secondary public and private teachers and about 1.85 million elementary teachers. That means about 39% of the teachers were junior and high school teachers. That is rather close to the percent of teachers who had a major in an academic subject.
Will relates his perception that too few teachers had academic majors to how “American students’ cognition [compares] with students around the developed world”. Again, is he comparing similar groups of students? The Department of Education warns in Digest of Education Statistics 1999, Chapter 6 - International Comparisons of Education (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/digest99/chapter6.html) “...international data users should be cautioned about the many problems of definition and reporting involved in the collection of data about the educational systems in the world.” Could it be that different kinds of students are being measured in different countries? For example, are the students being measured in some countries only those on an academic track as opposed to all students in the U.S.? If all students are being measured in those other countries, do they have the same mix of socio-economic classes as the U.S. does? More specifically, is there a large portion of students who lack some of the five significant success factors?
Finally, Will claims small class size “simply increases the attention each pupil gets from an inadequately trained teacher.” The Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program in Wisconsin has shown that smaller class sizes give better results (Duluth News-Tribune, Jan. 18, 2001). As one teacher put it, with larger classes “it's a lot of tying shoes”.
Follow up email to the Washington Post:
In today's Star Tribune I found a more factual rebuttal than mine to George Will's Feb. 1st column on education. It is about the ACE (A Commitment to Excellence) program in Minneapolis. [The link I had no longer works. The article was from 2001-02-04.] In short, it is about a program that targets at-risk black males to give them tutoring and counseling to help them succeed. The $500,000 program is sponsored by the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Public Schools, and Hennepin County Children and Family Services.
You can find a link to the start of the article at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-69979742.html.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
School choice and the free market
School choice and the free market
Melvyn D. Magree
Originally published in
the Northland Reader
now the
Reader Weekly
"School choice...whatta concept"
February 17, 2000
Melvyn D. Magree
Originally published in
the Northland Reader
now the
Reader Weekly
"School choice...whatta concept"
February 17, 2000
Posted in blog 2014-09-16
In the debate about “school choice” the phrases “let the free market decide” and “competition will bring out the best” are often used. What are “the free market” and “competition”? Is “school choice” an issue that can best be determined by “the free market” or “competition”?
The definition of an ideal free market includes
• Large number of buyers and sellers
• Free entry and exit of the market
• Knowledge of all relevant prices
• All goods are “private goods”; all the benefits and all the costs are reflected in the price
“School choice” certainly involves a large number of buyers. Students in a given urban community number in the thousands. In an ideal market a large number of buyers would lead to a large number of sellers.
Children are required to enter the market for schools, and they aren’t free to exit it. Even if they were to change to another school, it would be difficult to do so for many reasons until the end of a school year. Schools take a bit of time to enter or exit the market, but many businesses do so also.
Parents and children may be able to get lists of prices of all the schools, but it is very difficult for parents and children to know all features of all schools. The price is not only money but quality and quantity of services.
The costs of schools may be reflected in the price of tuition, but the benefits go far beyond those paying the price. Not only do the children and the parents benefit from school, but the society at large benefits. Companies have workers that communicate and reason well. The community and the nation have people who can produce products, services, and ideas. Neighbors have interesting friends. The city, the county, and the state have informed voters. In other words, education is not a “private good” but a “public good”.
Economists define a “public good” as being non-rival, prohibitively expensive, or having benefits that are not limited to the buyer.
A non-rival good is one that can be used by many people at the same time. It is also available not just to the highest bidder, but to all regardless of ability to pay.
A prohibitively expensive good costs more than one person or group wants to pay. Few people can afford all the costs of education. Even private schools do not charge the full costs; they have endowments, scholarship funds, and general contributions.
As discussed earlier, many people benefit from an educated society, not just parents and students “buying” an education.
If something is a public good benefitting a large portion of the community, then it generally seems fair that the public pays through taxation. If the public pays for something then the public would like to have some say in what the public good is like and how much it costs. The most satisfactory means of expressing the public will for over 200 years has been democratic representation. The public elects representatives charged with certain responsibilities. The representatives determine the nature of the public good, what is an acceptable cost for the public good, and how to raise the funds to pay for it.
The representatives could decide to provide the public good through a government agency or subsidize it through a contractor. If a government agency provides the public good, then the representatives generally do not provide subsidies for alternative provisions. For example, if the government has a police or fire department it does not provide a subsidy for those who would have their own police or firefighters. Should education be any different?
If schools are to be subsidized, should there be only one contractor or many? The other argument for “school choice”, “competition,” implies that there should be many contractors for schools. What does competition lead to?
“Competition” implies schools have competition for buyers; that is, buyers select a school. But the reality is that students compete for private schools; the schools select the buyers. All of the buyers cannot select the school that meets their needs.
If a product is more popular than competing products, the manufacturer can do two things: supply more product or raise prices. If the manufacturer decides to supply more product it may be able to do so quickly. If it decides to raise prices, some buyers may decide to go elsewhere but the manufacturer will probably retain enough buyers to have a satisfactory profit for some time or to have more money to put into improving the product.
But if a school is more popular than its capacity, it cannot meet that demand for a year or more. Should it then raise its prices to have a higher profit or to fund additional improvements in the school?
Now if the public is going to pay for such a school through vouchers, does it pay the full cost asked by the school? Or does it pay only a certain minimum that is guaranteed to all students.
In the first case we get into another economic idea, efficiency. One kind of economic efficiency is low cost production. That is, a free market will reward the lowest cost producers and punish the highest cost producers. But if a voucher pays the price asked for by a high cost producer, do we have a free market?
On the other hand, if a voucher pays only a guaranteed minimum, then it reduces the number of buyers. Only the children of those families who can afford to pay the difference can go to the very selective schools. “School choice” becomes limited for the rest of the children.
©2000, 2004, 2007 Melvyn D. Magree
keywords: Melvyn Magree, Melvyn D. Magree, Party of One, Reader Weekly, school choice, free market, public goods, public schools, fire department, police department, vouchers, competition
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Intergenerational payments are not a zero sum game
Many complain that Social Security is taking from the young to pay for the old. That is, this transfer is a zero sum game where the winnings of one are equal to the losses of others.
But consider that we play another zero sum game. Think about those who complain about paying for schools because they don't have children or grandchildren in school.
Now if the older people are paying taxes to support public schools and the younger people are paying taxes for seniors' Social Security payments, isn't the combined system a win-win situation?
And there is more to support this win-win situation.
If older people don't pay for children's education where are the doctors going to come from? Police and fire? Government? Inventors of devices and medicines to prolong life? Sports figures to entertain?
If younger people don't pay for older peoples' retirement and health, might the older people stay working longer, leaving fewer jobs for younger people?
And the list goes on. Older people paid for the infra-structure that younger people use today. Would we have highways, communication systems, buildings, and much else that was paid for in full by people now dead?
But consider that we play another zero sum game. Think about those who complain about paying for schools because they don't have children or grandchildren in school.
Now if the older people are paying taxes to support public schools and the younger people are paying taxes for seniors' Social Security payments, isn't the combined system a win-win situation?
And there is more to support this win-win situation.
If older people don't pay for children's education where are the doctors going to come from? Police and fire? Government? Inventors of devices and medicines to prolong life? Sports figures to entertain?
If younger people don't pay for older peoples' retirement and health, might the older people stay working longer, leaving fewer jobs for younger people?
And the list goes on. Older people paid for the infra-structure that younger people use today. Would we have highways, communication systems, buildings, and much else that was paid for in full by people now dead?
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Opposition to the EPA is just a GOP plot to dismantle public education
Mercury, lead, and several other pollutants are known for reducing cognitive function. If these pollutants are kept at high levels, then many children will not perform well in school. If many children don't perform well, it will demonstrate that public schools are failing. Thus, private interests, which always do "better" will take over. Of course, they can reject those children adversely affected by pollutants.
I posted the above as a comment to "The Latest G.O.P. Temper Tantrum", Robert B. Semple, Jr., New York Times, 2013-05-09. Temper tantrum is the description Semple gave the walkout by some G.O.P. Senators from the hearings for the confirmation of Gina McCarthy as the head of the EPA. See also "Lead and 'failing' schools".
E. Nowak of Illinois responded to my comment with
"And the closer people live to factories, the more toxins they breath in. The rich, always live far, far away from the industrial centers."
But we don't even have to live close to factories to be introduced to toxins. What are all the pesticides used in agriculture doing to us. What are the neoniconitides used to "kill aphids and other crop-destroying insects" doing to us? These are nerve poisons that disrupt neural activity. They are put into seeds and "become incorporated in the tissues of the adult plant". If we eat these plants what's to guarantee that the neurotoxins won't be affecting us? See "Honeybee die-off brings 'Silent Spring' back to mind", William Souder, Star Tribune, 2013-05-12. In other words, are these neurotoxins affecting the performance of school children?
I'm sorry if you think I'm a scold about free markets and Adam Smith's "invisible hand", but we really have to hold to account those who corrupt both ideas to hide their own self-interest against the public good. Please tell your friends about
"The Invisible Adam Smith" and "Humpty Dumpty and Free Markets".
I posted the above as a comment to "The Latest G.O.P. Temper Tantrum", Robert B. Semple, Jr., New York Times, 2013-05-09. Temper tantrum is the description Semple gave the walkout by some G.O.P. Senators from the hearings for the confirmation of Gina McCarthy as the head of the EPA. See also "Lead and 'failing' schools".
E. Nowak of Illinois responded to my comment with
"And the closer people live to factories, the more toxins they breath in. The rich, always live far, far away from the industrial centers."
But we don't even have to live close to factories to be introduced to toxins. What are all the pesticides used in agriculture doing to us. What are the neoniconitides used to "kill aphids and other crop-destroying insects" doing to us? These are nerve poisons that disrupt neural activity. They are put into seeds and "become incorporated in the tissues of the adult plant". If we eat these plants what's to guarantee that the neurotoxins won't be affecting us? See "Honeybee die-off brings 'Silent Spring' back to mind", William Souder, Star Tribune, 2013-05-12. In other words, are these neurotoxins affecting the performance of school children?
I'm sorry if you think I'm a scold about free markets and Adam Smith's "invisible hand", but we really have to hold to account those who corrupt both ideas to hide their own self-interest against the public good. Please tell your friends about
"The Invisible Adam Smith" and "Humpty Dumpty and Free Markets".
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Scientifically we're in deep doo-doo
Sometimes links can lead to very unexpected articles. I clicked on a link in New York Times Science to an article in Smithsonian Magazine: "We Had No Idea What Alexander Graham Bell Sounded Like. Until Now".
From there I clicked in the sidebar on "How Much Do Americans Know About Science" by Terence Monmaney.
The caption below the main picture was "Many Americans think U.S. teens perform even worse on standardized science tests than they actually do, according to a new national survey."
The article asked that readers take a science quiz before continuing. I took the quiz and found most of the answers obvious. The only question I hesitated on was what is the most prevalent gas in the atmosphere.
I answered 13 of the 13 questions correctly; something only seven percent of the respondents did. I found that very disappointing. Most of the questions one should have been able to answer from high-school science or from reading the newspaper.
If we can't correctly answer simple science questions, can we correctly answer political science questions? Or economic questions? Although the answers in these last two disciplines are not as provable as science questions, there are definitely many answers that have been shown to be wrong again and again. Unfortunately, too many people persist in believing these wrong answers.
From there I clicked in the sidebar on "How Much Do Americans Know About Science" by Terence Monmaney.
The caption below the main picture was "Many Americans think U.S. teens perform even worse on standardized science tests than they actually do, according to a new national survey."
The article asked that readers take a science quiz before continuing. I took the quiz and found most of the answers obvious. The only question I hesitated on was what is the most prevalent gas in the atmosphere.
I answered 13 of the 13 questions correctly; something only seven percent of the respondents did. I found that very disappointing. Most of the questions one should have been able to answer from high-school science or from reading the newspaper.
If we can't correctly answer simple science questions, can we correctly answer political science questions? Or economic questions? Although the answers in these last two disciplines are not as provable as science questions, there are definitely many answers that have been shown to be wrong again and again. Unfortunately, too many people persist in believing these wrong answers.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Quote of the day - Education
"To succeed, students must become thinkers, not just test-takers."
– "The secret to fixing bad schools", David L. Kirp, New York Times, 2013-02-09
I posted a comment to the article with the above quote and
"That sentence should be engraved in the head of anyone who wants successful students."
As of 8:30 this morning it had received 45 recommendations! Gosh, if I could only have that readership here!
A former teacher replied to my post that I had beat him or her to a similar post and added
"As a teacher for 27 years, I know for a fact, that exam scores are the least important indicator of how well a student is learning."
147 comments have been posted to the article. Three included that pre–school education may be expensive, but not as expensive as prisons.
I didn't post it, but many have written elsewhere that you pay something now or pay a lot more later. It is often considered investing, but too many people don't think of government spending as investment, as they cruise down the interstate built with government money, as they enjoy a game in a tax-supported stadium, or as they have no concern about food-safety because of government inspections.
– "The secret to fixing bad schools", David L. Kirp, New York Times, 2013-02-09
I posted a comment to the article with the above quote and
"That sentence should be engraved in the head of anyone who wants successful students."
As of 8:30 this morning it had received 45 recommendations! Gosh, if I could only have that readership here!
A former teacher replied to my post that I had beat him or her to a similar post and added
"As a teacher for 27 years, I know for a fact, that exam scores are the least important indicator of how well a student is learning."
147 comments have been posted to the article. Three included that pre–school education may be expensive, but not as expensive as prisons.
I didn't post it, but many have written elsewhere that you pay something now or pay a lot more later. It is often considered investing, but too many people don't think of government spending as investment, as they cruise down the interstate built with government money, as they enjoy a game in a tax-supported stadium, or as they have no concern about food-safety because of government inspections.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Private vs. Public, No Clear Answer
Many people are calling for the privatization of almost everything: schools, utilities, prisons, armies, and more. They claim that a private corporation will be more efficient than a government operated entity. The skeptic should ask what is meant by efficiency and what other values would be lost with privatization.
For example, if a private company operates a prison will a lower cost per prisoner come with a lower cost for security?
If a private company operates something, will it be calling for less regulation, regulations that could be protecting public safety and public health. For example, BP was state-operated for a long time, and then Margaret Thatcher privatized it. Apparently the deadly accident rate has gone way up because costs were cut to keep profits way up.
If private schools take away selected students from public schools, will the students left have fewer role models for success? Many "failing" schools do graduate successful students.
Regardless of the form of an organization, three ingredients are needed for success: clear goals, management that understands those goals, and sufficient resources to meet those goals.
For more, see "When Public Outperforms Private in Services", Eduardo Porter, New York Times, 2013-01-15. See also the book that he mentions, "The Org: The Underlying Logic of the Office" by Ray Fisman and Tim Sullivan.
For example, if a private company operates a prison will a lower cost per prisoner come with a lower cost for security?
If a private company operates something, will it be calling for less regulation, regulations that could be protecting public safety and public health. For example, BP was state-operated for a long time, and then Margaret Thatcher privatized it. Apparently the deadly accident rate has gone way up because costs were cut to keep profits way up.
If private schools take away selected students from public schools, will the students left have fewer role models for success? Many "failing" schools do graduate successful students.
Regardless of the form of an organization, three ingredients are needed for success: clear goals, management that understands those goals, and sufficient resources to meet those goals.
For more, see "When Public Outperforms Private in Services", Eduardo Porter, New York Times, 2013-01-15. See also the book that he mentions, "The Org: The Underlying Logic of the Office" by Ray Fisman and Tim Sullivan.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Teacher Performance, can it really be "measured"?
The Duluth News Tribune published my "Local View" with the title "Teacher Performance has always been variable". You can find it at http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/221673/
I wrote it in light of all the bashing of teachers that has been going on and of the notion that you can judge performance at the end of a school year. I really think teachers should be paid like insurance agents - instead of a cut of the ongoing premiums they get a cut of the income taxes their former students pay.
I wrote it in light of all the bashing of teachers that has been going on and of the notion that you can judge performance at the end of a school year. I really think teachers should be paid like insurance agents - instead of a cut of the ongoing premiums they get a cut of the income taxes their former students pay.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
If you think teacher's should be paid for performance…
I have a little exercise for you.
Take 30 critics of education and give them each 30 1/4-inch diameter bolts with 20 threads per inch. From a mixed assortment of 1/4-inch nuts with 20 threads per inch and 28 threads per inch, give each critic 30 randomly-drawn nuts. Give them, say, 10-minutes each to put the nuts on the bolts. They will each be paid according to the number of bolt-nut pairs they can successfully assemble.
Knowledge is not bolts and students are not nuts. In fact, we tend to treat either the students who have difficulty absorbing the knowledge or the teachers who cannot match the knowledge to the students as dolts.
On a more practical level, consider a history teacher's task and a chemistry teacher's environment. If the school requires all students to take history but only a self-selected few students are going to take chemistry, which teacher do you think is more likely to have the better performance?
Take 30 critics of education and give them each 30 1/4-inch diameter bolts with 20 threads per inch. From a mixed assortment of 1/4-inch nuts with 20 threads per inch and 28 threads per inch, give each critic 30 randomly-drawn nuts. Give them, say, 10-minutes each to put the nuts on the bolts. They will each be paid according to the number of bolt-nut pairs they can successfully assemble.
Knowledge is not bolts and students are not nuts. In fact, we tend to treat either the students who have difficulty absorbing the knowledge or the teachers who cannot match the knowledge to the students as dolts.
On a more practical level, consider a history teacher's task and a chemistry teacher's environment. If the school requires all students to take history but only a self-selected few students are going to take chemistry, which teacher do you think is more likely to have the better performance?
Generals or teachers: who knows best?
President George W. Bush said he would wait for an assessment from the generals before he would make a decision about Iraq or Afghanistan. He wanted advice "from the ground". President Barack Obama leans this way, too.
Many are making judgments about schools and claiming that teachers' unions are blocking reforms. In other words, those "on the ground" don't know what's going on, but those on the outside know better?
Similarly, to many, the teachers' unions are greedy, but Wall St. billionaires worked hard for their money. I wonder how many of these critics would make it through a day in the schools.
Many are making judgments about schools and claiming that teachers' unions are blocking reforms. In other words, those "on the ground" don't know what's going on, but those on the outside know better?
Similarly, to many, the teachers' unions are greedy, but Wall St. billionaires worked hard for their money. I wonder how many of these critics would make it through a day in the schools.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Little things can save our empire
I saved a few articles about education that take a different tack from all the grandiose schemes that are current and was going to write a summary. Then today's Star Tribune had several op-ed pieces that stressed some of the same old, same old ideology: blame the teacher's unions or put the schools under control of mayors.
As usual, I keep reading new stuff that takes time from writing about old stuff I had read. As I went through the list of articles for today's Yahoo! Finance, I was struck by the title "Collapse of the American Empire: Swift, Silent, Certain".
I think our national arrogance ("leader of the free world"), military overreach, and short-term ideological thinking do contribute to the possibility of our soon being surpassed by the likes of China, India, and Brazil.
One thing that can keep us going for a long time is our history of innovation, innovation that is often falling victim to ideology. As long as we run our schools on ideological principles like "No Child Left Behind" and control from larger and more remote political entities, innovation may be stifled.
To get more innovation, we have to educate children for creativity, not passing tests.
I finally finished Eric Booth's "The Music Teaching Artist's Bible: Becoming a Virtuoso Educator". The more I read, the more I understood he was talking about education in general. If we don't engage students in creativity, all the rote learning in the world will only turn out automatons. See "Teaching: putting in or drawing out?"
Then I read three revolutionary articles on education: "Scholar's School Reform U-Turn", "Building a Better Teacher", and "Why you should read Diane Ravitch's new book".
The first is how Diane Ravitch, a respected education historian who was in the first Bush's Department of Education, has changed her mind on some of the conservative standard views on education, including No Child Left Behind. If you want to get some idea of her independence, read her "The Language Police".
The second is a long New York Times Magazine article centered on a charter school founder who learned that teachers aren't being trained in the little things that really matter. The most striking paragraph was:
"When Doug Lemov conducted his own search for those magical ingredients, he noticed something about most successful teachers that he hadn’t expected to find: what looked like natural-born genius was often deliberate technique in disguise. “Stand still when you’re giving directions,” a teacher at a Boston school told him. In other words, don’t do two things at once. Lemov tried it, and suddenly, he had to ask students to take out their homework only once."
The third is a short review of Diane Ravitch's "The Death and Life of the Great American School System". The review gives a good summary of the ferment that is going on in education circles, a ferment that could give us a truly Great American School System.
As usual, I keep reading new stuff that takes time from writing about old stuff I had read. As I went through the list of articles for today's Yahoo! Finance, I was struck by the title "Collapse of the American Empire: Swift, Silent, Certain".
I think our national arrogance ("leader of the free world"), military overreach, and short-term ideological thinking do contribute to the possibility of our soon being surpassed by the likes of China, India, and Brazil.
One thing that can keep us going for a long time is our history of innovation, innovation that is often falling victim to ideology. As long as we run our schools on ideological principles like "No Child Left Behind" and control from larger and more remote political entities, innovation may be stifled.
To get more innovation, we have to educate children for creativity, not passing tests.
I finally finished Eric Booth's "The Music Teaching Artist's Bible: Becoming a Virtuoso Educator". The more I read, the more I understood he was talking about education in general. If we don't engage students in creativity, all the rote learning in the world will only turn out automatons. See "Teaching: putting in or drawing out?"
Then I read three revolutionary articles on education: "Scholar's School Reform U-Turn", "Building a Better Teacher", and "Why you should read Diane Ravitch's new book".
The first is how Diane Ravitch, a respected education historian who was in the first Bush's Department of Education, has changed her mind on some of the conservative standard views on education, including No Child Left Behind. If you want to get some idea of her independence, read her "The Language Police".
The second is a long New York Times Magazine article centered on a charter school founder who learned that teachers aren't being trained in the little things that really matter. The most striking paragraph was:
"When Doug Lemov conducted his own search for those magical ingredients, he noticed something about most successful teachers that he hadn’t expected to find: what looked like natural-born genius was often deliberate technique in disguise. “Stand still when you’re giving directions,” a teacher at a Boston school told him. In other words, don’t do two things at once. Lemov tried it, and suddenly, he had to ask students to take out their homework only once."
The third is a short review of Diane Ravitch's "The Death and Life of the Great American School System". The review gives a good summary of the ferment that is going on in education circles, a ferment that could give us a truly Great American School System.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Nerd is not a dirty word at these schools
After I wrote "Nerdy words that aren't dirty" and "Blaming the schools for what they can't control" I found out that I had an article on my coffee table that sort of tied the two blog entries together and went even further.
Wired 17.09 contains "Making Geeks Cool Could Reform Education" by Daniel Roth. Several schools have found that by breaking the kid culture, by plenty of adult supervision and by having students work in teams, that kids will do much better academically and more likely to go on to college. This can even happen in schools with mostly lower-income families.
I would say that good education is going to come from the bottom up with many experiments and not from the top down with one size fits all.
If anything is going to come from the top down, it should be the President highlighting a school or a group of schools every month. No money, no laws, just a little bit of publicity.
Wired 17.09 contains "Making Geeks Cool Could Reform Education" by Daniel Roth. Several schools have found that by breaking the kid culture, by plenty of adult supervision and by having students work in teams, that kids will do much better academically and more likely to go on to college. This can even happen in schools with mostly lower-income families.
I would say that good education is going to come from the bottom up with many experiments and not from the top down with one size fits all.
If anything is going to come from the top down, it should be the President highlighting a school or a group of schools every month. No money, no laws, just a little bit of publicity.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Blaming the schools for what they can't control
Laura Rowley wrote that self-control is a better predictor of grades or other successes than IQ. See “Why I Canned the Cable”.
College students who multitask heavily fare worse than those who multitask less. See "Multitasking Muddles Brains, Even When the Computer Is Off", Brandon Keim, Wired, 2009-08-24.
If a kid lives in a two-room apartment where the TV is always on and there is at least one conversation going, will he or she do as well in school as someone who has his or her own bedroom in a reasonably quiet house?
Only the most dedicated and clever teachers can work successfully with children with little self-control living in a "busy" home. Especially when there are 30 or more kids in the same room.
College students who multitask heavily fare worse than those who multitask less. See "Multitasking Muddles Brains, Even When the Computer Is Off", Brandon Keim, Wired, 2009-08-24.
If a kid lives in a two-room apartment where the TV is always on and there is at least one conversation going, will he or she do as well in school as someone who has his or her own bedroom in a reasonably quiet house?
Only the most dedicated and clever teachers can work successfully with children with little self-control living in a "busy" home. Especially when there are 30 or more kids in the same room.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Tests won't improve education
I've long felt that academic achievement is more a function of culture than of genetics. Nicholas Kristof wrote an interesting op-ed on this, "Rising Above I.Q.", New York Times, 2009-06-07. He points out that Asians, Jews, and West Indian Blacks often have success more than other groups. Each has a culture of valuing learning. He writes that "success depends less on intellectual endowment than on perseverance and drive."
Mark Dayton put his finger on the problem with testing as a means to improve schools, "Who benefits from our test obsession?" Star Tribune, 2009-06-04. Teachers and students don't receive results until months after standardized tests are given. How does the really give feedback on what students have learned? He says, as I've long thought, "Mostly the point is to criticize schools."
Mark Dayton put his finger on the problem with testing as a means to improve schools, "Who benefits from our test obsession?" Star Tribune, 2009-06-04. Teachers and students don't receive results until months after standardized tests are given. How does the really give feedback on what students have learned? He says, as I've long thought, "Mostly the point is to criticize schools."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)