Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Math News

Stand and Deliver Teacher Jaime Escalante Dies 389

Posted by timothy
from the national-hero dept.
DesScorp writes "Jaime Escalante, the math teacher portrayed in the hit '80s movie Stand and Deliver, has died of cancer at age 79. Escalante is legendary for creating the advanced math 'pipeline' program at Garfield High in East Los Angeles in the '70s and '80s, an area populated mostly by poorer Hispanic families. Escalante's students eventually outpaced even richer schools in advanced placement tests for calculus. Escalante refused to accept excuses from his students or community about why they couldn't succeed, and demanded a standard of excellence from them, defying the notion that poor Hispanic kids just weren't capable of advanced work. While Escalante became a celebrity because of the hit movie about his efforts, jealousy from other teachers ... as well as red tape from teacher's unions and the public school bureaucracy, resulted in Escalante and his hand-picked teachers leaving Garfield. Since his departure, Garfield has never replicated Escalante's success with math students, and Reason Magazine reported on the shameful way in which others tore down what Escalante and his teachers worked so hard to build."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stand and Deliver Teacher Jaime Escalante Dies

Comments Filter:
  • Truly an American icon. Or at least a Mexican one.
  • Rest in peace. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gambit3 (463693) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:27PM (#31689990) Homepage Journal

    I'm going to cry. Really.
    I had the blessing to meet Mr. Escalante just a few months ago, before he was diagnosed with cancer. What a wonderful, wonderful man.

    They should name schools after people like him.

    • Re:Rest in peace. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Cytotoxic (245301) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:32PM (#31690104)
      One would think so. But if you read the fine article from Reason magazine, you'll see why that will never happen - at least not the public schools. In fact, the school he transformed worked very hard to undo all of his good works. Quite successfully too. Apparently, all evidence of math and calculus prowess and teacher competence have been eradicated at Garfield since he was pushed out.
      • by timeOday (582209)
        I disagree with the slant of the article that this is a scandal. Have the Chicago Bulls been just as good without Jordan? Of course not. Special people are special. You are lucky when you get them, but most of the time you have to work around not having them.
        • Re:Rest in peace. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by cduffy (652) <charles+slashdot@dyfis.net> on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:04PM (#31690550)

          I disagree with the slant of the article that this is a scandal. Have the Chicago Bulls been just as good without Jordan? Of course not. Special people are special. You are lucky when you get them, but most of the time you have to work around not having them.

          When you don't have those special people because they were driven out without good cause... then yes, it's scandal.

        • Re:Rest in peace. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by causality (777677) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:21PM (#31690814)

          I disagree with the slant of the article that this is a scandal. Have the Chicago Bulls been just as good without Jordan? Of course not. Special people are special. You are lucky when you get them, but most of the time you have to work around not having them.

          I think this gentleman and John Taylor Gatto have a lot in common [cantrip.org]. The "special" thing about Gatto is his ability to see a spade and call it a spade [johntaylorgatto.com] instead of getting lost in all of the justifications and excuses. This one-line summary in no way does justice to either of the above-linked works, but Gatto went to some of the poorest inner-city schools in some of the worst neighborhoods and found that the children there were eager and very able learners once you stopped treating them like idiots. You'd think the school systems would appreciate anyone who can demonstrate that, but they didn't.

          So I think your analogy to the Chicago Bulls doesn't really work. The Bulls experienced a particularly outstanding individual but presumably, all the other players would have wanted to attain that level of talent. The school systems are experiencing problems that are institutional and profoundly anti-educational. I don't believe the problem with schools is funding or ability. I think the problem is that they are not really interested in improving their methods or looking too closely at their results.

    • I'm going to cry. Really. I had the blessing to meet Mr. Escalante just a few months ago, before he was diagnosed with cancer. What a wonderful, wonderful man.

      They should name schools after people like him.

      One of my math teachers from high school was a huge fan of the movie and Mr. Escalante's work. So much that he even inspired me with his joy of teaching... to win the regional math competition; as my reward was a free pass to sleep through his class the rest of the semester.

      Needless to say I caught up on a lot of sleep during those days...

    • Re:Rest in peace. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Moryath (553296) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:58PM (#31690454)

      They should name schools after people like him.

      Sure, whatever. Name whatever you want.

      What they REALLY should do is stop dumbing down the curriculum and "passing" ever-crappier performance, and follow the methods he used (no more excuses, no more "but it's hard why should I learn" bullcrap). Set the bar high and the kids will reach for it, set the bar low and kids will nap.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by raddan (519638) *
        But it's more than that. You can't just set the bar arbitrarily high and hope that your kids will reach it. Many (most?) of them won't.

        Why? Because education is cumulative. The difference between the 8th grade and the 7th grade is supposed to be that the 8th grade students learn more advanced materials based on their learning in the 7th grade. In practice, it doesn't work that way, because curricula are myopic, because teachers don't care/only care about their fiefdom, because students lack any moti
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      This is from the Washington Post article:

      ... In retirement, he divided his time between California and Bolivia, where he complained that several schools were named after him but had given him no money for the rights.

      One reason why they usually wait until someone dies to name something after the person.

      As an aside, Purdue University was named after John Purdue, and not only did the state of Indiana not pay him anything for the name, he had to bequeath many acres of land to get them to put his name on it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Or instead of wasting time and resources on trivial things like naming and renaming schools (does the name of the school really mean anything?) they should instead be working to foster more teachers like Escalante.

  • He was played in a movie by the guy from Blade Runner *and* Battlestar Galactica.
  • Public schools (Score:4, Insightful)

    by megamerican (1073936) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:31PM (#31690078)

    It's no wonder he got lots of resistance against his peers, administration and teachers union. Public schools are not about education, its about creating dumbed down automatons who are easily controlled.

    "I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers." [deliberate...ngdown.com] - John D. Rockefeller

    • So true. And it's sad your post got modded down as Troll, since you are 100% right on, and whoever did that is probably caught up in the ideology behind monstrosity that is modern schooling (of course, most private schools are little better). Escalante failed to make large changes and was taken down by the institution because, ultimately, he was doing what should not be done in schools -- get poor people to think and climb out of their assigned class in life. More supportive links:

      Gatto:
      "Dumb

    • Re:Public schools (Score:4, Insightful)

      by spun (1352) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yranoituloverevol'> on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:54PM (#31690392) Journal

      Obviously, the answer to the problem of owning class people gaming the system in their favor is to do away with all government oversight of the owning class, and sell the government to them wholesale. Because, if we had an unregulated free market, all the little mom and pop operations would rise up against their corporate masters and we would immediately have a free and fair market in everything. Obviously, the government is not protecting the little guy from the owning class, they are keeping the little guy down for the owning class.

      But wait, if all that is true, why is it the owning class telling us this? Why are the rich leading the charge to get rid of government regulations? Are they trying to use reverse psychology on us or something?

      • Ah, good to know you can always be counted on to defend the forces that tore down Escalante's progress. Just what I expected.

        (Hint: The ruling class isn't leading the charge to bring meaningful improvements to schools ... just ask Congress.)

    • I don't quite understand why you're being modded troll when critics of the system from both right and left agree that public schools aren't so much focused on education as they are on producing "useful people"... to employers, government, etc. As much as conservative groups support things like charter schools, minority families... traditionally loyal Democratic voters... support them even more, because despite ever increasing dollars on public schools, the public system isn't getting it done with their kids

    • Re:Public schools (Score:4, Insightful)

      by edittard (805475) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:00PM (#31690486)

      "I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers." - John D. Rockefeller

      He's still calling the shots, is he? Plutocrats are bad enough, but zombie plutocrats is just going too far.

    • Re:Public schools (Score:5, Informative)

      by ShakaUVM (157947) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:22PM (#31690838) Homepage Journal

      >>Public schools are not about education, its about creating dumbed down automatons who are easily controlled.

      You know it's funny. I work teaching teachers technology, and I can't recall ever hearing a teacher say they really wished their kids would all be dumbed down automatons. Instead, you hear them all sharing positive stories about a kid that gets engaged with the subject matter and starts thinking on his own. Except for some really burned out teachers, this is pretty much universally true. They ALL want kids interested in a subject, capable of critical and independent thought, and being successful in life (ideally by going to college).

      Now - inter-teacher rivalries and jealousies? Sure, I'll believe in that explanation as to why they undid the program at Garfield. But losing your entire cadre of teachers trained in his method probably had more to do with it than anything.

      The only bit that I will agree with you in this regard is that schools tend to be very socially conservative institutions (by this I don't mean politically conservative, like Republicans, but rather resistant to change). AAA teachers tend to get kicked out of the system. I had Jan Gabay as my English teacher for the 9th and 12th grades - she was Teacher of the Year for the entire country in 1990-something, did a year traveling the country speaking on teaching, went back to Serra High for a couple years, and has since quit public schools to teach at the UC San Diego Charter School.

      I also had Rick Halsey (IIRC, grandson of Admiral Bull Halsey) as a bio an AP Bio teacher, was an amazing teacher who took us into the canyons near the school to study actual plants and animals in the chaparral ecosystem. Every year he took his students on a week-long trip during Spring Break to go kayaking down the Colorado River or hiking in Anza Borrego, etc. He quit because the school was worried he was exposing them to too much liability risk.

      Our system right now is rather dysfunctional. But teachers want kids to succeed - they don't want to produce dumb automatons. It's no longer the 1800s where we need to prep kids for work in the mills - "21st Century Skills" and all that is the current paradigm in education.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Paul Fernhout (109597)

        Be careful not to make a classical mistake of confusing the intentions of the parts (teachers, who I agree mostly mean well and want to help kids grow), with the intentions of the whole system (to dumb kids down so they fit into a 19th century militaristic industrial society, like NYS teacher of the year John Taylor Gatto writes about).
        http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm [johntaylorgatto.com]
        """
        Before you can reach a point of effectiveness in defending your own children or your principles against the a

  • Shining Example (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jaysyn (203771)

    This is a shining example of how politics are ruining America's youth.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by maxume (22995)

      Maybe a good place to spell out what you are talking about, rather than relying on "this".

    • Did you know that Californians, on average, have the 3rd lowest IQ in the country? Only Louisiana and Mississippi have lower average IQs than California.

      When I read stories like this one about post-Escalante Garfield, I'm not surprised.

      • Would you mind showing the source for that data? Just curious

  • East Los Angeles, not New York, was the real Jaime-town.

  • by 5pp000 (873881) * on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:46PM (#31690280)
    From TFA:

    Gradillas has an explanation for the decline of A.P. calculus at Garfield: Escalante and Villavicencio were not allowed to run the program they had created on their own terms. In his phrase, the teachers no longer "owned" their program. He's speaking metaphorically, but there's something to be said for taking him literally.

    In the real world, those who provide a service can usually find a way to get it to those who want it, even if their current employer disapproves. If someone feels that he can build a better mousetrap than his employer wants to make, he can find a way to make it, market it, and perhaps put his former boss out of business. Public school teachers lack that option.

    There are very few ways to compete for education dollars without being part of the government school system. If that system is inflexible, sooner or later even excellent programs will run into obstacles.

    I've never understood why the left, which has supported the idea of a single-payer health care system, can't get its head around vouchers, which amount to a single-payer education system. No, a voucher system isn't perfect; yes, there will be abuses. But look at the ongoing train wreck of a system we have now!

    In a voucher system, Jaime Escalante would have been massively successful, probably at the top of an organization teaching thousands of students. So what if some fundamentalists use their vouchers to send their kids to religious schools? Vouchers would finally give us a way to end the culture of mediocrity that has such a death grip on our schools now.

    • by nweaver (113078) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:54PM (#31690382) Homepage

      Because vouchers in general are not about school choice, but a means of forcing taxpayers to pay for religious education: subsidizing those who already send their children to parochial schools. If voucher programs exclude religious schools, there would be no schools to send the children to.

      Also, vouchers don't cover the whole cost: Mr Escalante couldn't do what he did in a private school as, even with vouchers, the students couldn't afford to attend.

      • Wait... What?! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RobotRunAmok (595286)

        subsidizing those who already send their children to parochial schools.

        The parents of the kids in parochial school pay twice: once for their own kids' tuition, once again for their neighbors' kids via the school and property taxes. The typical voucher plan doesn't "force a taxpayer to pay for religious education," it allows a taxpayer to pay for what he actually uses.

        Meanwhile, if all the kids who were in parochial school were to leave parochial school and enter the public system (into which their parents

        • Re:Wait... What?! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AK Marc (707885) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @02:13PM (#31691594)
          The parents of the kids in parochial school pay twice: once for their own kids' tuition, once again for their neighbors' kids via the school and property taxes. The typical voucher plan doesn't "force a taxpayer to pay for religious education," it allows a taxpayer to pay for what he actually uses.

          If you thought that, then you'd be petitioning for childless people to be exempt from property tax. Public schools spread the burden across all. Their status as a parent or not is irrelevant, so they don't "pay twice" for the same thing. They pay once for educating everyone, before and after they have children, and the point is that an educated populous is productive. Regardless of whether they have kids, that's the goal of that. Second, once they do have kids, they have the choice of enrolling them for free into the institutions set up that they vote on. If they are so bad, why aren't they voting in better people? Why aren't they involved in the decision process? Instead, they want to take their ball and go home.

          But the problem is that the voucher systems I've seen are all designed not to help children, but to provide tax cuts for the rich and harm anyone in public schools (while not improving private schools at all). If you've seen one that doesn't do this, please enlighten me.

          Vouchers should be made available. And any school that takes a voucher should be required to take vouchers for payment-in-full and be required to take all applicants. But that'll never happen because the people against vouchers won't see what good they can do when done right (because they can do lots of harm when done wrong) and those that want them don't want to help the kids, but they want a tax break and to harm the public schools.
          • Re:Wait... What?! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by c_jonescc (528041) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @03:42PM (#31693066)
            <quote>If you thought that, then you'd be petitioning for childless people to be exempt from property tax. Public schools spread the burden across all. Their status as a parent or not is irrelevant, so they don't "pay twice" for the same thing. They pay once for educating everyone, before and after they have children, and the point is that an educated populous is productive.</quote>

            Exactly. I find it far more rational to stop thinking about "my" taxes. I'm not purchasing individual goods with taxes. Whether I drive a car or not has little impact on the need for roads, as an example. There are certain needs we have as a society (I would include public education in that), and that is what "our" taxes are for. It stops being "your" money when you make your contribution to those social necessities via taxation.

            You're free to argue that there is waste in our system, or that tax money goes to things that are not contributive to societal living, or that the tax law is imbalanced in some way, but none of that changes the fact that the tax money is not yours to be used solely on the parts of group living that you feel you take advantage of.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bakkster (1529253)

        Because vouchers in general are not about school choice, but a means of forcing taxpayers to pay for religious education: subsidizing those who already send their children to parochial schools.

        The easy solution to that problem: the voucher can only pay for the non-religious portion of any classes. So if the student takes 6 classes with 2 being religious (theology, and I'll even give you science) and 4 being secular (music, math, literature, history), then the voucher can't cover more than 66% of the cost of tuition.

        Any opposition to that based purely on the school rules and code of conduct being based on the attendee's religion is just as silly and petty as those who oppose public schools purel

    • by pluther (647209) <pluther@u[ ]net ['sa.' in gap]> on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:55PM (#31690402) Homepage

      As a leftist extremist, I've never been able to understand it either.

      When I was volunteering at the Obama campaign office, this was probably my second biggest argument with most of my fellow workers, after nuclear power.

      There have been some very bad voucher schemes proposed, which amount to nothing more than yet another tax break for wealthy people while shifting the burden to the poor.

      But there have also been some good voucher schemes proposed. Something that would let parents send their children to any school, public or private, that they wanted, would be awesome. Something that would actually reduce the cost of expensive private schools for those who can't afford it would be great.

      Getting the fundamentalist nutjobs out of the public schools and into their own little inbred communities where they can't do any harm to the rest of society would just be a bonus, as far as I'm concerned.

      • by postermmxvicom (1130737) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:33PM (#31691014)
        I personally know a man who has run a private school for 40+ years. Where he lives, there used to be a voucher program. Many private schools went through the hoops to restructure to qualify. In then end, the schools that accepted the vouchers had to close.

        Why? Well, eventually the voucher program was brought to court. The schools had grown dependent on the voucher program. The families had grown dependent. When the money was gone, they all had to shut down. Except for the schools which had avoided the voucher program.
    • by Locke2005 (849178)
      I agree with you about vouchers. I think Charter schools are a reasonable compromise, so it is appropriate for Obama to push for those. The problem current problem with Charter Schools is that it requires the same school district personnel whose jobs are threatened by the success of charters schools to approve any new schools. Strangely enough, the Beaverton School District has steadfastly opposed ANY charter schools within the district. "Politics" and "Conflict of Interests" appear to be interchangible wor
    • by sean_nestor (781844) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:59PM (#31690468) Homepage

      I've never understood why the left, which has supported the idea of a single-payer health care system, can't get its head around vouchers, which amount to a single-payer education system. No, a voucher system isn't perfect; yes, there will be abuses. But look at the ongoing train wreck of a system we have now!

      In a voucher system, Jaime Escalante would have been massively successful, probably at the top of an organization teaching thousands of students. So what if some fundamentalists use their vouchers to send their kids to religious schools? Vouchers would finally give us a way to end the culture of mediocrity that has such a death grip on our schools now.

      Chiefly because exposing school systems to a competitive market implicitly accepts that some schools will fall into even worse decay that they currently are. Poor schools become poorer, with little funding to hire better teachers or acquire better books.

      As schools are not objects which can house an infinite number of students, some students will be forced to attend those schools caught in that downward spiral - schools that are not only sub-par, but lacking funding and interaction with a diverse body of students, since all the brightest have made it into the "nice" schools.

      When you consider that some students are going to be shafted big time by this arrangement, you may see why some (not just on the left) don't like the voucher system. Education after 18 is no longer compulsory, so good luck compensating for those all-important developmental years of education.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 5pp000 (873881) *

        Chiefly because exposing school systems to a competitive market implicitly accepts that some schools will fall into even worse decay that they currently are. Poor schools become poorer, with little funding to hire better teachers or acquire better books.

        As schools are not objects which can house an infinite number of students, some students will be forced to attend those schools caught in that downward spiral

        This doesn't make any sense. There's no limit on the number of schools that can be created. Vo

        • by sean_nestor (781844) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:26PM (#31690894) Homepage

          This doesn't make any sense. There's no limit on the number of schools that can be created. Vouchers make it easier for parents to remove their children from failing schools and put them in better ones. Poorly run schools will quickly lose all their students and shut down. It's the current system that keeps failing schools in operation, not a voucher system!

          Schools do not just appear. They take a great deal of financing and legal paperwork. Your dream of grassroots school systems sprouting up is fantastically misguided.

          Yes, vouchers help some parents place their students into better schools. Undoubtedly. But what you are breezing over is the effect this has on the other students who aren't quite so lucky. When considering educational models, you need to give attention to all students - not just the bright ones. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and all that. That is where vouchers fail.

          • by 5pp000 (873881) * on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:54PM (#31691324)

            Schools do not just appear. They take a great deal of financing and legal paperwork. Your dream of grassroots school systems sprouting up is fantastically misguided.

            The existence and history of the homeschooling movement indicates very much to the contrary. What is a homeschooling household, but a grassroots school sprouted up around a single family? A properly designed voucher system would encourage groups of parents, when they feel they have no better alternative, to homeschool their kids together. That's a school! The vouchers would help with the cost of educational materials, and what more is needed?

            You seem to have absorbed the idea that education is something that comes only from large institutions. The truth is, education is a thoroughly individual activity that requires nothing but access to information and to people who already understand that information. In this Internet age, those things are more readily available than ever.

            • by sean_nestor (781844) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @02:48PM (#31692154) Homepage

              The existence and history of the homeschooling movement indicates very much to the contrary. What is a homeschooling household, but a grassroots school sprouted up around a single family? A properly designed voucher system would encourage groups of parents, when they feel they have no better alternative, to homeschool their kids together. That's a school! The vouchers would help with the cost of educational materials, and what more is needed?

              I would not trust such a system like homeschooling to objectively and effectively educate most children. Relying on parents is an invitation for indoctrination and intellectual inbreeding. Forget teaching kids about skills that aren't already developed in adults, much less the ability to cope with different environments and alternative viewpoints.

              You seem to have absorbed the idea that education is something that comes only from large institutions. The truth is, education is a thoroughly individual activity that requires nothing but access to information and to people who already understand that information. In this Internet age, those things are more readily available than ever.

              No, I've absorbed the idea that people who have achieved a modicum of qualification are better suited to instruct our youth than parents who have a vested interest in protecting children from the scary world outside their home.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Hythlodaeus (411441)

            Schools do not just appear. They take a great deal of financing and legal paperwork.

            That sounds like a problem it itself, not a problem with vouchers per se.

        • by AK Marc (707885) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @02:04PM (#31691466)
          You assume mobility. Only if those that take vouchers are required to take all applicants will that work, and only then if busing is free (and vouchers are accepted as payment in full).

          All the vouchers I've seen proposed so far do not cover the whole cost of private school, and as such, would make the schools inaccessible to the poor. They will be stuck in their failed school, while those with the means to leave will.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Kijori (897770)

          This doesn't make any sense. There's no limit on the number of schools that can be created. Vouchers make it easier for parents to remove their children from failing schools and put them in better ones. Poorly run schools will quickly lose all their students and shut down. It's the current system that keeps failing schools in operation, not a voucher system!

          Well, over time, no, there isn't. But in the short term the limit is effectively what we have now; under the private academy scheme in the UK (where I live and therefore what I'm familiar with) the average cost of an "academy" - a privately financed school - was £35m (~$53m), with an average lead time of 4 years from planning to creation, not including finding the teachers and staff you need to operate it. You can't just conjure a new school, so if you consign a school to failure you also consign all

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by phantomfive (622387)

        some students will be forced to attend those schools caught in that downward spiral

        It's not like these schools are so great, some of them in the inner city have pretty much hit the bottom of the downward spiral, they really can't get much worse. The kids are already forced into those kinds of schools, with the system as it is now they have no real option to go somewhere else. At least with vouchers they will have the choice to attend a different school if they want to. Besides, if a school is really that bad, it should be shut down, and something else put in its place.

        I'll tell y

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by schon (31600)

        And yet the schools in the rest of the developed world, which (pretty much universally) have better-educated students, seem to have bypassed these problems.

        I wonder why that is?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It's ultimately about controlling the ideas that youth are exposed to. Sure, children may be sent to some pretty wrong-headed schools with these vouchers... but the parents, and eventually the child, presumably are taxpayers.

      It's all about social control. The left is concerned (rightfully) about children being taught anti-evolution, racist, religious bullshit, but it's more than that. It's about instilling social, democratic values into youth. The right tends to feel that vouchers/homeschooling are a go

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by istartedi (132515)

      I've never understood why the left

      Union, unions, UNIONS! vs. Blacks!

      Yes, it's one of the issues that tears at the fabric of two core Democratic Party groups. I've seen polls [citation needed] where the majority of Blacks support vouchers. Many of their communities are strongly religious, and that tends to be part of the reason for the support. Unions, OTOH, know that many of those small, diverse, competing schools won't sign a contract.

      So far, Union money beats Black desire in the Democratic Party.

      Sai

    • Let's just give the school money directly to the parents instead of schools, as I suggest here in some detail:
      "Towards a Post-Scarcity New York State of Mind (through homeschooling)"
      http://www.pdfernhout.net/towards-a-post-scarcity-new-york-state-of-mind.html [pdfernhout.net]
      """
      New York State current spends roughly 20,000 US dollars per schooled child per year to support the public school system. This essay suggests that the same amount of money be given directly to the family of each homeschoo

  • by Subm (79417) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:56PM (#31690406)

    It would be hard to overstate the impact Escalante has made on the education reform movement in the U.S. He and Rafe Esquith were the first to prove very publicly and definitively that demography is not destiny and that inner-city kids, with great teaching and high expectations, could achieve at high levels.

    At his peak, Escalante had 187 students at one time sitting for the Calculus AP exam — and his students accounted for ONE-THIRD of all Mexican-Americans passing the exam in the country.

  • It would be a worth while effort to increase teacher pay and encourage more great teachers instead of spending it all on the same books every couple of years and other crap. Kids actually learn from great Teachers.

Stinginess with privileges is kindness in disguise. -- Guide to VAX/VMS Security, Sep. 1984

Working...