|
|
 Newsletter sign-up: Top Headlines |
 
|
Get Breaking News on your cell|
About This Blog
News, analysis and opinion on reforms being offered to improve schools, whether the ideas originate in Washington, Austin or Dallas. The online discussion will take education policy debates seriously, while it connects them to students from grade school through college. We welcome and read all letters from readers. Letters are selected for publication based on their clarity and brevity. They also are chosen to represent a diverse set of views on as many issues as possible. February 2010
Recent Posts
Obama's right to elevate standards, but what if schools don't meet them? UT-Austin: What about using more of its endowment? UNT President Bataille's letter offers some clues Ken Starr: A good choice for Baylor or a bad one? Felipe Calderon's bet on Juarez's schools Baylor's new president: Ken Starr Bill White's smart school finance position A question for tonight's Democratic gubernatorial debate Big urban districts: Tom Luce shares his idea about spreading progress Categories
dallasnews.com Blogs
|
President Obama made education news yesterday when he told the National Governors' Association that future federal grants to states for schools that serve largely low-income students will be contingent upon states developing benchmarks for reading and math that show whether a student is ready for college or a livable-wage post-secondary job. Under the president's plan, states can go after this in one of two ways. They can come up with their own reading and math standards, which their local universities must attest are preparing students for college or a career. Or, states can join with the group of governors that are trying to come up with a core group of common standards in those subjects for all their states. This proposal sounds good for two reasons, but with a caveat.
First, Obama is right to keep pressuring states to elevate their standards. Some have preferred to set the bar low, and that does their students absolutely no good. Maybe someday the world will be less demanding. But not anytime soon, and if kids aren't ready for it, they will wonder why their schools didn't equip them for it. Second, Obama is giving states like Texas the option of going with their own standards instead of the national benchmarks the governors are crafting. This is very important. I'm not against national standards per se, but if states have gone through the process of creating standards that get a student ready for college or a career, I see no reason why that state should have to adhere to the national standards. Texas legislators, for example, passed a reform measure last year that would set our school standards in a way that will tell us whether a student is ready for college or a career. Those standards are among the first in the nation to assess whether a child is ready for either of those options. It would be foolish to ditch them. That's the good part, now here is the caveat: What if the governors or a state come up with the greatest standards in the world and their students don't meet them? Then what? That's the real mystery about what is going on within the administration. At the same time that Education Secretary Arne Duncan is talking about higher standards, he has proposed doing away with holding schools accountable if they don't make enough progress each year. He also seems to be backing off the goal of having every child learning at grade level. This is the accountability part of the school reform movement, which includes giving schools yearly rankings. The Obama team has signaled that it is moving away from this approach, and that would be disastrous. How would parents -- and the taxpayers that fund schools -- really know if students are meeting these higher benchmarks? And, if they aren't, what will happen to those schools and the students in them? Would states be required to intervene and either close down or refashion a failing school? We don't know, and this is a problem. Put simply, it is one thing to set standards high, but it is another to insist that schools meet them. We need to hear next from the administration on this front. Surely, we don't want to go back to the days when we didn't hold schools accountable if they were failing their students. Comments |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio
E-mail
Obama lies out of both sides of his mouth and doesn't know which end is up. I am not surprised that there are concerns.
Obama, Reid, Pelosi parody song
Washington Hillbillies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR75PodzQgo
Until the parents and students themselves are *held accountable,* you will have some schools that fail. The lowest achieving kids have to go *somewhere*--since we REQUIRE mandatory attendance.
The irony that most seem to miss is that the standards are set, and IF a school FAILS, THEN the money and help starts coming in. Kind of like calling the doctor AFTER the patient goes into a coma. In medicine, PREVENTION Is the key, so why not in education?
Common sense, experience and studies show that a low teacher-student ratio combined with extended time improves achievement. Why then isn't THAT the requirement in ALL schools? Why not?
Because nobody really cares to get the lowest performing kids in the lowest performing schools to any reasonable success. It is all chatter and easy-talk, Obama included.
When you walk into a home where EVERY single male in the household is a dropout and not a book or magazine is to be found, but there is a big-screen TV in the living-room, how well do you expect the kids to achieve? It is almost insurmountable to make up for the educational deserts our students live in.
Right now, the children bornin 2010 will be the seniors of 2028. What is being done NOW to make their homes better, more educaitonally inclined? Nothing. No major push society to help PARENTS achieve better as parents.
We don't need higher test scores, we need comprehensive sex education to stop the epidemic of teenage parents who produce the next generation of students trapped in low achievement lives. We need expanded vocational training and we to get off the *college track for all* mentality. My plumber makes a better living than I do. We need local businesses to invest in the schools by hiring teens and supporting community events that promote academic achievement.
Punish the teachers and they will leave. Privatize the schools and yet, somewhere, the lowest achieving students will STILL be around. Then what? Who is blamed then?
And again, comparing one group of kids to the next year's is comparing apples to oranges. Compare how a student does from year to year. Anyone with more than one child knows that even growing up in the SAME house, kids are unique. If you don't like being compared to your brother, why should we compare your progress to strangers?
AMEN, Ms. Birdwell. I learned quickly everything you said during my short mid-life career change to teaching that was eye-opening, sobering, frustrating and left me quite disillusioned. Probably 75% of the kids are bright, articulate, curious and a pure joy to work with. You know, they have a caring family that teaches manners and expects academic effort. Its the other 25% that really concerns me. Not necessarily because I am held solely accountable for their success at contract renewal time, but because I am looking 10 years down the road at a not-so-bright future for them. Many kids come to school today too damaged and with too much emotional baggage for any teacher to help without support from the home. My God, look at how many are being raised by grandparents! Good teachers are capable of setting their own high standards. Meeting state or federal benchmarks is a reasonable expectation but only if ALL parties involved are held accountable.