Response to David Brooks: Stop Drinking the Kool-Aide

The following is a reply posted to David Brooks column, which wildly misrepresents Diane Ravitch's stand on education reform, in today's NY Times titled "Smells Like School Spirit."

I just want to stress one point here, David. The new New York State English Regents, taken in the 11th grade, consists of 25 multiple choice questions(1 point apiece), two written paragraphs (scored 0-2 for a 4 possible points) and an essay (scored 0-6). Now pay attention: as long as a student gets more than 20 multiple choice questions correct, at least a 1 on each of the paragraphs and a 3 on the essay, that student passes. Right. A student who writes what is basically a failing essay is good enough for New York State standards.

Here, however, is where it gets interesting. Senior year, these students will write the most important essay of their lives. No one will ever care how they scored on the Regents exam, but college admissions offices will be very interested in their personal essays, a style of writing the New York State Board of Regents does not care about... otherwise one would be on the Regents exam.

Do teachers focus on the Regents tasks at the expense of personal writing? You bet they do. The pressure is enormous and getting stronger. The state does not care about personal writing. The state only cares about critical analysis, writing exercises that have nothing to do with the student. Not that they aren't important. They are. Very much so.

But if you want the "average" student to actually care about writing that student has to feel some connection to the process. More importantly, personal writing allows students to explore their own experiences, tell their own stories and help them find out who they are. The focus on mechanical, formulaic writing is pumping out mechanical, formulaic, hollow people.

But don't you tell me that teachers should be doing personal writing anyway. When? What gets left out? Catcher in the Rye? Romeo and Juliet? The pressure to prepare these students for these tests is profound and corrupts the atmosphere of every school building.

Humanize the process instead of treating our young people like standardized parts.

Note: I ran out of characters at that point, but I would have continued with the following:

It is important also to note here that the new English Regents was constructed because of a snow storm. The old Regents was a two day, six hour affair consisting of fewer multiple choice questions and four essays. The change had nothing to do with student performance and everything to do with the loss of tax dollars due to an inconvenient January snowstorm which cancelled the second day of the test. One can compare two items on the old and new test (actual scores from a high school which will remain nameless): average score on the critical lens essay and average overall score. The last of the old exams rendered an average score of 3.5 on the essay and an overall exam average of 69. The new test rendered an average score of 3.6 on the essay and an overall average of 75. 

Hmmm...

Please understand that these scores include those of special education students, many, not all but many of whom are victims of reverse discrimination by being expected to "race to the top" as if they were no different than anyone else. 

Which, of course, is the point. The testing environment assumes no student is fundamentally any different than any other. They are, as I said above, standardized parts.

Let's add some irony here. Due to budget problems, the January Regents exams have been eliminated altogether. Not that I would want to go back to the old test. Both tests are fundamentally flawed and the old one more so.

Humanize the system from Kindergarten on up. Let teachers teach children, not subjects. Nurture self-discovery and reflection, then encourage analysis of objective material that is relevant to children's levels of development.

And most importantly, encourage a culture of effort. That, my friends, will require a social revolution way outside the walls of school buildings because the primary problem in American education isn't even poverty. It's a society in which getting by is good enough and being wrong is getting caught. 

It's a culture in which a few can rape a nation's economy, then convince everyone that firing 'bad teachers' will fix what they've done. 


Seems to me that ensuring we continue to produce mechanical, formulaic, hollow people incapable of reflection and critical thinking will ensure they get to do it all over again when the conditions are right. 

So. Who's winning?