To the editor:

I've received what I can only characterize as an overwhelming amount of support and feedback since the initial publication of my Letter to the Editor late Wednesday.

I've heard from literally dozens of parents, grandparents, and in one case a great-grandmother of kids currently in our school district, and many who have long ago graduated, expressing the same concerns and frustrations I did.  It seems apparent that everyone, in their own way, knows something isn't working, they just can't put their finger on what it is, but, the results and data speak from themselves. 

This topic has resonated in this community in a way that I could have never anticipated.

And to be clear, I am not questioning the competence of any of our individual teachers in this School District.  To the contrary, we have many wonderful, caring, concerned educators who are working tirelessly and doing their best.  I applaud them and their efforts, and point out that this is not, and never was the issue I attempted to address, and caution everyone to not change the subject by suggesting it is.

What I do take issue with is what these wonderful people are being provided to work with.

When Iowa was ranked #1 in education in the late 60's and 70's, we were still teaching phonics.  We were still requiring memorization of basic math facts (I had to know my multiplication tables by the end of 3rd Grade or I simply wouldn't pass to 4th Grade).

About this time, an educational movement started taking foot on the east and west coasts that was ultimately called "Outcome Based Education" (OBE).  An excellent analysis of OBE by Phyllis Schlafy can be found here:  http://www.ourcivilisation.com/dumb/dumb3.htm Or, do your own research and reach your own conclusions by simply Googling "Outcome Based Education failures".  There is plenty of information to read and research there.

Iowa began moving in this direction literally about the same time that States that had tried it earlier had already started abandoning the concept.  Whole countries and continents have tried, and abandoned OBE, but Iowa never has, not completely, and a hybrid mutation of this basic, failed concept is still being used as the model and framework that our public education system in Iowa is operating on to this day.  And, our VSCSD test scores show it.

When OBE's shortcomings really started rearing its ugly head was when No Child Left Behind became law.  Now suddenly, public education was required to objectively evaluate the success of their educational programs and submit themselves to comparison with other schools and States.  OBE was never intended to have any "apples to apples" evaluation done with it.    

And you must realize that education doctrine isn't based on time-tested and scientifically validated practices, it's driven by marketing.

OBE is a product that is marketed to superintendents and principals and public education professionals at seminars and conferences just like the Big Mac is marketed by McDonalds.  It's a franchise.

We have teachers who can remember what was taught and how it was taught "back in the day" who recognized OBE's failures and shortcomings from the start and tried to warn us.

Many in this community fondly remember the late Janet Sanders, or "Mrs. Bomar", from when you were in school.  Janet was an "old school" teacher that knew what worked and what didn't. And, she wasn't bashful.  Janet often told the story about what prompted her to retire from our School District----it was this "new and improved" idea that she knew wouldn't work, and she refused to be a part of it.

It's not about working harder, it's about working smarter.  There's a lot we can learn from the past.

My son has had a total of just 33 hours of instruction in phonics, word structure and decoding to bring his reading proficiency up 5-6 full grade levels.  This involved literally going back to 1st Grade word structure and phonics, reconstructing and in many cases simply introducing language concepts that our school's franchise reading program simply never considered, or ever taught.   

It's not entirely about what we're teaching that's the problem with our district's reading proficiency numbers.  You won't find the answer in what we're doing and how much effort we're putting into doing it, the problem is in what we're skipping, ignoring, overlooking and dismissing .

I asked the rhetorical question in my previous editorial, "What are they doing so right, that we're not?" 

Home school curriculums, private schools and in many cases other school districts in Iowa that have stellar academic performance numbers all have this one thing in common.

Comments

Submit a Comment

Please refresh the page to leave Comment.

Still seeing this message? Press Ctrl + F5 to do a "Hard Refresh".

JT January 30, 2013, 2:34 am Lisa. Excellent points. My concern is how they present system failed to teach these essentials as far back as 1st and 2nd Grade, then failed to detect the shortcomings later on, which ultimately necessitated the 1 on 1 instruction in the first place. The shortcomings of the reading instruction program are showing up in the proficiency numbers in general. By the time a child is in 5th, 6th or 7th Grade, the only way to fix a reading problem is very direct 1 on 1 instruction. The solution seems to be more a matter of doing it right the first time, rather than all of the time, effort and expense it would take the district, or parents, to fix later on. If you look at the proficiency numbers as they chart, we \"look\" fine through 4th grade, and at 5th grade we start falling off the cliff, and by 6th grade we\'re bottoming out, and we never do fully recover to the proficiency numbers we were having in lower elementary grades. The essential tools my son needed, and were missed, happened as early as 1st and 2nd grade, but didn\'t reveal themselves until much later on. It becomes easy to throw fixes at the problem once it\'s recognized. We need to look back much further into the program to discover where the failures actually occurred. In my son\'s case, the school started him in Second Chance Reading in 6th Grade, which is essentially an intensive 6th grade reading program. What they completely failed to recognize is that many of the missing links could be identified back to as early as 1st grade language and decoding concepts, and the 6th grade SCR program simply didn\'t recognize what skills were in fact missing, and how far back in his schooling these problems went. It\'s easy to identify there is a problem when it starts showing up on test scores, but by the time that happens, the child is already 2-3 grade levels behind. Diagnosing what\'s causing the low test scores is what we\'re failing at the most. My son started showing up grade-level behind at the end of 5th grade, so he was started an intensive 6th grade program. What the 33 hours of instruction he did receive accomplished was going all the way back to square one, finding out what he should have known (and was assumed he did), fix what he didn\'t and progress through. We have a very near-sighted approach to where the root of these problems is happening. I\'m hearing from a lot of 5th and 6th grade parents who are being told their child is \"just a little behind\" with their reading. They will continue to fall further and further behind the longer they go without going all the way back to square one to find and then fill in the blanks.
LR January 29, 2013, 9:33 pm I do agree with everything that you have stated in both editorials. The one thing I think about is how much better your son is doing just after 33 hours of direct one on one help (correct me if I am wrong on that point, I am making an assumption) and the kids who participate in home school have more one on one instruction (again, an assumption). I can understand why they do better because they 1. have people who are able to give more one to one instruction and 2.the people instructing are more readily available to focus the attention on the particular issue if there is one, and 3. They obviously have people in their lives that care. Opposite of that are the kids that 1. do not have people that are able to give hours of one on one instruction, 2. have many other kids beside them that are going through the same issue and get less time to work on that particular issue, 3. do not have those people at home or in their lives that care how they do. What are the teachers to do with this? How can they change a failing system? Do we pay for everyone to have one on one instruction such as your son was fortunate enough to have? Do we ask all the parents to fund this type of instruction? We already do. It\'s just in a different setting. There are 25-28 student per one teacher versus the 1:1. So how do we get to that point?
JT January 26, 2013, 4:41 am The \"new\" incarnation of Outcome Based Education is now called \"Competency Based Education\". It is what the Iowa Dept. of Education is now pushing. Take a look at the Shlafly article in the link, and then Google \"Competency Based Education\" and see if you can distinguish the differences.