[Vision2020] upcoming midterm election

[Jerry Weitz]

Keely, I hope you can attend the Pro/Tech discussion that the MCA is 
hosting.  Hopefully, you have time to give us your observations on why 
skills training at the MSD failed and why it succeeded at PHS. Then: How 
can we move the district into the 21th century in relation to the 
non-college bound?

Keely, In a recent article in the Economist over international comparison's 
in Math, Science, and Writing, the U.S. was not in the top 10.  However, 
Canada and New Zealand are.  U.S. Colleges and Universities are "begging 
for better."  Recently,  WSU President Rawlins recently talked about the 
subject of k-12's lack of performance.  Nothing new, when one reviews the 
TIMMS. Hence, many of us that support public ed. realize change has not 
been forthcoming as rapidly as expected.

Thus, allow me to discuss how New Zealand (since 1984) climbed from the 
bottom in k-12 acheivement to the top (Almost the same for Canada except 
Canada was not as low as New Zealand). My information comes from Maurice 
McTigue's lecture on Rolling back Government: Lessons from New Zealand.... 
which you can look up.

In 1984 New Zealand's public ed was failing.  The inputs of money did not 
help ed outcomes especially for those in lower socio-ecomic areas.  New 
Zealand hired international consultants that reported where every dollar 
was spent.  After the report which basically demonstrated that 70% of the 
money was not going to the classroom,  New Zealand  eliminated all 4500 
Boards of Education in the country and replaced it with a system that had 
every single school come under the control of a a board of trustees elected 
by the parents of the children at that school and by nobody else. (Parents 
are now  involved).  Next, schools were given a block of money based on the 
number of students that went to them --with no strings attached (kick regs/ 
unfunded mandates out).  At the same time, parents had the absolute right 
to choose where their kids would go to school.  Rich and poor districts 
were given the same amount of money.  Even further, parents could send 
their children to private schools and the money followed (as  is the case 
in the widespread Canadian practice of providing public funding 
to  privates.)  Most predicted the privates would gain and the publics 
would lose. In the first few years(3) that was the case,  however, as the 
publics fought back in an atmosphere of competition and parent 
choice/involvement, the publics gained market share.  Alberta is the at the 
top in international educational attainment and most parents send their 
kids to Alberta's publics. Hence from "similar" countries (New 
Zealand/Canada) market forces worked well.

  Incidentally, my sons received outstanding k-12 college bound ed at the 
MSD.  Thus, how can our community step up to the plate and educate the non 
college bound in a world class manner?  Jerry




At 10:45 AM 10/16/06, heirdoug at netscape.net wrote:
>
 Luna's support comes from the side of the political spectrum that
>believes in a solely market-driven approach to public education and
>denies the reality of an institution that, dealing as it does in the
>education of human beings, is enormously more complex and crucial to
>the functioning of society than the management of, say, a jewelry store
>-- or an industrial scales business, which is the business Luna runs.
>
>
The crushing burden of No Child Left Behind, social and economic
>factors that affect children, the complexities of education law and
>procedure, and the challenges of a largely rural state with very
>different demographics throughout is something that requires experience
>in education, administration, and a committment (SIC) to the
>institution itself.
>
>
 This inability to acknowledge the reality of today's federal
>oversight of schools in terms of standards, funding, assessments and
>bureaucracy, coupled with an apparent inability to 

>
see children as human being and not units of production

>¦
>
>
>Keely,
>If Compulsion Schooling is so great and is such a wonderful institution
>why is its funding based upon the number of seats filled, and not the
>outcome of students being able to read at even a 9th grade level?
>
>“Washington, D. C., Oct. 10. Following in the footsteps of “No Child
>Left Behind,” the Department of Education is considering new
>requirements applicable to all colleges and universities benefiting in
>any way from federally financed programs, such as student loan and
>dormitory-financing programs. Continued eligibility for participation
>in the programs would require graduates receiving a baccalaureate
>degree to demonstrate at least a 9th-grade level of reading ability and
>a 7th-grade level of ability in mathematics.”
>
>I thought that the following editorial would be of interest to some of
>you who don’t wish to listen to the tales of school woes.
>
>Keely, show me the numbers!
>
>lemeno, Doug
>_______________________________________________________________
>The One-Question Test
>by Linda Schrock Taylor
>
>In 1812 (forty years before the passage of our first federal compulsory
>school laws), Pierre DuPont de Nemours published the book, Education in
>the United States. Dupont, one of the founders of the DuPont fortune,
>known to be brutally honest and direct, spoke of the phenomenal
>literacy rate in the United States; was amazed by the difference he saw
>when compared to European literacy. Dupont said that less then 4 people
>out of every thousand in the new nation could not read and do numbers
>well.
>
>In 1992 (one hundred and forty years after the passage of compulsory
>schooling laws) Regna Lee Wood, Director of Statistical Research for
>The National Right to Read Foundation, published the article, "That's
>Right ­ They're Wrong." In that very important piece, Wood compared the
>literacy rates of World War II recruits with those of the Korean War.
>She discovered that,
>
>AFQT scores indicated that illiteracy (defined by the War Department as
>inability to read 4th-grade lessons, or today's 5th-grade lessons)
>among millions of prospective recruits with at least four years of
>schooling soared from almost zero (0.004 percent) during World War II
>to an unbelievable 17 percent during the Korean War. ("That's Right ­
>They're Wrong" National Review, 9/14/92)
>
>Such information should be considered as explanations are sought for
>the massive failure of our schools in these years since World War II; a
>massive failure that has occurred just within my lifetime. We should
>also consider whether those "4 people out of every thousand"; that
>"0.004 percent"; might be a more accurate reflection of the true
>occurrence of severe handicapping conditions in the general population.
>
>Might "4 out of 1000" be the actual number of unfortunate individuals
>born with true handicaps so severe that the achievement of literacy is
>simply not possible? The observations of Dupont, and the statistics
>examined by Wood, certainly suggest a very different ­ and a vastly
>smaller ­ group of nonreaders than does the current educational
>Alphabet of Excuses (AE) for school failure ­ ADD, ADHD, ODD, BD, EI,
>LD, SLD, HI, VI, EMI, MR, MI, CI, AU, TMR, POHI

>No Child Left Behind should be identifying and using research like that
>done by Regna Lee Wood. Actually, NCLB should have done its homework
>before it forced narrow certification and ever-broadening assessment
>guidelines on each school and every teacher in the land; before it
>acted on such a massive scale to violate the sovereignty of local
>jurisdictions to make the educational decisions that best serve the
>local people who are actually the ones financing their local schools.
>
>NCLB should have attempted to discover: the full impact of basic
>literacy upon the total educational experience and life of each
>individual. NCLB should have discovered: exactly how literacy was so
>skillfully brought about back when the purported 996 out of every 1000
>Americans were literate.
>
>NCLB laws; accepted by lock-step and/or ignorant administrators;
>enabled by uninformed and/or incompetent school board members; have
>failed to identify the vital issue upon which all other aspects of
>schooling rest; the one single element; the Rosetta Stone ­ READING!
>With that foundational academic need in mind, the effectiveness of any
>school can be assessed, and the decision made as to whether a school
>should remain open, ­ based upon whether a school passes or fails The
>One-Question Test:
>
>"Does said school absolutely, positively, insure that 996 out of every
>1000 children are literate prior to the end of third (3rd) grade?"
>
>(Now, this is the kind of outcome-based education that America needs
>and has needed for at least seventy-five years.)
>
>One-roomed schoolhouse teachers were able to teach reading to almost
>every child. More importantly, back then the goal was to have every
>child literate by the end of first grade ­ in an era when homes owned
>few books other than the Bible; Webster's "Blue-backed Speller"; a
>reading book filled with wisdom, intelligent stories and big words; and
>a slim arithmetic book.
>
>Children came to school ­ many without breakfast ­ carrying a lunch
>
>pail that might hold something as simple as a butter sandwich (made
>more nutritious by being provided by the hard work of the parents
>rather than by funds stolen from the taxpayers to feed someone else's
>child). The children often came from extremely poor homes; many where
>chickens and more, might have shared the dwelling on bitterly cold
>winter nights. The children often came in rags or hand-me-downs.
>But
the main difference between schools then and schools now is that
>then schools taught almost all children to read. The schools back then
>leveled the population UP!
>
>For this massive increase in illiteracy, coming so soon after the prior
>war, our welfare-growing, prison-building, America can thank Sight
>Words and Dick and Jane, including all their offspring and clones,
>including Whole Language, Balanced Literacy, and any other
>avoid-systematic-phonic-instruction fads.
>
>Most children, who learn to read well in our current educational
>climate, learn to read in spite of the teaching. Until such time as
>teachers are trained to skillfully and effectively teach phonics,
>spelling, writing and reading, this method of not-so-benign neglect,
>which fails the majority of the children, will continue to be used with
>each generation, with ever-worsening results. That steady decline has
>been the norm since the sight word fad usurped educational decisions
>and destroyed the meaning of scholarship.
>
>The educational culture must drop pet theories and favorite fads in
>order to properly train teachers to skillfully teach reading, spelling,
>and writing skills. Educators would be wise to seek out the few
>remaining one-room schoolhouse teachers and ask them to teach the
>professors at all the schools of education How to Really Teach Reading.
>My Great-aunt Mildred, who taught for fifty (50) years, probably knows,
>herself, more about reading instruction, than most graduate schools of
>education currently know collectively!
>
>Those graduate degrees are quite impressive on paper, but too often the
>schools of education only require that professors who train future
>teachers in How to Teach Reading have "an earned PhD and three (3)
>years of classroom experience." Three years!! Almost every teacher
>spends the first three years getting organized and learning more from
>the kids than the teachers were able to get taught. Yet, inexperienced
>teachers are actively recruited to train America's future teachers! It
>is no wonder that American education has lost its footing on the
>shifting sands of fads and theories. PhD research papers abound, as
>each tries to outdo the next.
>
>I confronted one such theorist at Michigan State University. He had
>made up a flyer to advertise the graduate class that he would be
>teaching. On the flyer he explained that the outcome of the class would
>be that the students would know about a lot of different theories of
>reading. I acted naïve and explained that I wanted to learn how to
>teach reading so I was wondering if his class would provide me with the
>skills I would need. He danced around my question, never answering it.
>He knew full well that I would waste my time and my money, yet be
>unable, at the completion of the class, to teach a nonreader of any age
>how to read.
>
>Graduate degrees are given for the study and research of theories (pet
>or otherwise). In all likelihood, a teacher with a master's degree in
>Reading will still lack the skills and knowledge necessary to
>effectively do the job for which such teachers are certified, recruited
>and hired. Still, the certification process, as well as NCLB, refuses
>to acknowledge that literacy is the cornerstone of education; which is
>the foundation of scholarship; which is the basis of intelligent,
>logical thought and decision making.
>
>Instead of asking the only question that matters, NCLB flounders in
>ever-widening circles of failure and rights violations, fruitlessly
>searching for potential demons to exorcise: Physical education
>teachers; Physics majors; Career counselors; Early childhood teachers

>On and on the search goes ­ at all levels; throughout all subject
>areas; losing all effectiveness, and most certainly all focus, in that
>process.
>
>There is only one question!
>
>"Does your school insure that 996 out of every 1000 students are
>literate prior to the completion of third grade?"
>
>One question ­ yet fifty-one departments of education; scores of
>colleges of education; thousands of school districts; are unable to
>pass the most important test of all.
>
>Unless foolish and progressive (a misnomer if ever there was one) fads
>are thrown out of schools, and teachers return to the explicit and
>accurate teaching of phonics, any attempt to save the schools will be
>meaningless rhetoric. Until the first weeks of school, at every grade
>level, in every building, are used to teach reading until 996 of every
>1000 children are literate enough to be successful in all other areas
>of study, all else is a sham.
>
>The future of America is at stake, yet the Fascist educational
>establishment is uninterested in actually educating the populace. Our
>schools educate for ignorance. The deck has long been stacked against
>teaching children to read early and well.
>
>Remember
Thomas Jefferson said that if a nation expects to be ignorant
>and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and
>never will be, and prepare for the end of America as a sovereign,
>civilized and free country.
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
>industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>
>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================