John Thompson, a historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, reviews the stalemate in education in the Sooner State. The cause: a state superintendent who will not abandon failed reforms.
He writes:
As School Superintendent Ryan Walters ramps up his attacks on public education, resisting his false, rightwing agenda has become Oklahoma educators’ top priority. While we need to unite and put the school reform wars of the last two decades behind us, the lessons of corporate reforms must be remembered. As Walters puts the doomed-to-fail, test-to-punish No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) “accountability” mandates on steroids, I’ve tried to be as diplomatic as possible in reminding educators how and why data-driven, competition-driven “reforms” did so much damage. Reading the Tulsa World editorial, “Current Public Accountability Systems Always Leaving Kids Behind” by Bixby Superintendent Rob Miller, brought me back to a time when I was one of many educators trying to reason with corporate school reformers. Then I read Peter Greene’s “VAM: Why Is This Zombie Policy Still Around?, and I was reminded of the history of so many Oklahoma administrators failing to push back against the Billionaires Boys Club.
My favorite memories of Rob Miller was when he pulled no punches in telling legislators the hard truths about NCLB. Miller is still candid about it, illustrating education’s “gap between those who make policy and those who suffer the consequences.” Research made it clear that “standardized tests are unreliable indicators of school quality,” and “nothing more than an elaborate sorting and labeling system.” Non-educators dismissed the experience of teachers, concluding they were “just falling back on excuses about student poverty, adverse childhood experiences, teacher shortages and unstable families.”
Miller recounts the loss of “recess, music and arts, field trips, class discussions and reading books for pleasure when we need to get these kids proficient at bubbling correct answers on multiple-choice tests.” He then writes:
Who cares if a 10-year-old learns to hate school because he’s been retained in third grade and his days are now filled with worksheets, practice tests and repetitive drill-and-kill curriculum in place of projects, puzzles and hands-on activities which nurture his natural curiosity and develop thinking skills? Suck it up, kid!
In my experience, the overwhelming majority of education leaders knew that test-driven accountability would inevitably lead to “tedious, time-wasting, high-pressure, spirit-killing, highly scripted instructional programs.” But few would go on the record about the harm done by focusing on test scores, as opposed to improving learning. And few of them were as eloquent as Miller when standing up for students.
Then, I read Peter Greene’s summary of what I believe was the worst of the worst corporate reform mandate, Value Added Models (VAMS). When the Billionaires Boys Club” saw the way that NCLB wasn’t working, they blamed Baby Boomers for accepting “Excuses!” and targeted individual educators, using invalid and unreliable algorithms to punish and replace veteran teachers with 23-year-olds they could train. I will always love President Obama, but his Race to the Top was even more destructive than NCLB. Virtually every educator and student above 2ndgrade were held accountable for increased “outputs.”
Greene first explained the inherent flaws in VAMS, doing an intensive analysis of the model’s flaws for teacher evaluation, and surveys documenting teachers rejecting them. He also wrote:
We used to talk about this a lot. A. Lot. But VAM … has departed the general education discussion even though it has not departed the actual world of education. Administrators still brag about, or bemoan, their VAM scores. VAM scores still affect teacher evaluation. And VAM scores are still bunk.
And that leads to what may be the most disturbing aspect of Greene’s piece for states like Oklahoma. He reviewed a range of studies around 2014 and 2015 that made the overwhelming case for abandoning the use of VAMs for accountability purposes. Since Ryan Walters has said he’s been consulting with the architects of the Houston IDS regarding a plan for taking over the Tulsa Public Schools, the most relevant and frightening research Greene cites for Oklahoma document the destructive role that VAMs played in Houston.
Reading Superintendent Miller’s and Greene’s work makes me, once again, rethink my efforts to persuade administrators and politicians to reject test-driven accountability. I worry that education leaders will revert back to the “culture of compliance,” and obey Walters’ demands. I keep remembering the time when one of the nation’s top experts, John Q. Easton of the Chicago Consortium on School Research, came to Oklahoma City and explained why it is impossible to improve schools without first building trusting relationships, and warning about untrustworthy accountability metrics. Afterwards, in the parking lot where administrators were more likely to feel free to speak their minds, the OKCPS’s top researchers agreed, but warned that the new types of tests resulting from NCLB (with Criterion Based Tests replacing Norm Referenced Tests) would completely corrupt our data.
Then, we had an agreement with MAPS for Kids volunteers that the OKCPS would be clear in telling teachers that their job was teaching to state standards, not standardized tests. When NCLB was implemented, however, I was in the meeting where top administrators recalled years of ridiculous mandates and then jolted us all by saying the district had no choice but to expand high-stakes testing. I was the only one who pushed back. A smart, sincere, veteran administrator replied, “John, I always say you don’t make a hog bigger by weighing it. But this is politics. We have no choice.”
On the state level, I joined an informal committee with superintendents trying to draft NCLB policies that would be less destructive. I was tasked with studying the Ohio standards. Because it was then a swing state, Ohio was granted the most freedom to get around the most destructive accountability mandates. The thought was that NCLB’s worst aspects would not survive the 2004 elections, so we sought to kick the ball down the field until evidence-based policies returned!?!?
So, I kept trying to be diplomatic, bridging differences with both – corporate reformers who would not reconsider their ideology-driven mandates and educators who felt they had to comply with those mandates. On one hand, unity is more important when our democracy – not just public education – faces existential threats. On the other hand, discussing these historic facts could be a unifying force. After all, so many of today’s teachers and parents have experienced the damage done by test-driven, competition-driven schooling. I suspect that many of them would appreciate a discussion of the history of those failures.
The 21st century is full of hard truths about the way that the holistic instruction students need for a better future was undermined. And then came Covid, and then came the Moms for Liberty. Reading Rob Miller and Peter Greene, and the science they present, is convincing me that I also must learn from failures to openly oppose corporate school reforms, in addition to fighting back against fanatics like Ryan Walters.
By the way, Walters just announced his plan to create a “one-stop shop” for teacher training, development and financial services. He unexpectedly ended the state’s relationship with:
The three organizations, which have wide membership throughout the state are the Oklahoma State School Boards Association (OSSBA), the Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration (CCOSA) and the Oklahoma Public School Resource Center (OPSRC). In a news release, Walters said without providing examples that the three organizations “work in tandem with national extremist groups that seek to undermine parents, force failed policies into the schools, and work against a quality education in Oklahoma.”
The Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration responded, “Last year, over 5,400 educators attended CCOSA’s professional development events to serve those members, focusing on topics such as school finance, special education law and teacher evaluations.” The OPSRC did not reply, but apparently, Walters broke ties with them because they hired a former district superintendent, April Grace, who was his Republican opponent for state superintendent. Before education leaders try to cooperate with Walters in order to avoid his full fury, they should remember that the OPSRC is funded by the Walton Family Foundation and other philanthropies that support corporate school reforms! That’s one more reminder that revenge, not school improvement, is his focus.

“VAM scores.”
I still recall my question. I asked Bill Sanders a question after his presentation to our county teachers. When all that value-added stuff was in its infancy, our superintendent, who knew Sanders because he grew up here, had persuaded him to explain his program to us, the teachers.
After his explanation, which included a math lesson about lines and being above and below lines and standard deviations, the teachers were filing out of the library where most of them had gone to school, and I asked him a simple question: How does this system account for teachers teaching different material?
Sanders was speechless for a moment, then answered in a way that let me know he had never considered that question at all.
I thought about the question I asked a lot in the twenty or so years I taught thereafter. Soon there was a scripted English curriculum, and all 9th graders had to take algebra. The standardization of curriculum delivery quite obviously grew out of the need to legitimize tests.
Once again, a horrible tail had wagged a good dog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great story, Roy. When I think about Sanders and VAM, I always remember that he began his career as an agricultural economist. I can see how VAM works to measure cows and corn, but not the art and craft of teaching. There’s probably a word that describes the misuse of tools, but can’t think of it.
LikeLike
There is an outstanding professional organization in the consulting world that I was part of for a while called the Sociotechnical Systems Group, or SSG. It’s been a while, so I don’t know if these folks are still active. Sociotechnical Systems Theory is all about the UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS that result from misapplication of new technical tools.
So, for example, consider a business in which the boss decides she is going to make the sales staff start using a Customer Resource Management, or CRM, program. This is a computer program into which the salesperson enters all the info about his or her customers–meetings, people, info about the people, addresses and numbers and emails, correspondence, invoices, products pitched, materials and samples left, products ordered, and so on. It includes dashboards so that the bosses back home and the salespeople can look at all this stuff in real time. Sounds great, right?
But in the real world, there are all kinds of potential problems that people don’t think about. I’ll give two as examples. First, simply putting stuff into the program takes an enormous amount of time, and traditional methods for compensating salespeople do not include payment for such activity. So, the salesperson is forced to do a lot of work for free. Second, experienced people know that their little black books (actually, big books, in my experience, and not black) with notes about their customers are their most private and treasured possessions. They build these bodies of contact information over years of hard work, and they don’t want to simply hand it all over to the company. THIS IS WHAT MAKES THE SALESPERSON PARTICULARLY VALUABLE. Why would anyone in his or her right mind want to turn over to a company that which makes him or her valuable so that it can be handed over to someone else?
Here’s the thing: When people introduce new technologies, they don’t foresee the many, many actual, real-world consequences of implementing them. That’s what Sociotechnical Systems Theory and its associated consulting activity are all about. Trying to foresee, identify, and ameliorate those problems and to educated companies about them.
LikeLike
Diane: I cannot but think about the old adage that a hammer looks at everything as though it were a nail.
LikeLike
The phrase, known as The Law of the Instrument, existed in various forms before this, but it became popular after it was used by Abraham Maslow in his 1966 book The Psychology of Science. Maslow wrote:
“I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”
Many years ago, I had an Educational Measurement class taught by a doctrinaire Behaviorist, so one day I went in before class and wrote on the blackboard (yes, there were blackboards then):
“If the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” –Maslow on Behaviorism
LikeLike
I had a depressing experience while reading this post. And it’s not about Oklahoma. I am quasi-ashamed to admit that I still harbor quite a bit of old-fashioned conservatism that places a premium on local govt. My deep inner knee-jerk conviction is still, well, if OK or some other educational backwater insists on doing educational-backwater stuff, it’s on them. Sooner or later the younger generation will find greener pastures, enlightened corporations will decide against placing outposts there, etc. [Tempered, these days, by the understanding that public ed in OK and similar states is run by people who follow the druthers of deep-pocketed donors who’d prefer to blow up the public school system (rather than the advice of educators or even their constituents’ druthers)].
Ennyhoo, when I read Greene’s assertion that, despite the lack of talk about VAM, teachers are still evaluated by it, I thought, surely not my enlightened state of NJ. [“Enlightened” LOL: we still use PAARC!] So I looked up what NJ is doing today. Teachers in tested subjects: 70% Teacher Practice [per Danielson, Marzano, or other approved package, with district discretion on how to combine ‘observation data with evidence about a teacher’s practice’ (?)… + 25% SGO (student growth objective) + 5% msgp [VAM algorithm]. For teachers in untested subjects, it’s 85% Teacher Practice + 15% SGO.
Did it make me happy that NJ has reduced VAM input to 5%? NOO! Danielson/ Marzano et al is more bunkum driven by VAM-type philosophy. SGO? even worse! Another paperwork and data-input time-hog, and easily gamed. It actually encourages the setting of lower goals for students so as to avoid sanctions for only x% meeting them!
Please disagree if you use this stuff and feel I’m wrong to dismiss its value. I taught upper grades way before any of it came into being [PreK/K more recently, where it is not used]; my knowledge of Danielson/ Marzano is limited to input from teacher friends/ relatives early in its implementation.
LikeLike
Bethree,
My reaction is somewhat similar to yours.
I recoil against the federal government OR THE STATE telling teachers and other professionals what they must do; but I am fine with the federal government and the state telling teachers what they should not do. E.g., you cannot throw a kid out because of her skin color or religion or disability. You cannot lock children into a closet to punish them. You cannot do anything cruel to children. However I recoil when the government tells you how to teach.
LikeLike
Thanks, Diane! As usual you get right to the heart of the matter.
LikeLike