EXCERPTS
FROM GADFLY NEWSLETTER 280204
True,
Rod Paige should not have called the National Education Association "a terrorist
organization." Given the times in which we live, the middle word in that phrase
might have been better chosen. (How about "hostile"?
"Disgraceful"? "Selfish?" "Anti-child?") But we're cheered by Paige's frequently
memorable turns-of-phrase and his stubborn insistence on calling a spade what it
is rather than a teaspoon. Such character is in short supply in Washington. Already, the
Education Secretary gets credit for the best line in recent political memory,
when he described the NCLB opposition as "a coalition of the whining." And we
loved his give-no-ground apology for this week's gaffe. In honor of this
transformation of mild-mannered educator into take-no-prisoners warrior, we'd
like to sponsor a contest for the best description of
the NEA. Is it a union of mass destruction? A group of
dead-enders? Don't limit yourself to war-on-terror comparisons; let your
creative juices flow. Gadfly serves as judge, with points given for wit, style,
and economy of phrasing. Multiple entries are encouraged. Author of the best
description gets his or her name in next week's issue and a much-desired Fordham
tee shirt. Send your entries to backtalk@edexcellence.net.
The
learning that was
The
great British historian, Lord Macaulay, thought that talk of some sort of
"golden age" was nonsense. "No man who is correctly informed as to the past, will be disposed to take a morose or desponding view of
the present," he noted. It is in this spirit that we review this week's
collection of sob stories on how NCLB, testing, standards, and assorted ills
have ruined the magical teaching and learning that supposedly took place daily
in U.S. classrooms before the onset of this draconian regimen called
standards-based reform. In the Washington
Post Magazine, Virginia teacher Emmet
Rosenfeld complains that his state's Standards of Learning have driven him out
of the Fairfax
County classroom he
occupied for a decade. "The intense pressure to raise test scores eventually
squeezed the life out of school, both for my kids and for me," Rosenfeld
complains. One of his fellow teachers notes with a sigh that he hasn't had the
time for his annual coffeehouse: "Desks draped with tapestries, espresso maker
bubbling in the background. Kids recited poetry into a microphone or played
confessional songs on guitar." We don't even know what to say about this. A Time magazine article expresses a
similar sentiment. Until recently, Garfield/Franklin elementary in Muscatine, Iowa was a
bastion of progressive learning—students went "eagle watching on the Mississippi
River, to the University of
Iowa's Museum of Natural History, and have two daily
recesses." But apparently, many students couldn't actually read the exhibits at
the museum. Until the school redoubled its efforts to prepare students for the
state's accountability test (i.e., to teach them basic computation skills and
reading), barely half achieved minimal proficiency in reading and math on the
Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Now, according to Ripley, "the percentage of
fourth-graders who passed the reading test rose from 58 percent to 74 percent;
in math, proficiency went from 58 percent to 86 percent." But Franklin elementary "has
become a very different place. The kids are better readers and mathematicians
and test takers" but teachers "bemoan a loss of spontaneity, breadth, and
play—problems money won't fix." Spontaneous illiteracy: now there's an
educational outcome for you.
"The
best answer,"
by Emmet Rosenfeld, Washington Post
Magazine, February 22, 2004
"Beating
the bubble test,"
by Amanda Ripley, Time, March 1,
2004
Maximizing
Intelligence
David
J. Armor, Transaction Publishers
July
2003
David
J. Armor, professor of public policy at George Mason
University, authored this
book, which argues that intelligence is hugely important to success in life and
also that it is mutable. In other words, one arrives in the world not
with a fixed IQ but with intelligence that can be damaged or enhanced, primarily
by one's parents and mainly during the pre-school years. Armor spells out
ten "risk factors," of which the child is stuck with some
(e.g. parents' level of education, birth weight) but others can be improved upon:
cognitive stimulation, emotional support, nutrition, etc. After an
exhaustive review of the effects of schools and preschools, Armor concludes
that, while they indisputably boost almost everyone's level of knowledge, they
don't have significant or lasting differential effects on poor kids. Which is to
say, "the effects are sufficiently uniform that whatever skill gaps children
bring to school tend to be perpetuated through the school career despite special
interventions." That leads Armor to conclude that the best way to maximize
children's intelligence is via their parents and that the appropriate policy
tools entail strengthening parents and families and mitigating the
adverse "risk factors." "The ideal program would begin with young people before
they become parents, which means targeting teenagers. . . . The program would
first encourage completion of as much education as possible. . . . A major goal
for prospective parents would be to delay childbirth until all education is
completed, and another major goal would maximize the rate of marriage before
couples have children. . . . Finally, the program would offer training in
parenting skills." He observes that few states have all the elements of such a
policy and nowhere are they well integrated. I don't know how realistic this
approach is but it's a sobering proposal and a needed reminder that education
policy needs to be accompanied by ways of dealing constructively with other
potent influences on the lives of young children. The publisher is Transaction
Books, the ISBN is 076580185X and you can obtain additional information at
http://www.transactionpub.com/cgibin/transactionpublishers.storefront.
by
Chester
E. Finn, Jr.
(Another
explanation for why the ERPS program works so well – it genuinely integrates
parents into the pre-school intellectual development game.
GS)