Do not subject my child to any test…

Anyone who is interested in public education cannot help but be bothered by declining scores on standardized, high stakes, national tests. A steady increase has turned into a steady decline and is now flat-lining  across a very bothersome plateau.

A recent piece in the Washington Post entitled, The complete list of problems with high-stakes standardized tests, written by Marion Brady and appearing in Valerie Strauss’ informative column “The Answer Sheet”, gives a very succinct, teacher’s view of the value of such tests:

“Teachers (at least the ones the public should hope their taxes are supporting) oppose the tests because they focus so narrowly on reading and math that the young are learning to hate reading, math, and school; because they measure only “low level” thinking processes; because they put the wrong people — test manufacturers — in charge of American education; because they allow pass-fail rates to be manipulated by officials for political purposes; because test items simplify and trivialize learning.

Teachers oppose the tests because they provide minimal to no useful feedback; are keyed to a deeply flawed curriculum adopted in 1893; lead to neglect of physical conditioning, music, art, and other, non-verbal ways of learning; unfairly advantage those who can afford test prep; hide problems created by margin-of-error computations in scoring; penalize test-takers who think in non-standard ways.

Teachers oppose the tests because they radically limit their ability to adapt to learner differences; encourage use of threats, bribes, and other extrinsic motivators; wrongly assume that what the young will need to know in the future is already known; emphasize minimum achievement to the neglect of maximum performance; create unreasonable pressures to cheat.

Teachers oppose the tests because they reduce teacher creativity and the appeal of teaching as a profession; are culturally biased; have no “success in life” predictive power; lead to the neglect of the best and worst students as resources are channeled to lift marginal kids above pass-fail “cut lines;” are open to massive scoring errors with life-changing consequences.

Teachers oppose the tests because they’re at odds with deep-seated American values about individual differences and worth; undermine a fundamental democratic principle that those closest to and therefore most knowledgeable about problems are best positioned to deal with them; dump major public money into corporate coffers instead of classrooms.”

Maybe it is time we listen to those who have a bird’s eye view and very high stakes in what is going on in our classrooms—the teachers. Retired teacher Marion Brady summed up his opinions thusly: “(There) ought to be an option for every child’s parent or guardian — the right to say, without being pressured or penalized by state or local authority, “Do not subject my child to any test that doesn’t provide useful, same-day or next-day information about performance.”

Standard-Based Education: Two Misconceptions

As the education community moves inexorably toward "standards based education" I would like to address two common misconceptions. The first is that SBE removes student motivation. Some students may exceed the standard, but why bother when attaining the minimum will do to pass and ultimately graduate?"
As you are aware, currently a grade of C or in some cases D will meet the minimum requirements for passing; yet many give more effort and attain higher grades. Why do they bother when attaining a D orC will move them to graduation?
Under SBE the D and C are no more. You may attain a 1 (failure to demonstrate any mastery), 2 (better, but still no cigar), 3 (SBE's equivalent of a B and the new minimum acceptable demonstration needed before moving on), 4 (demonstrates mastery of the subject matter both in theory and application.
It is also being claimed by some that standards-based education suppresses teacher innovation and integrity because focus is forced to shift from education to meeting the standard.
I suppose teaching to the test (current practice) or still worse, moving a student along for purely social reasons invigorates and propels educators to innovate and excel in their profession?
Without a doubt Standards Based Education (an unfortunate use of the word standard in the title in that it conjures up mediocrity) is a work in progress with many kinks and slippery spots. With the help of teachers and administrators applying innovation and corrective maneuvers--over time--SBE at least shows potential, whereas the industrial model now in place has grown weary, stale, ineffective and hampers student's innate learning abilities.
The standards group, as some call it, being made up of teachers and other education professionals, has and continues to work long and hard across the spectrum of concerns and how standards influences teaching and learning. They are faithfully fulfilling their responsibility as educators. 
By the way; responsibility should never be confused with what seems to be an overused word these days: "Accountability". Making educators too accountable to too many absolves them of responsibility. In Finland, a country boasting one of the best educational systems in the world, teachers and administrators are entrusted with the responsibility of educating. There is no word in the Finnish language for "accountability".

State supported mayhem

LD 1859 "An Act to Protect Firearm Ownership During Times of Emergency." http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/HP137701.asp was recently passed as "emergency legislation" and sent to our Governor for his signature. The bill is literally a word for word copy of a sample bill written by the infamous far right organization ALEC. Any doubt that the Koch brothers have a grip on our Maine Legislature should now be a thing of the past.

The following letter, composed by my wife but signed by us both,was sent to our state representative and senator. Sadly, it was too late.  Following its text I am including the responses we received.

Subject: LD 1859


After all the public concern in the aftermath of the recent tragedy in Florida, and the “Kill at Will” (stand your ground) law that applies in various states in this country, I was so relieved to think that at least in our great state of Maine, laws like this do not exist. So today when I read about LD 1859, I was gravely concerned.


Apparently during this legislative session Rep. Michael Shaw (D-Standish) submitted a bill titled "An Act to Protect Firearm Ownership During Times of Emergency." co-sponsored by Senator Brian Langley (R-Ellsworth). The bill, LD 1859, removes the ability of law officials or the state from prohibiting or restricting the “possession, use, carrying, transfer (sale), transportation, storage or display” of guns or ammunition during a declared state of emergency.  It removes the power of the Governor to suspend or limit the sale, dispensing and transportation of firearms during a state of emergency.  And it holds a law enforcement official or public employee civilly liable for any violation of the law.


Normally, a lead time of at least two weekends is given before a bill has a public hearing. A work session is held several days after the hearing, not the next day. But in this case, the bill was referred to the Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee on Tuesday, March 13, 2012.  The following day, Wednesday, March 14, the committee held a public hearing on the bill and on Thursday, March 15, they held a work session and voted unanimously to approve the bill.


How much time did this committee have to review this bill? Significantly, how much time did the public have to become aware of the bill and to attend the public hearing? Did that committee consider all the potential and grave harm such legislation could lead to, including chaos, lawlessness, vigilante-ism, and an environment of fear, with each to himself over all others. Did the members of the committee consult with law enforcement, mental health providers and consumers, and others who would be responsible for prevailing law and order during an emergency crisis situation? What would the consequences of the law be on their ability to protect and provide for the health and safety of all of us?


The state  goes far beyond the protection of the ability to bear arms when it removes the ability of any law enforcement official or government agency to address issues related to firearms during a state of emergency.  This law potentially removes our protections, taking away any authority to prohibit or restrict the “possession, use, carrying, transfer (sale), transportation, storage or display” of a firearm. Further, it removes the power of the Governor to “suspend or limit the sale, dispensing and transportation” of firearms during a declared state of emergency.


Emergencies are by their very nature chaotic situations.  Do we really want to limit the ability of the governor and local law enforcement to determine the best course of action to take during a state of emergency?  At the very least, shouldn’t we have a comprehensive public discussion on this before it becomes law?


Please DO NOT support this bill. Please encourage others to NOT SUPPORT this bill. Thank you.


Our State Senator, Chris Johnson, replied:
Thanks for sharing your concerns about LD 1859.
Unfortunately that bill was already enacted on April 2nd.
I did vote against it, but it received the 2/3 necessary and has been enacted as an emergency bill, awaiting the Governor's signature.


State Rep. Sanderson replied:

This bill went under the hammer in the house and senate already for it had unanimous support. 

Though I have a differing view on this bill from you, I understand what you are saying however, in times of crisis that would be huge enough to declare a state of emergency precipitating the need to confiscate a persons firearms, the only people who would possibly  surrender them would be law abiding citizens.

These are the last people I would ever remove firearms from for it leaves them without protection for their home's and families if needed.

People who would act outside the law and seek to harm, steal, or attack others would not willing surrender them, leaving the law abiding population without personal defense when and if proper law enforcement officials are engaged in handling a crisis.

This bill does not resemble Florida's "Kill at will" legislation in the least and most certainly does not change any of the parameters outlined in our current laws in regard to what constitutes appropriate defensive action to defend oneself if need be when faced with a personal attack.

I also understand your point in regard to timely hearing and public vetting.  Unfortunately, when it gets later in the short session, the rules for the two week  and one week span between the public hearing and work session is suspended because of time.  I wish we had been able to hear the bill earlier in the session to afford the time necessary however, there was much support for this at the public hearing and law enforcement had no issues with it to my recollection.  (My files are in the committee room and I will reference them and get back to you if there was any testimony in opposition when I get to the state house this evening for session).

Thank you for writing and if you could also let you (wife) know of this response I'd appreciate it.  She also sent me an e-mail on this issue.

Take care and if you have any further questions please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Thank you,

Deb

http://www.examiner.com/gun-control-in-portland-me/what-happens-when-alec-comes-to-maine-gun-bill-slammed-through-legislature-1