Tuesday, May 10, 2005
A little education blogging
It was my severe misfortune to be sitting in Atlanta's Hartsfield airport (though for once it did not take an entire day to make my way through security), but it was an even more severe misfortune to be subjected to CNN. They spent a couple of segments discussing education, specifically the No Child Left Behind act and how schools changed their philosophies in order to meet the standardized requirements.
Personally speaking I am quite ambivalent about NCLB. On the one hand, it seems that our nation's schools do need a butt kicking in order to get their act in gear. On the other hand, I am deeply suspicious of the federal government's involvement in what is best left to state and local governments, and also recognize the deficiencies of standardized testing. And yet it seemed that the reporting on it was simply awful.
The first story centered on the Houston school system and how teachers and administrators felt so pressured to keep up with the demands of NCLB that they basically cheated so as to get their schools' scores up. The commentators noted how the schools have felt the pressure of the NLCB requirements and how this increased pressure had led to such bad behavior. But to me the problem lies not with NCLB but with the schools themselves. If the schools are so poorly run that they have to resort to cheating or fudging the numbers then it is not the legislation that is the problem, but the schools themselves. Clearly they have been unable to reach their students and help them improve their performances, and thus the need to resort to underhanded tactics. Now, I appreciate the difficulties that teachers face every day, especially in dealing with students coming from broken homes or who seem unwilling to learn. Total blame cannot be placed on the educators, but surely they merit some criticism.
Of course this may be an indictment of NCLB in this regard: the nationalization of standards, and thus the concommitmant nationalization of the education question, makes us less able to deal with problems on a local level. The one size fits all nature of the legislation makes it more difficult to distinguish cases where the teacher may be at fault and cases where the educator has done all they could but with no luck.
At any rate, the followup story made me nauseous, but not because of the subject matter. It was the story of (I believe) a third-grader being held back because he didn't do well enough on the standardized test to move on to the fourth grade. There was some teacher who was trying to make the case that this student was ready to move up a grade level, but this test failed to capture this student's level of preparedness. What was infuriating was the manner it which CNN presented the story. Sappy music playing in the background, somber narrotor, small child with a soft, hoarse voice, little context provided to the story other than that the child performed poorly on the test and may, according to this adult, have been otherwise derserving of promotion. There was no alternative opinion presented, no explanation of the child's school performance, and basically nothing of substance for the viewer to really understand what was taking place.
I'm gonna go off on a tangent here, but the American media sucks, particularly television media. This has nothing to do with media bias; pretty much every cable news network and all netowrk news coverage is simply God-awful. They routinely present stories in the manner described above, and they rarely are very edifying. And don't even get me started on the pathetic coverage of international news. Our major ally and mother country is holding a national election, but how much coverage did that garner? Just about nothing because we had to spend an additional minute on the Michael Jackson case, or for some more idiotic banter between the anchors, or ten minutes on the freaking weather. And sadly I know a few people who get no news other than what they watch on television. No wonder a majority of this country is so woefully ignorant about everything. I would have though Terry Schiavo was on life support, too, if I got all my news from the dunderheads on channel 4.
Anyway, despite how inartfully they reported the story, it at least got me to thinking, even if it was by drowning out the clods who attemped to discuss it on CNN. I have absolutely no problem with children repeating grades if they have not demonstrated enough aptitude in most of the subjects in order to advance. Too many in the education establishment have been bitten with the pc bug and seem reluctant to hurt children's feelings, and thus we are stuck with inane reforms which seek to prevent students from experiencing the crushing blow of disappointment. For example in Palm Beach county they are replacing the A,B,C grading system with a 1,2,3 grading system, with 1 meaning the child is performing at least a year below grade-level, 2 signifying they are less than a year below grade level, and a 3 meaning they are at or above grade-level. Great, except it really doesn't tell the parent much specific about how their children are performing. Again, this is done to nurture children and protect their self-esteem, but it offers both parent and child no incentive to compete or improve upon previous performance. And such is the same with outcome-based education and all other efforts to massage suppodely fragile egos.
The argument against is that we shouldn't simply use tests as a means of determining a school or student's performance, and that moreover a national test cannot fairly measure local differences. But 2+2=4 everywhere, and it seems that it not much to ask that students demonstrate some level of quantitatively measurable level of aptitude. Surely these tests will not be the only way we measure student performance, but as a minimal guideline they appear as good a start as any to providing accountability. Was the child in question unfairly left back? Based on the reporting I have no idea, but I must wonder whether he is really better served by the maintenance of a system that advances him forward with a tad too much ease.
Personally speaking I am quite ambivalent about NCLB. On the one hand, it seems that our nation's schools do need a butt kicking in order to get their act in gear. On the other hand, I am deeply suspicious of the federal government's involvement in what is best left to state and local governments, and also recognize the deficiencies of standardized testing. And yet it seemed that the reporting on it was simply awful.
The first story centered on the Houston school system and how teachers and administrators felt so pressured to keep up with the demands of NCLB that they basically cheated so as to get their schools' scores up. The commentators noted how the schools have felt the pressure of the NLCB requirements and how this increased pressure had led to such bad behavior. But to me the problem lies not with NCLB but with the schools themselves. If the schools are so poorly run that they have to resort to cheating or fudging the numbers then it is not the legislation that is the problem, but the schools themselves. Clearly they have been unable to reach their students and help them improve their performances, and thus the need to resort to underhanded tactics. Now, I appreciate the difficulties that teachers face every day, especially in dealing with students coming from broken homes or who seem unwilling to learn. Total blame cannot be placed on the educators, but surely they merit some criticism.
Of course this may be an indictment of NCLB in this regard: the nationalization of standards, and thus the concommitmant nationalization of the education question, makes us less able to deal with problems on a local level. The one size fits all nature of the legislation makes it more difficult to distinguish cases where the teacher may be at fault and cases where the educator has done all they could but with no luck.
At any rate, the followup story made me nauseous, but not because of the subject matter. It was the story of (I believe) a third-grader being held back because he didn't do well enough on the standardized test to move on to the fourth grade. There was some teacher who was trying to make the case that this student was ready to move up a grade level, but this test failed to capture this student's level of preparedness. What was infuriating was the manner it which CNN presented the story. Sappy music playing in the background, somber narrotor, small child with a soft, hoarse voice, little context provided to the story other than that the child performed poorly on the test and may, according to this adult, have been otherwise derserving of promotion. There was no alternative opinion presented, no explanation of the child's school performance, and basically nothing of substance for the viewer to really understand what was taking place.
I'm gonna go off on a tangent here, but the American media sucks, particularly television media. This has nothing to do with media bias; pretty much every cable news network and all netowrk news coverage is simply God-awful. They routinely present stories in the manner described above, and they rarely are very edifying. And don't even get me started on the pathetic coverage of international news. Our major ally and mother country is holding a national election, but how much coverage did that garner? Just about nothing because we had to spend an additional minute on the Michael Jackson case, or for some more idiotic banter between the anchors, or ten minutes on the freaking weather. And sadly I know a few people who get no news other than what they watch on television. No wonder a majority of this country is so woefully ignorant about everything. I would have though Terry Schiavo was on life support, too, if I got all my news from the dunderheads on channel 4.
Anyway, despite how inartfully they reported the story, it at least got me to thinking, even if it was by drowning out the clods who attemped to discuss it on CNN. I have absolutely no problem with children repeating grades if they have not demonstrated enough aptitude in most of the subjects in order to advance. Too many in the education establishment have been bitten with the pc bug and seem reluctant to hurt children's feelings, and thus we are stuck with inane reforms which seek to prevent students from experiencing the crushing blow of disappointment. For example in Palm Beach county they are replacing the A,B,C grading system with a 1,2,3 grading system, with 1 meaning the child is performing at least a year below grade-level, 2 signifying they are less than a year below grade level, and a 3 meaning they are at or above grade-level. Great, except it really doesn't tell the parent much specific about how their children are performing. Again, this is done to nurture children and protect their self-esteem, but it offers both parent and child no incentive to compete or improve upon previous performance. And such is the same with outcome-based education and all other efforts to massage suppodely fragile egos.
The argument against is that we shouldn't simply use tests as a means of determining a school or student's performance, and that moreover a national test cannot fairly measure local differences. But 2+2=4 everywhere, and it seems that it not much to ask that students demonstrate some level of quantitatively measurable level of aptitude. Surely these tests will not be the only way we measure student performance, but as a minimal guideline they appear as good a start as any to providing accountability. Was the child in question unfairly left back? Based on the reporting I have no idea, but I must wonder whether he is really better served by the maintenance of a system that advances him forward with a tad too much ease.
# posted by Paul Zummo : 2:42 PM
