On his website, Dino Rossi presents his theory on education. He claims that education must pass a simple test: “what is in the best interest of the children?” Rossi quickly moves away from his “simple test” notion and on to the problems he finds within Washington State education.
Within Rossi’s first, and only, paragraph on existing problems within the Washington educational system, he states that “we have a serious problem.” For those of us with intimate knowledge of the state’s educational system, Rossi is playing the role of Captain Obvious. In keeping with his new role, Rossi tells his potential electorate what the problems are, as he sees them, with the education system. The most glaring of problems, as Rossi sees them, is that two-thirds of Washington tenth graders “do not pass all parts of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL).” What Rossi neglects in this statement is what parts of the exam the tenth graders are failing: Reading and Math. Instead, Rossi continues to note the problems with education; “the state is turning down grant money for additional advanced placement courses in math and science” he laments, and that Washington students are entering college or the workforce without vital skills.
Mr. Rossi is correct in his assessment that these are problems in the Washington educational system; they are also problems across the country. However, to state that the greatest of these problems is the failure rate of tenth graders on the WASL shows that Rossi’s interest in education is a passing fancy. Rossi’s approach to education is that of a businessman, an anti-union, anti-worker, profit at all costs businessman. However, if one takes the time to watch Rossi’s video statement on education, another image is presented. Rossi states that he is the child of an educator (as am I, only in my non-Republican household both parents were educators), and that his father was passionately devoted to his career, but that he also grew up in poverty only a child of an educator could understand. So true, educators are not paid enough for their devotion or their passion. Yet rather than relying on his experience, Rossi turns his back on educators as he lays out his plan for correcting problems.
First, Rossi finds that the WASL needs to be replaced. CHEERS! I concur, let’s rid our schools of a test that requires special-ed students to meet the same benchmarks as non-developmentally disabled children; too let’s rid our state of a test that allows administrators to tell their faculty that if a child is heard talking about the test to anyone the teacher will be fired and lose their certification, or if a para-educator helps a student with the exam the teacher with lose job and certification. I am behind you 100% Mr. Rossi! But as one reads further, Rossi states that the WASL must be replaced with America’s best standardized test. Rossi proposes that Washington create the “best standardized test” by using California, Massachusetts, and Indiana’s exams as models. In the case of the Massachusetts exam, which boasts a 90% success rate, the success rate is deceptive. Not only do the Massachusetts test scores ignore students who dropped out prior to senior year (tenth graders in MA are required to pass the exam prior to graduating, just like in WA), but Washington state education officials has long modeled the WASL after the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System. Oops…I guess Mr. Rossi overlooked that when he began formulating his plan for reversing the education problem.
Second, Rossi shifts tone from ideas to improve to a demand for accountability. His demand for accountability is across the board: students, teachers, administrators. In his approach for student accountability, Rossi wants to require all students to pass his new and improved WASL, and to allow only limited and rigorous alternatives. HMM…I don’t think I can get behind this notion at all, nope not even a little. In this notion, Rossi is ignoring the purpose of education. The attempt of education is to prepare youth for college and the work force; k-12 education is merely a stepping stone to something greater. So, what does a standardized test truly show? It shows a child’s ability to take an exam; it does not show that said child will succeed in life, in college, or in the workforce. Especially when the standardized tests do not test full curriculums: most state standardized tests only test for proficiency in math and reading, they ignore history, writing, and science. Rossi takes the use of the standardized test further, stating that “like a business, we must reward success;” thus, he finds that the exams should be used to assess the success and failures of teachers and principals should be based on student’s ability to pass all parts of the exam. On paper, this is a great idea; if students do well on the exam, and if they fail, the blame cause must surely rest in the hands of the teacher’s and by extension the principal’s. Yet, Rossi feels the need to create a manager/employee model for the principal’s and teacher’s to follow, giving the principal less accountability and more authority. Rossi wants to “empower” the principals to fire underperforming teacher (who decides that a teacher is underperforming? Oh, that’s right! The exam does), the flexibility to hire new staff and the ability to establish new curriculum (when the test scores have shown a three year decline). Where’s the fault in this idea? Well, allowing a test to determine the performance of a teacher is faulty and Rossi provides no plan for how this system would work. Teacher’s are currently presented with a curriculum that encourages them to teach to the exam, so if a child fails is there a problem with the teacher, a problem with the child, or a problem with teaching an exam rather than teaching the skills Rossi sees are missing in our current system? Now, if principal’s were “empowered” by Rossi to hire new staff, fire the underperforming, and to create a new curriculum, where is the accountability for the principal? Isn’t the success or failure of a teacher a reflection of the performance of the principal? Too, most principals have little to no experience in the creation of curriculum, so how can we expect them to do a job that they are not trained to do?
Third, Rossi’s feels that we must emphasize Math and Science. Great! Math and Science are needed in today’s climate, but so are the abilities to read and write. So, to advocate giving school districts the “flexibility” to pay “qualified” math and science teachers salaries above and beyond those of their peers is demeaning to equally qualified teachers of History, English, Art, and Music. In this same vein, Rossi advocates changing what he refers to as the accreditation (that would be certification Mr. Rossi) to allow those in the private sector to teach Math and Science, which would address the issues of teacher shortage and bring “experts” into the classroom. Teacher’s who are certified in the area’s of Math and Science are “experts” that’s why they have those endorsements! Too, there is something called the “alternative route to certification” that Mr. Rossi’s “experts” already have access to. The alternative route allows people who have worked in a high demand field to pursue certification at little to no cost to them.
Finally, Rossi feels that we need to prepare students for higher education. On the surface I agree with this, however, I live in a world where people with degrees cannot get jobs and where not everyone wants to go to college. Rossi makes note in this section of his education platform that remediation is growing at the college level. However, he ties this fact to a need for accountability and improving standards. Also, Rossi feels that community colleges and university are devoting too much time and energy on remediation. I say, having worked in both systems, that community colleges are the only ones devoting any time to remediation. Remediation rates have grown exponentially at the college level since the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act; however, community colleges recognized the need for remediation long before it became a problem for Mr. Rossi. So, what solution does Rossi recommend for curbing the time and energy for remediation? Solution: ensure students are prepared when they enter college, thereby ensuring that they will finish their degrees. All of the preparation in the world is no guarantee that a person will finish a degree. How about this as a solution: creating jobs across the state for people with degrees—degrees in a variety of subjects. That would be a great solution.
So we come to the end of Dino Rossi’s solutions for the problems in Washington State education. However, I have found fewer solutions than I have problems. Rossi’s education plan comes from a lack of knowledge and experience. Education is not a business and cannot and should not be treated as such. Education is meant to prevent the future generation from being ignorant. The original goal of the public education system was to educate the masses, to prevent indentured servitude, to create a generation that has the tools to succeed in the ashes of the past generations failures. What have we created in Washington where the majority of tenth graders cannot pass an exam that decides whether they graduate or not? We’ve created a generation that cannot read, write, tell you who Newton or Darwin are, cannot balance their checkbooks, and who are no more prepared for college than they are for tying their own shoes. Rossi needs to talk to the people directly involved with education—at all levels; he needs to step into the classroom and teach for three consecutive years and be assessed on his success or failure based on that of his students. Then and only then, will Rossi have the experience needed to guide the education of the children of this state!
In general, I don't have problems with conservative people. I have quite a few friends who, I consider, very conservative. Conservatism is something one gets used to growing up in the "red" half of Washington State. However, when I meet someone who is so blinded by his/her belief set that nothing else is allowed in for consideration, it irritates me.
This quarter, I decided that since CWU was holding my degree hostage, I would demand another quarter of financial aid. There's no reason, after all, to begin paying back student loans if my degree has not been awarded. In any case, after a highly successful and very fun quarter with K-Bour, I decided to brave the waters of Political Science, again, and take Introduction to Public Administration. There are some familiar faces in the class, Sparkle (yes that is her real name) and the interesting Lee Trevino are taking K-Bour again, but this quarter has brought with it a larger class and some people I've never seen before. I don't know any of their names; in honest I only know Sparkle's name, because, well, HER NAME IS SPARKLE!! And Lee Trevino, because he is an idiot (apparently Kennewick Man rode a dinosaur across Pangea). The only person who has left an impression is Captain Conservative. I call him that, because, again, I don't know his name, and I think he may be the only conservative in America who is still singing the praises of George W. Bush.
In any case, a few weeks ago we were discussing the Blackwater group and watching clips of testimony before congress. We discussed the issues that lead the government to investigate and Rep. Henry Waxman's rat-like appearance (seriously, check him out). Out of nowhere, Captain Conservative (CC) says, "I don't really see what they did wrong," to which K-Bour, says "Well, the theory is that killing groups of innocent people is wrong." At that point class ended and CC was the first to leave. The following class session we discussed ethical structures in bureaucracies (oxymoron?). K-Bour began the class normally, diagramming issues related to the formation of ethics and then turned to engage the class in discussion. On the white board K-Bour writes, " Moral Laws" "National Laws" and then turned and asked the class which guided each of us. Being the smart ass I am, I asked for a third option. CC said, "all laws are based on Biblical law." And we were off.
At that point, I set my pen down and prepared for an exciting discussion. K-Bour is not one to attack students or their belief's, but he does ask questions aimed at getting people to defend that belief. And that is exactly what K-Bour did. He turned to CC and asked what he meant. CC went off on a diatribe about the Founding Fathers ALL being biblical scholars and that they were Christians. Neglecting the fact that Jefferson and Paine were often called atheists. But why cloud belief with fact? Anywho. K-Bour continued on, asking him if he believed in creating the greatest good for the least cost. CC said that it depended what the cost was. So K-Bour gave him a hypothetical; "you have the cure for HIV/AIDS in your blood, can I kill you to save all those infected?" CC replied "no, you can't take a life against the person's will." This line of questioning went on for a few minutes, each time CC saying that killing is wrong; then, finally, he said that killing is only ok if the government sanctions it. WHAT? So, of course that lead to a discussion of war and CC decided to play on K-Bour's military experience saying, "you hated everyone you killed right? That wasn't murder." K-Bour just stared and then moved on. The next point was the "Cult of Life" that as a Christian CC proclaimed to be a member of; so K-Bour asked about the death penalty and CC stuck to his guns, "if the government says that it's ok, than it's ok." BAH! K-Bour countered with, "well, some of those people on death row are innocent." CC stated, "I suppose you're going to tell me that there are innocent people in jail." I turned to look at him and said "Uh, yeah." At this point CC took us all back to the discussion of war. He argued that if we left Iraq that the region would descend into chaos and that we weren't in the country for oil, but when questioned as to why we were there, couldn't answer. So, K-Bour asked why we shouldn't just pull out and let the various Muslim sects do what they want to do, carve up the region if they want. To which CC replied, "As a Christian I believe that Muslims should be stricken from the planet." My mouth dropped and I looked at K-Bour...he winked.
Those pearls of intolerance and ignorance were shared with the class two weeks ago. The next week CC didn't come to class and I thought maybe he felt as if he'd been attacked for being a Christian. Apparently I didn't give his ego enough credit. He'd come down with a cold or the flu. In any case he showed up to class last week for our discussion of affirmative action and economics. Through the course of the class he informed us that he "knows" when someone is hired because of affirmative action and that that is the kind of person that he can't be friends with or associate with at work. Okay!?! He also told us that he is completely unwilling to give up driving his car in favor of public transportation (should a good system actually exist), because he loves driving his Porsche.
Thus the title of this piece: Each night after class, I have found myself either behind or just ahead of a 1980's GMC pickup truck. Not a nice truck, a beater. Behind the wheel of said truck is CC.