In this Sound Politics post, I argued that following "progressive" ideas had made the schools in Seattle (and similar cities) worse. I was answering a column by Seattle Times columnist Nicole Brodeur, who believes that "progressive" cities ought to have good schools.
In a follow-up column, Brodeur says she received considerable criticism for her argument — and the fact that she enrolls her own child in a private school. She begins the column with these two defensive paragraphs:
What's really wrong with Seattle Public Schools? Apparently, it's people like me.
We private-school parents pull our kids out of the public-school classrooms and then throw stones. Readers threw plenty back my way after my column on how the state of some of Seattle's public schools can negatively influence some homebuyers.
Brodeur's critics are right. It is her fault — but not because she sends her child to a private school (just as Bill and Hillary Clinton did when they lived in another "progressive" city, Washington, D. C.) It is Brodeur's fault because she consistently supports "progressive" politicians and "progressive" schemes, in spite of abundant evidence that those politicians and schemes have damaged our schools.
Need an example? Try busing for racial balance. The Seattle schools were never segregated, but the Seattle school system brought in busing for racial balance, and clung to that policy for years, in spite of the obvious damage it was doing to the schools, and to the city, something I discussed here.
Need another example? Try "constructivist" mathematics, something I discussed here, here, and here. That "progressive" curriculum has set back mathematics education all over the United States.
And I could add many more examples without much effort, as could anyone who is familiar with our schools. But somehow Brodeur, and others like her, do not know these facts.
It is not a coincidence that Seattle has mediocre schools, that San Francisco and Washington, DC, have terrible schools. It is a natural consequence of the "progressive" ideas that dominate the politics in those cities.
Finally, let me tie up a loose thread from my earlier post. I had promised there to give you my best guess on whether Brodeur would stop backing "progressive" ideas and politicians if she were convinced that they damaged our schools. I don't think that there is any combination of evidence that would convince Brodeur of that, but if there were, I think that she would continue to back "progressive" ideas and politicians. I think that for Brodeur — and many other journalists — "progressive" equals "good" — and they are simply unable to think about the subject beyond that point.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(I put "progressive" in quotation marks because Brodeur used it, but I think that "leftist", or perhaps "reactionary", would be a better description of the ideas she calls "progressive". There is nothing, for instance, progressive, about assigning pupils to schools by race. And many other ideas about education held by Brodeur's "progressives" have long since been discredited.
Those familiar with this area will be amused by the argument made by Brodeur's colleague, Danny Westneat. He thinks that Seattle schools aren't so bad because they are better than the schools in, for example, Tacoma. No word from Westneat on how Seattle schools compare to the schools in, for example, Singapore.)
Posted by Jim Miller at December 06, 2006 10:54 AM | Email ThisThat's like saying stepping in dog poo isn't as bad as stepping in cow poo. In the end, it's still poo.
Posted by: Mike H on December 6, 2006 11:18 AMThe facts that the more fully such policies are implemented correlated with even worse performance, and that the very worst schools often have among the highest per student expenditures would not have any impact upon her.
The answer to failed "progressive" policies is to fail harder, faster, and better funded. "Progressive" orthodoxy forbids ever questioning any basic "progressive" dogmas.
Posted by: krm on December 6, 2006 11:57 AMMore money will not fix the problem. Closing schools will not fix the problem. Blaming race will not fix the problem. Putting an ex-mayor in charge definitely won't fix the problem.
The solutions are not difficult but they definitely aren't going to win the support of Brodeur and other loony leftists. Because the solutions focus on personal responsibility, discipline, and hard work. And the realization that a good curriculum is not going to be a laugh a minute and will actually require effort.
What Ms. Brodeur and her kind cannot accept is that there are some communities that just do not value education and no amount of government meddling will ever overcome that hurdle.
Posted by: Burdabee on December 6, 2006 12:17 PM"since the Seattle progressives are transplanted Californians (or other out-of-staters)."
True, Brodeur is "transplanted." So was that poster boy for the Wobblies, Harry Bridges. And lest we forget the creator of disparity in Seattle Schools, the lovable Maoist and once Seattle School Board member Anna Louise Strong. Let's see, Cantwell's an out of towner. So is McDermott. Murray's a Mossback to the bone but she must get a pass.
Yeah, I guess the movers and shakers of all things left, sorry - make that progressives, in Seattle are akin to Typhoid Mary, lepers, and syphilitics contaminating the local gene pool . Or could it be that Seattle has always been a moonbat spawning ground and magnet and always will be?
Sort of like calling a fresh cow turd a chocolate bar - sounds good, but upon closer examination it's still just a steaming pile of you know what.
Posted by: H Moul on December 6, 2006 12:37 PMthe word "progressive" is a total misnomer when the entire group still focuses on Vietnam, abortion and civil rights.
all the moonbats are stuck in the 60s, still fighting ghosts the rest of the country has long ago laid to rest.
so, its no wonder they cant understand how protecting our country is more important than a bunch of Imams. or how abortion truly has killed millions of children.
but, at the bottom of it all; those progressives have been in charge of education for about 40 years, so... its a wonder any of us have the ability to think at all.
as for Brodeur? yeah, i fired her off an email when she said she was the problem with education. I wanted to make sure she knew we all supported her in that admission!
Posted by: Lauri on December 6, 2006 01:50 PMIt's been longer than that. I remember my Jesuit-educated father ranting about Pearl Wanamaker who was SPI in the 40s and 50s, and Horace Mann, the father of "progressive education". He moved our family to Capital Hill in 1945 so we could walk to St. Joseph's, Seattle Prep and Forest Ridge. (Very affordable back then).
To get a teaching certificate in the 1950s you needed to take just ONE class in teaching reading, before you were exposed to any "actual" students.
Sputnick boosted American education for a while in the late 60s and 70s so the public schools in the suburbs were fairly good, but you still needed to teach your kids to read at home before they went to school because the predecessor to "Whole Language" was holding sway. But math was still taught as if we had really learned something from Pythagorus and Archimedes, Pascal, Descartes and Einstein.
Then came John Holt and Summerhill. Then the students got to discover everything for themselves and we were back on the progressive rails.
Posted by: Ann in Issaquah on December 6, 2006 02:34 PMProgressive could also mean opposition to the established ways of our nation. Anti-conservative, or simply opposition. I think there is actually a third Party in our system right now defined by the division of capitalist and socialist Democrats. Republican Party, Democratic Party, Democratic Socialist Party (progressives)
Instead of fixing the problems that create unmotivated underachieving students, we will bus them to schools filled with motivated achievers. Maybe lower the WASL standard for them, proclaim them all winners and hand them a worthless diploma.
Instead of rewarding motivated achieving students, we penalize them by busing them to schools filled with under motivated underachievers. They can standout even while slacking off and in the end get handed a diploma that is worthless because everyone has one whether they can read or not.
Overall things are not any better but both student groups do their part to leveling the district statistics. Both groups of students have less time for family, church, neighbors, friends, and fun. More programs will be developed by the government for people to cope with these losses.
This is socialism, everyone suffers.
-
If "progress" is binding everyone to the least common denominator, then we are all doomed, yet that is exactly what Brodeur and other progressives, or leftists or reactionaries or liberals, or whatever you want to call them advocate for each and every day.
Give a "progressive" someone downtrodden and they see a victim to be exploited in a class, give that same person to one who puts limited government and the individual first, and they will find a potential to help that person rise up and fend for themselves.
Keep up the drum beat. They are not pro-gressives, they are re-gressives and they will take humanity back to the dark days of classist oppression in collectivist Europe if we let them.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 6, 2006 05:30 PMSo if Tacoma's schools are worse than Seattle, they won't be for long if that trend keeps up.
As is so common with those who think like Brodeur, it's really not a matter of what actually works, or making decisions based even on just a reaction to what has not worked, but instead it is about what they "feel." Brodeur really "feels" that the failed ideas of Seattle Public Schools are a good thing, so much so that in spite of making a different (and one would presume) better private choice for her own children, she is still willing to use her media voice to champion what she "feels" is right.
One wonders if Brodeur uses her feelings to decide when to cross the street, or if at least in that case she advocates a more intellectual approach like looking both ways.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 6, 2006 05:41 PMI am often amused by arguments made by Westneat, and wonder why he has regular column space in a major newspaper when he has so little of value to say.
Posted by: ram on December 6, 2006 05:45 PMIf the Times were smart, they'd can both Brodeur and Westneat and give Eric Lacitis back his column.
Posted by: Organization Man on December 6, 2006 06:29 PMTo recap: the Democrat who supports gay marriage and is progressive on education beat the Republican who was anti-gay marriage and a back to basics conservative on education by 19.9229% for a seat previously held by a Republican.
Posted by: me on December 6, 2006 09:17 PMIt was Teddy Roosevelt, not Franklin that was the Progressive.
Posted by: me on December 6, 2006 09:20 PM