[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: A request for an explanation from a Congressional staffer

Claiming that NCLB is about controlling or denigrating teachers is pure propaganda. It may play well with the naive or the deluded, but nobody else will take such a ridiculous claim seriously. Beyond that, it is incontrovertible that teachers should be skilled assessors, just as they should be skilled lesson-planners, skilled presenters, and skilled at meeting the needs of the diverse learners in their classrooms. We should be more honest about what skills teachers do and do not have, more direct about improving the skills of teachers who lack them, and more active in rewarding skilled teachers and getting rid of terminally unskilled ones. Monty wants to "create spaces in which teachers can largely define and control the use of resources for professional development." How nice. Who wouldn't want more power over the public's money? All for the kids, right? But there is more to public education than teachers (vital as they are) and it is elected officials who define and control the resources that the public commits to education. Let's stay on earth here.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: Monty Neill <monty@fairtest.org>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 7:48 am
Subject: Re: [arn-l] A request for an explanation from a Congressional staffer


I've worked in Chicago with teachers in what have been viewed as very fine
schools, ones that served rather typical kids (which is to say low-income
and of color). (I've done the same in other places.) They were happy and
eager to learn more about high-quality assessment and recognized its value
and that they needed to learn more. Of course what we were doing was not
what CPS wanted or was doing, so we had no support to really develop a
strong program across schools that could be sustained, and foundations had
no interest if CPS officials had no interest.


But my point is that teachers often recognize they need to learn more on
assessment. This has clearly been borne out in NE. There the point is that
with teachers substantially in charge of the assessments and of their
learning, with state and researcher support, they have made significant
strides in their knowledge and the quality of the assessments. That means
they can give students better feedback, kids learn more, can be more
engaged, etc.


Quite clearly anything at which teachers are not perfect has been an
occasion for teacher bashing. The conclusion should not be that therefore
anything suggesting that teachers actually could learn in some area is
teacher bashing. That depends on the context and on the goals. If the goal
is to control and denigrate teachers, that is quite different than the
effort to create spaces in which teachers can largely define and control the
use of resources for professional development. The latter is what the Forum
on Educational Accountability has proposed in its recommendations on the
kinds of professional development (which would include assessment) that a
new ESEA should support.


Monty

----- Original Message -----
From: <Csubstance@aol.com>

To: <arn-l@interversity.org>

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:05 AM

Subject: Re: [arn-l] A request for an explanation from a Congressional
staffer





In a message dated 7/26/07 9:31:43 AM, monty@fairtest.org writes:



<< As I began to note yesterday, teachers do a large amount of
assessing.

Done



well, and in proper amounts, it fosters learning via a feedback loop



(including students learning to self assess) >>



Teacher assessment is at the essence of teacher professionalism.
Imagine
if

other professionals were bashed until McGraw Hill had a monopoly on
both
the

assessement instruments and the definition of assessment. Suddenly,
you'd
have

to wait six months for your MD to tell you what the MRI or x-ray you
just
had

said (and maybe you'd be dead by then).



A lot of education pundits with little or no K-12 classroom
experience
have

been subtly teacher bashing for decades. One of the cliches is that
"teachers"

don't understand "assessment." That kind of bullshit. It's common
even
here,

or at least is quoted from other sources here.



Fact it, "assessment" varies at various levels and with the course of
study.

My son's kindergarten teacher (and her aide) last school year at a
CPS
school

was "assessing" (appropriately) every damned day. Sam did homework.
Someone

read it and commented on it, usually both in writing on the paper and
to
Sam

himself (who is still just learning to read).



That's "assessment" except when people are writing scholarly books
bashing

teachers (ever so subtly) or pontificating at AERA.



When I taught novels in my "English" classes, I prepped and assessed
each
day

and once a week (with a "test"). The "assessment" was based on what
we had

read and discussed in class that week. You can't "assess" whether a
14-year-old

child has understood the first four chapters of "To Kill a
Mockingbird"
with a

McGraw Hill assessment any more than you could get any real
information
about

my five-year-old son Sam without the teacher talking to the family.



The reason I'm so angry about passing along the Toch thingy is that
the
Toch

thingy (especially that glow in the dark assertion of data as fact)
is so

dishonest, so filled with teacher bashing.



For a year I taught drafting and shop classes. Most of the claims
embedded
in

the Toch essay look even more ridiculous when played out against
teenagers

learning to tune up an engine or, say, replace the brakes in an old
car.
Give me

a break (brake?). These guys are like the priests of the Middle Ages.
They

interpret the Word of God to the peasants, and we're supposed to sit
there
and

affirm things like Virgin Births and the existence of Angels or face
the
fires

of Hell.



It's the same kind of theology disguised as fact that used to be
passed
off

when religion was hegemonic. Only nowadays, corporate dogmas
(markets;

"choice") hold sway.



But in order for them to win, they have to have enablers, like some
here,
who

go along with the teacher bashing implicit in the nonsense like those
"facts"

bandied about by Toch (not only this time, but traditionally in his
stuff).

If this were 1700, the guy would be an archbishop and watch out.



George N. Schmidt

Editor, Substance



www.substancenews.com
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR>

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at

http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour</HTML>

-------------------------------------------------------

ARN-L archives:

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



------------------------------------------------

Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net






________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Post a Message to arn-l:

Your name:

Your email address: (use the exact address you are subscribed with)

Subject line:

Message: