Sayonara

This will be my last post on this blog. It has been an interesting venture, but I need to invest my time in better things. I will continue writing about education, but on a different site, to which I will NOT provide a link from this site.

I have had a few months to reflect on why I should make this change. Educators consider this a worthwhile practice, reflecting on and crystallizing what we have learned from a given experience. I can summarize what I learned and why I will not continue to blog here in three topics: Those I hoped to speak to; Those who responded; My essential message.

Those I had hoped to speak to

1. Parents who were not certain they were doing the best thing for their chidlren by sending down the street to look for a yellow bus every day, but needed someone with credentials to provoke them to stop and think hard about this.
2. Teachers who still have a glimmer of hope that there is an option for educating children without the bureaucracy, political correctness, and sense of inefficacy which accompany public school teaching.
3. People who have already seen these problems intuitively, but needed someone to help them articulate why they have ambivalent feelings toward public schools in America.

Those who responded

1. The "Choir" (those who already know and agree with the things I am saying).
2. People who have had a bad experience with private education, and have an ax to grind.
3. Folks in need of the eighth grade Formal Logic class I used to teach (with which most eighth graders have no problem).

Since one must assume there are readers who did not post responses, I have no idea whether I reached any of the folks in the three target groups. But I have learned enough over the past year to have a pretty good idea how I can locate them more effectively.

And now, in parting, here is my essential message about education in the United States:

1. Parents are the first and best educators. They should continually be educating themselves so that they may educate their children. If they decide to entrust their children to an outside educational choice, they should investigate it carefully and hold it accountable.

2. The United States Constitution is silent about education, as it should be, since free adults can make these decisions without government control or expense.

3. There are courageous Americans who are providing quality education in their own homes and in schools of choice. These are national treasures.

4. An education is only as valid as the truth assumptions on which it is built. Most public educators are woefully unprepared (through little fault of their own) to confront truth claims and make responsible decisions. No one holds them accountable for faulty thinking, unless they are so unwise as to make politically unacceptable remarks.

5. Educating chldren should not be "rocket science," but every day in this country there are more follies committed in the name of education than one blog can record. What generally results when these follies are exposed is a lot of finger-pointing, and very little personal involvement in helping a child learn - without "dumbing it down."

Picture a wide-eyed child on the threshhold of a world teeming with adventure and excitement. Erase, from that world, all the busses, buildings, and bureaucracy dedicated to "education." Take the child's hand and walk into the world. Welcome the adventure that Aslan has prepared.

"Higher" Education, Part One

Today I'm passing on to you a thoughtful column by a favorite writer on the current state of "higher" education in the U.S. More to come in future days...


Costly Lessons and a Problem that is Getting Worse, not Better

By David L Bahnsen on October 11, 2009

Dr. Richard Vedder is one of the finest economists in America. More specifically, he is an economic historian, a respected academic, and an important contributor to the dialogue on higher education in our country. In the most recent issue of National Review he wrote a crucially important article on the utter disaster that is our under-graduate education system (unfortunately, it is only available online to subscribers of the magazine). A few points need to be made …

Dr. Vedder begins by pointing out that the only other area in American society that have seen the kind of price inflation that college tuition has seen over the last generation is, well, health care. It is no coincidence to this economist that the only two areas that successfully separate the person paying the bill from the person receiving the good or service are the two areas with the highest price inflation. Neither the consumer nor the producer pays the bills, leaving resources to be allocated ever so inefficiently. College universities are “non-profit institutions”, begging them to add to this inefficiency. They have no profit motive to cut costs, and no profit motive to increase revenues. Shockingly, the only criteria available for how well they are doing comes from the U.S. News and World Report, which bases its analysis on how many “customers” they turn away (the alleged selectivity of who gets into various university programs).

Administratively, Vedder frets about the ambiguity as to who it is who runs our universities. Is it the trustees? Administrators? Faculty? Students? Alumni? Donors? (all candidates Vedder wonders out loud about). It would seem to be a problem to a rational person that the average GPA has risen from a 2.5 to a 3.2 in the last generation (do college graduates seem that much smarter to you?). Vedder laments, as any person with any sensory skills whatsoever would, the culture that actually defines today’s academic life: a life completely focused on partying, booze, and sex. This epidemic is not limited to a few hot cities like Tucson, AZ and San Diego, CA, but permeates every major college from Harvard down to Humboldt State. The Presidents are toothless to do anything about it.

Most shockingly, Vedder indicts the “research” capabilities of today’s academic instituions, wondering why 22,000 new articles of Shakespeare have been submitted since 1980 alone. “Are there that many new and insightful thoughts to be had about the Bard?” Economic growth is suffering as a result of our subsidization of this half-ass research; it is not being stimulated.

Vedder’s proposals and solutions include common sense ideas that will absolutely have to be considered, and soon. We need to reduce the federal student loan programs, and allow a market system to work. Develop vocational competence programs – like the CPA exam – and allow students who want to learn a specific niche field to do just that (without the burden of a Sociology 101 class). More than any time in academic history, the benefits of a higher education right now are being shown to be utterly worthless. Allow the private market to change this, and quit cultivating a system that is doing far more harm than good.

I could not agree more with Vedder on every point he makes. If we want to advance a massive system that perfects the art of shooting tequila and participating in abundant one-night-stands, we have that down; the status quo should continue. And if we want to continue disillusioning young people by telling them that the liberal arts education we are pillaging them or the taxpayers or their parents for (in terms of cost) will actually prepare them for a professional career, we seem to have that down pretty well too. If, however, the goal is to study the masters, prepare young people for life in the real world, and to see a generation of balanced young people tap into the resources and tools they need to truly excel, we have a lot of work to do.

Let’s stop by getting the federal government out of this mess. I know this will not solve it all. But it is never, ever a bad place to start.

Success in the semi-public sector

An article entitled “The Instigator,” in the May, 2009, edition of the New Yorker magazine tells the story of a group of charter schools in Los Angeles called Green Dot schools, which were started two years ago by ”Rock the Vote” founder Steve Barr, a (more or less) businessman who had previous success with an unusual charter school in an Latino neighborhood. With no educational background whatsoever, Mr. Barr had to actually call a teacher friend to help him interpret the very test scores which proved that his first school was succeeding.

Now the successes of the Green Dot schools among low-income students from primarily single-parent homes are attracting national attention, starting with Arne Duncan, current Secretary of Education. Pragmatists on both sides of the party lines are hailing their success and clamoring for “more Green Dot schools” to be founded – everywhere.

The article is revealing, but not so much for what it says about how the Green Dot schools succeed – they are remarkably “ordinary” in their teaching methods, and often employ teachers who have (mercifully) not had the traditional teacher college education. “At his schools, the principals lay out firm curricular guidelines, in keeping with California state standards and Green Dot benchmarks, but teachers are free to huddle, and decide what to teach and how to teach it, for the most part, as long as students pass quarterly assessments.” According to charter school entrepreneur Don Shalvey, “There is no secret curriculum-and-instruction sauce at Green Dot at all. Steve just hires good people. They’re just doing old-school schooling.”

What is more revealing is one of his critiques of the traditional public schools the students are coming from. “These poor schools, you have an Advanced Placement track, and the teachers only believe in triage, so they put the kids who have a chance in that track,” Barr explains. “It’s built on the back of the other three tracks.”

What can we learn from this?

1. Failing public schools teach the most able and fail the serve the rest effectively.
2. People with no educational background can run successful schools.
3. Teachers with no specific training in education will tend to use tried and true methods, and will tend to be successful with them.
4. It is more important that the teacher know the objective (in this case, state standards and test scores) than teaching methods and the latest philosophies.

It’s not rocket science.

Outcomes of State Coercion

It doesn’t take a very discerning reader to have figured out by now that one of my principal gripes about schooling in America is that we assume it must be controlled by government. This has irked me even more since the hysteria has arisen over the concern that national health care might lead this nation “into” socialism, a place where we have already been, in terms of kindergarten through twelfth grade education, for over a hundred years.

One doesn’t have to be very discerning to realize that I write from the perspective of an unashamed, Biblical Christian. A recent column by Joel McDurmon for American Vision addresses the question of whether socialism is justified in the historical practices of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament or by some of the teachings of Jesus Himself. If this kind of Biblical analysis interests you, you can read the whole article here.

I like this paragraph from near the end of McDurmon’s article:

“God kept the State out of the charity business. There’s a good reason for this. If the power of the sword ever mixed with the power to distribute bread, there would be no end to political corruption: the State would use its powers of distribution to control the people; worse, people who grew dependent upon the State’s bread would also then be dependent upon the State’s sword. Acquiring provisions would no longer be an issue of personal responsibility, but of institutionalized force. It would teach the dependent of all shapes and sizes that deriving food at gunpoint is legitimate. Thus, State socialism would be nothing short of legalized armed robbery.”

With apologies to McDurmon, consider the same paragraph, with just a few alterations:

God kept the State out of the education business. There’s a good reason for this. If the power of the sword ever mixed with the power to form minds, there would be no end to political corruption: the State would use its powers of information to control the people; worse, people who grew dependent upon the State’s thinking would also then be dependent upon the State’s sword. Acquiring knowledge would no longer be an issue of personal responsibility, but of institutionalized force. It would teach the dependent of all shapes and sizes that deriving education at gunpoint is legitimate. Thus, State schooling would be nothing short of legalized armed robbery.

I can’t imagine why this doesn’t concern more people.

Learning by example

A friend called yesterday wondering why I had not weighed in on the current controversy about President Obama addressing school children next Tuesday. I guess some things seem too absurd to even point out. But here goes.

I'm sure those of you who have pegged me as a conservative are expecting me to prop up the protesters who don't want their children exposed to political propaganda on school time. Actually, I am more conservative than any conservative I know. I love liberty.

Propaganda in the government schools? Are you kidding? Have you ever seen the political agenda of the National Education Association? Do you imagine that the President can say anything more liberal in a single address than the day-to-day diet being delivered by Miss Peach? Can anyone possibly imagine that government schools are politically neutral? I dropped my membership in the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development years ago because I dared to "read the fine print," thereby finding out all the politically liberal causes my dues had been supporting.

And just what political cause are these protesters afraid the President will support in his talk to the children? Socialism? Does socialism refer to a government monopoly over an enterprise that could be conducted better and cheaper, with more consumer input, in the private sector? Then to those parents, I say, don't worry. Children always learn more by example than they can grasp in a short speech. And you have already demonstrated your commitment to socialism by sending your children to government schools.

Where are the menus?

From today's Miami Herald:

Ten years ago Florida enacted the most sweeping school reform measures taken to date by any state. In essence, it rewards schools whose achievement test scores are excelling and punishes schools whose scores are poor and/or not improving. For those who believe government schooling can be reformed, it has been hailed as a huge success. One of the best features is that it has narrowed the achievement gap between minority and majority students. And a signifcant number of really bad schools have been closed down. But not everyone is happy. One complaint is that graduation rates have not improved (maybe that's because you have KNOW SOMETHING in order to graduate now). But a more thoughtful complaint is that teaching to the tests tends to produce a very sterile, unimaginative curriculum which does not engage and stimulate students who easily grasp the basics.

From today's Baltimore Sun:

In the late 1980's and early 90's, one of the panaceas advanced by the reform movement was involving teenagers in community service as a means of getting them outside the sterile walls of the classroom to gain a vision of life beyond their mandatory thirteen years of incarceration in public schools. I'ts not a bad idea, and many good schools in many states have adopted some form of this concept. A few years back, Maryland became the first state to make community service credits mandatory for high school graduation. Now it has come under fire because, in an effort to help students complete the requirement and graduate on time, many schools are creating activities during the school day that fulfill the community service requirement. But complaining parents feel that this takes away academic learning time, and that all community service should be done after regular school hours.

Both of these stories illustrate the foolishness of one-size-fits-all government-controlled school policies. It's like going to a restaurant and being told the legislature is voting on what you will eat for dinner, and as soon as the poll is finished you will be served what they have chosen for you. One can envision a massive complaint department would have to be installed at such an establishment. But complaints are what the public schools have done the best job of generating.

What's wrong with back-to-basics schools that teach to the tests, alongside enrichment schools that teach that which is aesthetically and intellectually stimulating? What's wrong with schools with a high component of built-in community service, alongside schools where all the time is spent on academic learning (and perhaps meet for fewer hours per day)? Or all of those choices, in various combinations, within the same school?

Mandated schooling and legislated curricula have made parents into chronic whiners instead of thoughtful educational consumers. Where are the menus?

Government nannying

The lead editorial in today's Arizona Daily Star bemoans state School Superintendent Tom Horne's initiative to promote new health standards for physical education and health classes in Arizona public schools. The Star's worry, in their own words:

"Horne is churning up a lot of activity - including public hearings next month - that is unlikely to produce anything of substance in Arizona classrooms...(whereas) we believe the state school superintendent should be using his bully pulpit to demand better education for Arizona children...(and) exploring innovative ways to engage students in those crucial STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) areas of study."

Let me see if I have this straight.

1. Arizona kids are developing unhealthy lifestyles, and the schools need to "fix" this by having "teachers instruct their students on the benefits of physical activity" because...the kids don't have parents? Because...students always respond correctly to such lectures (like "Just say no!")?

2. The state school superintendent can magically turn around Arizona public schools' lousy performance in reading and math by "using his bully pulpit." What will he do? Bang on it and shout, "Now, cut it out! I mean it!"?

And while we're on the subject, does the superintendent teach anybody anything? Could his salary buy four or five more teachers to handle first grade reading?

Clearly academic success is a mystery too difficult for Mr. Horne..or the legislature (and bright ideas like mandating certain curricular "additions") can actually accomplish. All I can say is, it's a good thing all those successful (non-certified) homeschooling moms didn't have him (or the legislature) supervising the excellent education they were (somehow?) able to provide their children.

With apologies to Shakespeare...government-guided, government-funded education is like a "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."