War on English

May 25, 2008 admin Education, MGuhlin.net, Texas, Transparency

A tweet yesterday alerted me to what I should have been aware of
already–that there’s a fight brewing at the state level regarding
English teachers and teaching of English. The tweet read…they slide
the new curr under board members doors 1hr before vote (Source:
technolibrary). Surely, a lack of transparency abounds in Texas
decision-making.

The State Board of Education’s debate on new English and reading
standards took another rowdy turn Friday as members approved a
never-before-seen version of the lengthy document which materialized
less than an hour before the board was to take a final vote…I find
it’s really wild that we can work for three years on a project and then
the board is so qualified they can pull it out of their hat overnight,"
said board member Pat Hardy, a Fort Worth Republican who, like other
board members, received the substituted document when it was slipped
under her hotel door less than an hour before their meeting was set to
convene Friday morning…There’s been "no opportunity to review it, no
teacher group is involved, not even the (Texas Education Agency)
staff was involved or had seen it."said board member Bob Craig, a
Republican from Lubbock.
Source: May 24, 2008 – Dallas
Morning News

This morning, the following pops up in my Texas RSS feed:

Sharrar adds a few details of Kommissar McLeroy’s war on English
education, but the significant thing about the story is in the comments,
I think. One poster appears to have details that are unavailable even
from TEA. Partisans in the fight have details that Texas law requires to
be made public in advance of the meetings, while the state officials who
need to advise on the regulations and carry them out, do not. TEA has an
expensive website with full capabilities of publishing these documents
within moments of their passage. As of Sunday morning, TEA’s website
still shows the documents from last March. Surely Texas is not
getting its value from TEA on this stuff.
Source: Millard
Fillmore’s Bathtub

While this may be a valid criticism, considering
what happened to
the Science
Director at TEA–scary thing is, Science Curriculum is up for review
NEXT now that the English curriculum is done–when she forwarded
controversial information presented a balanced perspective (she was
forced to resign or be fired), who could blame TEA for hesitating?
Having worked at an Education Service Center, which I recall had a
similar culture regarding speaking out (for example, blogging and
publishing articles would have been forbidden without prior review by
the appropriate department that took months to get anything done, if it
ever did, which raises the question, who do those people think they’re
fooling? Chilling effect is what they specialize in, even if they’re all
smiles and sunshine), no chance that TEA staff would step out there,
even if they knew anything. They’re probably hunkering behind some blast
doors, waiting for the fall-out to decay. It all comes down to why this
would happen…check this out…

The TEA’s commissioner Robert Scott was interviewed by the Dallas
Morning News (December 9, 2007). He denied that Comer was forced to
resign just for forwarding the e-mail announcing Forrest’s talk,
alluding to "other factors" that he was not able to discuss. Asked, "Was
her advocacy of evolution over creationism an element in her dismissal?"
he replied, "She wasn’t advocating for evolution. But she may have given
the impression that … we were taking a position as an agency -– not as
an individual but as an agency — on a matter." Asked, "Why shouldn’t
the agency advocate the science of evolution? Texas students are
required to study it," he replied, "you can be in favor of a science
without bashing people’s faith, too. I don’t know all the facts, but I
think that may be the real issue here." He did not explain how Comer’s
behavior was supposed to constitute faith-bashing.

Again, we’re looking back at how TEA handles things…simply, no
individual’s view may tarnish the "impartiality" of the Agency.
Fortunately, bloggers and educators out there aren’t bound by this
zealous over-control of people. Obviously, staff in school districts
espouse views and perspectives that are at odds with official school
district views. . .just consider the hordes of edubloggers advocating
for technology integration in schools even as technology is side-lined
in their own districts and restrictive policies put in place.

But back to English curriculum. Few could argue with the following
assessment of curriculum…but how to teach is what’s really the issue.

"It is obvious that too many Texas public school students aren’t
learning the basics with our current curriculum," said Foundation
education policy analyst Brooke Terry. "We are glad the new curriculum
will emphasize grammar and writing skills." Texas public schools fail to
adequately prepare many students for college or the workplace, she said,
citing a 2006 survey by the Conference Board found that 81 percent of
employers viewed recent high school graduates as "deficient in written
communications" needed for letters, memos, formal reports and technical
reports.
Source:Millard
Fillmore’s Bathtub blog

As a writer since my book report in middle school when I finally
understood what writing was REALLY about–understanding the world and
sharing that–I soon learned that grammar (diagramming sentences) wasn’t
where it was at. In fact, grammar played such a little part in my
education, except to have a label for sentences parts…an activity I
seldom engage in. I’m often told, and have been since youth, "You’re a
great writer!" Actually, no, I’m just someone who writes. If new
curriculum focuses on grammar and teaching writing the way it was done
when I began my career in teaching, rather than learning writing through
reading a la Stephen Krashen, then this approach is problematic.

My problem is that I’m coming late to this conversation. I’m going to
have to go back and re-read what the proposed changes were, what changes
were made. But that may mean nothing, since as technolibrary points out,
more changes were made at the last minute.

But some members were offended that they didn’t see the final version
until Friday’s meeting. "I don’t trust the people who have worked behind
the scenes in secret," said Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi.
Read
Source

When you consider how problematic changing English curriculum–gosh,
don’t we already know how to teach that well?–is, is it any wonder that
technology use is so ignored? I can’t hear them now…"Why introduce
TECHNOLOGY teaching into English curriculum? We’re having enough trouble
just learning how to teach English!"