Jeff Bryant:
For years, politicians and policy leaders have been
running the nation’s public education system basically by the seat of the
pants, drafting and passing legislative doctrine that mostly ignores the input
from classroom teachers, research experts and public school parents.
What’s got teachers stirred up? How real and potent
is this upsurge of their activism? Why should people who identify with
progressive causes care? Salon recently posed those questions, and others, to
Lily Eskelsen García, the new president-elect of the National Education
Association, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, at the recent Netroots
Nation conference in Detroit.
First of all, congratulations on becoming the new
NEA president.
Still president-elect. I take office Sept. 1. We
have an incredible president, Dennis Van Roekel, who basically said a
transition period should be a transition period, not go stand in the corner. So
he gave me the president-elect title and told me I would take the press calls,
go to Netroots, meet with Arne Duncan, start establishing where you want to go
and be as vocal and as visible as you can possibly be. Our members have asked
NEA to step up and take things to another level. There’s too much at stake for
us. There are policies that need addressing and we have some of the best policy
expertise in the nation, but those ideas need a face to the NEA, a face for the
American teacher that is channeling the voices of these 3 million educators,
and when you hear the words come out of her mouth it’s not just her opinion — it’s
a whole lot of teachers and support staff who are saying here’s an important
thing for the American people to hear and an important thing for Arne Duncan
and President Obama to hear. So he told me to start being that voice today.
The voices of these teachers are important, aren’t
they? And too often we don’t really hear their stories about what it’s really
like to teach in American schools, do we? For instance, I was just at a meeting
of the American Federation of Teachers, where a teacher told us about showing
up to school one morning and finding a man had been shot to death in front of
the building the night before. The body was still on the sidewalk as the kids
were coming to school, and the teachers had to decide how they were going to
handle this with the children. So many of our teachers are really serving as
first responders for kids, aren’t they?
That’s true. So how did the teachers handle this?
They quickly had to abandon all they had planned to
do with the children that day and spend the day addressing what the children
had experienced, how they felt about what they had seen in front of their own
school.
That was very wise of them. I taught for 10 years
in a regular school. I also taught for six years at a homeless shelter – two
different shelter schools. The needs of these students were so different. What
you just described happening to that school is never going to happen at Orchard
Valley Elementary School in West Valley, Utah, the fairly affluent school where
I started teaching. But think about what teachers are being called on to deal
with today, depending on where they are. I was teaching in the homeless school
on Sept. 11, 2001, the day the twin towers fell. I was teaching students who
didn’t know where their parents were because these were hard-to-place foster
kids. I had to tell my students what was going on because they saw everyone was
riveted to the news and couldn’t avert their eyes from what was going on. These
were terribly frightened kids. Look what happens these days without the social
workers and the counselors, and the class size going through the roof. People
say that class size may not matter to the test score, but class size mattered
to me being able to have a relationship to my students and being able to put my
arm around them when they were having a bad day. So God bless the teachers
you’re describing and everybody in that school. They had to come together as a
family. That’s the kind of thing that is going to give kids nightmares. So they
had to assure the kids that their school was still going to be a safe place to
come to every day.
These are the types of stories that, you’ve
reminded us, persuade us that educating children is something that should be
above politics, and not about what’s the Republican thing to do or what’s the
Democratic thing to do but what is the right thing to do.
Yes.
And sometimes it is above politics. You’ve reminded
us of your experience in Utah – a deeply red, conservative Republican state –
where the electorate stood with the teachers’ union to defend public schools
and defeat a universal voucher bill.
That’s true.
But we know there are politics involved. Right now
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is a sore spot for both your union and
the AFT. Both NEA and AFT have asked for Duncan’s resignation. Your demand was
unconditional, and AFT’s had some very interesting conditions …
Yes, The Arne Duncan Improvement Program. I love
it.
So what’s the politics of this? Why is this
happening now?
The conflict has been building for quite some time,
and it’s just spilled over. The resolutions are not new. Similar ones have been
introduced ever since Race to the Top. We’ve really expected something better
from the Department of Education after living under “No Child Left Un-Tested.”
For these many years, Duncan has said, “We’re going to collaborate with
teachers and not do reform to teachers … we’re going to go forward with
you …” I have a list of beautiful things the secretary has said about not
reducing a child to a standardized test score, but then insisting, “Yes we
will,” by demanding that students’ standardized test scores be used to evaluate
teachers even though there’s no scientific research or evidence that says
there’s any connection.
What’s wrong with basing teacher evaluations on
test scores?
The years I taught at the homeless shelter, I had
different kinds of students than the year I taught at Orchard Elementary. Also,
there was the year I had 24 kids and the year I had 39 kids. You can’t put that
in a value added formula. It doesn’t work. Then there was the year I had three
special ed kids with reading disabilities, and I did a bang-up job with them.
So the next year they gave me 12. I had all of the special ed kids that year.
No other teachers had any. Just me. So in a class of 35 kids, 12 had reading
disabilities. Now I’m guessing if we had just used test scores back then to
evaluate me, you maybe would have thought that I had suddenly become a really
crappy teacher that year. Test scores alone wouldn’t have told you what
happened. They wouldn’t have given you an analysis of why.
Other than being unfair to individual teachers,
does basing evaluations and school ratings on test scores hurt students too?
Using test scores is basically saying to educators,
“Hit your number or you get punished.” Or even worse, “Hit your number in El
Paso, if you’re an administrator, and we’ll give you a bunch of money.” That
would encourage the administrator to use a push-out program for low-scoring
students like those who don’t speak English. That’s what Lorenzo Garcia
did as district superintendent in El Paso, and he is in jail now. He was the
first person to go to jail for lining his pocket with bonus dollars because he
could hit his numbers. And he made presentations about how you can “light a
fire under lazy teachers to get those numbers up.” But what really happened is
he would call individual students into his office to threaten and humiliate
them with deportation if they wouldn’t drop out or transfer. He pushed out over
400 students in his high school. It was the El Paso Teachers Association that
got the community together to talk about what was happening and to make sure
that never happened again. That NEA chapter just won a national human and civil
rights award for establishing a way for parents and teachers to alert the
community when they see district administration engaging in unfair practices to
students.
What does Arne Duncan think about this? Why does he
still insist on basing his policies on test scores?
I spoke with Secretary Duncan yesterday [July 16].
He’s very upset with the NEA Representative Assembly’s decision to call for his
resignation. We had a hard conversation. He was very straightforward with me.
He felt he wasn’t being given enough credit from NEA for advocating for
expanded early childhood education and greater access to affordable college.
And it’s true there is no light between us on those issues. So he asked why we
didn’t explain to people all the good things he has advocated for. I said I
would send him copies of speeches I give where I’ve been supportive of the good
things the Obama administration has done, and I’d give him position papers from
the NEA addressing the need to work closely with his department.
So what’s the frustration for teachers?
Here’s the frustration – and I’m not blaming the
delegates; I will own this; I share in their anger. The Department of Education
has become an evidence-free zone when it comes to high stakes decisions being
made on the basis of cut scores on standardized tests. We can go back and forth
about interpretations of the department’s policies, like, for instance, the
situation in Florida where teachers are being evaluated on the basis of test
scores of students they don’t even teach. He, in fact, admitted that was
totally stupid. But he needs to understand that Florida did that because they
were encouraged in their applications for grant money and regulation waivers to
do so. When his department requires that state departments of education have to
make sure all their teachers are being judged by students’ standardized test
scores, then the state departments just start making stuff up. And it’s stupid.
It’s absurd. It’s non-defensible. And his department didn’t reject applications
based on their absurd requirements for testing. It made the requirement that
all teachers be evaluated on the basis of tests a threshold that every
application had to cross over. That’s indefensible.
So any good the Obama administration has tried to
accomplish for education has been offset by the bad?
Yes. Sure, we get pre-K dollars and Head Start, but
it’s being used to teach little kids to bubble in tests so their teachers can
be evaluated. And we get policies to promote affordable college, but no one
graduating from high school gets an education that has supported critical and
creative thinking that is essential to succeeding in college because their
education has consisted of test-prep from Rupert Murdoch. The testing is
corrupting what it means to teach. I don’t celebrate when test scores go up. I
think of El Paso. Those test scores went up overnight. But they cheated kids
out of their futures. Sure, you can “light a fire” and “find a way” for scores
to go up, but it’s a way through the kids that narrows their curriculum and
strips their education of things like art and recess.
Doesn’t Duncan understand that?
No. That reality hasn’t entered the culture of the
Department of Education. They still don’t get that when you do a whole lot of
things on the periphery, but you’re still judging success by a cut score on a
standardized test and judging “effective” teachers on a standardized test, then
you will corrupt anything good that you try to accomplish.
So are the tests the problem?
I told him I personally don’t like standardized
tests. I think they’re a waste of time and money. I agree with Finland that
when something tells you so little you have to question why you are doing it.
But the problem is not the standardized test itself. I gave the Standards of
Achievement Test to my fifth graders in Utah. When the district used the scores
to look at big picture reading achievement data over time, they realized, “Oh
look, our reading achievement scores are going down.” So they analyzed the data
for probable causes and realized that they were getting many more English
language learners in their schools. So their response was to pump up the
English language learner training for teachers. In other words, they used the
test score results to analyze what’s going on and use the scores as information
to guide what to do better to serve students. But now the test scores are being
used to print teachers’
names in the L.A. Times with an “Effecto-Meter” next to them, so,
“Boys and girls, look up your teacher’s name to see if they suck.”
You’ve used the term “toxic” before to describe the
current uses of test scores, arguing that those uses have polluted education
policy to the extent that little else matters in terms of the good the Obama
administration is trying to accomplish.
Here’s how I put it to Duncan: We now have bad
state policies that insist, for instance, a child can’t go to fourth grade
because he didn’t hit a cut score on a standardized reading test, and the state
legislature did this in order to get Race to the Top money. You can say you
didn’t require the state to do that. But when you required states to base their
education programs mostly on test scores, and let states respond with “OK,
we’ll just do this,” you encouraged the bad policy. You became the
catalyst for something really idiotic.
Yes, you would think that someone like Arne Duncan
who bases all his policy decisions on a philosophy of rewards and punishments
would get that maybe he has rewarded really bad behavior.
Yes.
But going forward, you know teachers can’t win this
fight on their own. You’ve talked about successes where teachers have reached
out to parents, their communities, and progressive activists to muster enough
force to create positive change. What is the union doing to build on this and
reach out to the broader progressive community?
People in the progressive movement have to realize
that regardless of the particular fight they are engaged in, it starts with
education. Whether you’re fighting for environmental causes, women’s rights,
voting rights, all of these causes – and the very foundations of democracy and
how our society makes decisions — start at a schoolhouse door. Progressives
also know now that anyone could be the next Wisconsin, the next Michigan. All
it takes is one bad governor with one bad legislature to set back our entire
movement. So we have to stick together. The narrative that’s been created by
Fox News and others is that teachers’ unions only care about their pensions.
But that’s not true. Teachers understand that all us teachers can show up in
force during elections – every one of us – and lose. We have to organize the
parents; we have to organize the business community. We acknowledge that we
have not always built bridges to others in the progressive movement. Now, we’ve
built those bridges in some communities. And we’re ready to build more. We also
know the stakes have changed. We always had to fight legislators in order to
fund us. Now we have legislators who want to dismantle us brick by brick. The
existence of public schools was always something you could take for granted. I
mean, we never in the past had a division of the union that was there to fight
for the existence of public schools. Now we know we’re fighting for our
existence. And we’re only going to win if we all combine forces. We’ve proven
that when we ask people to sign petitions and show up at the ballot box to
support public schools, they will. And they will do it in droves.
Jeff Bryant is Director of the Education
Opportunity Network, a partnership effort of the Institute for America's Future
and the Opportunity to Learn Campaign. Jeff owns a marketing and communications
consultancy in Chapel Hill, N.C., and has written extensively about public
education policy.
Posted from Salon.com
No comments:
Post a Comment