Re: High standards - no?!

["Art Burke" <aburke@vansd.org>]

So how about a few examples of "MEANINGFUL, CONSTRUCTIVE, EFFICACIOUS"
standards that accomplish all the things you identified in your second
paragraph?

Art

>>> alan.young@dmps.k12.ia.us 01/10/03 05:00PM >>>
Hi all,
 
I think high standards,, not just high stakes testing is even a problem
or misnomer. Some of us keep trying to say we are for one, not the
other. I think I'm not for either. For me, this is, or at least has
become, a setup that misses the point. Its a setup because to not agree
with it is to suggest one wants low standards (in the polar framework in
which it is posed). So it becomes a sort of coercive way to get people
to agree with those who use it instead of a persuasive way to inspire
one's true allegiance to their cooptive movement through thoughtful
discussion and debate. 
 
Let me be a little clearer. In my opinion, we should not be so much for
high standards as we are for MEANINGFUL, CONSTRUCTIVE, EFFICACIOUS
standards which promote individual and societal growth, development,
improvement, empowerment, etc. And they must be flexible and general,
yet vital, challenging, and real, so that they can be broadly applied in
appropriate ways with much input from those closest to the children
(including them). Our standards should help us grow in ways which create
better individual lives and a better world. And instead of fixating on
the misguided minutae of their quantitative measurement to compare,
control, and sort kids, teachers, and schools, we should focus on making
them demonstrable via real, multifold, germane ways that satisfy those
who truly care about those children in the communities and world that
they live. 
 

Test score gains are not standards to shoot for, nor do they reflect
real achievement. Nowhere else is the definition of achievement so
misused, abused, distorted, and reduced as it is when used with
reference to our children and their learning, growth, development, and
accomplishments. So I say no, not only to high stakes testing, but also
to high standards (because they are artificial, superficial, and are
high for "high" sake not for goodness sake). Now I sound like a
grandmother. To quote Alfie, "Harder is not better." Better is Better.
We should say what we mean and not capitulate to their terms with their
meanings. We must elevate the debate. We must educate and relate. We
should stop cheapening education by using so much quantitative, sterile
language when referring to children, teachers, schools, and education.
Education is life giving not deadly. We assess like an autopsy while our
children are alive!
 
No we should not dignify their terms for we do not want high standards
or low standards. We want meaningful, inspiring, genuine standards to
live by and challenge us to learn, grow, and development. (Notice how I
didn't use their term of "student achievement"). The use of the term
"high standards" is an implicitly polarizing construct that misses the
point and is being used to get real reform off track. We want good,
genuine, meaningful, authentic standards that empower not control,
inspire not stifle, that leaven more than measure, that nurture not
poison, that breathe life and hope into children rather than death and
despair. I think this IS expecting a lot (a higher standard if you will)
of ourselves and our children. It is certainly not a low standard to
shoot for even though it opposes high standards as commonly construed. 
 
I think we should strive to help children (and ourselves) to act
wisely, care deeply, think clearly, critically, and creatively,
communicate effectively, choose responsibly, relate respectfully, change
purposefully, share openly, interact constructively, and live
passionately. Those are some meaningful challenging standards which can
be demonstrated but need not always be reduced to measurement,
comparison, or stratification. There would be so many ways we could show
growth in these areas. How enriched would our curricula be with these as
our goals. These can help our children learn and grow holistically. Yet
one can still demonstrate authentically one's growth in such areas.
Meaningful, engaging, empowering standards yes. High standards alone.
Phooey!
 
___
 
A side point. I know that it is easy to say that my construction of
standards is what one might mean as high standards. I agree. But is all
to easy for us to give tacit agreement to those who would fill such
words with very different meanings, assumptions, and goals. I think we
must resist using their language to promote our points lest it be
coopted and reduced to the general meaning of those who have the power.
Isn't this really what happened when one looks at the history of the
standards movement. It started off in a much different place than it is
ending. Sure, there are times when one can purposefully impregnate
certain words to implode their commonly used meaning as a tactical
strategy. I do this with words like accountability, achievement (as I
did above). I think that can be effective. I'm just cautioning us to be
careful with our language lest we fall into their traps. I think "high
standards" is a verbal/ideational tactical trap, set in a polarizing
construct, being used to coerce compliance and tacit agreement out of
fear that one might be made to lack rigor in such a staged context.
 
This is the harsh bigotry of high, meritocratic standards, which is far
worse than the "soft bigotry of low expectations." How about bypassing
the whole false dichotomy and being genuine and saying no bigotry with
genuine, meaningful, sensitive, empowering expectations. Standards
should inspire not smite those who strive to attain them. Have a great
weekend folks.
 
Alan Young 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: JP Bottini [mailto:jpbottini@adelphia.net] 
	Sent: Fri 1/10/2003 5:06 PM 
	To: arn-l@interversity.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: [arn-l] Call for Michael Moore's help
	
	

	Carol:
	RE: . . . composite of horror stories due to the HST in the
different states
	. . .
	A great idea whose time has come.
	
	High standards,yes.  One size fits all HST, NO!
	
	Everyone, it seems to me, from the president of the USA down to
an old, slow
	retired teacher like me wants high standards and all kids
learning.
	
	The difference is some of us want each kid to learn to her/his
potential
	while others want all kids to learn to an arbitrary standard set
by
	politicians and bureaucrats instead of educators.
	Why this is so is what I can't figure out. They can't be that
ignorant.
	
	 In NY many are left behind as our commissioner of education and
his elves
	dream up testing schemes.  The only winner, it seems to me, is
the company
	providing the tests, correcting service and supplemental
materials to
	prepare for the tests.  And, from what I have read on this list
the total is
	in the millions.
	
	Does President Bush not know this fact?  Someone ought to tell
him that his
	laudable theory is being bastardized for the good of
stockholders not kids.
	He recognized NY and by extension its education commissioner at
the
	"service" held in the white house to celebrate the one year
anniversary of
	the NCLB Education Act.  He appeared pleased as punch to
complement NY for
	being one of the first 5 states to comply with NCLB's
requirement of setting
	up standards and a testing system.  Does he not know that he is
applauding a
	disaster?
	
	The emperor has no clothes and his education secretary is not
telling him
	about it.
	Can it be that his wife is just as naive?  It was embarrassing
and a little
	disgusting to watch and listen to this whole charade being
played out in the
	capitol of a nation which is the last best hope to thrive, with
all citizens
	literate and educated as to their civic and citizenship rights
and
	responsibilities.
	
	I can't believe the 700, save one, superintendents in NY are not
aware of
	the train wreck about to take place.  What are they thinking
about?  Loyalty
	to one's superior is noble, unless the noble loyalty is causing
a grave
	emergency for kids.
	Forgive me for rambling but I have to instigate someone on this
list (in NY)
	to answer some of my conundrums.
	
	A compilation of all disasters of HST may help me understand.
	
	Thanks for your help.
	Joe Bo
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	testing system