From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:28:35 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.93Jan27163241@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.164047.19034@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>> My sarcasm is in response to overstatements on your part, such as
>> the quote included above. Note the phrase, 'the purpose of schools
>> is not to teach skills and ideas...'. A non-sarcastic response to
>> this is hardly possible.

>Perhaps not, for you.  But you might be surprised at what you can
>accomplish if you put your mind to it.  

>> I also have a problem with your general intent to demonize
>> teachers and 'educationists' (is this a new word?).

Among subject-matter people interested in education, "educator" means
someone who teaches subject matter, and "educationist" means someone
who is concerned with how to teach, rather than subject matter.

			...................

>> The effort to classify entire groups as 'the enemy' is not very
>> productive, unless one is at war, and I certainly hope we aren't
>> in this case.

>Mr. Shanker has made it quite clear, in the quote I offered and
>in other public statements, that his priorities for the schools
>have nothing whatever to do with offering a good education to the
>children who are forced to attend them them. 

Even the educationists are somewhat aware of the severity of the 
problem, but they are definitely not aware how bad it is, and that
their minimal approaches cannot work.  They could have worked 50
years ago, probably 40 years ago, and maybe 35 years ago after Sputnik.
But the policies they introduced about 60 years ago, some of which have
been somewhat reversed, have produced a class of teachers who, like Mr.
Shankar, cannot see the importance of offering an education to children
suitable to their individual abilities, and accepting the problems 
attendant with that. 

					This does not make
>him a demon, nor does it indicate that I think of him as evil.
>It does mean that his agenda differs from my own and that I disagree
>with his priorities.  That makes him "the enemy" in the struggle
>to find ways to see that children in this country get a quality
>education.  Shanker and others of his ilk are an obstacle to that
>goal, and they have effective control over the public school system.
>I believe that it is important that these facts be recognized by
>all parties to the debate.  It was my intent to foster that 
>recognition.  If you think that intent is improper then too bad.
>
>> Having read much of the discussion on vouchers and private schools
>> here on t.p.m (lots of net bandwidth there) and elsewhere, it
>> seems to me that we have to go far beyond simply introducing choice
>> into a system that will otherwise remain largely unmodified. Given
>> the changes in the economy that are happening now, and which will
>> continue over the coming decades, we really need to rethink the
>> entire function and purpose of education.

Until the 1930's, the purpose of education was to provide knowledge
and understanding.  Each grade and course had a somewhat specified
content, and it was expected that, for example, children in 5th grade
world history would know their 4th grade physical and political geography,
at least to a fair extent.  This was continued throughout the entire system.

Now this had problems.  The bright were somewhat accommodated by "skipping."
This led to social problems, and occasionally to academic ones, as something
could have been missed, but the bright could make this up.  It led to greater
problems for the slow, as repeating the grade did not help that much.  So the
solution of the educationists was to keep the children with their age group,
and since they were never too concerned with what was learned, forget that.

Anyhow, now the teachers are the product of this system.  They have not been
asked to use what was learned in one place in another.  Memorization has
replaced thinking, and they cannot even learn what the children can if 
taught by subject matter people.  Not all of the teachers are this bad,
but probably most.

Even the rich cannot do much about the problem.  Except on the east coast,
there are few academic private schools.  Some have grown up recently, such
as in Chicago and other big cities, where the teachers, with their not
outstanding salaries, largely send their children to private schools.
Even with their training, they can see that the system has failed.  And
the ministers of the state religion oppose home schooling, and even letting
parents do too much to teach their children.  From the late 1930s to about
1960, elementary children were, in many places, not allowed to bring schoolwork
home, for fear that the parents might quite properly contradict the teachers.
And these were the more knowledgeable teachers of the time.

The system is worse than merely broke.  A few school districts, starting many
years ago, have managed to maintain some fair standards, but they are limited
by the state bureaucracy.  But most are saddled with tenured incompetents, no
matter how well intentioned they are.  And Mr. Shankar and other union leaders
will not let a school district pay a fresh graduate who knows more than an
old fogy who does not know, and is not even able to recognize this.

All of this has appeared on the education groups.  
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton