• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Daniel Cole

The Democratic presidential candidates addressed the NEA last week, trotting out their tired nostrums for America’s educational woes: sneer at standardized accountability, bewail a lack of funding, and encourage public school teachers to feel misunderstood, unappreciated, and underpaid. Some of the candidates’ positions were downright ridiculous. Hilary Clinton, for example, said that “the test is becoming the curriculum when it should be the other way around,” as if states should test proficiency in creative spelling, reform math, and whatever other nonsense schools see fit to teach their kids. John Edwards, however, unwittingly pointed us in the right direction when he said, “We need to empower teachers ... who desperately, desperately want to do their jobs.”

Conservatives, in a sense, agree. The difference is that conservatives don’t use the word “empowerment” to suggest that NEA activists should hold sway over their classrooms like petty despots on their thrones, but that they should be integrated into a disciplined, efficient army of teachers.

Conservatives have a tried and true banner to rally behind, one that came to the fore in the 1960’s as part of Project Follow Through: Direct Instruction.

The Project’s story is rather complicated, but suffice it to say that it was the most expensive experiment in education ever funded by the federal government. Eight pedagogic models competed to see which had the most success with underprivileged kids, and DI – that reactionary program derided as “rote learning” – trounced the fashionable alternatives in every category measured, including critical thinking. The federal government quickly switched the focus of the experiment from “Which model works best?” to “How can one make the models work better?” and ultimately decided against using the results to shape educational policy. Now, decades later, the failed models remain the norm, while it is a rare administrator who gives his students access to DI. The NEA hates it like poison.

This story helps to explain why Senator Clinton gets so much traction with the NEA for disparaging the “drill work” required by standardized testing. The phrase has ugly connotations for the educational elite, who so recently saw DI’s “drill work” humiliate their favorite fads. Hilary could count on her crowd’s applause when she proclaimed that “drill work” and “routine” are “draining creativity and passion for learning from the classroom,” but her position is absurd.

Imagine the context shifted from Spanish and multiplication to a sport like basketball. Good basketball teams thrive on drill work. Players shoot thousands of free throws before they can make four out of five, and this “drill work” doesn’t “drain” the “passion” from the court. On the contrary, as their skills improve, players become all the more eager to play.

This analysis holds true for all forms of education. We can hardly expect Spanish students, for example, to speak “passionately” or “creatively” before they know enough grammar to form basic sentences, and enough vocabulary to make them meaningful.

Creativity always rests on a foundation of knowledge.

Republicans should make overhauling the public school system one of the pillars of their crumbling platform. No Child Left Behind has done a good job of exposing the nation’s worst schools, but it doesn’t insist on better methods. An American kid shouldn’t have to settle for mediocrity just because Hilary Clinton and the NEA feel threatened by excellence.

The NEA is one of the largest contributors to the Democratic Party. What the Republicans need are articulate spokesmen, armed with the facts, to convince Democratic communities of the unhappy truth: “Your party is depriving your kids of a decent education in exchange for NEA money. Here’s a better plan ... ”

Daniel Cole is a resident of Colorado Springs.

READER COMMENTS

The previous post was a response to Jack Bauer.

Given the current state of affairs, vouchers would be a step in the right direction, and it's clear that certain kinds of charter schools consistently outperform their public competitors. But if we have the remedy -- core curriculum, standardized tests, etc. -- why don't we elect a conservative government to mandate it?

It seems like you want to have it both ways: consistent, standardized education from Boulder to Detroit, but no government interference. In the long run, the free market might get us there -- just like the free market would eventually determine that certain medicines are poisonous, and weed them out -- but wouldn't it be better to empower our state government to do it in one fell swoop?

Once the country sees a particular state's conservative public school system producing unheard of results, they would follow suit, and empower their respective governments to revamp education. It would be the same sort of competition that makes the charter school movement so contagious, just on a larger scale.

Choice is important, but having first-rate charter school people in charge of America's Departments of Education would be a dream come true.

Why is it that we have a huge education system in this country funded by our tax dollars but no consistency from one district to the next in core curriculum? Every school district produces its own program and uses that.
Maybe if the NEA really cared about educating our children and not just making sure they retain their jobs and union dues they would produce a standardized curriculum for each grade level that could evolve and improve over the years. This way all kids will be learning the same things from day one, whether in Boulder or Detroit. But that is asking too much from an organization that doesn't think we should even be grading our schools as it is.
I'm not an educator and don't have any idea what teachers may or may not encounter in the inner cities, or the suburbs, but to constantly whine about needing more money when we already outspend all other developed countries only to come up 19th (or some horrible number like that) on the list in performance is totally unacceptable.
Another place to look if they really need more money is the admistration structure of our public school systems - talk about overhead - do we really need to pay the superintendant $100,000+ per year? (I think Denvers' is paid $300,000+ and these same public education hawks critize private business' paying CEO's this type of dough)
How about all of the admistrative office people? do we need so many of these people to educate our children? I'm sure there are plenty of positions that could be eliminated thus increasing the funding in the classroom. Of course this type of issue was defeated in Colorado this past election - and who put the most effort out to crush it? NEA - imagine that, you'd think they would want more of that money in the classroom, my feelings are that they want a reason to say in the near future that they need more funding.
And to those people who criticize school choice, competition and yes, vouchers. If the school districts had to perform or lose business they would become much leaner, meaner and better. Eventually they wouldn't have to worry about the competition because they would become the best. A free market always works better, it will require a lot of tough changes that I'm not sure many people are willing to do at this point, it seems they want to maintain the status quo at the expense of our childrens futures.

RU Serious' post #3 might be the heart of the problem, but he's right to say that conservatives need to do more than talk about vouchers, choice, and competition, important as those might be. If you want to break the NEA's iron grip, you have to convince blue voters that Republicans can do better by the public school system than Democrats can, and that requires vision. Imagine full-scale, mandated transformation of public schools. Imagine empowered conservatives running American education.

RU Serious,In your post #3 is the main reason our children are not performing. The school system keeps coming up with the flavor of the year education program. Most of them do not get the results and then they start all over again with a new and improved program.I've even said to the Principal of my children's school. Why can't you teach what works and stop these new and improved programs that waste valuable learning time and use our children as guinea pigs?

He asked me what I thought they should be teaching. I told him Phonics to read,Core Knowledge Curriculum and Saxon Math.

These programs have been proven and schools that use these teaching programs have higher scores on tests and learn at a faster rate. It is also designed for the slow learner and ESL learner.

So why don't they teach it? Because then they have to admit they have been wrong all these years.

The letter writer has several valid points.

1) Conservatives have not offered alternatives to failing school systems other than vouchers.

2) As a former teacher I can attest that the focus on testing due to NCLB has invariably led to "teaching to the test." Lots of instructional time is lost in teaching kids how to do well on this nature of test. Subject matter instruction is what suffers.

Also, in order to boost test scores in reading, writing, math and science, critical arts education programs and physical education are being cut back or eliminated at schools across the country in order to create more time and resources for the test subjects.

3) The NEA is firmly against anything that threatens its' iron grip on the way things will be done in K-12 education. The educrats in the elite are constantly changing from one education "fad" to another and none of them has shown any consistent results. To them, it doesn't matter - it's on the the "next great thing."

The only thing consistent about the NEA has been their assertion that more money will improve things. It doesn't.

4) The drill work the establishment denigrates is employed by the systems of many countries that consistently outperform the students of this country. This does not mean it is the only method employed of course, but it deserves more credence than it gets.

5) Conservatives need to shift their focus from destroying the public school system through "competition" and vouchers to overhauling it with sweeping changes in teaching methodology. It would take some of the energy and traction away from those who argue that the Democrat party is the only party concerned about our kids and their education.

Unfortunately, NCLB is 'teaching to the test'. Yes, some rote learning is necessary, but is anything is CSAP geared to rate critical thinking? What about folks who test well, but cannot apply that knowledge? Many seem to study for the test, then promptly forget what they learned. I work in IT with someone who is certified, but who, when given a task never performed before (or not part of the daily routine), must be given explicit instructions on precisely how to perform that task - and must frequently be given the same instructions multiple times before they sink in - but I am willing to bet any amount that this person would do well on CSAP tests.

I understand that part of NCLB is the assumption that every school can improve every year. What happens when Cherry Creek School District reaches their peak scores? Does that school district, one of the best in the state, suddenly become identified as a failing district?

Why is all high school education aimed at getting ALL students into college, going so far in Colorado at least to allow students to take classes at community colleges? What about the students whose skills and inclinations lie in what used to be called vocational education areas, like hairdressing, tailoring, auto mechanics, plumbing, catering, becoming an electrician, etc (all jobs which cannot be offshored, by the way) - why aren't there similar programs for them to attend at least part time schools offering training in those areas of expertise? Certainly these students need to know the basics of math, English & science (and some directed business education wouldn't hurt) but forcing them in a direction they don't want to go benefits no one.

So far, all I have seen from Republicans is pushing for vouchers for private schools (which don't participate in CSAP), many if not most of which already have waiting lists, so I fail to see precisely how that will benefit anyone who isn't already in a private school. In fact, from some Republican comments regarding the worth of teachers, not only should higher education only go to those who can afford it, so should K-12.

Finally, teaching to the tests, as virtually mandated by NCLB, is hardly likely to spark a child's interest in learning - so even those who are inclined toward higher education (not mention those who are inclined to the voc ed arena) will be under-served.

Dirty words for Democrats: Vouchers...competition...accountability. And as long as the teachers union is around, education and students will be low on the priority list. Public education is the only place on the planet where the customer is always wrong.

No child should be left behind when illegal parents are deported. It is important that durring raids the family members and their children are deported.

A reduction in illegal ailens in the classrooms of America will go a long ways toward improving academic achievement.

POST A COMMENT

• Innovative thinking needed to solve traffic congestion
• No upside to Piñon Canyon expansion
• Don’t polarize health-care debate
• Store-front clinics, like those at Wal-Marts, a good option for health-care consumers
• Democrats depriving kids of a decent education
• Architects find much to like about Denver’s Downtown Area Plan
• Union Pacific railyards will cripple Brighton
• Why Johnny and Jose and Jamal and Jessica can’t read ... or write ... or multiply: The DPS policy of social promotion