Also, many of the tests have serious validity and reliability issues. They are reliable in measuring what is tested in the test, but not necessarily reliable in measuring the breadth of the standards for that test (ie: one question on standard E.4.6 is not enough).

The tests are not diagnostic in nature – in many cases, the tests do not provide teachers or parents with a true picture of the child – you don’t get any feedback that allows you to actually help the child. Sure, the test shows they are bad at math, but is it because they struggle with number sense? geometry? etc.

Someone mentioned change in education must happen bottom up. Technology is supposed to be the leveling field where even teachers serving the poorest demographic can gain access to 2.0 apps and free open source software. And yet, most teachers do not know about it nor have the energy to find out how to get the most out of technology in their classrooms. Having sat through many public school inservice meetings I can see why they are resistant to new stuff coming down the pike. Politics so often dictate the next big thing and for some reason, almost all of the inservice speakers (in Ga.) talked to the audience as if we were children or dumb.

Obama implores parents to put away electronic games and spend time with their kids as education starts at home. I thought that was pretty powerful statement as the finger is usually pointed at teachers. I wish he would have elaborated and offered solutions to get all parents on board. I think education policy must take into account socioeconomic factors and work toward making improvements in providing education that will provide a sustainable profession within a student’s skill set. In addition to technology based classes, we should bring back home ec type classes that teach parenting skills and how to manage finances. In poverty stricken districts small steps like these could result in strides the following generation.

I totally agree. Too often, people think that the solution to problems in education is to buy more “stuff” or to test the children more. The most important component of quality education is a great teacher, but too many potentially great teachers are leaving the profession in the face of overwhelming public criticism and lack of respect. Public school education will not improve until TEACHING is valued by the general public, and TEACHERS are supported.

Second, I want to comment on the following quote: “You want to make the most of the stimulus? Invest it in getting teachers and students connected, and in professional development that goes far, far beyond the one-day PowerPoint workshops many are mired in to something that focuses on how learning changes in a networked world.”

I think too much emphasis is placed on improving test scores and not enough on what matters the most…student skills. And how are students going to improve their skills, if their teachers’ skills are outdated? Teacher training is one of the most important aspects of improving the educational system. Without good teachers, the students would not be able to improve to the best of their capabilities.

There are elements within every school system beyond the control of the teacher that effect a student’s quality of education and effect a teachers ability to teach. There are systemic limitations, traditions, and social dynamics that contribute to the relative success or failure of a group of students. A teacher might be exceptional but under a poor system their students don’t reach the level of achievement that otherwise would have been possible. Some examples of this are:

1. Strict separation of content areas
2. Pavlonian bell schedules
3. Mandate that teachers assign extrinsic rewards for learning (grades, honor roll, etc.)
4. Degree to which staff members collaborate
5. Teacher evaluation rubrics (how the teacher’s performance is measured by administrators on performance evaluations shapes and limits pedagogy)

I could go on…

So, given these limitations teachers who perform well under the limitations they are presented with should be rewarded even though they might not be as effective as they would be in better schools. You can have a bad school with some good teachers.

As for the time requirement for all these tests, I don’t see the time requirement as all that large. How often do students need to take these tests? They don’t even take them every year. If you are taking a lot of time for the test that indicates that you are teaching to the test. That is not what the tests are meant to do. They are supposed to measure what they have learned and the data be used to help inform instruction and curriculum. You can’t really teach to the test anyway because you never know quite what will be on the test. Besides, if you did not “teach to the test” and the kids did poorly it should be designed to indicate that either the wrong curriculum is being taught, curriculum is not aligned to the standards, or there really is something wrong with the instruction. However, I don’t see this measure for teacher effectiveness to be a pass/fail condition. Rather it ought to measure student growth. Your student who improved by 3 grade levels in reading but failed the test anyway should give you high marks as a teacher anyway.

So, teach what you should be teaching. Align your curriculum to the state standards. Focus on learning content and teaching for understanding. Then, take the one day they have to take the test for the test. Now, what we should be discussing is the value this kind of testing has for the students. The value for assessing programs is evident but when is a high-stakes test ever good for kids?

How do you separate teacher effectiveness and school performance? Isn’t one tied to the other? I know that there are other factors in the school effectiveness equation, but I don’t think you can evaluate teachers one way and the schools on another.

And what about the time requirements of all of this testing? How is that beneficial to anyone?

I’ve also seen time mentioned in a previous comment, and I think it was a generous estimate. I counted the days I use for “testing.” Between state tests, district tests and time to review for those tests, it takes 10 weeks out of a 5th grader’s school year. Over 1/4 of the year! They test 4 times a year in 4 subjects for the district (as does every grade) and once a year in 5 subjects for the state. It’s ridiculous.

To answer your question, how do you evaluate the quality of what a teacher does… come sit in my classroom. Watch me teach. Then, if you have problems at least it will be because of something I did or didn’t do.

Great question. I think I have an answer to that question. We will go about it by participating in reflective practice and networking to share our knowledge, passion, and expertise. I am involved in a project right now exploring the start up of a teacher run charter school within schools (digitally connected classrooms) that will hopefully act to improve schools through the use of charter law. This school would be located in Minnesota but the model will hopefully be replicable in other states and communities. We are seeking transparency, mass input, and community participation in the planning of this project and we welcome all who are interested to join us in this project. To participate you can joint our ning: http://wetccharter.ning.com/

-Carl Anderson

I’d like to be able to tell you I can figure it out all on my own…but guess what? I can’t…and I’ll bet I’m not alone. I think we all agree that the old system doesn’t work and we can certainly all site the reasons why; but for the love of heaven, can we move past that discussion and begin to take action? Can we use our network to begin to truly articulate the steps that need to be taken to affect real change? I know this is a tall order but quite honestly, my head is dizzy from trying to make sense out of all the conflicting pieces of advice being thrown around out there. It has rendered me virtually immobilized and unsure of how to proceed.

Traditional public school have fallen into a situation where three pillars of governance work against each other and have built a house that is rock steady and unmovable in a time when we need it to be mobile. School boards, administrations, and teacher unions tend to work against each other on issues of change. Additionally, the teacher unions hold a valuable and dangerous card in this game. The tenure system acts as a perpetual get-out-of jail card that simultaneously keeps good teachers with views opposing one of the two other pillars from being fired but it also keeps poor teachers from being removed from their positions.

Enter standardized testing and charter schools. There has to be a way of holding delinquent teachers accountable and removing them from their jobs if they do not perform. The traditional system has also created a condition where all motivation (for all parties involved) is extrinsic. The answer teacher unions always have for anything is “if you give us more $ it will happen.” So, if teachers in the traditional system will only respond to extrinsic rewards for good performance than merit pay makes sense.

The charter law, in states where it is written the way it was supposed to be written, provides a way out for teachers. By law schools by charter ought to be created, run, and managed by teachers. Teachers can choose to leave the traditional schools and form their own schools. This was the case with Minnesota New Country School, the first charter school in the nation. The stagnation, inflexibility, and extrinsic nature of the traditional system ought to encourage teachers who teach for the right reasons to want to leave and form schools that make more sense. Unfortunately the charter law has not always followed suit with this ideology and the same top-down garbage we see in the traditional schools publicly often occurs corporately with billionaire sponsored charter schools. If the charter laws are written to prevent charters from looking and acting like privately run traditional schools we have a chance of making this work.

Let the traditional schools be places where people can go to learn or work who need extrinsic motivators to do everything and reward those who do well and let the charter schools become centers of learning and teaching driven by intrinsic motivators. Or, lets just close down all the traditional schools and start new charter schools organized and run by teachers. When you run your own program and the existence of that program depends on its quality the motivation will be there. Teachers need to stop thinking of teaching as a job and start thinking of it as a career. If the pressures of NCLB, merit pay, and charter schools encourage this shift I am all for it.

I think we all agree that while state tests totally blow, school, teacher, and student assessment is still absolutely necessary.

Isn’t it obvious that state and federal governments are too far removed from schools to appropriately assess them? What the state and federal levels should be spending their money and time on is developing frameworks for whole school assessment by local communities. The educational experts on those levels could do a good job of creating the “rules” by which schools can be assessed, but only people who actually live and work in the communities that schools serve can fairly and completely assess them.

The more top-down that federal and state governments treat education, the more screwed up education is going to get. Since state and federal level people don’t have a clear understanding of the needs at the local levels, they tend to interpret the data they get from the local levels in all the wrong ways, making bad decisions based on incorrect assumptions.

These state/federal level people mean well, but they think that it is up to them to lead us all into 21st century learning by holding everyone to “higher standards” and cracking down on obviously misbehaving schools and districts. They need to realize that real leadership on their part is going to require them to, ironically, do the same things that the move to 21st century learning will require of teachers – to stop “teaching” the facts and start “facilitating” the the learning journey.

I had a similar reaction yesterday.
http://md400edtech.blogspot.com/2009/02/money-for-nothing.html

Much as I supported Obama throughout the primaries and election, I have always hated his education policies. Anyone who speaks of education only as a way to be “competitive” in a “global market” simply lacks a vision of what education can and should be about.

I too am terribly disappointed in both the speech and the choice of Duncan as S.o.E.

What an incredible opportunity wasted.