Monique: The Embodiment of the American Dream

Monique is one of the most remarkable women ever I've met. Born in Cambodia, she had the misfortune of growing up during the murderous reign of the tyrant, Pol Pot. As a small girl, she bore witness to the death squads, the purges, the famine, and genocide typical of any communist regime. Somehow she and her family survived the reign of terror by eating bugs, rats, and whatever food they could scrounge. Through these bleak days they dreamed of escaping to a land they called "Meg Gor"[sic], or "The Beautiful Land"

By the grace of God her family did manage to escape that living hell, and did immigrate to America, the "Beautiful Land". At the age of 13, Monique was plunked down into her first classroom. There she sat bewildered as that she spoke not a word of English. Being completely illiterate, she couldn't even hold a pen properly, and awkwardly clenched it in her fist.

Fortunately her parents did not insist that her school district accommodate with bilingual Cambodian/English classes that could only slow down her assimilation. The only demands they made were upon their own daughter. They insisted that she avail herself of the vast opportunities America offered. They insisted that she work hard and do her best.

And that she did. In her first year at school she earned an 'A' in math. Within 4 years, Monique graduated at the top of her high school class. In another 4 years, she graduated from college. Four years later, she earned an Md degree. She is in my opinion, the very embodiment of the American Dream. I'm not sure if I have ever met another person with Monique's drive and ambition, or her appreciation for America's freedoms, opportunity, and prosperity.

It was indeed a blessing that Monique's high school experience was not encumbered by any sort of bi-lingual program to 'help' such students. Instead, she was expected to learn English in the way preferred by most serious linguist: total immersion.

Tragically, the education business eschews immersion in favor of bilingual programs (by 'bilingual', we mean of Spanish). Bilingual education was soundly rejected by California voters back in 1998. Many educators, however refuse to let go of a failed program. A teaching credential requires a preponderance of ineffective ESL (English as a Second Language) classes.

For every study suggesting that bilingual education is effective, there is another study suggesting just the opposite. Educational research is completely unscientific and subjective. There is no clear guarantee that such programs do anything to speed up assimilation. The only demonstrable guarantee is of job security for the Spanish-speaking teachers.

It would be foolish to suggest that every immigrant could accomplish what Monique did. She is certainly a special case. Not everybody has her native talent and drive. However, her example does demonstrate that it can be done. It is possible (and preferable) for children to learn English by immersion. Society should not feel obligated to provide expensive bilingual education that is marginally effective at best. Immigrants have been coming to America for generations. Children of immigrants soak up English like little sponges, and in no time are on their way to achieving the American dream for themselves.

SLOs and The Delusion of Progress

SLOs

and

The Delusion of Progress

Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs). This is a great example of a terrible program. It's well intended, as are all bad programs, however it can hardly pass the criteria for good policy. The intent is that California's community college professors should be compelled to self evaluate their own courses. An example SLO: "Students can list the social and political factors behind the American Civil War". Unfortunately, SLOs have become a (permanent?) part of the landscape for many American colleges. It's implementation differs from campus to campus, but the general idea is to compel college professors to define benchmarks and goals for improving courses. Some happy bureaucrat can then check off when benchmarks are met - hence the delusion of progress. Basically it's as simple as that.

If the college professor is worth his salt, he regards the SLO as busy work. It's little more than an interruption from real teaching and research. Professors cope by composing trivial SLO benchmarks. Just enough to get the bureaucrat off their backs.

My wife is a college professor who has philosophically accepted that such busy work is part of the job. She shared with me a telling anecdote a while ago. She told how from time to time the staff was compelled to meet and discuss SLO progress. One of the newer professors became disgusted with the obvious waste of time. The more experienced educators groaned at the outburst, as if to say, 'Yes, we all know that it's a waste of time. We still have to get it done'.

At a meeting my wife attended, she was surprised to hear an administrator promise '100% of courses will have SLOs assessed in six months'. Here was a bureaucrat promising something to other bureaucrats without checking with the faculty who were actually doing the work. That same administrator gleefully reports the percentage compliance every semester, as if that number proved anything about effective teaching. As my wife puts it, SLOs are designed by the an instructor, assessed by the instructor with no oversight, and then analyzed by the same instructor, who must produce a long report on the matter. The instructor is encouraged to either show improvement, or to change the SLO or change the course if no improvement is shown. That is a recipe for a miraculous 1-2% improvement every time!

The Delusion of Progress

The Delusion of Progress

It's a law of nature that bureaucrats need to appear busy. They need to appear to be doing something. They need to be able to report that progress is being made in solving a problem, or achieving some fine, noble objective for the betterment of humanity. They need to appear to have some sort of five-year-plan replete with deadlines, goals, milestones, etc. Never mind if these programs are viable or not. That's not important (to the bureaucrat). What matters is that the public is mollified by what appears to be progress. This is what I shall call: "The Delusion of Progress".

I love teachers, but we tend to be a gullible lot. We can be like children, blindly following the Pied Piper by embracing every new educational fad and gimmick du jour. Often fads are harmless enough, but sometimes they can be to the long term determent of our students. Every institution is rife with examples of bad programs, but the education business seems especially prone to fads and gimmicks. These schemes are always introduced with much ballyhoo, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". They run their course, achieve little, only to be replaced in time by something equally insipid.

One clear sign of a bad program is that there is no objective way of measuring its efficacy. There will always be advocates to rave about how wise and wonderful a new policy, program, or bureaucracy is. It's easy to site anecdotal evidence 'proving' its success. It's equally easy to claim the public's approbation through concoction some superficial survey that proves absolutely nothing.

I'd suggest three criteria should be considered in evaluation of any new program, hitherto I shall refer to the 'Criteria For Success':

1.                   Any program should be evaluated by a disinterested party.

2.                  Results should be quantifiable

3.                   Cost effectiveness should be measurable.

Unless these conditions are met, then the program should be scrapped.

There are countless examples of where the public has been duped by the 'Delusion of Progress'. This blog shall attempt to scrutinize just a few.  Over the weeks, I'd like to discuss programs such as:

1                  The infamous 'New Math' of the 1960's

2                  Headstart

3                 No Child Left Behind

4                  iPad use in the classroom

5                  Common Core Standards

6                  SLO's (Student Learning Outcomes)

7                  The Department of Education

Pam

I met a truly remarkable young woman in college named Pam, who grew up in the ghetto of South Central Los Angeles. She was an exceptionally bright woman who had graduated at the top of her high school class, summa cum laude. Upon graduation from high school she enrolled in college, full of high hopes and expectations. One can only imagine her surprise, shock, and despair when she received the results of her college entrance exam, deeming her to be "functionally illiterate".

What went wrong? Somewhere along the line there was a colossal blunder. Was it her own shortcomings? Was it her parents at fault? Was it her school district? Ultimately the responsibility for educating children rest upon the shoulders of the parents. If schools fail, parents must step in to see that children are properly educated. But perhaps this is a little unfair to Pam's parents who were not highly educated themselves and didn't question school officials. They only saw that their daughter came home with glowing report cards, and asked no questions.

Pam's dilemma is all too common in both public and private schools. If kids aren't learning, it's easier for the teachers to inflate the grades and 'punt' the kids along to the next grade. This way teachers avoid confrontation with angry parents, who are lulled into complacency. The cold shock of reality doesn't hit them until after graduation from high school when kids apply for work or college, and find themselves woefully unprepared for either.

This story has a happy ending for Pam. Through sheer determination she made up for her deficiencies. She took the required remedial classes and then earned her degree. After graduation she found meaningful employment in her field.

Pam, however, is something of an anomaly. Most of her former classmates simply do not have her talent and drive. The disadvantage of growing up in a poor neighborhood with shoddy schools is simply too much for most students to overcome. Few will make it through college. Few will overcome the culture of failure and despair

School Vouchers

Mr. Rodriguez (not his real name) was a Mexican immigrant who came to America with nothing but his dreams. He is one of the toughest men I've ever met, working two menial jobs, around the clock. His wife did the same. Their combined incomes were not large. It was sufficient, however, to pay for private education for their children. I once asked him why he didn't send his kids to the public school in his neighborhood. He shook his head and said. "Not good".

Mr. Rodriguez and his wife were not highly educated themselves, yet they understood that the fulfillment of the American dream meant that their children needed a decent education. That is why they worked around the clock.

Couples like the Rodriguezs have done more than their part to fulfill the dream. America has certainly provided the opportunities the Rodriguez didn't have back in Mexico. The single biggest failing in this story is the underperforming public school. The Rodriguezs,  and thousands like them deserved better.

Vouchers: The most meaningful reform for the education business is the one most bitterly resented by teacher unions: School vouchers. With a voucher system, the state pays private school tuition from public funds. Alternatively, the parents pay tuition, but receive tax credits. Variations of a voucher system are used successfully all over the world, especially in the developed countries of Europe.

Parent Choice: One of the primary benefits to vouchers is obvious. It allows parents greater flexibility in choosing the right school for thier children. This might be a little scary for some people, who would prefer to let others make import decisions on raising their children. More involved parents, however, realize that they understand their children's needs far better than could any bureaucrat. School vouchers are a blessing to such people, and their kids.

Greater Accountability to Parents: Another advantage to vouchers is that it forces schools to become more accountable to parents. When parents have the ability to take their business elsewhere, school administrators and teachers become much more responsive to parents wishes.

More Fair to the Poor: The rich would not necessarily benefit from school vouchers as they can already afford to send their kids to any school they wish. It is the poor and middle class that could benefit. Likewise, people living in nice neighborhoods generally have nice public schools already, and are less likely to benefit from school vouchers. Vouchers would serve to even the playing field and allow more poor and middle class families the same educational opportunities as the rich.

Accreditation: Naturally, taxpayers wouldn't want to subsidize a school that promotes jihad, or some other anti-social behavior. Likewise, taxpayers wouldn't want to subsidize a school that can't teach the kids or operate within a reasonable budget. These are easy problems to address. Schools receiving voucher money should be accredited by the state. Through the accreditation process, schools would need to demonstrate that they are viable, and not in the business of indoctrinating students into anti-social behavior. Problem solved.

It's interesting to note that opponents of vouchers are so concerned that a poor performing school might receive public money, yet that is exactly what is happening now with public schools! The beauty of a voucher system is that parents can vote with their feet. If a particular school is not getting the job done, parents will simply choose another, higher performing school.

Violation of first amendment of the constitution: Many opponents to vouchers claim that such a program would violate the first amendment, in that many parents would chose to send children to parochial schools. It is comforting to know that opponents to vouchers are so concerned about our freedom of speech, but I suspect that this argument is driven more by anti-religious bigotry than by genuine constitutional concerns. So what if parents chose a religious school? It is a stretch of the imagination to suggest that school vouchers are somehow tantamount to state sponsored religion. Having once worked at a parochial school, I can confirm that Catholic schools  are non profit. A typical Catholic school can barely afford to pay its bills, so meager tuitions are not exactly going to fill the coffers of Rome.

Catholic schools do require that religion be taught as well as academics. Here, critics have a valid argument. I see no reason for tax payers to subsidize the teaching of catechism. A good compromise would be for a voucher to cover, say 90% of the cost of a Catholic education. The rational being that 10% of the school day is devoted to religion, 90% to academics. In no way, shape, or form do school vouchers encroach upon free speech. If anything, the breaking of the state monopoly in education can only enhance free speech.

Detriment of public schools: Are public schools so deplorable that everyone would abandon them if given the chance? That seems to be the argument of many voucher opponents, and it's not exactly flattering to public schools. If these schools are really that bad, then all the more reason that parents need a viable alternative. Actually, a voucher system would not eliminate the public schools. Quite the contrary, vouchers will greatly benefit these institutions. There is no better way to compel public schools to improve than by forcing them into healthy competition. Furthermore, school officials endlessly complain about overcrowding. What better way to alleviate this condition than by allowing more private schools to share the burden?

Public money shouldn't go toward private schools: This argument is blatantly nonsense as that federal, state, and civic governments contract private corporations for services all the time. For example, if the Air Force wants a new fighter plane, they don't require that the Federal Government build it (what a nightmare!). Instead the Pentagon contracts out the work to a private corporation. It's vastly more efficient than having the Feds attempt to design and manufacture the warplanes themselves. Private contractors, do their best to provide a superior product, or otherwise they fail to win future contracts.

Generally the community has no objection using public money to fund a service that benefits society. The public doesn't seem to mind if a private hospital accepts Medicare and Medicaid. Nor is there any outcry when government money goes to student loans for private universities. Government money also funds grants, scholarships and research at private institutions,

Education is not a commodity: Actually, education is a commodity just like any other. Educational institutions should be expected to provide a superior service at a reasonable price. No better way to enforce this discipline than to subject schools to the same rigors as any other institution in the free market system.

Opposition: The loudest rants against vouchers come from public school boards, teacher unions, and the politicians that benefit from the status quo. They put on a good show about how they advocate for kids, but it's clear to see that these groups are in fact defending their turf at the expense of the children. A voucher system means that these groups lose control. Tragically, they will never, ever willingly permit that to happen.

The Credentialing Scam

I'd be all in favor of teacher credentialing if it produced better teachers . . . but it doesn't. Teacher credentialing is a big scam.

I taught for several years at parochial school where a teaching credential was encouraged but not essential. Upon the advice of my former principal, I enrolled in a credentialing program. I had asked my principal if there was any evidence that a credential makes for a better teacher. She answered that she was not aware of any. A huge warning flag went up in my mind.

I was not enthusiastic about pursuing a credential. I had already earned a bachelor's of science and masters of science in engineering, and was reluctant to invest another two years in a program that I felt was superfluous. My wife reminded me, however  that the credential was part of the teaching landscape and that I should, in her words, 'suck it up' and get it done.

I did enroll in an expensive university, where I endeared myself to various instructors by posing the same question that I had posed to my principal. Two years and tens of thousand of dollars later I still had no satisfactory answer.

It turns out that there has been at least one serious study on the value of credentialing. As Dr. Sandra Stotsky observes:

"The 2008 final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel found that teachers who completed a traditional teacher preparation program have no higher student performance on average than do other teachers....Nor could the Panel find a body of evidence to support the efficacy of professional development in raising student achievement, whether or not it had increased teachers’ knowledge of their subject. The Panel did find a body of credible research on one characteristic of an effective teacher: knowledge of the subject they teach. It was significantly related to student achievement. The more academically competent the teacher is, the more students learn.¹"

So . . . If credentialing does not produce demonstrably better teachers, Why is it required? I have no doubt that the major reason we continue down this dead-end path is because the established interest want it so. It is the way politicians from both major parties want it. It is the way the teacher unions want it. It is the way the pundits of any university's school of education want it.

There is an interesting, albeit disturbing history behind licensing and credentialing. Historically it served as a means by which establishment interest eliminated competition. It was in the 1930's when white laborers compelled their politicians to invoke licensing requirements. Licensing served the interest of white laborers who could afford to pay for licenses. Their minority counterparts were just as qualified as white laborers, and were often willing to do the work for less. However, they could often not afford to go through licensing procedure.

I don't believe that modern advocates of credentialing are as blatantly racist as the bigots of yore, but I have no doubt that the modern process achieves the same ends. It clearly keeps good people out of the exiting, glamorous, lucrative teaching profession.

I personally know several people who have expressed interest in teaching. These were successful, highly educated men and women who wanted to contribute something special to the next generation. When I described the hoops that one had to jump through to get the silly teaching credential, most realize that it's not worth the bother. Successful people generally have other options, and won't endure the aggravation of getting the meaningless credential.

Several years ago I read about an amazing man (regretfully, I do not remember the name) who had become a Silicon Valley billionaire. For philanthropic reasons (he certainly didn't need the money) he wanted to donate his time and valuable experience by teaching in the classroom. His inquiries, however were rebuffed by some officious bureaucrat, who informed this distinguished gentleman that he was not qualified to teach, for he lacked a teaching credential. The establishment wins, the kids lose.

My teaching credential came with a Masters Degree in Education. I can vouch that earning this degree is no great distinction. It's a bunch of fluff. Coursework included:

1.                  Lots of busy work. A typical course required that the student write edu-babble synopsis of edu-babble papers by various 'educational theorists'. Most, if not all of these papers were quite irrelevant to the day-to-day business of teaching.

2.                  There were three different required classes emphasizing teaching to English learners. Professors often lamented how California voters had already rejected bilingual education.

3.                  A class on teaching special education. There was some worthwhile information, but it could have been covered in a 1 hour seminar. Not full semester class at $1000/unit

4.                  The most nonsensical class was called 'Psychology of Education'. The professor spent an inordinate amount of time on 'Ice Breakers'. This class was absolutely irrelevant to real teaching.

Teaching is an art. You either have the gift our you don't. No amount of licensing, credentialing, or professional development is going to turn a mediocre teacher into a good one. A well educated teacher has already had two decades of schooling, and presumably has seen dozens of different teaching styles and methods. Enough with the credentialing already. It doesn't work.

To those that demand teacher credentialing, I'd ask: "Why not mandatory credentialing for college teachers? Why the double standard?" One obvious answer is that college teachers won't tolerate the nonsense.

One final irony is that according to the State of California, William Shakespeare would not be permitted to teach a high school class on Shakespeare. One can imagine some pompous administrator explaining to the great bard that he lacks the qualifications to teach because he has not taken "English as a second language" class. Likewise, Albert Einstein would not be qualified to teach high school physics, for he lacks the necessary credential. One can imagine the same imperious bureaucrat breaking the news to Dr. Einstein: "I see that you have won a Nobel Prize. Your resume is impressive, having discovered vast secrets of the universe, but you simply don't have the qualifications to teach. You haven't completed your 'Psychology of Education Class'. . ."

¹"What we need instead of Common Core" Sandra Stotsky, Ed.D. Professor Emerita at University of Arkansas. July 5, 2014

Social Justice is Not the Same as Justice

In pursuing my teaching credential, I had numerous professors reference something called 'social justice'. Although I had studied numerous reading assignments that refer to this topic, there was no clear, constant definition. None-the-less, this 'social justice' thing is obviously an emphasis in schools so perhaps it deserves a little scrutiny here.

It's a little trite for some pompous 'educational theorist' to come out in favor of 'social justice'. I think we can assume that all reasonable people support justice, just as all normal people favor goodness and niceness. So why do educators insist on making these empty proclamations on how they believe in social justice?

Just what is 'social justice', and why do people insist on using this phrase when the word 'justice' should suffice? I know what the word 'social' means, and I know what the words 'justice' means. Put these words together and you have a phrase that takes on completely new, and amorphous meaning. Perhaps the semantics are deliberately vague so it can mean anything to anyone. That way none can object to it. One definition found on the internet states that: "Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality  and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being". ¹

Sounds great, but it's not exactly novel. I think America's constitution covered that ground centuries ago. A great deal of thought and effort was made to insure liberty and justice for all. We even have a federal agency called the 'Department of Justice'.

One of the most influential 'educational theorist' of modern times was a Marxist named Paolo Freire. Freire advocated that all teachers proselytize his particular brand of 'social justice', stating that:  “There is no such thing as a neutral education process.”²  Freire believed that his social justice agenda should be incorporated into every subject. An example of a math problem that Freire might approve could look like this: If there are 16 exploitive capitalists in the room and 23 enlightened progressives, then what is the ratio of capitalist exploiter to enlightened progressive?

America's traditional notion of  'justice' entails respect for property rights. Freire's notion of 'social justice' does not. Tragically, innumerable educational professors who refer to Freire as a guru. Personally, I found his opus 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' so tedious that I felt that I was the one being oppressed by being required to read it. If you have a masochistic bent, then read it for yourself and you will see what I mean.

In practice, 'social justice' is simply a euphemism for the redistribution of wealth. That is the not-too-subtle message that I gleaned from the credentialing program. I believe there is a hidden agenda in many schools to promote socialist, activist teachers, who in turn churn out little semi-literate socialists, activists, community organizing students. I find it sadly ironic that so many teachers can't teach kids to read or do arithmetic, yet they presume full authority to re-make society.

Any modification of  'justice' is uncalled for. America's founding fathers outlined a formula for social justice far superior to anything Paolo Freire, or any other 'educational theorist' could envision. Our founding fathers understood that justice springs from liberty. These enlightened men also realized that there is no justice without freedom, and there is no freedom without a free market and property rights.

I would strongly recommend to parents that if the neighborhood school features activist teachers that proselytize  'social justice', then pull their kids out. Children don't need this kind of social agenda being forced down their impressionable little throats. Instead, find an alternative school where teachers emphasize good old fashioned history, reading, writing, and arithmetic. A true appreciation of justice will surely follow.

1. Education and Social Justice, J. Zajda, S. Majhanovich, V. Rust, 2006

2    The Pedagogy of The Oppressed, Paolo Freire, 1968