Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Wasting Time and MoneyWhy So Many Nevada Students
Are Not Ready for College
by J. E. Stone, William L. Brown and Richard P. Phelps*
Executive Summary
*Education Consumers Consultants Networkwww.education-consumers.com
NEVADA POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Like most states, Nevada strains finan-cially to provide publicly fundededucation. Over 50 percent of the state
budget is spent on education. Yet a major proportion of its high school
graduates are not ready for college.Nevada professors who work with these
students agree that the state's public schoolsneed to put a greater emphasis on basic skillsand study habits. Silver State students are find-ing themselves in remedial courses becausethey lack skills and study habits that shouldhave been learned in elementary school. Theevidence strongly suggests they were promotedfrom grade to grade despite a lack of achieve-ment and, apparently, even a lack of effort.
The problem of poorly prepared studentsentering college is growing, as far more stu-dents are now going to college. In recent years,approximately half of Nevada's high schoolgraduates entered college. Last year nearly10,000 of them were enrolled in remedialcourses. In too many cases, they needed helpwith knowledge and skills that should havebeen learned in the third or fourth grade.
By any reasonable standard these studentswere not ready to finish high school�muchless enter college.
Efforts to improve readiness for collegehave been underway for years. For the mostpart, the focus has been on ensuring that stu-dents who are planning to attend college takethe necessary high school courses. However,
the problem is that many 8th and 9th grade stu-dents are not prepared for college prep courses.
Better guidance and higher standards at thehigh school level may illuminate the problem,but they will not correct it.
The areas of concern identified by ourinstructors have their origins in the earliestgrades of school, where ultimately, the issuewill have to be addressed. Thirty-nine percentof Nevada's 4th graders are �below basic� inmath, 46 percent are �below basic� in reading.
At the heart of Nevada's problem is theissue of teaching philosophy. Generally, teach-ers�especially elementary teachers�aretaught to think of teaching and learning as aprocess that follows student interests and incli-nations�whether or not it leads to the achieve-ment of curricular objectives. These teachersare trained to design learning experiences thatoptimize student interest and enthusiasm, notparticular learning results.
The consequence is that many studentssimply acquire a patchwork of knowledge andskills�often with significant gaps and weak-nesses. Similarly, many never learn that dab-bling in schoolwork is not enough�that suc-cess requires meeting challenges and overcom-ing them.
Schooling that permits students to advancewithout meeting standards or applying them-selves is like medical treatment when thepatient won�t cooperate:
It is mostly a wasted effort.
The Nevada Policy Research Institute is an independentresearch and educational organization dedicated to improvingthe quality of life for all residents of the Silver State throughsound free-market solutions to state and local policy ques-tions. The Institute assists policy makers, scholars, businesspeople, the media and the public by providing non-partisananalysis of Nevada issues and by broadening the debate onquestions that for many years have been dominated by thebelief government intervention should be the automatic solu-tion.
Committed to its independence, the Nevada Policy ResearchInstitute neither seeks nor accepts any government funding.It enjoys the support of individuals, foundations and busi-nesses who sare a concern for Nevada�s future and recognizethe important role of sound ideas. The Institue is a nonprofit,tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of theInternal Revenue Code. For more information on programsand publications of the Nevada Policy Research Institute,please contact:
Nevada Policy Research Institute2073 E. Sahara Ave.
Suite BLas Vegas, Nevada 89104
(702) 222-0642 w Fax(702) 227-0927www.npri.org w [email protected]
NNeevvaaddaa PPoolliiccyy RReesseeaarrcchh IInnssttiittuuttee
Wasting Timeand Money
Why so many Nevada studentsare not ready for college
by
J. E. Stone, Ed.D.
William L. Brown, Ph.D.
Richard P. Phelps, Ph.D.Education ConsumersConsultants Network
Contents
Introduction
Addressing Nevada�s Deeper Problem
The Nevada Survey
What Nevada�s Professors Had to SayWhat Qualities Are Essential for College Success?
Finding
Are Reforms Working?Finding
What Should K-12 Math and English Teachers Emphasize or De-emphasize?Finding
Are K-12 Academic Content Standards Needed?Finding
AnalysisThe Effort and Study Habits Problem
Why Schools Fail to Engage Students and Teach the Basics
The Human and Economic Cost of Faulty Teaching
Reform Undermined
AppendicesA. Public awareness of a worsening problem
B. Methodology
C. Author biographies and addresses
Endnotes
7
9
10
11
14
16
19
21
22
24
24
26
27
29
30
7
Fewer than 1 in 5 ofNevada�s high schoolstudents are fully prepared to enter a four-year college.
American education faces a dilemma: Everyone believes that acollege education is essential to
career success but large numbers of highschool graduates are simply not prepared.
According to recent estimates, only 61percent of Nevada 9th graders graduatefrom high school and only 22 percent ofthis group are fully prepared for college.1In other words, fewer than 1 in 5 ofNevada�s high school students are fullyprepared to enter a four-year college.
Parents worry about the quality of K-12 education nationally but few recog-nize that there may be a problem with thequality and rigor of their local schools.College professors, by contrast, face theissue daily; but their perspective is rarelycommunicated to parents, policymakers orK-12 educators.2 This study is an attemptto close that gap.
The issue of poorly prepared studentsentering college first gained visibility inthe early 1980s, and has increasingly beenthe subject of reform proposals by policy-makers and educators.
Among high school graduates whoenter public colleges and universities, near-ly one-third take remedial courses in read-ing, writing, or mathematics. Thirty-eightpercent of Nevada high school graduateswho enter a University and Community
College System of Nevada (UCCSN) insti-tution take at least one remedial course�an increase from 26 percent since 1999.3The largest share of postsecondary remedi-ation is provided by community colleges.Forty-one percent of recent graduatesentering Nevada�s community collegesneed remedial help.4
Although the issue is somewhatobscured by terminology�remedial stu-dents are sometimes called �developmen-tal��it is an important indicator of publicschool quality. Whichever term is applied,the fact is that students enrolled in remedi-al courses are learning skills and contentthat they should have mastered in elemen-tary or secondary school.5
The purpose of this study was to seewhat the professors who teach Nevada�sremedial students have to say about theproblem and to link their views with otherresearch on the subject. They are the edu-cators with the most direct knowledge ofstudent strengths and weaknesses.
We asked four basic questions:
1. What student characteristics areessential to college success?
2. Are Nevada�s K-12 reforms working?
3. What should Nevada�s mathematicsand English teachers emphasize or
INTRODUCTION
de-emphasize? 4. Are K-12 content standards
needed?
The professors� responses contain animportant message: To succeed in col-lege�even in remedial courses�studentsneed a solid grounding in basic skills and awillingness to pay attention and study.Many students lack both.
Not only were our professors especial-ly clear about the need for student willing-ness to study, their assessment agreesentirely with a national sample of collegeprofessors surveyed by Public Agenda:Nearly 70 percent say the students whodrop out of college may lack necessaryskills, but they mainly lack motivation anddirection.6
A recent report by sociologist JamesRosenbaum of Northwestern Universitysuggests that this same pattern of weakmotivation and lack of serious purposeundermines elementary and secondaryschool reforms:
Reformers have proposed all kinds ofinnovative curricula for improving thequality of instruction. However, schoolreforms are useless if students areinattentive or asleep, as is so frequent-ly true today. Reforms will not be effec-tive unless students are motivated andmotivation requires that students seesome incentive to pay attention andexert effort.7
Rosenbaum further suggests that low-achieving high school students do littleschoolwork and yet expect to attend col-lege because well-meaning educatorschoose to spare their self-esteem instead ofconfronting them with college and jobmarket realities. Because the gap betweentheir level of achievement and the college-bound curriculum is so severe, he suggeststhat the problem must be addressed in theearly years of elementary school, not thelast few years of high school.
Rosenbaum�s assessment is somewhatat odds with current proposals to improvecollege preparedness. Most focus on amore rigorous high school curriculum andbetter alignment of courses with collegeentrance standards.8 While these proposalsaddress legitimate issues, they fail to con-front the more fundamental problems ofbasic skills and willingness to study.
Lack of study and lack of basic skillsleads to lack of achievement, and this isevident in Nevada and across the country.The U. S. Department of Education�sNational Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP) reports four levels of stu-dent achievement. From high to low theyare �advanced,� �proficient� (the masteryexpected of students who are performing atgrade level), �basic� and �below basic.�Basic is the minimum level of mastery andbelow basic refers to students who havesignificant deficiencies.
According to the NAEP, only a minori-ty of 12th grade students nationwide reachthe �proficient� or �advanced� levels ofachievement. The most recent numbers forreading are 40 percent, for writing, 24 per-cent and for mathematics, 17 percent.9
Of particular relevance to the presentstudy, however, are the large numbers of12th graders who are �below basic�: 23percent in reading, 26 percent in writingand 35 percent in mathematics.10 Theseare students who have not mastered highschool material. Yet, because progressivelygreater percentages of students enteringcollege (as high as 70 percent according tosome reports), it is inevitable that manyfind themselves in remedial courses.11
NAEP data for 12th graders is notavailable on a state-by-state basis, but theresults of the high school exit exams givenin Nevada last year suggest that the above-cited national averages are applicable.Sixty-eight percent failed mathematics and41 percent failed reading.12 Yet, these stu-dents will be permitted to attend Nevada�spublic colleges and universities.13
Reforms such as changes in high
8
�Schoolreforms are
useless ifstudents are
inattentive or asleep,
as is so frequently
true today.�
9
school course requirements, clearer guide-lines from colleges and better guidance for8th and 9th grade students may reduce thenumber of students who fail to take college
preparatory courses. They will not, howev-er, address the much more difficult prob-lem of students who are unable or unwill-ing to take college prep courses.
The knowledge and skills that our pro-fessors considered essential are for themost part taught in the primary grades, andthey serve as the foundation for all subse-quent learning. The real problem is that toomany students have not mastered thesebasics before they enter high school.
Nevada is taking steps to address theseissues at the elementary and middle schoollevels; but until these changes gain trac-tion, changes in high school requirementsand college entrance standards are likely toprove superficial and ineffective.
According to the National Assessmentof Educational Progress (NAEP), approxi-mately 40 percent of Nevada�s 8th gradersare �below basic� in mathematics andreading. Twenty-five percent are belowbasic in writing. These are students withdeficiencies that should have been correct-ed in middle school.14
Approximately the same percentagesare below basic in the 4th grade�meaningthat many of these same students had seri-ous deficiencies when they entered middleschool.15
Only 20 percent (approximately) ofNevada�s 4th and 8th grade students meetor exceed the NAEP�s �proficient� stan-dard in these three basic subjects. In otherwords, of the students entering the 5th and
9th grades, only two out of 10 are fullyprepared to begin the school year.
If Nevada�s college remediation prob-lem is going to be resolved, the first threeto six years of schooling must produce bet-ter results�for all students. Althoughsome students enter school with deficien-cies stemming from social, economic andother factors, the role and the historicpromise of public education has not beento live with such differences but to over-come them. As discussed below, more-effective interventions are available; butfor reasons of educational philosophy, theyare little used.16
In summary, these weaknesses inNevada�s public schooling are longstand-ing and well documented. Over time, theyhave percolated to the college level. Aproduct of schooling failures in the ele-mentary and middle school, they cannot becorrected by adjustments in high schoolcurricula or college entrance requirementsalone. The students who end up in collegeremedial courses lack skills and workhabits that should have been learned beforethey entered high school. Not only dothese deficiencies play a substantial role inthe college remediation problem, theymake all levels of schooling less effective,less efficient and more costly.
Addressing Nevada�s Deeper Problem
Approximately40 percent ofNevada�s 8thgraders are�below basic�in mathematicsand reading.
The Nevada Survey
Professors who teach remedial coursesare unique among professional observersof student preparedness. Better than anyoutside observers, they have the opportuni-ty to notice student strengths and weak-nesses and to pinpoint the role of these fac-
tors in success or failure. The purpose ofthis report is to describe their opinions andrecommendations and to discuss them inthe context of research and policy.
During the spring of 2003, the profes-sors who teach developmental English and
mathematics courses in the University andCommunity College System of Nevadawere invited to respond to a 55-item sur-vey. By following a hyperlink in an e-mailmessage, respondents were sent to a webpage displaying a questionnaire appropri-ate to their subject. Responses were auto-matically recorded. Individuals were able
to complete the entire process in approxi-mately 10 minutes.
Technical notes and methodology arereported in Appendix B.
In the following, we highlight the prin-cipal findings, comment on noteworthypatterns of response and examine implica-tions.
10
From the survey:
11
What Qualities Are Essential for College Success?
Figure 1a. Knowledge and Skills Essential to
Success in College Mathematics
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Experience and skills with using calculators
Broad understanding of mathematics
Good command of mathematical notation and
syntax
Precision and accuracy in work
Ability to compute efficiently and accurately
Solid foundation in basic addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division
% Mathematics Instructors Agreeing
Figure 1b. Knowledge and Skills Essential to
Success in College English
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Large vocabulary
Creative and original thinking
Good command of grammar and syntax
Ability to read and comprehend printed material
quickly
Ability to organize information well
Solid foundation in basic reading and writing skills
% English Instructors Agreeing
WHAT NEVADA�S PROFESSORS HAD TO SAY
Finding: A solid foundation in basic skills is important, but so are good studyhabits and a willingness to make a concerted effort.
Elementary and secondary schools can impart different qualities to theirstudents. Which qualities do you think are least essential and which aremost essential for the success of your students?
Student qualities essential for college success
The data indicate that professors ofboth mathematics and English viewed asolid grounding in the basics of their disci-plines as the key to college-level success.
Leading the list for mathematics werecomputation skills�ones performed accu-rately, precisely and efficiently. All of thesecompetencies require practice and experi-ence in working problems�activities thatare little emphasized in K-12 instruction.
In English, fluency in reading, writingand organizing information topped the list.Again, these are skills that require practice.
By comparison, qualities that elemen-tary and secondary schools typically con-sider essential�e.g., cooperative studyactivities, self-esteem enhancement andwork with diverse students�were of sub-stantially lesser importance (see Figure 2below).17
12
Perhapsthe clearest
finding ofthis survey
was theimportance
placed byprofessorson studentwillingness
to study.
Figure 2. Study Skills and Habits Essential to College Success
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ability to memorize new information well
Experience and skills with using computers
Ability to work cooperatively with other students
Participation in class discussion
Willingness to work with diverse students
Positive self-esteem
Apparent enjoyment of learning
Good manners in the classroom
Test taking skills and experience
Self-reliance, ability to work independently
Willingness to put studies ahead of other activities
Understanding "work ethic" related to education
Patience and persistence in completing course
Ability to complete work on time
Effective study habits
Ability to focus in class
% English Instructors Agreeing % Mathematics Instructors Agreeing
There were some surprises. For exam-ple, only half of the English professorsconsidered a large vocabulary to be impor-tant and only half of the mathematics pro-fessors thought that experience and skillswith calculators were important.
The latter finding may shed light on acurrent controversy about recommendedK-12 teaching practices. Contrary to theopinion of our professors, the mathematicsinstruction standards issued by theNational Council for Teachers ofMathematics (NCTM) urge the use of cal-culators even at the elementary level�anapproach that critics believe produces poorfluency in arithmetic and increaseddependence on calculators.18
Perhaps the clearest finding of this sur-vey was the importance placed by profes-sors on student willingness to study. Withmajorities of 80-100 percent, professors ofboth mathematics and English identifiedthe following habits as essential to the suc-cess of students:
w Ability to complete work on timew Ability to focus in classw Effective study habits w Understanding the �work ethic� as it
pertains to educationw Patience and persistence in
completing course requirementsw Willingness to put studies ahead of
other activitiesw Self-reliance & the ability to work
independently
These findings present a clear mes-sage: If K-12 educators want to better pre-pare students for college, they must notonly teach the academic basics, they need
to stress habits such as paying attention,completing assignments and persisting inthe face of difficulty�classroom virtuesthat many consider old fashioned and outof date.19
There were certain preferences uniqueto the two groups of professors.
Mathematics professors placed lessemphasis on:
w Willingness to work with diverse students
w Participation in class discussionw Ability to work cooperatively with other
studentsw Experience and skills in using
computers
English professors, by contrast, placedless emphasis on �test taking skills andexperience.�
Neither math nor English professorsjudged the ability to memorize essential.
The differences between the twogroups appear related to differences in thecontent of the two disciplines. The subjectof English is inherently more social.Sending and receiving written communica-tions is a form of intellectual and socialinteraction. Mathematics, by contrast�even at the level of applied problem solv-ing�does not necessarily entail or implyinteraction between persons.
Our professors� responses regardingthe use of computers also appear to havebeen subject-matter driven. Computers areoften used for word processing by college�writing labs.� Basic mathematics instruc-tion, however, generally avoids the use ofcomputers because they are too easily sub-stituted for needed practice in computation.
13
[Classroomteachers] needto stress habits... that manyconsider oldfashioned andout of date.
Remedialinstruction
appears to beeffective�at
least for thosestudents who
successfullycomplete
their remedialcoursework.
14
Are Reforms Working?
Finding: So far, the reforms of recent years have had little effect on student preparation. Students remain unprepared for either college or the workplace.
From the survey:We know that these are complicated issues and that many of the followingviews on elementary and secondary education will vary from institution toinstitution. When responding, please think in general terms and indicate theextent to which you agree with each statement.
Figure 3a. Are K-12 Mathematics
Reforms Working?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Entering students have been well prepared in advanced mathematics.
Entering students have been well prepared in basic computation
skills.
Mathematics reforms have had a positive effect on student
preparedness.
% Mathematics Instructors Agreeing
Figure 3b. Are K -12 English
Reforms Working?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Entering students have been well prepared in reading
comprehension.
Entering students have been well prepared in basic writing skills.
Language arts reforms have had a positive effect on student
preparedness.
% English Instructors Agreeing
These findings speak to an importantreality about K-12 reform. If reforms areworking, the results should be evident toprofessors and employers. As of the date ofthis survey, however, our professorsremain unimpressed.
In truth, Nevada�s most recentreforms20 have not been in place longenough to produce a change in remediationrates or professors� opinions. However,both indicators warrant continued atten-tion. Similar reforms in other states haveleft professors, employers and taxpayersdisappointed�even after the reforms havebeen in place for years.21
Indeed, despite optimistic progressreports from schools and education agen-cies, none of the states that have imple-mented standards and accountability meas-ures have reported substantial gains in stu-dent achievement. Standard setting and
accountability are a necessary condition ofreform but not sufficient�an issueaddressed below.
There may be a bright spot in this less-than-encouraging assessment. Despitepoorly prepared students and K-12 reformsthat have yet to make a difference, remedi-al instruction appears to be effective�atleast for those students who successfullycomplete their remedial coursework.According to our professors, students whosucceed in their remedial studies appearready for beginning college-level work andhave the same chance for graduation asother entering students.22
This finding suggests that one widelyused explanation of the growing need forremedial instruction may be inaccurate andmisleading. Increased ethnic and socioeco-nomic diversity among entering collegestudents is frequently cited as the condition
primarily responsible for the growing num-bers of students needing remedial instruc-tion. While diversity undoubtedly has astatistical relationship to the problem, thepresent data suggests that the underlyingissue is one of inadequate expectations forstudent knowledge, skill and effort at theK-12 level. Significant numbers of stu-dents who were unsuccessful in highschool enter remedial courses, overcome
their deficiencies and complete a degree.23
Other findings in this report point tothe same conclusion. According to our pro-fessors, many students appear unpreparedfor either college or the workplace�againsuggesting that they were awarded a highschool diploma even though they had notmet knowledge and skill minimums andeven though they had not made a concert-ed effort to learn.
15
Figure 4. Is Remedial Instruction Working?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Entering students are well prepared for
workplace.
Entering students are well prepared for
college.
K-12 teachers often lack the necessary background for their
subjects.
Students who complete remedial
courses are able to complete college.
Students who complete remedial
courses are ready to begin college.
% English Instructors Agreeing
% Mathematics Instructors Agreeing
16
What Should K-12 Mathematics and EnglishTeachers Emphasize or De-emphasize?
Finding: Teachers should emphasize academic content and exercises and put lessemphasis on test-taking.
From the survey:
If you were to advise elementary and secondary school teachers abouthow to best prepare their students for college-level mathematics, wouldyou recommend more, less, or about the same emphasis on the followingtopics, skills and tools?
Figure 5. Topics and Skills Mathematics Instructors Say
Teachers Should Emphasize or De-emphasize
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Geometric proofs
Patterns and sequences
Proportionality
Trigonometry
Measurement and estimation
Relations and functions
Graphical data representation
Algebraic symbol manipulation
Computation skills
Statistics and probability
Decimals and fractions
More Same Less
17
A majority of mathematics professorswere clear about the need for greateremphasis on academic content�especiallythat which is traditionally taught at the ele-mentary level, i.e., decimals, fractions andcomputation skills. Secondary level con-
tent such as algebra, trigonometry and sta-tistics were also regarded as needinggreater emphasis. As a generalization, ourprofessors indicated that more attention toacademic content is needed across theboard.
Figure 6. Topics and Skills English Instructors Say
Teachers Should Emphasize or De-emphasize
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Rapid information processing
Spelling accuracy
Writing narrative
Vocabulary expansion
Oral language mechanics and usage
Reading fiction
Sequential organization of ideas
Reading nonfiction
Written language mechanics and usage
Writing exposition
Critical thinking
More Same Less
English professors were virtually unan-imous in their call for an emphasis on criti-cal thinking. They were nearly as decisivein calling for a greater emphasis on read-ing and writing, particularly mechanicsand usage.
The skills taught in elementary and
secondary language arts serve to commu-nicate ideas. Both skills and ideas are fun-damental to effective thinking and writing.Considered in light of the percentages of4th, 8th, and 12th graders who are �belowbasic,� the above data suggests that reme-dial students lack critical thinking skills
sharply. English professors (55 percent)urged a greater emphasis on portfolios andalternative assessments while mathematicsprofessors (62 percent) urged the opposite.As is the case with regard to other differ-
ences between our mathematics andEnglish professors, this difference in opin-ion appears to stem from differences in theskills and content that comprise the twodisciplines.
18
The data suggests that
remedialstudents
lack critical thinking
skills becausethey lack ...
the toolsof written
language ....
because they lack both the tools of writtenlanguage and the knowledge, understand-ing and ideas that those tools might beused to communicate.
This finding is especially noteworthyin light of the emphasis teachers havegiven interactive and cooperative class-room activities in recent decades.Classroom activities involving studentinteraction have been advertised as anespecially effective means of promotingcritical thinking skills. In contrast, criticshave argued that cooperative group activi-
ties are useless in the absence of a soundfoundation of knowledge and ideas.24
Whatever the precise cause, it is clearthat English professors believe studentsneed work in this area.
Both math and English professorscalled for greater emphasis on homeworkand less reliance on multiple-choice exam-inations. On most other items, they hadmixed preferences or indicated that teach-ers should continue to give the activityabout the same degree of emphasis.
On one item, the two groups differed
Figure 7a. Activities and Assignments
Mathematics Instructors Say Should Be Emphasized or De-emphasized
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Multiple-choice exams
Using portfolios or other alternative assessments
Using computer-assisted learning
Grouping students by ability level
Emphasize getting the right answer
Penalizing students who break the rules
Homework assignments
More Same Less
Figure 7b. Activities and Assignments English
Instructors Say Should Be Emphasized or De-emphasized
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Multiple-choice exams
Using portfolios or other alternative assessments
Using computer-assisted learning
Grouping students by ability level
Emphasize getting the right answer
Penalizing students who break the rules
Homework assignments
More Same Less
The K-12 content standards establishedby Nevada and other states have beencritized by some educational theorists as atool whereby majority cultural expecta-tions are imposed on cultural minorities.25
Instead, they argue that schooling shouldaffirm rather than challenge the diverseunderstandings and concepts that studentsbring to the educational setting.
A similar multiculturalist perspective iswidely accepted among teacher educa-
tors.26 It argues that all cultures are equallyworthy and thus none are deserving of�privileged� treatment within the schoolcurriculum. For example, from this view-point, standard English expression cannotbe justified as any more correct or impor-tant than non-standard varieties such as thecontroversial �Ebonics.�
In contrast to these multiculturalistviews, our professors agreed that studentsneed to learn the knowledge and skills that
19
Are K-12 Academic Content Standards Needed?
Finding: Professors agree that mathematics and English each have a core of knowl-edge and skills that all students entering college need to know. And with thepossible exception of the fundamentals in English, many Nevada high schoolgraduates are unprepared even at a basic level.
From the survey:
Here are some statements about elementary and secondary education inNevada. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each statement?
Figure 8a. Are Content Standards Needed in
Mathematics?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Designating a core body of knowledge is unfair to cultural
minorities.
There is no consensus core in mathematics, so teachers
cannot be expected to teach it.
Current high school graduates have higher level knowledge and skills but lack the basics.
Current high school graduates know the basics but lack higher
level knowledge and skills.
The quality of education in Nevada's K-12 schools has
been improving.
It is critical for students to gain a common understanding of
mathematics.
It is critical for students to gain a common set of computational
skills.
% Mathematics Instructors Agreeing
Figure 8b. Are Content Standards Needed in
English?
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Designating a core body of knowledge is unfair.
There is no consensus core in English, so teachers cannot be
expected to teach it.
Current high school graduates have higher level knowledge and skills but lack the basics.
Current high school graduates know the basics but lack higher
level knowledge and skills.
The quality of education in Nevada's K-12 schools has
been improving.
It is critical for students to gain a common shared
understanding of literature.
It is critical for students to gain a common, shared acquisition
of reading and writing skills.
% English Instructors Agreeing
comprise the core of their respective disci-plines and that it is not somehow culturallyunfair to expect them to do so.
At least with regard to their disciplines,our professors appear to value contentstandards and expect the K-12 curriculumto be culturally prescriptive. However, it isnoteworthy that English professors wereabout equally divided as to whether or notit is critical for students to have a �com-mon, shared understanding of literature.�Their sentiments may reflect the multicul-tural curricular trend.
Standards are also criticized on thegrounds that the accountability schemesthat accompany them force teachers to nar-row the curriculum and to slight the high-er-order intellectual outcomes that are saidto be brought about by �best practice�
teaching. In particular, highstakes multiple-
choice tests are alleged to be incapable ofdetecting improved thinking skills, encour-aging teachers therefore to focus exclu-sively on memorization of facts. All ofthese points are hotly disputed by testingexperts.27
With the exception of English profes-sors (58 percent agreed that recent gradu-ates do know the basics), our professorsfound their students to be weak in both thebasics and higher-order skills, and current-ly they see no trend toward improvement.Thus, it seems fair to conclude that thecritics� apprehensions are, at the least, mis-placed. Apparently there is little dangerthat the imposition of standards andaccountability will make matters worse.
20
Thereis little
danger thatstandards andaccountability
will makemattersworse.
Most people believe that collegesuccess primarily depends onstudent ability. To the contrary,
our professors emphasized mastery of thebasics and a willingness to pay attentionand study. Unfortunately, all too manyentering students lack these qualities.
Data from the National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) suggest whythese concerns topped their list: First andforemost, far too many American highschool seniors are not ready for the 12thgrade, much less prepared for college.They lack knowledge and skills that shouldhave been learned by the 8th or even the4th grade.
If, as noted above, 35 percent of 12thgraders are �below basic� in mathematicsalone, the total percentage deficient ineither mathematics or reading (23 percent)or writing (26 percent) is substantially
higher. It could easily exceed 50 percent�depending on the degree of overlap amongthe three groups.28
NAEP data for 12th grade students areavailable only as a national average; how-ever, there are state-by-state data forgrades 4 and 8, and Nevada is in the bot-tom quartile on those indicators. Thus, it isreasonable to infer that the percentage ofNevada 12th graders needing additionalstudy in one or more subjects may be evenhigher.29 Clearly, the evidence fromNevada�s recently implemented highschool exit examinations agrees. Sixty-eight percent of Nevada�s seniors failedmathematics alone.30
With over 50 percent of Nevada�s highschool graduates now enrolling in college(up 171 percent from 1992), it is not sur-prising that our professors were primarilyconcerned about basic skills.31
21
ANALYSIS
The Effort and Study Habits Problem
Several facts converge to suggest thatelementary and secondary schools are fail-ing to teach something even more basicthan reading, writing and arithmetic.Substantial numbers of students are com-ing to college without basic skills, withoutbasic knowledge and without sound studyhabits; yet many are eventually overcom-
ing these deficiencies and earning adegree. Plainly, they have a capacity tolearn that was not put to use in their earlieryears of schooling.
Research on the study habits of K-12students supports this assessment. In alarge-scale study extending from the late1980s through the early 1990s, Temple
There arestate-by-statedata for grades4 and 8, andNevada is inthe bottom quartile on those indicators.
To many observers, the failure of stu-dents to gain basic skills and good studyhabits is primarily a social and familyissue. They blame a lack of parentalencouragement and disruptive homes, fam-ilies and neighborhoods.
To those familiar with educational fadsand fashions, however, unengaged studentsare the predictable outcome of a teachingstyle that has been idealized by educatorsfor decades.
Historically called child-centered orstudent-centered instruction (versus sub-ject-centered or teacher-directed), it istoday called learner-centered instruction
and it has become de rigueur among ele-mentary school teachers.37
Learner-centered instruction is anapproach to teaching that works best withstudents who are already inclined to payattention, behave themselves and workhard. Contrary to its image as a teachingstyle fitted to learner strengths and weak-nesses, it neglects students who need struc-ture and adult guidance. Virtually everystudent preparation issue identified by thissurvey is linked directly or indirectly to themismatch between this style of instructionand the goal of improved student achieve-ment.38
22
Why Schools Fail to Engage Students and Teach theBasics
University researcher Laurence Steinbergfound the most important differencebetween low- and high-achieving studentsto be the amount of time and effort devot-ed to study.32 In general, successful stu-dents were hard workers and the unsuc-cessful ones were bored and disengaged,meeting only the lowest expectations andminimum requirements. There were ethnicand socioeconomic differences, but hefound time, effort and engagement in stud-ies to be the overriding factors.
As to why so many students are disen-gaged, Steinberg observed that the peerculture discourages them from making aserious effort and schools do little to coun-teract it. Instead, schools attempt to accom-modate student apathy�an approach thatresults in a continual reduction of expecta-tions to the lowest common denominator:
I take issue with the usual response [tothe problem of unmotivated students]:that because today�s students aresomehow different from their prede-cessors, schools must find ways ofresponding, adapting, or catering tothis changed clientele ....
Changing our schools to respond to a
less interested, less motivated, less focusedstudent populace does little to address thebasic underlying problem�the lack of stu-dent engagement.33
Steinberg suggests that K-12 schoolsfail to motivate and to teach a work ethicprecisely because they �hesitate to givestudents bad grades, hold them back, orfail to graduate them.� The result is thatstudents �believe, with some accuracy, thatthere are no real consequences of doingpoorly in school...,� and many students�choose the path of least resistance.�34
Steinberg�s verdict: �We have lost theability to motivate students to workhard.�35
Tommy Tomlinson�a researcher whocontributed to the Nation at Risk report�identifies the same factor in his explana-tion of why educational reform has failed:
After twenty-five years of trying to fixthings, it is perhaps time to face a fewfacts of human nature: setting higherstandards and expectations is onething; persuading students to try hard-er is another. Educational reforms thatdo not change the study habits andbehavior of students are unlikely toimprove achievement.36
Peer culturediscourages
[students]from making
a seriouseffort and
schools dolittle to
counteract it.
23
Since the early 1900s, K-12 educatorshave increasingly accepted the notion thattheir highest duty is not to ensure academ-ic achievement, but to protect childrenfrom the stress and threat of failure posedby overly demanding curricular stan-dards.39 Especially over the last 30 years,colleges of education have taught teachersthat the immediate �needs� of childrentake precedence over curricular objectives.
When education professors use theterm �learner-centered,� they are referringto a kind of teaching that aims to optimizestudent interest and motivation, not theattainment of the objectives prescribed bythe curriculum.40 The contrast between thelearner-centered approach and the tradi-tional teacher-directed, achievement-ori-ented approach is subtle but criticallyimportant. As the late Jeanne Chall ofHarvard described it, �what is foregroundfor one model is background for theother.�41
Instead of leading students throughactivities designed to reach a prescribedlearning outcome, learner-centered teach-ers are encouraged to let student interestsand enthusiasms guide the course ofinstruction. If a student seems uninterestedor unmotivated, the learner-centeredteacher is obliged to respect the student�sinclinations even if it means disengagingfrom the objective at hand.
The learner-centered perspective alsoinfluences matters such as grading and theuse of incentives.42 From the learner-cen-tered standpoint, achievement is judgedwith reference to the individual, not thecurricular objective. The use of incentivesis proscribed because learner-centeredinstruction idealizes intrinsic motivation.
Over the last century and especially inrecent decades, educational theorists haveinvented an enormous variety of learner-centered teaching schemes. All, however,have sought to accommodate instruction todifferences in student interests, talents,
social status, developmental stage, intellec-tual stage, etc.43 Recent examples includeconstructivism, developmentally appropri-ate instruction and brain-based learning.None have worked as promised. To thecontrary, learner-centered teaching hasbusied teachers with what critics call �edu-tainment� and steered them away from anemphasis on knowledge and skills.
A fundamental weakness of learner-centered teaching�and one especially rel-evant to the findings of this survey�is thatvital but uninteresting skills are rendereddifficult to teach. Children are not naturallyattracted to basic skills and thus are notnaturally inclined to practice until masteryhas been achieved. Adult direction andreinforcement are typically needed over aperiod of weeks and months.
Making learning fun and interesting isentirely desirable but learner-centeredteachers are taught to worry more aboutavoiding student stress and boredom thanthe achievement of learning outcomes.
Well-tested teaching methodologies areavailable, but learner-centered teachersworry that the act of steering the child�sattention and effort toward the curricularobjectives will result in stress or bore-dom.44 So instead of guiding the childthrough a proven progression of exercisesand skills, learner-centered teachers cobbletogether materials and activities that theyhope will reach the desired outcome bycapitalizing on the child�s immediateenthusiasms.
In effect, learner-centered teachersmake the perfect the enemy of the good. In the pursuit of the theoretical ideal, theyexperiment with teacher-developed cre-ations that sometimes triumph but moreoften result in educational catastrophe, i.e.,learning gaps, poor fluency, and lifetimesof educational failure. One can only imag-ine the public reaction if the medical pro-fession considered such an approachacceptable.
A fundamentalweakness oflearner-centeredteaching . . .is that vital butuninterestingskills are rendered difficult toteach.
24
Even theexpectationsthat studentspay attention
and behavethemselves
are notencouraged by
the learner-centered view.
Most students in remedial courses arenot there simply because of social or eco-nomic disadvantage. Rather, most of themhave underlying academic weaknesses inreading, writing and arithmetic�weak-nesses that originated in their early schoolexperiences and are mostly the product offaulty teaching.
The gaps and limitations resultingfrom early learning failures have a cumu-lative effect. Students fall behind and faceever-greater obstacles to catching up atsucceeding grade levels. Educators at eachgrade are then faced with a dilemma: Theymust lower standards and socially pro-mote, or face unacceptable failure rates. Asmore and more students attend college,these issues eventually manifest them-selves in college classrooms.45
The available evidence suggests thatmany of the students who end up in reme-dial courses have never been required tolearn the basics or even to make a concert-ed effort in their studies. For 12 or 13years, they have been passed along andpermitted to waste their time and theirpublicly funded educational opportunities.
David Goslin, past president of theAmerican Institutes for Research andexecutive director of the NationalResearch Council�s Commission on
Behavioral and Social Sciences andEducation, argues that the resulting costsare enormous: �. . . the amount of effort onthe part of teachers and other school per-sonnel that is wasted because large num-bers of students remain unengaged inlearning, and the costs [of this lack ofengagement] to society are staggering.�46
�The bottom line is that the UnitedStates is getting a very low return on itsinvestments in education, due largely tothe lack of engagement of many of ourstudents.�47
Goslin calls student engagement �thekey to increasing academic achievementand therefore the productivity of the U. S.educational system. (Italics in the origi-nal)�48
Learner-centered teaching encouragesthe kind of waste described by Goslin.Study assignments, performance assess-ments and even the expectations that stu-dents pay attention and behave themselvesare not encouraged by the learner-centeredview.49 Many students arrive at collegenever having learned that success in aca-demic endeavors typically requires a con-certed effort. Often they are surprised tofind that effort is expected and they blametheir failure to earn good grades with easeon poor instruction.50
The Human and Economic Cost of Faulty Teaching
Reform UnderminedGiven their pedagogical training, many
K-12 teachers would view our professors�advice to focus greater time and effort onacademic objectives as wrongheaded anddetrimental. The learner-centered idealencourages teachers to attend to academiccontent only to an extent commensuratewith the immediate gratification of theirstudents. If, for example, converting frac-tions to decimals becomes boring, then it istime to move to a more engaging activity.
College professors may believe thatstudents need to acquire more discipline-
specific content, but learner-centeredteachers believe that good teaching prac-tice is founded on a different set of priori-ties. From their standpoint, students arelearning all they should be expected tolearn when they learn all they are �ready�(i.e., inclined) to learn.51
Educational reforms such as establish-ing curricular frameworks, improvinginservice training and rewarding teacherexcellence have little effect on studentachievement when educators look at themthrough a learner-centered frame of refer-
25
The learner-centered styleof instruction. . . teachesescape fromchallenges,not the effortand self-disciplinenecessary toovercomethem.
Conclusion
ence. The reason is that reforms interpretedin a way that conforms to learner-centeredteaching theory typically undercut ratherthan support the public�s student achieve-ment aims.
For example, when policymakersestablish curricular standards in order toclarify what students are expected toachieve, learner-centered educators viewthem as ideals, not expected outcomes.Standards are thereby seen as flexible andsubject to lenient interpretation.
Professional development for teachersis similarly undercut. Contrary to theexpectations of policymakers, it frequentlyserves as a vehicle for informing teachersabout the latest variants of learner-centered
teaching. Ironically, these innovations arecalled �best practices� and are disseminat-ed as an antidote to an overemphasis onstandards and outcomes.52
Finally, teaching awards intended toboost student achievement are rarely givenfor measured improvements in studentachievement. Instead, teachers are recog-nized for undergoing training and certifica-tion by organizations such state educationagencies or the National Board forProfessional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).The assessments of teacher proficiencyused in these programs are usually basedon learner-centered ideals, not any demon-strated relationship to studentachievement.53
The professors who teach remedialcourses in Nevada�s public colleges anduniversities were asked to identify studentcharacteristics essential to college successand to offer recommendations that mightimprove their preparation. Their responseshighlighted two key characteristics:Students need solid basic skills and goodstudy habits.
The professors� concerns are consistentwith the findings of other studies. The U.S.Department of Education�s NationalAssessment of Educational Progress indi-cates that it is possible for students to grad-uate from high school and enter collegeeven though they have met very minimalstandards and, indeed, even though theyhave committed little time and effort toschoolwork. Nevada�s high school exitexams show the same thing. Prior to thereforms of the last few years, neitherschools nor students in Nevada have beenmore than minimally accountable forachievement.
Studies of student engagement inschooling are consistent with the profes-sors� concerns about student study habits.Recent studies by ACT have found thatmany students who plan to attend college
choose only the least demanding highschool curriculum.54 Their only goal is tograduate from high school and to enter col-lege�prepared or not. Many enter remedi-al courses without ever having been chal-lenged to study.
Implicated in both of these issues is thelearner-centered style of instruction longpopular among elementary school educa-tors. It avoids that which may be boring orburdensome. It refrains from admonishingor exhorting. It teaches escape from chal-lenges, not the effort and self-disciplinenecessary to overcome them.
Started on the wrong foot and facedwith cumulating disadvantages, childrenare permitted to slide down a path that willlimit them for a lifetime. Over the years,the time they spend in classrooms becomesincreasingly less beneficial and reward-ing�a fact reflected in Nevada�s nearly 40percent high school drop-out rate. It is thisall-too-common scenario that squandersthe next generation�s best learning oppor-tunities and wastes money on a massivescale.
Viewed in these terms, the cost ofNevada�s remedial instruction may bemerely the tip of an iceberg.
26
Parents whowant to besure about
how well theirchild is being
prepared forcollege would
be welladvised to
look beyondreport cards
and PTAmeetings.
Parents questioned in national sur-veys typically express doubts aboutthe quality of American public
schools. Paradoxically, however, they areusually satisfied with their local schools. Iftheir child is receiving satisfactorygrades�as most do�parents may not seethe need for remedial help until their childapplies to college.55
The Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll ofthe Public�s Attitude toward PublicSchools has consistently shown that par-ents believe that their local public schoolsare doing a good job.56 Although only 24percent give the nation�s schools an A or aB, this number rises to 47 percent forschools within a community, to 58 percentfor local schools and to 71 percent for theschool attended by their oldest child.Parents who want to be sure about howwell their child is being prepared for col-lege would be well advised to look beyondreport cards and PTA meetings.
Parents may not have a clear under-standing of school quality, but they dohave clear expectations about the outcome.According to Public Agenda, 87 percent ofAmericans say that a college education isas important as a high school diploma usedto be and nearly the same number (86 per-cent) believes that students will have bettercareer and lifestyle prospects if they go tocollege.57 Data from the National Centerfor Educational Statistics agree: A collegeeducation is associated with higher lifetimeearnings, improved health and a generalstate of well-being.58
The general public is equally support-ive of college attendance; but more thanparents, it sees the mismatch between stu-dent aspirations and educational reality.Although 78 percent of high school parents
want their children to attend college, near-ly half of the general public (49 percent)say that there are too many students in col-lege who don�t belong there.59
Finally, students themselves oftenseem unaware that readiness for collegewill require planning and effort. Whenasked if they planned to go to college, 76percent said they were �definitely plan-ning� to do so and another 20 percent saidthey were thinking about it. Overall, 84percent of students said they were motivat-ed �a lot� by the desire to get into a goodcollege and another 12 percent were moti-vated �a little� by this desire.60
Again, there is a gap between aspira-tions and reality. A study of the 635,000high school sophomores (Class of 2002)who took part in the ACT-PLAN assess-ment61 found that 83 percent intended toattend college immediately after highschool. Of that group, however, 20 percentwere not planning to follow a curriculumthat would adequately prepare them.
A Worsening Problem
In short, in Nevada as across thenation, a rising tide of popular aspirationsis crashing into a very different reality.Grade point averages and diplomasnotwithstanding, many recent high schoolgraduates are having to learn material thathave been learned years earlier. Theprocess is frustrating, time consuming andexpensive�often requiring tutoring, men-toring and specialized remedial learninglaboratories.
A high percentage of students enteringcollege never complete a degree. Only 36percent of freshmen nationally complete abachelor�s degree in four years (59 percent
APPENDICES
A. Public Awareness of the Issue
Wasting Time and Money is based on aMarch 2003 survey of 353 faculty mem-bers who teach mathematics or Englishwithin the University and CommunityCollege System of Nevada. Invitations toan additional 82 faculty members failed toreach their intended recipients because ofinvalid e-mail addresses.
The institutions included theUniversity of Nevada Las Vegas, Univer-sity of Nevada Reno, Community College
of Southern Nevada, Great Basin College,Truckee Meadows Community College,and Western Nevada Community College.
The survey instrument consisted of 55items drawn from a pool formulated byexperienced instructors. The items wereedited and refined on the basis of feedbackfrom developmental education faculty whoparticipated in a pilot study.
A professional web-survey organiza-tion�Perseus Development Corporation,
27
Basic skills inEnglish havefallen to thepoint that apublisherworries thatstudents areunable to use the dictionary.
in six years) compared with 40 percent adecade earlier and 47 percent in the late1960s. At public universities, the four-yearcompletion rate is 28 percent (versus 69percent at private institutions).
The quality of K-12 preparation is key.Well-prepared students have four- and six-year completion rates of 69 and 83 percentrespectively, while the comparable ratesfor poorly prepared students are 8 and 20percent.62
College-level observers see a seriousproblem. For example, Ocken andFeinerman�professors of mathematics atCity University of New York�point outthat poorly prepared students are shut outof many attractive professions:
Mathematics used in college coursesis formulated in a difficult symbolic lan-guage. To succeed in those courses,students need twelve years of carefullystructured instruction in order to learnthe language fluently and to use it tosolve hard problems. Those who lackfluency will be shut out of careers [as]... scientists, engineers, mathemati-cians, computer scientists, physiciansand educators of mathematics ...withthe greatest negative consequencesfor children of immigrants, a groupwhose entry into the mainstream ofAmerican society has historically beenfacilitated by demonstration of mathe-
matical rather than linguistic compe-tence.63
Basic skills in English have fallen tothe point that a publisher worries that stu-dents are unable to use the dictionary:
Standards of spelling and grammaramong an entire generation ofEnglish-speaking university studentsare now so poor that there is �adegree of crisis� in their written use ofthe language, the publisher of a newdictionary warned yesterday. Itsresearch revealed that students haveonly a limited grasp of the most basicrules of spelling, punctuation andmeaning, blamed in part on increasingdependence on �automatic tools� suchas computer spell checks andunprecedented access to rapid com-munication using email and the internet ....Overall, [students] were unclear aboutappropriate punctuation, especially theuse of commas and failed to under-stand the basic rules of subject/verbagreement and the difference between�there�, �their� and �they�re� ....Bloomsbury said usage notes in otherdictionaries ... assumed �a level ofgrammatical and syntactic literacy onthe undergraduate level that simplydoes not exist today.� 64
B. Methodology
www.perseusdevelopment.com�createdand posted the web form through whichresponses were collected and automaticallycompiled. Respondents received an e-mailinvitation containing a single-use hyperlinkto the posted form. Typically, it took lessthan 10 minutes to complete the survey.
The population was identified throughinstitution web sites, faculty directories,and contacts with department-level person-nel. It included full-time, part-time andtemporary faculty, and graduate teachingassistants. The pool of addresses was creat-ed with the aim of ensuring the broadestpossible opportunity for qualified instruc-tors to participate.
Because available administrativerecords did not permit identification of fac-ulty with recent experience in teachingremedial courses, invitations were sent toall mathematics and English faculty.However, the invitation and the wording ofthe items made clear that the survey was
intended primarily for faculty providingremedial instruction.
As a result, 87 (or 25 percent) of the353 faculty receiving invitations respond-ed�a rate that exceeds the 20 percentresponse rate typical for anonymous mailsurveys. A subgroup of 16 respondents hadnot taught a remedial course within the lastthree years, but analysis of their responsepatterns showed them to be statisticallyindistinguishable from those of the instruc-tors targeted by the survey.
Of greater importance with respect tothe accuracy of the results, it is reasonableto assume that fewer than half of the 353invitees were remedial instructors. Thusthe true rate of response among qualifiedrespondents may well be 50 percent orhigher, thus yielding a margin of error ofplus or minus 3 percent.
For additional information, please con-tact J. E. Stone, Ed.D. [email protected].
28
29
C. Biographies and Addresses
J. E. Stone, [email protected]
is an educational psychologist special-izing in learning and classroom behav-ior management. A professor andresearcher in the College of Educationat East Tennessee State University, hehas witnessed teacher education fromthe front lines for 30 years. Stone�sprincipal research interest is teachereffectiveness. His writings haveappeared in the Chronicle of HigherEducation, Education Week andnumerous scholarly journals. Recentessays by Stone are included inEducating Teachers: The Best MindsSpeak Out (American Council ofTrustees and Alumni, 2002) andTeacher Quality (Hoover InstitutionPress, 2002).
William L. Brown, [email protected]
is Director of Institutional Research forLansing Community College, one ofMichigan�s largest community col-leges. He has done extensive researchin the areas of developmental andremedial education, and his recentstudy led to distinguished certificationfor the Lansing Community CollegeDevelopmental Reading and WritingProgram. The award made by theNational Association of DevelopmentalEducation (NADE) in 2003 is anhonor currently held by only twodevelopmental programs in the nation.Brown�s experience includes five yearsas director of the research departmentat Minneapolis Public Schools, andover twenty years of experience in
K-12 education as a teacher, adminis-trator and researcher. He earned thePhD in Educational Research andMeasurement from Michigan StateUniversity.
Richard P. Phelps, [email protected]
grew up in St. Louis, Missouri, andearned degrees from Washington,Indiana, and Harvard Universities. Hewas awarded the PhD from Penn�sWharton School. Phelps taught sec-ondary school mathematics in BurkinaFaso (West Africa); worked at theOrganisation for Economic Co-opera-tion and Development in Paris, theU.S. General Accounting Office, WES-TAT, and Indiana�s EducationDepartment. He has published dozensof articles in scholarly journals andcurrently edits the weekly on-lineseries, In Defense of Testing, atEducationNews.org.
Education Consumers Consultants Network www.education-consumers.com
is a partnership of experienced scholarsand educators dedicated to serving theinterests of the parties who patronizeand financially support the publicschools. It is affiliated with theEducation Consumers ClearingHouse,a subscriber-supported consumer advo-cacy organization comprised of par-ents, policymakers and taxpayers. Justas some law firms specialize in servingparticular clientele, the Network spe-cializes in exclusively serving educa-tion�s consumers.
30
1 See Jay P. Greene and Greg Forester, Public High School Graduation and CollegeReadiness Rates in the United States Education Working Paper No. 3 (Washington, DC:Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, September 2003). Available: http://www.man-hattan-institute.org/ewp_03.pdf.
2 See Appendix A for a discussion of the expectations for college held by parents, studentsand the public versus the realities seen by college-level observers.
3 See University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN),Remedial/Developmental Enrollments, Summer and Fall 1999 (Reno, NV: Author, April6, 2000) 35. Available: http://www.nevada.edu/admin/remedial.pdf. The most recent ver-sion of the UCCSN report (Summer and Fall 2002) is available through the UCCSNChancellor�s office.
4 Ibid, Summer and Fall 2002. See also, Erika Yamasaki, Effective policies for remedialeducation (Los Angles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges, 1998). Available:http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/ERIC/digests/dig9806.html.
5 Ibid, 2. Also see Note 1 in William S. Koski & Henry M. Levin, Replacing Remediationwith Acceleration in Higher Education: Preliminary Report on Literature Review andInitial Interviews (Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, 1998). Available: http://www.stanford.edu/group/ncpi/documents/pdfs/4-01_remediation.pdf.Also see Linda Schrock Taylor, �What Do They Think Will Happen?� Online article.Available: http://www.lewrockwell.com/taylor/taylor32.html.
6 Jean Johnson & Ann Duffett, Where We are Now, 12 Things You Need to Know aboutPublic Opinion and Public Schools (New York: Public Agenda, 2003), 19. Available:http://www.publicagenda.org/specials/wherewearenow/wherewearenow.htm.
7 James E. Rosenbaum, Beyond Empty Promises: Policies to Improve Transitions intoCollege and Jobs (Washington, DC: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, April2002) 25. Available:http://www.earlycolleges.org/Downloads/EmptyPromisesRosenbaum.pdf.
8 See Building Nevada�s Future (Reno, NV: University and Community College System ofNevada, April 18, 2002). Available: http://www.nevada.edu/admin/masterplan.pdf. Fornational policy proposals see: Education Trust, �Ticket to Nowhere� Thinking K-16, 3,no. 2 (1999). Available:http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/product+catalog/reports+and+publications.htm. AndreaVenezia, Michael W. Kirst, & Anthony L. Antonio, Betraying the College Dream(Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research, 2003). Available:http://www.stanford.edu/group/bridgeproject/. David T. Conley, UnderstandingUniversity Success (Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy Research, 2003).Available: http://www.s4s.org/understanding.php.
9 Twelfth grade achievement levels are reported only as a national average. Available: mathematics: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2000/2001517.pdf,reading: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2002/2003521a.pdf,writing: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2002/2003529.pdf.
Nevada�s newly implemented high school proficiency examination also identifies under-prepared 12th graders but the criteria and, therefore, the numbers are not directly compa-rable (see http://www.nevadatestreports.com/NHSP/iReport/index.html.).
10 NAEP�s �basic� level of achievement is defined as, �partial mastery of prerequisiteknowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.� �Belowbasic� is all who score below the �basic� level, i.e., those who are not ready for instruc-
Endnotes
31
tion at grade level. These are 12th graders who may have been socially promotedfor years.
11 See National Center for Education Statistics, Access to Postsecondary Educationfor the 1992 High School Graduates (Washington, DC: Author, 1997). Available:http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/access/.
12 See the results of the fall 2002 administration of Nevada�s high school proficiencyexamination. Available:http://www.nevadatestreports.com/NHSP/iReport/index.html.
13 See Center on Education Policy, State High School Exit Exams Put to the Test(Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy, August 2003) 111. Available:http://www.ctredpol.org/highschoolexit/1/exitexam4.pdf
14 See Nevada NAEP profile: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp. 15 Ibid. 16 �A Direct Challenge,� Education Week, (17 March 1999). Available:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=27direct.h18. 17 Differences in curricular emphases between high school and college professors
have been observed in other studies. In general, professors say that greater atten-tion should be given to the basics. See ACT, Content Validity Evidence in Supportof ACT�s Educational Achievement Tests (Iowa City, IA: Author, 2000). Available:http://www.act.org/news/pdf/study.pdf.
18 The controversy regarding the NCTM standards(http://www.nctm.org/standards/vision.htm) is much broader than the question ofhow or whether calculators ought to be used in K-12 mathematics classes. Criticsquestion the �constructivist� approach to teaching on which NCTM standards arefounded. See http://www.math.nyu.edu/mfdd/braams/nychold/pr-cf-030104.htmlfor a letter from 12 New York-area mathematics department chairs.
19 Numerous reports suggest that while school attendance is mandatory, study appearsto be optional. See The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2002: �Highschool grade point averages hit record high despite decline in study time.� Also seeBess Keller, �Less Than Awesome� Education Week, (23 April 2003). Available:http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=32youth.h22Also see Gene Bottoms, ��Getting By� Fails to Make the Grade with Employersand Professors� Update (Southern Region Education Board, Spring 2002) 4-5.Available:http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/newsletters/2002UpdateNewsletter.pdf.
20 Nevada has instituted several result-oriented reforms in the past few years. Theseinclude statewide achievement testing in 3rd, 5th and 10th grades (see:http://www.nde.state.nv.us/sca/testing/crt/) and proficiency tests for graduating sen-iors (see: http://www.nde.state.nv.us/sca/testing/hspe/HSPEReviewGuide.pdf.).Nevada has also adopted academic standards in mathematics, English language arts(March 2001, grades 1-8 and 12) and several other areas. (seehttp://www.nde.state.nv.us/sca/standards/).
21 Where We Are Now, 22.22 According to the University and Community College System of Nevada, 90% of
students taking remedial courses receive �passing grades� (available:http://www.nevada.edu/admin/Remedial.pdf). However, according to the NationalCenter for Education Statistics, �Postsecondary Persistence and Progress� (see :http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000062_3.pdf), the nature of a student�s weakness
has an important bearing on their chance of graduating. If they take only one remedialcourse, their chance of graduating is the same as students for whom remedial work is notrequired. However, if a student�s weakness is mathematics or (especially) reading, reme-diation often requires more than one course and is predictive of a substantially lowerlikelihood of graduation.
23 �Postsecondary Persistence and Progress.� Forty-three percent of remedial students whotake only one course�other than reading�earn a degree (versus 56% who take no reme-dial courses).
24 A growing number of critics have argued that critical thinking skills needed for effectivewriting are frequently �taught� with little effect because teachers have faulty conceptsabout the role of facts and knowledge in the building of intellectual skills. See E. D.Hirsch, �Where�s the Higher-Order Leak? �At the Bottom�� Common Knowledge 15, No.3 (2002).
25 See, for example: Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New Revised 20th-Anniversay ed., (New York: Continuum Publishing Co., 1998).
26 See Lance Izumi & K. Gwynne Coburn, Facing the Classroom Challenge (SanFrancisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, April 2001). Available online:http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/educat/facing_challenge/challenge.pdf. Also seethe National Association for Multicultural Education�s definition of multicultural educa-tion: http://www.nameorg.org/resolutions/definition.html.
27 Richard P. Phelps, Kill the Messenger, The War on Standardized Testing (NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2003).
28 Using different data and methodology than the present investigation, Greene and Forester(noted above) estimate that only 26 percent of Nevada public high school graduates areminimally prepared to enter a 4-year college.
29 Nevada NAEP profile: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp. 30 In the fall 2002, 68% of seniors failed mathematics and 41% failed reading. Available:
http://www.nevadatestreports.com/NHSP/iReport/index.html. Also see: Lynn Olson,�States Debate Exam Policies for Diplomas,� Education Week (May 14, 2003). Available:http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=36test.h22.
31 See UCCSN Fact Sheet, �High School-to-College Trends,� 2003. Available:http://www.nevada.edu/admin/NV%20HS%20Enrollment.pdf.
32 Laurence Steinberg, Beyond the Classroom, Why School Reform has Failed and WhatParents Can Do (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996).
33 Ibid, 61.34 Ibid, 75.35 Ibid, 76.36 Tommy M. Tomlinson, ed., Motivating Students to Learn (Berkeley, CA: McCutchan
Publishing Corporation, 1993), p.11.37 Jeanne S. Chall, The Academic Achievement Challenge (New York: The Guilford Press,
2000).38 The exponents of learner-centered instruction are so strongly opposed to measured
achievement as the prime objective of instruction that they believe standards-basedreform creates a moral dilemma for teachers. See Sandra Mathison and Melissa Freeman,Constraining Elementary Teachers� Work: Dilemmas and Paradoxes Created by StateMandated Testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives 11, No. 34 (2003). Available:http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n34/.
39 Ibid.
32
40 E. D. Hirsch, The Schools We Need and Why We Don�t Have Them (New York:Doubleday, 1996).
41 Chall, 31.42 See Alfie Kohn, Punished by Rewards (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993).43 J. E. Stone, Developmentalism: An Obscure but Pervasive Restriction on Educational
Improvement. Education Policy Analysis Archive 4, No. 8 (1996). Available:http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n8.html.
44 �A Direct Challenge,� Education Week.45 Professor Allen Bundy argues that community college professors should quit thinking of
themselves as professors because their primary mission is to teach basic skills. See:�Basic Skills Problems at Community Colleges, Change, 32, Issue 3 (May/June 2000) 4.Also see Paul Trout, �Remediation and the Dumbing Down of Campus Standards,� TheMontana Professor 11, No. 3 (Fall 2001). Available:http://mtprof.msun.edu/Fall2001/TrtArt.html. Trout reports that professors encounter stu-dents with 3rd and 4th grade level reading skills and he believes that the enrollment ofsuch students has eroded college standards. Because colleges permit remedial students toconcurrently take regular courses, even graduate and professional schools are now affect-ed.
46 David A. Goslin, Engaging Minds, Motivation & Learning in America�s Schools(Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2003) 120.
47 Ibid, 120-121.48 Ibid, 4.49 �Developmentalism,� 1996.50 Murnane and Levy say students lack both academic and �soft skills.� Both professors
and employers find that recent high school graduates are wholly unaccustomed torequirements such as completing assignments and coming to work on time. See RichardJ. Murnane and Frank Levy, Teaching the New Basic Skills: Principles for EducatingChildren to Thrive in a Changing Economy (New York: The Free Press, 1996).
51 �Developmentalism,� 1996.52 See Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde, Best Practice, New Standards
for Teaching and Learning in America�s Schools, 2nd ed. (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,1998).
53 Teachers have complained that the NBPTS assessment is skewed to the point that suc-cess requires teachers to agree with propositions that are at odds with their workingknowledge of good classroom practice. See Robert Burroughs, Tammy A. Schwartz andMartha Hendricks-Lee, �Communities of Practice and Discourse Communities:Negotiating Boundaries in NBPTS Certification,� Teachers College Record 102, No. 2(2000) 344-374. Available: http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=10449.
54 See Appendix A. 55 Entering freshmen in 2003 have the highest GPAs and the lowest amount of time-spent-
on-study found in 37 years. Seehttp://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news03/012703_news_freshmen.shtml. Also see themedia announcement of L. J. Sax, A. J. Lindholm, A. W. Astin, W. S. Korn, & K. M.Mahoney, The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2002 (Los Angles: HigherEducation Research Institute, 2001). Available:http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/02_press_release.pdf
56 Available: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/1a. 57 See Where We Are Now, 19.
33
58 National Center for Education Statistics, Life After College: A Descriptive Summary of1992-93 Bachelor�s Degree Recipients in 1997, With an Essay on Participation inGraduate and First-Professional Education (Washington, DC: Author, June 1999).Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=1999155.
59 Ibid, 18.60 Ibid, 19.61 ACT, High School Sophomores Need Help Planning Upper-Level Courses, College and
Careers (Iowa City, IA: Author, June 7, 2000).62 Alexander W. Astin & Leticia Oseguera, Degree Attainment Rates at American Colleges
and Universities (Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, 2003). Formore information, see http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/darcu_pr.html.
63 Stanley Ocken & Robert Feinerman, �Math in the City: A View from the CollegeClassroom,� Education Update Online (December 2002). Available: http://www.educa-tionupdate.com/archives/2002/dec02/issue/spot_mathincity.html.
64 Rebecca Smithers, �Student Spelling and Grammar at �Crisis� Levels,� The GuardianUnlimited (March 1, 3003). Available:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,905201,00.html.
34
2073 East Sahara Avenue, #BLas Vegas, Nevada 89104
(702) 222-0642fax (702) 227-0927
NEVADA POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Analysis is published by the Nevada PolicyResearch Institute (NPRI) to evaluate governmentpolicies and proposals for reform. Nothing pub-lished herein should be construed as necessarilyreflecting the views of NPRI as a corporate entityor as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of
any particular item of legislation. Please contactNPRI for reprint permission or further information.The Nevada Policy Research Institute was foundedin 1991 to promote individual liberty, publicunderstanding of free markets and alternatives togovernmental coercion.
