National School Reform Faculty

Scary Conversation
Date: October 31 - November 7, 2002.
Listserv: Coaches

Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:26:50
Dear friends,
I have hesitated to send this article out to our list because it is so depressing to me. If ever there was a day for such a post it must be Halloween.
I am proud to be associated with educators who enrich the lives of the children they serve every day by tapping their creativity and by taking essential risks to innovate and experiment.
In Solidarity

End creative teaching, official says
Assistant secretary: no waivers of No Child Left Behind Act
By Victor Balta
Record Staff Writer
Published Friday, October 25, 2002
Susan Neuman said the new federal No Child Left Behind Act, if implemented the right way, will put an end to creative and experimental teaching methods in the nation's classrooms.
"It will stifle, and hopefully it will kill (them)," said Neuman, U.S. assistant secretary of education. "Our children are not laboratory rats."

Neuman, who is principally responsible for implementing President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, was in Stockton on Thursday night to speak at University of the Pacific's Faye Spanos Concert Hall. Earlier in the day, she visited Clairmont Elementary School in Lodi and spoke to reporters at Pacific.

Neuman mainly discussed the sweeping law, which is the first major federal educational reform since President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The law aims to improve student performance by making schools accountable and giving aid to schools that need it most. It also calls for states to have fully credentialed teachers in every classroom by 2006 and directs federal funding toward "research-based programs that have been proven to help most children learn."
"I think the federal government in the past has done a little of this, a little of that," said Neuman, who received her doctorate in reading education from Pacific in 1977. "It seems like we were into a new trend every other year. No Child Left Behind is a bold change in the way we do business."

Neuman acknowledged that the federal mandate is a "complex law," but she said state education departments already should have been doing much of what it requires.

"They shouldn't be shocked," Neuman said, noting that her first day on the job, she was welcomed by a stack of 18 letters from states and territories asking for waivers on various federal education policies. "The previous administration was waiving this and waiving that. This administration is serious. We don't intend to waive any of the requirements."

Neuman explained that No Child Left Behind seeks to give parents alternatives before taking action against a school. The law gives parents the opportunity to move their children out of low-performing schools or to have the schools pay for special tutoring or other additional help. Sanctions include audits by the U.S. Department of Education, state takeovers of schools and, ultimately, closing schools.

Neuman said the law is a new phenomenon in that teachers have never been trained in terms of getting results.

"There doesn't seem to be a good grasp of accountability for our profession," Neuman said, adding that good teachers can overcome other historically negative circumstances, such as violent, run-down neighborhoods.

"One of the key variables (in a student's educational environment) is good instruction," Neuman said. "If you have good instruction, children can learn regardless of what the neighborhood looks like."
* To reach reporter Victor Balta, phone 546-8272 or e-mail vbalta@recordnet.com
--
Daniel, Indiana

Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:11:23 +0000
Let them eat cake...I mean...FCAT...yeah...that's right...yeah..
Pete, Florida

Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:50:03 +0000
So .... what do we do???? How do we survive? Lori
Lori, New York

Sat, 2 Nov 2002 08:08:59 -0700
I thought maybe you got the dates mixed up and thought it was April Fools. Please say that's what this is.
Read this after returning from spending the day in Portland with some really wonderful teachers who are eager for meaningful teaching and learning. What do we do? This is the education version of what this administration is doing to the environment, economy, world etc.
ugh
Marjorie, Colorado

Sat, 2 Nov 2002 17:18:05 EST
What do we do? We vote, and get everyone else we possibly can to vote. And we stick together and try to inspire each other in our work. Passion and creativity can't be squelched so easily. I once knew a Chinese artist who rode his bicycle across China, meeting people and building trust until they would reveal to him the ancient artistic treasures that they had hidden (usually buried) during the Cultural Revolution. He knew he was just scratching the surface of what these extremely repressed people had managed to preserve. At worst, our everyday acts of creativity will be labeled subversive, but I don't believe they can or will be snuffed out. Kids won't allow it either. Carry on, brave colleagues!
Edorah, Vermont

Sat, 2 Nov 2002 23:02:25 EST
Let's talk with our students, too. I remind my 8th graders that they will be voting in five short years and many of them have brothers and sisters who are already eligible. They are surprisingly aware of the current political climate although they appear apathetic. Given a chance to express themselves, the floodgates open. Too many of our young voters disenfranchise themselves.

Isn't that part of our job of educating students to participate in a democratic society?
Susan, Arizona

Sun, 3 Nov 2002 10:19:51 -0700
Thank you, Edorah. I also can only take this as a call to stand stronger for what I know makes sense for human beings. Our children are not lab rats neither are they consumer products.
Marjorie, Colorado

Sun, 3 Nov 2002 02:44:31 +0000
thanks Edorah!!! I was hoping to hear words like yours ... I agree – silence is not the answer ---Passion will inspire and nurture creativity - we need to work together and TALK with one another - conversations make our work real.
Lori, New York

Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:07:46 -0400
I so agree with Edorah. The administration itself seems conflicted. The best example I can think of is the recent RFP for the Voluntary Public School Choice Grant program. There is no agreement in the research base about choice!

The team of people with whom I worked developing our proposal struggled with finding our path through what seems to be the intent of the current administration (as evidenced by Susan Neuman's statement!) and what we believe to be in the best interests of the students. We are in a semi-rural area - students have limited choices at best. The Grant requires students from low performing schools be allowed to choose to go elsewhere, but absolutely refuses to let any grant money be spent on the low performing school. In a rural area, those kinds of choices just don't exist! The foundation of our program design is "Every school a school of choice.” For us, the challenge was - and is, since we have been awarded a grant - using the current means to our ends with integrity.

I draw from voices like Debbie Meiers's to sustain me in conversations that are more public, more intense and more important than they have been in years. Choice itself has the potential to be a powerful tool for the work we care so deeply about. WHY choice and HOW choice are two hugely critical levers in the midst of the "research driven" milieu in which we find ourselves. Not to mention the really big questions that underlie the "research base" and encompass the "achievement for every child" platform: what constitutes EVIDENCE and how do we define SUCCESS?

Lots and lots of room for continuing dialogue and creative endeavor, from my point of view. What I most welcome is the public forum – the increasing agreement that education is vitally important. I can work with disagreement much better than neglect!
Cheers,
Kim, New Hampshire

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:43:50 -0500
Dear Colleagues,
I also feel the need to respond. To take creativity and experimentation out of teaching means to remove the human element out of the complexities of teaching and learning. It is only through creativity and experimentation that we have a chance to level the playing field in a country where such enormous disparities of opportunity and access exist between social classes. It is only through creative and innovative teaching that we can reach the extraordinary diversity of learning styles and experience that we find in virtually every classroom.

As a profession, we must stand up to the subversive forces that in the guise of "leave no child behind" really mean to "stifle and Kill" creativity and experimentation.

Neuman argues that the history of American education is a history of moving from trend to trend every other year. Every year the NSRF becomes more deeply rooted in the practice of creating democratic learning communities made up of reflective practitioners who support each other's growth and practice. We are not a fad. We are a way of being that is purposeful, productive and effective.

Neuman states that teachers "have never been trained in terms of getting results.” I beg to differ. Our work has, from the very beginning, been focused on academic achievement and improved teacher practice. The thousands of educators who have worked hard to become CFG coaches and support the learning of their peers in their schools for the benefit of their students demonstrate on a daily basis the power of community, creativity and experimentation.

Human growth and development thrive on creative, responsive interactions between caring people. Rob Evans reminded us of the human face of school reform. We must remind policy makers of the role of creative and innovative teachers that helped them to become productive members of society. We must remind them that the human spirit is the essence of creativity. It is our ability to imagine something that doesn't yet exist in order to improve our world, our determination to work in the world in order to contribute to the common good, and our ability to reflect on where we fell short so that we can continue to improve that distinguishes us from all other species.

We are the response to simple-minded notions of high stakes testing as school reform. We must address these issues by engaging in conversations with our colleagues, with the families that we serve, with the professional associations that represent us, and with our local politicians who must hear our voices.

The rationale for No Child Left Behind cannot sustain itself. It will fall under the weight of failing students, increasing numbers of dropouts from school, demoralized teachers, and the spiraling costs of annual testing.
I believe it is our mission to be the logical alternative to the illogic of current educational policy. We must stand strong in our beliefs, continue to collaborate for the benefit of every child, and have the will to engage in courageous conversations about what we want for all children.

So, what do you think? Should the National School Reform Faculty respond to the Neuman's of the world. If so, what stance should we take to influence policy and help shape the public's understanding of what every child really needs?In Solidarity
--
Daniel, Indiana

Sun, 3 Nov 2002 17:28:22 EST
YES! NSRF should respond, and much of what has been exchanged already could be part of such a response. If not us (and our other progressive colleagues out there), who? If not now, when? - Thanks for the courageous thoughts and words as we all strive to continue our courageous work together. - Be in Peace,
Dave, New York

Mon, 4 Nov 2002 03:21:18 +0000
I like your idea Daniel ---- a statement from NSRF could be powerful and think that we as a group need to be more vocal. We all believe that every child deserves the best education and opportunities. There should not be such disparity throughout this nation of "plenty" but who is going to make the plan for delivering the best for the kids … those with a passion for education or those who are seeing it in terms of a business. I think we do need to have a voice and perhaps NSRF is the way to do it.
Lori, New York

Mon, 4 Nov 2002 03:30:28 -0500
Edorah,
Nicely stated - thanks for the note of inspiration and support!
Deb

Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:06:38 -0500
While I agree with NSRF having an organized voice, I worry that we will end up spending lots of time crafting and editing a statement while other more immediate possibilities get overlooked. I'll put this in terms of my own practice and hope that it may be helpful to others as well. Am I writing letters to the editor about educational issues and equity? Am I spending enough time creating opportunities to have these conversations with families and or, with students? Am I working with colleagues and stakeholders locally to mobilize around these issues? Am I having these conversations on other lists of educators? Are my coaching initiatives infused with conversations about these issues or are they add-ons?

Just wondering aloud and looking for ways to build a movement in support of our children on multiple levels...

Thanks to everyone who's written, it's easy to feel overwhelmed and isolated in the face of these attacks on our beliefs and practices...especially in a district that's being eroded by privatization etc.
Deborah, Pennsylvania

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 09:45:07 -0500
I say we turn the whole message on its ear! First of all, a lot of the techniques we advocate and practice ARE well-researched and well-documented by respected educators at respected educational institutions.

Second of all, we need to start asking equally hard questions of the decision makers, the lawmakers. WHERE is the research that shows putting a #2 pencil into the hands of a child shows us their best work? WHERE is the research that shows testing students at every grade level shows that they are making improvements, individually and as a school? The woman in her speech said NO MORE GUINEA PIGS. Well, aren't we making the biggest guinea pigs of all, by implementing all these new testing demands?

I say we use their own rhetoric to push the issue!
JoAnne, Maine

Tue, 5 Nov 2002 09:09:19 -0600
I certainly have my sneaking suspicions about Leave Every Child Behind, and I'm not about to endorse anyone who uses threats as a way to try to attempt to improve education. But I wonder, when "they" say creativity, do they mean those effective strategies we all use to engage children who may not be otherwise interested in learning? I hope not. But I do hope they are talking about those teachers we all know who teach their dinosaur unit because they've done it every year and they even bought a dinosaur costume to match. (I'm a 4th grade teacher, so the dinosaur one gets me, but I'm sure there are examples at the High School level, too.)

I guess I wasn't so bothered by the 'stifling creativity' comment because it just seems like empty rhetoric to me. In the ten years I've been teaching (which I realize is not a very long time), I have seen the administrations in the schools where I have worked become a little more heavy-handed every year. I understand the pressure they are up against due to high stakes testing, etc. But in the end, as long as I can show that my students are learning, I have not been questioned about exactly how it is I go about getting the job done. I'm not ready to panic yet. It's already hard enough to get people from the legislature into our classrooms- I suspect this will continue.

Across the board, teachers are resilient, resourceful and dedicated to their students. I'm not going to let these people scare me into believing I will no longer be able to do what works for my students. The worst-case scenario in my mind is that people from the outside might step foot in my classroom if they think I'm doing something a little 'too creative'. What will they do when they see that it works?

This may be entirely too optimistic, and I may be in for a surprise. But until the day comes when I am forced to change what I do in my classroom, my focus will be on impacting student lives and supporting teacher collaboration. I just don't think "we" are the teachers "they" are talking about. And even if we are, I look forward to shedding light on their misgivings.
Kendra, Iowa

Tue, 5 Nov 2002 11:30:23 EST
It wouldn't take much to turn this into a letter from the editor, Kendra.
Very well said. Thank you.
Edorah, Vermont

Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:54:01 -0500
Hi all,
I just got back from a conference on Assessment and at one of the sessions the presenters posted a quote we all thought was a particularly good response to what everyone was calling the "No Child Left Untested" legislation:

"A lesson from the farm: the pig doesn't get any fatter just because you weigh it more often."

Cheers,
Ross, Indiana

Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:22:30 EST
The version I have on my office bulletin board (from a "Wisconsin colleague to Pedro Noguera of our NYS Consortium) reads –

"Weighing the cows won't make them fatter, feeding them will. Testing our kids won't make them smarter, teaching them will."
Dave, New York

Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:22:48 -0500
I am no fan of over testing - but isn't it true that some large scale assessment DOES help us help more kids succeed and thrive IF the assessment DOES measure (with reasonable integrity) some of what we want kids to know and be able to do and IF we actually take time to analyze the results (appropriately) and USE them (along with other qualitative and quantitative data) to inform instruction and improve program?

I worry that an anti testing stance runs the risk of obscuring the appropriate uses of large scale and classroom assessment, and leaves us open to criticism from the right that leaves us more vulnerable than we deserve to be. Let's not throw our baby out with their bath water. Appropriate assessment - especially classroom assessment (but also to some extent even large scale assessment), IS a part of teaching, if we use the results appropriately to help kids.
Nancy, Vermont

Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:39:05 -0800
I need to weigh in with Nancy. I agree that there are too many "tests," the data from which never gets back to the teacher, or if it does, it is late, incomprehensible, and not aligned with what we want our students to know and be able to do. However, I work in schools where teachers do regular classroom and school wide assessments, tied to instruction, and use the data to inform not only their classroom practice, but also school wide decisions about programmatic issues. As a matter of fact, it has been one of the ways teachers/schools take something OFF the plate. Sharing data has become one of the "avenues" of learning for them as Learning Communities.

So Quinn's 6 Questions would look this way:
What are we assessing?
Why are we assessing "that?"
How are we assessing it?
Why are we assessing it that way?
How will we know we are using the "right" assessment(s)?
What will be the impact of the assessment on students and the school?
Juli, California

Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:47:45 -0500
I too have been reading the list serve about NCLB and standardized testing with interest. While I find myself nodding my head as I read much of what has been written, I also find myself thinking a lot about alternative explanations for the NCLB Act.

There is no doubt in my mind that the high stakes Massachusetts MCAS exam, for example, will leave kids behind, and that those kids will mainly be poor, of color, with English as their second language, and/or with ed. plans. Society will continue to sort, and these are the kids who will make our beds in hotels, in spite of the fact that they are often "smart" in ways that are not measured by these tests.

On the other hand, as educators (and now I am talking in general), it is true that in the past we wrote off too many of these kids - allowing then to graduate with a high school degree, but without the skills to participate in a global economy or in a democratic society.

In the places where I work, educators are working much more diligently to reach ALL kids - because they have to. They are also realizing that the issues are too complex to be able to do the work alone - in isolation and in private - and they are reaching out to colleagues, welcoming - and even seeking out – professional collaboration with their peers. That is where our work in NSRF and in CFGs comes in.

I wish that we those of us who started working in the early 1990's on trying to figure out as school communities what "kids should know and be able to do" - and then devising assessment systems (vs. one "test”) that would provide data about how kids (and we) were doing - had been able to take that work to scale before standardized, "one size fits all" tests co-opted that work. I wish the educational establishment (again, I am talking "writ large") hadn't needed these high stake tests to get us all off the dime. I am not naive - I know the issues are way more complicated, and on my most cynical days I find myself thinking that the legislatures and political parties (and the large corporations that seem to be running things these days) either just want a quick fix, and/or actually want to sort kids by race and class, but I agree with Nancy - let's be wise about how we respond, let's collaborate closely with each other in the best interest of all kids, and let's not be too quick to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Respectfully,
Gene, Massachusetts

Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:52:39 -0500
A very useful text for thinking about all of the issues surrounding high stakes testing is High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion and Graduation by Jay Heubert and Robert Hauser and put out by the National Research Council. I think if we are to influence what is happening that we need to have a pretty firm grasp of all of the issues. This text really helped me.
Kevin, Massachusetts

Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:12:44 -0500
Hello all,
In response to the points Gene and Juli and Nancy have brought up, I have to say that I agree with all of it. In my mind, the posts on this list aren't contradicting one another. Dave's humorous quote, as well as mine, just reminds us that we can test all we want, but unless we use the information we get to improve student learning, the testing will not be of much use to us as teachers, and therefore will not be of much use to our students. Assessment of our work is crucial, but the assessment strategy has to match our goals, otherwise it will not give us useful information.

The quote I sent to the list was one I picked up at a post-secondary Ed conference on assessment - a conference at which EVERYBODY was talking about the "No Child Left Behind" legislation. Higher Ed folks, although not yet faced with the high stakes situations that face many districts in primary and secondary ed, are actually talking about outcomes-based education and about how to get students in college to succeed (a movement that is just now solidifying around a research agenda). Even though I don't really agree with the approach or with some of the assumptions in the NCLB legislation, what I appreciate about it is that it has been able to engage people in a conversation about learning outcomes where, before, that conversation was (in the higher ed realm, anyway) just among a few people that cared. I think many of us at colleges and universities can see the possibility of state standards for higher ed becoming more and more of a reality, and while not everyone thinks it's the worst thing that could happen, everyone I spoke with at the conference DID think that government agencies using standards to squelch creativity IS the worst thing that could happen.

I think we can benefit from NCLB in various ways, but I think we have to be careful to keep a tight focus on the benefits to students and not on political, or personal, agendas. The article Daniel sent to the list makes it clear that there is a strong possibility that improvement of student learning may be in competition with other priorities people involved with the NCLB legislation have, and so my distrust of NCLB begins there.
Thanks to Kevin for the book he mentions. It looks like a good place to start grappling with all this.
Ross, Indiana

Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:11:27 -0500
As an administrative team in Gorham, Maine we are reading Popham's book, The Truth About Testing: An Educator's Call to Action. I am learning plenty about what I didn't know or chose to understand about testing in reference to design, purpose and useable data for improving our choices of tests and how the resulting data can inform the improvement of instruction in general. Who would of thought- in times like these- it would be such a kick in the butt for my own professional learning?
Susie, Maine

Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:19:48 -0500
I know that most of this discussion is about mandated, standardized testing, and what I am going to say might seem trite and oversimplified, but I am in favor of a well-planned assessment tool whose purpose is to assure that all students are meeting the standard that we have decided they should meet.

The bell curve philosophy of grading proves that our educational system is set up to sort kids and not to make sure that they are learning. It is expected that there will be failures, and if there aren't, then the test was too easy. If a teacher ends up giving all A's ... well, we know what people say. Unfortunately, it's not, "It's fantastic that she can help all of her students achieve at such a high level."

As far as I am concerned, getting a C on a test means that the student and I need to go back and figure out what she got wrong, why, and how she can learn it. Every formal essay should be rewritten until it meets the appropriate standard. If I know what the test is ahead of time, and I think it is a good test, then I will plan my curriculum to teach to the test. Good tests are fine as long as their goal is to assure the success of all students.
Michael, Pennsylvania

Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:42:36 -0500
The cow analogy has been around for a long time. An alternative version is gardening: you can measure the PH of your soil all you want, but the data is useless you use it to make sure that you provide the nutrients your flowers need to bloom.

We're working on a Primer for local assessment systems (required by law here in Maine which I'm proud to say has resisted the high-stakes testing approach so far!). This guide, which encourages drawing on classroom assessments and teacher judgment and common course and grade-level teacher-developed assessments, will be published on our Electronic Learning Marketplace web site shortly. I'll send a message to the list to let you know when it is published.
Debra, Maine

Fri, 8 Nov 2002 20:08:20 EST
I'm reminded of a listserv conversation from a few years back around dissonance and change. It seems that topics that create dissonance generate action (our own listserv buzzes more). It appears to me that this is where (in the action) we have real power. Power to have conversations, exchange perspectives, push our thinking and reflect on our actions or inactions, examine our practices and take stock of our spheres of influence and our spheres of control.

Our staff meetings are more energized, folks are more passionate about what they are doing, CFGs are involved in deep inquiry and parents and teachers are partnering at increased levels to support all students. NCLB and high stakes testing may have flaws but I truly believe they have created the dissonance to get even the hardest to reach folks in the conversation.
Carol, Pennsylvania

Sat, 9 Nov 2002 03:44:02 -0500
Well stated, Nancy! Let's bring that message to Washington on Thursday - I've got my poster board ready....
Deb

Sat, 9 Nov 2002 16:53:58 -0500
I am confused to hear you say that Maine has avoided high stakes testing so far - because NCLB requires it - and lays down sanctions if schools don't meet targets. Seems pretty high stakes to me.

Maybe you mean that Maine, like Vermont, is still trying to figure out what its NCLB assessment system will look like?

On a more uplifting note, I would love to check out your primer when it is ready.
Nancy, Vermont

Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:47:43 -0500
Maine is struggling to try to figure out how to deal with NCLB without compromising the integrity of local assessment systems, and is working with Fairtest in partnering with some other states that have tried to approach assessment in a more productive manner than the federal requirements dictate (VT, RI, NH, Nebraska...) A possibility is that there will be some sort of standardized testing at the grade levels required by the feds. This data could be used as part of the local system, but only a piece, at the state level. We do not have a test for graduation and the state assessment at grades 4, 8 and 11 has no consequences for students. Ironically, we have several schools on the federal "failing list" while our kids do extremely well on the NAEP. Alabama, which is 48th on the NAEP (I believe) has no "failing schools."
Debra, Maine