Sunday, May 20, 2012

Yuck: US DOE Supports For-profit Entrepreneurs « Diane Ravitch's blog

Yuck: US DOE Supports For-profit Entrepreneurs « Diane Ravitch's blog:


Yuck: US DOE Supports For-profit Entrepreneurs

Yesterday I engaged in an unexpected exchange on Twitter with Justin Hamilton, who is press secretary to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
It started after I retweeted a blog by master-teacher Nancy Flanagan. Nancy’s blog took issue with a listing of the up-and-coming stars of American education, which focused heavily on the entrepreneurial sector and forgot teachers. Nancy listed some of the outspoken teachers who are emerging stars in the profession, like Julie Cavanaugh and Brian Jones, two New York City teachers who starred in “The Inconvenient Truth Behind ‘Waiting for Superman.’”
When I retweeted Nancy’s blog, I asked “Who will transform education: entrepreneurs or educators?”
I don’t have the exact sequence, but Jersey Jazzman (one of my favorite bloggers) recapitulated the tweets and blogs here: http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2012/05/weasels-in-department-of-education.html?spref=tw.

Why College-for-All is a Sham

The corporate reformers like to say that everyone must go to college if they want to have good jobs in the future.
Now, let me be clear that I love education and I think everyone should get as much education as they want and should keep on getting better educated all their life. Thanks to the Internet, the means of self-education are easy and inexpensive.
But I don’t think that college-for-all is a reasonable goal. There are many young people who don’t want to go to college; they shouldn’t be forced by social pressure to do so. College changes if it is turned into a higher level of compulsory education. It becomes like high school or even junior high school if unwilling and unready students are pushed into college.
And the very claim that the jobs of the future require a college education is not true.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, most of the jobs that will open up in the next few years do not require a B.A. In fact, only about 25% do. The other 75% do not. They need on-the-job training.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/11/art5full.pdf
Look at Table 3 on page 88.  Look specifically at the next to last column, “Total job openings due to growth and


Why Do We Spend So Much on Testing?

A parent in Texas wrote to say that she couldn’t understand why the state was paying Pearson $100 million a year while laying off teachers. She’s right. This is crazy. She pointed out that in addition to the direct cost of the state testing, schools and districts now had to pay people whose sole job is the care and feeding of the testing monster. One district is hiring a testing coordinator for each of its five high schools, More money diverted from the classroom. At the same time the cost of testing grows, the budget for public education shrinks.
She sent me this article from an Austin newspaper: http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/educators-parents-fight-testing-system. Sandy Kress, who was the architect of NCLB and is now a lobbyist for Pearson, strongly defended the testing system, saying that young people would be closed out of good jobs if they didn’t take all those tests.
Now, be it noted that this claim is utterly false. Students in independent schools (such as the one that Kress’ own children attend) do not take all those tests and they presumably will not be shut out of the good jobs in the future. http://jasonstanford.org/2012/05/the-lone-staar-rebellion/
Furthermore, there is no reason to assert that taking state tests prepares anyone for good jobs in the future.