Slashdot Mirror
The Washington Post Pans Apple-Sponsored School Reform TV Special (washingtonpost.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader theodp writes: On Friday night, the Big Four Networks simultaneously aired EIF Presents: XQ Super School Live [YouTube], a commercial-free, one-hour TV special that championed Laurene Powell Jobs' mission to rethink the American high school. The closing credits listed Jobs as an Executive Producer, and noted that the chock-full-of-celebrities special was sponsored in part by her Emerson Collective and Apple.
"Surely Samuel L. Jackson, Tom Hanks, Mahershala Ali, Justin Timberlake, Cate Blanchett and a bevy of other celebrities have nothing but laudable intentions by appearing on Friday night's live televised high school reform spectacular on four -- count them, four -- major networks (NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox)," writes the Washington Post's Valerie Strauss. "But when an hour of prime time on four networks is purchased, it's fair to ask whether that is a public service or propaganda."
The Post points out gently that "not everyone believes" in the need to "transform" high schools, while theodp notes "viewers were pitched XQ Super School Board Program kits, which XQ's website explains are designed to prepare individuals for a school board candidacy."
If this seems suspiciously political -- or at least a way to ensure schools are friendly to Laurene Powell Jobs' specific proposals -- the nonprofit's web site adds reassuringly that "XQ won't be endorsing or supporting particular candidates; we'll be supporting all candidates who stand with us in a shared commitment to rethink high school, so all young people can be educated as they deserve."
"Surely Samuel L. Jackson, Tom Hanks, Mahershala Ali, Justin Timberlake, Cate Blanchett and a bevy of other celebrities have nothing but laudable intentions by appearing on Friday night's live televised high school reform spectacular on four -- count them, four -- major networks (NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox)," writes the Washington Post's Valerie Strauss. "But when an hour of prime time on four networks is purchased, it's fair to ask whether that is a public service or propaganda."
The Post points out gently that "not everyone believes" in the need to "transform" high schools, while theodp notes "viewers were pitched XQ Super School Board Program kits, which XQ's website explains are designed to prepare individuals for a school board candidacy."
If this seems suspiciously political -- or at least a way to ensure schools are friendly to Laurene Powell Jobs' specific proposals -- the nonprofit's web site adds reassuringly that "XQ won't be endorsing or supporting particular candidates; we'll be supporting all candidates who stand with us in a shared commitment to rethink high school, so all young people can be educated as they deserve."
This was on the four major broadcast networks (sorry, CW) - yet how many of us had no idea it was happening? This Slashdot submission was the first I'd heard of it, in any case...
#DeleteChrome
You got several levels of schooling in this country. The elite go to prep schools and other private routes and go to elite colleges and then to elite jobs where they get an education. The elite take care of themselves just fine.
Then you got public school which has to take care of the worst (special ed, and pls spare me the crap) to the best, some who might likely get identified early and sped along. Many not. And whether they are at 25% or 90%, many have to attend the same classes.
And public school has little tolerance for trade jobs, the overriding message is "Go to College" nevermind that many people work well with their hands, don't have the funds for college, and that college doesn't automatically mean better pay in the long haul.
We can also seperate this between inner city schools, most are underfunded, and suburban schools -- where the teachers often make more than the surrounding median population but will cry how poor they are like inner city teachers while their pay/benefits/pensions put crushing taxes on their districts in some states.
Public schools are generally a one-size-fits-all system when it doesn't and that is the overriding problem. Children can certainly benefit some customization something like a tablet running Khan Academy or Duoling-like programs can bring. But then again, tablets in their current form with browsing and other manner of garbage are unsuitable. Before someone mentions cost, prepaid smartphones are down to $30 at Walmart... they certainly can play Netflix and such. Not much more is needed for a tablet. A classroom of kids can be outfitted for less than a single iPad.
What states really need to do is hire people at a state and national level to cooperate on these programs and on public-copyright textbooks and save on costs over time by cooperation and having development costs spread out over thousands of school districts rather than rely on vendors.
"But when an hour of prime time on four networks is purchased, it's fair to ask whether that is a public service or propaganda." So what is it fair to ask when someone buys a whole newspaper?
You really need to pay attention.
A number of years ago our federal government got sold a new method of teaching reading to kids - sight words. This method of teaching was designed to bridge the gap between "poor" kids and "rich" kids ability to read. It does this by eliminating the focus on phonics (sounding words out, and how sounds relate to character combinations) and instead having the kids completely memorize small words. If you show your kid the word "brain" and they say "banana", this is what's going on. When they look at words, they either know them or they don't, they don't try to sound them out, they are taught to simply take a guess and everyone around them will help correct them if necessary and maybe they will get it next time. They are being evaluated by how many out of say 200 words they get memorized through the end of the school year.
Our education system was able to ensure that poor kids could read at a level much more closer to rich kids by effectively not teaching kids how to read anymore. Instead of trying to bring some kids up, they brought them all way down. We are ending up with a bunch of stories like http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/schools-dont-teach-kids-to-read/ that are getting buried in the news.
Be careful what you wish for.
As a parent of a 7 year old having to teach my kid to read myself, I'm pretty damn sure Grey's Law applies here, rather than Hanlon's Razor. At the moment, the kids that are getting ahead are the ones that a) are going to private schools early on (that voucher nonsense? last year when I figured this out, I began to actually start thinking they might have some merit...), b) have parents who actually identify that this is going on, and c) have parents who have the capabilities to do something about it. All the other kids are absolutely being left behind. This failure of our system of education is absolutely unprecedented, and it's all the more horrifying when you understand that the basis of further learning is dependent completely on competent reading skills.
Thank you federal government, for doing your best to make sure that when we fail, we all fail together.
"We'll be supporting all candidates who stand with us"
Translation: "We'll be supporting all candidates who will buy our stuff."
The Civil War monuments were mostly erected a half-century or more after the Civil War, about the time that Jim Crow laws were enacted in the South. Conclude from that what you wish, but why are they celebrating the traitorous, ugly, losing side in the Civil War and not the winning side? After almost every other war, it is the winning side that is honored.
The argument that taking them down would erase history is absurd. Why are there no monuments in the South celebrating the Union side? That is the history we should be remembering. I see the Confederate monuments as symbols of the slavery they wish they could still have. I've wondered that since I was a kid raised in North Carolina (and no one had a good answer), long before the current media focus on them. I can see how blacks could find these monuments unsettling.
Would you support replacing the Confederate monuments with ones that celebrate the winning side and the end of slavery? If not, why not?