Customer Reviews

Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Although interesting at times, overall I was disappointed in this book. First, it is not well written. Peterson's prose is disjointed at times and lacks flow thereby losing this reader's attention too often. His chapters on the reformers leave historical gaps and this reader was left wondering, "what is the significance of this information?" or "too bad, this is interesting...I'll have to go elsewhere to learn more about this subject." Frankly, I expected better writing from a Harvard professor or at least better editing by the publisher. Although pitched mostly as a history of education reform over the past two centuries, the author invokes too many times what appears to be his evolving conservative philosophy (Brookings to Hoover). Peterson can hardly contain his disdain towards teachers' unions in the chapter about Albert Shanker. (Query for the folks at the Hoover Institution: if teachers' unions are the main source of our mediocre American educational system as you seem to believe, then why don't the non-unionized states outperform the unionized states? Ths truth is, that most of the non-unionized states, e.g., mostly but not exclusively southern states, perform at a lower level by almost all indicators. The collective postings on your website should reflect this data...but then your theories would lose their simplistic appeal.) Peterson also seems to be critical of the resources that both the federal government and states have allocated over the past decades to special education. (Although it's hard to tell where he really stands on this issue, either because of his confusing writing or simply his fear of lodging direct criticism against a system that he admits his autistic grandson has benefitted from.) As a parent new to the world of public education (having sent our children to private school for 4 years and Catholic school for 1 year), I came to read this book as a neophyte without an agenda. I simply wanted to learn more about the history of public education and how this author thought it could be "saved" again. (Note to author: you failed to convince me that the U.S. had a world class education system to begin with; but perhaps I need to review your footnotes again to find the evidence that supports this assertion.) Little did I know that Peterson is apparently just another right winger who believes that free markets are the answer to everything in life, including education. Especially depressing is how Peterson concludes that online education is our last best hope to salvage the U.S. public education system. What makes it depressing is that Peterson reaches his conclusion seemingly out of hopelessness and his inability to come up with a better solution. He is clear in his view that even the best technology cannot replace good teachers, but instead of focusing on improving the standards, recruitment, salaries, and professional respect accorded to teachers, he throws his lot with the Florida Virtual School and other online education institutions. My question is, why give up? My suggestion to Peterson, the folks at Hoover, and other Amazon readers is to please read the book Finnish Lessons by Paul Sahlberg (just released about a month ago and available on Amazon) for insight into an educational approach that is the opposite of ours. The Finns educational system has yielded top rankings in international tests on math, reading, and science during the past decade or so. And, they have achieved this at a cost per pupil that is allegedly less than what the U.S. spends, while imposing high standards for teachers (who belong to a strong teachers' union, no less!) without berating or punishing them, and have students who are high achieving, happier, and less-stressed than their American counterparts (especially of interest for those who are concerned by the issues raised by the film Race to Nowhere). I only hope that once readers consider the Finnish approach, most or at least some will have the courage to admit that perhaps "free market" educational practices (the worst example being "No Child Left Behind"), although well-intentioned, have not produced an effective educational system for all. It is time to consider a different approach to our educational system that is more humanistic, cost-effective, grounded in research, raises the bar for teacher credentials and in return pays a good salary and accords professional freedom and respect. Not to mention that by all indications it would be better for our students, of whom the scholars tend to forget in this debate. As Americans know, any such change will require a Herculean effort to overturn the private market players that have become embedded into our system over the past decade or so. Thus, the best place to start is with the states. Let's challenge any state to refuse federal funding (which doesn't amount to much anyway, despite the cries of wolf we hear from the conservatives) and go its own way. Reject the money and therefore be free of NCLB and standardized testing. Adapt the best practices of the Finnish Way: offer free tuition to your top high school students to attend your state universities, require a master's degree and study in both an underlying specialty and pedagogy, pay higher salaries to both attract and retain your talent, permit your teachers to belong to a union, accord them the respect and freedom they need in order to do what they can do best - teach our kids without the suffocating regime of non-stop standardized testing. (This is what our private schools do!) Let's see what happens. It can't be any worse than it is right now. Let's try. Hooverites, here's an idea for a scholarly study: test out the theory that a state which loses all federal funding for education would, in the end, come out neutral from a budgetary standpoint. Prove or disprove that it is more cost-effective to adapt the Finnish Way as Sahlberg alleges (but admittedly doesn't describe in great detail). I would be interested. I think that many top high school graduates would take the deal of a free higher education and graduate school in exchange for a higher salary, professional freedom and collaboration, and the respect of society. And, with better and more effective teachers, our kids would win in the end and hence, our entire society.