-
The New Animal House
April 12, 2012 | 69 comments
-
Seeing Through a Fake Injury
April 5, 2011 | 18 comments
-
What Obama Should Tell the Kids
September 14, 2010 | 15 comments
-
Don’t Get CAUT Policing Canadian Higher Education
April 23, 2010 | 16 comments
-
President Obama’s Odd Example
September 11, 2009 | 18 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Confusing a Liberal Education With Public Education
Requiring that a child be exposed to “different points of view” can only mean one thing.
In my study of education, one of the most common assumptions I find among scholars is that public educational institutions do a better job of providing a liberal education, one that helps students think critically about different worldviews, than other forms of education. This assumption stems less from evidence and more from the liberal hubris that state institutions can and will accomplish most ends better than nonpublic means.
One finds this belief on open display in a recent New Hampshire case regarding homeschooling. The case concerns the education of Amanda Kurowski and a disagreement between her divorced parents. The mother has homeschooled Amanda and wishes to continue to do so for religious reasons. The father is apparently worried about the daughter’s “rigidity on faith” and believes she “would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior and cooperation in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.”
What is disturbing about the case is not a judge stepping in to solve a dispute between parents. Unfortunately, when it comes to warring parents, the court must make some decisions. What is worrisome are the misconceptions Family Court Justice Lucinda V. Sandler has about liberal, home, and public education that she uses to make her decision. She ordered that Amanda must attend public school, because “Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs…suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.”
The fact that a child might provide a rigorous defense of her beliefs actually demonstrates the strength of homeschooling. I’d like to believe my nine year old son could mount a vigorous defense of his faith, but I’m not sure he could right now (he goes to public school). Being able to make such a defense, moreover, is the first step toward critical thinking and not a sign that it’s not developing. Before asking a child to make complex judgments as an athlete or musician we must first make sure he or she has mastered playing the basics. The same is true for worldviews. In order for a child to begin thinking critically about different worldviews, he or she must first understand his or her own. Thus, it is not at all clear why the state should favor an exposure to multiple worldviews at an early age versus an in-depth education about one’s own religion.
In addition, merely because a child can mount a vigorous defense of his or her religious beliefs does not mean that the child has not seriously considered other points of view. Of course, I cannot say that I know many fourth graders who are at the developmental stage where they can “evaluate multiple systems of belief.” We would need to find some empirical means, beyond the prejudices of Judge Sandler, to determine whether Amanda was less capable than other ten year olds in these sorts of evaluations. Judge Sandler apparently used no such criteria. If she did, she would probably need to lower her expectations. I often teach college students educated in public schools who have trouble with the sort of tasks she expects of ten year old Amanda.
This leads to the second problem with Judge Sandler’s views. She assumes that public schooling will actually provide the opportunity to seriously consider other points of view. I wonder if the judge actually attended a public school. In my public school experience, I have found public most young kids are too inhibited or scared to talk about their faith or worldview outside of the classroom. In truth, the main education Amanda is likely to receive would come from socialization or peer pressure that would encourage her to engage in the basic American cultural practices of other ten year old girls at her school. While I would like to believe that such activities would include discussing and “critically evaluating multiple systems of belief,” my experience makes me inclined to believe that those activities are more likely to be texting and talking to friends about school, clothes, boys and the latest relationship drama, playing sports or music, and enjoying the latest Hannah Montana show.
Within the classroom, it is also doubtful Amanda will encounter serious discussions about various philosophical or religious worldviews. Teachers and textbooks tend to avoid controversial issues. If anything, she will be socialized into a secular world that largely ignores religious faith. As one University of North Carolina scholar noted in his study of public school textbooks, “The underlying worldview of modern education divorces humankind from its dependence on God; it replaces religious answers to many of the ultimate questions of human existence with secular answers; and, most striking, public education conveys its secular understanding of reality essentially as a matter of faith. Indeed… at least in its textbooks and formal curriculum students are indoctrinated into the modern (secular) worldview and against religion.” Sending Amanda to public schools does not in any way ensure that she will receive a liberal education.
Ultimately, Judge Sandler’s decision relies more about her own biases than what we know about how to help children receive a liberal education that prepares them “to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Perry L. Glanzer
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/23/confusing-a-liberal-education
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Mole in Don Draper
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 9.23.09 @ 8:38AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Confusing a Liberal Education With P links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Liberal Reader| 9.23.09 @ 10:41AM
Glanzer's piece simplifies and reduces complicated topics too much.
While it is true that public education should be teaching religious history and related topics, I'm unsure how a public school could teach Glanzer's daughter to "defend" her faith. That is most certainly the duty of her father and pastor.
No target is easier to hit than public schools. And think about it: all we ask them to do is raise our children for us!
I guess I would prefer it if Glanzer was more specific about what he would recommend public schools do and how he proposes they should do it.
And let's keep in mind:
Children arrive at schools socialized by cable television and video games; their parents don't read to them; their lives are a network of interactions with electronic distractions and virtual reality.
Besides discipline problems, however, schools are also facing drastic reductions in spending on arts and things like sports, and this DOES matter when it comes to educational outcomes. Not only received wisdom -- going back to ancient Greece -- but countless studies suggest students learn all topics better when they are engaged by the arts and athletics.
Liberal Reader| 9.23.09 @ 10:46AM
One other thing:
"Liberal education" goes back to ancient Rome, when "free men" were educated in philosophy and the arts.
Traditionally, "liberal education" has been humanistic: it has centered on the study of languages, poetry, philosophy, and religion.
I'd be more than happy if we returned to that. I'm not sure the 700 Club philosophy of early education would be all that satisfied with a real "liberal education," but I think it would do our children a great service.
Ray| 9.23.09 @ 1:00PM
"I'm unsure how a public school could teach Glanzer's daughter to "defend" her faith."
They can't. That's not something you find too much of in Grade school. In public schools, most teaching, especially in the age groups that are being discussed here, is actually rote learning; receiving lots and lot of information and being tested on how well a child retains that information. The ability to discern differences between separate, complex, subjects, the ability to research alternative concepts and ideas, the ability to analyze several complex sets of information, isn't offered until a student reached a HIGHER LEVEL educational facility, what we call Colleges.
So, how can a Judge decide that a public grade school will be better able to teach a 10 year old student COLLEGE LEVEL concepts and activities (like "defending" one concept or idea over another) than home schooling? The answer is, they can't. So the Judge is wrong in her basic assumptions and, therefor, in her decision.
Doug Crockett| 9.23.09 @ 1:06PM
You can even omit the question of religious beliefs and arrive at the same conclusion this article reaches. "Socialization" is the bogeyman we heard while we were homeschooling our four kids. Giving homeschooled kids a chance at team sports and other organized activities requires some effort. But the socialization they receive in the public classrooms, homerooms and corridors isn't worth the price of a cup of coffee. It's actually a loss. Kids learning behavior from other kids in public school, at least in this day and time, is a case of the foolish or silly leading the blind. The lessons will later need to be unlearned. While you're at it, choke up on TV a bit and maybe turn it off as often as you can.
Cybercorrespondent | 9.23.09 @ 1:10PM
Do you have an antidote for the Obama elixir as prescribed by George Soros and the far left? As shown in this video, I wish we had more congressmen like John Hue Pubic who read what he was asked to sign. Watch -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB6p5QPVhPI, but don’t swallow the elixir. After you finish watching the video, ask yourselves these questions.
Why are the public officials we elleted allowing Obama to shred our Constitution? Do you think Obama should remake the health care system with new federal regulations, mandates and big-government? Do you think that taking money from the productive sector of our society and distributing it to the nonproductive will solve all of our problems? Why is congress and other politicians dooing nothing about the Obama czars and other communist- fashist appointees he chose to assist him in shreding our constitution? If the thread http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB6p5QPVhPI I posted doesn’t turn live, copy and past it onto Google.
Cybercorrespondent
http://cybercorrespondent.blogspot.com
Ray| 9.23.09 @ 1:22PM
"Children arrive at schools socialized by cable television and video games; their parents don't read to them; their lives are a network of interactions with electronic distractions and virtual reality. "
That's not true. Children are "socialized" by the interactions between themselves and family members, interactions during family social events like Holidays, interactions between themselves and their friends and neighbors, and even interactions observed between their parent or parents and other members of society, like at a shopping mall, sporting event, ect.
You see, most children are not raised in a vacuum, even those who are home schooled. They have years of social exposure, years of "socialization," before they even enter their first school.
School is not a place for social interaction, we have many other venues for that (like a public park). School is a place for individual learning, even when that individual is part of a group. It is this belief that school is a social teaching experience that has diminished the value of education, replacing individual learning with group identity, modern day socialization. This is why America has fallen behind in Education. We're not placing emphasis on educating the kids in public schools, we're "socializing" them when they are capable of "socializing" themselves through simple observation and daily human interactions.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 9.23.09 @ 1:31PM
Liberal Reader, at 10:41AM you posted this: “While it is true that public education should be teaching religious history and related topics, I'm unsure how a public school could teach Glanzer's daughter to "defend" her faith. That is most certainly the duty of her father and pastor.”
Why don’t you think her mother plays a role in this?
You also write: “I guess I would prefer it if Glanzer was more specific about what he would recommend public schools do and how he proposes they should do it.”
This whole article is about what he thinks should be done - homeschool the child.
Open the pumps. NOW!
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Don’t Tread on Me!!
Liberal Reader4| 9.23.09 @ 1:55PM
Ray --
I'm not sure about your claim that schools are not "social." Anytime people work together to accomplish anything the context is "social."
There is no such thing, properly speaking, as "individual learning" in schools. As long as you have language, communication, teachers, students -- you have a social context.
I think conservatives -- in their zeal to pick on public schools (as if that were difficult or brave) -- often minimize the challenges facing public schools.
And it doesn't matter WHERE, either: schools are burdened with many, many responsibilities OTHER THAN teaching in rural, suburban, and urban settings.
They actually do very good work, and in return, endure the scorn of cynical ignoramuses.
This is not to say that schools don't need reform -- God knows. And conservatives, I think, have some great ideas.
Oddly, education is one of those areas where rigid ideological differences tend to divide people less than the simple understanding of the problems: that is to say, a college educated conservative who works in the school systems and understands its problems will have much more in common with a liberal with similar experiences than he will with your run of the mill conservative, who sits backs and criticizes without really knowing what he's talking about.
Pingback| 9.23.09 @ 2:16PM
ADF Alliance Alert » Confusing a liberal education with public education links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 9.23.09 @ 2:16PM
"Like everything else in America, 'public' is a code word for dirty, inadequate and possibly dangerous"
Liberal Reader| 9.23.09 @ 2:29PM
Tim --
Wrong. But I think YOU are using it as code word for "desegregated."
Ray| 9.23.09 @ 2:52PM
"There is no such thing, properly speaking, as "individual learning" in schools. "
Yes, there is, which is why each student is tested INDIVIDUALLY. They are INDIVIDUALLY tested, INDIVIDUALLY scored, and INDIVIDUALLY corrected. It s not a group process where the collective score is calculated and the same "grade" posted to everyone within that group.
Teachers may score the results of a test on a "curve," comparing one student's achievements with those of another, but those achievements, those scores, are determined INDIVIDUALLY, not collectively.
How can students be taught collectively yet tested individually? They answer is, they're not. Each child is taught individually, even though the information they receive is being taught to several individuals at a time.
Don't confuse mass distribution of information as collective education. The information is intended to teach each student individually, intended for each student to understand individually, not collectively. This is why children are not allowed to "cheat" on their tests by taking correct answers from another student. They are supposed to provide answers INDIVIDUALLY, just as they received them.
Liberal Reader| 9.23.09 @ 3:54PM
Ray --
You need to calm down. Your post is silly.
Students are usually ASSESSED and EVALUATED individually, but they LEARN (a.k.a. "are taught") in social situations.
The class room is a social situation. One of the lessons students are learning is how to work with others to get things done.
Do you live in a cave, Ray?
None of what I'm saying here is all that surprising or radical. Have you ever read Plato? You know, where the philosopher goes into the forum and sort of talks to people, asking questions and so on. Learning is by and large a social activity, at least in school.
Dudes, just because the word "social" is used, it doesn't mean you have to get all apoplectic. It is a word in the English language with a definition and a use, and it doesn't necessarily mean you are a Maoist if you do use it.
Liberal Reader| 9.23.09 @ 3:58PM
Ray --
You use terms like "collective education" and "individual learning" as though they had some special meaning.
Students learn by working with other students on problems, by asking questions of the teacher, by answering prompts and questions from the teacher, by watching and imitating students with higher skill levels, by working with peer tutors, and so on. Learning is social. Learning is social. Learning is social.
I'm very sorry if this seems ideologically incorrect to you. Clearly, you don't know anything about education or teaching -- which is fine, as long as you are not a teacher -- but you should at least demonstrate some willingness to learn about the topic you are offering opinions about.
Mike| 9.23.09 @ 7:08PM
Liberal Reader you make it too easy. You wrote:
“No target is easier to hit than public schools. And think about it: all we ask them to do is raise our children for us! “
“I guess I would prefer it if Glanzer was more specific about what he would recommend public schools do and how he proposes they should do it. “
“And let's keep in mind:
Children arrive at schools socialized by cable television and video games; their parents don't read to them; their lives are a network of interactions with electronic distractions and virtual reality. “
…………………………………………………………………..
To your first point I would say that raising my children is the last thing I want the education system to do. I am not asking them to raise my child they are usurping my authority by presuming to do so. Your comment here exemplifies what is wrong with public education, namely a bunch of pansy liberal Gladys Cravitzes (sp?) thinking they know better how to raise my child.
To your second point: I will help you out be enumerating what Glanzer did not. Teach English, Math, History, Language, Civics, Science and Physical Education. The how is easy. Teach it. Leave the political indoctrination at home and teach the subject. Leave the child rearing to the parents. We could do it for half the cost we expend now with better results if we concentrated on education in the education system and not raising children.
Point three has been somewhat addressed by Ray but allow me to expand on it a bit by asking; what vacuum do you live in? Perhaps that is how your children are socialized but not mine and I dare say not many. Yes these are factors but you completely leave out parents, family, friends, church and other human interactions.
The fact that you have made comments such as these places you squarely within the group that believes you have to undo what other parents have taught their children. Perhaps you are not responsible or willing enough to raise your child and need the government to do it for you but don’t assume the same for me.
Let me add one more comment to endear myself to the liberals lurking here. You mentioned discipline problems. This is a self inflicted wound. The liberals insist on no discipline and then complain that there are discipline problems. Throw the bums out. They are not interested in an education and are disrupting my child’s education.
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
Donny| 9.23.09 @ 7:10PM
Once there was a young child who was not allowed to watch South Park on television at his home, by decree of parents. But his schoolmates told him all about the suicide-ridden endings to the weekly shows. And, alas, the boy who never watched South Park committed suicide. "Wonderful, wonderful" socialization.
Margie| 9.23.09 @ 8:25PM
LibReader; You are an arrogant little snot. A perfect example of how not to be for every child, and a prime example of a product of today's public schooling. You disrespect every right thinking person who comments here. The more right thinking, the nastier. You're a disgrace.
Liberal Reader| 9.23.09 @ 8:54PM
Mike --
I think you misunderstand liberalism. Most teachers I know are liberals, and most would give ANYTHING, including major organ donations, to have more discipline in schools.
I think the idea that liberals WANT to "raise" your children is also mistaken.
Children receive less and less adult supervision from family members, particularly as more and more women have entered the work force. Perhaps liberals are responsible for this, but it seems a tall order to blame it on classroom teachers.
I know what you guys really want to do is beat up teachers. Everyone's doing it; you can do it in your sleep. Just close your eyes, and let the Limbaugh flow out. I know teacher bashing is easier than thinking and a lot more fun.
But I think teachers get too a raw deal; our society asks them to be day care AND teachers AND social workers AND nurses.
Every teacher I know would LOVE to be free just to teach his subject matter, and not to have to worry about drugs and guns and God knows what else.
Margie| 9.24.09 @ 12:35AM
" I know what you guys really want to do is beat up teachers. Everyone's doing it; you can do it in your sleep. Just close your eyes, and let the Limbaugh flow out. I know teacher bashing is easier than thinking and a lot more fun."
You like lying for a living, don't you? Do you know where liars go when they die, LibRead?
Liberal Reader| 9.24.09 @ 1:13AM
Margie --
Since you're having a rad time taking the hint, I'll be explicit.
I find your posts obnoxious and hateful; I have no interest in further exchanges with you.
Margie| 9.24.09 @ 1:41AM
Your a creepy little liar LibRead. I call them as I see them. We haven't had any exchanges other than you insulting me, accusing me of being a racist, race baiter, etc., and me telling you the truth, which is, and I repeat, that you are a liar. Apparently you enjoy yourself being such. What a pity. It is so unnecessary.
biber hapı | 9.24.09 @ 5:43AM
jkfnvkfhkdsdkjvf
sex shop | 9.24.09 @ 5:46AM
vfdnhuıodfhjlkdfkj
Mike| 9.24.09 @ 10:46AM
Liberal Reader
I need you to actually read what I wrote and understand it. Perhaps I was unclear. The liberal establishment has created the liberal education system. I use a small “L” because I am referring to liberal politics.
No where in my posts have I blamed teachers. If anything they are as much victims of the liberal education system as the students. Teachers are similar to the rifleman in combat. They do not formulate strategy they execute the mission. Our defeat at Kasserine Pass in World War Two was not the fault of the rifleman it was the fault of the generals. The same applies to education. Teachers do what they are told, teach what they are told to teach and have to deal with the problems they deal with because of the liberal education system.
It should go without saying but I will say it for clarity. I believe the vast majority of teachers are good honest people trying to do the best they can under difficult circumstances. They care about educating the students and don’t inject much personal political thought into the classroom.
The liberal education system is a result of liberal politics. Laws written by congress and policies put forth by the Department of Education. Court decisions made as a result of groups like the ACLU pushing an agenda through litigation. Additionally we have the crap taught at teacher’s colleges such as whole word reading and “new” math. Add to that the administrations of school districts where more money is spent on administrators than teachers.
You say we want to beat up teachers but that is patently untrue. It is a nice dodge to change the focus of the argument though. If we are talking about beating up teachers then the left can demagogue the right. If we are talking about education policy then the left looses the argument on facts so naturally the left changes the focus.
I agree with you about teachers wanting discipline and I agree with you about most teachers just wanting to teach. The problem here is that the typical liberal feel good policies don’t take reality into account. We are worried about the children’s self esteem so we can’t punish them. We can’t have any judgment in the classroom that can be construed as Christian Mores so we can’t tell the children something is wrong. All cultures are equal so we can’t point out that Western culture eliminated slavery 140 years ago but African and Muslim cultures still practice it. As a result we have news stories about discipline problems in the schools and the talking heads are baffled as to the cause.
On more correction for you and then I will pass the soapbox back to you and await your response. In typical liberal fashion you said: “close your eyes, and let the Limbaugh flow out.” This is proof that your thought process is corrupted. In a classic “post hoc ergo propter hoc” moment you believe that Conservatives are a result of Rush Limbaugh when the reality is that Limbaugh’s success is because we already believed in Conservatism.
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
LIberal Reader| 9.24.09 @ 11:32AM
Mike --
You posit a liberal education establishment somehow apart from or aloof from the teachers in the schools. Granted, there are laws and there are school boards and there is a Department of Education, but the forces that shape what happen in classrooms can hardly be said to be simply "liberal."
Do liberals sometimes go overboard with political correctness? Of course. Although, it's worth pointing out, they do this in the name of teaching respect for people who are different from the majority -- a not entirely ignoble motive, particularly in education.
Maybe it would help if you said exactly what you think the public education system is doing poorly. You admit that teachers are for the most part honest and hard working, and I appreciate it. (I don't think you'll have much company on the right making this basic admission.)
So what's the problem? The ACLU? New Math?
I don't think so.
Student outcomes are very poor, across the board. No Child Left Behind has had modest successes but by and large has failed to achieve its goals. Teachers hate it.
Instead of gesturing to a nebulous, shapeless movement out there that you call "liberals" and blaming them, why don't you say what problems you think exist and what might be done to address them. When it comes to education, I think you'll find liberals more interested in hearing your ideas than you might imagine.
I think, as well, you'll find what used to be considered "conservative" or traditionalist ideas receive welcome hearings these days. In one of the worst school systems in my state, they've revived school uniforms, to the universal joy of teachers. I certainly support uniforms, high discipline standards, a longer school year.
But when I say "a longer school year," being a liberal rather than a conservative, I understand that means MORE SPENDING.
Conservatives for a long time argued that "throwing money at problems" wasn't enough, which was true.
It may not be sufficient, but it is necessary. If you want better schools, 90% of the time, you need to spend more on them -- even if you devote considerable energy to making them spend what they have more efficiently.
In the end, local control of schools has some important strengths that need to be preserved, but local control also defeats what is essentially -- and traditionally -- the redistributionist function of education: the idea is to create the "level playing field" that people who celebrate competition and capitalism claim to believe in.
If you want better schools, you need higher teacher pay to go along with higher standards, a longer year, and so on.
Kerry Marvin| 9.24.09 @ 1:32PM
Boiled down to the essence of the judgement of this, judge, all that is left is that this chiold was not given the socialist indoctrination vs being socialized by home school. So she couldn't have ruled otherwise from her Leftist progressive fommenting agenda. that it takes a Ten year old girl, to figure that out? and Fight for herself? Good for her to defend herself in the face of this opposition to the rights of the parent, and her own rights. Her mother should move this child out of that state (.) All of My Grandchildren (12) Are Home-Schooled. God Bless their little hearts, and minds. We Did Not Decide for The Public, Option for our Schools, or our Health care nor will we Cap their Edgucation and Trade away their Future for a Political Agend!
Kerry Marvin| 9.24.09 @ 1:38PM
Please Excuse, my Finger Dislexia. I Was typing and using the one i wanted to show this judge.
and should have used spellcheck..rgr.
Mike| 9.24.09 @ 9:26PM
Liberal Reader
The education system is educating our children poorly. Is that exact enough? This is due to a miriad of distractions and mandates from on high that have nothing to do with educating the students.
Of the many problems that exist I will mention two. The first I failed to mention in my previous post is the teachers unions. They are in the business of protecting administrators, teachers and thier own backsides. Nothing in their mission statement is about the student and rightly so as they do not represent the student. Their actions are detrimental to the student.
Get rid of union rules that make it impossible to fire ineffective teachers and that create administrative positions that add nothing to the students education.
The second problem is that the liberal education establishment is a monopoly. Institute a voucher system to allow parents to send their children where ever they want. Let private enterprise into the mix. You, as a liberal send your children to a school that caters to your political view. I can send mine elsewhere. The "poor" and "disadvantaged" can have the same opportunity as the "rich" to choose how to educate thier children.
Competition will draw the best and brightest and will provide higher teacher pay to effective teachers. It will also eliminate a lot of the overhead deadwood in the current system. Not to mention eliminating ineffective teachers. A for profit entity is not going to employ 30-50 percent of it's staff in non productive administrative positions.
None of your suggestions would improve student performance. Washing D.C. spends more per student than any other district and has one of the lowest student to teacher ratios. They are one of the worst performing districts in the country. Care to send you children there? They are employing the solutions you say will help.
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
Licence| 2.5.10 @ 9:00AM
I run quite a few blogs myself and this blogengine thing is something i'd like to try asap.
Personal Licence Training
Pingback| 2.8.10 @ 1:09PM
Homeschooling: Answers To The Most Common Misconceptions About Homeschooling links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
www.sunglass-mall.com | 4.4.10 @ 3:02AM
You won't have to worry about having your sunglass merchandise to gather dust on its display racks waiting for the summer season to commence www.sunglass-mall.com
poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 8:39PM
thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica
justin| 4.11.12 @ 9:41AM
that was Very well said.