Public Education in Trouble

To say the least it is disheartening to continually read about the controversies over, and inadequacies of, education in Florida. A time-honored concept of a board of regents is tossed in the junk heap — another instance of deregulating higher education — and preventing a state from establishing common principles and values. The free schools of public education — for two hundred years prima facie having afforded opportunity for all — is badgered incessantly to defend itself against the holier than thou saboteurs espousing vouchers, private and charter schools. The myth of testing — as though it were an innovation to fill a vacuum — has become the wherewithal for improvement in lieu of appropriate resources for modernized plants, administrators of curriculum rather than business managers, incentives for teachers continuing education, smaller class size, encouraging parental participation as opposed to disruption, updated materials, and stern but sensitive discipline requiring specialists and therapists.

The underlying idea of a board of regents is to minimize politics, religion and to establish a pure philosophy of education in which academics, vocational skills, the arts and physical education develop citizenry sensitive to constitutional democracy. To contaminate the administering of such a commission with legislative pet projects, the whims of petty ideologists, and bottom line greed undermines a cohesive goal in dictating and assisting local boards in meeting the needs of all students.

There isn’t a thinking person in this nation that does not know what the problem is in public education. First and foremost is the caste system between urban and suburban schools, or poor and affluent neighborhoods. Secondly, poorer neighborhoods tend to breed — academically and behaviorally — less disciplined children because of a disadvantaged home environment, consequently requiring more resources, particularly in head start, supportive personnel trained in close community relations, together with teachers and teacher-aides specially trained in surrogate parenting. Schools in these neighborhoods should shine as architectural jewels in the midst of blight and sufficient security and maintenance to keep them shining so that children will love to be there. Moreover, even in the affluent communities, there is still the unthinkable blight of portables hidden behind the facade of the main buildings; citizens with clout, in lieu of indignation, are insensitive since their children are in private schools. Then — rather than insisting and voting for better schools — there are those, who think they can do better with vouchers or by applying for a charter school when in reality all they want is for their children to escape the riff-raff.

It is a gross insult to teachers to enforce testing in face of the value they have always placed in their strategies of instruction. Any worthy principal would see to it that a teacher who ignores the state and local syllabus of evaluating minimal essentials would be subject to severe discipline. Testing, the catch word of the day is a red-herring.

Most superintendents and, alas, some building principals are more politician than educator. The primary asset of an administrator should be coordinating curriculum and facilitating learning and instruction. To be sure, they must also, with guidance from the central business manager, oversee the finances of the schools, but not be obsessive to the degree that it impedes the passion for the welfare of the student body and in hiring competent teachers.

It has never been the purpose of the educational system in this nation to proselytize religion, ethnicity and arrant snobbery — it seems we are heading in that direction.

Letter to Sun-Sentinel '01

C’mon Get Real

The controversy over grading in secondary schools is indicative of the need for a Board of Regents consisting in the main of educators. Legislation should be kept out of the academic aspect of schools. Yet regardless of policy, it is the teacher who is at the helm of grading. Most science and math teachers favor the numeric grade and when tranvalued into letters their guide as is the same case with other teachers, is A=95, B=85, C=75, D=65. Kept in their registers are minuses and pluses. If, for example, a student gets a 100% on a test or some other activity of equal value, he or she receives an A+, if the ensuing assignment of equal value is a 72%, it translates as a C-; the average is therefore a B or 86%. Now in most instances where electives and humanities are of a more subjective nature, though subliminally guided by the mid-range of each of the percentages, teachers generally perceive student performance in letters. Say, ten homework assignments, three tests and four essays are of equal weight in a grading period. The student with A- for homework, B-for tests and C+ for essays, the resulting average on the report card is B if the student’s deportment, participation or effort is low the result may be a B- or an 80 to 82%, or if high a B+ or 86.5-89.0%. If the report card mandates rounded out letters, then the pluses or minuses are stored in the register for final grades. So, no matter what the law states, it is still the teacher who is in control and voids the issue, except for the meddling of politicians.