Re: "How Do You Suggest We Do That?" (long)

[Maria Reyes <MReyes@MAIL515A.CDE.CA.GOV>]

To James Powell:
I did read the book Emotional Intelligence and liked it very much. I
think it underscores the need to develop assessment systems that allow
all students to demonstrate what they have learned in different ways.
--maria

>>> James Powell <powell@NS.NET> 10/19 12:33 PM >>>
Joan,

I like your thinking. It would be interesting to have face to face
meeting with
you and Maria.  I believe we could  find many areas of agreement.
However, I
suppose such a meeting would be impossible.  I have no idea where you
are. Email
leaves much to be desired as a vehicle for mediation, resolution, etc.
I think
of drive by debate as a suitable description, but drive by is better
than no
debate.

Have you read Daniel Golman's book "Emotional Intelligence?"

Jim Powell
powell@ns.net

Joan Jaeckel wrote:

> To Maria Reyes:
>
> The assumptions in the three statements in your post addressed to
James
> Powell perfectly embody the problems with the standardized testing
> 'paradigm', from my perspective:
>
> 1.  "The  public is demanding that K-12 students learn 'to' widely
accepted
> standards in reading and math."
>
> 2.  "It is logical that they also want demonstration of that learning
...I
> do not think that's too much to ask."
>
> 3.  "How do we maintain the public trust and demonstrate to them that
> students are in fact learning to world class standards?"
>
> Here's how I arrive at the conclusion that you have identified the
heart of
> the controversy over standardized testing.
>
>     If any of you don't have time for the long post that follows,
here's
> the soundbite:
>
>                 Drawing conclusions about a student or a teacher or a
school
> or a district on the basis of standardized test results is like
drawing a
> conclusion about tigers from a tiger in a cage.
>
> 1.  "The  public is demanding that K-12 students learn 'to' widely
accepted
> standards in reading and math."
>
>         People are worried about the chaotic appearance of education
and
> grabbing at any straw a pollster holds out to them.  People tend to
react to
> perceived chaos with a call for law and order.   Designing our
education
> system at the polling place based on polls may be politically correct,
but
> it is educationally dumb.
>
>         Take a look at what else the public is 'demanding' based on
how they
> live, play, and consume, and you will not conclude that the public is
very
> interested in conforming to 'widely accepted standards'.  People may
be
> giving lip service to the idea of uniformity and standards when
pressed into
> a corner by pollsters asking questions that have only one correct
answer,
> but it's naive to think that these polls give an accurate reading for
future
> planning.     The 'Be Average!' ad campaign is a thing of the past.
It will
> no longer fly.  People want to stand out, not blend in.
>
>              'Widely accepted standards' are an illusion.  Inside the
> longing for 'widely accepted standards' is the longing for a simpler
way.
> With so much access to information now, more than ever, the adage
'less is
> more' applies.
>
>         We are searching three big concepts:
>
>         A.  What makes children tick?
>
>         B.   What capacities does the profession of teaching require?
>
>         C.  What does an increasingly leaderless society require of
its
> education system?
>
>         Our assumptions about each of those questions are no longer
valid.
>
>         A.  Children are not the uncooperative blank slates the
prevailing
> education paradigm makes them out to be with its Pavlovian
carrot-and-stick
> system of rewards and punishments.
>
>         B.  Teachers are not the lazy ninnys against which classrooms
are
> 'teacher-proofed'.  Nor are they the exploitable blue-collar workers
of the
> over-protective teachers' unions.
>
>         C.  A society fast losing its leaders, no longer needs an
education
> system that systematically trains everyone to be a follower, to strive
for
> the average.
>
>         The country does not need people accustomed to be 'measured'
by a
> cadre of overseers.  We do not need a DARE-ing moral rescue.  We are
not
> 'abandoning traditional values';  we are abandoning traditional means
for
> identifying our values.   We want to embody our values, not just
believe in
> them.  People are listening to their conscience more rather than to
what
> 'widely accepted' leaders tell them.
>
>         After all, we now ask, where do "they" get their information?
As
> the fall of one 'leader' after another proves, no select group has a
patent
> on principled leadership.  We don't look to 'positions' of leadership,
we
> look to be leaders ourselves and for leaders with a self-identified
purpose.
> The emperor has no clothes because the people are wearing them - and
they
> don't care that he has no clothes anyway.
>
>         We long for standards because we sense there is a scale, an
> educational doh-re-mi, from which classroom 'music' can be 'composed'.
 We
> already hear the music when we are in the presence of a good school or
of
> good teaching.  Then we try to can it and kill it and standardize it.
>
>         That's what we have to get over.  When we all know the notes,
we
> will forget about the idea of approving every child's individual
'score'.
>
>         The first response as a culture is to try to stabilize the
drifting
> ship of education by throwing down an anchor.  That will keep the ship
from
> drifting, but it will also prevent the ship from going anywhere.
>
>         We have a fragmented system.  We now say we want to bring
order to
> it.  That's an illusion.  We just have to get used to living inside
the
> tension between too much looseness and too much order.  There is no
final
> solution.
>
>         We have been educationally asleep -- traditional society was
strong
> enough to support a slightly drowsy population.  We are not asleep
anymore.
> It's time to create a conscious education system.
>
>         Examples of open-ended 'standards' abound.  Howard Gardner put
his
> ideas on multiple intelligences out;  teachers find inspiration in
them and
> work with them in different ways, adapting them to their own and their
> student's strengths and weaknesses.  The 'Waldorf' approach is not
> prescriptive;  teachers work from a common understanding, but each
school is
> different.  The Coalition of Essential Schools came up with many
open-ended
> standards capable of inspiring teachers and students to new heights.
> Deborah Meier tapped into the source, as have Alfie Kohn and Daniel
Goleman,
> to name just a few.
>
> The untapped potential of the human being and the myriad ways of
exploring
> the possibilities is the explicit leitmotiv of the day -- at least
> everywhere except in education.
>
> 2.  "It is logical that they also want demonstration of that
learning...I do
> not think that's too much to ask."
>
>         From the perspective of the student this innocent 'want' is a
> schoolyard bully of monstrous proportions.  Given the depressing
effect of
> constant measuring and comparing on teachers and students (and
parents),
> does paying the tab necessarily entitle the taxpayer to constant
> surveillance?  What if constantly opening the oven door during baking
keeps
> the souffle from rising?  It's time to get over it.
>
>             Tuition charging schools make up 10% of American
education.  By
> and large students at tuition charging schools are not part of the
national
> standardized test 'snapshot'.  Does that mean that learning is not
taking
> place at such schools?   Does that mean that the children of tuition
paying
> parents are not in need of surveillance, while children of parents at
> tuition-free schools need to be watched?  It it just luck that
> tuition-charging school w/o standardized testing manage to turn out
kids who
> go to college?  Is it possible that the absence of pressure to teach
to the
> test actually contributes to the overall learning of those children?
>
>         If so, why are only the better off able to give their kids
this
> freedom from time-wasting, while kids in tuition-free schools are
forced to
> keep submitting to being tested?  Why does the public want to be
unfair to
> the very kids they purport to really care about?   We have to wean
ourselves
> of the idea that there is a greater authority somewhere that knows
better
> than a committed group of teachers and community members.
>
> 3.  .  "How do we maintain the public trust and demonstrate to them
that
> students are in fact learning to world class standards?"
>
>         Trust is given, not earned.  The real question is 'how can we
> placate public dis-trust by demonstrating to them that students
learn:"
>
>         Demanding 'proof' is an act of dis-trust.  Parents routinely
> bewilder pollsters when they say the system is bad but my school is no
as
> bad.  This is a measurement of trust;  they trust people they see
every day
> more than they trust people they do not know.  Put more responsibility
into
> the hands of people parents know, and trust will go up.  Remove
> responsibility to the federal level, and trust will erode even
further, no
> matter how 'world class' the standards purport to be.
>
>         No one can do their best work in an atmosphere of distrust.
If we
> cannot trust teachers with the children, then we need new teacher
> development programs and to make the profession of teaching
financially and
> creatively rewarding.  'World class standards' are hard-wired into the
> teachers the students already.  We didn't used to know that, so we had
> standardized testing to reassure ourselves that something was going
on.
> It's time to take off the training wheels and start pedaling solo.
>
> Joan Jaeckel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.