Home of Today's Common Sense

Submitted to various publication April 28, 2005
Published Brownsville Herald 7/10/2005
I am really stunned to read that educators are trying to give attorneys many thousands if not millions of dollars to sue themselves (the government is us – we will pay in any outcome) relating to issues that the same educators have the most control over. I also wonder why the educational system has deteriorated so much that the federal government had to step in and tell communities and states what to teach the children. Were I an administrator, I would be embarrassed by the enactment of a law that told me I was not doing my job and in order to get federal help you have to prove you are doing things right according to standards that you select.
I must also say that I don’t believe that there should be any law at the federal level that dictates how our children should be treated, this one or any other. I believe that the national Dept. Of Education should be reduced to where all it does is apportion the “dole” equally directly to each school according to a per student attendance day without regard to what “school” the student receives education. The only reason I even accept the premise of federal support is for practical reasons not ideological ones.
There is no requirement for any school to subscribe to the requirements of the Law. Only if you want “Title 1 Federal Assistance” must the rules be followed.
I read all 690 pages of the law and looked at a number of the federal regulations and found it quite reasonable and mostly a description of what should have been done anyway. The main issue I noted is that in order to get the money, it must be used in a certain way and proof is required that it is.
Once you wade through all the legalese, the premise is one that is common throughout quality control systems in business.
Many local companies in order to secure business in the automotive industry and with customers in Europe have had to face similar certification against the International Standards Organization criteria, often identified as ISO 9000 – 9002 etc.
The principle is that you must: 1. describe the quality or levels of quality of the performance you expect; 2. describe how you measure that level of performance; 3. describe how you will identify less than acceptable performance and lastly 4. describe what you will do to correct deficiencies.
Except that the law requires that the rules apply equally regardless of race – gender – ethnic heritage – religion, etc, and some specific uses to which money is to be used, that is all that is there.
Just like the ISO requirements the levels of performance and criteria are determined by the state/communities, the methods of measurements are determined by the state/communities and the methods to remedy performance deficiencies are also determined by the state.
In reading some of the Texas State implementation, it appears that like new companies who aspire to ISO certification, the bureaucracy has set plans and criteria that may be unreachable. I often saw performance criteria expectations as 100%. To my knowledge perfection does not exist in human experience, though we should all work towards it; excellence is not perfection. I would like to see goals like a percentage of all students will improve their educational standing by specific amount. The law only specifies “challenging” kinds of standards. The testing and measurement criteria also don’t appear to be specified in the law but they require that some are specified in a plan and that once filed must be followed.
I would like to see a test given to each student at the time of commencing education for that school year and one at the end. This would show growth and could also be used to measure the impact the teacher and associated teaching methods have had. It would also provide a basis to identify quickly the level the student is in at the beginning, suggest steps early on to give that student the best opportunity, and identify where things were going wrong so they could be improved. It also takes into account that students are certainly not at the same level they were at the end of the previous term.
The regular testing that each teacher would normally have done to measure understanding and determine competence for promotion would then satisfy most of the remaining measurement requirements, and would certainly be better than the incessant testing going on now that more often serves to reduce the information imparted and the increases motivation on the part of students and teachers to aspire for survival and mediocrity rather than excellence.
While I want to believe that all those folks involved in the public education field do have the best interests of our young folks in mind, my thirty plus years as a bureaucrat makes me wonder if perhaps some if not many of the plans, programs and goals were made to provide more subordinates for managers so that higher salaries could be justified, to justify more money that was controlled by administrators so that personal benefits might be sought when dispensing that money; or just for more power and influence.
In the case of NEA and many educators, I suspect they fear that the lack of success in the conventional education will result in discrediting their programs and the increase in prominence of other parochial, for profit, charter, … schools that are more efficient and more successful. I know of many that cost much less per student and provide a better education in the eyes of their parents and their subsequent employers. Good teachers will always have jobs and the more successful ones will be more in demand.
I believe that all families need to have more choices in how and what their child will be taught not just the rich.
Until that happens we need an educational system that focuses on effectively educating the kids. There needs to be a drastic change as the direction the folks in control have been following for several decades has “left and continues to leave many children behind”.