"Earth Day Every Day" proclaims the official sign for Merrill Middle School in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, just south of my town, Appleton. That's me behind the sign, feeling uninspired by the apparent emphasis on activism instead of academics. Imagine what our kids could do and learn if every day was math day, history day, science day, and writing day? It almost staggers the imagination, but maybe they would graduate with real competence in math, history, science, and English.

Table of Contents

• Introduction: my views
• The benefits of Direct Instruction
• The problem with block scheduling (a separate page)
• The evidence speaks: Competition is good for education
  (a separate page in my "Snippets" area)
• Public education versus home schooling
• Striving for mediocrity: The war against excellence
• Suggestions to improve public schools
• The disappointment of middle schools
• Quotes
• The demise of mathematics
• Book reviews (controversial)
  • Vision of the Anointed
  • Dumbing Down Our Kids
  • Facts, Not Fear: A Parent's Guide to Teaching Children About the Environment
  • New Age Masquerade
• Resources for concerned parents
• Links related to education

Web   JeffLindsay.com

Introduction

With 4 children attending public schools, I want real education to occur. Sadly, many schools focus on popular "reforms" and new programs that detract from academics. Goals 2000, workforce education, block scheduling, affective education, whole language, and the emphasis on "developmentally appropriate" education often represent deters from what parents really want and from what I believe kids really need: mastery of academic skills and acquisition of basic knowledge in core areas.

The "whole language" fad, for example, is simply a fraud, unsupported by scientific evidence. See, for example, The Whole Language/Obe Fraud: The Shocking Story of How America Is Being Dumbed Down by Its Own Education System by Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld. While whole language is a proven failure, study after study confirms that training in phonics is effective if not vital for reading education, yet many teachers have never been taught how to teach phonics and some don't even understand what it is. It's not their fault - it's the educational colleges and the highly political NEA that have brought us to this state.

The NEA continues to oppose phonics and to say that phonics is rote memorization and drudgery without exposure to real literature. Wrong! Teaching phonics to my kids made a world of difference - and stimulated extremely rapid progress in their reading and reading enjoyment.

The NEA and others continue to push the myth that whole language has worked in places like New Zealand - but New Zealand is having a literacy crisis now as a result of their adoption of whole language. (It used to be a world leader in literacy, but "whole language" education is now creating serious new problems even there.) Parents need to resist the whole language fad in their schools and demand that phonics be taught. And parents need to supplement their children's education with phonics instruction at an early age, before kids are conditioned to read and write through guesswork.

I'm impressed with the dedication and concern of our teachers, but something is amiss. The dilution of true education and the introduction of "whole language" and "affective" curricula is not the result of grass roots efforts. Parents are not asking for values clarification and self-esteem therapy. They are not asking for kids to slowly learn on their own through osmotic "developmentally appropriate" programs. Parents and scientists are appalled with the failed New Math programs invading our schools. The problems seem to be coming from the top - from places like the NEA, the Dept. of Education, and the money-laden textbook publishers. Parents need alternatives. Some are home schooling, others are trying private schools or charter schools. But how I wish that more public schools would recognize that children can learn and gain true self-esteem in the process if only they are taught, challenged and motivated.

I'm coming from the perspective of a Christian parent who wants a broad, diverse education for his kids. (But note that the issue of phonics versus whole language has nothing to do with religion - it is entirely an issue of scientific evidence on what works best to teach kids how to read. Yet proponents of whole language often brand anybody in favor of phonics as an extremist from the religious right. More smoke and mirrors to avoid the real issue!) I don't expect public schools to endorse my religious views - but I don't want my views and values deliberately undermined by elitists who think they know what's best for society. (Fortunately, most teachers strive to be equitable in their treatment of divisive issues.)

My recent experiences in opposing a terribly biased sociology textbook highlights some of the blatant propaganda that is passed off as fact. It was a real eye-opener for me, one that has moved me to stay more involved.

As recent examples of the problems in public education, I've been greatly disappointed to read the new Educational Standards proposed by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Page after page of meaningless language is used to describe vague "educational outcomes" that signal an educational system out of touch with reality and more focused on "process" and attitudes than on actual learning. For example, by grade 12, students will:

• "design, conduct, and communicate the results of an environmental assessment to determine the working conditions of a small system"
• "understand and use reflective action to understand and evaluate assumed patterns of thinking and acting"
• "identify factors that affect accomplishments of goals"
• "design, communicate, and, when possible, implement solutions to personal, social, and global problems"

By grade twelve:

Students will apply their knowledge of language and its uses to achieve a variety of purposes. They will:

• identify and explain through literature how language conveys a character's personality, age, social class, occupation, and by extension what it conveys about each of us
• identify language as manipulation, in fiction, nonfiction, and real-world settings
• illustrate the symbolic nature of language
• construct settings in which language must change in order to accommodate family, school, and workplace needs

Students will apply their knowledge of the grammatical English language to communicate effectively. They will:

• combine and embed original sentences for conciseness, clarity, and effectiveness
• analyze and use punctuation as part of effective sentence construction and revision

"We don't teach history - we teach children!" ----- (Translation: who needs history, anyway?)

The reading section on page 5 of the standards is even more troubling. Minimal literacy seems to be the goal. My seven-year old son already exceeds ALL of the grade 12 reading standards (e.g., self-correct when reading, retell main points, create mental pictures when reading, use knowledge of how text is organized). I wish I could be proud of that (sure, he's a bright boy and a good reader, thanks to a great mom and intensive phonics), but it's sad to see such shallow and subjective goals, so devoid of serious content. (Frankly, anybody can slam dunk if the goal is low enough.) Fortunately, I found one section of the standards that does give solid, specific, content-based goals that will require serious learning and achievement. Unfortunately, that area is dance. But enough picking on the Wisconsin standards - it's time for me to "combine and embed" some original sentences on other topics. Educational standards are not just about quality of education, they are about POWER. He who controls the standards controls the curriculum, and control of the curriculum provides some degree of influence on the minds of an entire generation. Can we afford centralized control over the education of an entire generation in a world of endless corruption fueled by the lust for power? Division of power, decentralized control, competition - these are concepts that limit and impede power seekers. History teaches us that there are power-hungry maniacs in the world and that they have consistently sought to control and dictate the nature of education, shifting it from the basics to propaganda, moral reconditioning, and worship of the State.

If children aren't learning, they aren't being taught.

Consider the Federal Government's emphasis on national standards. Is this really altruistic, or is it about Federal control? Eva Sorock, a board of education member in Illinois, wrote a letter published in the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 14, 1997, indicating that her school district had joined the First in the World Consortium, a group of 20 districts in Illinois seeking Goals 2000 funding to help their math and science programs. The contract for the Federal grant money "clearly left the local school boards out of the picture." She struggled for weeks to get access to the fine print of the grant applications, and found that the plans went far beyond science and math, but sought to implement "group learning" and other Dewey-inspired teaching methods into multiples areas of the curriculum. She writes,

Just when I was having some luck in slowing down approval of this new bureaucratic structure, who arrived in Northbrook, Ill., but our president himself, stating in his speech that he supports the Consortium's founding. "We can no longer hide behind our love of local control of schools, and use that as an excuse not to hold ourselves accountable to high standards." . . . This level of support for our Consortium underscores the importance to the Clinton agenda of wresting control of schools from local school boards and implementing educational programs that emphasize socialization at the expense of academic knowledge. . . .

The educational establishment (NEA, education schools, PTAs) argues that child-centered, self-constructed instruction will be followed by corrected spelling and memorization of multiplication facts. Whether we interpret this defense as disingenuous or not, the true results are clear and documented: a decline in performance when hard and fast academic standards are applied. Examples? The dismal showing by American students in the TIMMS test on math and science. Or how about asking for a million volunteers to teach kids to read in third grade when we spend multi-millions paying teachers to do just that in kindergarten and first grade?

In addition to concerns about what is taught, I have concerns about how things are taught. The trend now is away from lecturing (that's the allegedly antiquated "sage-on-the-stage" model), homework, and memorization, moving instead towards teachers as mere "facilitators" or coaches assisting "child-centered education" and incorporating group learning, self-esteem therapy, etc. It can all sound nice, but what are the results? You may be interested in learning about Project Follow Through, as reviewed in the booklet "Educational Philosophies" - an excellent work by Dr. Jeffrey M. Jones. Project Follow Through was the largest educational study ever. It showed that Direct Instruction - teaching the "old-fashioned" way using a carefully planned approach - was much more effective than other teaching philosophies like "learning-to-learn" or "cognitive" education or programs focused on self-esteem rather than basics. Direct Instruction was more effective not only in terms of basic skills like reading, but also led to better results in "higher order thinking" skills and self-esteem.

Do the "new" methods work? That's rarely addressed. But serious studies show that many of the new approaches are ineffective fads compared to the traditional techniques that today's "progressive" fadsters berate. For example, consider this report from Time magazine, Oct. 23, 2000, p. 97:

Score another one for the old-fashioned learning. Since the 1970's progressive educators have advocated seating students around small tables in classrooms rather than at individual desks so that they can learn from one another. But a British study based on 20 years of observation of classroom behavior has found that children work rates can be double if they sit in rows. The reason is obvious: when kids huddle face-to-face, they tend to spend more time chatting than learning.

What needs to be done? Parental involvement and grass roots vigilance, done with a spirit of reasoned concern rather than antagonism. It can make a positive difference. Vigilance about what? About school curricula, textbooks, programs, and teaching methods. Be involved. Speak out to your school board, to teachers, to other parents at PTA meetings, etc. Help out, cooperate, express concerns tactfully, but know what's going on in your kids' school. Stay informed - and help others (especially school board members) to be informed. Finally, insist that fads like block scheduling and whole language not be adopted unless there is hard scientific evidence showing they work.

In May of 1997, my community (the Fox Cities area of Wisconsin) experienced a powerful reminder of the need for parents to be alert and vigilant about what public schools do with their children. An outrageous assignment from an inappropriate book resulted in a student being investigated by the Secret Service as a potential assassin. A 15-year-old freshman was given an assignment by his world literature teacher to write an essay on one of 62 topics in the controversial book, "If." According to the Post-Crescent newspaper, May 8, 1997, p. A1, the topic the student selected from the list was a question that "asked if the writer had to assassinate one famous person who is alive today, who would it be and how would you do it."

Pause for a moment: do you see a problem with asking kids to write about how they would kill a famous living person? Are you outraged? Or, perhaps, do you instinctively wish to defend the teacher in giving this assignment, feeling that students need exposure to "broad and diverse" ways of thinking, and that any parents who object to such an assignment are dangerous elements of the radical Christian right?

Ideas have consequences, and ridiculous and outrageous ideas often have ridiculous and outrageous consequences. In this case, the student wrote an article about how he would kill President Clinton, expressing anger and hatred toward him. The teacher then TURNED THE STUDENT IN by giving his paper to the police-school liaison officer, who gave it to his supervisor. Shortly afterwards, the Secret Service was knocking at the boy's door. The student told the Secret Service agent that he would never assassinate someone but that he was just doing a school assignment.

I'm not sure if any further action will be taken against the boy. Based on the statements from the teacher quoted in the newspaper (this is "being blown way out of proportion" and "I didn't expect anyone to answer that way"), I don't think she understands the significance of her role in the matter, nor the irony of her turning in her own student for carrying out an assignment she gave.

Parents, keep aware of what ideas are being given to your kids. I realize that questioning the use of the book "If" may be condemned as "censorship," but when schools demonstrate such irresponsibility, parents need to speak up. At the risk of being labeled "bigots" and "censors," parents must urge schools to use programs and books that promote rather than inhibit good citizenship and good values. This is not about burning books, but about choosing wisely from a huge selection. Why read pulp fiction when they could learn Shakespeare?

Our kids are not guinea pigs to be exposed to whatever whims educators want to try. Our kids are human beings who need to be prepared for life, who need guidance and training in discerning truth from error and good ideas from bad. Encouraging kids to think about murder and other vices hardly qualifies as education. Parents, stay close to your kids, actively resist the harms that some school programs may impose, and supplement their education with instruction about right and wrong. To those who have resorted to other routes such as home schooling, I salute you. We may end up there ourselves. . . .

The Benefits of Direct Instruction

Consider the case of Wesley Elementary School in Houston. According to Richard Nadler in the article, "Failing Grade" (National Review, June 1, 1998, pp. 38-39), Wesley has all the demographic markers of a school bound for failure. Over 80% of the students qualify for subsidized lunches, and nearly all are minorities (92% black, 7% Hispanic). Yet it ranks among the best schools of Houston, with first-graders placing at the 82nd percentile level in reading tests (50 points higher than the expected level for similar at-risk schools). What has made Wesley so successful? The answer is classical education in the form of Direct Instruction curriculum designed by Siegfried Engelmann, an example of the much ridiculed "sage-on-the-stage" approach. This Direct Instruction system boosts reading, writing, and math scores by 30 to 40 percentile points in at-risk schools. Sadly, Engelmann, like others who successfully defy popular fads in educational reform, has been rejected by much of the educational establishment. His success is an embarrassment to them.

Direction Instruction has been developed and refined for decades, particularly at the University of Oregon. It offers detailed packages and training materials suitable for almost any teacher. It is not for elite kids with healthy families, but was "shaped to succeed in the educational killing fields of urban America." Yet it has been proven successful with students of virtually any background. And it is focused on a classical education, giving real competence in reading, writing, and math to enable kids to soar in their educational future. "The package, implemented systematically in grades K-3, proved so potent that even when it was abandoned after the third grade it still had measurable, statistically significant effects on high-school graduation and college acceptance - an advantage of at least percentiles."

Engelmann's slogan is, "If the student hasn't learned, the teacher hasn't taught." American's educational colleges, however, have adopted the philosophy of Jean Piaget of Switzerland - or rather, a modern corruption of what Piaget learned, a corruption that leads to educational failure, in my opinion. It was in Switzerland where I first encountered his name. As a Swiss educator described his interpretation of Piaget's work to me in warm, glowing terms back in 1980, I remember feeling most uneasy about the entire premise of Piaget's approach, which seemed more suited for a naive communal experiment than for real education. Piaget taught that children go through cognitive stages that are largely independent of instruction from the teacher. They just need to be nurtured through their own stages of self-discovery instead of being taught according to any particular schedule. The watered-down, "developmentally appropriate" approach of so many educational theorists seems rooted in what are said to be Piaget's findings (but one educator assures me that the modern implementations are based on misunderstandings of Piaget's valuable work). Engelmann's consistent and persistent success shatters such notions - and thus Engelmann is shunned. The NEA, the Dept. of Education, and the teacher colleges of the nation should be flocking to Engelmann to learn how to provide solid education that can enrich a child for a lifetime. Instead, we continue to hear more about self-esteem, "learning to learn," cooperative education, diversity, recycling, peer mediation, conflict resolution, and so forth, with such dismal results that President Clinton is calling for a hundred thousand volunteers to go into third-grade to try to help provide reading skills. But we don't need an army of volunteers in third-grade. We need genuine education in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade so that third graders will already be reading at levels far beyond anything we've seen in the past several decades.

For more information, see my page, "What the data really show: Direct Instruction works!"

Public education versus home schooling

"[H]ome schooled minorities and whites both score on average in the 87th percentile on reading tests. In public schools, whites significantly outpace minorities in reading scores (whites: 57th percentile; blacks: 28th percentile; Hispanics: 28th percentile). In math, home schooled whites score only marginally better than minorities do (82nd percentile vs. 77th percentile). In public schools, the disparity is huge: 58th percentile for whites, 24th percentile for blacks, and 29th percentile for Hispanics.

"Public school officials have some explaining to do. Why is that despite their constant lip service to the goal of equal opportunity, public schools continue to deliver abysmally low academic quality to minority students? Home schoolers have broken out of the ugly, demeaning stereotype of racial underachievement. Why can't government schools do the same?

"Whatever the reasons for the dilemma of public-education failure, they don't include inadequate funding. For each home-school child, the average schooling cost is $546 per year; the annual public-school per-pupil expenditure is $5,325.Both figures exclude the costs of the building in which each child is taught."

"Academic excellence is for the upper classes. We need to help ALL the children." ----- (Figure the translation out on your own. Are some groups of kids being betrayed by the system because of their income level or race? ALL kids can learn and ALL kids need skills and knowledge - not phoney self-esteem and social conditioning.)

Why is home-schooling so successful? In addition to the hard work and parental involvement that home schooling fosters, Mr. Farris argues that home schooling inherently focuses on the individual child, while public-school reformers try to devise plans for "all children" that lead to "one-size-fits-all mediocrity," as exemplified by Goal 2000 programs.

Mr. Farris offers analysis that agrees well with my experience. My wife and I are frustrated with the painful mediocrity of our schools and are beginning to seriously consider home schooling. We know the teachers work hard and really care, but the curriculum that each class has been given is intrinsically mediocre. Excellence is hindered by the system, including Federal and State bureaucracies and national and state teachers unions, not by any lack of desire on the part of most individual teachers. To home school or not to home school, that is the question. . . .Right now we are pursuing a charter school concept in our town that could result in a school using a solid curriculum, free of the maddening fluff and wasted time that so frustrates some of my kids. We'll keep you posted as we explore our options.

Striving for mediocrity: The war against excellence

Why the lack of academic excellence in our schools? Keen insight is offered by Cheri Pierson Yecke, Minnesota's Commissioner of Education, in her book, The War Against Excellence: The Rising Tide of Mediocrity in America's Schools (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing, Inc., 2003). Below is an excerpt from a review by Jonathan Butcher at www.townhall.com/bookclub/yecke.html:

In this book, Yecke, Minnesota's Commissioner of Education, comprehensively relates the history of American middle schools, focusing on a reform movement dedicated to egalitarianism that took shape in the middle of the 20th century. As part of this movement, a body of research and literature grew around the ideas that 1) middle school students cannot learn challenging material, 2) treating students differently based on skill level is harmful, and 3) middle schools should be used to conduct social experiments. The National Middle School Association, founded in 1973, embraced these ideas and led a movement to make all students equal through the suppression of excellent students.

This, says Yecke, is unethical. "Public schools were never meant to be the vehicle for massive social experiments aimed at achieving the questionable utopian goals of an elite few," she says.

Clearly the most destructive and widely-practiced method to accomplish these ends is what Yecke calls "heterogeneous grouping." Here students within classes are broken into groups and given assignments. The groups intermingle talented students with students who, though capable, either do not apply themselves to the same degree or do not grasp concepts as quickly. The result is that gifted students who already understand the material are not challenged by the content, thereby preventing their advancement and attenuating their ability to perform. The students who do not grasp the material do not participate as much in the project at hand, convinced that the talented students can do the work quicker and more completely; these non-participants, who are in need of the practice, then fall further behind their peers. Yecke explains how this process also takes place through peer tutoring and cooperative learning (similar to heterogeneous grouping).

Thus, in an attempt to treat all students equally, proponents of egalitarianism and "heterogeneous grouping" successfully restrain talented students, preventing their success, and completely alienate the perfectly capable students who simply take longer to grasp the same concepts.

"Amazingly, their message is that high ability students should succumb to peer pressure and strive not to achieve, or they will risk making their classmates look bad--and their actions might even go so far as to force these non-motivated students to work harder!" Yecke says.

Suggestions to improve public schools

First, let's make sure teachers can teach. Most of the ones I know in my town are great, but we all know that some teachers in this nation can't teach well because they lack adequate skills. A 1998 article by columnist John Leo reports that over 50% of prospective teachers in Massachusetts flunked a basic literacy test. They had taken all sorts of courses on diversity, sexism, lesbian studies, and so forth, but they couldn't pass a 10th grade reading test (John Leo, "Learning Disabled," The Post-Crescent, Appleton, Wisconsin, July 27, 1998). The training offered in typical education courses has become a scandal in many cases. Teachers are learning not to teach, but to "facilitate." And when it comes to English, colleges across the nation REFUSE to instruct future teachers on how to teach English grammar, and deliberately discourage their teaching that topic. If the teachers aren't learning, how will the children be taught?? Meanwhile, genuine experts in critical areas (such as scientists and mathematicians who would love to teach math and science) are excluded by teachers unions because they don't have a degree in education. Let's eliminate the barriers that keep qualified teachers out of our schools - barriers that also make it difficult to remove those who are incompetent. Let's have rigorous tests to ensure teachers are skilled, but don't require them to spend years getting another degree.

Second, let's make sure that administrators are held accountable for academic growth. They must care about children actually learning, not just being peer mediators with artificially positive self-images. If students aren't learning, they aren't being taught. Academic success, as measured by objective testing, must be demanded of our schools. When academic performance becomes a serious issue, the curriculum is likely to become focused on learning, and teaching methods will be based on methods proven to work, rather than the latest fads.

Third, let's keep control of education in local hands. The Constitution grants no power to the Federal Government to control education. Centralized, governmental control over education is a dictator's dream, but is contrary to the principles this nation was founded on. Don't let bureaucrats in Washington or in the NEA decide how your child should think. Local communities should be able to shape and control their schools, and parents should have the right to choose where their children learn. When it comes to education, it's time we became pro-choice. Competition made the American economy the most productive and advanced in the world. Competition in collegiate education makes our universities strong, effective, and among the best in the world. Monopolistic, bureaucratic control over primary and secondary education weakens our schools and compels many people to consider private schools. And many more would, if they only had the funds to facilitate that choice. Let's stop the failed monopoly system and give parents choice and communities more control.

The disappointment of middle schools

A great example of unforeseen consequences resulting from reform is demonstrated by the switch from junior high schools to middle schools. This switch was not just one of changing grade levels in the schools from 7-9 to 6-8, but it also incorporated a change in perception of these schools from being junior versions of high schools which had a focus on subject area content and a more rigorous academic environment to schools with a focus on making sure that students felt good about themselves, had high self esteem, could explore a wide range of topics in order to give their curiosity free rein, and would be in an environment that provided them many opportunities to succeed. Or so the theory went. What has generally happened is that the middle grades are now redundant and shallow in subject area content, and student achievement has suffered. Teachers who in the past got certified for grades 7-12 in their subject area under the old junior high system are now certified for the middle school level with less coursework required in subject content. (Although it is true that under the old system, some teachers with a K-8 elementary certification were teaching in junior high schools.) Middle school teachers have also been taught in professional development training and at colleges of education that they should not be as academically demanding of their students as they had been under the old system. They were taught to focus on the emotional development of the child and not on his or her academic achievement.

This shift in focus away from academic rigor along with a reduction in subject area requirements for teacher certification has now come back to haunt our middle grade test scores on a multitude of tests and measures. The cry has gone out that something must be done on a state and national level. All of which could have been avoided if someone had just thought through the logical consequences of reducing the academic rigor of education in the middle grades before millions of dollars were spent on changing over to middle schools.

Quotes to note

"Writing in the Sept. 13th issue of National Review, Richard Nadler ... states: 'Researchers have found that instruction in sexual biology and birth control is associated with earlier ages of first intercourse. When adults teach kids how to have sex, how to use contraceptives, and where to get them, the kids simply have more sex. And this approach is the heart and soul of sex-ed ideology." Carrol Everett, a former operator of abortion clinics who had a change of heart and now is pro-life, told Nadler of her visits to schools: "[M]y agenda was very clear. The first thing was to get the students to laugh at their parents, because if they laughed at their parents with me, they would not go home and tell their parents what I told them.... I'd say, 'Would your parents help you get on a method of contraception if you decided to become sexually active? Don't worry about that, here's my card, come to me."

Ms. Everett also recalled: "I knew that any time I went to a school, the pregnancy rate went up sharply. I knew that by my own statistics. I knew that by working with Planned Parenthood, and by reading their statistics." Needless to say, Nadler adds, "More pregnancies meant more abortions."
(The New American, Nov. 22, 1999, p. 5)

"We can no longer hide behind our love of local control of schools and use it as an excuse not to set high standards." (Bill Clinton, reported in the Chicago Sun Times, 1/23/97)

Can you guess the source - or even the decade - of the following quote about whole language versus phonics?

"Simply and clearly, according to our accepted system of instruction, reading isn't taught at all. Books are put in front of the children and they are told to guess at the words or wait until the teacher tells them. But they are NOT taught to read--if by reading you mean what the dictionary says it means, namely, 'to get the meaning of writing or printing.'

"When [you educators] talk about phonics, you mean something entirely different. You mean phonics as one among a dozen things that come into the teaching of reading. You mean that on a Wednesday in May, out of the blue and with nothing before or after it, you go to the blackboard and show the children that the word PIN with an E at the end makes PINE. The children thereupon dutifully 'learn' that fact. They are not shown that the same principle holds for A, E, I, O, and U; They are not shown that it also applies to PINING and TINY. they are not told what short and long vowels there are; they are not told that the I also makes the sound of IR in BIRD and the sound of IE in PIE. No. They are given 'incidental' phonics. On a Friday in June they will be told that the TCH in CATCH stands for the sound of CH. Next October they may hear about the NK in PINK.

"Let's understand each other. Systematic phonics is one thing, unsystematic phonics is another. Systematic phonics is the way to teach reading, unsystematic phonics is nothing--an occasional excursion into something that has nothing whatever to do with the method used to fix words in a child's mind."

Phonics, Whole Language, and the NEA

California was a pioneer in whole language, going whole hog back in 1987. By 1995, the state tied Louisiana for the worst reading scores in the country. Stunned, the legislature reversed course, passing an "ABC" law that mandated the return of phonics-based instruction....

Courageously, former whole language supporters like the American Federation of Teachers and the International Reading Association have acknowledged that their faith was misplaced. A $200 million, 30-year study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, a branch of the NIH, has likewise confirmed the detriments of whole language. Left over in a corner is the National Education Association, a powerhouse constituency of the Democratic Party. While a spokesperson claimed last Friday that the NEW supports the National Research Council's call for a diverse approach, it just promoted whole language dogma at a Read Across America day this month.

Somehow reading shouldn't have ended up being an ideological issue....The NEA and its think-alikes worry that giving in to phonics, associated as it is with conservatives, may send the whole system down the slippery slope where the school choice advocates lie in wait. The NEA should have thought of this before the public schools and their results rolled so far downhill.

Reprogramming or education?

On an unprecedented scale, education policy makers at the national and state levels have, in the past five years, infused traditional, subject-oriented curricula with course materials (often referred to as "strands") intended to mold the opinions and attitudes of young people, and to introduce corrective strategies (some of them bordering on the subliminal and fraudulent) to "remediate" those views considered "inappropriate" or otherwise undesirable by the behavior science community.

Invading your privacy with tests

My eighth grade daughter was given this task to complete in a computer lab session at her middle school:

"GETTING IN TOUCH: When something happens that makes you have strong feelings, you probably remember that event for a long time-perhaps forever! This activity will help you recall some of these times, even if you think you've forgotten them. All you have to do is fill in the blanks in the sentences below. (6 of the 9 are below)

1. I remember how angry I was when my father _____
2. No one knew that I cried when ________________
3. Once, when I was alone in my house, I _________
4. I was so ashamed when _____________________
5. I was really scared when _____________________
6. I'll never tell anyone about the time _____________ "

The Demise of mathematics

I am appalled at the general lack of mathematical expertise among our teenagers and children of this generation. Part of it stems from the lack of mathematical expertise - and love for math - among their teachers, which in turn reflects the neglect of concern about academic excellence in the educational unions, the teachers colleges, and in educational bureaucracies at all levels, where the goal of education appears to be instilling liberal political attitudes rather than achieving academic excellence. In the name of teaching kids to "think for themselves," they are deprived of the core knowledge and the tools needed to actually think seriously about anything. And mathematical tools are critical for thinking and problem solving in almost any area.

But even when teachers have the skills and the passion for math that can help our kids advance toward mathematical excellence, they are often burdened by hideous textbooks that present math as a confusing mish-mash of disjointed concepts or, worse yet, don't teach math at all. Popular textbooks adopted by numerous school boards around the country seem perfectly designed to provide mathematical ignorance. This is a travesty. Some of the blame must be placed on so-called "standards" adopted in 1989 by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). They have generated an epidemic of mathematical ignorance among those who have adopted them, most notably the publishers of textbooks. For example, one of the most troubling examples of this trend is the very popular textbook of Addison-Wesley, Secondary Math: An Integrated Approach: Focus on Algebra, which is discussed in the following articles by Marianne M. Jennings:

• MTV Math Doesn't Add Up
• X + Y = F: Algebra Textbook Fails
• 'Rain Forest' Algebra Course Teaches Everything but Algebra

Book reviews

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

Thomas Sowell, a conservative black American and famous columnist, takes on the liberal paradigms that dominate so much of the media, of education, and modern politics. "The anointed" are those who think they are morally and intellectually superior to others and deserve to wield the power of big government to run our lives. The vision shared by the self-anointed is one in which personal freedom is an enemy. Likewise, personal responsibility is irrelevant, for it is "society" that is to be blamed for problems of human behavior. If society is the problem, then all we need is to have the anointed reconstruct society according to their vision to solve all problems.

Sowell explores many failed policies of the anointed, including Johnson's War on Poverty, sex education, and the revolution in criminal justice, showing how they each fall into the same pattern. The anointed proclaim a crisis exists that isn't really there or has been improving. They propose solutions based on their morally superior insight - solutions which others, often using real evidence and data, predict will fail or make things worse. No evidence is required to support the proposed solutions, which are "self-evident" to the anointed. The solutions are implemented and the results are miserable. In response, the anointed declare that critics are "simplistic" or even evil. The problem is that their solutions have not been implemented widely enough or have not received enough funding. Things would have been much worse if it had not been for their solution. More of their failed solution is proposed. Evidence against their policies is ignored.

This approach has devastated the American culture over the past 40 years. Sowell provides relentless evidence and fascinating case studies on issue after issue, including many relevant to education. I highly recommend this book.

Selected quotes:

[W]hen some parents objected to having their children put at risk by attending public schools with other children stricken with AIDS, New York Times columnist Anna Quindlen said that we should "ask some parents to put their children at risk, however small, for the sake of principle and fairness" (July 6, 1991, p. A21). But these parents were not being asked anything. They were being told that it was none of their business to know who or where there were AIDS carriers amidst their children. The anointed had already decided how much risk other people's children should be exposed to - and official secrecy meant that those other people had nothing to say about it.
(P. 197)

Much of what is called "interdisciplinary" by those with the vision of the anointed is not interdisciplinary at all. It is nondisciplinary, in that it simply ignores boundaries between disciplines. Physical chemistry is truly interdisciplinary in that it requires prior mastery of two different disciplines - physics and chemistry - but many ethnic, gender, and other "studies" do not require prior mastery of any discipline. They are nondisciplinary.
(P. 205)

Dumbing Down Our Kids; Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves, But Can't Read, Write, or Add

Sykes does a great job documenting the true "dumbing down" that has occurred in public education. Several studies have examined curriculum content in various areas, comparing current content to content in past decades. Education has clearly become diluted. Dumbing down is evident not only in the loss of content, but in decreased measures of academic achievement (mathematical, verbal, and other skills). While true academic achievement has been going down, grades are going up. When a child gets an "A" on his or her report card, parents assume the child is learning well. By the time they realize that very little has been learned, it may be too late.

Sykes presents valuable information and analysis about "Learning Disabled" kids, many of whom are perfectly normal kids suffering from poor educational practices (the school's fault!) rather than an inherent learning problem. Schools that adopt improved curricula - like a Baltimore school that adopted the Calvert curriculum - can achieve such remarkable progress that some LD kids may become "Talented and Gifted." Some of the our poor curricula, like the "Spiral Math" program that is used all over the country, are specifically treated in the book.

We need to rid our schools of the fads and empty programs that have replaced serious education with "feel-good" fluff and pop psychology. American education is producing kids who feel very positive about their educational skills - regardless of how poor those skills are. "Dumbing down" should not be tolerated.

(The above comments were based on my wife's review of this book.)

My pick for one of the most helpful books available for parents and students. With logic, facts, and science, this book takes on the many frightening myths and exaggerations that school children often hear about the environment. Far from an apology for environmental destruction, this book teaches responsibility and respect for the planet while exposing the lack of substance behind many of the dire "doomsday" scenarios that are presented to our kids as facts. Are we really going to run out of oxygen due to deforestation? Is overpopulation really the crisis that the schools say it is? Will billions starve? Are millions going to die from skin cancer due to ozone depletion? Are we really running out of trees and other resources? Are we "deforesting the U.S. at the fastest pace in our history" as the Sierra Club claims? Is the planet overheating? Is there really no more room for landfills? These questions require facts, not fear, and the authors deliver the former while discussing reasonable solutions to real environmental problems.

Most chapters of the book have been reviewed for technical content by two or more scholars in relevant areas, whose names and affiliations are given. For example, Chapter 17, "Don't Eat That Apple!" (dealing with the overblown fears of chemicals in foods) was reviewed by Dr. Gordon Gribble, Professor of Chemistry at Dartmouth University; by Dr. Joseph D. Rosen, Professor of Food Chemistry at Rutgers University; and Dr. Steven Safe, Distinguished Professor of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology at Texas A&M University. Chapter 18, "A Garbage Crisis?" was reviewed by Dr. M.B. Hocking, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Victoria; by William Rathje, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Arizona and Director of the internationally recognized Garbage Project; and by Dr. Clark Wiseman, Professor of Economics at Gonzaga University.

Parents will learn what school textbooks are saying about the environment, and will find helpful information and documentation to balance what is incorrect or exaggerated. Parents will also find helpful discussion topics and recommended exercises and activities to help their children better understand and think about the environment and our stewardship.

The New Age Masquerade: The Hidden Agenda in Your Child's Classroom

Values clarification, as developed by Louis Raths and Sidney Simons, is based entirely on situational ethics. This ethical system assumes there are no transcendent absolute principles by which decisions can be made. Ethics are determined only by circumstances at hand, consequences desired, and personal feelings.

How would you like a special or custom-built house to go to anytime you want to, with anything you want in it? You could have any person you want to come and visit you. It wouldn't matter if he or she was dead or alive, real or imaginary. After today, you will always have this special place and special way of being with anybody you want. Be sure to use them.

In the SOAR program, the teacher then leads the children into self-hypnosis and has them visualize their workshop. The children are told:

Get ready to meet your two helpers....First you will see your male helper....Now look at your male helper....He is now real and alive, and he comes into your workshop.....say 'Hello' and ask him his name....tell him how glad you are that he is there with you...Ask him to either sit or stand near you on your right side.

Various resources for concerned parents

PRESS (Parents Raising Educational Standards in Schools)

This organization has been helpful to my wife and I in providing valuable information on so-called educational reforms. Contact them at P.O. Box 26913, Milwaukee, WI 53226 (phone: 262-241-0514). Their publications are great. For example, are you tired of hearing unsubstantiated claims that the educational fad of the moment is "supported by many studies"? Dr. Jeffrey M. Jones has compiled an outstanding booklet based on scholarly research on the effects and consequences of many modern educational practices, including curricula based on "enhancing self-esteem," whole-language, affective education, etc. The booklet is Educational Philosophies: A Primer for Parents, copyright 1995, published by PRESS. The cost is $7. For an example of some information gleaned from that book, see my page on Direct Instruction.

Core Knowledge Foundation

Leading the way with truly outstanding curricula to help kids learn what they need to succeed. 2012-B Morton Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22903, (804) 977-7550.

Wisconsin Education Consumers Association

Finally, an organization dedicated to representing the CONSUMER'S perspective in education. This networking resource is dedicated to empowering parents, school board members, employers, taxpayers, and others who have a consumer's stake in public schooling. WECA was formed in response to the need of education consumers to connect with like-minded citizens in Wisconsin so that we may communicate effectively with state representatives and public school officials for quality education.

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute

A non-profit institute established to study public-policy issues affecting the state of Wisconsin. Their publications are excellent, well documented, and worth reading if you want to be informed about the facts of political life and education in Wisconsin. One recent publication of theirs that I highly recommend is Direct Instruction and the Teaching of Early Reading by Mark Schug, Sara Tarver and Richard Western. It's available as a PDF file.

Citizens for Excellence in Education (CEE), P.O. Box 3200, Costa Mesa, CA 92628, (714) 546-5931.

National Right to Read Foundation, (800) 468-8911.

National Association of Christian Educators (NACE), P.O. Box 3200, Costa Mesa, CA 92628, (714) 546-5931.

National Monitor of Education, Box 402, Alamo, CA 94507, (415) 945-6745.

Sex Respect Curriculum, Respect, Inc., P.O. Box 349, Bradley, IL 60915-0349, (815) 939-0296

The National Council for Better Education, 1373 Van Dorn Street, Alexandria, VA 22304 (703) 684-4404.

National Coalition of Concerned Christians, P.O. Box 756, Sprig, TX 77383.

Traditional Values Coalition, 100 Anaheim Blvd., Suite 350, Anaheim, CA 92805, (714) 520-0300.

Accuracy in Media, 1275 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.

Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, CO 80995-001 Phone: (719) 531-5181.

The Rutherford Institute

The Rutherford Institute is a nonprofit legal and educational organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and family autonomy. They use lawyers to a protect our religious liberties and have won many victories. P.O. Box 7482, Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482, Phone: 1-804-978-3888.

The Literacy Council (TLC)

An organization working to restore sound reading concepts in schools. They are effective advocates of proven phonics methods and strong opponents of the thoroughly discredited "whole language" fad. P. O. Box 2845, Huntington Station, NY 11746; Tel/FAX 516-424-1039, Charles M. Richardson, Founder and Chairman.

Links related to education

Search WWW Search jefflindsay.com