Letter: Standards won’t improve education

It’s not surprising Louisiana has high standards for K-12 education but low achievement: The state has recently made a basket of policy changes that will take several years to measure against students.

The Brookings Institution research showed several years ago that the quality of a state’s standards for curriculum and test had little relationship to student achievement. Some states with high standards have low student performance, like Louisiana, and others with low standards have high student performance.

What this really indicates is a national initiative where nearly all states adopted the same standards for math and English is not likely to improve education, despite all the Common Core public relations.

The biggest influences on student performance are first, family (whether parents read to kids, turn off TVs, model self-control and so forth); second, teachers; and third, curriculum.

And while standards create an outline for curriculum and teaching, they do not even come close to constituting it.

In short, Louisianians should wait a few years to see if the big changes it and many other states are making have a difference on what kids learn, and respond accordingly.

Joy Pullmann

education research fellow, Heartland Institute

Chicago

Comments

1) Comment by bourbon-soda - 12/02/2013

Public schools are influenced by politics. Who'd o' thunk it.

2) Comment by Scrooge - 12/02/2013

I agree I think that eliminating public education in favor of profit would be a much greater disaster than public education already is? I also think that the public educational entities are not so much to blame as the social and political paradigms they are forced to work in. Really, the rules change every few years with a new political cycle, its a wonder anyone would want to teach or stay in the profession in Louisiana yet they are blamed for the failings of a chaotic system where scientific, rational methodology is abandoned in favor of political expediency. Besides, the raw material ain't so great to start with because of the continuing inbred cycle of failure

3) Comment by bourbon-soda - 12/02/2013

I am interpreting this as agreement that vouchers, charters, etc. vs "traditional" public school funding and administration, is merely a matter of who gets at the trough rather than demonstrable change in measurable academic achievement by students. Since they are going to get my taxes no matter what, which side gets at the trough is a matter of indifference.

4) Comment by Scrooge - 12/02/2013

Applying that rationale to vouchers is evidently problematic as well. Actually, it is the parroting not the parrots which deserve derision. There is no evidence suggesting reducing funds as haphazardly as they are applied will work , either. Charter schools may be a judicious choice but obviously strict fiscal oversight is necessary, something that is severely lacking regarding the giveaway of tax dollars known as vouchers. However, if the intent is to destroy public education in favor of an (more) ignorant populace, by all means proceed. You will certainly save on taxes but the known consequences, as well as the unknown, may render the short term economic advantages moot.

5) Comment by bourbon-soda - 12/02/2013

Another rationale for conservative might be that whoever wants to take someone else's money to accomplish something should have some evidence that it will work. That is not the case with public education within the range of expenditures of the several states.

6) Comment by Scrooge - 12/02/2013

My apologies to the more astute but this was too good to pass up: "Cons think that less of someone else's money will solve everything. That hasn't worked in the past, but they still want to keep trying. What's that old Einstein line about insanity?" Sean O'Limbaugh

7) Comment by crazycajun - 12/02/2013

Anyone ignorant enough to believe anything from this administration deserves what they get.

8) Comment by bourbon-soda - 11/02/2013

According to my dictionary, a generation is "the average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children of their own." Under welfare, it is about 15 years.

9) Comment by Attila - 11/02/2013

Twinkie: Just how long is a generation anyhow? You state " We have already lost a generation to No Child Left Behind." I thought that NCLB was a G W Bush program that is less than 12 years old. I agree with other posters that "free breakfast, and lunch, is too much, and now you want after school programs, pre school programs, and an evening meal? Why don't we just pass a law that all "at risk" kids be removed from their so called homes force the rest of us to raise them in our homes. I feel like I am already an adoptive parent through the taxes I am forced to pay to support the failing programs we already have....and you want more...more...more.

10) Comment by JohnStJ - 11/02/2013

The writer signs in as a "fellow" of the Heartland Institute. The Heartland institute is a bought and paid for astroturf organization. Their opinions are for hire. They used to post their contributors but, since this has come to embarrass the paymasters, no longer does. They worked with the tobacco industry to keep alive the lie that the scientific research was "biased." They've repeated that tactic several times since. They've gotten into education since privatization began to promise big bucks channeling government money into the hands of large national "education" corporations. In short: the signature of a Heartland fellow on a letter is fair evidence that you should disbelieve everything above the name itself.

11) Comment by wherearewegoing - 11/02/2013

@ScotB I'm with you on this one. Libs think that more of someone else's money will solve everything. That hasn't worked in the past, but they still want to keep trying. What's that old Einstein line about insanity?

12) Comment by nimby? - 11/02/2013

generations not learning from the mistakes of the previous , or the one before , or the one before , or ....

13) Comment by bourbon-soda - 11/02/2013

At some point, Newt Gingrich's idea of taking them out of the home and using the benefits to run what he called "orphanages" might make sense.

14) Comment by Whatnow - 11/02/2013

"Access to after school programs, pre-kindergarten and an evening meal?" They already are given breakfast and lunch. I guess we would have to tuck them in bed with a good night kiss, too. ScotB, I agree. Pouring more money into babysitting is not going to help in the least.

15) Comment by ScotB - 11/02/2013

When someone can prove to me how writing a bigger check can substitute for a mom and dad and overcome a culture that doesn't value an education, I'll support writing that check. Kids born to single moms, in homes where drugs are used, where education is not valued, they have an uphill battle. I have not seen a good solution. When it is not culturally acceptable to be having sexual relations outside marriage, when being uneducated is no longer cool, when people are ridiculed when they are unable to properly enunicate their words, when going to jail is no longer a badge of honor to show street cred, etc. In other words, when we return to the values that made our nation great and regain a little pride & dignity, we will have better children. The whole "village to raise a child" mentality is off-base. What a child needs is TWO caring parents, a mom & a dad. That's my opinion, anyway.

16) Comment by twinkie1cat - 10/02/2013

I don't think we have a few years to wait to see if the so-called reforms in education are going to work. We have already lost a generation to No Child Left Behind. We are losing another one to teaching to the test............... We could do something to improve the lives of children if Jindal would come off of the funding for the non-profits that help children so that all would have access to after school programs, pre-kindergarten and an evening meal. If he would willingly spend the money necessary to ensure that they all got quality, timely medical, mental health and dental care and that parents of students with high incidence special needs (mild retardation, learning disabilities, health impairments and emotional/behavioral disorders) and those who get behind at an early age got special assistance with parenting and helping their children learn, that would help. If the state would eliminate the use of Teach for America and alternate certification except in emergency situations (one month before school started and positions aren't filled) and used the money now being given to that organization to pay for scholarships for students majoring in Education and graduate students getting advanced degrees in Education or National Certification, that would help find real, qualified teachers. If the State Department would stop fighting the unions, strive to keep veteran educators instead of intentionally running them off, stop imposing curricula from outsiders and emphasizing standardized testing, and LET THE TEACHERS TEACH, we could have good schools..............Unfortunately, Louisiana is being run by selfish Republicans and Bobby Jindal, who is among the most selfish, does not give a care about education or health care, only about impressing the national GOP and federal office. So the schools are not going to improve unless the legislature gets off its tail, quits being Jindalclones, takes his power and makes the state take care of its children so they can become highly educated and successful. We don't have a few years. Jindal is only interested in his own political future. "Dumbing down the voters" actually benefits conservatives because studies have shown that conservatives generally have less education than more moderate voters. So quality education does not serve the goals of the Republican party and they are setting America up to be taken over by despots and dictators and presidents who start unnecessary wars and pay for them on a credit card.

17) Comment by bourbon-soda - 10/02/2013

Most reporting on education in the mass media consists of communiques of progress measured by jerry-rigged standards, interspersed with dreary reports that outcomes have declined or remained static.

18) Comment by Scrooge - 10/02/2013

Yeah but waiting a few years won't win elections or pad a resume