It crops up many places, but today it was front and center in Michael Grunwald's piece for Politico. In "Obama vs. Teacher Union: It's Still On" Grunwald lays out the ongoing beef between teachers unions and the administration, which is first in his display of lesser fallacies. Framing the conflict as one between unions and the administration isn't quite right, as the unions have been largely friendly and compliant with the administration, and most of their official squawks of disagreement have come only after considerable prodding from membership (NEA and AFT still officially think Common Core is Just Fine, Thanks).
Grunwald then goes on to posit that John King on paper looks like a great choice to bind the wounds, resorting to the John King Story, which seems to be how we're going to sell this exemplar of upward failure as a serious faux secretary of ed. Grunwald gives a quick gloss to King's "former teacher" credential; King taught a grand total of three years, including two in a charter. The King story always includes a chapter about how his public school teachers saved him, but it never includes a thoughtful consideration of whether his favored reforms would support those kind of teachers today, or force them to stop focusing on what children need and devote more time to test scores.
Grunwald includes the story of King's charter-founding awesomeness. He skips over the secret of King's charter success-- sky high suspension rates and the push-out of countless students. And he skips over the huge disconnect in King's story-- the man who talks about how school was a safe, nurturing place for a troubled orphan went on to establish schools where children must walk in step and speak only when allowed. One wonders how many troubled orphans King's schools have suspended or pushed out. Grunwald isn't going to ask.
Grunwald's piece is laced with other little fallacies, like uncritically observing that most states have adopted "higher standards," even though there's no basis on which to say the various mutated forms of Common Core are "higher."
But running through Grunwald's article is the Central Liberal Reform Fallacy.
But Obama has
always taken the reform side of the public education wars; in The Audacity
of Hope, he criticized liberals who “defend an indefensible status quo,
insisting that more spending alone will improve educational outcomes.”
The unions often argue that the deep problems of urban
education have their roots outside the school, with impoverished and
crime-ridden neighborhoods stripped of hope. King worries about those problems,
but like Duncan and President Obama, he worries even more about using them as
excuses for problems inside the schools.
“Yes, we should have better health care and housing and
criminal justice reform,” King told me. “But school can save kids’ lives. It
saved mine.”
This is the construction at the center of the liberal support for reformster policies:
The problem is really bad, therefor our solution will work.
Which gets us to this conversation:
Critics: Your proposed solution will not work.
Reformster: Are you saying the problem doesn't exist?
The Obama administration wants to hold teachers accountable for whether or not students learn. But it has no working instrument for measuring student learning, and it has absolutely no clue how to tell whether teachers have aided in that learning or not.
It's that simple. The administration, both under Duncan and soon under King, wants to prove its solutions work by arguing that problems are real and that education is a Good Thing. Nobody sensible is arguing about either of those points-- many, many of our students are suffering under poverty, systemic racism, and a host of other issues, and many of our public schools have failed, either by lack of will or lack of resources, to successfully fully address the needs of those students. That's the truth.
But it does not follow from that truth that Common Core (or any national standards) will help. It does not follow that making a standardized test (especially one that poorly measures a small sliver of a full education) the central point and purpose of public education will help. It does not follow that evaluating teachers with a system no more valid or reliable than a roll of dice will help. It does not follow that dismantling public education and selling the pieces to people whose primary concern is not education, but dollars-- that won't help, either.
That's the fallacy. That's the part of the equation that we need to be talking about. Or rather, that those who are so sure of their own rightness and caring and feeling need to join the ongoing conversation about.
King says at the end of the article, "Every kid deserves the kind of opportunity I had." That's a nice thought. A better thought is to explain how, exactly, you think your policies will lead to it happening. That's the great missing link of ed reform.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Campbell Brown Snubbed Again
Campbell Brown, journalist caterpillar transformed into reformster butterfly, has been snubbed again.
When Brown set up her website, one of her stated goals was to help drive the political discussion of education. With an eye toward the 2016 Presidential race, she had set up two educati0n discussions for candidates-- one in New Hampshire for the GOP, and one in Iowa for the Dems.
But this morning Politico announced that the Iowa beauty pageant has been snubbed. None of the five candidates (come on-- did you even know there were five of them) have RSVP-ed. In fact, most have not even called to say "Nothankyouverymuch."
Writer Michael Grunwald is assisting Brown in painting the snub as the result of pressure from those pernicious unions, and while it's certainly true that Brown, in her new role of Rhee Lite, has not won any union love, I'd like to offer another explanation.
The NH beauty pageant happened, but it was not exactly a rousing success. Of the something-teen GOP candidates alive and kicking at the time, Brown scored just six-- Bush, Kasich, Fiorina, Christie, Jindal, and Walker. Millions of viewers did not tune in or log on, and no news was made. And yet then-- and now-- Brown did not offer any explanation for why ten-or-more GOP candidates did not come out to play with her. But Iowa is simply not the first and only time she's been snubbed playing this Presidential job interviewer game.
I admire Brown's guts-- she has tried to make herself into a major campaign player just by insisting that she is. But her attempt failed.
Sure, "Those unions are out to get me because I'm so big and scary, so I must be really important" makes a good narrative for keeping her brand alive. It's certainly more energizing than, "No Presidential candidates want to come talk to me because I'm nobody important and they have better things to do than talk to me and help me strengthen my brand."
Brown and some other reformster pilot fish will gladly claim they've been put upon by the union, because that makes them important. It's an old and venerable trick-- hell, if I could get Campbell Brown to attack me in print, my bloggy street cred would go way up-- but it doesn't always work. And to pretend that the Democratic party, which just fell all over itself lionizing the departing and union un-loved Arne Duncan-- well, that party hasn't shown all that much concern about upsetting the teachers unions.
At best, Brown is just a victim of the old internet adage "Don't Feed the Trolls." But it's just as likely that her Iowa shindig failed because she's just not that important or relevant.
When Brown set up her website, one of her stated goals was to help drive the political discussion of education. With an eye toward the 2016 Presidential race, she had set up two educati0n discussions for candidates-- one in New Hampshire for the GOP, and one in Iowa for the Dems.
But this morning Politico announced that the Iowa beauty pageant has been snubbed. None of the five candidates (come on-- did you even know there were five of them) have RSVP-ed. In fact, most have not even called to say "Nothankyouverymuch."
Writer Michael Grunwald is assisting Brown in painting the snub as the result of pressure from those pernicious unions, and while it's certainly true that Brown, in her new role of Rhee Lite, has not won any union love, I'd like to offer another explanation.
The NH beauty pageant happened, but it was not exactly a rousing success. Of the something-teen GOP candidates alive and kicking at the time, Brown scored just six-- Bush, Kasich, Fiorina, Christie, Jindal, and Walker. Millions of viewers did not tune in or log on, and no news was made. And yet then-- and now-- Brown did not offer any explanation for why ten-or-more GOP candidates did not come out to play with her. But Iowa is simply not the first and only time she's been snubbed playing this Presidential job interviewer game.
I admire Brown's guts-- she has tried to make herself into a major campaign player just by insisting that she is. But her attempt failed.
Sure, "Those unions are out to get me because I'm so big and scary, so I must be really important" makes a good narrative for keeping her brand alive. It's certainly more energizing than, "No Presidential candidates want to come talk to me because I'm nobody important and they have better things to do than talk to me and help me strengthen my brand."
Brown and some other reformster pilot fish will gladly claim they've been put upon by the union, because that makes them important. It's an old and venerable trick-- hell, if I could get Campbell Brown to attack me in print, my bloggy street cred would go way up-- but it doesn't always work. And to pretend that the Democratic party, which just fell all over itself lionizing the departing and union un-loved Arne Duncan-- well, that party hasn't shown all that much concern about upsetting the teachers unions.
At best, Brown is just a victim of the old internet adage "Don't Feed the Trolls." But it's just as likely that her Iowa shindig failed because she's just not that important or relevant.
All the Feels
One hallmark of reformsterism has been the relentless insistence on data and research. Decisions must be data-driven, while programs must be research-based. We must make the delivery system of education just as scientific and mechanical and bloodless as a toaster assembly line.
Which is why it has been so curious to see all the reformster feelings on display. Deep feelings. Heartfelt feelings. Just the announcement of the departure of Arne Duncan and his replacement by failing-upward poster boy John King has been a feeling-fest. Just, really, all the feels.
Duncan's announcement included a whole list of things he loves. With tears. The Politico profile is just full of the feels, with Ted Mitchell tearing up, and a hammering home of a point often made about Duncan-- that he just cares so much. He cares about kids. In fact, some folks in the USED circle are certain that nobody anywhere on the planet cares about the kids as much as Duncan does. And I can actually believe that, well, he thinks so. It would frankly explain a lot-- Duncan the righteous crusader who doesn't have to listen to anybody because nobody cares like he does. And so Duncan can ignore all the research based evidence that would suggest VAM should be data-driven over a cliff-- he can ignore that. And he can keep puzzling over why schools have become so test-focused even as lots of people try to tell him. And he can keep bragging about only the United States Education Department-- not teachers or schools or even parents-- will tell the truth about how kids are doing.
All of that because Duncan just cares so much more than everyone else.
And the feels just keep on coming as we contemplate the anointing of John King, who like many beloved reformsters before him (looking at you, She Who Will Not Be Named from DC) does not have a single actual success to his name. King's track record includes charter schools that are a showcase of charter worst practices, shoving vast percentages of students out the door (in violation of USED policies) so that the few students they are willing to teach can bring in good numbers. King couldn't deal with the public, couldn't work with teachers, and had to bail out of New York as a failure in the state education leaderly post.
But King has a story, and his story is (and I say this without irony) absolutely a great one. Tough childhood, turned around by a dedicated teacher, making his way up in the world. Go over to Peter Cunningham's $12 million reformster PR site, and the headline "Because I believe in all kids, I support John King" leads to an article that is mostly John King telling his story (also, a bicycle, because a vest has no sleeves-- what the heck does believing in children have to do with thinking John King would make a good USED sort-of-secretary). Never mind that King does not consider whether his beloved teacher could survive and save other young John Kings under current USED policies. The story gives all the feels.
And now reformsters are trying to build a groundswell for King with tactics like #ISupportJohnKing on the twitter, and the tweets (before the hashtag was hijacked by public education supporters) have been all about "believing" and "the children."
In fact, so far, I haven't seen any support for King's Congress-sidestepping appointment that are based on research or data. Nothing to say how his great policies in NY helped students, or how he has shown his ability to manage the sort of detail and policy that a USED acting-like-a-secretary must manage.
The support is all about the feels. He ran a charter school (but let's not talk about how, exactly, that worked out-- don't bring up the data because that's just mean). He has a great, touching story. He believes in all the children of the world. That is all great, and lord knows I'm not above poking readers in the feels now and again, but my dog also has a great story and loves every child he has ever met, believing that they all have godlike powers, and my dog would make a terrible part-time-pretend-secretary of education.
The folks in DC occasionally opine that they would like policy ideas judged on merit, and lots of olks in these debates ask that things not be made personal (which, despite my general tone of mockery, I actually agree with). But if you want those things, you can't also ask that players be judged on their personal qualities, and you can't claim to be making decisions based on "I know this guy and he's Good People."
Duncan and King will both have to be judged on their policies and their effectiveness in working well with stakeholders, not on their feelings. I am in no position to judge the latter, but the evidence about the former does not speak in their favor. Instead of trying to give us the feels, how about showing us some evidence? It's not tat feelings and motivation don't matter-- but when you keep punching me in the face, I'm not so interested in how you feel about it.
Which is why it has been so curious to see all the reformster feelings on display. Deep feelings. Heartfelt feelings. Just the announcement of the departure of Arne Duncan and his replacement by failing-upward poster boy John King has been a feeling-fest. Just, really, all the feels.
Duncan's announcement included a whole list of things he loves. With tears. The Politico profile is just full of the feels, with Ted Mitchell tearing up, and a hammering home of a point often made about Duncan-- that he just cares so much. He cares about kids. In fact, some folks in the USED circle are certain that nobody anywhere on the planet cares about the kids as much as Duncan does. And I can actually believe that, well, he thinks so. It would frankly explain a lot-- Duncan the righteous crusader who doesn't have to listen to anybody because nobody cares like he does. And so Duncan can ignore all the research based evidence that would suggest VAM should be data-driven over a cliff-- he can ignore that. And he can keep puzzling over why schools have become so test-focused even as lots of people try to tell him. And he can keep bragging about only the United States Education Department-- not teachers or schools or even parents-- will tell the truth about how kids are doing.
All of that because Duncan just cares so much more than everyone else.
And the feels just keep on coming as we contemplate the anointing of John King, who like many beloved reformsters before him (looking at you, She Who Will Not Be Named from DC) does not have a single actual success to his name. King's track record includes charter schools that are a showcase of charter worst practices, shoving vast percentages of students out the door (in violation of USED policies) so that the few students they are willing to teach can bring in good numbers. King couldn't deal with the public, couldn't work with teachers, and had to bail out of New York as a failure in the state education leaderly post.
But King has a story, and his story is (and I say this without irony) absolutely a great one. Tough childhood, turned around by a dedicated teacher, making his way up in the world. Go over to Peter Cunningham's $12 million reformster PR site, and the headline "Because I believe in all kids, I support John King" leads to an article that is mostly John King telling his story (also, a bicycle, because a vest has no sleeves-- what the heck does believing in children have to do with thinking John King would make a good USED sort-of-secretary). Never mind that King does not consider whether his beloved teacher could survive and save other young John Kings under current USED policies. The story gives all the feels.
And now reformsters are trying to build a groundswell for King with tactics like #ISupportJohnKing on the twitter, and the tweets (before the hashtag was hijacked by public education supporters) have been all about "believing" and "the children."
In fact, so far, I haven't seen any support for King's Congress-sidestepping appointment that are based on research or data. Nothing to say how his great policies in NY helped students, or how he has shown his ability to manage the sort of detail and policy that a USED acting-like-a-secretary must manage.
The support is all about the feels. He ran a charter school (but let's not talk about how, exactly, that worked out-- don't bring up the data because that's just mean). He has a great, touching story. He believes in all the children of the world. That is all great, and lord knows I'm not above poking readers in the feels now and again, but my dog also has a great story and loves every child he has ever met, believing that they all have godlike powers, and my dog would make a terrible part-time-pretend-secretary of education.
The folks in DC occasionally opine that they would like policy ideas judged on merit, and lots of olks in these debates ask that things not be made personal (which, despite my general tone of mockery, I actually agree with). But if you want those things, you can't also ask that players be judged on their personal qualities, and you can't claim to be making decisions based on "I know this guy and he's Good People."
Duncan and King will both have to be judged on their policies and their effectiveness in working well with stakeholders, not on their feelings. I am in no position to judge the latter, but the evidence about the former does not speak in their favor. Instead of trying to give us the feels, how about showing us some evidence? It's not tat feelings and motivation don't matter-- but when you keep punching me in the face, I'm not so interested in how you feel about it.
LA: How To PARCC Up Parents
One of the ongoing challenges of selling the Big Standardized Test is trying to convince folks that the BS Tests are generating some sort of real data. With that in mind, the Louisiana Department of Education has whipped up an awesome video to model how teachers should try to convince parents that the PARCC exam wasn't a huge waste of everyone's time and money.
Emily Martin will be our teacher exemplar; some poor uncredited woman plays the part of Jonah's mom. Emily will show us how to have "an effective parent conversation" about the upcoming PARCC scores (hey-- that must mean they're finally being released! cool!).
Martin opens with a cheerful greeting and delivers some small talk about really enjoyinghavingjohnnyinclasshe'salotoffunokayletsjustetonwithit. Her delivery needs some work, but hey-- she has the highly complex PARCC data on her mind.
Martin says that she wants to be sure that Mom understands the information in the PARCC report from the test that Jonah took last year. She has a packet!! With her name and email on it. The packet looks to be actually a file folder, and the contents would be about two pieces of paper. But Martin has included her name and e-mail on a card. Plus the URL for the Louisiana Believes website.
Jonah's mom starts working her line, because in this "conversation," the parent part seems to be saying "Um-hmm" many, many times. I will report when Mom gets to say her first actual word.
Martin is going to warm Mom up with a sample test result sheet, because we need to warm Mom up for the moment she see's her child's scores and her brain explodes. Also, we need to pad this conversation out because presenting BS Test results is all about trying to make a grain of sand look like the Rock of Gibraltar.
Because here's the thing about the PARCC results. They are bupkus. They are the hair on the pimple on the butt of the world's smallest flea. It is absolutely astonishing that so much testing can result in so little actual information. It's as if somebody chopped down a redwood to make a toothpick.
Now, I hope I didn't get your hopes up-- Jonah's Mom is not here to get Jonah's scores. Not yet. Jonah's Mom is here so that Martin can start the process of managing Mom's reaction to the scores, and to do that, Martin has dragged this parent into school in order to walk her through the state's parent guide to the score.
This is our toothpick guide, and as Martin tries hard to make it look like something, I want you to remember that, according to the guide, the PARCC report will give the following information:
* the student's overall score, rated 1 through 5
* a reading score (1-3)
* a literary text score (1-3)
* a non-fiction reading score (1-3)
* a vocab score (1-3)
* a writing score (1-3)
* a written language score (1-3)
* a writing conventions score (1-3)
That's the rich data we're looking at. But back to Ms. Martin.
Martin is now explaining how the "breakdown" will be super valuable to her because it will show her where the students need extra support. I believe that "where" can best be described as a vague wave accompanied by "somewhere over in that general direction, ish" Remember-- those breakdown scores are just a matter of poor, okay, or swell ratings. So if you tell me, as a teacher, that Jonah is doing okay at reading non-fiction, I know... what? There is literally not a single assessment which I use that does not provide more data depth than this PARCC report.
Martin slips in that the emphasis of all these new standards is college and career readiness, also a bicycle, because a vest has no sleeves. Mom has been upgraded to repeating, "Okay," and I wonder if parents will also be shown this helpful modeling video so that they understand that they aren't supposed to be asking questions or pointing out foolishness or generally doing anything in this conversation except nodding cheerfully. Because it may turn out that some parents are not committed to that script.
Anyway, Martin is "very excited" about the "detailed information" that she's going to be receiving about Jonah and his friends, which is an odd thing to throw in-- "I'll be watching your kid and all the kids." Martin points at the page (she does this a lot) to show where the comparison of school, district and state will be, so that Mom can see if she's keeping up with Jones.
"What I want to prepare you for-" Uh-oh. Time for Martin to let Jonah's mom know that his scores may have tanked this year. But Jonah is a strong student, and Martin would guess that in the past he's done well-- wait! Guess?? Does Martin not have access to Jonah's previous scores? That seems like a huge mistake. Anyway, it may be possible that with the increased rigor and the new standards, his score might not be as great this year. Martin doesn't know because she hasn't seen Jonah's scores yet, so although it's October and he's been in her class for a while, she still hasn't seen the state data that would give her the straight poop on what kind of student he is. He's been awesome and doing great work and meeting a\or exceeding all her expectations, but still-- his scores could suck.
But Martin assures her that the low test score she may see doesn't mean that Jonah is less smart or has learned less or that he's not progressing the way he's supposed to be and I'm pretty sure at this point a real parent is not saying "okay" so much as they're saying "then what the hell is the point of looking at this score if you already know how my son is doing in school??" But the low score is just a reflection of the new standards, and as teachers and students get more comfortable, the scores will go up. So the PARCC measures comfort?? Maybe instead of strong, moderate and weak, student areas should be marked Serta Perfect Sleeper, comfy old couch, and pile of rocks.
Now Martin is on to the specific example scores, as I listed them above. She says these will give us very specific ideas about where Jonah needs work, and now I think the real parent is trying not to laugh, but Jonah's mom nods and says "okay." Martin tries to make hay out of saying that a strong in literary text paired with a weak in non-fiction would give her an instructional brainstorm, what with all the rich, deep information included in those two ratings.
And now she give Mom a quiz, and looking at the second column, asks Mom to show her where the strengths are, because Louisiana feels an important part of this is to be condescending to parents and treat them as if they are nine-year-old students in your classroom??!! I am happy for Jonah's Mom though, who know gets to speak a whole sentence of words to give her answer. "Excellent," says Martin. And Martin again pretends to think these star ratings are a really powerful tool for instruction, because if a person came into my room and said, "Hey, that student there is pretty okayish in writing stuff," that would give me a very powerful sense of exactly what lessons I needed to craft for that child. I could individualize instruction-- and the good news there is that since there are only three possible ratings, I only need three possible lessons to cover all my personalized instruction. Awesome.
Martin will now, and not for the last time, reassure Mom that Jonah's score will not have a big effect on his future or cause him to be held back a grade. This is just part of a "body of work that describes your student's accomplishments" and "it's really designed to be tailored information" and I have no idea what the hell that is supposed to mean, and from the look on Martin's face, neither does she. Jonah's mom says. "This is great" and Martin replies, "Yeah, great" in a tone that suggests "Shut up and stop going off script, you loose cannon." I'm pretty sure that real live parents are going to be rough on this "conversation" model.
Martin is going to send this parents guide home with Mom, who might want to stick it on her refrigerator. Maybe right next to the instructions on How To Read a Thermometer and How To Operate a Light Switch. Martin also directs us to where there are questions about stuff, which basically seems to lead to a discussion of things your student will do next year irregardless of this PARCC nonsense.
Now Martin will provide a specific plug for a specific activity-- the writing journal. Oh, and here's an old favorite-- she used to do crappy journals, but now that they have the standards and the PARCC, the journal will do awesome things. Evidence. Critical thinking. Unicorns. And Martin never heard of how to teach before the new high standards came along. She cheerfully indicts herself-- "In the past, I would have accepted any lazy crap, but now the standards make me do more." Also, the standards magically increase what students can do. Hurray, the standards.
This journal baloney is supposed to be an example of how the PARCC helps her design instruction, because a fish has no feet.
One last thing-- results on the test will not be used to determine student promotion. Want to be clear on that. Scores are part of larger process, because students and teachers are still getting used to the standards. Also, check out the website. With sample test items. Here at the end, Mom asks her first question (Do I need a user name or password?) for the entire "conversation." Jonah's mom is very grateful, and Martin remembers to thank her for taking time off from work so that Martin can read her a printout from a website that Mom could read at home.
I do wonder how many parents will show up for these sessions, and how many of them will leave the session with the feeling that PARCC is a huge waste of everyone's time, as exemplified by the meeting that just wasted their time. I'm sure somebody at LDE thinks they're being clever and proactive about managing expectations, but it's hard to manage people to be excited and grateful about a big poop sandwich.
Emily Martin will be our teacher exemplar; some poor uncredited woman plays the part of Jonah's mom. Emily will show us how to have "an effective parent conversation" about the upcoming PARCC scores (hey-- that must mean they're finally being released! cool!).
Martin opens with a cheerful greeting and delivers some small talk about really enjoyinghavingjohnnyinclasshe'salotoffunokayletsjustetonwithit. Her delivery needs some work, but hey-- she has the highly complex PARCC data on her mind.
Martin says that she wants to be sure that Mom understands the information in the PARCC report from the test that Jonah took last year. She has a packet!! With her name and email on it. The packet looks to be actually a file folder, and the contents would be about two pieces of paper. But Martin has included her name and e-mail on a card. Plus the URL for the Louisiana Believes website.
Jonah's mom starts working her line, because in this "conversation," the parent part seems to be saying "Um-hmm" many, many times. I will report when Mom gets to say her first actual word.
Martin is going to warm Mom up with a sample test result sheet, because we need to warm Mom up for the moment she see's her child's scores and her brain explodes. Also, we need to pad this conversation out because presenting BS Test results is all about trying to make a grain of sand look like the Rock of Gibraltar.
Because here's the thing about the PARCC results. They are bupkus. They are the hair on the pimple on the butt of the world's smallest flea. It is absolutely astonishing that so much testing can result in so little actual information. It's as if somebody chopped down a redwood to make a toothpick.
Now, I hope I didn't get your hopes up-- Jonah's Mom is not here to get Jonah's scores. Not yet. Jonah's Mom is here so that Martin can start the process of managing Mom's reaction to the scores, and to do that, Martin has dragged this parent into school in order to walk her through the state's parent guide to the score.
This is our toothpick guide, and as Martin tries hard to make it look like something, I want you to remember that, according to the guide, the PARCC report will give the following information:
* the student's overall score, rated 1 through 5
* a reading score (1-3)
* a literary text score (1-3)
* a non-fiction reading score (1-3)
* a vocab score (1-3)
* a writing score (1-3)
* a written language score (1-3)
* a writing conventions score (1-3)
That's the rich data we're looking at. But back to Ms. Martin.
Martin is now explaining how the "breakdown" will be super valuable to her because it will show her where the students need extra support. I believe that "where" can best be described as a vague wave accompanied by "somewhere over in that general direction, ish" Remember-- those breakdown scores are just a matter of poor, okay, or swell ratings. So if you tell me, as a teacher, that Jonah is doing okay at reading non-fiction, I know... what? There is literally not a single assessment which I use that does not provide more data depth than this PARCC report.
Martin slips in that the emphasis of all these new standards is college and career readiness, also a bicycle, because a vest has no sleeves. Mom has been upgraded to repeating, "Okay," and I wonder if parents will also be shown this helpful modeling video so that they understand that they aren't supposed to be asking questions or pointing out foolishness or generally doing anything in this conversation except nodding cheerfully. Because it may turn out that some parents are not committed to that script.
Anyway, Martin is "very excited" about the "detailed information" that she's going to be receiving about Jonah and his friends, which is an odd thing to throw in-- "I'll be watching your kid and all the kids." Martin points at the page (she does this a lot) to show where the comparison of school, district and state will be, so that Mom can see if she's keeping up with Jones.
"What I want to prepare you for-" Uh-oh. Time for Martin to let Jonah's mom know that his scores may have tanked this year. But Jonah is a strong student, and Martin would guess that in the past he's done well-- wait! Guess?? Does Martin not have access to Jonah's previous scores? That seems like a huge mistake. Anyway, it may be possible that with the increased rigor and the new standards, his score might not be as great this year. Martin doesn't know because she hasn't seen Jonah's scores yet, so although it's October and he's been in her class for a while, she still hasn't seen the state data that would give her the straight poop on what kind of student he is. He's been awesome and doing great work and meeting a\or exceeding all her expectations, but still-- his scores could suck.
But Martin assures her that the low test score she may see doesn't mean that Jonah is less smart or has learned less or that he's not progressing the way he's supposed to be and I'm pretty sure at this point a real parent is not saying "okay" so much as they're saying "then what the hell is the point of looking at this score if you already know how my son is doing in school??" But the low score is just a reflection of the new standards, and as teachers and students get more comfortable, the scores will go up. So the PARCC measures comfort?? Maybe instead of strong, moderate and weak, student areas should be marked Serta Perfect Sleeper, comfy old couch, and pile of rocks.
Now Martin is on to the specific example scores, as I listed them above. She says these will give us very specific ideas about where Jonah needs work, and now I think the real parent is trying not to laugh, but Jonah's mom nods and says "okay." Martin tries to make hay out of saying that a strong in literary text paired with a weak in non-fiction would give her an instructional brainstorm, what with all the rich, deep information included in those two ratings.
And now she give Mom a quiz, and looking at the second column, asks Mom to show her where the strengths are, because Louisiana feels an important part of this is to be condescending to parents and treat them as if they are nine-year-old students in your classroom??!! I am happy for Jonah's Mom though, who know gets to speak a whole sentence of words to give her answer. "Excellent," says Martin. And Martin again pretends to think these star ratings are a really powerful tool for instruction, because if a person came into my room and said, "Hey, that student there is pretty okayish in writing stuff," that would give me a very powerful sense of exactly what lessons I needed to craft for that child. I could individualize instruction-- and the good news there is that since there are only three possible ratings, I only need three possible lessons to cover all my personalized instruction. Awesome.
Martin will now, and not for the last time, reassure Mom that Jonah's score will not have a big effect on his future or cause him to be held back a grade. This is just part of a "body of work that describes your student's accomplishments" and "it's really designed to be tailored information" and I have no idea what the hell that is supposed to mean, and from the look on Martin's face, neither does she. Jonah's mom says. "This is great" and Martin replies, "Yeah, great" in a tone that suggests "Shut up and stop going off script, you loose cannon." I'm pretty sure that real live parents are going to be rough on this "conversation" model.
Martin is going to send this parents guide home with Mom, who might want to stick it on her refrigerator. Maybe right next to the instructions on How To Read a Thermometer and How To Operate a Light Switch. Martin also directs us to where there are questions about stuff, which basically seems to lead to a discussion of things your student will do next year irregardless of this PARCC nonsense.
Now Martin will provide a specific plug for a specific activity-- the writing journal. Oh, and here's an old favorite-- she used to do crappy journals, but now that they have the standards and the PARCC, the journal will do awesome things. Evidence. Critical thinking. Unicorns. And Martin never heard of how to teach before the new high standards came along. She cheerfully indicts herself-- "In the past, I would have accepted any lazy crap, but now the standards make me do more." Also, the standards magically increase what students can do. Hurray, the standards.
This journal baloney is supposed to be an example of how the PARCC helps her design instruction, because a fish has no feet.
One last thing-- results on the test will not be used to determine student promotion. Want to be clear on that. Scores are part of larger process, because students and teachers are still getting used to the standards. Also, check out the website. With sample test items. Here at the end, Mom asks her first question (Do I need a user name or password?) for the entire "conversation." Jonah's mom is very grateful, and Martin remembers to thank her for taking time off from work so that Martin can read her a printout from a website that Mom could read at home.
I do wonder how many parents will show up for these sessions, and how many of them will leave the session with the feeling that PARCC is a huge waste of everyone's time, as exemplified by the meeting that just wasted their time. I'm sure somebody at LDE thinks they're being clever and proactive about managing expectations, but it's hard to manage people to be excited and grateful about a big poop sandwich.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Gates Says Some Stuff
Like many teachers, I could not tune in to Bill and Melinda Gates' trip down Ed Reform Memory Lane because I was busy doing my actual job. This seems metaphorically perfect-- Gates talks about schools while, meanwhile, teachers are in schools doing actual work. However, I've scanned some accounts of the speech from this afternoon, and I think I've piece together the general drift of his gist. So let me channel my faux Gates voice to summarize what you, I and all of us missed today.
So, hey there.
It's been fifteen years since we started trying to beat public education into submission with giant stacks of money, and it turns out that it's a hell of a lot harder than curing major diseases. Turns out teachers are not nearly as compliant as bacteria. Who knew?
Actually, there's a whole long list of things that came as a surprise to us. Teachers and politicians and parents all had ideas about what ought or ought not to be happening in schools, and damned if they would just not shut up about it. At first stuff was going great and we were getting everyone to do just what we wanted them to, but then it was like they finally noticed that a bunch of clueless amateurs were trying to run the whole system, and they freaked out.
I have to tell you. Right now as I'm sitting here, it still doesn't occur to me that all the pushback might be related to the fact that I have no educational expertise at all, and yet I want to rewrite the whole US school system to my own specs. Why should that be a problem? I still don't understand why I shouldn't be able to just redo the whole mess without having to deal with unions or professional employees or elected officials. Of course nobody elected me to do this! I don't mind, really-- happy to take over this entire sector of the government anyway, you're welcome.
I have noticed that when you give teachers really shitty feedback based on crappy tests, they prefer that you just shut up and leave them alone. This is bad. How will they know whether they're crappy teachers or not, or whether they're doing well or not. Surely they don't think by just using their professional judgment and paying attention to their students they'll be able to figure out how they're doing all by themselves? Where are the numbers and the charts and the data? I tell you-- it's almost as if they think they understand things about teaching and education that I do not, and that surely can't be right.
I'll admit-- we were a bit naive about rolling all our ideas out, and by "we" I mean various state governments that we spent our money on. Those guys just screwed up the implementation. I know the ideas themselves were sound because, you know, I do. I mean, not everybody messed it up. In Kentucky they stayed the course on using standards to prep for those tests, and damned if that test prep didn't pay off in higher test scores. What else could anyone possibly want.
And resistance to Common Core. Well, some of that was just crazy people telling internet lies. And the rest was people who just wanted to assert their autonomy, like all the people who work in public education wanted to make a point that they don't actually work for me. My bad. Sometimes I forget that there are people like that. Although Melinda will tell you that teachers actually all love the Common Core. Love it.
Look, I'm a simple man. I had some ideas about how the entire US education system should work, and like any other citizen, I used my giant pile of money to impose my will on everyone else. It's okay, because I just want to help. We're not done yet-- I'm going to keep trying to fix the entire teaching profession, even if nobody in the country actually asked me to do it. And no, I don't intend to talk to anybody actually in the profession. What do they know about teaching? Besides, when you know you're right, you don't have to listen to anybody else.
So, hey there.
It's been fifteen years since we started trying to beat public education into submission with giant stacks of money, and it turns out that it's a hell of a lot harder than curing major diseases. Turns out teachers are not nearly as compliant as bacteria. Who knew?
Actually, there's a whole long list of things that came as a surprise to us. Teachers and politicians and parents all had ideas about what ought or ought not to be happening in schools, and damned if they would just not shut up about it. At first stuff was going great and we were getting everyone to do just what we wanted them to, but then it was like they finally noticed that a bunch of clueless amateurs were trying to run the whole system, and they freaked out.
I have to tell you. Right now as I'm sitting here, it still doesn't occur to me that all the pushback might be related to the fact that I have no educational expertise at all, and yet I want to rewrite the whole US school system to my own specs. Why should that be a problem? I still don't understand why I shouldn't be able to just redo the whole mess without having to deal with unions or professional employees or elected officials. Of course nobody elected me to do this! I don't mind, really-- happy to take over this entire sector of the government anyway, you're welcome.
I have noticed that when you give teachers really shitty feedback based on crappy tests, they prefer that you just shut up and leave them alone. This is bad. How will they know whether they're crappy teachers or not, or whether they're doing well or not. Surely they don't think by just using their professional judgment and paying attention to their students they'll be able to figure out how they're doing all by themselves? Where are the numbers and the charts and the data? I tell you-- it's almost as if they think they understand things about teaching and education that I do not, and that surely can't be right.
I'll admit-- we were a bit naive about rolling all our ideas out, and by "we" I mean various state governments that we spent our money on. Those guys just screwed up the implementation. I know the ideas themselves were sound because, you know, I do. I mean, not everybody messed it up. In Kentucky they stayed the course on using standards to prep for those tests, and damned if that test prep didn't pay off in higher test scores. What else could anyone possibly want.
And resistance to Common Core. Well, some of that was just crazy people telling internet lies. And the rest was people who just wanted to assert their autonomy, like all the people who work in public education wanted to make a point that they don't actually work for me. My bad. Sometimes I forget that there are people like that. Although Melinda will tell you that teachers actually all love the Common Core. Love it.
Look, I'm a simple man. I had some ideas about how the entire US education system should work, and like any other citizen, I used my giant pile of money to impose my will on everyone else. It's okay, because I just want to help. We're not done yet-- I'm going to keep trying to fix the entire teaching profession, even if nobody in the country actually asked me to do it. And no, I don't intend to talk to anybody actually in the profession. What do they know about teaching? Besides, when you know you're right, you don't have to listen to anybody else.
Common Schools vs. Diversity
Over at redefinED, a reliable source of reformy pro-school choice arguments, Patrick Gibbons (also a reliable source of pro-school choice arguments) has posted a pretty thoughtful response to the can of worms opened by the Washington state smackdown of charter schools.
In "Common schools and the feat of diversity," Gibbons takes a look back at the actual history of common schools in the US, in particular focusing on how many ways those schools have failed to live up to the promise of public education in this country.
Yet Mann’s common school concept remains a source of conflict today. The ethical and moral lessons of students in a one-size-fits all environment have created a battleground in the American culture wars, from book banning, to the fight against communism in the 1950s, to the fights over textbooks and the Common Core standards.
In this, and in shared criticism that common schools have to often (and still in some places today) reflect the racism and classism of their communities, Gibbons has a point.
But in his suggestion that charters are the solution, he is indulging in a fantasy far more reality-deficient that any "romantic vision of free, universal public education."
Gibbons repeatedly slides in the notion that public schools are one-size-fits-all. That's hugely arguable-- most public schools allow a wide variety of students with a wide variety of interests and skills to pursue a wide variety of goals. It is precisely because public schools are NOT one size fits all that the one size fits all reformster ideas one size fits all standards and one size measures all testing have been such fruitless failures.
But even if we were to stipulate to public schools being one size fits all, how can charters possibly be held up as an alternative? Charters are frequently constructed as one size fits some, and only those some are welcome to attend. Nor do they make educational options available to all-- not even close. Charter school systems have been constructed in such a way as to abandon many students to the schools that have, in the process, been stripped of resources. Meanwhile, charter students must select one and only one alternative with little or no room for diversity under their roofs.
A public school is like a department store where students can select a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Do you want to play sports, sing in a choir, prepare to become a doctor, and develop your love for literature while finding your way to teachers whose temperament and style matches your own? You can do that, or any other number of combinations, in a public school. But charter schools are often conceived as boutique shops that sell one product, and one product only, while serving only one narrow kind of customer. Part of the point of diversity in schools is to bring together students from many backgrounds. Some urban schools fail to move toward this goal, but charters are deliberately designed to move away from it.
Gibbons and charter advocates may argue that the sheer number and variety of charters provides the diversity, but in practice that's simply not true. Because it's hard to stay in business as a boutique, many charters don't offer anything other than the same general education as a public school-- just in a charter setting. But only for certain students.
Not all public schools have successfully embraced pluralism and diversity, but neither have charters, and while public schools have been steadily over the years changing and growing and working to embrace those qualities-- because that's what they're expected to and by law required to do-- there is no similar path forward for charters. Those fights that Gibbons references are the result of communities standing up to demand that their public schools reflect community values, while charters answer to nobody, not even the taxpayers who pay the bills.
Gibbons diagnosis of the problem is not entirely wrong, but his solution is no solution at all. Charters have accelerated segregation, drained resources from public schools serving the larger population, and tried to sort students into isolated, homogeneous silos. Common schools have not done a great job embracing diversity, but whatever value charters may add to a school system, it is certainly not their fostering of diversity.
In "Common schools and the feat of diversity," Gibbons takes a look back at the actual history of common schools in the US, in particular focusing on how many ways those schools have failed to live up to the promise of public education in this country.
Yet Mann’s common school concept remains a source of conflict today. The ethical and moral lessons of students in a one-size-fits all environment have created a battleground in the American culture wars, from book banning, to the fight against communism in the 1950s, to the fights over textbooks and the Common Core standards.
In this, and in shared criticism that common schools have to often (and still in some places today) reflect the racism and classism of their communities, Gibbons has a point.
But in his suggestion that charters are the solution, he is indulging in a fantasy far more reality-deficient that any "romantic vision of free, universal public education."
Gibbons repeatedly slides in the notion that public schools are one-size-fits-all. That's hugely arguable-- most public schools allow a wide variety of students with a wide variety of interests and skills to pursue a wide variety of goals. It is precisely because public schools are NOT one size fits all that the one size fits all reformster ideas one size fits all standards and one size measures all testing have been such fruitless failures.
But even if we were to stipulate to public schools being one size fits all, how can charters possibly be held up as an alternative? Charters are frequently constructed as one size fits some, and only those some are welcome to attend. Nor do they make educational options available to all-- not even close. Charter school systems have been constructed in such a way as to abandon many students to the schools that have, in the process, been stripped of resources. Meanwhile, charter students must select one and only one alternative with little or no room for diversity under their roofs.
A public school is like a department store where students can select a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Do you want to play sports, sing in a choir, prepare to become a doctor, and develop your love for literature while finding your way to teachers whose temperament and style matches your own? You can do that, or any other number of combinations, in a public school. But charter schools are often conceived as boutique shops that sell one product, and one product only, while serving only one narrow kind of customer. Part of the point of diversity in schools is to bring together students from many backgrounds. Some urban schools fail to move toward this goal, but charters are deliberately designed to move away from it.
Gibbons and charter advocates may argue that the sheer number and variety of charters provides the diversity, but in practice that's simply not true. Because it's hard to stay in business as a boutique, many charters don't offer anything other than the same general education as a public school-- just in a charter setting. But only for certain students.
Not all public schools have successfully embraced pluralism and diversity, but neither have charters, and while public schools have been steadily over the years changing and growing and working to embrace those qualities-- because that's what they're expected to and by law required to do-- there is no similar path forward for charters. Those fights that Gibbons references are the result of communities standing up to demand that their public schools reflect community values, while charters answer to nobody, not even the taxpayers who pay the bills.
Gibbons diagnosis of the problem is not entirely wrong, but his solution is no solution at all. Charters have accelerated segregation, drained resources from public schools serving the larger population, and tried to sort students into isolated, homogeneous silos. Common schools have not done a great job embracing diversity, but whatever value charters may add to a school system, it is certainly not their fostering of diversity.
GA: Smiles
This post is not a rant, and I've set aside the snark for the moment.
We don't have cable, so I miss some things until I stumble across them on line. This one in particular struck me somewhere around the left ventricle. I know these are often heavily massaged and we don't get the whole story, but this seems pretty straightforward to me.
It speaks to the resilience of children, who are often way tougher than we give them credit for. It also speaks to the wisdom that says you deal with your own troubles best by helping other people with theirs.
Here is a six year old who, without benefit of recess consultants or carefully scripted curriculum or professional behavior engineering, worked his way out of one of life's lowest spots.
We don't have cable, so I miss some things until I stumble across them on line. This one in particular struck me somewhere around the left ventricle. I know these are often heavily massaged and we don't get the whole story, but this seems pretty straightforward to me.
It speaks to the resilience of children, who are often way tougher than we give them credit for. It also speaks to the wisdom that says you deal with your own troubles best by helping other people with theirs.
Here is a six year old who, without benefit of recess consultants or carefully scripted curriculum or professional behavior engineering, worked his way out of one of life's lowest spots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)