Teaching History

I happened to notice something today.  It's not new to me, but it is still surprising.  Many of today's sixth graders were born after 9/11.  Very few students in the higher grades have any working memory of that event, and soon it will be a historical fact that occurred before the student existed.  Its presence in schools is almost non-existent already, and soon it will be nothing more than a multiple choice question (which may or not appear on a test) that a student can answer incorrectly with little consequence.  

That is, of course, assuming it remains at all.  I took Global in New York 14 years ago, in the far distant time of the year 2000.  Apart from not being impressed with the class, the one thing that really sticks out in my mind is how far short of the then "current" time period we had managed to cover.  14 years of history have been created since then, and yet most world history courses are still lucky to get through the fall of the Soviet Union.  

But we still manage to cover Mansa Musa.  

I've not been shy about my intense dislike for standardized tests in the field of Social Studies.  There are subjects that lend themselves to such assessments, like mathematics, where you either know and can apply the operating principle or you cannot.  Social Studies is not an objective field like that, and it should not be treated as such.  You can come up with a trivia test on historical facts, but that will never gauge a students understanding of human interaction, which is what Social Studies is really supposed to be about. 

I'm currently working through Jal Mehta's The Allure of Order, which outlines the history of educational reform in the United States.  Such objective testing has become increasingly popular in the United States due to a reasonable demand for higher quality education and a lack of any better idea of how to determine whether we're getting it or not.  Very few people will actually argue that standardized tests in history really have any value in assessing student knowledge of history, but teachers have failed to offer a better alternative.   It's impossible to weed out the good teachers who want to be free of the government mandated curriculum from the teachers who want a sinecure.  

Or it is as things stand, anyway.  Accountability of teachers and schools has been handed over to the state.  Like any other government agency, they're good at crunching numbers and data but not particularly good at determining what is going on classroom 203 in X district.  The state lacks the flexibility to both see what is going on in the classroom and make judgement based on those particular students, that particular teacher, and absolutely cannot handle differences in curriculum. 

In order for a far away agency to measure the going ons of far away places, they need one curriculum to rule them all, one curriculum to bind them.  And if you look for student interest, in the darkness you will find them. 

This is the path we are heading down.  In the lower grades, lessons are literally written by the state, leaving teachers to be little more than automatons.  We shall all learn the same, and Washington shall tell us what we shall learn.  Soon, every school in America will be teaching the same thing on the same day.

But there is another way.  

If centralization leads to stagnant Social Studies, it stands to reason that decentralization would allow flexibility to teach different aspects not on the approved curriculum.  I would love to have an educational system that allows a teacher to spend a week on a current event, rather than quickly dismissing it because the test was written last year and the events of this week will not be on it.

In fact, the more I think on it, the more I think we should teach history backwards.  We spend so much time in class explaining to students that the long-past events will be important later to understanding the things they want to know, and half the time we never arrive at that point. 

And students do, in fact, want to know, but we have gone way out of our way to train them into thinking history has no more value than a correct multiple choice response on a test they have to pass to graduate.  Some historical events are inherently interesting in and of themselves, in particular wars. Current events, an aspect of Social Studies that is covered incidentally at best under the present regime, is actually one of the best hooks we have on their attention.  Students want to know what is going on with Putin and why the Palestinians and the Israelis can't seem to live together.  Rather than dealing with the Golden Horde or Peter the Great, talk about Putin and work your way back to the Soviet system.  Rather than being a boring factoid about the world preexisting them (and in some cases, preexisting their teachers), the Soviet Union suddenly becomes relevant in understanding the world around them.  

The exact same thing can be accomplished with Afghanistan.  We're there now.  Students know people who are there or who have been there.  Often I'm asked, why are we there?  Heavens above, what a great question!  They should be asking that, and they should be getting an answer.  Based on that question alone, you can bring in 9/11, the Soviet Union and their conflict, the meaning of communism, discussion on guerrilla warfare, arguments for and against our continued presence, and the morality of the conflict (basic just war theory, jus ad bellum and jus in bello).

It would be an organic conversation.  The teacher can direct the discussion towards certain topics, but the new questions about "why" and "how" are going to come from the students.  John Dewey certainly had his faults, but he knew that students who are told "you need to learn this because I said so" or, worse, "the state says so", are unlikely to retain that information.  But give them the chance to learn the things they want to learn, and they will fly with it.  

Perhaps my favorite aspect of this is that it gives us an idea of what is worth teaching and what isn't.  History is huge; a lifetime is not sufficient to know it all.  We have to pick and choose what material to teach.  In the state's method, Italian Unification will certainly come up; it's on the test.  I can't promise Garibaldi will come up in my method.  The state can make an objection to that and say it is absolutely necessary every student be presented with the Red Shirts, but I am well in my rights to demand a justification for that. 

I would also like to see some proof that after taking the Global Regents in 10th grade that students remember the Red Shirts when they graduate.  So much that is presented is forgotten so quickly because it just is not relevant to a 15 year old from the sticks or the projects. 

Such a method just cannot be prescribed by a state curriculum.  A discussion on Afghanistan could last for a day or a week, depending on the students, current events as they happen, and the teacher.  Albany cannot issue lesson plans saying "you shall have an organic conversation for ten minutes on this topic, then move on to this other activity" because Albany cannot tell when the conversation has reached its natural end.  Albany cannot foresee what other worthy avenues of discussion will pop up.  If we're to have actual Social Studies, the far away bureaucrats have to get out of the way.  

Before I get too carried away here, no, I don't believe for a second that the bureaucrats getting out of the way is sufficient.  It is necessary, but they are not the only thing that would have to change.  Such a class would require a teacher of considerable knowledge who could handle an active conversation on the fly.  In my time, I've come across far too many history teachers who haven't picked up a history book beyond the class textbook since college.  I know of the principal's nephew who wants summers off and the professional coach who teaches on the side.  I don't believe for a second they would survive, especially when placed next to the amazing teachers I know who are shackled by state curriculum.  

But who would make sure the teachers are doing a good job if not Albany or, maybe someday soon, DC?  The same answer applies here: decentralized control must mean decentralized accountability.  It would be up to the local community, those who would actually know the teacher, to say "yes, this woman is doing an excellent job and should stay" or "no, she's in it for the summer vacations, send her on her way." 

I know today is not the day in which this magical transformation takes place.  I know we are making yet another effort to improve student performance via increased test and tighter controls on content from a far away agency.  And I know, like every program to centralize and quantify education before it, this latest push will fall far short of expectations average people have and that folks will continue to grumble about the quality of education in America.  

But maybe, just maybe, Common Core will be too quick on the heels of No Child Left Behind.  Maybe, just maybe, people are coming to their senses about the inadequacy of standardized testing in measuring a qualitative subject like education (in particular Social Studies).  Maybe the Liberals will finally admit their failure to improve education in poorly performing districts via centralization; maybe Conservatives will admit their hypocrisy in demanding less centralized government control in everything but education, the sham that is standardized test accountability, and the abdication of their own role in society when they choose to have the far away capital determine teacher ability rather than making an appointment to meet the teacher in person. 

Maybe teachers of quality will make a point of demanding only the best join their ranks, replacing union protection of the lowest with a high standard that admits no low person.

And maybe pigs will fly.  But unlike the pig, these changes or the lack thereof are a matter of choice that we are responsible for.

Test The Test

I'm currently reading Teaching America: The Case for Civic Education, edited by David Feith with contributors ranging across the political spectrum.  A single theme is dominant in each work: civic literacy is unacceptably low for a republican government like ours to function correctly.  Study after study has revealed America's profound and distressing ignorance of its own history and Constitution.  The rule of the People is based on the notion that the People will be a strong check on government abuse.  That, however, requires the People to first know that abuse is even going on (current events), to understand the proper sphere any particular public official operates in with corresponding powers and limits (the Constitution and attending laws), with a solid understanding of what is right and wrong in politics to begin with (political theory).  Public schools fail on nearly all of these categories; those who learn them do so on their own initiative.  

I think everyone knows this.  It's not even really controversial.  And yet, we continue down the same path, perhaps more out of apathy than anything else.  I've pointed out my discontent with New York's history curriculum before.  It is a creature of bureaucracy, more bent on allowing quantification of student results than improving student knowledge.  Recalling for two years arcane factoids and writing a vapid essay qualifies as acceptable in New York.  This hardly lives up to the lofty goals of Social Studies our state's Department of Education lays forth: 

Courses of study should give students the knowledge, intellectual skills, civic understandings, and dispositions toward democratic values that are necessary to function effectively in American society. Ultimately, social studies instruction should help students assume their role as responsible citizens in America’s constitutional democracy and as active contributors to a society that is increasingly diverse and interdependent with other nations of the world. For example, students should be able to use the knowledge and skills acquired through social studies courses to solve problems and make reasoned decisions in their daily lives. Social studies courses should provide students with the background to conduct research in order to cast informed votes, with the skills to place conflicting ideas in context, and with the wisdom to make good judgments in dealing with the tensions inherent in society such as the enduring struggle to find the proper balance between protecting the rights of the individual and promoting the common good.

Not having a high school diploma in this era is an economic death sentence; failing to pass the history Regents Exams bars graduation.  When the room has a high proportion of students who may not pass, the only option a teacher realistically has is to focus on those border line cases and do whatever possible to get them to squeak by.  The highest achieving students have to hope there is an AP program in order to receive attention, the lowest students are considered lost, and those border line cases hopefully pass the test.  This hardly helps "students assume their role as responsible citizens in America's constitutional democracy" (most people could not tell you what constitutional democracy means) who will "cast informed votes" (take a look at our voting rate and those who vote on issues rather than personalities) who "conduct research" (The Daily Show constitutes the main source of news for a ridiculously high proportion of Americans). 

Ok, so we're not living up to those lofty goals, but students will at least recall some basic facts from world and U.S. history because they can pass the test, right?  Everyone should be laughing at that thought.  Once the test is passed, the information can be and usually is forgotten, except for those few who found the material interesting; those students generally knew the information prior to taking the class. 

I would love to see a study on how many voting New York residents that passed the Global and United States Regents Exams in high school could pass them again now.  We'll eliminate the essay part and give a passing grade of 30 correct responses to 50 questions.  This is the general rule of thumb as to whether a student will pass the test. A response of 2 out of 5 is required on the essays, which amounts to making some vague statement about the topic at hand that wasn't handed to the student in the written directions.  I would wager good money that less than one in four would pass. 

So, why are we doing this?  We're not creating engaged and thinking citizens.  In the long run, we're not even creating citizens who recall factoids from the class. 

We do it because we're in a rut.  Getting out of that rut would require a great deal of work and squarely facing many unpleasant truths, among them that many students do not have the aptitude to understand our government well enough to hold them accountable.  Some will never get it, no matter how much education you throw at them.  We have a strong egalitarian streak in this nation and the notion of a natural aristocracy sets many teeth on edge.  Nevertheless, it exists, and we would be better served by focusing squarely on those with the talent than in wasting our time getting uninterested and incapable students to squeak by a test that has no bearing on long term civic literacy. I mean no disrespect to those who do not have the mental aptitude to govern as voters; the theory of multiple intelligences is one I happen to agree with.  Those with the ability to become mechanics should have that ability improved and polished rather than ignored while becoming frustrated as their intelligence is measured by some other standard.  But just as I don't want somebody who does not understand mechanics (like myself) working on my car, so I don't want those without understanding of government working on that, either. 

I don't know if we'll ever be ready for that as a nation.  Until we do, though, we will continue to fail to develop potential minds by wasting resources on those without the potential.  The first step will be removing these damn state tests and the best way of removing them is to prove how worthless they are.  Some institute or college should be looking into this.  If the History Regents are so important for students to pass that their futures can be ruined without satisfactory performance, then the test itself should be tested to see if the state standards are being met by voting age citizens who successfully completed New York's curriculum.  If there's no link between passing the tests and being informed (even about the exact same material), then the test serves no purpose whatsoever.  

Let's test the test. 

Notes From the Classroom

I have a different philosophy on teaching history than may be common.  In my classroom, I fully expect and encourage questions, even if they may be tangential to the topic at hand.  Discussions often start up and I let them run with it for a while.  Hell, I even try to drive them forward.  You can't have a discussion on history and politics if you are not thinking, and it's almost impossible to tell if people can think about politics and history based on standardized tests.  Make them think on their feet to prove they are truly capable of thinking.  

With this, I've noticed some very alarming trends, both in my students and in others throughout society.  People are tired of the partisanship in this nation.  The bickering between Republicans and Democrats is irritating to people; all they want is the parties to come to an agreement and work together on whatever is best for the country. 

I've heard way too many positive comments on establishing a dictatorship in this nation.  

I see the reasons for this all too clearly. Our educational system creates people incapable of independent thought, incapable of taking responsibility, who only want somebody to either give them the answer or "do something" to make things right.  These people would never challenge either the answer or the plan, even if those things should be challenged.  The startling truth is this: our people will never accept tyranny imposed upon us, but we may very well end up begging for it instead. 

The following should be self evident, but somehow are not: 

• The parties are not putting their own interests ahead of the nation's.  They legitimately have differing ideas as to what is good for our nation.  Therefore, it is impossible to "put politics aside", since politics itself is debating what is good for our nation and what is harmful.  
• To say a certain party should put aside their positions "for the good of the country" is to say that party should abandon its conception of what is good for us...for the good of us.  It's a non sequitur, but you have to actually think the statement out to realize that.  
• Partisanship is not all that bad.  One party states completely lacking in partisanship are common; they are known as fascist states or dictatorship.  Their standards of living and respect for human rights are atrocious.  Partisanship helps keep bad ideas in check by allowing somebody to stand up and say "this is a bad idea and I oppose it."  
• The people in government may very well not have an answer that works.  In fact, they may have been the cause of problems.  To wish maximum efficiency from the government, or to wish they would "just do something", is to assume that whatever they will do will be good.  There is no reason to grant that assumption. 

 Our Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances to require broad consensus before our government could move forward.  That means that often ideas proposed by factions are shot down.  This is a good thing and proof the system works.  

For those desiring a more active government, be careful what you wish for.  The 20th Century should be more than enough proof that checks and balances, partisanship, and bickering are preferable to their opposites.  Teach your children to question and think, rather than to beg for an answer.  Those who can think independently will be citizens, those who cannot will be subjects.

School as the First Circle of Hell

"The fact that no one made demands of her knowledge in her special field was lucky for Simochka.  Not only she but many of her girl friends had graduated from the institute without any such knowledge.  There were many reasons for this.  The young girls had come from high schools with very little grounding in mathematics and physics.  They had learned in the upper grades that at faculty council meetings the school director had scolded the teachers for giving out failing marks, and that even if a pupil didn't study at all he received a diploma...Besides, when their students failed, the examiners were reprimanded as if the failures were spoiled goods in a production process--according to the well-known theory that there are no bad pupils, only bad teachers.  Therefore the examiners did not try to trip the students up but, in fact, attempted to get them through the examination with as good results as possible." 

A novel about America's failure to educate its children?  Nope.  That's from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The First Circle and describes Soviet education. 

Fun fact: teacher performance is not only not the sole factor being measured by test scores; it is not even the predominate one.  If you pretend otherwise, teachers (out of self preservation) will see to it that test scores are high, even if those tests have no connection whatsoever to actual student performance.  If you actually want students to learn, they have to be held accountable for their results, mostly by parents.  Those same parents, I might add, should know what teachers are doing in the classroom.  That's the way to hold teachers accountable.  Abandoning that role to the state and their "quantifiable measures" is irresponsible but easy.  Sure enough, that's the path we're moving down.  

Some folks might take offense at the idea of "tripping up" students.  Let me reword that for you: challenge the students.  Find out which students can really think by letting them stand on their own two feet and run through a mental obstacle course. Of course, to do this means those kids that can't tie their own shoes (figuratively and, I'm afraid, often literally) won't be in the classroom anymore. 

Sadly, this is all about equality.  If you can't get the kids who don't do well to pick up their pace, you focus all of your energy on rising them up an inch at the expense of the talented and motivated who could climb mountaintops if there was any motivation for teachers to focus on them instead. 

"There are no bad pupils, only bad teachers."  

If you believe that, you must be the product of a Soviet style educational system. 

Who Were the Most Important Americans?

Who should definitely be covered in a U.S. history class? This question is prompted by new legislation in California requiring history classes to cover gay history. My particular opinion on the matter is that people shouldn't be included in history classes because particular groups are underrepresented in history class, but others disagree with me and see the GLBT movement itself as historically significant and worth class time. After a brief conversation, I'm still not convinced the movement is significant enough to be spending limited class time on, but it did get me thinking about who we should focus on. I'm still putting together thoughts on teaching social studies which I hope to have up soon, but to say it is difficult is an understatement. Unlike math or science, much of history is subjective, not just in whether people were right or wrong to act a certain way but in whether such things should be covered at all.

I don't like token individuals mentioned because of their race or some such nonsense such as Crispus Attucks. Yes, a black man died in the Boston Massacre, but so did four white people, and their names were...oh, yeah, not covered. Attucks isn't mentioned because of the Boston Massacre; he is mentioned because he is black. If I were an African American, I would find it offensive that "being shot" qualifies as an accomplishment worthy of remembrance. I think Harvey Milk would be treated in much the same way. Apart from being gay and shot (and, I suppose, being indirectly involved with the Twinkie Defense), what exactly were Milk's accomplishments?

Anyway, I was going to make a list of the 25 Americans every U.S. history class should cover in some detail. Turns out that's basically impossible. Rather than attempt it, I'll make a list based on reasons those people should be known. This is probably the best way to weed out the token individuals; if you can't think of anything specific that person did that stands out, then odds are we don't have time for it in class. I wouldn't say this is an exhaustive list by any means. Nor would I say these are the people actually covered, though many of them are. In my ever so humble opinion, every American citizen should be familiar with the people listed below.

• Presidents. Easily the most remembered group.
  

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Andrew Jackson
Abraham Lincoln
Jefferson Davis
Theodore Roosevelt
FDR
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan

• Supreme Court Justices- Woooo Article III! Seriously, these people are overlooked, given their immense importance to our understanding of our government and our law.
  

John Marshall
Joseph Story
Roger Taney
Rufus Peckham
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Louis Brandeis
Harry Blackmun
Thurgood Marshall
William Rehnquist

• Members of Congress. Some of the more prominent:

Henry Clay
Daniel Webster
John C. Calhoun
Joseph Cannon
Joe McCarthy

• Generals, Admirals, and other military folks. Pretty self explanatory; we wouldn't exist without our military.
  

Benedict Arnold (yes, that one; without him, no U.S.)
John Paul Jones
Ulysses S. Grant
Robert E. Lee
James Longstreet (way underrated, certainly more important than Stonewall Jackson)
Blackjack Pershing
George Patton
Douglas MacArthur
Dwight Eisenhower
Charles Nimitz
William Westmoreland

• Authors/Reformers/Other Politicians. I'm placing them in the same category because often the latter were also the former. This list in particular is far from complete.
  

Thomas Paine
John Wesley
Henry David Thoreau
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Frederick Douglass
John Brown (for the lack of a better place...may need a category for crazy people)
Mark Twain
Susan B. Anthony
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Herbert Spencer
Thomas Nast
Booker Washington
W.E.B. Du Bois
Upton Sinclair
William Randolph Hearst
Ernest Hemingway
John Steinbeck
Huey Long
Ayn Rand
Eleanor Roosevelt
Martin Luther King
Malcolm X
Walter Cronkite
Henry Kissinger
Jerry Falwell

• Capitalists

Samuel Colt
Andrew Carnegie
J.P. Morgan
George Pullman
John Rockefeller
Henry Ford

• Inventors

Eli Whitney
Benjamin Franklin
Robert Fulton
Charles Goodyear
Thomas Edison
Nikolas Tesla
Alexander Graham Bell
John Browning
Wright Brothers
Robert Oppenheimer

That is a lot of people and this is a very incomplete list. I only listed 10 people into the President's category and one of them was the President of the Confederate States. There are a great many more who could be added. Each person on this list was important in his or her own right and had a significant impact upon the nation. There are no token individuals here, placed not because they made a significant impact on our world but because they happened to belong to a race or class outside of the heterosexual WASP. We could put a Crispus Attucks or Harvey Milk on this list, but they would stand out for their lack of personal achievement. And, frankly, there are more important things to cover. California politicians may gain by this sop tossed to their homosexual constituents, but students are certainly not served.

Against the Regents Exam in History

Who was Mansa Musa? I can already imagine the puzzled look on the reader's face, followed by the mental voice asking, "who cares?" And who cares, indeed? The answer to that is some obscure academics and 10th grade students in New York State during brief three hour periods in January, June, and August, when Regents Exams are held.

Past Regents exams can be viewed here. I did not pick Mansa Musa because he is obscure; I picked him because he is obscure and always appears on the Global Regents test. The June 2011 test is not up yet, but he made an appearance there as well. All students in New York State must pass this test in order to graduate; this test is the single greatest barrier to graduating in terms of Regents tests. The state passing rate in 2009-2010 was a mere 69%.

I believe history Regents exams need to be abandoned. As I don't teach other subjects, I will not pretend to be qualified to judge whether they are valuable or not; in more objective fields like Math and Science, perhaps they are of value. In History, however, these tests fail to be useful, largely because they lack a purpose outside of quantifying results for the bureaucracy of New York. Unfortunately, the centralization of education into the hands of the state (and increasingly Federal) government requires a simple measurement to gauge assessment. Large bureaucracies are too unwieldy to allow for proper assessment of a school's performance, much less that of an individual student. Rather than increasing the bureaucratization, quantification, and alienation of education, our state would benefit by increasing local autonomy and standards.

Under our current educational regime, "The Test" dominates the classroom. Teachers are not yet reduced to automatons, but the difficulty of this exam, combined with the severe consequences of not passing it (namely, going throughout life without graduating high school), forces the teacher to make educational decisions based largely on the Regents. Mansa Musa is a good example. As he invariable appears on the test, teachers must spend time on him. It is, in effect, a gimme, a question students should get right. But do you remember your puzzlement at the name Mansa Musa when you read the first line of this post? Obviously, Mansa Musa isn't remembered, mostly because he serves no real use to us now. A teacher with autonomy could make the decision not to cover this otherwise obscure 14th Century West African monarch, but under the Regents the situation is different. Material is presented in the name of the Test, not in the name of Usefulness. Students are not stupid and pick up on this.

So why does New York put Mansa Musa, the Gupta Empire, the Neolithic Revolution, and Toussaint L'Ouverture on the multiple choice section? Mostly because they appeared on past exams and it provides teachers with some sort of expectations as to what will appear on upcoming tests. 10,000 years of civilization is a very long period of time to cover, even in two years of instruction. To then create 50 multiple choice questions from all of the events in human history and expect 15 and 16 year olds to know the answers is beyond absurd. To create some sort of quantifiable test, the State creates some regularity in which individuals and time periods are questioned. The determining factor is not education or enlightenment, but quantification.

History, and indeed all social science, is a difficult field to teach. Science and math are intuitive; once the skill is learned, students can apply the skill to problems never presented in class. For a really easy example, consider addition. Once one figures out what addition is, one can add 476 and 38, even if they never encountered the exact problem 476+38=? during school. History is different. A vast multitude of people, places, nations, philosophies, religions, conflicts, resources, and other variables weave an immensely complex story. Those variables are not interchangeable. One may ask a math student to solve a brand new equation once that student has mastered the principle. There is no such principle in history. Julius Caesar ruled in Rome in the late first century B.C. and no other period. Once that is understood, I cannot then expect a student to know Augustus, though he too ruled in Rome during the late first century B.C. No two people who have ever lived have faced identical situations; each important person, time, and event must be learned on its own. Once this is done, comparisons can be made between people, places, and times.

History is not the mere memorization of facts anymore than friendship is knowing the birthday and address of another human being. To truly understand an event in history, one must know who the people were, what they wanted, how they went about obtaining those desires, who they had to contend with, when these events occurred, how the past impacted the present moment being discussed and how that in turn lead to events following it. When one has a narrative, the details fit together like a puzzle, which is infinitely more memorable than a collection of facts that is analogous to a heap of puzzle pieces.

Many teachers are capable of presenting history in this narrative and the Regents does not preclude it. However, the question we need to answer is whether or not students can create this narrative on their own. I have not seen anyone actually conduct this study, but I would wager good money that many high school graduates could no longer pass this exam. Material is presented, retained until the test, and for the most part forgotten, save by those who have a natural interest in history and who likely knew 90% of the material prior to entering the Global class. The month long preparation to memorize facts for the test may increase passing rates, but it does nothing to increase long term recall. I informally polled Seniors about information presented in Global Studies two years prior; I believe many would not pass if required to take the exam again.

Rather than learning how to create Thematic and Document Based Question essays, students would be better served by learning how to do research and analysis. Granted, this could not be done under a statewide, quantitative system, as the research of tens of thousands of students would be far too varied for the state to keep track of and quantify reliably (i.e. identically). The problem there lies with the state, however, and not the usefulness of research. As things stand, most students graduating from high school are not prepared to perform college level academics. I have made the case elsewhere that society should not put such a high emphasis on college to begin with, but even those who could make use of such an education are not as prepared as they could be.

While the state may not be able to assess tens of thousands of research projects, teachers are able to assess and improve those skills for the hundred or so students they may have. There are significant benefits to having a decentralized, qualitative system, namely that those at the local level actually know the students beyond a number score sent in once at the end of the year. Take a quick look at the chart below:

This is known as Bloom's Taxonomy. As I mentioned before, history is far more than the memorization of facts. The largest aspect of the Regents Exam is, however, a 50 question multiple choice section that is nearly all mere recall. Another 13-14 questions are DBQ responses, in which a student reads a small passage and answers a question about it, usually by copying something directly from the text itself. That is comprehension, the second step up. As for the essays, so long as the student understands the directions and addresses each aspect of the task, even in very little detail that is a mere recitation of facts, the student can score a 2. Two essays at 2 each, plus the DBQs in which the student literally reads the answer and writes it back down, combined with a 60% correct on the rote memorization multiple choice questions, and the student passes.

A student need not show any sign of higher learning abilities than comprehension in order to pass this test. In order to create informed and responsible citizens, students need to be able to evaluate different economic and political philosophies. Students would be better served by learning about fewer issues throughout history but learning them more in depth, in which they will have the requisite knowledge and application and an opportunity to apply those lessons to, say, current events. As more current events are brought in, the more opportunities students will have to exercise the three highest levels of thinking. The details as to how to implement such a plan are best left to the teachers on the ground, rather than imposing blanket standards from above.

At this point, I am beginning to digress into how social studies should be instructed, a topic that deserves its own lengthy post in the near future. For now, I think it is safe to say that the Regents Exams in history (and particular Global) are actually counterproductive if our goal is to create citizens capable of independent thought. A better education can be provided by granting local teachers more autonomy and weakening the unrealistic belief that quantification somehow equates with an improvement in student understanding. New York may have a reputation for excellence in education due to our difficult testing requirements, but that does not mean we are actually producing more enlightened students. And that, after all, is the actual purpose of education.

The Daily Snark 6/10

As an educator and a person with multiple degrees, I have to think the question should be, "when did college become about anything other than employment?" The fundamental error made by the author is in assuming education can only be gained through some sort of formal educational institution. I've learned far more on my own than in classrooms and paid far less for that knowledge.

Also, $100k of debt is an awful lot to pay for education, especially when there is no means of paying off that debt in the future. Being a Renaissance Man is all fine and dandy, but it needs to rank under fiscal sanity in importance to our lives.

This article is particularly amusing as we spent the last thirty years producing the sorts of people the author wants, and lo and behold, they cannot find work. Education should be focused on useful skills; the liberal arts aspect can be done on our spare time without paying thousands of dollars for it.

Why I Am Voting No On The 2011 Candor School District Budget Vote

On Tuesday, May 17th, I intend to vote against the proposed Candor School budget. The proposed budget can be found here. I am not voting against the budget because it includes the highest tax increase in Tioga, Broome, and Chemung counties (though that is true). I am not voting against this budget because we spent money paying half time teachers, already collecting pensions, to read the newspaper on the taxpayer dime this year (though that is true, too). I am not voting against the budget because the performance of Candor has been lower than regional schools (though this, again, is true).

No, I am voting against the budget because on page four of the budget newsletter, you will find this:

However, with a reduction in State Aid, even a contingency budget was unattainable for the District. Therefore, with the 2011-2012 budget being over $325,000 below the 2010-2011 budget and over $625,000 below a contingency budget, if the budget is not approved by the voters, the Board of Education can adopt the proposed budget as presented.

This is not a vote. Voting implies that the decision of the majority of voters will determine the outcome. According to the newsletter, however, the outcome is already determined: this is the budget. Rather than being a vote, it is a fait accompli. While the school board would like public support, it is by no means necessary for their exercise of power.

If the people reject this budget, the reasonable thing to do would be to go back to the drawing board, address the concerns of the community as best they can, and propose another budget. Giving us an ultimatum of providing public support to this plan or have it imposed on us anyway with restrictions to use of facilities is hardly a choice.

I encourage everyone to vote "no" on this budget and to do so in the future should Candor Central School again offer such ultimatums to the public.

And as I've mentioned before, our educational system needs some serious reform. By reform, I mean less money pumped into forcing every student into the same curriculum, regardless of their abilities or goals for life. The educational system needs to exist for the sake of the students, not for the teachers, not for the administration, and not for the teacher unions.

The Daily Snark 4/22

I'm pretty certain you should be required to know the words to Paul Simon's "You Can Call Me Al" before you become an American citizen.
OR, I'm freaked by the fact that my students do not know who Simon and Garfunkel are and that kind of makes me feel old. But probably the former. Yeah, definitely the former.

An Open Letter to the State of Wisconsin

To the People of the State of Wisconsin:

I must be candid with you. Today, your state embarrassed itself before the entire Union. In the face of a crisis, many of your public "servants" acted in a manner unbecoming of officials charged with protecting the public's welfare. Yes, 14 of your Senators (all belonging to a particular party recently removed by a free election) fled your state, an act of sheer cowardice that justly became a source of derision throughout the other 49 states. Whereas Democrats in some other states, notably Andrew Quomo in my own state of Ne York, have had the courage to face facts and propose the tough measures necessary to counter them, your party of the Left literally ran away from the problem.

This will be the story largely seen on the news, but a far worse tragedy is occurring. Many of your schools were shut down today, not due to any physical factor but because thousands of your teachers put their own needs before those of their students. As a man seeking a position teaching history, this leaves me thunderstruck. Supposedly, these protests are "about the children!" How are your students better served by the public funding teacher pensions? How are your students better served by collective bargaining? How are your students better served by not dealing with the $3 billion in debt hanging over their heads?

Everyone knows the answer: the students are not served. Of all people, those educating our children should be aware of the financial situation most Americans and their governments find themselves in. Millions have lost work or taken part time jobs; very few have seen raises; almost all have taken huge hits in terms of their retirement. For any public employee to complain about having a public paid pension at this juncture is unacceptable behavior. Public employees should be grateful to have a job, a pension, and health care; many, many of their fellow citizens lack these necessities. To demand more from those who have so little to begin with is surely not the message we should be sending your state's children. Public employees live off of the work of their fellow citizens via taxation; when the citizenry faces tough times, public workers need to understand this and make appropriate accommodations, always keeping in mind their privileged position concerning pay and benefits.

I humbly offer my services to any Wisconsin school district seeking a dedicated history teacher who understands the privilege of teaching and the responsibility of collecting a paycheck from taxpayers. So long as school is in session and I am physically capable of educating, you will find me in the classroom eager to teach. History is my passion; I try to teach even without a paycheck due to my belief that only a citizenry educated in history will be capable of maintaining freedom and a democratic form of government.

There are such educators out there. If the union rules can be removed, such teachers can replace those only dedicated to the paycheck and the pension. That would best serve the needs of your students.

What Is An Educated Citizen?

In my latest thoughts on Egypt, I mentioned that republics require educated citizens with the virtue to follow through with that education despite temptations to do otherwise. But what would an"educated citizen" look like? For starters, let's remove the ridiculous notion that completing high school or college qualifies. We seek education, not accreditation.

Perhaps we should ask first what the goal of an education would be. As John Adams wrote to his son, future President John Quincy Adams, "You will ever remember that all the end of study is to make you a good man and a useful citizen." As citizens in a democratic republic, each of us is a ruler of the nation as a whole, along with ruling the state, county, and other levels of our federalist system. Plato rightly calls governing the highest art upon which all others depend; consequently, to rule is a mighty responsibility. Citizens must be knowledgeable in all areas that they rule in lest they rule in ignorance.

What do rulers need to know? For starters, the law is the primary tool of rulers, so a functioning understanding of the law must be obtained. How are rules made, enforced, interpreted, by whom? What are the current laws, in particular those interpreting the Constitution? To understand that latter aspect, a solid understanding of the history of our legal and political philosophy must be had.

Rulers control the national treasury and have vast influence over the economy; naturally, rulers must have a firm grasp of economic theory and current fiscal practices. There are many competing theories here. To best perceive which are most attuned to reality, a strong foundation must be had in philosophy, in metaphysics, epistemology, and of course ethics and political theory.

Rulers also possess the power of the sword. In addition to understanding the ethics of such a power, there are practical considerations as well. The best teacher here is history, which is also important in all aspects of ruling. In human society, there is no laboratory to test our ideas first. The best we can do is study past action, notice the similarities and in particular the differences between the studied situation and the current one, and use that information to make decisions which will most likely lead to the achievement of our goals set out by our ethics.

No man who has ever lived understood all of these ideas and most citizens today barely have any inkling into many of these categories. An educated citizen is one who continually strives to understand these subjects. A day should not pass by when none of these areas are improved upon and an effort must be made to know all of those topics, both in bredth and in depth. To be an educated citizen is a life long pursuit. Merely following current events is not sufficient if those events are not properly understood.

An educated citizen will be frustrated from time to time as they discover the realm of things they do not know expands faster than the sphere of things they do know. The more they know, the more they will realize how small their understanding really is compared to the vast field of knowledge out there. A citizen who does not expand their field of vision will not only believe their small amount of wisdom is huge but will not even be aware of how much they are unfamiliar with. But there is a benefit to the frustration felt by the educated citizen. The educated citizens learn their own limitations. These citizens understand that the less you govern, the less likely it is they will err in deciding on matters not properly understood. An educated citizen will appreciate the concept of limited government more and more as they learn not just new ideas but also as they discover how little of those vast fields of knowledge they have truly explored.

Great Expectations

I want my reader to imagine they are a teacher or a parent. Let us assume the kid is around 14-16, not yet on the verge of graduating but past junior high. You want this kid to do well in school. The child seems unmotivated. When you ask if they care about how they do in school, the answer is no. Imagine they ask why they should care.

How do you answer?

I'm a member of the high school class of 2002. My generation believed that working hard would lead to college, which was seen by our parents as a gateway to success. We were pushed to go to college, largely because a college degree for the generation before us had weight behind it and truly opened doors. In the world we live in today, that's clearly not the case. College is a risk and a large one at that. It is hardly a guarantee of success, though it usually does guarantee a huge debt that cannot be rid of through bankruptcy. Many jobs that do not require college are not going to be particularly picky about high school grades.

So why should these students care?

Many students are self motivated and wish to go to college; many are motivated by their home environment, but a huge segment are missing these elements. They have no real reason to go to college; they will not obtain a professional job in a market like this and those jobs tend to disappear very quickly come recessions. Their skills and interests tend to be more blue collar, jobs that do pay reasonably well. Many do have a vague idea as to how they will get by and it does not involve the French Revolution, trigonometry, or Shakespeare.

Should we be trying to get these kids to care about school?

Considering how much money we spend on education and how badly people could use that money for other things, anything less than an immediate, resounding yes to that question is proof that something is terribly wrong. I can only speak for myself here, but I did not come away with a "yes" to that question.

I don't have the answer here. As a social studies pre service teacher, I would love for students to care more on their own, but I cannot say school is really the answer for all kids under the age of 18. Indeed, most could find a better use for their time and we could find a better use of our tax dollars rather than paying many mediocre teachers and insane pensions. I can come up with a strong argument as to why all citizens should have a strong background in civics and history, but even I cannot argue that having a higher grade will help most students in the long run.

Our expectations have changed. Our educational system needs to change, too.

Holding Teachers Hostage to Demogaphics

The field of education has become a political hot button topic again, notably over failing schools, charter schools, and how best to hold teachers accountable for the job they do. I'm not going to go into this topic too much right now (I have teachery things of my own to do) but I did want to point this little tid bit out.

I'm not all that familiar with Rochester, NY, but I do know it is a urban/suburban area with multiple high schools. Here are the results of two such schools, Brighton and Thomas Jefferson. (information found at www.greatschools.org)

Brighton:

New York State Regents Exams
Scale: % passing

Mathematics A
98% (2009)
97% (2008)
99% (2007)
The state average for Mathematics A was 61% in 2009.

Mathematics B
81% (2009)
75% (2008)
82% (2007)
The state average for Mathematics B was 68% in 2009.

English
96% (2009)
93% (2008)
95% (2007)
The state average for English was 82% in 2009.

Living Environment
99% (2009)
95% (2008)
96% (2007)
The state average for Living Environment was 80% in 2009.

Physics
86% (2009)
82% (2008)
78% (2007)
The state average for Physics was 77% in 2009.

Chemistry
94% (2009)
94% (2008)
96% (2007)
The state average for Chemistry was 74% in 2009.

Earth Science
91% (2009)
89% (2008)
94% (2007)
The state average for Earth Science was 72% in 2009.

Integrated Algebra
95% (2009)
Data not available for this school (2008)
The state average for Integrated Algebra was 72% in 2009.

Global History and Geography
93% (2009)
91% (2008)
The state average for Global History and Geography was 71% in 2009.

U.S. History and Government
95% (2009)
97% (2008)
The state average for U.S. History and Government was 80% in 2009.

Student Ethnicity

Source: NYSED, 2007-2008 Ethnicity This School State Average White 75% 52% Asian or Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander 14% 7% Black or African American 9% 19% Hispanic or Latino 3% 21%

Source: NYSED, 2007-2008

	This School	State Average
Students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch program	8%	44%
Limited English proficient	2%	7%

Attendance

Source: NYSED, 2006-2007

	This School	State Average
Attendance rate	96%	93%

Graduation Rate

Source: NYSED, 2007-2008

	This School	State Average
All Students	93%	76%
Female	95%	79%
Male	91%	71%
Black or African American	75%	61%
Hispanic or Latino	60%	59%
Asian or Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander	89%	81%
White	97%	86%
Economically disadvantaged	74%	65%
Not economically disadvantaged	96%	80%
Students with disabilities	80%	56%
General-Education students	95%	79%

Thomas Jefferson:


Mathematics A
35% (2009)
56% (2008)
63% (2007)
The state average for Mathematics A was 61% in 2009.

Mathematics B
16% (2009)
58% (2008)
58% (2007)
The state average for Mathematics B was 68% in 2009.

English
56% (2009)
45% (2008)
38% (2007)
The state average for English was 82% in 2009.

Living Environment
64% (2009)
54% (2008)
58% (2007)
The state average for Living Environment was 80% in 2009.

Physics
Data not available for this school (2009)
18% (2008)
22% (2007)
The state average for Physics was 77% in 2009.

Chemistry
48% (2009)
10% (2008)
Data not available for this school (2007)
The state average for Chemistry was 74% in 2009.

Earth Science
39% (2009)
32% (2008)
43% (2007)
The state average for Earth Science was 72% in 2009.

Integrated Algebra
34% (2009)
Data not available for this school (2008)
The state average for Integrated Algebra was 72% in 2009.

Global History and Geography
43% (2009)
25% (2008)
The state average for Global History and Geography was 71% in 2009.

U.S. History and Government
46% (2009)
51% (2008)
The state average for U.S. History and Government was 80% in 2009.

Student Ethnicity

Source: NYSED, 2007-2008 Ethnicity This School State Average Black or African American 63% 19% Hispanic or Latino 18% 21% White 12% 52% Asian or Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander 7% 7% Native American or Native Alaskan 1% <1%

Student Subgroups

Source: NYSED, 2007-2008

	This School	State Average
Students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch program	78%	44%
Limited English proficient	18%	7%

Attendance

Source: NYSED, 2006-2007

	This School	State Average
Attendance rate	90%	93%

Graduation Rate

Source: NYSED, 2007-2008

	This School	State Average
All Students	51%	76%
Female	49%	79%
Male	53%	71%
Black or African American	54%	61%
Hispanic or Latino	48%	59%
White	43%	86%
Economically disadvantaged	64%	65%
Not economically disadvantaged	32%	80%
Students with disabilities	24%	56%
General-Education students	56%	79%

The real kicker?
Brighton:

Total per pupil expenditures

$14,834

That's roughly $1,500 under the state average.

Thomas Jefferson:

Total per pupil expenditures

$15,732

(I said I wasn't going to go into this much, not that you wouldn't).

There are some differences between teacher quality and classroom size in these schools but not enough to cause the results to be this drastically different. I think the biggest influence on kids concerning their education is always going to be at home. Brighton can spend less per student and achieve far greater results because the home environment is that much better off for those Thomas Jefferson students (as noted by the students eligible for reduced or free lunch). The short of it is, the teacher in the classroom can do almost nothing about this. Holding teachers accountable for the final grades of their students is wrong in epistemological terms and further reduces a teacher's willingness to work in poorer school districts.

I don't have time to come up with a better system right now (topic for another day, perhaps). Teachers certainly need to be held accountable, as any public employee does, but the method of using students' scores as a true measure of the teacher's quality is inaccurate because different teachers will begin the year with students with different abilities. The answer will almost certainly have to come from within the community as only they will know the students well enough to know if they show improvement, which may be a better goal than an arbitrary passing number.