Fwd: [arn2-strategy] Re: [ndsgroup] Re: [care] 'achievement gap' versus educational and social debts

[Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>]

Begin forwarded message:

  From: Peter Campbell <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>

  Date: Sat Dec 8, 2007 5:49:39 PM US/Pacific

  To: Deborah Meier <deborah.meier@gmail.com>

  Cc: arn2-strategy <arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com>, ARN-state
  <ARN-state@yahoogroups.com>, authenticaccountability
  <authenticaccountability@yahoogroups.com>, NDSG <ndsgroup@yahoogroups.com>

  Subject: [arn2-strategy] Re: [ndsgroup] Re: [care] 'achievement gap' versus
  educational and social debts

  Reply-To: arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com

  A few days before my daughter started pre-Kindergarten, she was asked to come
  in and be tested. As part of the test, the teacher asked my daughter to write
  her name on a piece of paper. My four-year-old daughter looked up at me with
  huge, puzzled eyes. I looked at the teacher with equally huge, puzzled eyes.
  Write her name? On the first day of pre-Kindergarten? My daughter didn’t know
  how to write her name, much less hold a pencil.

  My elementary school colleagues have told me that this first meeting has
  traditionally been a time for the new student and the teacher to get to know
  each other. But there was no conversation about what my daughter liked to
  read, what she liked to do, or anything else that might have told the teacher
  who she was. It didn’t seem to matter who my daughter was. Rather, the issue
  was – how well can she do on this test? It saddened me to think that my
  daughter’s very first impression of school was based on taking a test and
  failing it.

  Since that time, my daughter regularly brings home worksheets that she did in
  school. They’re photocopies of activities like sorting, graphing, letter
  tracing, letter recognition. While she’s at school, she’s very busy. The
  teacher has them working in “centers.” Each center is focused on a specific
  task, usually associated with a literacy skill. According to the teachers
  that I’ve spoken to, these skills were the sorts of things that six and seven
  year olds used to do in first grade. Now four and five year olds are being
  asked to do them in pre-Kindergarten.

  She came home the other day in an incredibly grumpy mood. “How was school
  today?” I asked. “Terrible,” she answered. “Why? What happened?” “I want to
  play with my friends,” she said. “Don’t you get a chance to play with your
  friends?” “No,” she replied.

  Next year, if my daughter attends the same school, she will be in school all
  day. As a Kindergartner, she will also be very busy. She will have exactly 20
  minutes of recess, and then she’ll get back to work.

  Here’s what I’m concerned about. I’m concerned that we’re setting
  developmentally inappropriate goals for very young children. I’m worried that
  we’re setting some of them up to fail. We may succeed in getting some of them
  to read, write, and complete math equations precociously. But we may also be
  creating a cohort of four and five-year-old children who look at school as a
  place where they simply don’t belong, as a place that is too stressful and
  too competitive. As a place that is devoid of fun. I ask you: do we really
  want 4-year-olds to deal with stress and competition, of feelings of
  intellectual inadequacy, in pre-kindergarten, in the grade BEFORE the
  beginning grade of elementary school?

  Children learn to play together by playing together. They learn how take
  turns by taking turns, how to share by sharing, how to resolve conflicts that
  come up by resolving conflicts that come up. In order to learn how to do
  these things, children need to experience them firsthand. They need to DO
  these things. But if they are not being given the time to do them, then how
  are they supposed to learn them?

  Whether we should place such a heavy emphasis on academic skill development
  at such an early age is one of the great questions facing early childhood
  educators. Is this a developmentally appropriate practice? Maybe. Maybe not.
  We don’t know. None of us know. That’s because this heavy skills-based,
  academic approach has never been taken before in public schools in this
  country. Ever. No long-term, longitudinal studies have been done because
  we’ve just started.

  Yet this lack of data has not stopped us from forging full steam ahead. We
  think this is good for kids. We think it will benefit them. But we don’t
  actually know what effect it’s having, nor do we know what effect it will
  have 5, 10, or 15 years from now.

  Where I’m from, we call this “driving with your eyes closed.” Others call it
  hoping. Call it what you will, but the fact of the matter is that our
  children – my daughter included – are participating in a giant experiment
  that none of us agreed to. Our children are guinea pigs, to put it nicely.
  Others might call them lab rats.

  To be honest with you, it’s not so much the addition of academics that
  worries me as it is the subtraction of everything else. We seem to have lost
  the balance here. So you spend more time doing skill building. What are you
  getting rid of to make more time for the skill building? Art programs, music
  programs, foreign languages and – yes – recess are being cut to make more
  time for skills, specifically math and reading skills. Starting in pre-K.

  Simply put, pre-K and Kindergarten children are not being given the
  broad-based education that parents like me want. They are being given a heavy
  dose of academic/cognitive skills, but they are being given very little in
  the way of social and emotional development.

  I understand the need to close the achievement gap. I understand the need to
  do this sooner rather than later, and to target young children just entering
  school to make sure they don’t fall behind.

  But as we try to correct one problem, are we unknowingly creating another?

  So what do I want? I want what my daughter wants: to be able to spend time
  with her friends, playing and being a little kid. She doesn’t have any kids
  to play with on her block, so school is the only place she has any chance to
  socialize and interact with her peers. I want her to have the chance to make
  friends. I want her to be given the opportunity to play.  I want her to learn
  how to share and solve problems with her peers. I want this more than I want
  her to be phonemically aware. There will be time for such academic pursuits
  when she's a bit older. But there's only so much time she's allowed to be a
  little girl.

  Lest you think this sounds a bit touchy-feely and out of synch with today’s
  calls for accountability, let me close with this. The Organization of
  Economic Cooperation and Development did a study in 2004 looking at literacy
  and reading skills for 15-year-olds. You know which country was the
  top-ranked producer of readers in the world? Finland. Of the 30 countries
  studied, the United States placed 15th.

  So what does Finland do? Children in Finland start learning to read in the
  first grade. At the age of seven. The Fins believe that play is the most
  effective learning tool in the early years and sets the stage for a lifelong
  love of learning.

  I want this for all young children, not just my daughter. I want all children
  to have the opportunity to develop intellectually, socially, and emotionally.
  But most importantly, I want children to be allowed to have childhoods.

  Peter Campbell

  On Dec 8, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Deborah Meier wrote:

  I have another concern, Monty, that it defines ":achievement" in such

  a narrow way. And it le4ads us, in school, to ignore the achievements

  that kids come to us with if they don't match the narrow range of

  skills we have historically "valued"--just in school. For example, we

  don't notice the kind of independence and self-initiative that many

  kids of less-privileged bring with the; or the experiences they have

  learned to not only cope with but excel at. We ignore their language

  strengths, their character strengths, their ability to work in a group

  in ways that many so-called privileged kids don't--so focused are they

  on individual achievement as against the groups success.

  If I look at my own three children and think about their competence,

  their achievement. their success in life, I surely rarely focus on the

  qualities that school's think of as achievement.

  This preceded the current fierce focus on testing, and of course is

  made worse by it. It codifies and re-ifies the ways we look at the

  kids--ranking them on a very narrow aspect of what they bring to us

  from home, and what their parents have successfully accomplished.

  We therefore undermine them from day one, and their families, in the

  name of "high expectations". We see only the "gaps" on our scale of

  values to be honored. The disrespect involved goes deep. And its

  wounds are hard to recover from. Especially since we never notice

  what we're going and feel, in fact, proud of our effort to undermine

  the bad influence of their families, homes and communities.

  Deb

  On 12/8/07,monty@fairtest.org<1999,1999,FFFFmonty@fairtest.org> wrote:

  >

  >

  >

  >

  >

  >

  >

  >

  > A discussion/debate has started on ARN-L list about the use of the term

  > "achievement gap." I weighed in to that list, and would like to share my

  > post and spur further discussion. The term itself has importance, but

  > practices and concepts behind the term and its use are even more important.

  > Monty Neill

  >

  >

  > In practice, "achievement gap" refers almost entirely to test score

  > differences.

  > Sometimes there is reference to group differences in graduation rates or

  > college

  > attendance, but almost all the discourse actually focuses on group

  > differences in test

  > scores. So what's the problem?

  >

  > 1) Test scores measure limited slices of what students reasonably ought to

  > learn (given

  > reasonable significant individual variation based on interests, aptitudes

  > etc. as to what

  > they should learn). By only reporting test scores, real learning outcomes

  > are often

  > distorted or masked. Further, by focusing pretty much entirely on test

  > scores, scores

  > become the working definition of what it means to be educated. This

  > justifies the

  > narrowing of curriculum and instruction to focus on tested subjects, and in

  > the tested

  > subjects for curriculum and instruction to resemble the tests. Thus, we
  have

  > the

  > reduction of schooling, especially for low-income students, to test prep.
  In

  > sum, the use

  > of 'achievement gap' in its actual political use contributes toward
  thinking

  > about

  > education in terms of test results and thereby contributes to narrowing and

  > dumbing down

  > education. That said, there is little doubt that learning outcomes vary

  > greatly across

  > groups, and that these variances are a serious problem deserving a serious

  > response.

  >

  > 2) Focusing on achievement gap and thus on outcomes has the effect of

  > ignoring inputs and

  > processes. Defenders of this approach argue - with some justification -
  that

  > too little

  > attention had been paid to outcomes (independent of how we describe,

  > measure, evaluate

  > outcomes). They also claimed that attention to outcomes would lead people
  to

  > then focus

  > on necessary inputs and processes so as to improve outcomes. One problem is

  > the very

  > narrow specification of outcomes as test scores. Another is that in
  practice

  > attention to

  > inputs and processes has been seriously inadequate. The other day I was

  > reading a claim

  > by John Merrow (in a Commentary in this week's ed week) that schools found

  > to be 'in

  > need of improvement' will get extra resources. But they don't. In fact,
  with

  > transport

  > and supplemental services, the funds available to most of the kids in a

  > 'failing' school

  > are reduced.

  >

  > 3) When the 'standards' approach gained sway in the 1990s, at least there

  > was a view that

  > there also needed to be input and delivery standards. A very weak version
  of

  > that

  > appeared in Clinton's ed reform bill, but the Gingrich gang promptly gutted

  > even that

  > when they took over Congress. Such standards have not existed. The

  > consequence is no

  > functional standards and no real accountability for providing resources

  > schools need,

  > while schools are excoriated and attacked when they fail to accomplish what

  > they have not

  > been given the resources to accomplish. When teachers and principals, etc.,

  > try to meet

  > the irrational demands of NCLB (and parallel state requirements) by
  focusing

  > more

  > intensely on the tests, they are then attacked for teaching to the test

  > (read Ed Trust on

  > that).

  >

  > 4)Gloria Ladsen-Billings refers to the educational debt owed in particular

  > by the nation

  > to African Americans. If the debt were paid, the consequences of unequal
  and

  > inadequate

  > education could be addressed. If one does not talk about the educational

  > debt and the

  > educational input 'gaps' in a serious way, talk about the achievement gap
  is

  > mostly

  > illusion or deliberate distortion, because it is the debt that primarily

  > causes the

  > results.

  >

  > 6) Study after study going back to the Coleman Report has made it clear
  that

  > non-school

  > factors overwhelm what schools can do. The most recent is one by ETS. Mike

  > Winerip summed

  > it up in his column in the NYTimes (welcome back, Mike, we missed you).
  Just

  > 4 family

  > factors explains most of the difference in outcomes. A decade or so ago a

  > study of NAEP

  > similarly found a handful of factors explained most of the state
  differences

  > in NAEP

  > results. So the educational debt is compounded by the housing debt (recall

  > racial

  > covenants that ensured African Americans could not move to the suburbas

  > after world war

  > II), the medical care debt (unequal access to medical care by race and
  class

  > is

  > pervasive), the employment debt (by the measure of wages, African Americans

  > remain about

  > 3/5 of a person, while income inequality grows rapidly) and on and on. The

  > language of

  > 'achievement gap' essentially obscures that discussion. We need a language

  > that enables

  > us to talk honestly about what is going on.

  >

  > 7) We should not hide problems in schools. Some schools suffer from racism

  > and class bias

  > among those who work in them. Some teachers don't know or care enough. In

  > this, they are

  > like workers and professionals in every field (have we all not encountered

  > or know of

  > incompetent or uncaring doctors or lawyers?) We should pay attention to

  > schools doing the

  > best they can for all their students what they have. And on that basis,

  > having

  > accountability expectations - provided they use indicators that fairly and

  > adequately

  > represent reasonable expectations for learning given the actual

  > circumstances of schools

  > - also makes sense. Accountabilty should enable those locally involved to

  > consider

  > processes as well as outcomes. Then assistance should be provided where

  > assistance is

  > needed. Greater equalization within school systems is very important --

  > inequality in

  > many districts is nearly as bad as inequality within most states, as well
  as

  > across

  > states. Etc.

  >

  > 8) So I don't agree with those who at least seem to say that any

  > conversation about ways

  > to improve schools (e.g., about professional development or improved

  > assessment) should

  > not occur so long as input and opportunity inequalities are so powerful. I

  > cannot think

  > of a responsible teacher who would not try to learn more and do better, and

  > the same

  > should be true for collectivities of educators (schools). But resources too

  > matter in

  > these expectations - it takes time to do assessment well or for teachers to

  > engage in

  > collaborative learning, and that time should not be expected to be donated

  > free by

  > teachers. Thus, any 'accountability' expectations must be placed in the

  > larger contexts

  > of social and educational inequality. We must therefore reject the

  > fraudulent political

  > discourse about 'achievement gaps,' and our concepts, language and

  > proposals for change

  > must likewise address the issues of opportunity to learn and learn what in
  a

  > comprehensive and balanced way.

  >

  > 9) It'll take time to change the discourse. Example: the Joint

  > Organizational Statement

  > on NCLB (now with 141 education, civil rights, religious, disability,

  > parent, labor and

  > civic groups signed on) calls for major changes in federal law. If

  > implemented, the law

  > would be remarkably different in content and effect. But the Statement also

  > uses the

  > language of "achievement gaps" and thus accepts some inadequate and

  > misleading framing of

  > deep issues. To move to the next level of thinking about changing the

  > approach to school

  > improvement will require a discussion among the groups supporting the

  > Statement (and

  > among many others as well). Part of the story is that with the increasing

  > discrediting of

  > NCLB, the times and options have changed - despite continuing efforts of

  > NCLB supporters

  > to claim that critics of this disastrous law want to leave children behind,

  > a claim

  > intended to silence discussion. Meanwhile, civil rights groups justifiably

  > will not

  > support changes to the law they read as abandoning at least the nominal

  > support for

  > equity found in NCLB - unless there is something better. Those of us
  seeking

  > education

  > that is progressive and equitable must be able to propose specific changes

  > to state and

  > federal policies that will move education in directions we want. That is

  > partly a matter

  > of language, more importantly a matter of deeper concepts, understandings,

  > approaches,

  > demands, expectations, and proposed polcies and law. A new federal law must

  > address the

  > educational and social debts, provide schools what they need, then ask for

  > reasonable

  > improvements in processes and outcomes that indicate the education of the

  > whole child is

  > becoming available to every child.

  >

  > 10) I will leave aside for now the questions of who should do the 'holding

  > accountable'

  > and in what ways. That's a very important conversation as we have factors

  > from parents to

  > schools to districts to states to the feds involved.

  >

  > Monty

  >

  >

  --

  Deborah Meier

  deborah.meier@gmail.com

  Visit my website:http://www.deborahmeier.com

  Also visit Meier and Ravitch on Ed Week Blog at

  http:/blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/

  __._,_.___
  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!