John -
You need to stop using LDE as your bully pulpit. In your desperation to justify your failed attempts to promote national standards as one of Jeb Bush's Chiefs for Change and to barker your PARCC test for Pearson, you are abandoning professionalism. If you insist on having your day in court you will succeed only in further squandering taxpayer money that should be used in the classroom. You disparage at being "personally attacked" but you persist in what appears to be your own extraordinarily determined effort to implement an initiative that has huge national opposition.
Originally published in educational Horizons Spring 1997. 109-111.
edited 3/20/12
Test yourself on the following multiple-choice question:Nationally recognized educational standards are:
Answer? All of the above.
Idealistic Expressions of Hope
Is there an American public educator who in her or his heart does not maintain serious sympathy for the following statement?
Politically Naive Will-o'-the-Wisps
Proposals of common standards are no more than rhetoric until a substantial number of people have accepted them as common down to the level of practical implementation. With more than 15,000 school boards liberally interpreting -- seldom with a liberal interpretation -- the school codes of fifty states, it is difficult to see how nationally recognized, governmentally enforced standards will ever come about. But need such standards be governmentally enforced?
Need a governmental body be involved? Consider the Netherlands, which has nationally recognized standards in mathematics, but no formal national curriculum(3). Because a consensus has been hammered out among various private constituencies -- the Dutch call this process overleg -- standardization has been achieved without governmental involvement. But the Dutch do not require schools to prepare students for examinations on any subject matter that their communities find repugnant. Catholics and Protestants read different history books. There are no requirements for Christian fundamentalists to meet concerning evolutionary theory in biology. Nor need Muslims pay any attention to curriculum that promotes "gender fairness," that is, men and women in roles different from what Muslims consider traditional(4). Consensus on a few issues is bought by conceding diversity in the curriculum to a point beyond
which many organized groups in the United States would be comfortable with. The Dutch have instituted, in effect, a national system of school vouchers, with few strings attached.
A Distraction from Difficult, Unglamorous Consensus Building
Our history shows that it is not difficult to seduce Americans into a crusade, even a difficult and bitter one, so long as the majority can hope to live to see the conquest of the Promised Land. But to be merely a bit player in a struggle that may last for generations? That is surely asking too much. We cannot see where we, as a nation, will be next year. Our model for planning is the whimsicality of the stock market. Take a paper and pencil, and, if you have been a teacher for ten years, you will be able to list a number of initiatives, reforms, and innovations that have gone the way of all flesh.
I started teaching when the New Math was about to save America from Sputnik and other devilish Communist contrivances. Ancient that I am, I saw teaching machines rise and fall, language labs degenerate into expensive toys. SRA reading materials brought their own micro-millennium. Whole Language hangs on, but OBE has lost its vigor. 4-MAT has become 4-gotten. Special Education has become inclusion, which is practically what it was before it became Special Education.
Do you remember Needs Assessment? Has Site-Based Management or Quality Circles transformed the world? Who wanted these innovations? Apparently, not the public who supports the schools. Who bothered to convince people other than educators that the millennium was at hand? No one. (Who made off with the vast sums of money spent on such programs? That is an interesting story for another occasion.)
A Means of Enhancing the Recognition of Teachers as Professionals
Standards and professional training can, in theory, at least, be directly linked. Any set of standards -- rather than none -- makes it easier to develop teacher-training programs. Standards set goals; training programs attempt to devise the means for helping future teachers bring their students up to those standards. In practice, this is harder than it sounds, but at least the theoretical connection is clear. Special training defines professional expertise.
Let's consider mathematics. Suppose we -- hocus pocus -- establish National Mathematics Standards; and, consequently, the methods that reasonably ensure their achievement -- usually tested in a setting with minimal disturbance. Then, we introduce them into real life, i.e., the schools where student achievement in mathematics is most problematic. Barring the effects of disparities in school funding, domestic upheaval, poverty, disease, social disorder, crime, school violence, drug usage, student lack of interest, and parental complacency, these national standards in mathematics will bring students to almost genius levels of math competence. They might transform our entire culture.
We might end up listening to rap music about analytic and algebraic topologies of locally Euclidean metricizations of infinitely differentiable Riemannian manifolds(5)". TV shows -- "Geraldo," "Richard Bey," "Oprah" -- will feature panel discussions on Gödels's Proof, or at least, onFermat's Last Theorem. Surely then, parents, school boards, and the general public will accord teachers (of mathematics, at least) the right
to make those decisions about curriculum and methodology that mark the prerogatives of true professionals.
A lovely dream. Will anyone work now to make it any more substantial in, say, seventy years? Is that too long to wait? Can we be patient enough to forgo our personal hopes of victory and prepare such a bequest for our great-grandchildren's teachers? These are perhaps the most important questions.
ENDNOTES
1. Report of the Committee of Philadelphia Workingmen, 1830, cited in Henry J. Perkinson, The Imperfect Panacea: American Faith in Education, 4th Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995), 21.
2. Private correspondence of Gary K. Clabaugh and Edward G. Rozycki with Margaret Petrella of the Gallup Organization for the Times Mirror Corporation; field dates of study: 5/13/88-5/22/88.
3. Lauren B. Resnick, Katherine J. Nolan, and Daniel P. Resnick, "Benchmarking Educational Standards," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17 (1995): 438-461.
4. Karen Seashore Lewis and Bert Versloot, High Standards and Cultural Diversity: Cautionary Tales of Comparative Research?A Comment on "Benchmarking Educational Standards," 253-261 and Lauren B. Resnick, Katherine J. Nolan, and Daniel P. Resnick, "Caution Heeded? A Response to 'High Standards and Cultural Diversity,'" Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 18 (1996): 262-264.
5. Tom Lehrer, "Lobachevsky," Too Many Songs by Tom Lehrer (New York: Pantheon, 1981), 28.
Diane Ravitch clearly points out:
As you know, since the last school year ended, there have been a number of attempts to slow progress in Louisiana, and to stop the implementation of higher expectations and the assessments that measure our progress when compared with states around the country. These issues are now in the courts, and in the weeks to come, there will surely be more discussion of these issues in the media.You do not deserve this, and your kids do not deserve this.
Our 2004 revised Louisiana State Standards and GLEs were focused on "higher standards" and "rigor" and preparing students for the workplace....... Read Cecil Picard's letter here. http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/2909.pdf
Our standards were NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED by, for example, The Fordham Institute and Edweek's Quality Counts. The distorted use of that terminology to mean Common Core exclusively is dishonest.
What does "Nationally Recognized Standards" mean? Well here is one of hundreds of perspectives - of course yours means Common Core.
*******
Establishing Nationally Recognized Educational Standards
©1999 Edward G. Rozycki
An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will make a better soup.--H.L. Mencken (1920)
Test yourself on the following multiple-choice question:Nationally recognized educational standards are:
a. idealistic expressions of hope for a more just society
b. politically naive will-o'-the-wisps
c. a distraction from difficult, unglamorous tasks of consensus building
d. a means of enhancing the recognition of teachers as professionals
Answer? All of the above.
Idealistic Expressions of Hope
Is there an American public educator who in her or his heart does not maintain serious sympathy for the following statement?
The original element of despotism is a monopoly of talent which consigns the multitude to comparative ignorance, and secures the balance of knowledge on the side of the rich and the rulers. If then the healthy existence of a free government be, as the committee believe, rooted in the will of the American people, it follows as a necessary consequence of government based upon that will, that this monopoly should be broken up, and that the means of equal knowledge (the only security for equality) should be rendered, by legal provision, the common property of all classes. (1)For educators, this 1830 statement of the Committee of Philadelphia Workingmen still resonates today in a society substantially different from what it was 166 years ago. But how much of the public in today's pluralistic United States would agree with it? A 1988 study showed that about 93 percent of Gallup respondents agreed that the quality
of public education should be improved. But only 73 percent agreed that this improvement should come from government action. And only 41 percent thought that
new taxes should be raised to support government action in the improvement of public schools. (2) Is it unlikely these figures have gone up. Focusing on common standards draws our attention away from this harsh political reality.
Politically Naive Will-o'-the-Wisps
Proposals of common standards are no more than rhetoric until a substantial number of people have accepted them as common down to the level of practical implementation. With more than 15,000 school boards liberally interpreting -- seldom with a liberal interpretation -- the school codes of fifty states, it is difficult to see how nationally recognized, governmentally enforced standards will ever come about. But need such standards be governmentally enforced?
Need a governmental body be involved? Consider the Netherlands, which has nationally recognized standards in mathematics, but no formal national curriculum(3). Because a consensus has been hammered out among various private constituencies -- the Dutch call this process overleg -- standardization has been achieved without governmental involvement. But the Dutch do not require schools to prepare students for examinations on any subject matter that their communities find repugnant. Catholics and Protestants read different history books. There are no requirements for Christian fundamentalists to meet concerning evolutionary theory in biology. Nor need Muslims pay any attention to curriculum that promotes "gender fairness," that is, men and women in roles different from what Muslims consider traditional(4). Consensus on a few issues is bought by conceding diversity in the curriculum to a point beyond
which many organized groups in the United States would be comfortable with. The Dutch have instituted, in effect, a national system of school vouchers, with few strings attached.
A Distraction from Difficult, Unglamorous Consensus Building
Our history shows that it is not difficult to seduce Americans into a crusade, even a difficult and bitter one, so long as the majority can hope to live to see the conquest of the Promised Land. But to be merely a bit player in a struggle that may last for generations? That is surely asking too much. We cannot see where we, as a nation, will be next year. Our model for planning is the whimsicality of the stock market. Take a paper and pencil, and, if you have been a teacher for ten years, you will be able to list a number of initiatives, reforms, and innovations that have gone the way of all flesh.
I started teaching when the New Math was about to save America from Sputnik and other devilish Communist contrivances. Ancient that I am, I saw teaching machines rise and fall, language labs degenerate into expensive toys. SRA reading materials brought their own micro-millennium. Whole Language hangs on, but OBE has lost its vigor. 4-MAT has become 4-gotten. Special Education has become inclusion, which is practically what it was before it became Special Education.
Do you remember Needs Assessment? Has Site-Based Management or Quality Circles transformed the world? Who wanted these innovations? Apparently, not the public who supports the schools. Who bothered to convince people other than educators that the millennium was at hand? No one. (Who made off with the vast sums of money spent on such programs? That is an interesting story for another occasion.)
A Means of Enhancing the Recognition of Teachers as Professionals
Standards and professional training can, in theory, at least, be directly linked. Any set of standards -- rather than none -- makes it easier to develop teacher-training programs. Standards set goals; training programs attempt to devise the means for helping future teachers bring their students up to those standards. In practice, this is harder than it sounds, but at least the theoretical connection is clear. Special training defines professional expertise.
Let's consider mathematics. Suppose we -- hocus pocus -- establish National Mathematics Standards; and, consequently, the methods that reasonably ensure their achievement -- usually tested in a setting with minimal disturbance. Then, we introduce them into real life, i.e., the schools where student achievement in mathematics is most problematic. Barring the effects of disparities in school funding, domestic upheaval, poverty, disease, social disorder, crime, school violence, drug usage, student lack of interest, and parental complacency, these national standards in mathematics will bring students to almost genius levels of math competence. They might transform our entire culture.
We might end up listening to rap music about analytic and algebraic topologies of locally Euclidean metricizations of infinitely differentiable Riemannian manifolds(5)". TV shows -- "Geraldo," "Richard Bey," "Oprah" -- will feature panel discussions on Gödels's Proof, or at least, onFermat's Last Theorem. Surely then, parents, school boards, and the general public will accord teachers (of mathematics, at least) the right
to make those decisions about curriculum and methodology that mark the prerogatives of true professionals.
A lovely dream. Will anyone work now to make it any more substantial in, say, seventy years? Is that too long to wait? Can we be patient enough to forgo our personal hopes of victory and prepare such a bequest for our great-grandchildren's teachers? These are perhaps the most important questions.
ENDNOTES
1. Report of the Committee of Philadelphia Workingmen, 1830, cited in Henry J. Perkinson, The Imperfect Panacea: American Faith in Education, 4th Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995), 21.
2. Private correspondence of Gary K. Clabaugh and Edward G. Rozycki with Margaret Petrella of the Gallup Organization for the Times Mirror Corporation; field dates of study: 5/13/88-5/22/88.
3. Lauren B. Resnick, Katherine J. Nolan, and Daniel P. Resnick, "Benchmarking Educational Standards," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17 (1995): 438-461.
4. Karen Seashore Lewis and Bert Versloot, High Standards and Cultural Diversity: Cautionary Tales of Comparative Research?A Comment on "Benchmarking Educational Standards," 253-261 and Lauren B. Resnick, Katherine J. Nolan, and Daniel P. Resnick, "Caution Heeded? A Response to 'High Standards and Cultural Diversity,'" Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 18 (1996): 262-264.
5. Tom Lehrer, "Lobachevsky," Too Many Songs by Tom Lehrer (New York: Pantheon, 1981), 28.
Diane Ravitch clearly points out:
The reason that there is so much controversy and pushback now is that the Gates Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education were in a hurry and decided to ignore the nationally and internationally recognized rules for setting standards, and in doing so, sowed suspicion and distrust. Process matters.
According to ANSI, here are the core principles for setting standards:
The U.S. standardization system is based on the following set of globally accepted principles for standards development:
*Transparency Essential information regarding standardization activities is accessible to all interested parties.
* Openness
Participation is open to all affected interests.
Participation is open to all affected interests.
* Impartiality
No one interest
dominates the process or is favored over another.
dominates the process or is favored over another.
* Effectiveness and Relevance
Standards are relevant and effectively respond to regulatory and
market needs, as well as scientific and technological
developments.
market needs, as well as scientific and technological
developments.
* Consensus
Decisions are reached through consensus among those
affected.
Decisions are reached through consensus among those
affected.
* PerformanceBased
Standards are performance based (specifying essential
characteristics rather than detailed designs) where
possible.
Standards are performance based (specifying essential
characteristics rather than detailed designs) where
possible.
* Coherence
The process encourages coherence to avoid overlapping and
conflicting standards.
conflicting standards.
* Due Process
Standards development accords with due process so that
all views are considered and appeals are possible.
* TechnicalAssistance
Standards development accords with due process so that
all views are considered and appeals are possible.
* TechnicalAssistance
Assistance is offered to developing countries in the formulation and application
of standards. In addition, U.S. interests strongly agree that the process should be:
of standards. In addition, U.S. interests strongly agree that the process should be:
* Flexible, allowing the use of different methodologies to meet the needs of different technology and product sectors;
*Timely, so that purely administrative
matters do not result in a failure to meet market expectations;
and
matters do not result in a failure to meet market expectations;
and
* Balanced among
all affected interests.
all affected interests.
Lacking most of these qualities, especially due process, consensus among interested groups, and the right of appeal, the Common Core cannot be considered authoritative, nor should they be considered standards. The process of creating national academic standards should be revised to accord with the essential and necessary procedural requirements of standard-setting as described by the American National Standards Institute. National standards cannot be created ex nihilo without a transparent, open, participatory consensus process that allows for appeal and revision.
United States Standards Strategy
http://www.us-standards-strategy.org
http://www.us-standards-strategy.org
On Aug 6, 2014, at 6:28 PM, John White <louisianabelieves@la.gov> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,One simple truth makes me more optimistic about this school year than any other I can remember: Louisiana's students are just as smart and capable as any in America. When we raise the ceiling of our expectations high, and when we open the door of opportunity, they show us their ambitions and they achieve beyond even what we may have expected.As simple evidence of this, know that in the time since school ended, we have announced that our state's students showed steady progress on Common Core-aligned LEAP, iLEAP, and End of Course tests. Know that 5,200 more seniors scored a college-going ACT scorethan did just two years ago. Know that our state's high school graduation rate increased for a third straight year, to an all-time high. And know that Louisiana has sustained its place as the state making the greatest gains in the nation on Advanced Placement tests (check out the new High School Student Planning Guidebook for a comprehensive view of these and other programs and policies).At every level of our state's school system, we are raising expectations to the highest levels in our nation. Early childhood centers and elementary schools statewide have unified the state's fragmented system of early care and education by adopting common standards for child development and learning. High schools are providing opportunities for students to attain national and statewide career credentials and college credit that qualify students for prosperous jobs and continued education. In all cases, higher expectations for students means opportunity for them to enhance their skills, to compete, and to have the life they want as adults.The Common Core State Standards is no different. Over four years teachers at all levels have transformed public education in our state, taking it new heights. You are setting ambitious goals for student learning based on the standards. You are using curricula and curriculum guidance that prioritize independent thinking. You are measuring learning based on responses to reading, in all subjects, rooted in reasoning and logic.Four thousand Teacher Leaders are showing us the way. Louisiana is a national leader in identifying strong curricula. Nearly 50,000 students took new test questions for a test drive, and nearly 80 percent preferred them over old questions. Our colleges and universities arepreparing teachers to teach to these new expectations. And employers are demanding we continue on.This is good for young people. It is good for our state.It is also the law in our state. Two and a half years ago the Governor signed into law this clear and unambiguous sentence: "Beginning with the 2014-2015 school year, standards-based assessments implemented by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education in English language arts and mathematics shall be based on nationally recognized content standards that represent the knowledge and skills needed for students to successfully transition to postsecondary education and the workplace."As you know, since the last school year ended, there have been a number of attempts to slow progress in Louisiana, and to stop the implementation of higher expectations and the assessments that measure our progress when compared with states around the country. These issues are now in the courts, and in the weeks to come, there will surely be more discussion of these issues in the media.You do not deserve this, and your kids do not deserve this. You deserve clarity. You deserve consistency. You deserve a long-term plan, uninterrupted. You deserve better.But given the situation in which we find ourselves, please know this: raising expectations is the right thing to do. Nationally-recognized standards is the law of our state. And four years of hard work will not be cast aside.The law gives us the direction we need. Whatever testing contract and policy procedure the courts may determine, we are going to teach our students this school year in the way you had planned for them to be taught when you left. And the test questions will be as you assumed they would be: measuring nationally recognized standards, calling for writing, and demanding independent thinking. While the politics may be chaotic, our long-term academic plan, in short, does not change.I will keep you informed as these issues proceed. In the meantime, my gratitude to you for your efforts and for your persistence. Have a great year.As always, thank you for all you do for our children,JohnJohn WhiteLouisiana Department of EducationTwitter @LouisianaSupe
Louisiana Department of Education
Forward this email This email was sent to lpbharley@aol.com by louisianabelieves@la.gov |Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.
Louisiana Department of Education | 1201 N. Third Street | Baton Rouge | LA | 70802
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your Comments Welcome