Duncan wrong education choice by Kevin Kamashiro

[checks-n-balances]

EQUAL TIME:
Duncan wrong education choice

By Kevin Kumashiro

For the (Atlanta) Journal-Constitution

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Hailed by some as a pioneer in education reform, Arne Duncan was recently selected by President-elect Obama to be our next secretary of education. However, his track record as the CEO of Chicago Public Schools for the past seven years shows that Duncan is the wrong choice for America’s schools.

(snip)

This should not be surprising. Central to that strategy was the creation of 100 new charter schools, managed by for-profit businesses and freed of local school councils and teacher unions, groups that historically have put the welfare of poor and minority students before that of the business sector.

Duncan’s reforms are steeped in a free-market model of school reform, particularly the notion that school choice and charter and specialty schools will motivate educators to work harder to do better as will penalties for not meeting standards. But research does not support such initiatives. There is evidence that encouraging choice and competition will not raise districtwide achievement, and charter schools in particular are not outperforming regular schools. There is evidence that choice programs actually exacerbate racial segregation. And there is evidence that high-stakes testing increases the drop-out rate.

Duncan’s track record is clear. Less parental and community involvement in school governance. Less support for teacher unions. Less breadth and depth in what and how students learn as schools place more emphasis on narrow high-stakes testing. More penalties for schools but without adequate resources for those in high-poverty areas. Duncan’s accomplishments are not a model.

Kevin Kumashiro is associate professor and chair of educational policy studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the author of “The Seduction of Common Sense: How the Right has Framed the Debate on America’s Schools.”

More at
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/printedition/2008/12/23/equaled.html?cxntlid=inform_artr

(The above article is in response to this op-ed piece in today's AJC.)

[kristopher]

1. I'd say it looks like a mixed bag...

I'm not particularly impressed with the idea of applying market principles as a general solution to poor education. On the other hand, one of the primary problems we have (IMO) is that there is too much parental and community involvement in school governance. Kumashiro espouses the position that there is not enough parental and community involvement in the schools. That also is true.

The logic that reconciles these to seemingly contradictory statements is founded on the idea that Duncan's position reflects a reality where the hopes of Kumashiro's vision simply does not exist. It doesn't occur in the US, it doesn't occur in Japan, it doesn't occur in Europe. In the countries where parental involvement is high, that involvement is centered on parents working with their children to achieve the goals set by professional educators. In the US, wide open opportunities for parental and community involvement has resulted in far too many schools being bullied by minority voices from the fundamental religious community; a group that has the sole objective of preserving the influence of their religious teachings from the corrupting influence of rationality and science.

Disparities caused by poor funding of schools in impoverished neighborhoods can sometime be mitigated by greater community and parental involvement at the governance level, but on balance, it is my belief that strong national standards, addressing crime through the reform of laws governing the criminalization of drugs, and enhanced tools to recruit quality teachers to work in impoverished neighborhoods would be good steps to address the issue nationally and allow more to be accomplished in the impoverished neighborhood with the resources they are able to provide. Gadgets, new buildings and paint are good, but the fundamentals of safety and a respect for education are better.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. He's never taught. He never attended public school.

He will not, unless some miracle occurs, send his children to ps in DC. He's a product of the Daley political machine. He appears antagonistic to unions. He has played basketball extensively with Obama.

Things are not looking good.

[checks-n-balances]

3. You're right - never taught or been to public schools sure doesn't

sound good. I'm sick and tired of politicians - especially those with no background in education whatsoever - scapegoating teachers for their own personal gain.

IMO, there's no such thing, anymore, as a "bad teacher." Any "bad" ones were found out and gotten rid of awhile ago. Time for the politicians to put themselves in their shoes, or find someone else to pick on.

This really disappoints me about Obama. Our schools shouldn't be turned into profitmakers - that's a disservice and a degradation to all children and to the field of education. I can't believe Obama doesn't see that.