Egg White Education
Jenson Hagen
In this country, we have built a skyscraper education system on a grassy knoll of soggy mud. As each year passes, we watch another floor drift below the land’s surface. Then we watch the politicians, parents and the general public clamor about the need to replace that sunken floor.
I hear on the radio about how the Superintendent for Public Instruction wants to invigorate the drive for more money! She wants us to have art and music and a full school year. The problem from where I stand is this art . . . this music . . . these full school years are filled with nothing but fluff. We have an egg white education.
In my last true year of high school education here in the U.S., I left school one day at 2:30 p.m. to hang out with friends for an hour. I sat around as everyone got drunk, smoked pot and near the end, I watched a pregnant 16 year old girl come down the stairs of this house. The only thing that saved me from the ills of this lifestyle was my father who wanted me home promptly after school.
A year later, my dad afforded me the opportunity to study in France. What an eye-opening experience. I studied three languages that year. On an average day, school didn’t end until 5 or 6 at night. There were sports afterward or studying to be done. The art I learned included in-depth papers on Rodin. I learned about classical musicians. Every day I worked my butt off along with everyone around me. In fact, I learned more about American economics than I did here in the U.S. There was no time to go to a party at 2:30 in the afternoon until late at night. We worked too hard.
I studied in Europe a total of 2.5 years. I never went unchallenged. Not only did I get a great education, but I learned for the first time where a work ethic comes from. More importantly, I got twice the education with half the resources. There weren’t exquisite classrooms. I read more photocopies than actual textbooks. This system worked though because it wasn’t fluff.
Perhaps the “fourth rail” of progressive politics is this notion that more money will bring our system back from the dead. True, money is important. But what will create a solid system? Latin will. Learning three languages beginning with the first grade will. School days that last 8-9 hours will. And exit testing that last two years and involves the most comprehensive, mind-numbing challenges will.
When you go to vote this election season, what do you plan to buy? Are you going to consume standards and work ethic and maturity for our students? Or will you vote for the person that can whip up the biggest egg whites?
|
0 readers like this.
Like it!
|
10:51 p.m.
May 4, '06
i'm going to vote happily for Susan Castillo and then pester my State Representative, Sara Gelser, to get as much money as possible for arts and music in the schools. these are not fluff; they are the soul of an education. academics are vital, the foundation of a life that has the opportunity to achieve dreams. but without the arts, which have always been an integral part of a liberal education, the academics have no perspective.
being able to participate in the arts gave my time in high school meaning and purpose. my older son's life was turned around when he got involved in a school musical, and my younger son is doing great because of his time in the school band and the friends he's made there. both of them love music and at least one of them will be a professional musician. they have an academic foundation, more than enough for them to be informed, articulate, productive citizens. but their spirits are artistic spirits, as is mine.
take away the academics, and you end up with an ignorant person. take away the arts, and you end up with a soulless person. you can survive without academics, but without the arts, you are already half-dead.
11:15 p.m.
May 4, '06
NO!
You miss my point entirely. I get tired of trying to find ways to explain this to people. It's not about getting rid of the arts. It's about making education in all areas more rigorous.
That's all.
1:18 a.m.
May 5, '06
He doesn't mean get rid of arts. He's saying that our education (in all areas from math to music to science) is fluff.
I was lucky enough to be in Academic Octathlon my sophomore year and Academic Decathlon my junior and senior year. For AD we actually had a class.
As the name suggests, this is an academic competition that has 10 areas of study: Art, Economics, Essay, Interview, Language and Literature, Mathematics, Music, Science, Social Science, and Speech.
This year's theme was "The European Renaissance." The 2006-07 theme is "China and Its Influence on the World."
We had to do in depth studies of various art pieces and music pieces. You had to be able to recognize pieces of music from just a few bars. You had to be able to recognize various art styles, know info on periods of art, and more.
We spent nearly a year studying and preparing for the competition each January. The content changes every year, so one year our "Super Quiz" topic was genetics and another year the United Nations.
The Super Quiz had two parts-- one a multiple choice test, and another a relay-style test in front of a crowd.
You had to write and prepare a speech to be given at the event. You were allowed note cards, but were given higher marks if you didn't use them.
There was also a panel interview as well as an essay.
My sophomore year the theme was "Documents of Freedom," and we had to study various documents such as the Magna Carta, Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and more. We didn't just need to know the basics-- we were expected to know the documents forward and backwards, the circumstances surrounding their creation, etc.
To this day (I graduated 10 years ago), I can still identify pieces of art from various artists, even if I've never seen that actual piece of art.
I learned so much from those years, and I'm glad I had that opportunity. It's actually what kept me from dropping out at 15, getting my GED, and just going on to college. Without AD, I wouldn't have been challenged-- my other courses were easy and I could typically pull a high A with little or no studying and doing most of my homework on the bus or in the cafeteria while we awaited the start of classes.
I really wish we had Academic Decathlon here in Oregon (if I remember correctly, 38 states currently compete, including Washigton). However, because of funding problems at schools, finding campuses willing to spend a few thousand in materials and pay a teacher a little extra for being a coach has pretty much been impossible. I actually spoke with and met with some h.s. principals a few years back and we couldn't find a single one who would start a team.
Not only do these teams challenge "A" students, they challenge "B" and "C" students as well. Each team is made up of 3 "A" students, 3 "B" students, and 3 "C" students. The top students in the state at competition walk away with some pretty nice scholarships. You get even more at national.
May 5, '06
"Each team is made up of 3 "A" students, 3 "B" students, and 3 "C" students."
I think his point is to make education rigorous for all students not just groups of 10 per school.
He has a valid point, I see what my friends' kids are learning compared to what we did 30 years ago and they are missing a lot of the basics like good written English and how to formulate thoughts with logic instead of responding with/to a soundbite.
Arts are nice, but basics are more important in day-to-day living. Unfortunately, I knew a lot of students in the arts who are dissipating, however, those with sound basics in education do not have near the fail rate.
7:33 a.m.
May 5, '06
Dumbing down the curriculum fosters good alternative programs like Jenni mentioned. Jenson's appreciation for his educational opportunties in France still burn in his memory. American education teaches to the test, ala No Child Left Behind. Parent volunteers come in to teach the Great Books program, desperately trying to smarten up the curriculum. Teacher unions will balk about working a longer day while demanding more compenstion. High schoolers would whine about not being able to work after school. Coaches would claim there isn't enough time to practice. School calendars are still based on the planting and harvest cycles. Tracking/ability grouping is frowned upon, while one-size-fits-all is the current fad. Horace Mann must be rolling over in his grave.
May 5, '06
Wow, this is the most impressive post I've ever seen from you.
The problem with education in America is money. And it isn't that there isn't enough money. It is that the money isn't well spent. Schools ask for more money every year. Even when they get an increase, it is never enough.
The public school system in America is an example of failed socialism. Mediocrity is tolerated, celebrated, and even rewarded. Until schools have a financial incentive to improve, they never truely will. We expect our schools make our students competitive with other countries, yet we don't allow our schools to be competititve with each other.
Teachers unions are in control of the school systems, and no mater how much they claim otherwise, they will never put children's interests before their own. Since we force good teachers to become part of the unions, we force mediocrity upon them.
Visit the Alliance for the Separation of School and State at http://www.sepschool.org/ for an eye-opening picture of what is necessary if we truely want to see our public schools succeed.
May 5, '06
Bravo, Jenson! I am with you on this 100%. I am always surprised when I look at school readers from 100 years ago to see how much more we expected of young people back then - a high school graduate today would be challenged by a fifth grade book from back then.
I spent a year teaching English to secondary school students in Zimbabwe in 1982 and witnessed the same amazingly heavy and challenging workload that you talk about. As a first world country we often think of ourselves with such superiority, and unless we have the opportunity to go elsewhere we never realize that we are falling behind, or why. I was at the time amazed to be in a third world country and see such challenging work and dedication from the students. I had no textbooks to work from and only an old mimeograph machine that I used - I typed up information from library books onto stencils and made copies for the kids. I had a chalk board and they had a pencil and a notebook. But they learned so much and worked so hard. Most knew at least three languages.
I think that you may have said what both liberals and conservatives can come together on here. The conservatives I know don't want money thrown at the problem. They want real education. Liberals want it, too, and open their wallets hoping that more money will get us there. We need to find our way back to that point. I certainly recognize the many challenges teachers face in classrooms today, but as the wife of a strict (but loving) father, I am always amazed how my children will rise to a seemingly impossible challenge and out-perform my expectations. I think we should expect more.
I can't tell you how absolutely thrilled I am to see you saying this. Why don't you run for Superintendant of Public Instruction next time around?
May 5, '06
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
Longer school hours, comprehensive civics, history, and language classes that have the same juice as math and reading, and the arts. A passion is the minimum standard we should expect for our children’s education. That takes investment, not throwing money at a problem, but real investment in our future. We as a nation in a world economy should be fanatical about the quality of education, not a lame “newspeak,” fake solution like “No Child Left Behind.”
The furor of the tax rebellion, and anti-government rhetoric flogged by Republicans has transformed government into a whipping post. The Grover Norquist plan to weaken government with incredible deficits spent on political cronies until it’s bankrupt and can be "drowned in the bath" has stripped our schools down to a near butt-naked state. The consequence of which is a dismal excuse of our common national responsibility to educate and prepare our future generations.
Their goal would be to end up with everyone on their own to educate their own children, those with churches would be educated by their church, those with the money to afford private schools would have all the choices money could buy, and the rest of us would be on our own.
Makes the “Faith Based Initiatives” and “Charter Schools” campaign a “newspeak” terms meant to dummy down the electorate, and hold us down as a nation of the “very rich” and the “very poor” with the religious fanatics to replace our middle class. The Republican model for an American future founded on empty rhetoric, disastrous policies meant to protect the wealthy from a healthy middle-class whom would educate all Americans vigorously, tax the wealthy fairly, and govern effectively.
The G.I. Bill fueled 60 years of America’s greatest prosperity, and strengthened civil liberties for generations to enjoy.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
May 5, '06
Alliance for the Separation of School and State at http://www.sepschool.org/ Posted by: Andy N. | May 5, 2006 7:36:36 AM
This would be a perfect example of public school bashing that would result in the distruction of the concept that "We The People" have a responsiblility as a nation to afford everyone a good education.
That would be a good education we all have access to, not just the rich, or the religous fanatics.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
8:47 a.m.
May 5, '06
Paulie points out that our school days are based on the agrarian harvest cycle.
I've also seen a meme among a lot of liberals that work is demeaning. It's no wonder to me that the 30% drop out rate has become a fixture in education statistics, as schools are way more about "empowerment", self-esteem, multi-culturalism, and honoring "diversity".
I even got chewed out a couple of weeks back by a teacher while arguing about blue collar work. When I advanced the idea that kids down on the farm had a lot of work to do outside of school, I was coldly informed that she didn't think we'd ever be going back to the bad old days of "child labor".
Which begs the question of when and how the little darlings are supposed to develop a work ethic of some kind.
Educators need to be about challenging their students and demanding performance. Instead they seem to be about providing "societal dysfunction" explanations to the students so that they'll have properly packages soundbites to describe their academic failure using approved terminology.
May 5, '06
One of the sad facts of American public education, and one of the great mistakes of the Left, is this: the most outspoken opponents of rigor in public education have generally been liberals—and I say that with a conviction that “liberal” is an honorific, not an insult. If those of us on the left want to decry the low standards of education, we need with start with self-scrutiny. I would bet that very few liberals know what’s actually done, in our name, in K-12 education.
Back in the mid-1980s, I spent a couple of years doing education policy research, mainly on teaching of the liberal arts in high schools. I was stunned and heartbroken to discover that almost universally, liberals in education policy circles opposed demanding any sort of intellectual rigor, either in the curriculum or in student performance.
How this came about historically is extremely complex, and most of the motives have been noble. But for several decades, in the name of encouraging creativity, self-esteem, and equality, liberals touted “affective education,” “self-guided learning,” “experiential teaching,” and a host of other fads that held disciplined learning in contempt.
In turn, the conservatives who vaunted “standards” and “excellence” generally did so with ulterior motives and not-so-hidden agendas: to them, “rigor” meant indoctrination into their views of everything. Jingoistic history, bowdlerized literature, science in service to industry, and worse—a friend who edited textbooks for a major company told me, for instance, that to keep the Texas education authorities happy, illustrations in textbooks never showed a woman in a position of apparent authority over a man, and they never used the word “imagine,” since the particular rubes in power at that point saw that as an invitation to self-indulgence. “Rigor” meant “don’t let them think,” and “standards” meant “make sure they study what we want them to.”
I had the strange beliefs that sound knowledge and careful thought tends to make people more liberal, that creativity must always be founded on disciplined acquisition of skill, and that self-expression requires knowing enough and thinking well enough to have something to express and the means of expressing it. Back then, I thought that by bringing these messages to education policy circles, I would further left-leaning causes.
I was wrong. I saw my work co-opted by the right—and got job offers from rightward organizations—and sparked no interest from the left. Deciding that the effort to bring liberal rigor to K-12 education was simply a hopeless task, I abandoned the field and went back to school to become a psychotherapist.
Maybe things have changed in education in the twenty years since I gave up that particular fight, but I’d be surprised. The only real leftist rallying cries in education in that time seem to have been opposition to standardized testing, opposition to anti-evolutionists, support for closing the technology divide between rich and poor, and opposition to sodas in cafeterias.
I’d love to see liberals acquire an active interest in teaching everyone to think well, on the basis of sound knowledge. But that would require bucking many decades of liberal tradition in education policy—and reclaiming and restoring rigor and excellence from the corrupt ideological meaning they’ve taken on at the hands of their rightwing champions.
May 5, '06
DAN GRADY:
The U.S. spends more per student on education than France, England, Germany and Japan, and pretty much every other developed nation, yet you continue the canard that we have defunded it. That is just hogwash.
But, I'm with you on your idea of having a "GI Bill" model for K-12. Thanks for bringing it up. My father attended seminary on the GI Bill. I'd love my kids to be able to attend my parish's parochial school, but I can't afford it. With a K-12 GI Bill model, I could afford it.
So, I will put you down as a voucher advocate. Finally some fresh thinking from the left! It is about time progressives cast off the leg irons of the unions and woke up to truly progressive ideas like giving poor people educational choice!
May 5, '06
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
Posted by: sasha | May 5, 2006 9:03:12 AM
Either your sarcastic or cynical!
Again, either way you all but make my argument for me. The spending statistics your quote is a perfect example of Republican policies perverting the process with expensive programs meant to undermine the educators. Republicans would show the way government can’t work to help Americans by showing their own incompetence and cynicisms as an example.
We have teachers whom though their unionized, have little to show for their solidarity. The educating of our children have been delegated often to politicians in the state houses or senates that make spending on schools windfalls for their supporters, and do little to educate. Now with “No Child Left Behind” the federal government has that role. Another example of “smalller, less intrusive Republican government.”
When policies are made from a perspective of governing that includes repulsion to government, you get the perverse as a result.
The slight you make in suggesting a G.I. Bill for K-12 schooling in a Christian school would be an example of the kind of attitude that undermines the sincere process of educating our future to lead. We the People have these responsibilities to protect and preserve the constitution, and future of our union. The educated nation is the free thinking, free enterprise that preserves democracy for their future generations.
Your suggestion is another step closer to the Republican vision of the next American Fascism.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
May 5, '06
DAN GRADY
That last post of yours made absolutely no sense at all. Amazing.
May 5, '06
There are sixth graders in PPS taking algebra and advanced algebra today.
Back in the early 1900's, the math tests were about loading hay on the wagon and painting the barn.
Today, they are multiplying polynomials, like this: Simplify (5x2)(–2x3). Anyone? Ferris? Anyone?
So, school's easier these days?
Nope, just another GOP urban myth.
Like WMDs in Iraq.
May 5, '06
Jensen -
you said...
"NO!
You miss my point entirely. I get tired of trying to find ways to explain this to people. It's not about getting rid of the arts. It's about making education in all areas more rigorous.
That's all."
I agree 100%.
I think that Superintendent Castillo does as well...there are two things about that radio ad that I want to point out.
She does not ask for more money..she asks for voters to challenge candidates to solve the problem. Money is part of the solution, but there are many other strategies that we need to employ as well.
She directly appeals for increased rigor, let's look at the text:
"Let's ask every legislative candidate to support reducing class size to at least the national average, a full school year, restoring programs that have been cut such as art, music and PE, and a high school diploma that prepares Oregonians for college and careers."
Thank you for your insights.
Disclosure: I work for Supt. Castillo.
May 5, '06
Sid said, "So, school's easier these days? Nope, just another GOP urban myth."
WTF? Can't we EVER get away from the partisan crapfest? ENOUGH ALREADY!!!
That goes for you too, Dan Grady.
The downward spiral of American education has progressed under both R and D presidents.
May 5, '06
I never thought I'd agree with Sid, but he's correct. My kids work their tails off and have tons of homework every day -- way more than I had 25 years ago.
However, I periodically see them not understanding basic spelling, mathematic and grammar problems. I sometimes wonder how my straight A 8th grader can have such terrible spelling.
I do think however, kids are given way too many alternative learning exercises and busy work. I'd rather see the curriculum changed to a more basic format.
And Larry, you have a great point, too. Most D and R parents just want what's best for their kids. There's no reason our public education system can't be run more efficiently.
P.S. Sid, the answer to your problem is -60.
May 5, '06
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
The downward spiral of American education has progressed under both R and D presidents. // Posted by: Larry | May 5, 2006 10:17:44 AM
Whoops! When my education in both private and public schools was available, they were at parity. (Scottsdale, Az. 64-76)
Will somebody please tell me that the Republican Tax Revolt lead by the worst kind of hacks like Karl Rove didn’t steal the debate with self serving rhetoric to purposely dismantle public education in America?
If the Republican's Policy Plank was not intended to leave our education system in shambles, why are we having this debate after a virtual Republican Rule for at least 6 years?
LBJ lead the fight for a just democracy, a resilient America with a real investment for America that the Republicans have been openly screaming bloody murder about ever since.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
May 5, '06
Easy, Larry, easy.
"No Child Left Behind", aka "No Lobbyist Left Behind" is a multi-billion dollar GOP goof, not Demo.
Most progressives understand Oregon has the highest (or second-highest) ACT scores in the land, year in and year out.
May 5, '06
Jenson:
I couldn't agree with you more. Our first three kids went through the public schools in Lake Oswego which is supposed to be one of the best school districts in the state. We finally pulled the plug on the last two kids due to the lack of rigor in the high school. We went into debt to send them to private high school and the difference was amazing. I can only imagine the angst facing parents in lesser school districts.
12:20 p.m.
May 5, '06
Jenson, your post began with an attack of Castillo's call for arts in schools --
and i took this wrong? how? perhaps the reason our money is not having the effect we want is because we've moved further and further away from a well-rounded education. we can either make our schools technological boot camps, which i don't think anyone here endorses, or we can provide a full program of offerings so that all students, of all abilities and skills, can get the education they need.
both my kids read and write above average, and did so quite young, not because they are extraordinarily brilliant (they probably are, but that's what a great gene pool will get you!). their mom & i read to them, we talked to them like real people, and we limited tv time (never any frikkin' Barney, either). the problem in education is not money, it's the refusal of parents to be part of the process. that's the problem that most needs addressing.
May 5, '06
"No Child Left Behind", aka "No Lobbyist Left Behind" is a multi-billion dollar GOP goof, not Demo.
And the demos have their own...called "Goals 2000"...which gave us the fiasco called CIM/CAM.
They all have their hands in it.
1:25 p.m.
May 5, '06
italics off.
I wasn't talking about that being the only solution. It's one step towards a better education.
In our school (we had less than 10,000 residents), we had a full class of students participating in the Academic Decathlon, vying for 9 seats on the team plus the alternate spots. There were also the Academic Octathlon (8th & 9th graders) and the Academic Pentathlon (junior high) as well.
And it wasn't just abut sound bites. This was very rigorous material. We got in depth into art and music. We had to study science, math, social science, and literature in depth as well.
We had to put together, on our own, a speech of a certain length. It had to be practiced and critiqued until we had it down.
We had to be able to write a convincing essay on a topic that we wouldn't know until we got our test (it related to the content we'd been studying).
The great thing about teams like these is they can be a step in the right direction-- they can show how these students' grades improve, discipline problems diminish or go away entirely, etc. These aren't just the "nerds" or "geeks" in school who participate. It's also the loners, some of those who cause problems because they're bored with school, smart kids who are nearly failing because they're bored, etc.
I wasn't suggesting that this be the only step. I was saying:
1) It's one step that schools can take to improve education.
2) It's a way to keep those students who aren't challenged enough in the classroom from dropping out. It did it for me, as well as many others.
3) We have sports teams that we spend tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars on each year. Isn't a few thousand worth spending for an academic activity that engages students all year, gets them out of trouble and their grades up, and just might lead to some big scholarships?
I was a "B" student my junior year. My involvement in AD made me care enough about school again to bring my grades up to an "A" (it wasn't out of the ordinary for my grade on my report card to actually be 99 or higher).
I swept through academic awards at my school, beating out even the valedictorian. I went from being towards the bottom of the top of the class to being number 7. Had I put in this kind of effort my freshman and sophomore years, I would have had the valedictorian slot by a long shot. Why didn't I? Even though I enjoyed school and learning, I was bored and unchallenged. I had good teachers who did a great job, but they had to stay within the guidelines set forth by the district and the state.
I've felt our curriculum in schools was lacking ever since I was still in school. It's something I ran on when I campaigned for a spot on our local school board in '96 and '97 (my senior year and the year after I graduated).
1:28 p.m.
May 5, '06
This is an arguement I make half joking, half in desperation. I would like to see every school, everywhere, shut down. Chain 'em up, bulldoze them, never to be heard from again. Force teachers to teach children the old fashioned way. Remember when you had a topic and you had to research it? Not on the trusty internet, but in the library with books and microfish. Remember that feeling of finally finding something after reading through tons of material? Some of the stuff that you didn't need would actually stick and your brain would bend and flex in ways you didn't know possible. Then, interst sparked, you would pick up more books and learn more things.
Kids need more guests in class, more "What Do Your Parents Do" days, field trips, and immersion. When I was in school I saw Shakespeare plays downtown, I went to the museums, I went to Native ruins in Santa Fe. The world was my oyster - and that was in public school. Music class, dancing programs, three reccesses a day so we wouldn't turn into fatty patties. There was even more when my parents switched me to private school.
My mother never let me watch TV. Only PBS was allowed with the occasional Charlie Brown special - man that kid is good. With that silence came discovery of many, many things and the ability to accept it.
Let us shutter our schools and rebuild them in the real way. Books, music, art, smells, tastes, sounds. We can do this. It is not impossible. Somebody take a step. The ways these schools are going, I understand the desire to homeschool.
May 5, '06
Karol,
I gave up on the public schools...and started homeschooling my daughter after third grade. The public school prinicpal told me I was ruining my daughters life. We homeschooled the rest of the way until she left for college. This is how badly she turned out - she was a National Merit Finalist - for those of you who don't know, that means the top 1% of high school seniors statewide. She went to a private college on scholarships totaling about 85 percent of tuition. She finished in three years, and had a good job offer before she graduated. But what do I know, I'm only the parent.
I'm not opposed to public schooling per se; just the current model. It needs to be blown up (before it implodes) and we need to start over.
May 5, '06
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
DAN GRADY
That last post of yours made absolutely no sense at all. Amazing. // Posted by: sasha | May 5, 2006 9:44:06 AM
I hate to be the one to tell the King he has no clothes, but; He's Butt Naked! Read the other comments from well educated, taxpaying, civic minded, public school educated, from all walks of life, and all socio-economic level of our nation.
What separates us from an Oligarchy, or worse Fascism is an educated and upwardly mobile middle class. An educated democracy is the only hope for the continuation of democracy.
It would be nice to stay home and educate your children, but how many of us trying just to pay the bills could afford to do that. Are we as a nation, a democracy to surrender our responsibility of an education and opportunity for all, or just all whom can afford one?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
May 5, '06
Apparently your rigorous French education didn't do much for your writing skills, Jenson. Or your critical thinking skills, for that matter.
Perhaps you can explain what the hell this means:
"And exit testing that last two years and involves the most comprehensive, mind-numbing challenges will."
And Becky, 100 years ago the high school graduation rate was less than 10%. A good chunk of the American population back then could neither read nor write.
Thank god for the rational voice of teacher Sid Leader among all the educational know-nothings spouting off on this silly post.
By the way, egg whites are actually good for you.
4:31 p.m.
May 5, '06
We're hearing you loud and clear Terry.
Thank god for the rational voice of teacher Sid Leader among all the educational know-nothings spouting off on this silly post.
Like the insiders in the Bush administration, educators know that there is no need for self scrutiny or introspection. The only accepatble comments from the educational know nothings are blame the Republicans, and send more money.
Dialogue need not occur when your opponents are idiots. Nice little self-serving airtight box you have there.
May 5, '06
Like the insiders in the Bush administration, educators know that there is no need for self scrutiny or introspection. The only accepatble comments from the educational know nothings are blame the Republicans, and send more money. // Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 5, 2006 4:31:14 PM
I like Republicans that can scream the absurd for all to hear when their own policies are at issue. // DAN GRADY
I couldn't agree with you more. Our first three kids went through the public schools in Lake Oswego which is supposed to be one of the best school districts in the state. We finally pulled the plug on the last two kids due to the lack of rigor in the high school. We went into debt to send them to private high school and the difference was amazing. I can only imagine the angst facing parents in lesser school districts. // Posted by: Bill Holmer | May 5, 2006 12:19:33 PM
This is a post from an affluent neighborhood!
I suppose he's an idiot by your standard; or is it that Republican policies had the desired effect of making public schools inferior enough to mean anyone whom can afford too must opted out of them? Where does that leave those whom can't afford private schools. Charter Schools??? Let's have that "Faith Base Initiative" take over education in America why don't we??
One step closer to that American Fascism.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
May 5, '06
I wanted to leave the box empty, but the computer wouldn't let me.
May 5, '06
Speak plainly, Pat Ryan. Your "clever" riposte sems to have bewildered everyone.
May 5, '06
T.A. Barnhart had it nailed pretty solid when he pinpointed the issue of parental involvement and parental concern. Barring actual disabilities, the kids who do best have consistent, supportive, no-excuses parents who follow through, impose sanctions when the kids misbehave at home or at school, and don't do their homework for them!
Unfortunately, too many parents today complain that their child is doing too much homework. Then they complain about their child not doing well.
We raised a kid with a disability which academically appeared in his writing, as well as some of his organizational stuff. He graduated high school with honors. He's doing well in community college. We got him to this point by not taking any excuses, by home schooling in the summers, by kicking his behind and nagging him along to get his work done.
I had a kid today tell me that his paper was perfect and that it didn't need editing. I thought he was joking--until we started reviewing his edits. Eeek (mind you, this one has had a mix of home schooling and public schooling). He's far from the only one.
In our faculty room, often we're angsting over the degree to which these kids give us these dumbfounded looks and go "huh?" when we discuss concepts which they should have had before. That we know they've had before (at least one of our teachers taught those concepts to some of these kids a few years earlier, and I was in the classroom when these concepts were taught to these kids the previous year!). Even our good students don't seem to retain a lot of what they are taught--and those are the basics in just about anything but math (which does seem to be more sticky than the language arts skills).
I'll also agree with Sid, I think it was, who describes the greater complexity of the math being taught at a younger age to the average student. I also do enough special ed diagnostic testing to note that many kids do much better on math reasoning skills than calculation skills (unless the kid is genuinely cognitively low, and not learning disabled).
I think similar things are required of students by our current level of language arts testing. Unfortunately, the emphasis on conceptual learning has left out a lot of skills work, including the basics of spelling and punctuation.
May 5, '06
Terry, I understood Pat Ryan's post completely. Are you a product of Oregon's wonderful educational system?
Have you noticed that most of rest of the world's educational systems are centralized? Including those countries that are kicking our butts in trade?
May 6, '06
Sid Leader posted May 5, 2006 10:03:53 AM:
"There are sixth graders in PPS taking algebra and advanced algebra today."
How many and from which PPS school(s)?
May 7, '06
This is a quoted article from an interview with Susan Ohanian.
"An Interview with Susan Ohanian Published in the April 1999 issue of Curriculum Administrator By Gary S. Stager
Susan Ohanian, a long-time teacher, is now a freelance writer and editor. Her books include, the award-winning "Garbage-Pizza Patchwork Quilts and Math Magic," "Who’s in Charge? A Teacher Speaks Her Mind," "Math: A Way of Knowing" and "Ask Ms. Class." Curriculum Administrator Contributing Editor, Gary Stager recently chatted with Susan about her provocative and timely new book, "One Size Fits Few – The Folly of Educational Standards." Susan Ohanian lives in Vermont with a husband and three strongly opinionated cats.
How can anyone be against educational standards? These days it is not fashionable to admit that some students can learn trigonometric function and some can't. But knowledge is never pure, never unrelated to the knowledge seeker. Rather than arguing about whom will and who won't take calculus and read Hamlet, I'd like people to consider the terrible cost that comes from telling kids if they don't go to college they are worthless.
Standards makers commit a crime in offering a curriculum without regard to the students who are supposed to learn it. Standardistos who focus on the military-industrial-infotainment agenda care about how kids in Grosse Pointe measure up against kids in Larchmont and how both compare with the Japanese. I am worried about the kids in the South Bronx, in Chicago, in Los Angeles. The truth of the matter is that there is no better predictor of a child's success in school than the level of schooling attained by his parents. That counts more than who his teacher is.
Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new tests to prove new standards, why don't we buy library books for the ghetto schools whose need is so great?
I admit that as a teacher of more than 20 years experience I resent the implication that my colleagues and I didn't have standards until political functionaries put their stamp of approval on a discrete list of information. Piling the required standards higher and higher runs contrary to what thoughtful educators advise--digging deeper for real understanding. If people are worried about standards, why don't they worry about the fact that the city of Berlin spends more on the arts than does the U.S. government? France devotes vast expenditures on the arts, not to improve their GNP but because the French believe the arts are critical to peoples' well being."
10:22 a.m.
May 7, '06
You can't eat trendy MoMA installations.
Well, OK, some of 'em can be eaten, but how about teaching the little darlings to live in the world that they will confront, not the world that you wish existed.
You know, how to think critically in a culture that runs on Madison Avenue soundbites.
<hr/>I really don't see the relevance of how much the city of Berlin spends on art, to the survival of my grandkid in Grover Norquist's vicious world of monetary predators and prey.
May 7, '06
Sid writes:
"Today, they are multiplying polynomials, like this: Simplify (5x2)(–2x3). Anyone? Ferris? Anyone?"
Hmm. -60 is the answer I get, but it ain't no polynomial you've asked me to solve. Physician, heal thyself.
May 7, '06
Sid writes:
"Today, they are multiplying polynomials, like this: Simplify (5x2)(–2x3). Anyone? Ferris? Anyone?"
Did you mean (5x^2)(-2x^3), which simplifies to -10x^5. Trying to write an algebraic equation involving powers and roots on a blog is fraught with peril unless you know how to write it, which you obviously don't.
And you are correct that many 6th graders are learning algebra, pre-Algebra, and advanced algebra. This is pretty normal for public schools around the country. There is nothing special about PPS. The plain fact is that math pedagogy has changed significantly in the past 15 years. Students are NOT learning many things today that we learned how to do 40 years ago, in large part because technology permits students to do it faster and easier. How many of today's students know how to take a square root of any arbitrary decimal by hand? How many students know how to use a slide rule? If you want a real eye-opener, look into the way Calculus is taught today in the colleges. Technology has made it possible to cover 2 years worth of Calculus in a single year. No more long, by hand, solving derivatives. No more tedious integration. It isn't really that students are necessarily learning more today; it is that technology has permitted teachers to introduce concepts earlier and avoid some concepts altogether. I'm not sure all of this is good. My daughter goes to a private school. The slowest-moving students in her school take Algebra in the 7th grade and most graduate from the high school with 2 years of calculus under their belts.
May 7, '06
"Parental involvement" is NOT a progressive solution. Indeed, to the extent we think it is, we conserve current inequalities, as all sorts of studies show--current education practices tend to preserve levels-of-education across generations. Students whose parents are not educated, do not have time to help, oppose sound thinking (e.g., fundamentalists, all anti-intellectuals), or who just don't care will not be helped by being told their parents should be more involved.
Meagan quotes, apparently approvingly, an article that includes this: "These days it is not fashionable to admit that some students can learn trigonometric function and some can't. But knowledge is never pure, never unrelated to the knowledge seeker. Rather than arguing about whom will and who won't take calculus and read Hamlet, I'd like people to consider the terrible cost that comes from telling kids if they don't go to college they are worthless."
I'm not entirely sure what the author even means, but
(a) I know that the hardest, most important part of rigorous education is learning that your inquiries must pursue what is true, and how to pursue it, rather than indulging what feels good to you--so I'd say a rigorous education decreases the extent to which knowledge is "related to the knowledge seeker" and increases the extent to which it is related to evidence and logic.
(b) whatever the "terrible cost" of telling kids they have to go to college may be, not going to college generally correlates with lower incomes, shorter life spans, decreased "consumer efficiency" (e.g., the ability to figure out which can of tuna fish gives you the most nutrition per cent, which credit card offer are best, and the like), higher rates of obesity-related diseases, and lower social status. It's also the case that years-of-education tends to correlate with political leanings, and more education tends to slant people leftward.
It is simply true that intellectual competency, from literacy to numeracy to empirical knowledge of history, geography, civics, and the like have declined in the U.S. over the last several decades. Whatever political party should bear the blame for this, it supports the original poster's contention that we need more rigor in our schools. And isn't it possible that the coincidence of the rising political power of the Right and the declining intellectual competence of the populace is no accident?
I think a truly progressive view of the original post would be (a) that he's right--we need more rigor in our schools, (b) that this should be available IN SCHOOL and not dependent on out-of-school parental resources and interests, and (c) if we of the Left believe our political leanings are sound, we should champion more rigorous education, since that will both offer liberation to kids from uneducated or anti-intellectual backgrounds--and increase the likelihood that people will agree with us.
May 7, '06
Meagan quotes Susan Ohanian: "as a teacher of more than 20 years experience I resent the implication that my colleagues and I didn't have standards until political functionaries put their stamp of approval on a discrete list of information."
If Ohanian is correct, one has to wonder why the public education complex has been begging to be fixed since before "A Nation At Risk" in the 80's.
A partial answer is that about 20% of US public school students receive mostly excellent public education services in affluent neighborhoods and communities; 30% receive good-enough services in middle-income neighborhoods and communities; and 50% receive mostly bad education services in low-income neighborhoods and communities.
A larger part of the answer is denial and foot dragging on the part of the public education complex, those who educate and certify them and the politicians who share mutual codependence with the aforementioned.
May 7, '06
Although I've spent 35 years in higher education, have had two daughters go through public school in Portland and Tigard, and one daughter more than halfway through private school in Portland, I cannot pinpoint the time at which the K-12 education establishment fell down into the rabbit's hole. I graduated from high school in 1964 in Central California. I lived in a lower middle class neighborhood surrounded by poorer neighborhoods. My high school was decidedly lower middle class, yet I feel I received a first-class education - enough that I was prepared to enter and graduate from UCLA, and was offered admission to a half dozen other schools. I graduated about 75th in a class of 950 seniors. Our class had about a 5% dropout rate. My parents were no more involved with the school than my mother joining the PTA and attending an occasional meeting and attending back to school night. Classes were large except for the advanced math courses, which were offered at the local junior college. About 65% of the graduating class went on to eventually finish a 4-year degree and more than a few, myself included, completed advanced graduate degrees and became successful professionals.
After graduating from UCLA, I came to the UO to get my PhD. After completing my Master's PSU offered me a position and I started at PSU in 1970, before completing my PhD in 1973. By the time I started teaching full-time at PSU, the Vietnam war was pretty much over. I mention this because the end of the Vietnam war followed shortly thereafter the end of the military draft. With the end of the draft, something significant changed. I'm not suggesting a cause/effect relationship, but the coincidence was something my colleagues and I could not overlook. The students became less motivated, less hard working, less well-prepared. I once started a lecture in a freshman level course talking about some absolutely basic genetic principles that I learned in 10th grade high school biology. After class, more than a dozen freshmen came up to me and told me that they hadn't been required to take high school biology -- it wasn't a state requirement. I was flabbergasted and began to learn more about what wasn't being taught in Oregon. I'd been led to believe that PPS had a great school system; my research did not support this. I came from a "great" school system in some podunk town in central california. What I saw in the PPS was horrifying, even in the most affluent schools (e.g. Lincoln, Wilson). Even the suburban schools were worrisome to me. By the time my oldest daughter was ready for junior high, we had left PPS and had moved to Tigard where the schools were, arguably, better. My oldest graduate from THS with, at best, a mediocre education gussied up by a lot of fluff and little substance. My second daughter ended up at Wilson High School as a result of some tactical errors made during a divorce and subsequent remarriage (it wasn't supposed to happen). After 1 year and 2 months at Wilson, I pulled my daughter out completely and put her through the PCC High School completion program. She ended up with a high school diploma and 36 transferrable college credits simultaneously. She graduated from UO in 3 years.
My meander here is largely to argue that the claim that the PPS was ever very good is, in my opinion, largely untrue. To underscore that, my wife is a native Portlander who, after the 8th grade, went to St Mary's Academy downtown. The same thing was true of both her brothers (Central Catholic) and her other sister (St Mary's). When I asked my father-in-law (a devout atheist if there ever was one) about why he sent his kids to private high schools, his answer was unambiguous - "the Portland Public Schools are vastly overrated and I want my kids to be prepared to take care of themselves in this world. They won't get what they need in the public high schools." Whew! One of my in-laws graduated in 1958, another in 1960, another in 1965, and my wife in 1967. One is a private school principal, another is an electrical engineer, another is a nuclear physicist, and my wife is a physician. Guess they were well-prepared.
So, as bad as people think public education in Oregon is right now, the sad fact is that it wasn't really all that much better before. So instead of throwing more money at the system, it might be far better to re-examine the entire system. CIM/CAM is a complete distraction and waste of money.
Here's an exercise. Imagine we had the draft again and the only way out would be via student deferrments - at least for some time. Imagine admissions at all colleges becoming highly selective and competition ferocious. Do you think that Oregon high school students, in the main, would be competitive in that situation or would we be providing even more cannon fodder for the military than we do now?
May 7, '06
For those who consider the parental involvement factor to be somehow nonprogressive, I'd like to point out that, in many cases, personal experience (granted, this is simply anecdotal but I would not be surprised to find studies which support this) shows that parental involvement in a student's education is not dependant upon the degree of education a parent has; nor is it necessarily a function of socioeconomic status. What does matter is whether the parent sees education as a valuable use of their child's time--and that factor, once again, is not necessarily tied to socioeconomic status.
If a parent cares that the child comes home and makes homework a priority, that directly correlates to school success. If a parent reads to a child regularly, and is seen by a child as reading regularly, that counts toward school success. Not everyone who only has a high school degree devalues education, or lacks the desire to see their child succeed in school. Not everyone who has a college degree gives a flying hoot about school success for their child.
Discipline at home which supports discipline at school is also a factor, and, once again, does not necessarily correlate with socioeconomic status. If anything, I've heard a preference among many teachers for working in lower income schools rather than higher income schools because parents in the lower income settings have a greater respect for teachers and schools than the rich parents do.
Caring enough to make sure that the homework gets done, that the child is fed, clothed and secure, that the child knows that there are rules which must be followed everywhere and that Mommy and Daddy won't bail Pwecious Dawwing out when they act up are factors which are not dependent upon income, parental education, or even political orientation. If anyone wants to look at differences between the 50s and now, one might want to consider the role of parental expectations with regard to doing homework, to behaving, and the degree to which making excuses for bad behavior Simply Wasn't Done in that era.
If you want to say that such an attitude is not "progressive," then I've gotta say that the alternate attitude sure ain't "progressive," either, because it certainly does not empower anyone. At some point, "progressive ideology" needs to consider where the rubber hits the road, and not simply fob off parental responsibilities on government.
Additionally, the blunt reality is that not all children are cut out to go to college. As a special education professional, I see kids who should be focusing on other tracks simply because there is no way on God's green earth that they are ever going to go much beyond a basic reading or math level--but they have the perceptual, hands-on skills that will take them far in more practical endeavours.
Why should such students continue to suffer frustration because our one-size-fits-all system demands that they must perform at a college prep level, when their brain isn't wired for them to do that? Some of these kids are bright and are geniuses when it comes to working with their hands (and have the scores on those particular IQ subtests to prove it), but by the time they're able to attend a trade school, are so burned out and frustrated by the academic environment that demands they function at a college prep level that they never make it to the training which would give them the skills to work at something better than a minimum wage job.
May 7, '06
Historically, "progressive" has meant, among other things, "committed to equality for all." "Parental involvement" is not a progressive solution to the problems of public education because it does not build equality into the schools, but leaves whether or not a child has a good shot at success to the vagaries of factors outside the control of public policy.
Whatever studies one might "imagine could be found," the reality is that the studies that exist show that children of uneducated or poor parents tend to do less well than the children of better-off and educated.
This is a matter of trends, which is what public policy must be built upon. Consider an analogy: Occasionally women did quite nicely in school, politics, business, and so forth pre-1960, but the trends were to keep them down. Even so, occasionally uneducated or poor parents manage to poor heart and soul into their childrens' educations to good effect--but that does not change the fact that overall, under our current system, the children of poor and uneducated parents do less well. If we think poor children deserve an equal shot at excellent educations, we cannot allow parental resources, interests, and involvement to be seen as a solution to the problems of the schools.
Note, BTW, that parental involvement is not progressive if the parents are not progressive. Imagine, if you will, the literally millions of loving parents who do help their kids with their educations--who help them to understand that evolution is false, that John Steinbeck was communist, that Judy Blum undermines morals, that the Founding Fathers believed in free enterprise, etc. If the schools are not giving children both the critical skills and the empirical knowledge to counter backward thinking, what will? A solution that gives every child the ability to think well is more progressive than one that leaves education to the peculiar prejudices of parents.
As for special ed kids--I never said, and do not believe,that everyone should be expected to go to college. But during the time when I was deeply involved in education policy, it was generally the view of "liberals" that tracking was somehow harmful to students, and I suspect this is the view behind the strange, incoherent sentence I was responding to: "Rather than arguing about whom will and who won't take calculus and read Hamlet, I'd like people to consider the terrible cost that comes from telling kids if they don't go to college they are worthless." Actually, I can't even begin to understand the "rather than" in that sentence any other way. There is no logical reason that we can't, and shouldn't, do both--demand rigor of those capable of it, and help those who are not to deal with their particular situations.
May 8, '06
I would think it progressive to believe that strong public schools will serve, in the words of Horace Mann, as the "great equalizer". Mann, the noted 19th century educator, believed that in order to give all students a chance to achieve and do well in life, public schools had to be "common schools"; schools which educate both disadvantaged and advantaged children under one roof. Article 8 Section III of the Oregon Constitution calls for "an equitable system of Common Schools."
Separate schools for poor and working-class kids on the one hand, and middle-class and wealthy children on the other, are inherently unequal, Mann believed.
What's happened to the PPS district for the last 30 years are the increasingly active parents who backstop diminishing staffs and resources. None of them do it out of loyalty to Portland Public Schools. They do it for the particular schools their children attend.
That is a move away from progressivism.
May 8, '06
Final thoughts on USA schools vs. world schools.
An American family with an autistic son pays zero extra dollars in PPS.
A family, of any nationality, in Singapore, with an autistic son, pays $5-10,000 a year extra, in special ed tuition, for the same services he would get free in America.
So, take that USA vs. world comparison and show it the door.
And finally, if our schools SUCK SO MUCH, why is Silicon Valley in California and not Calais?
Because the French weren't smart enough to invent computers and the Internet, though an English bloke named Dr. Tim did help invent HTML way back when.
May 8, '06
Bob, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the parental involvement issue. Reality is, if someone in a kid's family doesn't give a hoot about education, it's really unlike the kid will care, either.
Additionally, you seem to define "parental involvement" as committing cash, time and other resources to the school. I'd settle for a parent who enforces a set of rules which are consistent with the school setting. Again, it's been my experience as a teacher in the trenches (not as an educational policy setter) that a parent committed to supporting school policy, to making sure that the kid does their homework, gets fed, has a secure place to live, and gets a decent amount of sleep is better set up to succeed than a more affluent child who has learned that they don't have to do what they won't want to because Mommy and Daddy will bail them out, homework is an option, and doesn't get decent sleep/food/security.
It may not be a progressive point of view, but expecting parents to step up to the plate and accept their responsibilities should be a nonpartisan attitude across the board. I find that single parents working multiple jobs tend to be better, more progressive parents from this point of view, quite frankly.
As for the tracking debate--in a perfect world, we'd have team teaching, and aides in every classroom, so that tracking or levelling wouldn't be a necessity.
We don't live in a perfect world, and the reality is, if you can concentrate your lower achievers in a class where you can concentrate your aide and team teaching resources to lower the staff/student ratios accordingly, then those students will show progress and do better. The studies show that the lower a staff to student ratio there is, the higher the achievement levels overall. In a perfect world we'd have that seven students to one staff member automatically in all classes. In reality, we can only afford to do this in our lower level classes. Given the alternative of tossing low performers into the mainstream without any help at all, I'd sooner go for tracking or levelling.
May 8, '06
jrw wrote: "Bob, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the parental involvement issue."
Just to be clear where, as I understand it, we do and don't agree: You may not have noted my original post in this thread, in which I said I left education policy because I was fed up with dominant notions of proper "liberal" education policy, while the conservatives had co-opted the language of "standards" and "rigor" for their ideological agenda. As best I saw it, the probability of getting realistic, rigorous progressive education into the schools was pretty much nil. I don't really see a lot to suggest that has changed in the twent years since I left that world.
I would agree with you about tracking--I always thought the liberal argument against it simply daft, as I still do. I would also agree with you that affluent families, in particular, sometimes badly shirk parental responsibilities that there's no good reason for them to shirk.
What I was objecting to, in the post on parental involvement not being a progressive solution to the problems of the schools was a view expressed by some generally lefty types on this blog that parental involvement was "the key."
I think parents who can do need to step up and do everything within their power for their kids--and I think what they need to do, given the state of the schools, is quite a lot.
My objection was to lefty types being satisfied with that as "the key" to the problem the original blogger who started this thread identified: lack of rigor in curricula.