Testing: Eating Cake, Threading Needles and Other Tortured Metaphors, Part III

June 27, 2015 Nathan Bowling

When I wrote Part I, I had no idea that it would be as widely read as it was. It was popular on FB, tweeted nearly a hundred times and spawned very thoughtful response pieces from two other ed blogs. The vast majority of the responses were positive or proposed thoughtful questions and angles that I had not considered or had ignored. Sure, there were reactionary chirps from some, but overall the feedback was supportive of if not my viewpoint, at least my willingness to wade into the tricky ed policy waters. But of all the responses I received, the most important (to me) response came from a coworker at Lincoln.

We are setting students up for failure if we ask them to sit for 3+ hours taking a high stakes test which they haven’t received content for. When students ask me about the SBAC I am honest with them and say it’s an unfair assessment. For my juniors in pre-calculus they have a leg up on the juniors in second year algebra – who by the way are not “behind” in math. Juniors, who for whatever reason are a level or more behind in math, shouldn’t be slapped in the face with a high stakes test, especially since they have their senior year to earn their three years math credit (another graduation requirement). It’s funny that teaching is all about differentiated instruction, but we use standardized tests. The least we can do is differentiate the tests to meet students at the content they are learning.

One of the biggest problems in education policy discourse is a deepening polarization; it mirrors the trench warfare that has made our Congress, and increasingly state governments, such a mess. People identify with their factions rather than policies or ideas and instead of working to build consensus, they moralize endlessly, prattling on about the corruption of the other side. Reformers blame teachers for social conditions that are beyond their control and stigmatize entire communities with wrongheaded “A-F grading schemes” and labels like "Failing School." Meanwhile, within the teaching profession grows a bitter, concerningly nihilistic, hell no, rump faction that resembles House Republican Caucus in their demeanor and intransigence.

One of the most damaging consequences of polarization is that the polarized see compromise and sometimes even a willingness to discuss matters with the other side as a capitulation or betrayal. Vitriol and condescension will fire up a crowd, but they won't help Maria learn to read, write or calculate. It's really the hidden shame of our profession. I've often thought to myself that if “Mr. X” was as good at teaching, pre-service teacher prep or supporting great teaching as they are at demonizing, sloganeering and heckling, then we'd have the solutions to what ails us in K-12 and a school system worth of our students potential.

Clarifying the Issues at Hand: It is within that context that I have spent the last month or so trying to thread the policy needle and propose a sensible solution to the issues of collecting student performance data and growing opposition to standardized testing. For those just joining the conversation, I see the problem as two fold...

On the Charleston Shooting and Why I Wish it Wasn’t Summer Break

June 19, 2015 Nathan Bowling

This post was supposed to be the third and final entry on the issue of standardized testing. I had set aside the time today to work on that post, but that post and discussion can wait. The act of white-supremacist terrorism in Charleston, South Carolina and the all-too-familiar responses by the political class have left me shaking with anger over the last 36 hours. This week, in nearly every possible way, our stagnant national (non)conversation on race has been reinforced by our media. This will happen again and we all know exactly how it will play out.

These victims don't matter: Consider the ratio of information we are receiving about the shooter versus the victims. The shooter (whose infamy I will not contribute to) has had his name and picture pasted on every newspaper in the land. Every flavor of benefit of the doubt is being offered to him: He was a nice young man. Sure he told racist jokes, but I didn’t think he was a racist. Maybe he was he mentally ill. Maybe he was on drugs. The @SeattleTimes (in a since deleted tweet) cast the shooter as a potentially “sweet kid”, meanwhile the victims (six women and three men) are nearly invisible in the media.

Testing: Eating Cake, Threading Needles and Other Tortured Metaphors, Part II

June 8, 2015 Nathan Bowling

I feel obligated to begin with a few disclaimers:

If you belong solidly in either of the camps in the “education warz” or think that I should, you are going to be disappointed by this post and should probably hit “ctrl + w” right now. It’s for the best and I won’t be offended at all.
My last post produced a lot of really thoughtful responses across several platforms (here in the comments, on other blogs, on Twitter, on FB and in the form of a two page letter from a colleague). I love the idea of this space being a place of dialogue and welcome your responses, even especially if you disagree.

My last post was me thinking through a topic that I think is deadly serious. When I sat down to write, much like I do now, I didn’t (and don’t now) have a destination in mind. This is literally me publically thinking through what I think is the most important issue facing our society. I believe that schools far too frequently under-serve people who share my background (urban, male, and of color). I believe this practice drives incarceration, poverty, and shorter-than-average life expectancy. I am a teacher and I know from personal experience, both biographical (my life) and occupational (my students’ lives), the liberating power of effective schools and teachers. Of course there are sociological and historical factors that greatly complicate public education, but again, I must make it clear that I wholeheartedly reject the geographical determinism and “poor kids can’t” thinking, whether explicit (rare) or implied (far more common).

The more I ponder the controversies we face in public education, the more convinced I am that if you aren’t changing your mind regularly or at least modifying your stances on these issues, you aren’t really thinking--you’re simply an ideologue. And I believe that we (you and I, dear reader ) are best served ignoring ideologues, especially when they spew bile.