Whether or not these programs continue to spend billions going forward supposedly depends on you and me, the citizens of this country. If all the foregoing has been more than just blah, blah, blah to you, and if you have real concern for our nation's children, then I would like to conclude with a few questions to help you think this over. Of one thing, I am convinced, there is no question -- the costs of administering this program, of informing the students and parents of their rights, of assisting in enrollment, in processing requests to change providers, in guarding against corruption and evaluating the results, should not be borne by the school districts. This simply reduces the funds available for education and increases the likelihood of failure. These costs should be regarded as a cost of doing business and be deducted from the fees SES providers charge. Additional funding should not be provided. These companies can easily be run more efficiently.
The first question, and one that may seem flip, is why are only low-income kids eligible? Aren't there any middle class meatheads? If you think about this and remove class warfare from your internal dialectic, I think you will realize that this question brings into focus an underlying concern. If students and parents had to pay for this tutoring and the "learning tools," how many would still sign up? How would the "market" come down on this issue?
As previously related, I had no trouble uncovering corruption within the schools. In some cases, I imagine this rule breaking may be relatively benign, e.g. an effort by an educator to help a friend or relative employed by a SES provider on a mission to save children. In other cases, money may be changing hands. If one teacher in one classroom can sign up 30 students to a particular SES provider (relieving that company of the costs of enrollment) and that provider gets back over $1,000 per student, what would it be worth to corrupt that teacher? Given the huge sums involved and the intensity of competition between SES providers, is enough being done to preserve the integrity of the school system?
On a higher note, we might wonder "what is computer teaching?" It is not teaching children how to use computers? It is not teaching students how to design or repair computers? It is not students using computers, in lieu of other reference materials, to enhance their learning experience? It is students being taught by computers instead of teachers? As advocated, it would revolutionize teaching and end the classroom as we know it. Computers programs don't play favorites.
Each student progresses at his or her own pace. The teacher does not deliver the lesson but instead monitors each student's progress and intervenes as necessary. The success of SES providers is predicated on this premise. The computers provide the instruction the student cannot comprehend in the classroom, and the money saved on humans translates into profit. Aside from SES providers, the question is: If the claims for computer teaching are true, and we are willing to spend large sums on this technique, why don't we simply incorporate computer teaching into the regular curriculum?
Finally, and most important, is the question of accountability. Are these SES providers really succeeding where schools have failed? If success can be demonstrated, is it commensurate with the expense? What provisions are there in the "No Child Left Behind" act to monitor the success or failure of these programs? Do these programs work or don't they? The answer will probably fall somewhere between a) they crass and craven companies run by cynical money-grubbers intent on using children as pawns to divert taxpayer money into their own pockets, or b) they are ministering angels employing free enterprise to save children from the bungling clutches of socialist bureaucrats.
You decide.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
