Public education
resists high standards
Sue Atkinson
Baxter
Intervention is used when a behavior is considered destructive, and it is generally resisted by the object of the intervention. The public education system in this country has, generally, resisted raising standards and getting back on track with curriculum and teacher training, with Iowa being one of the more challenging states.
The National Council on Teacher Quality has been very specific on the changes necessary by state, and international assessments coming from the OECD (writer and administrator of the international PISA exams) corroborate the findings of the NCTQ. The Iowa Department of Education pays attention to these, and has revamped its web site this fall with these in mind.
More than 2,500 years ago, Plato wrote about the science of education, using reading, math, and science concepts (effectively taught) as the core disciplines to apply to all other disciplines used in education. Major civilizations from that time forward have used this approach. Just more than 100 years ago, the U.S. chose to take its public education off the connection between reading, math and science concepts applied to other disciplines; then 60 years ago public education began removing concepts, replacing them with memorization. A 1982 report, “A Nation at Risk” warned of the consequences, but this mild intervention failed to change the memorization approach and continued lowering of standards. Finally, the government staged a major intervention in 2001 with No Child Left Behind, and the object of the intervention exploded with indignation.
Here is the difference. Mentally engaging in learning and applying concepts is analogous to physically doing daily exercises to build up the body for other applications. Effectively teaching concepts is the exercise needed for grade level. Memorization is like watching someone else do the exercises and then relating what exercises they did; the physical development is not present.
I contacted the Iowa Department of Education regarding the use of sight words in school reading programs (which is memorization and not a concept-learning activity); I was informed sight words are not in the Iowa Core beyond kindergarten (the national Common Core does not have them). Schools that have purchased new reading programs covering all five of the "science of reading" concepts have no need for memorized sight words.
Use of sight words dumbs down the potential effects of the new programs by adding memorization activities in place of training for teachers to help them effectively teach all five of the reading concepts.