As our state's education leaders prepare us for the bad news to come about the latest CRCT scores, it was disturbing to see how ignorant of their own school systems they appear to be. Or maybe they are simply positioning themselves to shift the blame for their own shortsightedness and poor decisions to the teachers and students.

Anyone who spends a week or more in a Georgia public school would not be surprised to learn that social studies scores were less than impressive. It has little to do with the quality of teaching, the intelligence of students or the nature of the curriculum. Because of the do-or-die emphasis placed on reading and math, very little social studies (or science, art, music) is taught at all. Often, teachers have to justify or sneak other subject areas into the school day under the guise of teaching reading or math.

As someone who tries to prepare future teachers to teach social studies, it has been nearly impossible to find elementary schools in which to place our university students where they can see social studies being taught. Many of my science-education colleagues have said the same about their discipline. Therefore, state officials should not be in such a state of bewilderment when they put in place a new, extensive social studies curriculum, give little incentive to teach it, and then have children score poorly on tests.

I agree that the new social studies curriculum is part of the explanation for the low CRCT scores, but, again, state officials need to look to themselves as part of the problem. If they were honest in their assessment, they would have to admit that in their attempt to give the appearance of "rigor" and high standards, it is they who have set up teachers and students for failure.

Meaningful curriculum

It is relatively easy to earn praise from conservative think tanks like the Fordham Foundation for the high quality of your curriculum by creating category after category of ideologically laden content knowledge. It is not so easy to provide teachers with the time and professional development to be able to teach that curriculum well or to create a curriculum that is actually meaningful to students and both developmentally appropriate and relevant.

Apparently it is much easier to create rigorous standards, let the students fail them and then be able to question the credibility and accountability of teachers, principals and students. The recent head-scratching puzzlement of state education officials reminds me of those action movie scenes where the hero sets off some enormous explosion and is shown walking confidently toward the camera with multiple explosions and a raging inferno in the background.

Finally, state education officials need to be willing to re-examine their entire approach to testing and accountability. At what point does it no longer make sense to blame the schools, teachers and administrators instead of looking at what they are being asked to do? Teachers are not being asked to teach a rigorous, meaningful curriculum that is assessed in some significant, high-quality way. Rote learning, weekly "practice" tests, endless drill for possible test questions, and motivating improvement through fear, intimidation and financial incentives for the administrators farthest from the classroom is not good instructional practice.

Wrong emphasis

Stripping even the youngest children of recess, the arts and play flies in the face of nearly every competent research study. Relying on scripted, prepackaged curricula for the most at-risk students ensures only that they will find no joy in learning while serving to protect incompetent teachers who need only be literate to teach.

I will be the first to admit that there are too many people who call themselves teachers who should not be in classrooms. Contrary to what many critics would have the public believe, teacher-education programs have become increasingly selective, and most teacher candidates have strong general-education backgrounds in addition to their professional preparation.

Despite that, we still need many well-educated, highly competent and highly motivated teachers. However, for the first time in my nearly 20 years in teacher education, I am seeing an increasing number of those kinds of young people changing their minds about becoming teachers. They see too many disillusioned teachers and too many students in Georgia's schools with the empty expressions and lack of enthusiasm brought about by a mind-numbing, repetitive approach to education that does nothing to spark curiosity, fire the imagination or nurture joy in learning.

> Rick Breault is an associate professor of elementary and early childhood education at Kennesaw State University.