Saturday, March 22, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.
IT appears the "education governor" wants to be involved in setting educational standards in the state. Assembly Bill 277 would establish an appointed council to set higher standards in math, science, English and social studies. Currently, that responsibility lies with the elected Nevada State Board of Education.
Miller, after eight years in office, acknowledged this year the state's educational standards were not clear, specific or well-grounded in content. He has now pledged to establish higher standards in those areas within one year. Interestingly enough, Miller's chief of staff, Jim Mulhall, indicated that the Miller administration has worked "at length" with Mary Peterson, state superintendent of public instruction.
There is more to raising educational standards than just announcing new standards. During the last Legislature, the governor's office was repeatedly requested to support two teacher licensure bills that would have raised teacher licensing standards. Even though the governor was informed the state had the lowest requirements in the nation for teacher licensure, Miller never spoke out in favor of those bills. But he did appoint the president of the state teachers' association to the commission that establishes those standards, contrary to state statute.
Miller has been repeatedly asked, over the last four years, to speak out against the practice of allowing substitutions in the core curriculum. He still has not addressed substitutions such as woodworking counting for math credit. But he did appoint a "School to Work" panel that actually pushes to have more substitutions in the core curriculum. Just last week, when the state board was considering increasing the core curriculum standards in math, science and computers, a representative from "School to Work" came to the state board and testified that electives were more important than the core. Is this indicative of the way the governor's next appointed council is going to raise standards?
Superintendent Peterson was not in favor of increasing teacher licensure standards. She has continually lobbied members of the state board to approve substitutions in the core curriculum, and she was not in favor of increasing educational standards in math, science and computers. Is the reason the governor has never addressed these issues because of the advice he's receiving "at length" from the state superintendent?
The governor was asked about two years ago to help lobby the state board to put the memorization of the basic arithmetic facts and algorithms back in the state course of study. He never did. But, in his January State of the State address, he used that as an example of low state standards. What he didn't say was that the board finally put those facts back into the curriculum in September, four months before that speech. An oversight? Where was the governor two years ago when his administration was asked for help?
Again, let's look at his adviser in education. Some state department officials, working for the state superintendent, actually mounted a letter-writing campaign to dissuade the board from requiring the memorization of basic arithmetic facts in the curriculum.
So, is the governor not being properly advised? The governor did not speak out on raising cored educational standards two weeks ago. But representatives from his appointed "School to Work" panel spoke in favor of electives over a stronger core curriculum. He wouldn't speak out about increasing teacher licensure standards, but he did appoint the state teachers' president to the commission, and he hasn't spoken out against allowing substitutions in the core curriculum. What he hasn't said seems to fall in line with the current state superintendent's positions. His silence has been deafening!
I don't want to oversimplify the problem of increasing student achievement and performance, but a couple of things need to be said. First, if you want to increase student achievement, kids must enroll in more appropriate course work. Kids taking rinkydink classes for math and science are going to have rinkydink achievement scores. That would seem to indicate that substitutions in the core curriculum must go!
And you can't punish those students attempting more rigorous classes by threatening their graduation. Nevada's bottom ranking of 48th out of 50 states with the percentage of kids enrolling in classes beyond first-year algebra is evidence of that threat. Nevada is the only state in the nation that does not allow students a second opportunity to reach a higher standard if they are not successful on the first attempt. And second, teacher preparation has a tremendous impact on student performance. Simply stated: Teachers can't teach what they don't know.
So far, with the two panels the governor has already appointed, one has been very slow to act on raising teacher licensure standards and the other believes electives are more important than a strong core curriculum. Do the taxpayers really want another appointed group that does not have to respond to their concerns or answer to them at the ballot box?
While I'm impressed the governor finally wants to address educational standards, the fact is he has had plenty of opportunities in the past to do just that. He either chose not to address some of the very concerns he's now bringing up, because of politics or because he was advised by the state superintendent that the previously mentioned concerns brought to his administration's attention were not valid.
Students in Nevada would be better served and Miller's educational initiatives would be more workable if the governor would work with the state board, rather than in isolation.
archive
