Related articles:
Education reform: Take your pick | The Economist
World politicsUnited StatesBritainEuropeChinaAsiaAmericasMiddle East & AfricaBusiness & financeAll Business & financeWhich MBA?Business Books QuarterlyEconomicsAll EconomicsEconomics by invitationEconomics A-ZMarkets & dataScience & technologyAll Science & technologyTechnology QuarterlyCultureAll CultureMore Intelligent LifeStyle guideThe Economist QuizBook reviewsBlogsLatest blog postsFeast and famineAnalectsFree exchangeAmericas viewGame theoryBabbageGraphic detailBanyanGulliverBaobabJohnsonBlightyLexington's notebookButtonwood's notebookNewsbookCassandraPomegranateCharlemagneProsperoDemocracy in AmericaSchumpeterEastern approachesDebateEconomist debatesWhat the world thinksEconomics by invitationLetters to the editorIdeas arena: Women & workThe World in 2013MultimediaWorldBusiness & economicsScience & technologyCultureEventsThe Economist in audioPrint editionCurrent issuePrevious issuesSpecial reportsPolitics this weekBusiness this weekLeadersKAL's cartoonObituary We use cookies to support features like login and allow trusted media partners to analyse aggregated site usage. Keep cookies enabled to enjoy the full site experience. By browsing our site with cookies enabled, you are agreeing to their use. Review our cookies information for more details.We use cookies to support features like login and allow trusted media partners to analyse aggregated site usage. Keep cookies enabled to enjoy the full site experience. By browsing our site with cookies enabled, you are agreeing to their use. Review our cookies information for more details.We use cookies to support features like login and allow trusted media partners to analyse aggregated site usage. Keep cookies enabled to enjoy the full site experience. By browsing our site with cookies enabled, you are agreeing to their use. Review our cookies information for more details.This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our cookies information for more detailsThis site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our cookies information for more detailsThis site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our cookies information for more detailsThis site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our cookies information for more detailsThis site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our cookies information for more details Democracy in America American politics PreviousNextLatest Democracy in AmericaLatest from all our blogs Education reform Take your pick Nov 21st 2012, 22:42 by N.L. | CHICAGO Tweet ONE of the ideas that died with Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency was to create a federal school-voucher scheme. The proposal would not have created full tuition vouchers—after all, most schools are funded directly from state coffers—but would have allowed small amounts of federal funding for special-needs and poor students to stay with the child, as opposed to goingdirectly to schools.Republicans and Democrats have found much common ground on education reform, with both parties taking a student-centred approach. America is a rabidly individualistic country, so it is not surprising that the general thrust of reform has focused on increasing school choice, whether through charter schools (which have public funding and oversight) or allowing children to enroll in schools outside their traditional boundaries.But with vouchers there is still plenty of disagreement. Republicans tend to want lots more of them, while most Democrats want nothing to do with them. Republicans chalk this up to pressure from the teachers unions. Experience in Indiana shows that public schools have to raise their game, and compete with each other, to win students under voucher programmes. Even then students may decide to take their vouchers into the private sector. That is what concerns Barack Obama’s team, who don't want to see public schools
gw2 power leveling, attended by the vast majority of children, drained of funds.Earlier this year Mr Obama initially declined to expand the voucher programme in Washington, DC, putting him at odds with congressional Republicans. The programme has so far shown mixed results (voucher students have higher graduation rates, but get similar test scores compared to non-voucher students). In the end, the administration agreed to a small expansion of the programme, from 1,615 to 1,700 students.According to the Washington Post, hundreds of these students are using theirvouchers to attend schools that are unaccredited or in unconventional settings, where the government has no say over curriculum, quality or management. The Post singles out "a family-run K-12 school operating out of a storefront, a Nation of Islam school based in a converted Deanwood residence, and a school built around the philosophy of a Bulgarian psychotherapist." This leads Matthew Yglesias of Slate to make an important and overlooked point: the idea that market competition alone will produce high-quality learning is fallacious. One need only look at the market for snack food, which is rather tasty but not very healthy, to see this.Public schools are set up to educate children first and foremost, but also to ensure that they learn things deemed useful to society, rather than, say, yoga or skywriting. Certainly it is the right of parents to educate their children about things like yoga and skywriting (or how to practice Christianity or Islam), but they do not have the right to demand that society pay for it.It may be unfashionable to say so, but the public does have a right to make sure that children schooled on public money learn things that we all consider useful. After all, these children will eventually be the doctors, scientists and engineers that fuel the economy and pay our retirement costs. This is not to say that vouchers can't be useful. But without some controls on where the vouchers are going, they may create more problems than they solve. « The future of campaign finance: A morning-after constitutional? Recommend22TweetSubmit to reddit View all comments (16)Add your comment Related itemsTOPIC: Mitt Romney »The future of campaign finance: A morning-after constitutional?Letters: On our endorsement of Barack Obama, NATO, Japan, Grameen Bank, charities, SandyPrivate equity in America: An end to the carry onTOPIC: Democratic Party (United States) »Congressional representation: Now that’s what I call voter suppressionCalifornian politics: Brownian motionThe fiscal cliff: Elections have consequences, reduxTOPIC: Barack Obama »Marijuana laws: Unperturbed pufferyThe week ahead: November 16th 2012: A double mess The presidential bully pulpit: Barack Obama's best chance for his second term: a path halfway between JFK and LBJ? Readers' comments The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy. Sort:Newest firstOldest firstReaders' most recommended GH1618 Nov 22nd 2012 1:59 GMT "ONE of the ideas that died with Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency was to create a federal school-voucher scheme."Thank heavens! We don't need any more Republican schemes for a bigger federal government. Recommend 1ReportPermalinkreply Brookse Nov 22nd 2012 1:19 GMT Hey, I know.Let's make a law that says all kids have to graduate from high school
guild wars 2 power leveling, and -That those (generally poorer) states paying the least to educate a child in the public school system (about $7,000/yr.) will need to spend the same as those states paying the most (about $14,000).Now, I know some of you will say that spending more money to attract good teachers won't fix the problem. However, you also say that companies should spend whatever they need to in order to attract talented employees.So, go figure. Recommend 1ReportPermalinkreply RestrainedRadical in reply to Brookse Nov 22nd 2012 2:39 GMT So a school in a small town with a lower standard of living has to spend as much as a school in Manhattan? That seems like an inefficient way to go about school reform.I'd support a universal federal voucher of say $6K with states and local governments fee to tack on additional subsidies.I'd leave teacher pay up to the schools. Whether they want to hire only 6-figure talent or use only volunteers, I wouldn't interfere with that. I'd only insist that they meet minimum performance standards. Recommend 0ReportPermalinkreply Turkey Vulture - A Beautiful Symbol of Human Liberty Nov 22nd 2012 0:48 GMT The best hope is probably that online learning works out, and a kid's ability to be educated and educate themselves is no longer dependent on geographic location. Recommend 2ReportPermalinkreply WT Economist in reply to Turkey Vulture - A Beautiful Symbol of Human Liberty Nov 22nd 2012 1:36 GMT That may be a way out as retroactive pension enhancements, and inadequate past taxpayer funding of the pensions that teachers had been promised to begin with, destroy the public schools. In New York City for the second time in 40 years."Now, I know some of you will say that spending more money to attract good teachers won't fix the problem."We spent more. Hugely more. But it all went to the retroactive pension enhancements, as a result of the power of the teacher's union. Cut seven years off the retirement year and five years off the service time, added an inflation adjustment, and cut the employee share. And claimed it would all cost nothing.Here is what my compilation of Census Bureau data found:In Fiscal FY 2010, according to data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, New York City spent $23,472 per student on public schools, compared with an average of $22,861 in the Downstate New York Suburbs, $18,546 for New Jersey, and $12,502 for the U.S. as a whole. Adjusting the New York figures downward for higher average non-Wall Street private sector wage here, the NYC total is $17,647 per student, still 41.2% higher than the U.S. average. New York City non-instructional spending is and always has been low compared with the US. average and other parts of the state. Spending on instructional (teacher) wages and benefits (including retirement benefits) totaled $13,469 per student in NYC in FY 2010, or $269,380 per 20 students, or $161,628 per 12 students. Adjusting the NYC figure down for the higher average wage here, you get $10,126 per student spent on teacher wages and benefits in NYC, or more than 77% higher than the U.S. average of $5,703. The NYC figure for teacher wages and benefits was also higher than the average for the Downstate New York Suburbs, although a higher share of the suburban teacher dollars went to wages, and not to pensions and other benefits.Despite that spending, vastly higher than in the recent past (when the city's schools were below average), the union will tell you that we deserve ongoing reductions in education, because we aren't paying enough. And starting salaries are still low. Recommend 0ReportPermalinkreply WT Economist in reply to WT Economist Nov 22nd 2012 1:39 GMT Moreover, I write this as someone who argued for higher funding many years ago, when I produced lots of data showing the NYC schools were relative underfunded. I have ended up feeling very hosed. Recommend 0ReportPermalinkreply IPJ in reply to Turkey Vulture - A Beautiful Symbol of Human Liberty Nov 22nd 2012 1:46 GMT I would be cautious. The friend of a friend is experiencing this in the early stages--the kids all sit in the classroom doing online learning--and the teachers are instructed to take care of discipline but not teaching, answering questions, etc. My own experience, especially as a younger learner, was that instruction made a huge difference over being expected to do it all on my own. In other remote learning situations, like the School of the Air in the Australian outback, much of the learning was expected to take place with a tutor or parent to oversee lessons and give explanations, and the on-air interaction with teacher and classmates was not enough on its own. Recommend 0ReportPermalinkreply RestrainedRadical Nov 22nd 2012 0:31 GMT From the article:"Those scores are not made public, and schools can stay in the voucher program no matter how their students fare."There's your problem. It'd be a pity if it's made into anything more than that.From NL:"Public schools are set up to educate children first and foremost, but also to ensure that they learn things deemed useful to society, rather than, say, yoga or skywriting.Yoga or skywriting in lieu of math and English (rather than in addition to it) fails the first goal of educating children. No need to bring in social utility. Recommend 1ReportPermalinkreply Handworn Nov 22nd 2012 0:29 GMT I don't think "rabidly" goes well with "individualistic." We're so individualistic that we approach the individualism of someone with rabies? Obviously some people use rabidly as a synonym for very, but I hadn't expected to encounter one writing in The Economist.Certainly market competition alone won't produce uniform high-quality education, but I question whether anything will or if we'll know it when we see it. This is another example of the quixotic idea that government can truly save people from themselves. What mostly seems to occur is that the smarter and more hardworking students and better schools skew the grade curve and seduce us with the idea that everyone can do that well if we only reform well enough. Another problem with standards is that they can't be relied upon without the presence of hard truth-telling. People can in fact do better than they (or others) often think, but to have real standards we would need onlookers to say publicly, okay, we've done as well as we could with this kid-- he's just (stupid/lazy/violent/whatever) and we're justified in giving up on him. When would that ever occur in a democracy? To put it another way, if we allow such an educational taboo-- if social and political pressures can forbid truth-telling that way-- how can we be confident in the solidity of educational standards in general? Recommend 0ReportPermalinkreply RestrainedRadical in reply to Handworn Nov 22nd 2012 0:35 GMT That is the exact opposite of what we need. We have too many parents and educators giving up on students. Recommend 1ReportPermalinkreply Sol_Invictus Nov 21st 2012 23:35 GMT This article starts well, but slides into a narrow-minded view of how vouchers can be abused for banal fields of study. Parents want reform because children are failing algebra and chemistry, biology and literature. Parents aren't opting for vouchers because they want their kids to learn how to read sanskrit, they want them to be able to *read*! Just because there will be some abuse of vouchers doesn't render the whole program useless.I mentioned it in another comment of mine, but it applies here as well. We spend more each year on education and our student's grades keep slipping. Something other than the status quo needs to be tested or I don't see this trend changing. Recommend 2ReportPermalinkreply kdlaw Nov 21st 2012 23:01 GMT Good post. There is so little discussion in the education 'reform' movement about what actually creates good learning outcomes. Actual education researchers have been publishing studies showing fairly explicitly that constructivist learning, or 'student-directed' learning, is utterly ineffective for novice learners. Yet this methodology continues to be used widely. Children face enough educational challenges based upon their place of birth or the economic status of their parents. I don't believe that federalism and localism should have the effect of creating zones of disadvantage because of misguided educational policy. Alas, because of the structure of funding, there is no chance of a national curriculum in this country. A child, who through no fault of their own was born in Louisiana, will have to grow up learning that creationism is on equal footing with real science. Recommend 2ReportPermalinkreply RestrainedRadical in reply to kdlaw Nov 22nd 2012 0:36 GMT So your solution is a national standard teaching that Creationism is on equal footing with real science? Recommend 0ReportPermalinkreply McJakome in reply to kdlaw Nov 22nd 2012 0:46 GMT Children should be taught logic and critical thinking skills, as well as practical skills. Practical skills need to be scientifically and technologically useful so that when they become adults they will be able to function in society and get work to support themselves.Creationism is anti science, it teaches irrationality and seeks to undermine scientific thought, upon which our technological society grew and which is necessary for its survival. Science does not seek to kill religion, but religious people are intent on killing science because they fear that critical thinking skills and rationality are dangerous to their beliefs. Look at their attempt to do so in the "education" planks of the Texas Republican Party. Recommend 1ReportPermalinkreply IPJ in reply to kdlaw Nov 22nd 2012 1:53 GMT I agree strongly that constructivist learning is not very effective for novice learners. Part of the idea of having spent thousands of years learning this stuff is that we have some idea what it's important to pass on and get to it, not dump kids into figuring out on their own what they need. These supposedly student centered things almost always have a correct answer which the kids are ordered to guess. Some open-ended instruction can be genuinely instructive, but it needs to be sincerely open-ended without the teacher knowing the one correct way that things are to come out. If your writing or science project is truly open-ended, there shouldn't be a correct answer toward which people must home in by trial and error. If there is a correct answer, just teach them to do long division or construct a five paragraph essay already. Recommend 0ReportPermalinkreply kdlaw in reply to RestrainedRadical Nov 22nd 2012 2:05 GMT I suppose there would be a risk that, if creationists gained national power, there would be a national standard teaching creationism. Perhaps I was unclear, but I find it objectionable that creationism is taught to children in science classes anywhere. I would hope a national science standard would, you know, teach science. Recommend 0ReportPermalinkreply Comment (16)PrintE-mailPermalinkReprints & permissions About Democracy in AmericaIn this blog, our correspondents share their thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics and the policy it produces. The blog is named after the study of American politics and society written by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist, in the 1830s Follow us on Twitter @EconUS RSS feed Advertisement US elections video Explore trending topics Comments and tweets on popular topics Economist blogsAnalects | ChinaAmericas view | The AmericasBabbage | Science and technologyBanyan | AsiaBaobab | AfricaBlighty | BritainButtonwood's notebook | Financial marketsCharlemagne | European politicsDemocracy in America | American politicsEastern approaches | Ex-communist EuropeFeast and famine | Demography and developmentFree exchange | EconomicsGame theory | SportsGraphic detail | Charts, maps and infographicsGulliver | Business travelJohnson | LanguageLexington's notebook | American politicsNewsbook | News analysisProspero | Books, arts and culturePomegranate | The Middle EastSchumpeter | Business and management Most popular Recommended Commented
Education reform: Take your pick | The Economist
文章定位：
