Last week, President Obama made a series of speeches about making higher education affordable, which of course would be a great idea if we really had a socialist system and the government could tell schools what to charge. The problem is that we have a quasi-meritocracy with a bit of market capitalism mixed in, and that's created the idea that expensive colleges must be good and really expensive colleges must be terrific. Meanwhile, the competitive and not-so-competitive schools that scoop up most American teenagers are considered second-tier and many of the students who attend don't have the financial wherewithal or the intellectual stamina to stay in them.
Of course, this is not going to change any time soon because the Republicans in Congress won't approve anything Obama wants and there isn't enough money for the federal Government to get more involved in college financing. What's really needed is a radical restructuring of higher education where all truly gifted students can attend schools that will challenge them and all other students who want to go to college can find affordable financing to do so. College is still a great investment, but the division between the have and have-nots is beginning to mirror larger society, which will in turn solidify the status quo.
But the president didn't stop there. He is also proposing a rating system to rank colleges and universities by...wait for it...quantitative data that will separate schools by how much money their graduates make and how successful the schools are at making their students employable, cost and the advanced degrees graduates earn.
Let's see...where have I heard of a system that attempts to use quantifiable data like, for example, test scores, to rank school and educators. Oh yeah; the public K-12 schools. It's a terrible idea for them and it's a terrible idea for colleges.
The reason it's so bad is that the president's proposal, and the philosophy behind it, succumbs to the erroneous idea that the purpose of attending college is to find a job. If you accept that, then measuring college's performance by how many employable graduates it turns out makes sense. But that's not the purpose of college and it's a mistake to believe that it is.
A university education is an exercise in academic exploration, of ideas, of research, of trying to find truth and beauty and a sense of who you are. It is available so that a young person can have access to people who have studied a topic or subject so thoroughly that they have something nuanced to say about it and can analyze it at a deep level. It's there so you can take a course in something that you want to learn about, rather than what you think you have to learn. It's an exploration. It's difficult. Unsettling. Motivating.
But it's not job training. There's no such thing as a readily employable English, Philosophy, Communications or Media Ecology major. You need to apply your knowledge. And to be considered an educated person, you really do need to know about more than just finance or accounting or marine biology, though they might get you a high paying job down the road. I'll concede that an engineering or acting student has employable knowledge and skills, but even they will need to learn a great deal on the job. So when the president wants to tie all of this data to how successful a college is, I see that as bunk. What a job pays is in many ways out of a graduate's hands. Many people would like an advanced degree but can't afford the money, time or both.
And what of students who don't belong in college? The default attitude now is that everyone should go, but that's also bunk. We've dismantled the system we used to have that recognized that some jobs do not require a college education. We've even begun this in high school, where many districts have stopped offering actual job training classes because they don't feed the everyone-goes-to-college beast. Then when the students who would benefit from those programs find that college isn't for them and they have no discernible job skills, society suffers.
The president should find other means to boost education and job skills without turning universities into glorified high schools, where students ad parents have unreasonable expectations of what they're paying for.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
The Common Core Follies
You know it's late August because the school stories are coming fast and furious. And speaking of furious, how about the reaction to the Common Core standards that are supposed to prepare our schoolchildren for work and college? In New York, where the scores declined in the debut year for the standards, the knives came out to excise the Common Core and implement...well, that wasn't clear. Teachers, parents and administrators from both sides of the political spectrum were worried about what the test scores said about what students learned, and a few were so angry that they threatened charges.
This points to the problem inherent in using test scores to evaluate...anybody. Teachers didn't have the time, or the training, to fully implement the standards into their lessons. Students didn't have time to learn the material and were tested on material they didn't learn in a format that was alien to many of them. It was also the first year of the tests, and in most first years, scores drop.
The assumption, though, is that the Common Core standards are testable, or at least worthy of teaching. Why is it that every student has to go to college, or be college-ready? Clearly, and it is crystal clear to educators, not all students will go to college, and many who are there won't finish because higher education is not for them. I understand that this is educational heresy and that I am swimming in dangerous waters. After all, the classes that I teach are considered college preparatory. My standards are based on the assumption that students should be analytical learners who can write coherently and synthesize what they've learned. In that sense, the Common Core has caught up to me. But unlike the Core, I understand that not all students will reach readiness by the time they graduate from high school and that many of them will not succeed in an institution of higher learning. So, in a sense, I am preparing them for something they will not use. That's a waste of time and resources.
In addition, the tests will be administered on computers and only computers, the assumption being that all students have the same competency with technology. What of students who don't (and I know of plenty of them)? What happens when it is the technology itself, and not the student's knowledge, that is the problem? And what happens when it is the school district's inability to purchase technology equipment or schedule adequate rooms or provide quiet places for testing that is part of the problem? These concerns have been waved off by some states, including New Jersey where I have been the wavee. How does that help evaluate students and teachers.
The Common Core Standards, like other previous attempts at measuring student growth, are devoted to the essential education problem: that of trying to have every student master the same material by the same date and to be evaluated in the same way at the same time. When are we going to realize that this has not worked and will not work adequately in the future? It's even more vital that we get this right now, because teachers' jobs are on the line. Politicians don't understand this. Teachers do, but unfortunately, we are being shut out of the system for reasons that have nothing to do with pedagogy and everything to do with union politics and the unending search for those terrible teachers we keep hearing about.
There will be more about the Common Core in the school year to come, but keep in mind that any lockstep program is going to have problems. We are experience the latest one.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest
This points to the problem inherent in using test scores to evaluate...anybody. Teachers didn't have the time, or the training, to fully implement the standards into their lessons. Students didn't have time to learn the material and were tested on material they didn't learn in a format that was alien to many of them. It was also the first year of the tests, and in most first years, scores drop.
The assumption, though, is that the Common Core standards are testable, or at least worthy of teaching. Why is it that every student has to go to college, or be college-ready? Clearly, and it is crystal clear to educators, not all students will go to college, and many who are there won't finish because higher education is not for them. I understand that this is educational heresy and that I am swimming in dangerous waters. After all, the classes that I teach are considered college preparatory. My standards are based on the assumption that students should be analytical learners who can write coherently and synthesize what they've learned. In that sense, the Common Core has caught up to me. But unlike the Core, I understand that not all students will reach readiness by the time they graduate from high school and that many of them will not succeed in an institution of higher learning. So, in a sense, I am preparing them for something they will not use. That's a waste of time and resources.
In addition, the tests will be administered on computers and only computers, the assumption being that all students have the same competency with technology. What of students who don't (and I know of plenty of them)? What happens when it is the technology itself, and not the student's knowledge, that is the problem? And what happens when it is the school district's inability to purchase technology equipment or schedule adequate rooms or provide quiet places for testing that is part of the problem? These concerns have been waved off by some states, including New Jersey where I have been the wavee. How does that help evaluate students and teachers.
The Common Core Standards, like other previous attempts at measuring student growth, are devoted to the essential education problem: that of trying to have every student master the same material by the same date and to be evaluated in the same way at the same time. When are we going to realize that this has not worked and will not work adequately in the future? It's even more vital that we get this right now, because teachers' jobs are on the line. Politicians don't understand this. Teachers do, but unfortunately, we are being shut out of the system for reasons that have nothing to do with pedagogy and everything to do with union politics and the unending search for those terrible teachers we keep hearing about.
There will be more about the Common Core in the school year to come, but keep in mind that any lockstep program is going to have problems. We are experience the latest one.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Excuse Me Mr. Berlin, But How Can Jews Write Christmas Songs?
You'll pardon me for being a bit tardy on this issue, but I just watched the FOX interview with Reza Aslan about his book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Normally I assiduously follow the news but whenever I hear FOX I assume it's a story I can ignore and, well, now I'm paying the late dues on that one.
Aside from the anti-Muslim bias, the interview was an unfortunate example of the anti-intellectual stream that runs through America, and has since its inception. FOX interviewer Lauren Green, who is credited with being the network's religion correspondent, is a representative of the worst kind of baiting, ignorant, narrow thinking that's infected cable television over the past 20 years. She ignores the idea that someone other than the group associated with the material can actually write a book about it, which would disqualify millions of books from the FOX approved list. And she completely ignored Aslan's academic credentials and research in favor of making a snap, and biased, judgement that wiped away all of his educational accomplishments.
What's even more hypocritical is that American conservatives claim to oppose identity politics. Commentators on the right have traditionally accused the left of slicing and dicing the country into interest groups that compete for attention and resources and prevent the country from being a truly color-blind, race-blind, religion-blind society. Clearly that is all dangerous talk.
Of course, the major point is that this is a Muslim author writing about Jesus, as if our identifiers determine, or are reflective of, our beliefs and biases. Would Ms. Green have as much trouble with Mississippi Burning, a film directed by a white Englishman that makes the FBI seem like the friend of every African-American civil rights agitator in the Magnolia State?
And what of Irving Berlin, the musical genius, and Jewish-American, who penned some of the most memorable Christmas and Easter songs ever written? Would FOX hound Mr. Berlin for attempting to write songs about holidays that weren't his? I think you can guess the answer.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest
Aside from the anti-Muslim bias, the interview was an unfortunate example of the anti-intellectual stream that runs through America, and has since its inception. FOX interviewer Lauren Green, who is credited with being the network's religion correspondent, is a representative of the worst kind of baiting, ignorant, narrow thinking that's infected cable television over the past 20 years. She ignores the idea that someone other than the group associated with the material can actually write a book about it, which would disqualify millions of books from the FOX approved list. And she completely ignored Aslan's academic credentials and research in favor of making a snap, and biased, judgement that wiped away all of his educational accomplishments.
What's even more hypocritical is that American conservatives claim to oppose identity politics. Commentators on the right have traditionally accused the left of slicing and dicing the country into interest groups that compete for attention and resources and prevent the country from being a truly color-blind, race-blind, religion-blind society. Clearly that is all dangerous talk.
Of course, the major point is that this is a Muslim author writing about Jesus, as if our identifiers determine, or are reflective of, our beliefs and biases. Would Ms. Green have as much trouble with Mississippi Burning, a film directed by a white Englishman that makes the FBI seem like the friend of every African-American civil rights agitator in the Magnolia State?
And what of Irving Berlin, the musical genius, and Jewish-American, who penned some of the most memorable Christmas and Easter songs ever written? Would FOX hound Mr. Berlin for attempting to write songs about holidays that weren't his? I think you can guess the answer.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)