Fwd: [ARN-state] letter to a 3rd grade teacher

[Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>]

Interesting conversation on another list.

Susan

Begin forwarded message:

  From: "Monty Neill" <monty@fairtest.org>

  Date: Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:16:38 PM US/Pacific

  To: <ARN-state@yahoogroups.com>

  Subject: Re: [ARN-state] letter to a 3rd grade teacher

  Reply-To: ARN-state@yahoogroups.com

  I think there are some vitally important strands here to think about, but
  they revolve around: what are the most effective, powerful ways in which we
  can change the testing situation, both the high stakes decisions based on
  test scores, and the ways in which testing controls curriculum and
  instruction.

  The chances of change in the curriculum-instruction area so long as the high
  stakes remain is slim. One can argue that really good, rich teaching enables
  the scores to take care of themselves, but a) most teachers under the short
  term gone clearly do not believe it, and b) they are probably right in that
  the evidence this will work as needed in the short term is slim. That is,
  teaching to the test makes sense given the circumstances into which law and
  policy have put them.

  So step one is that the high stakes must be removed. Change NLCB. But state
  laws often predating nclb were comparably bad in consequence, and given the
  years of nclb, it'll be hard to change the states. If nclb pushed and
  rewarded better changes, then there would be a better chance. That's the
  logic FEA has been using in pushing for changes in NLCB.

  Assuming that wins, then pushing to overhaul state testing and accountability
  systems will be required. I say assuming that wins because if NCLB does not
  change there is only minimal chance of real changes in state testing programs
  related to 'holding schools accountable.'

  If then state systems change, some combination of new assessments (allowing
  and even priviledging local variety), no high stakes based on one test,
  assistance not punishment, rational expectations, etc - will combine to move
  school culture and practice away from teaching to the test and in many cases
  towards something substantially better than existed before nclb and its state
  ilk (let's not pretend education was in good shape before - often it was
  not). I would say that it might be possible in some states to roll back some
  graduation tests even with nclb-type school accountability systems.

  Aside from growing despair, Peter I think is asking whether either of the two
  sorts of boycotts are going to be very effective. I think if either were
  massive, they would be very effective. What I have never been able to figure
  is a plausible route to seeing how they massify from the relatively small
  numbers in some states that have boycotted (parents/kids in this case; never
  more than a tiny number of teachers). But it is not exactly the case that
  other political routes have succeeded: thus far they have not.

  I conclude that boycotts help keep alive an aspect of resistance that could
  become very powerful. We won't know how these can massify and have that power
  if no one tries them, builds them, learns from building them, shares that
  knowledge, etc. I would object if somehow that were to be the only avenue,
  but in fact I don't hear people saying that (tho some clearly question
  whether anything less dramatic will work).

  Finally, one powerful reason to boycott is because schools have become
  test-prep programs. True, the immediate boycott does not directly address
  that - but it addresses the most immediate cause. And in publicly stating the
  reasons for boycotting, the fact that schools are becoming test prep programs
  is probably the single most important argument, because people have clearly
  indicated in surveys they don't like this and worry about it. That is, the
  boycott has its power not only in the actual extent of boycotting, but in the
  uses of the boycott for political education. David Wasserman who boycotted in
  Madison WI raised that (along with stress on kids and other important
  issues).

  Monty

  ----- Original Message -----

  From: Susan Harman

  To: ARN-state@yahoogroups.com

  Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 2:53 PM

  Subject: Re: [ARN-state] letter to a 3rd grade teacher

  There are two different actions confused here. One is teachers boycotting,
  refusing to administer the tests. This is quite brave, since they can be
  subject to charges of insubordination, and is an act of civil disobedience.
  Obviously, it needs to be done in large groups. My hope is that it will
  inspire teachers to recognize their power, and take back more of our
  profession (incl curriculum and instruction).

  The other action is parents and kids opting out of testing, which is legal in
  CA and CO. This is much less risky, since parents cant be fired. But the
  chair of a high school Eng dept told me last night that his AP has said that
  children who opt out of testing wont get letters of recommendation for
  college. Even this totally legal act carries risk, and should ideally be done
  in large groups also.

  What better ideas do you have?

  Susan

  On Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at 08:47 AM, Peter Campbell wrote:

  Juanita - I get what you're saying. I also admire the courage of teachers who
  refuse to administer these tests. But hear me out. I really want to get your
  take on my concerns.

  I always cringe when I read accounts of parents who wonder what to do with
  their kids during the test boycott. Were these parents simply unaware of what
  was going on in their kid's classroom in the months and weeks prior to the
  tests? It seems that, in withdrawing their children from testing, these
  parents believe they are saving their children from undergoing some mindless
  form of abuse -- which they are. But what about all the mindless abuse these
  children underwent from September to March?

  In the two school districts I have been a part of -- one in suburban St.
  Louis and one in Portland, OR -- there is clearly no distinction between the
  curriculum and test prep. What children learn in school is captive to what is
  tested on the state tests.

  Faced with this information, I think parents have three choices: homeschool
  (as you mentioned), private school, or stay in the public schools and fight.

  My concern is that the latter option -- staying in the public schools and
  fighting -- will get reduced to boycotting tests. While boycotting tests has
  a part to play, it can't be the only way. And while you and other test
  boycott advocates lobby for other changes, my concern is that these other
  actions might get lost in the shuffle. In short, test boycotts attract the
  energy of the few active parents involved in public education and draw energy
  away from the more difficult, more time-consuming tasks involved with larger,
  more substantive changes.

  What if the Montgomery bus boycott had provoked other people in other cities
  to boycott the public buses, but produced nothing in terms of changing racist
  policies and practices? It's safe to say that the Montgomery bus boycott, by
  itself, did not end segregation and racism. It absolutely served as a
  catalyst for the larger movement to follow. But in my experience with public
  education, I don't see evidence of this larger movement gaining momentum. In
  fact, when I read about the work that you and Don Perl do, I always wonder,
  "Why aren't more people doing this?" The teachers -- like Don -- that have
  refused to administer the tests are like the Rosa Parks of today. But where
  are the marches on Washington? Where are the acts of civil disobedience?

  I haven't given up hope. But I'm getting close. Your perspective is greatly
  appreciated!

  Peter

  On Apr 15, 2008, at 5:54 PM, jedoyon@aol.com wrote:

  Peter,

  Boycotting the tests creates the desired result of immediate test relief
  for one parent and one child at a time.  It also keeps the school from having
  results on which to base program decisions. Yes, there are problems with
  curriculum, but boycotting curriculum requires homeschooling. And there will
  always be problems with curriculum. I doubt whether all on this list could
  agree on appropriate curriculum. Some would think Washington's curriculum is
  just great because our state superintendent sold it to the masses as
  "progressive."  She also sold the test as progressive because it has all
  those "wonderful" detailed response answers. In the hands of $11.00 and hour
  temp workers driven to score by the speed or die method, the most
  "progressive" of methods becomes regressive, shallow and harmful.

  Washington's test is the worst of the worst, but we have seen legislative
  changes in recent years because of parental pressure. Part of that pressure
  comes from parents who take the initiative to opt out and speak out.

  By no means does my organization advocate opting out only. But maybe that is
  all certain parents can do, and it is a big step. No, the tests aren't all
  going away anytime soon, but there are small bits of progress made with each
  parent who opts out or teacher who writes a letter to the editor.  One
  teacher in Washington is refusing to administer the WASL this year. His job
  is in jeopardy.

  The mother who wrote the letter has educated herself about the WASL over the
  past few months. She can then share information with other parents. She is
  also working to get an appropriate placement for her son in a "challenge"
  program. Another mother who called me yesterday told me she had to pay $2,000
  for Sylvan to get her daughter up to reading level because the schools are
  only teaching WASL and nothing real.

  Don't drink the tea; don't ride the bus; don't take the test!  We beat
  England back, we moved to the front of the bus, and we will reverse this
  short termed breach of civil rights called high stakes testing. Never before
  have so many standardized tests held so many children and teachers hostage.
  But parents, teachers, and students who refuse to be intimidated cannot be
  intimidated.

  Do you believe changing curriculum will change the tests? Again, I say, it
  doesn't matter what curriculum is bought, if teachers must stick to the
  script of a single format, progressive, back to basics, it doesn't matter.
  Teachers must be free to adapt curriculum to the needs of the students in
  their class. As long as the tests are in place, this will not happen.

  At some point, there will be massive uprising against standardization. And we
  will say we told you so--There's no such thing as a standard child!

  "I'd say that we carry on primarily because we see that victory is in making
  the fight itself, and we can't really be privy to how things will play
  out."     --Don Perl, Colorado

  onward...

  Juanita

  In a message dated 4/15/2008 2:35:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
  campbellp@mail.montclair.edu writes:

  I don't want parents to think that just boycotting the tests is going to
  produce the desired result. They need to know that damage has already been
  done and that boycotts happen too late. I wish we could get rid of the tests
  by boycotting them, and I wish teachers could get back to teaching. But the
  tests are not going away any time soon -- perhaps never. And teachers are not
  getting back to teaching.

  <image.tiff>

  It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

  Vote in the National Cheney Impeachment Poll

  http://www.usalone.com/blogvoices.php?Cheney%20Impeachment%3F

  Add this text to your own email and blog signatures!

  __._,_.___
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)

  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully
  Featured

  Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

  __,_._,___

Vote in the National Cheney Impeachment Poll

http://www.usalone.com/blogvoices.php?Cheney%20Impeachment%3F

Add this text to your own email and blog signatures!