More School Reform Follies

Well, it has happened again. Would-be “reformers” have just made public schooling even more reliant on high stakes testing. Pennsylvania policy makers have decided that before granting high schoolers a diploma, they must pass a quota of standardized tests supposedly measuring, “the skills crucial for the work force and college”.

A total of 10 state-designed exams will be administered as students complete corresponding high school courses in: algebra I, biology, literature, composition, algebra II, geometry, U.S. history, chemistry, civics and world history. To receive a diploma, students must pass at least 6. (Pennsylvania officials decided not to wait until graduation to do the testing. Perhaps they fear students will forget the “vital” skills they are supposed to have “learned”?)

One wonders why knowledge of these particular subjects is so “crucial for the work force and college.” Why, for instance, is chemistry more crucial than physics, geometry more crucial than statistics or world history more crucial than world geography? All three of these options are included in the standard high school core curriculum required for college. Perhaps state officials just resorted to eenie meenie miney moe.

Then there is the matter of goal priorities. Why do “work force and college related skills” trump everything else? Other goals might be more worthy. For instance, they could have emphasized strengthening democracy. It sure could use a shot in the arm. How about skills related to being a happier person, fostering greater compassion, aiding self-fulfillment, encouraging clearer thought, making better decisions, or even learning how to detect insincerity false piety and general bull shit? These goals seem far more worthy than fulfilling the imagined needs of some overpaid corporate executive or taking courses that college officials have decided you must take because of status concerns and faculty politics.

Of course, when school “reformers” glibly emphasize making “America” more competitive, they studiously avoid specifying which Americans will actually benefit and which will pay the costs. All boats will just float higher.

There is another difficulty that troubles all school “reform.” Often, one reform goals cannot be realized without relinquishing another. In fact, the pursuit of one goal can actually undermine another. Pursuing international competitiveness, for instance could actually undermine democracy, sabotage compassion and/or chip away at individual self-fulfillment. Yet “reformers” never address these, or any other, possible goal conflicts. Perhaps they actually believe we can have it all. Perhaps they just want us to believe that.

The truth is this high stakes test based “reform” business — and it truly is a multi-billion dollar business — has gotten completely out of hand. It is distorting instruction, intimidating and demoralizing teachers, disempowering school administrators, placing ridiculous burdens on special needs youngsters, demanding miracles from kids who are just learning English, putting private corporations in charge of public policy, boring bright kids and both dehumanizing and devitalizing the entire educational process. Despite all these negatives, though, it still is growing like crabgrass.

Elite schooling is exempt from all of this. One wonders why? Perhaps what suits future sheep is not thought appropriate for future shepherds.

To examine these issues further, see Power Failure: 
Why U.S. School Reform Persistently Misses the Mark

Cordially
--- Gary K. Clabaugh, Ed. D.

The University as Rumpelstiltskin

And when the girl was brought to the King he took her into a room which was quite full of straw, gave her a spinning-wheel and a reel, and said, "Now set to work, and if by to-morrow morning early you have not spun this straw into gold during the night, you must die." -- Rumplestiltskin, Brothers Grimm.

David Leonhardt in “Colleges Are Failing in Graduation Rates” (New York Times of September 9, 2009 , B1) tells us that universities are failing in their “core mission”: to turn teenagers into college graduates, (straw into gold?) The evidence? Highly selective, usually private, universities have a higher graduation rate than open-admissions or non-competitive, usually public universities. As a result, Leonhardt claims, social inequality has “soared” and productivity growth has slowed down.

But is “turning teenagers into college graduates” really “the core mission" of universities? And has social inequality increased since the beginning of the 1900’s when very, very few of middle and working class students were able to get into college?

A third question: has economic productivity over these last 110 years fallen also?

Answers: no, no and no.

Leonhardt based his column on an article by Mark Schneider, a political scientist who is a tad more circumspect about making broad claims. (See Schneider,M. The costs of failure factories in American higher education. Educational Outlook. No. 6. October 2008. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research)

Although Schneider’s title contains the rock’em-sock’em hype, “failure factories” to characterize public universities, he hedges his bets: what he actually says is, if we worry about students not graduating from high school and attempt to coerce high schools with low graduation rates into doing something about it, then why ignore the public university “failure factories” whose graduation rates are significantly lower than our public high schools?

Why, indeed? But why hold high schools, with their compulsory attendees, more responsible for outcomes than are public universities? Those that attend public universities are not forced there by law.

To examine these issues further, see Moral Responsibility in the Education Industry: 
how much can school reform enhance a student's occupational fitness?

Cordially
EGR

The Dangers of Diplomas

updated 4/11/19

If you ask adults going for a degree the question, “Why are you going to school?” they tend to respond in these ways:

1. In order to make more money;
2. In order to raise my station in life, that is, gain respect;
3. In order to speak with authority, that is, more easily persuade others to accept what I say;
4. to learn more about things I am interested in;
5. to improve my character or acquire wisdom.

Educational institutions of all kinds focus their advertising on such goals, emphasizing them in the order given above, particularly items 1, 2 and 3. Items 4 and 5 are left for faculty, counselors and late-night campus bull sessions to address informally, if someone appears to be receptive to them.

But although recruiting advertisements proclaim there is a correlation between higher degrees and life-time income increases (With which degree? In which field?) events have shown that for the randomly selected graduate student (you, me or our friends) the link between degree and well-paying job is tenuous.

I began taking graduate courses because, as a public school teacher, state and school district requirements mandated that I take courses to maintain my licensure. Contract incentives moved me to enter a Master’s degree program. It took me more years to make back the money I spent on tuition than I received by my salary increase for the higher degree.

However I did learn some interesting things and meet some interesting people as I worked at the university, but mostly, by luck: by just being around when things came up. That meant I had to spend substantial time away from my family to take advantage of such opportunities. The short-term tradeoff was not encouraging. Long term advantages were post-schooling circumstances: things happened.

Two not uncommon results of acquiring higher degrees are

a. overblown self-esteem, a pride that outstrips capability, even in one’s speciality (the The Curse of Knowledge vs The Dunning-Kruger Effect) and
b. a sense of entitlement based solely on possessing the sheepskin.

Everyone vaguely associated with a college or university knows some pompous twit with a doctorate who constantly complains about being underpaid. But there are corporations that will not hire from certain highly reputed business schools because “all their graduates really know how to do is expect a beginning six-figure salary.” (People in basic education can look forward to the likelihood that wherever they are hired, a large number of people will treat them as overpaid ignoramuses.)

If you have acquired a higher degree, ask yourself, “Did it make a difference in who you are? Can you honestly say you’re a better person for it? Or did you just learn to keep your opinions to yourself unless you could flatter someone higher up on the food-chain with them?”

There is a bizarre correlation to consider: cheating and plagiarism in high schools and colleges are reputed to be at an all-time high. So are applications for admission to all kinds of higher education. Has someone found the real road to success?


To examine these issues further, see KNOWLEDGE IS GOOD: some misgivings


Cordially
--- EGR

Education without Indoctrination: is it possible?

Training. Schooling. Education. Indoctrination. All related, but not the same. Does it matter? Only if you care about getting what you want, knowing what you have, and who pays for it.

I regularly read the ACTA updates and often sympathize with their policy positions. ACTA, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, is hardly a rabidly liberal organization. Their slogan is “Promoting Academic Excellence and Accountability.”

Yet in their Update January 6th 2011 they reveal one of their resolutions for American education:

Bringing a robust exchange of ideas in the classroom. Schooling should be for education, not indoctrination.

I suggest that some careful thought shows their resolution to have some problems.

Let’s consider a contrary idea: Education is Schooling together with Indoctrination. However, indoctrination is not one simple kind of thing.

What is Indoctrination? Indoctrination is:

any attempt to teach (or anything taught)

a. without justification, or

b. without justification understood (or accepted) by its recipients as having a reasonable basis.

There are two kinds of indoctrination schools might engage in:

a. that which supports organization functioning, e.g. study your lessons, pay your tuition, come to class on time, do what your professor assigns you, and the like.

b. doctrines and practices relating to school function externalities, eg. religious, political or social doctrines.

It is practically often difficult to keep these things separate. If you can identify an ideology, that makes it easier. But what about beliefs in the desirability of higher education? Or in the desirability of certain curriculum? Or that certain achievements, e.g. degrees and publications, are worthy of recognition? Or that degreed people are worthy of respect merely because of that degree?

Such beliefs are generally taken for granted, institutionalized in the structure of the school. But the fact that they are disputable is indicated by the existence of course electives, for one example; or by any variation from a lock-step curriculum.

A professor may invite challenge and debate on the desirability of various economic systems. He is unlikely to invite challenge or debate when it comes to the syllabus content, or classroom or grading procedure.

To examine some importantly related issues further, see Trading-Off "Sacred" Values: 
Why Public Schools Should Not Try to "Educate"

Cordially
--- EGR