Ok – so you’d be firing security guards, secretarial/administrative staff, lunch ladies, non-teaching assistants, cleaning staff . . .
and what do you think happens next?

Philly got a small taste of that when Edison took over a bunch of schools and decided to cut costs by firing some non-teaching assistants (NTAs), secretaries, and other support staff. Paperwork started piling up, but more importantly, the schools erupted in chaos:
“By mid-September, the incident at Barratt was a familiar story at Edison-run schools. Some of the education management organization’s other schools seemed to be faring even worse. At Tilden Middle School, a teacher tried to break up a fight and a student jumped on her leg, breaking it. At Gillespie Middle School, food fights and fistfights broke out daily. A computer was thrown out a window. A security officer was assaulted by a student. Two teachers quit. At Stetson Middle School, a student threatened a pregnant teacher, and the school nurse complained that she had seen between 40 and 50 injuries sustained at school as a result of student violence. At Waring Elementary, a student threatened to punch a teacher and stab a classmate with scissors. After a brawl erupted at Shaw Middle School, five students were arrested and two were suspended.

. . .Pre-Edison, one of Penn Treaty’s secretaries would monitor the security cameras. If a food fight broke out, for example, an immediate shutdown of the lunchroom would be effected. Now with only one secretary, it has become difficult to keep an eye on the camera at all times. Young also points out that one NTA used to be in charge of manning the accommodation room, where disruptive and suspended students would be sent. Lately, the teachers have had to rotate accommodation room duties, and in some cases, violent kids have been sent back into classrooms.”

Morale plummeted, teachers started leaving, etc. What a surprise. Now, there are reporting and adjustment issues and all (as the article explains), but they also point out that other schools given to EMOs which *didn’t* dump lots of support staff didn’t show these problems.

This is, of course, is using the language of the anti-public school movement, created and funded by a small number of tightly linked ideologues and rightwing thinktanks, with the ultimate aim (at the level of leadership; ordinary supporters are no doubt often sincere and well-meaning) of destroying our public school systems and replacing it, as much as possible, with privatized, for-profit schools. (See also: social security). Part of the motivation is free-market fundamentalism and a deep aversion to any notion of the common good, of a democratic government providing its citizens public services.

Rubbish: Invert your need to provide a proof of concept by smearing the rational opposition with carefully chosen terminology designed to appeal to emotion. Dan S., I’m still waiting for your evidence of both right and functionality. I see that you habitually avoid those requirements and now were down to appeals to emotion and status quo.

Not a convincing sales pitch.

Redirecting taxpayer dollars to private profit is another aim, as is the partisan goal of weakening or destroying teachers unions in order to deprive the Democratic Party of part of its fundraising and organizing base. (Why did you think they are so constantly demonized, to a degree far beyond any genuine issues?)

Ah, and now we get to the nub of your argument: Your special interest — your closed, iconoclastic, monolithic, equally-radical, anti-choice, idealistic, NEA think-tanking, to use your words — resisting the natural criticism leveled at it by simple reason. Don’t criticize us, says Dan S. because we don’t like criticism and our system can’t take criticism because it depends on sheer convention and political impetus. Our critics harm our ways and means, our motives and intents and surely their criticism must end.

Interestingly, there isn’t really any liberal equivalent to this sort of radical ideological fixation. Liberals, after all, understand that many things are done far better by the market, and should be left to it, while some others are best provided by government. There simply isn’t anyone on the American political spectrum who wants to shrink the market until it can be drowned in a bathtub, or who advocates for government production of soup, say, or cars.

This is yet another appeal to convention one necessarily without reason. There simply isn’t anyone on the American political spectrum who wants to shrink the market until it can be drowned in a bathtub? How about millions on the American political spectrum who would like to fix the eternally broken government education system or replace it with choice and academic prosperity?!

In fact, reason is shunned for it will continue to expose the fallacy of government “education”!

The problem becomes, Dan S., that at some point you have to factor in something far more rational. I suggest you begin by replacing this Democrat-vs-Republican horizontal linearity with the vertical reality of collectivism and authoritarianism versus the individual, personal accountability and choice, and freedom. There’s a profound difference between liberal and, as you handily put it for your purposes, radical conservatism. That difference has to do with your collective fantasies versus the accomplishment and satisfaction that comes with reforming historical top-down power into the obvious productivity and accomplishment of free markets and actual freedom. Comparisons to fire departments may likewise be initially interesting, but they simply do not apply, nor can you therefore show how they would or shall.

Magical thinking indeed. The logical extension of “fire-station” collectivism is…the collective. I do believe the track record of collectivism is dismal, Dan S. And yet you define free choice-education as a radical assault on…on…your job? If not that, what?

My wife teaches kindergarten in an extremely poor, drug-ridden, and rather violent neighborhood in Philly. It’s true she doesn’t have a reason. As she puts it, she has 30 reasons.

And that I find to be radical idealism, Dan S. The radical idealism of a special personal interest coupled with job security coupled with whatever it takes to keep things as they are capped with actually harming children. Harsh words, but no way around them. Radical indeed.

Again: If government schools are all about equalizing society, why are they so apt at chronically, historically damaging the lowest classes?

You have yet to address a single pertinent, fundamental issue concerning that fundamental performance-based outcome. Should you do so, which you cannot, you should then proceed to a convincing demonstration of moral and constitutional right.

Failing all of the above, are we perpetually left with these appeals to reason and bad convention?

Oh, and most public schools are not “doing fine.” Research shows that the private sector can replace their monolithic incompetence and lack of expression, free speech, and free expression at half the cost.

Were we to spend, dollar for dollar, on private education what we do on government schools, we’d have double the education. Not a bad idea as the System descends into dysfunctionality.

It’s just as I suspected, most attacking change on this post are part of the establishment, and may be part of the problem. The teacher’s unions have done a fabulous job convincing their members that any proposed change to the current monopoly is a “personal attack” on teachers. They are convinced that only they have the purest of motives and that they know what is best. Meanwhile another year passes with more kids left in the lurch. It’s no more an attack on teachers than an anti-biotic is on the patient…we’re going after the source of the ill-ness. The system is broken, has been for sometime, this I see with my own eyes, not with the help of anyone with an agenda. For those who refuse to see, well, this isn’t new, we as a nation have become those unwilling to deal with problems. It’s much easier to deny any real problem, just throw slogans and money at the problem and wait for the votes to be counted. I don’t believe for one minute that any proposal is a panacea, whether it be charter, home-school, vouchers, or any other option….but I know when reform is needed and I know when it’s time for change. The concept of govt. schools must be taken down and the concept of competition put in it’s place. That is the start we need, to eliminate the cabal that is govt. schools. It is utterly amazing how competition makes everything and everyone elevate their performance but somehow that concept is anathema to education. Put aside your special interest and devote yourself to ideas that make the system work, that elevate the minds of your students. Be open to new ideas, not knee-jerk in your reaction. And finally, quit taking every new idea as an attack on you personally.

Someone used the word magical to describe choice? I beg your pardon my friend, but it is not I who still holds onto the santa claus that is govt schools……..

Well, we do, of course – see for examplehere (just to grab the first thing that popped up). All very common-sense – it’s quite impressive, really the organization, creativity, and effort that goes into making sure such things aren’t obvious, into making sure ‘everybody knows’ such basic reforms ‘won’t work’.

And in the multiple choice question above, I should specify – out of a dollar of spending on public education (ie, at all levels – local, state, and federal).

“ So-called public education is a govt monopoly . . . we have to start with the basics..putting competition back into the system. There has to be an incentive, a motivation to get this done.”

This is, of course, is using the language of the anti-public school movement, created and funded by a small number of tightly linked ideologues and rightwing thinktanks, with the ultimate aim (at the level of leadership; ordinary supporters are no doubt often sincere and well-meaning) of destroying our public school systems and replacing it, as much as possible, with privatized, for-profit schools. (See also: social security). Part of the motivation is free-market fundamentalism and a deep aversion to any notion of the common good, of a democratic government providing its citizens public services. Redirecting taxpayer dollars to private profit is another aim, as is the partisan goal of weakening or destroying teachers unions in order to deprive the Democratic Party of part of its fundraising and organizing base. (Why did you think they are so constantly demonized, to a degree far beyond any genuine issues?)

Interestingly, there isn’t really any liberal equivalent to this sort of radical ideological fixation. Liberals, after all, understand that many things are done far better by the market, and should be left to it, while some others are best provided by government. There simply isn’t anyone on the American political spectrum who wants to shrink the market until it can be drowned in a bathtub, or who advocates for government production of soup, say, or cars.

Do you want to hear about another government monopoly? Fire fighting. (Do we need to introduce competition there?) Another? The police. Also, the military, of course. Appreciate the taken-for-granted flow of clean, clear water out of your tap? Thank your friendly government monopoly. And etc.

“When public schools are faced with competition, they will find solutions to problems they can’t solve now.”

Magical thinking.

“Right now the public schools don’t have a reason. Let’s give them one.

My wife teaches kindergarten in an extremely poor, drug-ridden, and rather violent neighborhood in Philly. It’s true she doesn’t have a reason. As she puts it, she has 30 reasons.
______

Why public schools? There are many reasons, but one is that – like firefighters, police, the local water department, libraries, etc., etc, – they’re a public institution, a community institution.

__________

“If you think our education system is healthy

Again, most public schools – the ones serving middle class + populations – are doing fine.

______

Just for fun (and without googling), everyone feel free to take a guess: Of one dollar spent on education, what’s the federal government’s contribution?

a) 9 cents
b) 29 cents
c) 49 cents
d) 79 cents
e) 99 cents

Perhaps its because you don’t understand cause and effect like they do. Federal programs are typically found to perpetuate the problems they were ostensibly designed to repair. Welfare creates generational welfare dependency, for example.

Speaking of convoluted logic, how are you on making nothing a priority — All No Children Left Behind — by making everything a priority?

Government school has little to do anymore with sound education. Naturally, by this time it has everything to do with evading funding loss. It does this by bowing to what is commonly referred to as a mob. It is therefore adrift at the whim of any current majority so it tries any number of harebrained programs and values and gets the inevitable results we see all around us.

Don’t you find it interesting that by claiming to address society’s most vulnerable, most under-privileged, and most helpless, that government school perpetually leaves society’s most vulnerable, most under-privileged, and most helpless down? You pointed that out, you know.

Social leveling hasn’t exactly produced the claimed result. What it’s done is perpetuate the problem.

The excellence choice virtually guarantees? Not so much so. But that’s off limits. As would be testing vouchers. Because we’re really helping poverty-stricken kids out of poverty, I guess.

Tell me, if education cannot be accomplished in the free market (to say nothing at the moment about any number of arguable violations of constitutional principle collectivizing it represents) what other mistakes has the most free and prosperous country in history gotten wrong in the last 200+ years? Heaven forbids you stop at education.

We can’t prove the theory of government schooling by the results. We mayn’t test voucher programs. Everybody is owed the same low-end opportunity. We’re envious of those with choice. And we have no faith in free markets.

Not a convincing sales pitch, Dan S.

They do have that opportunity. No one is refusing to allow single mothers in DC to send their kids to Sidwell Friends.

Imagine a DC with complete choice of schooling, much like we have the same choice of what supermarket to shop at and what cars to buy. Now if you can tell me that the single mom from inner-city DC is *really* going to be able to send her kids to Sidwell Friends, let me know what drug you’re taking, because I want some.

The fact is that tuition at Sidwell Friends and elite private schools like it is around $27K a year, which is likely to be more than the salaries of many inner-city single moms. There is NO WAY under the ideal free-market system that an inner-city kid’s parents are going to be able to afford that.

I really do not understand what fantasy world free-market advocates live in where the market is going to magically enable these kids to escape bad public school situations. These same people *have* the same opportunity to buy nice houses–yet live in roach-infested apartments in dangerous neighborhoods. They have the same opportunity to buy Lexuses and Hummers–yet drive crappy 20 year old Hondas or take public transit.

The problem is bigger–it’s about poverty and income inequity and the death of urban areas.