Standardized testing

Two bills have been introduced to reduce the number of mandated testing in schools--low quality, redundant, and way too many. NCLB expired 8 years ago. I never met a teacher who liked it. Why is it still around? Children get something like 20 standardized tests a year. No one is doing well with that system except the lobbyists for the testing companies.

I went back and checked the history of standardized tests. "In 1914, Frederick Kelly invented the multiple-choice test. By the 1950s the average public-school student took three standardized tests before graduation." Maybe those were nationwide, because it sure seemed like more--like once a year. But I was a good student and poor test taker. I never took an SAT or ACT or GRE and was an A student.

The first bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and introduced Tuesday, would empower states to reduce the amount of low-quality and redundant testing given to students. While it would not affect the number of federally mandated tests given in schools, it would allow states to use federal funds to audit their assessment systems.

The second bill, reintroduced by Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) on Wednesday, takes a more extreme approach on the issue of standardized testing. The Student Testing Improvement and Accountability Act would allow states and schools to scale back federal testing so that a student would only be tested once every few years -- once during grades three through five, once during grades six through nine, and so on. The bill was first introduced in 2014.

No Bureaucrat Left Behind

Or is that the Behind of Left Bureaucrats?

"NCLB [No Child Left Behind] is actually the eighth reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Passed as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty, this first federal intervention into what was originally a state responsibility included just five titles in 32 pages. The effect of the ESEA was felt quickly across the country—but not by the nation’s school children: after passage of ESEA, state education bureaucracies doubled in just five years. Now NCLB spans more the 50 programs, 10 titles, and 600 pages. The bureaucrats are winning."
Morning Bell: No Bureaucrat Left Behind | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Billions and billions have been spent the last almost 50 years on "The War on Poverty," and yet to hear Democrats moan about food insecurity, wage gaps, education wastelands, food deserts, minorities in prison populations, Head Starts that need a kick-start, and dying cities (all controlled by Democratic administrations), the war was lost after the first decade of infusing money. It's America's 50 year war, and we're still losing because the generals and majors are designing, manufacturing, and distributing failed weapons for the boots on the ground.

Was it NCLB?

Depending on your politics, education statistics are fodder for your cause. While in office President Bush was roundly criticized by both conservatives and liberals for throwing money at education, particularly NCLB. Although if you look at the grant money available from HHS, USDA, and other agencies, the money for children extended far beyond the DOE and NCLB. No president in the history of the nation has better reason to be called “the education president” than George W. Bush, based on the money spent, (or wasted, depending on your viewpoint). However, today I came across some interesting statistics.

In 1998 Georgia had the lowest overall graduation rate in the nation with 54% of students graduating, followed by Nevada, Florida, and Washington, D.C. The national rate was 71%, according to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. (Its figures differ from some government statistics which include GEDs in graduation rates). Nine years later, Georgia's graduation rate rose to an all-time high of 72.3 percent in 2006-2007, according to data released by State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox and Governor Sonny Perdue.

Manhattan Institute for Policy Research tends to be conservative/libertarian. I don’t know about the state superintendent of schools in Georgia, but I’m sure she would want to make it as positive as possible, regardless of her party. But it looks like NCLB helped some of the worst school districts in the country, which I believe was its intent. The NEA and teachers in general complained bitterly about it, and I'm sure anything good about the program will go the way of all digital information agencies of the federal government don't want you to see. As I've said many times, the archives belong to the victor, and the public libraries to the Democrats.

However, here’s another statistic I found. In 1993 Georgia began to invest more (many millions) in pre-K education which included a component for working with the mothers of the children so they could get their GED and job training. This was under Governor Zell Miller, and was funded by the state lottery. Press release 1993. If even some of the poorest children were helped by that program, it should have shown up in the 2007 graduation rates, 14 years later.

During the last three weeks, we've seen the previous administration dissed at every possibile turn by current officials, from Obama on down, and it is in very bad taste. It will be interesting to see if he is criticized for not caring about children.

Just change the rules

I haven’t talked to anyone, conservative, liberal or libertarian, who has been happy with NCLB. Never fear, if you don’t like the outcome, someone will suggest just changing the rules. From OSUToday:

Up to three-quarters of U.S. schools deemed failing based on achievement test scores would receive passing grades if evaluated using a less biased measure, a new study suggests. OSU researchers developed a new method of measuring school quality based on schools' actual impact on learning. The impact measure more accurately gauges what is going on in the classroom, which is the way schools really should be evaluated if we're trying to determine their effectiveness, said Douglas Downey, co-author of the study and OSU professor of sociology. Read full story

Having school administrators be held accountable for the performance of children is not a new idea. It’s just become quite unpopular because it’s GWB’s pet program (The Bush administration has spent more money on education than any previous administration, and with no more success, because the federal government shouldn‘t be reaching into the the classroom to tweak education). Schools always take the credit when Worthington or Upper Arlington’s children do well in the national tests (suburbs of Columbus with many business and faculty families). No one wants the other award. Failure or Falling Behind. We all know the foremost reasons for success are genes and home life. Good schools and committed teachers can take that combination and run with it. Even then, some won’t succeed; and a few missing one or two will, surprising everyone. Married parents are a huge factor in school success because marriage determines the income, neighborhood and consistency that children need to do well in school.

Sociologists and educators will continue to sop up grants in an effort to make it something else. Like blaming the president, or you and me. Or past wrongs. Or lead paint. Or the neighborhood. They should spend their time studying the children who make it despite all odds. Then work from that instead of studying failure and building one more schoolhouse of cards. Oh, they’ve done that already? There are schools that succeed with minority and low income children from single parent homes? Vouchers? School choice? Parental involvement? Uniforms? Discipline? High expectations? Well, golly.

Another view: NCLBlog
A Baltimore teacher More Humbly did I teach

Learning to read

Everyone learns differently, and if you're lucky, when you were learning to read you had phonics. Some people have a good eye and a tin ear. Others an outstanding memory. Some will never enjoy reading no matter what method is used--it will be only utilitarian. Theories of reading have been changing for 200 years. Since I had both Dick and Jane (see and say, or repeat the words until you know them) and phonics exercises (my first grade teacher recently died at about 103 and she was a killer for phonics, punctuation and spelling), I had a good blend. Here's Jeanne Chall's summary from Learning to read (1967, rev. 1983) as reported by Dr. Diane Ravitch.

Chall said that there are two primary approaches to teaching reading: one stresses the importance of breaking the code of language; and the other stresses the meaning of language. Phonics programs had a code emphasis, and look-say programs had a meaning emphasis. The research, Chall said, unequivocally supported the use of a code emphasis for beginning readers—and she stressed “beginning readers.”

She found that the first step in learning to read in one’s native language is essentially learning a printed code for the speech we possess. The code emphasis was especially important for children of lower socioeconomic status, she said, because they were not likely to live in homes surrounded with books or with adults who could help them learn to read. Knowing the names of the letters and the sounds of the letters before learning to read, Chall said, helps children in the beginning stages regardless of which method is used. She concluded that for a beginning reader, knowledge of letters and sounds had even more influence on their reading achievement than the child’s tested IQ did.

Her report was followed by an even more interesting one about the differences in achievement of black students living and attending public school in Fairfax County (wealthy DC suburb) and those in Richmond, VA. In Richmond schools that were 99% black were outperforming the black students in schools that were 99% white. Apparently the Richmond administration had decided to stop blaming poverty and the parents for the students' poor showing and decided it was their job to teach, and to use the best methods to do that (there's not a lengthy discussion of phonics, but it was included).

Read the entire discussion here.

4688

George W. Bush is right about a lot of things

Not that right is popular. Not that right doesn't bring unintended consequences. Not that right will unite the people. He's definitely right about these--either morally, spiritually, politically or economically--but not all for each. In no particular order.

1. George W. Bush is right to keep his very talented, beautiful, smart, librarian wife at his side, in the sidelines, and in the bleachers cheering him on, supporting him, but not making policy. I like Laura Bush a lot; I didn't vote for her. I didn't even realize how important this was to me until I've watched Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama in the current campaign. Way too much focus on them and what they say and think. And Hillary Clinton, too, when she was First Lady is probably the best reason for the spouse to stay by the president's side and not under foot. Part of the hostility toward her from conservatives and libertarians is the way she tried to take over important segments of the economy when she had no elected office, nor ever had one. Her "35 years" experience mantra includes her years as a President's wife and a Governor's wife. That makes her as big a cheat as her husband in my mind.

2. George Bush was the right man to lead us calmly out of the chaos that followed 9/11. In my life time, I'll probably not see two stronger leaders in a crisis than George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.

3. George Bush was right to cut taxes to release money for investing in the U.S. economy, thereby helping American workers and the global economy both, strengthening us all around. The cut in taxes put many Americans to work, and also brought increased revenue into the coffers of the federal government--which may or may not be positive considering our Congress will spend all it gets. But it is a far superior plan than punishing success and driving our investment money overseas so foreign workers benefit.

4. George Bush was right to veto the huge SCHIP increases last fall, leaving the dismantling of private health insurance to be on the conscience of the Democrats. The 1997 SCHIP was Hillary's plan to begin with and she will see to it, either as a senator or president, that we all come under the government's thumb, that all but the richest in society, or our highest level government officials, will have low level, dumbed down universal care.

5. He was right to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power and to free millions of Afghans from the control of the Al-Qaeda. We won the war, but huge mistakes were made on the clean up. The biggest mistake was not securing the borders, something Americans aren't very good at. Also, although it was not his fault, he listened to the intelligence gathered in the previous administration about WMD accepting the wholehearted but duplicitous support of the likes of Kennedy and Edwards, Kerry and Clinton. He was mistaken that they would keep their word the way he does. He cannot be moved once he sets a course; they waffle, blow in the wind, and melt in the heat of unhappy supporters. Huge mistake to trust them.

6. Bush was never better than in his choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito for Supreme Court. I'm still wondering if that misstep of nominating Harriet Miers was just a tease--to show he could nominate a woman knowing she couldn't be confirmed. It's not in the same category of turning over policy to your wife, but it lost him a lot of friends among Republicans who questioned his sanity! These two men, along with Clarence Thomas, are our best chance of keeping a tricameral federal government, instead of a court that makes laws, a president who keeps his wife happy dabbling in policy while he fondles female staff, and a Congress that just passes out the bacon slabs to each other, crossing the aisle with a wink and a handshake. If you think Bush has too much power, ask yourself why Hillary with "35 years experience" or Obama with the power of his charming personality, will fix it if not by usurping more power from the other branches?

7. George Bush was right about stem cell research. By forcing researchers to go back to the lab and look beyond using human embryonic stem cells of 4-5 day old embryos (pre-born human beings), he rescued our nation from a worse ethical dilemma and battle than abortion and slavery, earlier versions of devaluing life in our history. Embryonic stem cell research was never illegal, but he forced the researchers to look beyond the American people for the money--and private sources wanted to see results--but there were none. Many millions of lives will be saved because GWB stood fast.

8. Morally, he was right to be concerned about our schools failing so many of our children, leaving millions of kids behind and unable to function in our technological society. The results from NCLB haven't been great, in my opinion because the federal government's hold on education was way too big to begin with. It should not be allowed to reach into the classroom and tell a student how to behave or a teacher to teach. But that certainly didn't start with Bush. He took on the teachers' unions, even though they didn't have the answers either. Standards weren't being met. Crummy teachers and awful school administrators had protection. Well, being morally right, but wrong in outcome gets a president no friends, plus he's spent more on education than any president before him and still the kids are failing. Indirectly, he's proven once again that more money isn't the answer.

9. Morally, he was right to care that millions are in our country illegally taking jobs from Americans, weakening our neighbors to the south, and experience personal suffering. Trying to fix the horrible 1986 law that allowed this with bits and patches just isn't practical--it was a social experiment of the 1960s gone bad--the belief that too many Europeans and white people were immigrating and we needed more brown, black and Asian to be "fair." Plus it cost him the support at the grass roots--those Americans who do not think La Raza should come here and take back 4 or 5 states because they don't like the outcome of the 19th century Mexican War. That's history. The backing of big unions and big business really make this amnesty issue look messy for Bush, and it didn't win any friends among the Democrats. Playing fast and loose with core beliefs in a mish-mash of bipartisanship never helps either side.

10. Morally and spiritually, he was right to want to reach out to Democrats to unite the people and heal all the hostility of the Clinton years in the 1990s. We hear Obama preaching the same sermon. But that's another thing that won't happen in my life time. George W. Bush is not a true conservative, but he is a Republican, and so on both sides of the aisle, he's got problems. He's bitterly hated and opposed because of the 2000 election and no amount of good ole boy glad handing will change that. Cowboy, that's a tough dogie to rope.

11. Economically and morally, he was right to try to fix Social Security, even as his own party gave him little support and caused his good intentions to fail. All the successful retirees I know have a combination of the plans he wanted--403-b, 401-K, IRA, and private investments. Government employees have such a plan. Unfortunately, leaders of both parties fought him on this and I'm left to believe that they have a vested interest in keeping a large part of the elderly population poor and dependent on government handouts. It buys votes, is the only explanation I can come up with.

I tried to make this a tidy list of 10, but George has just done too many things right in his 7 years as president.