My response:"I have seen the education story from both inside government and outside. I'm still trying to understand who "they" are... local control has so many down sides and if the 'locals" take control of the board then they can force anything from sex education (their understanding of what is right and wrong) to questionable literature. The real question is how to get the "public" back into public schools."
-- private email from a member of the state board of education
There is no local control. In public schools, local control is the administration and teachers union, plus those who seek to use the schools for their own purposes. Really, board members and the community exert little if any control over the process.
They are anyone or any group that seeks to win the minds of future generation. Keep in mind that my they is someone else's we (ed. notes -- see previous post). In essence, they can be those with an agenda or those who believe they know better than parents and are influenced by the agendas of others (so you have both leaders and followers).
A great book is Crane Brinton's Anatomy of Revolution. Simply put: as revolutions progress the less radical go back home to tend to their families and other business. In the end, only the most radical remain. Now, provide these folks positions in the bureaucracy and the revolution continues beyond what the majority ever wanted (The Reign of Terror).
Most parents are simply too busy to counter the efforts of school employees. They just don't have the time. They may fight for a bit, but they soon realize that their efforts carry little weight. Especially since most board acquiesce to the staff over issues relating to the curriculum.
In addition. school employee are influenced by hosts of organization which supply extra-curricular materials. In my district, a school counselor found a program by one such organization, showed it to the principal, and, before you know it, an assembly was held without prior parental permission. So, they (assembly agenda) and they (district employees as followers) darkened the minds of 300 sixth graders.
They are your neighbors who believe in public education and will stand behind the schools no matter what. They are the many folks want other's children to read, see, hear, etc., all sort of nonsense. It isn't enough for them to teach their own children rot, they must ensure that all children learn the same.
I have a family member who is a retired teacher. Recite a passage from some perverse Young Adult book and she is appalled. Tell her that a teacher assigned it and this family member's perception changes: It must be OK if a teacher assigned it. In this instance, my family member is they.
I return to the genesis of public education. 150 years ago, folks sought mandatory government schools for the sole purpose of influencing subsequent generations toward the collective vision of Prussia and Bismarck. Go back 70 years and you would see John Dewey working tirelessly to have government schools lead the socialist revolution. And they did (or, are doing it, anyway).
They is not a new concept by any means.
Jim
12 comments:
In an earlier era of my life I attended all school board meetings in my district. I was well aware that the board existed only to OK everything the superintendent did. The superintendent, like many, had been a coach at that school before he was hired to be supt. He was a very corrupt individual as were some members of the board. During that era there were two members who were not so much part of the cabal. One in particular, having left the board, decided to attempt to clean up some of the corruption. The supt. and board were operating in secret and THE SUNSHINE LAW was being broken. The one board member took the supt. and board to court. I was to testify because I had proof that the supt. had broken laws. On the day of the trial, as I waited in a small room to testify, the judge, who was a close, personal friend of one board member, just up and called a halt to the whole matter. Without allowing testimony he just ended it.
Interesting how "justice" works in America.
I'm not sure parents don't have time to fight this. I believe it's more a matter of their priorities. One less ball game would give them three hours of time. There is also the matter of some parents becoming upset about something done by a school employee and beginning a protest but then realizing that their friends and family are against them and so they drop it. Some years ago a small group of parents in the Bexley school district became alarmed about what was going on in that school. Meetings were held at one woman's home. Her husband was a physician. She had a tiny little business making truffles. After a few meetings and group appearances at the school board meetings the protest fizzled. Later when I talked to her about it she admitted to me that she was taken aback by how angry her acquaintances were with her and how it had upset her and that she just wanted to forget about the whole thing. She was not willing to offend her friends and did not want it to affect her income. That is typical.
There is a blog site called BUREAUCRATIC DAYCARE and it belongs to a homeschooling mother named Dani Kekoa. She is militantly against government schools(as am I) so many would not appreciate it as I do. Nevertheless, it is packed with excellent information and I visit it often. Today she has featured something about schools and when I read the comments that were posted by her readers I found some from school teachers who are confirming the dumbing down of the curriculum as compared to what it was a few years ago.
From Lynn Stuter's website
Who Controls at the Local Level?
I recently received the following query from an individual. These questions have been asked by many parents. My response follows.
Here is something I've long wanted to know: Just what control do public school teachers have over the curriculum they teach and the methods they teach by?
Who determines the curriculum? Is it the legislature? The SPI (Superintendent of Public Instruction)? The school board? The Principal? The teacher?
And ditto for the teaching methodology.
These are good questions, which I shall attempt to answer.
If you ask a state legislator these questions, they will tell you that curriculum is local. Nothing could be further from the truth. But one would not know that unless one understands the system. I shall endeavor to explain.
Education reform is based on systems philosophy or general systems theory. Without getting into specifics, systems philosophy says that we can create our future by building systems and leveraging those systems into balance with all other systems in a conceptually wholistic model, (also referred to as systemic change) using a system infrastructure that is analogous to all systems. Scientists refer to systems philosophy as a syllogism — how to bring about planned change systemically. Under systems philosophy, the system and leveraging of the system into balance with all other systems, is paramount above all else. That leveraging is achieved via analyzing DATA FEEDBACK attained from the subjects of the system established, be it an agency (school), a classroom, or an individual. This explains the privacy invasive databanks being built on all systems — health care, education, justice (law enforcement, criminal, juvenile, drivers…), military… (This is also the weakest point of the system). Systems philosophy is based on humanism and the tenets of it, with the spiritual dimension based in New Age thought and practice.
Under systems philosophy, you start out by developing your vision of the created future. In the case of education reform, that vision is that every child shall exit the education system with mastery of…
the new basic skills — teamwork, critical thinking, making decisions, communication, adapting to change and understanding whole systems. (High Skills, High Wages, Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, WA State, 1994, page 65).
The vision is then defined in terms of exit outcomes. In the case of education reform, the exit outcomes are the state essential "academic" learning requirements (EALRs). With this in mind, look back at the new basics and I think you can readily see why the EALRs are academic in name only. The EALRs do not focus on the teaching of objective material or on teaching children to think, how most parents would define academic. In the Schools for the 21st Century (the foundation of education reform in Washington state and the basis of American 2000) resource document, content is defined as excellence in terms of the change agenda; process as the product … the destination … what learning is about; and emotionality and affectivity as the means by which content and process will be achieved. This explains why the EALRs are so very subjective in nature.
From the exit outcomes, you then design down (sometimes referred to as backmapping). In the case of education reform, you design down by designing curriculum, instruction and teaching methodologies such that in their use and application, the child is moved to mastery of the exit outcomes.
The measure of that mastery is the assessment. In the case of education reform, such is the WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning). The WASL was developed by Riverside Publishing Company and scored by National Computer Systems, owned by Riverside Publishing and a subcontractor to National Center on Education Statistics under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Education. If the greater number of children fail the assessment, the curriculum, instruction and teaching methodologies are revisited and adjusted. If a few children fail the assessment, they are remediated to bring them in line. The assessments also assess classroom teachers. The assessment provides DATA FEEDBACK to the system, which is one reason why parents should not allow their children to take the WASL.
The goals are state defined, and the curriculum that must be used to teach the state goals is also, therefore, state defined in that a school district whose children consistently fail the WASL will be taken over by the state. Call the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and tell them you want the duplicating masters for the EALRs for all subject areas and all benchmark levels. What they will send are curriculum guides to teach the EALRs and how to assess those activities for mastery. Take a good look at the activities and the rubrics (standards usually defined on a 1-4 point scale) used to assess those activities. You will discover that they are looking for process — does the child demonstrate the wanted behavior/procedure (how Richard Stiggins, president and founder of the Assessment Training Institute, who is involved in our state assessments, defines process) in relation to the given prompt.
The state, as condition of receipt of Goals 2000 grant money, MUST comply with the requirements of Goals 2000, MUST agree to implement those laws and procedures necessary to attain the FEDERALLY defined goals as outlined in Goals 2000. Receiving other federal monies has also been tied to compliance with Goals 2000. Thus, if a state does not comply with Goals 2000, the state stands to lose other federal monies. This is the carrot (otherwise known as coercion) that is forcing states to buy into Goals 2000.
So, who is responsible? Our Congressman for passing Goals 2000? Our state legislature in passing ESHB 1209? I would answer that both our Congressman and our state legislature are responsible as they have the constitutional charge to pass laws.
Who determines the curriculum? Our Congressman in passing Goals 2000 that established the systems philosophy, and our state legislature in passing ESHB 1209, bringing to the state the systems philosophy of education that necessitates a narrowly constructed curriculum to attain the exit outcomes that they legislatively authorized the Commission on Student Learning (CSL) to establish. ESHB 1209 placed on the legislature the final acceptance or rejection of the EALRs.
The feds and the state determined the WHAT; the local school district only determines HOW they will achieve the federal and state mandated WHAT. There is no local control of anything.
So, you ask, why all these meetings at the local level? The philosophy is simple: if you foist something on people, they will not only reject it, they will probably avidly oppose it; if you make them think it is their idea, they will embrace and support it. There are two primary reasons behind the consensus building activities (focus forums billed as public meetings):
1. to move the greater number of people away from the Christian world view of right and wrong to the humanist world view that right and wrong are a matter of perception, therefore relative; and
2. to make the greater number of people present think the predetermined outcomes are their idea.
If such can be accomplished, those pushing reform go forth and proclaim that they have the support of the people and they are doing the will of the people, never mind that focus forums are not comprised of elected individuals and represent no one. This whole concept is governance by appointed bodies (democratic societies and participatory democracies), not elective bodies and is totally antithetical to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
© August 1999; Lynn M Stuter
╪
Watch Out, America
September 6, 1999
Someone in Ohio just wrote to me and said that her state school superintendent had recently visited Texas to learn about the Texas education accountability system.
Sometimes I am ashamed to admit that I am from Texas when I hear people say they are using our Texas education accountability system as a model. What that really means is that the Texas Education Agency has shown another state how to "corrupt" the data in order to fool the public.
When I hear of another fluff piece about how wonderful the Texas accountability system is, I always want to ask the following two questions:
1. If our Texas students are making such wonderful progress, how come we classroom teachers are not just thrilled with the "new and improved" students who are entering our classrooms each year? Why do our own classroom tests show that students' skills are getting worse rather than better?
2. If the Texas-controlled/TEA-controlled TAAS scores are going up so much, how come Texas' scores on nationally normed tests (e.g., SAT, ACT, Stanford 9, ITBS) are not skyrocketing at the same miraculous rate?
The "system" is really very simple:
Design state tests which look good to the public when released after administering, but never let the public know how the questions are actually weighted. Also, don't release all the various versions of the tests — just the ones that look particularly rigorous.
Structure the weighting system so that the scores are low the first year the tests are given. Each year, lower the bar on the weighting system in order to make sure the scores go steadily up.
Require that all tests be given and scored before announcing any state results. That way the state agency will have plenty of time to tinker with the weighting system to make sure the data shows the predetermined results.
If all else fails, dumb down the reading level/competency level of the questions themselves. Put lots of charts and graphs on the tests so that students don't have to draw upon their own knowledge-base but can find the answers in their test booklets instead.
Have the state agency "look the other way" when schools decide to exempt huge percentages of difficult-to-teach students or if large numbers of students just happen to be absent on test days. If the state agency gets caught, they should show "righteous indignation" and put the blame on the local schools. The state agency should select a few schools and make high-profile "examples" of them, bringing out an "erasure report" and a "dropout report" which have been lying dormant for years. Make the public think real teeth are being applied to the local schools.
Write new state curriculum standards which are performance-driven and which will require subjective scoring. Make sure the standards are broad and nebulous so that just about any curriculum could fit. Be careful not to lock in standards which are too explicit for fear that real accountability would follow.
Say that the new standards are rigorous and will take students into the 21st Century while at the same time writing the standards in grade clusters so that the outcomes-based education philosophy of "no deadlines" can be implemented without ever having to use the much-maligned term "OBE." If no definite standards are set, nobody can be held personally responsible.
Continually desensitize the public by talking about "local control and local accountability" until the public thinks that is what they really have when in essence every classroom is controlled by state-mandated requirements which have been heavily influenced by Washington, D. C.
Change the grade levels of the tests frequently so that the public cannot compare longitudinal data over time.
Through legislation, tie all entities of the public schools — superintendents, principals, teachers, and students — to the state-mandated tests.
(Job evaluations of superintendents and principals in every school in Texas are now based upon how well their students do on the TAAS. That makes the administrators put pressure on the teachers who put pressure on the students. As of the 76th Legislature, students are also totally tied to the TAAS and are promoted or not promoted based upon their test results. This is not a bad plan for education reform if the tests themselves are "the real thing" with rigorous, knowledge-based, academic content; however, Texas is in the process of writing new TAAS tests which the TEA plans to turn into performance-based, subjectively scored assessments.)
Once every entity is tied to the state-mandated tests, simply change the type of questions on the tests. Emphasize open-response and process-oriented questions that don't have right or wrong answers but that are evaluated subjectively by the state graders. Put lots of questions on the tests which ask students to give their opinions or state their feelings.
At that point, the state-mandated test results can easily be "managed." The state agency who controls the tests can implement whatever social/political agendas are currently popular. Since local teachers will be forced to teach whatever is on the state-mandated tests, popular social/political agendas will control local classroom curriculum, thus determining the way the next generation thinks.
As a classroom teacher, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of grooming my curriculum to align with the way unknown people in "high places" think. I am much more comfortable with exposing my students to knowledge-based curriculum that is designed to increase my students' academic achievement. After they have a solid foundation in basic, traditional knowledge, they can arrive at their own adult conclusions regarding the societal ills of our day.
Please forgive us in Texas for leading the way down the slippery slope.
Donna Garner
Texas Classroom Teacher
Hewitt, TX 76643
But … I don't live in Texas… This isn't only in Texas, this is also in Washington state, and probably every other state, to varying degrees, with the same modus operandi.
Lynn M Stuter
Education Researcher
Washington State
╪
trying again.
also from learn-usa.com
Watch Out, America
September 6, 1999
Someone in Ohio just wrote to me and said that her state school superintendent had recently visited Texas to learn about the Texas education accountability system.
Sometimes I am ashamed to admit that I am from Texas when I hear people say they are using our Texas education accountability system as a model. What that really means is that the Texas Education Agency has shown another state how to "corrupt" the data in order to fool the public.
When I hear of another fluff piece about how wonderful the Texas accountability system is, I always want to ask the following two questions:
1. If our Texas students are making such wonderful progress, how come we classroom teachers are not just thrilled with the "new and improved" students who are entering our classrooms each year? Why do our own classroom tests show that students' skills are getting worse rather than better?
2. If the Texas-controlled/TEA-controlled TAAS scores are going up so much, how come Texas' scores on nationally normed tests (e.g., SAT, ACT, Stanford 9, ITBS) are not skyrocketing at the same miraculous rate?
The "system" is really very simple:
Design state tests which look good to the public when released after administering, but never let the public know how the questions are actually weighted. Also, don't release all the various versions of the tests — just the ones that look particularly rigorous.
Structure the weighting system so that the scores are low the first year the tests are given. Each year, lower the bar on the weighting system in order to make sure the scores go steadily up.
Require that all tests be given and scored before announcing any state results. That way the state agency will have plenty of time to tinker with the weighting system to make sure the data shows the predetermined results.
If all else fails, dumb down the reading level/competency level of the questions themselves. Put lots of charts and graphs on the tests so that students don't have to draw upon their own knowledge-base but can find the answers in their test booklets instead.
Have the state agency "look the other way" when schools decide to exempt huge percentages of difficult-to-teach students or if large numbers of students just happen to be absent on test days. If the state agency gets caught, they should show "righteous indignation" and put the blame on the local schools. The state agency should select a few schools and make high-profile "examples" of them, bringing out an "erasure report" and a "dropout report" which have been lying dormant for years. Make the public think real teeth are being applied to the local schools.
Write new state curriculum standards which are performance-driven and which will require subjective scoring. Make sure the standards are broad and nebulous so that just about any curriculum could fit. Be careful not to lock in standards which are too explicit for fear that real accountability would follow.
Say that the new standards are rigorous and will take students into the 21st Century while at the same time writing the standards in grade clusters so that the outcomes-based education philosophy of "no deadlines" can be implemented without ever having to use the much-maligned term "OBE." If no definite standards are set, nobody can be held personally responsible.
Continually desensitize the public by talking about "local control and local accountability" until the public thinks that is what they really have when in essence every classroom is controlled by state-mandated requirements which have been heavily influenced by Washington, D. C.
Change the grade levels of the tests frequently so that the public cannot compare longitudinal data over time.
Through legislation, tie all entities of the public schools — superintendents, principals, teachers, and students — to the state-mandated tests.
(Job evaluations of superintendents and principals in every school in Texas are now based upon how well their students do on the TAAS. That makes the administrators put pressure on the teachers who put pressure on the students. As of the 76th Legislature, students are also totally tied to the TAAS and are promoted or not promoted based upon their test results. This is not a bad plan for education reform if the tests themselves are "the real thing" with rigorous, knowledge-based, academic content; however, Texas is in the process of writing new TAAS tests which the TEA plans to turn into performance-based, subjectively scored assessments.)
Once every entity is tied to the state-mandated tests, simply change the type of questions on the tests. Emphasize open-response and process-oriented questions that don't have right or wrong answers but that are evaluated subjectively by the state graders. Put lots of questions on the tests which ask students to give their opinions or state their feelings.
At that point, the state-mandated test results can easily be "managed." The state agency who controls the tests can implement whatever social/political agendas are currently popular. Since local teachers will be forced to teach whatever is on the state-mandated tests, popular social/political agendas will control local classroom curriculum, thus determining the way the next generation thinks.
As a classroom teacher, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of grooming my curriculum to align with the way unknown people in "high places" think. I am much more comfortable with exposing my students to knowledge-based curriculum that is designed to increase my students' academic achievement. After they have a solid foundation in basic, traditional knowledge, they can arrive at their own adult conclusions regarding the societal ills of our day.
Please forgive us in Texas for leading the way down the slippery slope.
Donna Garner
Texas Classroom Teacher
Hewitt, TX 76643
But … I don't live in Texas… This isn't only in Texas, this is also in Washington state, and probably every other state, to varying degrees, with the same modus operandi.
Lynn M Stuter
Education Researcher
Washington State
╪
So that is the explanation of what is really going on in the restructured government schools. The outcomes are not proficiency in reading, writing, math. Instead they are proficiency in behaviors that certain people want everyone's children to perform. While driving through old Dublin this week I noticed banners flying along the streets (banners have become a big thing here recently) and the message of the banners is praise of volunteerism. That fits right in with what we see being required of children/students to attain certain goals. I had a Westerville student at my door some months back who was performing her "volunteerism" duty in hopes of attaining membership in the National Honor Society. Her quest was to get me and lots of others to give her money for her chosen philanthropy. I disagreed with her philanthropy and sent her away. I also called the Westerville school and asked why they were sending their students to Dublin to solicit funds.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter42.htm
The above URL is offered for reading about the connection between Checker Finn, Bill Bennett and his K-12 "home school" business and Outcome Based Education. There must be many who do not realize that Bennett's enterprise is just the same Systems Training of the government being used on children who are at home rather than in the government school buildings. The assessments are the same. The Outcomes are the same. The article has quotes by Finn, Bennett and Lamar Alexander and exposes the connections.
Ah ... yes ... the logic of the public school graduate/supporter.
[I] threw a revolution and everyone forgot to come. Everyone? Go back and revise your statement -- if you can. Your illogic is telling.
You just don't deal in facts do you? But your continuing reading of the material is very gratifying.
Ouch ... I've been stung by a random word generator. How about making some sense next time.
"Stung by a random word generator!"
Jim, That is the funniest thing I've ever read on your blog. I promise that when I use that expression in the future, and I will, I'll give you credit for it.
Still chuckling,
Me
Post a Comment