Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - RE: Public Education

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rachel Cox <rachel AT hesketh.com>
  • To: "InterNetWorkers" <internetworkers AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Public Education
  • Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 16:26:02 -0400


At 04:02 PM 5/10/2002 -0400, Austin, Roger D. wrote:
[snip]
> No, the public schools are not responsible for educating every child. It
>may be their mission, but not their responsibility. The responsibility
>resides with the parents to see that their off-spring is educated. The
>public schools shouldn't bail out the parents from these responsibilities.
>Of course, this IMHO.

As a practical matter, of course, a lot of parents won't follow through on
that responsibilty. I don't think that means that their kids should suffer
the effects of a lousy education.

[snip]
>Do we really believe that we should maximize
>achievement for every child? I wonder if this is really true or wishful
>thinking.

I think that wishful thinking can only become fact if we act on the belief
that it's possible. We certainly don't know that it isn't possible to
maximize achievement for every child, but if we decide it isn't and thus
don't try, we guarantee that it's impossible.

[snip]
>Most of them are
>active in their schools and tend to be higher income and better educated.
>The public schools will miss them, but they won't be looking back.

That's an interesting, and understandable, attitude, but not very useful if
one's interested in achieving the best possible world for our best possible
children to live in.

>> If you want every student to succeed and to be pushed to the limits
>> academically, you need to do two things: open your wallet and cough up
>> the dough and be prepared to support longer school days/school years.
>
> What is success for each student? Is it forcing unmotivated and unruly
>students to learn, or is it pushing each student to succeed as well as they
>can? Is a flatter bell curve better than a spike?

Are you suggesting that unmotivated students are naturally that way, and that
we shouldn't work to make them more motivated? Some people are naturally
brighter than others, true, but to to suggest that there's a difference
between "forcing unmotivated and unruly students to learn" and "pushing each
student to succeed as well as they can" seems wrongheaded. I think they're
the same thing.

And a flatter bell curve is better than a spike if it flattens out high.
Would you rather have a whole lot of capable, well-educated kids with a few
more capable and better-educated ones and a few not capable and poorly
educated ones, or a whole lot of not-so-capable, poorly educated kids with a
few capable and well-educated ones?

> The public does not support public schools blindly.

Or, really, much at all.

[snip]
>What could be
>done so that high-achievement kids remain in the public schools?

Well, for one thing, we could start treating our schools a little more like
we treat our national sports teams. Pump the money in, give astronomical
salaries to the teachers, treat them like the heroes they are, while at the
same time being sure to only hire the best and the brightest (this should be
easier once we're paying teachers what they're worth), and like that. For
another, we could value the educations of *all* children, not just our own.

Cheers!
-Rachel


_____________________________________________________________________
Rachel Cox | Web Developer | 919.834.2552 x16 | hesketh.com/inc
Image is only the beginning. Knowledge is profitable.
http://www.hesketh.com/proof/white_papers/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page