Greetings from East Jesus Nowhere

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!