Month: May 2012

by

Getting off the Reform Train

The National Council of Teachers of English has stepped off the reform train with its “Resolution on Challenging Current Education Policy and Affirming Literacy Educators’ Expertise .”  In 2011 it published a series of books under the general title Supporting Students in a Time of Core Standards. In 2012 it has second-guessed collaboration with the federal reform agenda as  defined by “high-stakes testing and the evaluation of teachers and schools based on students’ test scores.”

At issue is the targeting of schools and teachers as the source of students’ poor performances on standardized tests.  The Department of Education has made teacher evaluation based on students’ test performance an essential prerequisite for the next lap of  “Race to the Top.” In spite of Secretary Arne Duncan’s pro-teacher rhetoric, the reform train has made carrying off ineffective teachers its primary objective.

Employing student test data to evaluate teachers breaks a cardinal rule of psychometrics: that  a test should never be used to assess what it was not designed to assess.  The roar of the reform train has all but drowned out the protests of experts, declaring the misappropriation of test data for assessing teachers.  Ultimately the train has been hijacked by politicians, leaving the psychometricians, literacy specialists, curriculum developers, and practitioners in the station. Politicians, state school administrators and business tycoons have commandeered the locomotive, leaving behind the conductors, the passengers and the freight handlers.

In addition to the critique on high-stakes testing, NCTE has resolved to

  • support ongoing classroom-based assessments consistent with the NCTE/IRA 2009Standards for the Assessment of Reading and Writing;
  • evaluate teachers based on comprehensive measures of effectiveness, such as observations of instruction, teacher portfolios, parent response, and increases in achievement as evidenced by curriculum-based authentic assessments;
  • promote school/home/community partnerships by valuing the voices of all stakeholders who take part in the education of children;
  • support curriculum that develops every student’s intellectual, creative, and physical potential; and
  • provide equitable funding for all schools.

This is the “It-takes-a-Village” approach to school reform, which engages all the stakeholders and attends to the local context to fashion the appropriate strategy for each school.  And it trusts the stakeholders to know and implement what is best for their schools.  No school reform has ever succeeded apart from these principles.

For nearly two decades NCTE has attempted to coordinate its professional resources with the standards movement and with federal programs. Its proposed language arts standards could not pass muster in 1993 and its periodic resolutions on assessment, professional development and literacy have been ignored by each new administration, both Republican and Democrat.  The organization has engaged the standards movement at every station.

As the reform train recedes into the distance, a new vehicle of reform pulls up– the familiar yellow school bus.  The school bus, at least, picks up every student and stops at every school. It is slow, methodical, and a slave to routine, but it serves every constituent on its route.   The reform train drops off its registered packages and clatters on.

by

Reconciliation and Recalcitrance

Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer and you may be thrown into prison. (Matt 5:25)

The recent primary victory of Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock underlined the theme of “principled” leadership, a recognizable message of the Tea Party movement (New York Times, May 9, 2012).  While “principles” are sorely needed in federal politics, they are frequently a code word for recalcitrance and irresponsibility. Sometimes we refer to those who act from inflexible principles as “radicals” or “terrorists.”

I remember the 1970’s as defined by principles. You either favored peace or war, love or hate, freedom or repression. “Radical” was often used positively, as someone who wanted to change what was wrong with society. We acted on principles by marching, sitting in, or impeding traffic.  And we often had positive outcomes: the end of the Vietnam War, Civil Rights legislation, the exposure of Watergate.

But the radicals of the 1970’s were assimilated into government, institutions of social reform, even into churches.  They realized that they could change institutions from within and by negotiation, instead of by naked resistance. “Reformer” became the preferred term for “radical.”

The Tea Party represents contemporary radicalism, along with the “Occupy” movement. The difference is that the Tea Party wants to radicalize from within. They assume they can jam the cogs of government by their intractability.  They operate on pledges and vows that make their representatives pawns of their principles.  This is probably not what the Founders had in mind for a government of checks and balances. It is probably not what Jesus had in mind when he exhorted his followers to honor the principles of the law.

The fifth chapter of Matthew, the Beatitudes,  is all about reconciliation with enemies, reconciliation with spiritual brothers and sisters, reconciliation with the adversary taking you to court. The whole notion of “settling out of court,” which is advocated by Matthew 5:25, should be of particular interest to those who think our society is too litigious.

But Jesus was not merely concerned with short-circuiting the justice system, he was interested in reconciliation, bringing foes together, dissolving feuds.  And it is in this teaching that he undermines radicalism as we know it. He wants parties to be reconciled and to work together. He wants compromise and forgiveness.

I don’t like Christians who challenge my morality on the basis of partial reading of scripture, so I don’t wish to force my reading on others. But I see the Beatitudes as a central message of the Gospels, and the theme of reconciliation as the essence of Jesus’ teaching, and I think radicals ought to consider it, along with the notion of principle.  “Principle” can be suffocating and polarizing to mutual destruction.

The “judge” in Matthew 5:25 could be the Judge of all. The Gospels are suffused with stories of unforgiving masters and ruthless judges, whom God will not forgive.  Radicalism, while admirable in those who sacrifice their livelihood for their beliefs, can also destroy those who are trying to lead and mediate. A “principled”  stand can be alienating and deadly.

So judge carefully whether what you call “principle” is merely “recalcitrance” and ruthless opposition.