Lists | ARN-L: November 2009: [no subject]

I can guess from news reports, op-ed pieces, and blog posts that many state=
s are working hard to prepare their applications. From my reading of the cr=
iteria, I think the following are the winning strategies and actions to inc=
lude in the application, although they may be inconsistent with research fi=
ndings or common sense.

Suggestion #1:

Stop paying teachers and principals a salary. Instead pay teachers and prin=
cipals on a per standardized test point basis each day. At the end of each =
school day, students should be tested using a standardized test, what a tea=
cher and principal is paid is calculated at the end of the day based on the=
 growth of the student, i.e., how much has the student improved over the pr=
evious day. This is true accountability and will for sure keep teachers and=
 principals on their toes! (This is the true intention behind the requireme=
nt: "At the time the State submits its application, the State does not have=
 any legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers at the State level to linking=
 data on student achievement or student growth to teachers and principals f=
or the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation.")

But to do so, you must not ask the question whether this "accountability" w=
ill lead to better teaching, ignore the fact that "accountability" has driv=
en many teachers out of the schools, and forget about attracting highly qua=
lified talents to the teaching profession. Read The Folly of Merit Pay by A=
lfie Kohn, published in Education Week in 2003.

Suggestion #2:

Remove all "non-core" academic activities and courses and reduce all teachi=
ng to math and reading because what the Secretary wants is "increasing stud=
ent achievement in (at a minimum) reading/language arts and mathematics, as=
 reported by the NAEP and the assessments required under the ESEA" and "dec=
reasing achievement gaps between subgroups in reading/language arts and mat=
hematics, as reported by the NAEP and the assessments required under the ES=
EA." Actually, no need to teach them these subjects, just teaching them how=
 to pass the tests may be even more effective.

But to do so, you have to forget the reasons for education in the first pla=
ce, ignore all research findings about the negative consequences of high st=
akes testing, and suppress any desire to care about the students' emotional=
 well being, to cultivate their creativity and entrepreneurship, to conside=
r their interest and strengths. Read my book, and Your Child's Strengths: D=
iscover Them, Develop Them, Use Them by Jenifer Fox.

Suggestion #3:

Make sure every child takes courses in "science, technology, engineering, a=
nd mathematics(STEM)," the more, the merrier because "[E]mphasis on Science=
, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)" is a competitive prefere=
nce priority, worth 15 points and you either get 15 points or nothing "(com=
petitive preference points: 15, all or nothing)."

But this requires you to ignore research findings that "[O]ver the past dec=
ade, U.S. colleges and universities graduated roughly three times more scie=
ntists and engineers than were employed in the growing science and engineer=
ing workforce" and "there is no evidence of a long-term decline in the prop=
ortion of American students with the relevant training and qualifications t=
o pursue STEM jobs." You also must not think about what our children will r=
eally need to be successful in the 21st Century global economy, such as cro=
ss cultural competencies, foreign languages, digital competencies, or what =
Daniel Pink refers to as "R-Directed Thinking Skills." Read a recent study =
about STEM education in the U.S., an article I wrote for PDK's Edge magazin=
e, my book, and Daniel Pink's A Whole New Mind.

Suggestion #4:

This suggestion is only for Alaska, South Carolina, and Texas because all o=
ther 47 states have already done so and that is to develop and adopt "a com=
mon set of K-12 standards that are supported by evidence that they are inte=
rnationally benchmarked and build toward college and career readiness by th=
e time of high school graduation." All 47 states have signed on to the Comm=
on Core Standards Initiative of the National Governors Association and the =
Council of Chief State School Officers. So I guess it counts, although it o=
nly has two subjects.

Well there may be a small problem: how to prove that the standards are inte=
rnationally benchmarked? Did they benchmark against national standards in C=
anada, our closest neighbor, or Australia, a large federation of states lik=
e the U.S.? Of course not, because they do not have national standards. Or =
perhaps against China since it is our perceived competitor, probably not, b=
ecause China has been reforming its curriculum over the past two decades an=
d loosening its national control on curriculum. Or perhaps it is the PISA o=
r TIMSS-but these are tests, not curriculum standards.

To wholeheartedly embrace this suggestion, states have to overlook the dama=
ges national standards can do to education and not take into consideration =
the fact that national standards neither improves education for students no=
r narrows achievement gaps. Read my recently published article on this issu=
e in AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice and the editorial by Chris Ti=
enken, the editor.

Suggestion #5:

Write in lots of money for testing companies and assessment consultants in =
the application because you will be rewarded for "developing and implementi=
ng common, high-quality assessments." I also suggest, in this spirit, that =
you promise to test the students more frequently, at least twice a day-one =
when they come to school and one when they leave, because this will help yo=
u collect more data to meet the data systems requirement and hold teachers =
accountable.

Of course, what this means is that you cannot think about students' individ=
ual differences, the need for diverse talents, or the costs of standardized=
 tests. You cannot think about who will eventually benefit from the assessm=
ents either. And in no way you should worry about the corruption high stake=
s standardized testing brings. Read Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Test=
ing Corrupts America's Schools by Sharon Nicoles and David Berliner.


Monty Neill, Ed.D.
Interim Executive Director
FairTest
15 Court Sq., Ste. 820
Boston, MA 02108
857-350-8207 x 101
fax 857-350-8209
monty@fairtest.org
www.fairtest.org
Donate: https://secure.entango.com/donate/MnrXjT8MQqk=