The Treasure Hunter

Last week I stumbled upon an article in the Los Angeles Times, by Rosanna Xia and Teresa Watanabe that I see as the beginning of reasonable thinking in higher education. It was about requiring Intermediate Algebra for all students who intend to go on to college. Before reading the article, I challenge all college graduates to work on the problem presented at the beginning of the article, and if they solve it, to let me know.

 Currently, educators in California are debating what to do about intermediate algebra, now not required in high schools, but still a pre-requisite for entrance to a four-year college. The problem is that 3 out of 4 community college students don’t pass the exam that determines their competence in algebra and thus must take 1, 2, or even 3 courses in remedial math in order to move on to the next level in their program. Many of them feel that being expected to pass a higher math course than what was required in high school is unreasonable and irrelevant to their college and career interests, so they drop out of community college without receiving an associate degree.

Among university professors there is much disagreement about what should be required. Some think that students should be able to substitute other courses such as computer science or data analysis for intermediate algebra, if their intended university major is not in any type of science. One significant university, Cal State, appears open to the idea of replacing the algebra requirement with other high quality courses that are more compatible with students’ career aims. But others still feel that the substitute courses are not rigorous enough and that intermediate algebra is essential for moving on into “higher paying science, engineering, and math careers.”

A few schools, such as Pierce College and College of the Canyons have moved on to using courses in statistics and data analysis instead of requiring more algebra. They report that students find those courses”more engaging—and more immediately useful in following political polls, analyzing sports data or understanding research methodology.”

As someone who completed the three required math courses in high school and another one* in college, but did not go on to any science or math career, I side with Cal State and the other two colleges. I never found that I needed algebra in my career or my private life, and I soon forgot how to use it. Consequently, I feel strongly that only one basic course should be required in high school and for college acceptance, in order to give those students who love math and want to make it part of their lives the opportunity to reach that goal.

*I can’t remember the name of the college course or what it involved.

 In light of the fact that Independence Day was celebrated earlier this week I am writing today about the importance of teaching civics to all students. In addition to my own views I will refer to the articles that inspired me to write: “Civic knowledge and Engagement Are Critical to Our Republic” published in the “Seattle Times”, and “Civics Education, America’s Great Equalizer, Can Make Us Whole Again” published in “The Hill”. Both articles were written by George R. Nethercutt Jr, who is a former U.S. Representative from the state of Washington, serving from 1995 to 2005.

 Not long ago I read two articles about the need for teaching civics in our public schools. According to George Nethercutt, Jr., the author of both, civics has not been taught at most schools around the country for more than fifty years. As a result, he contends that most Americans know little about the events and people who created this country and their most significant contributions. They know even less about examples of American foolishness and failure.

Nethercutt believes that the teaching of civics should be revived in elementary and high schools. In fact, he would like to see “ a congressional resolution” passed calling for civics education in all schools. He would also like to see more adults participating in political organizations or public service. He asserts that “ research has confirmed that civil learning leads to better citizenship in the form of increased volunteerism, neighbors working together to solve problems, higher voter turnout—particularly among young voters—and the development of a greater sense of national pride.”

What I remember from my own schooling was studying American history, but not civics. Over the grades from elementary school though high school, we learned about the most outstanding of our past presidents and other leaders, the most significant wars, and the expansion and settling of the West. Although I remember studying the Declaration of Independence, I have no memory of reading the U.S. Constitution, much less discussing it. Our classes taught us to remember important names and events, but did not to help us to deal with the complicated situations occurring in government all the time.

While I’m not sure that civics teaching would solve all the problems that Nethercutt sees, I think it would make more Americans aware of both the good and bad decisions made by lawmakers and their consequences. It might also move more people to get involved with political and social organizations, and stir them to action when support or opposition to political actions was needed. Above all, knowing more about the ways our country operates and the possible results, might cause citizens to think more carefully about the candidates for public offices, and maybe every one would take the trouble to vote.

In high school I took two years of Spanish and later, at college, two years more. I found that learning that language was easy and enjoyable. Just a few years after I graduated and became a teacher, my husband was offered a job in Puerto Rico, and we went there to live. Once there, I was offered a job teaching English in a public high school and I accepted. For a year I worked at that school, teaching English but also speaking a lot of Spanish in order to communicate with my students and other teachers. When we returned to this country two years later my Spanish was strong, and I continued to have some opportunities to use it when we visited other countries.

A few years later we began to take vacations in Mexico, and I still found it easy to talk with native speakers. As time passed, however, I rarely had the opportunity to use my second language with other people.  Still, at home by myself I would often sing  Spanish songs and recite a couple of poems in that language. Now, unfortunately, I have difficulty communicating with the two Hispanic women who clean my house once a week.

Although I don’t think I’m senile quite yet, I am living the well-known saying: “If you don’t use it, you lose it”. And that also means I’ve lost many other skills I once had.  For instance, I earned a masters degree in English and did my doctoral research in linguistics.  But by now I have forgotten the content of many of the books and poems I once loved and can no longer identify the parts of a sentence.

My purpose in recounting all this personal history was not to gain your sympathy, but to explain why I believe that the ordinary high school curriculum should be trimmed down and its requirements put more in line with the interests, abilities, and opportunities of individual students.

Much of what is now being taught might be just the thing for some students but a waste of time and effort for others—even those who earn high grades. What I’d like to see is a dramatic re-design of middle schools and high schools that would better serve all students over the long haul.

One possibility would be to change the structure of middle schools that would give students a taste of the range of future possibilities for young people, and enable them to discover their own specific needs, strengths, and interests so they can choose what is best for them to study in high school, and, perhaps, at college, too.

To be specific, I would require only math and English classes for everyone in grades 6,7, and 8, while introducing them to the range of areas for future study and possible careers through month-long introductory classes. The type of classes I’m proposing would not focus on skills and information, but instead introduce the scope of various professional fields so that students could figure out which ones were most appealing and best fit them. Based on those introductory experiences, students would select their high school classes and avoid others in the areas that did not fit them at all.  Also, if they changed their minds later, they could choose different classes.

Incidentally, I would not encourage any student right now to major in a foreign language. Jobs in that area are not as available as sometimes advertised because most people educated in foreign countries learn English, and that is the business language of today. Although taking Chinese may seem like fun, in the end American students would not use it and would most certainly “lose it.”

When I read the Bloomberg View article “Don’t Grade Teachers With a Bad Algorithm”, by Cathy O’Neil, a few months ago, it didn’t seem urgent enough to report to readers right away. Now that schools are closed for the summer, however, we may have the time to find out if the VAM algorithm is still used in our state to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers and to do something about it.

How should teacher performance be evaluated? As a principal for 25 years, I did that job by observing teachers over time in different situations. Besides observing in classrooms, I often participated in curriculum planning meetings or sat in on a conference with a student and a parent. I also looked for teacher leadership, innovation, and willingness to go the extra mile. In short, I knew my teachers well and could help them when needed. They also helped me to be a better principal.

On the other hand, I did not use students’ test scores as a factor in judging teacher competence. I realized that there were too many personal problems that might affect students’ test performance, such as being bullied, having health issues, or dealing with trouble at home.

Under the rule of NCLB teacher evaluations using the “Value Added Model” known as VAM, were dominant throughout the country.  It was applied to students’ test scores to measure their growth by the difference between how well a class of students was predicted to perform and how well they actually performed.

The problem with VAM is that it was designed in the 1980s to evaluate the growth of agricultural crops, not human growth. Yet, all too often when test scores in classrooms varied widely from year to year, teachers have been held accountable. Many of them who had been judged effective over time were punished because of one year’s low VAM score for their students.

As might be expected, teachers in various places protested their poor ratings and the punishments that followed. Some were angry enough about their unfair treatment to start lawsuits against their school districts, and a few won them. In New York State, for example, a judge determined that the VAM system was “arbitrary and capricious.” and decided in favor of the teacher who had filed the suit. In Houston, Texas a group of teachers who had suffered various punishments for low VAM scores won a similar suit.

Those successful lawsuits and the many continuing complaints from teachers in other places have already convinced policy makers to remove the federal funding incentives from ESSA that supported VAM. It’s hard to believe that many states will continue to use that flawed measurement tool as the right way to judge teacher performance. But then, the reason why it has stayed with us so long is that school principals have not been doing their job.

Today’s post is the revision of a piece I wrote a few years ago that was first published in Education Week.  I decided to repeat it here because what I wrote then is even more true and dangerous now.  I hope readers will appreciate it and continue to fight for the return of schools that serve the needs of students rather than the vanity of politicians.

As a retired teacher, school principal, and educational researcher, I have been visiting a lot of classrooms recently, and, for the most part, I don’t like what I see. Many of the once excellent teachers I knew have been reduced to automatons reciting scripted lessons, focusing on mechanical skills, and rehearsing students for standardized tests. The school curricula have become something teachers “deliver” like a pizza and students swallow whole, whether or not they like the ingredients.

Kindergartens that used to be places where children learned social behavior, sang songs, built cities with blocks, played store, and expressed their feelings with crayons and paint, are now cheerless cells for memorizing letter sounds and numbers. In one kindergarten I visited, children recited all the words in their little primers without recognizing that they were telling a story.

In a first-grade classroom I watched children march around the room at mid-morning because there was no longer a recess to refresh their bodies and spirits. Still, there was time enough for them to shout out the sounds of letters in chorus everyday and to memorize such words as “onomatopoeia” and “metaphor” even though they were unlikely to use them until many years later.

In the upper elementary grades I saw both English and math taught by formulae. Students were also given a list of the parts of a standard essay, told to use them in order, and to begin their own essays with a question or a surprising statement. They were also taught the formula for dividing by fractions (as if anyone ever does such a thing) and the Pythagorean theorem (useful only when you need to know the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle).

Many school districts have also adopted summer homework policies requiring students to read a prescribed list of books and write reports about them. This past summer my grandnephew, who was entering 9th grade, had to write a legal brief defending or condemning Martin Luther King, although he had not been taught anything about that particular writing form or that great man in 8th grade.

It is clear to me that under the rule of the Common Core Standards, created by non teaching “experts”, who will never be tested on them, school life has become more onerous and less appealing for all students.

In many schools algebra has been moved down to the 8th grade, and geometry, always a tenth grade elective in the past, is now required of all ninth graders. Wordsworth’s “Preface to the Lyrical Ballads,” which I read as a graduate student, is on the 9th grade recommended reading list. Although, the knowledge, skills, and books in the standards are, on the whole, academically valid, they are now being taught to students two to four years too young to understand or appreciate them.

All this has happened because the politicians who now control America’s schools have adopted the worst aspects of European and Asian education, which were chosen to maintain social class boundaries in those societies.

Out of a misguided belief that students’ test scores represent a country’s greatness and, perhaps, out of wounded pride; our government leaders appear determined to convert our once great public schools into robot factories and to extinguish the creativity and perseverance that have fueled our country’s greatness for more than 200 years.