RAVITCH: THE EDUCATION SPEECH OBAMA NEEDS TO GIVE

[yurbud]

It's pretty sad that someone has to imagine a Democratic president needing to say these words, even sadder that it is unlikely to happen.

If these words aren't said though, every teacher is going to wonder why they bother to vote when both parties treat them like punching bags and their students as so many pork bellies big campaign donors are champing at the bit to privatize so they can drain our tax dollars into their profits.

I'd like to vote for a president who is right on this issue instead of being just slightly better than the alternative.

“You know that I have spoken out repeatedly against teaching to the test. I would not want this for my children, and you should not want it for yours or the children in your care. This is mis-education.

“Our country is now spending billons of dollars on testing and test preparation that should be spent in the classrooms of America, bringing back the 300,000 teachers who lost their jobs. reducing class sizes, restoring libraries, and providing services directly to children.

***

“One more thing. I realize that we were wrong to require states to allow more privately-managed schools as a condition of getting money from the Race to the Top.

“Through our mistakes, we inadvertently unleashed a movement to privatize our nation’s public schools and to turn them into for-profit centers for equity investors and technology corporations..."

FULL TEXT

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. Dream on, Diane. We are not even close to being on the agenda.

I don't quite get it. Apparently they think they don't need us. ( Never mind whether or not they value the health of public education.)

Maybe they're right.

[yurbud]

2. it's valued the way home ownership, health care, or jobs are

by whether or not they make money for those who already have money.

[Igel]

3. I keep looking for definitions.

I like Ravitch, she usually defines her terms well. In public she can be a bit of a let down in this regard, and when cited people usually don't bother with definitions, so her words mean whatever those citing them want them to mean.

"Teaching to the test" is one of those problem terms. I teach to the test. Sometimes it's a really bad thing because I know some obscure fact is likely to be on the test. Sometimes it's a good thing because some tests are based directly on the standards, and teaching to the test is precisely the same thing as teaching to the standards.

Both require sticking to a decent schedule to get through all the standards at the right level of comprehension, focusing on what's important in the standards (and the test) and giving less attention to what's not important. Even if I really, really like some of the less important bits and find some of the important bits excruciatingly boring.

It's stressful when the kids can't or won't cope with the standards. A lot of them just want to memorize stuff to pass the test so they can stay tuned out. You explain that the revised test has defocused memorization and is looking for more comprehension and they stare at you like you're speaking Hittite backwards. Then, to get them over the hurdle, we lower our standards and try to teach just the necessary facts to get them to pass. Then we're just teaching to the test in a bad way.