High Stakes Testing: Are They Valid Indicators Of Learning?

MYTH: Testing is a valid and reliable indicator of learning. Schools should focus only on results of standardized testing. An emphasis on testing will ensure a higher standard of learning for the children.

Benjamin Franklin once said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. That is exactly what we are seeing in the schools today on many levels. If throwing money at a problem does not solve the problem, policy makers invariably believe that throwing more money at it will make it better. If regulations prove ineffective, the prevailing approach is to add more regulations. Schools are held hostage by a group of radicals that came of age in the 1960s and refuse to abandon their favorite issues even when evidence overwhelmingly proves these ideas to be clunkers. Insanity.

When SAT and ACT scores began to decline in the 1960s, policy makers (note: not educators) grew concerned and felt that something should be done. By the 1970s there was a school reform movement that advocated minimum competency testing for high school graduation. A set of standards was defined that represented the basic educational requirements necessary for minimum functional participation in the society. Tests were promptly designed and administered. By the early 1980s, the flaws in this approach began to emerge. It appeared that minimum competency was dumbing down the curriculum. For students, as long as only the minimums were required for graduation, there was not much sense in learning more than was needed. Nor was there a need for teachers to teach more than was required by the tests.

In 1983, National Commission on Education released A Nation At Risk. The report recommended an end to minimum competency testing and called for tougher standards. It was generally perceived that American education was failing and that the U.S. would loose its preeminent global position. Citing loses in international test scores and deteriorating conditions in the schools, the Commission provoked hysteria among the public. It effectively argued that states should implement high standards, improved curricula, and tough assessments, and hold schools accountable for meeting the standards. Thus was born the testing movement that preoccupies educators and the schools today.

Daniel Koretz of the Harvard Graduate School of Education says that “tests are cheap and very powerful and have an aura of objectivity.” Testing seems like a good idea. But along with testing comes a plethora of predicaments and problems. Not satisfied with merely imposing standardized tests on the schools, policy makers and other special interest groups (not educators) added “incentives” to the mix. In the typical seems-to-make-sense ideology of the left, it was claimed that incentives for learning and sanctions for poor performance would improve the schools.

With the addition of incentives and sanctions standardized testing has evolved into high-stakes testing with punishments imposed at a rate two to three times that of rewards. Forty-five states hold schools accountable for poor performance. Twenty-seven use ranking or rating systems. Sixteen can fire teachers and administrators, while 14 states have the authority to take over schools that fail to perform. Eleven states can revoke a school’s accreditation. In contrast, only 22 states offer incentives to top performing schools.

Teachers and schools have long been viewed as ineffective, if not completely incompetent, by the general public. This view has been promoted by progressive types who would use the schools to advance their agenda. These same progressives have tampered with the schools for the last several decades and have had a serious impact upon educational policy. They have created the very problems that they now point out as weaknesses and failures. For these groups there is a desperate need to draw attention away from their shortcomings as pedagogical experts. The punitive aspects associated with high stakes testing appear to offer these groups a certain satisfaction. The sanctions are intended to force the schools and teachers to improve or else. The testing movement is a way for the liberals to hold schools accountable for declining academic outcomes.

In New York, for example, the State Board of Regents, made up of politicians and business leaders, resolved that the schools were failing badly. They determined that the only way to improve the schools was to improve the test scores. So they passed legislation that mandated high stakes testing. The results were dismal. To prepare students for the test, the curriculum was altered to be more in line with the tests, and daily drills were begun. During this time, failure and dropout rates increased while there was a noted increase (22%) in the number of “special education” diplomas. As a means to disguise the dropout rates, students were placed in General Education Development (GED) programs.

As these dismal results were reported to the board of regents, their response was to add more layers of requirements. Still, the damage continued. Despite the fact that none of the regents ever had any teaching experience, they determined that they knew the best way to improve education.

In 1999, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) stated that “high stakes tests often fail to assess accurately students’ knowledge, understanding, and capability. Raising test scores does not improve education.” The problem is that high stakes testing forces schools to teach to the tests. When schools are forced to focus on testing, memorization of facts are emphasized over the development of problem solving, critical and analytical thinking skills. With pressure to show positive results, schools, administrators, and teachers tend to narrow their focus as they sink into survival mode.

High stakes standardized testing has not proved to be a valid indicator of learning. This form of testing only proves that students can be trained to select answers from a list. On reading tests, for example, drill and practice tests have succeeded in raising the passing rate of students on reading tests, but many of the same students are unable to apply those skills to actual reading. In the middle grades, teachers have reported that students who pass reading tests have grown accustomed to responding to the short passages on the tests and have difficulty with lengthier reading assignments. Furthermore, some students are unable to apply reading skills to other academic areas, despite success with reading tests. Is it any wonder that scores continue to rise while minimum abilities of graduates decline?

As for the tests themselves, cheating and manipulation is not uncommon. Editor in Chief of The American Enterprise, Karl Zinsmeister, writes of one school on Staten Island. When parents complained, “the Board of Education’s Office of Special Investigations uncovered wide spread cheating at School 5, but not by sneaky students. The school’s principal (had) altered answer sheets.”

In Birmingham, Alabama, 522 low performing high school students were expelled shortly before a district wide SAT test was scheduled. Susan Ohanian, a Senior Fellow at the Vermont Society for the Study of Education, said of the Birmingham 522, “the easiest way to raise the scores is to make sure the bottom students don’t take the test.” Could it have been mere coincidence that the Birmingham schools superintendent was given a bonus when test scores went up?

A study by Arizona State University was conducted to determine if testing indicated any transference of knowledge “beyond what was required to perform on...high-stakes test(s).” In light of increasing test scores, the findings revealed that “there is little support in these data that such increases are anything but the result of test preparation.” The study also found that “high-stakes testing programs have unintended consequences such as a narrowing of the curriculum, heavy use of drill as the method of instruction, increased student drop-out rates, teachers and schools cheating on the exams, and teachers’ defection from the profession.”

The NCTE also stated that “high stakes testing often harms students’ daily experience of learning, displaces more thoughtful and creative curriculum, diminishes the emotional well-being of educators and children and unfairly damages the life-chances of members of vulnerable groups.” In short, standardized, high stakes testing is not working.

As authors of the ASU study, Audry Amrein and David Berliner, stated, “the harder teachers work to directly prepare students for a high-stakes test, the less likely the test will be valid for the purposes it was intended.” Public Education today is like a vast Rube Goldberg machine: all bells, whistles, and moving parts. It appears to be accomplishing something, but the end product is disproportionate to the amount of energy and resources expended.

The sad irony of high stakes testing is that there is a group intimately involved with education that is rarely, if ever, consulted regarding school improvement issues. Yet, this group almost always receives the blame when the innovative programs fail to deliver as promised. This group? It is the teachers. The teachers provide a convenient scapegoat for the progressives that seek to manipulate the schools. But, it is not the teachers who are to blame. Forty years of liberal manipulation is the real cause of declining academic outcomes. High stakes testing is merely the current hysteria promoted by the left.

Outcome Based Education: Another Name for Creeping Socialism

MYTH: The establishment of predetermined educational outcomes will improve test scores and more children will have access to academic success.

At the turn of the last century, Harvard professor George Santayana wrote: “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”

In pre WW II Germany, Adolph Hitler made sweeping changes to the educational system for the purpose of restructuring German society. Inspired by Soviet revolutionaries, his goal was a National Socialist state in which its citizens complied with specific expectations. To accomplish this, he introduced a system of instruction that de-emphasized academic knowledge in favor of attitudinal outcomes. In his own words, Hitler said, “The People’s State must reconstruct our system of general instruction in such a way that it will embrace only what is essential” (Mein Kampf, Vol. II, Chap. 2). He succeeded in establishing a state curriculum through legal maneuvers, laws, and intimidation. Gradually, even private and parochial schools were pressured into compliance or faced the loss of government subsidies and tax concessions. Before the start of hostilities, every institution of learning in Germany was in compliance with the state curriculum creating a population of happily complacent and compliant worker drones.
Seven decades later, we are seeing history repeat itself. One of the more popular educational fads to darken the hallways of American schools in recent years is that known as outcome based education (OBE). The similarities between OBE and Hitler’s National Socialist curriculum are disturbing. Like Hitler’s curriculum, the ultimate goal of OBE is the total reconstruction of the educational system and eventually the reengineering of society.
OBE is another in a continuing series of experimental educational schemes that have been inaugurated without proven research data to back up their vague promises and outright lies. It is new age psychobabble and junk science. But unlike other flawed educational experiments, OBE has the weight of law to enforce its total implementation.
OBE is one of those knee-jerk responses intended to correct perceived problems with the schools: falling test scores, increasing violence, and prevailing apathy toward education in general. OBE was not developed by teachers. It was introduced by a radical group of liberal psychologists, sociologists, and politicians for the purpose, we were told, of saving our ailing educational system. This group included the father of OBE, ex-Harvard professor William Spady, management consultant Charles Schwahn, and psychiatrist Dr. William Glasser. With Workforce 2000, authored by Arnold Packer of Johns Hopkins University, and the National Education Association’s (NEA) Ten Cardinal Principals as a blueprint for the Federal Goals 2000, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, pushed through legislation that set the stage for what is being called “a train wreck in slow motion.”
Outcome based education, as it is enthusiastically promoted by its liberal supporters, “is simply the establishment of expected goals or outcomes for different levels of elementary-secondary education, and a commitment to ensuring that every student achieves at least those minimum proficiencies before being allowed to graduate.” Now, if this sounds good, it’s supposed to. OBE is actually a broad based, legislatively mandated program designed to dumb down the curriculum in schools so that everyone achieves the same level of “mastery.”
Our traditional system of education has been academically oriented, with teacher directed instruction. Based on a curriculum rich in content, students acquire “core knowledge” then are tested to determine their ability to formulate conclusions or judgments based on that knowledge. On the other hand, OBE represents a shift away from the traditional educational system in which content and core knowledge are emphasized, to one which emphasizes attitudes and beliefs.
With OBE there is a tremendous potential to influence students with a politically correct set of doctrines. We are already seeing an increased emphasis on radical issues such as global citizenship, environmentalism, humanism, self-esteem, and human sexuality at the expense of core subjects such as math science, history, and writing. Hitler had a similar idea when he said, “The subject of our historical teaching must be curtailed.” When we see schools today refusing to teach about our founding fathers on the pretext that to do so will offend someone, are we witnessing a move to Hitlerian revisionist history?
In some school districts currently, an average of only 41% of the school day is devoted to core subjects. The other 59% is made up of a smorgasbord of values based course offerings. These new courses are designed to increase student awareness, teach tolerance, instill self-esteem, and resolve conflicts. They teach values clarification, moral reasoning, gender and lifestyle issues, and other high sounding new age mumbo jumbo topics.
OBE has a deceptive way of showing improvement over results of the traditional system: it simply lowers the standards and relies on ambiguous assessment methods. The outcomes are values based and require the student to demonstrate attitudes, behaviors, and feelings, but not knowledge or judgment. Competition is discouraged. Group participation and team building take precedence over intellectual development of the individual. Brighter students are held to the same level of mastery as their less academically blessed classmates. They wait while less scholarly students attempt mastery of the material forcing the brighter students to comply with the lowered standards.
Just as Hitler used legal tactics to impose his curriculum, OBE has legislation in place that will impose its insidiousness on our schools. The well known Federal Goals 2000 established a mandatory curriculum for schools and proposals for eliminating local control of schools. Public Law 103-382, passed in 1994, set aside $8 billion for schools to use to implement OBE. The federal Education Act H.R. 6 allows for the elimination of laws which may interfere with OBE implementation. Under this legislation, schools will be forced to implement OBE or face the loss of federal funding, or worse, takeover by the government.
And just as Hitler pressured private and parochial schools to comply, our government is bringing privates and parochials into the sinister web of OBE. The much touted government vouchers are cunning devices to reduce the efficacy of private and parochial schools. By promising high expectation/low income parents the opportunity to send their children to these options to public schools, the government is laying the ground work for the elimination of these alternatives as we have come to know them. Federal law requires that once an institution of learning accepts government funding it must comply with government educational standards. This means that once vouchers are issued, OBE will begin to infest private and parochial schools as well. Shortly after that, the last bastion of parental control, home schooling, will be outlawed.
It doesn’t take a social scientist to see the danger in outcome based education. The dumbing down of the curriculum, emphasis on attitudinal outcomes, self-esteem, alternative assessments, etc. will produce a nation of happily complacent and compliant worker drones. Creativity will disappear and individual initiative will become a foot note in the revisionist history books. Even a cursory examination of it will show that OBE has socialism written all over it.

Reading Is Fundamental

MYTH: Children learn to talk by being exposed to a language-rich environment. Therefore, they will learn to read by simply being exposed to a reading-rich environment without need for much reading instruction.

The ability to read defines literacy, and a literate populace is essential to a free, informed society. With that in mind, the founding purpose of schools in America over 300 years ago was to teach children to read. For over 250 years, our schools pursued that foundational purpose with noticeable success. Unfortunately, schools today seem no longer to be following their founding precepts. Reading scores are plummeting despite huge amounts of effort and resources being expended in an effort to reverse the trend.

It is difficult to ignore the diminishing reading abilities of today’s students with facts such as these: In California, a study conducted among 374 Sacramento first and second graders found them at the 23rd percentile on a nationally administered standardized reading test. Newsweek recently reported that none of the fourth grade students in ten of 22 Camden, NJ, elementary schools passed the state’s reading proficiency test. Nationally, 40% of fourth graders lack basic skills in reading, and the number is somewhat higher for high school students. Reading below the basic level means that these students demonstrate “little or no mastery of the knowledge necessary to perform work at each grade level” (National Assessment of Educational Progress).
The culprit behind this disaster is a reading instruction philosophy called “whole language.” It is one of the educational reforms, like the infamous “new math,” that inundated public schools in the 1970s and 80s. However, unlike new math this one is still around. Whole language advocates enthusiastically promoted the concept as a method of improving reading skills among all children regardless of social or economic background or cognitive ability.

Whole language is really nothing new. The debate over the effectiveness of phonics (how letters sound) and any other trendy reading instruction format (that emphasizes whole words and stories, but not the sounds letters make) has been going on for decades. “Why Johnny Can’t Read” was published in 1955. It was an attempt to bring attention to the damaging effects of the method of reading instruction that was prevalent at the time. Back then, a method similar to whole language was competing with phonics and was known as “look-say” and “sight reading.” The difference now is that whole language has the weight of “research” behind it to make it appear effective. The fact is that, like most educational reforms, there is little or no evidence to support its claims of success. There is, however, a mass of evidence that proves the opposite.
So what is whole language? Whole language advocates believe that children can learn to read in much the same way they learn to speak. If children learn to talk by being exposed to a language-rich environment, it follows that they will learn to read by being exposed to a reading-rich environment without need for much instruction. The whole language teacher is primarily a facilitator overseeing students in a non-threatening (read that non-correcting, non-teaching) atmosphere.

Children in whole language programs memorize a few dozen frequently used words and assume context by pictures on the page. They are taught to guess rather than sound out unfamiliar words. They are never criticized for mistakes, but encouraged to take chances. They are taught to skip words they don’t know (skipping strategies) and to substitute or predict words that seem to fit the context. When writing, whole language children use “invented” spelling, punctuation, and grammar without fear of being marked wrong. “Invented spelling has always gotten, and still gets, dismal long-term results,” writes Myrna McCulloch, founder of the nonprofit literacy corporation The Riggs Institute, “because it programs the young mind with the wrong information which is not easily erased.” The priority is not literacy, but self esteem.
Together, cognitive psychologist Frank Smith and University of Arizona professor Ken Goodman, developed the theories behind whole language in the late 1960s. They conducted research which essentially consisted of listening to people read aloud. Apparently Prof. Goodman could not believe that the human brain was capable of processing visual symbols into sounds as rapidly as was being demonstrated. He reasoned that the readers were guessing words in sequence based on context and were not relying on spelling. He further reasoned that if the ability to guess could be improved and reliance on individual letters de-emphasized that reading ability would improve. It was Smith who concluded that reading was acquired in the same way as the spoken word and should be taught in as natural a way as possible.

However, if Goodman and Smith were serious researchers, they would have found that readers do fixate on every letter in a text. They would have also learned that each letter is unconsciously sounded out with incredible speed. McCulloch says, “Comprehension ‘happens’ because (readers) analyze, think, deduce, and create as they move through...integrated steps to mastery of their language. Once decoding is automatic, the mind ‘frees’ for full comprehension.”
Unfortunately, the theories developed by Goodman and Smith have given academic validity to the old look-say and sight reading methods. And like most trendy educational reforms, they have been inaugurated with much fan fare and hollow promises, but very little evidence of effectiveness. When asked if research studies from other disciplines supported his findings, Professor Goodman could not identify any. “There is no know research to support their theory,” says McCulloch.

By the 1980s, whole language was well established in teachers colleges. And there has been no lessening of its influence in the years since. In university teacher training programs, young teacher candidates, eager to learn the procedures of their trade, enthusiastically absorb lessons taught by liberal professors. These professors have little or no real world experience. They are either the developers (like Goodman, and thus have a vested interest in the promotion of these twisted ideas), or are disciples of Age of Aquarius instructional methods. Because these methods have been buttressed with a sequence of activities, it is easy to pass them off as effective, meaningful, and serious. The professors further back up their claims of success with new age double speak, false statistics, and outright lies.

Eager, young teachers in training learn methods that appear to be sound pedagogical procedures because of their logical sequence of activities. They are told how wonderfully effective these methods are. And, with newly acquired skills and undergraduate degrees, the new teachers unsuspectingly go forth into the schools to spread the infection yet further. These unsuspecting novices, taught to believe that what they do is effective because their university instructors told them so, go through the motions of teaching children to read. When they don’t get it, the kids are classified as ADHD, dyslexic, or are branded as developmentally disabled, and the teachers unions scream for more money to expand the programs. The whole language crowd would never admit to its part in the stupification of America’s children. Instead they point trembling, tear stained fingers at social, economic, or racial factors as reasons for unacceptable outcomes. The irony is that these are the very factors that whole language was intended to transcend.
The fact is, phonics works, whole language doesn’t. Whole language relies heavily on context and visual cues making it a pictographic form of reading, which is completely antithetical for use with an auditory form. “Phonics by definition is first auditory as is training in phonemic awareness,” writes McCulloch. “Children...must articulate the sounds (of letters); that means not with key word or pictures. Sounds go with symbols or the letters which stand for the sounds on paper. The English alphabet is a sounds/symbol system. It is not a pictographic system.”

This debate begs the question, “Why can’t Johnny read?” Well, the answer is, “Because, while they were teaching him to feel good about himself, no one taught Johnny how to read.”

Class Size Reduction: The Next Great Leap...Backward

MYTH: Student-teacher ratios in today’s classrooms are too high. Students are short changed and do not receive appropriate teacher attention. As a result, children are not able to reach their true academic potential. Smaller classes would result in better student-teacher interaction, children would receive the attention they deserve, and test scores would increase.

Since the mid-1960s, student achievement and test scores have been steadily declining while discipline problems have increased. One option to reverse these trends is to reduce the size of classes. Common sense dictates that large classes increase teacher work loads and stress, limit the amount and quality of individual attention that teachers can provide students, breeds unfavorable student behaviors, and diminishes the academic potential of students. On the other hand, smaller classes result in increased student-teacher interaction, reduced teacher work load and stress, better classroom management, fewer discipline problems, and improved student achievement.

This idea has captured the attention of the National Education Association. The NEA has promoted this concept tirelessly to school districts throughout the land with varying degrees of success. Arguing in favor of the "common-sense attractiveness" of the idea, class size reduction (CSR) promises to be an uncomplicated way to increase educational efficacy. The NEA recommends an optimal student-teacher ratio of 15 to 1. To achieve this goal would require an initial hiring of only 100,000 new teachers. Therefore, the solution to declining test scores, academic achievement, and discipline problems is to simply hire more teachers.
Sounds like a good plan.

Now, before you set your hair on fire and run screaming to your local school board demanding that they hire more teachers, let’s take a closer look at class size reduction.
In the 1950s, the national average student-teacher ratio was 30 to 1. By the 1990s, the student-teacher ratio had fallen to 19 to 1. This is a decline in the ratio of 37%.
From the late 60s to the late 90s, spending on public education increased 61% more than inflation. Over the same period, achievement and test scores declined. From the mid-60s through the 90s, the average SAT scores fell by 58 points. Despite a reduction in average class size, and increased spending on education, both promoted as essential to educational improvement, scholastic achievement plummeted.

Educationists love to compare U.S. students with students in other countries. International test scores are consistently higher than equivalent U.S. scores. Yet, class size does not appear to be a significant factor in nations with larger average class sizes. For example, Korean classes average 49 students while in Japan, the average is 36. Both countries trounce U.S. students on test scores.

Is there any evidence that smaller classes actually produce the results promised? In 1985, Tennessee began a controlled experiment called "Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio" (STAR). The STAR program was planned to provide "scientific evidence on the effects of class size reduction." The goal of the program was to reduce the ratio to 15 to 1 (based on the same vague research used by the NEA that pointed to that ratio as significant).

About the only significant finding of the STAR project was that the relationship between smaller class size and improved achievement was in kindergarten or first grade. Subsequent improvement did not follow in grades beyond K-1. If the theory was sound, it should have shown continued improvement in each successive grade level. Achievement gains, therefore, in grades K-1 were not, in and of themselves, the direct result of smaller class size, but reflected a "one-time acquisition of social and learning behaviors useful...in subsequent years."

Sixteen Austin, Texas schools participated in a CSR program in the 1980s. Each school was given $300,000 each year over a five year period to be used to reduce the student-teacher ratio. At the end of the five year period, only two schools were able to demonstrate any significant improvement. And those two schools, unlike the other 14, had invested heavily in "intensive teacher training, and rigorous academic standards," in addition to CSR.

In 1993, Nevada’s "Class Size Evaluation Study" found that "achievement levels remained about the same when small classes were compared with larger classes."

Between 1995 and 1997, Wisconsin initiated a CSR experiment called "Student Achievement Guarantee in Education" (SAGE). In contrast to Tennessee’s STAR program, SAGE went beyond CSR, but had as its goal the same 15 to 1 ratio. In the SAGE program, other factors introduced were "a revised, rigorous academic curriculum, professional development, and accountability initiatives," to name a few. Achievement gains were realized under the SAGE program. However, because of the other variables, "one cannot assume that any increases in student learning are due to class size reduction alone."

Accumulated evidence not withstanding, the state of California in 1996, mandated class size reduction for grades kindergarten through third grade. An appropriation of $1.5 billion was dangled out there as an incentive to schools to reduce the state wide student-teacher ratio to 20 to 1. California’s plan resulted in an immediately perceived teacher shortage. To fill the vacancies created by the plan, districts were forced to hire inexperienced, sometimes unqualified teachers or lose out on a portion of the Sacramento Cash Cow. Though the ratio was reduced, the quality of instruction was reduced as well, negating any possible academic gains realized from CSR.

Some major findings did come out of the various CSR experiments, studies, and programs. One was that small classes only at the kindergarten and first grade levels appear to be beneficial to initiating higher academic potential. Small classes beyond that tend not to demonstrate a linear progression of improvement beyond those levels. Another significant finding appears to be that of (gasp!) teacher quality.

Over 1100 studies focusing on class size and academic achievement have failed to find any significant relationship between the two. Yet, despite a dearth of evidence to support their claims regarding the benefits of class-size reduction, the NEA continues to pound the CSR drum.
There are other factors relative to class size reduction that the NEA would rather not disclose in its zeal to swell the ranks of teachers. Staff salaries can represent up to 80% of a typical school district’s budget. Staff includes all paid employees of a district: teachers, aides, administrators, custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc. If teachers represent about two-thirds of a district’s paid staff, an increase of 50% in the number of certified teachers would increase to only 85.7% of total budget allocations for teacher salaries.

That doesn’t sound like much of an increase. And, indeed, in this situation those promoting CSR would say that staff salary allocations would represent a modest increase of only 5.7%. In truth, the actual increase translates to 40% more than the previous budget with no corresponding increase in non-teaching, support, and physical plant budgetary considerations. Toss in the cost of more classroom space to handle the increased number of classes and the 40% number begins to skyrocket. Consider also additional curricular materials, books, supplies, and staff training, maintenance of the new classrooms, more custodians, more food service, more utilities (heating, cooling, etc.), and the 40% increase seems like a bargain. The figure of 85.7% of the new school budget allocated for staff salaries is for a budget at least 40% higher, and in all likelihood much higher, than before.

Where does that money come from? Certainly not the NEA. It comes from tax payers in form of higher property taxes. Funds not received from this source come from increased income taxes that are redistributed through the U.S. Department of Education in form of incentives to schools. Case in point: the unworkable No Child Left Behind Act offers billions to cash strapped schools if they hop on the NCLB band wagon. (FYI: the Department of Education was elevated to Cabinet level in 1979 by Jimmy Carter as a pay back to the NEA for its endorsement of him in the 1976 election. Is there an NEA/DOE connection? Well, as they say, that’s a wholenuther story.) Either way, the taxpayer is compelled to fork it over with little or no return on the "investment."

Teaching today has become little more than containment and baby sitting. This is due in large part to frightened, easily intimidated administrators who routinely sacrifice teachers on the alter of self-preservation. They cave when faced with unreasonable demands of special interest groups. In the absence of good leadership and administrative support, teaching becomes an exercise in futility. Administrators reluctant to allow classroom teachers to perform as per their job descriptions, or are unwilling to support faculty with discipline matters, send a message to students that learning is not meaningful. If teachers can’t teach because of poor support or training, class size is irrelevant.

In summary, class size has been shown to be an insignificant factor in improving academic achievement. It appears, however, that the emphasis should be placed on (are you ready?) teaching. Instead of tossing money down the CSR rat hole, it would be better spent on ongoing staff training. Equally important is administrative support of faculty. This can be accomplished with no increase in capital expenditures.

So, the NEA is desperately seeking 100,000 new teachers in the name of class size reduction. But if class size is not a factor in academic proficiency, what, then, is the fuss all about? The answer is that smaller classes mean more teachers. More teachers mean more money and more political clout. In the end, the NEA gets what it wants: smaller classes, and more teachers (especially more teachers). In fact, the only group that benefits from this stratagem is the NEA.

THE TEACHER SHORTAGE: Is It Real, Or Is It Hype?

MYTH: There is in this country, a huge shortage of qualified teachers. Every year, teaching positions go unfilled and students are forced into overcrowded classrooms. Over the next ten years, over 2 million new teachers will need to be hired to solve the teacher shortage crisis.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), there were 48.6 million students enrolled in grades K-12 in US public schools in 2006. That same year, there were about 3.161 million teachers working to educate them. According to the NCES, the national ratio is 15.4 to one. Not bad when you consider that in the 1950s the student-teacher ratio was more than 30 to one.[1]
Your diligent education reporter began his teaching career in 1975. His very first class consisted of 42 students! The room only had 40 chairs, so he sent a student to the office to get two more chairs. Instead, the student came back with two more students! So his student-teacher ratio that year was 44 to one. Thirteen years later, he had changed districts, going from an inner-city school to a rural one. His first class in the rural school had 28 students. After having spent several years working in a junior high with class sizes averaging 32 to 34, he was in hog heaven. Nevertheless, the teachers at the new school were complaining about the large numbers of students in their classes.
In the Fall, 2005 issue of Traditional Parent, it was reported in some detail that the National Education Association called for a student-teacher ratio of 15 to one. It was also reported that, according to the NEA, to achieve this optimum ratio would require the hiring of only 100,000 new teachers. And it’s true! If one does the math, 100,000 does represent the number of teachers needed to reduce the student-teacher ration from the current 15.4 to one ration to the desired 15 to one. Well, that’s only one number the NEA uses to justify what ever exigency is at hand.
For some time now, the National Teacher Shortage has been receiving attention from the NEA, the media, and other left-leaning organizations. They produce constant paroxysms of anguish about how America’s children will not be properly educated unless more, millions more, teachers are hired.
Why does the NEA, along with other liberal groups, pound the teacher shortage drum? First, in the Chicken Little world of the left, the sky is always falling. Leftist liberals live in a world of perpetual panic and paranoia that they ardently strive to share with the rest of us. They can’t get up in the morning unless there’s a crisis, and their crises seem never-ending. The earth is burning up, famine is about to sweep the globe, the air is poisoning us, the two-legged, six-fingered burrowing salamander is disappearing from its only known habitat in a one-square mile area of Arctic tundra, and so on. But in recent years, the Left has become particularly obsessed with the supposed teacher shortage. They weep and wail and slobber all over themselves as they describe the terrible conditions in today’s classrooms because there aren’t enough teachers to fill the need.
What really upsets them, however, is that without more teachers, the NEA, which is America’s largest and most powerful political action committee (PAC), won’t be able to retain its influence with the Democrat Party, to which almost all of its political contributions go. The NEA’s track record with regard to teaching the kids is pretty bleak. But for promoting itself, give it a big fat A+. It has endorsed social engineering on a vast scale, introduced the idea of self-esteem, eliminated discipline from the schools, and forced teachers to implement individual learning programs for each of their students. The schools are stifling under the weight of the No Child Left Behind legislation and standardized testing is replacing learning. The NEA creates imagined shortages and shortfalls while ignoring the kids.
Frantic to increase the numbers of dues paying members, the NEA desperately promotes shortages of all kinds: "The greatest teaching shortages are in bilingual and special education,"[2] they declare. Minority teachers make up "just 13.5 percent"[3] of the teachers within US schools, while minority students comprise 33 percent of enrollment nationally. Forty-two percent of US public schools have no minority teachers at all.[4] These numbers are tossed out without reference or regard to demographics which impact ethnic and cultural considerations. Truth is that some districts do have difficulties staffing some classes, while others turn applicants away. Despite what the NEA wants, there is no balance or fairness in reality. Reality is what the NEA fears most and prefers to avoid.
It has been said that the majority of all statistics are made up to accommodate some expediency. Facts notwithstanding, NEA statistics should be viewed with a bit of skepticism because they are often used to support their favorite “crisis of the moment.” For example, they use the 100,000 needed-teachers number with regard to class size reduction. Yet, in 2000 the NEA breathlessly announced that 2.2 million teachers would be needed in the following ten years to solve the current school crisis.[5] By 2002, they had increased that number to 2.4 million. Later on, they argued hysterically that "the projection jumps as high as 2.7 million when researchers factor in declining student/teacher ratios based on class size reduction" [6](emphasis added). The actual number, when one considers normal attrition through resignations, retirements and other factors, is 980,000 teachers needed immediately to achieve the 15 to one ratio. That’s the 100,000 plus 880,000 new teachers to replace those leaving the profession. Apparently, the NEA is counting on no one checking their math.
Characteristic of social activists pandering to the public’s paranoia, the NEA wails that "by 2008, public school enrollment will exceed 54 million, an increase of nearly 2 million children." Where did they get those numbers?[7] According to the NCES, by 2008 public school enrollment will be 48.7 million. At Apparently the NEA has tossed in private and home schooled enrollment to justify their numbers. Total student enrollment in both public and private schools was 54.6 million in 2001 and total enrollment is project to be 55.2 million by 2008.[8] Who are you going to believe?
Nationally, student enrollment in public schools increased 19 percent between 1988 and 2001.[9] There were 47.7 million students enrolled in public schools in 2001. NCES projections indicate that by 2013 public school student enrollment will increase less than 4 percent from that of 2001, and will actually decrease in 20 states.[10] A 4% increase means that by 2013 enrollment will be 49.6 million. If teachers are hired at the same rate that would mean that only 104,000 more teachers are needed to keep pace. Factor in teacher attrition and the number of new teachers needed to be hired will be 650,000 by 2013 to accommodate the increase in student enrollment. That’s a far smaller number than 2.2 or 2.4, or 2.7 million claimed by the NEA.
As to teacher attrition, it is true that teachers leave the profession in huge numbers. Teachers walk away from the classroom for various reasons. Sources of teacher discontent range from lack of administrative support, poor salaries, student discipline problems, poor classroom conditions, to difficult parents, and accountability with innovative curricula without time or support to implement them. But is there a crisis with teacher retention? Over 20 percent of new teachers quit within their first three years. After five years, that number increases to 50 percent. Up to 30 percent of those left opt for early retirement every year. This leaves a cadre of hardened, burnt-out, dedicated, or stubborn (you decide) professionals that will hang in there tenaciously. God bless them. So, there is a constant attrition of teachers at all levels of experience.
On the other hand, in 2001 there were six million people in the US with teaching credentials.[11] Of those, 2.2 million were teaching. US colleges graduate 100,000 new teachers every year.[12] And every year, school districts hire about 45,000 new teachers leaving 55,000 new teachers looking for other work. These numbers vary according to the source. For example, USA Today reported in 2001 that colleges graduate 150,000 new teachers every year to fill about 200,000 teacher vacancies.[13] This represents 50,000 unfilled teacher positions and thus adds to the teacher shortage hysteria. So, either we have 55,000 teachers looking for work, or we have 50,000 unfilled openings. Apparently, the bias of the source of statistics determines the depth of the problem.
With 6 million people holding teaching credentials in the US, there appears to be an adequate pool of available, qualified personnel to fill teaching jobs. Yet some positions still go unfilled. In some high poverty districts, teacher recruitment and retention are critical. Some subject areas, such as math and science, find qualified teachers scarce due to the high demand for their skills in industry. (Recently, bilingual education and English as a second language have become critical subject areas.) These deficiencies have forced some districts and schools to explore alternative certification plans to get warm bodies in front of classrooms. As recently as 1997, as many as 50,000 special education positions either remained vacant or were filled by unqualified people.[14]
In 2001, New York City had close to 10,000 teachers holding emergency credentials.[15] Oakland, California schools claimed as many as 50 percent of its faculty were on temporary credentials.[16] One estimate claimed up to 4 million students in the US are being taught by unqualified teachers.[17] Thirteen percent of teachers in high-poverty Chicago schools failed the test of basic skills.[18] The same percentage of teachers in high-minority Ohio elementary schools were not highly qualified.[19] In June, 2006, the Education Trust reported that “districts with high percentages of low-income and minority students are more likely to have teachers who are inexperienced, have lower basic academic skills or are not highly qualified.”[20] This is due in part to state and district recruitment programs that offer student loan forgiveness for inexperienced recent graduates who sign on to teach in these schools for a specified number of years. What heavily indebted grad wouldn’t want to sign up for that deal?
So desperate are some districts to fill empty teaching slots with warm bodies that they have signed up for a program that recruits teachers from foreign countries. Under the guise of ‘cultural exchange,” the Visiting International Faculty (VIF) program has been used by districts unable to find qualified native-born teachers to fill open faculty slots. In 2001, 1300 elementary and high school teachers were brought to the US through the VIF program. Many VIF teachers complain that US students are unmotivated and undisciplined. Foreign teachers are getting a first hand look at why some US teachers are reluctant to persue a .teaching career.
Teacher shortages can not be blamed entirely on real teachers not seeking or keeping teaching jobs. It’s not like the jobs go without applicants. New York City recently drew 2300 applicants for 350 positions in high poverty schools that paid only $32,000 per year.[21]
Administrative incompetence can partly explain some of the shortages. Many qualified applicants simply never hear from school administrators or are put off until deadlines have passed. Administrators often overlook quality candidates in favor of those with proper disposition and attention to social justice issues.[22] In other words, candidates must be politically correct. This partly explains the results of the 2006 Education Trust report which said that minority students in low income schools are often short changed when it comes to access to qualified teachers.
Filling quotas also takes priority over qualifications. One district in the Midwest had failed to fill several openings by the start of school despite advertising for months prior. There was no shortage of applicants, but the district was hoping to fill openings with members of under-represented groups. Unfortunately, for the kids, there were simply not enough applicants from those groups to fill all the positions. Qualified non-member applicants were ignored. Even those members of under-represented groups who apply for vacant positions must demonstrate an appropriate sense of social justice. Political correctness rears its ugly head once more. Schools are tying themselves in knots trying to fill teaching positions with people who meet criteria that have little to do with teaching.
Many schemes have been offered to attract and retain qualified teachers. Most of them involve money. Some districts offer sign on bonuses for teachers in critical subject areas. But money is not what attracts people to teaching as exemplified by the New York City example. Nor is it what keeps teachers in the classroom. In August of 2000, the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) reported that teachers preferred administrative support over higher salaries. Of 914 teachers asked, 82% indicated that they would rather have strong, supportive leadership over higher pay. What’s more, new teachers said they would give up higher salaries “to work in a school with better student behavior and parental support.”[23]
What really drives teachers from the classroom or prevents others from seeking teaching jobs in the first place are lack of respect and support from parents and the public, lack of administrative support, and disrespectful, disobedient, undisciplined students (which takes us back to lack of support from parents). The NEA, in its zeal to increase numbers of potential union members, has actually abetted these circumstances. Instead of sustaining those conditions that prevent qualified teachers from seeking and keeping teaching positions, the NEA should begin to do what a real union would do. It should fight to create better working conditions for teachers, get out of bed with school administrators and force them to support faculty and implement appropriate discipline for students, and develop a more positive public opinion of the profession. In addition, it is essential for the survival of public education for those seeking teacher candidates to find those best qualified to teach and not those most politically correct.
Now back to the thesis of this article: Is there a teacher shortage? With 6 million potential teachers available the answer is obvious. There is no teacher shortage. There is, however, a shortage of people qualified to teach who are willing to put up with degraded social status, deteriorating classroom conditions, unruly students, and lack of parental and administrative support...no matter what the pay scale.In 2000, then President Bill Clinton, with typical lip biting solemnity, reflected the NEA’s urgent call for 2.2 million new teachers over the following ten years. It appears that 2.2 million is roughly the number of teachers that are normally hired every ten years anyway. And what if the NEA actually gets what it wants? How long will it be before it starts demanding a one-to-one student-teacher ratio?
[1] Digest of Education Statistics: 2005, Table 63. NCES 2006-030, June, 2006.This chart can be viewed at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_063.asp
[2] http://www.nea.org/teachers/research-teachers.html
[3] ibid. See also ABCNews.com, (Nov. 4, 1999) Carla Wohl.
[4] ibid. See also Winchester Star, Daneesha R. Davis, Nov. 14, 2005.
[5] Several sources quote this number. The authors cannot pin point the original source of this figure. Some of the sources we found were: The National Education Association; The Wall Street Journal, Jan 28, 1998; PBS.org/merrowtv/tshortage; NewsMax.com Wires, Aug. 15, 2001, careerbuilder.com/w1_work_0011_teachershortage.html; usatoday.com, Jul 7, 2001, by Anne Ryan.
[6] http://www2.nea.org/teachershortage/03shortagefactsheet.html
[7] This statistic has been widely disseminated in the print and electronic media. We believe the original source of this information was The American Federation of Teachers, National Teacher Survey, 1999.
[8] opcit.
[9] National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey, 1999 - 2000. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: (1999-2000) Digest of Education Statistics: 1998 (NCES 1999-036) (based on Common Core of Data); and (1998) Projections of Education Statistics to 2008 (NCES 98-016). Text can be read at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001330See also: nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_4/4_3/6_2.asp - 38k
[10] opcit.
[11] Is Teacher Shortage Real? No author given. NewsMax.com, Aug. 15, 2001. http://www.newsmax.com
[12] ibid.
[13] Anne Ryan, USA Today, July 7, 2001
[14] American Federation of Teachers, National Teacher Survey, 1999.
[15] John Merrow, Teacher shortage: false alarm? The Merrow Report. http://www.pbs.org/merrow/tv/tshortage/
[16] ibid.
[17] ibid.
[18] Claire Campbell, Charis Ganger, Teaching equity: how poor and minority studetns are shortchanged on teacher quality, Education Trust.
[19] ibid.
[20] ibid.
[21] Dennis McCafferty, The coming teacher shortage: why aren’t the best minds educating our children? USA Weekend Magazine. www.usaweekend.com
[22] Natioanl Council for the Acreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), standards for Professional development Schools, Standard IV, spring, 2001.
[23] Rick Allen, Supporting New Teachers, ASCD Education Update, 42, (5), August, 2000, p.6.

Multicultural Education

MYTH: Multicultural Education encourages acceptance of cultural diversity and makes students more tolerant of other cultures and people.

Back in the dark ages before schools became bastions of enlightenment and tolerance, social studies classes exposed students to the rich tapestry of countries and cultures that thrived in every corner of the planet. Despite their levels of interest, students came away with at least a basic understanding of the costumes, food, music, and other cultural details of various peoples and the countries in which they lived.
In the American History class, students, regardless of their ethnic or racial origins, developed a strong sense of pride in being citizens of this country. From Columbus to D-Day and beyond, students were taught the strengths and weaknesses of this great country and its profound effect upon the world. The Pledge of Allegiance (including reference to God) was part of every school day and patriotism was not a dirty word.
Back then; American students graduated form high school with a pride of citizenship in a nation abounding in cultural variety, united in the pursuit of liberty and equality. These ideals formed part of the foundation of the American culture and are part of what made this country the exemplar of strength, unity and freedom to the world. Children learned that people braved sometimes unspeakable hardships to come here and become part of what made America. They came here to be Americans. Children hearing these stories learned to appreciate this country and the culture that defined it. They were proud ingredients of the Great Melting Pot of American culture.
Bringing the discussion up to date, we find that there has been a shift in emphasis in traditional social studies curricula. To better accommodate this progressive shift, a new academic term was needed; a term that would have a broad social and academic appeal to facilitate its implementation while masking it true objective. Contemporary educationists and other liberal types chose the term “Multicultural Education” to replace the more archaic term Social Studies.
Multicultural education (MCE) has all the attributes of the traditional social studies curricula, at least on the surface. Those promoting MCE in the schools couch it in academic jargon that rings true with educators, tossing a few universals to give it credibility with parents and school boards. Multicultural education teaches students about the histories, languages, cultures, and economies of various ethnicities and countries around the world. Like all modern progressive ideas, MCE seems to make sense, appeals to parents and teachers, and appears to have academic merit. Students are informed of the wonderful diversity of people and civilizations of the world. Parents are secure in the knowledge that their children are being taught those things that other people do, what they eat, use, make, and play. It forms the foundation of understanding that allows children to be tolerant of people and cultures the world over. Sounds just like social studies, but with a new name.

What is MCE?
Since it was first conceived in the 1960s, MCE has furtively crept into the schools under the guise of teaching about the world’s cultural diversity updated to include more than just knowledge of them. It couches its true intent in terms like tolerance, acceptance, and understanding. Despite all of its flowery new-age eloquence, MCE focuses neither on the world’s diversity of cultures nor our unity as a nation, but on the oppression and exploitation of alienated and marginalized groups by the dominant Eurocentric-American culture.
Unless you’re a recent public school graduate or you attended the Oliver Stone School of Revisionist History, you know Lincoln’s dictum that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The meaning is clear: a people divided are easily defeated. The enemies of democracy understand very clearly that weakness derives from diversity of purpose. To divide the opposition is to weaken it and set in motion the process of defeat. In the typical lexicon of the left, the chattering class prefers the word “deconstruct” to that of defeat, but the meaning and intent are the same. The true purpose of multicultural education is the eventual transformation of American society through deconstruction of the dominant Eurocentric American culture. MCE has become one more tool used by liberal fanatics to “contribute progressively to the transformation of society and to the application and maintenance of social justice and equity.”1
MCE claims to promote diversity as means “to extinguish racism and build tolerance of differences”2. Sounds nice, but in fact it promotes a theory of oppression based on ethnicity, class struggle, and alienation. Dedicated multiculturalists blame American Capitalism and free enterprise for every evil in the world including racism, exploitation, and even slavery. The very roots of our society and its economy are routinely attacked in the guise of tolerance and sensitivity to diversity.
To bring to light the oppression committed upon under-represented groups by the dominant culture (the U.S.), MCE teachers couch their ideology in the cloak of “social justice.” Social justice has recently entered the educational arena as a significant aspect of MCE. It is a convenient term used to enlighten others about oppressed people everywhere. In reality, social justice is a curriculum of vengeance with the intent of imposing retribution for perceived injustices perpetrated by irreversible and unchangeable historic events. Social justice seeks “to blame somebody else, to blame the system, to blame those who (mythically) control it.”3 Injecting the social justice concept into the discussion serves to expose MCE’s true intent.
Regardless of promises to the contrary, MCE does not emphasize the variety of ways other people in other lands solve problems, make art, write poetry, or play music. Instead, its emphasis is on oppression, class struggle, and social justice.
Furthermore, MCE promotes the concept that personal identity is not determined by citizenship, but by ethnic or racial affiliation. MCE upholds the idea that ethnic affiliation and identity should be the only component of educational and social resolutions. The eventual outcome of this concept will turn the country into an assortment of diverse groups competing with one another for ever more scarce resources. While claiming to enlighten students about ethnic and cultural diversity, MCE is racism cleverly disguised as political correctness.
Multiculturalism seeks to divide the culture into subgroups, then points out the differences of each, making some more significant than others while placing blame on the dominant culture for the differences. The dominant culture, of course, is the Eurocentric, Judeo-Christian, American culture. MCE is responsible for the student self-imposed segregation that we are seeing in the schools in the form of separate graduations, proms, and even separate tables in school cafeterias as a result of a heightened awareness of racial and ethnic diversity.
In April of 2006, two noteworthy examples of multiculturalism run amuck were the mass immigration marches and the release of the Spanish language U.S. National Anthem (with some lines in English that disparage U.S laws: “these kids have no parents cause (sic) all of these mean laws.”4 Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and their supporters marched to demonstrate their animosity toward the rule of law as it applied to their particular situation. Waving foreign flags, singing the National Anthem in a language in which it was not written (nor intended to be sung), and demanding rights to which the demonstrators were not entitled showed the depths to which multiculturalism has plunged the country. Surprisingly (or not), some schools offered community service credit for their students who participated in the demonstrations. Patriotism, respect for law, and love of country have been de-emphasized in favor of belonging to elite subgroups that demand and believe are entitled to recompense.
Afghanistan is a splendid example of what our culture might look like if MCE prevails. We will become bunch of tribes and ethnic subgroups united in only one thing: our hatred of each other. Strict adherence to multiculturalist doctrine will bring about the “Balkanization” of America.

MCE In the Schools
The three tenets of MCE are 1. Transform the self, 2. Transform the schools, 3. Transform society.5 Schools are the most vital component to achieving MCE’s goals. A major publisher of school textbooks and of MCE curricular materials publishes a web site that enthusiastically proclaims, “Multicultural education acknowledges that schools are essential to laying the foundation for the transformation of society and elimination of oppression and injustice”6. Proponents and advocates of MCE focus their attention on the schools because they know well that indoctrinating children in harebrained liberal ideas at an early age will have a lasting effect. It is nearly impossible to reverse the psychological stranglehold of liberalism after it has been firmly implanted in developing young minds. As Lincoln explained, the philosophy in the classroom today will be the philosophy of the government tomorrow. To paraphrase Hitler, give him the boy and he’ll own the man. The Bible as well recognizes this simple concept in Proverbs: “Raise up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it”.7 In other words, teach them when they are young.
Many of the problems within classrooms today can be partly attributable to a multicultural emphasis. Student progress and classroom decorum are to some extent determined by the personal self-image of the students themselves. When portions of the educational constituency are constantly told that they are the victims of an unjust system and an ongoing program of oppression and alimentation, it becomes difficult for them to attend positively to academic tasks. Academic success and classroom conduct will follow expectations for specified subgroups.
In 1988, City University of New York Professor Leonard Jefferies helped draft a report that recommended “an expanded focus on ‘Multiculturalism’ in (New York state’s) K-12 curriculum”8. In the report, Jefferies declared that “African Americans, Asians, Puerto Ricans/Latinos, and Native Americans have all been the victims of an intellectual and educational oppression that has characterized the culture”9 and American institutions for centuries. The use of the word “oppression” appears to be a common idiom among MCE proponents.)
It is the opinion of the authors that the elimination of oppression and injustice should not be a function of the schools, nor should it be an educational pursuit. Social justice is a political goal and not a legitimate academic objective. As such, it has no place in classrooms. It diverts educational focus away from legitimate educational goals. What’s more, children should not be radicalized in an effort to support personal agendas.
Telling children to be more sensitive to perceived injustices, imagined or real, deprives them of true cognitive development. Instead of learning about factual cultural details of other people and lands, they are forced to adopt attitudes and emotions that demonstrate a commitment to social justice. MCE encourages students to adopt a radical and activist response to perceived social inequities, unfairness, and biases. They are expected to demonstrate a proper response to social justice issues. Telling children how to feel is not teaching them how to think.

Where Does MCE Begin?
The process of spreading MCE doctrines into the schools begins at the university level. Liberal professors, many of whom are anachronistic leftovers from the 60s (a.k.a. old hippies), managed to manipulate their lack of marketable skills into tenured positions at institutions of higher learning. They brought with them their (chemically induced) visions of utopia inspired by Marxist socialism all dressed up as authentic academic pursuits with valid philosophical principles. Once ensconced within the ivory towers of academia, they became the gatekeepers of campus thought, and political ideologies, and are now in control of hiring new faculty members. In true academic tradition, they are tolerant of diverse ideas. But only if those ideas are of a liberal alignment. Almost anyone espousing a radical socialist agenda is welcome in higher education including felons, ex-convicts, former most wanted fugitives, and Communists. Professors Angela Davis, a former FBI Most Wanted, and Ward Churchill, pseudo Native American wanna-be, are but two that readily come to mind.
Before these dedicated socialists can transform the schools, and subsequently society itself, they must first transform the next generation of educators. And they do so with an extraordinary enthusiasm. Preservice teachers are a particularly vulnerable target for multiculturalist ideologies. These unsuspecting, impressionable youngsters eagerly grasp onto any legitimate sounding academic theory put forth by their liberal professors. These kids represent the next generation of educators “who will use the classroom to transcend the negative effects of the dominant culture”10.
After four or more years of marinating in wacko MCE concepts they are thoroughly indoctrinated. Upon demonstrating a commitment to multicultural ideals, this new cadre of teachers is ready to pursue social justice. They are sent out to transform the schools and then transform society (a.k.a. overthrow the dominant culture).
These oddball concepts have the weight and influence of governing authority. The oversight authority for teacher training programs in universities is the National Council for the Accreditation for Teacher Education (NCATE). NCATE controls the accreditation of university teacher education programs nationally. Institutions of higher education must comply with NCATE standards or lose accreditation for their programs. And non-accredited programs attract few students. So schools are obliged to adhere to NCATE standards, which have traditionally been tough but reasonable.
Recently, however, NCATE imbedded in its list of six standards a new “disposition requirement” for teacher candidates that can be broadly interpreted by far left activist faculty members. The disposition requirement can be used to twist its meaning in ways that the NCATE board of directors may not have intended. It can be and is being used to screen out teacher candidates with unacceptable political beliefs.
Traditionally, teacher candidates were required to demonstrate “knowledge of their subject field and mastery of essential educational skills”11. However, under the NCATE disposition requirement, teaching skills have now been supplanted “by beliefs and attitudes related to values such as caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social justice”12.
Although teacher education programs now seek candidates who can demonstrate a proper disposition toward social justice, apparently intelligence is not part of the selection criteria. Take for example Aurora, Colorado high school social studies teacher Jay Bennish. This twenty-something product of modern university teacher education could arguably be called the poster child for MCE.
His commitment to social justice and his dearth of intellect were brazenly put on display in early March 2006. During a class session, Bennish went on a rant in which he equated George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler, declared that capitalism is responsible for the world’s problems with human rights, and claimed that World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the US Capital Building, the focus of the 9/11 attacks, were legitimate military targets. In addition, his “lecture” was filled with inaccuracies that any real social studies teacher would have researched before presenting as fact. He stated that the US is the world’s largest producer of cigarettes and that millions of people in other countries die as a result. China, India, and Brazil each produce more cigarettes than the US. Bennish also claimed that a British Prime Minister was assassinated in Palestine by Israeli Zionists, clearly an utter prevarication. What’s more, he audaciously allowed this lesson to be taped!
When the contents of his lecture were disclosed, Bennish was placed on leave with full pay. After he hired an ACLU lawyer, he was reinstated without penalty about a week later. He is now back in the classroom where he is free to continue indoctrinating impressionable students without fear of reprisal. And that is what MCE is, indoctrination, not teaching.
So, from whom do young teachers like Bennish learn their craft? They pick up these little tid bits of knowledge and attitude from people like Assistant Professor of Education at Brooklyn College, Priya Parmar. Professor Parmar teaches that “rap music is an effective tool for teaching English literacy to school children.” She has a disdain for proper grammatical use of the English language referring to it as “the language of white oppressors.” She requires her students to develop lesson plans with a social justice focus.13.
Another dispenser of contemporary pedagogical knowledge is University of Illinois at Chicago Professor Bill Ayers. This teacher’s teacher is a former leader of the domestic terrorist group The Weathermen. He spells the word America with three Ks (Amerikkka). And he “argues against expelling disruptive students from classrooms, especially (minority students)”14.
History and English are required courses for education majors. Saint Exavier College Professor of History Peter Kirstein’s philosophy is that “teaching is not a dispassionate, neutral pursuit of ‘truth.’ It is advocacy and interpretation.” This admitted Socialist has written that “one of the great achievements of Communism...is its relatively successful containment of American power from the early 1950s through the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991.”15 Absurd.
Associate Professor of English Grover Furr who teaches at Montclair State University “believes it was ‘morally wrong’ for the United States to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.” He is a staunch supporter of communist dictator Joseph Stalin claiming him to be grossly misunderstood as a human being.16

What’s Next?
The multicultural context of social studies has metastasized to other subject areas and disciplines. In some schools, traditional mathematics has been superseded by the new “multicultural math.” Imagine, a more tolerant arithmetic. We go from: Bobby has five apples and gives two to his friend Pete...to: Five undocumented, oppressed migrant workers are seized by the imperialist US Border Patrol. But seriously, the Iowa Global Education Manual once asked 4 - 6th grade students to calculate the number of trees in the rainforest that died each time they ate red meat.
What’s next? How about chemistry with a social justice focus? Before you fall over laughing, a recent teaching position announcement from an Illinois community college invited applicants for “Diversity Chemistry.” Candidates must demonstrate a “commitment to multicultural education...and to have little or no teaching experience,” said the announcement. Furthermore, the announcement specified that “preference will be given to candidates...(of) under-represented groups”.17 This announcement demonstrates the inherent bias and racism that has come about as a result of multicultural brainwashing. Membership in ethnic or gender based groups now supersedes experience, skills, and ability.
Another position announcement from a major world-class institution listed as required qualifications “scholarly practice that emphasizes critical perspectives in education and social justice...urban education...(and) critical multiculturalism.”18 And this was for a position in Art Teacher Education!

Origins of MCE
At the risk of sounding like a tin-foil hat, black-helicopter fanatic, much of MCE is inspired by the radical ideas of renowned Socialist Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous and first head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The UNESCO constitution, written by Huxley in 1945, encourages a global educational model and “the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.”19 UNECO forces its objectives on schools world wide through the binding authority of international laws and treaties. Unfortunately, the US is a UNESCO member state.
It appears as though MCE has a distinctive Marxist, hence socialist, emphasis. Texas A&M University Professor of Sociology Joe Feagin teaches courses with a decidedly Marxist focus. He states, “The Marxist tradition provides a powerful theory of oppression centered on such key concepts as class struggle, worker exploitation, and alienation. Marxism identifies the basic social forces underlying class oppression, show how human beings are alienated in class relations, and points toward activist remedies for oppression.”20 Replace the word “class” with “race” or “ethnic” and one can see the parallels between Marxism (a.k.a. socialism) and MCE.
MCE is strong on pointing out the flaws in the system, but provides no strategies or solutions to solve the problems it highlights other than encouraging activist radicalism and social disruption to “transcend the effects of the dominant culture.”21 Nor does it tell us what it wants as a result of the transformation of society. MCE is long on critiques, but short on solutions.
On August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King said in a speech in Washington DC, “I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Multicultural education seeks to bury this dream under the detritus of socialism. Parents can counter the effects of MCE by communicating regularly with their children. But don’t wait. Red flags should be going up when kids come home spouting rote liberal rhetoric.
_______________
1. Paul Gorski, “Defining Multicultural Education,” McGraw-Hill Supercite, McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002. Full text available at http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/educaation/multi/define.html
2. S. Berline, G. Hull, “Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism,” (citation incomplete)
3. Full text of the article from which this quote was taken is available at www.anchorrising.com
4. Decatur Herald & Review, “U.S. Anthem in Spanish Criticized,” Associated Press, April 28, 2006, p. A-3
5. Paul Gorski, “Working Definition,” EdChange Multicultural Pavilion, 2006. Full text available at www.edchange.org/multicultural/initial.html
6. Gorski, op. cit. footnote 1
7. Proverbs 22:6
8. David Horowitz, The Professors: The 101Most Dangerous Academics in America, Regnery Publishing, Inc. (Washington DC, 2006), p. 234
9. ibid
10. K.C. Johnson, “Disposition for Bias,” full text available at http://insidehighered.com/views/2005/05/23/johnson
11. Ibid
12. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2005)
13. Horowitz, op. cit., p. 296. Also see this professor’s web site at http://depthome.cuny.edu/schooled/Parmer-cv.html
14. Horowitz, op. cit., p. 32. Also see this professor’s web site where his book Fugitive Days: A Memoir (Beacon Press, 2001) is referenced. It is a memoir of his days in the Weathermen domestic terrorist group: www.uic.edu/educ/college/faculty/biopages/%20AYERS.HTM
15. Horowitz, op. cit., p. 247. Also see this professor’s web site at: http://people.sxu.edu/~kirstein/
16. Horowitz, op. cit., p. 186. Also see this professor’s web site at: http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/homepage.html. His extensive writings and philosophy are accessible here.
17. Position announcement from Parkland Community College, Illinois, dated April 17, 2006
18. Position announcement from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Illinois, dated January 3, 2006
19. Manual of the General Conference United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (Paris, 2002)
20. Horowitz, op. cit., p. 169
21. Johnson, op. cit.

"No Child Left Behind"

MYTH: The new “No Child Left Behind” legislation is the answer ro everything wrong with the schools. Its emphasis on testing will force schools to perform. One hundred percent of students will be academically proficient by 2014.

The new No Child Left Behind Act provides a sense of hope and promise for those who view the schools as failing the children. Furthermore, it gives satisfaction to those who believe that schools should be punished, and it promises to do so with a vengeance. When the dust settles on this one, the public schools will be under federal control, and held hostage by corporate interests.

In 1965, the federal government took a giant leap toward overhauling public education in the US when it signed into law the sweeping Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Originally intended to aid disadvantaged students, ESEA was expanded in 2001 to include all students and teachers. The updated version of ESEA is now officially known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a.k.a. Public Law 107-110.

Of all the programs that have been forced upon the schools for the purpose of improving education, none have accomplished the level of devastation that NCLB will have had upon public education. Under this legislation, schools are finding themselves in a no-win situation. Like taking bitter medicine with a spoonful of sugar, NCLB is couched in satisfying rhetoric to make it go down easier. The lofty goals of this legislation mandates that by 2014, just 12 years after its inauguration (2002-2003 school year), every child in America will be academically proficient. This is indeed a noble goal, but one that will be all but impossible to achieve.

Failure Guaranteed
Who would argue about the importance of all children receiving the maximum benefit from education? Yet, the irrefutable fact remains that, regardless of the goals of NCLB, there are, and will continue to be, children who simply will not or can not learn. All teachers know this. Apparently, however, the politicians and business people who contrived NCLB do not. Whether the reasons are social, economic, emotional, physical, cultural, or just plain apathy, no amount of legislation or punitive action against schools will change the fundamental fact that not all kids will learn. Even scientific evidence can not confirm that “all students and all subgroups of students can reach meaningful high standards...as required by NCLB.”[1]

NCLB mandates that schools must make adequate yearly progress (AYP) on an ascending scale every year until the year 2014 when 100 percent of all students are to be "proficient." AYP is to be met by all students including all subgroups of students (Title I, Special Education, limited English speakers, and minority students) as well. If any one subgroup fails, the entire school fails. Schools identified as needing improvement (a.k.a. failing), must not only make up ground lost during the preceding year, they must also negotiate the increased requirements the following year. This applies to all subgroups too. In this Sysiphian environment, schools that fail to make the grade for three consecutive years must provide supplemental education services from tutoring to private or parochial school, and must foot the bill for them as well. (This opens the door for the government to more closely control private, parochial, and home school options.) After six years, the faculty can be fired and the school can be closed.

Failure appears to be the major goal of NCLB. Some are even beginning to refer to the new law as LNSS (Let No School Succeed). It is estimated that in California alone, 8000 schools will fail to meet NCLB requirements. North Carolina and Texas, recognized in recent years for progress made within their schools, are facing an 85% - 90% failure rate![2] Louisiana predicted that by 2004 - 2005 the number of schools labeled as low performing will be 85%.[3] Massachusetts predicts that 50% of their schools will fail while California estimates a 98% failure rate.[4] Those schools in North Carolina that have previously demonstrated "Exemplary Growth" have so far shown a 51% failure rate under NCLB.[5] If top performing schools are staggering under the weight of NCLB, how will less proficient schools fare? Are these high failure rates the result of inadequate schools? Or are they due to the impossible demands of NCLB?

So far the outlook for NCLB to deliver as promised is grim. Twenty-seven percent of the nation’s schools failed to show adequate yearly progress at the end of the 2004 - 2005 school year. This was a full percentage point higher than the previous year.[6] With over a fourth of the nation’s schools in danger of failing after only two years, it appears that NCLB is actually showing a downward trend (as could have been predicted by anyone reading this convoluted conglomeration of rules and regulations).

Are these failure rates built into the act? Robert Linn, President of the American Educational Research Association noted that using NCLB criteria it will take 57 years to meet fourth grade math proficiency and 61 years to meet it for eight grade math. And for 12th grade math, it will take and additional 166 years to meet the proficiency requirements of NCLB![7] A bit longer than the 12 years allowed.

Punishment Before Progress
Unlike other educational reforms, none of which have lived up to their pre-introduction hype, NCLB does not allow for a period of adjustment before assessing progress and assigning "accountability provisions" (a.k.a. punishment) for failure. In fact, under the new law, punitive sanctions are retroactive. "Consequences are triggered immediately for schools previously identified as needing improvement."[8] That means that some schools began the 2002-2003 school year under NCLB with added baggage that puts them a year behind form the start.
Before its second year had started, (2003-2004) we were already seeing the fruits of this bizarre concept. Over 230 schools in Illinois alone that began the program already in negative territory during the act’s first year in 2002 - 2003. In the summer of 2003, the Illinois State Board of Education reported that 576 schools in the state failed to meet NCLB requirements.[9] This is an increase of nearly two and one-half times over the previous year[10] (before NCLB went into effect and schools were under less restrictive guidelines).

First year sanctions under NCLB for schools identified as needing improvement must write a two-year plan that details what steps will be taken to rectify the situation. They must then allot ten percent of their Title I funds for professional development (Title I funds are intended to be used for the education of economically disadvantaged students). These schools must then offer a choice of other schools and must pay for transportation using an additional 15 percent of Title I funds.

Schools failing to make adequate yearly progress for a second year must continue to redirect ten percent of Title I funds to professional growth, offer school choice, free transportation, and provide supplemental education services. Redirected Title I funds increase from a total of 25 percent to 30 percent.

Failure to meet adequate yearly progress for four years increases the sanctions making it even more difficult to meet the goals. These school are identified as "needing corrective action." In addition to all the previous punitive measures, they must hire an outside expert, replace staff members, and face a lengthened school day and/or year.
And the sanctions only get tougher. After six years, if a school still has not been able to negotiate the increased demands, it can be closed. It can then be reopened under private management.

The Transfer Option
One of the more controversial aspects of NCLB is the provision that schools labeled as needing improvement must offer their poorly performing students the option to transfer to other schools (rather than provide academic remediation at their old schools). What will be the result of a sudden influx of poorly performing students upon the test scores of schools into which they transfer? Furthermore, the test scores of the schools form which poorly performing students leave will no doubt dramatically increase. One enigma in this plan involves those schools previously identified as top performing (before NCLB) and now, because of the provisions of the act, find themselves in need of improvement (failing). To where do parents of students from these schools send their kids?

AYP is assessed based on standardized test scores. The fallacy of this is that test scores are not reliable indicators of school effectiveness. Test scores rise and fall yearly depending in large part on the demographics of the student population at any given time. More affluent students or those from more stable domestics circumstances commonly score higher than their less fortunate classmates. This is one reason why urban schools tend to score lower that suburban schools. For some students, education has less priority than survival.

Abandoning one school for another in the hope of improving test scores is a poorly conceived idea. What of overcrowded schools or districts with no extra capacity? This could be a solution for some overcrowded schools hoping to make some room, but if the new school is overcrowded, where will the newly transferred students be placed? Some schools have had to utilize closets, store rooms, and hallways just to accomm