I Just Couldn't Sacrifice My Son (To the Washington, DC School System)

Washington Post ^ | 23 October 2007 | David Nicholson

[shrinkermd]

When a high school friend told me several years ago that he and his wife were leaving Washington's Mount Pleasant neighborhood for Montgomery County, I snickered and murmured something about white flight. Progressives who traveled regularly to Cuba and Brazil, they wanted better schools for their children. I saw their decision as one more example of liberal hypocrisy.

I was childless then, but I have a 6-year-old now. And I know better. So to all the friends -- most but not all of them white -- whom I've chastised over the years for abandoning the District once their children reached school age:

I'm sorry. You were right. I was wrong.

After nearly 20 years in the city's Takoma neighborhood, the last six in a century-old house that my wife and I thought we'd grow old in, we have forsaken the city for the suburbs.

Given recent optimistic news about the city's schools, this may seem the equivalent of buying high and selling low. And though I don't know new D.C. schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, what I know of Mayor Adrian Fenty and Deputy Mayor for Education Victor Reinoso (a former neighbor) tells me that real change will come, sooner or later, to D.C. public schools.

The thing is, with a second-grader who has already read the first two Harry Potter books, I can't wait the four or five years it will take to begin to undo decades of neglect and mismanagement of District schools, much less the additional time needed to create programs for the gifted and talented.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Exactly...the point of change and reform as practiced in public schools isn't to make anything better, but to buy 10 years' peace, when another "reform" will be suggested.

Yep, and that "reform" is always, of course, more money.

[RockinRight]

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2003-05-21/news/rich-black-flunking/

This is a district in Ohio but illustrates my point somewhat. It focuses on black students but the jist of it is the same. It’s also something nobody wants to admit...except guys like Bill Cosby who then get rejected by their own.

[Trailerpark Badass]

While your solution sounds good, the "devil is the details" as is said.

There's a name for people who want the government to come up with detailed "solutions" for every perceived difficulty any human may encounter.

And that name ain't "conservative."

[gridlock]

While your solution sounds good, the "devil is the details" as is said.

The beautiful thing about vouchers is the details don't have to be decided by the centralized authority. Because if each aspect of the system has to be planned in advance, it becomes impossible to make progress, as your list of problems so amply demonstrates.

If the elite school is an hour away, there are probably other schools that are closer, that while they are not your first choice, are certainly much better than the marginally performing public schools we have today. As an education consumer, you have to make the best choice between convenience and quality, just like you do when you are choosing anything else in life.

As for additional costs associated with a higher quality education, what is the problem with that? Quality costs more. For people who value a quality education above all else, they will make sacrifices in other aspects of life in order to afford the expenses. Others, who are willing to make do with less, will spend less. Once you accept that people will make rational decisions in the best interests of their children, this becomes a not-unpleasant prospect.

As far as availability is concerned, that is what makes elite schools elite. They will choose the best students they can of the pool that they attract. Schools that are not of quite the same level, but still providing an excellent level of education, will accept students from the pool that remains, and so on down the line. The beauty of this is that each student winds up in a situation that is appropriate for their situation.

As far as teacher pay is concerned, some schools will probably pay more, some will pay less. Teachers will make similar choices of the quality of the teaching environment vs. the rate of pay and convenience, just like everybody else.

And all of these millions and millions of detail are worked out by the people involved, without somebody controlling it all from the top.

[metmom]

Last I heard, public school teachers have a tendency to enroll their kids in private schools at a rate exceeding that of the national average.

Course, I know some public school teachers who homeschool, too.

[PLMerite]

I went thru the P.G. County school system (Northwestern H.S. 1978) and I can attest that they were going downhill then. I still live in the area and I don’t think they’ve gotten any better although they might claim it.

[cricket]

At the heart of all collectivism is the greed to control or own that which you do not earn.

Yes; and these 'collectivists' go even further. . .

. . .it is ironic; that the people who otherwise eschew 'God'. . .Faith and religion. . .and all substance in between. . .are those who by turn, practice their idiology as a religion and much like a 'Fundalmentalist'. . .save for they imagine they ARE themselves; the 'god' here; and their obligatory practice is to insure that we all abide by the rules they ordain.

It is the old sarcasm; in this case; of 'who died and made you God'?

The problem of the question answers itself; almost.

[Lucky Dog]

At this point of the thread there have quite few questions posed, answered and some left unanswered. Several have strongly argued for vouchers as a “free market” solution to the issue while some have strongly argued against any “public” (meaning, tax supported) education system. However, it may be worthwhile to review some basic facts and perceptions.

To those who have argued against any “public” (meaning, tax supported) education system, I invite you to consider what, in the business world, is known as “lost opportunity costs.”

The US dominated the world economically from WWII until the late 1970’s. From this fact, we can conclude the “public” education model that existed from the early 1900’s until the 1960’s/1970’s served the function of educating US citizenry more than adequately. Of course, the after effects of WWII on the rest of the world must be considered in that assertion. Nonetheless, given that the rest of the free world, and to some degree, the communist world, copied our “public” education system, to varying extents, as it existed prior to 1970, I think it can still be seen as the “measure of success.”

Prior to the late 1800’s or early 1900’s, this country (and most others) did not have a widespread “public” education system. A strong argument could be made that one was unnecessary given the state of technology and work force requirements for economic productivity. Additionally, those individuals wealthy enough, and so inclined, paid for private education for their children. However, today’s global business environment and military threat situation is not what it was at the beginning of the last century.

If our nation is to remain militarily strong enough to ensure our survival as well as economically prosperous, I submit that our citizenry must be educated enough to, if not expand our technological base, at least, to be able to operate and maintain it. Depending upon individual parents to sacrifice enough to adequately educate their offspring to the requisite level is not a “given” (as the century prior to the most recently past one demonstrated). Therefore, logic based upon past experience seems to demand that some sort of “public” education system exist.

Most of those who advocate a voucher system point the post WWII, GI Bill as a model of a successful “voucher system.” However using this model has few misconnects when applied to a school system for children. The first, and most obvious, misconnect is that the GI Bill applied only to mature adults who were self-motivated and self-selected to continue their education. Contrast this to parents (who may, or may not, be mature adults) making decisions for children who neither necessarily self-motivated (in general) nor self-selected (think truancy laws).

Next consider that the economic impact (commencement of payback to society) of the GI Bill was usually 4 years or less. In other words, money invested in GI Bill tuition was usually returned to the public till (treasury) in the form of income taxes paid on higher incomes in a very short, relative time span. Additionally, due to the self-selection/self-motivation factor very little GI Bill investment was non-productive in terms of economic return from society’s perspective. Furthermore, the net increase in economic activity from more productive citizenry acted as a multiplier factor to the economic payback of the GI Bill.

Now, consider that the “payback” of investment for societal investment in the “public” education system for children is, at best, 12 years, vice 4 for the GI Bill. Additionally, consider that absent the “mature adult/self-motivation/self-selection” criteria for the “public” school system a potentially large percentage of the investment is non-productive in terms of adequate payback (true whether a voucher system or not). A voucher system may address some portion of this problem at an increased systemic cost, but any proof that it would adequately improve the payback of the current system is pure speculation.

A much stronger argument could be made for returning to the model for “public” education that existed prior to the 1960’s/1970’s in this country. However, it is certainly possible to object to this assertion on the basis of a permanently “changed world,” i.e., more urban/less rural communities, computers, internet, iPod’s, cable TV, etc. Nonetheless, there is proof that the model worked where there is no proof for a pre-college voucher system.

[2banana]

You leave out a few things.

Teachers Unions became all powerful in the 1960s and put benefits/pay in front of teaching.

God was kicked out of the schools in the 1960s.

PC crap was introduced as schools started to leave the 3 Rs...

[gogeo]

Egads...you left out a whole bunch...

Most of us who recognize that the current system isn't working (and why) think vouchers may be the next step. Of course, there are a lot of folks smarter than me, and who knows what someone will think up? If education is as important as everyone says it is, it's worth doing right...don't you think?

The Soviet Model didn't work for government or business...it's not clear why some think it will best educate our children. Monopolies don't work; especially, government monopolies don't work. Public schools today are very much like the Soviet era stores...nothing much on the shelves, and what's there is old, unusable, or unwanted. If, as you say, the Soviets copied our system, it doesn't serve to validate it...it raises warning flags.

We recognize that choice is good for people, that they are most likely to act in their own self interest. Why does anyone advocate differently for the decisions people make about their children's education? Why do we "allow" teachers to send their children to private schools? Why is choice good for some, but not others?

Who here would entrust their children's education to a school board elected by the same electorate who kept sending Marion Berry back to office? Anyone? Buehler?

Not the guy in this article, fer sure...and not most parents who have a realistic choice. The problem is, most don't.

So...what conclusions do you draw about the fact that public school teachers are much more likely than the general population to send their children to private schools? I say they have drawn conclusions about the quality of the education they deliver, and they are damning.

I don't understand the idea that public schools are good enough for someone else's children, but not their own...it suggests to me educators aren't fit to judge what is appropriate for my child. It suggests that they are elitist in ways that make the segregationists of the '50s public minded by comparison.

Back to your post...you mentioned US dominance of the world economically led one to conclude the public school system did a "more than adequate" job of educating US children. Were you grading a history test, I think the red pencil (are those still used?) would come out. You would point out that the US economy had two major, major advantages going forward from 1946...it was in one piece, not bombed to rubble...and it was the freest economy in the world.

It isn't possible to conclude that education system was competent or responsible in any way, much less all...in a hurricane, even turkeys can fly...if one grants that being blown around is "flying." It's also quite a leap to conclude that the product the schools deliver is the same product delivered 60 years ago. Demonstrably it's not.

You then mention opportunity cost. Tell me, what is the opportunity cost of the $$$ that to large degree have been pi$$ed away on a dysfunctional system? What is the opportunity cost of the millions of students who graduated (or not) less than educated? What is the opportunity cost incurred in waiting for the next great theory to flop?

Your comment:

The first, and most obvious, misconnect is that the GI Bill applied only to mature adults who were self-motivated and self-selected to continue their education. Contrast this to parents (who may, or may not, be mature adults) making decisions for children who neither necessarily self-motivated (in general) nor self-selected (think truancy laws).

Yet, you propose that no choice is superior to that. No, let me correct that...if any alternative is less than perfect, it isn't acceptable as an alternative to this demonstrably flawed system.

When choice is possible, alternatives exist and are used. We can then compare the results of each method and draw conclusions about their effectiveness...and many other things besides. When it's apparent how important engaged and committed parents are to a child's well being, we'll create a concensus for parenting standards. Those who don't measure up face losing their children...because we won't be BSing anymore about why Johnny can't read.

You mention the GI Bill. One is totally free to select any school they can be admitted to. You might want to address the fact that America's public schools rank far down in terms of quality...but our system of universities and coilleges is regarded to be the best in the world. The difference, of course, is choice. Next:

Now, consider that the “payback” of investment for societal investment in the “public” education system for children is, at best, 12 years, vice 4 for the GI Bill. Additionally, consider that absent the “mature adult/self-motivation/self-selection” criteria for the “public” school system a potentially large percentage of the investment is non-productive in terms of adequate payback (true whether a voucher system or not). A voucher system may address some portion of this problem at an increased systemic cost, but any proof that it would adequately improve the payback of the current system is pure speculation.

Flawed analysis; false alternatives. You set up a logical maze where the $$$ spent under a voucher program do not pass your analysis of adequate return on investment. Why did you not employ the same analysis on public schools? If I apply your criteria to the public schools, I reach the same place I am now...believing we are pumping money into a dysfunctional system.

It's not a question of whether we're going to have a system of public schools...but whether we'll have publicly funded, private schools, freely chosen by parents...or a government monopoly, run for all intents and purposes by special interests, most notably the NEA.

If I tried to design the most flawed system for delivering education, I couldn't come close to the current system.

Next:

A much stronger argument could be made for returning to the model for “public” education that existed prior to the 1960’s/1970’s in this country. However, it is certainly possible to object to this assertion on the basis of a permanently “changed world,” i.e., more urban/less rural communities, computers, internet, iPod’s, cable TV, etc. Nonetheless, there is proof that the model worked where there is no proof for a pre-college voucher system.

We're told that we can't teach reading or math or science or anything else the same way we used to, because "the world has changed." Why, then, would returning to some earlier time and method work? What is the difference?

Society is different; leftists have made it so. Your earlier model worked because society's values worked. The public schools don't work anymore because those values are different. Thank a hippie. Imagine a 1940s teacher in today's classroom, trying to teach using 1940s methods. It's a question of whom he'd be in more trouble with...the principal, the parents, or the union.

Vouchers are a threat because no reasonable and informed person would choose to send their children to a union run, government monopoly school. Theories aside, it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to see what works and what doesn't.

[Lucky Dog]

You leave out a few things. …. Egads...you left out a whole bunch...

. No argument except as a generalization: … However, it is certainly possible to object to this assertion on the basis of a permanently “changed world,” … (from my previous post)

Teachers Unions became all powerful in the 1960s and put benefits/pay in front of teaching.

Some would argue with you about your dates. They would peg the time of the rise in NEA (teacher’s union) power to Jimmy Carter’s creation of a cabinet post for education. However, I don’t think that they would object to the proposition that the unions have disproportionate political power. The question is why…

I submit that this power is primarily due to trial lawyers and their ability to file frivolous lawsuits. A teacher earning $35K or $40K cannot afford to go to court and defend him/her self against charges… even if they win. Consequently, they must join an organization with the financial ability and “will” to provide them liability protection at a cost they can afford.

Add to the individual legal risk, that of school district risks. Senior administrators are hired by school boards (political entities) who are very sensitive to taxpayer complaints about the costs of expensive lawsuits. When school board members are in danger of not getting re-elected, they tend to fire administrators to shift voter attention. Therefore, administrators become paranoid and clamp down dictatorially on teachers in attempts to protect their own employment. The dictatorial policies of administrators drive teachers to seek protection from unions.

Ergo, as long as teachers and school districts face the potential of petty, but expensive lawsuits because “little Johnnie” or “little Susie” gets his or her feelings hurt, the NEA will have a built-in constituency of dues payers (power). Furthermore, the leaders of this organization will continue to push whatever agenda they want knowing that the rank and file can ill-afford to abandon the protection from trial lawyers or dictatorial administrators.

God was kicked out of the schools in the 1960s.

Again, some may quarrel with your dates. However, they would not necessarily quarrel with your assertion. Nonetheless, let us again examine the origin of the phenomena. Recall that the decisions to remove “references to the Christian Deity” initially came from courts, i.e., lawsuits, not from those elected by the people to run school districts (school boards).

PC crap was introduced as schools started to leave the 3 Rs…

PC crap, to use your term, was initially introduced by those who took offense on behalf of others’ hurt feelings. As a result you began to get the push to use “PC” wording like “physically challenged” instead of crippled, lame, handicapped, etc. Sensing the ability to control a debate by controlling its terms, feminists seized upon the concept and began insisting on ridiculous contortions of language such as chair “person” instead of chairman or fore “person” instead of foreman, etc.

While some people genuinely thought using these speech patterns was, perhaps, the “kind” or “correct” thing to do, a great many were cowered into using them. Schools, being populated by a preponderance of female instructors, tended have had a disproportionate number of feminists (note: not necessarily a disproportionate percentage compared to the population). Again, threats of expensive lawsuits for “sexist discrimination” made it easier and cheaper for administrators and school boards to insist on PC crap than pay the costs of refusing to do so, again, even if a legal victory vindicated the refusal.

Theories aside, it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to see what works and what doesn't.

You may be correct about what it takes to see what doesn’t work while it is in action. However, it does take a lot of intelligence come up with something to replace that which is currently working, albeit, not as well as it should, with something that would be guaranteed to be better. Everyone over the age of 15 has probably seen or studied the law on unintended consequences in action. (Think Title IX, or Prohibition for example.)

Additionally, human nature mitigates against change. As Thomas Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence: “… all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

To gegeo: Thanks for your passionate dissertation in support of vouchers. However, I invite you to consider a few things:

I say they have drawn conclusions about the [current] quality of the[current] education they deliver, and they are damning.

Carefully examine Thomas Jefferson’s quote form the Declaration of Independence noted above. I would ask you to then to ponder whether or not the evils are still sufferable to the majority of voters who, in deed, have the power to change it. We have a school system that still sends about 60% to a college of some sort, and produces citizenry capable enough to keep our economy tops in the world. Our system continues to produce Nobel Prize winners (even Al Gore). (Whether, or not, that situation will last is an entirely different proposition.)

We can then compare the results of each method [vouchers versus the current system] and draw conclusions about their effectiveness...and many other things besides.

Unfortunately, once some bridges are crossed, it is impossible or too difficult/expensive go back. Therefore, trying things on the “wholesale” change basis for the purpose of comparing results is an inherently “high risk” proposition.

[Bob Buchholz]

This is pure unadulterated BS.

You newbies are all alike, fly off the handle at the drop of a hat!

[Fishrrman]

At the risk of suffering a barrage of attacks, I am going to pose a few questions to all of you relative to the education system in this country, in general, as was illustrated by the comments in the this thread’s original articl

At the risk of suffering a barrage of attacks myself, I will reply.

1. How do you propose for teachers to maintain classroom decorum and discipline when a great many of the students never experience anything similar at home?

Quite frankly, I don't expect much in the way of decorum or discipline. If there has been none at home, the only way you're going to achieve that in school is with "prison-like discipline". Otherwise, forget it.

2. What are you proposing to counter the lack of male role models in the home? (There is a 30% illegitimacy rate total and nearly a 70% such rate among African-Americans, or blacks, if you prefer.)

There really isn't much to propose, except to do everything possible to discourage childbirth among these women. When illegitimacy rates rise to 70-80%, a stable home/family environment is no longer the "norm" - it has become the abberation. I sadly predict there really isn't any program or "solution" to solve this, other than, again, discouraging reproduction among these women by any means possible.

4. How do you propose to keep teachers from being punished for “poor performance” by their students when the students arrive on the first day of class already so deficient in basic academic skills that there is no hope of getting them up to an acceptable standard for assessment tests by the end of the year?

I don't propose that the teachers be punished. It's not their fault.

It doesn't matter how well-equipped your sawmill may be - you can't mill good lumber from "bad timber". What comes out can be no better than what's going in.

It's really that simple. That's why the problems are so intractable, and why after all the money and time spent to try to change things, that nothing seems to work.

It's also why the only thing for Euro-Americans (of ANY political persuasion) to do is to "escape" such environments. The writer of the article may exemplify liberalism and all its ills, but he is smart enough to to understand that if he wants a decent and disciplined education for his kids, that the only way to obtain it is in a ... um..... "less diverse" environment.

You have posed the difficult questions. But tell me, in all honestly: what are your own "answers"?

- John

[DCPatriot]

LOL!

[Lucky Dog]

You have posed the difficult questions. But tell me, in all honestly: what are your own "answers"

Well, as odd as this may sound, the very first step in my reformation recipe is “tort reform” including, possibly, a “loser pays” addition to the system.

Second in my recipe is the abolition of schools larger than 500-700 students.

Third, the “locally elected” school board would assume full responsibility for school performance in all aspects (inclusive of textbook selection, any curriculum not minimally required for graduation, etc.) for only a very limited size school district (both in geography and/or population).

Fourth, the state (in contrast to the Federal Government) would only be involved in teacher vetting (verification---not setting--- of credentials, criminal background checks, etc.), the provision/distribution of supporting finances (collected statewide but distributed on a per pupil basis inclusive of distribution of a lesser stipend to home and private school pupils meeting federal and state standards in testing), establishment of building, health, and safety standards and coordination of minimal, and very basic (as in literacy, English grammar, numeracy, use/correct application of formal logic and basic rhetoric, etc.), requirements for certain key grade levels and graduation. (Note: special education students would be addressed by special and separate state requirements.)

Fifth, the Federal Government’s only responsibility would be the creation, administration and publication scores/rankings of a standardized testing system. There would be no funds distribution schemes and no “federally mandated” program of any type beyond testing and publication of results. In addition to students taking tests, all teachers, regardless of seniority, would be required to pass a subject competency test, federally administered on a tri-annual basis as a condition of continued employment.

Sixth, teacher complaints and grievances would be handled by an independent mediator followed by an administrative law court, if necessary. A basic, comprehensive, inexpensive, legal liability policy would be available to any, and all, teachers through private company(ies) contracted by the state. Any union involvement in any political matters (local or otherwise) would require a secret ballot vote of the entire membership at the appropriate level for each involvement and no dissenting member’s dues could be used in any political activity, nor could any pressure, informal or otherwise by put upon such dissenters.

Seventh, all “colleges of education” would be abolished at all universities. In place of any sort of teaching degree, all candidate and provisional teachers would be required to have at least an undergraduate degree in an academic subject independent of teaching and take one course each in child psychology, instructional systems development, ethics, and critical thinking. Any, and all, of these courses would be “challengable” by examination or certifiable by previous experience/training in the military, etc. For provisional teachers (those transferring into teaching from another career) the courses could be taken through night school, on-line, or in summer school any time during the first three years of employment.

Eighth, the return of corporal punishment within very strict and pre-specified guidelines.

Ninth, a “three strikes” rule for unruly students beyond the sixth grade. Dependent upon the number and severity of discipline breaches, a student would be placed in an “alternative” school (where the rules concerning administration of corporal punishment are far more relaxed) for a period of time and then returned to the main student body after a specified time. After a second breach, the offender would be sent for a longer period of time. After the third such breach (or the first, perhaps, dependent upon severity, e.g., drug involvement, threatening gang violence, etc.) put in a “boot camp” school until of legal age to quit, or withdrawn by parents for home or private school. He or she would then be offered the opportunity to continue in such a school until graduation (assuming satisfactory grades and test scores) or the alternate opportunity to join the ranks of the unemployed in the general population.

There are many other fine points, but these cover the broad brush strokes as I see it.

[SteveH]

peg rise of NEA to...

Take a look at John Gatto's work. The PS problems go a lot further back than the NEA, which is just a symptom, not a cause.

frivolous lawsuits, courts, and teachers-as-victims

Close but not quite. A big problem *is* education law which (among other things) hamstrings public schools from enforcing discipline. However you are correct that teachers are victimized (next to the students themselves) by the public school prison system.

vouchers...

maybe defund...

or at least consider the Belgian model. We're at the bottom of the industrialized nations in terms of effective schooling. What does work is done in those other countries. This is studiously ignored by the NEA and US ed schools. Along with charter schools and vouchers and homeschooling.

Al Gore Nobel Prize

Nobel Peace Prize is a fraud and Al Gore was neither a good student nor is he now a good scientist. Al Gore' story reinforces the notion of failed liberal agendas.

Thomas Jefferson and citizenry with the power to change

TJ wrote the Declaration of Independence and believed in the applicability of revolution when all other avenues of change were blocked. It seems clear to almost any sentient being who has had recent contact with a public school that things are destined to get worse (much, much worse) before citizens wake up enough such that enough system change will occur in order for conditions to get better. Even then, they would still need to put a stake through the heart of the NEA, currently possibly the nation's most powerful political lobby.

(So, as a precaution, BLOAT.)

[SteveH]

Well, as odd as this may sound, the very first step in my reformation recipe is “tort reform” including, possibly, a “loser pays” addition to the system.

This would further hurt teachers defending themselves against the biased court system.

A basic, comprehensive, inexpensive, legal liability policy would be available to any, ...

Already is, through charter school teachers' associations.

The notion that teacher's insurance is only available through the teachers' unions is propaganda pushed by the teachers' unions. Whenever and wherever you hear it, you can count on knowing that the teacher's union controls the source of the statement. (Typically it is spoken by school district HR when a teacher is hired and HR needs the teacher to "volunteer" to join the teachers' union, or by ed school profs whenever credential students inquire as to whether this or that PC teaching method is actually required in an operating public school.)

Most of the other stuff might be OK except that the NEA, ed schools, and PC bleeding heart liberals would oppose it. Which means short of another revolution, it probably won't happen.

[gridlock]

(So, as a precaution, BLOAT.)

Always good advice...

[LetsRok]

I can't wait the four or five years it will take to begin to undo decades of neglect and mismanagement of District schools, much less the additional time needed to create programs for the gifted and talented.

Why do parents think that just becuase their kid can read better than the rest of the slugs in their class they believe they should be considered "gifted and talented". I think this is just an excuse to keep them away from the "sweat hogs".

[gridlock]

A voucher system may address some portion of this problem at an increased systemic cost, but any proof that it would adequately improve the payback of the current system is pure speculation.

So, let's stop speculating and start educating. Let's get some voucher programs up and running and see what happens. Where they have been tried on a pilot scale, the results have been very encouraging. It is time to put the theory into practice.

A much stronger argument could be made for returning to the model for “public” education that existed prior to the 1960’s/1970’s in this country.

It seems that that model would not differ significantly from the disfunctional schools we have now. It's not like we threw the baby out with the bathwater in 1970. The deterioration of schools has been a gradual downward slide. Reforming the system in it's current configuration would be a gradual upward climb, if it occurs at all.

Why enshrine the current disfunctional system and subject yet another generation to sub-standard education? Time to try something new.