The profit motive in US education reform
November 6, 2014 3:24 PM   Subscribe

Unfortunately, introducing children to classic works of literature won’t raise their abysmal test scores.... This is because standardized tests are not based on general knowledge. As I learned in the course of my investigation, they are based on specific knowledge contained in specific sets of books: the textbooks created by the test makers.
[But] there’s simply too little money in the education budget. The Elements of Literature textbook costs $114.75. However, in 2012–2013, Tilden (like every other middle school in Philadelphia) was only allocated $30.30 per student to buy books—and that amount, which was barely a quarter the price of one textbook, was supposed to cover every subject, not just one. My own calculations show that the average Philadelphia school had only 27 percent of the books required to teach its curriculum in 2012-2013, and it would have cost $68 million to pay for all the books schools need.
-From Meredith Broussard's article in The Atlantic about standardized testing and how Philadelphia schools track (and afford) the textbooks necessary to pass.
In an interview with EdSurge, a trade outlet, Shelton explained that the Common Core standards will allow education companies to produce products that “can scale across many markets,” overcoming the “fragmented procurement market” that has plagued investors seeking to enter the K-12 sector. Moreover, Shelton and his team manage an education innovation budget, awarding grants to charter schools and research centers to advance the next breakthrough in education technology. Increased research and development in education innovation, Shelton wrote in testimony to Congress, will spark the next “equivalent of Google or Microsoft to lead the global learning technology market.” He added, “I want it to be a US company.”
-From Lee Fang's article in The Nation how US education reform creates openings for private investors.
[An]n in-depth look into the district's ultimately unsuccessful attempt to close one South Ward school reveals how real estate concerns and facilities funding increasingly drive neighborhood school closings and the expansion of privately managed charter schools. By allocating millions of dollars in little-known bonds exclusively to charters while imposing austerity on public facilities, the state has quietly stacked the deck for charters, leaving neighborhood schools to molder in decline... Bringing a charter into Hawthorne could allow the state to scrimp on renovation costs. Charters' access to bonds, Roberts says, allows them to "improve these community assets" - that is, school houses - "and allows the district to continue to operate. And keeps the district viable." This saves the state, which controls Newark schools, from paying to fix the very schools it let fall into disrepair.
From Owen Davis' article in truth-out.org about Charter Schools' access to bonds not available to public schools in New Jersey.

Lastly, this hasn't happened yet but if passed into law would be truly outrageous:
Yes, every profession has means of defrocking people who commit egregious and unpardonable offenses. But-- and I'm going to repeat this because I'm afraid your This Can't Be Real filter is keeping you from seeing the words that I'm typing-- Massachusetts proposes to take your license to teach away if you have a couple of low evaluations.
From Curmudgucation.

All links from Observational Epidemiolgy.
posted by subdee (94 comments total) 42 users marked this as a favorite
 
Yes, I'm shocked ... shocked to find that monied interests have found their way into education. Yes, we have become a quite mercenary society. I blame Ayn Rand.
posted by McMillan's Other Wife at 3:30 PM on November 6, 2014 [2 favorites]


Ed reform is a big movement. There are good parts of it and bad parts of it, and while I'm happy when articles like these shed light on the creepy and corrupt parts, it makes me sad that so many on the left seem opposed to the whole concept.

One small example: around these parts you frequently see charter schools equated with for-profit education. While there are some for-profit charter schools (and I think there should be zero, don't get me wrong), the vast majority of charter schools are nonprofits.
posted by Aizkolari at 3:36 PM on November 6, 2014 [5 favorites]


An organization's tax-exempt status doesn't really tell you anything about whether its managers are using it to enrich themselves.
posted by burden at 3:41 PM on November 6, 2014 [22 favorites]


People haven't really picked up on it yet, but the bad guys won. Our public education system's back has already been broken. It's in its death throes now, all by design.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:42 PM on November 6, 2014 [15 favorites]


I wouldn't call two thirds a "vast majority", either, and to the extent that there has been some over-reach on the part of anti ed-reform folks, it's a direct consequence of the maximalist Shock Doctrine strategy of the ed reformers.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:44 PM on November 6, 2014


These articles largely aren't about out-and-out corruption, but about public school de-funding and under-funding, and about private interests stepping in to fill that "gap".

I should have linked to the opinion piece about how weird is that no one talks about just paying teachers more money to get better teachers.
posted by subdee at 3:45 PM on November 6, 2014 [5 favorites]




I mean yeah I do agree that this is largely "another day, another education reform expose" and that we're firmly in the backlash stage... but there's a reason for that.
posted by subdee at 3:47 PM on November 6, 2014


I also wanted to see what people had to say about the first article, since it makes the unusual argument that one big place public schools are failing is not enough money spent on administrative and IT support.
posted by subdee at 3:50 PM on November 6, 2014


Here's a pretty balanced article about charter schools vs public schools. The short version is that they're about the same, with charter schools improving gradually.

In my experience, though, charters just pull some of the better-performing kids away from the public schools, because every charter around here, even those with lotteries, requires parents to, first of all, go through the application process. Then they also commit to volunteer a certain number of hours, so generally you get the parents who really care (or have time to care) about their kids' education, and those kids generally perform better.
posted by Huck500 at 3:53 PM on November 6, 2014 [10 favorites]


...to the extent that there has been some over-reach on the part of anti ed-reform folks, it's a direct consequence of the maximalist Shock Doctrine strategy of the ed reformers.

I totally see that. As another example, Jonah Edelman's comments at the Aspen thing were totally, needlessly combative. On the other hand, some of the things that Stand for Children works for, like longer school days, are supported by research and should improve outcomes and close the achievement gap.

I'm not generally one of those David Brooksian "the truth is somewhere in the middle" types, but I think that ed reform is a place where that idea has some truth to it.
posted by Aizkolari at 3:53 PM on November 6, 2014 [1 favorite]


I think saying 'people conflate charters with for-profit' is a total, intentional red herring. Attempted misdirection borne from self-interest or ignorance. Charter schools *are* profit centers. They *are* designed to leech money from public schools. They *are* designed to enrich their executives.

Here's my proposal: every CEO of every corporation gets an evaluation by the public. If they don't pass, their 'work for any company in america license' is revoked (except the Amazon warehouse - they can work there). It's all cool, 'cause we'll publish the standards and set their goals for them - it'll be really easy to gauge their performance and whether they serve their role. Shoot - for a fee, we can publish textbooks for 'em to help 'em pass.

Fuck everything about education reforms - especially about charter schools, and more especially about standardized tests. Y'all go to hell.
posted by j_curiouser at 4:02 PM on November 6, 2014 [20 favorites]


MoonOrb...You forgot (E) Unions!!!
posted by Thorzdad at 4:03 PM on November 6, 2014 [3 favorites]


Our public education system's back has already been broken. It's in its death throes now, all by design.

You know what? I find this offensive. I would venture a guess that you almost certainly aren't directly affected by the state of education if you make a comment like this. Some of us are actually working in education and need all the help we can get to fight these corporate powers, instead of world-weary eyerolls and bored shrugs. It's easy to walk away in apathy; try helping instead.
posted by zardoz at 4:11 PM on November 6, 2014 [14 favorites]


I read that more as a pained detailing of the situation, not as an invitation to apathy, FWIW.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:15 PM on November 6, 2014 [7 favorites]


We are middle class white folks with one kid in public school and lots of liberal friends, and of the other similarly situated parents we know, more than 3/4ths "home school" or otherwise don't participate in the public ed system. It's already dead, Jim. Even the "liberals" have abandoned it.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:19 PM on November 6, 2014 [3 favorites]


Also, I work as a programmer for my state's dept of education. I am very invested in this matter, and in my state at least, I'm not really exaggerating.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:21 PM on November 6, 2014


I also wanted to see what people had to say about the first article, since it makes the unusual argument that one big place public schools are failing is not enough money spent on administrative and IT support.

My first full-time IT job was working for one of the wealthiest school districts in Iowa. In 2000 I started at $17,500. Ten months later I accepted my second full-time IT job. When it was time to negotiate salary I panicked and had no idea what to ask. I said, $35,000? Since that was exactly double. There was no counter offer they just said, "We can do that." For years I was irritated I hadn't asked for more. Fourteen years on neither place hires at much higher wages.

For perspective I was making $14,400 working full-time as a book seller for Borders (after six years), so the district was actually a step up in salary, but it was half what a starting teacher made and they were nine month appointments (I was twelve).
posted by cjorgensen at 4:22 PM on November 6, 2014 [1 favorite]


You know what? I find this offensive. I would venture a guess that you almost certainly aren't directly affected by the state of education if you make a comment like this.

Sorry should have addressed you directly: I find the state of affairs offensive, too, but once you take the public out of a public system, it dies. There's lots and lots of historical evidence for that, and the public education system has been abandoned by nearly all but the most economically disadvantaged here in my part of the world, and once that shift becomes permanent, it's over because the tax base doesn't care anymore.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:33 PM on November 6, 2014 [5 favorites]


We are middle class white folks with one kid in public school and lots of liberal friends, and of the other similarly situated parents we know, more than 3/4ths "home school" or otherwise don't participate in the public ed system.
I, on the other hand, am having a tough time thinking of anyone I know who doesn't send their kid(s) to public school. My siblings, my friends from childhood, my friends from college and grad school, my work friends... all public school parents. I don't know anyone who home schools. I think this must be pretty regional, or maybe you're in a demographic that is more specific than middle-class and liberal.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:39 PM on November 6, 2014 [3 favorites]


Maybe the term "middle class" is arbitrary and capricious. Anecdata is nice, but it doesn't really prove the system is in a terrible state of disrepair one way or the other. On the other hand, the US education index continues to decline based on international rankings.
posted by Johann Georg Faust at 4:52 PM on November 6, 2014


For many of my teaching friends, charter schools are a chance to at least reach some of the kids, and to hijack funding from the public schools in order to do the job properly. I've known quite a few who took advantage of the corrupt system in order to do good. I taught in an urban public school very briefly, and in my city it's darn near impossible to do a good job in the official system. It's rigged against you.

However, as a "reform" idea, I freaking hate charter schools, and in the city most of them are horrendous evil BS. They are promoted by people whose religion is the "free market" and whose infallible and all-powerful God is competition. Doesn't matter that education works best as a public good, not a marketplace.
posted by Peach at 4:57 PM on November 6, 2014 [4 favorites]


It's Florida. We make every other option up to and including just signing your kids up for internet school (which isn't held to the same accountability standards as brick and mortar school) easier and more attractive than the public system.
posted by saulgoodman at 5:00 PM on November 6, 2014 [2 favorites]


I am convinced that private schools should be illegal.
posted by smcameron at 5:05 PM on November 6, 2014 [7 favorites]


What Peach said. It seems pretty clear that charter schools are associated with free-market think tanks like The Fraser Institute, who conveniently report every year on a standardized ranking of schools. I think they're basically madrassas for young free-marketeers.
posted by sneebler at 5:07 PM on November 6, 2014 [6 favorites]


saulgoodman: "it's over because the tax base doesn't care anymore."

This is a big problem. In the 1960s, at the height of the Baby Boom, 2/3 of American households had a child enrolled in K-12 schools. Today, around 1/3 of households do. This has to do with fewer multigenerational households, later marriage and childbirth, more people single by choice or childless by choice, etc. But it is much more difficult to pass a tax referendum for schools when only 1 in 3 households have a direct stake, instead of it being a majority interest.

On the larger topic of the FPP, I remain puzzled as to why no state has yet stepped in to create its own open-source, state-created curriculum. Probably a small state with a strong education school at its flagship state university. Hiring ten or twenty or even thirty extra people at Flagship State U to create open-source curriculum is OBVIOUSLY less expensive, across the state, than paying for schools to all buy licenses and/or books from private corporations. And while I'm sure it would be a nightmare in some states, one can also imagine a state with a widely-respected state university that produces high-quality content, maybe starting in math, then reading, then science (leave history for last). Provide the content free in digital formats or print them at-cost for schools that want to buy books.

The problems with textbook publishers are well-known and widespread; I really feel like there's an opening for a small state that wants to create its own materials and license them free to their own districts. (Provide them for a fee to other states, and you'll still be cheaper than the textbook guys.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:08 PM on November 6, 2014 [8 favorites]


the Common Core standards will allow education companies to produce products that “can scale across many markets,” overcoming the “fragmented procurement market” that has plagued investors seeking to enter the K-12 sector

Disclaimer: I work in ed-tech. Take my opinions with a grain of salt.

That said, I don't think that this is the damming indictment of Common Core or monied interests that you're looking for. Teaching materials, curricula, and ed-tech are not exactly cheap to produce. If a textbook can only be used in New Jersey, the audience is limited, and the product is going to be subpar and unprofitable (disincentivizing innovation and competition).

If a teaching product can be used in all 50 states, the market is obviously bigger, potentially more profitable, and more competitive. It's a win-win (or at the very least an improvement over the status quo).

Note that these same incentives for profit are also significant enablers for free and open-source content. The next few yeare in the industry are going to be interesting.
posted by schmod at 5:13 PM on November 6, 2014 [2 favorites]


Previously
posted by ob1quixote at 5:19 PM on November 6, 2014


saulgoodman--I appreciate that you don't like the state of affairs--and you're certainly not to blame--but throwing up your hands and claiming there's nothing to be done is simply wrong. Of course, it depends on numbers and popular support, which you claim is lacking. It is, but that lack of public support is also the result of a targeted campaign by these corporate powers, not to mention politicians calling the shots.

Things are bad, yes, but they are not beyond repair. For instance people still have this concept that charter schools are somehow the solution, but those have a mixed record, and the private interests are sucking the money out of the system for their own benefit. Those two points most people are unaware of, but they will be, in time, eventually. And that can help turn the tide.

Education reform is absolutely possible, because education is not broken. From my perspective, the biggest problem in education is not education--it's poverty. It's students from families of low socio-economic status. Schools are expected to bear the burden of the county, state, and nation as a whole, the increasing wealth gap is what's to blame. "Fixing" education is just treating symptoms; you want to have thriving schools, you have to have all the students on the same page.

(saul, that got ranty but wasn't aimed at you, really, but I'd rather people try--or at least turn their faces towards--possible solutions rather than curse the darkness)
posted by zardoz at 5:22 PM on November 6, 2014 [5 favorites]


Eyebrows McGee: "On the larger topic of the FPP, I remain puzzled as to why no state has yet stepped in to create its own open-source, state-created curriculum. "

Well, there is the CK-12 project:
Services like CK-12 make it easy for teachers to assemble their own textbooks. Content is mapped to a variety of levels and standards including common core. You can start from scratch or build from anything the the FlexBooks library.
... which I THINK has support/input/something from the State of California ...

Ah, here we go: the California Free Digital Textbook Initiative.
posted by kristi at 5:26 PM on November 6, 2014 [7 favorites]


I think they're [charter schools] basically madrassas for young free-marketeers.

I am shocked to discover that I agree with this.
posted by j_curiouser at 5:27 PM on November 6, 2014


saulgoodman, I know a lot of people who work for the school district you're saying 3/4s of people you know have given up on, and I find that assertion really bizarre. It's one of the better districts in Florida and none of the "middle class liberals" I know there send their kids anywhere else.
posted by junco at 5:38 PM on November 6, 2014


The profit motive is good for exactly one thing. Hint: it's in the name.
posted by klanawa at 5:43 PM on November 6, 2014


I think they're basically madrassas for young free-marketeers.

One of the things I like about Metafilter is being occasionally reminded that the Right does not have a monopoly on crazy.
posted by Aizkolari at 5:45 PM on November 6, 2014 [7 favorites]


Almost all of my card-carrying liberal friends in Tallahassee home school or send their kids to private schools. I'd name them individually if I thought it would do any good, but we've already caught too much social flak over my strong opposition to homeschooling, so I won't go there, but I'm not exaggerating. My wife keeps in touch with 3 or 4 times as many people as I do and even she needed a few minutes before she could name any of our peers with kids in public schools. Both of the families she could think of after some effort live in different cities. I promise I am not exaggerating.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:17 PM on November 6, 2014


True, the folks in our neighborhood mostly do go to public school (our friends are mostly better off than we are), but our neighborhood's more lower middle/working class. And more than half of our neighbors are black. It's the white middle and upper middle that's abandoning the public system, but they're the ones whose taxes are needed to fund it.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:21 PM on November 6, 2014


On the other hand, some of the things that Stand for Children works for, like longer school days, are supported by research and should improve outcomes and close the achievement gap.

Which always sounds great until we get to the part where we figure out how do we pay for it, especially the staff that's supposed to run it. Which is the point where things like "it's not just a job" and "think of the children" start coming out.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:24 PM on November 6, 2014


While there are some for-profit charter schools (and I think there should be zero, don't get me wrong), the vast majority of charter schools are nonprofits.

Give those non profits time. That is all they need. They too shall become capitalist profit makers.
posted by notreally at 6:43 PM on November 6, 2014


My Rhode Island town adapted EngageNY, which was a common core curriculum developed in New York. We paid six figures to license it, even though mostly we got some template and stuff. Even as a FOSS lover and .edu IT guy, it strikes me as poor value for money.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:47 PM on November 6, 2014


Education reform is heavily based on taking out one of the few remaining secure vaguely middle class jobs. Tenure is anathema to the kind of people who fund education reform movement. Maybe say something about how "we need to be disruptive" something something "the apple of education..."
posted by Ferreous at 6:57 PM on November 6, 2014 [2 favorites]


Meanwhile, perhaps the most destructive aspect of the American Public School Model - funding it through local property taxes - remains unassailable.
posted by Navelgazer at 7:09 PM on November 6, 2014 [9 favorites]


We are middle class white folks with one kid in public school and lots of liberal friends, and of the other similarly situated parents we know, more than 3/4ths "home school" or otherwise don't participate in the public ed system. It's already dead, Jim. Even the "liberals" have abandoned it.

And so long as you insist that this is only because of selfishness/racism/profit, and has nothing at all to do with the failings of the public ed system in its present state, the trend will continue.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 7:39 PM on November 6, 2014


Also it's not like the problems in have risen entirely organically. Massive underfunding, teaching for tests, limiting curriculum based on religion, these are not all internal issues. It's a lot easier to say "oh man teachers unions, they're just terrible and why schools are bad"

You know what attracts better teachers and gets better results? FUNDING THE FUCKING SCHOOLS.
posted by Ferreous at 7:59 PM on November 6, 2014 [11 favorites]


schmod: Teaching materials, curricula, and ed-tech are not exactly cheap to produce.

You know, I'm not certain of this. I've taken plenty of college courses from professors who wrote all of their course materials themselves, or assembled them from other sources, and those courses didn't feel worse than or inferior to other courses that used textbooks. In fact, they often felt better (the text often matched the coursework far better, and college textbooks are usually badly overwritten). I think a couple of PhDs working full-time could produce a textbook for anything in a year or two - for below university level, maybe have one education major and one subject expert work together. That's only a couple of hundred thousand dollars at most, which isn't much money at all compared to what textbooks make.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:54 PM on November 6, 2014


We emigrated from the US to Canada specifically so that our children wouldn't have to attend American schools.
posted by 256 at 9:17 PM on November 6, 2014 [2 favorites]


Ferreous: "You know what attracts better teachers and gets better results? FUNDING THE FUCKING SCHOOLS."

I recently read The Smartest Kids in the World, which looked at education in a handful of countries (primarily the US, South Korea, Finland, and Poland) and compared their systems to see what, if anything, could be learned.

One thing the author said that I found really interesting is that a big part of Finland's success with education has been dramatically raising standards for teacher education programs. Only the best and brightest can get into Finland's teaching colleges; she compared it to med school in the US. She explicitly made the point that, in the US, our teacher training requirements are pretty low (which is not to say that all US teachers are dumb or unskilled, only to acknowledge that teacher training is not uniformly rigorous in the US), and we produce way more teachers than we can use in our schools ... which leads to a race to the bottom in teacher pay, and strongly encourages the best teachers to choose to teach at private schools, where either the pay is better or the bureaucracy is less onerous, or sometimes both.

It seems like lack of funding and low expectations for teachers feed into each other ... and both reflect the distressing notion that education isn't very important, so why pay a lot for it or expect a lot from it?
posted by kristi at 9:18 PM on November 6, 2014 [4 favorites]


subdee: "I also wanted to see what people had to say about the first article, since it makes the unusual argument that one big place public schools are failing is not enough money spent on administrative and IT support."

I wrote up a longwinded post about how K-12 IT sucks, but I think the following is far more enlightening than multiple pararaphs:

I support Moodle for all public schools in Oregon, and our staffing budget is one sysadmin FTE and one helpdesk FTE.
posted by pwnguin at 10:12 PM on November 6, 2014 [4 favorites]


which is not to say that all US teachers are dumb or unskilled

Then again this and this and so on (these directly mirror my experience with education majors).

Actually raising standards for teachers would be a great idea. Maybe if parents stopped having parent-teacher conferences with teachers who were obviously barely functional would help solve the funding issues. More money + same mediocre-at-best teachers is not likely to happen or help anyone.
posted by rr at 11:43 PM on November 6, 2014 [3 favorites]


More money + same mediocre-at-best teachers is not likely to happen or help anyone.

People tend to do better at things when they're paid better for it. It's nuts. Not just, like, in terms of "if the salaries are more attractive people who are better at things will want to do the job," but in terms more like "if you pay a given teacher better for teaching, that teacher will be better at teaching."
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:12 AM on November 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


Teachers aren't paid that badly, in most places. The bigger problem, I suspect, is that the job is truly starting to get unpleasant; most are overworked, they're subject to tons of bureaucracy, and now with the standardized testing and teacher assessment methods they're subject to punishment for things beyond their control and they don't have job security. Fixing all of that would probably do more than simply offering a higher wage.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:24 AM on November 7, 2014 [8 favorites]


I think they're basically madrassas for young free-marketeers.

A 'madrassa' is just a school. Do you just come up with this nonsense by free association or what?
posted by atrazine at 2:33 AM on November 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


I have Thoughts on this matter. (As I must, because machinelings begin to populate the earth. Cower before our hordes.)

First, teacher education. I wanted to be a teacher. Yes, regardless of pay. That did not survive contact with the education curriculum, which was remarkably terrible. I mean, it was so dull that I just could not do it. I switched to English instead, which, while a useless degree, was at least interesting.

Second, aggressive tracking. In my opinion, if public schools intend to remain relevant, tracking needs to be done based on academics and behavior. Starting early. At present, parents move their kids to a "better" school system if they have the means, which simply makes it so that the kids in the "good" systems are all white and asian kids with money, while the kids in "bad" systems are black and hispanic kids without. If there were rigorous tracking within a school, beginning early, so that kids who perform well are kept with kids who perform well, parents would have more faith that their kids will be safe at school, and kids from disadvantaged socioeconomic groups would still have an opportunity to perform well and get tracked well, instead of the current situation where smart kids from bad neighborhoods get to suffer through bad schools, too. (This will be unpopular, I know. As someone who suffered relentless physical bullying in public school by people who are largely now hamburger chefs and automobile artists, I don't give a shit.)

Third, standards. People are lamenting the common core everywhere, but to my mind it is an opportunity. If education standards are the same all across the country, it is an opportunity to create your own materials. We need teacher- and parent-sourced materials to teach elements of the common core, so that the inflated price of a textbook doesn't matter. It might not be as colorful, professionally designed, and slick as a $120 textbook, but it will be effective. (But then, artists, designers, and programmers are also parents.)

Fourth, technology. Embrace it. The state of technology in education is a joke. We need computer science taught as a part of the curriculum, and we need to make children comfortable with learning about things they're interested in on their own, without guidance. That is part of the joy and power of the Internet; how do we make it happen?

"More money" is not the answer. The U.S. already spends more than anyone else per student; we just suck at choosing what to spend it on.
posted by sonic meat machine at 4:59 AM on November 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


I often see those "education majors do badly on grad school tests" things and feel the need to point out that in my state, would-be secondary school teachers don't major in education. They major in the subject they want to teach, and then they apply to the education school for teacher certification. The GPA requirement for teacher certification is fairly high: it's higher than to get into the undergraduate business program, for instance. I advise students who want to be science teachers, and most of them don't achieve a high enough GPA to pursue it. I also see a lot of kids crash and burn out of pre-med and then think that they'll become high-school science teachers as a backup plan, and I have to break it to them that their grades aren't high enough for that, either. There are a lot of problems with American education, most of which have to do with inequality in our schools and in the surrounding society, but there's also a lot of bullshit teacher-bashing that doesn't always have a lot of basis in reality.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:15 AM on November 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


Aggressive tracking and separation early is so bad it's absurd. "oh you didn't do well in early school, perhaps because your family couldn't afford pre-k, time to dump you into the 'who gives a fuck' pile. There's no way this will produce wildly segregated tracks within schools!"
posted by Ferreous at 8:17 AM on November 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


ArbitraryAndCapricious: "The GPA requirement for teacher certification is fairly high: it's higher than to get into the undergraduate business program, for instance."

Well that's certainly setting the bar high.
posted by pwnguin at 8:58 AM on November 7, 2014


Aggressive tracking and separation early is so bad it's absurd. "oh you didn't do well in early school, perhaps because your family couldn't afford pre-k, time to dump you into the 'who gives a fuck' pile. There's no way this will produce wildly segregated tracks within schools!"

If you don't do it, you end up with everyone in classes where half the class have behavioral problems or otherwise don't care, or, worse, you open up the academically successful to bullying from people who are less so. The bullies, as a bonus, are often older and physically larger because they aren't being promoted. People who show improvement and constructive behavior can be re-tracked; but why is it preferable to make it horrible for the "good kids" in order to avoid hurting other peoples' feelings?

The fact is, the segregation will happen anyway, but instead of being merit-based (a smart hispanic kid can be tracked within his school into the "AG" track) it's purely money based (a kid with parents who make six figures gets to move to well-funded suburban schools, or go to the local parochial school).
posted by sonic meat machine at 10:24 AM on November 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


You've got a weird mindset where the academically unsuccessful are the bullies and that the academically successful are victims. You've already stated you have baggage from this, maybe you're not a neutral observer here.

Anyways behavior problems should be dealt with in a separate channel from academic achievement.
posted by Ferreous at 12:29 PM on November 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


People tend to do better at things when they're paid better for it. It's nuts. Not just, like, in terms of "if the salaries are more attractive people who are better at things will want to do the job," but in terms more like "if you pay a given teacher better for teaching, that teacher will be better at teaching."

Each of the parents I know who have their kids in private schools (which is all parents that I know with kids of school age but one, who lives in Cupertino and is moving to Palo Alto so that the kids will attend Gunn) do so because of a precipitating event.

The events basically come down to one of two things: either the school has directly failed to address a _specific_ instant of a misbehaving, disruptive or violent (sometimes all three) child in the classroom for handwavey reasons or because they had a parent-teacher day where the teacher was so obviously incompetent and borderline that it became clear to them that the only solution was to opt out. In CA, mostly the latter; east coast an even split.

The current crop of teachers is not going to get any more competent if you pay them more. It is quite obvious that the bar is low, and has gotten steadily lower alongside chants about how teachers should not be measured or held to any external standard except peer evaluation. When you have direct observation that the peers involved are of poor quality, the peer evaluation idea is laughable.

I think putting really high standards in place _in advance of salary increases_ would stop this feedback loop. Once you have high quality teachers, parents will feel better about paying them more. From a purely economic argument, the fraction of people putting their kids into expensive private schools to establish class membership is much smaller than the ones who know that their public school quality is poor because of poor quality teachers and that they have no other means of solving the problem. Given higher quality teachers, they will not spend extra to escape a system they are paying for anyway.

Higher teacher standards is actually a great idea and a good way to cut the knot.
posted by rr at 12:48 PM on November 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


I often see those "education majors do badly on grad school tests" things and feel the need to point out that in my state, would-be secondary school teachers don't major in education.

I think it's fair to say that even if highschool teachers tend to be much better, people make the decision about opting out during the elementary school phase where the quality is just dire (at least around here). Their kids are an extreme investment and the downside increases as you get closer to college; once you have opted out you are not likely to opt back in as an experiment.
posted by rr at 12:52 PM on November 7, 2014


You say the bar is low and has gotten steadily lower, do you have any proof that isn't anecdotal? Verifiable proof that teachers were more competent in the past.
posted by Ferreous at 1:01 PM on November 7, 2014


rr: The current crop of teachers is not going to get any more competent if you pay them more.

This statement is so narrow as to be meaningless. The "current crop" of teachers is in a constant state of flux as teachers retire, change careers, move to different districts, etc. Salary increases would apply to all new job postings, and would immediately attract better candidates and allow schools to be more selective in who they hire. The idea that the reform has to affect the specific set of teachers teaching right now in order to be effective is absurd.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:01 PM on November 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Seriously, I really don't get the whole logic of "well my kid/I had a bad teacher one year, NUKE THE SYSTEM" It's weirdly punitive.
posted by Ferreous at 1:10 PM on November 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


The "current crop" of teachers is largely comprised of people who are at or nearing retirement age, and there are significant, nationwide teacher shortages, especially in math and science. My state unilaterally raised standards without raising pay, and as a result they're having a really hard time finding teachers in STEM areas. You can't rely anymore on smart women knowing they have few other options, which is why a lot of the "current crop" went into the profession, and it's hard to see how you're going to recruit better people without giving them better incentives to teach.

I'm a little skeptical of the "people are leaving the public system in droves" narrative, fwiw. The percentage of students attending private schools has actually declined in the last decade and a half, and while homeschooling is on the rise, it's still less than 4% of all school-aged children.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:23 PM on November 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Let's see.

1. Denial about there being an issue
2. It's impossible to measure
3. Raising standards makes it hard to hire

Guess it'll be the status quo then.
posted by rr at 1:31 PM on November 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


Again, you haven't presented any proof besides anecdotal evidence that teachers are getting worse and the profession is full of incompetent people.
posted by Ferreous at 1:36 PM on November 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


You've got a weird mindset where the academically unsuccessful are the bullies and that the academically successful are victims. You've already stated you have baggage from this, maybe you're not a neutral observer here.

Why should I be neutral? My experience tells me that academically successful (and physically ungifted) students are frequently targets of physical bullying. This is not an unknown phenomenon; I'm not saying the sky is orange, here.

Anyways behavior problems should be dealt with in a separate channel from academic achievement.

Yes, children with behavioral problems should be moved into classes with other children with behavioral problems; and children should generally be in classes with people at their same level of academic achievement.

The percentage of students attending private schools has actually declined in the last decade and a half, and while homeschooling is on the rise, it's still less than 4% of all school-aged children.

Charter school students are not private school students, but they are not "traditional" public school students, either. They're currently around 4 percent, too.
posted by sonic meat machine at 1:38 PM on November 7, 2014


Seriously, I really don't get the whole logic of "well my kid/I had a bad teacher one year, NUKE THE SYSTEM"

Once enough people have bad teachers– and a lot of people have– it becomes pretty clear that the system deserves nuking.

It's not that teachers are a particularly bad lot. But when you have a system where there is no punishment for wrongdoing, laziness, or poor performance, you're going to get wrongdoing, laziness, and poor performance. Like we do with the police, for just the same reason: a union that sees its job as preventing firings, rather than maintaining standards.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:38 PM on November 7, 2014


I don't deny that there's an issue. I just don't think the issue is the quality of teachers. Americans don't do badly across the board on measures of educational achievement. Our best-performing schools are on par with well-performing schools in other parts of the developed world. What makes us look so bad is that our worst-performing schools are truly dismal, in a way that the worst-performing schools in other countries are not. And that's not a function of poor standards for teachers. That's a function of our being a terribly unequal, divided society. Blaming teachers is a lot easier than fixing the real problem, but it's not going to work. And as a side-effect, it will drive good people out of the teaching profession.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:39 PM on November 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


Again, you haven't presented any proof besides anecdotal evidence that teachers are getting worse and the profession is full of incompetent people.

Getting worse? Hard to say. I'd argue that the test scores issue does address the latter, but of course, we'll play the shiny rock game on what would qualify as evidence.
posted by rr at 1:40 PM on November 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


Your experience =/= everyone's experience.

You don't have to be smart to be a target of bullying, people who are successful in academics are equally capable of being cruel, and not all people who are academically successful are "physically ungifted." You're painting a world of cartoonish brutes who have been held back multiple times beating every bespectacled asthmatic nerd with impunity.
posted by Ferreous at 1:50 PM on November 7, 2014 [5 favorites]


In any case, how do we go about raising standards to ensure that teaching attracts excellent candidates who are willing to remain teachers for more than 2 or 3 years?

Make teachers take recertifications in their subjects. Give them continuing education in the summers. Track student performance over time and remove teachers who negatively correlate with student success. Give anonymous parent evaluations of teachers.

Conversely, back teachers up when they have discipline problems. Remove problem students from the classroom. Give all teachers the opportunity to teach good students, though (don't just dump the bad students on one teacher, spread good classes around). Pay them more. Allow continuing education to include substantive studies in areas that they are interested in, not just inane Education Theory courses. Hire and allot teaching assistants to assist with classroom discipline, allow the teacher to take rest room breaks, and generally have adult contact.
posted by sonic meat machine at 1:51 PM on November 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


Getting worse? Hard to say. I'd argue that the test scores issue does address the latter, but of course, we'll play the shiny rock game on what would qualify as evidence.


Considering the FPP is quite literally about how lacking the funds to acquire the textbooks needed for the standardized tests impacts the ability of students to perform well on said tests...
posted by Ferreous at 2:04 PM on November 7, 2014 [3 favorites]


You don't have to be smart to be a target of bullying...

Certainly not. You only have to be forced to be around bullies.

...people who are successful in academics are equally capable of being cruel...

Yes, but it's usually a more social form of cruelty; snide jokes and comments. Unless this escalates to a major, coordinated attack (which of course it should not be allowed to), it is not as harmful as, for example, being pushed into a wall head-first by a guy who's 5'10" in fifth grade with the IQ of a rat.

...and not all people who are academically successful are "physically ungifted."

Of course not, and people who are both intelligent and athletic are not physically bullied.

You're painting a world of cartoonish brutes who have been held back multiple times beating every bespectacled asthmatic nerd with impunity.

This is a stereotype for a reason. Intelligence is not viewed positively in our children's society. Instead of being admired, as physical achievements are, winning the science fair or a poetry award makes you a target. Our schools do nothing to deal with this sort of problem, and in fact exacerbate it because they also don't reward academic achievement or deal with the consequences of the social stigma against it.

I had to break a kid's nose before my bullying stopped; the entire time, I was always told that I should be "nicer" to my bullies, that "they are just jealous," I should "try being friends with them," and other such bullshit. This is all ridiculous. I don't want my kids, or any kids, to go through the same things I experienced.
posted by sonic meat machine at 2:08 PM on November 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


misbehaving, disruptive or violent (sometimes all three) child in the classroom for handwavey reasons

"Handwavey reasons" being federal law that entitles students with disabilities to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.

Yes, children with behavioral problems should be moved into classes with other children with behavioral problems

Yes, let's put all the "bad ones" together and make sure they don't contaminate the environment of the Good Kids. That should help. At least until they get out of school and you have a population of adults with more severe behavioral problems than they came in with.
posted by Daily Alice at 2:09 PM on November 7, 2014 [5 favorites]


"Handwavey reasons" being federal law that entitles students with disabilities to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.

Being a misbehaving, disruptive, or violent child is not a disability.

Yes, let's put all the "bad ones" together and make sure they don't contaminate the environment of the Good Kids. That should help. At least until they get out of school and you have a population of adults with more severe behavioral problems than they came in with.

If you do not remove them, and protect "Good Kids" from them, people with the means to do so will leave the system. Then you will get a parallel education system, public disinterest, and disinvestment, because people with means are also people with political power. This harms poor students disproportionately, because when the middle class takes their ball and goes home, they lose even the possibility of a good education. The academically gifted and hard-working poor students are stuck.

You end up with St. Francis Xavier and Bache-Martin, five blocks apart.
posted by sonic meat machine at 2:19 PM on November 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


Yes, but it's usually a more social form of cruelty; snide jokes and comments. Unless this escalates to a major, coordinated attack (which of course it should not be allowed to), it is not as harmful as, for example, being pushed into a wall head-first by a guy who's 5'10" in fifth grade with the IQ of a rat.
I think that would probably not be the perspective of most women who were outcasts in junior high school. I promise you that non-physical bullying can do a whole hell of a lot of damage. And most of the kids who made my life hell were perfectly good students.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:20 PM on November 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


What makes us look so bad is that our worst-performing schools are truly dismal, in a way that the worst-performing schools in other countries are not. And that's not a function of poor standards for teachers. That's a function of our being a terribly unequal, divided society

Kinda both. Poor teachers can't be fired, so administrators shuffle them to schools where the parents don't have the clout to demand they be removed.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 2:21 PM on November 7, 2014


Considering the FPP is quite literally about how lacking the funds to acquire the textbooks needed for the standardized tests impacts the ability of students to perform well on said tests...

rr was referring to the fact that Education majors do poorly on GRE and LSAT tests.
posted by sonic meat machine at 2:25 PM on November 7, 2014


Neither of those are a measurement of pedagogy.
posted by Ferreous at 2:27 PM on November 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


"Good kids" don't need to be "protected" from kids who don't perform as well academically. Especially in elementary school, which is as much about learning to socialize and interact as it is about education.
posted by Ferreous at 2:30 PM on November 7, 2014


I think that would probably not be the perspective of most women who were outcasts in junior high school. I promise you that non-physical bullying can do a whole hell of a lot of damage. And most of the kids who made my life hell were perfectly good students.

No doubt. But it's a lot harder to prevent non-physical bullying (although splitting abusive social circles among different classes and classroom groups routinely would help), and physical bullying does a lot of damage immediately and not necessarily with any warning. The problem with physical bullying is that pile-on behavior can mean that a child becomes physically unsafe in his environment at all times, because he is seen socially as a legitimate victim. In fact, this perception can spread to teachers, who frequently blame the bullied child for their victimization.

"Good kids" don't need to be "protected" from kids who don't perform as well academically. Especially in elementary school, which is as much about learning to socialize and interact as it is about education.

No, not homogeneously. They need to be protected from bullies. However, they also need to learn, which is the point of school, and if you're within a SD of the average intelligence of your classroom you'll have a much better time than if you're two SDs out.
posted by sonic meat machine at 2:33 PM on November 7, 2014


Being a misbehaving, disruptive, or violent child is not a disability.

These behaviors are often manifestations of a disability, such as autism spectrum disorder, emotional/mental illness, or intellectual disability (aka "the IQ of a rat" in your lexicon.) These people can't just be swept under the rug. They need to be educated too.
posted by Daily Alice at 2:37 PM on November 7, 2014 [5 favorites]


Or experiencing a fucked up home life that's being expressed in school.
posted by Ferreous at 2:40 PM on November 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


sonic meat machine: "If you don't do it, you end up with everyone in classes where half the class have behavioral problems or otherwise don't care, or, worse, you open up the academically successful to bullying from people who are less so. The bullies, as a bonus, are often older and physically larger because they aren't being promoted. People who show improvement and constructive behavior can be re-tracked; but why is it preferable to make it horrible for the "good kids" in order to avoid hurting other peoples' feelings?"

You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

One of the most dangerous things to education is actually people who, having gone to school, assume they are experts in how to fix it, but are completely and totally ignorant of pedagogy, child development, institutional psychology, due process, school management, or anything else relevant to the discussion except that 20 years ago when THEY were 8, in one specific school, math was badly taught and they were bullied.

I have just rolled off my five years of service on my local school board, during which I disciplined a great many students for bullying, and I chaired the committee that rewrote our bullying policy to be the most up-to-date, evidence-based, victim-friendly policy in the state. So this isn't a topic I'm ignorant about.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:40 PM on November 7, 2014 [10 favorites]


These behaviors are often manifestations of a disability, such as autism spectrum disorder, emotional/mental illness, or intellectual disability (aka "the IQ of a rat" in your lexicon.) These people can't just be swept under the rug. They need to be educated too.

They may be manifestations of a disability, but they are not themselves disabilities. The behavior should be addressed. Remove them from the classroom. Put them somewhere that they cannot harm others or prevent them from being educated. Chances are, if you put them with other people who are similar in ability, they will also have better outcomes, because they won't be baffled by the course materials.

I have just rolled off my five years of service on my local school board, during which I disciplined a great many students for bullying, and I chaired the committee that rewrote our bullying policy to be the most up-to-date, evidence-based, victim-friendly policy in the state. So this isn't a topic I'm ignorant about.

I didn't say you were ignorant. In fact, as far as I can see, this is the first time you have weighed in after I commented in this thread, and your first statement to me was to say "You have literally no idea what you're talking about," assert that I have no grounds for knowing anything, and then assert that you do have grounds for your understanding.
posted by sonic meat machine at 2:44 PM on November 7, 2014


sonic, you really need to stop conflating behavioral problems and disabilities (seriously, wtf!) with stupidity. What you are suggesting is a form of institutionalized bullying of students with developmental differences, making sure to stigmatize them and label them and declare them incapable of learning or, at the very least, "slow" compared to the "good" kids.

I get it that you had a really shitty school experience and that sucks and I'm sorry. But your experience is not universal, the school system is not the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago, and we do actually have good evidence-based methods for dealing with behavioral problems in the classroom, none of which are within hollering distance of the things you're suggesting. I suppose you're probably not very aware of the history of educational discipline in the US, but warehousing the poor, racial minorities, and the disabled is a huge part of how we got into this set of educational problems in the first place. A return to warehousing undesirables is not going to fix any of them.

I also have a real and serious problem with anyone who believes any child is worthless, bad, irredeemable, or ineducable. They are children. They are learning. They're not finished products, they're not widgets. They're children.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:06 PM on November 7, 2014 [12 favorites]


sonic, you really need to stop conflating behavioral problems and disabilities (seriously, wtf!) with stupidity.

I'm not. Well-behaved, earnest, but academically "less gifted" students should be in classes also separate from badly behaved students. This will help them learn because the curriculum can be tailored to them. It will also help the "more gifted" students learn because their curriculum can be tailored, too.

I get it that you had a really shitty school experience and that sucks and I'm sorry. But your experience is not universal, the school system is not the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago, and we do actually have good evidence-based methods for dealing with behavioral problems in the classroom, none of which are within hollering distance of the things you're suggesting.

I did, but in large part it resulted from inclusion. When I was pushed into a concrete wall with no provocation or warning, I could have easily died or been brain-damaged. (In fact, I likely suffered a concussion, but received no medical attention.) What was the benefit of that person being in my classroom? If he had killed me or injured me seriously, he would have cost society millions in terms of lost wages and hundreds of thousands in taxes over my lifetime, and I'm sure it was justified by someone somewhere in order to avoid his being "stigmatized." His own life has not been a net positive as a result of our sharing a classroom (he was arrested for an armed robbery "gone wrong" in high school, and has been in and out of prison since), so why did he get the opportunity to harm me with little consequence? Why should I be complacent about my children being subjected to the same risk?

... warehousing the poor, racial minorities, and the disabled is a huge part of how we got into this set of educational problems in the first place. A return to warehousing undesirables is not going to fix any of them.

That's why there must be two axes: behavioral and academic grouping. Many poor people and minorities can excel academically if given the opportunity, but by pursuing policies where behavioral problems are tolerated, you ensure that (as I have said above), the people with the means to do so will leave the system entirely. You end up with a serious problem wherein academically gifted poor and minority students have no way to escape the pathological policies, while the people who can do so, do.

I also have a real and serious problem with anyone who believes any child is worthless, bad, irredeemable, or ineducable. They are children. They are learning. They're not finished products, they're not widgets. They're children.

Putting someone in academic group II instead of I for a semester is not saying that someone is worthless, bad, irredeemable, or ineducable. Climbing from IV, to III, to II might even be motivating for students and give them a real sense of accomplishment as their hard work pays off. More to the point, I think that someone of group III is likely to learn more than they will in a mixed class, because the curriculum can be appropriate to the level of the class.

If someone behaves badly and is moved into classes for people who behave badly, if they are redeemable, it is going to be a wake-up call, and they will do whatever they can to get back into the "normal" classes. If their behavior is tolerated, "punished" with "stern talkings-to," and otherwise coddled, they will just keep on as they are.
posted by sonic meat machine at 3:25 PM on November 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


"If their behavior is tolerated, "punished" with "stern talkings-to," and otherwise coddled, they will just keep on as they are."

Please provide evidence that this is normative in urban American schools.

I mean, I, personally, expelled about one student every day school was in session in an impoverished urban school district, and disciplined scores more, and ordered many students into treatment programs, special programs, special schools, special classrooms, imposed restrictions on their behavior, cooperated with police investigations, etc. etc. etc.

I feel like you don't know a whole lot about how schools work these days; how individualized curriculum has gotten, how serious schools are about behavior, how academic achievements are given greater emphasis and celebration than in the past.

You also seem not to be aware that much of the most serious bullying comes from extremely bright students who are socially extremely deft, not from dumb kids or kids with behavioral issues. Bullying is quite often an exercise of social power and social skill; the kids who are the best at those things are often very intelligent.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:43 PM on November 7, 2014 [3 favorites]


Well, this got derailed.
posted by dejah420 at 4:50 PM on November 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


You also seem not to be aware that much of the most serious bullying comes from extremely bright students who are socially extremely deft, not from dumb kids or kids with behavioral issues. Bullying is quite often an exercise of social power and social skill; the kids who are the best at those things are often very intelligent.

That's a really interesting thesis. Cite?
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 4:52 PM on November 7, 2014


ThatFuzzyBastard: "That's a really interesting thesis. Cite?"

Emily Bazelon has written really extensively on the characteristics of bullies, especially in "Sticks and Stones." There are different types of bullies and bullying, and really it's more fruitful to look at the behavior and not the student, since the majority of students at one time or another engage in at least mild bullying behavior, and virtually all students are victims of bullies at some point. But for serious, "serial" bulliers, it's typically a way to increase and consolidate social status. They are most frequently perceived as popular and often described as "charming," one reason adults may disbelieve reports that such a charming child is bullying others. They frequently (but not always) have themselves been victims of bullying from an older child or by their parents; they see bullying as an effective and relatively normal method of exerting social control and engaging with others. Bullies report higher than average self-esteem, and show higher than average self-esteem when it's measured in psychological tests. They're socially intelligent, but not typically very empathetic.

The government recognizes two primary types of bullies in school settings: The socially adept, popular student who likes to be in charge and engages in the behaviors above; and the more traditional isolated, depressed, acting-out sort of bully. From experience working with bullying in schools, I can tell you that the former kind is much more difficult to identify and deal with. The latter type are often lashing out because of frustration or problems, which can be dealt with, and they're more likely to do it in ways they can get caught; the former type have discovered a highly effective strategy for managing their peers and being popular and, almost definitionally, hiding all of this from the adults in their lives.

Sorry, I get a little excited when I talk about this. My committee worked extensively with parents, students, teachers and administrators, social workers, police, religious leaders, pediatricians, lawyers, and several local organizations with anti-bullying experience (child abuse prevention group; a home for violent children; 4H; etc.) as well as availing ourselves of state and national resources and research in crafting our new policy and procedures. I learned a lot in the process, and it was pretty exciting to be on a committee that actually accomplished something and was functional and got stuff done. (One of the things I'm proudest of was writing the policy in language clear to 8-year-olds while including all the necessary legal STUFF, because we felt it was really important that kids be able to understand the policy very clearly.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:51 PM on November 7, 2014 [6 favorites]


I hope you're right, Eyebrows McGee. I hope that the newer theories are in force and working. My fear is that they (like many institutional policies) are too slow and unresponsive to protect kids, who may go through weeks or months of torment waiting on an enlightened solution.
posted by sonic meat machine at 6:42 AM on November 8, 2014 [1 favorite]


Lawsuit: School Funding in PA is Unconstitutional
Now school funding advocates are looking for a rematch. A potentially momentous lawsuit was filed in Commonwealth Court this morning, claiming that the state has "adopted an irrational and inequitable school financing arrangement that drastically underfunds school districts across the Commonwealth and discriminates against children on the basis of the taxable property and household incomes in their districts."
posted by tonycpsu at 7:26 AM on November 10, 2014




« Older The Hovering Angel Takes Wing   |   With Lars Von Trier as "Pie" Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments