Greater Milwaukee Green Party 

"Be part of the solution"

Home

What's New

Meetings

Events

Issues

Candidates

Volunteer Opportunities

Links

Contacts

Photo Page

Membership

Reading list

GMGP Admin

Editorials

These articles reflect the opinion of the author and are not endorsed by the Greater Milwaukee Green Party.

NCLB nonsense flunks BC horse sense and Yale report
By Daniel Pryzbyla

It is said one has to be careful to befriend a horse. She or he could forever hold your feelings hostage. “I worry about her,” said thoroughbred trainer Bobby Frankel, with tears in his eyes. Why the tears? 

Contrary to the No Child Left Behind education act “flunk ‘em, dump ‘em” authors of high-stakes testing mis-education, thoroughbred trainers have a better perception of development of racehorses. “There was an upset in the Bedlame Stakes after all,” wrote David Grening in the Daily Racing Form newspaper October 10, 2004. “No, Sightseek didn’t lose. But what price could you have gotten in Las Vegas to see Bobby Frankel cry afterward?” The well-renowned trainer of the 5-year old mare Sightseek had misgivings knowing it would be her last race, adding that he was an “emotional wreck all day.” The high-stakes Grade 1 Bedlame is recognized as a “prep” race for the “Distaff,” one of 8 races in the annual Breeders Cup, the “World Series” of thoroughbred horseracing. Winning the $750,000 Bedlame race brought her total earnings to $2,445,216; winning 12 of 20 races, 7 in Grade 1 (highest level) stakes. So! why wouldn’t Frankel enter this noble equine in the Breeders Cup on October 30 at Lone Star Park in Grand Prairie, TX this year?

In thoroughbred jargon, it’s called “horses for courses.” Sightseek raced in the Breeders Cup Distaff last year at Santa Anita Park in California. She was the “heavy favorite” at 3-5 odds to win, but finished 4th in the 1 1/8 mile race on dirt, limited only for “fillies and mares 3 years old and up.” Although she won 12 races, her overall record at the Santa Anita track during her career was 0-5. “Frankel likens Lone Star Park to Santa Anita,” said DRF writer Grening, explaining the “hard” surface at both tracks was similar. If the Breeders Cup was being held at Belmont Park in New York where she won the Bedlame, on a track surface she found more conducive, no doubt she’d be entered. “I just thought this would be the best way to go out,” said the trainer. “I wanted her to go out a winner, so this was it.” That she won the race was admirable. But trainers’ concerns for a horse’s ! weaknesses or strengths in various racing conditions are also paramount for safety of the horse. Equines, like humans, all have their idiosyncrasies. Students do too. 

Horse races are not like the NCLB ill-conceived education follies comparing all public school students at a particular grade level in various districts and schools throughout the country. Similarly, NCLB denial of “class” in its high-stakes testing tomfoolery contradicts economic conditions – unlike thoroughbred racing. Horses can compete at the high-stakes, middle “allowance,” to the lower “$5,000 claiming” race levels. In addition, other “conditions” of a race are often made to equalize the playing field. A recent “$40,000 allowance” race at Saratoga racetrack in New York this summer gave these conditions: “For fillies and mares 3 years old and upward, foaled in New York State bred registry, which have never won a race other than ‘maiden, claiming, or starter’ or which have never won 2 races.” Yes, restricted for fairness. Even Sightseek wouldn’t have been able to enter this race because! one of the conditions was “non-winner of 2 races.” As equines grow and gain track experience, some advance to more challenging levels while others remain racing at levels compatible with their skills. 

Although all the races in the Breeders Cup are Grade 1, each has conditions that vary from gender, age, distance, track surface and amount of purse prize. After meeting special BC qualifications, it’s the owner and trainer’s decision which race, depending on restricted “conditions” of age and gender, their horse(s) will be most competitive to run. “Distaff” race conditions mentioned earlier also include a $2 million purse. However, another BC race limited to “fillies and mares, 3 year old and upward,” is the $1 million Filly and Mare Turf race. Its distance is longer, 1 3/8 miles and run on the other “turf” (grass surface) track. Yes, some horses (both female and male) run better on a dirt track than a turf track. Still others run best at longer distances than shorter distances.

Former teacher and now “First Lady” Laura Bush and other teachers would never be asked to help configure the current NCLB education act. Like thoroughbred trainers, their expertise has more horse sense than that. President George W, not known to be an educational brain trust, selected a political cadre of privateers to draft the original pro-voucher NCLB document. This is evident because conservative right-wing leaning institute and foundation “think tank” scribes led the initial barrage against public education, and now they’ve shifted gears in defense of NCLB. It is not by coincidence these individuals politically and financially also support the re-election of like-minded privatizing politicians, including President Bush. And what about NCLB education merit? It has none. It’s an illusion. Don’t feel bad. People actually pay to see magicians perform, too. But that’s entertainment, with no dire! education consequences.

“Early Changes, Enduring Challenges” was no “Mickey Mouse” education survey fashioned in a foundation boardroom. The introduction to its 2 pages of “methodology” revealed it was conducted February through May 2004, and followed a 2-tier approach designed to explore the effects of NCLB on both a state and school district level. The goal was to develop a broad understanding of NCLB’s effects across the entire state of Connecticut and a deeper understanding of the effects of the Act on several representative districts. It certainly accomplished both laudable feats.

“Education administrators registered concern about the absence in the (NCLB) Act of a requirement for longitudinal tracking of student performance,” the October 2004 joint Yale Law School and Connecticut Voices for Children survey noted. One Connecticut superintendent explained: “Not all students learn at the same rate in the same way – or at the same time. NCLB takes a slice of time and ranks you on that one picture. Success should be based on the same students over time, not different groups each year.” A second superintendent echoed similar sentiments: “Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) should be on a cohort basis – not one year’s fourth grade compared to the next year’s fourth grade.”

Educators found problematic the emphasis NCLB places on standardized testing to the exclusion of other assessment methods. A majority of principals (62 percent) agreed with the proposition that NCLB places too much emphasis on standardized testing, and half the principals agreed “strongly” with the proposition. Said one principal: “This law is not child-centered. It creates an impossible expectation and makes educators make decisions on test outcomes instead of individual student needs. We are forced to become more test-centered than student-centered.”

Yet, the leaders overwhelmingly expressed the opinion that the problem lies not in the standardized tests themselves, but rather in the weight NCLB attaches to them, according to the study. The superintendent of Meridian (school district) stated, “I’m not disputing the fact that we have to have accountability. We do. But there are so many other things that go into assessing a student.” Superintendents, principals and teachers also spoke at length about the fact that standardized tests completely ignore the realities of student life outside the classroom. A principal in the Meridian district commented, “No one works at the school who doesn’t feel accountable. We hold schools accountable, but we do not hold those responsible for (our students’) living conditions, health conditions and safety conditions accountable. Who is holding people accountable for those?”

A significant undercurrent frequently neglected in pedagogical discourse about NCLB effects is the critical issue of student “self-esteem.” It’s not visible in NCLB high-stakes scores, but it’s there. However, parents and guardians are aware of it. Likewise, it was a concern of administrators, principals and teachers in the worthy survey as well, especially with current unfair policies for special education and English learning students judged solely by these high-stakes tests. “I had a young lady on the math (test) day who was crying and had to leave the room. She said, ‘I can’t do any of these.’ I think their self-esteem suffers immensely. You’re putting them in a room with another group of kids who are sitting there doing the test and going onto the next question – and they can’t get past page one. We spend a whole year trying to raise their self-esteem; it takes one week to ruin all that.” T! he 50-page study offers some excellent ideas to help resolve these issues.

“Early Changes, Enduring Challenges” is the first preeminent, non-partisan NCLB state survey of affected public school administrators of its kind published. It’s worth the visit to www.ctkidslink.org for the enlightening full report.

If you happen to watch the Breeders Cup on TV, don’t be surprised by the conversation similarities of thoroughbred announcers and trainers with responses in the Yale survey. Both have respect for fairness, encouragement and development – unlike NCLB scheming punitive measures.

Back to editorial index.