Imagine the day when all the teachers unions have been neutered and all the bad teachers have been fired and only highly effective teachers are left. In other words, imagine the utopia that the so called education reform movement is working so hard for. Then ask yourself a question, “How are we going to get good teachers to work at schools that serve low income children?” Certainly we won’t pay them more—at least by default—because that goes against the very idea of how we fund education where more money is spent on richer kids. We also aren’t likely to see such teachers getting the “good teacher” bonuses. They will be teaching with less and worse infrastructure to kids with parents who do not have as much ability to help at home. So why would a teacher work with low income children except out of a sense of altruism?

This is a really important question for the education reform movement. Obviously, there are solutions to this problem. We could, for example, provide financial incentives to teachers to work in low income areas. But that would require a policy change. We could provide more funding for schools serving low income children. But that would require a policy change. We could start providing financial incentives to low income families. But, again, that would require a policy change. Any and all of these could be priorities for the education reform movement right now. But they aren’t.

My point here is that the main policy goal of the education reform movement doesn’t seem to lead us anywhere with regard to the better education of our kids. I’ll fully admit: it seems to be doing a hell of a job decreasing worker rights. But the best you can say about the stated goals of education reform is that it will get rid of a small percentage of teachers who are incompetent and whip some other teachers into shape. This isn’t something that is going to revolutionize teaching, much less help the students who need the most help.

What I fear will happen is that after the “reformers” are done stripping away teacher rights, all the money (and therefore enthusiasm) will go away. Then we’ll be left with pretty much the same system we have now—except, of course, teaching will be an even less appealing job for exactly the kind of people we would want teaching. This kind of shortsighted and simplistic approach to problems is very common here in America.

Remember after 9/11 how suddenly flying was a much bigger pain without us being any safer? Remember how the changes that were made were the ones that were easiest for government and business? Remember how difficult changes like separate compartments for pilots were not done, because they just weren’t easy and would cost money? Well, that’s education reform. Whenever I get into an argument about education reform, I always hear the same thing, “Well at least they are doing something!” It is more correct to say, “At most they doing something.” And that something doesn’t seem to have much to do with improving education.

In the end, we will have a mediocre education system, just like we do now. It might be slightly better, but I think it will likely be slightly worse. And we’ll have the same choices that we have now if we are serious about reforming our educational system. But then, like now, we avoid those hard things. Because we aren’t very serious about reform. And the people subsidizing “reform” aren’t interested in it at all.

See Also

Alfie Kohn and Real Education Reform
Problems with Standards-Based Education
Liberal Education Reform Push Conservative Ends

Image edited from one displayed on Hemlock on the Rocks.

Yesterday, Ken over at All Things Democrat had an interesting suggestion, A Proposal on the Washington Football Team Name. The name? The Washington Racists. Personally, I’ve been thinking of them as the Washington Genocides. (Interestingly, I am not the only person to think of this.) But Ken backs up his idea.

Back in May, Ken wrote another article, Dan Snyder & Roger Goodell Are Not Racists But George Marshall Was. This is in reference to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell statement, “The intent of the team’s name has always been to present a strong, positive and respectful image.” Saying it doesn’t make it so. George Marshall was the guy who bought what had been the Boston Braves and changed the name. He also made the coach dress up in a headdress and war paint for games. And, of course, Marshall fought against the integration of football.

What is most interesting, however, is that the Washington fight song honored the native peoples with the following lyrics right out F Troop, but without the respect:

These were the lyrics that were used into the 1980s. F Troop was canceled in 1967, and it is far more evolved in its presentation of native peoples, even if Chief Wild Eagle was played by an Italian:

Ken makes an excellent point, “It is beyond laughable when league officials and Washington team management and fans claim the name is a sign of respect, and honorific of American Indians.” But it still comes back to the same point: it doesn’t even matter if Dan Snyder thinks he is honoring Native Americans: they don’t think so. It’s like if someone calls you “meathead” all the time. You tell them to stop. They respond, “But I only say it out of respect for you!” Well, if they really respected you, they would respect your opinion that you don’t like to be called “meathead.” The “redskins” name is racist and I figure Dan Snyder is more racist than most people too. But he doesn’t have to admit that. All he has to admit to is that the name is rude.

As for the name, The Washington Racists is growing on me. I’ve reworked the fight song:

It’s catchy. I think the Washington Racists could really catch on.

I found this graph in an article this morning by Brad DeLong, In Which I Go Around, Over and Over Again, in Circles as I Try to Understand What Is Going on in Europe. What is displayed in the graph is GDP for the European Union. You see that it grew very predictably from 2000 to 2008 and then the crisis hit and the recession started. But then the economy started to recover very consistently (although anemically) from 2009 to 2011. And then it just died.

Everyone understands the recession. But why, after a short period of recovery has the economy stagnated? In a word: austerity. It has somehow become God given knowledge that governments should raise taxes and cut spending. This will supposedly create a strong economy because… Well, the truth is that no one can really say anymore. They used to have the work of Alberto Alesina, but that’s been shown to have been wrong.

Also this morning, Paul Krugman quoted the German government spokesman Georg Streiter saying, “We continue to work for stronger growth and employment and our government still believes there is no contradiction between consolidation and growth.” By “consolidation” he means austerity. You would think that the graph above would prove that there most definitely is a contradiction. But don’t expect those in charge in Europe (especially in Germany) to admit that. As I say a lot around here: bad economies are great for the rich.

DeLong’s article included an extended quote from Eurointelligence, in which they talk about how German newspapers are obsessed with the French budget defict:

What’s going on in Europe now is one of the cases that students in the future will look back on and say, “What were they thinking?!” People will look at graphs like the one above and rightly wonder how those who were pushing for austerity could have missed such an obvious problem. Of course, the point is that those in power don’t care; they have bigger fish to fry. And the German papers aren’t publishing graphs like that or even talking about the issue. And when they do talk about bad economic times, German nationalism tends to rear its ugly head with the people thinking it is all about those morally bankrupt countries in the south who over-borrowed. (And who, exactly, were the bankers who over-lent? The Germans. Not that the bad economy has anything to do with such old “sins” at this point.)

DeLong presented another graph that looks at the change in 10-year bond rates compared to five years ago for the US and Germany. They are right in line with each other up to the beginning of 2013. But then they uncouple in a big way with the bond rate decrease in Germany over twice what it has been in the US. This is going in the opposite direct that it should be going. But it is a great opportunity for Germany: it could spend some money. But it is insisting on austerity all around. The idea is that all of Europe will save its way to prosperity. But that isn’t how it works.

The “tighten our belts” argument always sounds reasonable. But in a macroeconomic sense, it doesn’t work if everyone is cutting back at the same time because everyone’s expenditures is everyone’s income. So austerity only makes sense in the context of the already rich and what is good for them. Meanwhile, there is widespread suffering in Europe. And it will apparently only abate when the rest of the world is doing really well economically. That will allow Europe to recover via exports. But that could take ten years. And what’s really sad is that if and when that happens, the power elite will proclaim, “See! Austerity and growth are compatible!”