(http://jaypgreene.com/2011/01/, January 31, 2011, The Way of the Future: ESA over KKK)

This blog was about the privatization of schools, vouchers, and a standard curriculum. The first part of the blog discusses the KKK's attempt to get rid of private schools in Oregon and standardize children in the 1920s. Jay P. Greene uses this example in order to suggest customized education for all children, rather than having a standard curriculum. Jay P. Greene feels that we should reject the notion of a "one size fits all" and the type of education system used today that produces children like a 19th century factory-like model. In order to do this, he believes that we should create educational savings accounts controlled by parents.

He goes on to talk about how the KKK isn't the only one vying to take control of the education system; both left and right groups are attempting to control schools for their own purposes. He then proposes that Milton Friedman's plan of separating school finance from the operation of schools as a solution to the problem of groups trying to create a biased education system. Advocates of Friedman's idea and greater parental choice have created a voucher program. Greene goes on to explain vouchers as basically a government-funded coupon that can be redeemed by parents at either a private or public school. He explains that studies have found that there are benefits to voucher programs, such as being a catalyst for the improvement of public schools.

Greene explains that fears of parental choice are unfounded, claiming that voucher programs would actually make public schools stronger. Jay proposes that public may become more like universities, offering course-by-course classes. Jay believes that parents should be in charge of the education system and that as many options as possible should be provided to the children of America.

This blog relates to class through many of the topics covered. As made clear by my summary of the blog, Greene discusses private schools, voucher programs, and a standard curriculum. I agree with Greene that a "one-size-fits-all" strategy is not effective when it comes to a curriculum, however I'm not quite convinced that a voucher program is the route that needs to be taken in order to fix this issue. While Greene states that voucher programs are a catalyst for the improvements of public schools, I disagree because I feel like more government money would simply go to the charter schools, leaving the public schools in worse shape. He says that his opinion is backed up by empirical data, I would enjoy seeing the data myself because many times graphs, charts, and etc. can be misleading. I'm also not quite sure that students attending multiple different schools, like described in his blog, would necessarily be a beneficial thing either. It seems to me, that unless these schools would be within a few miles from each other, no student could make it on time for their classes. Also, what about rural students who don't have another town for 20 miles? What exactly would they do? Or even athletics; what school would the student compete for? If you suggest combining schools for teams, then you force all of the students of the area to attend the same schools and then force them to have a "one-size-fits-all" education. I believe that the author comes from a progressive view because of his dislike of a core curriculum and his idea that parents should play a key democratic role in the curriculum decisions.

(http://blog.coreknowledge.org/, April 28, 2011, Road Trip With Alfie Kohn)

This article discussed the ideas of Alfie Kohn about why urban schools are not doing a good job. According to Kohn, the reasoning is the rote memorization instead of the exploration of ideas and worksheets that replace real books. Pondiscio agrees with Kohn that many urban schools are lousy, but he isn't sure he agrees with Kohn on the reasoning. While Kohn tends to blame the curriculum and essentialism, Pondiscio sees it more as teachers who lack the skills necessary to manage a classroom effectively. Pondiscio thinks that these teachers, rather than seeing worksheets as a learning tool, use them to buy themselves some time because of their inability to run small groups efficiently and use the time to "steal a few moments with their mandated "book clubs" and "literature circles." Pondiscio doesn't believe that Kohn has ever actually been to these urban schools, and therefore doesn't really grasp what is happening there. At the end of the blog, Pondiscio mockingly asks Kohn to take him to these classrooms so that he can "see what he sees."

This blog relates to class because of our discussion earlier in the year about the philosophies of education because Pondiscio, an essentialist, uses the blog to call Kohn out about his progressive ideas. Pondiscio is defending the essentialist philosophy in the blog by stating that he doesn't believe that there essentialist schools are literally run by rote memorization and militaristic control, as described by Kohn. I agree with their diagnosis of the urban schools as having a very poor curriculum that has little to no subjects outside of those tested for on standardized tests. I agree with Kohn that sometimes worksheets do in fact replace books, and that since these schools are so focused on standardized tests that they focus more on memorizing facts than thinking about ideas. I agree with Pondiscio that these problems are greatly exaggerated by Kohn and that essentialist schools are not just rote memorization and militaristic control.

It is clear that Kohn is a Progressive and that Pondiscio is an essentialist. Pondiscio mocks "authentic learning" in the blog and thinks that more damage is being done in urban schools by a "refusal to acknowledge the cognitive benefits of a knowledge-rich core curriculum." Kohn is a well-known progressive advocate. In the blog, he shows this by endorsing exploration for ideas and expressing his disappointment for teachers failing to promote that.

(http://d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/, October 20, 2011, Economics for Edu-Pundits II)

This blog discussed the blogger's opinion about the privatization of education and how our education system can be related to the economy. The blogger basically says that the government runs the education system in much the same way as a CEO runs a business. In his opinion, everyone from the top on down in education is acting in their own self-interest and the ones that are getting "screwed" in the process are the students and the taxpayers. It is the blogger's belief that in our current system, everyone from teachers on up are using the system to their advantage and not looking to the student's needs. Teachers, in his opinion, have used the unions to take what would be excess profits (which I'm very confused as to what he means by this) into compensation and job security. Third party contractors, he says, benefit through the political process and that is why we see over priced textbooks and "Taj Mahal like buildings." The management, according to him, are highly compensated and even though in the blogger's opinion should be held most responsible for the results in the school, are actually not held accountable at all. Those that are in failing schools simply move on to burden the next school. And finally, the politicians seek a self-interest in political favors from school officials and employees. The blogger seems to be arguing for the privatization of education, believing that with free competition, the businessmen running education would be forced to produce better results in an attempt to increase profits. The blogger believes that just because there are profits and risks of losses wouldn't mean that the education system would be worse than it is now.

This article relates to class because of our discussion about the privatization of education into charter schools. I both agree and disagree with the author. While I agree that the government is running education much like a corporation, and that the people involved are looking after their own self-interest, I don't believe that handing the education system over to Wall Street is the best idea. While it may be true that in order to be competitive and increase profits, these businessmen would be forced to produce results, they may also try to push their own agenda in the schools. I personally would not want my kid to think the way that a CEO wants them to. I want my kid to be able to think and act for themself. I also disagree with the author in that I believe that we can reform the current education system and make it better. In a previous posting, the author pushes the belief that the current system cannot be reformed to create better results. The author seems to be a Republican because of his belief in privatization of education. It is hard to tell what educational style he favors in the classroom, but I get the feeling he comes from a student-centered approach because of his lack of faith in the teachers, who, under essentialism, are the possessors of all knowledge.

(www.quickanded.com, April 18 2011, From Standardized Testing to the End Times in a Few Short Steps)

This article discussed the recent debate on privatization of schools. The articles describes that the debate between Republicans and Democrats is about the balance of the private and public sectors. Corvin suggests that each side knows that both private and public are needed, its just a matter of how much. He goes on to talk about how those on the far left have recently been out in force, trying to prove that almost all reformers have ill motives and that their goal is to corrupt American education. The far left, according to Corvin, apparently believes that anyone who has ever been involved in business is in no place to make reforms to education because they will attempt to taint it. Corvin talks about how the reason that hedge fund managers donate to charter schools is because charter schools receive less public funding and simply have to ask for private donations to operate.

The next part of the article talks about the globalization of jobs and how Obama has been calling for improvements in education in order for our children to be able to compete. Corvin suggests that without reforms to our current education system, which he says leaves the poor disadvantaged and limited, spreading of prosperity cannot be achieved. The last part of the article discusses Michael Winerip's article, which I have discussed in an earlier blog. Corvin disagrees with Winerip, who believes that many who are making reforms to public education attended private schools. Corvin suggests that Winerip only wants people who think like he and others that attended public school to have any say in the reforms. He also says that as of now, those with a public school education are the only ones with any standing in the discussions anyway.

This article relates directly  to class because of our discussion on the privatization of schools and the globalization of the economy and how it is affecting education. This is clear since the whole article was about these two topics. I have mixed feelings about the article. While I disagree with Corvin that hedge fund managers are simply supplying the money that the government won't, all in the goodness of their hearts, I agree with him that we do need to make reforms to our education in order to compete globally. We simply cannot do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. I also disagree with Corvin that those that attended private schools should also be very involved in the reforms needed in public schools because I agree with Winerip that they lack the experience with public schools and may not know what is actually needed compared with those that actually attended the schools.

 I believe that Corvin is a Republican because he seems to want to go to the privatization of schools. I believe this because he defends the hedge fund managers as providing money the government won't to charter schools and that the only reason that they do it is because the charter schools come to them asking for donations. I also believe that Corvin is a progressive because he wants to reform schools in order to help prepare the student for the global economy. I think that this philosophy is also supported when he talks about students needing critical thinking abilities, not just the ability to spit out facts, which is what our current system of essentialism provides.

(schoolsmatter.blogspot.com, April 25, 2011, The New Voucher Reality, Brought to You by Those Who View Public Institutions as the New Red Menace)

This article discussed Betsy DeVos and her plan to change American education. According to the article, Betsy DeVos, an advocate of the use of vouchers, has helped push for votes for a voucher bill in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin, Utah, Iowa, and New Jersey. Her plan is to create a system of education where the government would pay for students to attend private schools that would teach creationism and contradict the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state in schools. Obviously, since these schools are private they are not unconstitutional and are not in violation of this amendment. The article also mentioned the most alarming fact, which is that this is receiving nearly no attention from the media. In the author's view, voucher bills are part of a larger attack on the public sector and unions. According to the article, DeVos's plan has almost come to "fruitation" because of the flooding of voucher bills into state legislatures across the country.

This article relates directly to our class because of our discussion on privatization of schools and whether or not vouchers are a good idea. I agree with the author that vouchers are a bad idea. While the students who get the vouchers may receive a better education, if the government is funding the vouchers less money goes to the students who did not receive the voucher. These students will be disadvantaged. Also, those students who do receive the voucher will have right-winged curriculum pushed upon them whether or not they are willing. It is impossible to tell what view that the author comes from because they do not discuss their personal beliefs, besides that they are against the voucher bills. However, based on the fact that he is against the attacks on the unions in Wisconsin, he is probably a Democrat.

(schoolsmatter.blogspot.com, April 24, 2011, Parents and Other Citizens' Guide to the Broadies (rhymes with Toadies))

This article talked about the problem of how The Broad Foundation uses its money and influence to change education into "a top-down, corporate-style business model on our public schools." The blog talked about how three major foundations; The Gates Foundation, The Walton Family Foundation, and the Broad Foundation have been influencing what is taught in schools. Although the Broad Foundation is the least wealthy of the three, it has still spent 400 million on transforming schools into training grounds for the corporations.
Basically, the Broad Foundation trains superintendents with little to no education background in their philosophy of how schools should teach, then offers to pay part of their salary if they receive the job. This appeals to poor districts because in their view they are getting trained staff for free or reduced cost. In this way, individuals that follow their philosophy of education are placed into central positions that allow them to extend their influence. They also use their money to fund studies in order to see the effects of teacher pay for performance and rewarding students for good test scores. However, according to the post, they have had no positive results. The blog also went into other ways that the Broad Foundation has been attempting to spread its philosophy, such as through the media and lobby groups aiming to increase the number of charter schools. At the conclusion of the article, the author talked about how one individual, Eli Broad, has an enormous amount of influence in our schools and that we the public need to be more aware of it.
This blog relates to class because of our discussion about "Globalization From Above." Eli Broad is attempting to make our schools follow a "From Above" philosophy in order to help his own agenda. By giving him control of our education system through individuals trained in his philosophy we have created an undemocratic system. I agree with the author that we need to be wary of Eli and his attempts to change our schools. I believe that we need people in charge of curriculum who are actually involved in the community and know what the children of the area need to be learning in order to be successful in the community. This will not happen if we let Eli Broad's "croanies" take over schools across America. I believe that the author comes from a student-centered approach. He clearly supports a "From Below" approach to globalization, rather than a corporate-designed curriculum. He advocates a democratic view of education and curriculum as well as a community-designed curriculum.

(www.eduwonk.com, April 21, 2011, School Of Thought: Two Low-Key Studies, Big Implications)

This article talked about a couple of studies that took place. The first study looked into the effectiveness of teachers. The researchers would evaluate teachers and follow them after the evaluation year to see how their performance changed. They found that not only did teacher performance increase during the evaluation year, but it also increased during the next years after the evaluation. This seems to show that teachers are actually using their feedback to improve performance. This study is important because teachers who teach subjects that are not typically emphasized on standardized tests have a way to be evaluated. Also, it shows a more credible, reliable way of evaluation, rather than just using students' test scores.

The second study looked into how a program in Washington D.C. of paying teachers more for getting their National Board Certification as well as teaching in poor performing schools. The study found shortcomings in this program. Mainly, the pay incentive was not causing good teachers to change to low-income schools. Rather, the teachers already there were just earning the certification. So, the conclusion was that the program was not doing what it was intended to do.

The conclusion of the article discussed how there was a better way to spend 10,000 dollars ( which is the total amount given to a teacher for getting certification from the National Board and teaching in a low-income school) as well as how we still know relatively little about how to build good school systems filled with good teachers.

This article relates to class because of our discussion of how teachers are evaluated (through student test scores.) I think that the way the study evaluated the teachers is a much better way then the students' scores. Like we talked about in class, a students' test scores may reflect a past teacher's effectiveness, not necessarily the current one. I think that while the program around Washington D.C. was a good idea, it simply did not work out the way intended. I think that the author represents a progressive, student-centered approach because of his backing of the way the teachers were evaluated during the study. Rotherham seemed to believe that the way teachers taught needed to be changed. He is also affiliated with Center on Reinventing Public Education, which did the study.