| Current
Articles, Interviews and Commentary
from
The New York Times, January 12,
2003
Speaking in Tongues
By John Merrow
At
the start of the Nixon administration, Attorney General John N. Mitchell
advised reporters: ''Watch what we do, not what we say.'' In the world
of educational politics, however, watching what people say reveals
a lot -- about what they know and what they don't, and what they believe.
Parsing the language may help us understand what education leaders
are really up to.
 Rigor
Mortis The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 encourages the
development of accountability systems based on ''rigorous'' standards.
Disappointing test scores in New York State last spring prompted the
state education commissioner, Richard R. Mills, to call for a ''more
rigorous curriculum.'' In fact, I can't remember an educator who didn't
demand a rigorous this or a rigorous that. But has anyone looked up
the word? Webster's New World College Dictionary defines rigorous
as, variously, ''very strict or harsh,'' ''very severe or sharp,''
''rigidly precise, thoroughly accurate or exact'' -- as any child
being drilled for state exams will attest.
Tense For the centerpiece of his education program, President Bush
lifted the slogan ''No child left behind'' from the Children's Defense
Fund, the advocacy organization. The fund has long proclaimed its
mission, in an active voice that makes it an imperative for all: ''Leave
no child behind.'' But President Bush chose a passive construction,
''left behind,'' suggesting that it is someone else's responsibility,
not his and not ours.
The Language Arts Politicians use language as a weapon
in the educational wars. When Democrats were in power, the federal
government had an Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language
Affairs, a clear statement of support for learning two languages and
maintaining native culture. Under the Republicans, the signs have
been changed. It's now the Office of English Language Acquisition,
which translates into ''learn English!''
The old National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education has a new name
too; it's now the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition
and Language Instruction Educational Programs. The emphasis on learning
English should not surprise anyone. President Bush, after all, openly
mocked an American reporter last May for asking a question of France's
president in French.
Hyphen-Based Hysteria Education suffers from a glut
of hyphens, and hyphens are an enemy of transparency -- a movement
in educational vogue these days among school reform celebrities like
Theodore R. Sizer and Grant P. Wiggins. Traditionally, schools have
wanted parents to leave the children (and the money) at the door.
Transparency wants the public to understand what schools are doing
and why.
Hyphenated language sounds precise, but opaque jargon makes matters
fuzzy. When education is described as standards-based, brain-based,
site-centered, teacher-tested, results-oriented, business-backed,
community-based, gender-neutral, Web-based or family-friendly, who
really knows what's going on? Not the listener, and perhaps not the
educators mouthing the words.
Choice Occasionally, language triumphs over those
who ordinarily bend words to mask their own contradictions or to manipulate
others. It's a delicious irony how the word ''choice'' is tying some
people in knots, requiring them to be both for and against it at the
same time. Conservatives struggle to explain why children should have
choices -- vouchers -- about where they go to school but no choice
about whether to say prayer in school. Conversely, liberals try to
explain why children have the constitutional right not to say or hear
prayer in school but should have no choice about where they go to
school.
The Joy of Teaching The language of education can
objectify, dehumanize and ultimately wring the vitality out of what
should be a life-enhancing enterprise. A classic example comes from
higher education, where professors often talk about their teaching
''load,'' meaning their students.
Here's another: early-childhood educators often use the expression
''ready to learn'' to describe their mission, as in: ''Our job is
to get 3- and 4-year-olds ready to learn.'' But most youngsters are
sponges for learning, eager to put their fingers and noses everywhere.
Educators can help channel energies, but to suggest that real learning
requires trained adults raises questions about their definition of
learning.
Mind the Gap Almost every state talks with missionary
zeal about ''closing the achievement gap.'' Consider Delaware. It
created an Achievement Gap Work Group, which determined that fourth-
and eighth-grade minority students in the state were three years behind
non minority students. The stated policy goal is to bring the ''target''
group up to the level of the ''reference'' group -- that is, get the
black and brown students up to the performance levels of the white
students. What this does is make performance racial, which by extension
makes failure to perform racial as well, a harmful connection in people's
minds.
The policy to ''close the achievement gap'' between racial groups
is doomed to failure, because school performance is closely linked
to socioeconomic status. As a group, children of the poor, whatever
their color, do not do as well in school as children who grow up eating
well, living in warm, clean homes and being cared for by parents who
read to them, limit their television time and take them to museums.
The latter children are born ahead. Individual success stories to
the contrary, school isn't going to close the gap. Nor will they ever
catch up -- 77 percent of upper-income families enroll their children
in preschool, which adds to their advantages. By contrast, only 50
percent of children in poverty attend early-childhood programs like
Head Start, most of which stress social development anyway, not reading.
Here's a healthier approach: To graduate from Dartmouth College, my
alma mater, you have to be able to swim 50 yards. You don't have to
swim it faster or better than someone else, you just have to swim
it, and help is available for those who need it. It is a realistic,
clearly defined standard, for both students and coaches.
In a Word Legislation emphasizes that special education
students are not ''handicapped'' but have ''handicapping conditions.''
They are not ''disabled children'' but ''children with disabilities.''
Over time these semantic distinctions have helped change public attitudes
and actual teaching practices. Which is why it is important that education
be ''challenging,'' not ''rigorous,'' that preschoolers be ''free
to learn,'' not made ''ready to learn,'' and that children have ''learning
differences,'' not ''disabilities.'' Blather or not, words matter.
|
