Reformers like to tell us that they are in a hurry. They want everything reformed now, or yesterday. They can’t wait. They can’t even wait to find out if their reforms make any sense. Their motto might as well be, “Don’t just stand there, reform something.”
But Andy Hargreaves explains here why the hurry up approach doesn’t work. Hargreaves is one of our most sensible thinkers about education. He is now advising the Ontario minister for education.
Ontario, he writes, has tried to learn from the mistakes of others. It has aimed for slow and steady improvement, not overnight transformation by forced march of teachers, administrators, and students.
It paced the change agenda so that achievement gains would be steady and sustainable rather than spectacular but unstable. It also provided a stronger spirit and much higher levels of support than in England in terms of resources, training, partnership with the teacher unions and an emphasis on school-to-school assistance.
Ontario’s literacy gains of 2-3 percent or so every year seemed both steady and cumulatively substantial and sustainable. But even its more advanced strategy had its limitations. The literacy gains were not matched by similar gains in math over the whole reform period, and in the past four years, math results have actually fallen. In practice, reformers now acknowledge, the numeracy strategy was not nearly so intensive as the literacy strategy. What is the lesson to be learned? In practice, even Ontario, with all its change knowledge, couldn’t implement wholesale changes in literacy and numeracy together, so one half of the strategy fell by the wayside by default.
Hargreaves concludes that it is better to sequence reform plans, not do everything at once in a crash course.
It is better still to know that the reform plans make sense, which ours in the U.S. do not.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Don’t just stand there, reform something.”
Love it!
The rush is to get the unions and the teachers out of the way. Then, the reformers can be in control of it all, and test and test and charge for the tests and charge for the internet infrastructure and profit from all the “public” charter schools via lucrative management, ownership and real estate grabs. Ka-ching~!
Why else the need to railroad through and force the closings and common core and opening of charters and subsequent ran-off-with-the-profits-closing down of charters.
Why is White Hat suing to keep the goods purchased with public tax dollars? Why might precedent be set that buildings purchased for school with public tax dollars ultimately belong to the charter operators? That is just sooooo very wrong.
Get it done in a hurry, so there is no turning back, and profits NOW.
The rest of it is smoke and mirrors. Even the reformers don’t believe their rhetoric. They know the jig is about to be up, so they are in a hurry even more.
I have yet to see anyone address the language deficit that I saw all the time in my second graders, even those who ostensibly spoke English. Reading comprehension would be much higher and writing would improve as well if we (teachers, parents,…) spent some focused time working on negatives, plurals, and/or, until/while/before/after, and/but. Also good to teach more sophisticated sentence structures using parallels and subordination.
“Hargreaves concludes that it is better to sequence reform plans, not do everything at once in a crash course.
It is better still to know that the reform plans make sense, which ours in the U.S. do not.”
Quite correct Diane!
And those plans based on educational standards and standardized testing CAN NEVER “make sense” as in order for something to “make sense” it has to be based on truth and not fallacies on which those malpractices are based. Wilson has proven the COMPLETE INVALIDITY of those malpractices in his never refuted nor rebutted “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.
By Duane E. Swacker
Race to the Top. All arrive at the same time or else, 100% proficient by 2014. You/we failed to do the job. New non-sense targets, college and career ready checklists for pre-school, kindergarten, and so on. Standardized truncated curriculum, anxiety-ridden instruction and learning driven by a pathological reification of test scores as both necessary and sufficient for all things that matter most in the current regime–rightly called a “reign of error” by the host of this blog.
What scares me is the absence of political will and savvy needed to overcome the deep pockets intent on privatizing everything once in the public domain, and doing so under the banner of whatever theme seems handy and useful for an elevator sales pitch.
I once taught in a parochial school. I liked the way they adopted new materials. They bought what they needed for K, then 1, then 2, etc. By the time the Kindergartenrs reached 6th grade they had progressed through the same methodology, sequence, nothing skipped or misplaced. By then it was time to star a new sequence, but they only invested one year at a time. This provided the continuity needed to keep the students along a growth pattern that made sense to them, to the teachers, and to the parents. But, public schools tend to budget things differently, and the new CCSS materials have just been a work in progress, it seems. And, few feel comfortable that the decisions were grade appropriate or wise.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Canada is not us. Despite a mostly free-market economy, they have extensive public welfare– a network of structure, they are among the most socialist, supporting a network of ‘public goods’ such as free health and medical care; obviously from the article, education is also considered a public good; its implementation is planned in such a way as to garner results. A large proportion of this country is afraid of socialism.
Propaganda of fear produces the dreaded fright of the “-isms”. It is not the “-ism” but the ones in power of the “-ism” that abuse their power.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Agree completely. But where to start, turning that around? I’m guessing repeal of Cit Uni decision… that doesn’t really help w/big press propaganda, but maybe keeping the internet free will, in the long run.
Here is one logical reason not to “reform” both the English and Math content areas at once… A lot of math requires being able to read and understand spoken word well (especially with the current way math is taught). How can a student who either is new to the English language or has problems with reading understand what it being asked in word problems or explain their answers in written English? Only fools could believe that only “math” is being testing in this situation which is COMMON. So, yes.. the test designers like Pearson are not taking students into account and are not targeting the skills they claim to assess in the first place. And with common core, everything seems to rest on VERY OBTUSE (even for adults) language which in and of itself is hard to understand. What is being assessed????? Poor use of language deciphering! Now, if the nation got rid of these monstrosity high stakes tests in the first place, this whole comment would be moot. A classroom teacher would know how to better assess the students in their classroom for the obvious reason that they know the students.
Getting rid of the tests would be the best solution, IMO. But, it takes a lot of courage to do so. I know that parents locally have opted out. They have fears of retribution on their children. A friend and mom of a former student did so. Last month he got Student of the Month. He is Sophomore now.
I doubt that our union would vote to opt out, unless parents started demanding it. One way they entangle teachers is to make them join committees for local implementation, becoming mentors, and put them in leadership positions. The teachers aren’t really able to refuse, unless they are pregnant. Even that doesn’t stop them from bring asked.
The other way to get teachers motivated is to make certain that have District Pride or to have the best scores in the county.
It would require that entire states opt put, not just the individual districts. Our state appointed head of the dept of education is pro-private schooling, charters, and vouchers.
Not a lot of change has happened. Reynoldsburg, Oh, is on strike. The supt isn’t backing down. They protest merit pay, larger class sizes, and pay freezes. They backed down on the merit pay. The district is paying bused in sub’s who sleep in class and earn twice what other subs earn. Their rooms are even paid for…two subs per hotel room.
A lot needs to change.
“The teachers aren’t really able to refuse, unless they are pregnant.”
They don’t even entertain the idea of putting me on those committees anymore. Hell, I’ve volunteered but they know that I will not follow their “party” line and will ask way too many questions for which they have no logical answer. I show them that what they’re trying to accomplish is detrimental to the teaching and learning process or that the unintended consequences of their policies are harmful.
Unfortunately it is one of their myriad ways to silence me.
“Only fools could believe that only “math” is being testing in this situation which is COMMON.”
Well, yes.
They are primarily testing the facility with Gibberish, which as we all know, is critical for landing a job with and then thriving at a corporation like Pearson or Microsoft.
As you have undoubtedly noticed, Microsoft Word even checks for grammatical Gibberish (actually, what is probably does is checks for correct English and then marks that wrong because that’s a lot easier). And not sure about now, but a few years back Microsoft also preferred Gibberish (Common Core?) Math in their Excel spreadsheet program over the regular math.
You know, the math where 77.1 X 850 = 100,000 instead of the usual 65,535
“Gibberish”
PARCC is testing Gibberish
Cuz Gibberish is key
To swimming as a corporate fish
In Corporation Sea
Reblogged this on vaughanconnolly and commented:
Imagine parents impatient with their daughter’s physical development, force-feed her steroids and HGH. Such parents would (hopefully) soon receive a visit from Social Services !! Andy Hargreave’s research gives excellent proof of the need for systems thinking; Peter Senge (author of The Fifth Discipline, 2006) would be pleased! Hargreaves quickly shows how huge collateral damage can occur from such poor policy decisions! It’s a worthwhile read.
Andy Hargreaves may well be a very nice man. He’s written thoughtfully about educational leadership, advocating, for example, activism as an important element. Thus, it might be argued, authentic leaders in education would be “engaging actively with their environments” to highlight “the adverse effects of high-stakes testing.” But how often does that happen? And why?
In a sense, Hargreaves is a shape-shifter. He’s been associated for quite some time with Solution Tree, PLCs, and the dubious DuFour duo (snarky eye roll).
Solution Tree has been home to any number of charlatans. It’s now promoting Common Core. Its partners are the American Association of School Superintendents, the Marzano Research Lab, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, and PDK. Both the AASA and the NAESP have endorsed Common Core. At the AASA website, prominently featured are the Broad Foundation “prize” for urban education and “data” for “district-wide change.”
The DuFours and PLCs are nearly synonymous. So are PLCs and “data.” In their PLC workshops, the DuFours say things like “teachers have a profound impact on student achievement,” and that “effective” schools “almost entirely overcome the effects of student backgrounds.” And, therefore, data is very important. The source for both statements is Bob Marzano.
The DuFours cite – among others – the Council of Chief State School Officers, Educational Testing Service, National Association of Elementary School Principals. and the Wallace Foundation – as PLC supporters. The Wallace Foundation partners with AASA to develop principal leadership around “data that show their impact on student achievement.” Both the AFT and the NEA are listed as PLC supporters too.
The assumption is, as one PLC-trained principal put it, that PLC is “the place where the world of Common Core will become a powerful learning journey.” Invariably, that means a top-down “vision” embedded with the idea that it’s “critical that principals develop strong distributed leadership with specific goals tied to measurable outcomes.” You know, SMART goals, “data,” and all the rest. Sheesh!
In one central Virginia school district, the superintendent brought in the DuFours (multiple times), and forced PLC on all the schools. And DuFour helped. The claim was that PLCs and “data management technology” would “add significant performance value to enhance learning results through more informed data-driven decision making.” Talk about meaningless jargon.
The data technology turned out to be a multi-million-dollar boondoggle (the company was later purchased by Pearson), and the PLCs were focused almost entirely on test scores, not learning.
Hargreaves has written a chapter in a 2010 book published by Solution Tree titled “21st Century Skills”. Other authors include the DuFour duo. The foreword to the book outlines the “need” for 21st century skills, stating that “the world is changing…there has been a dramatic increase in global competition…the new social contract is different: only people who have the knowledge and skills to negotiate constant change and reinvent themselves for new situations will succeed…proficiency in 21st century skills is the new civil right for our times.” The book is based on the idea that people need “to bring an entrepreneurial mindset to their lives” because – even though we’re still economically competitive as a nation – we suffer from “creeping complacency.”
Are you getting all this?
The foreword acknowledges – briefly – that “more than three-quarters of all jobs in the United States are now in the service sector.” What it fails to note is that the vast majority of those jobs are low-wage and do not require post-secondary education. 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.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/most-new-jobs.htm
The book doesn’t address this issue. Nor does it address the role of public education in nurturing democratic citizenship. What it DOES do is fit all of the pet areas of its authors (PLCs, cooperative learning, technology, backward design, assessment) under the rubric “21st century skills.” The 21st Century Skills Partnership has endorsed the Common Core and produced a “toolkit” that shows “how P21 framework & CCSS align and support each other.”
Hargreaves is correct in asserting that wide-scale “reform” is too often incredibly disruptive. Is practitioners too often resort to a “we’re flying the plane while we build it” rationale, that in and of itself, doesn’t fly. And isn’t that really the foundation of the Common Core?
So why isn’t there more “activist” leadership in public education?
oops…last paragraph….”Its practitioners…”