You hear the phony ed reformers say it all the time: schools are currently set up for adults (teachers) than for kids. What a load of bull. Like they really are setting things up for kids rather than the corporate work force. Exactly who are the people who fight for lower class size? In all my years in the system I found teachers were often the fiercest fighters for their kids.
A post today from guest blogger Yo Mis over at NYC Educator addresses this brilliantly.
Recently, at an event dubbed “Ed Challenge for Change,” certain Democratic politicians had a fine time denouncing teachers’ unions. Most curious, I thought, was Colorado State Senator Peter Groff, who complained that when the adult agenda meets the children’s agenda, “the adult agenda wins too often.” This statement led me to ponder what, exactly, is the “adult agenda” in education. Let’s assume that the “adult agenda” is roughly the “teacher agenda,” as I cannot imagine what else Sen. Groff could possibly mean.
Make sure to read the entire thing. It is Superb! I'm not sure there's any better way to say this.
One of the corrolaries is their line "schools should be for children, not adults (teachers)".
But is their agenda "for children" really favorable to children or the imposition of a privatized, business, competitive model on schools and children? How have children benefitted from the chaotic reorganizations of the BloomKlein years? How do they benefit from credit recovery? Or seat time? Or easier tests?
How do the mostly innocent students benefit from walking into a police state every morning through metal detectors?
