HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:10:07 MST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Gene Glass <ATGVG@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Great Books

    Bob Stonehill asked us to think about the classics that we would
 recommend for our students or for all educators. Some responded by
 writing that it is unlikely that any one set of techniques is best or
 right for all. This response could be self-refuting in a way and
 support Bob's request in another way. Bob asked for book titles; written
 materials. People respond in writing. Suppose a writer belived that
 no one set of teaching approaches (admitting for the moment that Bob's
 request was not nearly so narrow as this) need be taught or revealed to
 everyone. Then a book that advanced this argument rationally and forcefully
 should be read by all and should be a classic. Indeed, some of my "classics"
 nominations argue just this.
     So I suggest that without further ado we get right to the business of
 nominating "classics" in education. I can assure you that I will never read
 any of them, having given up books when my eyesight lost that region
 24 inches in front of my nose and my OSCO Drug reading glasses could no
 longer bring it in focus. But I love bookchat even more than I love books;
 I have read thousands of book reviews but no more than a few dozen books
 in my life. So let's have at it.

    My nomination: Paul Goodman  Compulsory Miseducation (circa 1962)

-------**********======================================**********-------
GENE V GLASS                                    ATGVG at ASUACAD.BITNET
College of Education                            ATGVG at ASUACVAX.BITNET
Arizona State University       Internet Address:ATGVG@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
Tempe, AZ 85287-2411
602-965-2692
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:36:55 MST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Gene Glass <ATGVG@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Public money for private education

   John Covaleskie wonders at what point  federal (or even state) money for
 private education would entail government controls over what happened in
 those private schools. Virtually immediately, it seems prefectly safe to
 say.
    Look for an example to private universities. They are subject to an
 enormous number of federal controls (which surely will increase  under
 the aegis of Riley and Shalala) because they take federal money. Many
 laws are now written so that any institution or organization that accepts
 funds is subject to controls. In many cases we approve of these controls,
 in many other cases we don't. I think there is a tiny college in Michigan
 that is of a conservative ideological stripe that has become famous for
 refusing all federal money because of opposition to federal control (its
 name is Hillsdale, I believe). Virtually all colleges are caught under
 the federal umbrella through participation in student loan programs
 that bring with them many conditions from the government.

   Money always brings controls; there can be no doubt; and in the beginning
 it  will also surely bring assurances from authorities that these controls
 will be minimal, benign and in everyone's best interest.

-------**********======================================**********-------
GENE V GLASS                                    ATGVG at ASUACAD.BITNET
College of Education                            ATGVG at ASUACVAX.BITNET
Arizona State University       Internet Address:ATGVG@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
Tempe, AZ 85287-2411
602-965-2692
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:46:02 PST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Richard Everman <reverman@KA.REG.UCI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Schools: public or private

deleted

>      I heard a media account some weeks ago of a study of a "choice/open
>   enrollment" (without vouchers) experiment in Des Moines, Iowa. The
>   brief account I caught said that after a couple of years the schools
>   were more segregated by economics and race than at the outset.
>      If any reader knows the facts, we would all be in their debt if they
>   would post them.   Thanks.
>
deleted


I would also like the facts, such as

how long did the experiment run?
how many students were involved?
what is "without vouchers"?
were private schools involved or only public institutions?
how were teachers involved?
how were parents involved?
what options did parents have as to or not to participate in the experiment?
what options did parents have at to the choice of schools?
did schools have the option of excepting or not excepting a student?
etc.

Richard
reverman@uci.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:37:43 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         "Scott R. Vaughn" <scott@VAUGHN.HON.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Voucher Fashion Statement

Mark E. Fetler writes:
>
> Many states are having trouble coming up with their
> stakes, and in California there is serious discussion of
> shifting more of the burden back to localities, where it
> resided prior to the tax revolt.
>
I don't know whether it is a case of cultural retardation or
something else, but Michigan is poised to shift the financing of
schools heavily *toward* the state.  There are competing plans, but
all of them would reduce local property taxes sharply and increase
the state income tax.  Most of the supporters of this shift point to
the (presumed) leveling of differences among the districts of the
state.

On balance, what was the experience in California;  did the districts
become 'more equal' after Prop 13?  (I'm interested in per pupil
expenditure measures here, but in other less readily quantifiable
measures as well.)  Was the equalization (assuming that there was
some) achieved by 'improving the lot of the less fortunate' or by
'dragging down the better districts'?  Much of the debate about state
equalization in Michigan has been conducted in those terms.
---
Scott R. Vaughn
The Honors College
Michigan State University
Phone: (517) 355-2326
FAX: (517) 353-4721
E-mail: scott@vaughn.hon.msu.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: SUNY at Plattsburgh, New York, USA
X-Envelope-to: edpolyan@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"edpolyan@asuacad"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:47:00 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         HEWITJS@SNYPLAVA.BITNET
Subject:      inclusive teacher ed

To all list members:
        We are in the process of redefining teacher preparation at SUNY Platts-
burgh, and are very interested in developing an inclusive elementary and special
    education program.  We are planning to visit the faculty, students, and area

teachers involved in the program at Syracuse U., but would like to know where
else such programs are being delivered or developed, and who we might contact to
    get details.  Any assistance is greatly appreciated.
Scott Hewit
SUNY Plattsburgh
hewitjs@splava
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:32:24 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         RSN@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject: Re: Schools: public or private

Every message I have seen here so far re: the choice to send
Chelsea to a private school has assumed without pause that it
was Bill and Hillary Clinton deciding where to send Chelsea.
As the parent of a twelve-year-old, let me assure the group
that the student in question is VERY likely to have opinions--
probably strong opinions--about where she wanted to go to school.
If I were Chelsea, and had just finished my tour of Sidwell
Friends, believe me that I would choose it over a public
DC (or Virginia or Maryland) school too.  I doubt if Bill and
Hillary "sent" so much as Chelsea herself decided.  Good for her.
Bob Stonehill
Director, ERIC Program
US Dept. of Education
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:55:41 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Jane Clark Lindle <JCLIND00@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Clinton:public/private

Try as I might, I can't see Clinton/Chelsea's choice as
hypocritical...Of course, if it was Hilary's choice, I think I might
charge hypocrasy. Hilary's plank was children and family issues....I
think with only media information --- which we all recognize as only
partial information --- we have indulged in considerable speculation
about the clintons AND the DC schools.  Actually with such little
information, the only conlusion I'm willing to make is that a new
president has to pick his battles. In this case, Clinton by-passed a
symbolic gesture on education. I'm not sure that makes a statement on
his integrity or commitment to educational issues.  I am sure it
suggests that his agenda is full. The country is facing huge domestic
issues beyond education all of which WERE on his platform. Furthermore,
I'm listening to NPR as I write this; and I'm daunted by the escalation
of       global issues in the Shetlands (Environment), Bosnia (Human
rights/safety), Somalia (military presence/human rights/safety), and
Iraq ( economics/human rights/safety)... I'm sorry I can't get upset if
Clinton didn't play Abraham and offer up Isaac (Chelsea) to the DC
public schools in a purely symbolic gesture which may or may not
actually benefit public schools in general, the DC schools specifically
or Chelsea in particular...... I'd prefer some REAL action to symbolic
stuff anyway.  We just had an "education president" who specialized in
the symbolic.

Jane Clark Lindle, Ph.D. University of Kentucky
jclind00@ukcc.uky.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: edpolyan@asuacad.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"edpolyan@asuacad.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:03:54 -0400
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         JSYNTS@RITVAX.BITNET
Subject:      teacher stress

I think a better direction would be to research ways to improve the
environment and working conditions for teachers. It seems that soothing
emotions is like placing a bandaid on a broken leg. However, you will find
much of this work is being done at Sagamore Lodge in the Adirondack
Mountains. It resides in the town of Racquet Lake. Their headquarters is at
Saratoga, New York. The name is (i am not sure of the spelling of these
places or people) Kerchenbaum (is as close as I can come). They have
written under the catagory Humanistic Education and hold regular workshops
on your topics. Give them a call.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:19:00 -0400
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Aimee Howley <ESS016@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject: Re: classic education books

In response to Bob Stonehill's question about the relevance of my
question:  I think that there are many experiences that inform
any given teacher's practice, and I'm not at all certain that we
can know in advance what those experiences will (or should be).  In
working with prospective teachers I have often missed the mark when I
have tried to offer them classic readings in education.  Ultimately,
I am much more concerned that they have some powerful experiences that
guide their thoughtful practice than that anyone try to predetermine
what those experiences might be.  As a consequence, I suspect that
not-so-classic books in education can be just as much a catalyst
for critical thinking about education and for reflective practice
as so called classics might be.  I also believe that non-education
classics or not-so-classic works might be similarly instructive.
--Aimee Howley
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:21:57 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         gallagherj@SATURN.GLASSBORO.EDU
Subject:      RE: Secretary of Education

President-Elect Clinton nominated former South Carolina Governor
Richard Riley for Secretary of Education. In past discussions
here, I advocated an educator be nominated for the chief
spokesperson and leader of the federal role in education at the
cabinet level. However, Clinton selected another governor, a
lawyer and former peer. Others on this list felt that being an
educator may not be the prime qualification for Secretary of
Education. They wrote of political savvy and other skills of
leadership which may be more valuable for this office.

In the January 6 issue of THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
Riley is featured in a very positive article. He is applauded for
educational accomplishments in South Carolina during his tenure
as governor improving K-12 education and higher education. I have
heard that the Clinton administration will continue the America
2000 program begun under the Bush administration. Was Governor
Riley a part of advocating the so called "National Goals" and the
America 2000 program? Will Governor Riley advocate national
standards and national testing? Did he write or speak in favor of
these proposals? Is he a person who listens to educators and
takes advise on educational practices from educators and
academics in the field of education?

What do educators on this list from South Carolina and the
southern states think of Riley's educational programs,
initiatives, and leadership in education? What recommendations
did the Southern Regional Education Board and its Commission for
Educational Quality make in terms of the directions for
educational improvement? (Riley served on both.)

In short, what are we getting and what can we expect from
Secretary of Education Riley?

John V. Gallagher, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Education and Related Professional Studies
Rowan College of New Jersey
Glassboro NJ 08028-1701

GALLAGHERJ@saturn.rowan.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:02:00 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         SSOIFFER@CLARKU.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Schools: public or private

On the Clintons-as-poor-role-models/Isn't-this-a-good-argument-
for-vouchers issue, I think John Covaleskie has hit the nail on
the head. The problem with (most) voucher plans, I think, is that
they will not do what they intend, to create a wider range of
choices for all. They will, as John points out in somewhat more
cautious wording, become middle-class entitlement programs, like
the current Social Security program, or the way tax deductions
for home ownership has worked out.

One wonders whether we might feel differently about vouchers if,
perhaps, the size of the voucher was inversely related to unadjusted
income, and the size of the voucher offered to the poorest among
us was really sufficient to pay for a student's schooling? Any
other scheme, I am afraid, smacks of the old saw about, "The law
in its majestic equality . . ."

Even if vouchers were of a size in inverse relation to income, I
would be sceptical. The track record of the privatization of
essential social services is not, in my opinion, all that
admirable. How well, for example, would we be served by voucher-
driven education supplied by the folks who build public facilities
without enough concrete or steel? Oh, but people like Westinghouse
would NEVER do things like that with education, would they?

Steve Soiffer
Clark University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: SMTP%"edpolyan@asuvm.inre.asu.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: M_HUGHES
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:10:43 -0500
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         "Mark Hughes, USNH Policy Analysis" <m_hughes@ATHENA.UNH.EDU>
Subject:      re: Schools: Public and private

John,

I think you touch on the major issue being discussed here.  I feel everyone
understands Bill and Hillary's right to choose what they determine to be the
proper education for their daughter.  However, going back to the campaign where
Bill made an issue of the wealthy having all the advantages, while abusing the
middle class and how his daughter attended public school, intergrated no less,
to prove his support for the common middle-class family and that he was just
like us.. Clinton ran a campaign against special privilege and "the perk's of
the rich" and then, "it's a family decision for us". Had this issue not been a
part of his campaign, it would not be a big issue now.

Once again supporting the "whatever I have to say to get elected" approach to
public service.

Senator Hatch's voucher program set out to prove, in several key inner city
area's, the value of the voucher system.  By utilizing 1% of the education
budget we could establish some facts with which to support or reject the claims
of the voucher system.  It is important to remember, the voucher system
attempts to address not only the parents issue of quality in education but also
the content of education.  Issues and subject matter that I want taught to my
children are not available in the public schools.

                                # Mark Hughes
                                #m_hughes@athena.unh.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: in%"edpolyan@asuacad.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:23:00 CDT
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         "John O. Wong" <JOHNWONG@MACC.WISC.EDU>
Subject:      Schools: public or private

I recall a comment made on this list a month or so ago relating that the Gores
sent their kids to private schools.  Now that President-elect Clinton's family
has chosen to do the same, what does that say about public schools in the D.C.
area?  This is clear a "private" (as in family, and not presidency) choice.
How widespread are such "private" choices?

Given the excellent exchanges on schooling here, I am surprised to witness this
deafening silence the last couple of days.

Gene Glass or John Corvaleskie, would you care to kick off??



                                    # John Wong (608)263-3025
                                    # johnwong@wiscmacc.bitnet
                                    # johnwong@macc.wisc.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:40:53 -0600
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         ADAVIS@CUDNVR.DENVER.COLORADO.EDU
Subject:      Re: Great Books

I like Gene's response to the Great Books challenge.  I don't think we
will get far with the notion that there exists some body of key works
that ought to be required reading for all future teachers, but I think
it would be interesting and valuable (to me, at least) to know what
books were cherished by whom and for what reasons.  I also think it
is worthwhile to entertain the notion of classic works in education.
I might define these as books that (a) were influential when they
were written, (b) have survived a test of time -- they still seem wise
years after they were written -- and (c) have depth, so that each time
you read them you see more.

My first nomination -- a trilogy (I'd put them together as one book)
by John Dewey:  The Child and the Curriculum (1902), Democracy and
Education (1916), and Experience and Education (1938).

Alan Davis
University of Colorado at Denver
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:32:19 -0600
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         ADAVIS@CUDNVR.DENVER.COLORADO.EDU
Subject:      Re: great books

I like Tom's list!  I have read half the books on it, and those I
have read deserve to be listed I think, so I'm more inclined to read
those I haven't, beginning with Peshkin's Growing Up '
American.

I'm currently reading Philip Jackson's Life in Classrooms, and
suspecting it is a classic that might deserve a place on such a list.

Alan Davis
University of Colorado at Denver
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:49:47 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         "Scott R. Vaughn" <scott@VAUGHN.HON.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Clinton

Alan Ogletree writes:
>

> I would have to diagree with the assertion that Clinton's private
>school choice has nothing to do with his forthcoming policy changes
>and that we should just "wait and see".
>

and
> Clinton would be more likely, in my opinion, to pursue idological
>rather than practical policies because, frankly, what he does won't
>directly affect his family.
>


Not to put too fine a point on it, how will we find out if we don't
wait and see?  Do you believe it to be a matter of logic that BC will
now act in a particular way with respect to ed policy issues?  Or are
you asserting that there is some causal connection between this
decision and what must follow?  Please elaborate.
---
Scott R. Vaughn
The Honors College
Michigan State University
Phone: (517) 355-2326
FAX: (517) 353-4721
E-mail: scott@vaughn.hon.msu.edu

Lord, lead me into the company of those who seek the truth,
And deliver me from those who have found it.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:53:00 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Vic Mayer <TS5947@OHSTMVSA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Clinton/Gore private school choice

I seldom enter into these discussions.  But I can't help myself on
this last note.  How many of you have to contend with the security
problems that a President or Vice-president  and their families
must?  This must play a factor in    selection of schools.  I
suspect that the private schools selected were able to provide the
necessary security measures whereas it would be almost impossible
for the public schools.  I think that the Clinton and Gores made
the only possible choices available to them for the security and
education of their children.  Vic Mayer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU