Posted on June 17, 2015 by debmeier
Read this article from the Boston Globe
By Chris Berdik June 14, 2015
Last spring, Susan Sluyter quit teaching kindergarten in the Cambridge Public Schools. She’d spent nearly two decades in the classroom, and her departure wasn’t a happy one. In a resignation letter, Sluyter railed against a “disturbing era of testing and data” that had trickled down from the upper grades and was now assaulting kindergartners with a barrage of new academic demands that “smack of 1st or 2nd grade.” The school district did not respond to a request for comment.
But Sluyter’s complaints touched a national nerve. Her letter went viral, prompting scores of sympathetic comments by other frustrated teachers and parents. Sluyter’s letter was fresh evidence for groups of early-childhood educators who oppose the kindergarten expectations for math and English Language Arts, or ELA, set by the new Common Core, the academic benchmarks for K-12 that most states have adopted to replace the historic patchwork of standards.
(read the rest here)
Filed under: 2015 Posts, reblog | Tagged: testing | 1 Comment »
Posted on June 13, 2015 by debmeier
By June 10, 2015 11:00 AM
From EdWeek blog Top Performers
Two weeks ago, I published a blog post suggesting that some leaders of the civil rights community might want to reassess their support for annual testing in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Since then Kati Haycock and Jonah Edelman, two ardent supporters of annual testing, have taken issue with me. In this blog post, I respond to their comments.
Haycock says that she is astonished at my arrogance in attacking the leaders of a civil rights community that is “unified” on this issue and accuses me of “baiting” them. What she does not do is rebut any of the arguments I made or offer any evidence that would call my arguments into question.
The civil rights community is not united on these issues. A recent piece by Judith Browne Dianis, John H. Jackson and Pedro Noguera is titled “DC civil rights organizations fail to represent education civil rights agenda.” In it the authors, all respected figures in the civil rights community, take issue with the civil rights leaders who signed on to annual testing and take positions on the issue very similar to those I have taken. They are not alone. Far from being unified on this issue, the civil rights community is rather divided.
I have great respect for the leaders of the civil rights community. But I often disagree with people I admire and they often disagree with me on particular issues. The charge that I was out to “bait” the leaders is outrageous.
Haycock is certainly entitled to her own views on these issues. But I think she owes her readers more than a personal attack on me as a response to what I have written. She owes it to them to respond to the points I have made with counterarguments of her own, point by point, and she owes them solid data and research to support the positions she takes. I argued that there is no evidence that the tough accountability measures contained in NCLB, including annual testing, have worked. I argued that the research shows that poor and minority children have been harmed by the systems required by NCLB more than majority students. I argued that a different testing regime with fewer, higher quality tests could provide data on the performance of specific groups of poor and minority students every bit as effective as the results obtained from annual testing, and that poor and minority students would be much better off if that happened. I offered solid evidence for all these propositions.
As I said above, Haycock offered neither rebuttals to my arguments nor evidence that would refute them. Until she does, I stand by what I wrote.
[Click here to read the rest of the blog]
Filed under: 2015 Posts, reblog | Tagged: testing | 2 Comments »
Posted on May 15, 2015 by debmeier
As usual, Mike Rose, is spot on. Grit comes in many forms: some attractive and some not. Some imposed by adversity and some supported by affluence and safety. Because, in fact, I have always thought of “grit” as an ally to “street smarts”—sticking to one’s self-initiated task given one’s recognition of reality. I thought that the “grittiest” kids in my class were usually some of the kids with least advantages in terms of wealth and support, who somehow insisted on “smiling” through it, “gritting” their teeth (which I assumed the origin or partial definition of the word) and designing a new path given the circumstances. Not just sitting down and having a tantrum. But the tantrum often is successful—depending on the circumstances. Ditto with “gritting one’s teeth”—”it depends”. What “it depends” on is not easy to figure out, but rests on an array of flexible talents that often go by the name of “street smarts.” If we stop and think about it, I think we would see that “perseverance” is maybe more vital for poor people in underserved communities more than it is for those of us growing up with many resources , good health, lots of second chances, etc. If we did a little better at leveling the field we wold all benefit by grit, but we wouldd also make having it count more if everything else wasn’t already so uneven.
See Mike Rose’s Blog:
One of the many frustrating things about education policy and practice in our country is the continual search for the magic bullet—and all the hype and trite lingo that bursts up around it. One such bullet is the latest incarnation of character education, particularly the enthrallment with “grit,” a buzz word for perseverance and determination. Readers of this blog are familiar with my concerns and can read my earlier posts by clicking here, or go to a 2014 report on character and opportunity from the Brookings Institution in which I have a brief cautionary essay.
In a nutshell, I worry about the limited success of past attempts at character education and the danger in our pendulum-swing society that we will shift our attention from improving subject matter instruction. I also question the easy distinctions made between “cognitive” and “non-cognitive” skills. And I fear that we will sacrifice policies aimed at reducing poverty for interventions to change the way poor people see the world.
In this post, I would like to further explore these concerns—and a few new ones—by focusing on “grit,” for it has so captured the fancy of our policy makers, administrators, and opinion-makers…
(click here to read the rest of his blog)
Yes, Mike, you are right right right. But, furthermore, the poor exercise plenty of grit every single day they stay afloat. They have to use a lot more of it just to survive much less to use it for getting ahead. If we made it easier to survive, imagine what the grit I saw daily would have done for their futures!
Filed under: 2015 Posts, reblog | 3 Comments »
Posted on May 14, 2015 by debmeier
Posted on May 11, 2015 by debmeier
I’ve been puzzling about why so many respectable civil rights organizations have got school reform so wrong. It’s not the whole story but this piece by Wayne Au is worth reading.
Just whose rights do these civil rights groups think they are protecting?
By Wayne Au
On May 5, 2015, a group of civil rights organizations released a statement in opposition to the growing movement to opt out of the current wave of high-stakes, standardized testing. This testing lies at the very heart of current education reform efforts because it provides the fuel that the current education reform machine relies upon: data. Without the numerical data produced by the tests, there is no way to make simplistic comparisons, there is no justification for the corporate entry into public schools, there is no way to shape education along the logics of a competitive marketplace.
Because it challenges the validity of the tests and the data, the opt-out movement strikes at the heart of the reform movement. I feel this sharply here in my home city of Seattle as powerful men including U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Washington state Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn, and Seattle Schools Superintendent Larry Nyland threaten local test resisters with punishments. Opting out scares those in power because it undermines the education policies being done to — not by — our communities, particularly communities of color. Indeed, many of us have taken great pains to highlight the racially disparate impact of corporate education reforms, especially high-stakes standardized testing, specifically on communities of color.
(link to full article)
Filed under: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »
Posted on May 7, 2015 by debmeier
Richard Rothstein is one of my favorites:
By Richard Rothstein
Thus began a century of federal, state, and local policies to quarantine Baltimore’s black population in isolated slums—policies that continue to the present day, as federal housing subsidy policies still disproportionately direct low-income black families to segregated neighborhoods and away from middle class suburbs…
View the rest of this post at Working Economics Blog
Filed under: 2015 Posts, reblog | 3 Comments »
Posted on April 27, 2015 by debmeier
Originally posted on Nicholas Meier:
My blogs here focus on my ideas about curriculum, teaching practices and educational policy, often critiquing what is currently practiced. What this essay will focus on is defining my philosophy of Progressive Education. And as a student and teacher of educational psychology, I feel I can safely say that the practices of Progressive Education match more closely what we know about how the brain works and how people learn in natural settings than what is practiced in the large majority of schools today. As importantly, Progressive Education matches more closely with the ideals and philosophy of a democratic society.
Progressive teaching has deep roots in American education, from the Transcendentalist movement of the early 1800s to John Dewey and Francis Parker in the late 1800s, early 1900s, and on to modern educators such as Herbert Kohl, Ted Sizer, and Deborah Meier to name just a few. For me, and…
View original 1,166 more words
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »