School districts across the country are quick to point out recent increases in the percentage of students graduating high school, a sign of the good work they are doing. Yet, if we look beneath the surface of those statistics we find some startling news: While more students are graduating with high school diplomas, few students are leaving high school with the skills needed to enter college or the job market.
The results are most striking in Michigan, where a recent study found that the statewide high school graduation rate was 76 percent for the class of 2010. It would seem that such an increase would be worth lauding, except the same study found that statewide only 49 percent of students who graduated in 2010 were proficient in math; 60 percent were proficient in reading; and 56 percent were proficient in science.
In Detroit, for example, one high school had an 89 percent graduation rate in 2010, but a year earlier only 6.4 percent of those students were considered proficient in math and just 10.5 percent were proficient in science based on state administered tests. It was the same in suburban schools. At one suburban high school, 93.2 percent of students graduated in 2010: Only 26.9 percent were proficient in math though. It was not much different for another suburban school where 94.1 percent of students graduated, and only 19.6 percent were proficient in science.
The study by the Michigan Education Department raises serious questions about the quality of education in that state. More important, it raises startling questions about education across the nation. Michigan is not alone in its dismal results. Other states have discovered that their high school graduates often lack the basic skills needed to enter college or the job market.
The result is that in 2008 graduation rates for students who took six years to complete their studies at four year colleges ran from a high of 69.1 percent in Massachusetts to a low of 22.1 percent in Alaska, according to a ranking by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. The results were more horrendous for students who completed associates degrees in three years: The high was 60 percent in Wyoming, and the low was 9 percent in Delaware.
It doesn’t stop there.
In Washington, for example, 56 percent of students who entered community or technical colleges in that state in 2006 needed remediation. The need for remediation crossed racial lines: 56 percent of Asians; 59 percent of African-Americans; 61 percent of Latinos; 52 percent of Native Americans; and 50 percent of whites.
The nationwide results lead one to ask: What exactly are we teaching our high school students, and have we decided that when it comes to high school graduates quantity is more important that quality?
Both questions are important. As the political winds shift in this country, we find ourselves reinventing the wheel and looking for excuses or someone to blame for the failures of our educational system. In Michigan, some school leaders blamed what amounted to student apathy for the dismal results. Others pointed the finger at teachers and their unions. Still more cited the standardized testing wave washing across the nation.
Regardless of who or what is to blame, students are leaving our nation’s schools without the critical thinking and problem solving skills needed for successful lives. Students with strong critical thinking and problem solving skills have the best chance of performing well on any standardized tests and in completing tasks on the job. In addition, the lack of proficiency suggests that we are not attacking the problem from all angles. While all students should indeed have the right to attend college, not all students should.
For years, school districts have made vocational education the unwanted step child of the academic process. Yet, statistics show that vocational education students are often better prepared for the job market, and those who later attend college graduate at a higher rate than students who enter college right after high school or who go to community colleges. In addition, while students do balk at learning things if they cannot see a direct link to their daily lives, it should not stop teachers from pushing concepts, processes and ideas that enhance student skill sets. (Recently, one of my GED students questioned why he needed to learn math concepts -- until I showed him how triangulation could be used to pinpoint from where a cell phone call was made or how the Pythagorean Theory might be used to determine the path of a projectile.)
So what are we to do?
Increasing funding to schools and paying teachers better is not the sole answer. We have been putting money into poor performing schools for decades, and the results are pretty much the same. Rewriting standardized tests also is not the solution. Each new test only seems to create a bonanza for test-taking tutors. Criticizing teachers and unions does not change the culture of the classroom. In too many districts, principals concerned with standardized test results so micro-manage classrooms that teachers are left with little flexibility to adjust lessons and curriculum to students’ needs.
Michigan in general and Detroit in particular offer good examples of the problems we face. The emergency financial manager in Detroit announced recently that the 2010 graduation rate increased to 62.27 percent, up from 59.65 percent in 2009. (The rate was 58.22 percent in 2008 and 58.42 percent in 2007.)
But few of those students can read, write or even complete basic mathematical problems. And that means they will not be able to help themselves or society in the future.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Diasppearing in Wisconsin
Is Wisconsin in the First or Third World?
It's hard to tell by the recent action in Madison, the state's capitol. The idea that an entire party would disappear from a chamber of the state legislature in an effort to block legislation sounds like something out of a banana republic.
Parliament is in session. The opposition does not like the government's action. The opposition party walks out or resigns en masse.
It just happened in Bahrain, where the opposition party representing Shiite Muslims decided to quit Parliament over the Sunni government's crackdown on pro-democracy Shiite protesters. One can understand the actions of the Shiite leaders in light of the killings and beatings at the hands of government thugs. It is a life-and-death situation.
But in Wisconsin? In the heart of America? In a state that was once seen as progressive? Is this the new democracy?
Don't get me wrong. The legislation offered by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is indeed onerous, an attempt to cloak anti-union sentiments in fiscal responsibility. It must be defeated. However, hiding from one's responsibility, which Senate Democrats are doing, seems a childish way of doing the state's business.
Wisconsin, like many other states, has a major deficit. To balance the budget, the state's Republican lawmakers decided to ask state workers to assume a greater share of pension and health care costs. Such a request seems reasonable considering government workers in Wisconsin contribute less than what workers in other states contribute.
The problem is Wisconsin's anticipated budget gap for the next fiscal year -- an estimated $137 million -- was self-inflicted, created by Republican efforts to reward their supporters. According to one fiscal group, Wisconsin recently approved $117 million in tax breaks for businesses. If not for that tax give away the state would have a surplus, the fiscal group concluded.
According to Republicans, the problem isn't the tax cuts. No. It's the fact that government workers, including teachers, can negotiate benefits beyond their base wages. The Republicans want to eliminate collective bargaining rights for state workers, limit contracts to one year, and drop pension and health care from bargaining.
If the goal is to reduce the state's share of benefit costs then reopen contracts and seek concessions. Unions, corporations and governments have been doing it successfully for years. However, taking away collective bargaining rights strike at one of the things that has made this country great.
While unions have become big business in many industries, the lack of collective bargaining units will return us to the days of when workers were at the mercy of employers. Yes, some employers sought to pay workers well in an effort to keep unions out. Even more did the opposite, paying low wages, firing anyone who missed work, and threatening those who sought any semblance of dignity in the workplace.
Apparently the Republican majority in Wisconsin wants to return to those days, when employers could remove employees without cause, when workers too sick to work were fired. They are not alone. The anger that swept Republicans into power in several state houses and the U.S. House of Representatives is being vented in legislatures where social issues are being spun as fiscal sanity.
It sounds like the kind of thing Third World youth are fighting against.
It's hard to tell by the recent action in Madison, the state's capitol. The idea that an entire party would disappear from a chamber of the state legislature in an effort to block legislation sounds like something out of a banana republic.
Parliament is in session. The opposition does not like the government's action. The opposition party walks out or resigns en masse.
It just happened in Bahrain, where the opposition party representing Shiite Muslims decided to quit Parliament over the Sunni government's crackdown on pro-democracy Shiite protesters. One can understand the actions of the Shiite leaders in light of the killings and beatings at the hands of government thugs. It is a life-and-death situation.
But in Wisconsin? In the heart of America? In a state that was once seen as progressive? Is this the new democracy?
Don't get me wrong. The legislation offered by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is indeed onerous, an attempt to cloak anti-union sentiments in fiscal responsibility. It must be defeated. However, hiding from one's responsibility, which Senate Democrats are doing, seems a childish way of doing the state's business.
Wisconsin, like many other states, has a major deficit. To balance the budget, the state's Republican lawmakers decided to ask state workers to assume a greater share of pension and health care costs. Such a request seems reasonable considering government workers in Wisconsin contribute less than what workers in other states contribute.
The problem is Wisconsin's anticipated budget gap for the next fiscal year -- an estimated $137 million -- was self-inflicted, created by Republican efforts to reward their supporters. According to one fiscal group, Wisconsin recently approved $117 million in tax breaks for businesses. If not for that tax give away the state would have a surplus, the fiscal group concluded.
According to Republicans, the problem isn't the tax cuts. No. It's the fact that government workers, including teachers, can negotiate benefits beyond their base wages. The Republicans want to eliminate collective bargaining rights for state workers, limit contracts to one year, and drop pension and health care from bargaining.
If the goal is to reduce the state's share of benefit costs then reopen contracts and seek concessions. Unions, corporations and governments have been doing it successfully for years. However, taking away collective bargaining rights strike at one of the things that has made this country great.
While unions have become big business in many industries, the lack of collective bargaining units will return us to the days of when workers were at the mercy of employers. Yes, some employers sought to pay workers well in an effort to keep unions out. Even more did the opposite, paying low wages, firing anyone who missed work, and threatening those who sought any semblance of dignity in the workplace.
Apparently the Republican majority in Wisconsin wants to return to those days, when employers could remove employees without cause, when workers too sick to work were fired. They are not alone. The anger that swept Republicans into power in several state houses and the U.S. House of Representatives is being vented in legislatures where social issues are being spun as fiscal sanity.
It sounds like the kind of thing Third World youth are fighting against.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Poetry of Democracy
There is a saying in politics: "You campaign in poetry, but govern in prose." Our nation's foreign policy seems to follow that maxim. America poetically campaigns for the spread of democracy around the world, but uses a stilted prose when it comes to supporting democratic movements. The popular uprisings roiling the Middle East and North Africa are good examples. Because when it comes to many of those Arab countries, the democratic principles and concepts we so loudly proclaim as basic to human existence become too complicated and convoluted to implement.
For years, our presidents have spoken forcefully about the need to introduce western-style democracy to the Arab world, especially in those nations we oppose. Yet, when our "friends" find themselves pushed against the wall by people yearning for freedom, we become mute: our voices constricted, our principles diluted. And when that occurs, we find ourselves and our policies out of step with reality.
Just a little less than three months ago, the people of Tunisia set the Arab world on end, taking to the streets in protest against a corrupt and stifling government. The Tunisians were not asking for an Islamic Republic or seeking to install a communist regime, they were simply looking for the kind of dignity and rights we so often take for granted. The fervor that sent Tunisia's president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, packing erupted in Egypt, eventually leading to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.
Since then, the movement has spread across the Arab world, igniting protests in Algeria, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, and other countries. Each country has responded differently, with leaders of Iran's Islamic Republic calling for the execution of opposition leaders, and Bahrain's royal family sending what amounts to mercenaries to crackdown on protesters. (Bahrain's Sunni minority so distrusts its Shiite majority that it has brought in Sunni Muslims from such countries as Pakistan and made them police. Those police are now cracking down on demonstrators, creating the Arab world's equivalent of Hessian soldiers.)
In the aftermath of these broad-based protests -- many of which crossed religious, ethnic, economic and educational lines -- our government issued constrained statements of support, particularly in countries where our friends were brutalizing their own people. We saved our most poetic democratic cries for those regimes we abhor. The result has been an uneven and crackling voice that at times seems to embarrass more than it informs.
America's tepid response is somewhat understandable. Too often we have reacted wrongly to the dynamics of the Arab world. The result is that we have become the Evil Empire to too many people there. To avoid such labels, we halfheartedly enter the dialogue. But we cannot allow our fear of Islamic extremists, nor our desire to be seen as not meddling in the politics of other nations, to keep us from standing by the principles we so loudly extol.
We are at the crossroads, where the youth of North Africa and the Middle East seem to be yelling for our support, pleading desperately for a chance to be a part of the world. We can help the protesters accomplish their dreams by showing our allies that they are empowered when they empower their people. Or we can withdraw and hope that the democratic movements sweeping that part of the world are not hijacked by extremists.
We don't have to do much to accomplish our goal of spreading democracy. The current generation has already shown that the Internet and social networking are viable organizing tools. Making such tools available to more of the world will help further the principles of freedom. And once those tools are available we can bring about change by not waging ideological war against a particular regime, but by opening new marketplaces for ideas.
For when ideas are accessed, great things can happen. Just look at Gene Sharp, a former professor living in Boston. Sharp is the author of “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” a 93-page guide to toppling autocrats that is available in more than 20 languages. According to The New York Times, leaders of the nascent democratic movements of the Arab world have adopted his tome as their road map to freedom. As a result, dictators seem to revile him as much as they do the United States government.
For years, our presidents have spoken forcefully about the need to introduce western-style democracy to the Arab world, especially in those nations we oppose. Yet, when our "friends" find themselves pushed against the wall by people yearning for freedom, we become mute: our voices constricted, our principles diluted. And when that occurs, we find ourselves and our policies out of step with reality.
Just a little less than three months ago, the people of Tunisia set the Arab world on end, taking to the streets in protest against a corrupt and stifling government. The Tunisians were not asking for an Islamic Republic or seeking to install a communist regime, they were simply looking for the kind of dignity and rights we so often take for granted. The fervor that sent Tunisia's president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, packing erupted in Egypt, eventually leading to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.
Since then, the movement has spread across the Arab world, igniting protests in Algeria, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, and other countries. Each country has responded differently, with leaders of Iran's Islamic Republic calling for the execution of opposition leaders, and Bahrain's royal family sending what amounts to mercenaries to crackdown on protesters. (Bahrain's Sunni minority so distrusts its Shiite majority that it has brought in Sunni Muslims from such countries as Pakistan and made them police. Those police are now cracking down on demonstrators, creating the Arab world's equivalent of Hessian soldiers.)
In the aftermath of these broad-based protests -- many of which crossed religious, ethnic, economic and educational lines -- our government issued constrained statements of support, particularly in countries where our friends were brutalizing their own people. We saved our most poetic democratic cries for those regimes we abhor. The result has been an uneven and crackling voice that at times seems to embarrass more than it informs.
America's tepid response is somewhat understandable. Too often we have reacted wrongly to the dynamics of the Arab world. The result is that we have become the Evil Empire to too many people there. To avoid such labels, we halfheartedly enter the dialogue. But we cannot allow our fear of Islamic extremists, nor our desire to be seen as not meddling in the politics of other nations, to keep us from standing by the principles we so loudly extol.
We are at the crossroads, where the youth of North Africa and the Middle East seem to be yelling for our support, pleading desperately for a chance to be a part of the world. We can help the protesters accomplish their dreams by showing our allies that they are empowered when they empower their people. Or we can withdraw and hope that the democratic movements sweeping that part of the world are not hijacked by extremists.
We don't have to do much to accomplish our goal of spreading democracy. The current generation has already shown that the Internet and social networking are viable organizing tools. Making such tools available to more of the world will help further the principles of freedom. And once those tools are available we can bring about change by not waging ideological war against a particular regime, but by opening new marketplaces for ideas.
For when ideas are accessed, great things can happen. Just look at Gene Sharp, a former professor living in Boston. Sharp is the author of “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” a 93-page guide to toppling autocrats that is available in more than 20 languages. According to The New York Times, leaders of the nascent democratic movements of the Arab world have adopted his tome as their road map to freedom. As a result, dictators seem to revile him as much as they do the United States government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)