Fwd: [LiteracyForAll] George Miller speaks, maybe in tongues

[Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "GERALD BRACEY" <gbracey1@verizon.net>
> Date: Thu Aug 9, 2007  7:13:52 AM US/Pacific
> To: <arn-l@interversity.org>,	<LiteracyForAll@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [LiteracyForAll] George Miller speaks, maybe in tongues
> Reply-To: LiteracyForAll@yahoogroups.com
>
> What follows is a commentary on George Miller's July 30 speech at the 
> National Press Club on how he plans to revise for its reauthorization 
> NCLB when Congress resumes this fall.  I don't think he fully 
> understands the implications of some of the things he says concerning 
> growth models, "better" tests, and keeping the curriculum from 
> narrowing.   Yesterday he added that "21st century skills" can't be 
> measured by multiple-choice tests.  (And yet, his planned changes 
> don't seem to be as radical as those Nancy Pelosi mentioned to the 
> National Conference of State Legislatures yesterday.)
>
> But two sentences in the July 30 speech give the current game away:
>
> "I have always said that I am proud to be one of the original 
> coauthors of the No Child Left Behind Act.  But what I really want is 
> to be the proud coauthor of a law that works."
>
> The whole speech can be viewed at http://edlabor.house.gov.  A 
> formatted version of my comments is at 
> www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-bracey along with a few interesting 
> comments from readers.
>
> By the way, my first response to Miller's speech was actually a letter 
> to the editor in response to a supportive editorial in the Washington 
> Post.  The Post's automated response to acknowledge receipt of my 
> letter contains this little zinger:  "The letter may not have been 
> submitted to or published by any other media or Internet outlet.  This 
> includes comments or feedack posted to Web sites.  If you have posted 
> similar comments to a Web site, your letter will not be considered."
>
> This sets up a sorta Catch-22 because an earlier par. says, "Because 
> of the volume of letters we receive, we cannot respond to the authors 
> of letters we are unable to use."
>
> So how long are you supposed to wait before posting "similar comments" 
> somewhere else?  I waited two days.  I have queried the Post's 
> ombudsman about these policies, but so far, no response.
>
> Jerry
>
> -------------------------
>
>
> An August 7 Washington Post editorial called a speech  by California 
> Rep. George Miller “refreshing:”  “So it was refreshing to hear a 
> leading liberal Democrat speak passionately about his commitment to 
> this landmark law.”  The law is the Elementary and Secondary Education 
> Act of 1965, known in its current incarnation as “No Child Left 
> Behind.”  It is up for re-authorization this year.
>
> Mr. Miller, realizing he couldn’t get the reauthorization before 
> everyone skedaddled home for summer recess, spoke July 30 at the 
> National Press Club, outlining what he wants to see in the bill he 
> will bring forth in September.
>
> I’m not sure the Post understood what Mr. Miller said and I’m not sure 
> Mr. Miller understood what Mr. Miller said.  Mr. Miller said that the 
> law “is not fair.  It is not flexible and it is not funded.  I can 
> tell you that there are no votes in the U. S. House of Representatives 
> for continuing the No Child Left Behind Act without making serious 
> changes to it.”  That’s clear.  So far, so good.
>
> But then he dropped a pair of doozies:  “I have always said that I am 
> proud to be one of the original coauthors of the No Child Left Behind 
> Act.  But what I really want is to be the proud coauthor of a law that 
> works.”  Well I reckon that gives the game away.
>
> Miller proposed that under the new law “states will be allowed to 
> develop better tests that more accurately measure what all students 
> have learned.”  Read: not all kids will take the same tests.  Read: 
> states will be permitted to use performance tests and other 
> alternatives to multiple-choice tests.  Tacked onto this, Miller 
> acknowledged the criticism that NCLB’s emphasis only on math and 
> science has inappropriately narrowed the curriculum (and, if he gets 
> completely honest about this, he’ll acknowledge that the narrowing has 
> afflicted kids who can least afford to let it happen to them).  Read: 
> We’ll test in more curriculum areas.
>
> More tests! Underlying this rhetoric is a complexity of both 
> psychometrics and information technology that I don’t think Mr. Miller 
> grasps.  As Tom Toch of the Education Sector recently pointed out, the 
> testing industry infrastructure has imploded already under weight of 
> the existing law.  States added 11 million tests in 2005-2006 and will 
> add another 11 million next year when the NCLB science requirement 
> kicks in.  The errors made by the testing companies have soared and 
> even when they get it right they often don’t get it right in time for 
> schools to use the results properly under the law.
>
> And yet, in a follow-up that came across the wire services August 8, 
> Miller added even more tests: the tests must test “21st century 
> skills:” “These measures (tests) can no longer reflect just basic 
> skills and memorization.  Rather, they must reflect critical-thinking 
> skills and the ability to apply knowledge to new and challenging 
> contexts.  These are the skills that today’s students need to meet the 
> complex demands of the American economy and society in a globalized 
> world.”  This last, of course, is rather dubious but it is today’s 
> mantra.
>
>
> Finally, “The legislation I will introduce will contain a growth model 
> that gives credit to states and schools for the progress that their 
> students make over time.”  Everybody loves growth models these days.  
> Me included.  Schools whose students make good progress ought not to 
> be punished if they started from such a low level that they didn’t 
> make the magical “proficient” level.  Right now, “growth” is measured 
> by looking at how this year’s third graders compare to last year’s.  
> Of course, these are two different groups of children and they could 
> differ for reasons other than those having to do with the quality of 
> instruction they are receiving.  But I don’t think most states are in 
> a position to use growth models.
>
> I also don’t think Mr. Miller has a good grasp on the state of 
> student-tracking technology.  And what about the 20% of those students 
> who change schools every year—50-60% in many urban areas?  Who’s going 
> to be held accountable for the performance of these kids (the kids who 
> move usually suffer, sometimes so do those in the receiving school 
> when teachers backtrack to re-cover material to accommodate the 
> newcomers)?
>
> Predicting what will happen to NCLB in the next few months is iffy, 
> very iffy, but here goes:  Nothing will happen.  Congress will pass a 
> one-year automatic extension.  And that means that it will be 2009 
> before we get a full-fledged revision because ain’t nobody gonna touch 
> it during a presidential election year.
>
> So we’ll be stuck with a law that’s all stick and no carrot for 
> another two years.
>
> What a tragedy.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LiteracyForAll/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
>     Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LiteracyForAll/join
>     (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
>     mailto:LiteracyForAll-digest@yahoogroups.com
>     mailto:LiteracyForAll-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     LiteracyForAll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
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!