f:\doc\web\2000\08\celluci.txt Cellucci in defending imposing MCAS on Mass. school kids but not himself being willing to take the test, notes that he is accountable to a far higher form of accountability--an election every four years. -----Original Message----- From: Deborah Meier [mailto:dmeier@ESSENTIALSCHOOLS.ORG] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 9:04 AM To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU Subject: Re: The politics of assessment in California Dear Geiorge, SBER IS A RISKY EXPERIMENT. I stand by that claim. And what follows probably is not relevant to most on this Listserve. But I have enjoyed your comments and thought I'd dig into this one. When did it happen, George, that we agreed to use language only in the way psychometricians and behavioristic educational researchers do? It's an experiment, say I, not because it doesn't follow the protocols of accepted research--whose protocols are far more varied than those currently in vogue in education circles (which is why I recommended Isaiah Berli) but because it is launching an approach to public education in America that is a radical departure from the past on the basis of a theory (etc) and a thin one at that. Research about human affairs doesn't fit neatly into the protocols of educational researchers--not even the best of them.. It does't, often can't, for example, look at long range impact. e.g. virtually all the reading studies I know of assume that reading tests are the purpose of learning to read and thus judge success on how soon--generally 4th grade--kids do well on tests. But then I have never suggested that my judgment that we ought to teach more wholistically was the outcome of scientifical research! It is informed by research--e.g. the work of Frank Smith, Jean Piaget, etc.and a liftime of reading in history and schooling (and living). But then decisions have to be made--and we have to use best judgment.. These depend on what our purposes and aims are, what risks we are more or less willing to accept, what priorities we have, and even who will be effectfed if we are wrong! Not to mention the falliblity of all judgments based on culling through past and current experiences, no matter how rigorously those experiences are organized into "experiments". For example I think there are quite a number of rigorous experiments--but very fallible and open to interpretation nonetheless--that suggest that motivating people by rewards produces less not more good work. Clearly SBER thinks otherwise. As you note they have other research--test scores go up somewhat under threat of negative consequences. As you know, I am decidedly not in favor, incidentally, of mandating whole-language or phonics--especially since they are not opposites! I''m for teachers and parents being as well-informed as possible (here I fall back on Jefferson's dictum--if they are not well-informed enough, let us try to inform them better) and then using their own fallible judgment in ways that make them accessible to public critique. Ditto for most other things in life. Cellucci in defending imposing MCAS on Mass. school kids but not himself being willing to take the test, notes that he is accountable to a far higher form of accountability--an election every four years. He's right. Except that why has he taken this power away from local school boards and local school communities? That's where I want to rest accountability--and a healthy "media" that provides as full disclosure of "the truth" as possible. ANd not because I'll win there. We do have some "scientific"-type research about the human brain, human motivations, etc.--and it suggests possibilities in education that have surely not been met or explored sufficiently. "Fixing" our system by "fixing" contemporary or past practice in place--which we know barely scratches the surface of human potential--seems counterproductive. That's one of the great sorrows to me of the direction we've taken--we're walling ourselves off from the kind of experiments (meaning just carefully obseved and studied new practices) that might open new doors to the way we conceive of educating children. None of this refers to the role of standards in human affairs--and, of course, in the raising of children including their schooling. Making it more explicit (ala CPESS and Mission Hill) is a worthy step, especial when one is raising "other people's" children and using public funds. But such standards have to be the work and belief of those "imposing" them on children--and open to the various ways in which real children might meet such standards. Are we far off? I can't tell by your remarks. (P.s. I doubt if I ever referred to "proocols"! But I plead guilty to irony,) Deb >Deborah, > >What I was responding to was your bizarre characterization of the SBER as a >risky experiment because it did not follow the protocols of accepted >research methodology. First of all, I don't know if you were serious in >your assertion. If it was meant as irony, well done. If it was not.... > >I ordered and read your book, _Will Standards Save Public Education?_. In >it there is a lot of advocacy for child-centered, constructivist >instruction, but I don't recall the empirical research in support of this >advocacy. The risky experiment is the imposition of such instructional >methodology in the absence of objective evidence for its efficacy. > >The National Reading Panel Report which came out this spring reviewed the >best studies on reading instruction and concluded that the only real debate >left was about the form phonics instruction should take. This may be >imperfect research, but it is the best we have. I don't believe there is a >body of research in favor of whole-language instruction that is comparable. >All there is on that side of the argument are anecdotal reports and >testimonials. > >This is not the place to debate the research base for various instructional >approaches. But there is your strange concern that SBER lacks an empirical >base. > >I have been an opponent of SBER in Kentucky for the last ten years. I >believe in standards. I think every teacher should hold their students to a >set of standards with different standards for each student. > >The argument for SBER can be found in the successful use of test results by >the School Board in California to push for more effective instructional >methods. This is the point I was trying to make in my previous post. > >George K. Cunningham >University of Louisville > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List >> [mailto:ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU]On Behalf Of Deborah Meier >> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 3:11 PM >> To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU >> Subject: Re: The politics of assessment in California >> >> >> I don't get your reply George, nor see the conradiction. But I'll try >> because clearly something does strike you that way, and I'm >> brooding on it. >> However here are some thoughts. First of all, the folks I've talked towho >> support these ne state testing schemes acknowledge that they have an >> hypothsis--that if there are high-stake tests it will produce better >> educated kids. They think that maybe one major cause of poorly educated >> kids and teachers is laziness, lack of incentive, etc. This, >> they believe, >> will reverse that--and that a few negative side effects are worth it. >> >> I realize that at the same time folks use it to get their particular >> favorite teaching fad adopted--whole language, phonics, old or >> new math etc >> That's a side-effect and one that tempts both sides of these debates. Not >> me. (I know, incidentally, of no studies proviing --or even >> attempting to >> do so--"scientifically" or otherwise that whole language or new math or >> phonics or old-language lead to better educated readers, >> mathematics users, >> etc) >> >> But it's precisely because such scientific evidence does not exist--and >> given the nature of the question probably cannot exist-- that I am for >> small-scale-only experiments, and only with willing subjects or >> as close to >> that as I can get! It's not a perfect world and even the parens >> who choose >> my school have only x number of choices. There's a great >> article by Isiah >> Berlin that touches upon the dangers of pretending to scientific evidence >> in areas in which it is not applicable. >> >> So what I'm objecting to is efforts to impose on others a theory, which if >> wrong can do untold damage, and whose merits cannot be assessed for a >> generation! And where, as advocates of such sweeping experiments usually >> note, make cause some temporary damage, but after all "you can't make a >> omelet without breaking a few eggs." If you are the egg, okay. But >> otherwise...I'm with the reistance., >> >> Deborah > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L >to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.