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

Re: A request for an explanation from a Congressional staffer

I am impervious to the fluff and distortion that Fairtest serves up as
evidence and reason, not to mention it's endless crying of "Wolf,"
that's for sure. As for the National Staff Development Council , just
spend some time on their website and you'll say thank God we have NCLB.

Teachers are critical of NCLB. That's important to acknowledge and to
deal with, but there is more to public education than teachers. Teachers' unions are against NCLB. One went
to court in a frivolous attempt to block it. I say "firvolous" because
that's exactly what an argument is that says that states should not
spend their own money on their schools. If you believe that teachers'
unions are trying to disarm NCLB solely because of high-minded concern that
it has deleterious effects on schools and children, more power to you. I think that their
opposition to NCLB is rooted more in a desire to protect what they
perceive to be their own interests, even at the expense of the
interests of parents and kids. Individual teachers complain about
NCLB, that's true. Only most of their complaints make no sense. This
list, for example, offers many examples of teachers blaming NCLB for
problems that are self-inflicted, not to mention the rabid ravings of some
others. Two good answers to teachers and principals
cheating, playing games with the curriculum, and ignoring children whose
needs are greatest is to tell them to stop doing it and to give parents and
kids more clout, not take away the protections that NCLB grants them.

When you hear the Montys of this world arguing for turning over more
money and more power to teachers, and claiming that magical benefits
will accrue to parents and kids because of that, hold on because you're
going for a ride.

Art


-----Original Message-----
From: Monty Neill <monty@fairtest.org>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 8:34 am
Subject: Re: [arn-l] A request for an explanation from a Congressional staffer


For those unaware, there is a rich body of evidence supporting professional
development that is significantly - not only - in the hands of the teachers
themselves. See National Staff Development Council.


And all known surveys of teachers over the past few years finds that they
strongly oppose NCLB, for multiple reasons, including the damage it foists
on schools. They understand full well that regardless of the formally
expressed intent (improve learning, close 'achievement gaps') the reality of
its coming on top of the state tests is damage to teaching, teachers,
learning, kids.


That's not a message to Art who is impervious to evidence and reason, but
for others on the list who may not have had time to examine the literature
on professional development or follow the surveys.


And for civil rights groups, see the more than 20 civil rights and closely
related groups that have signed the Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB.


Monty

----- Original Message -----
From: <aburke5054@aol.com>

To: <arn-l@interversity.org>

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:19 AM

Subject: Re: [arn-l] 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.








________________________________________________________________________
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: