November 1, 2006
THANKS, W:
Spitzer's School Choice (THOMAS CARROLL, November 1, 2006, NY Sun)
[O]ne might reasonably suppose that the likely Democratic takeover of the governor's office might not be good news for those who favor school choice or major educational reforms. A few early signs, however, suggest that Eliot Spitzer, if elected, may break this partisan mold.Over the past year, Mr. Spitzer has been speaking much more boldly about education reform than any other major figure in his party. Mr. Spitzer favors raising the existing cap on the number of charter schools (currently frozen at 100), supports an education tax credit to help defray expenditures for tuition and other education-related expenses, and has talked about linking a settlement of the Court of Appeals decision in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case with reforms that change how education is delivered in the state. (In Mr. Spitzer's words: "If we don't pair the resolution of this litigation with an effort to change the delivery system, then we will have missed an opportunity.")
The federal No Child Left Behind Act, by increasing the focus on test results and accountability, has made the disappointing performance of New York's urban schools more and more difficult to defend. No serious person any longer argues with the central premise that the current educational system in New York is broken.
With the worst test scores concentrated in the state's urban areas, political support for the status quo, especially among minority legislators, is evaporating.
And the secret genius of NCLB is that eventually no school can pass. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 1, 2006 8:11 AM
I don't defend the public schools as they exist today, but keep in mind that the courts mandate that all handicapped kids, no matter how compromised, must be enrolled in "normal" schools; the costs for this new medical care is paid for by the schools, a cost that hurts the entire system.
The biggest scandal is that the rich completely avoid the Public School system, which means that the people who would never allow any deterioration in an educational system are not in the system and therefore don't care. Do you really think the school systems would be anything less than stellar if the rich kids were in it?
I also think that measuring them on an "average" when by calculating average you include the millions of children who cannot (and will not) speak English. Also remember the outright criminal enrollment, caused by rules preventing their ouster---private schools kick out anybody they choose to---mean a further deterioration of learning.
We could improve education over night if criminals were kicked out, drug dealing and using resulted in expulsion, and the handicapped were in special classes.
Posted by: Howard Veit at November 1, 2006 8:25 AMHoward:
which is why they'll all fail eventually. Special Ed kids can never meet the set standards.
Posted by: oj at November 1, 2006 8:32 AMHoward,
The "rich" believe that spending $15,000/yr on the exact same bureaucracy in the cities is getting them a good education.
Articles pointing out the woefull ignorance of college kids (in good schools) indicate that the rich are getting ripped off too.
Education in the US is unreformable. Until every state has equally funding for every child through fully-funded ($6500 or higher) scholarship, the problem will only get worse - and more expensive.
Posted by: Bruno at November 1, 2006 9:10 AMBruno:
You seem confused. What's a college degree worth in lifetime earnings? The assumption that education is intended to alleviate ignorance is specious.
Posted by: oj at November 1, 2006 11:06 AMCould a law similar to NCLB be used by the left to ensure that schools only teach left-wing ideas?
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at November 1, 2006 2:07 PM