David A. Hancock
Chesterland
Even Einstein Couldn’t Fix State Science Test Woes
To the editor:
As a science educator for thirty-one years, I couldn’t help but muse about the latest proficiency test results, especially in science. Only 25 out of 97 school districts listed passed the fourth-grade science proficiency test, and only 9 of the 97 districts passed the sixth-grade science proficiency test. All seven districts with a 26–27 rating failed the sixth-grade science proficiency test.
I think that the inexorable quagmire created by the Ohio State Board of Education-Teacher Certification Division might have much to do with this. Most elementary teachers with K–8 certification do not have a solid background in science. Most of these teachers had only one or two classes in science. This reflects that just 3 percent of those who are teaching in grades 1–4 and whose duties include teaching science actually majored or minored in science or science education at the undergraduate level. The figure is 30 percent for teachers in grades 5–8.
Few elementary teachers say they think they are “very well qualified” to teach science. It’s no wonder that science often gets less time and attention than other subjects.
It is hard to imagine that a teacher who majored in science and who is certified for grades 7–12 cannot teach sixth-grade science, but that a teacher certified for K–8 with one or two science classes can.
According to present Ohio teacher certification standards and requirements, Einstein would not be able to teach physics in Ohio public school classrooms. But he could teach in any private school.
This whole proficiency test conundrum reflects what Mark Twain once said: “There are three kinds of lies—lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
David A. Hancock
Chesterland
Public Schools Mission: Serve All, Not Chosen Few
To the editor:
I must respond to Michael Murray’s letter (The Sun Press, Aug. 14) that states, “CH-UH spends so much because it’s a monopoly.” Schools cannot compete for students in the same way that businesses compete for customers. Vouchers do not mean much to a poor child whose parents are given a tax credit of $1,000 to attend a private school that charges $20,000-plus in tuition.
As the late Al Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said so well, “A real test would be to have volunteers from the non-public schools to take over a number of classes from public schools. Take them as they are—without picking the students they want, or those whose parents are motivated, or those who can afford to pay, and put them under private auspices for a year or two. Then we’ll see if the non-public schools have some magical ingredient for their success, and if they do, whether they’ll share it with the rest of us.”
Meryl Schwartz, president of United Parents’ Association of New York City, stated the issue well: “Public school doors are opened to every child—rich, poor, handicapped, gifted. They are the backbone of our American heritage, composed of all races, creeds, religions.”
Private and parochial schools (which comprise more than 90 percent of all private schools) cannot and do not make that claim, nor do they have to. Their doors can close on any child. Every parent has the right to choose religions or private education for their child—but not the right to use public tax money to subsidize a private choice because she/he opts not to use available public school services.
The Milwaukee voucher program has allowed a small number of poor parents to send their children to private schools, but it has failed to deliver the educational benefits supporters claimed for it. The most important lesson to be learned from Milwaukee’s experiment is not educational but political. It’s a lesson in how the white power structure has used the Milwaukee program to advance an agenda that has little, if anything, to do with the needs of impoverished children.
Let’s put it this way—when we talk about doctors and patients, teachers and students, lawyers and clients, when it comes down to evaluating results, you can’t measure the effects of what we do. Why not? They’re intangible. Oh? Why should I pay you for intangible results? Because I’ve been trained and licensed to practice. Hmmmm … all right. Here’s your money. Where? I don’t see it. Of course not. It’s intangible!
David A. Hancock
Chesterland
Sports Fans Pay, Taxpayers Don’t
To the editor:
Regarding Mary Jane Skala’s Reflections column (The Sun Press, Sept. 16), she stated, “Rothschild said aloud what many taxpayers believe. Higher taxes aside, many voters will fight the levy because they don’t’ believe they’re getting their money’s worth out of our schools.”
Sports fans have no problem spending $200 plus for attending an Indians or Browns game but complain and vote no for a public school levy that costs them $350 a year on average. Question: Are the fans getting their money’s worth? All they are doing is adding to the athletes’ egregious bank accounts.
It has been proposed that one should go to infant school in France, preschool in Italy, primary school in Japan, secondary school in Germany, and college in the United States.
David A. Hancock
Chesterland
The writer is a science teacher at Heights High School.
Bus Parents Too
James P. Orr of Cincinnati, quoted in the Cincinnati Enquirer, said it well: “Busing children all over town to supposedly create racial balance has virtually done away with the traditional neighborhood-school concept. Now, the ‘in’ [sic] thing is to bash the parents of these children for not participating in the activities of
