This is annoying. Of course I think that Ravitch is right, but so much off her authority as "someone worth listening to" is predicated on her previous positions that support this Accountability Myth.

My big concern is that the administration - either Presidential or at the local school level - really sets the tone and limits or expands what is possible in the classroom.

Some comments of Ravitch's stand out for me, such as: "Most studies have found that charters, on average, are no better than public schools."

and...
"If our goal is to destroy public education in America, this is precisely the right path."

and...

"Schools work best when teachers collaborate to help their students and strive together for common goals, not when they compete for higher scores and bonuses."

Are we noticing a theme? I think that this is a growing and clarifying counter-position to these arguments. How do we implement it?

When I stand in front of my classroom, I often think that Dewey could walk into the room and would instantly recognize everything. And I think that is simply insane as we move quickly into the 21st century.

The New York airways are full of advertisements these days, blaming the teachers' union for preventing New York from qualifying for the Race to the Top money. Indeed, the governor of New Jersey has declared war on the teachers' union, blaming it for the severe fiscal crisis of the state. This is a reflection of the business model of accountability. Like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, the mentality is to judge all teachers by the same yardstick. Those who know education understand that each child is an individual, with specific needs that can change at any given moment. Teachers are expected to individualize and differentiate instruction (a good thing) but should be judged by the one size fits all standardized test. The competition that Race to the Top encourages doesn't consider the unevenness of the playing field.

Truly reckless would be applying the principles of Race to the Top
nationwide. Instead, with Race to the Top we have a very weighty controlled
experiment. States have lined up to be the guinea pigs for the experiment,
just to get their hands on a little cash that goes with it. We'll see. Race
to the top could be the dying gasp of the "reform" movement, or it could
find that some very specific concepts of the reform movement are worth
keeping. I'm glad my State didn't get it, I'm even happier that my district
didn't apply to be part of the State's program if they do get it (because of
the anti-labor principles). But, I still want to see what the results are in
other States.

That said it's not a true experiment. In a true experiment, we'd give an
equal amount of money to other States, without the RTTT restrictions, and
let those States fill in their budget gaps. Most of the experts would say
you can't just throw money at the problem, but plenty of States and
localities would make very wise use of funds that did not come with very
specific restrictions.

Ironically- some people support local control and Race to the Top. The two
could not be more opposed. Race to the Top will obliterate local control.

My Blog: http://lukelaurie.wordpress.com/

I have to agree with Luke - there has been more and more of a move to centralize government control of education in the past 10 years (possibly more?). It isn't working and the data we've been collecting shows that it's not. To me, RTTP sounds like a great way for the federal government to save money.

Centralized control with no local input or feedback will never work. Things simply must go both ways and in my opinion, a lot more bottom-up information from teachers, parents and students in the field is needed to enact effective change.

I am in one of the states that did get the funds. We had a meeting last Friday with the state union in an effort to stay ahead of the snowball.

Based on what I have seen and heard, it looks like the majority of the funds are going to be filtered right through the educational system to third party vendors (test makers) and "experts". Plus, some of the conditions could be in direct violations to our collective bargaining agreements.

So even here in DE, we are watching and waiting.

The superintendents have a meeting today with the government about the funding disbursement. As I learn more I'll pass it along.

Hi Catherine,

It is pretty scary that the bulk of the funding may go directly to vendors and experts who are outside of the school system. Could you give us more insight into how this is being justified?

looking forward to hearing more after today's meeting,
Judi

Just for more information -
My school is a California QEIA Grant recipient. That's extra money for low
performing schools because of the cutting of funds in the state in the past.
The demands are low class size, highly qualified teachers, counselor ratio's
etc. With support from the district, ie help with classroom set-up costs,
and portable costs, we were able to meet the budget for the 7 year grant.
Guess what? With the economy, the district is pulling their support and we
are finding it difficult to meet the demands of the grant with the grant
money. What a surprise? That in order to improve education, it takes
money, and what is required is not fully funded. We are disappointed that
there are no funds for innovative programs, or teacher training. We will
just squeak by and are grateful for the 20:1 in core classes and the new
certificated counselors. But shouldn't that be the given for every school?
How can we improve if we don't have the time nor funding nor patience to try
innovative programs for a few years and be able to collect the data before
having the funding pulled out, or that data wasn't "good-enough" in the
first year to warrant continuing? When will we all understand that
education is people driven - which means it cost money for salaries and each
student is an individual?

Just more food for thought.

Shelley Klein
NBPT
Santa Maria, CA

Keith,

I think that maybe Diane's change of heart makes her current position more powerful and gives her greater credibility. Having seen the failing of accountability "reform" she advocated for and had a great impact on, she decided to speak out against her former positions. It's rare that we take such an honest look at what we believe and publicly admit we were wrong. Perhaps it does make her more "worth listening to"?

Judi

Certainly, when a politician changes her tune to match reality she can be seen as wise and gain credibility. Certainly Ravitch is getting attention. But there were plenty of people in classrooms, in academia, and on Capitol Hill who articulated conclusions similar to hers a decade ago before the NCLB mushroom cloud. The wisest minds in education didn't need to drag all of these 'reforms' in existence to predict their effects. In addition, the solutions that are really needed are yet to get their day in the Sun.

It's a shame that often, teachers themselves--who do the work day in and day out and DO continue to learn in order to improve their practice--are not considered "experts" in our own field. There is a great deal of knowledge in every school and there should be opportunities to share that knowledge. We, as educators, need to remember that our knowledge and experience have value. We must make our stories and knowledge more public. These should be shared, not only within our school communities, but also with the public at large, and with policy makers at local and federal levels.

Somebody needs to come up with some 'counter-evidence' if anyone wants to dispute the guidelines behind 'race to the top.' It seems like teacher's unions should mount a counter-argument if they want to pin the blame on anyone else besides 'failing' teachers. Where is the accountability on the administrators' side? Why aren't the unions going after 'failing administrators' or 'failing curriculum'?

this woman's blog post adds another perspective to this debate:

http://stophomework.com/why-race-to-the-top-will-fail/1781

The justification of spending money on vendors and experts is driven by the need for data. The government is still pushing testing as the end all and be all. We are looking at testing students multiple times through-out the year on standardized tests to mark their improvement. Isn't that what teachers do that withing their curriculum? Yet, instead of verifying what is being done in the classroom is valid, we spend the mone on tests and test grading.

Then we have to hire data coaches to help us analysis the data--again I don't know about other teachers but when I mark a test, I usually look for those areas that gave the students problems. Afterwards I revise my course lessons so that I go over the material again, this way the students hear it multiple times. Retesting demonstrates whether they understood and could apply the material.

It sure sounds like the same thing the government wants but doesn't trust teachers to make it happen.