[lbo-talk] More "school reform" nonsense

[Wojtek S]

[Ws:] I think the fed is pushing it because (a) a lot of people want it and
(b) the fed impact on education is relatively small, most of the action is
local.  Consequently, the fed can afford crowd pleasing without fearing of
doing much damage.  However, if the fed were a major player (e.g. as in
Social Security), I do not think it woul ebe so eager to privatize
education.

Wojtek

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:24 AM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:


>
>
> That's a big IF. Right now the feds want charter schools. That's the
>
> federal policy.
>
>
>
> Joanna
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wojtek S" <wsoko52 at gmail.com>
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:00:56 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] More "school reform" nonsense
>
> [WS:]  But that is exactly the problem.  If schools were federally funded
> on
> the per-student basis, schools in poor districts would receive the same
> funding as schools in wealthy district - which would be a great
> redistribution mechanism.  Furthermore, federal curriculum would eliminate
> the need for standardized testing - or at least a big chunk of it, which
> again is an improvement over the status quo.  Finally, federally mandated
> curriculum would reduce if not eliminate the influence of flat earth
> ideologues and religious cooks - again a significant improvement over the
> status quo.
>
> Somebody on this list once commented that the quality of the federal
> justice
> system is far superior to the state justice systems in most if not all
> states.  The same applies to education, imho.  What is more, there is a
> good
> reason for federal rather than local funding of education.  Education is a
> public good - it benefits society as a whole not just a particular
> locality.  A person educated in one locality is likely to move to another
> locality after completing his/her schooling - so the local funding of
> his/her education is in fact subsidizing other localities.  Federal funding
> would eliminate that.
>
> I understand that this argument goes against the idiotic infatuation of the
> American public with everything that appears "gemuetlich" and
> non-institutional - but that is another story.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:37 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > [WS:]
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > This is not the case. Many school districts have lost total control, the
> > poorer ones, the ones that don't ace the standard tests. That gives the
> feds
> > or state pols who are in the pockets of the curriculum/testing industry
> the
> > power to take over and make hay.
> >
> > NCLB and Race to the Top are both federal programs.
> >
> > Joanna
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>