Presentations on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for Girls; radio and TV programs on pre-school as a support to improve student chances to finish high school and go to college; local measures to vote for and reports on the financial needs of community colleges have hit the ears of those interested in education over the past two weeks.

Look at pre-school.

The term pre-school which can address any child from 0-5, generally refers to 4 and 5 year olds when attached to fiscal budget talk.  The programs include well-known names such as private schools Waldorf or Montessori and also federally funded Head Start.

It seems confusing when studies conclude that Head Start (a model with the same goals as most private programs) loses influence after primary grades.  So why continue funding it?  Still, pre-school is touted as a characteristic of students concluding community college and students doing well on standardized tests.  See the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) for more information.  In addition, several states are including legislation for universal pre-school this election year.

This election year, at least in California and Colorado, numerous propositions and measures address community colleges, the latest savior of public higher education.  These schools would be super if funded adequately.  In this blogger’s view, the public seems to think such schools are free entitlements.  Community colleges in California depend on parcel taxes which need to be approved by 2/3 of the voters.  Very difficult to accomplish in a conservative area, despite the fact that one of the most renowned community colleges is situated in the area with students who transfer to Stanford, UC Berkeley, and UC Santa Cruz.  See the Los Altos Town Crier November 3, 2010, article by Bruce Barton, “Community College Parcel Tax Headed for Defeat.”

Last, there is a continuous stream of articles about testing, telling us that our children need to attend pre-school and find the support services in elementary, middle, and high school to graduate.  All of these services are available even in the poorest areas, but a good test is the key for accountability of a student’s achievement, of a teacher’s value.

Referring to the latest article “Correct answer is rigorous, new exams,” by Miki Litmanovitz of Teach for America, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, October 31, 2010, refers to standardized tests.  What does she mean?  In California, for example, the yearly exam is a criterion-referenced test, supposedly better because it addresses the standards taught by teachers in the state, not some norm-referenced test which standardized tests are.

Her second big issue seems to be ‘teaching to the test’.  Without going into the details of that issue, most educators hope to teach strategies for reading and math as Ms. Litmanovitz concludes, so that no matter the level of test, the student will over time use those strategies to do well.  One can work on test-taking strategies, used by all SAT preparation to raise scores, and learn the kinds of questions likely to be asked on a criterion-referenced or norm-referenced exam.

Still the mid-term elections, November 2, have played a role in the educator’s visions.  As part of Elementary and Secondary Education ACT (ESEA), will tests be changed to evaluate how students have learned to read and do math?  Will students graduate and have a community college to attend?  Will pre-school be available to all?