So Bill Gates, the world's richest man, tells U.S. governors that high schools are "obsolete"--meaning that they're not preparing kids for business or college-- and the governors respond with a rousing cry for "higher standards" and more "rigorous" graduation requirements. That includes our own Governor Ted Kulongoski:
"Leaders of 13 states, including Oregon, pledged to take specific steps in their states to increase rigor and accountability in high schools, including requiring every student to take a college-prep curriculum in order to receive a diploma. ... ."
" 'If there is anything I have learned (at the summit), it's that Oregon has to get better in setting high standards. We are going to have to demand more,' Kulongoski told a working group that included three other governors and former Colorado Gov. Roy Romer, now the Los Angeles schools superintendent."
Of course, the governors also want to cut the high school dropout rate, which raises the question: Can you keep kids in school by making all of them take college prep courses? By making high school even more difficult, and for some kids, even more boring? Hmmmm. I don't think so.
The suggestion that all kids have to go to college reminds me of Garrison Keillor's description of Lake Wobegon, "where all the kids are above average."
It's not that I disagree with Bill Gates about the need for high school reform. I mean, high schools really haven't changed for a hundred years. The irony is that they have always had a college prep curriculum. Oh sure, there's the occasional vocational program and consumer math and metal shop, but they're the exception, not the rule. So to call for more rigor is to call for more of the same, the same subject specialties that Gates and the governors say are the problem. Just make them harder.
Not everybody agrees, including my favorite education expert Gerald Bracey:
"But skeptics, such as George Mason University professor Gerald Bracey, said the effort is less about education than power and control. 'People have been saying this about schools ever since the Cold War,' he said. 'There's nothing in the "new" message that wasn't in Life magazine in 1958 or A Nation At Risk in 1983. The critics always say that the kids are not learning what they need to know, but they never say what that is.' "
The real issue in school reform is rigor versus relevance. Kids are naturally inclined to learn, but only when they're interested and fully invested in the information presented them. Some kids may welcome the sort of "training" that will prepare them for the business world, but most don't see it as relevant to their lives.
To Bill Gates' credit, he recognizes the value of small schools and of the public education system. He isn't sympathetic to the privatization ideologues in the Bush Administration:
"Nonetheless, he said, he believes in the public school system. Speaking to reporters before the address, Gates said elementary schools seem to be getting the job done. He rejected the notion that students would benefit from opening up public schools to direct competition with private schools through taxpayer-financed vouchers. 'To completely start over in that sense, you'd be taking a huge, huge risk.' "
He may be wrong, though, about elementary schools "getting the job done", a notion that is based entirely on test score results. Peter Farrugio of Cal Berkeley explains the elementary school high test score phenomenom as a result of what he calls "kill and drill" test prepping, which works reasonably well for younger children because the tests they take are less complex. Older children are required to read with comprehension in order to answer test questions.
Maybe that's what's meant by educational training.
Terry, I have to agree with you (mostly). The problem seems to me, is that the failure in k-5 to establish basic math and reading skills in a rigorous fashion, make it much more difficult to generalize and expand skills later on.
I'm not going to comment on Dr. Bracey - I've seen his posts on the DI list and he is dogmatic.
Here's a possible solution:
Whole language folks continue doing what they want!
Direct Instruction folks are given a chance to do their methodology.
Why can't both exist?
Posted by: Dickey45 | April 13, 2006 at 08:25 AM
When you're in not good state and have no cash to get out from that, you would require to take the lowest-rate-loans.com. Because it will aid you definitely. I take short term loan every year and feel great because of that.
Posted by: TillmanBOBBI | June 21, 2010 at 08:50 PM