From Citizens to Consumers

“From Citizens to Consumers” is a discussion of the change in rhetoric over the years and how it exemplified the approaches to education that were taken during these periods. The chapter explains how Horace Mann, the founder of public education, intended for education to be the root of creating good citizens in an informed republic. It then moved towards education being a professional advantage when people realized it was something you could judge people by, and from there went to being the “great equalizer” after Brown v. Board of Ed.  This was followed by a change to using education as a means to create job-ready individuals, followed by the move to create higher standards, and more things standardized in order to create citizens who would make society better. All of this led to, as the chapter argues, The No Child Left Behind Act.

            I think that the intent of the chapter is definitely to push for the idea of a more standardized education curriculum. Something nation wide that everyone can understand. Personally, I believe it would be better to push for a little of everything that they mentioned rather than just the one thing that is dependent on the era. It would be a lot better if we had well informed citizens within an electorate that were both employable and from equal back grounds, who could create a mutual benefit with society, rather than just one of those things, and I don’t necessarily think that would be unattainable.

            My main concern, and this is something they glance over in the chapter is what is the argument for a less standardized curriculum. I definitely think that having some things set as a nation wide is a good idea, we do all share occupancy of this land in common, but that being said, things are vastly different by location within the United States. Should Alaskans be taught all the same things that Texans should? I don’t think so; I’m not even advocating for a state issue, it could be a district issue. Giving local governments more autonomy in creating educational policy is not necessarily a bad thing. Though they are undoubtedly less informed about educational policy and efficiency they are also undoubtedly more informed about local issues and what needs to be taught locally. I guess what I’m advocating for is space in a national curriculum for local curriculums as well.

            I found it particularly interesting that they talk about how “A Nation at Risk” didn’t really “pump up the nation for action” so to speak. Having read the entire report, it almost seemed like it was designed to do nothing. Though they made bold statements, they all seemed purposefully vague. Creating a “better America” is in my opinion, the politicians appeal to emotion and usually doesn’t mean anything at all. It makes you think it’s the right thing to do without having to provide an argument.

            What I liked best out of this article was the idea that everyone should be taught the same way, regardless of their ambitions or what others felt their ambitions should be. I am aware that this was meant on a more national sense, but adopting this within each school singularly is just as important. I recently watched my 30 year-old brother graduate from college to work his way to become an engineer. Where people are at 18 doesn’t imply where they will be at when they turn 30, and prepping everyone the same way gives the same advantages and even disadvantages for everyone. It makes being able to do what you want to do at any point almost plausible.

Burning Questions

1. If any, what would the cons be to having a nationalized standard curriculum?

2. Who should be the creator of a standardized national curriculum?

3. Does a nationalized curriculum benefit the individual, or society?

4. What is, to you, the overarching principal that education should be for? (I.e. an educated electorate, a well prepared employee, etc.)`

Rhee Vs. Ravitch

Sorry, it's late! Don't judge me.

Interesting read, especially with having the preconception that Michelle Rhee is a bit of a b-... meanie. That being said, most of my disagreements are with her, they actually make me want to pull my hair out. I think, as I stated in class that she tried to run before she could even crawl. Firing mass amount of teachers and principals only left some kids with inexperienced teachers in already failing districts. Increased testing led to increased cheating, but you read the article so I won't re-write the whole thing.

My problem with her is mostly on a philosophical level. She is under the impression that hard work is possible for everyone, and that people are making the choice not to work hard. It's a (in my expert opinion) a conservative idea. Hard work is the fundamental key to success, some people strive, others don't. The way I see it, Rhee doesn't realize how lucky she had it because of the fact that she had to overcome so much. She came from a family, that though it wasn't doing well, preached hard work, and the importance of school. Because of this, she strived to succeed and worked her butt off!

That being said, this isn't a value instilled in every child in every home in America. Unfortunately, hard work has to be taught, unless it's in someone's veins and for most, I'd assume it's not. But either way, you're really not all that responsible for your own work ethic.

So she see's her own successes, and uses this to set guidelines on teachers. Teachers she believes, are the most important part of the formula. Good teachers create good students, bad ones create bad students.

Textbook example of oversimplifying a problem that leads to an oversimplified response. That response? Testing of course. Test the shit out of these kids. I know, I was one of them.

Results, results, results.

"What'd you get on your standard test?"
"98, you?"
"Oh, uhm, good job I got a 78. Studied really hard too, how much did you study?"
"Eh, it just kind of came natural to me."

And just like that you have one student who feels like he doesn't have to work any harder, and another student who feels like hard work doesn't pay off. You know what sucks about competition? There's losers. And losers accept the fact that they're losers, especially when everyone around them is a loser, think it's not that bad and end up being economic drains.

But there I go, oversimplifying it. Obviously it's not all about egos, you have to have some way to measure how people are doing. But, do we really need these things to decide the rest of people's lives? What about teacher evaluations? Why don't we hear about them more often. When I applied to the 'burg I sent in grades, SAT scores, essays, and a letter of recommendation. One letter, from one teacher, who happens to now be a friend. So the people who helped mold me, taught me, consoled me, and learned from me have really that little a say? And when the hell am I going to take a scan-tron test working in business? Also, I can't really explain to you what a stock is, but can tell you the definition of flotsam with ease.

I guess I'll just have to get to Ravitch later.

(And it means wreckage or cargo from a ship floating in the water. I can't believe you didn't know that.)

Teacher's Unions

Prompt: Last week we spent some time looking at the rise of the NEA as a political operation and its impact on education policy in the Carter administration. I’d be interested in seeing you write about your perceptions of teachers’ unions. What do you know about them? What have you learned about teachers’ unions as you have read other blog posts or read the news outside of class? How does what you read this week reinforce or rebut what you already know about teachers’ unions?

I must admit I know a limited amount about teacher's unions. I think I understand the basic criticisms, as well as the benefits to having them. Teacher's unions, like all other unions are designed to protect those they serve. They are responsible for negotiating on behalf of teachers, and often advocate for things like higher salaries, greater benefits, and job security. I'd like to say that teacher's unions are responsible for teacher tenure, but I'm not a hundred percent on that. I'd know that they do negotiate against teacher firings.

The case against teacher unions is relatively simple. They have only their own interests at heart, and because of this, they block attention from the students. They make it nearly impossible to fire teachers without "just cause" which seams to be a purposefully vague term in favor of teachers, because, at least where I come from, you'd have to be Walter White to get fired. Teacher's unions also aren't always beneficial to all teachers, teachers that are exceptional have the limitation of group negotiations rather than individual ones, so they can pay for poor district or school performance even if there's is solid.

That all being said, teacher's unions defend the rights of teachers from all of the exaggerated forms of what was previously mentioned. They try to protect teachers from being unreasonably fired based on, say for example a test score. Also negotiating as a group is a lot more effective than negotiating as an individual, especially if the group has the power to perform a deadly strike.

Also, you should know I've seen "Waiting for Superman" so, I'm kind of an expert. (jokes)

My experience, or knowledge of unions comes from what I've learned from the readings, in the movie, and the fact that I frequently discuss education policy with one of my old high school teacher who is now a close friend.

I know that Rhee isn't a fan, especially as an advocate for testing as a parameter to measure teachers by. My high school teacher isn't their biggest fan either, thinks they're a necessary evil, but he's of the type that would be fine without them.

As far as the NEA goes and the readings, I think it's interesting that the origins of the NEA weren't necessarily political, but it certainly became that way. I think that unions should probably be smaller, I don't think one organization promoting a vast amount of teachers is necessarily a good idea, because I think the interests of teachers in different locations is different.

My opinion? Well, first, stop asking rhetorical questions in a blog post. Secondly, it's hard to say, I don't know that much about them, but if what I do know is true, I think they're a necessary evil that should probably be a bit smaller. I am of the type that believes that teaching should be a coveted position, and not a fallback as it is for some. I'd love for them to be compensated as if they were doctors, but also understand that because we require so many, and it is a state job (requiring taxes to pay for) it's always hard to make it that way. If you look at it in timeline form, teachers become more and more important as time goes on. We used to be one room school houses, with non-required attendance, now were schools of thousands rotating between multiple teachers with specific fields and grade level teaching skills. So it doesn't make sense to me that a job that's increased in importance only gets raises essentially with the rate of inflation.

Now tell me so I don't embarrass myself, how is your last name pronounced?

Good evening reader. I mean that in the singular sense very literally. I have never done this before, so you'll have to bear with me while I work out the kinks of what it means to be a blogger.


I think I'll start by explaining the title. "The Uncool Exchange" is not from my creativity, but is actually from the Cameron Crowe movie "Almost Famous." Almost Famous holds a special place in my black hole, I have seen it well over one hundred times and it is, without a doubt, my favorite movie.

Now to why I chose "Uncool Exchange" is a little more specific. The late great Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays the role of a rock journalist who serves as a mentor of sorts to the main character; an aspiring rock journalist who is writing his first article for Rolling Stone Magazine. He's covering a mid-level rock band growing in popularity as they travel across the country. Oh, and it turns out the kid is only 15 years old (Rolling Stone thinks he's a college grad). Anyways, the kid's really down on his luck, he's had this rock band whom he idolizes take him across the country, he's partied, lost his virginity, fallen in love with an older woman, and done all the things you'd expect a 15 year old traveling rock journalist to do, but he has nothing to show for it. He realizes that things weren't as great on the road as they thought he would be, and the band is trying to force his hand into writing a story that will "make them look cool."

Cue Phillip Seymour Hoffman's worldly advice that helped get me through high school.









And there it is. You're uncool, probably weird (or my professor in which case you're the exception of everything I've previously mentioned) and you're reading my blog. I'm not cool, you're not cool, let's get some ideas about education flowing people!