Archive

Archive for the ‘Schoolhouse Rock’ Category

School day

December 8th, 2005 Diane No comments

Simon is home with me two days a week: Mondays and Thursdays. I made Thursday my volunteer-at-Sophia’s-kindergarten day — give Simon exposure to kindergarten, let him play a little with the big kids, give me something to do during the day when I have him. (Yes. I am selfish enough to keep the days when both of them are in school for myself.)

What do I do when I volunteer? Mostly, clerical stuff. Marvin the Robot Voice: Brain the size of a planet, and I do photocopying. I photocopy pictures for class projects. I collate papers for the students’ files. I stick handouts into the students’ bookbags. I cut out poems for projects with scrapbooking scissors that have various edges — today was the “Sunflower” design. I couldn’t cut with a scissors to make an interesting design when I was in school and I haven’t gotten any better at it in the meantime.

Meanwhile, Simon is either on the K playground, which he has to himself until recess, or near me playing with the boxes of blocks they keep in the manipulatives section (used for counting and sorting in math). He also enjoys, on the nicer, warmer days, sitting at one of the “big kids” tables and eating his lunch. He likes paging through the books in the classroom’s library. His favorite is the I Spy books, and he insists I read one to him, which I do before we leave.

One of the things I love about doing the work is spending a little time watching Sophia’s class in session. Watching how the kids and teacher interact. Watching how Sophia behaves — she usually forgets I’m there after a while. Whenever the teacher asks a question, whether about the book he’s reading, or about doing the calendar, or math, Sophia raises her hand to answer. Sometimes she gets so excited she just blurts out the answer. It’s interesting watching the way she behaves — which I have generalized in my mind to “the way all five-year-olds behave” — with the way her peers do. The differences, the similarities. One of the things the teacher has said is great about Sophia is how verbal she is, talking to everyone, articulating her ideas.

I only stay there an hour, which means I don’t get terribly much done. (Less, if the photocopier is acting up, the way it was one week.) But Simon starts to go stir-crazy after an hour, whether from lack of running around screaming or from hunger or from simple tiredness.

There are still times I wish I could home-school. But I don’t have the temperament for it, at least not right now. I don’t doubt that I could do it, but currently this school is working well for us, and more importantly, for Sophia. And I like being a small, hour-long part of it every week.

Categories: Kids, Schoolhouse Rock Tags:

The start of school

August 30th, 2005 Diane 9 comments

fiakind.jpg

Her Highness the Most Excellent Sophia started Kindergarten yesterday. Somebody tell me how a baby I just brought home from the hospital can possibly be starting Kindergarten?

I looked at the list of stuff she’s supposed to know for Kindergarten. She was well past that level about 2 years ago. I looked at the list of the stuff she’s supposed to learn this year and, well, let’s see…she does not in fact know how to tell time on an analog clock yet. So we have that to look forward to.

We walk to school in the late morning. (I signed her up for the “afternoon” kindergarten because I don’t want to have to have her out the door by 7:45am any earlier than I have to, which turns out to be 1st grade.) So far she’s not pleased at the walk—”Mommy, I get tired!” It’s 6/10 of a mile each way. I think she’ll adapt. Also, extra exercise for me.

She’s been very excited about the whole Kindergarten thing for weeks, if not months. Now that it’s started she’s a little unsure about the whole thing—while we’ve run into preschool friends at the school, none of them are in her class. She’s outgoing, though: I don’t sense that she’ll have much trouble making friends. Which, let’s face it, is what this is all about, as far as I’m concerned.

(Pssst: Can someone please tell me how to put some space between the picture up there and the text next to it? I’ve been playing with the style sheets and html for 30 minutes now and seeing no improvement. Just a little space from the text, that’s all I want!)

Categories: Her Highness, Kids, Schoolhouse Rock Tags:

Orcinus on NCLB

October 16th, 2004 Diane 1 comment

David Neiwert has an excellent entry on No Child Left Behind, the crown jewel of Bush’s domestic program—and if that doesn’t tell you what kind of shape Bush’s domestic program is in, nothing will.

What little discussion there has been of these remarks has focused, perhaps rightly, on how out of touch they make Bush appear when it comes to the lives of working people. A 55-year-old worker isn’t interested in going back to school to learn a new skill so he can start up another career. He just wants his job back. Bush’s remarks reflect someone who sees workers and jobs as portable commodities, and has no sense whatsoever of the pain inflicted by policies that eviscerate the nation’s manufacturing capacity.

But even more telling, I think, are what these remarks say about Bush’s view of education.

To people like Bush, the value of education lies solely in its ability to provide a steady supply of workers. Education isn’t a matter of improving our lives, making us better citizens capable of thinking for themselves, inspiring us to reach the maximum of our human capacities; it’s a union card, a system designed to churn out as many trained workers as possible.

This view of education, in fact, is pronounced among conservatives in general. And it’s directly reflected in Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program.

Consider, if you will, the areas of accomplishment that are tested under NCLB: reading, math, science, and English. All of these areas are those which are viewed by business interests as those most essential to training a viable workforce. All other areas of education — particularly the arts, civics, history, geography, and social studies — are relegated to minor status.

Now, it’s unquestionable that one of the important functions of education is indeed to prepare young citizens for entry into the workforce, and to provide them the tools to be fully capable participants in the economy. But that isn’t its sole purpose, either.

Education is supposed to make better citizens of us by giving us the tools to understand how our world works. It is, above all, supposed to help us to find our own special gifts and enable them, making our society both more creative and inventive and making us more fulfilled individually.

NCLB not only ignores those aspects of education, but by giving work-related skills primacy, it crowds them out, sometimes altogether.

Categories: Schoolhouse Rock Tags:

That schooling thing again

September 27th, 2004 Diane 4 comments

At a birthday party a week or so ago (my interactions with other adults pretty much center around birthday parties), a friend of mine who’s the mom of one of Sophia’s best friends confided in me that she’s not happy with our preschool. Why? Because it’s not academic enough. Her daughter doesn’t know her letters yet, for example.

I confided in her that I’m not happy with the preschool because I think it’s too academic. I think the school spends an inordinate amount of time on letters. Sophia already knew her alphabet and numbers before going to preschool, you see. Her preschool in LA was (dare I say it) more perfect than I knew at the time. She’d come home covered in paint and dirt, having spent all day doing art projects and feeding the pet rabbit and listening to stories in circle time. At her current preschool her clothes are in perfect order every day.

Sophia’s big thing these days is writing. She can write her name and Simon’s name; she has to ask me to spell other names. For example, now when we write out a birthday card, Sophia insists on writing the name of her friend on the card and signing it herself. She isn’t reading (so far as I know), but she can write pretty well for a 4-year-old. (In my opinion, of course. What do I know of the handwriting skills of 4 year olds?)

At a birthday party this past weekend, I met a mom who turns out to live very close to me, whose son is going to the public school my kids would attend. As is my wont, I talked to her some about what the school’s like, and as usually happens I probably took something different away from her words than she intended. She liked the kindergarten teacher, but is not so thrilled with her son’s 1st grade teacher this year. (The school year is what, a month old? And already she’s not thrilled?) The constant fundraising appeals (on top of the gigantic property taxes we’re all paying in this area). The way parents are continuously on call to help out with teaching art or science, or arranging parties, or coordinating field trips.

My thought as she was saying all this was, “If I have to do all that, I might as well just keep ‘em home.”

Which is a really frightening idea to me still.

I’m not much worried about Sophia’s socialization—when she wants to play with other kids, she’s the belle of the playground and directs all the action. When she doesn’t, she sits by herself and refuses all interactions. And while I’m not too certain of Simon’s style of interaction (he’s still at an age where kids play near one another and not so much with one another), I know so far that he’s a pretty sunny kid who’s very bright, both personality-wise and intelligence-wise.

No, I’m going to be out-and-out selfish here and admit that the Number One reason I wouldn’t homeschool is I am afraid I would not have any time to myself during the day, and I really, really need time to myself. One of the early indicators to me that Darin and I were well-suited was that I could stand to be around him for more than three or four hours straight.

But then I read something Sarah’s essay on why she homeschools, and I’m like, Yeah, I’m down with that. Not that I was ever “warehoused” in my schooling, the way I’ve read so many other people were. But I definitely disliked the social aspects of school (the really bright kids, especially when they’re over a year younger than everyone else in the class? not very popular). I got into the habit of making myself appear stupider than I really was. I remember one time I was in a discussion with a couple of people on some topic and I said, “Gosh, I don’t know,” when I clearly did. And after everyone else left, my friend Fritz said to me, “I know you knew what they were talking about.” Of course, he’d acted stupid about it too.

Mind you, we were at Stanford at the time.

If you have to act stupid at Stanford, there’s a problem.

I’d really like my kids to have the experience of enjoying being intelligent and being able to read as much as they want to whenever they want to. That was certainly the best part of any day for me.

But I’m worried too that I would not be able to make time for myself. Maybe it’s easier to do when they get older, I don’t know. But I’m still thinking about it.

Categories: Schoolhouse Rock Tags:

The Golden Age of Schools?

October 5th, 2003 Diane 3 comments

There was a nice op-ed in the LA Times yesterday by Walt Gardner pointing out that the halcyon golden age of schooling is, in fact, a total myth:

With the fall semester underway across the country, it won’t be long before critics of public education emerge again to wax nostalgic about the better schooling of the past. These sentimentalists yearn for a return to the golden age of education, when we were proud of our schools and what they accomplished.

The trouble is that there never was such an educational Eden. Ever since public schools have existed in this country, they’ve been the subject of complaints that sound very much like those heard today. A fast rewind through the decades serves as an instructive lesson.

As early as 1845, criticism of public schools centered on, of all things, standardized test scores. The first standardized test in the United States was administered in Boston to a group of elite students known as brag scholars. Despite their storied reputation, only 45% of these test takers knew, for example, that water expands when it freezes. Horace Mann, Massachusetts’ secretary of public instruction, was so distressed by their performance that he berated schools for ignoring higher-order thinking skills in favor of rote memorization.

In 1909, Ellwood Cubberly, dean of the Stanford School of Education, bemoaned the inability of American students to function in an ever-more-interdependent world economy. He believed that this shortcoming posed a threat to the nation. During World War I, more than half of Army recruits were unable to write a letter or read a newspaper with ease, prompting officers to question the job that schools were doing.

The National Assn. of Manufacturers charged in 1927 that 40% of high school students couldn’t perform simple arithmetic or accurately express themselves in English. It decried the burden these deficits imposed on employers.

In 1943 the New York Times designed a social studies test, which it gave to 7,000 college freshmen nationwide. Only 29% knew that St. Louis was on the Mississippi River. Many thought that Abraham Lincoln was the first president. The Times concluded that its test results reflected the shoddiness of instruction, which focused on low standards and expectations.

But nothing came close to matching the attack of “A Nation at Risk” in 1983. The Reagan administration-commissioned report alleged that “a rising tide of mediocrity” characterized public education. It vastly overrated the threat to our economy’s preeminence, as time has shown, but its conclusion is still recited as a mantra by many otherwise knowledgeable people.

What these persistent charges underscore is that dissatisfaction with public schools is nothing new. What is different today, however, is the thinly veiled hostility that pervades the latest attack in the form of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. Despite its noble-sounding title, the Bush administration’s basic educational initiative goes far beyond its historical counterparts in its punitive approach. It contains a series of nonnegotiable demands that are impossible to meet even under ideal conditions.

By far the most draconian is the provision that by 2014, 100% of students at any public school must be proficient in reading and math on state-developed tests, or the school faces a takeover. If any subgroup — such as non-English-speaking or handicapped students — falls short, the entire school is declared to be failing. It makes no difference if the school has distinguished itself in any other way, including college acceptance rates. All that matters are scores on standardized tests.

At no time in American history has this goal been achieved. Nevertheless, the law is being promoted as the only way to get back to the days when schools were paragons of academic excellence. When was that?

Let’s repeat that one paragraph:

By far the most draconian is the [No Child Left Behind] provision that by 2014, 100% of students at any public school must be proficient in reading and math on state-developed tests, or the school faces a takeover. If any subgroup — such as non-English-speaking or handicapped students — falls short, the entire school is declared to be failing. It makes no difference if the school has distinguished itself in any other way, including college acceptance rates. All that matters are scores on standardized tests.

So in case you were wondering, yes, No Child Left Behind is designed deliberately to declare every single damn school in this nation as failing.

Or get schools to change their definitions of passing radically downward.

We have demanded the schools do something that has never happened in history, and do it in 11 years.

Yeah, I know: things can change. But the standardized tests are here to stay, as are the ridiculous demands by every segment of society. My head hurts. But not as much as my kids’ heads might eventually start to.

Categories: Schoolhouse Rock Tags:

University arms race

October 5th, 2003 Diane 1 comment

I still can’t quite wrap my mind around the contradictions of American education. We keep hearing about how lousy the schools are—except when they’re not, in which case they’re highly competitive and everybody’s killing themselves to get into college. Unless, of course, the colleges are killing themselves right back to get the students:

Whether evident in student unions, recreational centers or residence halls (please, do not call them dorms) the competition for students is yielding amenities once unimaginable on college campuses, spurring a national debate over the difference between educational necessity and excess.

Critics call them multimillion-dollar luxuries that are driving up university debts and inflating the cost of education. Colleges defend them as compulsory attractions in the scramble for top students and faculty, ignored at their own institutional peril. And somewhere in the middle sit those who have only one analogy for the building boom taking place.

“An arms race,” said Clare Cotton, president of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts. “It’s exactly the psychology of an arms race. From the outside it seems totally crazy, but from the inside it feels necessary and compelling.”

So, most of the schools in America are turning out lousy students—except there are enough good ones to justify these kind of country-club amenities?

I don’t understand this picture.

Categories: Schoolhouse Rock Tags:

Philip Pullman on school

September 30th, 2003 Diane 6 comments

Philip Pullman (author of the His Dark Materials trilogy) is not a fan of the UK’s school testing regime:

The award-winning children’s author Philip Pullman today launches a broadside against the government’s “brutal” school testing regime, warning that it is creating a generation of children who hate reading and “feel nothing but hostility for literature”.

Writing in Guardian Education, the author of the acclaimed His Dark Materials trilogy attacks a lack of focus on enjoyment in the teaching of reading and writing. Drilling to meet the demands of tests makes children’s writing “empty, conventional and worthless”, he says.

You go, boy.

Categories: Schoolhouse Rock Tags:

Pay for the school, or the house, or both

September 22nd, 2003 Diane 3 comments

Update: I evidently forgot to include the link of the article I was writing about! I have now included it. Hee hee. Oops.

Some of the school districts around here are called “basic aid” districts, meaning they get so much money from property taxes that they receive only “basic aid” from the state for their schools.

About 5 percent of the state’s 1,048 school districts are “basic-aid,” a designation that provides them with only minimal state funding because their property tax revenue is particularly high according to a complex state formula.

Sometimes it’s because of high residential real-estate values, as is the case with Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Saratoga and Los Gatos. Elsewhere, school districts such as Santa Clara are basic aid because of their large share of commercial or industrial property.

One of Gray Davis’s proposals for closing our budget shortfall was to take the excess funding from these districts and then return money to them. Homey didn’t play that; the plan was scrapped.

So these are well-funded districts, okay? But the state’s budget woes are affecting everyone, even the basic aid districts. So public schools are asking parents to contribute a little to their kids’ education.

With the school year under way, bake sales and box-top drives seem like a quaint vestige of the past. Today, public school parents are being pressed for cash — as much as $600 a child.

For some, the aggressive fundraising is turning what had been a goodwill gesture during boom times into something that feels more like an annual obligation.

The entreaties often frame the issue in simple terms, embroidered with guilt. Their theme: If you don’t contribute, your child’s education will suffer.

In Mountain View, elementary school parents this year have been asked to donate $200 a child. Los Gatos parents were asked for “one dollar a day,” or $365. Parents of Los Altos high school students last year were asked for $350 a student. This year, it’s $500.

I get to look forward to being hit up for contributions not only by the private schools I attended, but by my kids’ public schools? Neat.

“We cannot give $200 right now,” said Robin Kuborssy, whose daughter is a fourth-grader at Landels Elementary in Mountain View. Her husband recently quit his job to pursue a college degree.

“If you don’t give something, they call you on the phone,” said Kuborssy, who worries about how failing to contribute the $200 might affect her daughter at school. “I do feel like I need to do something.”

So she may contribute $50 and volunteer to work at fundraising efforts.

…who worries about how failing to contribute the $200 might affect her daughter at school…

There’s a technical term that means “hitting someone up for money with implied threats.” I’m sure I can come up with it if I think about it long enough…

I definitely had fears about what effect contributing money meant when I was in a private school in San Francisco. Lots of families could (and did) donate a whole bunch of money to the school. Mine contributed my full tuition and considered itself quits (understandably). Does the amount of money affect the school’s appraisal of a student? I don’t know. It’s not like the money’s coming in anonymously; they know who gave what.

Of course, above and beyond that, there are lots of districts filled with families who can’t come up with hundreds of dollars to give to their public school. So their schools will just be slashed even more.

We don’t have equal public education in this country.

What I dislike most about getting the parents to donate money is, of course, that it’s not exactly going to convince Sacramento to change what they’re doing about school funding.

Categories: Politics, Schoolhouse Rock Tags:

The Texas Miracle writ large.

September 21st, 2003 Diane 3 comments

Sydney Schanberg has a good little article in the Village Voice:

The president’s No Child Left Behind law requires every public school system to administer rigorous annual testing of students, starting in the third grade, in such subjects as English and math. If the test scores of any segment of a school’s population耀uch as Latinos struggling with English or disabled students in special-ed classes妖o not meet the proficiency levels set by the law, the entire school is listed as “failing” and students can choose to transfer to a school in the district that is doing well. In other words, averaging the test scores of the entire student body might produce a successful result, but the scores of the struggling segment will still, under the law, brand the school as “failing.” In addition to placing new financial and space demands on successful schools, the law’s requirements will also lay serious new money burdens on the ones with troubles, for such things as additional teacher training and additional classes. If the White House shortchanges the program, who is going to foot the bill?

Foot the bill? There was never any intention of footing the bill. (Funny how those “no more unfunded mandates!” people suddenly become very fond of unfunded mandates once they’re in charge.) The entire mission of “No Child Left Behind” is to eventually label every single school in this nation as “failing”—it’s a backdoor way of forcing vouchers or privatization or whatever the hell they want this time.

There are serious, systemic problems with our current educational system. There are serious, systemic problems with our approaches to fixing that system. No Child Left Behind is stealth euthanasia. And don’t think they didn’t know that when they proposed it. Of course, BushCo had to dress it up in other clothing, because if they actually announced to the American public, “You know what? Fuck your kids, ours are going to private schools anyhow,” I don’t think the proposal would have gotten as far.

Update: This is a good article from the Washington Post about what a sneaky, underhanded disaster No Child Left Behind really is.

It’s hard to tell whether this law is more a product of arrogance or ignorance, but either way it’s shaping up to be a spectacular train wreck of a collision between bureaucracy and reality.

The main thrust of the bill is that it requires all schoolchildren to be “proficient” in reading, math and science by the year 2014. Hard to argue with that, until you learn that proficiency has been arbitrarily defined as the current 40th percentile of the nation.

In other words, in 2014 every child will score better than 40 percent of the nation today, or roughly 19 million children. We will be essentially trying to get every child in the nation to be “above average,” and should probably change our name to something like the United States of Lake Wobegon.

Categories: Politics, Schoolhouse Rock Tags:

School of Dreams: the review

September 13th, 2003 Diane 18 comments

I finished School of Dreams by Edward Humes and found it a fascinating read all the way through. The stats are great, the anecdotes are great. The book is the story of Whitney High School in Cerritos, California, the top-rated public high school in the state and possibly in the country, with test scores that rival the elite prep schools. (You can see how your local California schools rate with this handy set of pages from the Associated Press.)

A couple of elements come through loud and clear in the book as to why Whitney is so successful. The first is that the school is selective: students have to take a test to get in, they have to keep their grades up (or get kicked out), and they have to be college-bound—there are no vocational tracks here. And the second is the large Asian population that makes up the student body: expectations are high that the children will achieve what their parents have set out for them to achieve…in some cases by taking drastic steps:

Another call comes in a short time later, an anxious woman speaking in a thick accent. “How can I get my daughter into Whitney?”

“Well, what school is she in now?”

“She’s in sixth grade here, where we live,” the caller says. “In India.”

India? India? A family would uproot itself and move to another country to partake of an American public school? But this isn’t at all unusual for Whitney. Not in the slightest:

Thousands of Korean and Chinese immigrants have chosen Cerritos over other communities in the United States because of Whitney’s reputation. Several real estate agencies in town have focused their businesses—and made their fortunes—courting future immigrants by placing advertisements in South Korean newspapers listing homes for sale in Cerritos.

Don’t we keep hearing how Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese, etc. schools are better than ours? What is the attraction of the American school? I don’t think Humes answers these particular questions and I wish he had.

One thing he does go into quite often is how overbearing the Whitney parents are. From arguing for higher grades for their kids to offering bribes of all types to demanding their children attend the college of the parents’ choice and study what the parents want them to study… Man, I was certainly left wanting to shoot a number of these parents, which is undoubtedly what Humes intended the reader to feel.

School of Dreams initially had me very worried about what the hell are our elite schools expecting of students today, but as I read I got the idea (possibly correct, possibly not, I have no idea) that the heaviness of the workload and the lightness of the sleep schedule are more about students wanting to show how hard they’re working…and about how poor their planning skills are. Humes mentions multiple times that students spend much of their evening time on Instant Messenger together socializing instead of doing their homework, and when the students do get together to work on one of these heralded “group projects” they spend as much or more time eating pizza and talking as they do working. It sounds as if the students were a little more disciplined, they could get a few more hours a night.

Which is not to say that it isn’t hard—just that it isn’t impossible.

Whitney students are high achievers who get into great colleges and score well on tests, but the book leaves some question as to whether they’re learning anything. Of course, this is the big criticism of all American education at the moment (possibly of education around the world, though I doubt it). Whitney kids take a lot of Honors and AP classes for their transcripts, not because they actually want to know anything:

Kids are learning to pass a test on French or biology or civics, but their interest in the subject may go no further, or may even be extinguished, by the rigors of the AP, especially in recent years, as the number of such classes that competitive colleges have come to expect on students’ transcripts has gone from one or two to four or six. There are students at Whitney with ten or more. Tony’s reaction after taking an AP test at Whitney is fairly common: “Now I’ll never have to speak French again.” It wasn’t about learning the language and taking that knowledge with you for life, he explains: “It was about memorizing enough to do well on the test, then putting it behind you. I just took it to increase my chances of getting into a great college.” (114)

Not that these kids are stupid, by any means. They demonstrate that over and over. Particularly fun is the segment in which Neil Bush, Dubya’s younger brother of Silverado Savings and Loan fame, comes to Whitney to push his education program Ignite!, which proposes to make school “fun.” He gets taken to town by the Whitney students, who show no fear of telling him exactly what they think of his program and what school should be.

§

One of the best sections of the book, in Chapters 19 and 23, details an experiment the physics teacher gives his class: he shows them an experiment and tells them they’re going to spend the quarter figuring out how it works and then they’re going to teach him about it; he doesn’t know how it works.

Four of the strongest students in the class band together in one of the groups and figure this is going to be easy. So easy, in fact, that they do little to no work on it. In fact, it becomes clear they don’t know how:

“There’s plenty of time,” Cher says (after the group gets a dressing down from the teacher), a phrase that soon becomes the group’s unofficial mantra. But her tone seems to lack conviction. The group is floundering; they all can see it. But none of them is sure why.

This is pretty much a first for them: They have always had success in their academic careers. But now they are on unfamiliar terrain, with no tests to ace, no one riding herd on them every day with incremental lessons, no spoon-feeding. They are used to cramming at the last minute, not setting a pace for six weeks of sustained investigation, Irene complains.

The end result of the teacher’s you-be-the-teacher experiment is great stuff. I hope it inspires a teacher or two out there to try something similar in their own classes.

§

One thing I’ve heard over and over again of late is how students graduating from our schools these days have poor writing skills. School of Dreams has a great demonstration that this is, in fact, true, and why it might be. The writer, Humes, teaches a class to juniors on how to write the personal essay for their college applications. He discovers something very interesting about his students:

As we work through their drafts, it becomes clear that the underlying problem is as basic as it gets: Many of these students simply don’t know how to write a logically constructed essay, or how to unfold and develop a story, and this is only complicated by their discomfort at being their own main character. Many of these students, though they are impressively advanced and sophisticated in their academic pursuits, well-read, and possessed of vocabularies that would shame most adults, have never had to develop their writing skills. Writing just isn’t considered crucial during much of their schooling, it isn’t tested for, and their preferred method of communication these days—the barely literate venues of e-mail and online chat—is only making matters worse. Even the kids see that. “I used to write better before Instant Messenger,” David says. “Now I don’t always remember to use complete sentences—you don’t need them online.”

Amy Palmieri thinks she knows one reason why a majority of her seniors’ writing skills aren’t as advanced as their other areas of scholarship: Group projects. The widespread classroom practice of letting groups of students produce their major papers and projects has left many of them ill-prepared to write individual papers or even simply punchy essays on their own.

“They complain about the workload,” Whitney’s newest English teacher says, after a particularly tendentious round of griping from her AP seniors. “But I’m really not asking that much of them. They should at this stage be able to string together a few well-written paragraphs. Many can’t. There are some good writers in here, but many of my seniors are going to be eaten alive in college if they turn in papers like this.” She holds up a sheaf of essays. “I was really quite shocked.”

Palmieri has observed that her students excel at the toughest multiple-choice tests she can find, and that they are close, good readers with excellent comprehension, even with notoriously dense works such as Heart of Darkness. Consequently, she has dismissed her initial theory that language barriers in a school of many immigrant families might be causing the writing difficulties. Language isn’t the problem, she says, and that leaves simple lack of practice as a likely cause.

A group writing project?

In my dreams.

These kids are complaining about how much work they have to do and they have group writing projects?

Hey, not only did I have to walk uphill through the snow ten miles in each direction, but I typed up my papers on a typewriter. Of late I’ve thought that writing skills might be improved exponentially by making people do a first draft on paper; the computer lends itself too much to tweaking and editing as you go along, so instead of just finishing the damn thing and then beginning to edit, you meander along, never quite finishing. I also never get as good a mental picture of the piece I’m writing when I write on a computer—with a long entry like this one I have to continually preview it to see how it reads. (I should probably also outline once in a while. Enh.)

§

And, for Calpundit, here’s the bit about how much math to take in high school:

For all the testing and accountability-driven reforms aimed at bolstering student achievement around the country, the 2002 National Assessment of Educational Progress revealed these depressing facts: Eight out of ten American high school seniors cannot pass a basic science test. Sixty-three percent of seniors cannot perform simple fourth-grade multiplication necessary to determine how much postage is needed on a package of a given weight. Nine out of ten cannot say how much money they would earn in interest from their savings accounts—even with a calculator. This is why hundreds of thousands of college students must take remedial math classes (often taught at the middle school level), why there are ever-fewer American-born math, science, and engineering majors, and why Whitney is so keen to have all its students take one, if not two, years of calculus: because if they do, the colleges treat them like gods. (pg. 304)

Damn. If only I’d known. Oh wait—I did. Never mind.

§

Humes has excellent criticisms of the No Child Left Behind Act, which I think should be called the Stealth Vouchers Act. (There may be good reasons to have vouchers—let’s not get into that here—but the underhandedness of NCLB is simply breathtaking.) This book was obviously printed before the revelations of how the Texas Miracle was accomplished in Houston under Superintendent of Schools (now Secretary of Education) Rod Paige, but the small section on page 335-338 is good reading.

The book even includes a few questions from the Texas High School exam that are embarrassing in their simplicity: check them out on page 357. What this shows, of course, is that if you lower the bar enough, of course you show greater and greater achievement. If your reading test consists of “the cat sat on the mat,” everybody’s probably going to be considered literate. Probably.

§

School of Dreams is a fascinating look at an amazingly successful American high school, but I don’t think any of its lessons are necessarily applicable to America’s public school problems as a whole. If schools get to be elite and select their students, rather than accepting everyone is eligible for school. If parents are uniformly demanding and high-pressure. If students are, on the whole, geared toward going to college (and if all high school students are headed for college, won’t that make future applications to college all the more fun?).

But it’s certainly a different look at American public education than we’re used to hearing—an overwhelming success rather than “yet another failure.”