The PD redeems itself somewhat with this story about the Blackwell-backed 65% Fairy Dust proposal to fix school funding once and for all. I've blogged 65% before. My rundown of the background and specifics is here, this post notes the threat it poses to the cushy gig non-teacher employees have and this one covers a secret strategy memo showing that 65% is basically a political strategy masquerading as a serious proposal.
The PD piece treads much the same ground. The hook of the piece is the fretting by the non-school employees unions about the axfall that 65% will bring. Since we now know that the essense of the strategy is dividing and conquering the public education constituency, we will now see a united front against it, yes? No. "While Hatch panned the idea for being bad for his union members, the Ohio Federation of Teachers likes the proposal because it could mean more jobs and higher wages for teachers." Nice.
The PD also cites a recent study showing that 65% has no effect on what we should actually care about: student acheivement. What flaming liberal outfit put together such a study? None other than the unreconstructed pinkoes at Standard and Poors.
Meanwhile, I heard at a meeting Monday that Title 1 funds don't count toward the in-the-classroom 65%. It's not clear that Department of Agriculture school lunch grants count against it, along with state and local nutrition spending. But all in all, this is looking like more of a sham every time I look at it.
RIP, JOHN OLESKY
5 months ago
1 comments:
Thanks for both of these posts, Pho. I hate when I think about how few people it seems care about education, but are willing to tear it to shreds and suggest what's best. It's also amazing that we've yet to hit on a tried and true system, even in the face of changing needs. Another indication that if only we'd look to some other countries who do it better...but nah, not the American way, huh? For shame, on us.
Post a Comment