Consider the absurdity of this headline: "Lakewood Students Perform Well!: Schools Failing”. What gives? How can our schools meet more standards than others (i.e., Fairview Park, Shaker Heights, Parma) and be ranked a category below them? The August 15 Plain Dealer does a good job of explaining this contradiction, as does the August 16 Sun Post. (Also, see a reprint of the Lakewood Observer article from last year examining the historical context and motivation behind Standardized Testing).

Have you had enough? Had enough of your community, your schools and even your child being “rated” on criteria that you had no part in formulating? Had enough of being smeared by a rating system rigged against schools in vibrant, diverse communities? Had enough of being told that your assessment of your child’s academic, emotional and social growth is irrelevant? The current system that purports to “rate” schools and districts is not just deeply flawed—it is a fraud. It gives the illusion of providing useful information when, in fact, it distorts reality. It tells you nothing about the value schools have to your child. Does anyone believe, for example, that the presence of larger numbers of first-generation Americans, which, because of an initial lack of English proficiency will collectively struggle on a paper and pencil test, means that your child is getting less of an education...or, that your child’s high score is somehow diminished? The state and federal government have convinced some to be worried about their child’s education even in the face of success! Unfortunately, the testing juggernaut, formulated for less than honorable reasons, is not likely to change anytime soon. The good news is that you do not have to buy into this model, but can reclaim your right to assess your schools by your standards. For instance, consider some of these criteria:

Does your teacher(s) seem engaged, professional, caring and competent?
Does your school offer a variety of opportunities to develop leadership and teamwork skills through participation in clubs, athletic programs, etc.?
Does your school offer a variety of enriching arts and music programs?
Is your school environment safe, clean, nurturing?
Do teachers and staff seem to know your child as an individual - their strengths, weaknesses, personality?
Are there a rich array of curriculum choices to meet the needs of a variety of students, including vocational and Advanced Placement classes?
Do your students have the opportunity to interact with economically, ethnically and racially diverse students, much like the world they will enter after high school?
Does school leadership seem committed to the social, emotional and academic welfare of your child?
Are class sizes generally appropriate?
Did your child do well or poorly on the State Test? If so, what does this mean?

You undoubtedly have your own criteria, which may or may not overlap significantly with these. The point is Lakewood must now reclaim it's natural right and responsibility to evaluate it's schools, to not allow itself to be judged by those with either a narrow view of what makes a good education, or by those who do not have our best interests at heart. Allowing others, including some with dastardly motives (i.e., a minority of unscrupulous real-estate agents who regularly bad-mouth Lakewood) to do so needlessly forfeits our inalienable right, and indeed our responsibility, to judge ourselves and to live by our own community standards.

In a previous edition of the Lakewood Observer, Gordon Blum dissected the “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) act, laying out it’s basic tenets and concluding it represents a slander upon many public schools, including Lakewood’s. The apparent paradox of Lakewood’s state designation as an effective district, juxtaposed against a contradictory federal one (Lakewood came up short on 2 of the 112 federal benchmarks), begs for an analysis of the underlying motivations of NCLB.

Try to imagine that you do not believe in public institutions (in political science, such persons are often referred to as “movement conservatives”). In your mind, the private sector and the free market can do anything better than the public sector. Workers produce the best results, be they kindergarten teachers or car salespersons, when they face competitive pressures and can readily lose customers to a more efficient enterprise. Unfortunately, owing to the New Deal, Horace Mann, the Progressive Era, etc., the country has become used to relying on collective, democratic, community-based efforts through Social Security, Medicare and public schools, to meet the perceived public need for education, health care, etc.

A frontal, ideological assault on these institutions is fruitless, because most people have positive experiences with them and little passion for change. So, step one is to undermine public confidence in specific programs, and to begin eroding overall public confidence in the system. Recall the sudden “crisis” with Social Security, which would become insolvent in 35 years (yikes!) if nothing changed? The movement conservative solution—private accounts—was rejected by the public, who are less driven by ideology and more influenced by their own experiences, which are generally positive with respect to Social Security.

Public schools - quintessentially democratic and communal - are, then, the ultimate insult, and challenge, to the movement conservative. Step one, again, is to undermine confidence in public education in general. For this NCLB is a brilliantly crafted tactic. As Mr. Brum, and others, pointed out, NCLB sets up larger economically and ethnically diverse districts, like Lakewood, for failure. With 112 categories, the law of averages, if nothing else, virtually guarantees that Lakewood and other districts will come up short on at least one or two measures. Then, the entire school district and/or a particular school, not just isolated aspects, in a brazen example of intellectual dishonesty, can be designated as “Needs Improvement” and fed into the series of yearly mandates/punishments leading to the following: “An alternative governance or restructuring plan that may include converting to a charter school, replacing all/most of the staff, turning it over to a private management company, or any other major restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms.” But, privatization and profiteering could not be the end game, could it?

You bet it is. (See the Charter Schools article). Movement ideologues of all stripes, be they conservative, communist, or any other, think strategically and are in the fight for the long haul. When they get too anxious or overt, as in Social Security, their plans get derailed. They are willing to accept seemingly contradictory policies/alliances in the short run that serve the long-term goals. Why else would movement conservatives, generally drawn from the right wing of the Republican Party, be willing to accept such a direct, heavy-handed federal involvement in local schools, typically anathema to conservatives?

Other aspects of NCLB also reveal seemingly nonsensical efforts to truly “leave no child behind”, and illuminate the real motivation--to malign public schools. Take this example. Say your child, for whatever reason, does poorly in the standardized tests but is attending a school that has met the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) threshold. Your child is not given any special consideration under NCLB, even though he/she is struggling. On the other hand, say your child did extremely well on the tests, but their school did not meet the standard. That child, and all others in that school, in theory can transfer to another school in the district. Never mind that, realistically, loading another 150 students from a “failing” school into a “successful” one might hurt everyone. When a policy is driven by long-term ideological goals, the irrationality of the specific remedies and the plight of individual children are of little consequence.

Fortunately, Lakewood has a rich history of bi-partisan citizen support for its public schools. Most local Republicans are not movement conservatives, and have often been among the most vocal and generous supporters of our schools. It is imperative, however, that everyone who believes in the mission of public education, despite honest differences on curriculum, funding, testing, etc., understand the agenda that drives right-wing education policies, including NCLB. When we understand that for a movement conservative, the only thing more distressing than a failing public school is a successful one, the apparent contradictions of NCLB become clear.