Re: Orchestrated Blame Game Signals End Times for NCLB?

[Scott Hays <shays@ccwebster.net>]

On Dec 4, 2006, at 3:32 AM, aburke5054@aol.com wrote:

> > Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 13:21:22 -0500
> > From: aburke5054@aol.com
> > To: arn-l@interversity.org
> > Subject: Re:
> > Message-ID: <8C8E455CE0FA0A9-884-C274@FWM-D41.sysops.aol.com>
> >
> >  This list has only one message: That the only problems in
> > American schools are that they don't receive enough money and that
> > educational reform is driven by people who want to privatize public
> > education. Continuing this absurdity is a disservice not only to
> > parents and children, particularly parents and children who would
> > benefit most from improvements to schools, but also to public
> > education itself.
> >  Art

... and this is such a palpably inaccurate description as to be  
outright laughable.  Most of the people contributing to this list are  
(or have been) outspoken critics of public education long before NCLB  
imposed its narrowly focused test-and-punish approach to educational  
reform on the entire nation.  The battle lines have been drawn for a  
long time, Mr. Burke, and the issues change only slightly to refocus  
the argument.  Essentially, though, they boil down to two fundamental  
questions:  who is in control of learning (in the classroom and  
outside of it), and should our schools teach kids discrete things  
(skills, facts, disciplines) or teach them processes (use of skills,  
interpretation of facts, and self-discipline).  I, like you, have  
lived through the never-ending oscillation between these broad  
approaches -- though my experience was almost exclusively in  
California:  I was an elementary student when Max Rafferty held sway  
in California, attended middle school and high school when the "new  
math" (SMSG) and exploratory science were introduced in the wake of  
the successful Sputnik launch, had just begun my teaching career when  
"back-to-basics" and "minimum proficiencies" took root, matured  
professionally when questions drove curriculum rather than laundry  
lists of things for kids to know, and now rest uncomfortably in the  
shadow of my career while direct instruction, "scientifically-based"  
research, and high stakes testing drives policy and student experience.

Privatization and inadequate resources to meet the mandated challenge  
are, indeed, serious issues in any discussion of federal educational  
policy.  They also are of immediate and practical concern to anyone  
working in the field, since repercussions for not addressing them are  
severe and costly.  Lastly, they are also primarily -- at least as  
concerns you on this list -- largely of your own creation, as it is  
you who constantly fails to see the larger picture through the narrow  
focus of NCLB and continues to frame your argument as you do.  The  
issues that you raise are, for all intents and purposes, secondary in  
the bigger scheme of things.

Scott Hays
shays@ccwebster.net

"Wrinkles only go where the smiles have been."
- - Jimmy Buffett