The best way that the government can increase literacy skills and programs nationwide would be for the federal government to raise property taxes .5% and use that money to fund the Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Cant Read Good.
Wait, that's not a real literacy center, so maybe that won't work. In fact, maybe hiking property taxes wouldn't be such a good thing, given the current economic and housing situation. In the same vein, maybe the government needs to stop seeing all of the educational problems in the nation as solvable by flinging money in their general direction.
Whether you liked the Ben Stiller movie "Zoolander" or not, the solution to the nationwide literacy problems is, unfortunately, going to be far more complex than we might like. After some pragmatic pondering and careful consideration, it seems that the government's role in increasing literacy skills and programs can be broken down into three fundamental areas: Financial, Administrative, and Training.
So cast aside those wishes that the federal Department of Education could simply evaporate and read on to see what the federal government could actually do to increase literacy skills.
*Financial
The absolute first priority, in the area of finances, that the federal government absolutely must do is to conduct an independent audit of every dollar spent on or toward education. With a total budget in 2008 of $68.6 billion, it seems like we ought to be seeing some kind of improvement. Indeed, in the 2005-06 school year, there were 49.1 million public school students, so when we do the math, our eyes pop out... profoundly. We are spending right about $1400 per student on the federal level. But my friends, each state also has its own public school budget. Here's an example:
Utah, which ranks last in the nation in per student funding, spends about $5250 each year. The national average is $8700. So it looks like a student in Utah has $6650 spent on them for a school year, between the federal and state governments. Published figures indicate that about $3500 of that is directed precisely toward instruction, not to staff or faculty salaries, support or facilities.
Now take a classroom of 20 students (which is a very conservative number by today's standards) and do the math. That class has very nearly $70,000 spent on it per year. And that's in Utah, the state that ranks 51 in per student spending.
With that kind of money being spent per student and per classroom, and it not having to pay for teachers or supplies, you would think that instruction would be better. So what does this hazy word 'instruction' really mean?
That's a good question, and that's what this independent audit needs to determine. We need to follow each education dollar to its ultimate destiny, or in other words, to the last pocket it ends up in.
If we can identify where this money is going, we can take better control of it and direct it to where it needs to go: literacy programs and skills-building. Perhaps we could direct some of that money back to teachers' salaries, so that when we get good teachers, they actually feel like sticking around. This is vital, because the truth is that literacy skills cannot really be built effectively in a large group. One-on-one instruction, or small group interactions, are far more effective.
Federal government, hear us! We're sick of seeing our tax dollars get flung into the bottomless pit that is hazy budgeting and loose controls.
*Administrative
The government, be it local or federal, has all of one thing that it needs to do to increase literacy skills and programs: stop sending mixed signals.
Think about it: the American media seems to love reporting on how poorly our students function in math and science on a national stage. The government issues frightening facts and stats regularly. Then they say we need to get back to the basics of math and science.
Then they complain that literacy is on the decline.
Which is it? Math and science or literacy? Which one of these should we really be emphasizing?
The truth is that it is foolish to separate these two sets of skills. Why would we try to do such a thing? And what's more, why would we emphasize math and science over literacy? Shouldn't we get the fundamental ability to read and write pretty much squared away before we ask students to perform in math and science,
And the truth is, studies and experience have demonstrated that literacy absolutely should come first.
But that's not all.
Administratively, the government should actually follow good research when developing programs. Research has shown, and much of Europe and especially Finland have demonstrated, that starting students older is better and prepares them better for academic success. We're not saying students should, across the board, start school at age eight. However, expecting every single kindergartner to be able to read at the end of their FIRST year of public school is ludicrous. Heck, some students aren't ready to perform in this area by the time first grade is over.
What's the answer?
Stop burning students out at age 5, 6 and 7. Create a curriculum that lets them discover things and encourages natural curiosity. This curriculum is impossible when these very early grades are expected to take standardized tests in order to help their schools qualify for federal funding.
And that's what it all comes down to. Administratively, standardized tests should be eliminated from all of the K-6 schools in the land. This will take the pressure off local administrations and educators to cram unprepared minds full of knowledge, which cramming has really been resulting in a greater burn-out and drop-out rate over the last decade. Students in these grades need to have their love learning nurtured, not killed by classes that teach for the huge test that everyone has to take in the middle or at the end of the year.
Here's the literacy scenario we should be trying to avoid: A lad, age 6, heads to his first day of 1st Grade. He's excited and nervous. He can't read very well, since he never really enjoyed the books that the teacher chose for his kindergarten class. He really prefers to play outside and watch bugs and see how they eat their food and stuff. And the chair just gets hard after a while.
But he's off to school. On his first day of class, his teacher administers a reading diagnostic, designed to help her see what level our lad is reading at. He understands perfectly well what she means when she makes that face, that noise, and says, "We'll just start you out with these," and hands him lame picture books about families and colors. The other kids are reading bigger, more interesting books, and when the teacher reads with his class of 30, he feels pretty left out.
So he tries to read the books his teacher gave him, but they're too hard. And they are kind of dumb, anyway. Reading's dumb.
In short, this lad has turned off of reading on his first day of 1st Grade. His interest is gone, just like that. That is because too much is expected... of a 6 year old!
C.S. Lewis' formal education began when he was 10 years old.
Aristotle probably only started his formal education when he was 7 or 8. And what did he learn for his entire first year? Homer and the lyre. Two subjects.
Multum non multa. Much not many.
Which is the final administrative-level change our government can make in order to increase literacy. We've covered keeping our priorities straight and when to start students, but our curricula need to see a fundamental shift away from cramming knowledge bytes into young heads and toward building skills, strategies and love of learning.
So we shouldn't be trying to teach so many subjects to these early grades. Let's take it slower, build some skills, let the students savor their new knowledge. Take a second and think about it, if you've made it this far in this article. Doesn't that just make good sense?
If we had an educational and literacy Panacea, we would also have far more parental involvement in literacy efforts, one teacher and at least two full-time aides in each classroom, and longer class times. Forty-five minutes, four or five times a week, simply isn't enough to really nail a skill before moving on to new material.
*Training
Governments, to put it as simply (and briefly.. whew!) as possible, must stop the wanton requirements for credentialing that have characterized the last decade. Seriously, how much are we expecting of teachers at this point? The average teacher salary, nationwide, is probably about $49,500. With continuing education requirements, extra-curricular assignments, early morning teacher meetings, summer continuing education and credentialing, and the all-out stress of trying to keep a class of 30 delightfully rambunctious students not only calm and under control but learning... is it unreasonable to wonder if we are asking too much?
And we are. The credentialing process consists of myriad hoops, fees and fine print. Jump through the hoops, pray the fees don't bankrupt you and your family, and try to make sure you do right by the NEA, and then go and get paid peanuts? It's no wonder why we have been suffering from a massive teacher shortage.
So the government needs to stop overtraining and start letting the teachers actually teach. This writer can practically guarantee that if there were a two year moratorium on all credentialing requirements, student literacy scores would spike.
In conclusion, it might be useful to end with a personal experience. This writer had been teaching ESL/EFL for five years, both stateside and abroad, when he thought it would be fine to go into the public school system. He had a BA and figured he would have to get some kind of state-level credential. So he went to a nearby state university and sat down with a counselor to find out what he would have to do to get the credential.
Even factoring in his experience, he had 8 months of classwork, which he would have to pay for ahead of him. Then he would have a four-month, unpaid, student teaching experience, while still paying tuition. Then he could try to get a job. If he got a job, within two years he would have to move toward 'Very Qualified' or he would be in danger of losing his job.
Doesn't that sound like fun?
This writer bagged it. The hoops, fees and bleak outlook pushed him away, and he loves teaching. Literacy is his specialty.
References:
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html (Retrieved 11.19.08)
http://nces.ed.gov/CCD/quickfacts.asp#f3 (Retrieved 11.19.08)
http://www.schools.utah.gov/default/FngrFacts.pdf (Retrieved 11.19.08)
http://www.nea.org/neatodayextra/salaries.html (Retrieved 11.19.08)