Excerpt via Essay:
Ravich discusses the privatization of open public schooling. Exactly what does she indicate by privatization? And exactly what does Ravich declare is the main difficulty of modern-day education market? Do you acknowledge?
In one sense, Ravich appears to pull again the layers of politicization of education by fighting that it is certainly not the schools which can be failing but rather our society, with its finish disregard intended for poverty and social equal rights especially in cities. It is her contention that by faltering to address problems, society models the standard to get schools: essentially, she states that no one can be well-informed properly if they are living in low income. But what will she imply by this? For instance , schools in Zimbabwe almost 50 years ago were privately run by simply landowning families, who offered education intended for the indigent children. These schools had been successful since the families who ran the schools cared about the services they were providing and had been free to provide an education in the manner that they saw fit to best give. Does Ravich suggest that by simply privatizing education the effect is definitely harmful since it takes away by accountability? Or that in the united states privatization is so often connected to profits instead of quality it is dangerous to trust that by just shelling out large numbers and billions of taxpayer us dollars that the issue of education can be fixed so long as the “right” minds and organization partners join up? Is this not just a purely bureaucratic solution to a problem that has already been bureaucratized to death?
In chapter two, Ravich identifies the failures of the Bush Administration’s No Child Put aside policy. The failure was due to offers being directed at schools that “passed” their children, which led to schools fudging test ratings and faking results and also the rise of “charter schools” and the “entrepreneurial opportunities” of privatization – “after-school tutoring companies, etc . (Ravich, s. 12). Since more federal government funds had been poured in to the education sector, more and more checks were being given away, and a great avalanche of information was added down on everyone, even as “cheating scandals” pass on like wildfire (p. 13). No Child Left Behind was replaced by the Obama Administration’s Race to Top – another software designed to pump money to a sector that, like the armed service industrial complicated, was presently there solely in the interest of profit: just like manufacturers of weapons make money off of war, so too does the “charter school” empire make money off of ignorance. With this in mind, what do you think is a good way to deal with the issue of education in America? Precisely what is Ravich’s recommendation?
In phase 3, Ravich criticizes individuals like Bobby Jindal who have say that money should the actual child (p. 21). Is this a fair critique – that just because somebody profits coming from education it necessarily means that that education will be bad? What about the aside that Ravich makes when the lady dismisses “creationism as science”? This is certainly a medieval look at, but it remains to be one that many of faith still adhere to. Does this dismissal challenge the believability of Ravich’s argument or perhaps make her appear to be as well liberal or perhaps progressive for conservative viewers who may well otherwise agree with her that there is a problem which has a great many with the education profiteers in America?
If perhaps much of modern day America is divided among two extreme conditions, a liberal extreme and a fundamentalist extreme, where might both extremes satisfy, and is that even possible that the two satisfy? Is this ideal of a “free society” that is essentially authoritarian in characteristics?
Middle Part
On page 113, Ravich recounts the story in the public shaming of the educator who educated English being a foreign language students and who was considered a fantastic teacher by the principal of the school, yet who received low test out grades since her students were not experienced in English (because they did not know it), and so as a result she was hounded by reporters if the New York Content put her picture inside the paper and described her as the “worst” teacher in the town.
How is an example of one of the most significant fundamental problems in American world? Is it not really eerily just like something that could have come direct out of Orwell’s 1984 – the eye of Big Brother demolishing the reputation of anyone that actually dares to help individuals in a exclusive way devoid of regard towards the “parameters” determined from above? How does this relate with the unique trouble that is present between bureaucratic oversight and education in the us being one particular and the same?
In chapter 15, Ravich indicates that conservatives in Washington collude with the events and profiteers as well as with Michelle Rhee, “the confront of company reform” (p. 145). But you may be wondering what can be said of such so-called old fashioned if they are not acting fiscally responsible and therefore are in fact significantly taking pièce in the form of electoral camapaign contributions so they will support the pursuits of Big Federal government in the education sector and the privatization throughout the profiteers of education plan? Are they accurate or false conservatives? Conservatives in America accustomed to stand for monetary responsibility and small authorities, but present conservatives resemble more and more the type of Big Government spokespeople defined so vividly by Orwell in Creature Farm and 1984. Can it not apparently you which the major problem in American contemporary society is that it may be increasingly Orwellian, that is, totalitarian and respected? There is no actual choice, not any real education (except party line indoctrination), and no true ability to take action outside the mainstream (for a profit if necessary) because possibly that is challenged by Ravich. Do you not really think that there may be sometimes the chance that nonmainstream or alternative educational providers whom do not work with public administrators might be of value to a contemporary society mired in education waste land?
Why did Rhee believe in test schools with so much beliefs? Ravich reveals earlier in the book that evaluation scores are not a good indicator of real learning, as they are so often influenced by kickbacks and offers and teachers are pushed to spend a lot more time upon getting students to “pass the test” than in fact learn anything at all of value or perhaps comprehend principles that they will after be able to apply in the real world. Thus, might possibly make clear Rhee’s faithfulness to the measure of test scores? Do you think she was operating out of ignorance or that the girl was alternatively merely a instrument of the profiteers looking to install a puppet in public policy whom could control the Division of Education towards their own agenda?
Something else to consider alongside this question is a notion that state-run education and corporate making money seem to go hand-in-hand, so why is it that Ravich thinks that the answer to the problem of profiteering, that this state clearly colludes in, can be resolved by giving good luck to the point out? Is this also her discussion?
Third Component
At the beginning of phase 26, Ravich proposes her fifth way to the problem of education in the usa, which is to “ban for-profit events and hire chains and ensure that rental schools collaborate with community schools to support better education for all children” – but does this not smack of monopolization of education coverage, the exact same point that Ravich is criticizing as a problem: just because a school is public does not mean that this too is not operating for a profit (everyone involved gets paid – just coming from tax paying customer dollars rather than from scholar tuition). To put it briefly, why does where money originates from make this sort of a difference? Would it be not rather that who is in charge, placing the curriculum, hiring the teachers, and giving the lessons the major significant factor in education policy, and has it certainly not been shown that state-run education is unklar to the real needs of students in American contemporary society? Why would Ravich supporter further monopolization of education by the Condition?
Ravich indicates that charters are poor because they are for-profit schools and she shows that by taking the net income out of education, it is going to solve the problem but will not this solution seem myopic? Profiteering is known as a problem, absolutely, but just because a teacher profits from managing a school would not necessarily help to make him or her out to be the problem – not really if he or she is a good teacher. Consequently , what is a good way to counter Ravich’s argument in this case? Do you, actually even consider it should be countered? Perhaps you agree with her? If so , how come?
As part of the total plan of a solution, Ravich stresses on-page 224 that “reformers” generally miss the mark when they discuss poverty, citing that is certainly “just an excuse” and “not destiny” – when Ravich argues that low income is a actuality and must be dealt with just before education can actually begin to come about. Ravich states that poverty is the cultural problem
