The State of the State and Education
Perhaps the Governor ought to think this through again
by Leigh Pomeroy
Governor Pawlenty is a choirboy sort with a ready smile and a jaunty walk. He looks a lot younger than his 47 years — kind of Minnesota's answer to John Edwards, though, of course, from a different political party. Appearance aside, ever since barely surviving the November elections that saw many of his fellow Republicans take the big fall, he seems to be moving noticeably toward the political center.
For these reasons alone most members of the Minnesota legislature regardless of party — and I suspect most Minnesotans — were rooting for him to give a strong State of the State address yesterday. And he did... sort of.
He focused on four key issues, drawing an analogy to the four "big horses" atop the capitol dome: "better government, better energy, better education, and better health care." Whew, that's a lot of "betters"!
Perhaps the biggest surprise in his speech was how much emphasis he put on educational reform, particularly at the high school level. Citing declining test scores for Minnesota's students as they progress upward from elementary to middle to high school, he quoted Bill Gates in advocating for change at the 9-12 level:
As well as upgrading technology, Pawlenty asked for a four-year language requirement and, even more rigorous, that students complete the equivalent of a full year of college before they graduate from high school. If they do so, he advocates rewarding them with a year of free tuition at any one on Minnesota's public institutions of higher learning, "regardless of their class rank and... ACT scores."
Few would argue that Gates and Pawlenty are correct: Our high schools need change. But the age-old argument comes back to haunt us: In what direction?
Several years ago conservative Republicans, to which a different Tim Pawlenty then allied himself, were advocating a back-to-basics curriculum — reading, writing, 'rithmatic. Anybody remember the never confirmed Commissioner of Education, Cheri Pierson Yecke? Now seemingly the Guv wants us to go in the opposite direction by embracing Bill Gates' tech-heavy view of the future. Is this an about-face or is someone just simply schizophrenic?
Last week I was at a conference entitled the Minnesota River Summit, which dealt with the health of the Minnesota River Basin, both environmental and economic. I sat next to a teacher from the Minnesota New Country School in Henderson, a charter school that offers a project-based curriculum, and which, by the way, has received grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The school has a nationwide reputation for being innovative and often excellent at what it does. She was looking for Minnesota River-related projects she could use at the school to teach science, math, writing, history — well, just about everything.
Listening to Pawlenty expound on high school change I thought, "How does the New Country School model fit in here?"
As with many outstate communities, the New Ulm School District is struggling to maintain its student base. Already a number of courses are offered in town through Minnesota State University, Mankato, which serve mainly nontraditional (older) and post-secondary enrollment option (PSEO) students — a.k.a., high school students taking college classes. The PSEO choice is great for bright, motivated students but tough on school districts that have to pay the colleges for each student who enrolls in a class as a PSEO.
The Governor's plan that high school students complete a year of college before they get their diplomas creates a number of logistical problems. Who's going to reimburse school districts already facing declining enrollments for all their students taking college courses? Who's going to teach those courses? Will the state colleges and universities have to hire more professors at as much as twice what a high school teacher makes to teach them? Or will the high school teachers themselves be asked to teach the college-level curriculum? If so, particularly as more students take them, how will college-level standards be maintained?
What about science classes? Most high schools have nowhere near the equipment and facilities to teach college-level classes. And what about those rural high schools that aren't so blessed to be near college campuses? Are they going to be left out altogether?
The Governor is to be applauded for expanding the dialog on our high schools. As a part-time instructor at Minnesota State University, Mankato, I have had to deal with far too many poorly prepared students. But by suggesting the solution to this is to essentially dumb down college courses so they can be taught to an even lesser prepared high school student body shows a great deal of naïveté.
The problem with many politicians is they feel they have to come up with solutions when there is a problem. Identifying the problem is always a step in the right direction, but solutions are often best gleaned by those in the trenches, those who must deal with a flawed system on a daily basis.
In his speech the Governor gave the example of Brenda Willard, a manager in the state's Administration Department. "She and her colleagues" he said, "helped develop purchasing standards and policies for state computers, cell phones, and furniture that will save the state over $22 million. That's the combined annual tax bill for 1,100 Minnesota families!"
The Governor, perhaps unwittingly, offered a great example of allowing a "grassroots approach" towards problem solving. Well, Governor, if it works for state government, why not in the schools?
Right now state government spends far too much effort dictating to school districts and teachers how students ought to be taught. Instead, why doesn't state government enlist school districts, teachers, parents, employers, colleges and universities to lay out goals of what should be expected from students and then encourage those parties to develop the means? In that way the players would be invested in an agreed-upon process rather than be subjugates of government edict — like schools — or forced to deal with the outcome of a flawed process — like colleges, universities and employers.
Unlike past years when the Governor's State of the State address had to deal with the harsh reality of budget shortfalls, in this speech he could choose among a number of positive options. It is a much more enviable position to be in. Though some might argue that he should have spent more time on other issues like tax cuts and transportation, the issues he chose to emphasize are all more than worthy.
The Governor deserves kudos for placing them in prominence on the menu. He gives us food for thought. Yet his suggested solutions still need a lot of work; the recipes need to be tweaked, some rewritten altogether. Let's hope that he realizes this. If so, this legislative session, unlike too many in years past, could yield a bounty of positive results for all Minnesotans.
by Leigh Pomeroy
Governor Pawlenty is a choirboy sort with a ready smile and a jaunty walk. He looks a lot younger than his 47 years — kind of Minnesota's answer to John Edwards, though, of course, from a different political party. Appearance aside, ever since barely surviving the November elections that saw many of his fellow Republicans take the big fall, he seems to be moving noticeably toward the political center.
For these reasons alone most members of the Minnesota legislature regardless of party — and I suspect most Minnesotans — were rooting for him to give a strong State of the State address yesterday. And he did... sort of.
He focused on four key issues, drawing an analogy to the four "big horses" atop the capitol dome: "better government, better energy, better education, and better health care." Whew, that's a lot of "betters"!
Perhaps the biggest surprise in his speech was how much emphasis he put on educational reform, particularly at the high school level. Citing declining test scores for Minnesota's students as they progress upward from elementary to middle to high school, he quoted Bill Gates in advocating for change at the 9-12 level:
... our high schools even when they're working exactly as designed cannot teach our kids what they need to know today. Training the work force of tomorrow with the high schools of today is like trying to teach kids about computers on a 50-year-old mainframe. It's the wrong tool for the times.
As well as upgrading technology, Pawlenty asked for a four-year language requirement and, even more rigorous, that students complete the equivalent of a full year of college before they graduate from high school. If they do so, he advocates rewarding them with a year of free tuition at any one on Minnesota's public institutions of higher learning, "regardless of their class rank and... ACT scores."
Few would argue that Gates and Pawlenty are correct: Our high schools need change. But the age-old argument comes back to haunt us: In what direction?
Several years ago conservative Republicans, to which a different Tim Pawlenty then allied himself, were advocating a back-to-basics curriculum — reading, writing, 'rithmatic. Anybody remember the never confirmed Commissioner of Education, Cheri Pierson Yecke? Now seemingly the Guv wants us to go in the opposite direction by embracing Bill Gates' tech-heavy view of the future. Is this an about-face or is someone just simply schizophrenic?
Last week I was at a conference entitled the Minnesota River Summit, which dealt with the health of the Minnesota River Basin, both environmental and economic. I sat next to a teacher from the Minnesota New Country School in Henderson, a charter school that offers a project-based curriculum, and which, by the way, has received grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The school has a nationwide reputation for being innovative and often excellent at what it does. She was looking for Minnesota River-related projects she could use at the school to teach science, math, writing, history — well, just about everything.
Listening to Pawlenty expound on high school change I thought, "How does the New Country School model fit in here?"
As with many outstate communities, the New Ulm School District is struggling to maintain its student base. Already a number of courses are offered in town through Minnesota State University, Mankato, which serve mainly nontraditional (older) and post-secondary enrollment option (PSEO) students — a.k.a., high school students taking college classes. The PSEO choice is great for bright, motivated students but tough on school districts that have to pay the colleges for each student who enrolls in a class as a PSEO.
The Governor's plan that high school students complete a year of college before they get their diplomas creates a number of logistical problems. Who's going to reimburse school districts already facing declining enrollments for all their students taking college courses? Who's going to teach those courses? Will the state colleges and universities have to hire more professors at as much as twice what a high school teacher makes to teach them? Or will the high school teachers themselves be asked to teach the college-level curriculum? If so, particularly as more students take them, how will college-level standards be maintained?
What about science classes? Most high schools have nowhere near the equipment and facilities to teach college-level classes. And what about those rural high schools that aren't so blessed to be near college campuses? Are they going to be left out altogether?
The Governor is to be applauded for expanding the dialog on our high schools. As a part-time instructor at Minnesota State University, Mankato, I have had to deal with far too many poorly prepared students. But by suggesting the solution to this is to essentially dumb down college courses so they can be taught to an even lesser prepared high school student body shows a great deal of naïveté.
The problem with many politicians is they feel they have to come up with solutions when there is a problem. Identifying the problem is always a step in the right direction, but solutions are often best gleaned by those in the trenches, those who must deal with a flawed system on a daily basis.
In his speech the Governor gave the example of Brenda Willard, a manager in the state's Administration Department. "She and her colleagues" he said, "helped develop purchasing standards and policies for state computers, cell phones, and furniture that will save the state over $22 million. That's the combined annual tax bill for 1,100 Minnesota families!"
The Governor, perhaps unwittingly, offered a great example of allowing a "grassroots approach" towards problem solving. Well, Governor, if it works for state government, why not in the schools?
Right now state government spends far too much effort dictating to school districts and teachers how students ought to be taught. Instead, why doesn't state government enlist school districts, teachers, parents, employers, colleges and universities to lay out goals of what should be expected from students and then encourage those parties to develop the means? In that way the players would be invested in an agreed-upon process rather than be subjugates of government edict — like schools — or forced to deal with the outcome of a flawed process — like colleges, universities and employers.
Unlike past years when the Governor's State of the State address had to deal with the harsh reality of budget shortfalls, in this speech he could choose among a number of positive options. It is a much more enviable position to be in. Though some might argue that he should have spent more time on other issues like tax cuts and transportation, the issues he chose to emphasize are all more than worthy.
The Governor deserves kudos for placing them in prominence on the menu. He gives us food for thought. Yet his suggested solutions still need a lot of work; the recipes need to be tweaked, some rewritten altogether. Let's hope that he realizes this. If so, this legislative session, unlike too many in years past, could yield a bounty of positive results for all Minnesotans.
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home