|
Oxphocker posted:Not exactly... the conservative playbook for schools is to apply the same sort of business thinking that the Chicago School of Economics suggests (free trade solves everything and get government regulation out of it). The voucher and school choice fight is the exact same thing. Supposedly the thought is that by being able to choose schools, parents and students can force 'bad' schools to change or lose so many students that they can't operate anymore while 'good' schools will gain enrollment. To business people this seems to make sense on the surface...except there are several factors they aren't taking into consideration: This gets at a lot of the reasons the "increase competition" approach doesn't really accomplish any of the goals it's supposed to. I'm in Michigan, where the DeVos family has driven us to go all in on this approach and it's been an unmitigated disaster. The competition takes many forms but it's almost never anything that has a positive effect on student learning. Some districts go all in on building shiny new facilities to attract students, others pour money into their sports programs and allow coaches to actively recruit. Most of the districts in Michigan are too small and don't have the resources to hire marketing consultants, but it's the logical next step and you could probably justify it economically with how much funding comes with each new student. And the "customer is always right" approach, as you mention, is extremely toxic and seeps into every aspect of a school. As my former principal liked to say, "enrollment is everyone's job," and the main way we lost kids was when they failed classes, so let's make it virtually impossible to fail - sound educational philosophy right there! My take on charters is that they're a brilliant political strategy because it lends itself to so many easy arguments that tug on the heart strings, but they're a horrible strategy if the goal is to improve the overall education system. The studies say they have a negligible effect on student performance, but the resources they drain from school districts has a huge impact that makes it virtually impossible to run a decent school once you start hemorrhaging students. You sound like an ideologue if you have a problem with charters because then you're taking away options from poor kids, and there will always be at least some charters doing legitimately innovative things. Plus it's easy to get the local news to do a 3 minute segment on a school doing something different that makes it sound like some panacea. The decreased regulations might make it marginally easier for those schools to get off the ground, but it also makes it way too easy for charlatans, quacks, and people with good intentions who just aren't qualified to run a school. But IMO the good ones that are providing some value could be just as successful under stricter oversight. I mean, if the only way they can provide a better education for the money compared to public schools is if they don't have to play by the same rules, then how is that an accomplishment? If charter advocates thought they were a real solution to systemic problems, like how they're often portrayed, they wouldn't feel compelled to gut regulations every chance they get.
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Oracle posted:I had heard that the 'new thing' being suggested was to have homework time actually be during school and learning of new material was to happen at home to encourage exploration and discovery of new things, which is inherently more interesting than rote application of said things, then if they had issues with what they learned they could bring it to school and ask. I don't remember where though, probably some buzzword like 'student led learning.' Where I'm from they call it "flipping the classroom" and I've heard mixed reviews. It can be very effective in certain subjects, provided the teacher has the planning time in advance to make the video lectures/podcasts/assigned readings ahead of time. It doesn't translate well for all subjects though, and it breaks down if the kids don't all have internet access at home and/or the school doesn't have the tech infrastructure to maintain devices for everyone. You also still need the kid to actually do the assigned task, which is never a given, even if it's something like "watch this 15 minute video and come to class prepared to discuss it." But at the same time, if we are talking about reducing the amount of time kids are spending on school stuff outside of school, it actually does the opposite in most cases. It almost ensures that students will have 15-20 minutes worth of homework to do in each subject each night. Just like with other deliver methods, it will not always be used most effectively by teachers in the field. Some just use it as an excuse to pile on even more homework assignments that they otherwise would have scrapped for lack of time. Some teachers I know also worry that, taken to it's logical conclusion, this idea is another way to de-professionalize teaching, making teachers little more than tutors. It takes a huge investment of time up front by the teacher to create the course, and they may or may not have any control over how the school system uses that content.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 21:46
|
|