Because he clearly has more patience than I do, Alexander Russo has been pressing Larry Mishel to give a little more detail on what, exactly, the so-called "Broader Bolder" coalition is really all about.
My take on this hasn't really changed since their statement was first released a few months ago. The thesis of the BB manifesto is that, to quote one of its possibly fictional supporters, "efforts to advance student’s learning and development need to combine policies intended to improve schools with policies designed to transform the social and economic contexts in which children and youth develop." The conceit is that there are serious people out there who don't already believe this. Every school reform advocate I know--and I know my share--absolutely wants better social and economic environments for children, and thinks that doing so would help their education. You'd have to be dead stupid to believe otherwise. It's true that many of them don't spend huge amounts of time working on issues like, say, health care, but that's because there are only so many hours in the day and education reform is a pretty big challenge on its own. Division of intellectual labor doesn't automatically imply indifference or antagonism toward other issues. From this perspective, the whole BB effort is an argument with a phantom.
Many of the BB signatories are smart, serious people who presumably understand all of this. So that raises the question of what the effort is really about. Is it, for example, an anti-accountability manifesto in poor disguise? That's arguably a fair assumption, given the stated positions of many BB adherents on the subject. But in his correspondence with Russo, Mishel adamantly denies this, insisting that they're "only against ‘narrow test-based accountability’ -- not any use of tests."
Okay, fair enough, let's take that at face value. It still doesn't really answer much. There are two components of narrow test-based accountability: "narrow" and "test-based." Would Mishel and his colleagues oppose broad (i.e. not narrow) test-based accountability? What if states and schools were allowed to bring in lots of new assessments--AP tests, SATs, the ACT, along with standardized tests in other subjects (to avoid the dread curriculum narrowing) or non-content-focused tests that look at critical thinking, analytic reasoning, leadership, inter-personal collaboration and other so-called "21st Century skills"? How, exactly, would that work? The critical policy choice is "And / Or" -- would schools be held accountable for student results on those tests and tests of reading and math, or would their performance be deemed acceptable if students did well in those areas or on foundational language and computational skills? And of course then there's the danger of "teaching to test," reducing instruction to accomodate assement, etc. Tough choices and tradeoffs, all.
Alternatively, maybe the BBers see the "test-based" element as the real problem. Of course, the question then is: if not test-based, what-based? If the answer is something like actual post-secondary educational outcome data, then I'm down with that. If it's some kind of vague, locally-designed and defined, unverifiable qualitative measure or parental satisfaction survey, then not so much. Remember that the value of standardized testing is not just the common measure but also the fact that self-assessment for accountability purposes is basically a contradiction in terms.
In addition to laying out how schools will be measured, any legitimate position on accountability also necessarily describes what to do with that information. Presumably the BB coalition believes that the current way of doing things is overly punitive, dispiriting, etc. (If not, I'll post a prominent correction.) If not to sanction, label, etc. how exactly will the information from whatever broader, less-test-based measure they come up with be used to spur school improvement, and why do they think that approach will work?
These aren't trivial questions. They go to the heart of how one thinks about educational accountability. Without answers, there's really no way to know what the BB cadre is trying to accomplish, other than suggesting that they're on one side of an argument that doesn't really exist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Fascinating study. I’d take you up on this being a compromise form of accountability.
It would be mighty hard to get this data in a timely enough manner to apply sanctions, and I see that as good. THE BEST ACCOUNTABILITY IS THE DISINFECTANT OF SUNLIGHT. But if you can’t live without “sticks,” schools could be assessed fines to help pay for remediation. Schools with leaders with the ability to assess data could use this as leverage to be allowed to teach for mastery as opposed to skin deep test prep. But I fear that the weakest students would get pushed out. Then we could fine schools for their share of maternity ward Medicaid costs, incarceration, and early death due to ignorance of health and nutrition ... Seriously, under NCLB excellent tests like AP and excellent assessments like the National Board are useless because they are clearly inappropriate for a national test. Commit to rifle shot accountability and a whole world of opportunity opens up.
The Oklahoma Regents used to give us the GPAs of our former students, and the average for our school was a D-. But I’d be interested in the GPA of our zip code. It was announced today that my school had an average ACT of 15.3 which tied us for last among Oklahoma’s urban schools (We’re a more violent version of Douglass High in Baltimore and we shared the honor with our district’s school that has the demographics, gangs, and proficiency of Locke High. To reenforce your point, due to the irrationalities of NCLB data, they just failed AYP for the 6th year in a row, while we made AYP. Oklahoma had four tiny schools with lower ACT scores on an Indian reservation and deep in the mountains of “Little Dixie.” [think Deliverance on Meth.])
But hundreds of the poor Black kids in our zip code go to a magnet school with Oklahoma’s 2nd highest average ACT of 25+ that was ranked in the top fifty in one of those national surveys (just ahead of my in-law’s school in Montgomery County) and several of the kids in our neighborhood attend a State magnet with an ACT of 31, and which is typically ranked in the top five of the nation.
It is even more complex than you describe, but two big factors may explain some of the anomalies. The percentage of our sophomores passing the English test was over 40% before NCLB, but now it is consistently in the low 30s. The problem is that nearly 100% of the “passes” are in regular classes. I almost never get a regular class student who has passed any of the state tests. So the main correlation for NCLB scores is the percentage of students who remain in honors programs. Typically our honors kids are in a neighborhood school because a family crisis (usually medical) makes it logistically difficult to go to one of the dozen magnet schools that serve our zip code.
The Regents data also showed that our special ed students had a B average in college. Why? They were athletes and athletes get mentors. I also saw this close up when my nephew led Oklahoma State to three national championships in wrestling, while graduating nearly 100%. Needless to say, wrestlers are only half human so if the mentoring works on them, it would work with others. You’ve written eloquently on the need for college to do more, so again we have a lot in common.
Getting back to your big point, I simply can’t comprehend your fixation on the one factor that divides us, and that will ALWAYS divide us, when we could agree on so much. NCLB I was based on the hypothesis that a single type of standardized test-driven accountability could spearhead reform. We may not agree precisely on the evidence, but surely you are extremely disappointed with the law’s results. Now you have a hypothesis that the sausage-making process can draft an NCLB II that avoids the previous pitfalls. My assumption is that you can fix some problems of NCLB I, while creating new unforeseen negative effects.
But here’s my question. This time next year, if you fail to create a good enough accountability system - one that meets your conscience’s standards) will you then come over to our side? Or will it be politically impossible and will you go ahead and support an accountability regime that is not ready for prime time?
Needless to say, I meant to say that 100% of our students who pass the test are in honors classes, not regular classes.
Post a Comment