Re: Kozol to Kennedy

[aburke5054@aol.com]

In trying to pretend that there is something called "assessment for 
learning" that is different from "assessment for accountability" and 
superior to it by virtue of being "classroom-based" you are simply 
playing word games.  This may play well with the ARN choir that sings 
only anti-accountability songs, but nobody else is going to fall for 
it.  Public education is about more than neurotic teachers and 
short-sighted kids, but they seem to be the only ones who exist in the 
Campbell universe.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter S. Campbell <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 1:00 pm
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Kozol to Kennedy

Even in using more valuable kinds of assessment, e.g., classroom-based 
formative
assessment, there's a tension between assessment for learning and 
assessment of
learning for documentation and accountability purposes. In other words, 
it's
hard to care about students when you're so busy writing down observable
performance data about them that ties into State Standards CA42.A1, 
SS16.B12,
and M27.J4. Learning vs. proving you have learned are two different 
objectives.
In the former, both the student and the teacher may actually care about 
the
outcome. And they may care less whether it can be quantified and 
recorded.

But in this new quantifiable game, "proving I have taught well" or 
"proving I
have learned" are euphemistic covers for "please don't fire me" and 
"please
don't fail me" respectively. Under NCLB, even really good assessment 
practices,
when operating under the weight of "accountability," can become about 
covering
one's derriere. Inevitably, and quite logically, students may focus 
only on
those things they can demonstrate they know and that they are good at. 
Teachers
may focus only on those things they can demonstrate they can teach with
predictable, positive outcomes. Neither can afford to show process or 
ambiguity,
and certainly neither wants to show a lack of knowledge or competence 
or even –
heaven forbid – that they are wrong about something. Moreover, if the 
measures
they use to capture and record knowledge and performance are biased 
towards
reliability instead of validity, such measures as "process" and 
"growth" do not
even register as possible options.

Peter Campbell

----- Original Message -----
From: PRISCILLA GUTIERREZ <pgutpgut@msn.com>
Date: Friday, January 4, 2008 11:31 am
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Kozol to Kennedy

> Last month I wrote to Kozol, suggesting he introduce the term, Body
> of Evidence, into the discussion.  I received an email from one of
> his assistants stating Kozol considered it "tremendously good and
> apt" and will attempt to bring the concept into the discussion when
> he meets with the Senator next week.  We shall see...
>
>
>
>
> Priscilla Gutierrez
> Outreach Specialist
> New Mexico School for the Deaf
>
> ...change is inevitable, growth is optional...

-------------------------------------------------------
ARN-L archives:
http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/archives.html






________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
http://webmail.aol.com