Re: Meier- no national test - consumer report approach to accountability

[aburke5054@aol.com]

Meier seems to believe that Americans are just hungering to have her 
and Sizer and the "major universities" decide what the true meaning of 
democracy is so that the schools can teach it to the rest of us who are 
so unenlightened that we can not figure it out for ourselves.  Dancing 
in the streets will start any moment now.

Underlying the "consumer report" approach is the assumption that 
consumers have choices and given appropriate information, they will 
choose in ways that best suit themselves.  We all know how comfortable 
public education is with that notion.  So while Meier nods towards 
consumers, something tells me she will not be booking the Milton 
Friedman Choir for the next FairTest annual meeting.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6407847019713273360

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: Monty Neill <monty@fairtest.org>
To: ndsgroup@yahoogroups.com; ARN-state@yahoogroups.com; ARN-L 
<arn-l@interversity.org>; arn2-strategy <arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 7:38 am
Subject: [arn-l] Meier- no national test - consumer report approach to 
accountability


In this exchange (in Ed Week blog) between Deb Meier and Diane Ravitch, 
Deb
first explains why a national test is a bad idea, then goes on to 
discuss
schooling and democracy and suggests the idea of a 'consumer report' 
approach to
accountability. Monty
In Defense of Politics-Sort of
Dear Diane,

It's fun occasionally to be reminded of why we were considered by so 
many to be
"in opposition." When you took pleasure in the NY Times editorial 
promoting
tests (this time national), I was reminded of our disagreements!

Allowing a national definition of success to rest on so many unaligned 
tests is
patently absurd. You would "align" them, I would eliminate them! My 
quarrel with
NCLB is with its power to define success, and then with its use of 
tests to do
so. A more "sensible" NCLB, with a single consistent test, would make 
it more,
not less dangerous. If teaching to the test is bad now, it would become
suffocating if tried on the scale the NY Times suggests.

As I gather, however, you are not for tests that are high stakes, but 
just
"fyi". It's important, if you hold this view, to spell that out. I 
doubt if it's
what the NY Times has in mind, nor am I sure it's do-able until the 
politicians
(and reporters) understand the limits of test data. I would argue that 
the task
of strengthening schools that serve the larger purposes of education 
cannot be
achieved until we flesh out the possible definitions we each hold of 
what being
"well-educated" looks like. There may be more than one answer-which is 
why I go
back to that other idea: a Consumer Reports on schooling. One that 
allows us to
compare and contrast, but does not seek a single answer.

You suggest, as does NCLB, that if folks were forced to acknowledge 
their
failure (by true scores, and true consequences) they'd go about fixing 
them in
ways that would improve true test scores. For reasons good and bad 
there's no
evidence for that. Just suppose Atlanta's improvement is related to 
just better
prepping? Would you recommend we all do the same? No. You wouldn't. But 
once we
go down that road...

There is no way to be well-educated in everything by age 8, 12, 16. And 
which
qualities of mind or skill we think deserves to push out others is hard 
to agree
about. And unnecessary! We don't all agree about cars either, or any of 
the
other stuff covered by Consumer Reports. But we can make our own 
judgments-or at
least better ones than we might without it. Probably we rely in the end 
on what
our friends and relatives also say, but that's fine, too. For cars and 
schools.

So, I want to pursue this. I met with a few people recently who were 
really
struck by the idea of a CR-type review of NYC schools. I think it's 
do-able.

I ought to quit now. But I want to shift ground a little to an old 
obsession:
where in the world do folks think we learn about the arts and science 
(and
history and practice) of democracy? We once based it on such small,
geographically close and "common" constituencies that it didn't take as 
much
counter-intuitive understanding. But even then, the Federalist Papers 
did quite
a job bouncing the ideas around. How can we ignite a similar debate? 
What role
could a Consumer Reports play in such a debate?

Why aren't the major Universities-and I don't mean the education
departments-convening folks to dig into the deeper question of the 
relationship
between democracy and K-16 and beyond. We know that there are stress 
points in a
democratic society-what do we know about how we weather them and what 
we lose
during such historic moments. How instinctive was Giuliani's idea of 
postponing
the election in NYC after 9/11? Or Chavez's retreat from democracy in 
Venezuela,
or Putin's or Musharraf's dodges? Why do reformers look for the man on 
the white
horse over and over? Or for technocratic solutions-the perfect test? I 
enjoyed
James Traub's comment in last Sunday's NY Times piece ("Persuading 
Them"): "What
we say about ourselves no longer has much effect; but what we are seen 
doing-on
occasion, what we are caught doing-matters immensely." Maybe too many 
youngsters
reach 18 without ever having seen democracy "done"-much less reflected 
on the
dilemmas involved, guided by wise adults.

How can schools-without being inappropriately political-teach politics? 
How can
we counteract our natural tendency to elevate "nonpartisanship" above 
politics,
rather than seeking a more vigorous politics, with all its 
self-interested
warts?

When we knock politics, we undermine the struggle to make democracy 
work. No
politics, no democracy! While you and I are both feeling a little weary 
about
how politics has distorted schooling, we both know that it takes 
renewing that
discourse again generation after generation, not giving up on it.

Part of our weariness is that it takes a somewhat leveler playing field 
for the
game to work at its best. When we lay the task all onto schools we 
undermine
what schools can do, and forget about all the other parties to 
democracy's
warts.

Ted Sizer and I once tried to get Harvard interested in the topic. 
Everyone said
"yes yes", "great idea". But it never happened. Maybe NYU? Meanwhile we 
can also
look around for folks to help us launch a CR for schools. Anyone else 
out there
interested?

Deborah


Monty Neill, Ed.D.
Co-Executive Director
FairTest
342 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02139
617-864-4810 x 101;  fax 617-497-2224
monty@fairtest.org
http://www.fairtest.org
Donate: https://secure.entango.com/servlet/donate/MnrXjT8MQqk=






________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003