BLOG

Reading war re-igniting?

EducationBy Richard Innes April 29, 2012

Maybe there never was more than an uneasy cease fire

Education Week reports (subscription?) that activities to implement the Common Core State Standards in actual classrooms are re-igniting the long simmering war over how to teach reading.

At issue: a reading instructional technique called “Pre-Reading.” This involves classroom activities to get students ready for reading.

Proponents say this is necessary when student don’t have a lot of background knowledge needed to understand the text.

Opponents charge pre-reading has become excessive in many classrooms. Opponents charge pre-reading totally eliminates any need for the students to actually read the text. Instead, the over-done pre-reading already gives students all the information in the passage they are about to read. It’s as if the teacher has already read the passage to the students.

Some say the intent in the Common Core Standards is to outlaw pre-reading.

Others contest that.

There is evidence that pre-reading has indeed become excessive. EdWeek cites one example videotaped session where the pre-reading takes 20 minutes while the actual time required to read the passage is only six minutes.

The argument has stirred up ghosts of the Whole Language Reading wars, as well.

One person quoted in EdWeek talks about “decades of research which shows that meaning is in the interaction of reader and text.”

That’s an echo of Whole Language reading philosophy. Some might counter that really scientific research on reading has not been around for decades. Some of the best of that recent research relied first on Positron Emission Tomography and more recently on Functional Magneto-Resonant Imaging (fMRI) technology. This technical approach to reading research didn’t even start to appear until the mid- to late-1990s. It is now identifying reading programs that can transition very weak readers into much stronger readers.

In any event, get ready to dive back in your bunkers. It looks like reading fights are back on.

Herald-Leader demonstrates a fatal fallacy

Smaller Government, UncategorizedBy Jim Waters April 27, 2012

A recent editorial from the Lexington Herald-Leader illustrates a dangerous jump in logic that plagues so much of our political dialogue.

The editorial, titled “Frankfort beware: the public gets it,” rails against our public officials who choose to support Kentucky coal: “For coal-favoring Kentucky politicians (is there any other kind?) who have balanced perilously on the fence about climate change despite overwhelming scientific evidence, a recent poll suggests you should just give it up if you think you’re fooling voters. A poll released Wednesday showed that two-thirds of those surveyed believe recent extreme weather has been caused by global warming and that human activities are a primary cause of that warming.”

The further implication is that – because of global warming or “climate change” – it’s necessary that government intervene to lead us out of such a dangerous predicament.

And therein lies the unfortunate jump in reason. We are led to believe that if some societal ill exists – then government must cure it.

But so many alternatives are completely ignored here. Just why is government the only means for solving this societal problem? Is there a less costly way than the force of government to resolve the issue? What about solutions that don’t involve the state? Is there any “solution” at all – at least one whose costs don’t outweigh the benefits?

These questions are left unanswered all too often in political discourse, whether the issue be healthcare, education, or striking a balance between efficient energy and the environment.

Instead of asking “What can people do?” those falling victim to this familiar fallacy ask, “What should government do?”

To recognize the pollution concerns regarding Kentucky’s most prized natural resource is not the same as supporting the edicts of the federal government or the Environmental Protection Agency. Why must their unilateral mandates be the most efficient solution – or even a solution at all?

Because of this unfortunate lapse in logic, individuals all too often allow public officials to irritate the ills of society instead of assuaging them. Even if public officials do have the best interest of citizens at heart, do we care more about intentions – or the actual impact these policies have on our lives?

To assume government is the only way problems can be resolved between people is to ignore a whole world of incredible possibilities.

Economic freedom in health care

Increase Free Markets, Smaller GovernmentBy Jim Waters April 27, 2012

My friend and former professor Stephan F. Gohmann is featured in this new video on freedom in health care. Gohmann lays out the economic and regulatory reasons why most Americans get their health care through their employers.

How’s that? Teachers protesting taxes!

EducationBy Richard Innes April 27, 2012

It’s strange, but true, per the Floyd County Times article, “May Valley group seeks Martin annexation records.”

Apparently, teachers at May Valley Elementary School are upset because they have to pay an occupational tax on their salaries but argue the school where they work does not get any services for those taxes from Martin City, the taxing authority. Furthermore, the teachers are upset that Martin City has raised those taxes twice since 2007 and reportedly failed to comply with an earlier open records request for information.

This teacher anti-tax protest certainly relates in a very interesting way to taxpayers in general who are upset about things like schools that chronically don’t do a very good job of getting kids ready for college and careers.

My point: every taxpayer deserves performance for their valuable tax dollars. And, taxpayers deserve a transparent and open way to determine how those tax dollars actually are performing.

When public officials don’t produce performance and accounting, taxpayer protest is very justified. That is true whether it’s general taxpayers or even teachers who are doing the questioning.

And, public officials must be accountable for tax dollars, whether we are talking about city administrators or public school educators.

Scoring student papers with a computer?

EducationBy Richard Innes April 27, 2012

An interesting article from Education Week (subscription required?) says, “Study Supports Essay-Grading Technology.”

Can computers really do this?

Can machines to this better than humans?

Any decent word processor today includes things like grammar and spelling check tools, which are important mechanics in any good paper. But, those tools don’t evaluate whether the meaning conveyed is either accurate or well presented.

Can more sophisticated computer systems that use more than current word processor technology really do an overall evaluation of the presentation and meaning conveyed in a paper?

The discussion about that broader question in EdWeek is certainly interesting.

Here are a few other points to consider:

In the real world, actual grading of student written answers on Kentucky’s now defunct KIRIS and CATS assessments was always problematic. To keep costs from exploding, part-time human graders were hired for relatively low hourly wages.

Those part-time graders were given very little time to consider each answer. At best, the process was rushed. At worst, there simply wasn’t enough time for graders to do the job adequately.

Grading of the longer written pieces in student writing portfolios was also problematic. Every audit conducted on portfolio grading showed significant numbers of students got the wrong scores. In the end, after nearly two decades of trying, Kentucky had to abandon portfolios for assessment. The scoring was never good enough.

So, while machine scoring might not be perfect, neither is human scoring.

That leaves a big question: which process will be most affordable and workable in the future? Given the history of human scoring of student papers in Kentucky, and given the caliber of some of the organizations trying to develop machine scoring, I’m not placing any bets.

Kentucky Energy Equation – A door is opened for nuclear energy in Kentucky

EnergyBy Jim Waters April 26, 2012

We’ve all heard about what a lackluster event this year’s legislative session was – but there was one auspicious development that deserves notice.

On April 11, Gov. Beshear signed House Bill 559 into law – a piece of legislation that opens the door for nuclear energy in the Bluegrass State. Similar legislation was shot down in previous sessions. Though the new law does not allow Kentucky utility companies to use nuclear power to produce electricity, it does allow them to use nuclear power for the conversion of coal and natural gas.

With the Environmental Protection Agency attempting to choke the economic vitality out of Kentucky coal, the Commonwealth cannot afford any cost-effective energy sources being banned by overzealous regulators. If Kentuckians want to continue to enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the country, a free market in energy production is the only way forward.

Support the Bluegrass Institute

The Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions works with Kentuckians, pro-liberty coalitions, grassroots organizations and business owners to advance freedom and prosperity by promoting free-market capitalism, individual liberty and transparent government.