West Coast Connection Forum

Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: EXPOSEPONCESENT on March 11, 2008, 11:31:19 AM

Title: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: EXPOSEPONCESENT on March 11, 2008, 11:31:19 AM
Here's sumthin from www.globalresearch.ca its basically talking about a commission funded by Bill Gates to eliminate the public school system in America for privatised schools were failing students would be kicked out of the system a lot earlier, I dunno, its deep, read this shit people, I dunno, harsh prison sentences, AIDS, gentrification thats goin on in the hoods in America, basically no welfare system, police brutalty, mininum wage you can't pay your rent wit, its fucked up in America in the inner city's, now the social elite are pushing for wiping out public schools aswell, instead of putting money into them trying to fix there problems, I mean just look at the amount of money they are putting into the Iraq Oil War, couldn't they put that money to better use, I dunno, its like there trying to wipe out a whole generation of people, they just want us to die off, fuck em, fuck the system

Exterminating Public Schools in America

by Steven Miller and Jack Gerson

Global Research, March 10, 2008
Educator Roundtable

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

The "Tough Choices or Tough Times" report of the National Commission on Skills in the Workplace, funded in large part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and signed by a bipartisan collection of prominent politicians, businesspeople, and urban school superintendents, called for a series of measures including:

(a) replacing public schools with what the report called "contract schools", which would be charter schools writ large;

(b) eliminating nearly all the powers of local school boards - their role would be to write and sign the authorizing agreements for the "contract schools;

(c) eliminating teacher pensions and slashing health benefits; and

(d) forcing all 10th graders to take a high school exit examination based on 12th grade skills, and terminating the education of those who failed (i.e., throwing millions of students out into the streets as they turn 16).

These measures, taken together, would effectively cripple public control of public education. They would dangerously weaken the power of teacher unions, thus facilitating still further attacks on the public sector. They would leave education policy in the hands of a network of entrepreneurial think tanks, corporate entrepreneurs, and armies of lobbyists whose priorities are profiting from the already huge education market while cutting back on public funding for schools and students.

Indeed, their measures would mean privatization of education, effectively terminating the right to a public education, as we have known it. Many of the most powerful forces in the country want the US, the first country to guarantee public education, to be the first country to end it.

For the last fifty years, public education was one of only two public mandates guaranteed by the government that was accessible to every person, regardless of income. Social Security is the other. Now both systems are threatened with privatization schemes. The government today openly defines its mission as protecting the rights of corporations above everything. Thus public education is a rare public space that is under attack.

The same scenario is being implemented with most of the services that governments used to provide for free or at little cost: electricity, national parks, health care and water. In every case, the methodology is the same: underfund public services, create an uproar and declare a crisis, claim that privatization can do the job better, deregulate or break public control, divert public money to corporations and then raise prices.

In the past year, it's become evident that the corporate surge against public schools is only part of a much broader assault against the public sector, against unions, and indeed against the public's rights and public control of public institutions.

This has been evident for some time now in New Orleans, where Hurricane Katrina's devastation is used as an excuse for permanently privatizing the infrastructure of a major American city: razing public housing and turning land over to developers; replacing the city's public school system with a combination of charter schools and state-run schools; letting the notorious Blackwater private army loose on the civilian population; and, in the end, forcing tens of thousands of families out of the city permanently. The citizens of New Orleans have had their civil rights forcibly expropriated.

Just as the shock of the hurricane was the excuse for the shock therapy applied to New Orleans, so the economic downturn triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis is now the excuse for a national assault on the public sector and the public's rights. . .

In public education, the corporate surge has grown both qualitatively and quantitatively. Where two years ago the corporate education change agents were mainly operating in a relatively small number of large urban areas, they have now surfaced everywhere. The corporatization of public education is the leading edge of privatization. This has the effect of silencing the public voice on every aspect of the situation.

Across the US, public schools are not yet privatized, though private services are increasingly benefiting from this market. However, increasing corporate control of programs - a different mix in every locale - is having a chilling influence on the very things that people (though not corporations) want from teachers: the ability to relate to and teach each child, a nurturing approach that nudges every child to move ahead, human assessments that put people before performance on standardized tests.

Perhaps the single most dramatic development of the corporate approach was the launching of the $60 million Strong American Schools - Ed in '08 initiative, funded by billionaires Bill Gates and Eli Broad. This is a naked effort to purchase the nation's education policy, no matter who is elected President, by buying their way into every electoral forum.

Ed in '08 has a three-point program: merit pay (basing teachers' compensation on students' scores on high stakes test); national education standards (enforcing conformity and rote learning); and longer school day and school year (still more time for rote learning, less time for kids to be kids. . . )

Where two years ago charter schools were still viewed as experiments affecting a relatively small number of students, in 2007 the corporate privatizers - led by Broad and Gates - grossly expanded their funding to the point where they now loom as a major presence.

In March, the Gates Foundation announced a $100 million donation to KIPP charter schools, which would enable them to expand their Houston operation to 42 schools (from eight) - effectively, KIPP will be a full-fledged alternative school system in Houston. Also in the past year, Eli Broad and Gates have given in the neighborhood of $50 million to KIPP and Green Dot charter schools in Los Angeles, with the aim of doubling the percentage of LA students enrolled in charter schools. Oakland, another Broad/Gates targets, now has more than 30 charter schools out of 92. And, as we shall see below, the same trend holds across the country.

NCLB in 2008 is still a major issue. It continues to have a corrosive effect on public schools. It is designed an unfunded mandate, which means that schools must meet ever rigid standards every year, though no more money is appropriated to support this effort. This means that schools must take ever-more money out of the class room to meet federal requirements when schools with low test scores are in "Program Improvement". Once schools are in PI for 5 years they can be forced into privatization.

NCLB is a driving force that decimates the "publicness" in public schools. In California, more than 2000 schools are now in "Program-Improvement". This means that they have to meet certain specific, and mostly impossible standards, or they must divert increasingly greater amounts of money out of the classroom and into private programs.

For example, schools in 3rd year PI must take money out of programs that helped schools with a high proportion of low achieving schools and make it available to private tutors. . .

Privatizing public schools inevitably leads to a massive increase in social inequality. Private corporations have never been required to recognize civil rights, because, by definition, these are public rights. If the corporate privatizers succeed in taking over our schools, there will be neither quality education nor civil rights.

The system of public education in the United States is deeply flawed. While suburban schools are among the best in the world, public education in cities has been deliberately underfunded and is in shambles. The solution is not to fight backwards to maintain the old system. Rather it is to fight forward to a new system that will truly guarantee quality education as a civil right for everyone.

Central to this is to challenge the idea that everything in human society should be run by corporations, that only corporations and their political hacks have the right or the power to discuss what public policy should be. . .

The real direction is to increase the role and power of the public in every way, not eliminate it. . .

Global Research Articles by Steven Miller

Global Research Articles by Jack Gerson
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: QuietTruth on March 11, 2008, 04:17:19 PM
Yeahhhh, why not?

They wanna get rid of Social Studies Class. So I mean why NOT take out our schools, that's a FUCKIN' BRILLANT idea. Ya know, let's NOT find better teachers though. Nahhh. Let's rely on TECHNOLOGY. Ha ha, LMAO.

I fear the future and my life, I just hope I'm gone before that. This generation is not SMART. I swear to God, I don't know what is happening to this world.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96' on March 12, 2008, 04:13:12 PM
That would be great if they got rid of public schools (government schools)!

I didn't have time to read the whole article, but as a Libertarian I know that anything ran by the government is not as efficient as something ran by the free market.  The government school system is a joke.  They standardize everything, so that everybody has to learn the same thing.

If we got rid of public schools, then the free market would offer private institutions in it's place, where one could learn what they want to learn, in half the time, and at half the cost.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Primo on March 12, 2008, 06:20:42 PM
i have to agree with infinite on this one.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 12, 2008, 07:26:15 PM
That would be great if they got rid of public schools (government schools)!

I didn't have time to read the whole article, but as a Libertarian I know that anything ran by the government is not as efficient as something ran by the free market.  The government school system is a joke.  They standardize everything, so that everybody has to learn the same thing.

If we got rid of public schools, then the free market would offer private institutions in it's place, where one could learn what they want to learn, in half the time, and at half the cost.

I hear this from Libertarians all the time, could you go more in dept or any libertarian go more in dept for me on how this would work.  I'm not trying to be a dick or anything I really am curious lol.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Trauma-san on March 12, 2008, 08:43:59 PM
Basically the government is so large that anything they run is totally overrun by corruption and a lack of efficency.  Since there's so many schools, all ran by the government it's impossible for them to keep track of how things are actually going on a local level, so they have to set up systems designed to provide success... but systems that large can't possibly work on a local level, so you end up with superintendants who lose their job if key measures aren't met... so they lean on the principals to make sure these certain elements are met, and they lean on the teachers to make sure these certain elements are met... and what you have at the end of the day is a bunch of people running around trying to make sure a certain statistic looks good or else they all lose their jobs.

In a free market, though, each school would be ran on it's own, by it's own board of directors, or a single owner, or whatever.  They'd be in the school everyday, they'd see what's working, what isn't working, they'd be in competition with other schools to do a better job of teaching and they'd also have to have better prices if they expected to get attendance up, etc.  They'd be in competition with other schools for the best teachers as well, so they'd have to offer the maximum possible pay to the teachers.  Each school could have it's own rules and regulations, and each school could specialize in different areas of education. 

It's really a pretty simple philsophy that is pretty much unassailable, anything the government does the free market can do much better.  There's not much of an argument against it.  Since I know you're a democrat, though, I know you're basically just looking for a handout and won't agree with anything a libertarian or republican thinks since much of it deals in personal responsibility and paying your own way. 
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Javier on March 12, 2008, 08:54:58 PM
Since I know you're a democrat, though, I know you're basically just looking for a handout and won't agree with anything a libertarian or republican thinks since much of it deals in personal responsibility and paying your own way. 

What a judgmental piece of shit.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: M Dogg™ on March 12, 2008, 09:40:00 PM
You want free market education, go to Mexico. Most their wealthy elite kids graduate, come to the US for education, go back and become very successful. Their priviate school are some of the world's best. Everyone else, well, you can hire them at your local Home Depot to mow your lawn. I want a system were the poor has access to quality education from a young age. At one time, California was the envy of the world. Japanese would go to classrooms and study their education system. After tax cut after tax cut and the rise of highly regarded private schooling in rich neighborhoods, education has fallen so hard in California, Los Angeles has more drop outs than graduates, some schools have day care for students babies and Californians envy Texas of all places for better education. But from 1967-1999 Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, and Pete Wilson ran the state with Jerry Brown in the middle. Deukmejian, who was Reagan's right hand man in Cali, did the worst damage to our public school system in the 80's, and Wilson finished the job in the 90's.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96' on March 12, 2008, 10:20:46 PM
That would be great if they got rid of public schools (government schools)!

I didn't have time to read the whole article, but as a Libertarian I know that anything ran by the government is not as efficient as something ran by the free market.  The government school system is a joke.  They standardize everything, so that everybody has to learn the same thing.

If we got rid of public schools, then the free market would offer private institutions in it's place, where one could learn what they want to learn, in half the time, and at half the cost.

I hear this from Libertarians all the time, could you go more in dept or any libertarian go more in dept for me on how this would work.  I'm not trying to be a dick or anything I really am curious lol.

Look at it this way...

Let's say you have a private school, and it is not being ran in an efficient manner, it's prices are too expensive, and the kids aren't learning anything.  Well, what naturally happens in free market economics (provided there is no government interference), is that the parents will remove their kids from that school and instead spend their money at a competing school.  Therefore the school will lose it's money and support and have to close it's business.  You see, in the free market, you either produce results, or you have to close your business.

Now, compare that to a public institution like public schools.  If a public school is inefficient, too costly to the taxpayers, and the kids aren't learning anything... then guess what, some politician will run for re-election claiming they are the "pro-education" candidate.  What that means, is that they will call for more money from the taxpayers to re-fund this failing school, and they will want more government oversight, which means more paper work, more rules and regulations, more bureaucracy, more redtape... so that... like Trauma said, the principals and teachers will spend more time trying to meet government mandates, rather than teaching the students in the best way possible.

Also, in public schools, you learn what the government (people like George Bush and Newt Gingrich) want you to learn; while in private institutions, each individual parent and student gets to decide for themselves what education is going to be most important to them, their child's future, and prospective employers.   
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96' on March 12, 2008, 10:25:00 PM
You want free market education, go to Mexico. Most their wealthy elite kids graduate, come to the US for education, go back and become very successful. Their priviate school are some of the world's best. Everyone else, well, you can hire them at your local Home Depot to mow your lawn. I want a system were the poor has access to quality education from a young age. At one time, California was the envy of the world. Japanese would go to classrooms and study their education system. After tax cut after tax cut and the rise of highly regarded private schooling in rich neighborhoods, education has fallen so hard in California, Los Angeles has more drop outs than graduates, some schools have day care for students babies and Californians envy Texas of all places for better education. But from 1967-1999 Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, and Pete Wilson ran the state with Jerry Brown in the middle. Deukmejian, who was Reagan's right hand man in Cali, did the worst damage to our public school system in the 80's, and Wilson finished the job in the 90's.

Actually, schools in America, less than 100 years ago were ran privately.  And ever since the government has gotten more and more involved the schools have continued to become more dangerous and students are graduating with lower scores.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: M Dogg™ on March 12, 2008, 10:32:38 PM

I disagree, because in the 80's, Ronald Reagan ran and won on getting rid of the Dept. of Ed. and basically taking money out of our failing system, and Deukmejian took millions out. Also, 100 years ago, California was not 36million, so it was easier to have priviate schooling. The proplem with Libertarian thought is it's for smaller rural countries and places that people are involved with each other. In a place like California, there is so much diversity, and so much distrust and so many problems that these problems wouldn't work itself out. Too many kids will die or have babies before it works it's self out and that we cannot have.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96' on March 12, 2008, 10:55:36 PM

I disagree, because in the 80's, Ronald Reagan ran and won on getting rid of the Dept. of Ed. and basically taking money out of our failing system, and Deukmejian took millions out.


Just because Reagan ran as a Libertarian in the 80's does not mean that he lived up to any of his promises once in office.  Government grew more under Reagen than it did under Clinton.  His education cuts were little to none.


Also, 100 years ago, California was not 36million, so it was easier to have priviate schooling. The proplem with Libertarian thought is it's for smaller rural countries and places that people are involved with each other.


That's the whole thing, the constitution states that any duties not granted to the Federal government within the constitution were to be handled by the states.  So the states were supposed to compete against each other.  Then you break everything down to a local, county, level, and so on.  The government isn't supposed to be ruling all the land.



In a place like California, there is so much diversity, and so much distrust and so many problems that these problems wouldn't work itself out. Too many kids will die or have babies before it works it's self out and that we cannot have.



That's the point, you say that there is distrust, well, if you distrust your school then start your own school in a Mexican community or you can have a Latino ran school where everyone trusts each other.  Whatever you want, it's your choice in a Libertarian country, you won't be forced by people like Bush and Gingrinch.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: M Dogg™ on March 12, 2008, 10:58:55 PM

I disagree, because in the 80's, Ronald Reagan ran and won on getting rid of the Dept. of Ed. and basically taking money out of our failing system, and Deukmejian took millions out.


Just because Reagan ran as a Libertarian in the 80's does not mean that he lived up to any of his promises once in office.  Government grew more under Reagen than it did under Clinton.  His education cuts were little to none.


Also, 100 years ago, California was not 36million, so it was easier to have priviate schooling. The proplem with Libertarian thought is it's for smaller rural countries and places that people are involved with each other.


That's the whole thing, the constitution states that any duties not granted to the Federal government within the constitution were to be handled by the states.  So the states were supposed to compete against each other.  Then you break everything down to a local, county, level, and so on.  The government isn't supposed to be ruling all the land.



In a place like California, there is so much diversity, and so much distrust and so many problems that these problems wouldn't work itself out. Too many kids will die or have babies before it works it's self out and that we cannot have.



That's the point, you say that there is distrust, well, if you distrust your school then start your own school in a Mexican community or you can have a Latino ran school where everyone trusts each other.  Whatever you want, it's your choice in a Libertarian country, you won't be forced by people like Bush and Gingrinch.

that's the issue, we fought to intergrate schools, and then have a system were people could put themselves into segration. That's not a way to teach kids who will be in the most diverse state in the union.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96' on March 12, 2008, 11:08:44 PM


that's the issue, we fought to intergrate schools, and then have a system were people could put themselves into segration. That's not a way to teach kids who will be in the most diverse state in the union.


Well.. I'm a Malcolm X guy, not a Martin Luther King guy.  While Martin was beggin to have black kids taught in the white man's schools.  Malcolm and Elijah Muhammad were biulding Nation of Islam schools and teaching the children African and Asian history, Arabic, and so on..., the white man didn't like that so he was always giving them trouble and shutting down their schools.

Anyway, what you are advocating is FORCED integration.  Check this MDogg, if you love integration so much, then in a Libertarian society you can get your Latino homies and get with Martin Luther Kings followers and find a white Liberal school and everyone will be happy.   

See, it's your choice in a Libertarian society.  Why do you want to force others to want the same things you want?  Why should Elijah Muhammad want integration just because you do?   Why can't you both have what you want? 
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Machiavelli on March 12, 2008, 11:41:41 PM
libertarianism = freedom
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Turf Hitta on March 13, 2008, 02:17:37 AM
While I think the public school system in America is generally a failure at this point and needs to be revamped, I disagree with this particular method.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96' on March 13, 2008, 01:13:36 PM
While I think the public school system in America is generally a failure at this point and needs to be revamped, I disagree with this particular method.

What do you agree with... paying even more of your tax money to fund an expanded version of Bush's "no child left behind?"  LOL.

That's why government is a joke.  If a program works, they say it's working so they call for more money, and if a government program doesn't work (like public schools, war on drugs, etc.) then they say it's not working and they need more money to fund it, more oversight, more bureaucracy, more paperwork, etc.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Turf Hitta on March 13, 2008, 02:01:26 PM
While I think the public school system in America is generally a failure at this point and needs to be revamped, I disagree with this particular method.

What do you agree with... paying even more of your tax money to fund an expanded version of Bush's "no child left behind?"  LOL.

That's why government is a joke.  If a program works, they say it's working so they call for more money, and if a government program doesn't work (like public schools, war on drugs, etc.) then they say it's not working and they need more money to fund it, more oversight, more bureaucracy, more paperwork, etc.


I don't have the answer, but this is definitely not it.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: The King on March 13, 2008, 04:59:15 PM
Get rid of public schools? That's a stupid idea. The problem is students going to different public schools get completely different qualities of education. Every public school should offer the same education, and quality of education.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96' on March 13, 2008, 05:02:18 PM
Get rid of public schools? That's a stupid idea. The problem is students going to different public schools get completely different qualities of education. Every public school should offer the same education, and quality of education.

And everyone should have a good job, and everyone should be prosperous, and everyone should be healthy, and everyone should be safe...  and if we just had a good government they would give us all of this, right?
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: The King on March 13, 2008, 06:49:28 PM
Get rid of public schools? That's a stupid idea. The problem is students going to different public schools get completely different qualities of education. Every public school should offer the same education, and quality of education.

And everyone should have a good job, and everyone should be prosperous, and everyone should be healthy, and everyone should be safe...  and if we just had a good government they would give us all of this, right?

Nice sarcasm. The point is other countries provide decent education to all their students. An education is different then the things you mentioned. A decent education is something everyone deserves. And something a lot of people get in countries like Germany, UK, Canada. The US government is incompetent at providing basic things.

The answer to problems in government services isn't privatizing things.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 13, 2008, 08:43:47 PM
What keeps the rich from getting the best education and poor from getting fucked over ?
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 15, 2008, 02:29:21 PM
What keeps the rich from getting the best education and poor from getting fucked over ?

Will someone please answer me.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Machiavelli on March 15, 2008, 03:43:36 PM
What keeps the rich from getting the best education and poor from getting fucked over ?

Will someone please answer me.

where do u get that from?
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Sparegeez on March 15, 2008, 04:31:55 PM
Honestly, is High School really that hard? It's a fucking piece of cake if you just respect your teachers (By respect I mean not get loud with them and disrupt what they're trying to teach you) and if you just do the easy ass work they assign. Blacks and Latinos struggle so much, at least here in Cali, because they always want to start shit with their teachers and act defiant when they don't need to. Sure there are some teachers that are just straight up dicks, but you can't deny you can still pass the class if you just mind your own business and do your work. And plus most teachers are teachers because they love to teach, remember they don't get paid that much. So obviously they are teaching for a reason..
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 15, 2008, 04:44:43 PM
What keeps the rich from getting the best education and poor from getting fucked over ?

Will someone please answer me.

where do u get that from?

Well I keep reading the govt wouldn't be involved with it.  It would be a private institution.  Which leads me to believe that since we wouldn't have to pay school tax anymore we would have to pay out of pocket for school?  If I am wrong and any choice of school is free to go to then let me know if I am wrong.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Primo on March 15, 2008, 04:50:07 PM
they teach you some of the most mundane shit in public schools. We are taught how Thanksgiving is a beautiful holiday even though we killed off the natives with small pox blankets and we to pledge allegiance to the flag.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Sparegeez on March 15, 2008, 04:54:46 PM
they teach you some of the most mundane shit in public schools. We are taught how Thanksgiving is a beautiful holiday even though we killed off the natives with small pox blankets and we to pledge allegiance to the flag.

Maybe in Elementary school. But we've had real good in depth discussions about how America is fucked up in all of my Government and History classes. Maybe it's because I live in a very Liberal area. But still, around me you see Black and Latino students dropping out. They're just being lazy while trying to get cool points with the ladys (Bitches at a young age love bad boys). No excuse.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Teddy Roosevelt on March 15, 2008, 05:29:52 PM
Honestly, is High School really that hard? It's a fucking piece of cake if you just respect your teachers (By respect I mean not get loud with them and disrupt what they're trying to teach you) and if you just do the easy ass work they assign. Blacks and Latinos struggle so much, at least here in Cali, because they always want to start shit with their teachers and act defiant when they don't need to. Sure there are some teachers that are just straight up dicks, but you can't deny you can still pass the class if you just mind your own business and do your work. And plus most teachers are teachers because they love to teach, remember they don't get paid that much. So obviously they are teaching for a reason..

Maybe in Elementary school. But we've had real good in depth discussions about how America is fucked up in all of my Government and History classes. Maybe it's because I live in a very Liberal area. But still, around me you see Black and Latino students dropping out. They're just being lazy while trying to get cool points with the ladys (Bitches at a young age love bad boys). No excuse.

Wow. You're speaking some real shit are there.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Teddy Roosevelt on March 15, 2008, 05:30:54 PM
they teach you some of the most mundane shit in public schools. We are taught how Thanksgiving is a beautiful holiday even though we killed off the natives with small pox blankets and we to pledge allegiance to the flag.
Most people don't even know that Thanksgiving originally had NOTHING to do with pilgrims, Native Americans, or turkeys.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Teddy Roosevelt on March 15, 2008, 05:35:36 PM
I think if we just get rid of the department of education, then US public schools would be better off.

Here's a question I pose to people who want to get rid of public schools: If private schools are so good and a free market would equal better education, why doesn't everyone enroll their kids in private over public schools? Too expensive? Doesn't the free market theory state that privatized companies would find a way to compete for everyone's business; therefore lowering prices?
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 16, 2008, 11:40:24 AM
I think if we just get rid of the department of education, then US public schools would be better off.

Here's a question I pose to people who want to get rid of public schools: If private schools are so good and a free market would equal better education, why doesn't everyone enroll their kids in private over public schools? Too expensive? Doesn't the free market theory state that privatized companies would find a way to compete for everyone's business; therefore lowering prices?

Can someone answer this for me ?  And a somewhat detailed answer.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Piffery on March 16, 2008, 11:55:08 AM
I think if we just get rid of the department of education, then US public schools would be better off.

Here's a question I pose to people who want to get rid of public schools: If private schools are so good and a free market would equal better education, why doesn't everyone enroll their kids in private over public schools? Too expensive? Doesn't the free market theory state that privatized companies would find a way to compete for everyone's business; therefore lowering prices?

Can someone answer this for me ?  And a somewhat detailed answer.

I think he answered it already.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 16, 2008, 12:26:38 PM
I think if we just get rid of the department of education, then US public schools would be better off.

Here's a question I pose to people who want to get rid of public schools: If private schools are so good and a free market would equal better education, why doesn't everyone enroll their kids in private over public schools? Too expensive? Doesn't the free market theory state that privatized companies would find a way to compete for everyone's business; therefore lowering prices?

Can someone answer this for me ?  And a somewhat detailed answer.

I think he answered it already.

I still dont get how that will keep the rich from getting the best education while the poor are stuck with whats left ?
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: virtuoso on March 16, 2008, 12:35:34 PM

I think the point being made is through competition, there will be an emphasis on the schools to provide the best possible education. I support this what I don't support is the unashamed facism of public private partnerships.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Piffery on March 16, 2008, 12:36:41 PM
I think if we just get rid of the department of education, then US public schools would be better off.

Here's a question I pose to people who want to get rid of public schools: If private schools are so good and a free market would equal better education, why doesn't everyone enroll their kids in private over public schools? Too expensive? Doesn't the free market theory state that privatized companies would find a way to compete for everyone's business; therefore lowering prices?

Can someone answer this for me ?  And a somewhat detailed answer.

I think he answered it already.

I still dont get how that will keep the rich from getting the best education while the poor are stuck with whats left ?

Truthfully I don't think anything will. Gaps in class and quality of life are just an unfortunate part of any society. No real easy solution to it. The poor can have the best, it's just a lot harder for them.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: M Dogg™ on March 16, 2008, 12:38:01 PM
In theory, maybe the market will regulate things, but in actual practice, there is time after time where in a private education system where the rich get great education and the poor stays poor due to little or no education chances. So yeah, you libs may think you are on to something, but its been tried and like Communism, it fails.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 16, 2008, 12:46:48 PM

I think the point being made is through competition, there will be an emphasis on the schools to provide the best possible education. I support this what I don't support is the unashamed facism of public private partnerships.

either way the poor are still fucked... hell the poor up untill the middle middle class are still fucked.  The current system and a free market system still leave those that need the help the most fucked over.  This is what I am gathering from what you pro free market school systems guys are telling me.  Don't get me wrong our current system is still fucked up.  But depending on where you live sometimes you do luck out.  Like in NYC if you have the grades you can get into good public schools.  THey have specialized public schools.  Now albeit they still teach you a lot of bull shit but at least they have specialized courses towards what you want.  But at the same time I know most of the country you aren't offered those types of options.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 16, 2008, 12:49:27 PM
I also just want to stress the fact that our current education system is completely fucked for the most part as well.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Piffery on March 16, 2008, 12:51:59 PM
I also just want to stress the fact that our current education system is completely fucked for the most part as well.

so is every other facet of our countries infrastructure  :-\
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 16, 2008, 12:52:06 PM
Honestly, is High School really that hard? It's a fucking piece of cake if you just respect your teachers (By respect I mean not get loud with them and disrupt what they're trying to teach you) and if you just do the easy ass work they assign. Blacks and Latinos struggle so much, at least here in Cali, because they always want to start shit with their teachers and act defiant when they don't need to. Sure there are some teachers that are just straight up dicks, but you can't deny you can still pass the class if you just mind your own business and do your work. And plus most teachers are teachers because they love to teach, remember they don't get paid that much. So obviously they are teaching for a reason..

Thats not a education though.  I remember in high school the year book posted the top 25 GPA's in the graduating class.  Most of the kids on the top 25 were morons.  They were the ones that kissed ass and did there home work.  But they had no common sense.  No grasp on whats going on in the real world.  Yet they were the ones who will have 10X the options then I will ever have.  Thats why this country is falling behind in math and science.  Because of thinking like this.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 16, 2008, 12:54:44 PM
I also just want to stress the fact that our current education system is completely fucked for the most part as well.

so is every other facet of our countries infrastructure  :-\

I know, thats why we need to unite and rise up.  Because we just sat there and let it happen.  Our arrogance got the best of us.  We refused to believe this country could have problems.  We refused to believe other countries could have better answers then this country.  We refused to believe that this country is robbing us of our freedoms, liberties, and our money.  Now we are paying the price and we're still not doing anything about it.  Thats why I really believe we need unite and rise up to get this country back..... VIVA LA REVOLUCIÓN
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: virtuoso on March 16, 2008, 12:59:15 PM

M Dogg do you realise your contradiction? you said communism doesn't work but you support socialism, socialism is interlinked with communism  ;D lol, sorry but jesus.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Sparegeez on March 16, 2008, 01:05:26 PM

M Dogg do you realise your contradiction? you said communism doesn't work but you support socialism, socialism is interlinked with communism  ;D lol, sorry but jesus.

When did he say he supports socialism? I've never seen a post from him that says he does.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Javier on March 16, 2008, 01:07:38 PM
What should happen is that Universities should just get rid of their GE classes. It's there for the undecided people, but it fucks everybody else up who knows what they want. 


Are the High Schools really in such a bad shape?  Pretty much the goal of every High School student is to either get accepted to a University or prefer a cheaper route and start off with a JC.  Sure, every school is different (quality wise) and each state has it's own "guidelines" on what to teach but in the end it's all general education.  Public or Private, it's going to be General Education.  And is that really such a bad idea?  It's important to have a balance of knowledge.  If you're a Jr in High School and you know you want to Major in Econimcs...enroll yourself in to a Junior College and start getting some Econ classes.  You can be in the most fucked up High School, with the worst teachers in the Country and still make it to a good school.  How?  Buy an SAT Book and study your ass off.  Universities know that Public Schools range from horrible to elite schools, that's why they consider everything when you apply.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 16, 2008, 01:17:36 PM

 You can be in the most fucked up High School, with the worst teachers in the Country and still make it to a good school.  How?  Buy an SAT Book and study your ass off.  Universities know that Public Schools range from horrible to elite schools, that's why they consider everything when you apply.

See I disagree with this though.  Because far too many kids don't realize this.  Far too many of these kids are told from the get go if you don't have money you are fucked.  I know because I was one of those kids.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Javier on March 16, 2008, 01:28:37 PM

 You can be in the most fucked up High School, with the worst teachers in the Country and still make it to a good school.  How?  Buy an SAT Book and study your ass off.  Universities know that Public Schools range from horrible to elite schools, that's why they consider everything when you apply.

See I disagree with this though.  Because far too many kids don't realize this.  Far too many of these kids are told from the get go if you don't have money you are fucked.  I know because I was one of those kids.

That would help a lot, it will reach a good number of students. But you still got the knuckleheads that even if schools were to concentrate on Financial Aid and tips on applying to Universities a lot of kids would still not pay attention.  At this point, it's up to us really.  We can tell our younger cousins, brothers, sisters, etc what sort of tips, advantages etc.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: virtuoso on March 16, 2008, 01:30:44 PM
He must do since he seems to support so many of the Obama socialist policies and right now I don't even feel like highlighting what those policies are. Just read into what socialism is and why communism is so dangerous and then look at the proposed policies and then try convincing yourself that's not a socialist agenda.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 16, 2008, 01:49:28 PM

 You can be in the most fucked up High School, with the worst teachers in the Country and still make it to a good school.  How?  Buy an SAT Book and study your ass off.  Universities know that Public Schools range from horrible to elite schools, that's why they consider everything when you apply.

See I disagree with this though.  Because far too many kids don't realize this.  Far too many of these kids are told from the get go if you don't have money you are fucked.  I know because I was one of those kids.

That would help a lot, it will reach a good number of students. But you still got the knuckleheads that even if schools were to concentrate on Financial Aid and tips on applying to Universities a lot of kids would still not pay attention.  At this point, it's up to us really.  We can tell our younger cousins, brothers, sisters, etc what sort of tips, advantages etc.


I agree but someone like me for example.  I am a oldest child so I had no older bro to guide me.  I was the first person in my family to go to college in 70 some odd years.  On my dads side I was the first to actually graduate high school and not drop out and get a GED in 70 years.  I had no one to guide me.  Luckily I eventually found out what was out there for me.  But it two years.  That was two years of my life wasted.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: herpes on March 16, 2008, 01:50:35 PM
He must do since he seems to support so many of the Obama socialist policies and right now I don't even feel like highlighting what those policies are. Just read into what socialism is and why communism is so dangerous and then look at the proposed policies and then try convincing yourself that's not a socialist agenda.

Even though socialism ties into communism there are differences.  Some socialist believe that both socialism and capitalism can work together.  While communism doesn't believe in capitalism at all.
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: EXPOSEPONCESENT on March 19, 2008, 12:14:23 PM
All I know is they need to stop invading country's for oil that only benefits Bush and his cronies in Halliburton and the oil industry and so on and so on, America is the richest country in the world and it can afford to have a better public school system in the inner citys if it wanted too, but it dosen't, they just want to waste taxpayers money, trillions of it on silly wars that fuck up other people's countrys and only benefits a select few, trust
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: EXPOSEPONCESENT on April 11, 2008, 04:51:57 AM
this is breaking down the whole system trying to get rid of US public schools stuff even deeper, its crazy, taken from www.globalresearch.ca

Destroying Public Education in America

by Stephen Lendman

Global Research, April 7, 2008

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

Diogenes called education "the foundation of every state." Education reformer and "father of American education" Horace Mann went even further. He said: "The common school (meaning public ones) is the greatest discovery ever made by man." He called it the "great equalizer" that was "common" to all, and as Massachusetts Secretary of Education founded the first board of education and teacher training college in the state where the first (1635) public school was established. Throughout the country today, privatization schemes target them and threaten to end a 373 year tradition.

It's part of Chicago's Renaissance 2010 Turnaround strategy for 100 new "high-performing" elementary and high schools in the city by that date. Under five year contracts, they'll "be held accountable....to create innovative learning environments" under one of three "governance structures:"

-- charter schools under the 1996 Illinois Charter Schools Law; they're called "public schools of choice, selected by students and parents....to take responsible risks and create new, innovative and more flexible ways of educating children within the public school system;" in 1997, the Illinois General Assembly approved 60 state charter schools; Chicago was authorized 30, the suburbs 15 more, and 15 others downstate. The city bends the rules by operating about 53 charter "campuses" and lots more are planned.

Charter schools aren't magnet ones that require students in some cases to have special skills or pass admissions tests. However, they have specific organizing themes and educational philosophies and may target certain learning problems, development needs, or educational possibilities. In all states, they're legislatively authorized; near-autonomous in their operations; free to choose their students and exclude unwanted ones; and up to now are quasi-public with no religious affiliation. Administration and corporate schemes assure they won't stay that way because that's the sinister plan. More on that below.

George Bush praised these schools last April when he declared April 29 through May 5 National Charter Schools Week. He said they provide more "choice," are a "valuable educational alternative," and he thanked "educational entrepreneurs for supporting" these schools around the country.

Here's what the president praised. Lisa Delpit is executive director of the Center for Urban Education & Innovation. In her capacity, she studies charter school performance and cited evidence from a 2005 Department of Education report. Her conclusion: "charter schools....are less likely than public schools to meet state education goals." Case study examples in five states showed they underperform, and are "less likely than traditional public (ones) to employ teachers meeting state certification standards."

Other underperformance evidence came from an unexpected source - an October 1994 Money magazine report on 70 public and private schools. It concluded that "students who attend the best public schools outperform most private school students, that the best public schools offer a more challenging curriculum than most private schools, and that the private school advantage in test scores is due to their selective admission policies."

Clearly a failing grade on what's spreading across the country en route to total privatization and the triumph of the market over educating the nation's youths.

In 1991, Minnesota passed the first charter school law. California followed in 1992, and it's been off to the races since. By 1995 19 states had them, and in 2007 there were over 4000 charter schools in 40 states and the District of Columbia with more than one million students in them and growing.

Chicago's two other "governance structures" are:

-- contract (privatized) schools run by "independent nonprofit organizations;" they operate under a Performance Agreement between the "organization" and the Board of Education; and

-- performance schools under Chicago Public Schools (CPS) management "with freedom and flexibility on many district initiatives and policies;" unmentioned is the Democrat mayor's close ties to the Bush administration and their preference for marketplace education; the idea isn't new, but it accelerated rapidly in recent years.

Another part of the scheme is in play as well, in Chicago and throughout the country. Inner city schools are being closed, remaining ones are neglected and decrepit, classroom sizes are increasing, and children and parents are being sacrificed on the alter of marketplace triumphalism.

Consider recent events under Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago. On February 27, the city's Board of Education unanimously and without discussion voted to close, relocate or otherwise target 19 public schools, fire teachers, and leave students out in the cold. Thousands of parents protested, were ignored and denied access to the Board of Ed meeting where the decision came down pro forma and quick. And it wasn't the first time. For years under the current mayor, Chicago has closed or privatized more schools than anywhere else in the country, and the trend is accelerating. Since July 2001, the city closed 59 elementary and secondary schools and replaced many of them with charter or contract ones.

Nationwide Education "Reform"

Throughout the country, various type schemes follow the administration's "education reform" blueprint. It began with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) that became law on January 8, 2002. It succeeded the 1994 Goals 2000: Educate America Act that set eight outcomes-based goals for the year 2000 but failed on all counts to meet them. Goals 2000, in turn, goes back to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and specifically its Title I provisions for funding schools and districts with a high percentage of low-income family students.

NCLB is outrageous. It's long on testing, school choice, and market-based "reforms" but short on real achievement. It's built around rote learning, standardized tests, requiring teachers to "teach to the test," assessing results by Average Yearly Progress (AYP) scores, and punishing failure harshly - firing teachers and principals, closing schools and transforming them from public to charter or for-profit ones.

Critics denounce the plan as "an endless regimen of test-preparation drills" for poor children. Others call it underfunded and a thinly veiled scheme to privatize education and transfer its costs and responsibilities from the federal government to individuals and impoverished school districts. Mostly, it reflects current era thinking that anything government does business does better, so let it. And Democrats are as complicit as Republicans.

So far, NCLB renewal bills remain stalled in both Houses, election year politics have intervened, and final resolution may be for the 111th Congress to decide. For critics, that's positive because the law failed to deliver as promised. Its sponsors claimed it would close the achievement gap between inner city and rural schools and more affluent suburban ones. It's real aim, however, is to commodify education, end government responsibility for it, and make it another business profit center.

Last October, the New York Times cited Los Angeles as a vision of the future. It said "more than 1000 of California's 9500 schools are branded chronic failures, and the numbers are growing." Under NCLB, "state officials predict that all 6063" poor district schools will fail and will have to be "restructured" by 2014, when the law requires universal proficiency in math and reading." It's happening throughout the country, and The Times cited examples in New York, Florida and Maryland. Schools get five years to deliver or be declared irredeemable, in which case they must "restructure" with new teachers and principals.

In Los Angeles and around the country, "the promised land of universal high achievement seems more distant than ever," and one parent expressed her frustration. Weeks into the new school year, she said teachers focus solely on what's likely to appear on exams. "Maybe the system is not designed for people like us," she complained. Indeed it's not.

New Millennium Education

That's the theme of Time magazine's December 9, 2006 article on the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). It's on NCEE's New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. Time called it "a high-powered, bipartisan assembly of Education Secretaries, business leaders and a former Governor" and the pre-K to 12 education blueprint they released. It's called "Tough Choices or Tough Times," was funded by the (Bill) Gates Foundation, and below is its corporate wish list:

-- moving beyond charter schools to privatized contract ones; charter schools are just stalking horses for what business really wants - privatizing all public schools for their huge profit potential;

-- ending high school for many poor and minority students after the 10th grade - for those who score poorly on standardized tests intended for high school seniors; those who do well can finish high school and go on to college; others who barely pass can go to community colleges or technical schools after high school;

-- ending remediation and special education aid for low-performance students to cut costs;

-- ending teacher pensions and reducing their health and other benefits;

-- ending seniority and introducing merit pay and other teacher differentials based on student performance and questionable standards;

-- eliminating school board powers, all regulations, and empowering private companies;

-- effectively destroying teacher unions; and

-- ending public education and creating a nationwide profit center with every incentive to cut costs and cheat students for bottom line gains; this follows an earlier decades-long corporate - public higher education trend that one educator calls a "subtle yet significant change toward (university) privatization, meaning that private entities are gradually replacing taxpayers as the dominant funding source as state appropriations account for a lower and lower percentage of schools' operating resources;" corporations now want elementary and secondary education control for the huge new market they represent.

The Skills Commission's earlier 1990s work advanced the scheme and laid the groundwork for NCLB. It came out of its "America's Choice: High Skills or Low Wages" report on non-college-bound students. It called them "ill-equipped to meet employer's current needs and ill-prepared for the rapidly approaching, high-technology, service-oriented future." It recommended ending an "outmoded model" and adopting a standards-based learning and testing approach to enforce student - teacher accountability.

Both Commission reports reflect a corporate wish list to commodify education, benefit the well-off, and consign underprivileged kids to low-wage, no benefit service jobs. It's a continuing trend to shift higher-paying ones abroad, downsize the nation, and end the American dream for millions. So why educate them.

School Vouchers

They didn't make it into NCLB, but they're very much on the table with a sinister added twist. First some background.

It's an old idea dating back to the hard right's favorite economist and man the UK Financial Times called "the last of the great (ones)" when he died in November 2006. Milton Friedman promoted school choice in 1955, then kick-started it in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan. He opposed public education, supported school vouchers for privately-run ones, and believed marketplace competition improves performance even though voucher amounts are inadequate and mostly go to religious schools in violation of the First Amendment discussed below.

Here's how the Friedman Foundation for Education Choice currently describes the voucher scheme: it's the way to let "every parent send their child to the school of their choice regardless of where they live or income." In fact, it's a thinly veiled plot to end public education and use lesser government funding amounts for well-off parents who can make up the difference and send their children to private-for-profit schools. Others are on their own under various programs with "additional restrictions" the Foundation lists without explanation:

-- Universal Voucher Programs for all children;

-- Means-Tested Voucher Programs for families below a defined income level;

-- Failing Schools, Failing Students Voucher Programs for poor students or "failed" schools;

-- Special Needs Voucher Programs for children with special educational needs;

-- Pre-kindergarten Voucher Programs; and

-- Town Tuitioning Programs for communities without operating public schools for some students' grade levels.

What else is behind school choice and vouchers? Privatization mostly, but it's also thinly-veiled aid for parochial schools, mainly Christian fundamentalist ones, and the frightening ideology they embrace - racial hatred, male gender dominance, white Christian supremacy, militarism, free market everything, and ending public education and replacing it with private Christian fundamentalist schools.

In March 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in Lemon v. Kurtzman against parochial funding in what became known as the "Lemon Test." In a unanimous 7 - 0 decision, the Court decided that government assistance for religious schools was unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. It prohibits the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, and the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...."

That changed in June 2002 when the Court ruled 5 - 4 in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that Cleveland's religious school funding didn't violate the Establishment Clause. The decision used convoluted reasoning that the city's program was for secular, not religious purposes in spite of some glaring facts. In 1999 and 2000, 82% of funding went to religious schools, and 96% of students benefitting were enrolled in them.

The Court harmed democracy and the Constitution's letter and spirit. It also contradicted Thomas Jefferson's 1802 affirmation that there should be "a wall of separation between church and state." No longer for the nation's schools.

Nationwide Efforts to Privatize Education

In recent years, privatization efforts have expanded beyond urban inner cities and are surfacing everywhere with large amounts of corporate funding and government support backing them. One effort among many is frightening. It's called "Strong American Schools - ED in '08" and states the following: it's "a nonpartisan public awareness campaign aimed at elevating education to (the nation's top priority)." It says "America's students are losing out," and the "campaign seeks to unite all Americans around the crucial mission of improving our public schools (by using an election year to elevate) the discussion to a national stage."

Billionaires Bill Gates and Eli Broad put up $60 million for the effort for the big returns they expect. Former Colorado governor and (from 2001 - 2006) superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District Roy Romer is the chairman. The Rockefeller (family) Philanthropy Advisors are also involved as one of their efforts "to bring the entire world under their sway" in the words of one analyst. Other steering committee members include former IBM CEO and current Carlyle Group chairman Lou Gerstner; former Michigan governor and current National Association of Manufacturers president John Engler; and Gates Foundation head Allan Golston.

"Ed in '08" has a three-point agenda:

-- ending seniority and substituting merit pay for teachers based on student test scores;

-- national education standards based on rote learning; standards are to be uniformly based on "what (business thinks) ought to be taught, grade by grade;" it's to prepare some students for college and the majority for workplace low-skill, low-paid, no-benefit jobs; and

-- longer school days and school year; unmentioned but key is eliminating unions or making them weak and ineffective.

In addition, the plan involves putting big money behind transforming public and charter schools to private-for-profit ones. It's spreading everywhere, and consider California's "Program Improvement" initiative. Under it, "All schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) (must make) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)" under NCLB provisions nearly impossible to achieve. Those that fail must divert public money from classrooms to private-for-profit remediating programs. It's part of a continuing effort to defund inner city schools and place them in private hands, then on to the suburbs with other "innovative" schemes to transform them as well.

Under the governor's proposed 2008 $4.8 billion education budget cut, transformation got easier. As of mid-March, 20,000 California teachers got layoff notices with State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell saying this action puts student performance "in grave jeopardy." Likely by design.

Plundering New Orleans

Nowhere is planned makeover greater than in post-Katrina New Orleans, and last June 28 the Supreme Court made it easier. Its ruling in Meredith v. Jefferson County (KY) and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District effectively gutted the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that affirmed: segregated public schools deny "Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment."

In two troubling 5 - 4 decisions, the Roberts Court changed the law. They said public schools can't seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures taking explicit account of a student's race. They rewrote history, so cities henceforth may have separate and unequal education. Then it's on to George Wallace-style racism with policies like: "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" with the High Court believing what was good for 1960s Alabama is now right for the country.

The Court also made it easy for New Orleans to become a corporate predator's dream, and it didn't take long to exploit it. Consider public schools alone. The storm destroyed over half their buildings and scattered tens of thousands of students and teachers across the country. Within days of the calamity, Governor Kathleen Blanco held a special legislative session. Subject - taking over New Orleans Public Schools (NOPS) that serve about 63,000 mostly low-income almost entirely African-American children. Here's what followed:

-- two weeks after the hurricane, US Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings cited charter schools as "uniquely equipped" to serve Katrina-displaced students;

-- two weeks later, she announced the first of two $20 million grants to the state, solely for these schools;

-- then in October 2005, the governor issued an executive order waiving key portions of the state's charter school law allowing public schools to be converted to charter ones with no debate, input or even knowledge of parents and teachers;

-- a month later in November, the state legislature voted to take over 107 (84%) of the city's 128 public schools and place them under the state-controlled "Recovery School District (RSD);" and

-- in February 2006, all unionized city school employees were fired, then selectively rehired at less pay and fewer or no benefits; it affected 7500 teachers as well as custodians, cafeteria workers and others.

Within six months of Katrina, the city was largely ethnically cleansed, the public schools infrastructure mostly gutted, and a new framework was in place. It put NOPS into three categories - public, charter and the Recovery School District with the latter ones run by the state as charter or for-profit schools.

New Orleans Loyola University law professor Bill Quigley described the plunder and called it "a massive (new) experiment....on thousands of (mostly) African American children...." It's in two halves.

The first half based on Recovery School District's estimated 30,000 returning students in January 2007:

-- "Half of (these children were) enrolled (in) charter schools." They got "tens of millions of dollars" in federal money, but aren't "open to every child....Some charter schools have special selective academic criteria (and can) exclude children in need of special academic help." Others "have special administrative policies (that) effectively screen out many children." This latter category has "accredited teachers in manageable size classes (in schools with) enrollment caps....These schools also educate far fewer students with academic or emotional disabilities (and) are in better facilities than the other half of the children...."

"The other half:"

These students were "assigned to a one-year-old experiment in public education run by the State of Louisiana called the 'Recovery School District (RSD)' program." Their education "will be compared" to what first half children get in charter schools. "These children are effectively....called the 'control group' of an experiment - those against whom the others will be evaluated."

RSD "other half" schools got no federal funds. Its leadership is inexperienced. It's critically understaffed. Many of its teachers are uncertified. There aren't enough of them, and schools assigned students hadn't been built for their scheduled fall 2007 opening. In addition, some schools reported a "prison atmosphere," and in others, children spent long hours in gymnasiums because teachers hadn't arrived. In addition, there was little academic counseling; college-preparatory math; or science and languages; and class sizes are too large because returning students are assigned to too few of them.

Many RSD schools also have no "working kitchens or water fountains (and their) bathroom facilities are scandalous....Hardly any white children attend this half of the school experiment." RSD schools are for poor black students getting short-changed and denied a real education by an uncaring state and nation and corporations in it for profit.

Quigley described a system for "Haves (and) Have-Nots," and race defines it. He also exposed the lie that charter schools are public ones. Across the country, but especially in New Orleans, school officials are unaccountable, can pick and choose their students, and can decide who gets educated and who doesn't.

Separate and Unequal

In his 2005 book "The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America," Jonathan Kozol explains a problem getting worse, not better. Using data from state and local education agencies, interviews with researchers and policy makers, and the Harvard Civil Rights Project, his account is disturbing at a time of NCLB and other destructive initiatives.

Harvard Civil Rights researchers captured the problem in their Brown v. Board of Education 50th anniversary assessment stating: "At the beginning of the twenty-first century, American public schools are now 12 years into the process of continuous resegregation." Desegregation from the 1950s through the late 1980s "has receded to levels not seen in three decades." The percent of black students in majority-white schools stands at "a level lower than in any year since 1968" with conditions worst of all in the nation's four most segregated states - New York, Michigan, Illinois and California. "Martin Luther King's dream is being celebrated in theory and dishonored in practice" by what's happening in inner-city schools. King would be appalled "that the country would renege on its promises," and the Supreme Court would authorize it in their two above cited decisions and an earlier 1991 one:

-- Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell that ruled for resegregating neighborhood schools mostly in areas of the South where desegregation was most advanced.

According to recent National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data, blacks and Latinos now comprise about 95% of inner-city students in the nation's 100 largest school systems - accounting for more than one-third of all public school students. Kozol writes about "hypersegregation" with "no more than five or 10 white children (in) a student population of as many as 3000," and this is the "norm, not the exception, in most northern urban areas today." It's "fashionable," he says, to declare integration "failed" and settle for a new millennium version of "Plessey" and its "separate but equal" doctrine that "Brown" repudiated until now.

Despite high-minded political posturing and programs like NCLB, the truth is these youngsters are forgotten and abused. They're warehoused in decrepit facilities, curricula offerings ignore their needs, testing is unrelated to learning, teachers don't teach, the whole scheme is swept under the rug, and "educating" the unwanted is "standardized" to produce good workers with pretty low skill levels for the kinds of jobs awaiting them. Kozol refers to "school reform" as a "business enterprise with goals, action plans, implementation targets, and productivity measures," and above all what marketplace potential there is.

Separate and unequal is the current inner city school standard. Unless it's exposed, denounced and reversed, (and there's no sign of it), millions of poor and minority children will be denied what the "American dream" increasingly only offers the privileged. And no one in Washington cares or they'd be doing something about it.

Disturbing New Dropout Data

A new Editorial Projects in Education (EPE) Research Center report released April 1 is revealing, disturbing but not surprising. It states only 52% of public high school students in the nation's 50 largest cities completed the full curriculum and graduated in 2003 - 2004. This compares to the national average of 70%. Below are some of the findings:

-- 1.2 million public high school students drop out each year;

-- 17 of the 50 troubled cities have graduation rates of 50% or lower; in Detroit it's 24.9%; Indianapolis is 30.5%; Cleveland at 34.1%; Baltimore - 34.6%; Columbus - 40.9%; Minneapolis - 43.7%; Dallas - 44.4%; New York - 45.2%; Los Angeles - 45.3%; Oakland - 45.6%; Kansas City - 45.7%; Atlanta - 46%; Milwaukee - 46.1%; Denver - 46.3%; Oklahoma City - 47.5%; Miami - 49%; and Philadelphia - 49.6%;

-- Chicago barely came in at 51.5%;

-- the data show public education in the 50 largest cities' principal school districts in a virtual state of collapse;

-- dropout rates for blacks and Latinos are significantly higher than for white students;

-- dropouts are eight times more likely to end up in prison; family income is the main problem; in cities most affected, it goes hand in hand with a lack of good jobs and a sub-standard social infrastructure;

-- key to understanding the overall problem nationwide is the gutting of social services, widening income gap between rich and poor, exporting manufacturing and other high-paying jobs abroad, and politicians and business exploiting the needs of the many to benefit the few;

-- NCLB "reform" is called the solution; Democrats and Republicans are complicit in promoting it, and no one in government explains the truth - the report reveals a sinister scheme to end public education, say it causes poor student performance, and privatize it so the "market" can provide it to well-off communities and merely exploit the rest for profit.

Why else would the (Bill) Gates Foundation have funded the study and Colin Powell's America's Promise Alliance have sponsored it. APA is partnered with business, faith-based (Christian fundamentalist) groups, wealthy funders, and organizations like the American Bankers Association, right wing Aspen Institute, Business Roundtable, Ford Motor, Fannie Mae, Marriott International, National Association of Manufacturers, US Chamber of Commerce and many other for-profit ones and NGOs.

Educational Maintenance Organizations

It's a new term for an old idea that's much like their failed HMO counterparts. They're private-for-profit businesses that contract with local school districts or individual charter schools to "improve the quality of education without significantly raising current spending levels." They're still rare, but watch out for them and what they're up to.

An example is the Edison Project running Edison (for-profit) Schools. It calls itself "the nation's leading public school partner, working with schools and districts to raise student achievement and help every child reach his or her full potential." In the 2006-2007 school year, Edison served over 285,000 "public school" students in 19 states, the District of Columbia and the UK through "management partnerships with districts and charter schools; summer, after-school, and Supplemental Educational Service programs; and achievement management solutions for school systems."

Edison Schools, and its controversial charter schools and EMO projects, hope to cash in on privatizing education and is bankrolled by Microsoft's co-founder Paul Allen to do it. The company was founded in 1992, its performance record is spotty, and too often deceptive. It cooks the books on its assessments results that unsurprisingly show far more than they achieve. That's clear when independent evaluations are made.

Kalamazoo's Western Michigan University's Evaluation Center published one of them in December 2000. Miami-Dade County public schools did another in the late 1990s. Both studies agreed. They showed Edison School students didn't outperform their public school counterparts, and they were kind in their assessment.

Even more disturbing was Edison's performance in Texas. It took over two Sherman, Texas schools in 1995, then claimed it raised student performance by 5%. But an independent American Institutes for Research (AIR) study couldn't confirm it because Edison threatened legal action if its results were revealed. It was later learned that AIR's findings weren't exactly glowing and were thus suppressed. However, Sherman schools knew them, and when Edison's contract came up for renewal, the company withdrew before being embarrassed by expulsion.

The city's school superintendent had this assessment. He said Edison arrived with promises to educate students at the same cost as public schools and would improve performance. In the end, the city spent an extra $4 million, and students test scores were lower than in other schools. The superintendent added: "They were more about money than teaching," and that's the problem with privatized education in all its forms - charter, contract or EMOs that place profits over students.

Unless public action stops it, Edison is the future and so is New Orleans in its worst of all forms. It's spreading fast, and without public knowledge or discussion. It's the privatization of all public spaces and belief that marketplace everything works best. Indeed for business, but not people who always lose out to profits.

Global Research Associate Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8566

Stephen Lendman is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Stephen Lendman
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: LooN3y on April 12, 2008, 02:09:48 PM
a lot of lapd r racists fucks. never goes and gets the fucking white boys
Title: Re: They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
Post by: Sparegeez on April 13, 2008, 02:29:00 PM
a lot of lapd r racists fucks. never goes and gets the fucking white boys

And they fuck with the Koreans? LOL, Get da fuck outta here.