EDUCATION MALARKY

Reports from the seven hearings held Thursday around the state on proposed academic performance standards dutifully observed that reactions among those who spoke were mixed. What the reports didn't include, for the most part, was the fact that the standards were opposed about as much as they were applauded despite efforts of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to stack the meetings with positive, well-prepped, toe-the-company-line backers.

The hearings were part of a process that is expected to lead to new state standards for public schools. It is all part of Senate Bill 380, the Outstanding Schools Act, that set in motion a so-far tumultuous process for addressing the claims that too many students who complete public education in Missouri are ill-prepared and sorely lacking in too many areas.

While there are problems with public education everywhere in the United States, by and large most students receive a satisfactory education and either go on to college or enter the workforce. The fact that much of the curriculum is geared toward college preparation is one area that needs to be addressed. It has become increasingly clear in recent years that more attention needs to be paid to providing -- and promoting -- technical and vocational training for future employees in a society where most jobs are either related to some technological field or are in the service area.

In the meantime, educators everywhere love nothing better than to tinker with ideas that acquire the label of reform, as if reforming how teachers teach or how students learn will somehow magically improve the lot of education. And when politicians get involved in the process, education reform takes on the additional dimensions of gargantuan bureaucracy and immense cost. Hence the $300 million-plus tax increase that Missourians got stuck with thanks to Gov. Mel Carnahan and the Democratic majority in the General Assembly.

The wonder is that students manage to learn at all, given the changing winds of educational philosophy and government-funded programs that turn whole schools or whole school districts into experimental laboratories.

Overall, the proposed academic standards are supposed to set benchmarks for Missouri schools. But, as critics maintained at Thursday's hearings, the standards are vague. The process for developing a way of evaluating the standards hasn't started yet, and members of the State Board of Education admit it will probably be a year before the evaluation mechanism is in place. That means that the standards, as proposed, will likely be forced on school districts by bureaucratic fiat with no method of gauging how well the guidelines are working.

Prior to the hearings, the Partnership for Outstanding Schools, which is a new-standards support group, sent out helpful hints on how to make a good showing at the hearings. In addition to promoting heavy attendance by supporters of the standards, the partnership included some suggestions for what to say and what buzz words to avoid. Use words like "traditional" but not "modern" or "progressive" so as not to scare the general public. Stress the need for formal standards, even if you don't know how to measure them. Talk about basics and building blocks -- never mind that these are buzz words too and have little clear meaning in the context of the proposed standards.

In spite of all this, most of the hearings produced comments that were about equally in favor of and against the standards. Is this any indication that the standards have been thoroughly explained to the satisfaction of Missouri's educators and taxpayers? Absolutely not.

The whole process has been aimed at cramming the new standards down the throats of Missourians without ample opportunity to ask questions or raise objections. This is what the Carnahan administration and education bureaucrats consider to be fair and above-board. Unfortunately, about half the folks who showed up for the hearings didn't agree. That ought to send a strong message.

Sadly, the hearings were little more than window dressing. The education big shots have already decided what they want to do. "The public be damned" has been their motto so far. What would lead anyone to think their concerns, voiced at the hearings, will even be listened to?