[ Author Prev][ Author Next][ Thread Prev][ Thread Next][ Author Index][ Thread Index]
Re: State Board Votes Down Exit Exam Options
While you aren't replying directly to me, I appreciate your input. I,
too, remember Bill Honig, and the upheavals that went on when he was
ousted. I'm really wondering what we can learn from our mistakes, and
their successes, this time around. What, and how, should we be
communicating to the general public?
Kelley
Scott Hays wrote:
Well, I was very close to CLAS (in fact, my connection goes back to
its predecessor ... the CAP test). My connection was through science
... which had to fight a tough uphill battle with the State Board and
the Curriculum Commission to even include a performance assessment in
CAP and CLAS (similar to the battles being waged today, where
"science" is tested only in grades 5, 8 and 11 ... and then only
counts as a miniscule percentage of the AYP formulation) ... and the
hands-on, open-response format of the test proved to be one of its
most enduring (and, on a national level, influential) elements, even
after it was sabotaged by critics of exploratory learning. Those
critics did several things that helped them succeed in first
eliminating CLAS, and then replacing it with the "standards-based"
approach that now weighs so heavily on the rest of the country.
First, as many on this list are probably aware, performance-based
assessments are more time-consuming and more costly to score than are
machine-scored, multiple choice tests. Scorers need to be trained,
and it takes a big chunk of time to give proper consideration to a
state-load of tests that are free-written responses rather than
"right/wrong" bubbles. Time and money. Never mind that the time and
money provided a dual benefit to students and parents -- not only
were the tests being scored, but every classroom teacher trained in
scoring the test was receiving extremely valuable professional
development that in the long run benefited classroom instruction.
Professional networks were formed, teachers spoke to one another
about what constitutes a "good" response (and why is it "good"), many
local training sessions grew into ongoing discussion groups about how
to best modify instruction, and many teachers even began developing
their own instructional units to implement these ideas -- and they
shared them across their networks.
Those positive trade-offs, however, don't sell well in newspapers and
television news stories, mostly because they take too much time and
space to explain. The general public doesn't understand why these
teacher issues are important. In fact, the public can be easily
convinced that teachers shouldn't need additional training to do the
things they were already trained to do (an argument that began to
circulate at the time). The general public also does not care to be
involved in professional discussions about different types of
assessment. Critics of the test, who organized themselves in 1994
and 1995 through the fledgling internet, could submit well-
coordinated op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, media interviews,
articles and testimony before the legislature all across the state at
the same time and from the same speaking points. This presented the
illusion of widespread academic, social and economic opposition to
the time and money being spent. Besides presenting these coordinated
attacks (and comments designed to look like measured evaluations, but
part of the attack strategy), critics also focused on (over)
simplifying the argument and presenting essentially false-case points
that were difficult to rebut in two paragraphs.: the scoring was too
"subjective", kids could pass a test without "knowing" anything,
traditional facts were not a part of the assessment (which, since
this is the type of testing with which most parents were familiar,
this carried undo influence).
At the same time, a massive political battle was being waged for
control of the State Department of Education. The State Department
was run by an elected State Superintendent, and was responsible for
implementing legislative mandates. CAP and CLAS (and a whole lot of
other innovative educational initiatives ... initiatives that were
copied and/or modified all across the country) were developed in the
exciting period when the SDE was headed by Bill Honig, a popular,
articulate and highly influential Democrat in essentially a Ronald
Reagan state. The Republican Party, much as it spent a lot of time
and energy trying to take down Bill Clinton, spent many years trying
to "get" and remove Mr. Honig. They came at him from four sides.
George Deukmajian, a vindictive Assemblyman from Long Beach who built
his career on "getting" Honig (Legislature to Attorney General, then
ultimately Governor), led the political/legal charge, and finally
succeeded in 1994 when he discovered a "conflict of interest" that
arose from two small contracts awarded to a company that was headed
by Honig's wife. The State Board of Education worked at him from
another other side (the Board is an appointed body -- made up of
representatives appointed by the Governor, the Superintendent, and
the Legislature), and ultimately gained the upper hand when Marion
Joseph was appointed President of the SBE (her name should be
familiar on this list). The Legislature also made a habit of cutting
funding to the successful educational initiatives developed by the
SDE -- primarily ambitious professional development efforts -- so
they never were allowed to mature or follow through with the reforms
they put in place (we were always operating on a shoestring budget,
often forced to support thousands of teachers on carryover from the
previous year's budget). And finally, there were the "public"
critics of everything that was going on.
Once Honig was removed, the wolves descended. CLAS was next. In
many respects, CLAS shot itself in the foot. Efforts were never made
to advertise or promote or explain its value and importance. It just
"was". Since few outside the education community were even aware of
its existence ... let alone its value ... it wasn't hard for the
opposition to take a few test questions out of context and infuriate
the Christian right, who launched their own (coordinated) letter-
writing campaign. It didn't help that a few of the reading
selections involved questionable (at least, provocative) content, but
this was because the Administrator at CLAS kept the reading
selections close to the vest. By contrast, the science community
used previous CLAS test questions as training tools ... the kits that
were needed to administer the test were allowed to remain in the
schools for future use (encouraging the dissemination of hands-on
science), and were a popular source for professional development.
The science test were therefore widely disseminated (to the public as
well as to the educational community) ... and the test was a much
more open document. As a result, the central targets of the critics
were NOT the science test (it was too well known and too popular),
but the reading and math tests.
So, in summary, the short answer (that I ... per usual ... have used
200 words to explain when 10 might have done a better job -- sorry!)
is that critics rallied around the sound-byte phrases of "fuzzy"
math, "whole language", "dumbed-down" content, and "subjective
scoring". They combined this with criticisms of time and money
waste, and waged an unceasing political battle against the most
obvious proponent of the entire reform effort package. Finally, all
efforts were coordinated, so seemingly disparate voices in different
parts of the state gave the impression of widespread opposition.
Being a first-hand participant and observer of the ensuing battles
over standards, framework development, definition of instructional
material criteria, and then the IM adoption process itself (battles
which continue, by the way, to this day), I can attest to secretive
deals, sneaky tactics, and possibly illegal actions taken by
proponents of the standards/accountability crowd who are still in
control. There are also persistent rumors and lots of second-hand
anecdotes -- mostly from people whose judgment and integrity I trust
-- connecting the major textbook publishers to the entire process.
I know, Art, that this description presents a not-so-subtle
suggestion of "conspiracy" ... a possibility to which you are not
open to hearing ... but that's pretty much how it all came down
between 1990 and 1998. As to your suggestion that Californians come
up with a better proposal for the state Exit Exam than the single
test now being administered, they've done it, are still doing it, and
probably will continue to do so until the political climate in the
state shifts once again to something a little more humane. This
governor (and the previous one, for that matter) refuses to accept
multiple measures of assessment, which almost every district in the
state has developed and currently uses. Instead, he stubbornly
clings to the central "reform" (aren't they *all* "central" reforms)
created by the standardistas, and despite evidence that some 70% of
the students who are being punished by this single test are special
needs students or second-language learners (themselves students with
unrecognized special needs). Of course, this is the same governor
who has twice vetoed bills passed by the Legislature making it
possible for local districts to adopt whatever "standards-based"
instructional materials they feel will best meet their instructional
needs, rather than only those anointed as "acceptable" by the SBE; a
governor who has vetoed Legislation providing for periodic, but
systematic, review and modification of the standards (once when it
was suggested review take place every two years, then again when it
was required to accompany each new adoption cycle); a governor who
has vetoed Legislation authorizing professional development to focus
on teaching to the standards, rather than on how to use the approved
textbooks in the classroom; and a governor who has vetoed Legislation
that prohibits former Curriculum Commission members from serving on
task forces, panels or advisory committees to the Commission, or for
serving on such bodies for more than one adoption.
But the Exit Exam was not the point of the message to which you
responded. The question was what happened to the CLAS test (which
would probably be a much more reliable assessment of student academic
success). However, in relation to that Exit Exam that the
notoriously non-progressive State Board of Education continues to
support, let me just say that Californians have been graduating from
high school for a very long time without benefit of a high school
exit exam to "test" their worthiness. If, as some claim, they are
"unprepared" for adult life by the coursework they have completed ...
well, life itself has (and will continue to) help them sort that
out. The "Exit Exam" is a red herring, used only to hit certain
populations of students over the head. The Standards Tests are
another matter ... but I have exhausted my energy (not to mention
space), so will leave that discussion for a later time.
Post a Message to arn-l:
|
