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

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

Monty didn't say that he's not going to book the Milton Friedman Choir for the FairTest annual meeting, so maybe they have a shot after all. They're probably practicing for it right now. Should liven up the FairTest annual meeting quite a bit.

It's true that presently we're focused on academic achievement, somewhat narrowly circumscribed by state testing regimens. If people want to claim that focus is bringing about the end of the world, or that there is ever so much more to what school should be, more power to them. However, the truth is that we're now testing all children on things they should know and we've linked the results with commitment to provide all children with instruction at a high level. Those stakes seem exactly right - they're important and worthwhile and something to celebrate and support.

I think it will take pretty much all we have to get there or even come close, even without opposition from within a sick system. Of course there's more to school, and more things to aim for than the narrow realm of state tests, but beware people who want to keep throwing things out in pursuit of the society and the schools that are all things to all children.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: Monty Neill <monty@fairtest.org>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 9:08 am
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Meier- no national test - consumer report approach to accountability


Art actually raises a legitimate question when he notes that consumer
reports provides info regarding choice.


However, ratings based on multiple factors in which the various factors are
separately noted, which is what CR does, could be a useful approach - versus
what amounts to a couple of numbers from tests that are largely unavailable
to the public and that clearly fail to include most of what people -
parents, educators, the general public - actually want from schools,
academically and extra-academically.


Aspects of this idea have been suggested and even used. In some ways, the
British inspectorate, and similar approaches used in MA with the Boston
Pilot schools and at least some charters, and in RI - real in-depth
periodic reviews - is one approach. What they should look at and for, what
is deemed most important, and how results are used, are among key questions.
In NYC some say an inspectorate has been one more way for Bloomberg-Klein to
bludgeon schools and its purpose has been to intensify the focus on
standardized test scores; others seem to think it has been more helpful (and
I've no idea if these reviews are even extensive - B-K change the rules and
procedures annually).


In MA, focusing only on academics, CARE proposed multiple approaches that
together could constitute a legitimate review of the academics. Conceptually
it would not be hard to expand it to include other important aspects of
schooling that parents, students and teachers care about.


Beyond reporting and in some cases interventions to push needed
improvements, I don't know there would be use. Of course parents with means
choose, largely by where the move, sometimes in trying to select a school in
their city, a charter, etc. So there would be a utility in the choice
aspect - tho with unequal access to wealth and information, the fact of
choice may not mean much in terms of equity. Rather, the value is in public
information that looks more deeply at schools.


In last few days I've started to look at 2 reports both of which say they
are rooted in detailed investigation of what makes a good school for
low-income kids - schools that are successful. One of the reports explicitly
considered factors beyond test scores in identifying the schools; I am not
at all sure the other has. I'll be talking about them once I read more,
because they require digging into the details to find out what they are
really discussings. My point here is simply that various efforts to
determine what makes successful schools work, even those that only identify
the schools via test scores, inevitably talk about various important factors
about those schools.


Finally, as Deb pointed out in her column and her book In Schools We Trust,
different people have different priorities, schools cannot do everything -
that contributes to her thinking about diverse kinds of schools, all
'trustworthy' in significant ways. But that diversity also suggests the need
for evidence of success that meets different requirements.


Lastly, we need much more transparent and useful info on the wide inequities
in funding within and across districts. Now it takes huge effort to dig it
out, a research project. Such info should be part of every annual state and
disrict report, in basic fashion: how much money is spent per kid in each
school.


Monty



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

To: <arn-l@interversity.org>

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:44 AM

Subject: Re: [arn-l] Meier- no national test - consumer report approach to
accountability



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

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

Subscribe ARN-L:

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








________________________________________________________________________
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

Post a Message to arn-l:

Your name:

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

Subject line:

Message: