Posted: 08/02/05

Encouraging Achievement
Part II of David Barton's Series on Education in America

The new philosophy of education also opposes any competition that recognizes student achievement. As a result, many schools no longer post honor rolls or exemplary work on bulletin boards. Also disappearing from local schools are publicly graded events such as spelling bees as well as other academic competitions. As one elementary principal explains: "I discourage competitive games at school. They just don't fit my worldview of what a school should be."

Many traditional educational practices no longer fit the new "worldview of what a school should be" – including homework. Education specialists amazingly claim that doing away with homework will "give kids ownership over their education."

The use of red ink also does not fit the new educational worldview; and in schools from New York to Alaska, red ink is now on the educational blacklist. Explains a Massachusetts teacher: "If you see a whole paper of red, it looks pretty frightening. Purple stands out, but it doesn't look as scary as red." A Florida teacher agreed: "I do not use red; red has a negative connotation, and we want to promote self-confidence. I like purple. I use purple a lot." Color consultants concur: "Red is a bit over-the-top in its aggression."

Of course, that is just the opinion of teachers and educational specialists; then there is the opinion of a student who voiced the common sense that the experts seem to lack: "I hate red. But because I hate it, I want to work harder to make sure there isn't any red on my papers."

School Discipline
Under the new educational worldview, students with the worst behavioral problems are protected from any accountability so long as they also have certain academic so-called weaknesses. For example, a Virginia student brought a loaded gun to school – and bragged about it – but went unpunished because he had been diagnosed with a "weakness in written language skills." Similarly, a Georgia student repeatedly urinated on his classmates, but because of a similar "diagnosis," he could not be punished. In Pennsylvania, a student set fire to a school cafeteria; upon being disciplined, he filed and won a federal lawsuit against the school for violating his rights. And in Oklahoma, a public school suspended nearly all of the sixth-grade class for disruptions and quasi-riots. The principal ruefully estimated that teachers now "spend 85 percent of their time reprimanding students."

Since schools cannot punish the real offenders, they apparently go after whomever they can punish. For example, a 13- year old was recently ordered suspended for 10 days from a Florida school for committing a Level 4 offense – the most serious level. The offense? He "assaulted" and threatened others with a "weapon" (he shot a rubber band). In another school, two kindergartners were sent home for "assault" with "weapons" (they had pointed their fingers at each other and said "bang!").

Viewpoint Indoctrination
While core academics, discipline, and red ink do not fit the new "worldview of what a school should be," viewpoint indoctrination does. For example, the largest teacher's group in America (the National Education Association) aggressively promotes what it calls "diversity education"; it has been relatively successful in passing state laws mandating such teaching at all grade levels.

In compliance with such a law, schools in one state held a "Week of Diversity" in which outside speakers made 82 presentations to students. Of the 82 presentations, 14 were pro-homosexual; 11 were pro-left, urging support for communist Cuba, guerilla forces in Columbia, etc.; 17 promoted animal rights, vegetarianism, and radical environmentalism; and 5 were anti-law enforcement. A week of academic instruction was sacrificed in order to indoctrinate specific viewpoints.

Another clear indication of viewpoint indoctrination was evident in the NEA lesson-plan distributed nationally to teachers following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The lesson taught that no group was responsible for the attacks and that instead, teachers should discuss "historical instances of American intolerance" in order to avoid "repeating terrible mistakes." Unfortunately, the new educational "diversity" regularly expresses itself in anti-Americanism.

Apparently, many professional educators now want to be known more for introducing something "new" or "innovative" than for the success of the students they teach. Consequently, academics take a backseat as students become classroom guinea pigs for a new generation of educrats. Peter Murphy, a New York educational consultant, properly asks: "How many more years of declining scores will it take for the school committee and state officials to put a stop to this educational malpractice on schoolchildren?"

Evangelists for a New Worldview
Who has been behind these radical changes? A new breed of professional educators – working through two primary vehicles: teachers' colleges, and teachers' unions.

Concerning the former, a professor writing in the Texas Education Review charges: "Schools of education have been transformed into agencies of social change with mandates to achieve equality at all costs. Colleges of education no longer believe that knowledge should be the center of the educational enterprise. Colleges of education do not serve the interests of children or parents. Instead, they serve the interests of an educational bureaucracy by pushing the growth of the profession, protecting it from competition, and discouraging outside scrutiny."

Anyone who doubts the accuracy of these charges need only review the resolutions passed at the annual NEA conventions. Those resolutions routinely avoid academic issues and instead advocate the teaching of social positions that most Americans oppose. For example, at recent conventions, NEA educators have passed resolutions calling for schools to encourage:

• Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people
• Globalism and nuclear disarmament
• The United Nations and the International Court of Justice
• School-based health clinics that promote abortion
• National healthcare, population control, and Earth Day
• Multi-culturalism and diversity education
• Pre-K-12 AIDS programs (yes, pre-K: AIDS education for three and four-year-olds!)

While the NEA supports these issues, it also opposes many, including:

• Competency testing of teachers
• Standardized testing to evaluate students, teachers, or schools
• Educational choice or competition in education
• Homeschooling
• "Homophobia" (the belief that homosexuality is wrong or that marriage should be between a man and a woman)
• A moment of silence to open the school day

Where is the emphasis on academics? Conspicuously absent. As one national columnist queried: "Since the National Education Association describes itself as 'America's largest organization committed to advancing the cause of public education,' is it not fair to ask why it spends so much of its energy on political issues having little to do with education?" That point was not lost on all NEA delegates (some teachers do oppose the current direction of the NEA, but they are in a clear minority); in fact, one such delegate – after seeing the resolutions passed at the convention – lamented: "We're the National Education Association, not the National Everything Association."

Results of this Philosophy
The academic weaknesses of this new educational worldview are statistically measurable in a number of curricular areas.

Civics & Citizenship
According to current studies, after twelve years of school, only a meager 26 percent of students have enough preparation in civics to make informed choices at the polls. Imagine! American education currently is producing only one in four students capable of informed voting!

Furthermore, only 9 percent can name two ways that society benefits from the active participation of its citizens. And while 80 percent of students can name the winner of "American Idol," only half know the political affiliation of their own state governor; and less than 10 percent can name both of their US Senators. Our educational system simply no longer produces civically prepared, well-informed citizens.

Geography
Thirty-four percent of students know that the island on the "Survivor" television program was in the South Pacific, but only 30 percent can find New Jersey on a United States map; 50 percent of students cannot find New York and 30 percent cannot locate the Pacific Ocean. And although Americans have been involved in a lengthy war in Iraq, only 13 percent of students can find Iraq on a map.

Reading & Math
By the fourth grade, only 30 percent of students are competent in reading and math; the number is much lower by the eighth-grade level; and by the end of high school, less than one fourth of college-bound students have the basic academic knowledge necessary to succeed in college (one can imagine how much worse it is for non-college-bound students).

History
Only one in ten high school seniors is proficient in American history. Why? Because the new educational worldview emphasizes behavior rather than knowledge. Consequently, the recent history standards proposed by the State of New Jersey excluded the Pilgrims and the Mayflower, and George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. This trend has been growing for a decade, and a number of states now teach what is called "The Twentieth Century Model" under which high school students are taught only 20th century history. According to one astute educational observer, in American schools "history is not dumbed down, but erased."

Consequently, 70 percent of fourth-graders thought that Illinois, Texas, and California were part of the original 13 colonies; and 60 percent had no idea why the Pilgrims came to America. And when students were asked to identify "Memorial Day," the most common answer was, "The day when the pools open." Recent testimony before a congressional hearing correctly concluded: "We are raising a generation of people who are historically illiterate."

Ignoring the Obvious
The above academic results have been revealed primarily through independent surveys of students rather than through academic testing conducted by educators. Why? Recall the position of the teachers' unions? "The [NEA] opposes the use of standardized tests when . . . results are used to compare students, teachers, programs, schools, communities, and states."

Professional educators oppose testing and argue that it is not an accurate measure of what students really know. Of course, they offer no other proposal for measuring student knowledge; they just don't like testing that exposes academic weaknesses, and thus could lead to teacher accountability.

Despite the opposition of educators to testing, legislators are beginning to demand it – but they are not liking what they find. For example, in Virginia, students were required to pass a state exam, but when 93 percent of students failed the test, the requirement was dropped.

In other states where legislators require testing, educators find ways to evade the purpose of the tests by simply lowering the bar. For example, in Florida, 13,000 high school seniors failed to pass the state exit test. (Originally many more had failed, but the passing grade was lowered to only 40 percent to reduce the number of failures to just 13,000!) Similarly, so many students were having difficulty passing the state's required history test that the passing score was lowered to a mere 23 out of 100 – that is, students can get three out of four history answers wrong and still pass the test!

So what do educators propose as a solution for these high failure rates? According to national columnist Thomas Sowell: "The National Education Association – the biggest teachers' union in the country – is urging that an extra year be added to high school for those students who fail to meet the standards for graduation. In other words, when educators fail to educate for 12 years, the 13th year will be the charm." Too many students now spend their educational career in what one commentator described as "legally enforced incarceration in government buildings that are euphemistically called schools."

Many of the good public school educators have come to recognize that public schools are no place to educate their own children. In fact, public school teachers are twice as likely as other parents to place their own children in private schools – including 44 percent of public school teachers in Philadelphia, 41 percent in Cincinnati, 39 percent in Chicago, etc. Why do so many public school teachers place their own children in private schools? A common answer given by these educators is: "Private and religious schools impose greater discipline, achieve higher academic achievement, and offer overall a better atmosphere."

dings that are euphemistically called schools."

Many of the good public school educators have come to recognize that public schools are no place to educate their own children. In fact, public school teachers are twice as likely as other parents to place their own children in private schools – including 44 percent of public school teachers in Philadelphia, 41 percent in Cincinnati, 39 percent in Chicago, etc. Why do so many public school teachers place their own children in private schools? A common answer given by these educators is: "Private and religious schools impose greater discipline, achieve higher academic achievement, and offer overall a better atmosphere."

By David Barton Click here for bio and archived articles