Marion Brady is a retired teacher and administrator and prolific author.
He writes:
“In a commentary in the July 21, 2014 issue of Time magazine, columnist Joe Klein takes aim at one of the usual targets of today’s education reformers—unions. In a dig at New York City mayor de Blasio, he says, “A mayor who actually cared about education would be seeking longer school days, longer school years, more charter schools…and the elimination of tenure and seniority rules…”
“Like just about every other mainstream media pundit, Klein thinks he knows enough about educating to diagnose its ills and prescribe a cure. That he’ll be taken seriously testifies to the power of what’s become the conventional wisdom, that if America’s schools aren’t performing as they should it’s because teachers aren’t getting the job done.
“What’s the teacher’s job? Raising standardized tests scores.
“What’s the key to high test scores? Rigor.
“What does rigor look like? No-excuses teachers doing their thing for as long as it takes to get the job done.
“What’s “their thing”? Teaching to demanding standards—the Common Core State Standards.
“The market-force-education-reform juggernaut set in motion by business leaders and politicians about a quarter-century ago is simple and easily summarized. (1) Adopt tough performance standards for school subjects. (2) Use high-stakes tests to measure performance. (3) Reward high-scorers; punish low scorers.
“Which, when you think about it, is off the mark. School subjects are just tools—means to an end. We don’t tell surgeons which scalpels and clamps to use; what we want to know is their kill/cure rate. We don’t check the toolbox of the plumber we’ve called to see if he (or she) brought a basin wrench and propane torch; we want to know that when the job’s done the stuff goes down when we flush. We don’t kick the tires of the airliner we’re about to board; we trust the judgment of the people on the flight deck.
“School subjects are tools. Kids show up for kindergarten enormously curious and creative. What we need to know is how well schooling is enhancing that curiosity and creativity. Kids learn an incredible amount on their own long before they walk through school doors. What we need to know is how much improvement there’s been in self-directed learning. Kids appear to begin life with an innate sense of what’s right and fair. What we need to know is how successfully that sense is being nurtured.
“We’re on a wrong track. Standards? Of course! But not standards for school subjects. What’s needed are standards for the qualities of mind, emotion, character, and spirit the young must be helped to develop if they’re to cope with the world they’re inheriting.
The Common Core Standards, says the CCSS website, “provide clear signposts along the way to the goal of college and career readiness.” Just stick to the CCSS script to be prepared for college and career.
“College? Years ago, the Association of American Colleges’s Project on Redefining the Meaning and Purpose of Baccalaureate Degrees said, “We do not believe that the road to a coherent education can be constructed from a set of required subjects or academic disciplines.” I’ve seen no evidence that the thoughtful among them have changed their minds.
“Careers? We have no idea how the interactions of globalization, automation, climate change, clashing societal
worldviews, and trends not yet evident will effect careers. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that nobody knows what careers are going to be available when today’s elementary school kids are looking for work.
“Back in the 70s, in his book Reflections on the Human Condition, Eric Hoffer, philosopher, writer, and longshoreman, wrote something that the Common Core Standards don’t adequately reflect: “In a time of drastic change it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists.”
“Standards? Sure. But not standards for solving quadratic equations, or for recalling the chemical formulas for salt, sand, baking soda, and chalk, or for interpreting Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail as some self-appointed “expert” thinks it should be interpreted.
And not standards that make it easy to create machine-scored tests that perpetuate the destructive myth that quality can be quantified and turned into data to drive education reform.
“Standards—proper standards—could work wonders. Consider, for example, the effect just one standard could have on teachers, on teaching materials, on kids, on the citizenry, on America:
“Schools will be held accountable for sending learners on their way with a deep-seated love of learning and a willingness and ability to follow where that love leads.”

Excellent points. We need to look at these and work to have common sense about what the common core is as well as what it should be.
We are truly having a bogus framework thrust in our faces because we do not know what future careers might be. We have no reason to believe everyone can afford or will choose college. At the same time, colleges are being undermined , the same group of non-educators.
LikeLike
“Schools will be held accountable for sending learners on their way with a deep-seated love of learning and a willingness and ability to follow where that love leads.” Schools had this prior to the test/punishment accountability of NCLB and RTTT. Teachers and students together explored their passions for learning and took the time to expand on them. Even with encouragement, many students today accept mediocre and don’t want to polish or further explore the learning. Students voice that they are tried and exhausted and they don’t want to use the energy to make their product better. School reform was suppose to improve education. I am not convinced. 21st century learners should be prepared to be life-long learners because that is going to be more important than ever. I don’t believe we are preparing life-long learners under the present reforms.
LikeLike
“School reform was suppose to improve education. I am not convinced.”
I am convinced that it is drastically worsening and debilitating public education through the various educational malpractices on which the supposed “reforms” are based.
¡Sigue la lucha! ¡Muerte a los edudeformistas!-metaforicamente
LikeLike
I’d like to share a talk I gave last night to the School Board of Palm Beach County, FL titled “Testing Has Become Toxic.” It was inspired by our adoption of a business item against “Toxic Testing” at the recent representative assembly of the National Education Association.
http://youtu.be/jwnXJrh31kQ
LikeLike
Standards? We got some and they ain’t worth the paper and pixels there on. We don’t need no stinkin standards!! (apologies to “Treasure of the Sierra Madre” and “Blazing Saddles”)
By the way why does standard rhyme with bastard????*
We need good curriculum and no, it doesn’t have to be great, just workable, locally made so that a teacher can come in and know what the class is to learn.
“Standards” are not the answer, they’re part of the problem. To understand why read and comprehend the never refuted nor rebutted (eh, Jim) Noel Wilson’s “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 description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional 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 the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
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. And 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 attempts to measure “’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.
*Because D. Coleman is the sugar daddy who isn’t married to the mother.**
**Now we need to figure out who the mother is, or is that the muthaf. . . er?
LikeLike
they’re on not there
LikeLike
Philosophical scepticism is a dead end.
LikeLike
Man, Jim, to bad you went around to give that piece of advice to Bruno!
Are you working on refuting or rebutting Wilson now? If so, what have you come up with?
LikeLike
“By the way why does standard rhyme with bastard????*”
They don’t. Now you could make a case for “turd.”
LikeLike
Okay,
Standard rhymes with basturd!!!
LikeLike
Better. It has more of a ring to it.
LikeLike
I am just asking–Where are the unions on this? Is the best that can be done is informing parents of their option to opt-out? Is it best for students to have teachers working for testing companies to administer standardized tests instead of educating students.
Don’t you believe parents are getting tired of their tax dollars being used for teachers to administer test and working for testing companies months out of the
school year? They could instead be in the classroom instructing students and making better use of 180 school days.
This article from the Washington post speaks about the frequency and quantity of testing in various states:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/03/09/11-key-questions-on-standardized-testing-for-congress-to-answer/
LikeLike
Sorry–My reply above is to Andy Goldstein on Toxic Testing.
LikeLike
“Schools will be held accountable for sending learners on their way with a deep-seated love of learning and a willingness and ability to follow where that love leads.”
And the economists and accountants will want to know….
how deep is that seat, and
what are the metrics for love, and
what will be the annual source of “evidence” for being willing and able, and
where does that love lead, if not to college and a career.
This is the problem with standard-setting, and the idea of accountability resting with schools and teachers.
If standards are needed, along with some heavy-duty accountability, it is on the other side of the equation–addressing the chronic and accelerating underfunding of public schools, and the red-lining of neighborhoods, and the morally wrong notion that tax-breaks for hedge fund managers and outrageous compensation for administrators of for-profit schools and “not-for-profit” charter schools is OK, and so on down the list.
And how about some standards that apply to the purveyors and endorsers, academic and corporate, of teacher evaluation systems that are known to unreliable, invalid, and just plain screwball ideas like VAM and SLOs. Fraud abounds. Where is the accountability?
Standards are not the same as ethical principles, concepts, guidelines, rules of thumb. Here is one principle that too many would-be reformers have dismissed:
First, do no harm.
LikeLike
TY, Diane. I love Marion Brady’s work! Go to his Web site. Lots of good stuff there.
LikeLike
“Driving Miss Crazy”
Standards drive the testing
And testing drives the teaching
And teaching drives divesting
From outcomes worth the reaching
But outcomes drive the money
And money drives the model
And this may sound quite funny
But model drives the twaddle
LikeLike
I do not know if Joe Klein is the same person as Joel Klein who worked so well with Rupert Murdoch. If so, “nuff sed”. If not, they are certainly on the same page.
LikeLike
TIME’s Joe Klein, is a reason I stopped subscribing to the magazine.
After supporting the magazine for 20 years, I stopped some time ago.
IMO, neither schools nor libraries should assume TIME articles are well-researched or objective.
LikeLike
Where did Marion Brady write? He described for me what teaching and learning are supposed to be. He provided the answer every teacher needs when a student asks, “Why do we have to learn this?”
LikeLike
Marion Brady has his ow website. Google him. He is prolific.
LikeLike
I grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts in the 1970s where alternative schools blossomed. See Len solo’s book here to describe this. https://sites.google.com/site/lensolosite/home/education The things that can happen when teachers and parents have freedom are amazing.
My daughter now 15 is in the same public school system where there’s so much pressure for teachers to cover some arbitrary list of standards that the time to do the things that matter is gone.
I am wondering if standards make any sense at all. Why have some arbitrary list of stuff or if you do make it sufficiently open-ended so that there’s a lot more flexibility in the classroom to cover them and please let there be room to let kids get excited about something off that list and spend an extra month on that.
LikeLike