Joe Bower, a school leader in Canada, joined us in Austin for the first national conference of the Network for Public Education.
Here are his reactions:
I spent the weekend in Austin, Texas at the first Network for Public Education (NPE) and it was fantastic. You can find my day 1 post here and my day 2 post here.
Here are 3 things I learned from The Network for Public Education Conference:
1. Relationships. I was so happy to get a chance to meet some very cool people that, until this weekend, I had only known as avatars on Twitter. Don’t get me wrong, I love social media — while social media can help connect people by removing the obstacles of time and place, it is no substitute for real life, face to face relationships. I was so happy to meet and spend time with Kirsten Hill, Adam Holman, Jose Vilson, Stephanie Cerda, Xian Barrett, Audrey Watters, Sabrina Stevens, Katie Osgood and Phil Cantor. We don’t have the money of Corporate School Reformers, but we are a real grassroots movement that is fuelled by authentic relationships.
I got to briefly meet Deb Meier, Anthony Cody, Diane Ravitch, and Chris Lehmann.
2. Assault on Public Education. As the token Canadian at the conference, I was struck by the raw emotion that dominated the conference — teachers are saddened and angered by the assault on public education lead by profiteers, politicians and privatizers.
The politics and problems killing American Education is complex, but here’s my Wikipedia version: For a long time, public schools in the United States had been a public good. Schools were about pupils. However, Corporate School Reform has become the status quo — public education is being bastardized into a private interest where schools are about profits.
Essentially Corporate School Reform is led by three foundations: Gates, Walton and Broad — who have allied with the Federal Government, effectively making the United States Department of Education an enemy of public education.
Common Core, high-stakes standardized tests and Teach for America are a money grab for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. Democratically elected school boards are replaced with Charter CEOs who have absolutely no accountability to the public. Public schools who have a responsibility to take all children who show up are closed and turned into private charters with select admissions. The Charter school movement in the US is re-segregating America and rolling back whatever gains were made from Brown vs Board of Education. Experienced and educated teachers are fired in exchange for well-intentioned but grossly ill-prepared youngsters whose effectiveness have been grossly overstated. And without unions, teacher pay and pensions are slashed and burned and re-pocketed by Big Business. Public Education is being strangled to death by Corporate School Reformers who provide an opportunity-rich education for their own children while imposing other people’s children with schools that are marinated in acquiescence and testing.
The Corporate School Reform is a part of the Global Education Reform Movement which is built on a contradiction:
Use PISA scores to show that public education in the United States is failing but then implement market-based reforms that are almost entirely contradictory to the reforms and policies found in high achieving countries.
3. There is hope. The only thing necessary for destructive mandates and cancerous education policies to succeed is for good teachers, parents and students to say and do nothing. When distant authorities invoke their ignorance with the force of law, remember that your silence is read as assent — and at some point your silence is betrayal to those who do speak up and take action.
The Network for Public Education refuses to remain silent. NPE is the loud speaker for people who support public education. Rather than remain as individual pockets of resistance to Corporate School Reform and GERM, NPE is a way to organize and mobilize a movement that will save public education.
NPE concluded its first National Conference with a call for Congressional hearings to investigate the over-emphasis, misapplication, costs, and poor implementation of high-stakes standardized testing in the nation’s K-12 public schools. The consequence of all this is that testing has become the purpose of education, rather than a way of measuring education.
NPE is encouraging everyone, including Congress to ask some tough questions:
Do the tests promote skills our children and our economy need?
What is the purpose of these tests?
How good are the tests?
Are tests being given to children who are too young?
Are tests culturally biased?
Are tests harmful to students with disabilities?
How has the frequency and quantity of testing increased?
Does testing harm teaching?
How much money does it cost?
Are there conflicts of interest in testing policies?
Was it legal for the U.S. Department of Education to fund two testing consortia for the Common Core State Standards?
If Congress has the time, effort and resources to investigate baseball players using steroids, they can surely find the time, effort and resources to investigate the misuse and abuse of testing.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Congressional hearings? Pardon me if I don’t hold my breath while waiting.
Is the Republican House going to do it? Unlikely. Will the Senate be interested? Not if it’s critical of Obama. There might be some faint hope if a Republican is elected in 2016. But then again Jeb Bush might be appointed Secretary of Education. A nightmare. He might even be elected President. Obama’s inverse Midas touch might guarantee the election of any dumb Republican.
So, if that’s all the NPE can come up with you’re living in a delusion as great as Obama’s about economic policy and foreign policy. Climate change is nonsense, but Putin’s grab of the Crimea is not.
The Chicago teachers refusing to give the tests is noble and heroic. But it is insubordination. We’ll see if Rahm has the guts to pull a Reagan and fire them all, as Reagan did the air traffic controllers, or whether he’ll let them get away with it, in which case the opt out movement might swell.
That would be a heroic moment in American education, true non-violent protest of unjust law. We’ll see if public education teachers have the cojones. Teachers are the Ukrainians and CCSS are the Russians.
Any one ready for WW III?
LikeLike
Some of this post is okay, but “faint hope if a Republican is elected president” is really funny. I know this is an attempt to get a decidedly and traditional Democrat population to vote Republican. And while Obama has been no friend to public education, none of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination are exactly friendly to the profession. Bush? No. Christie? No. Jindal? No. Walker? No. Snyder? No.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Middletown Voice.
LikeLike
It was just announced that Gates is backbyo the top of the list as richest at $76 billion. Nice to know…
LikeLike
It was just announced that Gates is back to the top of the list as richest at $76 billion. Nice to know…
LikeLike
I went to the first day of the conference (I had to get back Sunday). My (grown) daughter came with me. She lives in Pittsburgh and I’m in Ohio so we met up in Austin.
I really enjoyed the parent panel with Helen Gym and the investigative journalism session with Mercedes Schneider. I’m new in this, so I went to listen, and that’s what I did.
I think every public school parent in the country should listen to John Kuhn speak – I’ve linked his speech below. He loves public schools- isn’t an “agnostic” on public schools, isn’t a “relinquisher” of public schools, but is a genuine, unapologetic, positive advocate for public schools. There’s joy in that, and that’s what’s missing in the grim, market-driven march of the data-obsessed ed reformer political leadership. They don’t value our schools, and it shows.
I want people who love public schools to run public schools, and I don’t think that’s too much to ask. In fact, I think it’s a job requirement.
Thanks to all of the people who put this on. It was well worth the trip to Austin, and I finally got to see Texas! I had never been before. 🙂
http://bigeducationape.blogspot.com/2014/03/karen-lewis-john-kuhn-on-vimeo.html
LikeLike
My name is Marcos Ortega II, I was at Portola Middle last night, I got to meet Dr. Deasy, this topic on testing was mentioned. As a teacher I administer many tests, for this is how we measure how much is learned by students, ad this generates their grade. I have no idea, why anyone in teaching would be in opposition of measuring how much a child has learned. Statistics have shown that, students do better in test, when they take them frequently, not once every three years. College and Universities use test and are not talking about getting rid of them. I took symbolic logic with Dr. Ravitch at Valley College, not Diane, He himself used test to determine how much we had learned, so on this one I am with Dr. Deasy. Test are needed in education to assert that which has been retained by student and should determine his grade.
Currently I am running for UTLA President, if elected I will look forward to dialog with Dr. Deasy to resolve the rift between LAUSD and UTLA for the benefit of our children, who deserve a safe and clean environment.
LikeLike
A “safe and clean environment” which Deasy has no intention of providing unless forced to do so by the public, As for frequent testing, every minute spent testing is a minute of lost instructional time which the district says it is trying to maximize. The proportion of instruction to testing should be weighted heavily in favor of instruction and classroom activities. Good teachers assess automatically by asking questions of the class and observing students in the classroom. In the K-12 classroom the emphasis must be on instruction. In the postsecondary environment there is more time for testing because the learning onus is on the student to study outside of the class. Dialogue with Deasey will be difficult because his demeanor towards teachers and other education professionals is condescending at best and hostile at worst.
LikeLike
Marcos,
“I administer many tests, for this is how we measure how much is learned by students. . . ”
NO, you are not measuring “how much is learned by students”. Those tests are not made to be measuring devices. They are a very very poor assessment device that barely scratches the surface of the teaching and learning process much less “measures” it. Break out of your controlled mind, open it up to a true understanding of the errors involved in the educational standards and standardized testing regime that render it completely INVALID or as Wilson states “vain and illusory”. Or as I sometimes say “excrement of bovine origin”.
Read and learn, Marcos what Wilson has proven in his never refuted nor rebutted destruction of educational standards and standardized testing in “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
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
Excellent column.
LikeLike
Joe,
We did not meet at the conference but I’m glad we had a “foreigner”-ha ha-presence.
One of the questions that I heard at the conference was something to the effect of “What should we call those who seek to destroy public education in this country?” And a pertinent question it is. You used a couple of different terms in the column and I would like to discuss this a bit.
“Essentially Corporate School Reform is led by three foundations: Gates, Walton and Broad. . . ”
“Corporate” as the word of choice leaves much to be desired for many reasons, some of which have been brought to my attention by my fairly conservative friends many who work for corporations or own their own business as a corporation. Using corporate/corporation tends to alienate many who otherwise might be willing to listen and support public education. I have been “dressed down” by those folks who understand that “corporate/corporation” is not the embodiment of evil as many propose it to be. It is too broad a term to be used correctly and honestly.
This weekend, as I was driving to and from Austin through “flyover country” I saw many, many instances of “corporations” doing the good things corporations do in supplying services and goods to the general public. Many if not the vast majority of folks who work in these corporations are good, kind-hearted, hard working people who we need to “win” over to our side through personal contacts and discussions. To alienate these people through a general, misdirected attack on corporations is not wise. Name the individuals and their foundations who are the privatizers and profiteers and shout it out loud so that all may know who are leading the assault.
So then what term(s) should we use? I like what you wrote: “. . . the assault on public education lead by profiteers, politicians and privatizers.”
Short and to the point, “privatizers and profiteers” (I would leave out politicians as again that is too broad a category and the two P words can describe a politician accurately) works well to accurately concisely describe those who profit from the destruction of public schools and of ALL the children they serve.
Duane
LikeLike
“Privatizers and profiteers.” H-m-m-m, I’ll have to think about that… A lot in me wants to demonize the individuals and organizations that push the reform agenda. It seems too impersonal to rail against profiteers and privatizers unless you are an insider who knows the forces aligned against public education. You are right,
Duane, to point out that the term “corporation” is not the basis of the evil empire for a lot of people, nor should it be for us.
Thanks to Joe Bower for giving us a view from outside the battle.
LikeLike
Is it obvious that reformers want destruction? I believe it, but where’s the logical connection? Is testing destruction?
LikeLike
To answer your last question first. Standardized testing is the M16 rifle in the weaponry of the edudeformers. It spits a lot of lead, not necessarily very accurate, but no need for accuracy when that much lead is flying. Standardized test questions are the ammo of the edudeformer M16.
I’m not sure that all edudeformers (certainly they are not true “reformers”) necessarily want that destruction but some of the more hard core libertarian version most likely do.
But I’d like your thoughts on not using “corporate” as the designated adjective describing the edudeformers. Your thoughts??
LikeLike