Bridging Differences

Dear Debbie,

I must say that I do not see mandatory schooling as incarceration, and I suspect that you really don’t see it that way either. We surely know of many nations in the world where the availability of schooling is very limited, and there is no surer guarantee of inequality and social stagnation than not gaining access to education. I sometimes have libertarian sympathies, but I have never felt that compulsory schooling was akin to prison for children.

Not long ago I was invited by a Pakistani government agency to do a paper about “standards” in that nation. I spent quite a lot of time reading about educational opportunity in that country and was struck by one stark fact: Very few students get much schooling beyond primary school. About a third of the nation’s children were not enrolled in primary school, only 40 percent made it to high school, and only 3 percent enrolled in higher education. Overall, barely 10 percent of young people managed to make it through high school. It seems friviolous to think about "standards" when so many children don't even have a basic education.

I daresay that no one would have the chutzpah to say that Pakistani children are “free” because so many of them are not in school. I think we are very spoiled about schooling. We take it for granted. People make money saying foolish things along the lines of school=jail. Given the importance of literacy and education for everyone’s future roles as citizens and as members of society, it is irresponsible to disparage the necessity of compulsory schooling (for individuals and for society) and the availability of equal educational opportunity (also for individuals and for society).

Like you, I am shocked that New York City’s Department of Education is set to endorse a policy of retaining students in eighth grade. I have seen estimates that as many as 18,000 students may be held back. Like Pedro Noguera, I have wondered how it is possible that so many students have reached eighth grade unable to pass state tests in reading and math when the city previously “ended social promotion” in 3rd grade, 5th grade, and 7th grade. As we both know, the research on this issue is unequivocal: Get-tough policies of this kind invariably produce higher dropout rates among the kids held back.

I am aware of research by Robert Hauser of the University of Wisconsin, as well as Melissa Roderick and others from the Chicago Consortium on School Research, all pointing in the same direction, against retention policies. My understanding is that the New York City Department of Education will defend their decision by referring to a study of the Florida retention policy, written by Jay Greene and Marcus Winters. Greene and Winters are best known for their writings that support merit pay and vouchers in education.

Under the current system of mayoral autocracy in New York City, no one has the power to stop this latest change in policy. There is no board of education, only a powerless advisory board. Four years ago, when three members of that board planned to vote against the new retention policy for third-graders, asking for more time and study, the three were fired on the day of the vote and replaced. See an account of this controversy on the current issue of the New York City Public School Parents blog, in an item titled “On the fourth anniversary of the Monday night massacre; what have they learned?,” by Leonie Haimson.

So, the question is, are we punishing kids by compelling them to go to school, or punishing them by humiliating them when they didn’t learn what they were supposed to? I don’t think that compulsory schooling is a punishment. I do worry about the harm that is done when we pack kids into overcrowded classes, force-feed them deadly textbooks, inflict failed methods of teaching on them, test them with dumbed-down tests, and then fail them. Most of the time, it seems to me, it is we who have failed them.

Diane

Posted by Diane Ravitch at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Deborah,

I have read the reports of the international assessments over the years and think it would be foolhardy to dismiss them out of hand. The professionals who create them and administer them have no axe to grind; they don’t get bonuses if the scores go up or down. They are scrupulous about reporting the participation rates, the exclusion rates, the age of the students who took the tests, and all other relevant factors. Unlike district superintendents and state superintendents, they have no reason to boast about rising scores or seek better results.

The analysis of the international tests that I have found especially interesting is one published in 2005 by the American Institutes of Research called Reassessing U.S. International Mathematics Performance. This study examined the dozen nations that participated in both TIMSS and PISA. It exploded a common myth that American students do well in fourth grade, are about average compared to other nations by eighth grade, and perform dismally in senior year in high school. No, says the study, this is not an accurate characterization. In fact, when looking only at the nations that have consistently taken part in international testing, students in the U.S. are mediocre at every grade level, not ranking better than eighth or ninth out of the dozen nations.

One of the characteristics of most of the high-scoring nations was a national curriculum in mathematics. That way, teachers did not have to engage in guesswork about what students needed to learn.

While on the subject of math, there is an interesting insight about the New York State Regents that I want to share with you. A former mathematics teacher, Steve Koss, regularly writes for the New York City parent blog, and he recently pointed out that the passing score on the Regents exam in mathematics is a farce. A student need answer only 31 percent of the questions on the exam correctly in order to get a passing grade of 65. Or, as he puts it, “a paltry 31 percent is now the new 65 percent.” The public presumes (I certainly did), that a grade of 65 on an exam means that a student answered 65 percent of the questions correctly. This is not, according to Koss, the case. So much for high standards. Education Week, by the way, ranked New York as the #1 state in the nation recently in education. I wonder if those who created the rankings looked at the examination system.

Diane

Posted by Diane Ravitch at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Diane,

You’ve quoted the part we most agree about from your book "Left Back." It’s amazing how much flows from that agreement. I suspect it’s this core that immunizes us against the "reign of (soft) terror" that we’re witnessing in the most innovative school districts, such as NYC.

In the 1980s many of us celebrated what we thought was the final victory—at last—of Dewey over Thorndike. Alas, we were dead wrong. It was a momentary blip. But, Diane, you were also right that progressivism came in many guises, including forms of Thorndyke’ism, and virtually all guises were far more hopeful about the uses of testing than they should have been. And some still are.

In opposing elitism we are both in the same camp. But what an “elite” education means is what we often argue about. I think we’d both agree that it is not necessarily what the particular elite of a particular moment in history designed for their children. Knowing Latin (regardless of its other virtues) was esteemed precisely because it separated one group out from the masses; similarly being “well-educated” meant speaking a particular dialect—not because it was superior but because it defined one’s status and class. Technology had no status in my youth, but today the very rich think it’s cool. And so on.

Each generation needs to rethink what ALL its citizens—from the least to the most advantaged—require. We can call that essential The Academics, followed by lists of traditional lore, or we can redefine the meaning of academia in ways that capture the passions of the young. But in either case, we must defend it against a largely thoughtless and heartless world. Including too many elite academics. As Gerald Graff reminds us, many academics seem as "clueless" about its broader value (see "Clueless in Academe") as their students do.

We are all capable of high levels of intellectual inquiry, of entering into the important arguments that shape the world, of playing with the important concepts, and of being creative and critical in a wide range of different arenas of life. This is as true for the cosmologist as the cosmetician, as teacher JP affirms in his "comments" on the blog that you quote.

Ted Sizer was right, I think, in noting that the most intellectually rigorous class he observed in his study of the American high school several decades ago ("Horace’s Compromise") happened to be a particular shop class, and the least rigorous happened to be an "academic" honor’s class. Anything that smacks of being "practical" is too often scorned, and anything that seems "impractical" valued. What an odd way to frame the argument to the young!

The what and how of schooling is where I want to remain flexible, while also firmly stating that the intellectual life is not reserved for an elite and can and must rest in everyone’s hands. Our letter-writer Cal is just plain wrong—and I say this as someone who has, I believe, "proven" the point—at least to my satisfaction.

But what to do about "reformers" (maybe we should rename them "deformers"?) who use their extraordinary power to rush through one after another measure that undermine such optimism about democracy?? They are on a different track entirely. Of late the buzz word for taking such Orwellian 1984 measures is "equality." Bah, humbug. You and I both know that there are other efficient routes to be taken to attain greater equality via tax policy, housing policy, health policy and on and on. It is no accident that M.L. King Jr.’s assassination took place during his involvement in a strike for higher wages and job security, as part of the long-forgotten War on Poverty.

Michael Bloomberg (NYC’s mayor, and if he had his way president) thinks that offering 4th graders $50 dollars is an important anti-poverty tactic! I do not joke. He has used the same perverted logic to argue that IQ testing of all 4- and 5-year-old will level the playing field. That such tests are known to contain infamous class and racial bias, and that testing all children at age 5 opens the doors wide to historically biased notions about intelligence doesn’t worry him. Nor are our leaders concerned with the technical psychometric limitations—the gross unreliability—of tests for children under the age of 8—not to mention ages 4 and 5!

Then, just yesterday—more or less—Bloomberg decided that not only will children be automatically held over based on 3rd-6th grade test scores, but he promises to show his toughness on behalf of equity by refusing entry into high school for students who fail the 8th grade benchmark. Apparently the proposal would leave thousands of already over-age 8th graders to linger there a year or so longer. It will automatically do one thing: increase actual drop-outs while simultaneously improving graduation rates—which are calculated based on 9th graders. If you’re unclear how this magic works, write me.

And then I read in The New York Times: “NYC has embarked on an ambitious experiment, yet to be announced, in which some 2,500 teachers are being measured on how much their students improve on annual standardized tests….The move is so contentious that principals in some of the 140 schools participating have not told their teachers….officials say it is too early to determine how they will use the data, which is already being collected.”

This stuff is not a NY-only phenomenon. Nor do most of the richest philanthropists in the field see anything wrong with any of the above. Eli Broad’s trustees chose NYC as their model not because they didn’t notice all this flim-flam, but because________

I urge readers to complete the sentence above. I’ll give the "right answer" next week.

Deborah

P.S. I note that our passions have led us to write our two longest letters of this year-long conversation!

Posted by Deborah Meier at 9:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Diane,

Like the distinguished panel of assessment experts whom Commissioner Mills called in to examine it wrote—the old CPESS model was a promising beginning. We had much work to be done if others were to follow suit. Instead others were discouraged and finally prohibited from doing so. If we had a commitment toward such approaches, we’d solve its kinks. Then instead of being a rare, fragile flower it could have been transplanted widely. What’s amazing is that within half a dozen years more than 40 schools, just in NY State, jumped on board without any support and against the grain. That more than half have not given up is testimony to its hardiness.

I wish Ed Week would make it easier for folks to read the comments we get to our letters. Some blogs do. Because as I suggested to one respondent last week, age-grading and course-passing as ways to organize “credit” toward graduation limits our options. It offers unacceptable trade-offs. What was nice about CPE and Mission Hill (K-6 and K-8 schools) was that we could place kids in groupings that made sense for their learning and did not have to decide artificially whether they had to repeat a grade or not. Ditto for passing courses. Like other Coalition schools, what we had to decide, child by child, was what was best for maximizing learning. Period.

You ask, how did our schooling fall “so effortlessly into the control of Know Nothings…”? Weep, and then, as we once said, “organize”.

New York City is now preparing to test all 5-year-olds (and encouraging day care, Head Start and nursery schools to do the same) on the Otis-Lennon IQ Test. Next it will be 6- and 7-year-olds. Decades of work to eliminate standardized testing of the young will be reversed. Just as we managed to eliminate standardized testing as part of Head Start (thanks to Sam Meisels and the Erikson Institute), NYC is implementing something even worse. IQ tests. As though we haven’t, as Emily Gasoi notes in her excellent commentary (posted after last week’s letter), a long history to draw on re. IQ testing.

Like NCLB it’s being sneaked in (without any public input) under the guise of Equity! Can you imagine the gall of calling IQ tests a means toward equity???? Yes—it’s supposed to make it easier and fairer for all children to get into “gifted and talented” programs.

Mozart was surely talented, in fact a genius, but whether his particular genius would have been detected in the Otis-Lennon IQ test no one can know. Howard Gardner has been writing for decades about the wide diversity of “gifts” and “talents”. But, above all, we know that race and class have an enormous impact on who seems “smart” at age 5. We also know a lot about what it means to “track” kids by test scores—into various different ability-grouped classes. When I came to NYC in 1967 that was the norm. Even in schools that had substantial diversity, classrooms were neatly divided by race and class. So are “talented and gifted” classes. And they will be after we make it easier for poor kids and black and Latino kids to take IQ tests. Finding the kids who score in the top 5 percent means eliminating most non-white and poor children. That’s basic to the design of most standardized tests, but above all of IQ tests. If the slogan “all kids can learn” meant anything it was in defying the odds that the tests claim to be able to predict.

Not only will this new round of testing create more mostly white classes, but it will misinform all parents and teachers about the intelligence and learning assets of their own children. It will make it easier, once IQ scores are available, to once again openly argue that “after all, you can’t expect” x or y to achieve high levels of intellectual work. They are “after all” intellectually deficient. Don’t blame the messenger for the message, we were once told. We’ve been there before; we will be there again. It’s the fall-back assumption of those at the top, that their superiority is “natural” and that those beneath them just don’t have “it”—the smarts. If we do this when we know better, it will literally be criminal—a deliberate sabotaging of our most vulnerable children.

How can we begin to talk again, you ask, about schools that truly educate? Where can folks who agree with us on this part of the argument weigh in, Diane? The absence of any form of public voice, or for that matter professional input, in places like NYC makes it hard. But people in truly totalitarian regimes have organized for change, so I know there are ways for us to reverse this one, too. The reforms that reared their promising heads 20 years ago shall not vanish from this land!

Deborah

Posted by Deborah Meier at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Diane,

There's a streak of naivete about you that is both delightful and infuriating! The notion that we have come to a consensus on what constitutes the well-educated 8-, 12- or 18-year-old, on what body of facts and scientific truth we all agree is essential, and finally that we have a way to get at this that will not impact on narrowing or distorting the curriculum—all seem far-fetched. Politically, not to mention technically, this seems beyond our current human capacity.

Add to it that such a testing system would demonstrate that huge majorities of the students in some states are failing by these standards and it seems politically even more unlikely. Of course, that's perhaps one of the few reasons I'd like it. How about, for starters, if we agree that we do not give any test to high school students before trying it out on all state and federal legislators—as a kind of base line? We might also test trustees of universities and major corporations.

I wrote a book, "Will Standards Save Public Education," in 2000 (Beacon) in which I set out the assumptions underlying test-based standards and contrast them to an alternate set of assumptions. If you didn't read it—it might help us to see where we diverge.

Remember, what we're arguing about are mandated state-sponsored tests about intellectual truth. The information, while not high stakes re. students in your proposal, is high stakes for the intellectual and democratic assumptions upon which the nation rests. The fallout of testing is, as we both agree, not irrelevant as some test-makers argue in claiming no responsibility for the narrowing of the curriculum. But there is narrowing of many sorts, and any national system in a nation as diverse and huge as ours has serious reverberations. How would yours avoid it?

Which reminds me of what we face in NYC right now at the other end of the spectrum—not 18-years-olds but 4- and 5-year-olds. NYC has sent principals (no names because this is supposed to be super confidential) copies of practice tests which they are expected to hand out to parents who must come to school to get them. Such parents must promise to reveal nothing about the pre-tests, in exchange for being able to use the information to help prepare their children. Hush hush. One outcome available to parents who agree is a leg up on getting their kids into gifted and talented classes—open to the top 5 percent of national test-takers. (Despite our knowledge of how IQ tests—which these are—differentially impact on kids based on economics and race—NYC is proposing this as part of its drive for equity!) What happens to the information garnered from the other 95 percent?

Erikson Institute's Sam Meisels, perhaps America's most eminent expert on early childhood, has written extensively on the unreliability of early childhood testing. We know a lot—and it's all bad news. On the basis of this, Congress agreed to remove standardized testing for Head Starters. But not NYC 4-5-year-olds. If anyone reading this letter has the inclination—please write, call and holler! It's coming next to you. I wonder who, in the field of early-childhood education, they consulted? Or did they just assume that based on their experience in business, law, Wall Street, et al they knew best?

And imagine, officially involving parents in the test-prep game! I suppose they can claim that this is leveling the field! It's also—if they knew anything about norm-based testing (which these are)—further corrupting the instrument itself once we prep for it! IQ tests are based on the assumption that everyone is taking it under the same conditions as the population they were normed on.

I see national testing as another nail in the coffin of a nation prized for being creative and innovative. I know, Diane, that textbooks often establish dumb standards, too. But whatever leads you to believe that these tests won't repeat what's already in (and not in) those textbooks??? At least now some schools—and not just private ones—can ignore them or use them as mere back-up. There remains another way to get good information without dumbing education down; sampled in-depth testing (which NAEP started out doing) could be invaluable, based on interviews, performance tasks, writing samples, etc.

We could feed our adult thirst for knowledge without mandating that schools deprive kids of a taste of the real thing. I know, I know—only some kids now get that kind of education; but what's kept me going for 40-plus years is trying to spread the real thing to more and more kids. I know it's do-able; but it's getting harder and harder.

Deb

Posted by Deborah Meier at 7:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Diane,

It's fun occasionally to be reminded of why we were considered by so many to be "in opposition." When you took pleasure in the NY Times editorial promoting tests (this time national), I was reminded of our disagreements!

Allowing a national definition of success to rest on so many unaligned tests is patently absurd. You would "align" them, I would eliminate them! My quarrel with NCLB is with its power to define success, and then with its use of tests to do so. A more "sensible" NCLB, with a single consistent test, would make it more, not less dangerous. If teaching to the test is bad now, it would become suffocating if tried on the scale the NY Times suggests.

As I gather, however, you are not for tests that are high stakes, but just "fyi". It's important, if you hold this view, to spell that out. I doubt if it's what the NY Times has in mind, nor am I sure it's do-able until the politicians (and reporters) understand the limits of test data. I would argue that the task of strengthening schools that serve the larger purposes of education cannot be achieved until we flesh out the possible definitions we each hold of what being "well-educated" looks like. There may be more than one answer—which is why I go back to that other idea: a Consumer Reports on schooling. One that allows us to compare and contrast, but does not seek a single answer.

You suggest, as does NCLB, that if folks were forced to acknowledge their failure (by true scores, and true consequences) they'd go about fixing them in ways that would improve true test scores. For reasons good and bad there's no evidence for that. Just suppose Atlanta's improvement is related to just better prepping? Would you recommend we all do the same? No. You wouldn't. But once we go down that road…….

There is no way to be well-educated in everything by age 8, 12, 16. And which qualities of mind or skill we think deserves to push out others is hard to agree about. And unnecessary! We don't all agree about cars either, or any of the other stuff covered by Consumer Reports. But we can make our own judgments—or at least better ones than we might without it. Probably we rely in the end on what our friends and relatives also say, but that's fine, too. For cars and schools.

So, I want to pursue this. I met with a few people recently who were really struck by the idea of a CR-type review of NYC schools. I think it's do-able.

I ought to quit now. But I want to shift ground a little to an old obsession: where in the world do folks think we learn about the arts and science (and history and practice) of democracy? We once based it on such small, geographically close and "common" constituencies that it didn't take as much counter-intuitive understanding. But even then, the Federalist Papers did quite a job bouncing the ideas around. How can we ignite a similar debate? What role could a Consumer Reports play in such a debate?

Why aren't the major Universities—and I don't mean the education departments—convening folks to dig into the deeper question of the relationship between democracy and K-16 and beyond. We know that there are stress points in a democratic society—what do we know about how we weather them and what we lose during such historic moments. How instinctive was Giuliani's idea of postponing the election in NYC after 9/11? Or Chavez's retreat from democracy in Venezuela, or Putin's or Musharraf's dodges? Why do reformers look for the man on the white horse over and over? Or for technocratic solutions—the perfect test? I enjoyed James Traub's comment in last Sunday's NY Times piece ("Persuading Them"): "What we say about ourselves no longer has much effect; but what we are seen doing—on occasion, what we are caught doing—matters immensely." Maybe too many youngsters reach 18 without ever having seen democracy "done"—much less reflected on the dilemmas involved, guided by wise adults.

How can schools—without being inappropriately political—teach politics? How can we counteract our natural tendency to elevate "nonpartisanship" above politics, rather than seeking a more vigorous politics, with all its self-interested warts?

When we knock politics, we undermine the struggle to make democracy work. No politics, no democracy! While you and I are both feeling a little weary about how politics has distorted schooling, we both know that it takes renewing that discourse again generation after generation, not giving up on it.

Part of our weariness is that it takes a somewhat leveler playing field for the game to work at its best. When we lay the task all onto schools we undermine what schools can do, and forget about all the other parties to democracy's warts.

Ted Sizer and I once tried to get Harvard interested in the topic. Everyone said "yes yes", "great idea". But it never happened. Maybe NYU? Meanwhile we can also look around for folks to help us launch a CR for schools. Anyone else out there interested?

Deborah

Posted by Deborah Meier at 7:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Deborah,

I note with pleasure that The New York Times endorsed (again) the principle of national testing. My guess is that the latest NAEP results for New York City prompted them to do so.

As you know, New York City has been trumpeting its "historic gains" in test scores without let-up over the past few years, since Mayor Bloomberg gained control of the school system and persuaded the Legislature to turn it into the Department of Education. As part of what may be a nascent Bloomberg-for-President campaign, the Department's very large public relations staff works hard to persuade the public that Chancellor Joel Klein has wrought a historic transformation and the kids in the city are now performing on a par with those in suburban districts. If only it were true!

Based on this energetic campaign, supplemented by a privately funded campaign of another $10 million, the city's leaders have been selling their corporate-style, top-down organization as a model for the nation. The state scores were trending steadily upwards, enough to persuade the Broad Foundation to give NYC its prestigious award as the most-improved urban district in the nation in September 2007.

When NAEP's urban district scores were released on November 14, it contained a heap of bad news for New York City. The reports compared progress in 11 cities and showed that NYC's public schools had made "no significant gains" from 2003-2007 in 4th grade reading, 8th grade reading, or 8th grade math. The only subject and grade where there was a significant improvement during these years was in 4th grade math. However, doubt has been cast even on that gain because (as an article in the New York Sun pointed out), 25 percent of the city students received accommodations (e.g., extra time), a rate far higher than in any other urban district and double the rate for the city's students only four years ago. Los Angeles, which has a far higher proportion of English-Language Learners than NYC, assessed with accommodations only 8 percent of its 4th graders on the math test, compared with NYC's 25 percent. Giving such a large number of accommodations presumably would give the city an extra boost in scores in 4th grade math.

Reporters wondered how the Chancellor's PR staff would "spin" the bad news. It didn't seem possible. After years of audacious claims about "closing the achievement gap," "historic improvements in reading and math," etc., how to explain that there had been NO significant gains in reading in either 4th or 8th grade? And how, after the state proclaimed that 8th grade scores soared in both subjects in the spring of 2007, to explain that 8th grade scores showed no significant gain on NAEP? How to explain that there had been no significant gain for any subgroup of students from 2003-2007, not for whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or lower-income students in three of four tests?

But it was possible and they did it. First, the Department issued a press release that focused almost completely on the 4th grade math scores, barely mentioning the main findings. Then, when The New York Times published a first-page story that accurately described the NAEP results for the city, the Chancellor's office sent out an email that went to over 100,000 recipients, denying that acheivement was flat. He sent out a graph showing NAEP gains that started in the 2002-2003 year, before his reforms were implemented.

Even Lynn Olson, the very smart and able editor at Education Week, was taken in by the Department's statistical legerdemain. In her story about New York City, she reiterated the spurious claim that reading scores went up in the early days of Children First, but this was wrong. They went up on the NAEP test between 2002 and 2003. The 2003 test was given in January-February 2003; at that very moment, the mayor and the chancellor first announced what they intended to do in September. Klein started his "Children First" program in the schools in September 2003.

If one sees significance in the national tests, which have similar standards for all states and cities that take it, then the clear winner among the cities over the past five years is Atlanta. Atlanta has an enrollment that is more than 90 percent African-American; it has a superintendent, Beverly Hall, who has been on the job for eight years. Its NAEP scores in math and reading at both 4th and 8th grades have trended steadily upward over the past five years. Something is happening in Atlanta that the nation should pay attention to. Too bad the Broad Foundation didn't notice.

Diane

Posted by Diane Ravitch at 7:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Diane,

The intellectual and informational inaccuracy, sloppiness and thoughtlessness of so much of education reporting still shocks me—I know I ought to have gotten over it. The story you told me about the reporter who bought NYC's claims that the latest NAEP results are a sign of the DOE's success is such a perfect example.

Investigative reporting is a lost art. They too often see themselves as conduits for press releases, with perhaps one quote from someone "on the other side" to show that it's impartial. It's their style even when I'm delighted with it! E.g.: I loved the front-page story in the Boston Globe proclaiming the success of the Pilot Schools in Boston, with its obligatory demurer from one critic. But that's not good newspaper reportage.

Thanks for alerting me to the fact that NAEP scores—representing the only national comparisons available—demonstrate that NYC hasn't moved forward or back since Klein and Bloomberg took over; except in one test at one grade level. Since tests are all the DOE cares about they can't, like me, claim that testing is not the only way to judge their work.

Another example. I ran into a headline today—NY Times, I believe—proclaiming that while we're not doing badly compared to most European rivals, we are being badly beaten by Asia. Yes, Japan and Singapore do better. But Asians? Neither China nor India are doing better—nor are their scores even mentioned in these international comparisons. Americans believe it must be true because they are the primary locations of outsourcing, and we've bought the lie that outsourcing is related to our poor public educational system—rather than appallingly low wages in outsourced sites. The headlines shouldn't obscure these realities.

Yes, wouldn't it be nice if there was something comparable to Consumer Reports on education. Maybe we can interest them in working on this?

Such a "simple" idea. Reporting that is not self-interested, that tries to explain the complexity of automobiles (toasters, etc.) in ways that acknowledge that we're not all looking for the same thing, and that we might want to easily scan the alternatives to see what the trade-offs are. I want 4-wheel drive, but….I also want…. And on and on. We don't actually have to reinvent the wheel.

I think "accountability" has to start by separating the different purposes and audiences to which we feel accountable. For example, I'm accountable to my students—they have a right to know what I think of their work and how it can be improved. I'm accountable to my colleagues to share my work in the interest of improving collective practice. I'm accountable to families to bring them into the full picture of what I see happening and what I hope together we can do about the situation. This can include standadized tests. But since such tests are designed to be statistically indirect "indicators"—at best (see psychometrician W. James Popham's piece in Education Week…), it would be odd if we ignored the fact that we have access to direct evidence. We have the hard data—the kids and their work.

But while individual schools are the best place for this assessment to originate, there's the kind of data needed by more distant publics: professional and lay, politicians and academics.

Some years ago we designed a 5-year "experimental" project in NYC—with $50 million in Annenberg funds, to explore a large-scale experiment with the above in mind. It involved an institute at Columbia headed by Linda Darling-Hamond, Michelle Fine at CUNY and other research backup, about 130 schools with 50,000 students, organized into 15 networks. It gave schools direct access to their full budgets and a great deal of freedom from union, city and state mandates in return for developing new forms of accountability. It managed to get the support of the then-chancellor, mayor, teachers' union and state commissioner. Unfortunately, as we were about to "go", both the chancellor and the commissioner departed and their replacements said "no way."

It's an oddly distorted version of this idea that emerged 10 years later under Bloomberg and Klein. It gutted what we believed was the essence of the plan: that it was voluntary, small scale (the size of the average American city), invited networks to develop self-designed plans, and had the support of some of the best independent research institutions in town to track different aspects of the work as it played out over time. We hoped that the work would help us find answers suitable to the various audiences involved. We were genuinely curious and thought it quite likely that we would end up with some shared agreement about "what works" and many different answers as well!

We lost that chance. So, now maybe you and I can try to imagine what some of these different solutions might have looked like.

D

Posted by Deborah Meier at 9:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Deborah,

It was interesting that you used the analogy to Consumer Reports to discuss the value of grading schools. As a longtime subscriber to CR, I understand that it is useful to have a disinterested voice evaluating the products in the marketplace. To make sure that there is never a conflict of interest, CR does not accept advertising; no one can ever say that their judgments were tainted by commercial interests.

The CR example shows, I think, the problems with assigning a letter grade (only one letter grade, not a report card) to each school. To begin with, schools are not situated in a true marketplace. We may decide to buy this car, not that one, or this television, not that one, because we are consumers and have a wide choice of products. But parents do not have the same free choice about where to send their children; even if they wanted to withdraw them from an F school and send them to an A school, the A school may be too distant from their home and it certainly will not have enough seats for students who might want to transfer in. Most parents would be happy to know that their children were attending a good school that was close to home. They have neither the time nor the sophistication to shop around the city for a higher-rated school. Given the widespread complaint that the ratings themselves are flawed, school officials may be dispensing false data to parents, scaring them needlessly about their children's school and destabilizing schools and communities.

Then, too, there is the problem of conflict of interest. Is it really a good idea that schools should be graded by the very officials responsible for leading them? Don't they have an inherent conflict of interest? Consumer Reports takes pains to insulate itself from the appearance of conflict of interest. Top school officials, on the other hand, are the ones who rank and grade and test and report on their own performance. In New York City, the situation is anomalous, in that school officials disdain any responsibility for improving the schools; under their theory of principal empowerment, only the principal is to be held responsible, even though there are many conditions affecting achievement that are beyond the principal's influence.

I certainly agree with you that NCLB should not be reauthorized until there is more careful reconsideration of what it has accomplished and what its negative consequences have been. Everything that I read and hear supports the view that it will NOT be reauthorized until after the 2008 election. A new president will presumably set the agenda for federal education policy. Since Democrats control the Congress until the next election, I think it fair to say that NCLB is now the property of the Democratic party.

Given the importance of the NEA and the AFT within Democratic ranks, I would have assumed that Congress would be taking a hard look at NCLB, but this does not seem to be the case. Last week I was invited to meet with a very smart Democratic congressman who is a member of the Education Committee in the House of Representatives. I told him that I hoped Congress would consider a radical restructuring of NCLB. He immediately disabused me of that idea. He said that NCLB will be re-authorized; that there would be changes, but that they would not be radical ones. I told him that if they did some polling or even talked to teachers in their districts, they would find that the law was hated by most teachers. That didn't seem to faze him. The law will no doubt get a new name, but the basic structure will not be abandoned.

One wonders, if the people who have to do the implementation say that it is not working, why would Congress push ahead? But apparently they are. It is time to realize that this law, in its next iteration, will be a product of the Democratic party. My guess is that no one in Washington wants to give up the power to tell teachers what to do.

Diane

Posted by Diane Ravitch at 7:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Diane,

Amen. We agree, although it will be interesting to see where this takes us—re. alternatives. (For next week?)

Bard College President Leon Botstein's outraged voice last week helped me sort out the issues raised by NYC's new school grading system. (Disclosure: my granddaughter is a very happy student at Bard's public high school.) He's right that it is a unique school engaged in a unique project. He is wrong that this makes him different than most other schools—each of which is also "unique". He claims the Regents exams are not good measures of their work. He's not alone in such a view. Those who seek to offer currently unsuccessful students a serious intellectual experience face the same dilemma as Bard—even though Bard starts with some of the most successful young people.

In the old factory-model tradition we gave kids A's to F's, without comments or narratives. But even then each child got a separate mark for each individual course, for deportment and citizenship, etc. It was more complicated than the current NYC and Florida A-F grading system.

In fact, Chancellor Klein would note, the A-F scores are derived from the most complex scoring system. True enough. It takes into account in various weighted forms dozens of factors; and involves a great many different judgments made by mortal beings with a lot of power. For example, the independent school quality reviews, conducted during the year of all NYC schools, don't count at all in the equation.

In the elementary schools, test scores in grades 3-5 are 85 percent of the grade; no points are added for passing grades. In high schools, passing courses (credit units) are counted heavily and test scores are not based on annual improvement but compare 8th grade scores to subject-specific Regents scores often taken many years later. (This leads the NYC Chancellor to now promote tests in K-2nd grade to be "fairer" to them—alongside the newly mandated IQ tests in kindergarten.) We've got the most complicated scoring system, hiding many judgments, to produce a simple-minded grade. What I think you and I might propose is a "simpler" system producing a more complicated school-specific grade.

What came to mind for me was how Consumer Reports tells us about cars. Generally, there are a whole host of charts providing "best buy" info in a variety of ways, alongside of (over the course of the year) narrative reports. The evaluations include performance-based measures, as well as data on size, gallons per mile, repair rates based on sampled surveys, etc. You can run down the charts and find stuff that matters or doesn't to you the buyer.

Isn't it odd that in a matter more personal than cars we think we can establish a rank order of schools that is more definitive than we can about cars? Despite disagreement in the nation (or city) on what constitutes a well-educated adult should we trust the "judgment" of our political leaders to decide this for us on a single scale? That's what this "equation" is, after all.

At least Consumer Reports is a voluntary non-profit, not our boss who, despite protestations to the contrary, is not accountable to consumers or voters except in the most convoluted way—in the Mayor's one and only bid for reelection. This is not "for advice only" info. Grades have imposed consequences. Nor can school leaders, like General Motors, take exception publicly. Nor is there any counter-balancing political body to provide checks and balances as is the case in most of our nation's institutions.

NYC is becoming an example of what some marketplace enthusiasts like to call a "government" school, or a "state monopoly". If the consumers are dissatisfied they can leave one public school for another (which is actually not reality based), or try their luck with a charter (lottery permitting) or private school (money permitting)? Or home school, I suppose. They are right to call our bluff if this is how we run "state" schools.

If Fordham Institute or CATO put out a rank list of best schools or systems we all know (or should), those lists express their biases; my list would, too. So does Bloomberg/Klein's list. Mr. Bottstein is right to be upset, because in a top-down system the future of his school rests on their values and biases, hidden beneath their weighted equations.

I spent a day last week with a group of elementary school parents and staff—whose schools ranked A through F. No one there felt like being congratulated; they all felt demeaned. It's simply harder for them to jump to Los Angeles the way Joe Torre did, and not fair to our kids whom I care about more than I do about Yankee fans.

Deb

P.S. It's bad enough fighting city hall; it's harder still to influence particular actions of one agency of the Department of Education in D.C.. Until we pause to consider more thoughtful forms of federal intervention I'll be glad that Congress doesn't rush into reauthorizing NCLB—do you agree, Diane?

Posted by Deborah Meier at 7:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Deb,

I must add two points to my blog about the letter grades handed out to New York City public schools last week.

As I said in my original post, the formula was complex but heavily dependent on how students did on the state tests. Eighty-five percent of the letter grade (and remember that each school was given only a single letter grade, not a report card with a variety of grades) was based on these test scores, a combination of "performance" and "progress." Some very reputable, high-performing schools got a low mark because the proportion of students who passed the test was lower this year than in the previous year (say, from 90 percent passing to 84 percent, still an incredible mark in this city). I erred, though, as a reader pointed out in one of the comments, in saying that the other 15 percent was based on the school "environment," as evaluated by outsiders. In fact, the 15 percent was based on surveys sent to parents, teachers, and surveys. The response rate to these surveys was very low, in many schools below 10 percent. So, how valid these surveys are in assessing the quality of each school is not clear.

A second point that I should have mentioned was that each school was judged in relation to 40 schools considered demographically similar. This was another reason why, in some cases, a well-regarded school ended up with a low score and a very low-performing school ended up with an A or B. In a similar schools analysis, some schools identified by the state as "failing" received high marks because they were compared to other schools that were also low- performing.

As I said, it is a very complex formula, and many people are unhappy with the results. It is hard to explain how a school that was honored last year as the best middle school in the city got a D or why a school that parents clamor to get their children into got a B or C. Author (and former teacher) Dan Brown pointed out in an article in Sunday's New York Post (and on the Huffington Post) that some of the schools labeled "persistently dangerous" by the state earned an A or B. A very strange methodology indeed.

Diane

Posted by Diane Ravitch at 7:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Deborah,

You mentioned the new grading system. Our readers may not be aware of what is happening, so let me recapitulate the system as best I can. "Best I can," to be sure, because it is not a transparent system and its calculations are extremely obscure. At bottom, it amounts to this: Each school in the city school district (but not charters) is given a letter grade from A through F. The letter grade is based mainly on the state's standardized test scores. The grade is comprised of both performance (the school's scores) and progress (the school's value-added). Added in are "quality reviews," in which each school is judged by outside reviewers for such things as its environment, as well as surveys completed by parents and teachers. (Editor's note: See Diane's Nov. 14 addendum on the environment component.)

This may not be 100 percent accurate, as the formula is complex. But observers have faulted the system because the underlying tests on which most of the grade is based were not designed for this purpose. Year-to-year fluctuations in scores make such judgments questionable. There is also reason to wonder about the value of giving a school a single letter grade, which stigmatizes some schools and puffs up others. It would be akin to giving a student a single letter grade, and saying in effect, "you are a D student," when it would make far more sense to give grades or evaluative judgments about a student's performance in a variety of subjects, which may be quite variable.

In this new system, which is related to the Florida system of grading schools, some highly reputable schools have received a B or C or even in one case, an F. The high-performing schools are penalized by the grading system because so many of them are near the ceiling and are likely to experience fluctuations down a few points, which condemns them. A much-admired school in Staten Island, for example, received an F, even though its students regularly had the highest scores in its district; but in the last year, the proportion of students who passed the state tests had declined, not by a lot, but nonetheless it was a decline. So this well-respected community institution was graded an F.

Meanwhile, a number of schools that have been identified by the state as failing schools have received an A or B. The Village Voice reported that Stuyvesant High School, one of the competitive schools that is a jewel in the city's crown, initially received a C, but someone talked the higher-ups into raising the grade to an A. I suppose if the grading system had actually awarded a C to Stuyvesant, the grading system would have been laughed out of town. Meanwhile The New York Times reported that Bard Early College High School has protested its C and the president of Bard, Leon Botstein, has made a personal appeal to the chancellor to raise the school's grade to an A.

The best deconstruction of the grading system that I have seen to date is in a marvelous blog called eduwonkette.com. This is an anonymous scholar who is admittedly female, but has otherwise decided, for reasons of prudence, to keep her identity secret. Her analyses of policy decisions have been brilliant, bold, and incisive. Many people are talking about her, because she usually adds a sharp dimension to whatever is in the news. She is wise to remain anonymous. Her bottom line: the methodology used to grade schools is fundamentally inaccurate and invalid.

Parents in some districts are outraged, and educators in outstanding schools that received low grades are demoralized. It is hard to know what the value of this exercise is. The school system's leaders seem to believe that shame and humiliation will incentivize the staff in low-grade schools to do a better job and that this will be sufficient to promote improvement. Of course, the best way for a school to raise its grade will be to focus on the state tests even more than they have done up till now. Some principals will realize that it is time to toss out the arts, physical education, history, and any subject other than reading and math. The only thing that counts is making progress on the state tests.

I don't know if we write too much about New York City, but we have reasons. For one, we both know this system well. For another, New York City is now being touted as a national model after winning the Broad award. Caveat emptor.

Diane

Posted by Diane Ravitch at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Diane,

We've been e-mailing back and forth during this past week—so you already know how shocked I was, even though I might have imagined I was above and beyond shockable.

Some months ago I wrote about my own fears—about potential retaliation against the schools I was most identified with—that might follow my outspoken critiques of their bosses. I am not paranoid enough—perhaps unwisely—to presume that all the bad "luck" that has befallen my beloved NYC schools is due to deliberate sabotage. But it doesn't keep me from worrying when the other shoe will fall with regard to my "legendary" "genius" status. There was always the other side of the coin to all the praise. I consider myself to have outlived my good luck—and wait daily to be "found out." I just wish no one else will pay the price should it happen.

You reminded me at the time that I had nothing to fear: let me see if I can find your response—and quote it here. But none of us are. The degree to which foundations, universities, the media, columnists, editorialists and you name 'em are in some form or other indebted to the Mayor and Chancellor is beyond anything I have seen—since a certain earlier period in Daley's rule in Chicago.

Multiple sources of power and control are useful precisely for this reason. The failures of the old Board as well as the local boards should not have led to eliminating all other forms of lay control. To imagine that the Mayor's future—his or her accountability—can be the one and only back-up for educational policy is absurd. Given that the vast majority of New Yorkers, and its most powerful voters, do not use our schools, it becomes even more ludicrous. And dangerous.

For all the talk of increased autonomy, I know few principals or teachers who see themselves as operating with more freedom and site control. The high schools always had control over their budgets, and the elementary schools could easily have been grand-fathered into the high school system: each school had a formula-based unit allocation. Each unit equaled the average salary of a teacher (approx. $50,000) that could be used to cover virtually all legal and contract-allowable expenses.

The current system of "grading", added to the federal system of AYP, and total central control of principal's tenure is a strangehold on innovative and imaginative practice. Klein acknowledges that it is not a finished product—but the damage it causes is for him just part of the process of getting things right. As were all the biannual reorganizations that have taken place during his tenure. But the actual teachers, principals and parents (plus kids!) who are harmed by these labels are real, live humans and the damage done to them and their schools will not easily be repaired. Klein probably says, hurrah, because it will make them work harder, be more careful and improve children's test scores, etc. I fear he is right. Working harder is not the goal—for kids or adults—although one might think so some days. And given the entrenched inequities of our society we better begin to honor some creative juices within our classrooms and teacher rooms. And finally, the last thing we need is more attention to test scores—at least of the kind of tests that now rule our school lives.

Diane, I think we could make a difference if, whenever someone said that the bottom line is "school achievement", we asked them to replace the phrase with "test scores" on math and reading tests—unless they actually mean something else. Current tests are only a very small part of what should be meant by achievement. What they make no pretense of measuring are most of the things that employers and citizens of this nation claim they want—including those worrying about our economy or participation in our civic life. I'm not always fond of those lists of 21st Century skills, but they largely focus on stuff like perseverance, initiative, meeting deadlines, curiosity, oral language, creativity, team work, "good sense" and so on. Klein's move to start testing of 4- and 5-year-olds threatens further a dangerous trend that is already undermining America's creative head start. (On that note, see Jeannine Ouellette's marvelous summary of the case for children's play.)

Oh dear, Diane. I'm ranting to you, who agree with me. But I simply have to get it off my chest. If they even think of intimidating you, just imagine who else has a right to be fearful. We all have a stake in this—probably least of all you, Diane! It's those more vulnerable than you that this unwarranted attack is perhaps meant to silence—and for that reason we all have a stake in this unwarranted use of public funds and public office. (Editor's note: The underlined text and the "P.S." were initially omitted due to a posting error. Both were added back in on 11/9/07.)

In support, collegiality, solidarity and more arguments.

Deborah

P.S. The nerve of your critics for claiming that you have occasionally changed your mind! When Mr. Klein changes his mind (every other year) he doesn't just upset some people's sensitivities, but he causes time-consuming upheavals in a system in which practitioners are seriously short of time.

Posted by Deborah Meier at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Deb,

What a week this has been!

I received a phone call late last Monday afternoon (Oct. 29) from an editor at the New York Post, offering me a “heads up.” He said, “Just wanted to let you know that there will be a personal attack on you in tomorrow’s paper, on the opinion page.” That was a bit unsettling, to say the least. A few hours later, I received an email from a journalist friend that contained the actual article, with the byline of Kathryn Wylde, the CEO of the New York City Partnership, the organization that represents major corporations in the city. Somehow the article was in circulation before it was published, and the last email—transmitting the article to the Post—was written by Howard Rubenstein, who owns a major public relations firm that is very active in New York politics. So, it was clear that the article came to the Post from a PR firm, and it was not clear who wrote it.

The next day, the article appeared, with a headline calling me a "Hypocritical Critic.” The trigger for the blast at me evidently was an article I had written the previous week, in which I pointed out that the teachers’ union had outsmarted the Mayor and the Chancellor in their recent negotiation over performance pay. Although the Mayor and Chancellor claimed that they had won “merit pay,” what they got instead was a schoolwide bonus plan whose distribution would be decided at every individual school and which might or might not include non-teachers such as secretaries who belong to the union.

But instead of debating the issues, the article was a personal slam at me, attempting to destroy my reputation and credibility because I was not supporting every move of the Klein regime.

The very next day, as I was pondering whether to respond, an article appeared in the New York Sun documenting the fact that Wylde’s attack had been written in concert with operatives at the New York City Department of Education. The Sun reporter, Elizabeth Green, wrote that the DOE had been keeping a file on me, comparing my statements past and present, and this dossier was the basis of the Wylde attack on me.

The next day, the New York Post printed my response to Wylde’s article.

Two points from my article deserve reiteration here. First, I have a right to change my mind, based on observation and experience. As I wrote, I used to think that nothing could be worse than the old Board of Education. But I was wrong. Having watched the Klein team in action for five chaotic years of reorganization and disorganization, having observed their mandates and micromanagement, having seen their disrespect for educators, having seen that they have no educational strategy, only a program of testing and accountability and paying students, teachers, and principals for test scores, the old Board begins to look better and better every day.

The second point is that what they did to me is scary. The fact that they compiled a dossier on me and then turned it over to someone to write an attack is a frightening misuse of government power. They think they did nothing wrong. They think that if journalists and academics can compile files on people, so can they. They forget that they are not journalists or academics: They are government. Wouldn’t you think they have enough to do managing 1,500 schools without having time to pursue those who dare to question their policies?

I forgot to mention one more thing. I discovered last spring that someone from the Department of Education press office was taping my public lectures. The first time I thought it was amusing. The second time I thought it was weird. The third time I thought it was scary. Now I realize that I was under surveillance.

I believe that all of this—the taping, the dossier, the attack by a surrogate—was a blatant effort to silence me. And as I said in my response, if they could silence me, I would serve as an example to anyone else who criticized them.

If any good came of this brouhaha, it was the response of the blogs. From the National Review to the Daily Kos, the condemnation of the DOE’s tactics was swift and strong. And take a look at this spectacular photomontage. I have never been so grateful for the democracy of the blogosphere as I was this past week.

What does this say about the state of education and democracy?

Diane

Posted by Diane Ravitch at 7:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Deb,

I hope we are not disappointing our readers by agreeing more than we disagree. I think I am letting down my part of the bargain by agreeing with you so often, but our areas of convergence became clear from the first time that we sat together almost a year ago to talk about our views about No Child Left Behind. The fact is that you are writing and saying the same things you have believed for a long time, and I am in the process of reconsidering and revising my views on many counts.

I have been doing quite a lot of soul-searching these past couple of years. I don’t think it is because of age, although one can never be too sure about that. I think I am reconsidering first principles because of the very topics that you hit so hard in your latest letter. Living in NYC, I see what happens when businessmen and lawyers take over a school system, attempt to demolish everything that existed before they got there, and mount a dazzling PR blitz to prove that they are successful.

Lest anyone think that what you described is purely a NYC story, consider this: I hear from various people who participated in the judging for the Broad Prize that NYC will win it this year. This is not much of a surprise. When Joel Klein was first named chancellor, Eli Broad held his annual prize event in NYC and handed Klein a huge dummy check and predicted that one day soon this would be his. The $1 million hardly matters to NYC, which has an annual budget that approaches $20 billion, but the prestige is what the city is after. It desperately wants the confirmation from Broad that its new regime has succeeded.

About 18 months ago, I was invited to meet Eli Broad in his gorgeous penthouse in NYC, overlooking Central Park. I hear that he made his billions in the insurance and real estate businesses. I am not sure when he became an education expert. We talked about school reform for an hour or more, and he told me that what was needed to fix the schools was not all that complicated: A tough manager surrounded by smart graduates of business schools and law schools. Accountability. Tight controls. Results. In fact, NYC is the perfect model of school reform from his point of view. Indeed, this version of school reform deserves the Broad Prize, a prize conferred by one billionaire on another.

Thanks for your recommendation about the James Scott book, "Seeing Like a State." I happen to own it, as it had been highly recommended to me by Morton Keller, a historian at Brandeis University. It is a wonderful critique of reforms that seek to overturn the world, of the arrogance of reformers who do not understand the practical wisdom of those who must make decisions every day that respond to unique situations.

As I read "Seeing Like a State," especially its concluding chapters, I kept thinking about the wholesale gutting of the NYC school system by Messrs. Bloomberg and Klein, who are now hailed in the media as our nation’s leading education reformers. Professor Scott, an anthropologist at Yale, would find in NYC a perfect exemplar of men who think they can “see like a state.”

Worse, Deb, they seem to have sought out even the cracks in the sidewalk and tried to pave them over. They seem to have succeeded.

Diane

Posted by Diane Ravitch at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Diane,

I enjoyed (and agreed with) practically every word in your last letter. And I identified with your grief over Molly, too.

I sometimes think I'm exaggerating the dangers facing us—and then I read the Daily News about math scores and think I'm maybe not worrying enough! More on this below.

We may have some sharp disagreements, which we ought to pursue carefully this coming year, but at stake, at the moment, are two greater concerns. One, the continued existence of a public school system. Two, turning the public one that's left into a super-centralized enterprise run by a combination of unaccountable businessmen and distant political interests (ala Mister Barber's British experiment.) Both of these undermine the bottom-line tools for accountability—democracy and honest information.

I note with amusement that, much like education, every few years a new guru arrives with the new answer to how to guarantee business success. He gets fat consulting fees and is soon replaced by another. Yesterday's wonder turns into an ordinary mortal.

You and I are struggling to find democratic ways to bring ends and means together, to serve accountability and good schooling. It's tough. But imposing our pet ideas on over a million unwilling teachers, families, kids is not an answer. Nor is the smash/disappear-the-past strategy. Dictators—too harsh a word for NYC Chancellor Joel Klein?—have an impulse to destroy the old, "fall-back" institutions in hopes that in doing so we can't undo their reforms. That's why I found James Scott's "Seeing Like a State" such a great read, a reminder of what some of us have lived through in the 20th Century. I'm still traumatized by that history of good intentions. Have I over-learned that lesson?

The Klein proclamation in the Daily News is a caricature of the little dictator. An "era is over," he declares. We've gotten rid of the obstructionists—educators. "Accountability", he continues, "isn't optional." Tell that to your friends in high places, Joel, who seem content with their nonaccountability: bail-outs and golden parachutes. See The New York Times, Sept. 2—NY state's fastest growing industry riddled with fraud! Honest data is another victim of dictatorships as the Daily News, generally a friend to Klein, notes in a story on September 4th. "When test scores rise, politicians crow that schools are getting better, but a Daily News analysis of recent standardized math exams and a News experiment suggest another reason: The questions might be getting easier."

Klein acknowledges our discomfort. "Some educators and parents won't be happy, and that's the way it should be. … The truth hurts sometimes." But, too bad, because these tools will "help us manage the entire system more effectively." He truly is a believer. It send chills up and down my spine. It's exactly the mindset that I want schools to help future citizens overcome; because it's a way of thinking (like a State) that is a danger to the concept of democracy itself.

But, Klein and company, like Fred Hess, another pro-business reformer (see The American online July 17) have learned a different lesson from history. Hess urges reformers to "…smash the regulations and support the entrepreneurs who will shake things up." (It's '60s "new left" talk from the right.) Shaking things up over and over is a common thread. You are right, Diane, it does serve a purpose; it makes the objects being shaken feel less and less confident and more hapless. Fear interrupts "resistance."

The other day a friend complain