>My point is that: Sure, there are abuses of any sound idea, but that
>doesn't mean that the ideas to inject realism into schools and to hold
>educators accountable for the performance of students on general measures
>of competency in basic skills are completely evil and regressive. For every
>example of a failure in these reform areas (and there are many), you can
>find a success.
The reforms you speak of are called "output-based education" reforms. This
approach - a focus on basic skills - has been a failure here. Perhaps it's
the mechanics of the way our system works. Our education system is based on
"core competencies" which are tailored to making the student ready for jobs
that don't exist on technology that's redundant by the time they graduate,
to address problems that have long since past and become crises. While they
profess to make the student competent in "basic problem-solving skills", the
effect of quantification (output based, measurable, accountable, outcomes)
is entirely the opposite. The logic this approach springs from is a special
type of Taylorism that focuses on quantifiable outcomes which includes the
number of people who graduate and, thus, is framed to reflect the
efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness of the educational institution
and of educators alike. The general effect of a marketised education system
is that, like any other competitive "mass market", there tends to be a rush
towards the bottom in price and quality, despite what neo-classic economists
might say about it.
Realism is not the sole property of business life. Market logic and
education are at odds with one another where societal outcomes are concerned.
Phil
Phil Graham
Queensland University of Technology
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/