Letter to the editor published in November 9, 2007 issue of The Sentinel.
Hard On Public School System
Dear Editor:
My, my, my! Just when we thought it couldn't get much worse, we take it on the chin again. There are very few public educators who hide from academic accountability measures any more, not that we ever did! Now, it appears we are responsible for the apparent apathy of some adolescents toward both their country and the privileges of citizenship, as demonstrated on a cable television show (whose function, in order to generate viewership, is to be controversial regardless of facts), and subsequently written about in your editorial on Friday, October 26. What's next? Are we responsible for global warming too?
Even more stunning than your fallacious conclusion is the context in which you frame your remarks. Your accusation that the public school education system "is so concerned about test scores and their school district rating that they forget to teach the students things that are really important" is puzzling as well as untrue. In fact, this is an amazing statement given the eagerness with which the press has printed all manner of "failing schools" lists, based on test scores, and has played a significant role in perpetuating harmful misperceptions in our communities about schools, based upon the testing required by the No Child Left Behind legislation. You can't have it both ways. Last year, when the NYS Department of Education released its annual list of schools deemed as in "improvement status," they also included a thoughtful, well-written press release that explained some of the finer details of how the tests, coupled with certain accountability measures in NCLB, make it very challenging for schools with large numbers of two vulnerable student populations, English Language Learners and Students With Disabilities. The memo urged caution in applying "failing school" generalizations due to the underperformance of vulnerable groups of students. Regardless of the State Education Department's attempts to educate the public, very few newspapers included any part of the explanation, let alone the full text. So if you truly believe there is too much emphasis on NCLB testing, pat yourselves on the back. You are a part of the problem. Will you then be a part of the solution, instead of simply blaming schools for being too "concerned about test scores?"
I also take exception to the notion that we "fail to teach the students things that are really important..." Are you really suggesting that literacy is not important? Please do not perpetuate the misconception that because schools try to focus on reading and math (the two areas tested for accountability purposes under NCLB), that we only do this because we are concerned with test scores. Public schools serve many functions in society. Educators teach a variety of skills and much content knowledge, in addition to instilling character education, appreciation for music and art, patriotism, and physical wellness. However, there are limits, such as time and resources. Instructional time is of limited duration and highly valued. In most elementary schools, especially in the primary grades, there is greater focus on reading and math, particularly reading. The other areas are not ignored, they are simply not given the same priority as literacy. Most teachers are quite skilled at incorporating other instructional goals into reading or math. But everything cannot be equally important. Because when everything is equally important, nothing really is. And the acquisition of high-level skills in literacy (and to a lesser extent, numeracy) really does matter. Much of the debate around NCLB testing has been framed around the deleterious effects of "narrowing of the curriculum" by focusing on reading and math. However, this position fails to consider that student access to the rich and varied curriculum offered at the secondary levels of education is available only to those who possess high levels of literacy. If a student can't read fluently (and by definition, reading encompasses comprehension), he/she has little chance of success in accessing the content in most textbooks at the secondary level, let alone the texts involved in advanced placement or honors coursework. And that same student would be just as frustrated in reading the written text involved in a Regents exam, an Advanced Placement text, or an SAT.
Further, given the high-literacy demands of the future job market (there's lots of information available about this), and given our global competition (think outsourcing....do you really think it will only be low-level telemarketing or basic factory jobs?) and ask yourself this question: Is it not in our nation's interest to ask schools to be very, very appropriately focused and busy at the vital mission of preparing our children for the future job market? Will there be many viable employment options for students who are not highly literate? And since when are thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, inference, deduction, conclusion, which are all high level thinking / reading comprehension skills, irrelevant to the well-being of democracy?
I ask you to reflect on the misguided logic of your conclusion. You essentially used the following deductive logic:
"Some kids on a talk-show appeared to be apathetic and unappreciative of the benefits of being an American citizen. Most kids attend public schools. Therefore, public schools are so concerned about test scores that they have failed to teach students what is really important."
Quite a generalized leap! Many of our students could take you to school on this logic.
Additionally, when I shared your editorial with my 16 year-old son, his comment was: "Are you kidding? Do they really expect junior high and high school kids to be honest with--let alone debate Bill O'Reilly? Have you seen the way he bullies his guests who disagree with him?" No teenager wants to be belittled or humiliated on television.
There are many things wrong with No Child Left Behind and its testing. Its punitive approach to school improvement is misguided, and, unfortunately, brings negative attention to our most vulnerable student groups, groups we should embrace along with all students. Its labeling of schools with struggling populations as "failing schools" is blatantly wrong and unfair. Its unfunded mandates are problematic. And perhaps most sadly, the pressure to avoid that "failing school" list unintentionally tempts educators to substitute test preparation (a band-aid fix that will temporarily raise a student's test scores) for true remediation (which is never a quick fix; but rather a very worthwhile longer-term investment to ensure that students are successful in the long-run). And when that happens, when we mask the academic vulnerability of any student with the "test prep" fix, the consequences of the absence of true remediation for that student are far-reaching and devastating.
Every group employed in public education: teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and all the support staff who constitute schools, work very hard at our common mission to educate children. We understand accountability and the need to have some system measuring student progress. Public schools cannot do everything; however, they can do the most critical things (and do them well!) if they are allowed to focus on the important things. Public bashing of our schools and those who work in them is in no way productive. The Sentinel has proven itself a friend of our local public schools over many years, which is in part what made your editorial so shocking. The staffs of our schools, who work so hard at their crafts, the parents who support us, and most important, the students we serve, did not deserve this demeaning editorial.
Please forgive the length of this response, but it was necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Weiss
Principal
Meadow Hill Global Explorations Magnet School