Join our Community Now!

Articles by Jack Albertson, California

BUSH'S EDUCATION PROGRAM

History repeats itself!

Another ego treatment from on high!

Mr. Bush's ego assures us that schooling for our children will continue to stay in the dark ages! Somehow, like former Presidents, he has become an expert on education simply by running for office. Can his lack of experience really improve schooling? Can the Department of Education, with its ineffective record, do anything to improve schooling for our children? How can our president and the other "experts" OUTSIDE the classroom do anything about the problems INSIDE classroom? Is his belief that the focus should be on schools, that they should be rewarded, that this will improve schooling? How is it that he wants to reward the so-called better schools that apparently are doing fine, instead of giving money to the non-better schools which obviously need it? Should those students be penalized?

Bush's thinking, like so many "experts,"assumes that money, the assumed savior of the schools, will do the job.

This ex-teacher of 17 years, who taught in about a dozen Public schools, believes his ego trip has its origin in the highly successful propaganda perpetrated by the formal school system that would lead us to believe that it is responsible for good schooling, and that they can do it without putting superior teachers into position of leadership. Do schools teach, or do teachers teach? Should our concern be the supposed quality of the school, or should our concern be with the quality of the teachers? How is it that schools get credit for what teachers do? Will choice of school guarantee that our children will get skilled teaching? If we assume that the so-called better schools have the better teachers, how is it that they have a monopoly on them; shouldn't the district see that each school in its district, gets a fair share of them?

Why should parents have to deny themselves in order to live in a more expensive neighborhood so that their children can go to a supposedly better school? If you agree that the focus should be on teachers, rather than schools, then you may also agree that the quality of teaching--superior teachingshould be our main concern. But how can there be superior teaching  when the schools fail to do what make most other callings successful, create the opportunity that would recognize superior teachers, and put them into positions of leadership? Isn't it likely that such opportunity would induce superior people to enter teaching so as to do for schooling what superior people do that makes for success in other callings? But will the formal system change? Why should it?

It's firmly in powera cartel as one discerning person labeled itand Bush, on his ego trip, helps to increase its inordinate power by his great inexperience and our overtaxed dollars!

 CHOICE OF SCHOOL

After teaching in about a dozen Public Schools, I conclude that choice of school misses the point simply because it's choice of teacher that should get the focus.

Ask a Tiger Woods, for example, who still gets instruction from his teacher.

The formal system not only gets the credit for what teachers do, but it also makes sure that the spotlight doesn't fall on any teacher.  As a matter of fact, a good case could be made that the system is anti teachers. The system, unlike most other callings is completely devoid of opportunity. Can you imagine any success-oriented person tolerating being ignored in such manner? No effort is made to put superior teachersthose with a proven record of turning out successful studentsinto positions of leadership, nor are they rewarded. Sadly, the lack of opportunity closes the door to those superior peoplesuccess oriented oneswho might enter teaching.

One might rebut my position by asserting that in time, competition would force schools to recognize superior teachers. This implies that superior schools should still continue to be the objective. Would such an objective lead to happiness? Consider   HMO's, for example. Their advertising would lead us to believe that their offerings are superior. If that were true why all the dissatisfaction? It's illogical to think choice of school, rather than choice of teacher, especially superior ones.

Schools don't teach! Teachers teach! There's no guarantee that attending a so-called better school that one will study with a superior teacher, just as there is no guarantee that when one attends  a prestigious college or university. Shouldn't the ultimate goal be to raise the humble teachersuperior onesto positions enjoyed by particular individuals in other callings? This is not an unrealistic goal inasmuch as highly successful peopleconcert pianists, athletes, entertainers, et al, have studied with renowned teachers, and some continue to do so.

In short, superior teachers are the answer! When we start thinking teacher choice, not only will there be the incentive for many of the present teacherscompetition!to strive for an excellence that the present system ignores and doesn't reward,  but it will encourage other superior people to enter teaching.