On September 4, I posted two things about Marc Tucker’s latest accountability proposals. One was a brief summary of his ideas. I was especially impressed by the point he made that no other advanced nation tests as much as we do.
The second was a critique of Tucker’s accountability plan by Anthony Cody.
Cody wrote the following:
““We need to learn (and teach) the real lesson of NCLB – and now the Common Core. The problem with NCLB was not with the *number* of tests, nor with when the tests were given, nor with the subject matter on the tests, or the format of the tests, or the standards to which the tests were aligned.
“The problem with NCLB was that it was based on a false premise, that somehow tests can be used to pressure schools into delivering equitable outcomes for students. This approach did not work, and as we are seeing with Common Core, will not work, no matter how many ways you tinker with the tests.
“The idea that our education system holds the key to our economic future is a seductive one for educators. It makes us seem so important, and can be used to argue for investments in our schools. But this idea carries a price, because if we accept that our economic future depends on our schools, real action to address fundamental economic problems can be deferred. We can pretend that somehow we are securing the future of the middle class by sending everyone to preschool – meanwhile the actual middle class is in a shambles, and college students are graduating in debt and insecure.
“The entire exercise is a monumental distraction, and anyone who engages in this sort of tinkering has bought into a shell game, a manipulation of public attention away from real sources of inequity.
“We need some accountability for children’s lives, for their bellies being full, for safe homes and neighborhoods, and for their futures when they graduate. Once there is a healthy ecosystem for them to grow in, and graduate into, the inequities we see in education will shrink dramatically. But that requires much broader economic and social change — change that neither policymakers or central planners like Tucker are prepared to call for.”
For some reason, Tucker decided that Cody and I are one and the same person, apparently using different names when it suits our purpose. Cody wrote the second piece, and I quoted it.
I actually think that Tucker agrees with Cody, and I agree with them both, on the main issues at hand. We all agree that our schools would have higher test scores if there were less poverty. I think I can safely say that we believe that more testing and higher stakes won’t reduce poverty. I think I can say we agree that teachers should have better preparation for their work, more mentoring and support, and higher salaries. (Marc, correct me if I am wrong.)
Maybe where we diverge is on the value of high-stakes standardized tests. I don’t think they are necessary to improve teaching and learning. If they were, we would surely see them used at Sidwell Friends, Lakeside Academy, Groton, Dalton, Exeter, and Deerfield Academy. Instead, these institutions have small classes, respect their experienced teachers, have extensive programs in the arts, a well-stocked library, and assure that all students have a full and balanced curriculum. These schools do not judge their teachers by value-added metrics based on test scores. They are not faced annually with the threat of budget cuts and layoffs.
That’s what I want for all children. Marc, let me know where we disagree.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Watch while he move the shells and the pea around the table
sorry, I mean type”… ‘moves’ the shells and the pea around the table”
Can schools without due process protections for teachers respect experienced teachers?
It is often argued here that without those protections, experienced teachers would be fired, yet I do not believe the schools that Dr. Ravitch mentions, (Sidwell Friends, Lakeside Academy, Groton, Dalton, Exeter, and Deerfield Academy) gives “due process” protections to their faculty.
Obviously, you haven’t ever had a vindictive principal, TE. I had a principal who relished abusing people just for the power of it. Many of her things made no sense. We began being yelled at for things we didn’t even do. It took us a while to realize that a frequent substitute was listening in the faculty room at lunch, twisting our words, and tattling on us to the principal, who would take this sub at her word and turn around and yell at us. Makes no sense, but it happened.
Furthermore, the pricey private schools realize that disruption is harmful to the education process and try to keep faculty and students and parents happy by not rearranging people all the time. Some public school districts haven’t figured this out yet (including mine). Reformers keep pushing districts to be “creatively disruptive,” which is totally wrong for schools, but it brings the money in that districts desperately need. Furthermore, a lot of district leaders these days have no education experience and may not realize or care about what disruption does to schools. We had a taste of that at my school this year when the district moved my entire administration to other schools and replaced them with brand new people. While these new administrators are fine, the old ones were good, too, and the disruption of an entirely new administration has thrown our whole school community for a loop.
Certainly pricey private schools must have vindictive principals, too, no?
C’mon, FLERP! Unlike other things people argue about, “due process” is actually written in a Constitutional Amendment! Why Reformers want to reject very American ideas as due process, democratically elected school boards, and freedom to assemble speaks volumes as to how they think. All the while claiming to be “for the kids”.
Due process should be available to every American worker from day one.
When fasicm comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a box of standardized tests.
Sure, Flerp. BUT, they don’t last too long, because nothing talks better than money. A wealthy private school doesn’t dare upset parents, so if someone gets in there that is vindictive, they are quickly gone. Meanwhile, in my school, where there are a lot of kids moving in and out, and parents barely making ends meet, my school doesn’t have a lot of people throwing a fit to the district, so weird stuff can happen without anyone in power caring. Don’t get me wrong–my current administration is fine. But this previous principal was at the school for eight years, had a faculty turnover of between 60-75 percent per year, and was even made state principal of the year, and no one seemed to notice.
You would have to ask the teachers at the elite schools. The accepted top institutions in post secondary have due process. Are you saying that experienced teachers will always be valued and treated fairly without due process?
MathVale,
I don’t think teachers will always be treated in any particular way.
“Due process” is, or at least should be, a perquisite of working for publicly funded institutions. Teachers in private schools, like college professors, are under contract to the institution. They are not subject to “hire and fire at will” management policies.
How would that compare with a Success Academy/TFA contractual relationship, for instance?
Micheal,
Teachers at the k-12 schools Dr. Ravitch specifically mentions are all apparently well respected and all at will employees like me.
TE, may we assume that you do not have tenure, since you are an at-will employee? I have never had tenure but I believe that all teachers should have due process, certainly after serving satisfactorily in accord with the laws of their state.
Dr. Ravitch,
That is correct that I do not have tenure and have never held a tenure track position. I am surprised to learn that anyone with the title research professor would not have tenure. The title of professor is only given to tenure track faculty at my institution. Of course private schools like NYU might have a very different culture.
Diane is quite well armed to deal with your lack of information. But, enough, already of your scheisse, TE, you know nothing about the distinctions amongst teaching ranks and designations at institutions of higher learning. .
John a,
I think I know a thing or two after over three decades in post secondary institutions, but perhaps you might educate me.
Diane has, above, dealt with your scheisse.
TE, I started as an assistant professor (without tenure) at Teachers College, Columbia University; over a 20-year career there, I rose gradually to become a full professor (without tenure). After 2 years as Assistant Secretary of Education for Research in the first Bush administration, I was hired as a full professor (without tenure) at New York University, where I have been for 20 years. I don’t know how it works at your university, that’s how it works at mine.
Dr. Ravitch,
Certainly an unusual academic history. At every college or university I have been associated with, full and associate professors all have tenure (in promotion to associate is required for tenure). Sometimes the modifier “visiting” is used to signify that a professor does not have tenure at the university where they are teaching.
Perhaps this unusual job has something to do with the status of women in the profession when you began your career or the practices in the school of education. Are you currently in a history department?
Honestly? No contract? Public school teachers at least sign a contract. I would have thought that private school teachers signed a contract as well.
I have done sub-contract labor (carpentry) for most of my life. Even there, a verbal agreement is a binding contract. I have recently been to court with the state and won on exactly that basis. “due process”
Michael,
I think it is likely that they have an annual contract, but certainly not the sort of due process that is typical for a public school teacher.
Is this the only “full professor” position in the United States that comes without tenure?
WT,
Bro ably not the only one but certainly rare. At my university the title professor is reserved for tenure stream faculty.
Perhaps some professional schools have different practices.
Maybe another arena of contention is the validity and strategic value of international comparisons in changing the current direction of education reform.
No one, I think challenges the idea that a high-quality education is valuable for individual economic advancement, that the overall capacity of a countries workforce is a important (but not sole) strategic feature of overall economic progress and that particular capacities will either position countries to feature either high or low wage jobs. However, without a complete restructuring of our economy it is hard to support the idea that better education will enable everyone to “escape from poverty.” Rather overall improvement will make competition for limited high-wage jobs more fair. Hence, many who are concerned with poverty do not adopt a sole focus on education.
Our central problem is how to make leaders change the current direction. To do so, we need to create positive public pressure for more equitable democratic education. If we want strong arguments to counter the current direction, then “we’re fall in behind….” is not the most convincing and activating for a public that needs to demand that policy makers change direction.
I offered some suggestions here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/08/20/the-strategic-campaign-public-education-supporters-need-in-nine-steps/
http://www.arthurcamins.com
FLERP. it would not demonstrate appropriate manners for “pricey private schools” to have vindictive principals; it would create an untold messy situation. Vindictive principals are, ioso facto, limited to messy, under performing public schools, Every one know that to be a fact,
John a,
It seems to me that you are arguing here that there is a systematic difference between private schools (and presumably elite traditional public schools) and underperforming public schools. Private schools will have fewer poor administrators because of the “mess” it creates there, but the mess is tolerated at underperforming public schools. Is that correct?
TE,
I will probably regret responding to you, but here goes: the “mess” (probably a poor word choice), depending on perspective, may or may not be more tolerated at ANY public school, but the Principal may retain formal due process rights.. The “mess” is probably less tolerated at private schools (pricey, elite, or not) because administrators (and teachers) probably lack any formal due process rights, unless mandated by individual contract..
End of discussion.
That certainly seems like a reasonable explanation though not an advertisement for due process rights. The ability of the students to leave a private school if it is badly run probably also plays a role.
Teachers have always been accountable for the performance of their students.. What has changed since NCLB is the assaultive and insulting top down, unrealistic testing regime that has been imposed on public education. There has been a relentless war on public teachers and their bargaining units. Teachers have been vilified and misrepresented by the entertainment industry, the media and the press while private schools and charters get a “pass go” from the chaos and vice grip management of the government. Public schools have been given unrealistic expectations such as the built in failure outcome of for the final year of NCLB while bogus performance formulas have determined how much money a teacher can take home. Teachers are tired of being scapegoated as the main problem in American education. They should be real agents of change as part of the solution since they actually have training and experience in education, not economics or business. While some reformers have genuine ideas and are motivated by a desire to improve American education, most are clueless deformers with an eye on profit and the bottom line. Too many American children, particularly minority children of poverty, are being subjected to a substandard factory model of “education” that is failing and siphoning much needed funds and resources from public schools. Our best hope for American education is quality public education for all American children. If parents want something else for their children, they should pay for it themselves instead of trying to defund public schools.
Well said.
Lengthy arguments like the ones above make me see “blah blah blah” and soon I’m losing interest in having my mind expanded and/or changed/challenged to see the good in CC. What I do know as to math, 2 + 2 will always equal 4, because math doesn’t lie. The “simple” math questions posed under common core to youngsters, that should be basic, are not. If you took 10 rocks and put them on a table and removed 2, even a kid in pre-k, assuming that kid could count (I’m talking 3 and 4 year olds…I’d assume they could count) could then figure it out – 10 take away 2 equals 8, even if by taking away 2 they count the remaining rocks from 1 to 8. It just doesn’t seem to be so under the common core. It seems it is meant to confuse, befuddle and insert mystery where it does not exist, nor need to exist. Early math is pretty fundamental, but not under the cc math problems. My 2 cents.
You think the “arguments” posited above are “lengthy?”
Seriously?
You got it! The goal is to confuse, the CC does not ask a straight forward question.
There is an inherent conundrum in using “Sidwell Friends, Lakeside Academy, Groton, Dalton, Exeter, and Deerfield Academy” as the baseline: they all have endowments and all are selective. A better baseline would be, say, Scarsdale, New Trier, or any affluent public school system. If the definition of “adequacy” were based on the kinds of programs offered at the most well funded public schools we would have a more level playing field. http://waynegersen.com/2012/06/23/adequacy-equity-and-broad-based-taxes/
Really?
Will they be bringing Scarsdale type programs to Newark?
Let me know when that happens!
I wonder if Mark Tucker has composed another Dear Hillary letter in an effort to direct educational policy toward economic values and establish vocational education as the nor m for all kids, keyed to regional economies.
Marc Tucker has been wrong about a lot of things for the past three decades. Where Tucker is most egregiously off base, perhaps, is his incessant yapping that high standards and skills are the keys to “economic competitiveness” when the facts do not support him. Tucker’s latest attempt to make himself relevant, “Fixing Our National Accountability System,” is simply more of the same (who designed that cover?).
We’ve been trying to tie “economic competitiveness” and public school reform for quite some time. If only schools are forced to teach to high standards and be held accountable for their performance, we are told, then American competitiveness will soar. Meanwhile, American manufacturing jobs are increasingly off-shored and the middle class eviscerated. And, as the late Gerald Bracey noted, “…over in Wal-Mart nation, the number of retail sales clerks totals more than the number of slots available in the ten fastest growing jobs combined. We have 9 cashiers, 6 waiters and 5+ janitors for every computer programmer.”
Millions and millions of jobs have been off-shored over the last decade. More are sure to follow. A New York Times article from 2011, “Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software,” pointed out the following:
“The number of computer chip designers, for example, has largely stagnated because powerful software programs replace the work once done by legions of logic designers and draftsmen. Software is also making its way into tasks that were the exclusive province of human decision makers, like loan and mortgage officers and tax accountants.”
An MIT economist says that “New jobs are coming at the bottom of the economic pyramid, jobs in the middle are being lost to automation and outsourcing, and now job growth at the top is slowing because of automation.”
Moreover, the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that most new jobs created in the United States over the next decade will NOT require postsecondary education. These are jobs like personal care aides, retail clerks, nursing assistants, janitors and maids, construction laborers, freight and stock movers, secretaries, carpenters, and fast food preparers. Yet Marc Tucker, and people like him, keep regurgitating the mantra that we have to prepare kids for college and careers, presumably because we have to remain “competitive” economically.
The World Economic Forum evaluates and ranks countries on economic competitiveness each year. When the U.S. dropped from 2nd to 4th in 2010-11, four factors were cited by the WEF for the decline: (1) weak corporate auditing and reporting standards, (2) weak (poor) corporate ethics, (3) big deficits (brought on by Wall Street’s financial implosion) and (4) unsustainable levels of debt. Public schools were not cited.
The WEF dropped the U.S. to 7th place, in 2012-13, citing problems like “increasing inequality and youth unemployment” and U.S. ratification of “the fewest environmental treaties.“ The WEF noted that in the U.S. “trust in politicians is not strong.” Political dysfunction has led to “a lack of macroeconomic stability” that “continues to be the country’s greatest area of weakness.”
This year past year,(2013-14), the U.S. moved back to fifth place, with the WEF noting that “the deficit is narrowing for the first time since the onset of the financial crisis.” And yet, those who most support the Common Core – like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable – are also those who advocate economic policies that exacerbate big budget deficits.
Interesting, Marc Tucker’s organization is resourced by some of the very same groups that fund anti-public education endeavors like charter schools, test-based “accountability,” and vouchers. These same groups –– the Broad, Gates and Walton Foundations, Boeing and Walmart –– are supporters of the Common Core. So is Marc Tucker. How convenient.
The “accountability” process for public education may be flawed. But don’t rely on March Tucker for a “fix.”
oops….Marc Tucker at the end, not March…..
“The Prototypical Pontificating Pundit”
The prototypical pontificating pundit
Is almost always wrong
But that won’t stop him one bit
From singing his favorite song
Yong Zhao has posted a response to Tucker here: http://www.livingindialogue.com/time-give-yong-zhao-responds-marc-tucker/
I think Marc Tucker has pointed out a disagreement where one definitely exists. He quotes Cody’s (carefully hedged?) point that, “the future of current and future graduates will be greatly improved if they are better educated is likewise highly suspect,” You frequently make a similar point – that there is no connection between educational achievement and national economic success.
Tucker says there is a clear connection between education and both personal and national economic success.
That seems like a genuine disagreement to me, one that deserves a direct response either clarifying the misunderstanding or making the (very difficult) case that educational attainment is not linked to economic attainment as most economists think it is.
Williamduncan, national economic success requires an educated populace, which we have. There is no relationship between test scores on standardized tests and economic productivity. As I have often written on this blog and in my last book, students in the US have never had high scores on the international tests yet our economy has outperformed nations with higher scores. I urge you to read Yong Zhao’s new book, “Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Dragon? Why China Has the Best and the Worst School System in the World?” He nails it. Our Golden Goose is creativity; theirs is testing. We have produced many Nobelists. China has produced none.
Diane’s clear and direct response here strips the assumption of williamduncan (shared with many reformers) completely naked: using “test scores” interchangeably with “academic achievement” is the legerdemain they just can’t quit.
Thanks, John. Test scores do not equal academic achievement. Moreover, higher test scores do not equal better education.
Test scores are not the subject of the Cody statement or the Tucker response, as far as I can see.
Tucker says,
“What got my attention was what Cody characterized as his ‘most fundamental problem’ with our report: its suggestion that ‘the economic future of our students will only be guaranteed if we educate them better.'”
This is not a statement about test scores. Why not just take the Tucker post on its own terms, as a response to Cody’s statement?
If your clarification, Diane, is that you are not saying there is no connection between educational attainment and economic achievement, only that there is no connection between (certain?) test scores and economic achievement, then that’s a whole other matter. But it’s not what Tucker was talking about, as I read it.
Williamduncan, read Yong Zhao’s commentary on the Tucker-Cody exchange. I will post it Monday morning. The heart of the disagreement is the relationship between test scores and economic growth.
So, just to put a bow on it, Tucker, disagreeing with Cody, says its obvious that a good education system is an economic benefit to the individual and the nation – and he thinks that international tests say something useful about nations’ education systems. I guess you are agreeing that good education systems might contribute to good economies but we can’t tell from test scores whether students are actually learning to read, do math, solve problems and get other needed skills.
Looks like a real disagreement to me….
I said in the post, Duncan, “where we diverge”
Bill, did you not read my comment above?
Yes, democracy, I saw it. And Yong Zhao’s comments. Anyone making the case that education doesn’t drive the economy has a heavy lift and, to my mind, these comments don’t do it.
Williamduncan, Japan has had far higher test scores than the US for 50 years yet their economy took a nosedive. How is this possible? There is no 1:1 connection between test scores and economic growth. I daresay there is very little connection between having high test scores and being well educated.
Bill, so your contention is that education DOEs directly drive the economy? And your evidence is what?
There were (are) plenty of highly-educated people on Wall Street, and in banks, and mortgage companies. They directly drove the economy nearly off the proverbial cliff. These were very “skilled” people.
Do you discount the World Economic Forum’s take on competitiveness? Education is a factor, but only one of many. And where it comes to a decline of economic competitiveness on the part of the U.S., the reasons have virtually nothing to do with education.
Do you also discount that?
Your “heavy lift” seems to be infused with myopia.
Yong Zhao says he is “puzzled” (surprised) that Marc Tucker calls for more testing to “fix” the testing problem. Really? Does a leopard change his spots?
I’m not puzzled or surprised, nor should anyone else be. Tucker says the same old stuff he’s been saying for years (decades) about high skills and high wages, and tosses in some things that can hardly be described as “new.” Things like career ladders for teachers, and peer mentoring and coaching, and school improvement plans. Maybe Tucker recently re-read Rip Van WInkle.
About testing, Tucker says that he wants high-stakes tests in grades 4, 8 and 10, and “the last exams would be set at an empirically determined college- and work-ready standard.”
Additionally, “every other off year, the state would administer tests in English and mathematics beginning in grade 2, and, starting in middle school, in science too, on a sampling basis. Vulnerable groups would be oversampled to make sure that populations of such students in the schools would be accurately measured.” Sigh. What, exactly, is different?
Tucker just keeps regurgitating the same-old song, all over again: college and career “readiness.” To Tucker, that’s why public education exists. He says nary a word about citizenship.
And what about those jobs? The Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that most new jobs created in the United States over the next decade will NOT require postsecondary education. These are jobs like personal care aides, retail clerks, nursing assistants, janitors and maids, construction laborers, freight and stock movers, secretaries, carpenters, and fast food preparers.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/most-new-jobs.htm
Yet Marc Tucker, and people like him, keep reciting the mantra that we have to prepare kids for college and careers, presumably because we have to remain “competitive” economically.
Marc Tucker also supports the Common Core. He’s been well-funded over the years by the Gates Foundation – which funded the Common Core – and by the Broad and Walton Foundations, and by corporations like Walmart and Boeing. The Broad and Walton Foundations are no fiends of public education. We know how Walmart makes its money, and though it recently distanced itself from ALEC, Walmart has long benefited from “ALEC campaigns involving taxes, commerce and technology.” Boeing has made tens of billions in profit over the last dozen years (close to $45 billion), it’s heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, and it still has received federal tex refunds of “more than $1.6 billion.”
As I keep noting, the World Economic Forum evaluates and ranks countries on economic competitiveness each year. The U.S. dropped from 2nd to 4th in 2010-11. The WEF cited four factors for the decline: (1) weak corporate auditing and reporting standards, (2) weak (poor) corporate ethics, (3) big deficits (brought on by Wall Street’s financial implosion) and (4) unsustainable levels of debt. Guess which groups are in favor of those weak auditing standards? Guess who supported the policies that brought on those big deficits and debt?
The WEF dropped the U.S. to 7th place, in 2012-13, citing problems like “increasing inequality and youth unemployment” and U.S. ratification of “the fewest environmental treaties.“ The WEF noted that in the U.S. “trust in politicians is not strong.” Political dysfunction has led to “a lack of macroeconomic stability” that “continues to be the country’s greatest area of weakness.” Any idea who funds the political obfuscation and dysfunction?
This year past year, (2013-14), the U.S. moved back to fifth place, with the WEF noting that “the deficit is narrowing for the first time since the onset of the financial crisis.” And yet, those who most support the Common Core – like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable – are also those who (1) opposed the policies that led to a decrease in the deficit, and who (2) continue to advocate economic policies that exacerbate big budget deficits.
The “accountability” process for public education may be flawed, even broken. But don’t rely on Marc Tucker or Bill Gates, or Boeing or the Chamber of Commerce for a “fix.”