[Update: Okay, that didn't take long. According to a piece posted on NJ.com within the last hour, Anderson has met with the student group occupying her office
"This morning, Superintendent Anderson met with the group of students
who have been demonstrating since Tuesday and listened to their
concerns," district spokeswoman Brittany Chord Parmley said in a
statement.
"The conversation was productive, and we see this as a promising step
towards an ongoing constructive dialogue where both sides are heard and
valuable learning time is not compromised."
So skip the following, or just read it with the knowledge Cami is, according to her office, no longer AWOL. It just took her four days. Four days.]
As the week winds down, the handful of students from the Newark Students Union still occupies the offices of Superintendent Cami Anderson, while the rest of us watch and follow along from, well, all across the country. The whole world, or at least a representative sample of it, really is watching.
The support for the students, their resolve and dedication-- these are all impressive. Some of these stories are so very 21st century-- one of my readers wrote to say that she ordered the students a pizza.
I contacted them through their email, newarkstudentsunion@gmail.com and I ordered from Tony's Pizza (973) 821-4723 and had it sent to 2 Cedar Street 8th floor.
They later sent her a picture of the empty box with "thanks" written on it. Meanwhile, you can find numerous updates from them on youtube (search "newark students union") or you can follow them on their facebook page.
As striking as the students' continued devotion the face of pressure and attention and what I can only assume is a huge amount of boredom, I am even more struck by the absolute silence of Anderson and her aides.
They had a visit on Tuesday, and a district spokesperson offered press this:
"Despite our best efforts to work together, they have repeatedly ignored
district requests to meet and engage in a constructive dialogue,"
district spokeswoman Brittany Chord Parmley said in a statement Tuesday.
"While we appreciate their passion, this is not the appropriate forum
to engage in productive conversation."
That single paragraph has run repeatedly in every story I've read since Tuesday, presumably because that's the last thing anybody from Anderson's office has had to say, and I find it kind of bizarre.
Some activists stage a sit-in in your office and take to the internet to broadcast their message. Why would your most immediate response be to go hide? Say nothing?
What possible message could Anderson hope to convey here? We don't bother to talk to students or residents of Newark? Fewer than a dozen remarkably well-behaved teens are just to scary to go face? No big deal because I never use my office for anything, anyway? Talking to people is hard and I'd rather not? Children scare me? Black folks scare me? I am so out of my depth that I am simply frozen into inaction?
There's no possible way to read Anderson's silence and non-appearance in any positive light. I've seen lots of school administrators follow an approach of "Do nothing and hope it goes away," and it never works. Never! And it has been especially not working in Newark. If you don't listen to people when they speak, they will simply keep raising their voices until they think they have been heard, and the Newark Students Union has been demonstrating that principle in action for over a year! It would make more sense to expect them to be swept away on the backs of singing unicorns than to hold onto the hope that they'll just go away. All the way from western Pennsylvania I can see that-- surely it's evident right there in Newark.
The silent disappearance is, first and foremost, a leadership fail. Stuff happens, by the hands of humans, God, or just accident, and what a leader says is, "I didn't ask for this stuff, but it's mine and I'm responsible for it, and so I have to step up." But Anderson, who seems to have a history of flying from any possible confrontation or problem, is not demonstrating that quality.
Look, even from out here I can see that this is not just a group of plucky kids-- there's clearly some savvy adult expertise lending a helping hand. But that doesn't change Anderson's responsibility or her position. If this is her district, and she's supposed to be the leader, she needs to climb out from whatever foxhole she's burrowed into and step up. She needs to deal with the people that she is responsible for.
If I were an Anderson backer, I can't imagine how I would defend her at this juncture. Has she shown bravery, rigor, courage, leadership, cool judgment, anything like wisdom? No. What she has shown is the failure of trying to translate a corporate leadership model to public service and education. Corporate bosses can adopt a particular style because they only deal with people who have to listen to them because they're paid to. In public service in general and public education in particular, you have to listen to your people, even when you don't want to, because you are not the boss of them. You can't just make them obey. You have to work with them.
Every day that Anderson fails to step up is one more day of proof that she is not fit for her job. If she wants to say otherwise, she needs to step out, step up, open her mouth, and open her ears.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Utah Does Not Love Test It Sold To Florida
A hat tip to Jeffrey S. Solochek of the Tampa Bay Times for spotting this story.
Utah has been at the forefront of Common Core adoption, and they have been at the forefront of backing the hell away from the standards as well. They backed out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium back in the summer of 2012, citing concerns about federal intrusion, and they tried hard to keep arguing for the Core. But Utah had been playing with adaptive testing since 2009, adopting a legislative requirement to develop such a shiny test in 2012.
Of course, "develop" actually means "hire somebody to develop a test,' and Utah went with AIR (American Institutes for Research). AIR has been the ugly step-sister in the Race To Make Lots of Money from Testing. In 2014 they tried to sue the PARCC folks for creating a "bidding" process that declared that you could only win the contract if your company's name started with "P" and ended with "earson," but back in 2012 they did have one big score-- they landed the contract to develop the SBAC test. So Utah dropped out of the group that had hired SBAC to write a computer-based test of The Standards so that they could hire the exact same company to write a computer-based test of The Standards.
The test was to be called the SAGE, and in its rollout it bore a striking resemblance to all the other CCSS-ish tests, particularly in the way that it showed that Utah's students were actually way dumber than anyone expected so OMGZZ we'd better get some reformy action in here right now to fix it, because failing schools!
Meanwhile, in other States That Decided Maybe Common Core Was Very Bad Politics, Florida also dumped the SBAC. In 2013, Governor Rick Scott took a break from harvesting money to decree that SBAC was out the door. But what would they do about the federally required test-of-some-sort?
So maybe Florida made a phone call. Or maybe AIR said, "Well, if you want a Common Core test with all those nasty federal overreach barnacles scraped off it, we already have such a product." And lo and behold, the state of Utah suddenly found itself about to make a cool $5.4 million by renting out the SAGE to Florida. And that, boys and girls, is one example of how we end up NOT having the cool national assessments we were promised as part of the Core, even though we simultaneously end up with the same basic test everywhere (but can never say so, because federalism and commies and Obamacore). It's the worst of all worlds! Yay.
But wait-- there's more. Even as Florida was borrowing a cup of SAGE, Utah-ians (what do we call people who live there?) were not done hating all things Core. Turns out lots of Utah-vites aren't stupid, and when you show them a test that walks and talks and quacks like a duck, and comes from the same parents as all the ducks, they do not believe you when you tell them it's an aardvark.
You can measure the desperate thrashing of Utah's educational thought leaders by this "fact sheet" about the SAGE in which they make such points as "SAGE test students' knowledge and skills, not what they believe" and "SAGE tests are not part of the Common Core but they do-- in part-- measure whether students know and understand the Core standards."
Apparently that's not enough. Benjamin Wood in the Salt Lake Tribune reports that Utah's lawmakers are not feeling the high-tech SAGE love. Rep. Justin Fawson didn't like the state board's plan to use the leasing income to beef up the test (or, in other words, take the $5.4 million and just funnel it straight back to AIR). Rep. LaVar Christensen doesn't think the SAGE data is trustworthy.
"The data comes out low and it's treated as an accurate assessment of where we are, when in reality it's inherently flawed," Christensen said. "If you're going in the wrong direction, you don't step on the gas pedal."
Additionally, SAGE has the usual problems, including a shortage of computers to plunk every student in front of, so that according to Wood, some schools start their end-of-the-year testing in, well, now. Wood quotes Senator Howard Stephenson, a lawmaker who, back in 2008, thought Utah's computer adaptive testing was the bee's knees:
"There will be legislation this year to create a task force to look at doing away with the SAGE test entirely," Stephenson said during a Public Education Appropriation Subcommittee hearing. "I think we need to be looking at the whole issue of whether we should be having end-of-level tests."
So why did I find this story in the Tampa bay Times? Because now we have the prospect of Florida buying a product from folks who don't want to use the damn thing themselves. "Try this," says the salesman, who when asked about his own use, replies, "Oh, God, no. I would never use this stuff myself. But I will totally sell it to you." Congratulations, Florida, on buying material that has been field tested in Utah (which is a place very much like Florida in that they are both south of the Arctic Circle) but which the Utahvistas don't want themselves. It sounds like an excellent bargain.
Utah has been at the forefront of Common Core adoption, and they have been at the forefront of backing the hell away from the standards as well. They backed out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium back in the summer of 2012, citing concerns about federal intrusion, and they tried hard to keep arguing for the Core. But Utah had been playing with adaptive testing since 2009, adopting a legislative requirement to develop such a shiny test in 2012.
Of course, "develop" actually means "hire somebody to develop a test,' and Utah went with AIR (American Institutes for Research). AIR has been the ugly step-sister in the Race To Make Lots of Money from Testing. In 2014 they tried to sue the PARCC folks for creating a "bidding" process that declared that you could only win the contract if your company's name started with "P" and ended with "earson," but back in 2012 they did have one big score-- they landed the contract to develop the SBAC test. So Utah dropped out of the group that had hired SBAC to write a computer-based test of The Standards so that they could hire the exact same company to write a computer-based test of The Standards.
The test was to be called the SAGE, and in its rollout it bore a striking resemblance to all the other CCSS-ish tests, particularly in the way that it showed that Utah's students were actually way dumber than anyone expected so OMGZZ we'd better get some reformy action in here right now to fix it, because failing schools!
Meanwhile, in other States That Decided Maybe Common Core Was Very Bad Politics, Florida also dumped the SBAC. In 2013, Governor Rick Scott took a break from harvesting money to decree that SBAC was out the door. But what would they do about the federally required test-of-some-sort?
So maybe Florida made a phone call. Or maybe AIR said, "Well, if you want a Common Core test with all those nasty federal overreach barnacles scraped off it, we already have such a product." And lo and behold, the state of Utah suddenly found itself about to make a cool $5.4 million by renting out the SAGE to Florida. And that, boys and girls, is one example of how we end up NOT having the cool national assessments we were promised as part of the Core, even though we simultaneously end up with the same basic test everywhere (but can never say so, because federalism and commies and Obamacore). It's the worst of all worlds! Yay.
But wait-- there's more. Even as Florida was borrowing a cup of SAGE, Utah-ians (what do we call people who live there?) were not done hating all things Core. Turns out lots of Utah-vites aren't stupid, and when you show them a test that walks and talks and quacks like a duck, and comes from the same parents as all the ducks, they do not believe you when you tell them it's an aardvark.
You can measure the desperate thrashing of Utah's educational thought leaders by this "fact sheet" about the SAGE in which they make such points as "SAGE test students' knowledge and skills, not what they believe" and "SAGE tests are not part of the Common Core but they do-- in part-- measure whether students know and understand the Core standards."
Apparently that's not enough. Benjamin Wood in the Salt Lake Tribune reports that Utah's lawmakers are not feeling the high-tech SAGE love. Rep. Justin Fawson didn't like the state board's plan to use the leasing income to beef up the test (or, in other words, take the $5.4 million and just funnel it straight back to AIR). Rep. LaVar Christensen doesn't think the SAGE data is trustworthy.
"The data comes out low and it's treated as an accurate assessment of where we are, when in reality it's inherently flawed," Christensen said. "If you're going in the wrong direction, you don't step on the gas pedal."
Additionally, SAGE has the usual problems, including a shortage of computers to plunk every student in front of, so that according to Wood, some schools start their end-of-the-year testing in, well, now. Wood quotes Senator Howard Stephenson, a lawmaker who, back in 2008, thought Utah's computer adaptive testing was the bee's knees:
"There will be legislation this year to create a task force to look at doing away with the SAGE test entirely," Stephenson said during a Public Education Appropriation Subcommittee hearing. "I think we need to be looking at the whole issue of whether we should be having end-of-level tests."
So why did I find this story in the Tampa bay Times? Because now we have the prospect of Florida buying a product from folks who don't want to use the damn thing themselves. "Try this," says the salesman, who when asked about his own use, replies, "Oh, God, no. I would never use this stuff myself. But I will totally sell it to you." Congratulations, Florida, on buying material that has been field tested in Utah (which is a place very much like Florida in that they are both south of the Arctic Circle) but which the Utahvistas don't want themselves. It sounds like an excellent bargain.
Testing vs. Student Teaching
This week the e-mail came out as it does every year. Who's willing to take a student teacher next year? Let the office know.
For the first time in my career, I wondered if that was a good idea. In fact, I wondered if I should send a reminder to my colleagues to think hard before saying yes.
Mind you, I am a big believer in being a co-operating teacher. I have always believed that helping train the next round of teachers is a professional responsibility. It's kind of like jury duty-- you can't complain that it's being done poorly if you say "no" every time it's your turn. Like most teachers who take on a mentee, I've had the full range of student teachers in my room, from a young woman who was better after two months than I had been after two years, to a gentleman who was a great guy but could not teach a puddle how to be wet (for what it's worth, neither is a teacher today).
It's a real journey. I believe hugely that a student teacher is not there to become a mini-me, but to find her own voice in the classroom, to figure out who he is when he's a teacher. I expect my student teachers to eventually take over, design their own stuff, plan their own materials; I stay with them every step of the way, but it has to be their way, not mine. It's a tough process; inevitably there will come a moment when I'm telling him or her, "That's okay. If you don't cry at least once during student teaching, you don't understand the situation." It can be a huge challenge, but the next generation of teachers has to come from somewhere.
But times have changed, and teachers in public schools face a new question-- can you really turn your class over to a trainee for any significant amount of time when so much is riding on Big Standardized Tests?
If I'm teaching under a system like NY Governor Andrew Cuomo's proposed 50% test score weighting for teacher evaluations, how can I possibly turn over my class and my professional future to a green college kid? What about a system like Pennsylvania's, where every teacher is partially evaluated based on a building rating? In PA, my buddies the shop teacher and the band director depend on me to get a good score out of my students' Big Reading Test, because those scores will affect their professional rating-- how do I turn that responsibility over to an inexperienced newbie?
I could take on a student teacher and keep her on a short, tight leash, never letting her do anything except exactly what I've laid out for her to do. But the world does not need any more Content Delivery Specialists who just unpack the program and mindlessly follow the directions; the world needs more teachers.
I suppose we could also just say to heck with actually training teachers and just take people with any kind of degree and drop them into a classroom where, under the newer accountability systems they would quickly wash out after a year or two and have to be replaced over and over and-- oh, wait. Now I see it. If you wanted to de-professionalize teaching, this would work just fine.
But for the rest of us, it's just one more bad side effect of test-driven accountability.
For the first time in my career, I wondered if that was a good idea. In fact, I wondered if I should send a reminder to my colleagues to think hard before saying yes.
Mind you, I am a big believer in being a co-operating teacher. I have always believed that helping train the next round of teachers is a professional responsibility. It's kind of like jury duty-- you can't complain that it's being done poorly if you say "no" every time it's your turn. Like most teachers who take on a mentee, I've had the full range of student teachers in my room, from a young woman who was better after two months than I had been after two years, to a gentleman who was a great guy but could not teach a puddle how to be wet (for what it's worth, neither is a teacher today).
It's a real journey. I believe hugely that a student teacher is not there to become a mini-me, but to find her own voice in the classroom, to figure out who he is when he's a teacher. I expect my student teachers to eventually take over, design their own stuff, plan their own materials; I stay with them every step of the way, but it has to be their way, not mine. It's a tough process; inevitably there will come a moment when I'm telling him or her, "That's okay. If you don't cry at least once during student teaching, you don't understand the situation." It can be a huge challenge, but the next generation of teachers has to come from somewhere.
But times have changed, and teachers in public schools face a new question-- can you really turn your class over to a trainee for any significant amount of time when so much is riding on Big Standardized Tests?
If I'm teaching under a system like NY Governor Andrew Cuomo's proposed 50% test score weighting for teacher evaluations, how can I possibly turn over my class and my professional future to a green college kid? What about a system like Pennsylvania's, where every teacher is partially evaluated based on a building rating? In PA, my buddies the shop teacher and the band director depend on me to get a good score out of my students' Big Reading Test, because those scores will affect their professional rating-- how do I turn that responsibility over to an inexperienced newbie?
I could take on a student teacher and keep her on a short, tight leash, never letting her do anything except exactly what I've laid out for her to do. But the world does not need any more Content Delivery Specialists who just unpack the program and mindlessly follow the directions; the world needs more teachers.
I suppose we could also just say to heck with actually training teachers and just take people with any kind of degree and drop them into a classroom where, under the newer accountability systems they would quickly wash out after a year or two and have to be replaced over and over and-- oh, wait. Now I see it. If you wanted to de-professionalize teaching, this would work just fine.
But for the rest of us, it's just one more bad side effect of test-driven accountability.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Newark Students Occupy District Offices
Social media is an amazing thing. I've been following events in Newark from the comfort of Pennsylvania. And it has been rather exraordinary.
Newark students have occupied Superintendent Cami Anderson's office. As reported by Bob Braun, who was there with the students during the first night (you could see him in the background on the video feed), the actual occupation was not too tricky. A board meeting was going on upstairs, and the office on the 8th floor was just open and unguarded.
The Newark students are not strangers to this brand of activism. They have previously occupied a board meeting and helped scare Anderson away from an appearance at AEI in New York.
That was Tuesday night. The district, as reported by Braun, was initially confrontational, then switched gears to expressing concern for the students and promised water and access to bathrooms.
By Wednesday, the district appeared to be playing a harder brand of ball. Police reportedly delivered this letter to parents of students in the office, telling them to get their kid the heck out of there.
That didn't happen. Students in the office were told there was pizza for them-- outside in a school bus waiting to take them to school. Much of the day involved tweets, phone calls, and other communications regarding food for the students that district officials insisted was not being held up but which clearly was not getting to the students. (The live streaming from inside the building made this kind of obfuscation hard for the district to pull off.)
Late in the evening, a group of clergy arrived at the building and told security that they were clergy and they were taking the food up to the students. They delivered the food, along with some words of support and encouragement, led some prayers for the students, the building, and the city, and then returned outside to a rally in front of the building where just about every civic leader in Newark was gathered, speaking to the press. The district claims it has been attempting to talk to the students and negotiate, but the students have not said a word that I've seen to indicate they've heard any such overtures. I'm pretty sure the threatening letters and the bus pizza gambit don't count as negotiations.
The students are demanding the resignation or removal of Anderson; at the very least, for her to talk to them. That hasn't happened and #WheresCami is one of the questions of the day. An employee at a restaurant allegedly snapped this photo of Anderson on Wednesday afternoon.
The students have been livestreaming both from inside the building and from events held outside, and the story is drawing media attention. It's an amazing level of bravery, commitment and commitment. Many people have been plenty upset about the state of education in Newark, which has not been allowed local control of their own school system in about twenty years. This small group of activist students have provided a real rallying point and it will be interesting to see how events unfold. Stay tuned. The twitter hashtag to follow is #OccupyNPS.
Newark students have occupied Superintendent Cami Anderson's office. As reported by Bob Braun, who was there with the students during the first night (you could see him in the background on the video feed), the actual occupation was not too tricky. A board meeting was going on upstairs, and the office on the 8th floor was just open and unguarded.
The Newark students are not strangers to this brand of activism. They have previously occupied a board meeting and helped scare Anderson away from an appearance at AEI in New York.
That was Tuesday night. The district, as reported by Braun, was initially confrontational, then switched gears to expressing concern for the students and promised water and access to bathrooms.
By Wednesday, the district appeared to be playing a harder brand of ball. Police reportedly delivered this letter to parents of students in the office, telling them to get their kid the heck out of there.
Great job #camianderson - u have cops deliver threatening letters to parents of @NewarkStudents #occupynps ? Wow. pic.twitter.com/p1PGGHSvOn
— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) February 19, 2015
That didn't happen. Students in the office were told there was pizza for them-- outside in a school bus waiting to take them to school. Much of the day involved tweets, phone calls, and other communications regarding food for the students that district officials insisted was not being held up but which clearly was not getting to the students. (The live streaming from inside the building made this kind of obfuscation hard for the district to pull off.)
Late in the evening, a group of clergy arrived at the building and told security that they were clergy and they were taking the food up to the students. They delivered the food, along with some words of support and encouragement, led some prayers for the students, the building, and the city, and then returned outside to a rally in front of the building where just about every civic leader in Newark was gathered, speaking to the press. The district claims it has been attempting to talk to the students and negotiate, but the students have not said a word that I've seen to indicate they've heard any such overtures. I'm pretty sure the threatening letters and the bus pizza gambit don't count as negotiations.
The students are demanding the resignation or removal of Anderson; at the very least, for her to talk to them. That hasn't happened and #WheresCami is one of the questions of the day. An employee at a restaurant allegedly snapped this photo of Anderson on Wednesday afternoon.
What she's doing instead of talking to the community #occupynps #ournewark pic.twitter.com/WqN08lP0aY
— Newark Student Union (@NewarkStudents) February 19, 2015
The students have been livestreaming both from inside the building and from events held outside, and the story is drawing media attention. It's an amazing level of bravery, commitment and commitment. Many people have been plenty upset about the state of education in Newark, which has not been allowed local control of their own school system in about twenty years. This small group of activist students have provided a real rallying point and it will be interesting to see how events unfold. Stay tuned. The twitter hashtag to follow is #OccupyNPS.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Super Secret Top Test Security
As we approach testing season here in Pennsylvania, it's time for each of us to take our "training" regarding test security. I present a quick overview here not to make the point that testing is ridiculous, but to underline just how useless the testing is to actual classroom teachers.
The "training" format is an on-line power-point presentation, followed by questions that anyone with a scintilla of common sense could answer without having watched the slide show (True or false: During the test procedure, it is okay to bubble in answers for the students). This is the sort of "training" that is not so much about training as it is about plausible deniability ("We made them all get training on the not-cheating thing, so it's not our fault.")
The "training" gives the impression that the state is really, really concerned that students, in their deep and extreme desire to get good test results, will indulge in all manner of creative cheating. They will pass notes, use super-secret eyelid semaphore signals, and take chemical additives rumored to promote psychic powers. Most especially they will use their smart phones. Phones are greatly to be feared when it comes to test security. These are perhaps problems in other corners of the Commonwealth, but here in this corner, the problem with the Big Standardized Test is that students see it as an irrelevant pointless exercise that is basically pass-fail.
There are ethical issues, apparently, and we've looked at that document before. But the biggest threat to test security is the Test Administrators (sometimes known as teachers).
We are not allowed to engage in "unauthorized viewing." UA is a violation of test security, and can include (but is not limited to)
* looking at test content to determine its meaning or essence
* looking to see if a student marked content
* viewing test content to see how a student answered test questions
* memorizing test questions
And we are serious about this stuff:
Be aware any time you interact with students during the test period there is the potential for a testing irregularity or a perceived testing irregularity. Therefore it is very important that as a Test Administrator you thoughtfully consider where and how you interact with students and choose your words and actions carefully. The key is to maintain the integrity of the test environment and the validity of student results. Your actions should support this goal at all times.
Because the validity of the test is a fragile and delicate thing (so fragile and delicate that apparently nobody has ever actually tested the validity at all). But in the post-slide-show quiz, we get back to the really important point in a true or false question--
It is unacceptable for the Test Administrator to read or view the contents of an exam at any time-- True!
So the next time somebody is claiming that the Big Standardized Test helps teachers and schools by showing them where student weaknesses lie, ask exactly how teachers are supposed to get information from a test that they are forbidden to even look at. It's a new version of the emperor's new clothes-- you can't study them or even look at them, but you must just take the grand vizier's word for what you need to contribute as accessories.
Imagine if we sent report cards home but told parents they were never, ever allowed to even see any of the assignments or tests or books or materials that their child had worked with during the year.
To claim that we can make useful corrections and tweaks to educational programming based on tests that we never ever see is ludicrous. It's just one more reason that the Big Standardized Test is a waste of everyone's time and money.
The "training" format is an on-line power-point presentation, followed by questions that anyone with a scintilla of common sense could answer without having watched the slide show (True or false: During the test procedure, it is okay to bubble in answers for the students). This is the sort of "training" that is not so much about training as it is about plausible deniability ("We made them all get training on the not-cheating thing, so it's not our fault.")
The "training" gives the impression that the state is really, really concerned that students, in their deep and extreme desire to get good test results, will indulge in all manner of creative cheating. They will pass notes, use super-secret eyelid semaphore signals, and take chemical additives rumored to promote psychic powers. Most especially they will use their smart phones. Phones are greatly to be feared when it comes to test security. These are perhaps problems in other corners of the Commonwealth, but here in this corner, the problem with the Big Standardized Test is that students see it as an irrelevant pointless exercise that is basically pass-fail.
There are ethical issues, apparently, and we've looked at that document before. But the biggest threat to test security is the Test Administrators (sometimes known as teachers).
We are not allowed to engage in "unauthorized viewing." UA is a violation of test security, and can include (but is not limited to)
* looking at test content to determine its meaning or essence
* looking to see if a student marked content
* viewing test content to see how a student answered test questions
* memorizing test questions
And we are serious about this stuff:
Be aware any time you interact with students during the test period there is the potential for a testing irregularity or a perceived testing irregularity. Therefore it is very important that as a Test Administrator you thoughtfully consider where and how you interact with students and choose your words and actions carefully. The key is to maintain the integrity of the test environment and the validity of student results. Your actions should support this goal at all times.
Because the validity of the test is a fragile and delicate thing (so fragile and delicate that apparently nobody has ever actually tested the validity at all). But in the post-slide-show quiz, we get back to the really important point in a true or false question--
It is unacceptable for the Test Administrator to read or view the contents of an exam at any time-- True!
So the next time somebody is claiming that the Big Standardized Test helps teachers and schools by showing them where student weaknesses lie, ask exactly how teachers are supposed to get information from a test that they are forbidden to even look at. It's a new version of the emperor's new clothes-- you can't study them or even look at them, but you must just take the grand vizier's word for what you need to contribute as accessories.
Imagine if we sent report cards home but told parents they were never, ever allowed to even see any of the assignments or tests or books or materials that their child had worked with during the year.
To claim that we can make useful corrections and tweaks to educational programming based on tests that we never ever see is ludicrous. It's just one more reason that the Big Standardized Test is a waste of everyone's time and money.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
The Very Best Policy Memo on Testing
Policy memos, like white papers, reports and means for grown-ups to say, "Hey, here's what I think should happen," are often a motley crew with little foundation and a lot of hot air. These kinds of reports are all-too-often just blog posts in a glossy tuxedo.
But the National Education Policy Center can be counted on to do actual research, use actual facts, and express their ideas in clear, cogent prose. And when it comes to the issue of ESEA renewal and testing, they do not disappoint.
"Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Time To Move Beyond Test-Focused Policies" is a mouthful of a title, but in a mere dozen pages (several are endnotes), Kevin G. Welner and William J. Mathis deliver a clear and thorough response to those who insist that annual standardized tests need to be the engine that drives the pubic education system. I am not going to do it justice here in this space, but let me give you the nickel tour of some of the best of the many great pull-quotes in the piece.
Their first paragraph presents a clear foundation:
Today’s 21-year-olds were in third grade in 2002, when the No Child Left Behind Act became law. For them and their younger siblings and neighbors, test-driven accountability policies are all they’ve known. The federal government entrusted their educations to an unproven but ambitious belief that if we test children and hold educators responsible for improving test scores, we would have almost everyone scoring as “proficient” by 2014. Thus, we would achieve “equality.” This approach has not worked.
They drop back for a history lesson, beginning with where we started:
NCLB was an ineffective solution to some very real problems.
But policy fails to provide supports for student success and ignores "the many opportunity gaps children face outside of school." Federal funding has been insufficient, has run out, has been kicked in the teeth by the Great Recession. "Adequate school funding remains a key, unaddressed issue."
NEPC then goes on to look at the testing debate itself, making this key point about what is not being included:
Nevertheless, the debate in Washington, D.C., largely ignores the fundamental criticism leveled by parents and others: testing should not be driving reform.
But the problem is not how to do testing correctly. In fact, today's standardized assessments are probably the best they've ever been. The problem is a system that favors a largely automated accounting of a narrow slice of students' capacity and then attaches huge consequences to that limited information.
The paper goes on the list some of the undesirable side effects of that "singular focus," including (and I'll paraphrase) sucking the fun out of school, turning teaching into clerical gruntwork, giving up on an actual well-rounded education, and tossing out non-academic skills related to becoming a decent human being.
Tests, they caution, can be useful when used properly and for their intended purposes.
The problem is not in the measurements; it is in the fetishizing of those measurements. It is the belief that measurements will magically drive improvements in teaching and learning.
NEPC next turns to the Equity Argument for Test-Based Reform. They note the real reasons, including historic neglect of some groups, for people to find this argument compelling.
...we do not see any reason to believe that a test-focused ESEA in 2015 would yield any greater focus on opportunities to learn than did a test-focused ESEA in 2002.
The writers note that the achievement gaps were well-known and documented via NAEP results before NCLB was ever hatched. Test-based attempts to close the achievement gap have never worked. And the NAEP provides all the measurement we'll ever need.
The secret? Poverty. The original ESEA language called for an additional 40% of a state's spending for each child living in poverty. This would be one of those parts of the law that nobody has ever come close to following. Meanwhile, poverty is making a mess, inevitably leading to larger opportunity gaps and achievement gaps. "Testing will document this, but it will do nothing to change it."
What about universal accountability?
NCLB and similar policies have done a disservice to the word "accountability." Our nation and our nation's education system need accountability, but it must be fair and it must be universal. Holding teachers accountable but excusing policymakers who fail to provide necessary supports is as harmful and illogical as holding students accountable but excusing poor teaching. Today's demoralized teaching force has been given too much responsibility for outcomes and too little control over these outcomes.
And then they wind to a close, which like the rest of the paper is thoroughly quoteworthy. Let's use this line:
The way forward is not to tinker further with failed test-based accountability mechanisms; it is to learn from the best of our knowledge.
The NEPC has an open letter to Congress with this report attached for any researchers and professors to sign; so far almost 1,500 names are attached. If you are a researcher or college prof, you should sign it. If you are a person who cares about public education, you should read the entire document. If there is an app that allows us to give something a standing ovation on the internet, this paper deserves it.
But the National Education Policy Center can be counted on to do actual research, use actual facts, and express their ideas in clear, cogent prose. And when it comes to the issue of ESEA renewal and testing, they do not disappoint.
"Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Time To Move Beyond Test-Focused Policies" is a mouthful of a title, but in a mere dozen pages (several are endnotes), Kevin G. Welner and William J. Mathis deliver a clear and thorough response to those who insist that annual standardized tests need to be the engine that drives the pubic education system. I am not going to do it justice here in this space, but let me give you the nickel tour of some of the best of the many great pull-quotes in the piece.
Their first paragraph presents a clear foundation:
Today’s 21-year-olds were in third grade in 2002, when the No Child Left Behind Act became law. For them and their younger siblings and neighbors, test-driven accountability policies are all they’ve known. The federal government entrusted their educations to an unproven but ambitious belief that if we test children and hold educators responsible for improving test scores, we would have almost everyone scoring as “proficient” by 2014. Thus, we would achieve “equality.” This approach has not worked.
They drop back for a history lesson, beginning with where we started:
NCLB was an ineffective solution to some very real problems.
But policy fails to provide supports for student success and ignores "the many opportunity gaps children face outside of school." Federal funding has been insufficient, has run out, has been kicked in the teeth by the Great Recession. "Adequate school funding remains a key, unaddressed issue."
NEPC then goes on to look at the testing debate itself, making this key point about what is not being included:
Nevertheless, the debate in Washington, D.C., largely ignores the fundamental criticism leveled by parents and others: testing should not be driving reform.
But the problem is not how to do testing correctly. In fact, today's standardized assessments are probably the best they've ever been. The problem is a system that favors a largely automated accounting of a narrow slice of students' capacity and then attaches huge consequences to that limited information.
The paper goes on the list some of the undesirable side effects of that "singular focus," including (and I'll paraphrase) sucking the fun out of school, turning teaching into clerical gruntwork, giving up on an actual well-rounded education, and tossing out non-academic skills related to becoming a decent human being.
Tests, they caution, can be useful when used properly and for their intended purposes.
The problem is not in the measurements; it is in the fetishizing of those measurements. It is the belief that measurements will magically drive improvements in teaching and learning.
NEPC next turns to the Equity Argument for Test-Based Reform. They note the real reasons, including historic neglect of some groups, for people to find this argument compelling.
...we do not see any reason to believe that a test-focused ESEA in 2015 would yield any greater focus on opportunities to learn than did a test-focused ESEA in 2002.
The writers note that the achievement gaps were well-known and documented via NAEP results before NCLB was ever hatched. Test-based attempts to close the achievement gap have never worked. And the NAEP provides all the measurement we'll ever need.
The secret? Poverty. The original ESEA language called for an additional 40% of a state's spending for each child living in poverty. This would be one of those parts of the law that nobody has ever come close to following. Meanwhile, poverty is making a mess, inevitably leading to larger opportunity gaps and achievement gaps. "Testing will document this, but it will do nothing to change it."
What about universal accountability?
NCLB and similar policies have done a disservice to the word "accountability." Our nation and our nation's education system need accountability, but it must be fair and it must be universal. Holding teachers accountable but excusing policymakers who fail to provide necessary supports is as harmful and illogical as holding students accountable but excusing poor teaching. Today's demoralized teaching force has been given too much responsibility for outcomes and too little control over these outcomes.
And then they wind to a close, which like the rest of the paper is thoroughly quoteworthy. Let's use this line:
The way forward is not to tinker further with failed test-based accountability mechanisms; it is to learn from the best of our knowledge.
The NEPC has an open letter to Congress with this report attached for any researchers and professors to sign; so far almost 1,500 names are attached. If you are a researcher or college prof, you should sign it. If you are a person who cares about public education, you should read the entire document. If there is an app that allows us to give something a standing ovation on the internet, this paper deserves it.
Monday, February 16, 2015
The Governors Want Their Schools Back
Last week the National Governor's Association (NGA) released their idea of what the new ESEA should look like. The document is only six pages long, but it has some remarkable features, and while the NGA may not ultimately carry a great deal of weight in this discussion, they certainly don't carry any less weight than Arne Duncan and the USED, and we've talked about their ideas. So fair is fair.
NGA, you may recall, is notable for being the copyright holders of the Common Core as well as being one of the groups that supposedly hired David Coleman, Jason Zimba, and some other gifted amateurs to punch up the nation's education system. So the first thing that we'll note is that the phrase "Common Core" does not appear anywhere in their proposal.
So what's the major upshot of this proposal from the folks who helped start the ball rolling on the federal take-over of fifty separate public education systems? The major upshot is this:
Give us back our schools.
Here are the more specific breakdowns of the proposal.
Governance and Educational Alignment
Governors and state legislatures believe that a student's success is determined by much more than time spent in elementary and high school. Students need a supportive, seamless progression from preschool through college to lifelong learning and successful employment.
So there's your fetus-to-fertilizer pipeline. The NGA loves it-- they just don't think it can be managed very well from DC. After all, he's called Big Brother, not Big Uncle or Big Second Cousin Once Removed on Your Mother's Side. Race to the Top was great for modernizing the approach to education, but "it is time to take the next step" by rewriting ESEA so that it "supports students in all phases of life." Yeah, that's not creepy and stalkery at all.
Does it seem like I'm over-reacting by thinking that this proposes to make the schools a cog in the worker supply chain? Well, here's a quote from their press release:
“The Elementary and Secondary Education Act will allow states to align our needs through early education to higher education with the needs of our innovative businesses, developing a stronger workforce development pipeline, expanding opportunity for all of our people and ensuring that students are prepared for success in all phases of life,” said New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan, vice chair of the committee.”
Specifically, the NGA recommends that ESEA gives state-level leaders the authority to align, leverage, and finance their way to greater efficiency. Give states the tools to lump pre- and post- secondary education into the mix, as well as workforce development; break down silos, and allow flexibility for "public-private partnership." So, loosen up the rules so we can outsource to whatever vendor suits us.
Accountability and Testing
NGA would like to move away from "label and punish" and get with a more supportive framework-- for each student. For accountability to work, "federal prescriptions must be replaced with a federal, state and local partnership that makes certain every child counts."
So keep the public reporting of progress, and keep disaggregating results. But dump the "rigid structure" of Annual Measurable Objectives and Adequate Yearly Progress and let the states come up with their own systems that ensure ambitious targets, use multiple measures, account for college and career readiness, check districts' annual progress, gets public input from all constituencies, and allows states to cut a deal with individual districts.
Also, the state's assessment system should be one that "prohibits the US Secretary of Education from influencing or dictating the state's development of goals under ESEA." So, memo from NGA to Arne Duncan: Suck it.
The states should also get to create their own intervention process that does not necessarily hold Title I funds hostage, allows the state to partner with a failing district, but requires the state to flat out intervene after things stay too bad too long. The Title I non-hostage clause would be enough all by itself to get the federal monkey off the states' back.
Also, states should be able to pick or substitute their own alternatives to any federally-required assessments, and they should be able to do it without seeking the permission of the Secretary of Education. So, again-- Arne, suck it.
High Quality Education for All Students
Governors and state legislators want students to succeed and believe that all can (at high levels). We still think the transparency and disaggregatiness of NCLB are just fine, thanks.
So NGA advocates ensuring a high-quality education for all by continuing testing and reporting results, which is kind of backwards, like saying we'll make sure you get a good meal by cleaning the plates afterwards. NGA also advocates allowing some fancy footwork with aggregating, and getting rid of "cumbersome" government paperwork.
Also (I don't know why this is hiding here), they want you to know that "states" include US territories and outside regions. So, congratulations Kwajalein-- you get a piece of this, too.
NGA also recommends that students with disabilities not be left out of this, as well as English language learners. As with the rest of the high-quality delivery system, the states want flexibility to sort things out.
School Improvement
States have been researching ways to "lift up" failing schools like crazy and even trying ways to keep those that are circling the drain from failing. The feds should help us fund scaling up these various techniques (I presume that NGA meant to add "in case we ever find one that actually works, other than obvious things like getting money and resources to schools in trouble"). "The current limited federal menu of options for school improvement" keeps us from doing what we think we'd rather.
However, the feds should still send money. We may want to change other parts of this, but that sending money part? We would like to keep doing that. Then we will spend the money on turnaround specialists or state partnerships with the district or a menu of strategies. Also, we'd like to let successful districts export their ideas to unsuccessful ones (presumably NGA imagines strategies other than "build your school in a wealthy neighborhood" coming to light).
Districts might also use that funding to recruit some awesome high-quality school leaders and then gift them with flexible resources (aka folding money).
Schools would have three years to turn things around, unless they "partnered" with the state, in which case the time frame is open to negotiation. The state will figure out which data markers will determine success.
Empowering Teachers and School Leaders
Teachers and school leaders and the state should be co-developers of an evaluation system and professional development. Districts should be able to use federal money to build partnerships with postsecondary partners (because we all teach in districts right next to colleges).
The feds should scrap their definition of a highly qualified teacher and let the states go back to determining that for themselves. The evaluation system will likewise be a state thing that would give "meaningful weight" to "multiple-measures of teacher and principal performance" (I do not know what the hyphen is doing in there) as well as evidence of student learning and "contributing factors" to student growth. The state, working with educators at all levels, would decide what to do with evaluation results.
Also, "the Secretary may not dictate or require any methodology as part of a state's teacher and school leader evaluation system." So, a third time, NGA says suck it, Arne.
NGA says fine on retaining the requirement to distribute teachers equitably across the state (an requirement that nobody has ever even pretended to implement) but they would like the freedom to spend the money for that on, well, pretty much anything. "Efforts" to increase number of great teachers in a school-- heck, I can fob anything of as an "effort" to do anything.
State and Local Flexibility
States and schools must be given increased flexibility to meet the individual needs of students and prepare them to compete in a highly-skilled workforce.
Well, that certainly lowers the bar for what we want from an educated public, doesn't it. Just get 'em ready for a job. If their future employers are happy, that's all we need? The entire US public education system isn't here to serve students or parents or taxpayers-- it's here to serve businesses?
This part of the proposal is about flexibility in how states have to deal with the feds.
For instance, we spend a third of a page talking about federal approval of the state plan request. The Secretary must have a team to review these plans. The Secretary may not add academic requirements. The Secretary get the plan reviewed and back in sixty days or it is automatically approved. And the Secretary cannot disapprove a plan unless he can "provide substantive, research-based evidence that the plan will negatively affect children's education."
And in the event that we're still doing waivers, the Secretary is again given a list of restrictions, finishing with being forbidden to deny a waiver "for conditions outside the scope of the waiver request," nor may he add additional requirements not covered in ESEA. So in other words, under NGA's version of the law, the current waiver requirements that Arne has saddled everyone with would be illegal (or, if you like, more clearly illegal than they already are).
So, once more, and with gusto, Arne is cordially invited to suck it.
Two Thoughts
Two things occur to me reading this document (well, three, if you count how very much the governors want Arne to get bent).
One is that the governors don't seem to have a great deal of faith in the authority of the state. It seems that if they were really feeling their oats, they would just do some of the things on this list instead of asking if the feds might allow them a small cup of rights. "Please, sir, may I have some more," hardly seems like the stance for a full-scale American governor.
Second, the NGA seems surprised to be here, as if they can't imagine how education ever got in such a heavily-federalized mess. They've tried selling this "Who, us?" narrative before, but it was the governors who laid out what would be the framework of Race to the Top, and they did it back in 2008, before Duncan and Obama had made their unsuccessful attempt to get ESEA rewritten, before Race to the Top was devised as an end run around it. If the governor's don't like the current reformy scenery, well, we've arrived exactly where they wanted to take us. A piece of my heart will go out to any US Congress member who calls the governors on that.
The best final word on the NGA Christmas list comes from Anne Gassel at Missouri Education Watchdog, so I'll let her wrap this up by putting this newest reformy proposal in its proper context:
Outcome Based Education, School To Work, Goals 2000, NCLB are all signs that the federal government is incapable of drafting workable or effective laws regarding education. Reform at this level will not work. Such laws, by the very fact that they require central control (and accountability), are destined not to work for education and need to be eliminated. Unfortunately our Governors don’t recognize that they already have all the authority they need to do what they want and instead are asking for permission, thereby granting control to the feds. This is not leadership Governors. This is middle management at best.
NGA, you may recall, is notable for being the copyright holders of the Common Core as well as being one of the groups that supposedly hired David Coleman, Jason Zimba, and some other gifted amateurs to punch up the nation's education system. So the first thing that we'll note is that the phrase "Common Core" does not appear anywhere in their proposal.
So what's the major upshot of this proposal from the folks who helped start the ball rolling on the federal take-over of fifty separate public education systems? The major upshot is this:
Give us back our schools.
Here are the more specific breakdowns of the proposal.
Governance and Educational Alignment
Governors and state legislatures believe that a student's success is determined by much more than time spent in elementary and high school. Students need a supportive, seamless progression from preschool through college to lifelong learning and successful employment.
So there's your fetus-to-fertilizer pipeline. The NGA loves it-- they just don't think it can be managed very well from DC. After all, he's called Big Brother, not Big Uncle or Big Second Cousin Once Removed on Your Mother's Side. Race to the Top was great for modernizing the approach to education, but "it is time to take the next step" by rewriting ESEA so that it "supports students in all phases of life." Yeah, that's not creepy and stalkery at all.
Does it seem like I'm over-reacting by thinking that this proposes to make the schools a cog in the worker supply chain? Well, here's a quote from their press release:
“The Elementary and Secondary Education Act will allow states to align our needs through early education to higher education with the needs of our innovative businesses, developing a stronger workforce development pipeline, expanding opportunity for all of our people and ensuring that students are prepared for success in all phases of life,” said New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan, vice chair of the committee.”
Specifically, the NGA recommends that ESEA gives state-level leaders the authority to align, leverage, and finance their way to greater efficiency. Give states the tools to lump pre- and post- secondary education into the mix, as well as workforce development; break down silos, and allow flexibility for "public-private partnership." So, loosen up the rules so we can outsource to whatever vendor suits us.
Accountability and Testing
NGA would like to move away from "label and punish" and get with a more supportive framework-- for each student. For accountability to work, "federal prescriptions must be replaced with a federal, state and local partnership that makes certain every child counts."
So keep the public reporting of progress, and keep disaggregating results. But dump the "rigid structure" of Annual Measurable Objectives and Adequate Yearly Progress and let the states come up with their own systems that ensure ambitious targets, use multiple measures, account for college and career readiness, check districts' annual progress, gets public input from all constituencies, and allows states to cut a deal with individual districts.
Also, the state's assessment system should be one that "prohibits the US Secretary of Education from influencing or dictating the state's development of goals under ESEA." So, memo from NGA to Arne Duncan: Suck it.
The states should also get to create their own intervention process that does not necessarily hold Title I funds hostage, allows the state to partner with a failing district, but requires the state to flat out intervene after things stay too bad too long. The Title I non-hostage clause would be enough all by itself to get the federal monkey off the states' back.
Also, states should be able to pick or substitute their own alternatives to any federally-required assessments, and they should be able to do it without seeking the permission of the Secretary of Education. So, again-- Arne, suck it.
High Quality Education for All Students
Governors and state legislators want students to succeed and believe that all can (at high levels). We still think the transparency and disaggregatiness of NCLB are just fine, thanks.
So NGA advocates ensuring a high-quality education for all by continuing testing and reporting results, which is kind of backwards, like saying we'll make sure you get a good meal by cleaning the plates afterwards. NGA also advocates allowing some fancy footwork with aggregating, and getting rid of "cumbersome" government paperwork.
Also (I don't know why this is hiding here), they want you to know that "states" include US territories and outside regions. So, congratulations Kwajalein-- you get a piece of this, too.
NGA also recommends that students with disabilities not be left out of this, as well as English language learners. As with the rest of the high-quality delivery system, the states want flexibility to sort things out.
School Improvement
States have been researching ways to "lift up" failing schools like crazy and even trying ways to keep those that are circling the drain from failing. The feds should help us fund scaling up these various techniques (I presume that NGA meant to add "in case we ever find one that actually works, other than obvious things like getting money and resources to schools in trouble"). "The current limited federal menu of options for school improvement" keeps us from doing what we think we'd rather.
However, the feds should still send money. We may want to change other parts of this, but that sending money part? We would like to keep doing that. Then we will spend the money on turnaround specialists or state partnerships with the district or a menu of strategies. Also, we'd like to let successful districts export their ideas to unsuccessful ones (presumably NGA imagines strategies other than "build your school in a wealthy neighborhood" coming to light).
Districts might also use that funding to recruit some awesome high-quality school leaders and then gift them with flexible resources (aka folding money).
Schools would have three years to turn things around, unless they "partnered" with the state, in which case the time frame is open to negotiation. The state will figure out which data markers will determine success.
Empowering Teachers and School Leaders
Teachers and school leaders and the state should be co-developers of an evaluation system and professional development. Districts should be able to use federal money to build partnerships with postsecondary partners (because we all teach in districts right next to colleges).
The feds should scrap their definition of a highly qualified teacher and let the states go back to determining that for themselves. The evaluation system will likewise be a state thing that would give "meaningful weight" to "multiple-measures of teacher and principal performance" (I do not know what the hyphen is doing in there) as well as evidence of student learning and "contributing factors" to student growth. The state, working with educators at all levels, would decide what to do with evaluation results.
Also, "the Secretary may not dictate or require any methodology as part of a state's teacher and school leader evaluation system." So, a third time, NGA says suck it, Arne.
NGA says fine on retaining the requirement to distribute teachers equitably across the state (an requirement that nobody has ever even pretended to implement) but they would like the freedom to spend the money for that on, well, pretty much anything. "Efforts" to increase number of great teachers in a school-- heck, I can fob anything of as an "effort" to do anything.
State and Local Flexibility
States and schools must be given increased flexibility to meet the individual needs of students and prepare them to compete in a highly-skilled workforce.
Well, that certainly lowers the bar for what we want from an educated public, doesn't it. Just get 'em ready for a job. If their future employers are happy, that's all we need? The entire US public education system isn't here to serve students or parents or taxpayers-- it's here to serve businesses?
This part of the proposal is about flexibility in how states have to deal with the feds.
For instance, we spend a third of a page talking about federal approval of the state plan request. The Secretary must have a team to review these plans. The Secretary may not add academic requirements. The Secretary get the plan reviewed and back in sixty days or it is automatically approved. And the Secretary cannot disapprove a plan unless he can "provide substantive, research-based evidence that the plan will negatively affect children's education."
And in the event that we're still doing waivers, the Secretary is again given a list of restrictions, finishing with being forbidden to deny a waiver "for conditions outside the scope of the waiver request," nor may he add additional requirements not covered in ESEA. So in other words, under NGA's version of the law, the current waiver requirements that Arne has saddled everyone with would be illegal (or, if you like, more clearly illegal than they already are).
So, once more, and with gusto, Arne is cordially invited to suck it.
Two Thoughts
Two things occur to me reading this document (well, three, if you count how very much the governors want Arne to get bent).
One is that the governors don't seem to have a great deal of faith in the authority of the state. It seems that if they were really feeling their oats, they would just do some of the things on this list instead of asking if the feds might allow them a small cup of rights. "Please, sir, may I have some more," hardly seems like the stance for a full-scale American governor.
Second, the NGA seems surprised to be here, as if they can't imagine how education ever got in such a heavily-federalized mess. They've tried selling this "Who, us?" narrative before, but it was the governors who laid out what would be the framework of Race to the Top, and they did it back in 2008, before Duncan and Obama had made their unsuccessful attempt to get ESEA rewritten, before Race to the Top was devised as an end run around it. If the governor's don't like the current reformy scenery, well, we've arrived exactly where they wanted to take us. A piece of my heart will go out to any US Congress member who calls the governors on that.
The best final word on the NGA Christmas list comes from Anne Gassel at Missouri Education Watchdog, so I'll let her wrap this up by putting this newest reformy proposal in its proper context:
Outcome Based Education, School To Work, Goals 2000, NCLB are all signs that the federal government is incapable of drafting workable or effective laws regarding education. Reform at this level will not work. Such laws, by the very fact that they require central control (and accountability), are destined not to work for education and need to be eliminated. Unfortunately our Governors don’t recognize that they already have all the authority they need to do what they want and instead are asking for permission, thereby granting control to the feds. This is not leadership Governors. This is middle management at best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)