Re: eliminate public education

[William Cala <Wcala@ROCHESTER.RR.COM>]

George,

I sucked on standardized tests.

Feel more balanced now?

Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Cunningham" <gkc@LOUISVILLE.EDU>
To: <ARN-L@listsrva.CUA.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: eliminate public education


> Ken,
>
> I find it interesting how people who criticize standardized tests always
> have to preface the discussion by proclaiming how well they, themselves do
> on such tests.  If these tests are so awful, why  do they go to such
lengths
> to tell us what a wonderful reader, test taker, intelligent person they
are.
> Isn't this all meaningless if the test are no good?
>
> George K. Cunningham
> University of Louisville
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List
> > [mailto:ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU]On Behalf Of kber
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 4:09 PM
> > To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: eliminate public education
> >
> >
> > George Cunningham wrote:
> > "There is an undercurrent belief on this list that poor
> > children can't learn and should not be expected to perform well on
> > standardized tests."
> >
> >
> > Let's split this into two parts.
> >
> > That poor children can't learn -  I strongly disagree that people
> > on this list
> > believe that.
> >
> > That shouldn't be expected to perform well on standardized tests
> > -  they start
> > handicapped, and standardized tests do not necessarily measure
> > what they can
> > learn, or even what they do know.
> >
> > In fact - standardized tests do not measure what many more economically
> > advantaged students can learn and do know.  That is why we raise such
> > challenges to standardized tests.
> >
> >
> > I happen to be able to ace standardized tests.  For one thing, I
> > read at over
> > 1,000 words a minute.  That gives me a huge advantage, as
> > standardized tests
> > are time.  Further, I know how such tests work, and know to look
> > for the answer
> > the test creator wants, EVEN IF THAT ANSWER IS NOT CORRECT.  That
> > does not mean
> > that I'm a brighter, better able to learn, or even that I know more than
> > someone who lacks those particular skills-  test taking knowledge
> > and speed of
> > reading.
> >
> > Too often I see you George, making these sweeping statements that
> > really do NOT
> > represent what most of us believe.  If you want to "diss" those
> > who you view as
> > progressive, using the term as a pejorative, I suggest you would
> > probably be
> > far more comfortable in dialogue with Diane Ravitch than with
> > most of us.  If
> > it is progressive to say that we recognize individual differences among
> > learners, that not all learn the same way, and that we thing that
> > therefore
> > both instruction and assessment should be tailored to the
> > individual students,
> > now you are describing what being progressive means to most of
> > us.  You have a
> > problem with that?  Oh, it is not efficient.  It does not easily
> > lend itself to
> > the kinds of statistical analyses of which psychometricians are so fond.
> >
> > You will condemn such an approach as being subjective, rather
> > than objective
> > the way "standardized" tests are.  Well, let's look at those
> > words.  I prefer
> > to see each of my students as subject in him/herself, not an object to
be
> > measured as if his/her uniqueness did not matter.  You're damn
> > right I view my
> > students subjectively, but in the way I just used the term.  Any
> > other approach
> > is inhumane.  People are not bacteria or widgets.  They deserve
> > the respect to
> > which all of us are entitled, since, as Jefferson points out, that each
is
> > endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights, that
> > among these rights
> > are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Funny, I don't remember
> > anything in the Declaration (or elsewhere among the founders)
> > that says that
> > "all men such be subject to, and measured by, standardized,
> > multiple choice,
> > machine scored, psychometrically valid, tests."
> >
> > Put it another way -  go back to genesis (bereshith, to Michelle
> > and me), and
> > note that man was created "in the image and likeness" of God.  You want
to
> > measure how closely that image fits by a standardized test?
> > BTW, it is on
> > this point that I do not understand why Conservative Christians would
EVER
> > accept such instruments as the measure of a person.   But what do I
know?
> >
> >
> > Have a nice day, all
> >
> >
> > Ken Bernstein
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > I think you are failing to identify the true opponents to your point
of
> > > view.  Throughout the 20th century, traditionalists have asserted that
> > > students do not differ in academic ability and that all student can
and
> > > should learn conventional academic content at a high level.
> > When students
> > > do not perform at this high level it is because they are not
> > motivated or
> > > they are receiving poor instruction.  Traditionalism is the
> > basis for SBER
> > > and Bush's educational initiatives.
> > >
> > > Progressive educators have always maintained that students do differ
in
> > > ability and that some student can't successfully learn
> > conventional academic
> > > content.  This is the underlying basis for opposition to SBER
> > on this list,
> > > which I believe can be accurately characterized as predominantly
> > > progressive.  There is an undercurrent belief on this list that poor
> > > children can't learn and should not be expected to perform well on
> > > standardized tests.
> > >
> > > As a Socialist you are trying to eliminate class differences and your
> > > natural opponent are the traditionalists who tend to be aligned with
> > > capitalism.  But, which group is more inimical to your cause the
> > > traditionalist who believes that all students can learn at the same
high
> > > level or the progressive educator who argues that poor children
> > just can't
> > > compete.
> > >
> > > The idea that traditionalists don't really think all children
> > can learn at a
> > > high level and that they cynically promote this to increase
> > failure, is, I
> > > think wrong.
> > >
> > > Consider the high school exit exam in California.  This is a
> > pure expression
> > > of traditionalism.  I believe that those who pushed for it
> > really believe
> > > that if everyone works hard and the right instruction is provided all
> > > students can pass.  That is certainly a more egalitarian view
> > than my own
> > > progressive suspicions that it can never happen.
> > >
> > > George K. Cunningham
> > > University of Louisville
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dave Stratman" <Newdem@AOL.COM>
> > > To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 11:35 AM
> > > Subject: Re: eliminate public education
> > >
> > > > Hi, Bobbie--
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree that the real agenda behind vouchers, high
> > stakes tests, and
> > > > other education reforms is to do away with public education,
> > and I think
> > > that
> > > > believing so can be dangerous and misleading. The goal rather
> > is to make
> > > > public education achieve its primary goals from the point of
> > view of the
> > > > corporate and political elite more effectively. The key elite goal
for
> > > public
> > > > education is to legitimize social inequality.
> > > >
> > > > To understand what's happening with these reforms, I think it's
first
> > > > necessary to understand that the public education system is not an
> > > unalloyed
> > > > good. I mean, it is "contested terrain" in a society where
> > the goals of
> > > most
> > > > people, including of the people actually in the schools, are
> > in conflict
> > > with
> > > > the goals of the most powerful in society who have dominant
> > influence over
> > > > educational policies. The effects of the public education system in
> > > society
> > > > are decidedly mixed.
> > > >
> > > > Teachers, parents, and students want the schools to educate
> > children to
> > > the
> > > > fullest of their ability; the governing elite, however, want
> > the schools
> > > to
> > > > persuade children to accept their place in a very unequal
> > society. This
> > > > necessarily entails convincing a large proportion of young people
that
> > > they
> > > > are stupid and unworthy of success or of a voice in society.
> > > >
> > > > The difficulty which the most powerful people in our society face
> > > regarding
> > > > public education is that, in spite of all the forces arrayed against
> > > > them--unequal funding, for example, and educational policies
> > and practices
> > > > which tend to retard rather than develop children's skills and
> > > > self-confdence, and myriad other factors--teachers and
> > students and their
> > > > parents succeed to an important extent in imparting to young people
a
> > > level
> > > > of self-confidence and expectations and skills which are
> > greater than the
> > > > corporate economy can utilize or cope with. This is why
> > teachers and kids
> > > > have to be attacked.
> > > >
> > > > The education reforms you mention are designed not to do away with
the
> > > > institution but to tip its social role more in favor of the
> > ruling elite
> > > who
> > > > wish to use the public school system for their own ends and
> > to lessen the
> > > > power of teachers, parents, and students to affect it.
> > > >
> > > > Reforms such as high stakes testing and standards do this --I mean,
> > > sharpen
> > > > inequality--directly. Privatizing reforms such as vouchers
> > and tuition tax
> > > > credits do it less directly, in part by lessening the
> > resources available
> > > for
> > > > public schools, in part by posing an outside threat to panic
> > educators and
> > > > others into accepting reforms which they know are destructive
> > but which
> > > they
> > > > hope will at least save the institution.
> > > >
> > > > Here is why I think it is very important to analyze the
> > attack on public
> > > > education correctly. We are often encouraged, including by
influential
> > > forces
> > > > within the anti-testing movement itself, to believe that the threat
to
> > > public
> > > > education comes only from "the right" or from
> > "conservatives." Vouchers
> > > are
> > > > used by liberal groups like the NEA as a bogeyman to get teachers to
> > > frighten
> > > > teachers into accepting far more immediately destructive
> > measures, such as
> > > > standards and other reforms (the NEA has for years even been trying
to
> > > > frighten its members into accepting merit pay, one of the
> > most anti-union
> > > and
> > > > destructive of all the reform measures being proposed).
> > > >
> > > > Vouchers and the "elimination of public education," in other
> > words, are
> > > used
> > > > to push people to accept very destructive measures as as kind
> > of lesser of
> > > > two evils, when we should be rejecting all these proposals.
> > > >
> > > > When I was directing the National Coalition for Public
> > Education in its
> > > > successful fight against the Tutition Tax Credit Act of
> > 1977-78, I argued
> > > > that we who are the defenders of public education must also be its
> > > sharpest
> > > > critics. I continue to believe that. This means, I think, that we
must
> > > focus
> > > > not simply on the institution in the abstract but on its real role
in
> > > > society, both when we are defending it and when we are trying
> > to understan
> > > d
> > > > the real goals of its attackers.
> > > >
> > > > Dave Stratman
> > > > Editor, New Democracy
> > > > <A HREF="newdemocracyworld.org">www.newdemocracyworld.org</A>
> > > > 5 Burr Street
> > > > Boston, MA 02130
> > > > 617-524-4073
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> > > to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> > to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.