This will end the education discussion for now. I want to show how Race to the Top is simply the installation of education policy adopted by South Korea, China, and Japan all after WW2 and South Korean War. The US took control of these nation's education systems and installed this very competitive vocational tracking of children that is called neo-liberal education policy. For decades the families in these countries have fought the repressive, competitive drive of these policies with children not allowed any freedom outside of classroom work.
ASIAN PARENTS AND STUDENTS HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR DECADES THE EDUCATION POLICIES THAT BUSH NEO-CONS AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO INSTALL IN THE US NOW.
Look below how they use the same terminology being used now in America------it's too expensive to fund public schools so we go with public private partnerships and private ownership of schools and there is School Choice-----which means a school can choose students by any criteria and still be called a public school. There is no requirement to have a REAL public school in a community. This is exactly what is happening in Baltimore and a few other states with heavily neo-conservative and neo-liberal governors and mayors. Keep in mind all of this US education reform is right out of the book of these Asian education reforms decades ago and none of it has to do with strong public education making people citizens with a Bill of Rights and Equal Protection under law. So, it is illegal for Obama/Clinton and Bush to be installing these education policies.
Remember as well-----these Asian countries who adopted this repressive education policy may do well but not as well as the Finland policy adopted from the Democratic education policies in America decades ago. Finland took our US education policies when we were #1 in the world and is now #1 in the world-------America had its #1 ranked education dismantled by Reagan/Clinton and they are now installing this neo-liberal education policies from Asia.
REPRESSIVE CORPORATE EDUCATION VS DEMOCRATIC BROAD-BASED HUMANITIES AND LIBERAL ARTS FOR CITIZENS WITH RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO BE BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT LEADERS ------
NO ONE IN AMERICA WANTS THIS REPRESSIVE NEO-LIBERAL EDUCATION THAT IS BEING FORCED ON US.
South Korean Education Policy
Public & Private Institutions: In curriculum and administration, at the primary and secondary levels, there is little difference between public and private educational institutions other than their founders. Admission to high schools in equalized areas is randomized.
The public educational system has experienced a shortage of financial resources due to an increasing number of students. Limited government budgets have led to an increase in private schools and an increased reliance on private lessons or tutoring.
In 1994 the Presidential Commission on Education Reform (PCER 1994) suggested basic principles and guidelines for private school reforms. The PCER recognizes three categories: independent private schools, private schools with public financial support, and semipublic private schools under the jurisdiction of MOE. The governmental subsidy will be provided only to semipublic and subsidized private schools. Independent schools will enjoy more autonomy in their admission and tuition policies.
Under the new "School Choice Program," students and parents play an active role in choosing schools when applying to middle and high schools. In 1997, PCER noted that, despite the vital role private schools have played in Korean education, they are disadvantaged compared to public schools. While recommending increased government support for private institutions, PCER also emphasized the need for their responsible, accountable, and transparent administration (PCER 1997, 118-21).
America's public education system gave us the Captains of Industry----most corporate executives and government officials were graduates of US public schools. So, there is NOT a question of Korean education being better-----and it is styled by a government and nation with no Constitution that places WE THE PEOPLE WITH A BILL OF RIGHTS and EQUAL PROTECTION. Korea's policies can be autocratic and repressive because citizens there are not protected by the rights Americans have. So, Obama/Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons are saying with Trans Pacific Trade Pact----
WE ARE VOIDING THE US CONSTITUTION AND REPLACING IT WITH LAWS WRITTEN BY A GLOBAL TRIBUNAL WHICH ARE THE SAME PEOPLE HAVING WRITTEN KOREA'S EDUCATION POLICIES DECADES AGO.
We do not want our children forced into professions, forced to extreme competitiveness, denied the ability to have a well-rounded childhood as happens in Asian neo-liberal education policies. Below you can hear even the year-round timing for America's eduaction reform taking the Korean timing for beginning and end of school years.
THEY ARE TURNING OUR SOCIETY INTO THOSE OF AUTOCRATIC ASIAN CULTURES.
Behind the Curtains of Korean Education
Posted: 06/13/2013 10:33 am EDT Updated: 08/13/2013 5:12 am EDT
Having spent a year teaching at an after-school program just outside of Seoul, I would like to bestow upon my gentle reader the knowledge and insight I have gained from the experience.
First, it's important to understand that the Korean school year is quite different from its American counterpart. Instead of beginning in August or September, the first term starts in early March. Contrary to American schools' somewhat distinct divide between the school year and summer vacation, each semester in the Korean school year consists of five months of schooling plus one month of vacation, in both summer and winter. For after-school programs and academies, known as hagwon, class is in session pretty much year round.
Students go to such academies for a variety of subjects. Naturally, I taught at a "foreign language" (read "English") academy, where mornings were spent teaching kindergarten and afternoons reserved for elementary school kids. For the majority of the elementary school students and even some kindergarteners, the academy was one of many they went to after regular school hours. Typically, they attended math, music, taekwondo, and science programs. But it was also not uncommon for students to take classes in calligraphy, ballet, Chinese characters (hanja), and even "belly dancing," which I assume was the place for parents who saw in their eight-year-old a future as a K-pop star to rival Psy.
Indeed, as one might suspect, there is a culture of competitiveness that manifests itself from a young age. Many have criticized the pressure that Korean parents put upon their children to succeed as unhealthy and destructive, but no one can deny that the emphasis on the value of education and success is inextricably tied to the nation's top ranking in education and employment.
For example, some students enroll in a kindergarten program for up to three years before beginning elementary school. I taught a second-year kindergarten class, and the rule was that students were not allowed to speak Korean at all while class was in session. Playtime was limited, and homework and tests were plentiful. It was not uncommon for a student to burst out in tears upon receiving an imperfect test score, even if it meant just one wrong answer. On top of the normal class work, kindergartners had to participate in "Song Contests" every couple months (which I tried to make more enjoyable by teaching them Metallica, Coldplay, and Weezer, which they learned amazingly well). Each term featured an "open class," during which parents were permitted to sit in and observe. For this event, students were taught and rehearsed answers for roughly a month in preparation, and instructed to keep this a secret from their mothers.
But lo and behold, these five- and six-year-old Korean children were reading and writing at essentially the equivalent of a first-grade level in the U.S. Forget at what cost these skills were acquired. The point is, they were.
The fact is these academies are businesses. The customers are parents, and our job was to keep them satisfied. Some students enjoyed what they were learning, worked hard, and did well. Others hated English with every ounce of their being, sat in class doing nothing, and did horribly. But no one was allowed to fail. As a teacher at one of these academies, my job was to "guide" the underperforming students through the test if it meant the difference between passing and failing. "Are you sure that should be 'c'? Try that question again," often turned into giving in and simply telling them the answer in frustration. It was hardly a rare occurrence that our supervisors would instruct us English teachers to modify a grade or essentially encourage a student to cheat, as long as it kept the parents happy.
My point is not to highlight the negative aspects of Korean education, but to demonstrate the extent of the competitive spirit that runs so rampant in many parts of Seoul. Surely none of these practices are no less ethical than those of the teachers in the U.S. who have been compelled to not only teach to the test, but have physically taken students' standardized tests and fixed some of the answers themselves. The only difference is that in my case, the goal was to satisfy the parents; in the other case, it was to satisfy the state.
The truth is there is no easy fix for education, and certainly most people realize that. In Korea, competitiveness and the value of schooling are integral parts of the culture. In the U.S., the values of idealism, individualism, and self-confidence are held in higher esteem. At the possible expense of an enjoyable childhood, Koreans have earned their spot in the rankings. And we must realize that we cannot successfully emulate such a system without emulating the culture as well.
If you look at Maryland education policy and especially in Baltimore you see all kinds of private education support corporations and non-profits popping up. Now, back in the day-----alright I'm dated!----we had help with homework after school by people volunteering to come to the school to help and a teacher assigned to a rotating shift of after-school work. IT WAS EASY PEASY AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL WAS THE CENTER OF THIS. Today, there is no activity in the elementary school near me----all after school is handled by private non-profits and corporations.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the connection to this new education reform and the article below that shows how bad all of this became in Korea----and now it is a very tiered education society making parents spend all their money trying to get after-school instruction for their child. The reason for the competitiveness is the lack of jobs available in Korea. The job scarcity is created by the same stagnant economy now in America-----Korea's economy is driven by global corporations that keep employment and job opportunities limited just as is happening today in the US -----GLOBAL CORPORATE ECONOMY DRIVES EMPLOYMENT, COSTS, PUBLIC POLICY.
GET RID OF THESE GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS!
My local Baltimore Maryland Assembly pols always tell me when I complain about these policies-----'THEY' DON'T WANT THAT. We need pols that say to 'THEY'-----we work for our constituents and not you!
4:51 pm KST
Nov 4, 2014 Asia
What Ails South Korea’s Education System? Private Tutoring, Says World Bank Chief
- Kwanwoo Jun
South Korean parents paid $18 billion for private education last year to try and give their children an advantage in the competitive yearly college entrance exam, a figure from the national statistics agency shows. Test scores at the make-or-break test are a key part of qualifications for being admitted to top-notch universities, which many Korean believe will continue to play a major role in determining their success in life. But critics say a reliance on private education creates an uneven playing field for the less wealthy.
Dr. Kim, who is visiting Seoul to attend an education forum, singled out private tutoring–a widespread and common practice in South Korea–as something that should be modified to improve education in the country.
“Korea has one of the best educational systems in the world. What we are pointing out is the competition itself is not the problem. One of the problems is that there is a very high psychological cost for the students to be going through,” Mr. Kim told a press conference in Seoul.
South Korean kids regularly appear among the top rankings globally for educational achievement, but most students are exposed to immense pressure to succeed at school, where they slog through long hours of rote learning, and also forced to work at private after-school institutions until late at night.
South Korea is known for its hyper-stressed and unhappy students. A global survey ranked the country 75th out of 135 countries in well-being.
Mr. Kim, who emigrated from South Korea to the U.S. at age five, said private tutoring–often very expensive–could deepen inequality that could be “very damaging” to Korea in the long term.
“With an intense desire to get better tutoring, some of the socioeconomic inequalities get played out. In other words, those who can afford expensive tutoring are the children who do better.”
Republican pols are shouting that all of these Democratic policies are not working----from education reform to health care reform--- AND THEY ARE ALL REPUBLICAN POLICIES WRITTEN BY REPUBLICAN THINK TANKS. Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons are tag team for global corporations and they are trying to dismantle the Democratic Party by tagging Clinton neo-liberal policies onto the people's Democratic Party. NONE OF THESE POLICIES ARE DEMOCRATIC FOLKS----
STOP ALLOWING REPUBLICANS SEND AMERICAN VOTERS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN TWO PARTIES CONTROLLED BY GLOBAL CORPORATIONS
80% of the Democratic Party is labor and justice-----we simply need people running and voting for REAL progressive candidates.
What has happened with all of those hundreds of billions sent to Federal Education since Bush Administration is the subsidization of this private/corporate system of after-school programs that are now simply national and global education corporations. American parents have been shouting for funding for the public school classrooms and look at how much money was sent to build this South Korean style education corporations.
HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS FOLKS----THAT DOES NOT COUNT THE TRILLION DOLLARS IN FOR-PROFIT EDUCATION FRAUD AND OBAMA'S HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SENT TO BUILD CORPORATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH-----TAYPAYER - FUNDED CORPORATE RESEARCH.
This is why our schools are crumbling and education achievement down. We simply need poltitians wanting to return to America as a Democracy with a Constitution and Equal Protection and Bill of Rights. If your pol has not been shouting this for years----do not allow them to come to a campaign pretending to embrace all this now!
'Over the life of No Child Left Behind, the DOE received roughly $850 billion, $35 billion more than the $815 billion the Department of Defense spent to fight the Iraq War, according to the National Priorities Project.
“The federal government isn’t capable of transforming an education system,” McCluskey said. “The problem is we’ve kept the same sort of system in place only we’ve made it worse.”'
As you see below it is all about making education policy controlled by the needs of global corporations. Clinton/Bush/Obama. This article says we must change to compete. this FLAT EARTH neo-liberal policy that makes world competition the basis of all American policy is bogus. We have the strength of having been a thriving first world society and economy that we need to return to -----a domestic economy -----that will do what these Republicans and neo-liberals are pretending need to change.
WE WERE NUMBER ONE IN THE WORLD WITH THE BEST EDUCATION SYSTEM IN THE WORLD BEFORE THESE NEO-LIBERAL/NEO-CON CLOWNS TOOK CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT!
Don't forget that Common Core was written in the Bush Administration and is centered on global education.....everyone being given the same information in schools. Don't forget----Bush and Cheney have written their history and the Bush Administration was the most successful in US history!
The Right Republican Strategy
By David Winston 2 Comments | Print | PDF | Share
Winter 2008 / Vol. 8, No. 1
“By…[selecting] the youths of genius from among the classes of the poor, we hope to avail the State of those talents which nature has sown as liberally among the poor as the rich, but which perish without use if not sought for and cultivated.”
—Thomas Jefferson, 1782
“We need to challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations. We must not tolerate a system that gives up on people.”
—George W. Bush, 2006
Two presidents speaking 224 years apart declared the importance of challenging every American child to achieve the potential that lies within each of them. Education and the responsibility of our government to provide it have been part of the political debate since our nation’s earliest days. At our founding, Jefferson argued that an educated citizenry would serve as the ultimate guardian against the threat of an oppressive government.
That remains true today. But the twenty-first-century global marketplace demands more of our education system. When President George W. Bush called upon our schools to “leave no child behind,” he did so because he understands, like most people in this country, that a well-educated America is also an economically competitive America. In his sobering book, The World Is Flat, Thomas Friedman warns against assuming that “because America’s economy has dominated the world for more than a century, it will and must always be” in the forefront. In fact, he calls the notion that America will forever be the economic powerhouse it is today a “dangerous illusion.”
In today’s Information Age, the ability to process knowledge and out-innovate the competition separates economic winners from losers. Education is the new capital and gives us that competitive edge. But by most measurements today, our schools, at best, get mediocre grades. In 2005, Achieve, Inc., a nonprofit, nonpartisan group concerned with preparing young people for work and college, released “Rising to the Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work?” College professors polled said that approximately half of all incoming students at their schools were not prepared to handle college-level math and writing. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently gave this critical assessment of our education system: “Education spending has steadily increased and rafts of well-intentioned school reforms have come and gone. But student achievement has remained stagnant, and our K–12 schools have stayed remarkably unchanged—preserving, as if in amber, the routines, culture, and operations of an obsolete 1930s manufacturing plant.”
More and more Americans agree. A joint survey done by Peter Hart Research Associates and The Winston Group last year for the Educational Testing Service (ETS) found that Americans are worried our education system will be unable to meet the needs of the future and sustain the quality of life we enjoy today. People instinctively sense that our schools are not adequately preparing our children for the competitive world of the twenty-first century.
The Politics of Education
It is important, when looking at education through a political lens, to understand that it is far more than an issue. Education has morphed into something personal. For most Americans, it has become a basic value that defines, in part, who we are. For the poor it is the path out of poverty, for immigrants the chance to find freedom and opportunity. Education gives the middle class a shot at the brass ring, and for every parent, it fuels the hope that their children’s lives will be better than their own.
Because education has become such an intrinsic part of American life it may well have a decisive impact on the outcome of the 2008 presidential race, just as it did in 2000, the closest presidential election in recent history. That year, voters said in exit polls that education was the second most important factor in making their presidential choice, just slightly trailing the economy and jobs. This was a significant shift from 1996, when education tied for third place with the issue of the deficit, coming behind the economy and jobs and Medicare and Social Security. Among voters who said education was their top issue in 1996, Clinton beat Dole by a remarkable 62 points, 78 vs. 16 percent.
In 2000, however, George W. Bush and congressional Republicans structurally changed the education debate, as decades of Democratic education policies ran up against reality. Voters recognized that the education status quo was failing too many children. Bush and congressional Republicans called for an end to the “soft bigotry of low expectations” and a focus on achievement outcomes. Together, they pushed an education reform agenda, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), that emphasized higher standards and more accountability, a results-based approach that parents liked.
A majority of voters who cited education as their number-one concern in 2000 still pulled the lever for Democrat Al Gore. But in making education a focus of his campaign, Bush kept Gore’s advantage on this important issue to only eight points, 52 vs. 44 percent. A number of issues and factors affected the outcome of that election, but the very closeness of the race made swing voters, for whom education is a top priority, particularly crucial. While Bush didn’t win the “education vote,” he closed the margin dramatically on this traditionally Democratic issue, especially with swing voters.
Since 9/11, education has taken a political back seat to national security and the economy. In 2004, education came in seventh on the list of voters’ top issues in exit polls. In the 2006 congressional elections, exit polls didn’t address the question of education at all. Still, private surveys showed that education was an important issue for many swing voter groups then and has remained remarkably steady over the past seven years. In a New Models survey conducted by the Winston Group in May 2007, married women with children, a key swing voter group, ranked education second in importance, only a single point behind defense and terrorism. In 2008, the same swing voter groups that played such a decisive role eight years before could again provide the margin of victory for the winning presidential candidate.
A Republican Education Agenda
Republicans have a significant opportunity in next year’s election to win on the education issue by continuing their push for a reform-based education agenda and arguing against the idea that more money without real structural reform can fix the ills of our education system. For decades, Democrats have embraced the status quo, calling for increased federal spending as the solution to declining test scores and increasing numbers of students ill prepared for the future. Between 1980 and 2000, Department of Education (DOE) spending rose by a staggering 174 percent, from $14 billion to $38.4 billion, with little to show for it. The Democrats got what they wished for, but the bleak record of education achievement in the 1980s and 1990s shows their funding-based approach simply doesn’t work. The central premise of the Democratic Party’s education policy—that a lack of money is the problem with America’s schools—has been debunked by years of negative student outcomes.
All of which explains why George W. Bush was able in the 2000 election to connect with voters on the education issue. When he spoke of “leaving no child behind,” it resonated with parents who wanted a new approach to the challenges facing their children’s schools. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act emphasized accountability, higher standards, parental involvement, and increased resources to help students and schools most in need. It took effect in January 2002 and put American education on a new course.
Stick With No Child Left Behind
Republicans can make a persuasive case that they have been the agents of real change in our schools. They should stick with the principles of the No Child Left Behind Act. The NCLB reauthorization debate will give Republicans an opportunity to contrast their approach of accountability, parental involvement, and targeted spending with the Democrats’ traditional “show us the money” education policy.
Although in effect for a relatively short period of time, the programs mandated by NCLB are beginning to show results. The 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the Nation’s Report Card, showed that nine-year-olds made “more progress in reading over the past five years than in the previous 28 years combined…and posted the best scores in math in the history of the report.” The same tests showed that 13-year-olds had the “highest math scores ever recorded,” which included all-time high scores for African American and Hispanic students. Other scores showed improvement in urban districts and in narrowing the gap between whites and minority children.
The vast majority of Americans, 76 percent, support reauthorization of NCLB, according to the ETS survey; parents of school-age children (K–12) favor reauthorization at an even higher rate. Even school teachers and administrators, some of the act’s biggest critics, favor reauthorization by 75 percent and 78 percent, respectively, although with modifications.
Yet it would be a mistake for Republicans to rest on NCLB’s early gains. If all students are going to be achieving at grade level or better in reading and mathematics by 2014, progress must come faster. That will take some changes to the provisions. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings recognizes that fact. Talking about the NCLB reauthorization, she said, “we can use the knowledge we’ve gained to strengthen and improve the law…continuing the workable, common sense approach that we’ve developed together with states.”
Demand Tougher Standards and Higher Expectations
Republicans should also argue that dramatically improving our schools may require a tougher attitude toward failure on the part of parents, teachers, and taxpayers. With countries like China and India focusing their education systems on preparing workers to compete against our children, the excuses that have kept our schools mediocre for years are no longer acceptable. Moving from 6 percent of Washington, D.C., 4th graders scoring proficient or advanced on the 2000 NAEP math test to 11 percent in 2005 is progress. But real achievement means no child scores below proficient. With America’s economic future riding on our schools’ ability to produce a competitive twenty-first-century workforce, “failure isn’t an option.”
That means setting world-class standards. But today we have a mishmash of state standards that often leave parents unable to assess the quality of their children’s schools. What one state deems a high standard may appear low in another. If a standard is deficient and state tests are geared to it, schools will not see real achievement. Only when external tests such as NAEP expose failing students and schools will parents realize their state standards simply don’t make the grade. But by then it may be too late for their children.
Implementing tougher standards has always been a Republican idea and will be again in 2008. At the heart of Republican education policy is a core belief: if we ask more of American students, they will produce more. The Republican agenda calls for higher expectations for students themselves. School systems must look critically at what is working and what is not working in their schools. That means putting money into initiatives that will bring achievement for all students: historically low performers, who must be able to compete in a world that demands higher skills; average students, who need to care more about their studies if they are going to succeed; and top students, who will drive the country’s future innovations.
School choice, school vouchers, merit pay, teacher standards, and a raft of other education reforms are key elements of the Republican education agenda and in 2008 will once again offer voters innovative ideas to address our education challenges.
Reject the Traditional Funding Debate
Democrats reject most of these reforms out of hand, fearing the loss of political support from education special interests. Instead, as they have done in election after election, they will likely embrace an attack strategy decrying Republicans’ “failure” to fund education.
The facts tell a different story. At the end of his second term, Bill Clinton signed a $42 billion DOE budget. All told, Clinton increased education spending by 6 percent ($2.7 billion using constant 2007 dollars) over his Republican predecessor, which earned him the praise and political support of the education establishment.
Under President George W. Bush, the 2007 DOE budget hit $67.4 billion. Bush increased education funding over Clinton by 38 percent (nearly $19 billion), yet Democrats tell the American people that education is underfunded (see Figure 1). This election, Republicans should dispel the Democratic myth because the education debate ought to focus on what’s really important—the need for dramatic education reform based on student outcomes.
A Tough Question for ’08
All of which brings us back to the core education question of the 2008 campaign, a question that deserves an answer from the men and women, Republican and Democratic, who aspire to lead this country:
As political leaders, how will you transform our schools from a model that tolerates failure and gauges success by the size of the school budget to an Information Age model that measures success by student achievement and ensures that every child can succeed in the global economy?
The full impact of an ineffective system of public education may not be evident for many years. But one day America will pay a heavy price for accepting and excusing mediocrity in our schools: generations of American children unprepared for the modern workplace.
In 2000, “education” voters said, “Stop processing students, stop looking at them as profit centers, and start preparing them for a tough, competitive world out there.” Republicans listened, promised change, and put the country on a path of education reform. The 2008 election will determine whether the country continues down that path and is ready to compete in the future.
-David Winston is the president and founder of The Winston Group, a Washington, D.C., survey research and strategic communications firm, and former director of planning for the Speaker of the House and senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.