Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, May 18, 1995 TAG: 9505180019
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-13 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Sailing under the catchphrase "Outcome-Based Education," this venture was attacked by conservatives for emphasizing feel-good values instead of solid academic performance. The seat got so hot Wilder pulled the plug on the whole thing.
Now comes Dr. William Bosher, Gov. George Allen's superintendent of public instruction, with a new set of standards. These were promptly castigated by liberals for emphasizing rote memorization of facts rather than creative thinking. To be more precise, the standards for social studies and language arts were attacked.
The standards for science and math haven't generated much controversy. That may be because those who worked them up did an extremely good job. Or, it could be that those who set themselves up as critics in such matters don't really care much (or know much) about science and math.
But probably the main reason is that objective standards for science and math don't have to be politically correct. On the other hand, it's hard to present history, economics or literature without a political or cultural bent likely to offend somebody in this sensitive age.
My own study of history through the doctoral level led me to one conclusion: You can't master more than the merest fraction of the total subject, and much of what you think you know is either wrong or suspect. But you can't even approach the subject without some mastery of historical chronology, which can't be done without memorizing it. Having spent more than 40 years trying to do that, I have great sympathy for those just starting out - and for those teachers who must try to lead them through the maze.
The proposed standards for social studies, which have generated the most controversy, seem at once unobjectionable and impossible. That is, one couldn't possibly object to a 10th-grade student of world history being able to "explain how investment in human capital resources ... increased productivity in the periods leading up to the 15th century." It would no doubt be wonderful if they could. But one is entitled to doubt that many will.
It is tempting to say teachers don't want standards of learning that are too specific because testing could easily show they had failed to do their jobs. But the standards for science and math, which haven't been attacked, are full of quite specific goals that would be a mystery to me.
The Virginia Education Association, which represents the most politically active teachers, has called for substantial revisions in the standards for social studies and language arts. That they are likely to be revised is attested by the fact that the copy of the standards I obtained from the state Department of Education today carried the handwritten legend "working paper" on its cover.
The VEA Delegate Assembly wants "assessment tools that measure critical thinking, problem solving and other higher order thinking skills." And so do we all. But getting them, ah, there's the rub.
The goal of education can be stated easily: Give every person the ability to read (or hear) fairly complex material with understanding; to be able to test the validity of what is written or said by calling upon stored information. And when in doubt, to be able to find quickly the data you need, choosing those sources likely to prove reliable. Then, to be able to present your own thoughts orally or in writing in a manner likely to commend them to an objective reader or listener. More to the point, mastering what we need to earn a decent living and keep our democracy on the tracks.
In the real world, of course, we give the once over lightly to what doesn't interest us and concentrate on what does. I once learned the Pythagorean Theorem for finding the unknown length of one side of a right triangle when the lengths of the other two sides are given, which is still set forth as a standard for 8th-grade math, and promptly forgot it. While then and now blessed with the ability to do fairly complex arithmetic in my head, I have yet to find a use for that no doubt excellent theorem. And a mathematician might be equally baffled that anyone would want to make it his business to learn all the prime ministers of Great Britain.
If we could quantify all that our teachers tried to teach us, we might be astonished by how much was untrue, unimportant or forgotten. No one in human history has devised the perfect curriculum, and it may be pointless to try. What's vital is acquiring the tools to teach ourselves, and having the will to keep doing that.
But before we talk about achieving the ideal standards of learning, we might want to work on the basics. Tests recently given by the National Assessment Governing Board showed 46 percent of randomly selected Virginia students unable to read at even a basic level.
Every teacher and student will bring different interests and abilities. And because conditions vary so tremendously among Virginia's 138 school divisions, we are unlikely to reach agreement on what every student should know. If you set standards where they ought to be, many will fail. If you set them low enough for most to achieve, there's no real point.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
by CNB