[WS:] I do not think that there is the "primary aim" of educational reform or policy in the US. The educational system (ES) is a prime example of what some organizational theorists call the "garbage can model" - or organizations where the set of stakeholders and decision makers is poorly defined and fluid, which results in different parties trying to push the organization every which way and applying different rules for setting the goals and performance measures. This arrangement typically results in "satisficing" behavior or pursing a course of action that is less than optional but also least objectionable to the stakeholders. In other words, it is the proverbial camel that was supposed to be a horse designed by a committee.
I am pretty sure that some stakeholders in the ES have the goals that you mention - but they are not the only stakeholders. There is a whole range of others - local politicos, businessmen peddling their products and services, ideologues of various stripes, religious cooks, crazy parents and so on with their own agendas and ideas. The end result is nearly total paralysis of the system which is trying to please all but actually pleases none.
I think that the root cause of this mess is the local control of education - if you replace it with federal control and funding, a great deal of the current woes would disappear.
Wojtek
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:24 PM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Joanna::
>
> I didn't say that. What I would say is that the primary aims of
> education reform are as follows:
>
> 1. To make education a scarce good. 2. To channel public money to
> private profit. 3. To divide the working class between those who can
> figure out what charters to get their kids into and the "refuse" who
> are left to public schools. This will make the public schools look
> even more inefficient and make the case for privatization even
> stronger. 4. To destroy teacher's unions. 5. To further degrade the
> conditions and remuneration of teachers
>
> ^^^^
> CB: The way things have gone down in Michigan, number 4 rank as a
> number 1 reason , too.
>
> My general suspicion is always that the ruling class doesn't want most
> of the working class' minds stimulated at the level that occurs in
> higher education as this has potential to raise class and radical
> consciousness. So, they don't want too many people succeeding in
> elementary and secondary ed. primed to go to college and actually
> going to college. What if 95% or high school students succeed in high
> school well enough to qualify for college ? Is even the institution of
> the normal curve without political basis ?
>
>
> Not all college encourages critical social and political thinking ,
> but there's more of it in college than outside. And it creates
> expectations of career and advance. The more people with such
> expectations, the more will be frustrated and alienated when some
> don't have their expectations met.
>
> College profs are relatively politically left of the average in the
> overall population. Elementary and secondary teachers probably are
> too. The teachers' union is the most militant union in Detroit in
> recent years. Profs and students were a main segment of "The 60's"
> reform movements in the US. The ruling elite has institutional memory
> of that; and can just look at polling data today ( I guess the polling
> data shows that smile) or get their info from David Horowitz ( is that
> his name ?)
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>