+OK 14627 octets Received: from smtp03.nwnexus.com (smtp03.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.41]) by mail3.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA11286 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 16:41:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from europa.dreamscape.com (europa.dreamscape.com [206.64.128.147]) by smtp03.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA18310 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 16:41:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from oemcomputer (modempool26.sg23.com [216.42.110.42]) by europa.dreamscape.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id TAA26910; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:40:55 -0500 (EST) X-Dreamscape-Track-A: modempool26.sg23.com [216.42.110.42] X-Dreamscape-Track-B: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:40:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991204193221.00a1cbc0@mail.sg23.com> X-Sender: fredb001@mail.dreamscape.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 19:35:45 -0500 To: 71524.2205@compuserve.com From: KHolg10296@aol.com (by way of Fred Battey ) Subject: Bush Duh... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail3.halcyon.com id QAA11286 Status: The following article is posted at: http://www.paul-revere.org Bush’s Education Success: Fact or Fiction by Karen Holgate George W. Bush says he is the “Education Governor” and wants to become the “Education President”. He proudly points to his “accomplishments” in Texas to prove his qualifications to lead this nation’s education policy. Before endorsing George W., however, it might be a good idea to look at the record he believes qualifies him to direct your child’s education. Chris Patterson, head of Education Connection of Texas, says about Bush’s education policy, “Bush was responsible for transforming our system from a traditional and vocation two-track system into a combined School-to-Work system. Eighty percent of all students in Texas are in vocational programs.” Indeed conservatives throughout Texas see nothing to cheer about in Bush’s education policy. Says David Guenthner of the Lone Star Report, “Bush’s Achilles’ heel won’t be the social issues like abortion. It will be education.” However, Bush does receive praise from some corners. For instance, Paul Sadler, Democrat State Representative and chairman of the Texas Legislature’s Public Education Committee said, “He has done an outstanding job.” And Texas Federation of Teachers President John Cole said, “I’m sure he wouldn’t like me saying this, but he is a Texas Democrat.” It appears that Democrats love George W.’s education policy. And well they should. It is a page straight out of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s plan for education. Passed in 1994, shortly before Republicans took control of Congress, the Clinton plan includes School-to-Work and Goals 2000 and is designed to train children for the workforce. Yet as STW is becoming more deeply imbedded in today’s curriculum, parents are beginning to recognize the fallacy of STW: it focuses on training children for entry-level jobs not educating them in preparation for a wide range of exciting career opportunities. While parents do want their children to become responsible adults who can support themselves and their families through the careers they choose, most parents do NOT believe their children should by eighth grade be forced to choose narrowly focused career paths designed to meet the “needs of the community.” This is the idea behind STW and this is the education program endorsed and promoted by Gov. George W. Bush. One Texas education activist warned, “You have to apply the same standards to Bush that you use with Clinton; he is very adept at saying one thing and doing another.” What does Bush say? SCHOOL-TO-WORK Despite his often repeated stance, namely that he supports STW only as a choice for Texas parents, the following excerpts from his August 1996 letter to Dr. J. D. Hoye, Director of the National School-to-Work Office, clearly shows this isn’t the case. “Please find enclosed Texas’ Application for a School-to-Work Implementation Grant. It responds to all of the required components…and meets the requirements of law and the spirit of a comprehensive School-to-Work system in Texas… …my advisory council, which has the power to establish and enforce workforce and workforce-related education policies has made School-to-Work a top priority. We understand the essential role School-to-Work plays in our state’s workforce, economic development, education, and welfare reform goals. …Our new Education Code provides that all students be prepared for the modern workplace by requiring them through a required curriculum…This strong statutory mandate as well as language establishing career concentrations and requiring that career opportunities be made available to all students sets a firm foundation for School-to-Work in our educational system. Texas has come a long way with School-to-Work, particularly in the last two years. We seek a constructive relationship with you…such relationships will make the practical and necessary goal of School-to-Work a reality for all students. I am committed to such a result.” (All emphases added) Bush’s letter makes it clear that: 1) STW requires mandated changes in curriculum, and 2) he supports state legislation to make these mandated curricular changes for ALL Texas students. In contrast to Bush’s assertion that STW is a choice in Texas, he forgets to tell parents that when all curriculum is integrated with STW by law there is no choice. The curriculum dictates the agenda. Patterson, in a letter to California State Assemblyman Steve Baldwin, refuted the “voluntary” nature of STW in Texas. She cites a report published by Texas Education Agency (TEA) called: “Recommended High School Programs of Study for College Preparation and Broad Career Concentration (Jan. 1, 1997)”. The report says: “As part of a comprehensive career development guidance program, the Texas Education Agency encourages school districts to require participation by all students…no later than eighth grade.” Patterson says about the TEA report, “In plain language, this report recommends that all high schools be converted into career academies where students will be required to prepare for one of the seven career concentrations listed and that students be prepared to select a vocational pathway by the end of 8th grade.” (So much for choice.) At one point, STW was such a controversial issue for Bush that one insider reported that he was receiving an unprecedented 1,500 letters a day protesting it. At a 1998 School-to-Career conference in Arlington, Texas Commissioner of Education, Mike Moses, passed out to educators his remedy for rebuffing protests. Included in it was the suggestion that they drop any public rhetoric that talked about children making career decisions at an early age and emphasize that STW would be integrated into a “rigorous” academic program. Of course, he didn’t say that children would NOT be forced into career decision just that educators shouldn’t talk about it in public. It must also be noted that integrating attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors into academic curricula does NOT strengthen academics it merely waters it down and diverts valuable classroom time from solid, core academics. LOCAL CONTROL Bush says he believes in local control, yet he supports the role of the federal government in education including the powerful U.S. Department of Education. Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, reported Bush’s comments: “I don’t think it should be abolished…it ought to be made more effective.” In his 1994 campaign against then incumbent, Ann Richards, Bush promised to “do away with the power of Texas Education Agency” (TEA). Instead, once elected, Texas conservatives say he “immediately set about breaking his campaign promises (and) the power of the TEA continued to grow.” In fact, as Dave Mundy, managing editor of The Katy Times reported, “Bush himself affixed his signature to an Education Commission of the States report, ‘Bending Without Breaking,’ which called for the eventual elimination of locally-elected school boards as well as elected state school boards.” (So much for local control.) Bush’s education plan centers around a “standards-based” accountability system. Under this system states will supposedly be allowed to set their own “high standards” and use assessments of their choice to determine whether students have “improved.” Texas calls their standards Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and in January 1997, Bush referred to TEKS as “mush”. But as Mundy reported, six months later, after only minor changes, he hailed them as “definitive”. Mike Moses, a Bush appointee, raved about the state’s standards and bragged that “renowned” educators were calling them wonderful. However, one of those renowned educators, Diane Ravitch, Brookings Institute, actually said the standards were “a miscellaneous collection of unrelated facts, skills and concepts that will prove to be both unteachable and unlearnable.” Hardly a resounding endorsement! In an October speech before the Manhattan Institute, Bush said he believes the federal government should be allowed to withhold federal funds from any school, district, or state that doesn’t measure up. Again, Bush says this is giving local control to districts and states to set their own standards. However, by threatening to withhold federal dollars, all the power will be vested in the hands of the federal government and states will be required to meet pre-determined federal standards! Texas newspaper reporter, Clay Robison, wrote in September about Bush: “…the federal government’s favorite tool for state and local governments to comply with its will: attach strings to federal dollars and threaten to cut off the money if certain federally dictated conditions aren’t met.” TEST SCORESUP, DOWN OR SIDEWAYS? Bush claims that under his leadership, and by following his polices student test scores have risen. He, and the education bureaucracy in Texas, proudly point to rising scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) test as evidence. However, the Parents Coalition of Texas (PCT) issued an astounding list of facts about TAAS and Texas reform under Bush. The PCT report says: · As TAAS scores rise, SAT scores decrease or remain flat due to the fact that the TAAS is a “dumbed-down” exam. · Only 41% of the school day is devoted to academic learning. · Valuable class time is lost due to teaching the TAAS test. · Sixty percent of teachers say the TAAS has NOT improved student academic skills. · Texas students requiring remediation has grown 16% over the past three years · Seventy-four percent of fourth graders cannot read proficiently. · Eighty-two percent of eighth graders are not proficient in math. · Fifty-three percent of college freshmen require remediation, yet only 5% are successfully remediated. PCT reports that while TAAS is used as the state’s “exit exam” to determine high school seniors’ qualifications for graduation, 71% of the test’s math is based on 5th, 6th and 7th grade levels. And Kate O’Beirne, National Review, May 21, 1999, reported that the Tax Research Association (a small organization in Houston that is funded by business), said that the math portion of the state test would be “more appropriate as a target for the sixth grade.” The TRA also said that the reading was “below grade level” and had become “easier over the past four years.” Texas teacher, Jerry Jesness, wrote that Texas’ ACT and SAT scores were not only stagnant but remain near the bottom nationally on these college entrance exams. And despite Bush’s claims, these scores have not risen under his leadership. Jesness points out that many students do not know that Texas is a state, or that there was a Civil War. He then reiterates what other teachers in other states have complained about; classroom time is often divided between squeezing in some actual academic instruction while spending far too much time in teaching kids how to perform well on the state TAAS test. The result? Test scores up, learning down. PAYING KIDS TO FAIL On June 12, 1999, Donna Korman, a concerned teacher wrote a letter to Bush’s Education Director, Margaret LaMontagne. In her letter, Korman expressed her concern that two weeks before year end, several of her seventh and eighth grade students did not plan to complete the year. Why? Because policies adopted under the Bush administration were going to pay these students to attend summer school. Korman told LaMontagne that these were A and B students who had decided that it would be more profitable for them to fail her class and collect state funds rather than excel during the year. According to Korman these funds are part of a federal grant called the Academic and Career Education Program. These funds are paid to students who are on free or reduced lunch programs and who fail English or math. Each failed student then collects $5.25 per hour to attend summer school for a total of $464. In Texas it is more profitable to fail than to succeed. Two final points made by Korman: 1) the “payment” program is part of school-to-work, and 2) the subject these students failed were not being retaught during summer school. This is the education policy endorsed by Bush. Unfortunately, it is apparent that the “success” he cites is nothing more than a gossamer veil that clouds the real failure of education not just in Texas but throughout the nation. If Bush REALLY believes in establishing quality education for this nation’s students, he should be willing to openly expose the dismal reality of today’s current reform with honest test scores, be willing to eliminate the non-academic social engineering garbage including forced school-to-work entry-level job training, and be willing to relinquish the federal stranglehold on states and local districts. And finally he should be willing to tell parents the truth that the latest education fads aren't working including his own. - 30 - .