Disentangling High Stakes from Accountability

I'm at the ED in '08 education blogging conference in D.C.--Roy Romer's gathering of ed bloggers--discussing what'll be the big ed agendas for the next president and Congress and the role blogs play in bringing ed issues to a broader audience.

In a room presumably full of education policy wonks and bloggers, it was interesting, in one of this morning's panel discussions, to hear the perspective of an actual teacher. Huffington Post contributor and author Dan Brown related his experience as a first-year teacher in a high-needs N.Y. elementary school and basically asked how we can disentangle high-stakes testing from accountability. Paraphrasing his remarks,

The testing environment is terrifying, and my students' scores did not reflect their ability. High-stakes testing and accountability have been conflated. Is there research and development looking at alternatives beyond the high-stakes test? 

Ed Trust's Amy Wilkins responded bluntly, "Why were you in that high-needs classroom?"--Implying that inexperienced first-year teachers shouldn't be working with challenging student populations

Was Wilkins just dodging Brown's question or refocusing the debate on a root cause of test anxiety (new teachers in over their heads)? And does this beg the question, if passionate teachers like Brown aren't in these high-needs classrooms, who will be? I think it's no coincidence that incentive pay has crept into the conference conversation all morning  . . .

Comments

[James E. Mac Shane]

When looking at U.S. education in general there are many perspectives. The only agreement is the failure of developing each child's intellectual potential and the self knowledge of that means to the individual child. Also educators are gaining scientific insights and our personal experience with the children that indicates a greater natural learning depth is possible.

There is a human evolutionary aspect of this problem that is gradually coming into view. The perspectilve of smaller class sizes, differentiated curriculum, and indavidualized instruction are examples of a fundamental change in human educational development.

The evolutionary development is a consequence of science and the resulting technology that has been developing over the past two centuries.

The existing education system still has as its base the agrarian survival pedagogy that evolved as an exclusionary system. Human physical energy was the main survival commodity. Intellectual energy was seen as needed only from those individuals with highest natural ability. In 1830 the U.S. unscientifically assimulated that exclusionary system and have been struggelling to make inclusive ever since.

There was no science behind the historic adult choice of starting formal education of children at age six. Science is now beginning to understand that human conscious learning starts to develop at age 2 1/2 to 3 years of age. This is the basic science behind what is demeaningly called pre-school.

The importance of the human self-creation process is another scientific understanding that is coming into view. The base for who we are develops from birth to early adolesence at 8 1/2 to 10 years of age. Education needs to understand whether the child is creating a positive or negative self and what it means to created a positive learning enviornment that will as positivly as possible facillatate that natural process.

If education acquesses to the traditional evolutionary time line it will take many generations to make the necessaty changes. We have already been in this evolutinary change for 9 or 10 generations as it stands today. The traditional educational practice of externally imposing changes upon the whole K-12 system is the antithasis of the real solution. The negative affects on children's natural learning potential needs to be understood. This can be seen in all of the theraputic energy and costs that are being proposed for the present education system. The need is scientific understand the natural learing process so that the need of theraputic solutions are mimalized not developed.

[Eric Grant]

I was there too; sorry we didn't meet.

I was dismayed that the entire morning was spent grounded in standards-based reform. I thought Dan's question was a good one, and the answer (or rather lack of an answer) just reinforced my belief that change will not come from within the system because it is too mired in its own rules and expectations and inertia. It will probably come from the outside instead as consumers gain access to new models and abandon the old.

Hopefully this won't be too much of a shock to the system - I think DC is a great example of consumers choosing for themselves and the whole system buckling under the strain of shifting resources and human capital.

[Laura Varlas]

hey Eric,
I wonder, what role then do teachers play in this formula? Are they disillusioned to think that they can change the status quo from within?
I'm heading over to your blog to check out your sit down with Newt . . .

[Tabatha Wright]

I am a new teacher in a special needs classroom. I have dual certification in comprehensive and modified, and I did not receive a signing bonus. I chose special education because I believe that our students are entitled to and deserve teachers who truly want to teach them. In my opinion, my inexperience does not make a difference because I know I can an will make a difference. The bottom line with state assessments is this, there is too much emphasis placed on them, our students are terrified, and it is not a true representation of who they are. With NCLB our hands are tied as we attempt to teach them on grade level (as if they were general education) which forces us to focus less on their individualized education plan. IDEA specifies that we are to teach to the IEP and NCLB says on grade level. This in itself is ridiculous because if they could learn on grade level they would not be eligible for special education services. So who's really at fault, the inexperienced teacher or the contradiction of the system?

[Laura Varlas]

Kilian Betlach just put up video & commentary of this exchange, over at Teaching in the 408:
http://roomd2.blogspot.com/2008/05/daaaaaaamn.html

[LAStevie]

If you watch the video again, you'll see that Amy Wilkins doesn't put the blame on Dan or any other first-year assigned to the highest-needs kids. She straight up says that the problem is with the SYSTEM that put him there.

[Robert Pondiscio]

My experience teaching in the South Bronx was not unlike Dan Brown's. I stuck it out for five years until the tank was empty, but ultimately I have to agree with A. Wilkins. High neeeds schools are no place for newbies -- unless our goal is to feel good about how much we care, as opposed to give our neediest kids the best qualified teachers.

I put a long post on the Core Knowledge blog yesterday with a proposal to use TFA and other Alt Cert programs as a way to begin to get more master teachers in high needs classrooms. Here's a link:

http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/2008/05/22/a-memo-to-wendy-kopp/

[Monty Neill]

Does Ed Trust support Teach for America? I thought they did - putting new teachers in urban schools. In any case, Amy has a point, but it might also be feasible to construct systems in which new teachers in urban schools work closely with experienced, successful (by measures well beyond test scores) teachers. Monty Neill, FairTest

[Monty Neill]

A second comment: the Forum on Educational Accountability (which I chair) has been working to rethink accountability, disentangling it from the destructive, high stakes uses of standardized tests (the vast majority of teachers oppose NCLB, not just new ones). We build on the Joint Statement on NCLB (signed by 142 education, civil rights, religious, disability, parent, civic and labor organizations)and have issued several reports - all on the web at www.edaccountability.org. Monty Neill, FairTest