Peter Greene, a teacher in Pennsylvania, has emerged as a favorite blogger of mine.
He is on top of the news with sage observations, and he is pithy.
In this post, he looks closely at University of Arkansas’ professor Jay Greene’s argument that schools of choice do not need testing. Jay Greene, a professor in the “department of education reform,” thinks that the marketplace provides accountability so why bother testing.
Peter Greene has an “I-told-you-so” moment, as he remembers all the times he warned his voucher-loving friends that public money never comes with no strings attached. With public money comes public accountability, which these days means standardized testing. The joke is that J. Greene ends up making (almost) the same case against high-stakes standardized testing as many–like P. Greene–who find those standardized tests to be worthless.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Um, no. “The market” is also supposed to ensure that investment bankers and hedge fund managers don’t take irrational risks. I think we all know how that can turn out.
LikeLike
insure. LOL!
LikeLike
My daughter is a Montessori School teacher in central Phoenix in the middle of what is considered a good public school district. She teaches 3 to 6 years. They are taught to be very independent and are doing amazing things. The children learn math concepts that I didn’t teach my 3rd graders–they learned it in later grades. They do not take any testing. The teachers know by working with the children where they need the extra assistance. Much of their learning is through discovery. I know that one of the teachers in my daughter’s certificate class was sent by a public school district. (By the way, my daughter has a double major in political science/ethic studies and did a year as an assistant to a Montessori teacher. Her certificate class was from June to May.) I think more public schools should offer this choice to parents. I know this school is not for every child–very rarely, they have to tell the parents that their child needs more structure or that the child needs to be tested for a learning disability, which they are not always able to teach that child. But in a public school there could be more choices without the testing. These children go the to public school in 5th grade. My daughter said that as far as she knows they do well. The wonderful thing about this school is that the owner gives scholarships to low income kids. There are Sudanese children there and many from Mexico. This is a wonderful school without testing.
LikeLike
Dottie,
My children went to such a Montessori in Pittsburgh PA, and I ,too, wonder why Montessori is not more accepted in education. My children were years ahead, but not overworked or overtested. That said, their school counselled out kids with learning difficulties…and it is this practice that is offputting to public schools. I do not know why it has to be…Montessori developed her philosophy and methods in the slums of Italy, surely her methods would transfer to the poorer areas of the US. Maybe it has more to do with class size, which we all (except for the predatory reformers and their koolaid followers) know is one of, if not THE most, important change we could make.
LikeLike
Minneapolis, ST. Paul and Forest Lake, Minnesota, and Cincinnati, Ohio are among the public school districts that offer a Montessori option.
LikeLike
Many public schools try to use the Montessori philosophy but are not allowed to because of fed and state regulations. I too believe, although far from perfect, Montessori schools are light years ahead of any of the others. The philosophy I espouse has many similarities. Take kids from where they are, no letter grades, grade levels. Realistic assessment.
However, the realty is policy keeps public schools and others receiving public money from going in that direction. As I describe in my book, “Saving Students From A Shattered System”( www.wholechildreform.com ) once we decouple the test from the Common Core, the dominoes will fall. And the system will change. And teachers will be able to teach again and students will be able to really learn. It’s time to take back our profession and treat kids as human beings. Not in the way schools used to be, but in the way schools should be Scroll through the website and tell me you disagree., ,
LikeLike
Tracy,
The problem at my daughter’s school is it is very small and doesn’t have the funding to help learning disabled or emotionally handicapped children. I am one of those former Title I teachers who wasn’t happy about the over abundance of children with learning disabilities/emotionally handicapped children who weren’t helped in the Title I schools due to lack of funding. That’s why I propose that public schools give parents more of a choice, but I also realize that public schools, particularly low income, need more funding. What I am happy about at my daughter’s school is that her boss (who owns the school) does not segregate. She wants to have a diverse school.
LikeLike
Kids with learning disabilities are well served in a Montessori classroom because it is an individualized, multi-sensory approach to learning. Every student has an unofficial IEP in a Montessori classroom. I have found that there are two factors that prevent a child from being successful in this type of setting: persistant aggressive behavior towards the classroom (because it heavily relies on the community to function), and a profound lack of curiosity (because learning is based on the child’s desire to discover).
Why isn’t Montessori part of the “reform” movement? I think that there are two main reasons. Reasons #1: Corporations cannot make money off of Montessori schools. The philosophy, procedures, and curriculum is set and cannot be changed. Maria Montessori created it, TESTED IT, adjusted it, TESTED IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, over 100 years ago. Montessori teachers have the obligation to follow it and the freedom to expand upon the core curriculum based on each student’s needs. We assess daily through observation and interaction with the students.
Reason #2: (and I probably will upset a few Montessorians and AMS but so be it) is that Montessori education has increasingly become the education for the elite. Public Montessori schools seem to be ignored by AMS who has NOT SAID ONE WORD against Common Core or high stakes testing. Don’t they realize how many tests the public Montessori teachers have to give and that their jobs are tied to these tests? So while the leaders of the Montessori community have lengthy indepth conversations about whether or not to teach cursive (yes, you should, end of discussion) or deciding who is more “authentic,” or creating videos of a professional basketball player who is able to purchase his own Montessori school, or going to a retreat in the tropics while the rest of us deal with sub-zero weather, there are more pressing, important issues to address. Issues such as poverty, inequity, and a wide-spread intentional distruction of childhood.
It is time for AMS, AMI, and everyone in the Montessori community to start speaking up for ALL children. What is happening to education in our county is wrong and unethical. Do you really think that Maria Montessori would agree with this silence?
LikeLike
In the recent post from NAIS it linked to a page that showed Montessori schools spending less per student than most other private schools so I do believe using an alternative method doesn’t necessarily have to cost more money. (Not that per pupil spending should be the be-all and end-all rubric for decisions).
I think perhaps one of the reasons Montessori is less popular is historical. Both William Heard Kilpatrick and AS Neill’s critiques were very influential. We ought to learn from this and endeavor to foster pluralism rather than “one true way” because the result has been to open the door for approaches that cut off coherent and child-centered pedagogies at the knees.
LikeLike
Is there a link to Mr. Greene’s post?
LikeLike
Stu, link is on its way.
LikeLike
Sorry about missing link in Peter Greeme post. It is there now
LikeLike
Ah, yes, the self-correcting “free” market: we saw how well that worked in 2008, didn’t we?
LikeLike
With the money comes the strings is of course the truth. What many fail to realize is that the schools of choice use the artificial high stakes test as an excuse to accomplish the new class version of white flight. Not said is the main reason for leaving a school is often to get away from those “other” kids they deem undesireable. And those kids often score low on a test. That’s what the test is designed to do. Academic cleansing!
The effort to eliminate high stakes testing, as per the suggestion by Jay greene, might well be a ploy to take away the justification for students leaving the schools they choose. Since there is no test, students would be able to stay in that cleansed environment forever. No one can say, look at the test scores.
Academic cleansing is at a new high. Test the public schools for all to see and then subtly screen those going to the schools they choose. And don’t test them because they need to hide their ineffectiveness.
What also shows up here, as pointed out by Peter Greene, is that the fundamental purpose of assessent is only to “show up” schools. Let me remind all the assessment is only as good as the information gathered in it’s application to the education of the child. Jay Greene’s insistsance that the tests are worthless to students, leads to what many have been saying forever. They have nothing to do with kids. What a surprize.
LikeLike
As might be expected, there are a variety of views on assessment among people who believe we should have public school options.
There’s an encouraging collaboration in Minnesota between some district alternative school educators and charter public school educators who are pushing for a broader array of assessments, beyond standardized tests and 4 year graduation rates.
Yes, many of us believe that all schools that receive public funds should be required to use a common set of assessments.
LikeLike
I’m okay with one assessment per year. I’m opposed to constantly teaching to the test. We have taken the excitement of learning away from our children with drill and kill. I hated having to teach that way to my Title I students. I always tried to do some fun learning when I could. I also tried to do community building with my students, which I still think is important for our low income children. (Probably other kids, too, considering the insult to African Americans one of our ASU fraternities made of MLK day.) My 3rd graders had a required violin class, which has now been taken away from them. It was amazing to see how awful they were in the beginning of the year and how wonderful they were at the end of the year concert. This class taught them so much. It calmed the ones who needed that, it helped them with their math, it gave them confidence.
LikeLike