Looking for sense in all the wrong places

Hey Folks -

Almost everything we ever hear about education is just so much crap. To understand that, you have to give up any notion you might have that the point of school is to educate children - especially ALL the children.

The goal is in no way to get everyone thinking about and dealing well with the practical, aesthetic, academic, psychological, political, economic, and other realities of life. If one thinks it is, then the columnist's words below, while changing nothing, appear to be sensible commentary. They aren't.

I've placed my comments (in red) here and there within the article.

- Uke Man

HIGH-SCHOOL TEACHERS MISS THE MARK, SAY PROFESSORS
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Columbus Dispatch
By Pat Smith

Recent reports shed light on why so many high-school graduates have to take remedial courses their freshman year in college: High-school teachers and college professors don't see eye to eye on the students' preparation. This makes little sense. It "sheds" no "light." Essentially it says students take remedial courses because professors say they have to. We already knew that.

The American College Testing Program found that two-thirds of professors say students are "poorly" or "very poorly" prepared for college-level work, whereas roughly three-fourths of teachers think students are well-prepared. This charade is not restricted to colleges and high schools. High schools make the same accusations against middle schools and junior highs; which deny the charges while casting them down, in turn, upon the elementary schools.

It seems that everybody would like every student to show up at each and every level performing with Lake Woebegone, above average skills.

The disconnect is substantial in all subjects: Seventy-six percent of high-school English teachers think their students are well-prepared for college work, whereas only 33 percent of professors think so. In reading, the gap is 72 percent to 36 percent; in math, 79 percent vs. 42 percent; and in science, 67 percent vs. 32 percent. In other words, students appear to be no better prepared than those in previous years, despite all the attempts to improve their performance. It is not clear from this article, but it appears that the "data" suggesting that students are not any better prepared is purely anecdotal. Worse, the purported "conclusion" is based solely on the "data" provided by the professors. The conflicting "data" provided by teachers is totally discounted.

Can anyone honestly defend this selective use of the "data"? If it makes sense to take what the professors say as determining, then don't we have to accept the highschool teachers' condemnation of middle/junior high teachers, and then their condemnation of the elementary teachers? And then their condemnation of parents and pre-schools?

All of that is just self-centered scapegoating; none of it is sensible.

One key finding is that college instructors want students to have a solid grasp of fundamentals (Obviously, secondary teachers "want" that, too), whereas teachers favor exposing them to broader areas (It's not acknowledged by the columnist that secondary teachers teach ALL the students, not just the ones who will choose to go on to college. Naturally, teachers' approach will be more general than the professor's narrower agenda). For example, in English and writing, college instructors place more importance on basic grammar and usage skills, with many expressing frustration that freshmen often can't write a complete sentence. Many freshmen drop out of college; many should not have gone in the first place. The "data" doesn't report the numbers of freshmen who can't write a complete sentence. How many write quite well? How many semi-literate state representatives serve in Ohio? Remember Cooper Snider?

The ACT blames poor state standards and excuses teachers (we wouldn't want to excuse teachers, now would we!) without acknowledging that the poor standards mostly are written by committees of teachers, who are heavily influenced by their professional associations and their own preparation in colleges of education (we wouldn't want to miss a chance to blame unions and colleges of education, would we!). The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation's Chester Finn (A Hoover Institute guy - does that tell you anything?) has described the state of state standards as "generally vague, politicized and awash in wrongheaded fads and nostrums ("wrongheaded" according to the Hoover Institute, the same outfit who sent inexperience wonder-children to so successfully stabilize Iraq for Bush's democracy). With a few exceptions, states have been incapable (or unwilling) to set clear, coherent standards and develop tests with a rigorous definition of proficiency." He adds that they were mediocre-to-bad 10 years ago and they are mediocre-to-bad today. Some states have taken steps to improve the alignment of their learning standards with college expectations (Well, good for them, but how is it working out? King Knute ordered the waves to cease, but he was disappointed, wasn't he), and Ohio should be congratulated for joining eight other states to write new math standards. And not a minute too soon, as Ohio ranks 38th out of the 50 states in the number of high-school graduates academically ready for college. As before, we are provided no data to substantiate this. Is it again based solely on what professors SAY?? Why is that more valid than what highschool teachers SAY?? If based on other data, how valid is THAT data? Was it collected by the Hoover Institute or one of their friends?

Employers are in substantial agreement with professors about the knowledge and skills that high-school graduates should have (and now we come to the crux of the matter: what EMPLOYERS WANT), and the impetus to align standards with real-world needs (i.e. business's wish list: intelligent, hard-working, long-suffering, multi-talented, high school graduates who function as college graduates on Bangladeshi wages) is coming from business (as you would expect) and governmental leaders (in the pocket of business), not educators (who deal with REAL children in the REAL world, not in the world of WHAT BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENTAL LEADERS WANT).

A second ACT report reveals that even students taking a full array of college-prep courses -- the core curriculum -- and receiving good grades are not well-prepared for college (according to professors??? Perhaps if you asked highschool teachers, they'd tell you that many of their students shouldn't go on to college. But YOU tell their parents that!). Among ACT-tested 2006 high-school graduates who took these courses, only a fourth are likely to earn a C or higher in English composition, algebra, biology and social-science courses (Taking the ACT doesn't mean one actually GOES to college. What are the percentages of those who finish the first year of college?) . Nearly 20 percent could not expect such grades in any one of the courses. While more students are taking the recommended core curriculum and getting better grades, they (what percentage? ) still aren't doing well in college. So what do Mr. Finn and Ms. Smith suggest? Flunk the little shits? Well, maybe. But if the professors are so upset, they should have their "institutions" raise the entry standards. If the students are so uneducated, don't let them in.

What the hell, high schools could start turning away middle schoolers who aren't up to snuff; and middle schools could start turning away kids who aren't up to snuff, and then elementaries could start turning away kids who are not up to snuff. In no time at all we would develop a critical mass of dispossessed people large enough to support a revolution that would send Mr. Finn et.al. and his business/governmental "wanters" skipping!!

ACT faults grade inflation, teacher quality and students who are not ready for high-school work (what the hell does THAT mean? Yeah, the middle schools didn't do the job [oh, but I've already said that, haven't I]), noting that English teachers spend one-third of their time reteaching skills and algebra and biology teachers, one-fourth. A third report indicates why this might be so.Does it REALLY show WHY this might be so? Or does it just say the same thing over again in a different way? That is, students are not prepared because they don't get prepared; their excuses are: they don't do the work required (prepare) and they think they (15 to 18 year olds) are better judges of what they should be studying than their "boring" teacher is.

Could there be a different reason? One related to our disparate social/economic structure? or to the normal curve's interference with the Lake Woebegon phenomenon?

The 2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement again finds high-school students doing little preparation for classes, with 40 percent spending only five or fewer hours per week on homework. In addition, half of all students surveyed report being bored in class every day because of a lack of interesting (75 percent), relevant (39 percent) or challenging (32 percent) material. Apparently Ms. Smith feels their pain.

Yet the ACT emphasizes that students are capable of handling rigorous work (of course they are; some of them; which ones?) and congratulates high schools that provide it, including Dublin Coffman and Scioto, Gahanna Lincoln, Hilliard Davidson, Pickerington Central and Thomas Worthington. Do the special education, severely handicapped, and severe behavioral students at these schools "handle rigorous work"? Would the professors rate THEM as prepared for college. Does that not matter, but disadvantaged urban and rural kids who don't measure up constitute an indictment?

Ohio's leaders cannot just grapple with how to fund public education but must also demand greater clarity about what we expect and we are getting for our tax dollars.

Ohio's "leaders" are responsible for the sad mess we have now, and - like King Knute - they (and Ms. Smith) can demand all they want, but nothing ever changes because they are not playing with a full deck. They want something for nothing; they want what they want, and they think they can get it by "demanding" it.

Well, you can't get something for nothing, and when you demand something for nothing, you get NOTHING for nothing.

Mr. Finn shouldn't be surprised if over the last ten years schools haven't given him what he has demanded. Mr. Finn and Ms Smith can't get what they want by crossing their arms and stamping their feet any more than King Knute could stop the waves by frowning at them!!!

- Uke Man

* * *

For ACT Reports: www.act.org/path/policy/index.html.
Pat Smith, a former teacher and past president of the Worthington and state boards of education, served as executive assistant for educational policy in Ohio's Office of Budget and Management.



patsmith10@sbcglobal.net