Monday, April 18, 2005
Not Again!
(note: I will check for typos when I have time! Thanks!)
Todd Buchholz's Bringing the Jobs Home is a light-weight book addressing the problems of outsourcing and the lack of the creation of new jobs here in America. Although this book can be deemed "conservative," it cannot, sadly, be deemed well researched. Using a style that relies more on humor than on facts, Buchholz proffers solutions that may not be based on an accurate reading of reality. As you might guess, my biggest complaint is with his shoddy treatment of the public education system in America (more later). I am, however, receptive to some of his ideas in other areas (like immigration), but it is difficult to cite him as an authorative source since much of his work sounds like it comes from a man who reads the Wall Street Journal and shares his interpretations of articles with his drinking buddies at the local high-end bar after work.
As for his attack on public education, I agree that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. I disagree on his evaluation of the problem. In brief, Buccholz argues that "we have to break out of fairy-dust land and face reality." Unfortunately, he ignores reality when it doesn't fit his solution.
Buchholz argues that:
1) Parents are overwhelmed with other things in life, so, at best, their ability to make a significant impact on the public school system and their children's education is extremely limited;
2) Teachers' unions love the credential system because "it keeps down the supply of teachers and raises wages;"
3) "Less than 40% of teachers have a degree in any academic field." Most teachers are incompetent because women now have more access to better paying careers than they did 50 years ago;
4) It is virtually impossible to fire a bad teacher. "Drinking on the job is generally not sufficient; she has to finish the bottle, smash it on the desk and then hit a kid with it."
5) Home-schooling and charter schools are better; complete competition in schools is best.
Let's take a look at his argument point-by-point:
1) Buccholz refuses to acknowledge that the most important factor in student achievement is parental involvement. He argues that parents are overwhelmed with dealing with their teens hormonal issues and paying the bills that they just cannot be reasonably expected to be too involved with the education of their children. Of course this runs counter to his citation of the growth of home schooling, but consistency does not seem to be a concern for Buchholz. It is easier for him to blame the system instead of taking into account parental responsibility.
2) Teachers' unions generally love the credential system because they are attempting to instill some sort of professionalism into the training of teachers. Buccholz does not write one word that actually shows that he knows anything about what goes on in the credential process. I do agree that some sort of compact training regimen would be better than the current system (as he suggests). However, he provides no specifics as to what courses or training should stay or go. (Yes, I know, I am not doing that either, but that will have to wait for another blog when I have more time.)
3) Yikes! Based on his poor citation skills, I am not sure if his 40% figure is something he overheard on the train or if it comes from an actual report. I am skeptical about the charge but not dismissive of it. Of course, he insults the entire teaching profession by implying that the only good teachers were women who previously prevented from pursuing other careers 50 years ago. His implication is that the rest of us are idiots to being doing something that might directly enrich the lives of children. However, this slam on doing good deeds should not be shocking since he slams Christian families who home school: "I remember when my nonreligious neighbors planned to home school their two children. The mother called a home-schooling support group and asked another mother what kind of math curriculum to use. The woman answered,'I listen and Jesus tells me." I ask you: was that slam really necessary? It certainly wasn't funny, but I expect that he thinks that it is.
4) This "example" is ludicrous on its face.
5) He may be right; but his myopic and careless analysis of the problems of education do not support his conclusion. He does a shoddy job of analyzing socio-econmomic status, parental involvement, the credential process, and bureaucratic and legal obstacles to change.
All-in-all, I would suggest that you read the book; but, if you like the ideas, you will have to do your own research in order to be satisfied.
Todd Buchholz's Bringing the Jobs Home is a light-weight book addressing the problems of outsourcing and the lack of the creation of new jobs here in America. Although this book can be deemed "conservative," it cannot, sadly, be deemed well researched. Using a style that relies more on humor than on facts, Buchholz proffers solutions that may not be based on an accurate reading of reality. As you might guess, my biggest complaint is with his shoddy treatment of the public education system in America (more later). I am, however, receptive to some of his ideas in other areas (like immigration), but it is difficult to cite him as an authorative source since much of his work sounds like it comes from a man who reads the Wall Street Journal and shares his interpretations of articles with his drinking buddies at the local high-end bar after work.
As for his attack on public education, I agree that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. I disagree on his evaluation of the problem. In brief, Buccholz argues that "we have to break out of fairy-dust land and face reality." Unfortunately, he ignores reality when it doesn't fit his solution.
Buchholz argues that:
1) Parents are overwhelmed with other things in life, so, at best, their ability to make a significant impact on the public school system and their children's education is extremely limited;
2) Teachers' unions love the credential system because "it keeps down the supply of teachers and raises wages;"
3) "Less than 40% of teachers have a degree in any academic field." Most teachers are incompetent because women now have more access to better paying careers than they did 50 years ago;
4) It is virtually impossible to fire a bad teacher. "Drinking on the job is generally not sufficient; she has to finish the bottle, smash it on the desk and then hit a kid with it."
5) Home-schooling and charter schools are better; complete competition in schools is best.
Let's take a look at his argument point-by-point:
1) Buccholz refuses to acknowledge that the most important factor in student achievement is parental involvement. He argues that parents are overwhelmed with dealing with their teens hormonal issues and paying the bills that they just cannot be reasonably expected to be too involved with the education of their children. Of course this runs counter to his citation of the growth of home schooling, but consistency does not seem to be a concern for Buchholz. It is easier for him to blame the system instead of taking into account parental responsibility.
2) Teachers' unions generally love the credential system because they are attempting to instill some sort of professionalism into the training of teachers. Buccholz does not write one word that actually shows that he knows anything about what goes on in the credential process. I do agree that some sort of compact training regimen would be better than the current system (as he suggests). However, he provides no specifics as to what courses or training should stay or go. (Yes, I know, I am not doing that either, but that will have to wait for another blog when I have more time.)
3) Yikes! Based on his poor citation skills, I am not sure if his 40% figure is something he overheard on the train or if it comes from an actual report. I am skeptical about the charge but not dismissive of it. Of course, he insults the entire teaching profession by implying that the only good teachers were women who previously prevented from pursuing other careers 50 years ago. His implication is that the rest of us are idiots to being doing something that might directly enrich the lives of children. However, this slam on doing good deeds should not be shocking since he slams Christian families who home school: "I remember when my nonreligious neighbors planned to home school their two children. The mother called a home-schooling support group and asked another mother what kind of math curriculum to use. The woman answered,'I listen and Jesus tells me." I ask you: was that slam really necessary? It certainly wasn't funny, but I expect that he thinks that it is.
4) This "example" is ludicrous on its face.
5) He may be right; but his myopic and careless analysis of the problems of education do not support his conclusion. He does a shoddy job of analyzing socio-econmomic status, parental involvement, the credential process, and bureaucratic and legal obstacles to change.
All-in-all, I would suggest that you read the book; but, if you like the ideas, you will have to do your own research in order to be satisfied.
