FLATLINING
In this age of education reform, in the era of NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, in this technologically-advanced period that geo-political guru Tom Friedman has appropriately tagged as “The World is Flat,” it’s mind-boggling how much our students DON’T know. Folks, for those of you outside the walls of public education, I’ve got a CNN newsflash. Brace yourselves. Hold tight. Crash helmets on. Get in the launch position: knowledge is out and skills are in. Yeah baby!!!
What do I mean? It’s simple: public education has sided with “skills” at the expense of knowledge. This disastrous approach starts when the cherubs are young. Memorization is de-emphasized, practically gone, replaced with the focus on…skills. The hell with multiplication tables. Screw spelling words correctly. Historical facts? And no you don’t: grammar rules? Forget ‘bout it—and that’s their excuse—the Stalinist proponents of the “skills” doctrine: why do students need to know…things??? Alas, the knowledge deficit sets in.
The truth is skill development is fine but not at the expense of developing and broadening our students’ knowledge. There are so many basic concepts that even the brightest students simply don’t know and haven’t mastered, whether it’s multiplication tables, understanding the three branches of U.S. government, or implementing the basic rules of grammar. What’s even more alarming is that the more advanced areas of learning require some basic mastery of this…stuff. Foreign languages, other cultures, different organizational systems, and global issues are what our students desperately need to know in this global economy, in the Bushie global war on terror, and in this galaxy of globalism. Thus the question remains: in this flat, flat world, why would we ever allow our students to flatline on knowledge?
Showing posts with label No Child Left Behind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No Child Left Behind. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Saturday, May 19, 2007
SUSPENDED FROM SCHOOL: THE CT STATE LEGISLATURE
SUSPENDED FROM SCHOOL: THE CT STATE LEGISLATURE
WTF? Have CT state legislators lost their minds? The CT state legislature wants to—I kid you not—"severely limit" out-of-school suspensions because, as the Hartford Courant reports “out-of-school suspensions can alienate troubled students and discourage them from pursuing their education.” You’ve got to be kidding me! Some legislators, who are as qualified to understand public education as ultra-unqualified Maggie Spellings, think that teachers and administrators are the problem.
Granted, the number of out-of-school suspensions for last year in CT at first glance is staggering: 77,000, the Courant reports. This number includes pre-K students to those lovely children whom I teach, the 9-12 garden variety. However, what these statistics don’t reveal, though, is what the suspensions were for, whether or not the suspensions were short—2 days—or 10 days long, whether or not prior to the suspension other intervention was involved, etc. In short, there’s more than just staggering numbers.
I believe that no educator I know and respect likes it when a student is suspended. Note: the “I know and respect” clause. It’s true: like in any profession and domain, including the Bush administration, we have the incompetent, the overpaid, the scary lunatic clique, and the WTF do you have this job for group. In fact, just this week another school leader and I actually got on a magic carpet fantasy ride to imagine selecting colleagues whom we would have if we could create our own school; talk about a trip! Regardless of all the bad apples—and there are many, I still can’t think of one teacher who aims to get kids suspended.
Disempowering public school administrators and teachers once again makes no sense. Nowadays, teachers in many instances have little recourse to address a student wrong-doing without going to such lengths as to employ a NY law team to prove a kid was wrong; those of us who’ve been on the word-for-word-it’s-so-obvious plagiarism path know this all too well. And burdening teachers with more “detention-center” duties, whether it’s in their own room or in an ISS (in school suspension) office isn’t helpful either.
Word has it that the legislature aims to structure the bill in a way that would make out-of-school suspension possible if and only if violence is involved—great! So basically a kid can tell a teacher to “f**k off,” get time-out for a spa day or two in school and come back for some more? Wonderful. Yes, I understand the other side’s argument: kids out-of-school aren’t getting education when they are at home. This may be true. But allowing them to stay in school, to stay on site in an environment that they have grossly disrupted—including a disruption to the education of others—doesn’t seem to be the answer either. Furthermore, this insane idea about equating out-of-school suspension with only violent action is NOT an exactly good message either, for if the action is truly violent then those trained to deal with violence—not teachers and administrators—need to be involved. Sorry—most of us don’t have the necessary training in either law enforcement or psychiatry.
So, I have another chapter of my magic carpet fantasy ride: I’m putting the CT state legislature on suspension ad infinitum. Legislators, do your homework: talk to the teachers, talk to the building administrators, and talk to the researchers. Sure, some sort of compromise can be made with respect to student behavior. How about providing funds for smaller class sizes to reduce behavioral problems or adding more social workers to guide students? Let’s not put yet another responsibility on teachers and administrators. TALK TO people who are in the profession, not the likes of unqualified Maggie Spelling types whose know-nothing assessment of things needs to be, well, left behind.
WTF? Have CT state legislators lost their minds? The CT state legislature wants to—I kid you not—"severely limit" out-of-school suspensions because, as the Hartford Courant reports “out-of-school suspensions can alienate troubled students and discourage them from pursuing their education.” You’ve got to be kidding me! Some legislators, who are as qualified to understand public education as ultra-unqualified Maggie Spellings, think that teachers and administrators are the problem.
Granted, the number of out-of-school suspensions for last year in CT at first glance is staggering: 77,000, the Courant reports. This number includes pre-K students to those lovely children whom I teach, the 9-12 garden variety. However, what these statistics don’t reveal, though, is what the suspensions were for, whether or not the suspensions were short—2 days—or 10 days long, whether or not prior to the suspension other intervention was involved, etc. In short, there’s more than just staggering numbers.
I believe that no educator I know and respect likes it when a student is suspended. Note: the “I know and respect” clause. It’s true: like in any profession and domain, including the Bush administration, we have the incompetent, the overpaid, the scary lunatic clique, and the WTF do you have this job for group. In fact, just this week another school leader and I actually got on a magic carpet fantasy ride to imagine selecting colleagues whom we would have if we could create our own school; talk about a trip! Regardless of all the bad apples—and there are many, I still can’t think of one teacher who aims to get kids suspended.
Disempowering public school administrators and teachers once again makes no sense. Nowadays, teachers in many instances have little recourse to address a student wrong-doing without going to such lengths as to employ a NY law team to prove a kid was wrong; those of us who’ve been on the word-for-word-it’s-so-obvious plagiarism path know this all too well. And burdening teachers with more “detention-center” duties, whether it’s in their own room or in an ISS (in school suspension) office isn’t helpful either.
Word has it that the legislature aims to structure the bill in a way that would make out-of-school suspension possible if and only if violence is involved—great! So basically a kid can tell a teacher to “f**k off,” get time-out for a spa day or two in school and come back for some more? Wonderful. Yes, I understand the other side’s argument: kids out-of-school aren’t getting education when they are at home. This may be true. But allowing them to stay in school, to stay on site in an environment that they have grossly disrupted—including a disruption to the education of others—doesn’t seem to be the answer either. Furthermore, this insane idea about equating out-of-school suspension with only violent action is NOT an exactly good message either, for if the action is truly violent then those trained to deal with violence—not teachers and administrators—need to be involved. Sorry—most of us don’t have the necessary training in either law enforcement or psychiatry.
So, I have another chapter of my magic carpet fantasy ride: I’m putting the CT state legislature on suspension ad infinitum. Legislators, do your homework: talk to the teachers, talk to the building administrators, and talk to the researchers. Sure, some sort of compromise can be made with respect to student behavior. How about providing funds for smaller class sizes to reduce behavioral problems or adding more social workers to guide students? Let’s not put yet another responsibility on teachers and administrators. TALK TO people who are in the profession, not the likes of unqualified Maggie Spelling types whose know-nothing assessment of things needs to be, well, left behind.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Outrage of the Week
No “Girls” Left Behind
What on earth is wrong with me? How could I not like an editorial titled “Women Deserve Equity?” Similar to the flawed law with the beautiful name, No Child Left Behind, the editorial espouses great things in its name. But, as with everything, the devil really is in the details. Published in the New London Day last week, the article cannot be linked. Rest assured, I’ll be judicious in my synopsis and dish out the good and the bad.
The editorial is about research recently released regarding the gap in pay earned by women and men, currently 77 cents to the dollar. The opinion piece is both informative and clear, stating that the disparity (and the rate of improvement) is “insulting… disappointment… and unfair.” One would think this is the honorable position to take; it is.
What bothers me is the short-sighted solution offered by the editorial. On my first reading, I was outraged at the end of the article. I looked forward to the subsequent days that would surely bring the barrage of women that take issue with the piece in the Letters to the Editor. Saturday. Sunday. Monday. Not one letter. Anyone besides me outraged? Nope.
So I did the fair thing; I revisited the text. After all, we women can be irrational, right? I read it three times. Still outraged. However, I guess no one else seemed to mind this "solution" offered by the editorial staff of my local paper:
A two-prong attack on the problem is warranted.
Women should be encouraged to move into male-dominated professions, such as engineering and finance. And women must learn to negotiate for better positions and salaries.
But there is only so much that women can do. Men who hold the reins of power in business and industry need to be cognizant of the disparity, and move to erase it. Equal pay for equal work is a necessity.
- The New London Day, 4/27/07
Oh- that’s all? How wise- how all-knowing- and especially, how good of you to help us. Thanks so much for solving the problem.
Can we honestly assume that the problem can be sufficiently addressed with such a simplistic “two-pronged” attack? Are we supposed to believe that there are a plethora of female dominated professions for women to run from? Poor negotiating tactics are our most pressing flaw? And yes, like the deus ex machina in a Greek tragedy, the all powerful MEN will be our “cognizant” and benevolent saviors? As I said, thanks so much for solving (and explaining) the problem.
I guess I didn’t understand it all when the conductor of the career train pointed me to the girls’ platform and punched my ticket for the Mommy Track. When I do go back into the workforce, I’ll be sure to negotiate my way into an engineering position and click my little red heels while I wait for the “men who hold the reins of power” to save me because, after all, "there is only so much that women can do."
This is when I think that even if she is not my favorite candidate, Hillary better beat the pants off of her opponents so the paradigm in this country starts to shift. Remember, no one (besides me) was apparently bothered by this article. Run Hill, Run!
RAGE-O-METER----10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
