A dozen superintendents in Connecticut issued a manifesto for real reform. It is one that parents and teachers–and students too!–would happily embrace in place of the current stale and test-driven juggernaut that crushes learning and creativity.
They say, in part:
“Our public school landscape is littered with initiatives, while the vision for learning in Connecticut lacks clarity and coherence. In this “vision void” our measures (i.e. test scores) have become our goals, confounding the purpose of schooling and perpetuating yet another round of piecemeal initiatives.
“The path we should avoid taking is the one that implements the NCLB waiver plan as the de facto vision for the education of Connecticut’s children. Instead we should identify a clear and compelling vision for education in our state and employ all of our resources to achieve it. Staying the course of current reform efforts without a deep analysis of the effects in actual classrooms across the state will further cement the system of compliance and “one size fits all” that grips our very diverse school districts like a vise.
“One way to clarify the vision is to answer the direct and simple questions:
“What are the most worthy outcomes of our public education system?
“Are we preparing our students for the world they will enter when they graduate?
“Is our public education system positioned for continuous improvement, as opposed to ranking, sorting and punishing?
“To what extent do our laws increase conformity at the expense of innovation?
“The answers to these questions imply the need to foster the cognitive, social/emotional and interpersonal student capacities for work, citizenship and life. Additionally, they demand a deep analysis of the systemic efforts to continuously improve. Confronting these questions, and others, will require:
“A redefinition of the role of testing,
“An accountability model (mandatory in the NCLB waiver) matched to a clarified vision for 21st Century learning in Connecticut
“Statewide systems that incentivize innovation and a broad sharing of innovative programs…”
“Districts and teachers are suffocating from a “one size fits all”, compliance-based approach to schooling. One size does not fit all in education, no more than it does in medicine, social work or any other endeavor in which human beings are at the core of the enterprise. In an era that rewards and requires innovative thinking to solve complex problems, public schools have endured a stifling of professional autonomy through increased standardization and homogenization. As a result, energy is drained, a passion for teaching and learning evaporates, and many teachers and leaders question the lack of purpose to their work. Some ways to foster innovation include:
“Creating a “Districts of Innovation” program through which the State Department of Education would administer a rigorous process identifying various district approaches to current challenges faced by schools, such as, reducing bullying, improving school climate, evaluating the performance of individual teachers and administrators, etc. These districts would apply for a waiver or modification from state requirements in order to innovate their practices, while analyzing the impact. These districts could be required to partner with a university, commit to sharing their results, and, if successful, serve as a provider of professional development for other districts. The incubation of fresh, innovative ideas, by classroom teachers and administrators would exponentially grow the capacity of educators in the state.
“Working with Regional Education Service Centers (RESC) to develop an “expert in residence” program with area districts. Districts could grant a yearlong sabbatical to individual teachers to share their innovative work and provide professional development to schools across the state.
Pairing schools to work across different districts to collaboratively confront professional challenges. These partnerships could foster such promising practices as “lesson study”, peer to peer observations, and collaborative analysis of student work.”
These are but a few of the good ideas, grounded in experience and research, that these thoughtful superintendents propose. It is a vision for positive reform that should replace the sterile strategy of carrots and sticks.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
good stuff. Going in the right direction.
Finally, some ideas with common sense and our children in mind. Sure hope these concepts catch hold and spread to other states, like our own educational wasteland down here in Georgia,
“Our public school landscape is littered with initiatives,”
That’s exactly how I feel watching this unfold over the last 15 years, in just one school system. It’s as if everyone in the ed reform “movement” gets their pet theory indulged and is handed a public school or set of schools to use as a test case.
Sometimes the pet projects conflict: It was both sad and silly to watch the state of Ohio scramble to make Jeb Bush’s Third Grade Reading Guarantee align with the Duncan/Kasich Common Core testing regime. For a while there it looked like they would be holding back 70% of 3rd graders. Whoops!
We’re watching political battles WITHIN the ed reform “movement” play out in our schools. It has absolutely nothing to do with the people who use the local public schools.
Interesting observation.
“Of Rubes and Tubes”
With schools as testing tubes
To “prove” their crackpot claims
The school “reforming” rubes
Are playing political games
You can almost SEE the push-pull of the competing groups:
“It’s the accountability hawks versus the choice evangelists this legislative session! Which faction will prevail? Stay tuned!” 🙂
Very reasonable approach. Elimination (rather than the option for reduction) of using tests to evaluate teachers should be a point of emphasis.
Creating a “district of inovation” program sound nice but reminds me of the original purpose of the federal Education department. Look at what a beast it has morphed into.
Great ideas – time to reduce student tears & teacher panic attacks – neither of which provide a good atmosphere for learning!
You may be interested in this article that was just published on Pearson. It investigates how Pearson got the contract for the PARCC test, and then also reveals a new development on the horizon in Pennsylvania: both Pearson and ETS are vying for a contract from the PA DOE for the right to create a video assessment system of student teachers. In other words, Pearson or ETS would be get to film student teachers in the classroom and then decide if they should be certified. http://www.phillyvoice.com/concerns-rising-over-pearson/
The following spoke to me:
“Is our public education system positioned for continuous improvement, as opposed to ranking, sorting and punishing?
The current system seems more of a way to punish students (at least 70% of them) then to facilitate true learning.
Ellen
#why-do-they-hate-our-children?
While I admire the effort of Superintents to put forward a different way of thinking, the statement is riddled through with phrases and ideas that seem to me at odds with the idea that teachers have wisdom and that much good is happening in public schools that should be acknowledged–What are you and your students doing well? Where are you seeing a love of learning happening? How can that be sustained?
This statement seems to assume there are major deficiencies which can be remedied by innovative districts–as if administrative innovation is necessary and is also a virtue.
I am looking at a lot of well-worn words and phrases that are bothersome–rigorous, and impact are two examples. The statement makes casual use of the phrase “continuous improvement,” and “innovation” as if these same phrases have never been used to foist a lot of bad policies on teachers.
Recall that the concept of continuous improvement migrated into education from gurus in managing factories (in Japan). Not a great idea for education if you want to reject one-size-fits all thinking and metrics. A preoccupation with innovation can also lead to throwing the baby out with the bath-water–ignoring some old-fashioned ideas that have a lot to commend them, like face-to-face conversations, and without technology.
I think there is ample evidence that forced collaborations and/or partnerships can produce more pre-occupation with process than substanceand also hide who really has responsibility for what and when. Lesson study, held out as an exemplary process may work, but there are many ways to encourage and reward reflective thinking.
I think words matter. I am really bothered by the easy uptake on the idea that teachers should impact students, as if all of the extended meanings of that term could and should be ignored–pow, bam, sudden force, hit em harder, what Australians call bashing.
I think any administrator (or teacher) who speaks casually about “impacting the growth of students” needs to be called out, not just for throwing jargon around, but jargon that is really hostile to the idea of caring about students as living and still growing persons.
Thank you, LHC. I was uncomfortable with the language as well. It shows how well reform lingo has permeated the education landscape when its practitioners who are critical of the reforms find themselves using the same verbiage as those they oppose. I did like some of the ideas; they must be readers of this blog since there was not one I have not heard suggested here. I did not like the implicit understanding that our educational system is broken. Our broken schools are a reflection of how society as a whole views the communities in which we find those poorly managed and/or resourced schools. Too many students will still fall through the cracks unless we are willing to deal with societal inequities.
Agree with your comments.