6 ms·

How do you disrupt public education? You do what certain political activists have done during the past 70 or so years. 1) You relax the laws that require publ

How do you disrupt public education? You do what certain political activists have done during the past 70 or so years. 1) You relax the laws that require public education using the rubric that private schools will allow for competition and force improvement. It is no accident that fewer families dependent of public schools weakens support for public schools. It also means that political and religious agendas can be entered into American education where before they were forbidden. 2) You couple that with a long term propaganda campaign about how bad public schools are including portraying teacher union activists in the worst possible light in the news. 3) You starve funding for education to the point where, for example, California goes from the foremost example of excellence in education to one of the worst. 4) When teachers start to rebel at the corruption of American education, you vilify teachers claiming they are taking American education hostage. The idea that technology offers a solution to a political issue is not realistic.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago
Why are unions a good thing? They seem to hold students as hostages and at random. It’s pretty gnarly. CA unfunded pension liabilities may be around $100 trillion https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherburnham/2018/07/30/three-cheers-for-the-los-angeles-times/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherburnham/2018/07/30/t... It has made CA into a nanny state. Gov. Newsom now wants to provide pre school education for the first four years. Where is the money for all this? After school tutoring classes have become a cottage industry in affluent cities. In low income districts, schools are everything from day care to free meals. Meanwhile school funding is highest in low income districts (LAUSD is 17.xxk per student ..OUSD is 14.5k/student) and on the lower scale in affluent areas(Bay Area: 8-9k/student) as property tax and general fund gets redistributed. Which is fine as society must bear the burden of educating all. But it seems like it’s all going for the care and feeding of union backed retired teachers. Unions have become so powerful that in LA, it’s a strike. In Fremont, teachers refusing to do more their hours...in Oakland...well. That’s a huge can of worms that no one can understand or fix. I don’t even know where to start with Oakland’s problems. So clearly throwing money at ‘public education’ isn’t working because there isn’t a whole lot of educating going on for that money. Interestingly there is just one school district that isn’t unionized. Clovis Unified School District. It’s near Fresno. If you google it, there is some fascinating info there. And yes, they are doing very well. I am reminded of the 2010 documentary, “Waiting for Superman”
- gaius 8y ago
  One of the teaching union bosses in the UK said he’d start to care about pupils when they started paying union subs.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    Do you have a reference for that?
- yesenadam 8y ago
  So clearly throwing money at ‘public education’ isn’t working I wasn't aware that money was being 'thrown at' public education anywhere. However you define that exactly. But it sounds, the way you describe it, like stopping 'throwing money' is part of the solution? i.e. spending even less on public schools? How much is spent anyway, compared with some other important things the US spends money on, like, say, invading/attacking other countries? Or keeping so many people locked up?
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    California spends between 50-70k per prisoner.(a lot of it goes to pensions for the prison guard union. Google it. Spine tingling. But then there are less of them than students and kids are more reliable on the rolls and increasing every year..and hence only averages to 10k/year) Most of them products of the public school system. That’s one way to look at it. Public education isn’t free. Someone is paying for it. But public education isn’t accountable to the people paying for it. Here is an extension of the thought experiment: If public school education is parent directed/funded and ALL higher education/university/research/vocational studies after passing a very tough high school diploma is absolutely free, how do you think we would all fare as a society? Equal opportunity to all who have cleared their high school exams with flying colours.
jelliclesfarm 8y ago
I also don’t get your first point. I don’t understand why private school education is a bad thing. I had a private school education in a different country and the idea that parents who can afford better education for their children wanting exclusive expensive education for their children to outshine others seems to offend Americans. I would like to know why? I know many parents who sacrifice a lot(mine included) so their children can get a better and superior education. Why is this a bad thing? (My intention is not to be offensive. I honestly don’t understand.)
- ddingus 8y ago
  One bad thing can be the purpose and or bias in a private school. There are very good ones. There are very bad ones too. Access to good private education takes more money than the majority of Americans have. Charter schools often pop up, look sexy, and vary extremely widely. Again some good, a lot of "meh" and some bad. The idea behind robust public education is the majority would get a good education regardless of their economic position. I had pretty great public education, and I was poor in a backward town too. We have declined a shocking amount! It just so happens I can remember every year. Odd. But, useful to compare to my own kids education. We were in better shape economically, but the quality was spotty throughout. And it was stripped down. A move to more private, or no public is likely a downgrade for way too many people, IMHO.
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    Right. That’s why unions make it worse. With the passage of time, more students due to increasing population but also higher pension burden. This is like a tottering tower built on a semi solid foundation. It will topple because soon there is not enough money to educate but only to maintain those who have retired.(aka not productive in the economic system). It is highly irrational. I wonder if public education is exactly what’s leading to inequalities and the need for equality is actually making us accept lowest common denominator. Having classes on the basis of age is also problematic. I think children should be educated in groups with different age groups. Instead of curriculums, they can learn whatever they want and be guided to pursue what interests them most. The evaluations can be once in 3-5 years maybe? And they can streamed into groups according to their abilities. In a lot of ways, the pressure will be off kids and they can truly learn..to be the best in what interests them and where their abilities are their strengths.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

Why are unions a good thing? They seem to hold students as hostages and at random. It’s pretty gnarly. CA unfunded pension liabilities may be around $100 trillion https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherburnham/2018/07/30/three-cheers-for-the-los-angeles-times/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherburnham/2018/07/30/t... It has made CA into a nanny state. Gov. Newsom now wants to provide pre school education for the first four years. Where is the money for all this? After school tutoring classes have become a cottage industry in affluent cities. In low income districts, schools are everything from day care to free meals. Meanwhile school funding is highest in low income districts (LAUSD is 17.xxk per student ..OUSD is 14.5k/student) and on the lower scale in affluent areas(Bay Area: 8-9k/student) as property tax and general fund gets redistributed. Which is fine as society must bear the burden of educating all. But it seems like it’s all going for the care and feeding of union backed retired teachers. Unions have become so powerful that in LA, it’s a strike. In Fremont, teachers refusing to do more their hours...in Oakland...well. That’s a huge can of worms that no one can understand or fix. I don’t even know where to start with Oakland’s problems. So clearly throwing money at ‘public education’ isn’t working because there isn’t a whole lot of educating going on for that money. Interestingly there is just one school district that isn’t unionized. Clovis Unified School District. It’s near Fresno. If you google it, there is some fascinating info there. And yes, they are doing very well. I am reminded of the 2010 documentary, “Waiting for Superman”

gaius 8y ago
One of the teaching union bosses in the UK said he’d start to care about pupils when they started paying union subs.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  Do you have a reference for that?
yesenadam 8y ago
So clearly throwing money at ‘public education’ isn’t working I wasn't aware that money was being 'thrown at' public education anywhere. However you define that exactly. But it sounds, the way you describe it, like stopping 'throwing money' is part of the solution? i.e. spending even less on public schools? How much is spent anyway, compared with some other important things the US spends money on, like, say, invading/attacking other countries? Or keeping so many people locked up?
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  California spends between 50-70k per prisoner.(a lot of it goes to pensions for the prison guard union. Google it. Spine tingling. But then there are less of them than students and kids are more reliable on the rolls and increasing every year..and hence only averages to 10k/year) Most of them products of the public school system. That’s one way to look at it. Public education isn’t free. Someone is paying for it. But public education isn’t accountable to the people paying for it. Here is an extension of the thought experiment: If public school education is parent directed/funded and ALL higher education/university/research/vocational studies after passing a very tough high school diploma is absolutely free, how do you think we would all fare as a society? Equal opportunity to all who have cleared their high school exams with flying colours.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

I also don’t get your first point. I don’t understand why private school education is a bad thing. I had a private school education in a different country and the idea that parents who can afford better education for their children wanting exclusive expensive education for their children to outshine others seems to offend Americans. I would like to know why? I know many parents who sacrifice a lot(mine included) so their children can get a better and superior education. Why is this a bad thing? (My intention is not to be offensive. I honestly don’t understand.)

ddingus 8y ago
One bad thing can be the purpose and or bias in a private school. There are very good ones. There are very bad ones too. Access to good private education takes more money than the majority of Americans have. Charter schools often pop up, look sexy, and vary extremely widely. Again some good, a lot of "meh" and some bad. The idea behind robust public education is the majority would get a good education regardless of their economic position. I had pretty great public education, and I was poor in a backward town too. We have declined a shocking amount! It just so happens I can remember every year. Odd. But, useful to compare to my own kids education. We were in better shape economically, but the quality was spotty throughout. And it was stripped down. A move to more private, or no public is likely a downgrade for way too many people, IMHO.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  Right. That’s why unions make it worse. With the passage of time, more students due to increasing population but also higher pension burden. This is like a tottering tower built on a semi solid foundation. It will topple because soon there is not enough money to educate but only to maintain those who have retired.(aka not productive in the economic system). It is highly irrational. I wonder if public education is exactly what’s leading to inequalities and the need for equality is actually making us accept lowest common denominator. Having classes on the basis of age is also problematic. I think children should be educated in groups with different age groups. Instead of curriculums, they can learn whatever they want and be guided to pursue what interests them most. The evaluations can be once in 3-5 years maybe? And they can streamed into groups according to their abilities. In a lot of ways, the pressure will be off kids and they can truly learn..to be the best in what interests them and where their abilities are their strengths.