View Full Version : Why can't Uncle Sam learn?
craigepo
03-18-2010, 09:41
Why can't Uncle Sam learn?
By George Will
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | . Doubling down on dubious bets is characteristic of compulsive gamblers and federal education policy. The nation was essentially without such policy for grades K through 12, and better off for that, until 1965. In that year of liberals living exuberantly, they produced the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Now yet another president has announced yet another plan to fix education. His aspiration has a discouraging pedigree.
In 1983, three years after Jimmy Carter paid his debt to teachers unions by creating the Education Department, a national commission declared America "a nation at risk": "If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war." So in 1984, Ronald Reagan decreed improvements.
They did not materialize, so in 1994 Congress decreed that by 2000 the high school graduation rate would be "at least" 90 percent and students would be "first in the world in mathematics and science achievement." Even inflated by "social promotions," the graduation rate in 2000 was about 75 percent (it peaked at 77.1 percent in 1969), and among 38 nations surveyed, Americans ranked 19th in mathematics, just below Latvians, and 18th in science, just below Bulgarians.
So, eschewing "the soft bigotry of low expectations," in 2001 President George W. Bush undertook the loopy idealism of preposterous expectations. No Child Left Behind decreed that by 2014 there will be universal yes, 100 percent "proficiency" in reading and math. That will happen if enough states do what many have done define proficiency down. NCLB gives states an incentive to report chimerical progress, so, unsurprisingly, state tests almost always indicate much more progress than does the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the federal test.
President Obama understands that NCLB has perverse incentives. If we must continue the mistake of increasing federal supervision of primary and secondary education, Washington should at least reverse what NCLB does. Washington should set national standards and measurements and leave states free to choose how to meet them.
Obama wisely proposes broadening the focus beyond reading and math, a constructed emphasis that encourages neglect of science and history. NCLB has deepened the historical amnesia that conservatives deplore, but conservatives should know that national standards for public education will inevitably reflect the public education culture that is a large part of the problem. To imagine the soggy souffle of political correctness that national history standards would be, remember the offensive standards proposed in the mid-1990s and resoundingly rejected by Congress.
Obama would sensibly relax NCLB's severe pass-fail judgments on schools, instead measuring the academic growth of children who, because of family background, start school far behind. And he admirably proposes making more severe the consequences of a school's substantial and protracted failure to produce student progress: A school might have to replace at least half its staff, or even be closed.
But how does one fulfill or know when one has fulfilled Obama's goal of "college and career readiness" for every child by 2020? That gauzy goal resembles the 1994 goal that by 2000 (when, Congress dreamily decreed, every school "will be free of drugs and violence") every child would start school "ready to learn." Is "college and career readiness" one goal or two? Should everybody go to college? Is a college degree equivalent to career any career? readiness?
If such readiness is not measurable, this is another airy puff of legislative cotton candy, similar to NCLB's guarantee that every teacher will be "highly qualified." Qualification measured how? Probably by relying on the redundantly refuted theory that traditional credentialing e.g., a degree from an education school guarantees competence.
NCLB's emphasis on measuring students' expanding knowledge has improved education policy that until recently was exclusively focused, as the public education lobby preferred, on monetary inputs rather than cognitive outputs. From the time the baby boom generation began going through the school system like a pig through a python, policy, until NCLB, assumed that cognitive outputs varied positively with financial inputs.
Abundant evidence demonstrates that money is not an Archimedean lever for moving the world of education. Inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending tripled over four decades; pupil-teacher ratios were substantially reduced as the number of teachers increased 61 percent while enrollments rose about 10 percent. Yet test scores stagnated or declined.
So, what will government do now to reverse the decline that has pretty much coincided with federal intervention since 1965? Double down
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will031810.php3
Interesting article. You just can't legislate people into becoming achievers. Some will fall by the wayside academically, but there are productive roles for them in society as well. Unfortunately for kids that lack either the interest, the drive, or the God given intellect to perform in school, "college education" has become the universal goal.
My nephew has made the decision to go to diesel mechanic school instead and I am impressed by his practical sense. I also know he will out earn nearly every liberal arts degree earner out there.
Nice article.
The problem is...we have failed to define the problem. If the problem is the performance of certain students on certain portions of a specified test, then the solution is simplicity itself - teach to the test. Do nothing else. Teach to the test morning, noon, and night. I question whether the results of such an approach would meet anyone's definition of being educated. Unless their career consisted of taking the particular test, they would not be prepared for a career.
We might be better off deciding first what we want the students to learn. Is math and science the alpha and omega of education? Then let's do away with everything else. By the definition, those are a waste of time. On the other hand, if other areas have worth, if we regard these things as worth learning, then our definition should include them.
Next, we might wish to consider assessment - how we do it, and whether it gives us useful results. Standardized multiple choice tests have their value - and they do provide scores that are easy to compare and analyze - but is performance on a standardized test an appropriate sole measure of learning? I question that. I think we need to investigate carefully the details of what we're testing, why we're testing it, and what the results really mean, because if funding follows performance on the test, we can expect the test to receive substantial emphasis.
It might also be worthwhile to reflect on the notion of using the same test to evaluate all students. Of course math and science are important. Personally, I'm fond of the subjects. We might ask ourselves whether the student with a talent for repairing cars - but who cannot master calculus or quantum physics - is really so badly off. I recall one member of this forum choosing SERE over a computer class - which represents a choice of one type of learning in preference to math and science.
The various initiatives, whether NCLB (No Child Left Behind) or the current effort, seem designed more to create an illusion of progress than any reality. Unfortunately, I don't see anything that looks as if matters will change.
A recent paper includes a paragraph which, perhaps, illustrates the problem:
"However, there may be a third possibility as well: a poor fit between the home lives of disadvantaged children and the culture of school classrooms (Okagaki, 2001). In other words, it is not that disadvantaged children lack access to the kinds of content and instructional styles that affluent children are exposed to (the traditional opportunity thesis); it is that they have access but this environment is so distinct from their home lives that they do not benefit. Additional studies should clarify which of the possibilities seems to be the case." (Page 14)
Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. Factors predictive of mathematics achievement in kindergarten, first and third ... Contemporary Educational Psychology (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.01.002
Now if that possibility is true, one faces the challenge of overcoming the difference in fit. That strikes me as quite a knotty problem.
Bottom line up front- You cant mandate desire but you can destroy initiative through regulation.
Education was solely a State function for a long time. How much federal control existed over the Deadwood, South Dakota schoolhouse circa 1900? Government legislation concerning education standards and funding did not begin in any large manner until the mid 1950s. More and more federal control has been creeping in since, and as they say...Government doesn’t have a very good track record running much of anything (except the Military). Has increased federal control and standards produced higher results?
Now all States are held hostage to the almighty federal tax dollar, and teachers unions. After ramping up all sorts of federal mandates on education, school systems can’t operate without federal funding. If they don’t toe the line…they are threatened with loss of federal funds. What politician is going to fall on his sword and lose funding for educating our children? Sounds like legalized extortion.
If education is about learning, why are private schools better than public? Is it because they are swimming in higher revenue and have better quality teachers?
How about the idea that the teachers union can’t infiltrate private learning institutions as easily as they have in the public sector. In private schools, better teachers get better results and are paid accordingly...and want it that way.
Maybe private schools are better because the parents and/or students want to be there and have a vested interest to achieve. Mandatory attendance, from a quick, cursory look, is still State law, most of which began in the early 1900’s. I guess you mandate it…you have to provide it. Now education is looked at as a “right” akin to any other entitlement program like social security, welfare, etc.
Nice article.
The problem is...we have failed to define the problem. If the problem is the performance of certain students on certain portions of a specified test, then the solution is simplicity itself - teach to the test. Do nothing else. Teach to the test morning, noon, and night. I question whether the results of such an approach would meet anyone's definition of being educated. Unless their career consisted of taking the particular test, they would not be prepared for a career.
I was but one of the masses 50 yrs ago in the New York State Education System, who annually prepared for the Regent, so I most respectfully disagree.
We were taught the test, We lived the test. We prepared for the test by purchasing old NYS Regent Test books. We rigorously memorized the of Math, Science, History, & Engrish..
History
The Board of Regents devised an entrance examination (Preliminary Regents Exams) for students wishing to attend high school that was first administered in 1865.
The original purpose of these tests was to distribute funds to encourage academic education.
These tests are very similar to tests given, to this day, in England and Ireland to determine if children will continue with an academic program or enter a vocational certificate program.
The first administration of the High School Regents Exam was in June 1878.
From the original five exams (algebra, Latin, American History, natural philosophy, natural geography), the State Education Department expanded the Regents Exams offerings to forty-two tests in 1879; tests were administered in November, February, and June.
Throughout the 1920s and into the 1930s vocational education Regents Exams were approved and administered, these included, but were not limited to, agricultural science, costume draping, and salesmanship [1]).
By 1970 the number and types of Regents Exams changed to reflect the changes in high school curriculum: vocational exams were discontinued, and the sheer number of exams were either dropped or consolidated as the curricular emphasis trended toward comprehensive examinations rather than the singularly focused tests of the past.
Today there is a distinct mixture of comprehensive style exams (English Language Arts, and Foreign Languages) and the older singular style exams (Social Studies, Sciences, and Math).
Many generations were taught with the accepted NYS education curriculum AND the Regent. It did work and can work for other education systems.
There were three contributing parties to the success of the NYS Regent exams.
1)What made it work were teachers that taught.
2)What also made it work, were parents that would tan your ass it you didn't study..
3)And finally, What made it work were students that wanted to learn...
You need all three in the partnership..
Sadly, Today there is no partnership and consequently our education system, is a flounder out of water..
My $00.0002
Monsoon65
03-18-2010, 14:26
I was but one of the masses 50 yrs ago in the New York State Education System, who annually prepared for the Regent, so I most respectfully disagree.
We were taught the test, We lived the test. We prepared for the test by purchasing old NYS Regent Test books. We rigorously memorized the of Math, Science, History, & Engrish..
So you have that little foil sticker on your diploma like I do?
And you're right, I remember the teachers running our butts thru the ringer getting prepped for the tests. Especially my German teacher. Long hours after class making sure I was ready for that one.
So you have that little foil sticker on your diploma like I do?
I believe I do..
I have not followed the NYS edu system as I have lived in Florida sense 1967. I was just looking around and found this paper. It appears that the NYS system has fallen down and is now looking to regain some of it's former eminence.
The introduction could be used as a requiem for other school systems. It states in a matter of fact way the problem(s) with an education system that is managed, taught, and administered by the children of the 60t's,,
Dat B US...
Worth a read..
digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=cahrswp
Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies (CAHRS)
CAHRS Working Paper Series
Cornell University ILR School Year 1997
Diplomas for Learning, not Seat Time: The Impacts of New York Regents
Examinations
John H. Bishop, Joan Y. Moriartyy, Ferran Manez
Excerpts:
The New York State Regents Examinations
New York State has been administering curriculum-based Regents Examinations to high school students ever since June 1878. As Sherman Tinkelman, Assistant Commissioner for Examinations and Scholarships described in a 1966 report: The Regents examinations are closely related to the curriculum in New York State. They are, as you can see, inseparably intertwined. One supports and reinforces the other.... These instruments presuppose and define standards.... They are a strong supervisory and instructional tool-- and deliberately so. They are effective in stimulating good
teaching and good learning practices (Tinkelman, 1966 p. 12). Sponsorship by the state Board of Regents is crucial to the role these examinations have played in setting and maintaining high standards and promoting reform. On occasions, examinations have been deliberately revised to induce changes in curriculum and teaching.
The Regents exams are currently "low to medium" stakes tests, not "high" stakes tests. Exam grades count for less than a quarter of the final grade in the course and influence only the type of diploma received. Employers ignore exam results when making hiring decisions. During the 1980s, scholarships sponsored by the Regents were based on aptitude test scores,
not Regents exam results. A passing score on Regents exams is not necessary for admission to community colleges or out of state colleges.
Students were aware that they could avoid Regents courses and still go to college. Indeed some perceived an advantage to avoiding them:
My counselor wanted me to take Regents history and I did for a while. But it was pretty hard and the teacher moved fast. I switched to the other history and I'm getting better grades. So my average will be better for college.
Unless you are going to a college in the state, it doesn't really matter whether you get a Regent's diploma. (Ward, 1994)
Many parents support their children's preference for taking easier courses. They often pressured guidance counselors to let their child switch to easier courses where it would be easier to get good grades: A lot of parents were in a 'feel good' mode. "If my kids are not happy, I'm not happy. " ...Probably ... 25 percent ... were going for top colleges. They were pushing their kids hard. The rest --- 75 percent (I'm guessing at the numbers) said "No, that's too hard, they don't have to do that." ...If they [the students] felt it was too tough, they would back off. I had to hold people in classes, hold the parents back. [I would say] "Let the kid get Cs. It's OK. Then they'll get C+'s and then Bs”. [But they would demand] “No! I want my kid out of that class!”
Teachers often supported students switching to easier classes.
.... frankly we couldn't get the staff to agree [to holding struggling or lazy students in Regents classes] either. They would say, 'He's not learning ... Get him out ... Let the kid drop into an easier class.' (guidance counselor's description of the situation prior to the high school switching to All-Regents, 1997)
So,, who is to blame???
:confused::confused::confused::confused:
We were taught the test, We lived the test. We prepared for the test by purchasing old NYS Regent Test books. We rigorously memorized the of Math, Science, History, & Engrish..
I would never argue with success. But I notice the next items...
There were three contributing parties to the success of the NYS Regent exams.
1)What made it work were teachers that taught.
I'm curious what that means. If you were going to tell someone how to do this, what would you say to them?
Sadly, Today there is no partnership and consequently our education system, is a flounder out of water..
Agree 100%
The New York State Regents Examinations
New York State has been administering curriculum-based Regents Examinations to high school students ever since June 1878. As Sherman Tinkelman, Assistant Commissioner for Examinations and Scholarships described in a 1966 report: The Regents examinations are closely related to the curriculum in New York State. They are, as you can see, inseparably intertwined. One supports and reinforces the other.... These instruments presuppose and define standards.... They are a strong supervisory and instructional tool-- and deliberately so. They are effective in stimulating good
teaching and good learning practices (Tinkelman, 1966 p. 12). Sponsorship by the state Board of Regents is crucial to the role these examinations have played in setting and maintaining high standards and promoting reform. On occasions, examinations have been deliberately revised to induce changes in curriculum and teaching.
That seems like a good idea. It's hard to argue with the concept.
The Regents exams are currently "low to medium" stakes tests, not "high" stakes tests.
So...should it be a high stakes test?
And, if one has students that cannot or will not learn, what next? Sending them to the easier classes is one solution. But - given the realities of student and parent attitudes - what do you see as better options?
So,, who is to blame???
I think that's an important question. Along with it is - what should we change?
My personal view - which is neither politically correct nor popular - is to take the bright students who are eager to learn and develop them to their limits. Give the average students with typical motivation and provide them with a solid education that provides the necessary basics. And those who are unable or unwilling to learn? Provide a certain minimal amount of education along with opportunities to prove they can perform at a higher level.
Like others here, I don't think throwing money at the problem is the answer. But the solution to transforming a disinterested and unmotivated student into someone who seeks to excel - that seems harder.
I just re-read my post(s). It's a problem I have with a mouth that is occasionally faster than my FOG brain..
Let me be frank,, I HATE BUREAUCRATS, and I do not encourage the addition of more entitlement collectors in the form of Federal Busybodies in the Department of de-Education..
To me education is a grass roots thing.
It needs to start with the PARENTS..
If they decide to have children, then they need to pass on a want and need for an education to their kids..
The Teacher is the facilitator, They direct, encourage, give access to and educate.
It's a three(3) tier, interlocking, over lapping, amalgamation of effort..
OK??
What is the US governments job in this cake mix,,, NOTHING, NADA, ZIP.
To me it's all states rights.
To me education is a grass roots thing.
It needs to start with the PARENTS..
If they decide to have children, then they need to pass on a want and need for an education to their kids..
The Teacher is the facilitator, They direct, encourage, give access to and educate.
Agree 110%. Words of wisdom!
My personal view - which is neither politically correct nor popular - is to take the bright students who are eager to learn and develop them to their limits. Give the average students with typical motivation and provide them with a solid education that provides the necessary basics. And those who are unable or unwilling to learn? Provide a certain minimal amount of education along with opportunities to prove they can perform at a higher level.
This is as bad a sexting,, Your typing one thing and I and trying to agree... Dah...
We agree,, and NY use to have the tiered solution. We had pre-college and I forgot what the other classes were called.
I know I was really pissed when Coach Morris brought his 1947 Chevy pick-up in and the senior class used it for a shop project..
I wasn't allowed to take shop, it has haunted me for a long time...
Who is responsible,, THE PARENTS... and they aren't doing such a good job...
robert2854
03-18-2010, 18:45
Uncle Sam always thinks he knows best, especially when the liberals are in charge. They don't care how much anything costs as long as it is our money they are spending. The teachers union has a lock on this POTUS and the majority of the Congress. As you can see with this health care bill they will pass it, even though they are paying off some Democrats with big amendments. Sadly they don't care what is good for the citizens.
My nephew has made the decision to go to diesel mechanic school instead and I am impressed by his practical sense. I also know he will out earn nearly every liberal arts degree earner out there.Seen a 22y/o "licensed" electrician earning $45/hr.:cool: There were weeks when he'd pull in 80+ hours working 5 days.
Stay safe.
ZonieDiver
03-18-2010, 23:46
Seen a 22y/o "licensed" electrician earning $45/hr.:cool: There were weeks when he'd pull in 80+ hours working 5 days.
Stay safe.
And, as T. Friedman says, "if a job can be outsourced, it WILL be outsourced." Accountants should be scared. Mercedes mechanics... not so much!
GratefulCitizen
03-19-2010, 21:34
Seen a 22y/o "licensed" electrician earning $45/hr.:cool: There were weeks when he'd pull in 80+ hours working 5 days.
Stay safe.
<chuckle>
We (UPS drivers) get the dumb 'ol truck driver treatment often.
We cry all the way to the bank about it... :D
**************
**************
Never understood the obsession with education.
Not everyone needs it.
Proof, at the individual level, is in the results.
Have 4 close friends with whom I've stayed in touch over the years.
One is an Army MD with all of the requisite education.
Another is a talented software engineer with a degree in chemistry.
A third is a talented orbital analyst with degrees in physics and aerospace engineering.
The last one never finished college, and is an hourly employee at Target.
I know all of their test scores.
The Target employee is the smartest of the group, and even made the most money last year (via side business, investments, rentals).
The Target employee doesn't regret leaving college...
The software engineer took a whopping 2 computer classes in college...
The orbital analyst was an expert at his job well before getting his masters in aerospace engineering -- did it for the pay increase...
It is true that occupational titles and degrees often imply capability.
However, the lack thereof implies nothing.
There are plenty of people in the world who have neither fancy occupational titles nor pieces of paper over their mantles,
yet they're still quite capable and successful.
Our society is way too obsessed with credentials.
It is true that occupational titles and degrees often imply capability.
However, the lack thereof implies nothing.
I disagree with that statement - although I would argue that the implication isn't necessarily a negative one. ;)
WHY UNCLE SAM CAN'T EARN
Uncle Sam always thinks he knows best, especially when the liberals are in charge. They don't care how much anything costs as long as it is our money they are spending. The teachers union has a lock on this POTUS and the majority of the Congress. As you can see with this health care bill they will pass it, even though they are paying off some Democrats with big amendments. Sadly they don't care what is good for the citizens.
:confused: Is that (Post #13) an argument for or against the thesis of this thread?
Richard's $.02 :munchin
GratefulCitizen
03-21-2010, 14:35
I disagree with that statement - although I would argue that the implication isn't necessarily a negative one. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
:D
Guess I should clarify.
Most educational and occupational selection involves exclusion of those who do not meet a minimum capability.
This is not the same thing as selecting for high capability.
We are not a totalitarian state, highly capable persons get to choose from among many options, they are not all channeled into certain fields or through certain systems.
A mathematical representation:
Suppose their is an occupation which selects for only those scoring higher than 110 on an IQ test (Weschler scale).
This excludes about 3/4 of the population.
Of those within this occupation, about 4% will be "top 1%" compared to the general population.
The remaining general population is large enough that about 1% will still be "top 1%".
Should've said it this way:
Exclusionary selection doesn't imply high capability, it just guarantees the absence of low capability.
However, the lack of credentials doesn't imply low capability.
craigepo
03-22-2010, 11:26
Sorry, I'm kind of a George Will fan.
Dems miss an obvious lesson plan for deprived children
By George Will
Education Secretary Arne Duncan, like many liberals, seems afflicted by Sixties Nostalgia Syndrome, a longing for the high drama and moral clarity of the civil rights era. Speaking this month in Alabama at Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge to commemorate the 45th anniversary of the "Bloody Sunday" march, Duncan vowed to unleash on public schools legions of lawyers wielding Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They supposedly will rectify what he considers civil rights violations, such as too many white students in high school Advanced Placement classes.
Duncan said that "the civil rights struggle" has become "more complex since the days of Selma." He seems not to understand that today's complexities of equity are complex because they are not about "rights." He says his rights enforcers 600 of them, with a $103 million budget will "remedy discrimination," such as students being "treated unequally" by policies that have what is called a "disparate impact" on certain groups. For example, Duncan asks: "How can we assure that low-income Latino and African-American students get the same access to a college-prep curriculum, AP classes and college as other students?" But "access" obscures the problem.
The Supreme Court has held that Title VI bans "disparate treatment," meaning intentional discrimination such as denying access to minorities, not policies that have a "disparate impact" on minorities. No policy denies minority or low-income students "access" to AP classes.
The pertinent lesson of the 1960s is the futility of casting today's problems of social class, as Duncan does, in the anachronistic categories of the civil rights era. In 1966, the seismic Coleman Report concluded: "Schools are remarkably similar in the way they relate to the achievement of their pupils when the socioeconomic background of the students is taken into account." (Emphasis added.)
Plainly put, the best predictor of a school's performance is family performance qualities of the families from which the students come. Subsequent research suggests that about 90 percent of the differences among the proficiency of schools can be explained by five factors: days absent from school, hours spent watching television, pages read for homework, the quantity and quality of reading matter in the home and the presence of two parents in the home.
If Duncan is looking for the high SAT scores that correlate with, and often are consequences of, AP courses, he should look for schools where educated parents are intensely involved with their children. The best predictor of SAT scores is family income, which generally correlates with family structure two parents in the home. Family structure is pertinent to the 9/91 factor between their births and their 19th birthdays, children spend 9 percent of their time in school and 91 percent elsewhere. For many children, elsewhere is not an intact family.
Government can do next to nothing about family structure, which is why it is pointless for Duncan to suggest that "access" is why "the door to college still does not swing open evenly for everyone." It will not so swing as long as 71.6 percent of African American children and 51.3 percent of Latino children are born to unmarried women. The political class flinches from talking about those numbers, preferring to take refuge behind talk about "rights." But those numbers go far to explain numbers that Duncan does cite: White high school graduates are twice as likely as black or Latino graduates to have taken AP calculus classes. The political system cannot candidly discuss, let alone cope with, the reasons why, for example, there are few if any high-performing inner-city school systems.
Duncan seems to fancy himself an Earl Warren, expanding civil rights. Actually, he resembles Mrs. Jellyby.
While his lawyers seek evidence of displeasing enrollments in AP courses, he is complicit in strangling the scholarship program that enables 1,300 District of Columbia low-income minority students to escape from the District's execrable schools. Like Mrs. Jellyby in Dickens' "Bleak House," who was indifferent to her chaotic family while fretting about conditions in distant Borrioboola-Gha, Duncan practices what Dickens called "telescopic philanthropy." Sensitive about supposed injustices in distant AP classes, Duncan is worse than merely indifferent to children within sight of his office at the foot of Capitol Hill.
No segregationist politician is blocking schoolhouse doors against D.C. children; congressional Democrats are. Until Duncan and the talkative president he serves speak against the congressional Democrats who are strangling the District's Opportunity Scholarship Program, he should spare us the exhibitionism of explaining problems of social class in the '60s vocabulary of civil rights violations.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032110.php3