|
|
|
|
Controversy swirls around 'standards' By GEORGE WUERTHELE COLUMBUS - In May, the State Board of Education accepted, in principle, a new and more rigorous set of academic standards for Ohio schools They have sent those standards to the Ohio Legislature, asking that they be made into law. In so doing, they have reversed the order in which documents traditionally flow between lawmakers and board members. In most cases, the legislature - with the help of the public - decides what it wants, enacts a legislative template, and instructs the board to provide details. But this time the laws must have seemed too important to leave to people elected by popular ballot. This was a job for the experts. And within that assumption lies the source of much, if not all, of the controversy which surrounds the standards. There, too, lies the reason why so many people, from so many philosophically diverse groups, will fight adoption of the standards for as long as they have strength to continue that fight, and why so many legislators who support the standards will find re-election to be a difficult matter. In a land made anxious by the obvious gap between political promise and public policy, mistrust of government is at an all time high, and rising. Public figures now ignore that fact only at their own peril. Apparent Contradiction No one contests the assumption that our public schools are turning out young people who have learned to do less than their best. Certainly, no one doubts that granting a high school diploma to anyone who can do a passable job on a test designed for freshmen is a bad idea. Everyone agrees we can and should and must do better. What is subject to debate, however, is the assumption that those of us who live beyond the grasp of the ideologues who nest in Washington and Columbus cannot remedy matters on our own, and that only ceding more power to the state can get us out of trouble. Implicit within the proposed new standards is the assumption that us rustics don't understand the complexity of education at the turn of the century, and can't be trusted to do right by our children. Also implicit within them, and within the School-to-Work "initiative" which is being peddled with them, is the notion that the traditional assumption that education should make young men and women into citizens who are both useful and informed citizens is obsolete. Implicit within the way those new programs are being "marketed" is the assumption that we won't notice when DOE spokesmen change their stories to accommodate the demands of the moment. Consider just a few cases of internal contradiction. Model Mandate or Something Else? One May 16, State Board of Education member Arlene Smith assured a large audience of irate parents in Berlin, Ohio, that the controversial "career passport" (an "exit credential" which some people believe will replace the traditional diploma and turn education into job training) is not a part of the School-to-Work "initiative." "The career passport," she said, "was in effect before School-to-Work ever started in Ohio. . . It does not have to be done. It's up to the parents and the students . . . and it's a document which is very beneficial for a student to take along when applying for a job. It has no connection whatsoever (to STW)." She was backed up on that point by Robert Radway, state director of School-to-Work. He said, "I'd like to tell you the facts: Career Passports are not required of any student in the state of Ohio, by law." Furthermore, he said, they are not part of School-to-Work. Yet, just three weeks later, after a public meeting held in Wooster on June 6, the assistant director of School-to-Work, Susan Streitenberger, told the Tribune a somewhat different story. Tribune: (It has been said) that the Career Passport is part of School-to-Work. Now, is it or is it not? Streitenberger: It is a tool for students to look at what careers they be interested in . . . the career passport started back when Senate Bill 140 was passed because there was a mandate for vocational education to accelerate the modernization of . . ." Tribune: Is it part of School-to-Work? Streitenberger: Well, as a result of that process, the term career passport was coined, and a model was put in place for occupational students: when . . . Ohio applied for the implementation funds (for STW) the passport was vitally embraced as a - I often describe it as a resume that provides more than the typical one page resume - and School-to-Work, the individuals writing that plan determined that Ohio had a Career Passport, and so it would be a part of the implementation plan, and it would be offered as an opportunity to extend to all students. It started with occupational, vocational ed as a result of Senate Bill 140. Tribune: So your answer, then, is yes? Streitenberger: It is a model, it's not a mandate. Given the information obtained at these two meetings, and that which may be had from state documents, it is probably safe to assume that the Career Passport either is or is not part of the School-to-Work "initiative." Later in the interview, Streitenberger went on to say that "we're getting caught up in a lot of terminology. Terminology. That may be the case. In a newspaper article which appeared below Smith's signature last spring, she attempted to still criticism of STW by declaring that "School-to-work is a concept, not a program." However important that distinction might be to people who think in slogans, Smith neglected to say that the STW is a " concept" which has an office, at least one telephone (often yoked to an answering machine), a director, as assistant director, a "marketing" chief, "marketing" agents, and 45 million federal tax dollars to use in the process of getting itself absorbed into the body politic. In the same article, in an effort to reassure the public that there is nothing to fear in STW or any other part of "performance-based education," Smith said, "Ohio's State Board of Education and its General Assembly have been and will continue to be active participants in helping to shape the direction for education reform in Ohio and in providing a forum for public input. Clear evidence of this will be seen as the state board discusses the proposed new standards and then depending on the outcome of that dialogue seeks legislative concurrence on this work." Textbook political science, to be sure. but, the "evidence" is not that clear. None of the well-reasoned and well-founded case against the proposed new standards made its way to the Legislature with a request made by Superintendent of Public Instruction, John Goff, that the standards be given special handling, and rushed through the process of legislative approval. Nor is any of it likely to find its way to the public after a series of "public meetings" the state board has slated for mid-August. The meetings will be open only to the "invited public." (And will occur after the legislature has the standards in hand, of course.) That term [public] will confuse a great many people who are linked to an antiquated notion about what constitutes correct English usage. To many people, if attendance is limited solely to those with invitations, it is not public. Those same sweet, old-fashioned souls will undoubtedly be puzzled by the fact that the meeting will have as moderators "individuals from . . . organizations viewed to be reasonably neutral on education and political issues." They will think that one is neutral or not neutral. When the Tribune broached that subject with a member of the "team" responsible for the new standards, she said that "reasonable neutral" individuals are those who "are not wholly biased." She then offered up a kind of Post Modern pronouncement that pure neutrality is impossible, and that in any event, language is indeterminate, and so on. Old timers will simply have to ponder why it is important that the meetings be run by people who are "viewed to be reasonably neutral" (emphasis added) rather than people who are in fact without bias of any kind. Other bothersome details about the meetings include the suggestion that those "listeners and observers" in attendance will be "members of the state board and Department (of Education) staff," rather than representatives of the press, and that each small discussion group will "have a recorder who may be a neutral individual or Department staff." Also, "key questions" for those small groups will be "provided" for them lest discussion wander off into unproductive directions. The process is very reminiscent of that employed to test the effectiveness of deodorant commercials. To Opt or Not To Opt Yet another problem situation for old folks who believe language is in fact determinate is provided by a memo received by the Tribune last week. It said, in part, "No provision exist in statute that create the general right of parents to "opt out" of educational programs." But in Smith's news article, just after she says School-to-Work is a concept, she says, " The general purpose (of STW) is to ensure that students have opportunities for careers... It is not mandatory. Students and parents may opt out." In an event which may or may not be relevant, Smith was asked by a frustrated parent at the Berlin meeting, if she - the parent - could expect to exercise in the matter of the standards by which her children would be educated. "Yes," replied Smith, "you can come to meeting of the State Board of Education." The audience laughed out loud. The state Legislature may want to give a good deal of thought to Goff's request that lawmakers grant "exceptions to the rule making process . . . so the proposed standards may be adopted this year.' There may be room for further discussion. [George Wuerthele is a staff writer and public policy analyst for the Tribune.] _________________ REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION Coshocton Tribune, 550 Main St., PO Box 10, Coshocton, Ohio 43812 e-mail: [email protected] 1-800-589-8689 |
|
|
Diana M. Fessler
· 7530 Ross Road · New Carlisle, OH ·
45344 |