Survey says…
If you had the ear of some of the education world’s biggest funders, how would you recommend their spending focus be targeted? Where would you steer the philanthropic priorities of the Broad, Gates, Mott or Ford Foundation? Where are the holes in education reform? What is getting too much money? What is not getting enough?
We posed these questions in the latest edition of our weekly Center for Education Reform Newswire. Take a minute to share your recommendations via this short (I promise) survey. We’ll reveal the common wisdom in next week’s issue.
Harriet Winters
May 3, 2009 | 8:05 AMTheir spending should be targeted toward technology based innovations in education i.e. cyber learning tools, and marketing the cyber learning experience as a viable model for an effective learning experience. From my personal experience as a mother of two daughters we have tried private schools, public schools, and cyber schools. Of the three education models—greater strides in learning came in the cyber school forum. Additionally, spending should also go into developing the same curricula Finland uses to teach science to their students (currently Finland is leading the world in science studies). And spending should go into develop the math curricula of the Asian countries (the Asians have been the leaders in top math test scores).
The holes in education reform exist in the notion that more money flowing through the traditional education model (public school), better teacher training, and salary perks will fix this education crisis we are in. The problem with this notion is that the task of learning these skills in math, science, reading, and writing aren’t gained by any other method other then the child applying the energy required to grasping the skills. Additionally, statistical studies have shown that more money pumped into education does not improve test scores.
The effort has to come from the child with a strong support system in place: adequate learning materials, strong PARENT and teacher oversight, and an environment conducive to learning. Currently, most public schools divide 9 periods in a day allotting 40 minutes to each subject, which I find completely absurd. By the time the children get settled in their seats there may be 35 minutes left to teach—and just when you get to the point of a lesson—its time to move on to the next class. In essence, we have in our public schools today a system of shuffling students from class to class with minimal gains in learning.
Public education is getting too much money. In my state of Pennsylvania over 17 billion a year goes into public education and yet only 40 percent of students who make it to graduation go to college, and of that 40 percent a smaller percentage make it to college graduation. This is an outrage that our society continues to support public education with no question as to the effectiveness of the use of the money. We have, here in America, a society of criminals, unemployed welfare recipients, and low-wage earners thanks to public education.
There needs to be a shifting of the resources as well as a shifting of priorities. We need to be innovators in our education system. That means we have to tear down the foundations in place that the traditional education model sits on and replace it with a new system. Here’s a unconventional proposition—instead of making more money available to teachers—make money available to parents that want to work in the home teaching their children in a cyber school forum.