Living in Dialogue

I have been impressed by President-elect Obama’s pledge to steer clear of ideologically-driven policies, and instead choose to make policy based on the best ideas, regardless of their origin or political correctness. In that spirit, let’s take a look at the hot-button issue of assessment.

From former test-scorer Todd Farley comes a confession that the test scores by which our schools are judged are less than reliable. Mr. Farley worked scoring the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which calls itself nothing less than “The Nation’s Report Card.” He writes:

There’s not enough column space in this newspaper to list the myriad discrepancies I’ve seen in the scoring of short-answer/essay questions on “standardized” tests, but in my opinion, test scoring is akin to a scientific experiment in which everything is a variable. Everything. In my experience, the score given to every open-ended response, and ultimately the final results given to each student, depended as much on the vagaries of the testing industry as they did on the quality of student answers.

Mr. Farley goes on to describe in detail the limitations of his fellow scorers, some of whom had a limited grasp of the English language, and one who was unaware that he was actually scoring student work.

Of course you would never guess that there was any question about reliability from visiting the NAEP website. Nor would you guess from policy proposals that have emerged from the wreckage of NCLB that suggest that NAEP be used as the basis for some kind of national standardized test, allowing comparisons of students across the country. In fact, NAEP tests are so highly regarded that the No Child Left Behind Act requires states to participate in NAEP as a condition of receiving federal Title I funds.

I do not really know if NAEP is any better or worse than other standardized tests. I just hope that this revelation helps us look beyond the supposed precision provided by those ever-so-scientific looking test scores.

I also hope this leads us to take a broader view of assessment. Classroom-based assessments are often discounted as being unreliable and subjective. The role of the teacher has been reduced as standardized tests have become the crucial judges of our success. But when we read how the NAEP is being scored, we get the feeling that the vaunted objectivity of standardized tests may be less than it has been cracked up to be.

Research has shown that high school grades assigned by teachers are the best predictors of success in college, so maybe teachers are not as unreliable and subjective as we thought. Perhaps it is time to reinvest in teacher-based assessment practices. Teachers need to learn to assess more deeply, and apply what they are learning to provide students with timely feedback. It will take professional development and time to develop these skills. But if we took all the energy and resources that now go into high stakes tests and test preparation and turned that energy towards smarter authentic assessment practices, linked directly to classroom learning, I believe we would see better results, both in terms of the quality of assessment, and in terms of better-informed instruction.

If you aren't sure what I mean by authentic assessment, take a look at some of the resources here on this site hosted by the University of Wisconsin-Stout, and this Authentic Assessment Toolbox created by Jon Mueller.

What do you think about the validity of high stakes tests such as the NAEP? How do you think our assessment practices should be strengthened?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 1:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

We are seeing a cathartic and disruptive economic realignment occur before our very eyes. Our auto industry has failed to anticipate shifting demands, and is now in a very difficult position. The industry sold 16 million cars last year, and will only sell 12 million this year. The challenge the industry faces is that what they have become accustomed to doing no longer works.

The rest of us are also in for an economic storm of monumental proportions. As teachers, we may feel a bit less vulnerable than people in other sectors, but we are not immune. The source of our pay is being rapidly eroded – there is just a lag before we will feel the full effect. My state of California is facing a $28 billion budget shortfall this year – and that is about 20% of the state’s budget. Roughly 40% of the state’s budget goes to public education, and teacher pay and benefits make up a large component of that. Connecticut faces a $6 billion shortfall, and state support to schools is likely to be cut by as much as 30 percent. Other states across the country are in similar dire straits, and will be looking at ways to cut costs.

Unlike the auto industry, the source of this crisis has nothing to do with our ability to sell our product. Nonetheless, crises such as these are being used across the country to destroy the living standards of working people, and teachers need to be prepared. The auto industry is about to go bankrupt, and some, such as Mitt Romney, are cheering the prospect because it will allow the reduction of worker’s pay and retirement benefits.

Teacher unions played an important role in winning the pay and benefits we now have. If you entered a school in the United States in the 1920’s you would probably find elementary teachers who were exclusively female, and paid at a significantly lower rate than high school teachers. Teachers served at the pleasure of local school boards, and faced arbitrary dismissal. The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers had a combined membership of less than 100,000. The Great Depression of the 1930’s put tremendous pressure on the profession, and many teachers were forced to sign loyalty oaths and contracts pledging not to join a union. The Depression shrank tax revenues, much as we are seeing happen today. Schools lacked money for basic supplies, and teachers copied texts longhand so students would have enough copies. Sound familiar?

Today, the AFT and NEA have more than four million members, making these the largest unions in the nation. Our profession is too big a target to remain secure in the coming tribulations. We too will soon find ourselves the target of editorials complaining about our “Cadillac health care,” overly generous retirement benefits, and luxurious summers spent lolling at the beach. The teacher unions helped win our rights and benefits, and will continue to be valuable in defending them.

The quality of our schools absolutely depend on steady investment. Over the past decade we have greatly increased the demands on our schools. We want lower dropout rates and improved student performance, but the funding has not risen to match these demands. The teaching profession can attract and retain talented, creative teachers only when we offer a sustainable package of pay and benefits.

On the bright side, we will soon have an administration in Washington decidedly more sympathetic than its predecessor. Linda Darling-Hammond, one of Obama’s leading advisors, has defended his plans to increase federal spending on education by $29 billion. A recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle report provides her perspective.

"This is decimal dust in the federal budget," she said. The $29 billion Obama wants to add for education "is less than 10 percent of the weapons cost-overrun announced last summer," she said. "It's less than 1 percent of what the bailout is anticipated to cost."

Unfortunately, school funding is primarily a local and state function, so even this increase will not supplant the shortfalls we are seeing.

The genius of FDR was that he understood that the only way our economy would emerge from the Depression was if ordinary people were put to work, and our infrastructure was strengthened. Our schools are an important part of our nation’s infrastructure. In the plan Obama announced this week to create 2.5 million jobs, the modernization of schools is a major project. Hopefully our states will realize that modern school buildings won’t do much good without expert teachers. The future of our society depends on how well our children are educated. Just as in the Great Depression, our unions will have an important role in allowing us to stick together as teachers to make sure our profession and our schools remain a priority.

What does the budget look like in YOUR state? How do you think teachers should respond to the threat of major cuts due to the recession?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 3:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

There has been a great deal of speculation about President-elect Obama’s choice for Secretary of Education. Obama has called for a new era of mutual responsibility in education, and it will take an extraordinary leader to rally educators and the nation at large to this task. Many names have been mentioned, but I am going to write about two with whom I am acquainted, and open up the discussion for your ideas as well.

One candidate is Dr. Pedro Noguera. I attended UC Berkeley with Dr. Noguera back in the 1980’s, and worked with him on various projects, including a campaign to get the university to withdraw its investments from businesses involved in the apartheid regime in South Africa. He emerged as a strong leader in that movement, and went on to become a professor of sociology at the university.

He became active in the Berkeley public schools, where his children were enrolled, and served on the school board. His book, Unfinished Business, took a close look at the dynamics of race and achievement at Berkeley High School. He is now an NYU education professor, and has written several books focused on closing the achievement gap, urban education and the particular challenges facing African American boys in school. He has written critically about No Child Left Behind, and spoken widely on education reform.

Another leading candidate for the post is Stanford professor Linda Darling-Hammond. She has been one of Obama’s primary advisors on education issues, and represented his views in a debate with a McCain representative held last month.

I first learned about Dr. Darling-Hammond’s work ten years ago, when I read her book, The Right to Learn.

In it she wrote passionately about the need for a stronger teaching profession, and provided a powerful critique of the status quo:

It has taken nearly a century to discover that, as a form of organization, bureaucracy lacks the tools to manage complex work, handle the unpredictable, or meet distinctive client needs. By its very nature, bureaucratic management is incapable of providing appropriate education for students who do not fit the mold upon which prescriptions for practice are based. As inputs, processes, and measures of outcomes are increasingly standardized, the cracks through which students can fall grow larger rather than smaller because the likelihood that each accumulated prescription is suitable for a given child grows smaller with each successive limitation upon a teachers' ability to adapt instruction to students' needs. Bureaucratic solutions to problems of practice will always fail because effective teaching is not routine, students are not passive, and questions of practice are not simple, predictable or standardized. Consequently, instructional decisions cannot be formulated on high then packaged and handed down to teachers. Nor can instructional problems be solved by inspectors who make occasional forays into the classroom to monitor performance and dispense advice without an intimate knowledge of the classroom context, the subject matter being taught, the goals of instruction, and the development of individual children.

Instead of “bureaucratic solutions,” Darling-Hammond has been a powerful proponent of a strengthened teaching profession. She actively supported the creation of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and created the National Board Resource Center at Stanford University, which has helped hundreds of candidates (including myself) achieve certification over the past decade. She has written extensively on how teaching and learning actually work, looking in-depth at how we can identify and promote teacher quality. She has been critical of No Child Left Behind and the emphasis on “testing rather than investing.”

An online petition has been started urging President-elect Obama to select Dr. Darling-Hammond.

From my point of view, either of these individuals would be an excellent choice, because both of them bring a powerful dedication to the needs of our students, and will be forceful advocates for school improvement. They are both, like Obama himself, articulate and passionate in their beliefs, and could offer us the fresh start we need.

Update: Today's San Francisco Chronicle says

It's been a busy week for Linda Darling-Hammond, a Stanford University education professor who heads back to Washington, D.C., on Sunday to preside over the start of what she hopes will be a new - and better funded - era for public schools.

Darling-Hammond, a teacher-friendly educator, has been tapped by President-elect Barack Obama to head his transition team on education policy.

Whom do you think President-elect Obama should choose for this job? Why?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 7:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBacks (0)

In his speech on election night, President-elect Obama said

I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way its been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

Our schools will be remade this same way, classroom by classroom. We are fifty-four years beyond the ruling by the Supreme Court, Brown vs. Board of Education, which struck down the “separate but equal” doctrine that had sanctioned school segregation across the land. The National Guard was sent to Little Rock, Arkansas, fifty years ago, to protect nine African American students brave enough to integrate a previously all-white high school.

Ten years later, when I was ten years old, I was a participant in the Berkeley public school’s voluntary school integration program, which mixed students from different neighborhoods across the city. A decade further, as a college student, I worked with my peers to push for greater opportunities for students of color. The better part of decade later I started my career teaching in the Oakland public schools.

But we still have a long way to go. We have a vague aspiration, as a nation, to provide equal educational opportunities to all of our children. I do not think I need to document the many ways our schools still fall short. From the achievement gap, to the dropout rate, to the outrageous number of young people we incarcerate, to the appalling turnover rate among our teaching staff, there are plenty of indicators that tell us we are far from where we ought to be.

The approach taken by the Bush administration with No Child Left Behind has had a paradoxical effect. In a strange way, unfairly focusing so much responsibility and blame on teachers actually has left us feeling LESS accountable. After all, if goals are set impossibly high, we simply shrug our shoulders and accept that there is no way to succeed. Instead of motivating us to reach higher, we wind up becoming cynical and demoralized, less able to accept responsibility for our results.

President-elect Obama has described a fresh approach. Speaking to the National Education Association last July, he said:

I am tired of hearing teachers blamed for our problems. I want to lead a new era of mutual responsibility in education. One where we all come together, parents and educators and the NEA and the leaders in Washington, citizens all across America united for the sake of our children’s success.

Obama has also spoken forcefully about the need for parents to make sure their children are doing their homework. And he has made it clear that expanding early education is a high priority that will not be sacrificed even when the budgets get hammered.

This is a completely different accountability structure. For the first time in a long time, it feels as if teachers are not in this struggle alone.

What will this new era of mutual responsibility look like? We know we have a big set of responsibilities as teachers. We are aware that an effective teacher can have a huge impact on the success of her students. We know that when teachers collaborate, support one another and share their expertise, we can create powerful learning communities at our schools. We know that student achievement grows when we assess learning and provide focused, timely feedback. We know our students do much better when their families are actively involved in the process. A greater engagement between school and community means we put a priority on demonstrating student learning, through public displays of academic excellence.

Our schools need to be reorganized to create space in a teacher’s day to expand these professional activities. We cannot simply add these responsibilities to a ten-hour workday. If we value collaboration, there must be time and compensation provided for it. We should also be willing to consider redesigned pay systems to provide incentives for teachers to expand leadership roles, to gain new skills, and to teach in underserved areas.

Mutual responsibility also means our communities expand their engagement in the educational process. More volunteers can step forward to help our students learn to read and write, and explore the arts in ways that reflect the values and aspirations of our communities. Businesses can actively engage with our high schools, to provide role models and internships to show our students the real-world value of their educational opportunities.

President-elect Obama’s election-night speech last week was sober. He warned,

This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other.

That sounds like a good deal to me.

So what do YOU think of President-elect Obama's approach? What might "mutual accountability" look like to you in your community?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

I was born in 1958, and grew up in Berkeley, California, in the 1960s and 1970s. It was a tumultuous time, and my parents were deeply involved in the affairs of the day. But we did not even own a television until the spring of 1968, as the Democratic convention approached. The country then was in fear. We were in the midst of the war in Vietnam, and the Civil Rights Movement was unfinished business. In April of that year, Martin Luther King, Jr, was murdered by a white supremacist.

Richard Nixon won that election – having roused the “silent majority” of voters who feared the social changes under way, and thought he might stem the tide and preserve “law and order.” He, ironically, became the first president forced to resign for his own criminal activities.

This election we are sensing a seismic political shift. Our students, as usual, have been ahead of the rest of us. USA Today reported that Obama won national student polls by 18 points, 57% for Obama to 39% for McCain.

In 1968, Walter Cronkite brought the Democratic convention into our living room in black and white. This year in my home, the TV is tuned to CNN and MSNBC, and on my laptop, I check political blogs for the very latest tidbits, polling results and analysis.

The election results in 1968 and 1972 reflected an electorate that wanted to stave off change. The result this year is not in as I write this, but if the poll of our students is any indication, we may have an electorate ready to embrace change, and I have never seen people – especially the youth -- so excited and motivated about an election.

How does this election compare to others you have experienced? How have your students been reacting to the process? What do you think the election results tell us about the direction of the country?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 5:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)