Jason Stanford, who lives in Austin, reports here on the efforts to 23 school districts to develop a sensible alternatives to the standardized testing that everyone hates, except for the testing industry and their lobbyists.
He writes:
Despite the difficulty in chasing two tails, Dawson Orr, Consortium co-chair and superintendent of Highland Park ISD, pledges to press on to find an accountability system that actually measures what goes on in schools.
“You know, there’s just an awful lot of authentic work that goes on in classrooms that represents student learning that state and federal bureaucracies don’t know how to handle because they need the ease and convenience of a multiple choice test,” Orr said.
Another Texas leader, the late Speaker Sam Rayburn, once said, “A jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.” There are a lot of folks trying to get rid of high-stakes testing—and a lot of merit in doing so—but thanks to 23 gutsy school districts, we now have some carpenters looking for an accountability system that makes sense. Good luck to them.
There are other alternatives: One, look at what Finland does. Select the best teachers; educate them well. No standardized testing. Let the teachers write their own tests. Trust them to do what is right for their students.
Or do what the best private schools do: I have never heard of any that administer standardized tests, other than for admission purposes. Have you? Might be worth checking out what accountability looks like at Sidwell Friends (where President Obama’s children are in attendance), Lakeside Academy in Seattle (where Bill Gates went), Maumee Country Day School in Ohio (where Michelle Rhee went), Harpeth Hall (where Rhee sends one of her daughters), the University of Chicago Lab School (where Mayor Rahm Emanuel sends his children).
Let’s learn from the best!
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Why does it need to be complicated? I have a boss at my job who, I assume, would discipline me in some way if I was not doing my job. Principals and administrators don’t want bad teachers in their schools. They would know better than anyone who was an effective teacher and how to help those who were not. Let the teachers be accountable to their bosses like anyone else in the country. Isn’t this how we did it before?
LikeLike
I really believe the answer is to better professionalize the teaching profession, just like Finland. We need to bring that to scale in our large, diverse country.
There doesn’t appear to be much interest (nor is there any money) for that idea. Yet on a small scale, it is a significant part of what makes elite private schools work.
LikeLike
I believe that it is the ability of parents to choose which private school to attend that plays a large role in the quality of private schools.
LikeLike
Not all private schools are good. They can choose their students, keep class size small, parents buy their current textbooks and materials…this is what gives them the best chance for success.
LikeLike
Spoken like a true economist. 😛
From my experience, private school parents mostly choose on location, price and reputation. The fact that parents can leave helps sniff out poor teaching but for the most part the instructional quality is already very high because innovative and inspiring teachers are drawn to schools run collegially. The teachers at our school openly say that they have been willing to forgo the higher salaries public school teachers earn in order to teach in this kind of environment. (Although they do wish it weren’t so!!)
LikeLike
Choice is not a public school conversation, TE. Choice is a conversation about options in education paid for by tax dollars. We can’t and shouldn’t mix the two subjects. And you can’t answer questions about public school with answers about options in education paid for by tax dollars.
LikeLike
I am a little confused by this comment. The original post asks us to think about public schools doing what private schools do. The first thing these private schools do is attract students that have choices.
LikeLike
Peer evaluation seems like a good alternative way to assess teacher performance. No one knows better who is doing a good job and who is doing a poor job teaching than other teachers.
I agree that there is much that can be done to improve education schools. One good option would be to eliminate undergraduate education degrees.
LikeLike
TE:
I agree:
“One good option would be to eliminate undergraduate education degrees” …as they did in Finland.
LikeLike
Where is the resistance to this in the US?
LikeLike
Emmy, we are building that resistance right now. At GarfieldHigh in Seattle, at Castle Bridge Elementary in New York City, at the Providence Student Union in Rhode Island…..join the Network for Public Education and grow the resistance.
LikeLike
TE, I think so too. I think a teaching credential should be like a JD. Only at a graduate level.
LikeLike
NOpe, not at all for the graduate level. You will eliminate many quality candidates due to many not being able to afford that much schooling. Now, if one is talking about free education for all when one chooses to “school” it becomes a different story.
LikeLike
Duane:
Top students in Massachusetts can already attend UMass tuition free. That is the caliber of students who become teachers in Finland.
LikeLike
Response to Bernie @ 2:09:
Good to hear that Bernie! Didn’t know that.
But why should only “top” students get that privilege?? If it is the state (taxpayers) that pays only for some and not others that seems to me to be quite discriminatory on factors that are very similar to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. . . that have be outlawed as legitimate/legal discriminating factors. Who are these supposed “top” students? Do all students have the same opportunity to be the “top”? No, absolutely not due to inherent/inherited mental capacities over which the student has no control. “Top” implies “bottom”, especially by the spurious methods used, such as grades and standardized test scores.
And how can one discern that “That is the caliber of students who become teachers in Finland”?
LikeLike
Duane:
Your view of what constitutes discrimination is inaccurate.
Here is what will get you a tuition free ride at any of the UMASS campuses:
“The John and Abigail Adams Scholarship provides a tuition waiver for up to eight semesters of undergraduate education at a Massachusetts state college or university. The scholarship covers tuition only; fees and room and board are not included. The scholarship must be used within six years of a student’s high school graduation.
In order to be eligible for the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship, Massachusetts public high school students in the class of 2015 or earlier must
•have scores of Advanced and Proficient on grade 10 MCAS tests in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics (at least one score must be Advanced) AND
•have combined scores on MCAS ELA and Mathematics tests that place them in the top 25 percent of students in the graduating class in their district.”
The last metric means that students from inner city neighborhoods can readily qualify provided that they meet these minimums.
Personally, I would raise the bar to the top 10% and add a stipend for fees and room and board. Since the tuition is already heavily subsidized, this is currently not much of an incentive.
LikeLike
Duane:
The current in-state tuition at UMass is just over $1,700 a year!!
Actual in state total costs are pretty high:
$23,198 for tution, fees, room and board.
LikeLike
Duane, yes I mean with something offered by the state IF you stay in the state subsidizing you to teach.
LikeLike
Bernie @ 3:33,
Please explain to me how my view of what constitutes state discrimination is wrong. Are mental abilities equal for all at birth? I don’t know if the “John and Abigail Adams Scholarship,” is state funded or privately funded as that would make a huge difference because if it’s private funding they can put whatever stipulations on the recipients they choose.
Why should only those who score “proficient” or whatever and score in the top 25% of their class be the only ones who are eligible given the fact mental abilities are not all equal and those abilities are beyond the control of the individual just as race, gender, sexual orientation or age is beyond the control of individuals?
Make a case for your point of view, I haven’t seen anything yet that comes close to a refutation/rebuttal of my ideas on the discriminatory aspect of these nefarious practices.
Thanks,
Duane
LikeLike
Duane:
They are not nefarious nor are they any more discriminatory that athletic scholarships. That is not to say that in some future dystopia, academic and athletic scholarships legally may not be awarded on merit in their respective fields.
LikeLike
No, you’re right about the athletic scholarship part. I would argue against those scholarships in the same fashion I argue against “academic” scholarships”. This country has more than enough wealth to allow anyone to go as far as they choose in the academic realm for free (as so many other countries do) that I yearn for the day that post-secondary costs are not something to have to consider.
But, still you have not directly addressed my central argument of discrimination as it might be (hopefully sooner than later, much like race discrimination) adjudicated in the courts.
LikeLike
Duane:
You and I differ. Graduation rates for low or zero cost public 2 and 4 yr colleges support the notion that this is a massive misallocation of resources. In Finland you need to pass a stiff matriculation exam, then you get to go tuition free to college. That is how it used to be in the UK, but they could not afford to keep doing it.
LikeLike
Peer evaluations are problematic. How often do I observe another teacher for any length of time? Casi nunca. Hardly ever.
The evaluation process should be a collegial relationship between the administrator(s), teacher(s) with a sprinkling of parent/student survey/input mixed in. As it is now it is an adversarial relationship that is fraught with process errors, lack of meaningful time for discussions about the teaching and learning processes of the teacher (yes, the teacher’s “learning” process, i.e. “professional development” but not of the kind currently used whereby it’s just a tool-usually a hammer-to raise test scores) and highly susceptible to personal biases and prejudices.
And no, one doesn’t have to have a graduate degree to be a “quality” teacher at the K-12 level. Just added expense when one can least afford it.
LikeLike
Duane:
You are still looking for perfection where perfection does not exist. I agree that peer evaluation processes where one’s peers have little data make no sense. However, I would guess that many teachers are the recipients of the previous year’s efforts of another teacher. Their validation or lack of validation of the teacher’s work is a legitimate input into any assessment.
The fact that performance assessments may be highly susceptible to personal biases and prejudices is an argument for ensuring that those responsible for performance assessments are minimally susceptible to personal bias and prejudice, not that you therefore do nothing.
LikeLike
Bernie,
No, not looking for perfection-never have said/implied that (and neither has Wilson from my reading of his work). Looking for respect and appreciation that result from logically valid ways of “assessing/evaluating” that is designed for true equitable dialogue among those who have a stake in making sure that a teacher is capable, kind and caring of students and who understands the varied teaching and learning processes that a teacher may use on any given day.
I struggle with using a system that has been shown to be so riddled with logical errors that results in harm being caused to many students through mis-classification/ranking of the students on a less than 1% of the student’s time in a given class. “It does not compute, Will Robinson”
“Danger, Will Robinson, danger” in reference to what appears to be benign-standardized testing, but is, in reality, malignant.
LikeLike
This post and the linked article both seem to conflate standardized testing with high-stakes testing (as do many such articles/arguments).
Low-stakes standardized testing is probably a good idea. Standardized test results tell teachers, administrators, parents, and voters how much the students have learned (at least regarding the tested subjects). Standardized tests are efficient to administer/grade. And standardized test results allow interested parties to compare how much different groups of students are learning — those interested parties can then take into account the many variables impacting test scores in deciding what, if any, actions to take in response to the test scores.
On the other hand, high-stakes standardized testing (where teachers/administrators are rewarded/discharged and schools are rewarded/closed based on test results) is definitely a bad idea. Many variables beyond the control of the teacher/administrator/school impact students’ standardized test scores; therefore, test scores are too unreliable to use for high-stakes decisions regarding teachers/administrators/schools. Equally important, high-stakes testing has important adverse side effects — encouraging teaching to the test, encouraging narrowing the curriculum, encouraging cheating, discouraging teacher-teacher cooperation, and discouraging teachers/administrators from accepting assignments to low-SES schools.
This post and the linked article seem to advocate replacing high-stakes standardized testing with some other form of high-stakes testing. If so, such alternate high-stakes testing would probably suffer from most of the defects of high-stakes standardized testing while being less efficient to administer.
The high-stakes testing movement is driven largely by a desire to identify/remove poorly-performing teachers (at least among the good-faith reformers who are trying to improve education outcomes rather than simply make $ off the testing). For the reasons outlined above, high-stakes testing is too unreliable for this purpose and has too many adverse side effects. The traditional principal-observes-and-evaluates approach has largely failed to identify/remove poorly-performing teachers — principals always have too little time, often lack subject-matter expertise, can be fooled by poorly-performing teachers who get it together for the occasional observation, and are routinely accused — often correctly — of playing favorites in the subjective observation approach.
The underlying obstacle to effective teacher evaluation — rarely if ever mentioned in the school reform debate — is that teachers perform professional work but have no first-line supervisors. Because teaching is professional work involving constant judgment calls requiring exercise of professional expertise, any kind of widget-counting outcome-based evaluation (i.e., high-stakes testing) will necessarily yield unreliable results. In the other professions, employers of professional employees rely upon first-line supervisors to perform evaluations. These first-line supervisors have the professional expertise and regular personal contact with the evaluated professional’s work product to exercise the judgment needed to fairly evaluate the quality of the professional’s work. It would, of course, be prohibitively expensive to create first-line supervisors for classroom teachers.
Probably the best compromise is something like the peer-review approach (called PAR) used in Montgomery County, MD (a large school system outside DC). In PAR, the principal identifies a teacher as being possibly a poor performer; the teacher is then closely observed over a representative period by an evaluator teacher; the evaluator is a senior teacher with matching subject matter expertise who is selected by the system’s central office and reports to that office; the evaluator’s report/recommendation (retain/discharge) is reviewed by a committee of principals/evaluator teachers; the teacher’s own principal plays no role in selecting the evaluator or in the committee’s review decision. In effect, PAR creates a first-line professional supervisor, but only for a few teachers and only for a limited time period. PAR has been very successful — it has resulted in the discharge or resignation-in-lieu-of-review of over 500 teachers during its 10-year operation; the union supports it; there have been few challenges to the discharges; teachers think the system is fair; and it protects teachers from biased/vindictive principals. All in all, a much better system than high-stakes testing.
LikeLike
Labor Lawyer:
Your argument about principals might make sense at the HS level but it hardly makes sense at the Elementary level or at the MS level. At the HS level there are APs and DHs so this burden can be shared. It is true that any adequate observation process is time consuming, but in large measure the selection and management of teachers should be a major component of a principal’s job.
From what I have read of the Montgomery County approach, it worked well initially but it seems to have had less impact over the years. Most organizations that have what are essentially internal audit functions face a tough issue in maintaining the integrity and objectivity of those functions. They can easily be captured by the people they are meant to be observing. The SEC and Bank regulators spring to mind. It is not a matter of corruption but of too much familiarity and identification. At the same time, the role has to be executed with great skill in order to ensure an adversarial relationship does not result.
It seems to me that principals or, as you put it, first level supervisors need to be intimately involved in the process of the ongoing evaluation of teachers. They need agreed upon tools and processes for observing teachers and compiling other metrics that reflect teacher performance. The principals in turn need to be assessed based upon the overall performance of the school. Here is where statistically standardized test scores can be used in conjunction with a range of other metrics.
In designing and implementing processes for helping companies merge workforces and eliminate redundant positions, my first advice to management was to identify weak executives, managers and supervisors since their assessments of their own people were likely suspect. We would try to start as high in the organization as was politically feasible in order to increase the validity of any of the assessments of next level down.
No performance assessment process is perfect, but no meaningful performance assessment process guarantees creeping mediocrity.
LikeLike
“Low-stakes standardized testing is probably a good idea. Standardized test results tell teachers, administrators, parents, and voters how much the students have learned (at least regarding the tested subjects). Standardized tests are efficient to administer/grade. And standardized test results allow interested parties to compare how much different groups of students are learning — those interested parties can then take into account the many variables impacting test scores in deciding what, if any, actions to take in response to the test scores.”
NO, standardized tests, even “low stake ones”, do not and cannot perform those functions you mention due to the myriad errors and logical falsehoods that render the standardized testing process completely invalid. Read and understand Noel Wilson to see why: “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at:
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700 . And no, Bernie1815, this is not a quest for “perfection” and neither Wilson nor I have said that it is. Nor does it have anything to do with simplistic drivers licence tests that are “gateways” to a privilege such as driving is (there are no “standardized” written driving tests, each state does it’s own). Educational standardized tests are used to sort and separate students so that some may enjoy their rights more than others-which to me is unconscionable.
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A quality cannot be quantified. Quantity is a sub-category of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category by only a part (sub-category) of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as one dimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing we are lacking much information about said interactions.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. As a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it measures “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
LikeLike
. . . “pledges to press on to find an accountability system that actually measures what goes on in schools.”
Good god, and I thought I was on a Quixotic Quest. He’ll be chasing duendes until he dies as it is logically impossible to “measure” the qualities of human interactions that are the teaching and learning processes that occur every second, minute, hour, day, week, semester and year in the K-12 realm.
Meow, miau! says the Manx cat trying to catch its tail.
LikeLike
Duane:
And your alternative is what?
LikeLike
Good question B.
I’ve stated a number of times on this blog that any evaluation should be a professional, collegial interaction of the teacher and administrator using a variety of sources of information with the outcome not to rank, sort and separate teachers but to better inform all of ways to improve the teaching and learning process at all levels of the school hierarchy. From above: The evaluation process should be a collegial relationship between the administrator(s), teacher(s) with a sprinkling of parent/student survey/input mixed in.
What does a physician’s evaluation look like? How about an engineer’s? What about a lawyer’s? Nurses’? Architect’s? Are they “measured” as in the very crude attempts to “measure” teachers? Would they accept an invalid means of evaluation?
I may have asked before Bernie, if so forgive me for not remembering. Are you a teacher? School administrator? Parent? Businessman? Not that it matters that much but I’m trying to understand why you keep insisting that we must “measure” using invalid means the teaching profession. I do like to read all the comments from all those interested in public education (one doesn’t have to be a teacher or administrator to have “street cred” in my book) but it helps to know “where they ‘come from'” and what vested interests one may have in writing what they write.
LikeLike
Duane:
You are right my background should make no difference but since I now have some boilerplate:
To assuage some here I apparently have to declare that I am not a K-12 educator, merely the father of 3 kids and husband of a former HS teacher.
On the other hand I spent over 30 years designing and analyzing surveys, performance management systems, selection systems, career progression programs, professional and management development programs in private and public organizations as well as managing a 40 person organization for nearly 25 years. As you might expect, I have a pretty strong background in statistics and psychometrics.
In principle I agree with your description of what constitutes a reasonable performance evaluation process with two important provisos: Principals must have the authority to readily but responsibly remove weak performers and the performance of a principal must based on the aggregate performance of those he or she manages and the principal’s ability to accurately assess the performance of his or her staff.
LikeLike
Bernie,
Thanks for the background info. I now have a better understanding of why you are so adamant with your views as to my (with Wilson’s underlying it all) thoughts tend to logically destroy your life’s work which for me is based on false premises. I think I might be as adamant in that case were I to be in your shoes. My assumption also is that you did this in the private sector and/or university setting of which both are quite different than the K-12 public school sector and the underlying constitutional mandates dictate a different philosophy of what constitutes discrimination and/or valid discourse.
Be that as it may, and I appreciate your candor, I do believe that with logical and rational examination one can change his/her beliefs when the evidence is against those beliefs, a la one D. Ravitch. I hope that perhaps one day you will see that what Wilson and by extension my thoughts on the matter, indeed are the more logical, rational and just way to look at evaluating and assessing other human beings whether adults or children.
I do enjoy the back and forth though as it helps me sharpen my thoughts and writing.
Time to go get ready to go watch the Cards whoop up on the Sox.
Take care!
LikeLike
Duane:
As a Red Sox fan, I think you are caught in a time warp and are trying to relive 1967!
As to threats to my life work, absolutely not. Most folks involved in the field, as I have said many times before, are fully aware of the limitations of this type of measurement. I am just reading Daniel Koretz’s Measuring Up. He is no fan of widespread and indiscriminate use of standardized testing but he does address the issues in an easy to understand way. It is a relatively new book (2008) and he uses the NCLB mandates as the context for his analysis. I am only up to Chapter 3 but he is making sense even if I do not agree with him on some of his conclusions. You could ask him what he thinks of Wilson’s thesis.
LikeLike
Read Pasi Sahlberg’s new book for a solution. This is not rocket science, but a matter of values and priorities as a nation. Lets talk more after you read the book.
LikeLike
Mark:
I have. What made you think I had not? The dynamics in Finnish schools are very different with respect to performance evaluations. First, Finnish Schools are very small by American standards – 200 or 300 students and consequently the principals have far fewer teachers to supervise. (Pasi Sahlberg makes no mention of this important feature of the Finnish system.) Second, principals are expected to teach, which means they have an intimate and grounded view of what children know and don’t know and how their colleagues operate. Third, principals are involved intimately in curriculum and lesson planning since these are team activities. Fourth, the small schools are very local and parents are involved – weak teachers are pretty visible. Fifth, later on the schools are still small but the dynamic of their high stakes Matriculation exam takes over. Based on some interviews I did with two different Finnish parents and a recent graduate of the schools, there are still problematic teachers and schools. Parents know the better schools and work to get their children in to the schools that have the best reputation for getting results on these all important exams. (Again Sahlberg makes limited mention of the role of matriculation exams which are very similar to A-Levels in England and Wales. The movie the History Boys provides a good context for this environment and the pressures it creates for students and teachers.)
Perhaps others here with direct experience of Finnish schools can chime in.
LikeLike
Diane wrote:
“Might be worth checking out what accountability looks like at Sidwell Friends (where President Obama’s children are in attendance), Lakeside Academy in Seattle (where Bill Gates went), Maumee Country Day School in Ohio (where Michelle Rhee went), Harpeth Hall (where Rhee sends one of her daughters), the University of Chicago Lab School (where Mayor Rahm Emanuel sends his children).
Let’s learn from the best!”
I really like this idea. It seems as thought it should be possible for these schools to share their practices. How can we make this happen?
LikeLike
This comment should be printed in every major newspaper and magazine. People should know that the people behind this testing frenzy do not believe their own children should have to participate, so everyone should OPT their own children out NOW!
LikeLike
Before we can find an alternative to testing, we must learn to value teachers.
Before we can value teachers we must learn to value children.
When we, as a society, begin to value children, then an educational revolution will truly be possible.
LikeLike