Group items tagged

While looking through the governor's education policy, it seems as though higher education is more of his focus than public K-12 education. This brief, from the governor's websites, outlines his view of higher education needs of the state.

"Class struggle goes on in other realms. In goes on in K-12 education, for example, when business tries to influence what students are taught about everything from nutrition to the virtues of free enterprise; when U.S. labor history is excluded from the required curriculum; and when teachers' unions are blamed for problems of student achievement that are in fact consequences of the maldistribution of income and wealth in U.S. society. It goes on in higher education when corporations lavish funds on commercially viable research; when capitalist-backed pundits attack professors for teaching students to think critically about capitalism; and when they give money in exchange for putting their names on buildings and schools. Class struggle also goes on in higher education when pro-capitalist business schools are exempted from criticism for being ideological and free-market economists are lauded as objective scientists."

This is really about the politics of higher ed., but it's an issue that's near and dear to me and my colleagues in the School of Education.

A lot has been made of the success of KIPP students and schools. Their formula doesn't seem be revolutionary (longer hours = greater achievement), but their success relies on charter school laws that allow for their existence and provide for their substanially higher per-pupil costs.

I'm not sure how I feel about this blog. Part of me says "Oh no!" while the other part says that we need to make education accessible but we would be better served to go with a more individualized approach. Right now it feels as though we often cater to the lowest common denominator which is not fair to anyone. Can we learn something from the operations concept of mass customization? Educators--feedback please!! I'd love to hear what your experience tells you r.e. these issues.

I am intrigued if not in full agreement with this piece by Kolb. He makes good points about a national baccaulaureate exam...it's true, algebra is algebra, grammar is grammar, in all 50 states. Some of our colleagues would disagree that we need primarily focus on the best and the brightest and that those who are not ready to learn should be sequestered until they are (paraphrasing here). He says, "We really aren't serious as a nation when it comes to education," but I think that we are fast approaching a time when (I hope) it becomes a primary focus of our political debate (from Candy).

The punishment does not fit the crime, but if there is such a strong correlation between zip code and achievement, who can blame a Mom for trying?

I disagree with two of the comments in the article... The first was made by the City Council President: ""The young lady was wrong, she should not have tried to take her kids to another school system,..." I do not think she should have falsified the records; however, I do not think that it was wrong to try to find a way to get equal access to a quality education for her children. I also disagree with Don Domenech's interpretation of SES data. While research has found a correlation/relationship between SES and student achievement, I think his statement that "the correlation between student achievement and zip code is 100 percent," is misleading. The average student achievement may be higher in more affluent zip codes but that does not mean 100% of the students perform better. There are still students who struggle or drop out. I think the data speaks more to the family SES. It is true that better facilities and access to more materials and technology provide a higher likelihood of academic success, but I think that some of the student's personal/home factors have a bigger influence. If you send a child who is hungry, has to take care of siblings and/or work to help support the family to an affluent suburban school, that student will not automatically perform better. There are no absolutes and I feel his statement that "The quality of education you receive is entirely predictable based on where you live," is misleading. The "quality" of some of the "inputs and processes" may be better but because success in education is complex and dependent on more than simply the school, the outcomes are not guaranteed based on zip code.

Along the lines of Dr Becker's latest video regarding power and decision makers, the acceptance of ROTC programs by higher ed can lead to increased federal funding. With the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" some universities are claiming to be more open to the ROTC programs being housed at their campus.

Interesting that "Special Education" allegedly means higher-than-average and lower-than-average performing students. Yet the funding for some states does not even exist!

In 2008-2009, nearly $24 billion in loans and grants went to about 2k for-profit schools under federal student aid programs. About 20 years ago there was some concern by the Fed that the schools were recruiting students not ready or capable for higher education. A lot of the students were not prepared for the jobs they were supposedly trained for and so they never got jobs in those areas. In turn many of them defaulted on their student loans. Congress put the 85/15 rule in place - meaning that the for profit schools would have to raise 15% of their student aid from other sources. That was reduced to 10% in the late 90s under Clinton.

I think one of the quotes from this article sums it up best..."The governor and the House Appropriations Committee focus investment in higher education, economic development and transportation - while cutting K-12 education. This makes about as much sense as fixing the roof and repaving the driveway while ignoring the cracks in the foundation of your house."

If everyone agrees that teachers are important... why do they think that demoralizing them will improve students' experience and performance in school?

So the school boards and their constituents know that consolidation would reduce costs and the people don't want to pay higher taxes... yet there is reluctance to consolidate small districts (those with approx 500 students) because of unique needs (hmmm is this "code" for something?) and because the constituencies don't like the idea of a state mandate. So, let's see... whose interests are they protecting?

A well written, thoughtful expression of how Marx's theory that demonstrates how it has been turned into negative propaganda.