公校改革
【邱鴻安】聯邦教育部長唐侃來灣區，推銷歐巴馬的一項教育改革計畫，他批評說，加州的教育以前曾領先全國，現在則「迷失了方向」，在全國的排名幾乎墊底 (near the bottom)。所謂墊底，是指加州學生的學業成績在全國的排名已跌至第48名。
我們不知道加州那些天天說重視教育的政客聽到這樣的批評會有何感想，也不知道加州那些天天喊教育改革卻沒有實際行動的教育界會有何感想，但是對於加州學校的拙劣表現，加州人不能不感到失望和憤怒：為什麼資源那麼多、經濟實力全球第八大的加州，卻在重要的教育比不上南部貧窮落後的小州。
唐侃說加州教育迷失方向，絕非無的放矢。加州在1950和1960年代，資源豐富，機會眾多，因此被稱為「黃金州」，那時加州大量興建中小學校，又設立了成為全國模範的公立大學系統 (加大、州大和社區學院的三級系統)。但在此後的二、三十年，加大再沒有興建分校 (直到2005年才有第十所分校麥賽德加大啟用，前九所都是60年代所建)；中小學校則破爛失修，令人不忍卒睹。
唐侃推銷的公校改革，是歐巴馬教育改革的一部分，有關改革計畫稱為「力爭上游」 (Race to the Top)，設有100億元經費(刺激經濟計畫撥了1000億元作為教育經費，這是其中的一部分)。唐侃說，有關的100億元將撥給那些找到創新改革方法的州，由於不是每個州都可以得到，所以各州必須競爭，找到有效改革方法的州才可得到撥款。
唐侃的聽眾，都是灣區的教育界人士，他們對他的改革計畫有些什麼感想？
灣區教育界的反應令人覺得，他們只重「救亡」，卻顧不了「改革」。教育界的「救亡」意識是不難了解的。州政府去年秋天通過的州預算案和今年2月通過的預算計畫，總共削減了加州學校的78億元預算；519特別選舉後，州政府又宣布，在本會計年度結束前(6月底前)，再削學校預算16億元，下年度還要削37億元。在這種大削預算的情況下，也就難怪教育界喊窮，把注意力集中在預算和救亡之上，卻無暇去理會改革。
舊金山教育局長加西亞關心的也是錢，他問唐侃，如果加州爭不到「力爭上游」的撥款，舊金山學區是否可以獨自取得撥款？唐侃回答說，不行。東灣西康縣學區的官員向唐侃說，州政府撥款不足是學校表現差的根本原因。唐侃回答說，他2001年至2008年在芝加哥擔任教育局長時，有些學區特別窮，但學生的表現也可以很好，其中一項鼓舞學生的措施是─把學校變為社區中心，延長開放時間，低收入家庭的學生可在課後留在學校，參加活動和溫習，而不致於在街頭遊蕩。
除了錢，教師本身也是改革的焦點。全國目前有一項提高公校教師質素的運動，因為現在的公校制度，就算不稱職的教師也不能開除；「力爭上遊」建議蒐集教師表現的資料，以便學區可以按教師的表現去進行賞罰，不稱職的可據而開除，表現好的則可以得到獎金。大多數教師工會都反對這項措施，一名灣區教師當場就對唐侃表示，反對以蒐集資料的方法去對付教師。
在全國排第48名的加州公校教育，已到了非改革不可的時候；就算加州教育界不去爭取「力爭上游」的撥款，也應該推行改革。但是，如果學區連開除不稱職教師也辦不到，那麼還可以推行些什麼改革呢？(世界日報，5.26.2009)
What determines a child's future isn't how much is spent, but how wisely that money is spent. If there is no accountability, or schools use unproven fads for instruction, it doesn't matter how much money is thrown at a problem; it will be wasted.
While many people say; "We need to spend more money on our schools," there actually isn't a link between spending and student achievement.
If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved ... We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better.
The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student. Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money. America spends more on schooling than the vast majority of countries that outscore us on the international tests. But the bureaucrats still blame school failure on lack of funds, and demand more money."
Your assertion of "賴到全國教師工會上" shows the lack of understanding how Teachers Union works.
Big labor unions have destroyed countless American industries, but these unions don’t just control factories and assembly lines. Our public education system is a slow-motion car crash, driven by the same union special interests that brought the auto companies to the brink of bankruptcy.
Government schools are increasingly run by the unions and for the unions. Teachers unions collect a lot of money in dues, they are often the largest lobby in the state, they are very, very powerful. Teachers unions are especially powerful in inner cities, where teacher pay is often highest and teacher performance is usually the worst. For many black and Hispanic parents, the teachers unions now represent the enemy. Even Reverend Jesse Jackson has questioned teachers' "right to strike for more money when the employers taxpaying parent-holds tax receipts in one hand and test results in the other that prove he's paying more and more for less and less." The New York Times noted last year that teachers unions have been "for decades the most conspicuous voice in American education." Teachers unions do not hesitate to use their clout blatantly.
That is from YN Times, and Jesse Kackson, your most left wing liberal paper and spokesman...The ones who always support unions..mind you.
By the way, the company which I am currently one of the sitting board members consistantly asks its employees(that includes myself) to do soup kitchens and volunteers works at hospitals and schools. The question is "have you?"
把加州教育的問題賴到全國教師工會上，然後一竹竿打盡所有工會，是栽贓加羅織。
你那一天去貧窮地區的學校當義工，你就會瞭解到那裡的學校為什麼不好，你也不再問「他們為什麼不吃肉糜？」
*加州在1950和1960年代...
*提高公校教師質素的運動...
以上的兩點是全文最種要的地方...
60 年代後加州政治傾向使教育品質一落千丈﹑讀者捫心自問﹔是送小孩去私人學校好還是公立學校好﹖為什麼好﹖
再來就是全國教師協會( Notional Teacher's Union).
只要這個協會存在的一天﹑你們小孩的教育品質只會一天一天的下降. 所有的 Union 性質一樣..保護權益,反對任何改革.