Vallas may have distanced himself from his stand on abortion, but he did not distance himself from the constituencies which would have been sympathetic to that anti abortion stance. That's why he kept his commitment to educational choice.
I'm thinking here of those constituencies which are here in America, "on sufferance only."
Roosevelt had been forced to tighten the leash on his Catholic and Jewish allies, reminding them that they weren't after all, real Americans.
We are in a coalition, but not equal, and sooner or later, that coalition will crack.
Public education, as constituted, does offer choice, but not on any issue of substance.
I think is is possible to favor privatization without favoring transfer of state assets to profit sector. Vallas would like to put everything in the hands of the profit sector, but to gain support for this part of his agenda he had to offer the possibility of "choice."
Johnson, on the other hand, positioned himself in opposition. He offered nothing. That's why I did not support him.
Choice in curriculum and school choice are not the same thing. Public school choice does exist in many communities. Individual classroom curriculum should reflect a combination of things including parent, student and community input and the teachers own knowledge and life experiences. Standardization works against that. Privatization also removes the school from democratic control.
If the parents do not have the deciding voice in the instruction their children will receive, then they have nothing.
You want the locus of control out of the hands of the parents. This is an injustice, a violation of a fundamental human right.
In regard to standardized testing, well designed and validated tests do what what they are designed to do. They assess educational progress, and provide assurance that students will be ready for post secondary education.
In my work, we also used testing to help our clients make choices about careers and training. The tests were well validated and so we could rely on them. We had to spend a great deal of time remediating the failures of public education. Testing could show us who needed help, and in what they were deficient.
The theory behind this was supposed to be part of any education degree. I had it. I thought everyone did.
Vallas may have distanced himself from his stand on abortion, but he did not distance himself from the constituencies which would have been sympathetic to that anti abortion stance. That's why he kept his commitment to educational choice.
I'm thinking here of those constituencies which are here in America, "on sufferance only."
Roosevelt had been forced to tighten the leash on his Catholic and Jewish allies, reminding them that they weren't after all, real Americans.
We are in a coalition, but not equal, and sooner or later, that coalition will crack.
Privatization is not the same as choice. You can have choice in a public school system. Vallas isn’t for public school choice. He is a privatizer.
Public education, as constituted, does offer choice, but not on any issue of substance.
I think is is possible to favor privatization without favoring transfer of state assets to profit sector. Vallas would like to put everything in the hands of the profit sector, but to gain support for this part of his agenda he had to offer the possibility of "choice."
Johnson, on the other hand, positioned himself in opposition. He offered nothing. That's why I did not support him.
What choices? We don't seem to have any voice in what is to be taught.
Choice in curriculum and school choice are not the same thing. Public school choice does exist in many communities. Individual classroom curriculum should reflect a combination of things including parent, student and community input and the teachers own knowledge and life experiences. Standardization works against that. Privatization also removes the school from democratic control.
If the parents do not have the deciding voice in the instruction their children will receive, then they have nothing.
You want the locus of control out of the hands of the parents. This is an injustice, a violation of a fundamental human right.
In regard to standardized testing, well designed and validated tests do what what they are designed to do. They assess educational progress, and provide assurance that students will be ready for post secondary education.
In my work, we also used testing to help our clients make choices about careers and training. The tests were well validated and so we could rely on them. We had to spend a great deal of time remediating the failures of public education. Testing could show us who needed help, and in what they were deficient.
The theory behind this was supposed to be part of any education degree. I had it. I thought everyone did.