Response to “What’s Next in Education Reform?”
From the December 2009 issue of NSTA Reports:

Race to the Top, the most recent federal educational improvement initiative, is driven by dismal statistics indicating the United States ranks highest among industrial countries in dropout rates and lowest in math and science scores on international tests such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). In response to these issues, the Obama Administration proposed the following goals…

Read the full article here.
The following letter was written in response to the article linked to above.
With this letter, I wish to comment on the “Educated Opinion” comments by Van Sickle and Finnan (December 2009 issue). I will begin by assuming that they are not expressing self-interest in advocating increases in federal funding for higher federal funding for education institutions  and expanding federal support for teacher unions and associations. This alone might call into question the actual necessity and significance of their argument.
That aside, I really take exception to their recommendations that the Obama administration need promote “hope” for our nation’s school children. Where in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Amendments and all other federal documents does it call for the government to provide “hope”? Are we a nation of sheep that need leader’s to bestow on us the light to see in the darkness, the tools to build our individual future’s, or the all-knowing one to guarantee success? Quite the opposite, I see in their presentation a great loss of hope if we are required to become dependent on some central power controlling our every move in education. This is, after all, what the Bush (W) administration was attempting to do with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. ‘Perform to our standards or be taken over by someone who will.’ According to many educators, this has led to a national morass of teaching to the test and not to the benefit of the students.

I reject both the Bush and the Van Sickle/Finnan approaches and applaud President Obama’s aim to provide leadership that calls for personal responsibility and respect for everyone. In his speeches, he encourages independence, a high work ethic, and respect. “Unless you [students] show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed…. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.” (Remarks of President Obama, September 8, 2009, in Arlington, Virginia). Unlike previous administrations which pushed from behind, the President leads by example and encouragement. Testing and assessments have their place in school life, but if students do not respect themselves, their peers or their teachers, those assessments are bound to reflect failure.
Van Sickle and Finnan appear to regret the loss of “neighborhood schools in which teachers and students share values, language and life experiences.” I am sure they are not calling for a return to segregated schools and the separation of handicapped students. So what are students to do with this change in the educational paradigm? Well, in the 82^nd Airborne, we were taught to “adapt and overcome!” Teaching tolerance and acceptance and understanding is not a bad thing. Sharing values, experiences and even languages can make for a stronger populace and therefore nation. Any biologist worth his or her salt will tell you a diverse ecology is more productive (and more likely to survive) then a mono-culture. I was educated in a segregated school system and the shock I experienced when I joined the Army was palpable. It is possible for a well-educated individual to learn about other values and cultures but, I believe, earlier is better than later.
I agree with Van Sickle and Finnan that “skills, attitudes and aptitudes are nurtured in high-quality educational systems that foster creativity, innovation, conceptual thinking, and problem-solving.” I disagree with their claim that it should be handed down from on high. Constructivism teaches that students build on a framework or scaffold that begins in early education. If respect is not a major part of that early structure, then the foundation is made of sand and easily washed away. No matter how much ‘hope’ they have.
Lastly, I do not agree that increased teacher union or association activity is key to an improved educational system. Local control of the educational system is an integral and historic part of the American system of public education. It has provided the strength of our economic system since its founding. We do not require unions or associations to give teachers ‘heart’ to teach well as Van Sickle and Finnan state. Teaching is as much an avocation as it is a career and those teachers who are in education for the good of the students know what needs to be done to maintain a strong educational system. If respect is not a major part of that instruction, then there is a tremendous loss for students and our nation.
Tom Wieland