On Sunday, I posted the FairTest model for state assessments. FairTest has spent decades fighting the misuse and abuse of standardized testing. One of its long-time board members, for example, is Deborah Meier, a well-recognized and distinguished critic of standardized testing.
Several readers read the report as a covert effort to legitimate Competency-Based Education, that is, embedded computerized testing controlled by corporations.
Monty Neill of FairTest responds here:
The comments in response to the posting about FairTest’s report, Assessment Matters, raise interesting points. I will respond here to just a few.
First, there is no doubt that corporations backed by some foundations and politicians are promoting a version of schooling that is built around computerized packaged programs that combine curriculum, curricular materials, instruction and testing. The tests are in most cases multiple-choice and short-answer with occasional write-to-a-prompt items, to be machine graded. They seriously narrow and diminish education and should be exposed and stopped.
But not one of the examples in FairTest’s report rely on these kinds of computerized packages. Each one is teacher controlled and very much teacher controlled. We clearly support and praise those that allow significant student voice and control over the learning and assessment processes. New Hampshire fought for a deal that has opened doors that have been nailed shut since the start of NCLB and thus deserve serious credit. As we point out, we can learn from and improve on what they have thus far done, and that ESSA makes it easier for that to happen. (As a sidebar, we have regularly opposed much of what is in ESSA concerning testing while noting the victories and gains the testing reform movement made and providing ideas on how to take advantage of the opportunities it does provide.)
People can choose to believe the fight is over because corporations are trying to seize control of terms such as personalized and competency-based. We believe that is a mistake. It is not over, and one part of the battle is the fight to own the terms. The more important fight is the one to determine the shape of education, whether it is built on human relations among teachers and students, with parents and other community people also engaged; or it is based on computer algorithms and subordinating human relations to the computer packages.
FairTest fights for the former. We think that is clear in what we call for and the programs we highlight. If people have questions about that, they should read what we actually write and then follow it up, looking at the programs themselves.
Monty Neill
Diane Ravitch's blog 
True words in testing as well as the whole fight for public education: “People can choose to believe the fight is over because corporations are trying to seize control of terms such as personalized and competency-based. We believe that is a mistake. It is not over…”
LikeLike
Part of the problem here is that there is not one single definition of “competency based education.” There are at least two very different implementations of the idea out there, and this fact is rarely specified.
This does not work well once people attach essentially a conspiracy to an ill-defined term, as it ends up invalidating the less-malign uses of the term and convening a circular firing squad.
LikeLike
Agreed. There is too much glossing over of the fact that correlation, or things that just appear to be correlated is claimed to be causation. This distracts from the mandatory effort of disassembling and exposing the guts of the Trojan Horses that are in fact being sent to the gates of public education. The sky is not falling, but it does contain vultures that can be driven off.
LikeLike
This is a war between the values of a humanistic republic and democracy that values the individual, and a technocracy that only values data that leads to profits for the few who hold most of the wealth and want all of the power.
Donald Trump has done everyone a favor by running for president, because he has revealed how most of the wealthiest 0.1 percent think, except for locker-room talk.
The Donald has revealed that money buys power and power corrupts most if not all of those that hold it.
LikeLike
I’d love to Fair Test send a letter to NEA and all its local branches, and AFT, giving them concrete language and recommendations to fight what Mr. Neill describes here: I am quoting Mr. Neill: “First, there is no doubt that corporations backed by some foundations and politicians are promoting a version of schooling that is built around computerized packaged programs that combine curriculum, curricular materials, instruction and testing. The tests are in most cases multiple-choice and short-answer with occasional write-to-a-prompt items, to be machine graded. They seriously narrow and diminish education and should be exposed and stopped.”
Let’s rally around exposing and stopping this narrow and diminished view of education. Our local organization gave a presentation that was built of off http://www.getessaright.org. Watch the video. There is no discussion of anything that needs to be exposed and stopped.
LikeLike
Does this mean Diane is considering?!
The Global Search for Education: Just Imagine Secretary Ravitch
http://www.cmrubinworld.com/the-global-search-for-education-just-imagine-secretary-ravitch
LikeLike
Monty (and Diane) –
Thank you for your response.
I still have major concerns.
First: the opposition that many of us have to CBE is NOT simply that it leads to embedded, computer-based testing – though that is indeed a major concern. It is also the fact that CBE leads to what amounts to nearly total control of curriculum by way of standards and accountability.
You argue that under Fair Test’s model, each assessment is very much teacher controlled, but this is simply false. Even when we are permitted to design our own “common assessments” (as they are called here in Maine, where we are transitioning to a model based on NH’s) we are confined to pre-determined standards, competencies, and grading rubrics. The data we generate must be entered and submitted to our overlords by way of “learning management systems,” who then judge whether or not we are “effective.” It is like being permitted to build our own prison, or dig our own grave.
Then there is the issue of the near impossibility of disentangling your (FairTest’s) agenda from that of the corporate-foundation-edutech agenda.
For example, you suggest we lobby our states to join the seven-state Innovative Assessment Zones, without ever mentioning that it was the Gates-funded iNACOL and Knowledgeworks Foundation that were responsible for designing these zones. According to a letter from iNACOL and KnowledgeWorks to the US DOE, a “competency-based” expert will be among the judges to determine which states qualify to be a zone member. What criteria do imagine this “expert” will use to determine state eligibility?
And there is the issue of funding. The Center for Collaborative Education, which was instrumental in the NH PACE pilot that you highlight as an ideal model, has received many thousands of dollars from the Nellie Mae Education Foundation, which is without question pushing the corporate version of “personalized learning” that so many of us are now fighting. Nellie Mae, along with the Gates Foundation, has also given millions to the Great Schools Partnership here in Maine, which has been pushing us toward proficiency (competency) based learning in some very deceitful ways. Deborah Meier herself appears to have a close relationship with this partnership, as her organization, the Coalition of Essential Schools – shares a mailing address with GSP.
It appears that Nellie Mae also co-sponsored a “performance assessment” event with FairTest not long ago.
So, you can see how many of us are skeptical that your (FairTest’s) agenda is truly distinct from the corporate-foundation-edutech agenda – and even if it is – how can we possible steer clear of the latter agenda when they are the ones calling the shots and controlling both policy and purse strings?
And finally… why do we need any of this in the first place? Why does FairTest believe we need such complex, expensive accountability systems at all ??
-Emily
LikeLike
Emily,
I try to foster debate among informed and concerned people who want “a better education for all.” Just for your future information, I do not support any state assessment system that tests every child every year. As I have written many times,
no other nation does it, nor should we. I have no objection to sampling like NAEP, but as a general rule, I see no value in ranking students, teachers, or schools. Student performance should be measured by teachers, not corporations. The results should be shared with the parents and not go beyond the school.
LikeLiked by 1 person