|
|
Interversity Quotes"I think it's time to ask the Standardistos: Where's the test for compassion? For honesty? For curiosity? For moral commitment? Until they can answer, let's tell them to shut up." —Susan Ohanian (One Size Fits Few: The Folly of Educational Standards) Interversity ProjectsEchoes of Orwell:The purpose of this webforum is to promote a lively discussion among students and faculty alike about George Orwell's 1984 and the parallels or echoes found in today's society. |
[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index] CRESST study
I remember having read the CRESST paper back when it came out. It was in that multi-million dollar package of studies commissioned by the CA state gov't (legislature? governor? dept of Ed?) that all went public at one time with big fanfare. I think it captured something different than what Designs for Change found. Susan just did a nice annotated summary of the CA findings, and I'll shrink them down even further with a bit of overstatement. Yes, CRESST found that there were low income schools that posted consistently higher test scores than all the rest. And these didn't involve the tricks that we uncovered in the original set of Heritage/Ed Trust "no excuses" and "high flyers" (creaming for students, hidden extra foundation funding, rigged test score formulae, etc) And these truly high scoring schools did share certain characteristics, like dedicated teachers, a sense of mission, faculty collaboration. But here's the drawback, and I think it's a bit too subtle for most readers of the CRESST report. The sense of mission in these schools was all about one thing: raising that test score, period. I've been in schools like these in recent years. Mostly inexperienced teachers with little knowledge of pedagogy and cognition, but loaded with commitment and dedication to "do the right thing" for poor kids. They buy into the populist rhetoric about "high expectations" and accept that behaviorist methods with a human face is the way to help these kids. Therefore, they work well together as a faculty. No dissent, no questions about the scripted lessons, etc. It's sort of like a well organized cult. Efficient at implementing the mission because nobody questions the mission. They get young kids to buy into it because they communicate a real sense of caring for their students, and thus they have fewer behavior problems and are able to move through scripted lessons with minimal disruptions, and even use their own creativity to make the lessons "fun". But it's the same anti intellectual curriculum and teaching, and the kids ARE NOT LEARNING As far as real learning, these schools are like a Potemkin village: all facades, nothing behind them. Ideal for quickie, "feel good" visits by politicians and other bigshots, and for shallow news reports, because everybody is engaged and busy and looks happy. I think CRESST only questioned the quality of learning at these schools, rather than providing details and evidence (at least that was my first impression back in April, and my disappointment). If there is evidence of weak learning, we need to highlight it. Pete Farruggio At 07:50 AM 8/27/2007, you wrote: In its study of Chicago elementary schools that were improving compared with those that were not, Designs for Change uncovered significant differences. Those improving had strong Local School Councils that worked well with the principals the Councils hired; good collaborative leadership from principals; focus on professional development; they did less teaching to the test; and some other factors. The less successful schools were subject to more central office interventions (including scripted curricula) because of being put on probation or reconstituted, and those pressures no doubt led to more narrow teaching to the test. The more successful schools had a slightly less impovershed student body, but even then greater rates of poverty than Cleveland and Baltimore. These were schools doing a lot with far too little, but those experiences and the accumulated knowledge were being ignored by CPS central office. The report is at <http://www.designsforchange.org>www.designsforchange.org. A report FairTest co-authored that summarizes DFC and other information about Chicago is on the FT website at <http://www.fairtest.org/ChicagoReportExecSum2007.html>http://www.fairtest.org/ChicagoReportExecSum2007.html
Post a Message to ca-resisters: |
eric |