Posted by
voice_of_reason on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:29:14 PM
LOS ANGELES — As the director of high schools in the gang-infested neighborhoods of the East Side of Los Angeles, Guadalupe Paramo struggles every day with educational dysfunction.
For the past half-dozen years, not even one in five students at her district’s teeming high schools has been able to do grade-level math or English. At Abraham Lincoln High School this year, only 7 in 100 students could. At Woodrow Wilson High, only 4 in 100 could.
For chronically failing schools like these, the No Child Left Behind law, now up for renewal in Congress, prescribes drastic measures: firing teachers and principals, shutting schools and turning them over to a private firm, a charter operator or the state itself, or a major overhaul in governance.
But more than 1,000 of California’s 9,500 schools are branded chronic failures, and the numbers are growing. Barring revisions in the law, state officials predict that all 6,063 public schools serving poor students will be declared in need of restructuring by 2014, when the law requires universal proficiency in math and reading.
“What are we supposed to do?” Ms. Paramo asked. “Shut down every school?”
--------------end of excerpt------------
Yes, that is exactly what we
must do, Ms. Paramo. Shut 'em down!
Then, re-open them under new (Private) management and let the magic of competition and accountability work - as it does in every other field in which it exists!
The above
NY Times article should be read in its entirety by anyone who is concerned about K-12 education in America. The numbers are staggering - in California alone, more than 1000 of 9500 schools are "chronic failures", and 6043 schools that serve poor students need restructuring by 2014
unless the law is changed.
Not surprisingly, the NYTimes article is a thinly disguised screed against George Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. If the schools are failing, it must be the law that is causing their failure. Note: I'm not a huge fan of the NCLB law - at best, I consider it a bad compromise that was brought on by the need to mollify various political groups.
It is interesting to note that there is very little mention of Free Enterprise solutions to this problem. Although one of the provisions of NCLB is that failing schools could be turned over to a private firm or a charter operator, that solution isn't considered very favorably by the entrenched (and unionized) education Mafia.
The takeover of a failed school by the State is another provision under NCLB. Although I don't believe that this will make much difference, it is interesting that "so far, education experts say they are unaware of a single state that has taken over a failing school in response to the law. Instead, most allow school districts to seek other ways to improve."
What we need is a 10yr phased privatization of K-12 education.
PHASE1 (1st five yrs)
* school choice - vouchers that are redeemable at any accredited private or public school for every eligible kid
* tax deductibility of tuition to any accredited private school
PHASE2 (next five yrs)
* school choice - vouchers ONLY for the poor, redeemable at accredited private and public schools
* tax relief for everyone else
* end tax deductibility of tuition
PHASE3 (the future)
* no more public schools
* vouchers ONLY for the poor, redeemable at accredited private schools (now a flourishing, self-sustaining part of the economy)
What would the effect be on all the players: teachers, administrators, students and parents?
Teachers & administrators: more pay for competence
Students & parents: higher quality, more choice, lower cost
Suggested links:
Free Enterprise EducationEducation & economics
Imagine .. a pro-education presidential candidate
Johnny can't read .. it's time to think outside the box