If you want a complete explanation of the CCSS Reformy Master Plan, as well as one more piece of evidence that the CCSS regime is in fact a federal program, you can't do much better than Arne Duncan's speech on November 4, 2010, to UNESCO, "The Vision of Education Reform in the United States."
I recommend you read the whole thing, but if you're in a hurry, or you just enjoy commentary, let me run it down for you.
Introductiony Stuff
UNESCO has been around for many years, and it's a swell group, promoting peace since 1945, when the world was a bit messy. "The promise of universal education was then a lonely beacon--a light to
guide the way to peace and the rebuilding of nations across the globe."
Today the world is no longer recovering from WWII, but education is still a Very Swell Thing. "And in a knowledge economy, education is the new currency by which
nations maintain economic competitiveness and global prosperity."
He has two major messages today about education.
And They Are
"First, the Obama administration has an ambitious and unified theory of action that propels our agenda." It can't be fixed quickly. It will take "a clear, coherent, and coordinated vision of reform."
Second, the President and Duncan reject any notion that ed reform is international zero sum. If some people excell, it's good for everyone. We will grow the economic pie rather than carve it up.
This Is Super Important
We have an unprecedented opportunity to make US education great, which is #1 in national economic boosting. We have "an economic and moral imperative" to fix the gap. 25% of US students don't finish in four years-- and here I interrupt to question the big focus on the four year thing. It's a dumb choice, because it means a kid who fails an entire year and has to repeat, and for whom that experience is a shock and a wake-up call so that he gets his act together and finishes as a strong student-- that kid is considered the same as a kid who just plain drops out. that's dumb.
Duncan also name checks the retired military report that 75% of US grads are unfit for military service because they are dropouts, criminals, or not physically fit. Also, he read that Thomas Friedman says the world is flat, so knowledge etc competition is globally tough.
"In the knowledge economy, opportunities to land a good job are vanishing
fast for young workers who drop out of school or fail to get college
experience." And I'm thinking that sentence should have stopped after "workers," but here we have inserted the belief that corporations would stop outsourcing call center jobs to India if only they could find more Americans with Masters degrees willing to work part time for minimum wage and no benefits.
The President says that the country that out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow, and then offers historical examples of when this has happened in the past--oh no, whoops, I made that last part up. We're just going to go with what, in the CCSS biz, we call "thoughts and feelings with no textual support." Also, all our scientists and PhD's and engineers are immigrants, so that's why we're going to close up the VISA loopholes being used by employers to hire cheap immigrants and why we're also going to start providing real support for the hard sciences in this country instead of making science go begging from corporations. No, sorry, I made up all that last part again.
Duncan observes that we also must collaborate across boundaries. In this new world we can't fix poverty of terrorism by ourselves, but must cooperate with other nations. These international partnerships will require students to do more critical thinking, learn new languages, understand other cultures, and embrace their sense of obligation to the world community. Conservative conspiracy theorists will want to highlight this portion of this speech (delivered to a group of international cooperators).
Here Are Some Goals
The Pres wants us to lead the world in college grads by 2020. Because more college grads = world domination. But don't forget-- "not zero sum." Our world collegiate domination will bring benefits to everybody.
Also, we should get girls into college.
Better educated world = better economics world. Because when you have lots of educated people, lots of high-quality well-paying jobs appear to greet them. Just ask all the degreed 25-year-olds still living in their parents' basements and working at Burger King.
Also, better educated world = safer world. Because ignorance causes violence. That's why, when we led the world in college grads, we never got into wars with anyone. Okay, I made that up. I can't help it. Duncan keeps saying things without offering any evidence or support-- not even anecdotal. I know it's four years late, but I'm still trying to finish this speech for him.
Education is the great equalizer, but when economies improve, the college educated will reap more of the benefits.
Then This Quote Happens
As the author Ben Wildavsky writes in his new book, The Great Brain
Race, in the global economy “more and more people will have the chance .
. . to advance based on what they know rather than who they are.”
And I could spend a whole day discussing how odd I find it to imagine that our knowledge base is somehow separate from who we are as people. But since we're starting with the presumption that education is a transformative commodity and not a human quality, I guess this makes sense. So I'll move on.
And Now For the Creepy Stuff
There have been misconceptions in the cover of President Obama's plans. For instance, his support as a progressive for private charter schools, and his insistence that teachers be evaluated based on student test scores.
Duncan says that the misconception is not that these aren't his actual plans, nor does Duncan try to point out that these ideas have their origins anywhere but the Oval Office. No, the misconception is, apparently, in seeing these as The Plan when in fact they are just the tip of the iceberg. "In fact, these elements are only a modest part of our overall agenda. The President’s aims are far more ambitious."
Test based teacher evaluation = great teacher in every classroom. Growing "school choice" = more innovation.
The North Star guiding the alignment of our cradle-to-career education
agenda is President Obama’s goal that America will once again have the
highest proportion of college graduates in the world.
That goal can only be achieved by creating a strong cradle-to-career
continuum that starts with early childhood learning and extends all the
way to college and careers.
So, cradle to career it is. We will expand pre-K. And we will try to increase access to college. He does not actually add "and make a huge profit off the loans."
The Four Assurances
The K-12 theory of action is based on the four assurances, which will look familiar. They are
1) Academic standards will show that students really are college and career ready, because states have been lying to them. Fortunately, we all know the exact secret of measuring someone's C&C readiness, so, easy peasy.
2) Big data. Because that will totally give teachers the feedback they need to do their jobs (because we are all clueless, I guess. Or liars. But if we're liars, what difference will the feedback make? We'll just lie about it.) No mention of what else big data might be useful for.
3) Improve preparation and evaluation of teachers. Because "when it comes to teaching, love, and commitment and talent matter tremendously." And love and commitment really show up on those standardized tests. Also, poor students have bad access to good education, and that makes Arne sad.
4) Gets several graphs that boil down to: Some schools really suck. Fewer than 2,000 schools produce more than half the dropouts, which amount to almost 75% of brown and black dropouts. Can I have a fact check on aisle three? No more tinkering, says Arne. We are going to throw real money "to drive real change with unprecedented urgency."
The Federal Role and How We Made It Almost Illegal
As we made our plans, we had to factor in that the federal role in education is "unusual," by which we mean "constitutionally non-existent." In the 1960s it grew to encompass handing out money for "inputs."
The Obama administration has sought to fundamentally shift the federal
role, so that the Department is doing much more to support reform and
innovation in states, districts, and local communities.
And now after a big bunch of laying out the President's program developed by the President and following the President's goals for the President's vision of the education as supported by the President's initiative, Arne spends some time saying, "But, we, like totally were being pushed along by state and local officials in a way that is not at all a violation of law regarding federal involvement in American education."
So we offered grants and stuff, and states signed up for them (Arne doesn't mention the NCLB gun pointed at every state's head). Basically, the feds figured out how to apply principles of venture philanthropy to gummint work. Don't just give money to people who say they'll do something good-- lay out exactly what you want done and then wait for someone to create just that. It's not if you build it they will come-- it's if you pay for it, they will come and build it themselves.
At the end of the day, I believe it is that courage, and not our
resources, that will transform educational opportunity in our country. But we have a lot more resources than courage, so that's what we're going with. Now you may think this is the part where we get the story of how the governors just leapt up and said, "Hey, we want to write standards!" But actually, we get this:
In March of 2009, President Obama called on the nation’s governors and
state school chiefs to “develop standards and assessments that don’t
simply measure whether students can fill in a bubble on a test, but
whether they possess 21st century skills like problem-solving and
critical thinking and entrepreneurship and creativity.”
And golly bob howdy, those standards have gone over like gangbusters. We just awarded a bunch of grant money, and we also awarded grant money to the consortia that won our contest to develop assessments. These are great assessments. magical assessments. How magical?
When these new assessments are in use in the 2015-15 school year,
millions of U.S. schoolchildren, parents, and teachers will know, for
the first time, if students truly are on-track for colleges and careers.
Reform has to be about results.
The Wind Up
Duncan quotes five questions from Sir Michael Barber, whom he does not identify as That Guy from Pearson, and points out they are better than the questions that the USDOE usually asks about their money: Are program rules being followed? Are monies being spent as promised? So understand that THIS USDOE will not be all about compliance with their rules (this was in 2010, so Duncan may not have known that he would eventually threaten several states with losing their money if they did not comply with his conditions for giving it to them.)
Duncan's DOE is going to be listening to the states, and in all fairness he has only had four years to get started on this and a lot on his plate, so maybe that's coming soon. We also have a lot to learn from other countries (like Finland, South Korea, and Singapore, because if we are too dense to recognize the role of local culture and socio-economics when it comes to American urban school districts, why would we recognize it on an international level. They all speak English, right?)
Annnnd we have lots to teach other countries. So watch out Other Countries-- we may happily export our swell and profitable ideas to you!
The year, again, was 2010. It's a pretty complete picture of the reformy agenda's public face as well as a fairly straightforward admission that education reform does require a big fat federal power grab, and that this whole business is the administration's baby and nobody else's.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Broken Trust
Regardless of how the battle for the soul of public education shakes out in the end (or at least in the future-- I don't know that we'll ever see an end), there are things that we have already lost for at least a generation, collateral damage, the china in a shop over-run by a herd of clashing cattle.
Perhaps the biggest casualty is the trust of parents.
It's not just that the last twelve years have produced a steady stream of edu-crap from schools. It's not just that some schools have started to treat students like one more school supply, like bricks or floor wax. It's not just the bombardment of terrible tests, or state and federally mandated educational malpractice.
Teachers have compounded all of that by becoming collaborators or unthinking attack dogs.
The collaborators have tried to convince parents that everything is all right, that the Testy Stuff will be Just Fine and parental units can just relax and Trust Us because, golly bob howdy, this Common Core stuff will be absolutely great. Just as the current leadership of NEA has fixed it so that rank and file members can never easily trust the union any time soon, some current classroom teachers have broken trust with parents. We're supposed to give assurance that we will keep children safe at school, and in some places that's a hard-- if not impossible-- assurance to give. But lying to them is not good.
The unthinking attack dogs have egged the dissenting public on. We have encouraged them to challenge every test, post every aggravating homework assignment on line accompanied by withering take-downs. Many UADs have stood by silently while parents attacked school work that really wasn't a symptom of CCSS at all (looking at you, number line math problem) or that was actually perfectly sound (I see you, argumentative essay about hypothetically rewriting the Bill of Rights).
We've been happy to hand people stones to throw at the CCSS-infused school, and in some cases it's as if we've forgotten that at some point, we will have to go back into the building and work there ourselves.
The opt-out movement has been effective in some areas. It has been necessary and powerful and I have every hope that it will spread and cripple the whole testing arm of the corporate ed establishment. But it also marks a line that we've all crossed, and we can't go back.
We have encouraged parents to examine closely what schools do, and if they don't like it, to look those schools in the face and say, "Not with my child, you don't." And we've been super-comfy with that when Mrs. McActivemom questioned the PARCC test. But I wonder how many teachers will be caught by surprise when Mrs. Activemom wants to have that same conversation about teacher generated assignments and teacher-created tests. We have encouraged parents to never accept something as sound educational practice just because it comes from a school, and many parents have taken that lesson to heart.
It's ironic. The Reformy Crowd has always claimed that they want greater school and education accountability to the public, and some of the most effective resistance to them has come through making them accountable to the public. And most ironic of all, as they have been beaten back, they are actually getting what they said they wanted, and it's not going to go away.
In this one arena, the Reformy Folks have won. As we go forward, we are going to be held more accountable by the public than ever before.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm going to go with "all of the above."
It's certainly not a bad thing for teachers to be able to make a case for what we teach. We should be accountable to the public and to our students, and any teacher who ever stands in front of a class and says, "We're doing this Because I Said So" is asking for trouble, and deserves all the trouble he gets. If you don't have a good reason for doing what you're doing in your classroom, you should not be there (note: "because the scripted materials say so" and "because it's on the test" are not good reasons).
On the other hand, dealing with a parent whose biases and blind spots are gaping was never fun in the best of times. We all have our version of this. In some areas, you deal with the parent who doesn't see the need for all this way-too-hard fancy book-learning. In other areas, you deal with the parent who is sure his advanced degree in particle physics makes him far more qualified to understand dependent clause construction than you are. And Lord help you if, in some regions, you happen to teach literature with any of those Naughty Words in it.
So accountability comes with its challenges, but at the end of the day, I do believe that we owe a full and clear explanation to our taxpayers for what we do with their money. I also believe they owe us trust for our professional expertise and judgment, but that side of the scale is taking a real hit these days.
I think the change on balance is good, but I'm not sure everyone in the teaching profession has fully realized what's happening. I think many teachers are dreaming of the day when they can go back to their room, close the door, and just quietly do their job again. And while some communities may well go right back to sleep when this storm has passed, I think many of us need to recognize that the last decade has ripped the doors off our classroom and buried them at sea, and it's going to be a long time before teaching is a quiet, private pursuit again.
When you break trust in a relationship, it takes a long time to earn it back. We have got a lot of trust re-earning to do with the parents of American school children.
Perhaps the biggest casualty is the trust of parents.
It's not just that the last twelve years have produced a steady stream of edu-crap from schools. It's not just that some schools have started to treat students like one more school supply, like bricks or floor wax. It's not just the bombardment of terrible tests, or state and federally mandated educational malpractice.
Teachers have compounded all of that by becoming collaborators or unthinking attack dogs.
The collaborators have tried to convince parents that everything is all right, that the Testy Stuff will be Just Fine and parental units can just relax and Trust Us because, golly bob howdy, this Common Core stuff will be absolutely great. Just as the current leadership of NEA has fixed it so that rank and file members can never easily trust the union any time soon, some current classroom teachers have broken trust with parents. We're supposed to give assurance that we will keep children safe at school, and in some places that's a hard-- if not impossible-- assurance to give. But lying to them is not good.
The unthinking attack dogs have egged the dissenting public on. We have encouraged them to challenge every test, post every aggravating homework assignment on line accompanied by withering take-downs. Many UADs have stood by silently while parents attacked school work that really wasn't a symptom of CCSS at all (looking at you, number line math problem) or that was actually perfectly sound (I see you, argumentative essay about hypothetically rewriting the Bill of Rights).
We've been happy to hand people stones to throw at the CCSS-infused school, and in some cases it's as if we've forgotten that at some point, we will have to go back into the building and work there ourselves.
The opt-out movement has been effective in some areas. It has been necessary and powerful and I have every hope that it will spread and cripple the whole testing arm of the corporate ed establishment. But it also marks a line that we've all crossed, and we can't go back.
We have encouraged parents to examine closely what schools do, and if they don't like it, to look those schools in the face and say, "Not with my child, you don't." And we've been super-comfy with that when Mrs. McActivemom questioned the PARCC test. But I wonder how many teachers will be caught by surprise when Mrs. Activemom wants to have that same conversation about teacher generated assignments and teacher-created tests. We have encouraged parents to never accept something as sound educational practice just because it comes from a school, and many parents have taken that lesson to heart.
It's ironic. The Reformy Crowd has always claimed that they want greater school and education accountability to the public, and some of the most effective resistance to them has come through making them accountable to the public. And most ironic of all, as they have been beaten back, they are actually getting what they said they wanted, and it's not going to go away.
In this one arena, the Reformy Folks have won. As we go forward, we are going to be held more accountable by the public than ever before.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm going to go with "all of the above."
It's certainly not a bad thing for teachers to be able to make a case for what we teach. We should be accountable to the public and to our students, and any teacher who ever stands in front of a class and says, "We're doing this Because I Said So" is asking for trouble, and deserves all the trouble he gets. If you don't have a good reason for doing what you're doing in your classroom, you should not be there (note: "because the scripted materials say so" and "because it's on the test" are not good reasons).
On the other hand, dealing with a parent whose biases and blind spots are gaping was never fun in the best of times. We all have our version of this. In some areas, you deal with the parent who doesn't see the need for all this way-too-hard fancy book-learning. In other areas, you deal with the parent who is sure his advanced degree in particle physics makes him far more qualified to understand dependent clause construction than you are. And Lord help you if, in some regions, you happen to teach literature with any of those Naughty Words in it.
So accountability comes with its challenges, but at the end of the day, I do believe that we owe a full and clear explanation to our taxpayers for what we do with their money. I also believe they owe us trust for our professional expertise and judgment, but that side of the scale is taking a real hit these days.
I think the change on balance is good, but I'm not sure everyone in the teaching profession has fully realized what's happening. I think many teachers are dreaming of the day when they can go back to their room, close the door, and just quietly do their job again. And while some communities may well go right back to sleep when this storm has passed, I think many of us need to recognize that the last decade has ripped the doors off our classroom and buried them at sea, and it's going to be a long time before teaching is a quiet, private pursuit again.
When you break trust in a relationship, it takes a long time to earn it back. We have got a lot of trust re-earning to do with the parents of American school children.
Friday, April 18, 2014
What Would Winning Look Like?
The comment keeps coming (most recently from Rick Hess) that Common Core regime opponents can't just say "no" to the Core, that they must stand for something-- not just against something.
I don't entirely agree. If a mugger approaches you and says, "I'm going to beat you up and take all your money," I will probably say, "I prefer not to be mugged." At that point, I don't think it's a legitimate criticism of my position to say that I can't just be against being beaten and robbed-- I need to be for something.
But I'm going to go ahead, as a kind of thought experiment, and describe a world where all of this shook out the way I think it ought to. Here's life in my world after the CCSS regime finally was swept away:
The Common Core State Standards are replaced with Common Core Recommended National Standards. These standards provide some broad educational goals covering all areas of a child's education (not just math and English). The CCRNS (oh wait-- can I put "American" in front so that they're ACCRNS? Too much??) would be created by a national coalition of teachers and college educators; the creating group would not include a single representative of private education corporations. The federal government might provide some logistical help (setting up the conferences, providing infrastructure, etc) but there would not be a single federal representative at the table.
Adoption of the CCRNS on the state level would be entirely voluntary and not tied to a single federal dollar. State standards boards, also composed entirely of teachers, would rewrite the national standards for use in their states as they saw fit. Keep a little, keep a lot. Add a little, add a lot. Adopt it whole hog, reject the entire thing. They would not have to justify these choices to anybody except the citizens of their states.
A CCRNS Board would stay in place after the initial rollout. It would be smaller than the group that wrote the standards, and meet less frequently. It would maintain an office and web presence and field questions of the "What was the intent/meaning of standard Q.16-7?" and also collect comments of the "Here's our rewrite of standard X.47-b/13, and why we think it works better." These would be useful at the bi-annual convention where the CCRNS were re-examined and re-written. Teacher members will rotate on and off this board; it's conceivable that a few may need leaves of absence to serve on the national standards board for a year at a time.
State Standards Boards will also maintain a skeleton crew for similar purposes, but it will also be up to the State Board to license instructional materials. No publisher gets to slap a CCRNS-ready sticker on their materials until the appropriate state standards board has checked it out. This does mean they will have to repeat the process for all fifty states. Tough shit.
All curriculum decisions will be made by local school districts. All of them. State DOE will not provide "model" curricular material nor "sample" course outlines nor a list of mandated units. They will not "recommend" textbooks. Let me say it again. All curriculum decisions will be made by local school districts.
There will be no high stakes standardized tests. None. Not one. None. States may decide they want to require each district to administer an exit exam for graduation, but the state will not provide it (well, the state never provides it-- more accurate to say the state will not pay somebody like Pearson buckets of money to provide it for them). Any such exams will be developed by the local district. The local district may decide to purchase a standardized test that's out there on the market; that will be a locally made decision.
How would we know that CCRNS was working? Because teachers, parents, employers, community members-- who are not actually fools and dopes-- would see the results. CCRNS would thrive if all the stakeholders said, "That's great. More, please," and fail if all the stakeholders said, "That doesn't seem to help a bit." Of course, since it would be constructed with a review and revision process built in, it could actually respond to criticism and changing conditions on the ground.
Because of all of the above, education will look different from state to state and district to district. In my perfect world, people will recognize that this is a good thing.
Obviously there are many points for argument here, and since I'm not a billionaire I can't just force everyone to come to grips with my vision for education whether they want to or not. But in this piece I'm just laying out my vision. I'll start making my case for it in Part II.
I don't entirely agree. If a mugger approaches you and says, "I'm going to beat you up and take all your money," I will probably say, "I prefer not to be mugged." At that point, I don't think it's a legitimate criticism of my position to say that I can't just be against being beaten and robbed-- I need to be for something.
But I'm going to go ahead, as a kind of thought experiment, and describe a world where all of this shook out the way I think it ought to. Here's life in my world after the CCSS regime finally was swept away:
The Common Core State Standards are replaced with Common Core Recommended National Standards. These standards provide some broad educational goals covering all areas of a child's education (not just math and English). The CCRNS (oh wait-- can I put "American" in front so that they're ACCRNS? Too much??) would be created by a national coalition of teachers and college educators; the creating group would not include a single representative of private education corporations. The federal government might provide some logistical help (setting up the conferences, providing infrastructure, etc) but there would not be a single federal representative at the table.
Adoption of the CCRNS on the state level would be entirely voluntary and not tied to a single federal dollar. State standards boards, also composed entirely of teachers, would rewrite the national standards for use in their states as they saw fit. Keep a little, keep a lot. Add a little, add a lot. Adopt it whole hog, reject the entire thing. They would not have to justify these choices to anybody except the citizens of their states.
A CCRNS Board would stay in place after the initial rollout. It would be smaller than the group that wrote the standards, and meet less frequently. It would maintain an office and web presence and field questions of the "What was the intent/meaning of standard Q.16-7?" and also collect comments of the "Here's our rewrite of standard X.47-b/13, and why we think it works better." These would be useful at the bi-annual convention where the CCRNS were re-examined and re-written. Teacher members will rotate on and off this board; it's conceivable that a few may need leaves of absence to serve on the national standards board for a year at a time.
State Standards Boards will also maintain a skeleton crew for similar purposes, but it will also be up to the State Board to license instructional materials. No publisher gets to slap a CCRNS-ready sticker on their materials until the appropriate state standards board has checked it out. This does mean they will have to repeat the process for all fifty states. Tough shit.
All curriculum decisions will be made by local school districts. All of them. State DOE will not provide "model" curricular material nor "sample" course outlines nor a list of mandated units. They will not "recommend" textbooks. Let me say it again. All curriculum decisions will be made by local school districts.
There will be no high stakes standardized tests. None. Not one. None. States may decide they want to require each district to administer an exit exam for graduation, but the state will not provide it (well, the state never provides it-- more accurate to say the state will not pay somebody like Pearson buckets of money to provide it for them). Any such exams will be developed by the local district. The local district may decide to purchase a standardized test that's out there on the market; that will be a locally made decision.
How would we know that CCRNS was working? Because teachers, parents, employers, community members-- who are not actually fools and dopes-- would see the results. CCRNS would thrive if all the stakeholders said, "That's great. More, please," and fail if all the stakeholders said, "That doesn't seem to help a bit." Of course, since it would be constructed with a review and revision process built in, it could actually respond to criticism and changing conditions on the ground.
Because of all of the above, education will look different from state to state and district to district. In my perfect world, people will recognize that this is a good thing.
Obviously there are many points for argument here, and since I'm not a billionaire I can't just force everyone to come to grips with my vision for education whether they want to or not. But in this piece I'm just laying out my vision. I'll start making my case for it in Part II.
What if there were 50 standards?
(Part II of a series; Part I is here)
Sol Stern has been trying to cyber-argue with Diane Ravitch and Mercedes Schneider lately (you can read his latest thrash here and watch Schneider shrug it off here). His latest flight into the higher altitudes of Mt. Dudgeon builds to a roar and finishes with this closer:
If Diane Ravitch and other anti-Common Core campaigners on both the left and right succeed in their destructive mission, we will go right back to “50 states, 50 standards, 50 tests.” Ravitch and her allies can then celebrate their political victory—but the children in America’s schools will be the losers.
I know that I'm supposed to recognize that going back to fifty states, fifty standards, fifty tests is clearly and unarguably a Terrible Thing, but here I where I differ with the Fans of Standardization. Because I have yet to hear a single, solitary convincing argument for why having one standard and one test for fifty states is a Swell Thing.
I'm actually going to skip over the "one test" part of this, because my contention is that the correct number of high stakes standardized tests to give students is "zero," so we'll just set that part of the argument aside for another day. Let's just focus on my other assertion.
One set of standards for the nation is not a good thing. It's not even a human thing.
Yes, there are useful standards, such as standards for railroad gauge and electrical plugs. These sorts of standards are helpful because they make manufactured objects more useful. Everybody understands that schools are not for making useful manufactured objects, right? I don't need to go over that again, do I?
National education standards for live humans should fail. The notion that every state should produce exactly the same education at exactly the same rate is just so bizarre that I find it painfully difficult to argue against because I have a hard time understanding how anybody could think it's a good thing.
Within our country, we expect places to be different. That's normal. People are cool and flinty in the Northeast and warm and gooshy in the South. People are all packed together in the city and all spread out in the country. December means one thing in Los Angeles and another thing in Syracuse. The human experience is very different depending on where you live.
Corporate forces have actively worked against that human variation for about 100 years, with a huge turbo-boost of standardization activity in the post-WWII period. To really make money, we need to get people to eat the same food, wear the same clothes, shop at the same stores, buy the exact same stuff from Wyoming to Delaware. Plopped down in the middle of any mall in America, you would be hard-pressed to guess where in the world you were standing.
This sort of standardization demands that everything unique and richly interesting about local human experience be erased, all pointy spots and rough edges be ground down. So tear down the Santa Monica Pier and put up a McDonald's. Knock down the 16th Street Mall in Denver and put up a Wal-Mart. Make the beaches in Hawaii available for developers to purchase directly. Condemn Clark's Trading Post and let an outlet mall have a shot at really opening up the Kancamagus Highway. You, dear reader. don't even know what all of these places are, because each is a unique local experience, and that's a good thing, because all together they add up to the rich, varied, human beings on Earth experience.
Why would we want to create a world where nobody ever needed to travel because there was nothing to see anywhere else that you couldn't see at home? Why would we want our ideal world to be one where nobody agonized over where to live because it didn't make any difference? What does "home" even mean when all places are pretty much the same?
"Calm down," I hear somebody saying. "We don't want to turn the world into a bland boring land of commercialized mediocrity. We just want to standardize education."
But local school districts are an expression of local personality. Sports teams are named after local features. School buildings are part o local history. Teachers are still, in many places, public figures of the same sort as city councilmen or police officers.
Schools' priorities, strengths, weaknesses, triumphs, disasters are an all expressions of and part of the local culture, which is in turn an expression of the live human beings who live in that community. You cannot turn schools into a chain. Yes, it's swell that you can walk into any Starbucks anywhere and get exactly what you would get at any other Starbucks, but that is not a worthwhile aspiration for a school. I do not see any value in a future in which, when you ask a student what makes his school special, he answers proudly, "Why nothing! Nothing at all! Isn't that awesome!"
What we want for every human being is that each person should know herself as a unique, valuable, and special, with something important and valuable to offer, a unique constellation of qualities and history, a product of individual hard-wiring and history. I don't mean we need to raise self-indulgent sociopaths, but no healthy society ever developed by saying to its young people, "We want you to grow up to be exactly like everyone else." And our schools have to express that value, and they cannot express that value if they are organized the principle of standardized mass-production.
Now, the other big argument for standardization is, "What if the local values are ignorance and dumbosity? What if-- given the freedom to school as they wish-- they choose poorly?' I hear you-- and that's where I'm going in Part III.
Sol Stern has been trying to cyber-argue with Diane Ravitch and Mercedes Schneider lately (you can read his latest thrash here and watch Schneider shrug it off here). His latest flight into the higher altitudes of Mt. Dudgeon builds to a roar and finishes with this closer:
If Diane Ravitch and other anti-Common Core campaigners on both the left and right succeed in their destructive mission, we will go right back to “50 states, 50 standards, 50 tests.” Ravitch and her allies can then celebrate their political victory—but the children in America’s schools will be the losers.
I know that I'm supposed to recognize that going back to fifty states, fifty standards, fifty tests is clearly and unarguably a Terrible Thing, but here I where I differ with the Fans of Standardization. Because I have yet to hear a single, solitary convincing argument for why having one standard and one test for fifty states is a Swell Thing.
I'm actually going to skip over the "one test" part of this, because my contention is that the correct number of high stakes standardized tests to give students is "zero," so we'll just set that part of the argument aside for another day. Let's just focus on my other assertion.
One set of standards for the nation is not a good thing. It's not even a human thing.
Yes, there are useful standards, such as standards for railroad gauge and electrical plugs. These sorts of standards are helpful because they make manufactured objects more useful. Everybody understands that schools are not for making useful manufactured objects, right? I don't need to go over that again, do I?
National education standards for live humans should fail. The notion that every state should produce exactly the same education at exactly the same rate is just so bizarre that I find it painfully difficult to argue against because I have a hard time understanding how anybody could think it's a good thing.
Within our country, we expect places to be different. That's normal. People are cool and flinty in the Northeast and warm and gooshy in the South. People are all packed together in the city and all spread out in the country. December means one thing in Los Angeles and another thing in Syracuse. The human experience is very different depending on where you live.
Corporate forces have actively worked against that human variation for about 100 years, with a huge turbo-boost of standardization activity in the post-WWII period. To really make money, we need to get people to eat the same food, wear the same clothes, shop at the same stores, buy the exact same stuff from Wyoming to Delaware. Plopped down in the middle of any mall in America, you would be hard-pressed to guess where in the world you were standing.
This sort of standardization demands that everything unique and richly interesting about local human experience be erased, all pointy spots and rough edges be ground down. So tear down the Santa Monica Pier and put up a McDonald's. Knock down the 16th Street Mall in Denver and put up a Wal-Mart. Make the beaches in Hawaii available for developers to purchase directly. Condemn Clark's Trading Post and let an outlet mall have a shot at really opening up the Kancamagus Highway. You, dear reader. don't even know what all of these places are, because each is a unique local experience, and that's a good thing, because all together they add up to the rich, varied, human beings on Earth experience.
Why would we want to create a world where nobody ever needed to travel because there was nothing to see anywhere else that you couldn't see at home? Why would we want our ideal world to be one where nobody agonized over where to live because it didn't make any difference? What does "home" even mean when all places are pretty much the same?
"Calm down," I hear somebody saying. "We don't want to turn the world into a bland boring land of commercialized mediocrity. We just want to standardize education."
But local school districts are an expression of local personality. Sports teams are named after local features. School buildings are part o local history. Teachers are still, in many places, public figures of the same sort as city councilmen or police officers.
Schools' priorities, strengths, weaknesses, triumphs, disasters are an all expressions of and part of the local culture, which is in turn an expression of the live human beings who live in that community. You cannot turn schools into a chain. Yes, it's swell that you can walk into any Starbucks anywhere and get exactly what you would get at any other Starbucks, but that is not a worthwhile aspiration for a school. I do not see any value in a future in which, when you ask a student what makes his school special, he answers proudly, "Why nothing! Nothing at all! Isn't that awesome!"
What we want for every human being is that each person should know herself as a unique, valuable, and special, with something important and valuable to offer, a unique constellation of qualities and history, a product of individual hard-wiring and history. I don't mean we need to raise self-indulgent sociopaths, but no healthy society ever developed by saying to its young people, "We want you to grow up to be exactly like everyone else." And our schools have to express that value, and they cannot express that value if they are organized the principle of standardized mass-production.
Now, the other big argument for standardization is, "What if the local values are ignorance and dumbosity? What if-- given the freedom to school as they wish-- they choose poorly?' I hear you-- and that's where I'm going in Part III.
What about Palloohkaville?
(Part 3 of 3: Part 1 and Part 2 are not required reading, but it all sort of fits together)
When we talk about the need for standardization, we inevitably come back to the issue of bad schools.
"If we don't have educational standards and high-stakes test accountability," goes the argument, "then over in Palloohkaville they'll be teaching about the flat earth and Jesus riding dinosaurs and how America is really a fascist country and that 2+2 equals Dog. And the Palloohkaville school board will keep denying necessary resources to Other Peoples' Children High School. We need standards and stakes to force them to Do the Right Thing."
I agree that all of these problems are real and serious problems. I just don't agree that standards will do anything to fix them.
Some are fixed by law. Equitable distribution of resources doesn't require Common Core or ed reform-- it requires enforcement of the laws that say "Thou shalt not screw over one set of citizens to the benefit of other sets of citizens." When some school is falling down around the students' ears, the problem is not educational standards-- it's the political will to Do Right.
For human beings, standards have one function-- to get other people to act as if they share your values. Most classroom teachers, for example, have rules that boil down to "You may not respect and care about every other person in this room, but you will by God at least act as if you do."
Standards for human behavior work better in the negative than in the positive, and better for behavior than for attitude. Our most successful human standards, right back to the Ten Really Famous Ones, have been Thou Shalt Not Do's. School Reformy types have taken to comparing the implementation of their regime to the Civil Rights Movement, and that movement had its greatest success in imposing a standard that said you can't treat non-white folks as if they are lesser beings than you. It has had less success in imposing a standard that says you must treat all non-white people as if they are your friend (and be happy that a Black man was elected President). It is easier to make people stop doing bad things than to make them start to feel like doing good things. And it is particularly difficult to enforce rules that they think and feel certain ways.
So to the extent that educational standards want to impose positive behaviors and attitudes on young people, they are doomed to failure. To the extent that they want to impose positive behaviors on institutions, they are hopeless, because the best you can ever hope for is "going through the motions" and "going through the motions" is not an education.
We know what happens when you give people a punitive bad test-- they learn how to go through the motions that the test requires. That's it.
So what happens if we impose standards on Palloohkaville?
We already kind of know. We've been trying to force districts to drop creationism and teach actual science. What happens is they fight the rules, ignore the rules, and escape the rules. In extreme cases, they commandeer the rules (one of the great fallacies of those who believe in centralized standards is the believe that such centralized control will always stay in the hands of The Right People).
But I will bet you dollars to donuts that we can't find one person who was talked out of creationism and into the scientific view because their high school science teacher was required to teach one and not the other.
Using rules to force people to Get With the Program doesn't work. And it does worse than not work, because when you hand out mental handcuffs and tell everyone they have to slap the cuffs on, the people who will comply are the people who are already with the program-- the people you didn't intend the rules for in the first place. Meanwhile, the people who you really intended the braincuffs for have already figured out how to get around your rule. You didn't stop your bad actors, but you did hamstring your best and brightest.
What happens if we don't impose standards on Palloohkaville?
Palloohkaville becomes known for lousy schools. People don't move there. People don't locate their businesses there. Maybe they raise the will to do something about it; maybe they just change their name to "Mississippi" and decide they're happy with the barrel-bottom view. I'm okay with that. This is America, and the people who should get to decide the fate of Pallohkaville are the Palloohkavillians, who, as it turns out, are the same people who have to live with the consequences of their choices and attitudes. Maybe after they have to live out their values, some folks have an epiphany and say, "Hey, I think maybe education is actually important."
Here's the thing-- I don't believe anybody can step in from outside and apply force in a way that will fix any of that. Sure, you can force them to go through some education-ish movements, but what will that actually change?
You cannot improve a community from outside that community. It is one of the bitterest social and political ironies ever that you can, in fact, wreck a community from outside that community, but you cannot fix it from outside. Every successful model of community uplift ever involves being part of the community. If you want to fix Palloohkaville Schools, you will have to live there (and probably for more than two years). Drive-by do-gooders don't help, and there's a name for the business of moving into an area and forcing the locals to do as you say, for their own good-- it's colonialism.
Outside fixing only diverts attention. Instead of worrying about local school problems, we're worrying about That Damn Federal Test. Our schools don't have a problem, the new mantra goes-- we're just being crushed by a big gummint thumb.
It frustrates me too, that so many Americans don't really value education, but you don't make people value education through centralized standards any more than you make them love hamburgers by turning every restaurant into a McDonalds.
When we talk about the need for standardization, we inevitably come back to the issue of bad schools.
"If we don't have educational standards and high-stakes test accountability," goes the argument, "then over in Palloohkaville they'll be teaching about the flat earth and Jesus riding dinosaurs and how America is really a fascist country and that 2+2 equals Dog. And the Palloohkaville school board will keep denying necessary resources to Other Peoples' Children High School. We need standards and stakes to force them to Do the Right Thing."
I agree that all of these problems are real and serious problems. I just don't agree that standards will do anything to fix them.
Some are fixed by law. Equitable distribution of resources doesn't require Common Core or ed reform-- it requires enforcement of the laws that say "Thou shalt not screw over one set of citizens to the benefit of other sets of citizens." When some school is falling down around the students' ears, the problem is not educational standards-- it's the political will to Do Right.
For human beings, standards have one function-- to get other people to act as if they share your values. Most classroom teachers, for example, have rules that boil down to "You may not respect and care about every other person in this room, but you will by God at least act as if you do."
Standards for human behavior work better in the negative than in the positive, and better for behavior than for attitude. Our most successful human standards, right back to the Ten Really Famous Ones, have been Thou Shalt Not Do's. School Reformy types have taken to comparing the implementation of their regime to the Civil Rights Movement, and that movement had its greatest success in imposing a standard that said you can't treat non-white folks as if they are lesser beings than you. It has had less success in imposing a standard that says you must treat all non-white people as if they are your friend (and be happy that a Black man was elected President). It is easier to make people stop doing bad things than to make them start to feel like doing good things. And it is particularly difficult to enforce rules that they think and feel certain ways.
So to the extent that educational standards want to impose positive behaviors and attitudes on young people, they are doomed to failure. To the extent that they want to impose positive behaviors on institutions, they are hopeless, because the best you can ever hope for is "going through the motions" and "going through the motions" is not an education.
We know what happens when you give people a punitive bad test-- they learn how to go through the motions that the test requires. That's it.
So what happens if we impose standards on Palloohkaville?
We already kind of know. We've been trying to force districts to drop creationism and teach actual science. What happens is they fight the rules, ignore the rules, and escape the rules. In extreme cases, they commandeer the rules (one of the great fallacies of those who believe in centralized standards is the believe that such centralized control will always stay in the hands of The Right People).
But I will bet you dollars to donuts that we can't find one person who was talked out of creationism and into the scientific view because their high school science teacher was required to teach one and not the other.
Using rules to force people to Get With the Program doesn't work. And it does worse than not work, because when you hand out mental handcuffs and tell everyone they have to slap the cuffs on, the people who will comply are the people who are already with the program-- the people you didn't intend the rules for in the first place. Meanwhile, the people who you really intended the braincuffs for have already figured out how to get around your rule. You didn't stop your bad actors, but you did hamstring your best and brightest.
What happens if we don't impose standards on Palloohkaville?
Palloohkaville becomes known for lousy schools. People don't move there. People don't locate their businesses there. Maybe they raise the will to do something about it; maybe they just change their name to "Mississippi" and decide they're happy with the barrel-bottom view. I'm okay with that. This is America, and the people who should get to decide the fate of Pallohkaville are the Palloohkavillians, who, as it turns out, are the same people who have to live with the consequences of their choices and attitudes. Maybe after they have to live out their values, some folks have an epiphany and say, "Hey, I think maybe education is actually important."
Here's the thing-- I don't believe anybody can step in from outside and apply force in a way that will fix any of that. Sure, you can force them to go through some education-ish movements, but what will that actually change?
You cannot improve a community from outside that community. It is one of the bitterest social and political ironies ever that you can, in fact, wreck a community from outside that community, but you cannot fix it from outside. Every successful model of community uplift ever involves being part of the community. If you want to fix Palloohkaville Schools, you will have to live there (and probably for more than two years). Drive-by do-gooders don't help, and there's a name for the business of moving into an area and forcing the locals to do as you say, for their own good-- it's colonialism.
Outside fixing only diverts attention. Instead of worrying about local school problems, we're worrying about That Damn Federal Test. Our schools don't have a problem, the new mantra goes-- we're just being crushed by a big gummint thumb.
It frustrates me too, that so many Americans don't really value education, but you don't make people value education through centralized standards any more than you make them love hamburgers by turning every restaurant into a McDonalds.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Paul Bruno's Advice for CCSS Supporters
Paul Bruno is a science teacher who writes a blog of his own while occasionally contributing to This Week in Education over at Scholastic. He calls himself a CCSS agnostic and generally writes about the standards with a fairly even hand.
After spanking CCSS supporters for abandoning an affirmative case for the standards, Bruno was asked by Morgan Polikoff to provide a positive suggestion, and so today Bruno responded with four suggestions for Core supporters. If you're a regular reader, you know I find value in the perspective of people beyond the usual dichotomy of Hate CCSS With A Blinding Passion and Pushing CCSS With Feverish Intensity. So let me take a look at Bruno's three suggestions, and why I don't think anybody's going to listen to him.
1. CCSS supporters need to acknowledge that they overestimated the potential for standards per se to improve curriculum and instruction.
Here Bruno and I are seeing something different, because I don't think CCSS supporters ever really believed that standards alone would raise anything. I think people who have espoused this view have always used "standards" as short-hand for "standards backed up with some kick-evaluations and sanctions so that people will by gum meet those standards or else." I think this is one of the reasons that The Core arrived in the states with high-stakes punitive testing programs already welded onto them. But Bruno gets this next part right:
Teachers already think their pedagogy is about right for whatever learning objectives you want to establish; if you want them to think differently you need to convince them directly. It is also increasingly apparent that you can’t avoid nasty battles over curriculum by saying “standards are not a curriculum”.
2. CCSS supporters should acknowledge that the new standards are not really as unambiguous as they had thought.
Bruno correctly notes that CCSS fans aren't really doing themselves any favors by repeatedly responding to criticism with "But that's not what the CCSS say." But Bruno tracks the issue back to peoples' pre-existing edu-confusions. I don't think it's that simple. I think this is an insolvable problem inextricably linked to CCSS by virtue of the top-down creation of the standards.
One of the built in problems of top-down reform is that only the people who were in the room for creation know what they really meant-- and in a top-down program, that's a small group of people, none of whom are going to be directly involved in the implementation of their ideas. And so the battle over what the Original Text really means is endless (as endless, say, as the centuries of interminable battle over what that Jesus guy actually had in mind).
Add to that the suspicion in some quarters that the writers of the Core didn't even really mean what they said in the first place, either because they didn't know what they were talking about (particularly applicable to the all-amateur-hour ELA standards) or they were just writing standards with an eye on the billion-dollar pot of testing gold at the end of the Common Core rainbow, and not trying to write true standards at all. And then the Founding Fathers of Common Core simply released their creation and dispersed, back to their real jobs or to new cash cows.
Add all that together and you have a "movement" with neither a strong controlling text nor a group of active involved leaders. Which opens the door for all manner of vendors, profiteers, and power-hungry reins-grabbers to declare, "Why yes-- what I want to do totally belongs to this package."
I don't think we're seeing peoples' pre-existing confusion so much as we're seeing the built-in confusion of CCSS (some of which is deliberate). It's an ambiguity that makes the CCSS regime profitable, and it's an ambiguity for which no correcting mechanism exists. The few die-hards saying, "But-but-but this isn't what the standards really say" carry no more weight than Leon Trotsky declaring, "You're doing my revolution all wrong."
3. CCSS supporters should focus more on Common Core-aligned assessments.
What the CCSS “really” mean will be determined in large part by the tests used to hold teachers and schools accountable. So while it’s all well and good to assure us that, e.g., the CCSS “require” a “content-rich curriculum”, that won’t really be true unless the eventual assessments require a content-rich curriculum.
Bruno is correct, though the real answer is that "content-rich curriculum" won't happen until we're facing "content-rich assessment," and that will be happening never (aka "the same day the assessment includes collaborative performance tasks").
The assessments are the curriculum and the tests are the standards.
4. CCSS supporters should spend more time highlighting “good” Common Core-aligned lessons.
Bruno is correct in noting that CCSS is losing in the court of public opinion in part because it is solidly linked to all manner of dopey lessons (including many that aren't really Common Core lessons). But people talking about CCSS "success" always face the same problem.
Let's say we're discussing the oft-made much-beloved assertion of CCSS-fan teachers that the Core now lets critical thinking into their classroom. The problem is that from this assertion we can only conclude one of two things:
1) The teacher either didn't know or wasn't able previously to include critical thinking in her classroom. The only explanation for this is that the teacher is a dope.
2) The teacher was not previously allowed to include critical thinking in her classroom. From this we must conclude that the school administration is a dope.
Neither of these problems requires a multi-million-dollar retooling of the entire American public education system. When someone shows me a good CCSS lesson, my first question is always "How did Common Core make this possible?" (My second question is usually "Who wants me to pay them to use this?") It only highlights for me that the CCSS have always been a solution in search of a problem.
They are the educational equivalent of a salesman at my door telling me, "For only a few thousand dollars a month, we will install equipment that will guarantee that there is air inside your home." I'm in favor of air-- a huge fan, in fact. But it's not clear to me why I should give you my money, or free reign of my home, and I'm pretty much waiting for you to break into a chorus of "Trouble" right here in River City.
So it's not that I think Bruno's advice is wrong, exactly. I just don't think there's anybody in a real position to take it.
After spanking CCSS supporters for abandoning an affirmative case for the standards, Bruno was asked by Morgan Polikoff to provide a positive suggestion, and so today Bruno responded with four suggestions for Core supporters. If you're a regular reader, you know I find value in the perspective of people beyond the usual dichotomy of Hate CCSS With A Blinding Passion and Pushing CCSS With Feverish Intensity. So let me take a look at Bruno's three suggestions, and why I don't think anybody's going to listen to him.
1. CCSS supporters need to acknowledge that they overestimated the potential for standards per se to improve curriculum and instruction.
Here Bruno and I are seeing something different, because I don't think CCSS supporters ever really believed that standards alone would raise anything. I think people who have espoused this view have always used "standards" as short-hand for "standards backed up with some kick-evaluations and sanctions so that people will by gum meet those standards or else." I think this is one of the reasons that The Core arrived in the states with high-stakes punitive testing programs already welded onto them. But Bruno gets this next part right:
Teachers already think their pedagogy is about right for whatever learning objectives you want to establish; if you want them to think differently you need to convince them directly. It is also increasingly apparent that you can’t avoid nasty battles over curriculum by saying “standards are not a curriculum”.
2. CCSS supporters should acknowledge that the new standards are not really as unambiguous as they had thought.
Bruno correctly notes that CCSS fans aren't really doing themselves any favors by repeatedly responding to criticism with "But that's not what the CCSS say." But Bruno tracks the issue back to peoples' pre-existing edu-confusions. I don't think it's that simple. I think this is an insolvable problem inextricably linked to CCSS by virtue of the top-down creation of the standards.
One of the built in problems of top-down reform is that only the people who were in the room for creation know what they really meant-- and in a top-down program, that's a small group of people, none of whom are going to be directly involved in the implementation of their ideas. And so the battle over what the Original Text really means is endless (as endless, say, as the centuries of interminable battle over what that Jesus guy actually had in mind).
Add to that the suspicion in some quarters that the writers of the Core didn't even really mean what they said in the first place, either because they didn't know what they were talking about (particularly applicable to the all-amateur-hour ELA standards) or they were just writing standards with an eye on the billion-dollar pot of testing gold at the end of the Common Core rainbow, and not trying to write true standards at all. And then the Founding Fathers of Common Core simply released their creation and dispersed, back to their real jobs or to new cash cows.
Add all that together and you have a "movement" with neither a strong controlling text nor a group of active involved leaders. Which opens the door for all manner of vendors, profiteers, and power-hungry reins-grabbers to declare, "Why yes-- what I want to do totally belongs to this package."
I don't think we're seeing peoples' pre-existing confusion so much as we're seeing the built-in confusion of CCSS (some of which is deliberate). It's an ambiguity that makes the CCSS regime profitable, and it's an ambiguity for which no correcting mechanism exists. The few die-hards saying, "But-but-but this isn't what the standards really say" carry no more weight than Leon Trotsky declaring, "You're doing my revolution all wrong."
3. CCSS supporters should focus more on Common Core-aligned assessments.
What the CCSS “really” mean will be determined in large part by the tests used to hold teachers and schools accountable. So while it’s all well and good to assure us that, e.g., the CCSS “require” a “content-rich curriculum”, that won’t really be true unless the eventual assessments require a content-rich curriculum.
Bruno is correct, though the real answer is that "content-rich curriculum" won't happen until we're facing "content-rich assessment," and that will be happening never (aka "the same day the assessment includes collaborative performance tasks").
The assessments are the curriculum and the tests are the standards.
4. CCSS supporters should spend more time highlighting “good” Common Core-aligned lessons.
Bruno is correct in noting that CCSS is losing in the court of public opinion in part because it is solidly linked to all manner of dopey lessons (including many that aren't really Common Core lessons). But people talking about CCSS "success" always face the same problem.
Let's say we're discussing the oft-made much-beloved assertion of CCSS-fan teachers that the Core now lets critical thinking into their classroom. The problem is that from this assertion we can only conclude one of two things:
1) The teacher either didn't know or wasn't able previously to include critical thinking in her classroom. The only explanation for this is that the teacher is a dope.
2) The teacher was not previously allowed to include critical thinking in her classroom. From this we must conclude that the school administration is a dope.
Neither of these problems requires a multi-million-dollar retooling of the entire American public education system. When someone shows me a good CCSS lesson, my first question is always "How did Common Core make this possible?" (My second question is usually "Who wants me to pay them to use this?") It only highlights for me that the CCSS have always been a solution in search of a problem.
They are the educational equivalent of a salesman at my door telling me, "For only a few thousand dollars a month, we will install equipment that will guarantee that there is air inside your home." I'm in favor of air-- a huge fan, in fact. But it's not clear to me why I should give you my money, or free reign of my home, and I'm pretty much waiting for you to break into a chorus of "Trouble" right here in River City.
So it's not that I think Bruno's advice is wrong, exactly. I just don't think there's anybody in a real position to take it.
CT Makes New Strides in Grittology
Sandwiched in the midst of a puff piece about Connecticut's new elite cadre of Common Core teacher shills is this important paragraph:
Getting on the list was competitive. According to a news release from the Department of Education, teachers "were chosen through a competitive statewide application on the basis of their content knowledge, grit, and understanding of the Common Core State Standards. Each educator demonstrated the commitment and ability to “scale their impact” beyond their classroom."
I'm going to let the confusing quotation marks slide and focus in on the most exciting news just kind of dropped into this PR bonanza--
...chosen through a competitive statewide application on the basis of their content knowledge, grit, and understanding ...
You see?!! The State of Connecticut knows how to measure grit!!!!
I am sure that all of us, all around the country, want to know how this is done. I am sure that phones are ringing off the hook in CT DOE offices as other educational thought leaders call to ask for the secret of grittological measurements.
Was it a physical test? Did they make teachers do the worm for a thousand yards? Did they make teachers peel onions and sing "memories" while watching pictures of sad puppies, all without crying? Did they have to compete in three-armed wheelchair races? Were they required to complete a season of the Amazing Race as participants? Did they have to stand stock still while being pelted with medium-sized canteloupes?
Or perhaps it was a study of their personal history. We know that grittologists have determined that people who have tended not to quit things in the past probably won't quit things in the future (who knew?) So maybe the state looked for people who didn't quit things, like lifelong members of the Columbia Record Club or folks who actually finished an unfinishable sundae or who stayed in a bad marriage. Maybe the state only accepted cancer survivors or acid reflux sufferers or folks with chronic halitosis.
Or maybe Connecticut has a special computerized grit test. Take a PARCC exam on a computer with a bad internet connection or using a keyboard on which some eighth grader has previously moved around all the keys. Create a word document on a computer running Windows 3.0-- no swearing at the blue screen of death. Play HALO with a six-year-old on your team. Is there a grit praxis?
Or maybe grit is linked to the third item on the list-- understanding of the Common Core State Standards. Maybe you have to explain the CCSS as interpreted and implemented by the CT DOE without actually laughing out loud or sneezing the word "bullshit." Or maybe they had to convince someone that they really are excited to attend something called "Teachfest" being run by a company called "LearnZillion" (what a dumb name choice-- if people aren't calling those guys "Learnzilla" behind their backs I will eat my copy of the standards).
All I can say is-- the state of CT has a goldmine here. If they are able to test teachers for grit, they need to monetize that and franchise the process, because this is a mine of inexhaustible riches. This will make a far better monetary stream than the business of having teachers employed by public schools create lessons and materials for a for-profit company (maybe grit has something to do with easily silenced scruples).
Plus, CT has the jump by having a Dream Team of 97 highly grittified teachers, which means they can be dispatched on all sort of tough commando raids. I can see the T-Shirts now-- a Sylvester Stallone looking guy with the words "We Are Here To Punch Dumb in the Face!"
You know, my uncle taught history in Connecticut for fifty years, and was much-beloved in his district. It was actually a bit of a surprise when he retired. I suppose he didn't have enough grit for Connecticut.
Getting on the list was competitive. According to a news release from the Department of Education, teachers "were chosen through a competitive statewide application on the basis of their content knowledge, grit, and understanding of the Common Core State Standards. Each educator demonstrated the commitment and ability to “scale their impact” beyond their classroom."
I'm going to let the confusing quotation marks slide and focus in on the most exciting news just kind of dropped into this PR bonanza--
...chosen through a competitive statewide application on the basis of their content knowledge, grit, and understanding ...
You see?!! The State of Connecticut knows how to measure grit!!!!
I am sure that all of us, all around the country, want to know how this is done. I am sure that phones are ringing off the hook in CT DOE offices as other educational thought leaders call to ask for the secret of grittological measurements.
Was it a physical test? Did they make teachers do the worm for a thousand yards? Did they make teachers peel onions and sing "memories" while watching pictures of sad puppies, all without crying? Did they have to compete in three-armed wheelchair races? Were they required to complete a season of the Amazing Race as participants? Did they have to stand stock still while being pelted with medium-sized canteloupes?
Or perhaps it was a study of their personal history. We know that grittologists have determined that people who have tended not to quit things in the past probably won't quit things in the future (who knew?) So maybe the state looked for people who didn't quit things, like lifelong members of the Columbia Record Club or folks who actually finished an unfinishable sundae or who stayed in a bad marriage. Maybe the state only accepted cancer survivors or acid reflux sufferers or folks with chronic halitosis.
Or maybe Connecticut has a special computerized grit test. Take a PARCC exam on a computer with a bad internet connection or using a keyboard on which some eighth grader has previously moved around all the keys. Create a word document on a computer running Windows 3.0-- no swearing at the blue screen of death. Play HALO with a six-year-old on your team. Is there a grit praxis?
Or maybe grit is linked to the third item on the list-- understanding of the Common Core State Standards. Maybe you have to explain the CCSS as interpreted and implemented by the CT DOE without actually laughing out loud or sneezing the word "bullshit." Or maybe they had to convince someone that they really are excited to attend something called "Teachfest" being run by a company called "LearnZillion" (what a dumb name choice-- if people aren't calling those guys "Learnzilla" behind their backs I will eat my copy of the standards).
All I can say is-- the state of CT has a goldmine here. If they are able to test teachers for grit, they need to monetize that and franchise the process, because this is a mine of inexhaustible riches. This will make a far better monetary stream than the business of having teachers employed by public schools create lessons and materials for a for-profit company (maybe grit has something to do with easily silenced scruples).
Plus, CT has the jump by having a Dream Team of 97 highly grittified teachers, which means they can be dispatched on all sort of tough commando raids. I can see the T-Shirts now-- a Sylvester Stallone looking guy with the words "We Are Here To Punch Dumb in the Face!"
You know, my uncle taught history in Connecticut for fifty years, and was much-beloved in his district. It was actually a bit of a surprise when he retired. I suppose he didn't have enough grit for Connecticut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)