The following is an item I posted to listserv of educators interesting in dispelling inaccurate statements about education and related subjects. Since I received a large number of positive responses, I thought I would also share it via the web site.

EDDRA stands for Education Disinformation Detection and Reporting Agency, which was founded by Gerald Bracey as a forum for the aforementioned purpose.

Subject: Eddra] teachers, etc Eddra

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 19:42:45 -0500

From: kber kber@earthlink.net

To: (names suppressed)

I have followed this thread with a certain amount of interest. Let me explain my perspective. I am a teacher (4 years experience) in a late career (turning 54 in May), who is also a Ph D student in Educational Administration and Policy Studies. I have a very strong reaction to certain items in this thread.

First: having also taught SAT prep courses, I am of the firm opinion that standardized tests measure little beyond how well you did on that test that day. If I could raise student an average of 170 points in 6 weeks of classes prepping for the SAT, those tests are not real. Likewise, any test that has a pool of sample questions and/or a set of testable content that is purely multiple choice (or selective response, to use the terminology on the new Maryland High School Assessments), can be prepped for. "Drill and Kill" will get the vast majority of the student through, if that's what the instruction focuses on. But have the students learned? If one really wants to measure even factual content learned and retained, a test at the end of a drill period is not an accurate measure. Instead come back and measure perhaps 6 months later, and see what was really retained.

I agree with Jay that there are political agendas at work. There was a wonderful deconstruction of E D Hirsch in a recent issue of Harvard Educational review that is on point to this. I teach government, and I wonder how many of our state legislators could pass that tests on government we are requiring our students to pass in order to get out of high school. If they cannot, than either they should resign as incompetent (won't happen) or we should admit that the tests do not measure anything we consider truly important in life (and the kids know it).

Let me turn to the issue of remuneration of teachers. Please note that I came to teaching after a career of 20+ years in data processing, where by choice I made less than I could because I chose to work for local government rather than a for profit organization. Even the lower civil service pay was significantly higher than anything I will ever make as a teacher. All the discussions about paying good teachers more are almost beside the point. Blaming the unions is also beside the point. First pay a livable wage, then it becomes a little more realistic to demand a higher level of "performance" from teachers. As any good educator knows, we are not paid for much of the work we do, and much of our time is sucked away from teaching and helping our children develop and learn and mature by other tasks that have little to do with education, which could be done by non-certified personnel (hall duty, lunch duty), but which our schools do not have the funds to pay for.

I think Jay needs to accept one point: education is of its nature a political act. We can look back as far as Plato to see that clearly. His desire to control what was learned by those in his ideal Republic was a recognition of this fact. Further, much of the development of wide-scale public education in this country was clearly intended to purvey a particular viewpoint, that of the Committee of 10, among others, and to produce willing, well-behaved, productive workers for the growing American economy. Obviously we see some similar motives today, to wit, all the corporate executives (like Lou Gerstner) who want their say about public education.

I joined this listserv because, like Jerry Bracey, I firmly believe that there is a real need to educate decision makers and influence makers, such as politicians, education writers, and through them the voting public. Distortions like A Nation at Risk should not be allowed to go unchallenged. I have appreciated his Bracey reports since I began my studies to become a teacher. And part of the reason for my doctoral studies is to become equipped (and "certified") to participate more fully in this process.

Do we have many teachers who are going through the motions? Certainly. Should we replace them with teachers who are more dedicated to their students? How? We already have a teacher shortage in many places. Oh, is the solution then to go to canned programs which don't require highly trained teachers, all they have to do is "follow a script" (I will be kind and not name specific programs). Why, then because they don't have to exercise so much independent judgment, maybe we can pay them even less, thus saving money on our public schools? Would anyone be so cynical?

How large are our public school classes? What are the total student loads of our teachers? Some people argue that it doesn't matter how large class sizes are, and give examples they claim prove their case. Let's ignore for a moment the research like the Tennessee STARS program, and just look at the practice in business, private schools, and things like SAT prep courses. Gee whiz, in all of them there is a strong preference for much smaller classes, and people pay a premium to get into them. Could our schools educate better if our teachers could spend more time with kids? That depends on what you mean by educate. If all you want is to prep people to pass a series of tests, to keep them busy so they don't think, or even to inculcate a particular political viewpoint (and here I must note that even though Jay talks about Conservatives, the same can also be said of some Liberals), classes don't need to be smaller. Lecture, drill and kill, lecture some more, etc.

But what if you want to teach them to think critically? What if you want your students to be able to communicate clearly, both in speech and in writing? How does that occur without practice? How can that occur without the opportunity to experience feedback (hopefully from well-trained and caring teachers)? How will their success be measured by a standardized tests, even one which allows for essays that will be graded (in the case of Maryland, by graduate students who may not necessarily even be competent in the subject area) according to a set of rubrics that could punish students who think outside the lines? If we accept the premise of Goals 2000 that we are supposed to be number 1 in math and science, do not we need to encourage students to think outside the lines? Is it possible to do only in math and science, and not also in social studies and language?

I like to think I am both a good teacher and a caring teacher. I am knowledgeable about my subject area. But I did not have either a major or a minor in History or Political Science or Economics. By today's standards, many would bar me from teaching Social Studies. I actually have more credits in those areas than many who did major, because I have continued my education. Some would qualify teachers by test scores. As it happens, I read very quickly and have a garbage mind (the population of Baltimore MD in 1950 was 949,708), so I do wonderfully on such tests. Does that mean I will be a good teacher? Would any of us ever hire a person to take serious responsibility for others (as all educators must) solely on the basis of a paper and pencil test of content knowledge or even of methods and pedagogy? If not, why are we allowing possibly wonderful educators to be screened out because of scores on tests that may have nothing to do with the actual teaching responsibilities? Medical schools used to be able to screen out people of minority backgrounds by the non-scientific portion of their admission test, a test for which the favorite composer was Ferde Grofe of Grand Canyon Suite "fame". They eliminated that as not relevant to the task for which they were screening. I think much of what we do to prospective teachers merely worsens our teacher shortage: we wind up with drones who test well, can't teach, don't care for kids, and once they get tenure help destroy education for our kids.

I apologize that this screed has probably exceeded the normally acceptable length for this forum. I became a public school teacher because I do not believe American democracy will survive without a vibrant, functioning public school system. In the district in which I teach, public support by taxpayers for the schools decreased as the schools increased in percentage of minorities. People who used to be supportive of schools now withdraw their support and their children. Politicians starve and hamstring the schools, then complain about the results.

Education is a political act. In a democracy we presume the citizens have the right and the responsibility to make decisions through participation in the political process. If a public school cannot educate for that task, which by its very nature MUST teach people how to question, then that public school has little grounds for continuation, and I should have stayed in computers (I would have made a lot more during Y2K).

I welcome responses to my wandering epistle.

Kenneth Bernstein, Eleanor Roosevelt HS / Catholic University of America (for identification purposes only)