Dear Diane,
Lucid and to the point, Diane. I鈥檒l sign on. Once again, we may confront a law that penalizes schools that don鈥檛 eliminate differential test score outcomes that correlate with race, class, disability, or language spoken at home. (And that pays teachers based on scores, and favors charters, etc.) Higher teacher expectations shall overcome all, and, based on the ., will cost the jobs also of 鈥渇ailing鈥� principals, custodians, aides, and secretaries. To make matters more ludicrous, the tests involved are, it is agreed, grossly inadequate to the task.
I can think of one neat exercise that might help smoke out the nonsense. Suppose we give a high school test to everyone in Congress, with scores listed in rank order and serious penalties鈥攊ncluding deselecting the bottom 10 percent?
Back to 鈥渟tandards,鈥� Diane. I loved the answer by the former U.S. commissioner for education, 鈥淒oc鈥� Howe, regarding what kind of standards he favored: 鈥淎s brief as possible.鈥� Plus, precisely the kind of external review you recommend, Diane.
We鈥檙e highly unlikely to get Howe鈥檚 wish. Instead, Susan Jacoby suggests, in The New York Times, there should be: 鈥�.鈥� It鈥檚 ironic that the David Brooks piece underneath Jacoby鈥檚 is entitled 鈥溾�� and 鈥渞ecommends rebuilding trust from the ground up.鈥� Brooks praises a book by the British writer Phillip Blond about the price we鈥檝e paid for having gutted local institutions and the celebrated 鈥渇inancial monoculture, which requires a gigantic government to audit its activities.鈥� It鈥檚 a conundrum, of course, because some issues can鈥檛 be tackled locally. Raising our kids is not one of them, however.
Every time we respond to our distrust by wiping out institutions close to ordinary citizens in favor of more distant authorities, we strengthen cynicism and weaken democracy itself.
Luckily, most of what Jacoby argues for in schooling can be done through persuasion alongside of high-quality, no-stakes measurement data鈥攂ased on both in-depth, sampled student work and cheap, sampled standardized tests. In another headline that made me crack up (I鈥檒l find the citation someday soon, I hope), the writer bemoans the fact that teachers at some schools gather to study student 鈥渨ork鈥� when they should be studying 鈥渄ata.鈥�
It鈥檚 the same mindset that let Detroit turn out lots of cars, rather than worrying whether they were the best cars.
I鈥檓 thinking about what we did at the old CPESS. We agreed on a common set of five 鈥渆ssential questions鈥� that should be habitually asked. But then accepted more or less, the usual definition of academic subjects, added a few, and collapsed others. On our first go-around, we had 14 鈥減ortfolios鈥� because we literally examined students on every subject listed in the state鈥檚 overview! Finally, we cut it down to eight and did the other six in a briefer, pro forma fashion. We added to the usual four the arts, external learning (outside of school and including the students鈥� six-year program of internships), and a post-graduation plan. And, one of the student鈥檚 own choice.
But the schools that built their work off of our model did not all follow our example鈥攊n their standards or in deciding how students should demonstrate proficiency and faculty affirm it. When I looked at those invented by my favorite allies, I always had second thoughts: maybe we should add this or that to ours. Every decision has its trade-offs, and one is breadth vs. depth. So, reluctantly, we stuck with ours (with minor revisions).
The sixth 鈥渉abit of mind鈥� that I鈥檝e since decided we should have adopted is: 鈥淲hat are the trade-offs?鈥� Or, as we used to say, 鈥淚t鈥檚 not a perfect world.鈥�
It鈥檚 a question that citizens should always be asking鈥攊s this the best compromise between difficult choices? At CPESS, we had that dilemma regarding faculty meetings: balancing meetings for everyone, for just the key teaching staff, just particular disciplinary staff, or those teaching the same group of kids! The arguments were good on all sides. So we just kept shifting, semester by semester.
Could it have been solved by our agreeing to a 10-hour school day? No, because that, too, would come at a cost to the kind of interesting adults we could recruit to join us, to the time available to meet individual students after hours, plus time to work on one鈥檚 own鈥攔eading and revising student work, as well as the work in one鈥檚 field and the development of hobbies and interests that keep us alive as full human beings. Oops, and, yes, one鈥檚 own family! once wrote an essay in Dissent magazine on 鈥渁 day in the life of a socialist"鈥攚hich consisted of so many meetings on every conceivable topic of importance (such as the music played in the park, museum policy, transportation issues, etc.) that there was no time left to listen to music, visit a museum, or travel anywhere.
I thought of this as I listened to the stories told last week by friends, family, and colleagues of Alice Seletsky, who died last fall. She was for years a 5th/6th grade teacher at CPE. 69传媒 and writing about what fascinated her, taking courses, studying new passions was as much part of her 鈥減rofession鈥� as her work within the classroom. There were lots of people who got up to celebrate her life who had been directly influenced by her long life as a teacher, and often in unexpected ways. All of our children deserve such teachers.
Deb
P.S. Meanwhile, an addendum: my Web site () has a piece on my changing views on small schools of choice. Also read Mike Klonsky鈥檚 . If you鈥檙e in the NYC area on April 17th, join us at Julia Richman High School to help build a future for public education.