Petition to Jettison NCLB--What a Joke

Ken DeRosa and Edspresso both point to this rediculous petition to jettison NCLB and return to the status quo ante, which DeRosa describes brilliantly:

Since NCLB only added accountability measures, the Education Roundtable wants to go back to those halcyon days when the feds' role was to "slop the hogs" with money and educators would feed hungrily at the trough without anyone looking over their shoulder. That kids and taxpayers were the only special interests that weren't benefiting from such a system does not seem to bother the Education Roundtable.

I will readily admit that NCLB is not perfect, indeed it has many flaws. But to jettison it in its entirety is just plain silly. But as DeRosa points out, some of the reasons the Education Roundtable posits are even dumber:

Below, briefly stated, are some of the reasons we consider the law too destructive to salvage. In its place we call for formal, state-level dialogues led by working educators rather than by politicians, ideology-bound "think tank" members, or leaders of business and industry who have little or no direct experience in the field of education.

2. Assumes that competition is the primary motivator of human behavior and that market forces can cure all educational ills.

6. Places control of what is taught in corporate hands many times removed from students, teachers, parents, local school boards, and communities.

7. Requires the use of materials and procedures more likely to produce a passive, compliant workforce than creative, resilient, inquiring, critical, compassionate, engaged members of our democracy.

These are the ones that drive me nuts the most, although all but one of the reasons is pretty dumb.

First, let us look at that preamble:

Below, briefly stated, are some of the reasons we consider the law too destructive to salvage. In its place we call for formal, state-level dialogues led by working educators rather than by politicians, ideology-bound "think tank" members, or leaders of business and industry who have little or no direct experience in the field of education.

First, while NCLB has flaws, it is salvagable and worth fixing rather than scrapping in toto. Next, state-level administration of schools is a good thing and I would encourage that. Including working educators is an obvious plus and one that if the states are not doing now, they should be doing. However, educators don't have to make the tough decisions regarding budgeting, priorities, spending and standards--the politicians do and the politicians represent the final consumer in all of this, the parents and the kids. While teachers may be "answerable" to parents, in the end teachers have no direct accountability to parents (the fact that they should is a discussion for another time). Polticans are hired, fired and directed by taxpayers, citizens and the public they must be leading these state level discussions. Finally, business and industry leaders have a significant role in educaion for they will be hiring, employing and training the graduates of our education system. If that system does not provide them with adequately educated potential employees, then they have to spend loads of money (which many of them already do) to train employees in basic skills like writing, which in turn drives up prices for everyone. Business leaders can tell what they current get out of the education system and what they want to get. Then politicians have to decide if the education system should meet those goals. Yes, teachers need to be involved, but they are not the only actors nor are they the most important stakeholders in education.

Next is this little screed:

2. Assumes that competition is the primary motivator of human behavior and that market forces can cure all educational ills.

Actually, it is competition that has driven almost all progress in the world. Whether it be competition between nations for land and influence, competition between groups for political and economic power, competition between schools to determine who has the better school, competition between classes for pride and perks or competition between individuals for success, competition has always been a primary motivator for individuals. If there is no urgency, benefits or consequences to learning, why bother with schools at all. Competition is what drives innovation and the only long-term forces that have ever lead to innovation are market forces. Ask teh Soviet Union what happens when there is no competition. Oh yeah, you can't because centralized, monopolized structures fail--each and every time.

Next:

6. Places control of what is taught in corporate hands many times removed from students, teachers, parents, local school boards, and communities.

What??!!!! The last time I checked, school boards, whether state or local create curricula. Text book companies and other business are just responding to a need. This is just socalistic stupidity masked as criticism.

Finally, this little bit.

7. Requires the use of materials and procedures more likely to produce a passive, compliant workforce than creative, resilient, inquiring, critical, compassionate, engaged members of our democracy.

No employer today wants a passive workforce. A passive workforce in our economy is a guaranteed recipe for failure. But our education in pre-NCLB was not producing creative, resilient, inquiring, critical, compasssionate, egnaged anything, let alone an democratic society. What our education system was doing was producing dolts, lacking in skills and lacking in knowledge. The socilastic, one-size fits all manner of schooling prevalent in the good old days worked for a manufacturing society but not an information society, and the model was purely socialistic.

So if you need a good laugh, check out the petition, but just don't sign the dumb thing, that is unless you think that education is just fine without holding the actors in the system accountable.