Rhiannon Racy

Sarah Luttenbacher
Brian Wysock
Chase Skiles

The Public Discourse of Education:

Issues debated to death at the expense of learning
Public discourse takes place in a multitude of social spheres through a variety of

mediums.  It has the power to inform, persuade, or dissuade audiences about an abundance of

issues and shapes what we as a society believe, and can illuminate, cloud, or even construct truth

about a variety of issues. Public discourse about education illustrates that many current issues

such as standardized testing, curriculum values and the incorporation of technology in the

educational system largely revolve around education’s relationship with money.  This

relationship can be viewed as detrimental because a large portion of the discourse is focused on

money and its influence on the system that larger social issues such as addressing economic

disparity get pushed aside or simply ignored.

One of the most highly debated issues in education is money. Where it is being spent,

what it is being spent on, and where said money is coming from.  Much of the public discourse

about education revolves around money. One way that public dollars are spent are on vouchers

for students to attend private schools. The issue that people discuss when it comes to the issue of

vouchers is that according to the NCSPE (National Center for the Study of the Privatization in

Education), vouchers are funded through public taxpayer money and give parents a chance to

send their children to private sometimes even religious institutions, and as such decisions are

private it causes concern because of the issue of public money being spend on private issues

sometimes even interfering with the issue of separation of church and state. Voucher programs

attempt to turn education into business by creating a competitive market where schools must
 2

compete for student enrollment (Vouchers). This discussion about vouchers focuses on both

sides of the issue, from the perspective of supporters and of opponents which both have pertinent

points; however, the most crucial issue with vouchers is that they are comprised of public

money, which is used for private use.  

The discourse surrounding the vouchers and the privatization of education is based on the

belief that those parents who want their children to go to a high performing school will send

them there, as opposed to those parents who are forced to send their children to under-

performing schools, as if any parent would want their child to attend such a school.  The voucher

seeks to eliminate such disparities by providing an opportunity for students of lower income

families to attend private schools that supposedly have better resources, teachers, and graduation

rates. However, according to Cecilia Elena Rouse from Princeton University and NBER and Lisa

Barrow of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in a publication for the NCSPE entitled School

Vouchers and Student Achievement: Recent Evidence, Remaining Questions, “the best research

to date finds relatively small achievement gains for students offered education vouchers, most of

which are not statistically different from zero” (Rouse).  These findings seem to bring to light

that the issues behind poor schools are not necessarily the schools themselves, the students, or

the money they have to work with, but greater social issues especially economic disparity that

influences students’ learning and achievement in the current educational system.

Another conversation about money usage in public education is one about charter

schools.  Charter schools use a mix of public funding and private donations but also are not

subjected to some of the same rules as typical public schools. Such schools provide an alternative

to traditional public schools and are not allowed to charge tuition.  According to an article in the

New York Times, by national correspondent Stephanie Strom, “because public money is used,
 3

most states grant charters to run such schools only to nonprofit groups with the expectation that

they will exercise the same independent oversight that public school boards do Some are run

locally. Some bring in nonprofit management chains. And a number use commercial

management companies” (Strom).  The discourse revolving around charter schools is concerned

mainly with the last management strategy.  Many people are concerned that charter schools are

run more as a business than as an actual school.  Imagine is the name of one such commercial

charter management company. Strom argues that, “regulators in some states have found that

Imagine has elbowed the charter holders out of virtually all school decision making — hiring and

firing principals and staff members, controlling and profiting from school real estate, and

retaining fees under contracts that often guarantee Imagine’s management in perpetuity” (Strom).

This is a valid concern in the discourse about money in education, because it could lead to

corporate or private control of public dollars that are spent on education creating an education

system full of educators with private agendas instead of the agenda of educating students. Not to

say that there are not currently educators in the system with private agendas, but the number and

seriousness of the problem could grow if corporate companies were used to manage charter

schools.

Again, the discourse surrounding charter schools is similar to that which surrounds the

issue of vouchers. In an interview with Diane Ravtich on the March 3rd 2011 episode of Daily

Show, Jon Stewart claims, “It seems that charter schools aren’t necessarily the problem. None of

it deals with the larger issue which is the environment around the school” (Diane).  Again, it

seems that discourse about charter schools is just another attempt to find a solution to solve

issues in education that are actually caused by social situations and not the actual educational

system.
 4

Another question that is hotly debated in public discourse about money usage in

education is the salary of teachers. Again in the March 3rd 2011 episode of the Daily Show,

Stewart discusses cuts made by Scott Walker, Republican governor of Wisconsin, cuts that are

specifically impact education and teacher salaries. “We can no longer live in a society where the

public employees are the haves and the tax payers who foot the bills are the have not’s” (Crisis).

Stewart says that Walker is implying that for teachers, “the gravy train is over” (Crisis).  Steward

goes on to show clips of guests on Fox Business segment who argue that teachers are paid too

much for only working nine months out of the year, and that when their health and insurance

benefits are added their salaries, teachers’ entire remunerations are far from reasonable.  

This discourse by Scott Walker and can be seen as quite offensive, not to mention when

looked at more closely, his argument and those made on Fox Business are flawed.  While

teachers work only nine months out of the year, many spend extra hours before and after school

that are not accounted for. Also when the average teacher salary with its added benefits is

compared to the average American salary, it appears to be so much higher, but only because the

income of the American people is skewed. Scott Walker’s discourse about teacher’s salaries is

not only aggressive, but also very misguided.  Advocates of cutting teachers’ salaries and

benefits seem forget that teaching is not a profession people enter for the money. Also with this

discourse they seem to be demeaning the value of education. Jon Stewart uses more segments

from Fox Business that in essence say in order to attract the best of the best for Wall Street

CEOs; they must be offered high salaries (Crisis).  They seem relatively unconcerned about

attracting the best teachers, which ironically are going to be educating their CEOs. Such

discourse illuminates a huge disconnect between many of the issues in education and where the

interests of those in power lie.  Vouchers, charter schools, and teacher salaries are all major
 5

issues in the public discourse about education; the discourse about these issues fails to recognize

underlying socio-economic issues that are part of the underlying problem in education and need

to be discussed in order to be changed.

Jon Stewart’s interview with historian of education, an educational policy analyst, and

former United States Assistant Secretary of Education, Diane Ravitch, on the March 3rd 2011

episode of the Daily Show is an exception. Ravtich argues that the problem with education is not

with teachers or budget cuts but that, “our low poverty schools do incredibly well and its only

where we have intense poverty and racial isolation...you’ll find low test scores...yet we have this

corporate reform movement... that says poverty doesn’t matter, well if you’re homeless and

you’re hungry it does matter” (Diane). This interview is one of the few times such socio-

economic disparities are taken into account in the public discourse about education. Jonathan

Kozol quotes the Wall Street Journal in his book Savage Inequalities, “Money, doesn’t buy

better education... The evidence can scarcely be clearer” (Kozol 133). If money is not the key to

better education, why is it the focus of our public discourse about issues in education? Issues of

the distribution of public funding in education have been talked to death, yet there was probably

never an issue so widely discussed in regards to monetary allocation as President Bush’s No

Child Left Behind Act, which gives money to schools based upon their performance on

standardized tests.

Edward L. Thorndike was one of the world’s first educational psychologists. He believed

that quantitative experiments should have more value placed on them than qualitative and

observational experiments.  He then in turn created one of the first standardized tests that was

used to judge handwriting. He created this test in 1909 and set a precedent and so after other

people began creating standardized tests to measure achievement (Armstrong).   Standardized

 6

testing is not something new to our country; it has been around for over a hundred years.  The

current systems of standardized testing are utilized because of the No Child Left Behind Act.

No Child Left Behind utilizes standardized tests to measure a school’s overall

achievement. No Child Left Behind is centered around the idea of setting high standards and

establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires

states to develop assessments to test basic skills of students at certain grade levels so the states

are eligible to receive federal funding for their school systems.  The Federal Government does

not set a national achievement level; states are left to set their own achievement levels for their

schools systems. Since the Act’s inception in 2001, federal funding for education has increased

by 40%.  This system is currently under much scrutiny from many groups including, teachers,

parents, schools, and politicians.  

One of me the most prominent voices in public discourse, President Barack Obama, has

recently spoken about his feelings concerning No Child Left Behind.  According to an article

written by Stacey Anderson from The Associated Press, Obama is planning on getting rid of the

No Child Left behind Act in the near future. Obama says that he does not completely dislike the

idea of standardized testing; he just does not believe that it should be done annually.  He believes

that standardized testing takes away from children learning things that may interest them.

Obama is quoted as saying:

One thing I never want to see happen is schools are just teaching the test because then
you’re not learning about the world, you’re not learning about different cultures, you’re
not learning about science, you’re not learning about math, all you’re learning about is
how to fill out a little bubble on an exam and little tricks that you need to do in order to
take a test and that’s not going to make education interesting. (Associated Press Mar-
2011)

This discourse seems to suggest that President Obama thinks students should be learning
 7

more than what is asked of them on a standardized test.  This quote from Obama also says that

the things that are being taught to children should be what they’re interested in.  This is a

statement that closely aligns with what Neil Postman believes is wrong with the school system.

Author of Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman states that research has never shown that

children learn effectively and significantly when education is being presented to them as

entertaining.  He believes that if everything is seen as entertainment then it is harder for people to

find truth (Postman 145)  His argument is significant  because if the leader of the United States

believes that education should be entertaining for students then why should so much federal and

state tax money be spent on entertaining the youth of America?

The youth of America are directly feeling the effects of the public discourse about No

Child Left Behind and in turn helping to create their own discourse about the Act. According to

Jonathan Kozol author of Savage Inequalities, the vast amount of standardized testing that

students are put through, are causing them to lose interest in getting an education. They have

come to expect being required to learn material that is on a standardized test; the information that

is on these tests does not cover a wide variety of subjects.  Is No Child Left Behind helping

American students receive a more rounded education?  A writer for the Wall Street Journal

disagrees that education can be fixed with money alone.  The article states that: “Big budgets

don’t boost achievement, its parental influence that counts;”  the author basically goes on to say

that money is not the only determinant in the quality of education that children are receiving

(Kozol 134).

This discourse seems to align the most with James A. Herrick’s issue of society. Herrick

is a scholar from Hope College and has devoted his career to analyzing rhetoric and its

applications.  Herrick’s view of rhetoric and society is that rhetoric helps form how society
 8

functions. He believes that rhetoric should help change society positively.  The discourse

surrounding No Child Left Behind affects how the education system is being reformed or not

being reformed.  This in turn affects how the children of America are being educated. The level

and quality of the education that children are receiving reflects how we as an American society

compare to other societies in the world.  Herrick would likely argue that this discourse is hurting

the quality of education children are receiving. He would likely feel this way because the

discourse is not really making any sort of change it is just continuously going back and forth.  In

contrast, Booth’s view of rhetoric is that it is essential to social organization. Wayne Booth, a

professor at the University of Chicago who is known for his rhetorical perspective, would likely

argue that discourse surrounding No Child Left Behind is essential to solving the nation’s

educational issues.  The discourse is used as a way to look at all of the issues surrounding No

Child Left Behind. This discourse is then used to come to some kind of consensus that will be

used to improve upon the policy or completely get rid of the policy.

The majority of the discourse surrounding No Child Left Behind is negative.  The

negativity makes it seem like the Act is not good for the students, teachers, or politicians. If it is

so bad then why has the Act been in place for the past ten years?  Why hasn’t the rhetoric helped

to change the law so that education is more beneficial experience for both students and teachers?

Should the majority of the funding decisions be based solely off of students’ performance on

standardized tests? What impact does giving public funding based on test scores have on the way

we value education?  These are just some of the questions that the discourse surrounding No

Child Left Behind has left people asking.

Our public discourse about the value of education is contradictory. For example, the “No

Child Left Behind Act” that was established in 2001 emphasized the role of mathematics and the
 9

sciences in our public education systems, but what about the arts or humanities? It goes without

saying that the highest paying jobs today belong to surgeons, physicists, and big business

executives among many other positions of wealth (myplan.com). It is true that most of these

positions can only be achieved upon graduating from college, and then continuing onto further

graduate schooling. But what about the lower paying jobs? If we truly value education for

learning new knowledge, then wouldn’t we devote more time and resources to our public

education systems? Instead, teachers are paid less and schools are forced to adapt. The most

popular fields today are the ones that pay the most, forcing some schools to cut budgets and

unpopular programs. This is where the contradiction lies. Higher education is meant to teach

students the skills they need so that they may find a place in the working world, or that they may

simply enjoy the enlightenment brought from new knowledge gained while in school.

Unfortunately, mere enlightenment will not pay your bills or support your family. Money is what

we value from education, but we also value knowledge despite the incentive from a high-paid

profession. By looking briefly at some of our public discourse on the value of education, one

may discover that our public education system is conflicted with the ongoing argument of what

we really value: money and / or knowledge.

        In the business section of the New York Times website, author David Leonhardt wrote an

article titled “The Value of Education in a Recession.” In his article, Leonhardt draws

information from the Wall Street Journal website offering statistics that suggest those who have

not graduated beyond high school are among the increasing rate of unemployment. Leonhardt

ends his article stating that college graduates make 54% more money than those without a degree

(Leonhardt 1). On the other hand, a few people posted comments disagreeing with Leonhardt. In

summation, most of the comments argued for the value of on-the-job experience and wise
 10

investing. Neither the article nor the post-comments discussed the value of knowledge. Both

sides of the argument appear to seek placement of worth in our education system, but only in

terms of employment. Given the title of Leonhardt’s article, this piece of discourse was not

meant to discuss the value of knowledge, but the value of money and wise decision-making.

Again, one can see the contrary message associated with such discourse. Considering both sides

of this particular argument, it would appear that we value the knowledge education provides as a

way to make and manage money while downplaying the worth of a college degree.

        Professor of law Glenn Reynolds offers three reasons for the monetary worth of earning a

college degree in The Washington Examiner op Ed article titled, “Higher education’s bubble is

about to burst.” Reynolds begins by addressing the dissuading aspect of higher education

describing a student that has built over $100,000 in student loans majoring in religious and

women’s studies. Considering the ongoing rise of college costs, Reynolds notes that most

students “will focus instead on education that fosters economic gain,” a decision that forces

institutions to nurture the most employable and profitable majors. The liberal arts are safe

according to Reynolds, as long as the arts teach students skills valued in the workplace, to follow

general rules, or to provide employers with social networks for future growth opportunities

(Reynolds 1). Skills valued in the workplace, as Reynolds writes, relate to computer literacy

(which is most emphasized and deemed vastly applicable in the field of rhetoric and composition

studies). So, is higher education worth the expenses? Considering Reynolds’ guidelines for

financial growth and prosperity after graduating from college, it would appear that specifically

applicable knowledge is valued in terms of employment. Unfortunately, education is still valued

in a monetary sense over knowledge in this scenario. Much like the student Reynolds referred to

majoring in religious and women’s studies, not all areas will be as prosperous to a student
 11

burdened by loans and other expenses. And like the discourse presented in Leonhardt’s article,

Reynolds’ entry implies some epistemological value in education at the expense of masking its

presence with discourse of financial stability. The major difference between the two articles is

that Reynolds acknowledges education more so for the sake of its monetary value complimenting

its epistemological value.

        Though Reynolds’ argument was a bit moderate, professor of humanities and law Stanley

Fish offers the liberal arts extreme in his New York Times opinion article titled, “The Value of

Higher Education Made Literal.” Like Reynolds, Fish laments for the value of learning in higher

education. He acknowledges that college today is becoming privatized to certain popular fields

paying the most. In his article, he draws an example of England’s system of higher education.

Referencing the Browne report, “Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education,” Fish

explains contradictory flaws in their system. According to the report, students pay for their

higher education expenses only after they have graduated and are making money (which

presumably equates the monetary worth of their specific course material) (Fish 1). The flaw of

this system is that students will gravitate towards jobs that pay more. Fish criticizes the report’s

statement that reads: “We have never lost sight of the value of learning to students, nor the

significant contribution of higher education to the quality of life in a civilized society” (1). The

contradiction of this statement is the same discourse realizing higher education’s epistemological

value, while at the same time skewing that value to the most prosperous fields of study. Thus,

discourse on the value of education typically pits the humanities against the sciences. Because

science is valued for being associated with higher salaries, the value of the humanities, and that

of education itself, suffers constant scrutinizing of worth.

        So, what do we really value? What is it that we deem valuable? Remember those high
 12

paying jobs from earlier? If one were to conduct a simple Google search asking the question,

“What do employers look for?” According to several links (specifically quintcareers.com),

employers value communication skills, analytical / research skills, computer literacy,

adaptability, interpersonal skills, leadership skills, multicultural awareness, organization, creative

problem solving, teamwork, etc. (quintcareers.com). It is true that the study of rhetoric and

composition, deals with effective communication between social groups, close analysis of texts

(visual and textual), computer literacy and digital interactions (verbal, visual, textual, etc.),

assessing current social issues and understandings, contemplative problem solving analysis,

working and communicating well with others, etc. It is also true that rhetoric and composition

incorporates the most applicable skills in English studies, but most all of the humanities are

composed of these skills regardless of popularity or prosperity. In fact, it is these skills that could

be considered as the backbone of higher education itself. The contradiction that has hopefully

been proved here is that we seem to value education because it is a means of providing graduates

with employment and prosperity. We also value the desired skills one learns that tend to reside in

the practices of the humanities that are not associated with prosperous occupations, thus the

value of the sciences devalue that of the liberal arts.

It would appear then that the public discourse on the value of education resembles a

flawed rhetoric undermining its value. Some propose that technology is the answer that will

salvage the value of education from its grave, but there is an easier solution treating public

education as an option. Some may see college as the next path to take beyond high school, but

that is untrue. The real value of education lies within those skills mentioned earlier, which can be

attained during class discussion, on the job, or even at home. The fact that knowledge is never
 13

emphasized for its worth and its flexibility in our culture, it is no surprise that our discourse on

education is so conflicted.

Since the introduction of standardized education systems and some of the emphasis that

we are now placing on certain areas of study and career paths, mainly the sciences, there has

been a necessity to incorporate new technologies into teaching methods.  A few years ago,

calculator's cost as much as a small car, before that only the teacher had a copy of the book and

before that, to be educated you first had to be able to afford a privatized teacher. At the core, one

of the huge arguments for and against technology in the classroom involves money and the

ability to afford it or not. Beyond that, there are differing opinions on whether or not it should be

used in the classroom and many of it’s innovative applications.

In Savage and Inequalities, Kozol highlights how even at that time (Camden, New Jersey

1990), typewriters were being used in a typing class instead of computers." ‘What I need are new

electrics,' says the teacher. When I ask her, "Why not use computers as they do in other

schools?" she says, "They'd love it! We don't have the money." Later Kozol goes on to discuss

how some schools were not capable of teaching a governmental standardized lesson because they

didn't have the required equipment to complete the exercise (Kozol 138-140).

This example of discourse illustrates the "necessity" of emerging technologies for

educational purposes and even ties back into the inability to afford technology. As mentioned

earlier, money is a huge factor that either limits or increases the amount of technology a school

can or cannot incorporate into their curriculum. This school system in Camden had to operate

using antiquated technology that provided an inadequate substitution.  “It’s about getting a piece

of the money that goes to public schools,” said Sherri Wood, president of the Idaho Education

Association. “The big corporations want to make money off the backs of our children”(Gabriel).
 14

“What they want is to substitute technology for teachers,” said Alex Molnar, professor of

education policy at Arizona State University (Gabriel). Discursively this rhetoric is positioned

against technology enforcing the idea that teachers would be entirely replaced by technology.

Tying this back to into the money issue, to effectively be adopted this system first must be able

to be afforded by its schools and pupils.

It could be hypothesized that eventually technology would go as far as even replacing the

instruction and the performing arts in school. In one instance this is partially already the case. At

Breton Education Centre in Mt. Carmel, Nova Scotia they've already taken it that far. “What you

have to keep in mind is that there are no real instruments on stage” (“BEC”). The students are

playing music using technology only.

This rhetoric demonstrates how technology is already being adapted into schools and

effectively replacing a traditionally taught art program. This support paves the way and sets the

bar for other school systems that then would like to comparatively be ranked or discursively

compete with the first ever “iPad band”.  One fact the article didn’t focus on too much was the

cost of the iPad to some band equipment. For example, the cost of an instrument such as an

organ or marching band instruments can range from the hundreds to thousands of dollars per

instrument. However, in the iPad’s instance its one device that can contain multiple instruments

which are programmed replications for well under one thousand dollars, a fraction of the price.

   Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has started a new initiative in which they

release the core academic content and lesson plans for their courses called Open Course Ware

(OCW) ("MIT Open CourseWare"). On MIT's website for the OCW initiative it has its slogan,

"Unlocking Knowledge, Empowering Minds." Incorporated into the web page are also different

quotes from various MIT instructors. MIT Mathematics professor Gilbert Strang was quoted
 15

saying, “My life is in teaching. To have a chance to do that with a world audience is just

wonderful” (Strang).

Discursively this is a pro-technology rhetoric demonstrating the abilities of its platform

which could only exist with our technological abilities. This not only exhibits the amount of

information which is available online but how accessible it is and from a reputable school. The

open platform of the system also encourages the competitive nature of education by putting their

course information out there; it can encourage other education systems to either incorporate their

standards of education or at least their education procedures.

Huffington Post's article titled "How Technology Will Disrupt Learning for a Lifetime, Not Just

in the Classroom" discusses the perspective of how learning is not just something that is finished

and that it is a lifelong process. The writer, Audrey Watters, mentions technologies like MIT's

OCW initiative and sites like TeachStreet.com, which connects independent teachers/instructors

with potential students locally. In a quote she embodies a distinguishing factor between what she

calls lifelong learning and traditional schooling. "That's a key piece of lifelong learning -- the

learning is self-funded. These are people who want to learn something and are willing to pay to

do so." As she concluded her article, Waters stated,“And this, more than anything, may portend

one of the most disruptive elements of technology and education. As more content, more

communities, and more marketplaces spring up online to support these alt-edu endeavors, we

may begin to rethink what it means to spend so much time focusing on the classroom when in

fact, learning is lifelong”(Watters). This discursively illuminates the fact that the focus of

learning is not just within the school systems but yet a larger network of education systems that

are and should be evolving with the technology. Watters also implies the necessity of developing
 16

a new way of structuring the education system to support these new technological tools as they

continue to grow.

In conclusion, the rhetoric surrounding technology’s involvement in education, in most

instances, show support when money isn’t an issue.  On a whole, money will always be an

integral part of how well technology is adapted or applied to education systems because of how

directly the costs can reflect the levels in which technology is available and used. There is a

substantial amount of discourse that points to the fact that regardless of cost, technology is

continuously influencing the way educators teach and changing how technology is used to

educate.

Technology is not going to fix issues in education; neither is standardized testing, or

placing value on certain disciplines that are valued more for their career possibilities rather than

their actual educational value. There are more pressing and underlying issues that the public

discourse surrounding education does not focus on. “Camden, New Jersey, is the fourth-poorest

city of more than 50,000 people in America. The city has 200 liquor stores and bars and 180

gambling establishments, no movie theater, one chain supermarket, no new-car dealership, few

restaurants other than some fast-food places” (Kozol 137). In a world such as Camden, it is

difficult to imagine how education would be of significant concern. Aside from inequalities

among differing school districts, the economic state of communities themselves directly

influence the performance output of schools in impoverished communities. However, public

discourse on education suggests that our educational institutions hold individual responsibility of

their performance despite economic limitations. Standardized testing, curriculum values, and the

incorporation of technology are topics of public discourse about education concerning the

relationship between education and money, a relationship that largely ignores societal context.
 17

Such topics devalue the role education plays, and undermine the steps towards improvement.

Because our public discourse on education avoids addressing social environments that influence

our educational systems, we are engaged in a cyclical rhetoric where proposed solutions and

policies are essentially a waste of time, and prevent any real progress that would prove beneficial

to students, educators, and communities as a whole. It is no wonder why the academic world

appears so offset in our culture. We tend to view academia as it exists in its own environment as

opposed to an existential relationship within the community where any certain institution may

reside. In looking at the public discourse on education, our culture continues to separate

education from its purpose of educating students, and reshapes it as a service commodity that is

taken for granted as a default option which can only dissipate if ignored from societal context.
 18

Works Cited

Anderson, Stacey. "The Associated Press: Obama Says Too Much Testing Makes Education
Boring." 28 Mar. 2011. Web. 18 Apr. 2011.

Armstrong, Thomas. "Academic Achievement Discourse." Academic Achievement Discourse.

2006. Web. 18 Apr. 2011.

"BEC, Carmel students form band using iPad technology." The Cape Breton Post. N.p., April 11,
2011. Web. 18 Apr 2011.

"Daily Show: Diane Ravitch." The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Web. 18 Apr 2011.

“Daily Show: Crisis in Dairyland - For Richer and Poorer - Teachers and Wall Street.” The Daily
Show with Jon Stewart. Web. 18 Apr 2011.

Fish, Stanley. “The Value of Higher Education Made Literal.” nytimes.com. The New York
Times Company, 13 December 2010. Web. 12 April 2011.

"Free Online Course Materials." MIT Open CourseWare. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
2011. Web. 18 Apr 2011.

Gabriel, Trip. "Online learning; Is the growing trend in K-12 education best for students or just
cheaper?." The Bulletin. N.p., 10 April 2011. Web. 18 Apr 2011.

Hansen, Randall S., and Katharine Hansen. “What Do Employers Really Want? Top Skills and
Values Employers Seek from Job-Seekers.” quintcareers.com. Quintessential Careers,
1996-2011. Web. 12 April 2011.

Kozol, Jonathan. Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools. New York: Crown Pub.,
1991. Print.

Leonhardt, David. “The Value of Education in a Recession.” nytimes.com. The New York Times
Company, 8 June 2009. Web. 12 April 2011.

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.
New York: Viking, 1985. Print.

Reynolds, Glenn H. “Higher education’s bubble is about to burst.” washingtonexaminer.com.

The Washington Examiner, 6 June 2010. Web. 12 April 2011.

Rouse, Cecilia Elena, and Lisa Barrow. "School Vouchers and Student Achievement: Recent
Evidence, Remaining Questions." National Center for Privatizing in Education.
National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, August 6, 2008 . Web. 18
 19

Apr 2011.

Strom, Stephanie. "For School Company, Issues of Money and Control." New York Times 23
April 2010, New York: A1. Web.

“Top Ten Lists.” myplan.com. L.L.C., 2004-2011. Web. 12 April 2011.

"Vouchers." National Center for Privatizing in Education. National Center for the Study of
Privatization in Education, n.d. Web. 18 Apr 2011

Watters, Audrey. "How Technology Will Disrupt Learning for a Lifetime, Not Just in the
Classroom." The HuffingtonPost. N.p., 04/11/11. Web. 18 Apr 2011.