Re: [arn-l Digest] Vol. 3 No. 85 Messages: 15

[Scott Hays <shays@ccwebster.net>]

On Apr 3, 2006, at 3:21 AM, ABurke5054@aol.com wrote:
> I am not the only one who believes that NCLB is not a stealth tool to
> destroy public education.  In fact, the belief that NCLB is a  tool  
> of the dark
> conspiracy is so far out that Eduwonk calls it "loony  paranoia."
>
> More money is not the only answer.  NCLB is about doing things   
> differently.
> Public education is one of the most, if not the most,  change-averse
> institutions in our society.  Change is needed and the system  does  
> not change.  Do
> you see a pattern there?

You might be surprised, but I am going to agree with you here, Art.   
Change *is* needed in the system, and public education -- like any  
formal, large and entrenched bureaucracy -- is adverse to change.  I  
know ... I have been working in the "change agent" market for two  
decades.  From that perspective, I can share a couple of points:
(1) Objectively testing narrow points of knowledge for statistical  
analysis, especially when high stakes are attached to that lone form  
of measurement (promotion/retention for children, public opinion as  
shaped by interpretation from any number of sources, determination of  
who manages a school, etc.) serves NOT to change what is done or how  
it is done, but only to entrench narrow approaches to meeting goals  
set by the nature of the test.  The very same tests might have a  
completely different set of outcomes if the data they generate was  
used differently (e.g., to measure individual growth over specified  
periods of time, to provide information regarding who or what is  
finding success, and to more clearly delineate areas where more  
attention is needed -- whether it be funding, more personnel, better  
trained personnel, additional resources, etc. -- rather than  
punishment inflicted);
(2) Change does not occur unless the stakeholders are a part of the  
change process, help to initiate the process (or at least agree that  
change is necessary), and have a stake in its success;
(3) The shuffling of feet caused by the short periods of tenure in  
leadership (3-5 years, on average) leaves voids and vacuums where  
change *is* successful ... no sooner do some effective practices and  
structures emerge in a locality or local region (even) than those  
most responsible for the change move on;
(4) No matter how heavy the hand of political posturing, top-down  
imposition of change will only work for short periods of time (if  
that long)


Scott Hays
shays@ccwebster.net

"Wrinkles only go where the smiles have been."
- - Jimmy Buffett