Connecticut NAACP (was Re: hickok)

[Peter Campbell <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>]

> Burke: "If Connecticut wants to shortchange its parents and  
> children, people, in
> say, Vermont should pick up the bill? . . . This is precisely the  
> argument that the NAACP
> rejected so scathingly in arguing in federal court that Connecticut  
> should quit
> its whining and evasions and take responsibility for improving its  
> schools."
>
> ---

This also assumes that a state department of education can single- 
handedly "take responsibility for improving its schools." When will  
the federal government join the states in taking responsibility? When  
will the federal government take all the necessary steps to close the  
educational achievement gap, not just punish poor schools for being  
poor?

> What more evidence could you ask for of the corrosive, caustic  
> effects of this perverse law, a law that turns parents against  
> teachers, teachers against administrators, administrators against  
> state officials, and state officials against the federal  
> government. In this case, a civil rights organization ends up  
> compromising its own mission and purpose to defend its mission and  
> purpose.

Clearly the law also turns civil rights organizations against  
themselves. In this case, the logic of the Connecticut NAACP is,  
"Better to violate civil rights now and avoid the possibility of  
civil rights being violated later." Sadly, this is a clear reflection  
on the status of conversations surrounding civil rights in this day  
and age. Not an unequivocal stand, but rather, "Let's make a deal."

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Connecticut case is  
thrown out. In all likelihood, it will be, judging from what happened  
with the NEA lawsuit -- which used the "unfunded mandate" argument as  
the foundation of its suit against the feds and had it thrown out by  
a Michigan judge. So Connecticut, which can't afford to pass up the  
Title 1 money from the feds, will be forced to comply.

In order to afford to comply, Connecticut will have to take the  
advice of Spellings and dumb down its tests. "The U.S. Department of  
Education has suggested that Connecticut streamline its test and  
offer a less expensive version that would include only multiple- 
choice questions . . . " The federal government's claim in its motion  
to dismiss the lawsuit is, "Connecticut's expansion of its  
multimillion-dollar annual Mastery Test program does more than the  
federal law actually requires. . . The federal government . . . says  
the additional expenses incurred by Connecticut are the result of the  
state's own decision to reject a less expensive form of  
testing." (EXPENSES AT ISSUE IN "NO CHILD" LAWSUIT, Hartford Courant  
-- February 1, 2006 by Robert Frahm)

"There's always the option of dumbing down our tests to the point  
where we believe they would be inadequate, and we're not willing to  
do that," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said.  
(EXPENSES AT ISSUE IN "NO CHILD" LAWSUIT, Hartford Courant --  
February 1, 2006 by Robert Frahm)

So here is the state of Connecticut standing up for rich assessments,  
assessments that include a section on writing in the new tests, as  
well as other questions requiring written answers. Here is the  
federal government demanding that Connecticut do assessment on the  
cheap. But even these dumbed-down tests, according to Blumenthal,  
would cost about $4 million more than what the federal government  
provides.

If the feds win this case, it could pave the way for all non-multiple- 
choice tests to be eliminated.

Missouri educators are rather proud of the Missouri Assessment  
Program (MAP) because it contains a variety of question types that  
help to show what students know and can do. For example, the MAP  
communication arts test contains multiple-choice, constructed- 
response, and performance-based questions for grades 3, 7 and 11. But  
the tests for grades 4, 5, 6 and 8 include only multiple-choice and  
constructed-response items.  Similarly, the mathematics tests for  
grades 4, 8 and 10 include multiple-choice, constructed-response, and  
performance-based questions, but the tests for grades 3, 5, 6 and 7  
include only multiple-choice and and constructed-response items.

The reason the open-ended, performance-oriented questions are not  
offered for all grades? They cost too much money to grade.

If the federal government continues to refuse to adequately fund  
NCLB, and if Connecticut loses this court fight, expect to see other  
states that are not already doing so rush to do assessment on the cheap.

As Maggie Spellings herself admits, "What gets measured gets taught."  
So if Connecticut loses the court case, Connecticut school teachers  
will be forced -- like so many of their colleagues around the country  
-- to teach that which can be measured by a multiple-choice test.

How does this protect the civil rights of children, especially the  
children at the margins of our society? Please select the response  
that best answers this question:

a) Poor and minority kids don't need to know all that critical  
thinking stuff, so who cares?
b) Writing is for sissies and college-bound preppies; most of these  
kids will never go to college any way, so no use wasting their time.
c) Multiple-choice tests tell us everything we need to know about  
whether kids are learning, teachers are doing their jobs, and public  
education is working.
d) It never has and it never will.

---
Peter Campbell