Edward Johnson, a Deming adherent who believes in system reform, challenges the policymakers in Atlanta: stop blaming the parents, stop tinkering, stop the disruption: instead, fix the system.
Johnson writes:
Georgia administered its standardized tests, the Criterion-referenced Competency Tests (CRCT), from spring, 1999, though spring, 2014, to elementary and middle school children. At just about every year along the way, APS leadership could have taken CRCT results as an assessment of the district as a system. Had they done that, then maybe APS leadership would have realized long ago that entering first graders were always ready for APS but APS was always not ready for the entering first graders, with respect to the district having the capability to sustain, let alone the capability to advance, the first graders’ learning competencies.
CRCT results showed time and again that APS lacks the capability to sustain students’ learning competencies beyond first grade, relative to the state. APS first grade as a system generally performed better than the state. (Note: systems perform, children learn.) Absent interpreting CRCT results as systemic assessment, APS leadership and many others make the leap to “supposing” the problem is “out there” with the parents of the children that lack early childhood education. Consequently, APS leadership continues to harry certain parents of young children to step up to the plate when those very parents are already at the plate. APS just can’t see that they are, in spite of their data-driven decision making. CRCT results held the opportunity for APS leadership to see, and to use, the results as assessment of the district as a system and not of the children and not of their parents and not of the teachers. CRCT results showed year after year that first graders were ready for APS but APS was not ready for first graders. And in that situation was a higher leverage point from which to move toward improving APS as a system.
But having missed that opportunity, we now have APS leadership that thinks turning the district into a Charter System will do the trick. It will not. It will not simply because turning APS into a Charter System epitomizes the very meaning of failure to understand what a system is. Worse, the whole school-reform and charter school garb clocking efforts to privatize public education epitomizes the “blame game” institutionalized especially in so-called urban districts, where ultimately great social harm will emerge because of it. Turning APS into a Charter System is a lower leverage point that can only aim for change — disruptive change, at that — but not improvement. Change inherently is nonaligned, but improvement inherently is aligned.
The kind of reductive, failure to understand what a system is thinking that has decided to turn APS into a Charter System is the very same kind of reductive thinking that has decided that Georgia needs a statewide “Opportunity School District” (OSD) like that of New Orleans’ post-Katrina Recovery School District (RSD).
And it is the kind of reductive thinking that, on the one hand, sees no contradiction in striving to “offer better opportunities for ‘historically underserved’ children” and, on the other hand, subjecting those children to a computer-adaptive assessment system that “allows students and teachers to better predict performance on high stakes tests.” Why would APS leadership want to do that, but for mistakenly believing doing so embodies normal ethics and mores? “One man cannot do right in one department of life whilst he is occupied in doing wrong in any other department. Life is one indivisible whole” (Mahatma Gandhi).
APS leadership has yet to realize, let alone to understand, that the problem is “in here, with us” and not “out there,” with the parents. So, please APS, enough with the harrying of parents of children supposedly lacking early childhood education. It’s the children’s job to harry their parents, not yours.
Ed Johnson
Advocate for Quality in Public Education
(404) 505-8176 | edwjohnson@aol.com
“There is no difference in culture between the things that actually count.”
–W. Edwards Deming

Not on topic, but….Diane did a post a little while back about a legislature (I think it was in the midwest) that is working on creating a law saying charter schools in the state won’t have to take the standardized tests–only the public schools will. Can anyone point me to that post? Thank you.
LikeLike
I think it’s this one:
Here’s the text:
———————————
Put this bill in the category of “Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Worse for Public Education”!
Yesterday afternoon (Feb. 11th) the Senate Education Committee heard Senate Bill 470. It would allow private schools receiving vouchers to ignore ISTEP and to take instead “another nationally recognized and norm referenced assessment” of their own choice. The bill instructs the State Board to develop an A-F system just for the voucher schools taking alternate assessments.
Last year, a similar bill was quickly rejected by the committee because of the obvious reduction in accountability for voucher schools if they aren’t held to Indiana’s standards and assessed via ISTEP. This year, the Senate Education Committee passed the bill 7-3 on a party line vote.
Now we see why the State Board in House Bill 1486 wants to eliminate the current ban on using peer comparisons (norm referenced assessments) in the A-F growth metrics. It’s a complicated web they weave.
Governor Pence strongly endorsed the bill via his education policy director Chad Timmerman, who said that private schools should be able to “choose their own test.”
If anyone doubts that Governor Pence and the leaders of the General Assembly and State Board are favoring private schools over public schools in Indiana’s intense competitive marketplace of school choice, this bill should remove all doubts. The voucher program was sold in 2011 by promising that private schools would take ISTEP and would be measured like all public schools using the A-F system. Now just four years later the voucher schools want to change the rules but keep the money.
This bill would give private voucher schools a direct competitive advantage in the marketplace of school choice because they could attract parents who dislike excessive testing. Public schools would also like to reduce the excessive testing that the General Assembly and State Board have mandated, but this bill only relieves testing mandates for private voucher schools. My testimony on this bill is attached.
LikeLike
Why oh why is there NEVER a question about the validity of the test itself in measuring learning by these people? There is ALWAYS an assumption that the test is a perfect, accurate, reliable, and trustworthy instrument despite decades of proof that show these kinds of assessments are as worthless as scrying mirrors and chicken bones in determining the future.
It’s way past time to dismantle the entire testing complex of psyshometricians, poorly-trained/poorly-paid ‘holistic’ scorers, political manipulation of cut scores, and the billion dollar test selling industry and consign it the dustbin of history beside astrology, phrenology, and all the other pseudoscientific malarkey that has harmed so many millions of people.
LikeLike
Missouri did ask the SBAC people those very questions in court. The reformy test crowd could not come up with the right answer. Missouri has rejected SBAC and refuses to pay them. Here in jClark County Nevada administrators had a meeting with the SBAC people who told them this test is not suitable for anything other than analyzing student learning and cognition, a type of artificial profiling of a child’s mind incorporating the old constructivist notions combined with behaviorism. They stated that these tests are not valid for use in any type of teacher or school evaluations and they did not advocate the use of the SBAC for those purposes. In other words, you are misusing these tests, but we do not want to be co-defendant when it all hits the fan, we are warning you now. Our government leaders press on as does our district. Nevada will be the last state in the Union to drop this nonsense.
LikeLike
I love Deming’s work. He’s deceased, but his work continues.
THE SEVEN DEADLY DISEASES OF MANAGEMENT
https://www.deming.org/theman/theories/deadlydiseases
LikeLike
“Understanding what a system IS and is NOT, is central (to improving quality).” Deming
Do the RESULTS of a “system” match the description of the system? Do the results
fit the hypothesis?
LikeLike
That’s actually the fundamental rule for solving any problem: first understand and specify the problem.
but specifying the problem is only important if one is actually interested in a legitimate solution.
if one is only interested in making money off of widgets designed for schools, then specifying the real problem is not only unnecessary but actually counterproductive because it would make it glaringly obvious that the widgets are actually a complete waste of money.
LikeLike