They missed the best headline opportunity in a long time:

"Students not being properly assimilated, says Borg"

"Why do we separate students by age instead of ability?"

When my grandfather arrived here at seventeen, he was placed in third grade to get basic language skills, then quickly bumped-up to the grade he belonged in.

I think being in a classroom with a bunch of kids half your age is a fire under one's butt.

Heheh, love the alternative headline, mg. There may be a job for you at the New York Post.

These students do not have access to rigorous math and English courses that could boost their academic achievement, he said. Instead, they are often offered a “watered down” curriculum that does not help them catch up with their English-speaking peers.

Welcome to the predictable effects of high-stakes testing. Interestingly you ignore the simplest solutions, "teacher training focused on instructing non-English speakers and programs such as dual language classes where English speakers learn Spanish and vice versa," preferring instead to even further water down their curriculum to a thin gruel of English test prep.

"That is just setting those kids up to fail, get frustrated and quit completely."

Yes, I couldn't agree more. You mean that's not intentional?

www.rifuture.org/minority-students-as-pawns-in-the-right-wing-war-on-public-schools.html

Yeah, that's it Russ. We on the right want to harm kids. We also want dirty air and water. And we hate women...and gays. It's interesting and somewhat depressing that so many of your ilk believe this BS...even people whom I'd otherwise assume were intelligent.
Or am I just feeding a troll?

Actually, my contention was that these kids are being set up to fail in an attempt to undercut public education. I think you'd be hard pressed to deny that many on the right would like to see schools privatized.

As for wanting to harm kids, Patrick seemed legitimately surprised on noticing what's happening to these students. Perhaps you were too. My hope is that if people knew the effect of these policies on the very kids we're supposed to be helping they might change their mind.

> set up to fail in an attempt to undercut public education

Really? You think that this is all being masterminded?

"Never ascribe to malice..."

Yes, I think high-stakes testing is a stalking horse for privitization although I don't doubt that many legitimately believe it will help.

www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/testtoday.htm

Susan Neuman, an assistant secretary of education during the roll-out of NCLB, admitted that others in Bush's Department of Education "saw NCLB as a Trojan horse for the choice agenda - a way to expose the failure of public education and 'blow it up a bit'" (Claudia Wallis, "No Child Left Behind: Doomed to Fail?", Time, June 8, 2008)

How, other than testing are we supposed to quantify the results of years in the classroom? But, yes, I'd like to undercut public education. When I see how my local high school is run--to the tune of $18K per student per year!--and I see how ill-equipped they are to deal with the real world, my faith in public education is somewhat tarnished...to say the least.
When my kids were in school, it seemed that every other week contained a holiday of some sort, either a "professional development day" or some other nonsense that the workers of the world don't get. Unions are a huge contributor to this problem; both teacher's and janitorial. They seem to encourage shoddy work. They certainly don't punish it.
So give me that money--or less--and I'll turn out kids who can read, write, and do math. Some of them may be good artists, some will be better carpenters. But they'll all know their reading, writing and math. Unlike recent crops.
Oh yeah, I also would demand my teachers be given the tools to run their classrooms; no more putting up with disruptive or threatening students.

"How, other than testing are we supposed to quantify the results of years in the classroom?"

You don't. As Deming said, "Don't measure. Whatever you can measure is inconsequential." I certainly don't need a standardized test result to tell me whether my children are learning.

As for the rest, clearly I wasn't too far off the mark after all. Here's how Alfie Kohn put it (these arguments are bound to sound familiar here)...
www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/testtoday.htm

People with an animus against public schooling typically set the stage for their demolition plans by proclaiming that there isn’t much there worth saving. Meanwhile, those who object are portrayed as apologists for every policy in every school. It’s a very clever gambit, you have to admit. Either you’re in favor of privatization or else you are inexplicably satisfied with mediocrity...

I try to imagine myself as a privatizer. How would I proceed? If my objective were to dismantle public schools, I would begin by trying to discredit them. I would probably refer to them as “government” schools, hoping to tap into a vein of libertarian resentment. I would never miss an opportunity to sneer at researchers and teacher educators as out-of-touch “educationists.” Recognizing that it’s politically unwise to attack teachers, I would do so obliquely, bashing the unions to which most of them belong. Most important, if I had the power, I would ratchet up the number and difficulty of standardized tests that students had to take, in order that I could then point to the predictably pitiful results. I would then defy my opponents to defend the schools that had produced students who did so poorly.

Russ, I am an advocate of a voucher system. Let parents decide where their edu-dollars are best spent. You don't touch on a couple of points I made, so let me say them again a different way; Teachers need the tools to teach. One of those is the ability to maintain an orderly and safe classroom. If I'm a teacher and some little thug threatens me with bodily harm (I'm talking about in Middletown High, here) and I can't respond by having him removed, then I'm not going be on my game in the classroom. Does this mean some children are going to be "left behind?" Yup! Why should they be allowed to impede other kids' learning?

Rogers High in Newport is in deplorable condition, yet when my elder child started going there and I offered to gather some parents and do some sprucing up, the head of the school board told me no, that any work the parents did would get the union up in arms. The union would demand to be paid for our work and would be backed by the courts. Similarly, teacher's unions do nothing to improve education, and I'd argue they are to a large extent responsible for the fact that kids aren't being well-served in the classroom. We've all known bad teachers--those who are incompetent, bitter, hostile, or killing time until retirement--yet we can't get rid of them because they are protected by their unions. We need energy and skill from our teachers to engage the students.

We pay far too much for education in this state given the lousy education our kids get. I'm saying we could do better. There's no excuse for graduating kids who at 18 can barely read and couldn't divide two numbers if their lives depended on it.

"Let parents decide where their edu-dollars are best spent."

What happens when a ton of 'bad parents' (and there are tons of them) decide to use their vouchers to put their horrible dumb kids in your school?

What happens when huge swaths of parents don't even bother using the vouchers for anything? There's a whole swath of state government that seems dedicated to dragging kids back to school and throwing them into Training School when they leave again.

The obvious next step from vouchers is nothing at all... Just cut local taxes and let people with kids save up and send them to school. I guarantee you that a few years after vouchers debut, the same people who asked for them in the first place will be saying 'it's not fair that I shell out $10K a year so my dumb neighbor can send her horrible kids to private school'.

There's an answer to the public education problem, it's somewhere in the middle. Maybe offer vouchers to kids who are TOO GOOD for the crappy schools they're in, as a chance to get them into programs that respect their intelligence. If you did that, you'd also want to not be judging the schools that take everyone for serving the bottom 50% of demographics.

@Russ-you really have your head up your ass to suggest that "those on the right"want to destroy public schools and privatize them.
The public schools have done a pretty good job of destroying themselves in many locales and I'm not an expert on education,nor even very knowledgeable,so I don't know why that's happened-I'm certain the causes are multiple.
I believe in a good system of public schools like what we had in NYC when I was growing up there and attending public schools in the 50's and 60's.
Teachers had a union back then also and we had non English speakers entering the system from Puerto Rico and Hungary and other places,so it's not like those factors damaged the quality of education.
We even had a great tuition free city university which was adversely affected by the implementation of the idea that everyone was entitled to attend college even if they couldn't read well.Admission standards were dropped with predictable results.
So don't make blanket accusations against people on the right without observing that people on the left like the Chafees and Whitehouses have their kids in exclusive little schools.
FWIW my son and daughter went to Providence public schools.

Russ - You like to quote a single interview that Deming gave at the end of his life in which he was halfway senile and contradicted himself in multiple places. Leave the poor man alone already. His earlier writings were much more coherent and advocated measuring in ways that made sense from a quality/process perspective. Of course you have to measure in some fashion otherwise you will have no idea whether your process is improving. "Don't measure" is just silly catch-phrase rhetoric. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean "high stakes standardized testing." Still waiting to hear what your concrete positive ideas are for improving schools instead of what not to do.

Mangeek - The idea is that schools would compete for students in such a system. Vouchers don't mean that dumb or lazy kids get to go to any school they want.

"Providence Failing in ESL"

Could you tell me where it is succeeding?

"Actually, my contention was that these kids are being set up to fail in an attempt to undercut public education. I think you'd be hard pressed to deny that many on the right would like to see schools privatized".

Russ you are pro-choice when it comes to terminating a human fetus I assume. Why not let the parents have a choice in the school they send their kids to. You libs want to cherry pick issues and you end up being hypocritical. Hussein Obama sends his kids (like all anti- school choice elite libs in DC) to Sidwell Friends. The elites suck up (the dues) to the the failed NEA and it's thug unions while the schools under perform. Oh almost forgot... the "right" wants polluted air and water too.

Wherever students are taught let us hope that they never ever write anything like "edu-dollars".

Phil, after all I wrote, that was all you could find to take away? FWIW, I was indulging in newspeak in order to connect with a liberal.

Russ said:

"Actually, my contention was that these kids are being set up to fail in an attempt to undercut public education. I think you'd be hard pressed to deny that many on the right would like to see schools privatized."

This is not even wrong. It's devoid of any sort of reality.

As an unaffiliated voter, I abhor anybody filtering reality through the fuzzy lens of party politics. And anyone who quotes Alfie Kohn and mistakes his opinion for reality while preventing others from having their own opinion (choice) of what constitutes a proper education, is extraordinarily arrogant.

This is no longer an issue of vouchers for rich conservatives. This is now at the level of preventing desperate urban parents from sending their kids to charter schools. There was a long thread on Joanne Jacobs blog in reaction to Ravitch's apparent complete sell-out to teachers' unions and their position that either the charter school experiment has failed or that it's not fair that they "cream" students. Incredibly, Ravitch also blamed it on hedge fund managers.

The anti-charter and anti-choice arguments failed completely. This is not politics. This is about basic school competence and separating willing and able kids from those who are not. This is about high individual expectations and opportunities that don't close career doors. This is not about saving public schools that, on the one hand, can't be expected to do much because of poverty, and on the other hand, won't give parents choice because they want to fix poverty. As I've said before, life's tough when you end up fighting those you are dedicated to serve.

Right on, Steve! I'm not rich, but my kids are alright. Why? Because I moved to a district with better schools. It's the poor who don't have that option who find vouchers most valuable. School choice is a huge boon for poor kids trying to work their way out of the poverty cycle.

fwiw, I probably understand those "desperate urban parents" better than most, living here in Washington Park. What's funny is to watch one set of commenters deny annyone on the right wants that to eliminate public education while others argue for just that.

btw, I'm looking into the approach now advocated by Susan Neuman...
www.epi.org/files/2011/bold_approach_full_statement-3.pdf

1. Continue to pursue school improvement efforts.
2. Increase investment in developmentally appropriate and high-quality early childhood, pre-school, and kindergarten education.
3. Increase investment in health services.
4. Pay more attention to the time students spend out of school.

Those are progressive ideas I could support (with reservations until I know more about their idea of the role of testing) and all possible without corporatizing the educational system.

"As an unaffiliated voter, I abhor anybody filtering reality through the fuzzy lens of party politics."

That's simply not true. Notice I did not and have not said "Republican" anywhere in my writings about education. That said, it's hardly controversial to say that school privatization is largely an idea promoted by the right or that many of the ideas I've promoted are considered progressive.

I reject out of hand ideas premised on seperating the wheat from the chaff. I'm a parent of dyslexic kids and will fight to make sure they have the same opportunity and quality education as anyone else without regard to their score on a some big-government test.

Ok, so throw money at the problem. Brilliant suggestions as always, Russ. Let me know when you have concrete suggestions for running schools besides writing bigger checks.

Sometimes you get what you pay for. Ultimately not caring for these kids will cost us much, much more.

Close your mind if you like. Notably I came to that site because of the opinion of Bush's assistant secretary of education. Gist is also on the list of signatories, so I've perhaps finally found some thing on which we agree.

www.boldapproach.org/signatories-complete

"I did not and have not said "Republican" anywhere in my writings about education."

You didn't have to say the word.

"...it's hardly controversial to say that school privatization is largely an idea promoted by the right "

More open opportunities for charter schools are supported by the Obama administration. It's required for RttT. Right versus left is a distraction (and wrong) when it comes to education. Some Democrats are now fighting against the urban poor over choice. Many Democrats want choice and much higher expectations, although there are those politicians with very curious double standards when it comes to their own kids.

"I reject out of hand ideas premised on seperating the wheat from the chaff. I'm a parent of dyslexic kids and will fight to make sure they have the same opportunity and quality education as anyone else without regard to their score on a some big-government test."

"Out of hand" means that you are being politically dogmatic and not giving the problem careful thought. You're also mixing up all sorts of things. Can urban parents fight to provide their kids a better education by separating them from those who are not willing and able? Affluent parents can send their kids to private schools. Why are they allowed to do that, just because they have more money?

High schools separate kids into tiers. Why isn't this allowed in the earlier grades? Is there some magic educational fairy dust where the less able kids can only get a better education if the same classroom has a wide mix of ability that spans multiple years? If so, then why does the need for this inclusion disappear when kids get to high school?

If you call them "wheat" and "chaff" then you think that the only solution is to have winners and losers. Nothing is stopping educators from embracing and helping those you consider to be chaff. I wouldn't call them that. At NKHS, the lowest level, called the Success Academy", consists of kids who are more than a year behind academically. They don't allow slackers in this group. They work very hard helping these kids. They would be lost and ignored if all students were in mixed ability classrooms. That's a direct result of NCLB.

Next, you have a really big hangup about "big-government tests". Sounds very Republican. But they aren't big or difficult. Look at actual NECAP questions. Look at the raw percent correct scores. This is NOT high stakes for individual students and it is not used to do any kind of separation. If kids do poorly on this test, then isn't it better to know that before it's too late? K-8 schools pump kids along and pretend that everything is equal and fine. Then, the kids hit the big high school filter where it's too late to fix anything. The kids on the honors track are the ones who got help at home. Their parents differentiated.

However, state tests are meaningless if schools do their jobs and evaluate students properly themselves. State test results should be no surprise. State testing should not be necessary. NCLB was, unfortunately, necessary because many schools were letting kids fall through the cracks. The downsides are that the proficiency standards are way too low and many schools shift too many resources to the lower end. In a full inclusion environment, that means that more kids will never reach their potential without help at home. Then, the "wheat" will be those students who got help at home, and the invisible "chaff" will be those left to fend for themselves in a no separation, mixed ability public school. Many want to close the academic gap, but there are two different games here; the affluent can separate or teach at home, but the poor cannot. People feel this is better, but they can't see what's going on at home. It consists of a lot more than turning off the TV and having a proper breakfast and lunch.

It's interesting how discrimination has two opposite meanings. Also, paradoxically, not discriminating is a hidden form of discrimination.

"You didn't have to say the word."

Clearly you don't know me very well. I'm not in the habit of pulling punches if I want to tar Repubicans as wrong on an issue, and I consider myself more a progressive than a Democrat. As for Obama, I didn't vote for him. Not planning to vote for him this time either. I'd say that's one of his many right-wing positions (only the right thinks he's some kind of leftist). "Conservative" doesn't fit because nothing about this reform is conservative. All things considered, I think right-wing is fairly apt.

"'Out of hand' means that you are being politically dogmatic and not giving the problem careful thought."

True, but politically? No. I'm talking about my own kids and I don't need to give any more thought to my belief in their right to quality education. That's just being a dad, and on the contrary I think I've given this more careful thought than most given where I live and the specifics of my family.

Since you're unclear, I don't believe any kids deserve to be dismissed as chaff and used the terms to denigrate the whole idea. It's wrong on many levels, not least from a process improvement standpoint. In fact, Deming railed against the ranking of students (see "The New Economics"). That said, I'm not against the idea of offering flexibility and student choice in education if it promotes the joy in learning that truly should be the goal of any school system.

I've written many times about my dislike of high-stakes testing, even about the pernicious nature of comments like this one... "the proficiency standards are way too low and many schools shift too many resources to the lower end." I don't mean that as a personal slight but, rather, the inevitable product of pretending those tests are relevant or appropriate gauges of educational progress.

"This is NOT high stakes for individual students and it is not used to do any kind of separation."

Ah, but it is for the schools, teachers, and the administrators so the kids are all in whether they like it or not. I would encourage parents to opt their children out and simply refuse to play that game.

I really don't care about your politics, but that seems to be driving your view of reality.

"I don't believe any kids deserve to be dismissed as chaff and used the terms to denigrate the whole idea."

This is a strawman. You are the one defining the choice only in black and white terms.

"In fact, Deming railed against the ranking of students (see "The New Economics"). That said, I'm not against the idea of offering flexibility and student choice in education if it promotes the joy in learning that truly should be the goal of any school system."

How about promoting basic competence and basic educational opportunity. Are urban parents desperate to get out because their kids don't have enough "joy in learning"?

"the proficiency standards are way too low and many schools shift too many resources to the lower end."

The standards are too low, but before them, the standards didn't exist.

Schools do shift resources to the lower end rather than change their basic assumptions about education. Our high school spends too much time and money fixing problems that should be prevented in the lower grades.

If you blame tests, then you are blaming the messenger. Then again, if you are a follower of Alfie Kohn, you don't believe in tests. Good luck getting everyone on board that bus.

"...the inevitable product of pretending those tests are relevant or appropriate gauges of educational progres."

The tests are VERY relevant. Look at the questions. What wonderful, joyful, critical thinking and problem solving skills make it OK to flunk these tests? Never mind. You don't like tests by definition.

It's fine to have your own opinion. I really don't care if parents send their kids to schools that have an unschooling agenda. Don't test. Focus on joyful, real world learning. Just don't ask everyone else to buy into it.

The big battle these days is about choice and who is or is not willing to offer it to parents. Many seem to be more concerned about the "schools, teachers, and the administrators." Claims that what's best for these people is best for students just doesn't hold water.

"I would encourage parents to opt their children out and simply refuse to play that game."

That's not what many urban parents want.

"Sometimes you get what you pay for."

And sometimes you don't. With 12:1 student:teacher ratios, you'd expect small classes. Instead, we have teachers who are booked -overcrowded- classes for one or two periods a day in half-empty buildings (buildings that are falling apart... Because we can't shrink the payroll when the population shrinks). This means that we're paying a LOT of people to NOT work, while at the same time paying those who are a premium for taking on extra students.

That's the direct result of lack of backbone in writing the contracts. Sometimes Good People get laid-off. It happens.

Then there's the administration, who I'm sure are totally not using technology to properly schedule resources (capital and human) in ways that are effective. Those too, are positions that can't be easily re-filled by folks who ARE capable, because you can't get rid of the folks who aren't.

Then there's the testing... Which doesn't have to be nearly as intense or high-stakes as it is. The compliance, same story. And finally the curriculum, which is some mumbo-humbo that the bozos in administration end up -purchasing- after the publishers take them out to enough sushi-and-sake lunches.

I can tell you that the teachers would be a LOT better at their jobs if they had as much time actually building a relevant curriculum collaboratively as they do now on silly compliance B.S..

This is why I like charters (I went to one, BTW). You open a few of them, toss the labor contracts, the mandated curriculum, and paperwork, then see what works over a period of a few years. If something works, grow it or bring it into the 'mainline' schools. If it doesn't, shut it down.

"If it doesn't, shut it down."

The problem is that some (like Diane Ravitch) are working desperately to show that the "charter school experiment" has failed. They would like to have us believe that choice can't or won't work. Then they claim that it isn't fair that some charter schools "cream" the best students. It surely works for these students. And schools weren't complaining when charter schools "sludged-off" the low end kids the public schools couldn't handle. Apparently, it's OK if some kids are inspired (and separated) at an arts school, but it's not OK for more able kids to be inspired (and separated) at a school that sets higher standards and uses better curricula. They just don't want to lose the kids who make them look good with little or no effort.

Even if you leave off any discussion over cost and the value of unions, choice will eventually decide what works, and parents will be the ones (perhaps right or wrong) to make that decision. However, the decisions will be based on what's best for individuals, not some vague societal goal of fixing poverty and fairness.

As it is right now, public schools want unions, control over curricula and pedagogy, and no choice. This gives them no sort of real world feedback. Some even complain that the very simple competence feedback from tests is not "authentic" and "high stakes".

I still remember sitting in a little kid chair in the school library while the teacher, in her very best first grader voice, told us parents about the glories of MathLand, a math curriculum so bad that it ended up being completely erased off the face of the web, leaving only the very bad reviews. I was selected to be on a Citizens Curriculum Committee once that never held a meeting. The school proceeded to go ahead and replace MathLand with Everyday Math. There is little real world feedback in this education loop. The schools saw parents send their kids off to private schools, but it's too easy to label these people at elitists. Other parents keep quiet and create the "wheat" at home. The "chaff" are the ones in the public schools who get no help at home.

Separation happens. parents want what's best for their kids, and this often requires choice and separation.

Choice can work all ways; provide kids with a classical Core Knowledge type of education or a progressive, no test, unschooling approach. It can provide AP, IB, or a portfolio approach where the students define their own learning path. It can provide a general liberal arts education, or a specialist arts or STEM education.

Without choice, there is no feedback loop with reality for parents wishes, curriula, and costs. With choice, one can make the case for having CCSS be nothing more than a suggestion. Then again, my son would be in the schools that tested (not with CCSS) and properly prepared him for a maximum number of AP classes.

@russ-WHY would "right wingers"disagree about public education?Maybe because we aren't party line driven lemmings like you and some others here seem to be.MSNBC epitomizes that hive type of "thinking".
What knd of schools did you attend Russ?Maybe some elitist little adademies,hmmm?
Trying to get street cred at your age is a joke-growing up in a rundown neighborhood like I did gave me a great appreciation of public education.

Joe - You think Russ's kids go to public school? Of course not. Like the rest of the self-righteous, proselytizing "limousine progressives," Russ's kids attend a wealthy 95%-white private school. Ask him for his paper-thin rationalization sometime if you're up for some good laughs. According to him, his kids have special requirements and need individualized attention, but the crappy RI public schools are good enough for everyone else's kids, and if they pull them out or want choice, then they're racists. For the record, I would never bring somebody's kids into an argument; he wrote a series of articles about them on RIFuture to make political points about how evil all the school-choice proponents are. The term "ethnic cleansing" was used in connection with charter schools.

Progressivism/unionism: One set of rules for me, another set of rules for everyone else.

I have been teaching ESL to adults for more than 12 years. My class members are all working (I teach at a very forward looking company in Cranston – See recent Sunday Projo article on the company - and they understand that their employment opportunities increase in proportion to their English ability.) It is hope that motivates them in the classroom. They are easy to teach because they are eager to learn. They are eager to learn because they experience concretely the advantages of learning.
When we look at school age ESL population we find most of the students living in poor neighborhoods segregated by income, and they see very little way out and little reason to study. In other words most are unmotivated to learn. The problem lies in the structure of our society, not in the school systems which lie within it.

Once upon a time, for example, Americans with a strong work ethic but little education could move upward thanks to unionized manufacturing jobs. But as both manufacturing jobs and unions started to disappear in the 1970s, earnings of high school-only males fell off a cliff: declining by 15 between 1973 and 1989. Today, about a third of poor families with children include a parent who is working full-time. Realizing that plain hard work doesn’t mean upward mobility anymore, Americans have been piling into college at record levels – only to find that a degree is no magic ticket to success, either. Pay for college educated males has largely stagnated over the past few decades while living costs have soared. For example, nearly all the modest income gains of middle income families between 1999 and 2009 were eaten up by rising healthcare costs. Increasingly, too, white collar jobs are disappearing in the same way that blue collar jobs did – being shipped overseas or eliminated by technology or reclassified as temporary with no benefits.

David Callahan, “Income Mobility Myth”, Reuters 10/27/11

OldTimeLefty

"we find most of the students living in poor neighborhoods segregated by income, and they see very little way out and little reason to study. In other words most are unmotivated to learn."

"They" is a very bad word. Many of these kids (ESL or otherwise) are motivated or could be motivated given the right circumstances. Most of their schools offer no path for caring. Many have parents who care, but the public schools won't let them find opportunities where they can do something about it.

"The problem lies in the structure of our society, not in the school systems which lie within it."

This is wrong.

There is a HUGE demand by urban parents to get out to charter schools that offer any shred of opportunity and reason for caring. These parents are desperate, but many people are trying to stop them from leaving. Just look at the old Green Dot school issue in CA and the recent Achievement First issue in RI.

If you look at problems as "they", then you won't be able to separate the variables and see what's going on; you won't be able to offer opportunities that will help individuals right now with no extra money. If you look at the problem as poverty, then you won't see individuals or any reasonable solution.

How would you like to be lumped into a group and referred to as "they"? If you are struggling to find your own way out, how would it feel to see the people, who claim to be on your side, fail to see you or offer you any special opportunity because that would not be fair? How would it feel if these people were absolutely thrilled if you just graduated from high school or got into CCRI, even though you had the ability to get into Brown?

What is the goal, to provide the best individual educational opportunities, or to just try to do better for all, as if individuals don't exist? Nobody gets out unless everybody gets out.

I also very much dislike this "motivation" meme. The onus is placed on the kids. They are the ones with the problem. If only kids were motivated or engaged, then everything would be fine. Then schools don't separate those willing and able from those who are not. Schools focus on motivating kids with happy, silly, hands-on work in mixed ability groups while many affluent parents in the burbs are directly teaching their kids phonics and the times table. Public schools are a big part of the problem, but they have no real world feedback loop. When they get real feedback from parents desperate to get out, they end up in denial.

"Maybe because we aren't party line driven lemmings like you and some others here seem to be."

I oppose the Obama education plan. That tired argument won't work this time.

"What knd of schools did you attend Russ? Maybe some elitist little adademies,hmmm? Trying to get street cred at your age is a joke..."

I attended public schools and a public university. You really don't know me very well, Joe. That you and others want to make this personal speaks volumes. If you wanted to shutdown the debate, well done.

Russ, you can't pick and choose what you respond to. You can't complain that the debate is being shut down when you completely ignore so many specific issues. It's fine if you want to dismiss ad hominem arguments, but don't use that as an excuse for saying that the debate is being shut down. You're just using that as an excuse to bail out.

"I oppose the Obama education plan. That tired argument won't work this time."

Is this the only depth of analysis you can muster? What kind of debate are you looking for? I might argue strongly about my assumptions and opinions, but I'm always trying to see if they are wrong or I have missed something. You are the one shutting down the debate because once you get past your vague generalities, nothing is there.

SteveH, sorry I didn't mean to lump you in.

"I really don't care about your politics, but that seems to be driving your view of reality."

And I'd say you have that reversed.

"You are the one defining the choice only in black and white terms."

That's imho simply the reality of what you proposed, "separating willing and able kids from those who are not." Sugar coat it if you like. I reject the idea.

"How about promoting basic competence and basic educational opportunity?"

Standardize testing does that at the expense of more robust educational goals. This is exactly what many feared would happening and not at all what I want for my own kids.
www.rifuture.org/providences-five-million-dollar-man.html

At worst, schools have become little more than test-prep factories,” says Robert Schaeffer, executive director of the National Centerfor Fair and Open Testing, a group critical of standardized tests. “Entire curriculums are wrapped around test prep, narrowing the curriculum.”

And, he says, the children who most need a rich education — those who are poor, urban or English language learners — often get little more than “a thin gruel” of test preparation in their classes, a far cry from the intellectually stimulating coursework offered by private schools, which do very little standardized testing.

"Are urban parents desperate to get out because their kids don't have enough 'joy in learning?'"

Yes, without a doubt. I want my kids to love school. Doesn't everyone?

"The standards are too low, but before them, the standards didn't exist."

That's simply not true. Standardized testing is hardly new. What we have now is "the status quo on steriods."

www.huffingtonpost.com/alfie-kohn/how-to-sell-conservatism-_b_767040.html

Even before the implementation of what should be called the Many Children Left Behind Act, states and school districts were busy standardizing curricula, imposing more and more tests, and using an array of rewards and punishments to pressure teachers and students to fall in line -- with the most extreme version of this effort reserved for the inner cities. Before anyone outside of Texas had heard of George W. Bush, many of us had been calling attention to the fact that these policies were turning schools into glorified test-prep centers, driving some of the most innovative teachers to leave the profession, and increasing the drop-out rate among kids of color.

Yet the so-called reformers have succeeded in convincing people that their top-down, test-driven approach -- in effect, the status quo on steroids -- is a courageous rejection of what we've been doing.

Here's what would be new: questioning all the stuff that Papert's early 20th-century visitors would immediately recognize: a regimen of memorizing facts and practicing skills that features lectures, worksheets, quizzes, report cards and homework. But the Gates-Bush-Obama version of "school reform" not only fails to call those things into question; it actually intensifies them, particularly in urban schools. The message, as educator Harvey Daniels observed, consists of saying in effect that "what we're doing [in the classroom] is OK, we just need to do it harder, longer, stronger, louder, meaner..."

Real education reform would require us to consider the elimination of many features that we've come to associate with school, so perhaps the reluctance to take such suggestions seriously is just a specific instance of the "whatever is, is right" bias that psychologists keep documenting. At the same time, traditionalists -- educational or otherwise -- know that it's politically advantageous to position themselves as being outside the establishment. Our challenge is to peer through the fog of rhetoric, to realize that what's being billed as reform should seem distinctly familiar -- and not particularly welcome.

"If you blame tests, then you are blaming the messenger."

Not so, as Deming repeatedly said about process improvement, what counts is "by what method?... Only the method counts." We can ignore that if we like, but claiming we're improving the system by ignoring the principles of process improvement should give many pause.

"The tests are VERY relevant... You don't like tests by definition."

That's not so. In fact, Deming used tests. The problem is how these tests are being used. See Campbell's Law...
dianeravitch.net/2012/05/25/what-is-campbells-law/

This is an adage written by social scientist Donald T. Campbell in a 1976 paper. It says:

“The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.” (You can google the paper, or find it linked on Wikipedia: Campbell, Donald T., Assessing the Impact of Planned Social Change The Public Affairs Center, Dartmouth College, Hanover New Hampshire, USA. December, 1976.)

Campbell’s Law explains why high-stakes testing promotes cheating, narrowing the curriculum, teaching to the test, and other negative behaviors..

In his 1976 paper, Campbell also wrote that ”achievement tests may well be valuable indicators of general school achievement under conditions of normal teaching aimed at general competence. But when test scores become the goal of the teaching process, they both lose their value as indicators of educational status and distort the educational process in undesirable ways. (Similar biases of course surround the use of objective tests in courses or as entrance examinations.) [my emphasis]”

"Just don't ask everyone else to buy into it."

You mean like the federally mandated "reform" that's going on now? I'd be happy simply to see that top down, mandated program scrapped. No skin off my nose if every local school doesn't decide to adopt a progressive model. I'll stick to advocating for Providence schools. You're arguing on the wrong side of that one.

"The big battle these days is about choice..."

I agree. I've long held the high-stakes testing movement is really a stalking horse for privitization (what you call "choice").

"[Opting out of standardized testing] is not what many urban parents want."

This one does. I don't presume to speak for anyone else, although I know I'm not alone in that opinion.
www.fairtest.org/get-involved/opting-out

"You are the one defining the choice only in black and white terms."

"That's imho simply the reality of what you proposed, "separating willing and able kids from those who are not." Sugar coat it if you like. I reject the idea."

Black and white. Winners and losers? Is that it? They separate in high school. What's different in the lower grades? I already gave an example of one high school that can give better individual attention to students that are separated into three different levels.

"How about promoting basic competence and basic educational opportunity?"

"Standardize testing does that at the expense of more robust educational goals."

That's clearly an opinion. What type of learning makes it OK to do poorly on these very simple tests? Properly-educated kids (any which way) laugh at these tests.

"The big battle these days is about choice..."

"I agree. I've long held the high-stakes testing movement is really a stalking horse for privitization (what you call "choice")."

I don't follow you. Do you think that if top-down mandatory testing goes away, the demand for alternate schools will go away? Do you see a model for choice that doesn't include some form of privitization? How would that work?

"[Opting out of standardized testing] is not what many urban parents want."

"This one does. I don't presume to speak for anyone else, although I know I'm not alone in that opinion.
www.fairtest.org/get-involved/opting-out"

And I'm more than happy to allow you to pick a different school for your kids, AND to have it paid for by taxpayers dollars. Are you willing to give others the same choice? Under what circumstances? It's one thing to have your own opinion, but another thing to force it on others.

"I already gave an example of one high school that can give better individual attention to students that are separated into three different levels."

So the only thing wrong is too many stupid kids slowing the smart ones down? That's simply a cop out and admission of failure. As Deming said, "there is no shortage of good pupils."

If you look back, I didn't entirely dismiss the idea especially as students get older ("I'm not against the idea of offering flexibility and student choice...").

"That's clearly an opinion."
There's actually quite a bit of support for that opinion, not least of which the decades experience in process improvement which warn against "numerical goals, tests, rewards, but no method."

"Do you see a model for choice that doesn't include some form of privitization?"

Don't mistake your concerns for mine. I'm interested in improving the education system for all students, not just the few. If I believed there was evidence this was occuring with privitization I might think differently.

"And I'm more than happy to allow you to pick a different school for your kids, AND to have it paid for by taxpayers dollars."

I'm not entirely against the idea of vouchers, especially for kids with special needs. The concern is that "choice" won't help all of the kids, just those lucky enough to find an alternative placement. Studies have also found that rather than innovation you get test prep.
www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/testtoday.htm

Consider the stultifyingly scripted lessons and dictatorial discipline that pervade for-profit charter schools. Or have a look at some research from England showing that “when schools have to compete for students, they tend to adopt ‘safe,’ conventional and teacher-centered methods, to stay close to the prescribed curriculum, and to tailor teaching closely to test-taking.”(5) (One more example of the destructive effects of competition.)

"It's one thing to have your own opinion, but another thing to force it on others."

I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone. Quite the contrary.

@Russ-know you?Are you kidding?You really say little about yourself here-mainly you act as an aggregator of block quotes.
Anyway,I already know more people than I want to.

"So the only thing wrong is too many stupid kids slowing the smart ones down? That's simply a cop out and admission of failure."

You see only what you want to see. Rephrasing it in a pejorative fashion is not an argument. Virtually all high schools separate by level.

"There's actually quite a bit of support for that opinion, not least of which the decades experience in process improvement which warn against "numerical goals, tests, rewards, but no method." "

You are supporting opinion with more opinion. Name-dropping doesn't change opinion into fact, "warn" is such a vague term, and "no method" is undefined. I suppose you don't like the SAT and ACT.

"I'm interested in improving the education system for all students, not just the few."

You can't hide behind that nugget. You have to explain exactly how that will happen. I'm interested in improving the education system for all students, not just the few. Choice is the way to do that.

"The concern is that "choice" won't help all of the kids, just those lucky enough to find an alternative placement."

That's your opinion. You're the one calling the rest chaff and treating them as losers. As I asked before, what, exactly, do these other students do to make the learning better? What is the purpose for keeping them all together in one classroom? If some get what they need based on parents advocating for their kids just like you advocate for your own, why do you want to stop them? What is your greater good justification? Do you argue against allowing affluent parents from sending their kids to private schools?

And please don't keep quoting Alfie Kohn as if he has anything other than opinion to offer. If you want to send your kids to The Met School, go ahead. Just don't dangle that view of education as fact to prevent other parents from having their own opinions and advocating for their kids.

"I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone. Quite the contrary."

That's exactly what you want to do.

"If I believed there was evidence this was occuring with privitization I might think differently."

You see only what you want to see, and apparently that's more valid than what other parents see.

What's funny is how I simultaneously take abuse both for not backing up my opinion and for not offering enough of my own opinion. Classic!

SteveH, say what you like, but I'm arguing against the federal mandates here. Frankly I don't understand why "conservatives" on this blog are so fond of top-down federal mandates when it comes to education (actually my theory is that their antiunion bias overrides their dislike of federal centralized planning and control).

And Kohn cites the studies he's referencing if you follow the link. Look them up if you like but don't pretend it's just his or my opinion. Campbell's Law is also the product of academic research, but you're free to pretend otherwise.

You're just being contrarian at this point so just let me add... tastes great!!

"... and for not offering enough of my own opinion."

When have I asked for more of your opinion?

"You're just being contrarian at this point so just let me add... tastes great!!"

No, I'm clearly pointing out that you do not support parental choice. You demand the ability to advocate for your kids, but you attempt to prevent others from having choice. If the best you can do is to say "tastes great", then this position is untenable. It means that your opinion is no better than anyone else's opinion.

You're also mixing up two separate issues; parental choice in schools and requirements for testing. Even with more choice there will still be the need for state testing, and testing can be good or bad all by itself.

"When have I asked for more of your opinion?"

That was Joe ("You really say little about yourself here-mainly you act as an aggregator of block quotes.").

"You're also mixing up two separate issues; parental choice in schools and requirements for testing."

My comment was that I believe the push for standardized testing is really not so much about improving schools as it is about the desire to privatize them. The more you bring it up, the more I think I'm right about that one.

"It means that your opinion is no better than anyone else's opinion."

Except that I'm the only one here who has even attempted to back up that opinion with relevant research in education and continuous improvement. Read Deming's book (much of it available on Googlel Books) and perhaps it will change your mind.

"I believe the push for standardized testing is really not so much about improving schools as it is about the desire to privatize them."

How do you come to that conclusion?

Our town's school committee, along with some others, sought a bill to prevent students from going to charter schools because the town exceeded the minimum proficiency requirements of the NECAP test. This is an attempt at using tests to limit choice. The attempt failed, and everyone is continuing to move toward both increased choice and increased testing. Besides, charter schools are more likely to be shut down using these tests than regular public schools. I have also seen changes in our public schools, driven by NCLB, that forced them to keep more students from falling through the cracks.

Even with greater choice, states are going full steam ahead with CCSS. I've never heard anyone claim that the purpose of CCSS is to drive choice. NECAP will soon be replaced with PARCC. It's a done deal. Teachers are required to link all lessons to the standard. My son just got done creating a portfolio that required him to cite book, chapter, and verse (so to speak) from the standard for each anchor assignment. I don't like CCSS, but my issues have nothing to do with your vague concerns and consipracy theories.

"Except that I'm the only one here who has even attempted to back up that opinion with relevant research in education and continuous improvement. Read Deming's book (much of it available on Googlel Books) and perhaps it will change your mind."

As an engineer, I know all about Deming. I've taught courses in systems analysis. In the end, however, everything come down to one's beliefs about what constitutes a proper education. Should I start talking about Core Knowledge and E.D. Hirsch, Jr.? Is that backing things up with research, or do you just look for "research" that backs up your assumptions? The biggest joke in the education world is the comment "research shows". Educators talk about the What Works Clearinghouse even though virtually all of the results don't meet research standards or are inconclusive.

In the end, it comes down to opinion. I'm tired of schools talking about "best practices". Some want unschooling, some want specialty schools, some want IB, and some want AP. Some are big on SAT, but some colleges don't care if you submit the scores. It's a big world of different views. It's time to get parents in that loop and force schools to deal with student needs, not just their own pedagogical and ed school ideas. It's also time for schools to deal realistically with supply and demand.

I am thoroughly amazed that you two are still going.

Glad you're enjoying it.

Why are you amazed? Are you happy with a blog that always terminates threads with ad hominem attacks? Do you really like party politics? That seems to be the slant of this blog.

I've been trying to get past all of the unbacked and slippery comments to get to the real issues.

Russ claims that he allows for some level of choice, but it's very limited. He refers to people and "research" that justifies that position, but it's no better than other peoples' "research". He wants the ability to advocate for his own kids, but wishes to deny that choice to others.

He claims that standardized testing is being used to drive privatization of schools with no justification. He uses "privatization" pejoratively as if this is about people wanting to make money rather than offering choices to parents. He doesn't explain how public schools, without the pressure of testing and/or choice, will ever improve to help "all kids". Right now, the only thing forcing public schools to help kids is NCLB, and they are not doing a good job of it. Urban parents still have a huge demand to get out.

NCLB and CCSS don't drive privatization. It might seem that way because educators can define whatever standards they want, but they don't fix the low expectations in K-8 and the standards still allow educators to continue with the same ed school pedagogy and assumptions that are driving parents away in the first place. CCSS might seem like a strong standard, but it still allows educators to use curricula like Everyday Math that "trusts the spiral" and closes STEM career doors by 7th grade unless kids get help at home or with a tutor. Bright kids still get to fifth grade not knowing the times table. In that sense, standards can be used to provide a veneer of credibility while schools continue to use their failed assumptions, expectations, and curricula. Then they blame kids' motivation and poverty.

Steve, chill out man. I meant everything I said literally. Two people don't usually go back and forth with what looks like a constructive discussion. And I am glad that you guys seem to be enjoying it. Keep it going, that's what these sorts of things are for. I wish we could get the discussion threat floated to the top of the blog or something.

FWIW we are getting students at a later age who aren't just non English speakers,but illiterate in thier own language-a huge problem.This wasn't the case with non English speakers when I was in school,hence their ability to adjust much more quickly.
African and East Indian children excel in school as new immigrants because there is no language barrier-much like the West Indian immigrants I went to school with.
Chinese children are usually quite literate in their language and have usually studied English prior to coming here.
Just observations I've made-no research to back it up.