Metcalf, S. (2002). "Reading between the lines." The Nation” (Jan. 28): 18-22.
Jeneen Mucci
April 11, 2009
In reading Metcalf’s article, which focused on Bush’s policy on education reform, the emergence of corporate America as the experts in the field of education solidified for me the disconnect between practice and engagement. With many of the “scientific experts” in the field of education leaning towards the need of traditional, test focused curricula, the focus of child-centered, holistic learning becomes marginalized and seen as the downfall of public school education. Although the constituency that Bush created to resolve the problem of underperforming students and schools, was invested in his vision, they however, were not invested in the true reasons beyond his vision (i.e. poverty, lack of resources). The constituency that Bush formed was primarily representative of big business. Many of Bush’s constituents were loyal supporters from the testing and textbook industries who had their own investment in the constituency that Bush developed. In pushing for a multi-million dollar textbook and curriculum solution to underperforming schools, this solution was not only seen as the cure-all to bring schools back to traditional, rote learning, but this “investment” was seen as the only moral decision that was needed to ensure the “betterment of our society and the people in it” (p.19). Bush’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act not only strived to offer big business an opportunity to cash in on the fragile education system, but also allowed Bush and his constituency an opportunity to dictate the value system of the American people as well as minimizing the needs of the greater population. What Bush and his corporate constituency did not understand or choose not to understand was that although education reform is necessary in order to continually meet the changing needs of our schools, students and teachers, there is not one remedy that can repair what needs to be mended. Furthermore, in order to affect positive change for all who will be impacted, this reform must include a constituency that is representative of all that will be engaged, involved and affected by the process.
Tara Tetzlaff's Summary:
In this article, the author claims that the Bush administration’s push to increase standardized testing in public schools is mostly just a ploy to help out their friends in the publishing and standardized testing business. Metcalf says that the Bush family and the McGraw-Hill publishing company have a close history, and that when Bush was governor of Texas he passed similar legislation at the state level and McGraw-Hill made a lot of money off it.
The National Reading Panel claims that successful reading courses are scientifically “explicit and systematic,” just the kind of materials McGraw-Hill purports to produce. However, critics say that the NRP didn’t do many studies and question how those studies were actually conducted. They also say that NRP’s actual findings do not match what was reported and promoted about the study and note that a PR company prepared the report and its publicity.
Metcalf states that the education policy of the Bush administration “emphasizes minimal confidence along a narrow range of skills … satisfying the low end of the labor market.” Schools claim that federally mandated testing is under funded and resent not being able to have more say in how they spend their money on resources. Students in a NY State suburban school boycotted their new standardized tests saying it was “dumbing down the district’s curriculum.” Meanwhile, McGraw-Hill is making a lot of money from testing materials and textbooks.
Jacquelina Monteiro's Summary
I found that the Metcalf article was extremly interesting however it really makes me think twice about the value of money. It really makes me wonder how money can take over some one's morals and their values of what is right and wrong. The Bush administration altered the Texas student testing just to produce more money to the McGraw-Hill publishing company. I am well aware that being the governor of a state allows some authority and power however I am very dissatisfied with the school system and why they would let Bush readjust the methods of children's test taking to produce more money to a specific just so in the long run that company can come and support Bush through his campain.
I found that it was extremely important for the author to stress the importance of the underlining factor of what actually takes place behind the scenes. This article really made me think about the factor of money and how it plays a huge role into many different aspects of life. Sadly to say money is what makes people reevaluate the important values in life, I strongly believe that education fits into that catorgory. I never really thought that Education was a business and now I really do not know how to separate the two from each other. People with money (The Bush Adminstration) have the capability to do what ever they want to do they just have to put a price on it, like they did with electing another Bush in Florida.
Mary Beth LeFaivre
April 27, 2009
In this article the writer looks at the political context in which the NCLB was created. Bush marshaled in an accountability era that expanded federal powers and control in public education, and engaged business CEOs and textbook publishers in education policy through such groups as the Business Roundtable. The exact influence of business on NCLB policy formation is unclear, but the author makes clear the connection between Bush and McGraw Hill CEO McGraw families. Despite the influence of publishers and their lobbyists, the author notes the mentality was that of a bottom-line: our schools are failing, we’re losing to global competitors, and we need a business bottom-line approach to bring equity and improvement to a failing system. In a push to standardize the education system, testing was seen as the sole strategy to raise student achievement. With the passing of NCLB in 2001, public education, an institution of our democratic society, became a more regulatory system of accountability, with state standareds and high-stakes testing requiring AYPs and state takeovers of underperforming schools. This translated to a booming business for publishers of state tests such as ETS. In another example of federal expansion in public education in the Bush era, the author notes the National Reading Panel (NRP), a literacy experts assembled by Congress in the 1990s, amid the Reading Wars, reviewed 100,000 studies to conclude the best reading instruction is phonemic awareness. Soon federally-funded--and mandated--classroom instruction and curriculum materials focused on phonics. Critics of the this approach questioned the validity of NRP's findings, noting a discrepancy between the Panel's report and the summary that was made public and the savvy work of a public relations firm who represented McGraw-Hill. They also questioned the NRP's translation of 'seminal' literacy education research studies to policy, an issue I summarized in "When psychology informs public policy." When policy is linked to business, whose interests are at stake? And how can rigorous education research be utilized and influential in policy decisions in an unbiased, objective, and nonpartisan manner? Will the 'big boys' with lobbyists and power continue to effect the public agenda? [This is why one reason why I left career in public relations.]
With the re-authorization of NCLB coming up, I hope the federal funding and outside mandates trickles down to effect what happens inside the classroom, and helps to uncover and scale-up evidence-based strategies to narrow achievement gaps and improve the quality of education for all students.