Politico reports today that most teachers of the year agree test-based evaluations are the most demoralizing federal policy for teachers. Yet ConnCAN, the corporate reform group, is urging Connecticut legislators to stick with this failed program.
Shame on ConnCAN! Count on them to advocate for policies opposed by teachers and parents. Whom do they represent? Their biggest funder is the Sackler family, which became billionaires selling the highly addictive OxyContin.
And by the way, now that 50CAN has merged with StudentsFirst, it is time to recall that in the psychiatric literature, CAN refers to “child abuse and neglect.”
Politico writes:
“- Speaking of tests, 69 percent of State Teachers of the Year and finalists for State Teacher of the Year say that federal policy that has most damaged the professionalization of the teaching profession has required the use of standardized test scores in teacher evaluations. That’s according to new survey results released by the National Network of State Teachers of the Year: http://bit.ly/1UUGT8s.
“- In Connecticut, the state board will decide whether to adopt a state panel’s recommendation to delay linking student growth to teacher evaluations for the upcoming 2016-17 school year. Jennifer Alexander, CEO of the advocacy group ConnCAN, will testify in opposition to the measure, calling it “folding to political pressure and maintaining the status quo.” Meanwhile, the Connecticut General Assembly’s education committee has approved a bill that would ban the use of student growth in teacher evaluations.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
You are right.
ConnCAN</a. is shameful.
So much (and so many) leg showing.
And just look what happens at about the 4 minute mark. Talk about child abuse
No discussion of testing would be complete without John Oliver’s takedown from about a year ago:
This totally EXPLODED… getting 5 million views in just three days. Thus, the corporate reform industry struck back with the most vicious response ever.
First, there’s mega-douche Peter Cunningham who does a Karl Rove on Oliver … flipping the whole thing …
What or who is hurting children?
According to Cunningham, it’s not the ridiculous over-emphasis and misuse of testing, or the excessive number of tests given — as Oliver’s piece argues. No, all of that is helping children, right?
No, on the contrary. It’s Oliver who is the bad guy in this, as evidenced by the title of Cunningham’s rant against Oliver’s video above:
“John Oliver Throws Poor Kids Under the Bus”
http://educationpost.org/john-oliver-throws-poor-kids-under-the-bus/
Peter’s gotta earn his pay from Broad/Walton/Gates/etc. It’s like as soon as this went viral, all the corporate ed reform shills were sent out like the winged monkeys in the Wizard of Oz to attack, attack, attack…
Here’s some more from the corporate reform monkeys ripping into Oliver:
http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2015/05/comedy-hbos-john-oliver-swings-and-misses-against-standardized-testing.html#.VwWZYHAzH-U
http://www.thirdway.org/third-way-take/john-oliver-is-wrong-on-standardized-testing
http://educationpost.org/okay-john-oliver-lets-put-the-test-to
CAN refers to “child abuse and neglect.”
Brilliant observation that should drive some brand-maker into oblivian.
And unless I am mistaken there of 50 of the CANs, one for each state.
Laura,
I was knocked on Twitter for pointing out the psychiatric meaning of CAN
but it is true
So, no more CAN!!
Child Abuse and Neglect
Diane,
ConnCAN stands for Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now. It does not have a psychiatric meaning. What you are doing is childish.
Raj, you are wrong.
Read Childish: Confronting Prejudice Against Children, by the late and much esteemed child psychiatrist Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, who described NCLB as child abuse, and who explained that the acronym CAN stands for Child Abuse and Neglect. If I were forming an organization, I would take the time to check out the meaning of the acronym.
Whoever it was that claimed “reformers are the sharpest knives in the drawer” had only spoons in his drawer.
Terribly sad, as well, that 31% of teachers of the year did not say this ridiculous practice is harmful.
Quibbling a bit, 31% of those ToY winners did not say it was the most harmful federal education policy (though I can’t imagine what they’d say is worse).
Sick!