This blog on Texas education contains posts on higher education, as well as preK-12 policy accountability, testing, bilingual education, immigration, school finance, race, class, and gender issues at both the state and national level. It also represents my digital footprint, of life and career, as a community-engaged scholar in Texas.
This interview with former Stanford President Gerhard Casper brings back memories of the contentious 80s at Stanford over the Western Civilization curriculum. Note: I was there from 1983-1990 as a doctoral student in Sociology.
Although Donald Kennedy was the president during this time period, the consequences were particularly felt during the Casper administration. When I think of how horribly this administration was to our legendary and heroic leaders at Stanford—the late Tony and Cecilia Burciaga—were treated, this memory is a very painful one for so many of us.
Among other things, this interview with former President Casper shows exactly how liberal individualism can align to reactionary politics and agendas. This whole debate of course set off a firestorm of reaction from which we have largely not recovered, in my view. Whole language instruction virtually died and phonics-based instruction came in with a ferocity. Although high-stakes testing was slowly evolving in Texas and nationally during this same time period, it is safe to say that this was welcomed by the right because of the ways that the system structured out the deeper kinds of conversations, themes and issues that the multiculturalism movement was, and has been, about. Fortunately, here in Texas, our historians like Dr. Emilio Zamora, Keith Erekson and others are weighing in on the high school social studies standards at the State Board of Education level and making the basic argument that without this knowledge of subaltern histories—a systemic absence of which the Western Civ debate at Stanford was impactful—students are neither well-prepared for college, nor for life in an increasingly globalized world. The different contributors to the Erekson anthology
collectively not only present the intricacies of the debate, they also provide an anatomy of the ideological strands that unmask many of the hidden beliefs, ideologies, and interests that advocate for a highly conservative status quo.
All told, things are a changing nevertheless here in Texas. -Angela
Former Stanford president
Gerhard Casper is a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute and a
professor of law and, by courtesy, political science. His book The Winds of Freedom: Addressing Challenges to the University,
to be published by Yale University Press in February, comprises
selected speeches he made about contentious issues during his presidency
(1992 to 2000) accompanied by his current thoughts on their context.
Stanford recently interviewed Casper (an abridged transcript is in the
print magazine); an excerpt from the book follows.
Sunday, February 02, 2014
The outcome of this case will surely have ripple effects for teacher tenure. Quotes from within:
“It’s
yet another example of not rolling up your sleeves and dealing with a
problem, but instead finding a scapegoat,” Ms. Weingarten said. “They
are not suing about segregation or funding or property tax systems — all
the things you really need to get kids a level playing field. They want
to strip teachers of any rights to a voice.”
State
education laws across the country are changing. School districts in 29
states use poor effectiveness as grounds for dismissal, according to a
report released Thursday by the National Council on Teacher Quality, a
Washington-based think tank that tracks teacher policies. Just five
years ago, no states allowed student performance to be considered in
teachers’ evaluations, said Kate Walsh, the executive director of the
center. Now, 20 states require such data.
Some
of the students who are suing the State of California over tenure for
teachers walked to a news conference this week outside Superior Court in
Los Angeles.Monica Almeida/The New York Times
LOS
ANGELES — They have tried and failed to loosen tenure rules for
teachers in contract talks and state legislatures. So now, a group of
rising stars in the movement to overhaul education employment has gone
to court.
In
a small, wood-paneled courtroom here this week, nine public school
students are challenging California’s ironclad tenure system, arguing
that their right to a good education is violated by job protections that
make it too difficult to fire bad instructors. But behind the students
stand a Silicon Valley technology magnate who is financing the case and
an all-star cast of lawyers that includes Theodore B. Olson, the former
solicitor general of the United States, who recently won the Supreme
Court case that effectively overturned the state’s ban on same-sex
marriage.
“Children
have the right to access good education and an effective teacher
regardless of their circumstances,” said David F. Welch, the
telecommunications entrepreneur who spent millions of his own dollars to
create Students Matter, the organization behind the lawsuit. The group
describes itself as a national nonprofit dedicated to sponsoring
litigation of this type, and the outcome in California will provide the
first indication of whether it can succeed.
Launch media viewer
John E. Deasy, the schools superintendent of Los Angeles.Monica Almeida/The New York Times
At
issue is a set of rules that grant permanent employment status to
California teachers after 18 months on the job, require a lengthy
procedure to dismiss a teacher, and set up a seniority system in which
the teachers most recently hired must be the first to lose their jobs
when layoffs occur, as they have regularly in recent years.
Teachers’
unions, which hold powerful sway among lawmakers here, contend that the
protections are necessary to ensure that teachers are not fired
unfairly. Without these safeguards, the unions say, the profession will
not attract new teachers.
“Tenure
is an amenity, just like salary and vacation, that allows districts to
recruit and retain teachers despite harder working conditions, pay that
hasn’t kept pace and larger class sizes,” James M. Finberg, a lawyer for
the California teachers’ unions, said this week in his opening
statement in court.
The
monthlong trial promises to be a closely watched national test case on
employment laws for teachers, one of the most contentious debates in
education. Many school superintendents and advocates across the country
call such laws detrimental and anachronistic, and have pressed for the
past decade for changes, with mixed success. Tenure for teachers has
been eliminated in three states and in Washington, D.C., and a handful
of states prohibit seniority as a factor in teacher layoffs. But in many
large states with urban school districts, including California and New
York, efforts to push through such changes in the legislature have
repeatedly failed.
While
several lawsuits demanding more money for schools have succeeded across
the country, the California case is the most sweeping legal challenge
claiming that students are hurt by employment laws for teachers. The
case also relies on a civil rights argument that so far is untested:
that poor and minority students are denied equal access to education
because they are more likely to have “grossly ineffective” teachers.
Judge
Rolf Michael Treu, of Los Angeles County Superior Court, will decide
the nonjury trial. His ruling will almost certainly be appealed to the
State Supreme Court.
Witnesses are expected to explain many of their basic assumptions about how to create quality schools.
The
first witness for the plaintiffs was John E. Deasy, the superintendent
of Los Angeles Unified School District and a staunch opponent of tenure
rules and “last in, first out” seniority for teachers. Mr. Deasy
testified that attempts to dismiss ineffective teachers can cost
$250,000 to $450,000 and include years of appeals and legal proceedings.
Often, he said, the district is forced to decide that the time and
money would be too much to spend on a case with an unclear outcome, in
part because a separate governing board can reinstate the teachers. Such
rules make it impossible not to place ineffective teachers at schools
with high poverty rates, he told the court.
Launch media viewer
Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers.Philip Scott Andrews for The New York Times
“I
absolutely do not believe it’s in the best interest of students
whatsoever,” Mr. Deasy said of the layoff policy. “The decision about
who should be in front of students should be the most effective teacher.
These statutes prohibit that from being a consideration at all. By
virtue of that, it cannot be good for students.”
Teachers’
unions contend that such job protections help schools keep the best
teachers and recruit new ones to a job that is often exhausting,
challenging and low paid. Mr. Finberg, the lawyer for the unions, said
in court that the fact that Mr. Deasy has increased the number of
ineffective teachers dismissed from the classroom — to about 100 of the
district’s 30,000 teachers — suggests that the laws are working.
The
plaintiffs’ legal team, from the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
includes not only Mr. Olson, who served as solicitor general under
President George W. Bush, but also Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer
for Apple in its antitrust case on e-book pricing. The lawyers and
public relations firm behind Students Matter previously teamed to
overturn the California ballot measure against same-sex marriage and say
this case could have a similar ripple effect across the country. Among
the boldface names siding publicly with the plaintiffs is Antonio R.
Villaraigosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles, who joined them in a news
conference outside the courthouse this week.
“The
case has the potential to have really broad and important implications
not just for California,” said Michelle A. Rhee, the former Washington
schools chancellor who now runs Students First, an advocacy group that
works to elect leaders who support changing the employment laws for
teachers. “In an ideal world you would want policies to be passed in the
legislature, but in California there was no movement on that. I think
in this case they were tired of waiting.”
Teachers’
unions nationwide have fought changes in employment laws, contending
that their members must be protected from capricious or vengeful
administrators. In Colorado, where a sweeping law in 2010 created a new
system to evaluate teachers, the unions are suing over a provision that
lets principals decide whether to hire veteran teachers who lost jobs
because of budget cuts or drops in enrollment.
Randi
Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, said
in a telephone interview that the California case echoes the fights she
had when she led the teachers’ union in New York, and called the lawsuit
“worse than troubling.”
“It’s
yet another example of not rolling up your sleeves and dealing with a
problem, but instead finding a scapegoat,” Ms. Weingarten said. “They
are not suing about segregation or funding or property tax systems — all
the things you really need to get kids a level playing field. They want
to strip teachers of any rights to a voice.”
State
education laws across the country are changing. School districts in 29
states use poor effectiveness as grounds for dismissal, according to a
report released Thursday by the National Council on Teacher Quality, a
Washington-based think tank that tracks teacher policies. Just five
years ago, no states allowed student performance to be considered in
teachers’ evaluations, said Kate Walsh, the executive director of the
center. Now, 20 states require such data.
“We
have really seen mountains move in some places — the trend in the
country has been toward meaningful ways to evaluate teachers and to use
that evaluation to make tenure decisions,” Ms. Walsh said in an
interview. “But I don’t think anyone has figured out how to implement
them particularly well yet.”
Rep. George Miller from California is claiming innocence. How can he when we had just come out of a federal court case on high-stakes testing here in Texas and we learned unequivocally that the system produced a disparate impact on Latino/as, African Americans, special education children, and English language learners?
The trial produced ample evidence, as well, about where this system was headed.
Plus, Dr. Linda McNeil and I visited with his office staff before the passage of NCLB—and many other offices from the Texas Congressional delegation.
The late Senator Paul Wellstone was a fierce, very vocal opponent during this time period, as well. His office, especially Jill Morningstar, was instrumental in educating many offices about the expected harmful effects of this law. Boy, was his death ever untimely.
With all of these offices, we shared evidence from Texas that this law would marginalize both students and curriculum—and most especially, children of color and the poor.
This law was nevertheless about ideology based on harmful assumptions about teachers and kids, while also appealing to the "managerial mindset," those thinking that a stick was needed to force teachers to teach and the kids to learn. To quote Jonathan Kozol, never mind the "savage inequalities" of our schools. And never mind the opinion of professionals—not all of them racist or classist—as he actually suggests in this interview, albeit obliquely.
But that is exactly how they got the liberal vote—this law would make white teachers teach Black and Brown kids, regardless. No excuses! And guess what? We not only do not have to invest in education, but we can even threaten taking away their resources with this law.
How offensive, cruel, and fantastically convenient. -Angela
Rep.
George Miller, D-Martinez, visited with EdSource Today staff shortly
after announcing his retirement after 40 years in Congress. Credit:
Lillian Mongeau, EdSource
Rep. George Miller, a leading architect of the No Child Left
Behind legislation, says he never anticipated that the landmark
education law would ignite the testing obsession that engulfed the
nation’s schools, leading to what some have charged is a simplistic
“drill and kill” approach that subverts real instruction.
EdSource sat down with Miller, D-Martinez, last week for a lengthy
and wide-ranging conversation on his accomplishments, philosophy and
hopes for the future of public education. The Contra Costa County
congressman, who served as chair or ranking minority member of the House
Education Committee and the Workforce Committee since 1997, announced
earlier this month that after 40 years in the House of Representatives,
he would not seek re-election when his current term expires.
WASHINGTON,
D.C.—Despite an improving national economy, 49.8 percent of Texas
households are in a persistent state of financial insecurity, according
to a report released today by the Corporation for Enterprise Development
(CFED). The number of households who have little or no savings to cover
emergencies or to start building a better life has barely budged from
last year’s 49.5 percent level. The report also found that state
policies are doing little to improve the financial security of Texans. CFED’s 2014 Assets & Opportunity Scorecard
defines these financially insecure residents as “liquid asset poor,”
which means they lack adequate savings to cover basic expenses at the
federal poverty level for even three months in the event of an emergency
such as a job loss or health crisis. Included among Texas’ “liquid
asset poor” are a majority of those who live below the official income
poverty line of $23,550 for a family of four, as well as many who would
consider themselves middle class. Fully 32 percent of households earning
$54,049 - $90,468 annually have less than three months of savings
(i.e., less than $5,887 for a family of four). The Scorecard provides
rankings for the 50 states and District of Columbia on both the ability
of residents to achieve financial security and, for the first time,
policies designed to help them get there. On both measures, Texas ranks
near the bottom with an outcomes ranking of 37 and an overall policy
ranking of 41. “Nationally,
policies at all levels of government helped stem the tide of the
recession’s damage to household finances. They protected consumers from
foreclosure and abusive financial practices, helped raise wages and
connected families to the financial mainstream,” said Andrea Levere,
President of CFED. “Without strong policies that address the challenges
facing low- and moderate-income families, wealth and income inequality
will continue to grow and our nation’s economy will continue to
struggle.” The Scorecard evaluates
how residents are faring across 66 outcome measures in five different
issue areas—Financial Assets & Income, Businesses & Jobs,
Housing & Homeownership, Health Care and Education. Texas received:
A
“D” in Financial Assets & Income, reflecting a high level of income
poverty and the large number of residents with subprime credit rates.
An “F” in the Health Care category, mainly because 25 percent of residents lack medical insurance.
A
“C” in the Businesses & Jobs category. Texas ranked 42nd in the
number of low-wage jobs (27.8 percent of jobs are considered low-wage),
but it ranked 5th in average annual pay of residents ($51,983),
reflecting a large division in income levels.
A
“C” in Education, ranking 51st for the number of adults with a high
school degree and 32nd for the number of adults with a four-year college
degree.
The Scorecard also
evaluates 67 different state policy measures to determine how well
states are addressing the challenges facings residents. Texas ranked
moderately on policies aimed at creating more opportunities for low- to
moderate-income families in the Housing & Homeownership (11th) and
Health Care (17th) areas. The state ranked low in the policy areas of
Financial Assets & Income (48th) and Education (34th), underscoring
the link between inadequate policies and ongoing challenges confronting
the state’s low- and moderate-income families. “Despite
steady job growth and low unemployment rates, many Texas residents are
still struggling with persistent financial insecurity and have
difficulty moving up the economic ladder,” said Tim Morstad of AARP
Texas and RAISE Texas Board Chair. “The data from the 2014 Assets & Opportunity Scorecard should motivate state and local policymakers to build on an emerging consensus to improve household financial security.” Our
leaders can take immediate steps to create more opportunities for low-
and moderate-income families and build an economy that works for
everyone by:
Empowering all families to open college savings accounts.
Curbing abusive payday and auto-title lending.
Removing barriers to household savings and asset building.
“With
1 in 12 Americans now living in Texas, and our state at the leading
edge of a profound demographic shift, a snapshot of economic opportunity
in Texas is a window into the future of our country,” noted Don Baylor,
CFED Board Member and Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Public
Policy Priorities. “These common-sense recommendations provide a roadmap
for policymakers to improve the bottom line for Texas families and the
state economy.” Published annually, the Assets & Opportunity Scorecard
offers the most comprehensive look available at Americans’ ability to
save and build wealth, fend off poverty and create a more prosperous
future. It explores how well residents are faring in the 50 states and
the District of Columbia and assesses policies that are helping
residents build and protect assets across the five issue areas listed
above. Nationally, the Scorecard data
reveal that five years into the economic recovery, millions of American
families are still treading water in the deep end. While indicators
such as unemployment, foreclosure rates and credit card debt show a slow
but steady decline, the general picture remains one of declining
economic mobility and widening wealth and income inequality. Among other
key findings:
The
average college debt for students graduating increased eight percent
from $27,150 in 2011 to $29,400 in 2012. As student loan debt increased,
so did the student loan default rate. Fifteen percent of borrowers in
2012 defaulted on their student loans within three years of starting
repayment, up from 13 percent in 2011.
The
percent of employees participating in employer-provided retirement
plans continued to decline from 47 percent in 2007 to 44 percent in
2012.
Although
the racial wealth gap narrowed slightly between 2010 and 2011,
households of color still fall far behind white households. They have
approximately one-tenth the median net worth of white households
($12,377 and $110,637, respectively) and are considerably less likely to
own a home. The homeownership rate for households of color is 26
percentage points lower than the rate for white households (46 percent
and 72 percent, respectively).
Only
eight states (Maryland, New York, Maine, New Jersey, Connecticut,
Washington, Minnesota and Rhode Island) have adopted 50 percent or more
of the 67 policies that can support family financial security.
Meanwhile, seven states (Idaho, Missouri, South Dakota, Alabama, Alaska,
Mississippi and Wyoming) have adopted fewer than one-quarter of the
policies.
# # #
Center for Public Policy Priorities is
a nonpartisan, nonprofit policy institute committed to improving public
policies to make a better Texas. You can learn more about us at CPPP.org. CFED empowers
low- and moderate-income households to build and preserve assets by
advancing policies and programs that help them achieve the American
Dream, including buying a home, pursuing higher education, starting a
business and saving for the future. As a leading source for data about
household financial security and policy solutions, CFED understands what
families need to succeed. We promote programs on the ground and invest
in social enterprises that create pathways to financial security and
opportunity for millions of people. Established in 1979 as the
Corporation for Enterprise Development, CFED works nationally and
internationally through its offices in Washington, DC; Durham, North
Carolina; and San Francisco, California. To
improve policies and programs that promote financial security and
opportunity, CFED is the backbone organization for a national Assets
& Opportunity Network, which is comprised of more than 1,300
advocates, service providers, researchers, financial institutions and
others representing all 50 states and DC. To learn more about the Assets
& Opportunity Network, visit http://assetsandopportunity.org/network. RAISE Texas,
the statewide asset-building coalition, includes several statewide
organizations such as AARP Texas, CPPP, Texas Appleseed, United Ways of
Texas, and numerous community-based and faith-based organizations as
well as for-profit partners, including several financial institution
partners. Texas currently has two lead local organizations, YWCA of
Metropolitan Dallas and United Way of Greater Houston. For more information on local efforts to increase financial success, contact: Woody Widrow, RAISE Texas (Lead State Organization in the Assets & Opportunity Network), 512.705.9063 Jennifer Ware, YWCA of Metropolitan Dallas (Lead Local Organization in the Assets & Opportunity Network), 214.584.2314 Renee C. Lee, United Way of Greater Houston (Lead Local Organization in the Assets & Opportunity Network), 713.685.2380
7020 EASY WIND DRIVE • SUITE 200 • AUSTIN, TEXAS 78752 T 512.320.0222 F 512.320.0227
Submitted by fairtest on September 3, 2013 - 11:55am
NOTE:
FOR A PRINT FORMATED PDF COPY OF THIS FACT SHEET CLICK HERE.
FOR FAIRTEST'S INFOGRAPHIC ON THE COMMON CORE, CLICK HERE
Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), each state set its own
learning standards and developed tests to measure them. But NCLB’s
failure to spur overall test score gains or close racial gaps led
“reformers” to push for national, or “common,” standards. With millions
in federal Race to the Top money and NCLB “waivers” as incentives, all
but a few states agreed to adopt Common Core standards. Two multi-state
consortia — the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) —
won federal grants to develop Common Core tests, which are due to be
rolled out in 2014-15. Here are the realities behind major Common Core myths.
Myth: Common Core tests will be much better than current exams, with many items measuring higher-order skills. Reality: New tests will largely consist of the same old, multiple-choice questions. Proponents
initially hyped new assessments that they said would measure – and help
teachers promote – critical thinking. In fact, the exams will remain predominantly multiple choice.
Heavy reliance on such items continues to promote rote teaching and
learning. Assessments will generally include just one session of short
performance tasks per subject. Some short-answer and “essay” questions
will appear, just as on many current state tests. Common Core math items
are often simple computation tasks buried in complex and sometimes confusing “word problems” (PARCC, 2012; SBAC, 2012). The prominent Gordon Commission
of measurement and education experts concluded Common Core tests are
currently “far from what is ultimately needed for either accountability
or classroom instructional improvement purposes” (Gordon Commission,
2013).
Myth: Adoption of Common Core exams will end NCLB testing overkill. Reality: Under Common Core, there will be many more tests and the same misuses. NCLB
triggered a testing tsunami (Guisbond, et al., 2012); the Common Core
will flood classrooms with even more tests. Both consortia keep
mandatory annual English/language arts (ELA) and math testing in grades
3-8 and once in high school, as with NCLB. However, the tests will be
longer than current state exams. PARCC will test reading and math in three high school grades instead of one; SBAC
moves reading and math tests from 10th grade to 11th. In PARCC states,
high schoolers will also take a speaking and listening test. PARCC also
offers “formative” tests for kindergarten through second grade. Both
consortia produce and encourage additional interim testing two to three
times a year (PARCC, 2012; SBAC, 2012). As with NCLB, Common Core tests
will be used improperly to make high-stakes decisions, including high school graduation (Gewertz, 2012), teacher evaluation, and school accountability.
Myth: New multi-state assessments will save taxpayers money. Reality: Test costs will increase for most states. Schools will spend even more for computer infrastructure upgrades. Costs
have been a big concern, especially for the five states that dropped
out of a testing consortium as of August 2013. PARCC acknowledges that
half its member states will spend more than they do for current tests.
Georgia pulled out when PARCC announced costs of new, computer-delivered
summative math and ELA tests alone totaled $2.5 million more than its
existing state assessment budget. States lack resources
to upgrade equipment, bandwidth and provide technical support, a cost
likely to exceed that of the tests themselves (Herbert, 2012). One
analysis indicates that Race to the Top would provide districts with
less than ten cents on the dollar to defray these expenses plus mandated teacher evaluations (Mitchell, 2012).
Myth: New assessment consortia will replace error-prone test manufacturers. Reality: The same, incompetent, profit-driven companies will make new exams and prep materials. The
same old firms, including Pearson, Educational Testing Service and
CTB/McGraw-Hill, are producing the tests. These firms have long
histories of mistakes and incompetence. The multi-national Pearson,
for example, has been responsible for poor-quality items, scoring
errors, computer system crashes and missed deadlines (Strauss, 2013).
Despite these failures, Pearson shared $23 million in contracts to design the first 18,000 PARCC test items (Gewertz, 2012).
Myth: More rigor means more, or better, learning. Reality: Harder tests do not make kids smarter. In New York, teachers witnessed students brought to tears
(Hernandez & Baker, 2013), faced with confusing instructions and
unfamiliar material on Common Core tests. New York tests gave fifth
graders questions written at an 8th grade level (Ravitch, 2013). New
York and Kentucky showed dramatic drops in proficiency and wider
achievement gaps. Poor results hammer students’ self-confidence and
disengage them from learning. They also bolster misperceptions about
public school failure, place urban schools in the cross hairs and lend
ammunition to privatization schemes. If a child struggles to clear the
high bar at five feet, she will not become a "world class" jumper
because someone raised the bar to six feet and yelled "jump higher," or
if her “poor” performance is used to punish her coach.
Myth: Common Core assessments are designed to meet the needs of all students. Reality: The new tests put students with disabilities and English language learners at risk. Advocates for English language learners
(Maxwell, 2013) have raised concerns about a lack of appropriate
accommodations. A U.S. Education Department’s technical review assessed
the consortia’s efforts in July 2013 and issued a stern warning, saying
that attempts to accommodate students with disabilities and ELLs need more attention (Gewertz, 2013).
Myth: Common Core "proficiency" is an objective measure of college- and career-readiness. Reality: Proficiency levels on Common Core tests are subjective, like all performance levels. Recent disclosures demonstrate that New York State set passing scores arbitrarily
(Burris, 2013). There is no evidence that these standards or tests are
linked to the skills and knowledge students need for their wide range of
college and career choices (Ravitch, 2013). In addition, school
officials have often yielded to the temptation to cheat and manipulate
test results to bolster the credibility of their favored reforms. Examples include Atlanta, New York, Washington, DC, Indiana, Florida, and more (FairTest, 2012).
Myth: States have to implement the Common Core assessments; they have no other choice. Reality:
Yes they do. Activists should call for an indefinite moratorium on
Common Core tests to allow time for implementation of truly better
assessments. High-quality assessment improves teaching
and learning and provides useful information about schools. Examples of
better assessments include well-designed formative assessments (FairTest, 2006), performance assessments that are part of the curriculum (New York Performance Standards Consortium), and portfolios or Learning Records (FairTest, 2007) of actual student work. Schools can be evaluated
using multiple sources of evidence that includes limited, low-stakes
testing, school quality reviews, and samples of ongoing student work
(Neill, 2010). It’s time to step back and reconsider what kinds of
assessments will help our students and teachers succeed in school and
life.
Guisbond, L., Neill, M., and Schaeffer, R. 2012. NCLB’s Lost Decade for Educational Progress: What Can We Learn from this Policy Failure? Boston: FairTest, http://www.fairtest.org/NCLB-lost-decade-report-home.
Mitchell, Kenneth. 2012. “Federal Mandates on Local Education: Costs
and Consequences – Yes, it’s a Race, but is it in the Right Direction?”
CRREO Discussion Brief #8. http://www.newpaltz.edu/crreo/brief_8_education.pdf
Last spring’s state tests were an entirely different experience, for
children and for teachers. Teachers invigilating the exams were shocked
by ambiguous test questions, based, as they saw it, on false premises
and wrongheaded educational principles. (One B.N.S. teacher, Katherine
Sorel, eloquently details her objections on WNYC’s SchoolBook blog.)
Others were dismayed to see that children were demoralized by the
relentlessness of the testing process, which took seventy minutes a day
for six days, with more time allowed for children with learning
disabilities. One teacher remarked that, if a tester needs three days to
tell if a child can read “you are either incompetent or cruel. I feel
angry and compromised for going along with this.” Another teacher said
that during each day of testing, at least one of her children was
reduced to tears. A paraprofessional—a classroom aide who works with
children with special needs—called the process “state-sanctioned child
abuse.” One child with a learning disability, after the second hour of
the third day, had had enough. “He only had two questions left, but he
couldn’t keep going,” a teacher reported. “He banged his head on the
desk so hard that everyone in the room jumped.”
This piece by David Sciarra and Wade Henderson is hugely important as the decision rendered by the Kansas Supreme Court and an intractable legislature will have a defining impact on the future of our communities' constitutional rights to—in this case—a "suitable education." Quote from within:
"A
court-stripping constitutional amendment, and defiance of a state
Supreme Court order, would shred the very fabric of Kansas’ government
and send shock waves through state capitals across the nation."
KANSAS,
like every state, explicitly guarantees a free public education in its
Constitution, affirming America’s founding belief that only an educated
citizenry can preserve democracy and safeguard individual liberty and
freedom.
And
yet in recent years Kansas has become the epicenter of a new battle
over the states’ obligation to adequately fund public education. Even
though the state Constitution requires that it make “suitable provision”
for financing public education, Gov. Sam Brownback and the
Republican-led Legislature have made draconian cuts in school spending,
leading to a lawsuit that now sits before the state Supreme Court.
The outcome of that decision could resonate nationwide. Forty-five states have had lawsuits challenging the failure
of governors and legislators to provide essential resources for a
constitutional education. Litigation is pending against 11 states that
allegedly provide inadequate and unfair school funding, including New
York, Florida, Texas and California.
Many
of these lawsuits successfully forced elected officials to increase
school funding overall and to deliver more resources to poor students
and those with special needs. If the Kansas Supreme Court rules
otherwise, students in those states may begin to see the tide of
education cuts return.
Kansas’
current constitutional crisis has its genesis in a series of cuts to
school funding that began in 2009. The cuts were accelerated by a $1.1
billion tax break, which benefited mostly upper-income Kansans, proposed
by Governor Brownback and enacted in 2012.
Overall, the Legislature slashed public education funding
to 16.5 percent below the 2008 level, triggering significant program
reductions in schools across the state. Class sizes have increased,
teachers and staff members have been laid off, and essential services
for at-risk students were eliminated, even as the state implemented
higher academic standards for college and career readiness.
Parents filed a lawsuit in the Kansas courts to challenge the cuts. In Gannon v. State of Kansas,
a three-judge trial court ruled in January 2013 for the parents,
finding that the cuts reduced per-pupil expenditures far below a level
“suitable” to educate all children under Kansas’ standards.
The
judges also found that the Legislature was not meeting even the basic
funding amounts set in its own education cost studies. The judges called
the school funding cut “destructive of our children’s future.”
To
remedy the funding shortfall, the judges ordered that per-pupil
expenditures be increased to $4,492 from $3,838, the level previously
established as suitable.
Rather than comply, Governor Brownback appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court. A decision is expected this month.
A
victory for the parents would be heartening, but if it comes, would
Governor Brownback and legislative leaders uphold the right to education
guaranteed to Kansas school children?
The
signals thus far are not promising. If the Kansas Supreme Court orders
restoration of the funding, legislators are threatening to amend the
state’s Constitution by removing the requirement for “suitable” school
funding and to strip Kansas courts of jurisdiction to hear school
finance cases altogether. And if the amendment fails, they have vowed to
defy any court order for increased funding or, at the very least, take
the money from higher education.
A
court-stripping constitutional amendment, and defiance of a state
Supreme Court order, would shred the very fabric of Kansas’ government
and send shock waves through state capitals across the nation. It would
allow elected branches to avoid any responsibility to adhere to the
language and interpretation of their state constitutions by the courts.
It would gravely undermine judicial independence and shut the courthouse
door to vulnerable children who, as a last resort, seek legal redress
to vindicate their fundamental right to an education.
As
the Gannon trial judges noted, matters such as education are placed in
constitutions because they are “intended for permanence” and “to protect
them from the vagaries of politics.”
Kansans
rightfully take pride in their strong public school system. But as
Kansas goes, so may go the nation. The Kansas Constitution, like those
in other states, demands that every child be given the educational
opportunity to meet his or her promise. This requires, at a minimum,
adequate and suitable school funding. Governor Brownback and legislators
must meet the constitutional command and, by so doing, advance the core
American value of equal opportunity for all.
David Sciarra is the executive director of the Education Law Center. Wade Henderson is the president and chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
Reading an academic paper on racism is like reading an alien's take on the human species.
In their summary of the way humans think, these aliens
describe racism as "phenotypic features associated with the social
categorization of racial groups [that] have been strongly linked to
stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination." Don't those humans know
those "phenotypic features" (i.e., genetic factors) that form race only account for 6 to 10 percent of the
genetic differences between humans? Silly humans. Often this
stereotyping manifests itself in what's called "skin tone memory bias,"
or, in the common tongue, racism.
For all their academic euphemisms, the psychologists on a new study in the Journal Sage Open, are
not aliens. But they do cooly describe the way subjects implicitly
associate "ignorance" with dark skin tone, and "education" with light
skin tone.
The students tested at San Francisco State
University were shown words like "ignorant" and "educated" for 33
milliseconds. These subliminal prompts are part of a phenomenon known as
priming, a manipulation by researchers that preps participants' minds
for a given experiment. After the subliminal word, they saw a picture of
a black man.
Priming is a powerful tool for psychologists. Basically,
simple words or cues activate semantic networks in the brain and make
the ideas connected to that semantic network easier to access. The
effect is commonly illustrated by a simple experiment: When a researcher
hands a person a cup of warm water, they're more likely to describe
someone as being warm or friendly. In flashing the word "ignorance"
before their participant's eyes, the psychologists make everything with
an "ignorance" association in their participant's mind all the more
accessible.
The
array of skin tones the researchers used in the study. When primed for
"educated," participants would more often misidentify a black man as
having a lighter skin tone. (Avi Ben-Zeev, Tara Dennehy, Robin Goodrich,
Branden Kolarik, and Mark Geisler)
What
they found was this: The students primed with "educated" were more
likely to rate the black man's skin tone as lighter on a memory test
later. "Black individuals who defy social stereotypes might not
challenge social norms sufficiently but rather may be remembered as
lighter, perpetuating status quo beliefs," the authors summarize. That
is, when primed to think of a "black person" and "educated" in the same
mental space, the black person becomes whiter. The stereotype distorts
the memory.
The researchers elaborate:
Whereas encountering a Black individual after being
primed with the word educated might pose a challenge to existing
beliefs, encountering a Black individual after being primed with the
word ignorant would likely not require resolution or a misremembering of
skin tone to align with these beliefs.
The effects of skin bias have real consequences: The "more
black" a person appears, the more they are likely to be sentenced to
death (in an experiment). In the real world, darker-skinned women were found to spend more time in jail.
Now, it's unfair to label this study's participants as
outright racists. Just because a subliminal cue changes their
perceptions of a person doesn't mean those perceptions change the way
they might engage with or treat that person in the real world. What the
study does show is that these connections exist, and they can subtly change our behavior without us ever knowing it.
Important read. Despite all the rhetoric of college readiness, the forecast is bleak for far too many youth in our economy and society.
Occupations
with the largest numeric growth, projected 2010-20 will mostly not
require very much education at all.
We know that this
impacts policymakers' decisions to sort through high-stakes and tracking those students that are
college ready (or "workforce ready") from those who are not. After all,
these jobs need to get filled and certainly not by students with a
whole lot of education—much less a higher-order, critical-thinking one.
Children of color and low-income whites will be (are are being) disproportionately impacted by this.
