Check out the National Education Association's recent manifesto proclaiming it's slavish devotion to orthodoxy, conformity, mediocrity, and the enrichment of teachers at the expense of students, parents, and society. Here's are just a few gems:
A-11. Use of Closed Public School Buildings. The Association believes that closed public school buildings should be sold or leased only to those organizations that do not provide direct educational services to students and/or are not in direct competition with public schools.
Because private schools put public teachers' unions at risk.
A-15. Federal Financial Support of Public Education. The Association opposes any federal legislation, laws, or regulations that provide funds, goods, or services to sectarian schools.
Because private schools put public teachers' unions at risk.
A-24. Voucher Plans and Tuition Tax Credits. The Association opposes voucher plans, tuition tax credits, or other such funding arrangements that pay for students to attend sectarian schools. The Association also believes that any private school or agency that receives public funding through voucher plans, tax credits, or other funding/financial arrangements must be subject to all accountability measures and regulations required of public schools.
Because private schools put public teachers' unions at risk.
A-33. Federally or State-Mandated Choice/Parental Option Plans. The Association believes that federally or state mandated parental option or choice plans compromise free, equitable, universal, and quality public education for every student. Therefore, the Association opposes such federally or state-mandated choice or parental option plans.
Because private schools put public teachers' unions at risk.
B-8. Class Size. The National Education Association believes that excellence in the classroom can best be attained by small class size. The Association also believes in an optimum class size of fifteen students in regular programs and a proportionately lower number in programs for students with exceptional needs.
Because despite the evidence that smaller classes do nothing to improve education, smaller class size means more classes which means more teaching jobs which means more powerful teachers' unions.
B-20. Education of Refugee and Undocumented Children and Children of Undocumented Immigrants. The Association supports access to financial aid and in-state tuition to state colleges and universities. The Association further believes that students who have resided in the United States for at least five years at the time of high school graduation should be granted amnesty by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, granted legal residency status, and allowed to apply for U.S. citizenship.
More students means more teaching jobs which means more powerful teachers' unions.
B-55. Education on Peace and International Understanding. The National Education Association believes that educational strategies for teaching [1] peace and justice issues should include the role of individuals, social movements, international and nongovernmental organizations. The Association also believes that educational materials should include activities dealing with the effects of nuclear weaponry and other weapons of mass destruction, strategies for disarmament, [2] methods to achieve peace. Such curricular materials should also cover major contributing factors to conflict, such as [3] economic disparity, demographic variables, unequal political power and resource distribution, and the indebtedness of the developing world.
1. "Peace and justice issues" are socialist code words for communism.
2. "Methods to achieve peace"... like what? Victory over our avowed enemies? I'd love to see that taught in a public school.
3. Those "factors" (except demographics) are nothing more than socialist talking points, and the "answers" advocated by the public school teachers' institutional religion are nothing more than America-hating propaganda.
B-63. Standardized Testing of Students. The National Education Association believes that standardized tests should be used only to improve the quality of education and instruction for students. The Association opposes the use of standardized tests when -1. Used as the criterion for the reduction or withholding of any educational funding
2. Results are used to compare students, teachers, programs, schools, communities, and states
3. Scores are used to track students
4. Students with special needs or limited English proficiency are required to take the same tests as regular education students without modifications and/or accommodations.
1. YES, by now we understand that it's all about money. We get it.
2. God forbid that anyone involved in the educational process be held accountable with actual standards... but especially not teachers!
3. Because the public -- who is paying for the education system -- has no reason to know whether its money is being used wisely.
B-75. Home Schooling. The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs based on parental choice cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience. When home schooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state curricular requirements, including the taking of assessments to ensure adequate academic progress. [1] Home schooling should be limited to the children of the immediate family, with all expenses being born by the parents/guardians. [2] Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used.[3] The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.
"We teachers are forced thus far to tolerate home-schooling, but let's put so many limits on it that no one will do it."
1. Parents teaching their own children are bad enough, but since teachers can't stop that at least they hope to prevent non-teachers from competing in their job space by ensuring that non-teachers can't teach anyone but their own kids. Plus, don't forget the money angle; these parents will have to fund the public school system through taxes and bear all the costs of educating their own kids at home.
2. Just to be sure that teachers have their fingers in everything, let's give them authority over what parents teach their kids.
3. And make sure home-schooled kids aren't allowed to associate with the rest of us.
D-8. Hiring Policies and Practices for Teaching Positions. The National Education Association believes that hiring policies and practices must be nondiscriminatory and include provisions for the recruitment of a diverse teaching staff.
By "nondiscriminatory" the teachers mean, of course, that the policies should discriminate in favor "diverse" (non-white, non-straight) applicants.
D-21. Competency Testing of Licensed Teachers. The National Education Association believes that competency testing must not be used as a condition of employment, license retention, evaluation, placement, ranking, or promotion of licensed teachers.
Yes, we get it, how many times do you have to tell us that you don't want to have to demonstrate your competence?
E-10. Academic and Professional Freedom. Academic freedom includes the rights of teachers and learners to explore and discuss divergent points of view. A teacher shall not be fired, transferred, or removed from his or her position for refusing to suppress the free expression rights of students. Professional freedom includes the teachers' right to evaluate, criticize, and/or advocate their personal point of view concerning the policies and programs of the schools. Furthermore, teachers must be free to depart from mandated scripted learning programs and pacing charts without prejudice or punishment.
Because unelected, untested, unaccountable government employees are the most qualified people to decide what your kids learn.
H-7. National Health Care Policy. The National Education Association believes that affordable, comprehensive health care, including prescription drug coverage, is the right of every resident. The Association supports the adoption of a single-payer health care plan for all residents of the United States, its territories, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Right, you're socialists, we know. This is related to education how? Nice catch on the "resident" instead of "citizen", too.
H-11. Statehood for the District of Columbia. The Association supports efforts to achieve statehood for the District of Columbia.
Why? Because it somehow relates to education, or because it would create two new Democrat Senators and a new Democrat Representative?
I-1. Peace and International Relations. The Association urges all nations to develop treaties and disarmament agreements that reduce the possibility of war. The Association also believes that such treaties and agreements should prevent the placement of weapons in outer space. The Association believes that the United Nations furthers world peace and promotes the rights of all people by preventing war, racism, and genocide.
The Association hasn't been paying attention to the UN recently, then. UN "peacekeepers" seem mostly occupied raping local girls and smuggling drugs and oil, and funneling money to tyrants.
I-2. International Court of Justice. The Association urges participation by the United States in deliberations before the court.I-3. International Criminal Court. The Association believes that the United States should ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and recognize and support its authority and jurisdiction.
So America can be put in its place by our moral superiors like Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran.
I-13. Family Planning. The National Education Association supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom. The Association also urges the implementation of community-operated, school-based family planning clinics that will provide intensive counseling by trained personnel.
But wait... wouldn't abortion reduce the number of students, and thus teachers? I don't think you gals have thought this through.
I-18. Immigration. The Association opposes any immigration policy that denies educational opportunities to immigrants and their children regardless of their immigration status.
There we go... more students means more teachers means more power for the unions.
I-28. Freedom of Religion. The Association opposes any federal legislation or mandate that would require school districts to schedule a moment of silence.
It's obvious that the NEA will never shut up.
New I. Global Warming. The National Education Association believes that global warming causes significant measureable damage to the earth and its inhabitants. The Association also believes that humans must take steps to change activities that contribute to global warming. The Association supports environmentally sound practices that abate global warming and its effects.
Hey, a whole new lever to push socialism on America!
Anyway, as you can see, the NEA and the teachers and unions it represents are actively hostile to conservative American values such as Christianity, capitalism, liberty, and the rule of law. Do you really want these folks teaching your kids? They know you don't, which is why they work so hard to enshrine their power into law.
A few things occur to me:
1) A curriculum is desirable, even in home-school.
2) Class sizes are a factor if they rise above about 30 imo.
3) The children of illegal immigrants are innocent and must not be punished for their parents' actions.
4) Teaching how to achieve international peace seems a bit ambitious, given that no-one's managed it in the entire history of human civilisation... Why not just teach history?
5) Excessive testing or league tables leads to time spent more exclusively on improving results... this might sound like a good thing, but it's like an over-trained AI system, the overall quality of education can easily suffer.
6) Non-discriminatory might mean just that. Perhaps you and I are lucky enough to be so young that we can't remember first-hand what real discrimination was like, but it was real and no joke. It's well worth keeping in mind if it means we don't slip back into old cultural habits.
7) I think teachers need to be free enough to be amazing, inspirational teachers. Enthusiasm is actually the most important thing a teacher can show a student, and room to teach freestyle is a great opportunity for a teacher to display genuine passion. At the same time, a core curriculum must be fulfilled.
MW: I'm not sure what your point of view is on some of these things: at once you are for rigid curricula (in public schools) and against them (for home schools).
jez: Regarding your points:
1. Sure, but why should teachers -- who home-schooling parents are explicitly rejecting -- get to define curriculum for kids who aren't their students?
2. Follow my link, because the data does not support your belief. Anyway, your position is unintuitive. If there are 60 students with a great teacher, why would 30 of them benefit by being taken into a different class taught by a poor teacher?
3. It's a sad fact of life that the crimes and misdeeds of parents often come back to hurt the children. I don't want to "punish" kids, but why should they be rewarded for their parents' lawbreaking?
4. I agree.
5. It could, but that's a slippery slope argument that I don't necessarily buy. The idea that teachers and students should be completely unaccountable is dumb and doesn't match up with any vocation in "real life". Measurements and tests and imperfect, but the rest of us have to deal with them and they can be made to work.
6. It might, but I think we both know that it means affirmative action.
7. Most teachers are not amazing or inspirational. There are some great teachers, no doubt, but because of the lack of standards and the mediocrity-driven reward structure, the vast majority of public school teachers are time-punchers who do very little to earn their tenure or our respect.
8. As for curricula, yes, public schools should have curricula mandated by elected officials and their delegates. Private schools and home schools, not being the recipients of public money, should teach whatever they want and let the marketplace decide their fate.
Living in Utah, we are feeling the power of the NEA (via the Utah arm call the Utah Education Assoc.). They are fighting a hard fight through newspaper public forums and soft news articles (which is really just adgendized propaganda). I am actually quite glad to have all of the outside money coming into Utah to fight the battle on the pro-voucher side. Their only problem is that they don't know how to work a Utah audince, and the UEA does.
Someone's got to set the curriculum, and I suggest that a significant voice in that process should be people with extensive teaching experience. An unteachable curriculum is worthless.
I followed your link, it didn't talk about class sizes greater than 30. In the UK, the public (that is, private!) schools offer much smaller class sizes (often less than 20), and the market laps it up. My point of view is not counter-intuitive. The disruptive effects of class size grow roughly quadratically in proportion to the number of pairs of students. Teacher has to spend more and more time putting out fires.
I didn't mean to present a slippery slope, just point out the potential pitfall of overtraining. I see evidence of too much testing in UK schools (and eg. hospitals), and it's well worth bearing in mind before you arrive at that state yourselves.
The number of teachers who inspired me was a small fraction of the total number of teachers I had. But friends of mine at the time found a different, though similarly small set of teachers inspirational. Maybe we should expose each student to a wider variety of teachers, to maximise the chances of meeting more of the ones who will inspire him personally?
Also, I think that great teachers are rare because they are systematically discouraged from being exceptional. We need to give teachers every opportunity to be amazing.
Too much parental choice is a worry for me. What if your dad is Hitler? Should he be allowed to teach you about eugenics for 6 hours a day at home school? I think a core curriculum be enforced. Schools are not a market. You can't choose not to go, and you can't avoid maths if it's hard or chemistry if your a homeopath. Choice is not always applicable.
Travis: Vouchers work everywhere they're tried. It's hard to argue with success, which is why the teaching establishment is so dead-set against trying anything.
jez: I disagree that anyone other than parents (in the case of home-schools) or owners/operators/whatever (in the case of private schools) needs to set a curriculum. If they set a bad one, they'll lose business and the marketplace will wipe them out. No need for external imposition of a curriculum by force.
As for private schools in the UK, great! If parents want to pay for smaller classes, then more power to them. I really don't care what choices people make about how they spend their own money. I only care about how our public money is spent, and class-size reduction is generally a waste after about 3rd grade. What's more important is removing trouble students so that teachers don't spend all their time putting out fires, as you say. Instead of smaller classes, let public school teachers remove trouble kids, and problems will go way down.
I agree that our education industry systematically discourages high-quality people from entering the teaching profession, and then fails to reward anyone who does exceptional work. The blame for this lies wholly with the teachers' unions.
As for bad parents teaching their kids dumb stuff, I don't care. It's hard to imagine a home-schooler getting worse stuff from their parents than is already widely available from our pop culture. You mention a Hitler-dad-teacher, but is modern gangster-rap culture much better? On a practical level it's worse, because neo-nazis don't get much cultural traction these days.
I don't buy that society has any role "protecting" kids from the beliefs of their parents. (Protecting them physically, yes.) There's no doubt that some parents teach kids bad things (from my perspective), but society as a whole isn't properly equipped to insert itself into that dynamic. It sucks that some parents mess their kids up, but it isn't the government's job to make those sorts of value judgments.
My wife and I home schooled both of our children for the first few years. We recently made the difficult decision of sending them to a public school last year.
We decided that since we lived in such a small community, that we might be harming them by continuing the home schooling, because that took away many opportunities for the kids to get to know other kids (ie social development).
That said, our kids went into the public education system WAY ABOVE their peers. We taught them using the Abeka system from Pensacola Christian College.
The only things I have noticed about public schools is their love and want of what is in my wallet. They charge us everytime we walk in the gym to see our kids play a basketball game. They charge us at the beginning of the year for everything our kids might use in class, including kleenex and lined paper.
With all the money the school administration is lifting out of our pockets, the poor teachers (and I mean that- many of these teachers here are great, and really care about the kids) this year didn't have enough money for the classroom to purchase the required reading books.
Public education in my opinion is about nothing else than money and job opportunities. If my wife and I could afford it, our kids would be in a Christian school, no doubt about it.
MW: I'm confused. At once you say that the marketplace will wipe out schools with bad curricula (I might add, it would take several years and wreck many students' educations before that would become apparent); but you simultaneously admit that the marketplace would not stop them wasting money on smaller class sizes. Either market forces converge on the optimum solution or they don't, surely?
(btw, remove trouble kids to where?)
The danger with homeschooling is a child being exposed to one and only one culture. There are real living breathing examples, such as the far-right adolescent folk band "prussian blue", who were homeschooled for many years. That's both extreme and rare but lesser examples are probably more common, eg. the homeopathy example.
Government does have a duty to provide education to all children, and a role in ensuring the standards of that education. If it drops the ball on either of those, all those other precious things: freedoms of expression and action, suffrage etc. become meaningless.
I'll shut up now cos i don't know much about the US teachers' union. I just have strong principles about education, that's all.
jez: Your confusion seems to be caused by my belief that public schools should be treated differently from private schools or home-schooling parents. I don't care if parents want to spend their money on smaller classes or dumb curricula, I just don't think that my money should be taken by force by the government and then directed in those ways.
Trouble kids should be sequestered or just sent home to their parents. Or put them to work, who knows, there are a myriad of possibilities for kids who don't want to learn.
I've heard of the nazi kids, if I'm remembering what Prussian Blue is, but who cares? They're screwed up, it's not society's job to fix them. People can believe what they want.
I disagree that society (or "government" or whatever you want to call our collective whole) has a responsibility to provide education to anyone. That "right" is nowhere in our Constitution, and our federal government has no business being involved in it. If states want to, then great, let them deal with it.
I'm a strong believer in education too... I have a PhD after all... but I think the government does it poorly and that teachers' unions actively pursue agendas that hurt our students and our society.
I was homeschooled; I turned out alright.
The "socialization" issue with homeschooling is a myth:
1.) Homeschoolers don't live in a vaccuum. Most homeschoolers interact with each other, form study groups, go camping together, or just hang out together. Many join groups like Scouts, 4H, or AYSO. My formerly homeschooled friends are some of the closest friends I have and that anyone can have.
2.) Who says parents will want their kids socializing with other people's "snot-nosed brats" at a public school; "socialization" is a double-edged sword. It's a fact that most kids who end up drinking underaged or trying drugs do it at the behest of their social circle.
3.) No amount of "socialization" will prevent bad parents from harming, physically or mentally, their children, no matter if they homeschool or send them to public school. Ask anyone who has gone to a public school if they knew any creepy kids; they will certainly say yes.
Jez, in arguing against homeschooling by arguing homeschooled students do not receive a properly diverse social experience, you not only reveal your ignorance of homeschooling, you argue against diversity of choice in education itself. Would you assert that the government should also monopolize the grocery industry? What about the cable television industry? Should the government decide what you get to see on the Internet as well? Why do you support a monopoly of our education system, especially one in the hands of an organization (the government) known to already be inneficient and corrupt to a certain degree?
America is "of the people, by the people, for the people," and mandating education to the degree that the NEA wishes is downright facist. For a nation so diverse as America, how is one organization to determine one program to properly educate everyone? What makes that group so special that they are deemed more capable than the rest of us in deciding the fate of our children? Should we all lay as dogs and accept the decisions of our appointed authority figures in all aspects of our lives?
Capn_midnight: I'm not arguing against home schooling, I've argued against unregulated schooling be it public or private.
This is totally different from censorship, don't be silly.
I so believe that choice in education should be restricted to a large extent, yes. It's not like buying croissants or selecting a hair cut. A large part of the syllabus should not be optional.
(That should be "I do believe", not "I so believe", sorry.)
So what is wrong with the current regulations on homeschooling and private schools? I assume since you are arguing so emphatically for these regulations, you've fully educated yourself on the current situation.
Also among your assumptions appears to be the content of my comments; read them and you will find little cause to think that I am championing the current American regulations. I state outright that I'm not familiar with the US teachers' union.
I'm of the opinion that a core curriculum, limited but well defined, should be standard and universal across every sector. I don't know, but I expect I would prefer it to be more limited than the NEA would. (probably better defined at the same time).
I hold that belief for ethical reasons, but it works practiaclly too. How does an employer or a college judge candidates' qualifications unless a regulated syllabus is used?
jez: How do we judge the quality of any product that isn't regulated by the government? I've got no problem with private entities that want to accredit or certify schools (as is done now with the American university system). I see no reason why the government should be involved in such certification, however.
Education is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. If some government must be involved then at least leave it to the states rather than the fed.
>>3. Because the public -- who is paying for the education system -- has no reason to know whether it's money is being used wisely.
"...whether IT IS money..." ??? Don't think that's what you meant, but it's what you wrote. Hope you aren't home-schooling YOUR offspring!
--- Public school teacher and NEA local president picking up on your grammatical error, honey. (The correct form is "its," not "it's." The latter means "it is.")
>>I was homeschooled; I turned out alright.
Well, that's debatable; there is no such word as "alright."
ratgrl: I enjoy grammar pedantry as much as anyone, but this is the comment section of a blog, not a university thesis.
MW: one of the problems that has been escalating in the UK for a while is exams getting easier. I strongly suspect it is caused by a perverse form of "competition" between exam boards. Schools are ranked against one another, therefore many teachers will select boards the can get better marks with. In reality, away from the league tables, everybody looses. Students don't learn as much, and employers can't use exam grades to differentiate applicants if over half of students get an 'A'.
Education has changed and become more important since 1700s, when America was predominantly agricultural. I'm not surprised it's not in the constitution. I said before that it made no difference whether it was at state or federal level... but then I remembered that Kansas anti-evolution nonsense.
rat: Last I checked, using three question marks in a row isn't proper either :) And I think "girl" has an "I" in it.
Pedantry rules! Thanks for pointing out the error though, I do try to avoid those sorts of mistakes, but I also only have a limited amount of time to edit and revise.
Also, thanks for not wasting my time by addressing any of my legitimate criticisms of your organization.
jez: There's also grade inflation in America's university system. I read somewhere (gotta find it) that 80% of Harvard students get straight As or something. This is an interesting phenomenon, but why does it concern the government? If employers don't care to make decisions based on real grades, and colleges don't care to generate them, and accrediting boards don't care to make their recognition count for anything, and students don't care to learn, then what's the problem? Those are all the affected parties, and any of them could influence the system towards change if they wanted to.
It's not the way I'd ordain it if I were emperor, but we live in a liberal democracy and no one (me or anyone else) should have the power to make such decrees. I don't trust anyone with that power, and I think my lack of trust is justified by the current state of the education system.
This is exactly why we are a federation of member states. We don't have to come up with one solution to every problem, especially on hotbed issues like education. We have the opportunity to come up with 50 different solutions. Coupled with the freedom of travel that is garaunteed by our Constitution, and the open-ended structure of our employement arrangements (specifically, as compared to the French or Swedish systems that provide almost no mobility in profession), then if you don't like how your state is doing something, you can just move.
That's why I love living in Pennsylvania -- if Californians want to do something that I think is rather daft (no offense, Mike. It seems like you're much more of a Pennsylvanian at heart), then that's okay, they're way over there on the other side of the country and have *no effect* on *my* way of life.
I think that's a huge issue that most English and European people miss when they discuss American Politics, and an issue that I think the Liberal Left intentionally ignores. We don't need the Federal government to do much of anything. Their are things that they are charged with doing, like securing the borders, but everything else is supposed to be left to the States.
capn: I think you're exactly right. However, I don't live in California anymore!
When I talk about the government supporting / guaranteeing / accrediting, I mean the state-level government. I don't miss the issue, I just tend not to mention it.
Makes me wonder why you need the federal government for things like foreign policy. Why not just be a trading bloc?
What would be so wrong about a government (state level, if you like) agency external to Harvard ratifying their exams and their grade awards? Would you vote against that?
jez: I'd vote against it at the state level, but I wouldn't be offended by the idea because it wouldn't be against our Constitution. Actually, I don't know if it would be against the Missouri constitution... maybe I should read it!
I just don't think it's very efficient, and I don't see why private agencies couldn't handle it.