In 1996, I accepted $50,000 in stock in lieu of cash to help the startup of an amusement park invention. I still have the original stock certificate. It’s worth nothing, except as a reminder that failures are seldom free. I paid for it.
It’s a valuable lesson, but one our school district does not teach.
Last week, I mentioned a Las Vegas Review-Journal story how Clark County School District (which includes Las Vegas) students were failing Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II — approximately 88 percent of all students — according to tests administered in January.
This week, the Clark County School District sent a letter to parents, assuring them that these test results will not be a “deciding factor in awarding or withholding a diploma or promoting or retaining individual students in math classes.” In other words, there is no need for concern.
No need for concern. Students will be moving forward regardless.
The letter goes on to stress that the exams were not mandated by the state or federal government. So, these tests will not be used to determine school status under the No Child Left Behind Act and affect federal school funding.
On the contrary, the school sees these tests as an opportunity to convene a committee of experts — as opposed to the experts supposedly entrusted to teach students — to evaluate “the concerns that have been raised about the exams.”
Parents are also advised to visit their Web site to become acquainted with curriculum overviews. It includes bulleted curriculum items like this:
• Problem Solving: Students will develop their ability to solve problems by engaging in developmentally appropriate opportunities where there is a need to use various approaches to investigate and understand mathematical concepts, (sic)
In reviewing the document, I found less comfort in the ability of our school district, not more. The above sentence, ending with a comma as opposed to a period, not withstanding. In fact, the curriculum overview seems to provide an indication why Nevada scored among the worst in the eighth-grade NAEP writing exam, slightly above New Mexico and Mississippi.
No need for concern. Students will be moving forward regardless.
Two years ago, my cousin arranged a meeting with administrators after his stepson brought home a report card with all Ds and Fs. He was concerned.
“No need for concern. He will be moving forward regardless,” he was told.
“You don’t understand. I want you to hold him back.”
“Oh no, we can’t do that. It would be bad for his self-esteem and we really don’t have room anyway.”
No need for concern. Students will be moving forward regardless.
The message is clear, but it’s not the right message. Parents do need to be concerned for the very reason the school district tells them not to be.
The measure of academic success in a school district is not federal funding, number of expert committees, the percentage of correct sentences in a poorly written curriculum overview, how many students are failed forward, or how many receive diplomas. On the contrary, the only measure is whether these students will master certain subjects or not, which will no doubt determine how well they perform as they move forward.
So while there is a perception that “trying” is good enough to move ahead, the reality is that “trying” is not good enough. The truth is that “trying and failing but moving forward anyway” is delusional and detrimental because it deprives students of learning from their mistakes and sets them up for more failures.
Worse, if teachers are continually required to present material suitable for the lowest performing students, it eventually results in entire classrooms receiving a deficient education. That means the paper with the words “diploma” has as much value as the stock I accepted in 1996, except without even providing students the benefit of learning from any of their failures along the way.
Ergo, if there are some faulty math skills, it’s not just students. The school district is operating under a formula that suggests it continually needs more funding while continually producing less educated students, which demonstrates a need for more funding. At the same time, it continually claims to be making progress, with the only proof being the growing number of students who are failed forward.
Right. It doesn’t add up.
It’s a valuable lesson, but one our school district does not teach.
Last week, I mentioned a Las Vegas Review-Journal story how Clark County School District (which includes Las Vegas) students were failing Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II — approximately 88 percent of all students — according to tests administered in January.
This week, the Clark County School District sent a letter to parents, assuring them that these test results will not be a “deciding factor in awarding or withholding a diploma or promoting or retaining individual students in math classes.” In other words, there is no need for concern.
No need for concern. Students will be moving forward regardless.
The letter goes on to stress that the exams were not mandated by the state or federal government. So, these tests will not be used to determine school status under the No Child Left Behind Act and affect federal school funding.
On the contrary, the school sees these tests as an opportunity to convene a committee of experts — as opposed to the experts supposedly entrusted to teach students — to evaluate “the concerns that have been raised about the exams.”
Parents are also advised to visit their Web site to become acquainted with curriculum overviews. It includes bulleted curriculum items like this:
• Problem Solving: Students will develop their ability to solve problems by engaging in developmentally appropriate opportunities where there is a need to use various approaches to investigate and understand mathematical concepts, (sic)
In reviewing the document, I found less comfort in the ability of our school district, not more. The above sentence, ending with a comma as opposed to a period, not withstanding. In fact, the curriculum overview seems to provide an indication why Nevada scored among the worst in the eighth-grade NAEP writing exam, slightly above New Mexico and Mississippi.
No need for concern. Students will be moving forward regardless.
Two years ago, my cousin arranged a meeting with administrators after his stepson brought home a report card with all Ds and Fs. He was concerned.
“No need for concern. He will be moving forward regardless,” he was told.
“You don’t understand. I want you to hold him back.”
“Oh no, we can’t do that. It would be bad for his self-esteem and we really don’t have room anyway.”
No need for concern. Students will be moving forward regardless.
The message is clear, but it’s not the right message. Parents do need to be concerned for the very reason the school district tells them not to be.
The measure of academic success in a school district is not federal funding, number of expert committees, the percentage of correct sentences in a poorly written curriculum overview, how many students are failed forward, or how many receive diplomas. On the contrary, the only measure is whether these students will master certain subjects or not, which will no doubt determine how well they perform as they move forward.
So while there is a perception that “trying” is good enough to move ahead, the reality is that “trying” is not good enough. The truth is that “trying and failing but moving forward anyway” is delusional and detrimental because it deprives students of learning from their mistakes and sets them up for more failures.
Worse, if teachers are continually required to present material suitable for the lowest performing students, it eventually results in entire classrooms receiving a deficient education. That means the paper with the words “diploma” has as much value as the stock I accepted in 1996, except without even providing students the benefit of learning from any of their failures along the way.
Ergo, if there are some faulty math skills, it’s not just students. The school district is operating under a formula that suggests it continually needs more funding while continually producing less educated students, which demonstrates a need for more funding. At the same time, it continually claims to be making progress, with the only proof being the growing number of students who are failed forward.
Right. It doesn’t add up.