e:\doc\web\99\12\leppin.txt From: "Chris and Lisa Leppin" To: "ClearingHouse" Subject: [education-consumers] Evolution Discussion (evolved) Date sent: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:02:03 -0500 Send reply to: "Chris and Lisa Leppin" ===================================================================== > Angie, Rob, Anthony, & others, > Thank you. Thank you very much for your posts on this topic. The missing > ingredients in the U.S., of course, are choice, competition and a > system that makes public the > achievement scores of a school for parents to compare/shop around. My position is based on what works and what doesn't work in our country, not what works or doesn't work in others. > Another rugged individualist, > Lisa Leppin > > > > Paul wants to know why some people argue for decentralization when some > other countries that arguably have better school systems are more, not less > centralized than the U.S. school system. > > My answer: this is a bit of a straw man. Take a look at the TIMSS results. > The top nine scoring countries are characterized by some form of federal > government curriculum. Seems like a good argument for more centralization. > Except for the troubling fact that the bottom nine scoring countries also > have federal government curriculum. > > Seems as if centralized systems can make both good and bad decisions, just > as school boards can, just as parents can. > > The question then becomes: can we reasonably expect in the US that if we > further centralize curriculum and other policy decisions, will the feds make > good choices or bad? Do we have any evidence to guide us? > > I would suggest that we have very compelling evidence that the US federal > government and the various agencies that go about making decisions about > tests, standards, and other policies would on balance make even more of a > monumental mess than they have done already if given expanded powers in this > arena. Here's a few bits of the evidence I would offer: > > 1) National History Standards > 2) NCTM Standards > 3) NCTE Standards > 4) Goals 2000/STW > 5) Special Education (IDEA, Section 504 and ADA) > 6) NAGB (Who for awhile were developing the national math test, and one > fellow on the board, Stephen Leinwand, is of the view that teaching kids > algorithms is a form of child abuse) > 7) NSSB > 8) SCANS > > I would argue that each and ever one of these items (which constitute a > pretty good cross section of legislation, bureaucracies, standards documents > and policies that have sprung from federal involvement in schools) have had > a negative influence on our system. > > Thus, I posit that increased centralization in the U.S. would bring about > more of these types of polcies, and would further erode our system. > > Paul's argument is flawed because it assumes that centralization is the > CAUSE of good or bad decisions. It's not. Countries with centralized systems > can make good choices. Andrew Coulson argues that Japan has by and large > madated effective pedagogies at the federal level (even though he argues > that the real reason for Japanese kids achievement is the Juku schools, > which are unregulated free market schools). > > The question is: Can the US federal gov't be expected to, on balance, have a > positive or negative effect on our school system if given yet more influence > than it already has? I think it is hard to argue that the increase in > federal government involvement we have seen since 1979 or so has had a > positive effect on student achievement. > > The next question is: why? Why can't (or doesn't) the U.S. have both > centralization AND good decisions? My answer: because the people in charge > of the bureacracies do not have the consumer's interests as their primary > focus. The decisions they make will continue to be for the primary benefit > of the producers. These folks come in several stripes, one of which I call > "academic ideologues", who are committed to the "child centered " > methodology and therefore can be expected to morph any and every policy > decision within their realm to advance this view. The other type that > dominates the bureaucracy I call the "social agenda crowd" who use policy > influence to advance one or another agenda, such as gender equity, sex > education, racial tolerance, desegregation, or multiculturalism. For these > types, their agenda always and everywhere trumps the desires and needs of > the consumers. > > For whatever reason, these types of people dominate the policy setting > infrastructure at the federal government in the US. Perhaps this is not so > in other nations; I do not know. > > Now with this being said, it is a summarily bad idea to further centralize > education policy in the US. When a parent makes a bad decision, it applies > for that family's kids. When bad decisions are made at the local level, say > a school board, only the kids in one district are affected. . When a state > government errs, the fallout is wider. When the federal government puts in > place an errant policy, it goes for 50 some odd million kids. > > Unless someone can give me a reasonable expectation to believe that the > federal government would all of a sudden start making good policy decisions, > I'd have to oppose any further centralization. > > Rob Kremer > > > ===================================================================== > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > networking and information for parents and taxpayers on the > internet > > Website & Archives: http://education-consumers.com > > You are currently subscribed to education-consumers as: Embryo@wcf.net > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank email to > leave-education-consumers-989462S@lists.dundee.net > > ===================================================================== > > For less mail, use the following link and choose > 1) a daily digest, > 2) a daily list of subjects, or > 3) no mail (read postings on Web) > > http://lists.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=education-consumers > > For more help & info: http://www.lyris.com/help or > > > > >End of returned message > ===================================================================== EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE networking and information for parents and taxpayers on the internet Website & Archives: http://education-consumers.com You are currently subscribed to education-consumers as: arthurhu@halcyon.com TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank email to leave-education-consumers-989462S@lists.dundee.net ===================================================================== For less mail, use the following link and choose 1) a daily digest, 2) a daily list of subjects, or 3) no mail (read postings on Web) http://lists.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=education-consumers For more help & info: http://www.lyris.com/help or