Scott Rogers

What if the Judge was your teacher?

2012-02-19T07:34:00.000-08:00

I had the opportunity to see Judge Andrew Napolitano speak in Galveston a few years ago and was impressed. He is one of the few Americans who actually can piece together the ideas of freedom, liberty, independence, etc., without the cognitive dissonance so profound in our country. That is , the cognitive dissonance best illustrated by people who say they want to be free, but in the same breath want their social security, Medicare, patriot act, and to police the world. These people are the ones who want to care for everything by stealing the wealth from future generations- what's 15 TRILLION anyway? These are the people who want everything from the government and place trust in people they don’t know and who have a horrendous history of getting things wrong. These are the people who have been indoctrinated to think that the government is there to protect them and take care of them, but they remain blind to the quid pro quo. Can these people ever be enlightened to see, or does it take the Judge to do it?

So, what if the Judge’s ideas of government were taught in schools today? What if teachers taught limited government, free enterprise, individual freedom, and explained what those ideas originally meant? Freedom from goverment. Would teachers allow students to evaluate if we have moved in the wrong direction? Should teachers challenge students to see the changes and the redefining of terms? What if teachers looked to the Judge to see that when they teach these ideas, the students have no context and believe that they are talking about current conditions? Is how we define freedom today how it was defined 200 years ago? How do you teach the Judge’s view of freedom to students coerced to sit in class by the government and abide by a government dictated curriculum? Is being free to be forced to be in school by the government; not your parents, odd? How do you talk about limited government when the students are receiving free education, free lunch, free medical, free housing, etc.? What if your teacher did? Would he be reprimanded because of complaining parent phone calls? What if he taught that you lived in a mixed economy, a combination of free and command? This runs contrary to the redefinition in the TEKS. Would he be chastised? What if your teacher told you that Abraham Lincoln was the worst president ever? Would he and the Judge be wrong? Wouldn’t it be productive to evaluate this assertion? To do so, students would have to hear more than one side of the story; but do they ever hear another side of any story? And if they do, is it orchestrated to box them into a limited or carefully selected other side that really isn’t so different, like a Republican versus a Democrat? What if the literature read in schools didn’t always have the government fixing a problem and balanced readings with books that gave students an idea about how their government’s meddling with liberty creates problems?

You always hear about how education is a means to make people smarter. But can it also limit people’s capacity to think? I’ll answer this on behalf of the Judge; “What if…?”

Disclaimer: Please contact me if you claim that I have violated your property right by this information. I will correct any mistake. You don't have to contact the government.

The Cart Before The Horse

2011-09-25T08:27:00.002-07:00

Education Week posted an article about brain research as it related to self control.

The findings add to a growing body of research suggesting that a student’s ability to delay gratification can be as important to academic success as his or her intelligence—and that educators may soon know how to teach it.

The “growing body of research…” has been around for awhile, but the eduthink group is developing their spin so that we can teach our way out of neurological attributes. This is done by mixing correlation with causation much like placing the cart before the horse.

The studies by Mr. Mischel, who is now a psychology professor at Columbia University, and a cadre of other researchers have helped change the way scholars and educators think about why students succeed academically. In a separate self-control study, Angela L. Duckworth, an assistant psychology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, even found that self-control was a better predictor of a student’s academic performance than an IQ test.

I’ll be the first to admit that challenging the assertion of an esteemed professor is daunting, but I’m skeptical. My skepticism is a result of watching the elites manipulate research and broadcast the findings through a well established network of professional organizations and media outlets that share the similar leftist agenda. That “scientifically” engineered agenda being that the state can cure everything, or better known as nutureering.

The Education Week article fails to point out prior research by the contrarian group: Jensen, Rothbard, Gottfredson, etc. that IQ correlates with all of the article’s revelations. The problem is with causation. IQ has a heavy hereditary load, and isn’t malleable, therefore, teaching impulse control- a genetic attribute so that children will do better in school will be problematic. However, it does fit into the establishment agenda to nutureer society, and is a good way to fleece the public treasury.

Truancy and Delinquents

2011-08-27T08:11:00.000-07:00

Texas public schools are in serious trouble and it has little to do with money. The trouble has everything to do with ideology; that is, the post-modernist ideology that has infected the leadership of this state.

Case in point is the recent passing of legislation by TX lawmakers to reduce student truancy.

Section 25.094, Education Code, are amended to read as follows:
(a) An individual commits an offense if the individual :
(1) is 12 years of age or older and younger than 18 years of age

First, we use force to get kids to go to school and call ourselves a free state. Freedom historically has been defined in a political sense as freedom from government. Now government in so many ways uses force to free us from ignorance, poverty, self destruction, etc. So do our friends in communist China. Since public education is free or significantly subsidized depending on your tax situation, why not keep it voluntary? Visions of gangs of children running the streets come to people’s minds. Crime, destruction, mayhem! There may be some of this, but isn’t it really transferred from the classroom to the street? Wouldn’t the classrooms be better off without it? Maybe some of the unruly would find a job if the government didn’t restrict employment. Oh no! We must force“quality” adolescence on them for their own good! Eleven years old and younger appear to get a pass. Wonder why?

Now districts must nutureer a plan to convince students to come to school so they won’t be law breakers and jam up the overworked judges, or make the judges feel bad about forcing them to do the right thing. Not only do schools have to already “track” students who leave school, but now this:

Section 25.0915. TRUANCY PREVENTION MEASURES; REFERRAL AND FILING REQUIREMENT.
(a) A school district shall adopt truancy prevention measures designed to:
(1) address student conduct related to truancy in the school setting; and
(2) minimize the need for referrals to juvenile court for and complaints filed in county or justice court alleging truancy.

Also, the TX Supreme Court Chief Justice Jefferson wants to treat the worst delinquents who disrupt public schools with compassion. How many of the delinquents don’t want to be in school? Is there causation? I think there is, but throw that reasoning out, and bring in the idea that the delinquents need to be in school. When the delinquents destroy the environment the Chief wants to offer softer penalties. This is insane reasoning from people who care more about the delinquents than those choosing to do right. They cannot have it both ways and lack the courage to make a stand for the good versus the bad. See the Chief’s address here and you will see that it reads like any sappy liberal, post-modern nonsense. Take note of the organizations that promote these reforms which are probably receiving your tax dollars. Dig a little and you will see a lot.

There is no mention of money to support this initiative either, but there are plenty of businesses ready to offer a means to meet the unfunded mandate. Just Google the plan title. This is the same racket as NCLB where the government mandates create millionaires sucking from the trough in the name of providing services to remedy all of our social problems.

The next step in enforcing the law is:

(b) Each referral to juvenile court for or complaint filed in county or justice court alleging truancy by a student must be accompanied by a statement from the student's school certifying that:
(1) the school applied the truancy prevention measures adopted under Subsection (a) to the student; and
(2) the truancy prevention measures failed to meaningfully address the student's conduct related to truancy.

The schools should have plenty of resources to comply with this- not! Recession/ staffing cuts? How many administrators will toil with this nonsense and have less time to ensure quality curriculum and instruction for the kids who want to be in school? Again, leadership resources are shifted from the cooperative and productive students to the delinquents so that they can be present to cause more delinquency and suck more resources from a diminishing account.

It appears that leaders who purport to be the biggest advocates for at-risk kids, continue to engage in an ideology that is destructive to the good kids. Then again, it’s always easy to be the nice guy.

Childish Reality

2011-03-17T08:45:00.000-07:00

As the State of Texas projects a major budget shortfall, children continue to flood the Capitol, write editorials, and lobby for their piece of the pie. These children look a little different though; but they have been indoctrinated in Disneyland fantasy to wish upon a star. They also like to keep all of their toys, and choose not to think beyond any immediate stimulus confronting their situation. These children expect a lot and are willing to grab it from an unsuspecting neighbor if necessary, then act as though they didn’t do anything wrong. These children are arrogant enough to call themselves adults; not because of mature thinking, but because they have stopped growing. These children refuse to face reality- the State and country are broke!

And their math skills are lacking. Acting as though education has not gotten its piece of the taxpayer pie is absurd. The per-pupil expenditure between 1995-2007 has risen 29% and is expected to rise another 14% from 2007-2020. These stats are in constant dollars adjusted for inflation. The real story here is that education is in a bubble. The bubble has been driven by a neo-Marxist/ postmodern political philosophy of equity without justice. Governments have been on an education spending spree, but the return has not paid off and the bubble is bursting. Science has determined that there are limits of human cognitive ability and those limits vary. Therefore, defining collective educational objectives; such as, No Child Left Behind, college readiness schemes, or competing internationally for higher test scores only spends limited resources inefficiently because money is “thrown” at achieving these objectives or fixing problems constructed by politicians and special interests to justify this action. Votes get bought. Not everyone is college bound, and they don’t need similar educational resources spent on them, but economics 101 tells us that when something is subsidized, people want more of it. Education is heavily subsidized and the idea that too much of a good thing can be bad doesn’t register with adults who act as children.

Since government policy has led to the exporting of manufacturing jobs, promoting an immigration ponzi scheme to support the government finance ponzi scheme, and because technological advances have led to income disparity; education has become the soma of the masses and people are betting that in its current form it will solve the problems of being an advanced society. Every time a bubble head speaks about budget reform, cuts in education are off the table. We hear that we are investing in our future, we cannot hurt the children, we live in an advanced society and need skills for the future. We, we, we; Hillary’s village mentality is indoctrinated into the culture, but the reality of communalism is forgotten. The bubble is a result of poor leadership and rhetoric that a childish mentality unconditionally accepts. The reasons for the explosion in education spending are multifaceted because it reflects a plethora of special interest groups’ initiatives. These include groups that support special education, gifted and talented, fine arts, health, STEM, ESOL, Title I, etc., etc., etc. Public education policy is a result of politics and resembles a Soviet-era command economy. It is a monopoly that imposes its will on everyone. There are elected and appointed committees, boards, councils, but the Soviets had these window dressings also so that they could call it a people’s process. The Soviets had one party, but America appears to have one childish mentality. This makes it easier to impose dictates on everyone to include what is important to know and how its taught, feeding and medicating students, disciplining students, time spent in school, etc. There is little choice amongst schools, districts, or states and now with the promotion of the Common Core curriculum, the one size fits all will solidify. The only sanity the Soviet’s had within the command system was they understood nature versus nurture and had a flawed economic system which prevented them from borrowing endlessly to support nutureering©; that is, they didn’t believe and couldn’t spend enough money in an attempt to change people’s cognitive natural capacity through nurture. Cinderella didn’t exist in Moscow, nor does it exist in Beijing.

In a free society, parents should be able to choose their children’s educational path, government’s taxation should be limited, and decentralization should be the norm because it allows for innovation. Parents who don’t feel comfortable with choice can always rely on public schools to make choices for them and provide services. I do not advocate abolishing public schools, but I do advocate choices and abhor coercion. Texas on average spends $9,200 per student. Why not offer parents $6,500 vouchers and tie the eligibility to the students passing a state end of course exam? It’s non-coercive, cheaper, good for innovation, decentralized, and has an accountability factor. Think of it as a Pell Grant for K-12 education. I don’t hear people complaining about Pell Grants for college. How would this be bad for students and taxpayers? And if the federal government wanted to promote the aforementioned advantages, it could offer tax credits for parents or those who sponsor a student to make up any tuition differences. Education politicking wouldn’t be eliminated, but it would be significantly reduced, and adults’ childish behavior could more easily be ignored.

The Cost of Freedom - Student Drug Testing

2011-01-16T06:35:00.000-08:00

On Fox’s “Cashin’ In” Saturday morning business program, the issue of a New Jersey school district’s drug testing policy was debated. Tracy Burns, a commentator who portrays herself as a hard-nosed free market advocate and protector of personal freedom, took a dive in this fight; but of course, it was for the children.

Her comments support the assertion that government intrusion is ok for “safety.” In this case the Belvidere School Board voted to extend a voluntary drug screening program from high school to middle school. It is voluntary in the sense that students and parents have to give consent for the student to be placed in a pool of testable students who are then randomly selected. Tracy thought that this is a great idea because it’s a safety issue and it concerns children. She appears incapable of seeing how this conflicts with freedom from government. She doesn’t consider the impact of conditioning for children who are volunteers and what they will later think: “What’s wrong with this? I did it. What’s the harm in it being mandatory?”

Even though it is voluntary, is it necessary for me to give examples that government has a way of expanding its scope? Tracy attests to this every week on the show but closes her eyes here. Tracy is always concerned about the government “stealing” our money, but she fails to connect the dots as to how this government board will pay for the program; including the counseling and drug rehab center placement. Tracy advocates “personal responsibility,” but wants a government body to do the job that a parent can do with a hair sample, lab, and the Post Office. Tracy wants to act as though it’s reasonable to surrender freedom for safety and that the government wants to limit its power. Therefore according to Tracy’s views, she is a hypocrite when she argues against the bank, auto manufacturer, and pension bailouts because those government actions have everything to do with economic security. She is a hypocrite when she argues against more business regulation because it is done in the name of financial security, and she is a hypocrite when she argues against the expansion of government surveillance and intrusion because of the security necessary to fight the war on terror.

With freedom advocates like Tracy, the government will continue to expand its power, reduce your freedom, and walk right through the gap left by Tracy who told us she was manning the wall.

Earl C. Rickman III & Me

2011-01-09T19:17:00.000-08:00

I would like to comment on Mr. Rickman's essay. MY comments are bold and italicized.

Earl C. Rickman III is the president of the National School Boards Association and president of the Board of Education of Mount Clemens Community School District.

Everywhere I go these days, people ask if I have seen “Waiting for Superman,” the documentary that chronicles five families who have entered lotteries to seek admission to charter schools.

Whether it’s promoting any government policy or attacking one, we usually get just a few examples that are supposed to sway our opinion. This supports claims of American gullibility.

I have indeed seen the documentary and feel it is provoking conversations that are long overdue about public education.

As if there haven’t been enough conversations. What’s overdue?

However, the messaging associated with this project – “charters are good,” “traditional public schools are failing,” and “teachers unions are bad” – oversimplifies complicated issues and threatens to hinder thoughtful discussions about education reform.* The “us” versus “them” mentality promotes division rather than the collaboration necessary for our public schools to succeed.

I agree that most political discourse is oversimplified, but you’ve got to keep it simple; stupid, just like watching a football game or a sitcom.
Let’s not discuss our political divisions or choose right or wrong, let’s just get along and collaborate right into continuous discontent.

Instead of helping people understand the many challenges schools face and what it takes to address them, director and narrator Davis Guggenheim presents misleading information and simplistic solutions that benefit no one, especially those in classrooms who work so hard to help our children succeed.

For sure there are many good teachers and administrators, but what are the many challenges? Is there an official list, or maybe I can guess that they all can be cured with more rigor and money.

We shouldn’t use a handful of outliers to make sweeping claims about policy. While the stories highlighted in “Waiting for Superman” offer inspiring lessons about how strong principals and committed teachers can transform children’s lives and futures, research shows that only 17% of charters outperform their traditional counterparts.

The 17% number appears low, but remember that most states won’t grant a charter unless the school is targeting at-risk students. Do you think that states would part with their best and brightest from under their umbrella?

It’s also unfair and misleading to use the lowest-performing public schools as typical examples. While there are struggling public schools, there are also many successful public schools and teachers – here in Mount Clemens, across Michigan and around the country – that are helping children from all backgrounds reach great academic heights.

Yeah, those successful schools are in the more affluent areas of Michigan buddy-boy and you know that. Let’s take some of those teachers and place them in East L.A to see how well they fare. It’s a lot easier to be a “good” teacher when you have kids with aptitude and drive and those kids usually come from affluence.

We know all too well how urgently change is needed, but not from a corporate-modeled agenda of teacher bashing, union bashing, elected board governance bashing, test-based accountability, and highly selective charters run by private management companies.

Just get it out there: “I hate free enterprise!” Don’t beat around the bush!

Despite a lot of empty rhetoric about the importance of great teachers, the documentary does not contain a single positive image of a traditional public school or teacher. It never shows real teachers who are working in the trenches in traditional public schools every day and how they are offering hope for the students in their classrooms. The film simply disrespects and discredits traditional teachers. Not a single one of these dedicated teachers has a voice in the film.

There are plenty of good teachers, but what is the context of a traditional teacher? And what is the definition of a good, versus bad, versus master teacher? How many of each is there? Is every teacher a great teacher laying in wait to be let loose? Why do we use the success of great teachers to drive ideas when in reality most teachers are good or average? Or here we go again, not defining terms?

And there is no suggestion of how parents are working in collaboration with school leaders to improve the public schools their children attend, no suggestion of community engagement, no suggestion of how effective board leadership can improve public education.

How, how, how; but where, where, where is there credible research to show this improves schools?

There is no discussion of funding inequities, poverty, race, testing or the long dismal history of top-down bureaucratic educational reform failures.

It’s all about money when you are a socialist. Take from the above average and give to the below so everyone will be equal. I’m sure that he isn’t referring to the Bell Curve when it comes to race, poverty, and testing. I think that he’s referring to “social injustices.”

The film displays a heart tugging and undeniably powerful emotional impact. The stories of the children and families it highlights are truly compelling for all of us. But the film uses these stories to advance an agenda that continues to hurt public schools and the vast majority of communities that depend on them.

I feel the pain, the hurt, the emotional rollercoaster. Have a tissue?

Am I saying that we shouldn't criticize public education? No!

But only on your terms that advance your agenda.

If there were not the perceptions that the current system is not getting the job done and not addressing the needs of all students, there would be no need or outcry for change by those who depend on public school districts to provide a quality educational experience for their children.

What is the “job” and who defines it? It's government bureaucrats who will always throw in some capitalists who are never happy with their work force and want more of a good thing at a cheaper price.

For 26 years as a member of the Mount Clemens Board of Education I have fought, argued and advocated to bring social justice to our classrooms, our schools, our districts and our unions. I’ve learned that there is no such thing as a “Superman”; rather, ordinary men and women must do extraordinary things for our children.

Give me some of that “social justice.” Social justice =’s socialism. Just thought we should clear that up.

If children are our most essential investment, we must invest in their future and provide them with a quality public education. Instead, it is an annual ritual as we look at ways to cut education funding even when it will sacrifice student learning and achievement. We must make sure that we have the essential assets — great teachers, staff, curriculum, and key resources — to build an unwavering infrastructure for a solid education.

My child is my concern and I don’t appreciate you treating him like a derivative owned by the village. Good luck with all of those “great” teachers, whatever you define that to be. We don’t even have all “great” players in the NFL, but we just need to borrow some HOPE from all of those 2008 voters to get great teachers.

School leaders must nurture the ambition, creativity, curiosity and boldness of these young minds that come through our doors. These children will become lifelong learners and the leaders of tomorrow, and we must see that their dreams become reality through our work.

He says it as if nature doesn’t exist. Is Rickman actually in the education business or just well-schooled in eduspeak? Also, some of these children will be criminals, mentally ill, lazy, etc. It’s a shame but it’s reality. Rickman needs to find it.

You can find real heroes in every traditional public school, but “Waiting for Superman” fails to recognize this, and that is the movie’s fatal flaw. Instead of bashing our hard-working teachers, school leaders, parents and community leaders, we should look for realistic steps we can take to improve achievement and make opportunities available to all children.

So passé. Who isn’t a hero any more? We need to come up with a new term for people who are “of distinguished courage or ability, admired for brave deeds and noble qualities.”

By: EARL C. RICKMAN III

Dear Mr. Rickman,

You sound like more of the same.

P.S. This posting was found at: http://www.minidokaschools.org/article/2011-01-01/theres-no-superman-but-there-are-school-heroes/.

At the bottom of the page, I found the district’s motto: “We will increase INSTRUCTIONAL INTENSITY to significantly improve academic achievement for all students.” Sounds like nurtureering© to me, and instructional intensity sounds painful.

MIA- Qualified Soldiers and Individuals

2010-12-28T09:49:00.000-08:00

Education Trust, another socialist-minded “think tank” which is trying to fill its tank with your money and freedom, released a report: “Shut Out of the Military.” The report is an alarm that 20% of Army recruit candidates cannot pass the military’s aptitude test known as the ASVAB. The report places great emphasis on the lower pass rate of “people of color” in comparison to their “white” counterparts. As a consequence, they are not eligible for the same careers that require advanced training. We continue to hear these alarms about variation between groups in SAT, IQ, state assessments, etc. and the finger pointing starts and the government spreads its magic HOPE money around to cure the problem. The ET points the finger at the poor job that high schools are doing to prepare students for college and the workforce. How do high school graduates perform so poorly on an assessment test? Is anything new here, or is this the continued bombardment necessary for submission to a socialist agenda of forced equality?

Another group who chimed in about the report in an Associated Press article was Mission: Readiness. MR is a group of senior military officers who are concerned that 75% of young Americans are not eligible for military service due to ASVAB failure, criminal records, or physical readiness. MR’s solution is much the same as Education Trust’s and other socialist groups: government mandates. On their website they cite the same inaccurate studies to support Head Start and a plethora of other feel-good child welfare programs which have been the impetus for continued government mandates, taxes, and debt. This group is so extreme that they have made child nutrition a national security issue. I get a weird feeling when the military brass wants to support the engineering of a compulsory government system for the purpose to supply them with more recruits.

The premise that all people are created equal has been perverted from the idea of being equal under the law, as exemplified in the Declaration of Independence; into all people are equal in ability and nature. And if they aren’t equal naturally, then the state can nurture them into equality. Let’s call it nutureering ©, a combination of nurture and social engineering. But when nurtureering fails because it defies the laws of nature, then those who are responsible for its implementation need to give the appearance of success, i.e. grade inflation for high school students to receive credit for courses, and the states have to construct a sham of a testing system where no child is left behind. In the end, the ACT, SAT, IB, or AP exams tell the true story. Unfortunately, the ASVAB doesn’t tell the whole story, and the ET missed the part about when the ASVAB was re-normed in 1997 and its pass scores were adjusted lower in order to prevent significant increase in the failure rate of blacks and Hispanics.

For the government to fix education, health, housing, etc. it needs to have control, and as long as Americans relinquish control then they can expect force in the form of mandates and taxes to be the result. They also can expect the government, nonprofits, and the media to frame their problems in the context that suit them. Individual control is lost in the process and is replaced by democratic collectivism; otherwise known as the tyranny of the masses, who are bestowed with control. Americans can continue to rationalize and feel good about nurtureering, or they can reject it as an affront to their freedom, and individuals can take control of their lives. In the end, Americans can decide if they want to be labeled by state constructs and identified by their race, ethnicity, economic status, etc. or be known by their individual actions.

Tubing in Texas

2010-06-13T06:52:00.000-07:00

It’s not new news that Texas schools have been gaming or cheating on TAKS. Sharp rises in tests scores usually bring applause, except for anyone who understands testing. What this article below doesn’t address is the Texas Growth Model that gives schools credit for students who fail by way of an incomprehensible regression model that only the wizards at Pearson’s Testing understand. Also, why are test scores rising? Smarter students, better trained teachers, or a watering down of the TAKS test? Take your pick.

The staff of Normandy Crossing Elementary School outside Houston eagerly awaited the results of state achievement tests this spring. For the principal and assistant principal, high scores could buoy their careers at a time when success is increasingly measured by such tests. For fifth-grade math and science teachers, the rewards were more tangible: a bonus of $2,850.

But when the results came back, some seemed too good to be true. Indeed, after an investigation by the Galena Park Independent School District, the principal, assistant principal and three teachers resigned May 24 in a scandal over test tampering.

Is this any different than Wall Street cheats?

The district said the educators had distributed a detailed study guide after stealing a look at the state science test by “tubing” it — squeezing a test booklet, without breaking its paper seal, to form an open tube so that questions inside could be seen and used in the guide.

Tubing can be compared to Wall Street’s high frequency trading or naked short sales although much more primitive, but they are school administrators.

This is another example of trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Due to varying aptitudes, some students pass while others don’t. Then the state comes up with a plan to manipulate the test or scoring process and claims victory. Financial incentives are thrown in by the politics of running a school like a business, but without comprehension of the process or ‘product’. These teachers and administrators were just stupid, greedy and should go to jail for fraud, just like the bureaucrats from the Texas Education Agency and Department of Education should go to jail for perpetuating the fraud that the programs they promote are successful.

Article was retrieved on 6/13/10 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/education/11cheat.html

The Reality of Social Studies Expectations in Texas

2010-05-02T11:14:00.000-07:00

I studied history in college and taught social studies in public schools. History gives a lot of insight into how a society got where it is, and can show a trend of where it is going; much like a regression analysis. But analysis is the result of methodology, and most people do not care about the methodology. It is more comfortable for the analysis to fit into a predetermined ideal about what should be, not what is. Reality exists, but for most; the slothful intellect pervades with the idea that reality is subjective. I’ve heard “perception is reality” espoused numerous times by leaders of large organizations as a rationale for beliefs and actions. It’s hard to argue with such a superficial statement without addressing its parts, because it’s easier for leaders to use meaningless clichés to justify actions rather than rational thought. Just because the collective think something is so, does not mean that it is. Bad information, emotional conditioning, and propaganda will impact perception. Most have heard the phrase: “If you tell a lie long enough, people will believe that it’s true.” What is leadership’s response? It would be prudent to build upon an untruth in order to sustain “reality” and for Jesus’ sake, don’t be a contrarian.

The reality of what Texas public school students know about 8th grade social studies focused on American history up until the end of Reconstruction is in question. The perception is that passing Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) tests determines mastery of state determined learning objectives (TEKS) and a learned student. Maybe learned is not the appropriate word; I could use master, competent, smart, educated, intelligent, etc., but maybe happy is most appropriate. School staff, parents, and students are happy when students pass these state tests. There are school-wide cheers, parties, and plenty of gloating. The perception is that passing is good and failing is bad. This reality is true, but maybe not because of all the aforementioned adjectives. If you pass, then you move ahead without hassle and everyone is happy. If you fail, then buckle up to be hassled, officially labeled a failure, and have a lot of people disappointed. However, students who fail social studies TAKS are not hassled with remediation and retention as they would be if they failed math or reading TAKS. Social studies just isn’t important enough.

A pressing question that I have is; “In reality, Social Studies TAKS passers are good to go for what?” Will the 8th grade Social Studies TAKS passers protect the Constitution and our liberties for posterity? Will they ensure justice and a free and robust economy? Will their foundation be strong enough to build upon in the future for a better understanding and good citizenship? In eighth grade, a passing score is 52% on the Social Studies TAKS test. Unless, you are part of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) you probably didn’t know that; in fact, I don’t think that most 8th grade teachers know that information. What about a student or parent who boasts; “My child scored commended?” Commended is designated at a scale score of 2400 or above on all TAKS tests. The reality of commended is that the label does not mean much. An 8th grade TAKS Social Studies score of 2400 places the student in the 62nd percentile. The commended continuum is a 405 scale point spread, so in reality, some students are more commended than others. If fact, look for the day when half of Texas’ students are commended in Social Studies and 50% of students feel special. This may not be as bad as the TEA designating a high school student as college ready when he only passes 72% of the exit level math test, but we’ll have to table the discussion of those rigorous standards for later.

Most would agree that the U.S. Constitution is the most important document in our history. Eighth grade social studies class spends a lot of time on the document, thoughts behind it, and the effects of it on early American history. Specific objectives are listed in the TEKS which the TAKS is based upon. I find it difficult to believe that the U.S. Constitution, written on a Flesch-Kincaid 12.1 reading grade level can be understood by most Americans since only 13% of adults can perform challenging literary activities as determined by the National Assessment of Adult Literacy. I mention this to demonstrate that social studies should not be relegated to second tier status, requires hard work to grasp the concepts, and student outcomes need to be differentiated by the state, or the current mediocrity will prevail.

Maybe, instead of; espousing that the 8th grade social studies curriculum is rigorous and that all students need the rigor, the reality is that the social studies TAKS test measures a weak minimum standard and the commended label doesn’t mean much without looking at the 405 point spread. Maybe state curriculum should move beyond the collectivist mentality and be based upon the students’ abilities using different standards, and this one size fits all state testing with bogus labels should be scrapped. Maybe parents need to be more involved with their child’s education, instead of; allowing politicians and bureaucrats to tell them Johnny is smart or slow. Maybe parents who are involved should demand more choices for their child. Maybe people will realize that the noble attempt for the states to educate its citizens has morphed from basic literacy to a litany of social objectives and political control that has transformed education into a billion dollar command economy with local control continuously yielding to Austin which in turn yields to D.C. Maybe the reality is that like congress, public schools are in trouble, but my congressman and public school are awesome. Maybe it’s time to face the reality that what we are told is true, isn’t necessarily real.

All is well!

2009-12-06T10:23:00.000-08:00

All is well in public education if you visit your state education department’s propaganda web page or the U.S. Department of Education’s propaganda page. So many nice things are happening that reality won’t trample over their fiction as they proclaim “All is well!” Yeah right.

Looking at the Texas 8th grade social studies TAKS scores from 2009 will tell you all is not well. The subject that is a bed rock of teaching democracy, individual responsibility, and patriotism has a little secret. The secret is that in order to pass the 8th grade TAKS test, the state criterion referenced test that is supposed to validate mastery of 8th grade learning objectives for U.S. History up until reconstruction, a student only needs to answer 25 of 48 questions correctly or score a 52%. No wonder Texans have forgotten their heritage and parade into the arms of socialism.

But this information led an inquiring mind down another path. I am quite frankly sick of hearing about the various STEM initiatives throughout this country. STEM is science, technology, engineering and math. The initiatives are promoted by the federal and state governments, along with the do-gooder filthy rich guilty conscience foundations, such as; the Gates Foundation, who focus on command economy driven initiatives formulated by captains of big business and government in order to evolve the people into what they think they need to be prosperous. Don’t try to rationalize that this is any different than the Soviet’s old plans or red China’s, or any other totalitarian state’s plan to command the economy by controlling what people study in order to satisfy those in power. The only difference right now is that people who don’t agree with this policy aren’t disappearing, but their voices disappear in the silence. It is also another reason to spend billions of dollars more under a new category, thus confusing everyone with acronym soup and smoke screens. Accountability to reality is absent.

One indicator of STEM success or public education’s success in general would be some math test scores. In Texas a new end-of-course exam for Algebra I required a 62% to pass in 2009. And the older Math Exit Level Test for high school required a 57% score to pass. But you also could be labeled college ready by the state if you scored a 72%. Wow, Johnny’s ready for college with that big score! And Susie is labeled an emerging mathematician with a score of 89%. I bet with an 89% she’ll win the Nobel Peace Prize in mathematics, or some dubious other category like Gore and Obama. Beyond my sarcasm, the point should be clear that as long as people depend on government, now engulfed in the luxury of egalitarianism, to set personal standards for education, mediocrity will prevail for all.

Parents, be sure that you are in command of your child’s educational experience and expectations. When you read that a school has received a certain rating, remember that the rating is based upon the number of students PASSING, and you should ask; “What was the score required to pass?” Also, don’t forget to ask about the score required for Johnny and Susie to receive those accolades because it may not be such a big deal after all. All won’t be well if you don’t.

Co-Teach, Why?

2009-11-15T16:06:00.000-08:00

Co-teaching has gained favor in many school districts as a means of mainstreaming special education (sped) students by placing them in the classroom with students without disabilities. Special education students are typically students who have a learning disability, a behavioral disability, or a combination of the two. Historically, many of these students were placed with like students on a separate campus, in a teaching lab classroom, or in the case of behavioral disabilities, a self-contained classroom so they could be provided with strict structure and prevented from disrupting a regular classroom environment.

Districts are required to abide by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and part of the act requires special education students to be placed in a least restrictive environment (LRE). The LRE means different things to different people, but the determination is made by a committee that creates the student's Individual Educational Plan (IEP). Non-educators probably find this very confusing, and it is. Teachers find it confusing because districts services vary according to the dominant education philosophy. Not surprisingly this philosophy is influenced by expense and politics.

According to an alert issued by the Division for Learning Disabilities (DLD) of the Council for Exceptional Children co-teaching does not have the scientific research to support its continued implementation and expansion. There are 5 basic models of co-teaching and I’d like to focus on one that I am personally familiar with: Team Teaching. Team Teaching consists of two full salaried teachers; in San Antonio, Texas that can amount to $130,000 in payroll, who are supposed to share instructional responsibilities in a classroom that has less than 50% special education students. Therefore, a class may have 14 sped. students and 15 regular students. To make matters more complicated, the class may have a combination of sped students, regular students, advanced students, and gifted & talented (GT) students combined. There is a plethora of research to support homogeneous grouping of students and common sense would dictate that placing a genius with a low iq student won’t bode well for either student, but with little research on co-teaching in general, there is also little research about the negative effects of the aforementioned scenario on the genius or GT student, not to mention the advanced student. It’s as though they don’t matter. Worse yet, parents are uninformed of this scenario.

Even without the research, the idea of co-teaching defies logic. For instance, a teacher is required to show a minimum competency in mathematics in order to receive certification in math. There has been a lot of concern about having uncertified teachers teach. The co-teacher in a math class usually is a sped. certified teacher, NOT math certified. Why would a non-certified math teacher be expected to teach a math class? This is accomplished because the teacher of record is certified, but true co-teaching requires both teachers to assume equal responsibility for instruction. Consequently, the teachers figure it out real quickly that one has greater competency and the co-teach model digresses to one teacher teaching and the other assisting, and this is a very expensive teaching assistant. Is this effective use of education resources or a top down driven policy based upon other motivation besides the reality of outcomes? Can districts hope this to work like some Kantian scheme where the intention is more worthy than the result?

Parents need to ask tough questions of school leaders about co-teaching; especially, parents of advanced and GT students. Some districts offer advanced classes for students and those students won’t be in a co-teach situation, they will remain in a homogeneous group. However, not all districts offer this for all classes. Your child may be in GT or advanced math, but also in a regular science class with dispersion of aptitude, learning, and behavioral disabilities. Why would any parent agree to this scheme? Maybe it’s just a well kept secret.

The Crucifixion of Duncan Greenberg

2009-10-11T11:11:00.000-07:00

Forbes.com posted Duncan Greenberg’s article entitled: “A Recipe for Riches” and I’m waiting for his crucifixion by the education establishment in America. Duncan analyzed characteristics of 400 billionaires and reported his admittedly unscientific results. His number one finding was:

“First, a significant percentage of them had parents with a high aptitude for math. The ability to crunch numbers is crucial to becoming a billionaire, and mathematical prowess is hereditary. Some of the most common professions among the parents of Forbes 400 members (for whom we could find the information) were engineer, accountant and small-business owner.”

Mathematical prowess is hereditary? How dare he mention this! Although his research was unscientific, hereditary aptitude is backed by noted researchers; such as, Jensen, Gottfredson, and all the way back to Galton who coined the phrase nature versus nurture. Since Duncan is a business writer maybe he will get a stay of crucifixion for speaking about a topic that is commonly accepted among many people, but vehemently denied by the education establishment and the social justice mongers. Maybe Duncan will be scheduled to pay for reeducation by taking a college educational leadership course where post-modernism can be inculcated in his lexicon, and he can become a more sensitive individual. Or maybe he’s telling it the way it is, and the deniers need to have their thinking liberated into reality; and maybe then the education establishment can truly help children discover their strengths, not focus on weakness, and allow all people to keep more of their hard earned money.

A recent news flash has brought to my attention that Duncan will have to drink hemlock, but I believe he will be better served if his spirit is destroyed in some unique way so that we get a differentiated message.

Health Care & Education: Birds of a Feather

2009-08-20T19:34:00.000-07:00

Hearing the constant banter of the health care debate is reminiscent of discussions engaged in during my younger years. This is a simple liberty issue. You have a right to health care which means that you can pursue it on your own account, but to pervert the definition of a right to mean that it is ethical for another to have the right to forcibly extract the fruits of your labor is abhorrent. Health care and education have much in common at the macroeconomic level. Being that about 25% of the American population have college degrees, and most of our leaders do; I’m perplexed by their inability to understand Economics 101. Our leaders from the most prestigious universities appear to be the most screwed up in their thinking; however, noted author of Propaganda, Ellul; argued that those with the greatest education are the easiest to manipulate through propaganda. He must be right based upon what I see.

Both health care and education costs are outpacing inflation because of government subsidies. The government subsidizes students’ education at all levels and health care is subsidized by the government through a variety of welfare programs. When the government causes the price of a good or service to be cheaper than its fair market price, people will demand more of it- Economics 101. This is why parents demand and politicians advocate an endless number of courses for students because you cannot get enough education- right! This is why the elderly are upset at Obama because they want their cake and eat it too. They want a great system but also want someone else to pay for it, and since they don’t pay why not demand more? How dare Obama consider any form of rationing! How about this dare; people pay for their education and health care and start to wean people from government dependence. People would even save a few dollars and have freedom of choice. Do I live in America; land of the free, home of the brave? Makes me wonder if my teachers lied to me.

Duncan's Race

2009-07-25T13:00:00.000-07:00

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has 4 billion dollars at his disposal to offer states who want to join the Race to the Top competition for education reform. What’s new? Duncan can call it whatever he wants, but what he has is 4 billion dollars that was taken from taxpayers in the various states or secured by indebtedness, and is now under the control of the education czar to redistribute to those states that due his bidding. The arrogance displayed by Duncan and the DOE to dictate that they know better how to improve education over the states and localities is pathetic. Duncan’s comment: “A low-income, middle class student in San Antonio should not be held to a lower standard in algebra than a student in Shaker Heights or a student in Shanghai,” may resonate with the hope crowd, but these platitudes are hollow where reality occurs. Did Duncan mean low-income and middle class students or did the DOE create a whole new tracking category called low-income, middle class? Is a new sub-population created for NCLB accountability? Probably not, but it shows either misplaced words or his misunderstanding of SES groupings. Additionally, it shows his ignorance of variation in student’s learning abilities. Sure, low and middle income students can learn algebra at a specific standard, but not all. Just the same as upper income children can learn algebra, but not necessarily at the same standard. So this begs the question; what is the standard, and does he really believe that all students can learn algebra at the same “high” standard?

Come on Duncan, this is the same regurgitated mantra that we hear all the time. How about letting the states keep their money to run schools and treat students as individuals; instead of, the federal government violating the 9th and 10th amendments and treating students like an automobile on the production line?

Something's Wrong Here

2009-07-23T15:14:00.000-07:00

This is an example of what has happened to society. The children in this video are delinquents, but their mothers want to find blame with those who are in charge of keeping the peace. This is similar to behavior that I’ve seen in my career in education; where by, delinquents steal educational opportunities from others because of their disruptions, and everyone; not just their parents, make excuses for them. The damage is done- never mind the excuses. What’s pathetic is that these people vote to shape public policy.

World Cup Hope

2009-06-29T08:53:00.000-07:00

Brazil beat the U.S. soccer team yesterday in a FIFA final, but it was the first time in history that team U.S.A. has made it to a FIFA final. Wow! But what lessons does this game and team U.S.A. have for education, or better yet, the state of the American mentality? I like to think that I’m balanced about sports in general. I cheer a good game, admire hard work, and cherish those memorable moments. However, I don’t live life vicariously through professional sports or youth sports as I’ve seen too many do in my life time.

Brazil has a GDP of $1.99 trillion and a per capita GDP of $10,100. The United States has a $14.9 trillion GDP and a $47,000 per capita GDP. How does Brazil, a third world country, successfully defeat the U.S.? Some would argue that Brazil is a seasoned organization, and that soccer in Brazil is a national sport. I’ve heard these types of excuses from U.S. soccer apologists for 20 plus years. When the Russians launched Sputnik, the U.S. spent a lot of money and made it to the moon. The U.S. spends billions on all levels of soccer and scores of time. Think about the leagues, coaches, public schools, and palatial athletic facilities that line the landscape; but no moon landing yet, or in soccer the equivalent World Cup. I remember reading about the Brazilian national soccer hero Pele. No big spending on this kid to make it; just a love for the sport, hard work, and natural talent. Have you noticed with the exception of football, which enjoys American and Canadian exclusivity; other sports are starting to be dominated by foreign players? It appears that the U.S. likes to spend a lot of money on many different things to hopefully find success, but Americans often forget about love, hard work, and natural talent. Whether it’s on the soccer field, in the classroom, or on the production line, the same public formula is used: More inputs equal more outputs. This is an antiquated model, but simple to understand. It’s an easy model; especially, when the money input is stolen from other people as is the case of public spending. Yes, lovers of democracy, you steal other people’s money, resources, quality of life in order to fulfill your hopeful dreams. Label it majority vote, but call it what it really is: Theft by the majority. Maybe the social studies curriculum should emphasize this reality; instead of, the infallibility of democracy. Since students don’t study the fall of Athenian and Roman democracy with any rigor, they remain in the dark. Maybe reasons for limited government, or the idea that government has been responsible for death and destruction escapes those who hope it solves all problems; especially, those of inequality.

Americans’ mentality is strong on hope, and we love to spend money on it. Hope is easy. Who can’t be hopeful? Title I spending and NCLB come to mind. I hope one day that we will cure disease, end wars, live in peace, and I hope that people will be responsible for their actions. Again money seems to fuel hope in America. If a kid isn’t doing well in a sport, parents pay $35 an hour for additional coaching to see marginal, if any, improvement. Americans don’t take the fact well that the kid just doesn’t have it to be a major league baseball player or World Cup soccer player. Just like not all students have a love for learning, discipline, and natural talent to attend college without diluting the curricula and standards. I remember all of the parents whose high school baseball players that I coached were insistent that Johnny was going to get a college scholarship or get drafted by MLB. This wasn’t audacious hope, but a psychotic disconnect from reality. But I had to listen, and deal with the outrageous behavior from parents when circumstances started to bring reality to light. Let’s hope that the current economy will get better by spending trillions of dollars. Let’s hope that bad people will be nice without taking measures to be strong against evil. Let’s hope that children will drop the video games, iPods, and junk food to practice, participate in pick-up games, and work hard to be better athletes and learn something about life along the way. Let’s hope that team U.S.A. will win a World Cup one day.

ACT’s Fantasy World

2009-05-31T08:27:00.000-07:00

Once a gain an influential organization that is responsible for shaping U.S. education policy shows that its research acuity hinders its common sense. From its publication, The Forgotten Middle, the ACT points out the following:

Today, college readiness also means career readiness. While not every high school graduate plans to attend college, the majority of the fastest-growing jobs that require a high school diploma, pay a salary above the poverty line for a family of four, and provide opportunities for career advancement require knowledge and skills comparable to those expected of the first-year college student (ACT, 2006b). We must therefore educate all high school students according to a common academic expectation, one that prepares them for both postsecondary education and the workforce.

The above paragraph perpetuates an erroneous premise that all students can be educated to meet the goal of college readiness because their future is in jeopardy without it. This is an assault on common sense. It also perpetuates bad education policy that spends countless billions of dollars trying to achieve an idealistic goal that hurts the students it is supposed to help. By adhering to the premise that everyone is trainable to reach college readiness, at-risk students will continue to fall through the cracks because this model will not work for them. The college readiness plan fulfills two large government goals: A bigger education establishment, and the egalitarian rhetoric that college readiness is attainable by the masses. This is nothing more than a diversion from the fact that the government doesn’t know what to do with non-college ready students because jobs that they are qualified for have been shipped overseas or taken by immigrants from third world countries. If you don’t go to college, what do you do nowadays? The government doesn’t have the answer, the ACT doesn’t have the answer, but they both promote a fantasy that everyone likes to hear.

Across the pond concern

2009-03-12T12:47:00.000-07:00

A recent article from the United Kingdom exemplifies problems associated with “misfits” within school systems. Steve Patriarca, a retired head teacher, expressed his disdain for the government’s new education policy of creating the equivalent of American charter schools. Similar to American charter schools, the William Hulme's Grammar School took government money, dropped admission criteria, and parental fees. According to Patriarca; “It meant education for the most able often came second best to the needs of problem pupils.”

It is often reported in the American media that charter schools don’t do better than regular public schools or most often worse. However, consider that the states usually grant charters to those schools who promise to focus on at-risk students. In essence, they are setting themselves to be sub-par.

I don’t think that any public school administrator or teacher would be honest if he didn’t admit that most of the time they spend on anti-social behavior and academic underachievement is focused on a core group of students. Additionally, most planning concerns are focused on this group, not those students who are high achievers. High achievers are expected to make it on their own, or at best with minimal concern.

Should public schools be most concerned with “misfits” or those who will actually move a country towards prosperity? Actions speak louder than words.

Private Success

2008-11-19T11:00:00.000-08:00

Recently news services are reporting that the Texas Commissioner of Education has released a correspondence eliminating any celebration for students who pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills because these events, when held without the attendance of TAKS failing students, in essence, identified students who failed the TAKS. Citing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act as the law justifying the Commissioner’s viewpoint, this identification violates FERPA, but his correspondence continued to authorize student celebrations for honors in accordance with FERPA. Schools can identify students with commended performance as long as they give parents the option to decline such an honor.

The Commissioner and his masters at the U.S. Department of Education- masters since the state in now just an underling of the Fed., appear to be tirelessly concerned with student privacy, or are they more concerned with celebrating success, since they cannot defy the reality that in their game success is not necessarily for all students. This also could be a continuation of the assault on success so not to damage self-esteem. I wonder if parents throughout the country have been given the option to decline recognition for honor roll or the plethora of other awards that schools use to identify students who are successful. Or would most think that this option was absurd?

Schools are a difficult place to protect privacy. When students fail TAKS, they are placed in remediation classes and all of the faculty and most of the students understand that students in those classes failed TAKS. When students are retained, their peers know that they failed. Many students who receive special services are identified by the presence of a teaching aid, special classes, or classroom modifications. There is no intent on the school’s behalf to identify these students to the public, but the reality is that you cannot ensure that these issues remain private due to the nature of the school environment. Because of No Child Left Behind, school systems continue to create an environment of winners and losers, focus the bulk of financial resources on the system’s losers, and then don’t want to recognize the winners for fear of disclosing the losers. It always amazes me that the Texas education system is filled with student objectives requiring students to think critically, but the education power structure functions in a malaise of irrationality.

----------------
Now playing: Moby - Southside
via FoxyTunes

Hard Times versus Better Times

2008-06-26T13:00:00.000-07:00

I stumbled upon an HBO documentary entitled Hard Times at Douglas High and learned that I have observed similar problems for years in public schools as those documented at Douglas. Douglas is a failing school by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) standards and is located in a poverty stricken area of inner city Baltimore. The NCLB requirements are rooted in a serious false premise: You can force people to learn. Also, NCLB focuses on student weaknesses, not strengths. The premise and focus do not bode well for any student.

As I watched students at Douglas roaming the hallways, acting up in class, not participating, and being down-right out of control, I knew that from my experience this behavior appears to be common in too many schools. People who make laws affecting education, obviously value education; but can schools make a student value their purpose? If your answer is yes, then expand your thoughts to any other socially deemed benefit: health, finance, the environment, social welfare, etc. Can or should government institutions force, cajole, or convince people to value these? What is the standard of value, and who determines it? These are questions that go deeper than the peripheral mantra exhorted by the usual spokespersons. Another question should be: Why not focus on students’ strengths; instead of, their weaknesses?

There is no doubt that many schools and school leaders work endlessly to improve student success, but there comes a time when reality, not hope or faith, has to drive political decision making. This is especially true when we have a limited amount of financial resources. Every dollar spent on education that doesn’t result in meeting goals is a dollar that could had been spent curing disease or on some other benefit. Not all students value education to the n^th degree and forcing them to a standard will result in drop-outs, social promotions, or crash course remediation with dubious results. The other spill-over cost is a disruptive school environment where bad behavior is a contagion and actions of a few will impact the whole. This spill-over results in schools devoting significant resources away from students who want to be successful as noted in recent research .

Throughout all of the problems, the one thing for sure is that schools will focus on student weaknesses. This is the focus of NCLB sanctions and funding. Imagine if every day you were told that you were weak in your job by your boss, or you received the worst assignments. You eventually would become numb, angry, or look for another job. Do you expect at-risk students to feel differently? I do not mean to insinuate that teachers are degrading them, in fact, most try to inspire them. But when students face remedial classes, constant tutoring, or mediocre grades, what are they to think? Research shows a significant increase in college drop-out rates when those students are faced with remedial classes.

I have raised the question of why not focus on student strengths. Recently school districts have bought into a Gallup Insight Test to screen teachers. Applicants test scores are a dominant indicator as to whether or not an interview will be forthcoming. The test consists of multiple questions that measure candidates’ strengths to a model of successful teachers as deemed by Gallup and its research. I mention this because the book, Now, Discover Your Strengths supports the Gallup research and proposes what school should be like: “[A] focused hunt for a child’s area of greatest potential.” If a search for teacher strengths is good for employment screening, you would think that it would be good for determining a student’s strengths and then lead to the development of an individualized education plan.

Douglas appears to be shackled by NCLB and is forced into compliance using the same old aforementioned remedies. The students hate the treatment and drop out. Consequently Douglas has 1,200 students, but only 158 graduating seniors. The wisdom of the common man holds true: “You can take a horse to water, but you cannot force him to drink.” Students deserve options in the educational system that fit their strengths, and schools should make it a priority.

The AP Dilemma

2008-02-17T17:28:00.000-08:00

The College Board released its AP Report to the Nation, and parents need to look beyond the fan-fare. The Board and news outlets focused on the increase in the number of students who received a score of 3 on any one exam taken. Advanced Placement (AP) exams are part of a selection of high school courses, whereby the College Board establishes guidelines and audits courses to ensure college level rigor and offers an examination to determine mastery. The exams are scored from 1 to 5, with a 3 indicating the equivalent of a B- or C in a regular college course, and a 5 indicating A work.

The fan-fare is a result of the increase from 11.7% in 2002 to 15.2% in 2007 of students who passed at least one exam with a score of 3 or higher. Not as often reported was the fact that the total number of AP exams taken and passed is decreasing from 59% in 2005 to 57% in 2007. Confusing?

First: Only 15.2% of students passing one exam is quite pathetic. AP courses are designed with college rigor for students who are anticipating college enrollment. The College Board reported that 75% of graduating seniors will attend college, when only 15% of them who attempted can pass one college level exit exam taken in high school after taking a college level curriculum. Additionally, over fifty percent of college students drop out without a degree, while the taxpayer picks up the bill by paying for tuition subsidies.

Second: The aforementioned percentage spread reflects that within the 15.2% who pass at least one test, those that pass two or more are significantly concentrated within a select group of students. These students are college ready and have a greater probability of success.

Third: Parents who think that Jimmy should go to college need to get him in AP courses. If Jimmy cannot pass the AP exams, then you may want to reconsider college before he wastes time and probably a lot of your money.

Fourth: Question the instruction if he received an A or B in the AP course and could not score 3 or higher on the AP exam. I had a Jimmy of my own in this situation and discovered that the teacher was incompetent. My Jimmy received an A and dual credit from the local community college. Everyone got duped, but he woke up when he retook the course at a university.

Finally: Be suspicious of school officials like the one for the San Antonio Independent School District who stated in an Express-News article that the district’s goal is for all students to attend college. Wishful thinkers like her do not understand reality and will lead you and your child into debt and disappointment. You should expect school officials to give you an honest assessment based upon their education, experience, and knowledge of research.

Forced Rigor

2008-02-10T07:18:00.000-08:00

A recent study released by Public Agenda, a nonprofit public opinion research organization, indicated that a divide exists between the public school policy agenda for advancing the rigor of math and science instruction, and the attitude of students and parents to support it. The study entitled: Important but Not for Me, shows that parents and students are satisfied with the current rigors of math and science curriculum, even though, corporate and government leaders have not been satisfied at least since the federal government released the report: A Nation at Risk in 1983. A Nation at Risk claimed that American "students were not studying the right subjects, were not working hard enough, and were not learning enough.” The impact of A Nation at Risk, and the later No Child Left Behind (2001), legislation was to spend more money to improve student academic performance. The main strategy was to increase the rigor in subject areas, especially math, science, and reading. The state of Texas has recently followed suit by implementing standardized tests and a high school graduation program known as 4x4. The 4x4 system requires all students graduating under the state’s Recommended Plan to take four years of math, science, social studies, and language arts to graduate. This plan differs from the minimum graduation requirements by two credits, but it is necessary to graduate with the Recommended Plan in order to be considered for the top 10 percent rule. The top 10 percent rule allows students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their class under the Recommended, or the more rigorous Distinguished Plan, direct admission to a Texas state university.
The Important report should enlighten education policy makers to the fact that they have little support for top-down driven initiatives embodied in A Nation at Risk, No Child Left Behind, and the Texas 4x4 program from the majority of students and parents. Less than 32 percent of parents surveyed think that schools should be teaching more math and science while 57 percent think that the current situation is acceptable. This is similar to any management situation where little collaboration, or collaboration without a representative sample of the population, creates a false sense of direction. My experience has been that without “buy-in” initiatives stall or fail completely.

So the lines are drawn. On one side stand the policy makers and their advisors who want more overall and rigorous education for students and are going to “shove” it on them by making educational requirements more rigorous. On the other side stands reality - the students who have to work harder but don’t want to and their parents who are content with the status quo, at least in science and math according to the report. However, I would extrapolate that this sentiment is true for all subjects. The status quo has been declining as indicated by the percentage of parents who are worried that students are learning enough math and science has dropped from 52 percent in 1994 to 32 percent in 2006. If someone knew how to take underperforming workers and increase their productivity, then he would be a billionaire and the country’s productive capacity would be unimaginable. However, in reality; researchers, authors and social commentators consistently discuss the productivity issues and of course no one has found the magic elixir; but granted, evidence exists that some actions do help. The same holds true for students whose reported attitudes aren’t concerned about rigor in math and science and, consequently, see no need to be more productive in these areas. There is no magic elixir. Ultimately, the government makes the public school curricula harder, and the teachers water it down in order to get the unwilling to pass. Or could it be that these students lack the aptitude to take the rigorous courses in the first place, thus leading teachers to reduce the rigor? It is reported that according to the ACT college entry exam that only 42 percent of students are prepared for college math. I’ve seen the correlation between college readiness and rigorous courses, but correlation does not determine causality. If all students successfully completed rigorous courses, would that lead to improving college readiness? Sure it would, but the causality question should be; “What causes students to successfully complete rigorous courses?” When the policy is to push students without the aptitude into more rigorous classes, the courses will need to be watered down. Although the watering down won’t be shown on the grade transcript, it will be shown on tests like the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Scholastic Aptitude Test. The concern should be for students who have the aptitude and choose not to use it. Alternatively, those who don’t have the aptitude need a realistic path towards success.

The main argument for students to take more rigorous courses; thus improving college readiness, relies upon the association between higher levels of education and greater income. But why are not more students and parents concerned about rigor and college readiness? Consider the following:
1. Two year colleges will take students with a GED and allow students to transfer to a four year university after completing an Associate degree.
2. The ten percent rule in Texas and others like it in other states can encourage mediocrity. If most students take less rigorous classes, then all students will be competing accordingly.
3. Students and parents are concerned about extra-curricular activities. I once had a school counselor tell me that her son dropped an advanced placement class because it caused too much work with his band schedule.
4. By allowing students to pick from a menu of rigorous classes, they often do not take what they are capable of doing.
5. The high college drop out rate isn’t a major focus of the media so parents and students don’t get the point about readiness until the student realizes that he isn’t ready and drops out.

Should we be insisting that students who are capable of more rigor, actual take rigorous classes? This leads us back to motivation and the easiest path principle. Why take more rigor, when I can get into college without it? Why complicate my life with more work? Do parents want to push their children and endure some of the push-back? If the statistics show higher income with a college degree, why work harder for a math or science degree? These questions are posed to show holes in the body of knowledge that is prevalent to students and parents.

Another concern about rigor is the fact that people are concerned about students who don’t go to college. Since the Iraq war, recruitment among at-risk students has dropped precipitously. Good paying jobs that didn’t require college or a high school drop out performed have been sent oversees. This is another reason why the income gap between college degree recipients and others is growing. Immigration, legal and illegal, impacts this concern also. The construction industry is a leading employer of illegal immigrants who compete with other American workers. I’ve heard that illegals do the jobs that Americans won’t, but the supply of these workers is reducing wages; otherwise, we might hear policy makers telling students who don’t fit into the college plan to go into the construction industry because you can make a decent living. Or is it just snobbery that pushes more students into rigorous classes that they aren’t prepared to undertake? I remember reading an article in the San Antonio Express News that told of a local manufacturer who contacted a prestigious high school in San Antonio about workers after they graduate. Even though his jobs would pay up to $60,000 per year, the counselor told him, in what I thought was a snobbish tone; that their students go to college and they’re not interested in working with him. Again it’s assumed that everyone goes to college even if they don’t want to do the rigorous preparation.

Students require two attributes to be successful in rigorous courses: aptitude and motivation. No matter how much harder the math and science curricula are made, if students and parents do not think that they need the rigor, this will most likely affect their attitude and motivation. The top-down approach that has been prevalent since the federal government got involved in public education continues to not meet expectations, but it allows for a multiplicity of blame to be spread around. All the while we spend billions to help students and parents who are often content with the status quo.

My recommendation for parents is to be realistic about your child's aptitude. This can be determined by testing such as; Cogat, ITBS, IQ, TAKS (look at the percentile score), and grades. If you want more for your child, if you want him to do well in school; it's important for your expectations to be clear and for you to provide the necessary support. Parents are more important than any school system or teacher! Don't shirk your responsibility.

What do school accountability ratings and TAKS scores tell parents?

2008-01-27T08:36:00.000-08:00

The Texas Public Policy Foundation recently published a policy paper about Texas public school accountability by Brooke Terry. The San Antonio Express News published a version of it today in the comment section. Ms. Terry pointed out that politicians define an acceptable school by the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) passing standards listed below.

Area Tested & Percent passing
Reading ≥ 70%
Writing/ Social Studies ≥ 65%
Math ≥ 50%
Science ≥ 45%

This chart is one piece of the accountability puzzle. Other pieces include: subpopulation passing rates, dropout rates, attendance rates, and special education testing. This list excludes federal requirements for annual yearly progress (AYP). To say that the passing expectations are low is a good point, but this does not mean that the other aforementioned variables make being an acceptable school easy, especially, when these standards are applied to schools with a high at-risk population.

Another metric not publicized is a percentile rank score for each TAKS test taken. The PRS is probably the best indicator for parents and educators to evaluate a student’s academic standing compared to his peers. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) lists the formula, but an easier way to determine a relative position is to use the cumulative frequency listed on the frequency distribution. Schools, students, and parents get very excited when a student scores commended on the TAKS test, and schools use the commended score as an indicator of excellence. However, a commended score (2400) does not always reflect excellence, unless you define excellence as the 57th percentile. This was the commended rank on the 6th grade reading TAKS in 2007. Additionally, the 6th grade passing score (2100) in reading was at the 10th percentile. The 10th percentile definitely does not show college potential and a student scoring here should be classified as at-risk for dropping out even though he passed the test. Parents need to understand this data when evaluating student course placement and post secondary education options. It was recently reported that 50% of Texas college students need remedial classes. Maybe many of those students are misplaced in college, but if they didn’t go to college, what would they do? This is a good topic for further discussion in the future.

There are many studies that discuss the variables contributing to student success, but the number one has got to be parental involvement. Parent support throughout your child’s education is crucial, and my experience has convinced me that this is the most important variable. Researcher James Sloan is sure to create controversy in government circles when he said: “No evidence was found in [my] study that school size, expenditure, pupil/teacher ratios, teacher education or teacher experience generally make a difference in students ‘probability of success.” These issues are under village control and politicized.

Parents take charge, ask tough questions, be realistic, and involve yourself in the education of what you love the most- your children.

Bark!!!!

2008-01-19T19:55:00.001-08:00

This site is under construction.