PART TWO: Has student writing ability declined over time? (YES.)

Two things.

First, when, yesterday, I posted about the increase in writing abilities of American students from 1998 to 2007, for some reason, in my haste, I read “1998” but thought, um, “1970.”

Don’t know why I did that. Getting old, I guess. D'oh!

Had I been aware that we were looking at this recent and puny 8-year span (from '98 to '07), I would not have declared, as I did, that the “Teeth Gnashers” were likely in error (in their view that student writing ability has seriously declined in recent decades).

Second, I briefly researched further and I’ve come across what would appear to be much more relevant data: it tracks student verbal performance from 1967 to 2006. Yes! (It might be the closest thing to definitive data that we are going to find.)

More on that in a minute.

That's the good news. The bad news is that those data tend to support the perspective of the Teeth Gnashers (and undermines the perspective of the "oldsters always be carpin' about youngsters, so forgetaboutit" perspective).

I came across a site called the “Humanities Resource Center Online,” which is “a project of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences” (AAAS). That brought me to their Humanities indicators (for charting trends). That, in turn, led me to their data for “primary and secondary education in the Humanities.”

I clicked on “Indicator I-2 Writing Proficiency.”

There, the AAAS states that

NAEP findings are mixed….
…
Twelfth grade performance slipped between 1998 and 2002, with the percentage of students scoring at the basic achievement level or better declining from 79% to the 75% figure mentioned above. In 2002, fewer than one in four soon-to-be high school graduates were assessed as writing at the proficient level or higher. Students scoring at the proficient level demonstrate a grasp of writing skills that are essential for success in most walks of life; these skills include the use of transitional elements and the ability to select language appropriate for the intended audience….

Again, those data concern the brief period between '98 and '02—hardly the basis for conclusions about long-term trends.

But something caught my eye: “Indicator I-5: Performance on SAT Verbal/Critical Reading & Writing Exams.” There, the AAAS states

Although controversy over the SAT [i.e., the "Scholastic Aptitude Test"] persists on a number of fronts, the verbal portion of the SAT (renamed “critical reading” in 2005) is a valuable measure of college-bound seniors’ linguistic skills because the test has been administered for several decades and thus permits comparison over a fairly extended period of time. The SAT data reveal a steep decline between 1967 and the early 1980s in mean verbal scores, followed by a leveling off, with mean scores ranging between approximately 500 and 510 ever since ….

That's right: 2006 "verbal" scores can be compared to 1967 scores. The SAT is an imperfect measure of verbal abilities, but I suspect that it has significant validity. (No doubt some disagree.)

The trend in verbal SAT scores ain't pretty. The AAAS folks present the chart below. Check it out. That's some serious decline, baby.*

Click on image to enlarge

So, I’m back to being a Teeth Gnasher. Bigtime.

*SAT math scores were the same in 2006 as they were in 1967, although these scores dipped precipitously in the 80s and then rebounded.

Tomorrow’s board meeting: rode hard and put up wet

Hey, it’s time for another meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees, starring Don Wagner and featuring Tom “sourpuss” Fuentes. —Monday night, same time (6:00 p.m.), same place (the “Ronald Reagan” room). (The agenda, a large pdf, is available here.)

As you know, board president Wagner has announced his intention to run for State Assembly, and so it seems unlikely that he’ll remain at the helm of the good ship Agitprop starting December (just 3 or 4 months away).

So, who’s gonna replace him?

Maybe Tom Fuentes?!

We keep hearing, mostly from trustees themselves, that the board is a group of unhappy campers these days, divided by—well, I dunno. For her invocation in July, given only minutes after the board’s closed session, trustee Marcia Milchiker alluded to the need for civility, but since everyone in the audience was genial to the point of comatositude, it seemed clear that she was referring to rank trusteecular kerfufflery.

Don Wagner has made similar allusions.

Kerfufflery? What about? I’ve been studying Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur’s lower lip-language. Judging by that and the perpetually rosy, red glow of his ass, it seems clear that he spends half of his time in the woodshed.

So, just maybe, tomorrow’s board meeting will be interesting. But I wouldn't bet on it.

CLOSED SESSION:

First, the board will hold a brief closed session, starting at 5:00 p.m. As usual, one agenda item refers to possible litigation.

For once, I looked up the section of the code to which the item refers (54956.9). That part of the code concerns legislative bodies (e.g., a board of trustees) and the appropriateness of meeting in closed session concerning “pending litigation.” (“3 cases” are involved, says the agenda.)

The specific parts of the code referred to in the item are:

…[L]itigation shall be considered pending when any of the following circumstances exist: … (b) (1) A point has been reached where, …, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the local agency.
…
(3) (A) Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts and circumstances need not be disclosed. [My emphasis.]

Well, whatever. (Republicans, of course, will recognize a fine business opportunity.)

OPEN SESSION:

The open session “reconvenes” at 6:00 p.m.

Early in the open meeting agenda, mention is made of a trustee request for a “report on Salaries of College Professors in Orange County.”

That’s gotta be our old friend Tom. He hates educators, y’know. He thinks they're lazy and wicked.

The “discussion item” for the evening will be each campus’s “strategic planning process.”

Among “consent calendar” items (that, therefore, likely will not be discussed by trustees) is a study abroad trip to Salamanca, Spain. No word yet whether Tom plans to pull the plug owing to some new Spanish treachery.

Looks like the board will approve an agreement between Saddleback College and “Lake Forest Beauty College.” Have you seen the people of Lake Forest? Most of ‘em look like they've been “rode hard and put up wet”—to use an expression my friend Marion used last night.

She’s from Texas. I asked her, hopefully, whether there’s any chance her state will secede soon.

She was not amused. She gave me the South Texas stink-eye.

As usual, the board will approve payment to a trustee who missed a meeting. They never discuss these freebies. They just approve ‘em. That's 'cause they're "fiscally responsible" Republicans, every one of 'em. Very staunch.

“General” action items include approval of final budgets for the district and the two student governments. That could get wacky, but it's more likely to get snoozy.


Item 6.2 is approval of the “basic aid project priority list” for 2009-10. It’s a significant agenda item.

ATEP (the Tustin campus) will get $5.5 million, including $2 million for “Negotiations,” $1 million for “development,” and $2.5 million for ATEP’s “operating budget.”

District IT projects will get $5 million.

Saddleback College will get $8 million, including $5 million for ventilation system upgrades, $1.5 million for “pool deck replacement,” and $1.5 million for “roof replacement.”

IVC will get a paltry $650,000—that's 8% of what its sister college gets—including 240K for various publications, 150K for “new signage and monuments,” 150K for parking lot repair, 90K “A200 & B200 secondary effects and library copy center,” and 20K for “landscape replanting.”

Including a few more odds and ends, it all adds up to about $22 million.

Gosh, IVC seems to be on somebody's shit list.

There’s the usual slew of new and improved board policies, including BP-4011.3, “Weapons on Campus.”


It is my understanding the Police Chief Harry Parmer is finally gonna get that M2 Browning machine gun that he loves so much. It’ll be installed in a fine nest atop the Ronald Reagan Room. (Well, no. But it is a cool weapon.)

Item 6.10 is the “elimination of one categorically funded position due to the termination of funding.” Ouch. (Reference is made to an “exhibit A,” but it doesn’t seem to be attached. What gives?)

That’s about it. Not too promising, but you never know.

Did you miss the Chancellor's "opening session"? It is now available here.