MOVING TO A NEW STORY

We’ve had numerous discussions in my graduate class about moving to a “new story”, which entails adopting a new frame of knowing/learning on a personal, cultural, global, and universal level (Drake).  In taking this course, I’ve been forced to reassess my teaching practice and approach to learning.  On a personal level, the following questions arose: how do I go about moving to a new story?  What is the process by which one moves away from ‘old’ frames of knowing and learning? 

            In an interview, Sheryl Nussbaum provided some insight as to how we can move away from old frames of knowing and learning (Wolpert-Gawron, 2011).  According to Nussbaum-Beach, we need to “learn how to unlearn.” In other words, we, as teachers, need to “unlearn what many in society still claim is the way towards student achievement” (Wolpet-Gawron, 2011). It needs to be understood that learning does not only happen in a school, and that learning is not limited by time and space (Wolpert, 2011).

In order to “unlearn”, we need to adopt Shirley’s (2011) first synergy of “mindful-teaching” which is open-mindedness.  As teachers, we need to be cognizant of the fact that for “generations – such as Generation Y, born in the remaining years of the 20^th century, and the iGeneration born in the new millennium – technology access and use is easy and omnipresent” (Shirley, 2011, p. 199).  Although there may exist a stark generational divide between ourselves and students, we need to recognize that they are “digital natives” who have “learned how to access, manipulate, and produce their own content in new technologies” (Shirley, 2011, p.199).  Teachers need to become aware of their students’ “digital footprint” and become connected themselves (Wolpert-Gawron, 2011).  In this respect, teachers need to adopt an open-mindedness with respect to incorporating technologies and social media in the classroom such as the ipod, ipad, Facebook, Twitter, wikis, blogs, wikis, etc.  According to Shirley (2011), there are so “many opportunities for play and creativity in new technology that other forms of instruction can seem downright cruel in comparison” (Shirley, 2011, p. 200).  For Shirley, technology can both personalize and customize learning (Shirley, 2011).

The personalizing nature of technology is apparent in the means by which it can help teachers move to a new story and their “unlearning” of old modes of knowing/learning.  Technology can personalize learning by allowing teachers to network with other adult learners online. In order to move to a new story, a teacher, in the words of Nussbaum-Beach, “needs to provide new learning for himself or herself as well” (Wolpet-Gawron, 2011). This learning can occur through what Nussbaum-Beach has coined Connected Learning Communities.  These communities consist of online connections with individuals who share like-minded interests and are committed to sharing ideas and improving teaching practice.

            In our dealings with technology, we still need, however, to keep in mind something very important: technology should enhance learning, as opposed to learning enhancing technology.

Works Referenced

Drake, Susan. Creating a new story in an age of accountability. Powerpoint.

Shirley, D. (2011). The

Fourth Way

of technology and change.  Journal of Educational

             Change.  (12), 187-209.

Wolpot-Gawron, Heather. (2011).  Passion-Based Learning: An Interview with Sheryl

            Nussbaum-Beach. Edutopia.  Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org.

5 REASONS WHY MOST ACCOUNTABILITY POLICIES DON'T WORK

Article Analysis

http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.library.brocku.ca/pqdlink?index=0&did=688960471&SrchMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1309652636&clientId=17280&aid=3

Leithwood, K. (2001). 5 reasons why most accountability policies don’t work (and what

            you can do about it). Orbit, 32(1), 1-5.

            I have decided to include an article entitled, 5 reasons why most accountability policies don’t work (and what you can do about it) as my final reflection because we’ve thoroughly examined various accountability policies in order to determine which are the most or least effective. Over the duration of the course, I have made my decision that certain systems of accountability such as No Child Left Behind in the U.S. do not work because they harm children, whereas the Fourth Way in Finland which may be termed as a system of collective responsibility enhances student learning (Shirley, 2011).  Although I have acquired a good personal understanding of why certain accountability policies are doomed to fail by taking this course, I found that this article by Leithwood summarizes the reasons in a succinct and clear manner. According to Leithwood, certain accountability policies do not work because “some of them are just plain unethical.” Some policies fail because they “don’t accomplish the purposes intended by policy makers.” They “distract students from doing their best learning” and “teachers from doing their best teaching”. Lastly, policies fail because “they are poorly introduced by policy makers.”

            My views toward accountability have drastically changed since taking this course. I initially entered the course with a view of accountability as a form of policy and discourse that has both harmed student learning and contributed to the de-professionalization of the teaching profession.  I now view accountability as a generally “good” thing and a necessary component to education.  Although I am no longer opposed to the notion of accountability, I am opposed to those policies which are unethical, hinder students form doing their best learning, and prevent teachers from performing their best.  I believe that certain test-driven systems of accountability, which we’ve examined this semester, do not work for the same reasons which I’ve mentioned above. In examining the Ontario system, I do notice an unethical component in EQAO testing. Its policy that allows for and encourages the ranking of school is unethical because it disregards socio-economic factors which influence test scores.  With respect to more test-driven systems such as those found in the U.S., the learning of students is hindered as rote-learning and memorization are encouraged, and there is no room for teacher creativity. One can argue that U.S. test-driven policies have failed because they were poorly introduced by policy makers and politicians; policy makers and politicians looked for quick and short-term results as opposed to considering more long-term approaches (Harris, 2011).  I find Liethwood’s five reasons to be invaluable because I can apply them to all education systems for the purpose of assessing their accountability policies.

Works Referenced

Harris, A. (2011). Reforming systems: Realizing the Fourth Way. Journal of Educational

            Change. (12), 159-171.  DOI: 10.007/s10883-011-9156-z

Shirley, D. (2011). The Fourth Way of technology and change.  Journal of Educational

             Change.  (12), 187-209.

ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING. 10 PRINCIPLES. RESEARCH-BASED PRACTICES THAT GUIDE CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Document Reflection

http://www.assessment-reform-group.org/CIE3.PDF

Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles. Research-

based practices to guide classroom practice.  Available at http://www.assessment-reform-group.org  Retrieved on June 20, 2011.

I’ve selected the reference guide, Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles. Research-based practices to guide classroom practice as an artefact in my blogbook because I was interested in learning more about assessment for learning after the sharing of ‘our best assessment story’ in class. I also wished to learn about the most effective way and means by which I could implement assessment for learning in my classroom.  I found this short reference document to be invaluable because it provides a guide to classroom practices that are research-based.  As a teacher, I have a professional responsibility to practice assessment for learning because it is outlined in the Growing Success document, and most importantly, it offers a form of accountability that is much more effective at ensuring growth and improved performance in students than outcomes-based testing.  This reference tool is helpful because it presents the following research-based guidelines to implementing assessment for learning, which include the following:

• Assessment for learning is part of effective planning
• Assessment for learning focuses on how students learn
• Assessment for learning is central to classroom practice
• Assessment for learning is key to professional skill
• Assessment for learning is sensitive and constructive
• Assessment for learning fosters motivation
• Assessment for learning promotes understanding of goals and criteria
• Assessment for learning helps learners know how to improve
• Assessment for learning develops the capacity for self-assessment
• Assessment for learning recognizes all educational achievement

           I found the document’s suggestion that assessment for learning should be part of effective planning and teaching to be of particular importance.  From my own personal experience, I recognize that assessment for learning cannot be implemented neither adequately nor effectively without substantial planning.  The practice of assessment for learning requires significant lesson planning if it will enable the teacher to obtain information that will allow both the teacher and student to set future goals.

            The guide also made a significant point in suggesting that teachers need professional knowledge and skills in order to plan for assessment, observe learning, analyze and interpret evidence, and give feedback and support to learners.  According to the guide, teachers should be supported through ongoing professional development.  Unfortunately, I have not found enough professional development opportunities, which would help me to develop my assessment for learning skills.  I’ve had couple of PLC’s which have examined assessment for learning; however, they have not been implemented in any significant or meaningful way to create a capacity for learning or to improve student learning through this form of assessment. I hope to further examine documents such as this one to acquire a greater knowledge and understanding of this assessment practice.

GROWING SUCCESS: ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND REPORTING- IMPROVING STUDENT LEARNING

Document Reflection

http://www.ocup.org/resources/documents/EDU_GS_binder_010708_BMv2.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008). Growing success: Assessment, evaluation and

reporting-improving school learning. Available at      http://www.ocup.org/resources/documents/EDU_GS_binder_010708_BMv2.pdf

Accessed on 17 June 2011.

For this reflection, I’ve decided to examine the Ontario Ministry of Education document entitled, Growing Success: Assessment, evaluation and reporting-improving school learning.  This ministry document outlines the policies in Ontario for assessment, evaluation, and reporting.  Its intended audience appears to be educators and administrators so that they are aware of ministry policies, but it is primarily targeted toward parents and students.  I’ve chosen to examine the Growing Success document as its role in ensuring accountability with respect to assessment and evaluation is quite clear in the first statement of the introductory remarks: “Parents and students need to know that the marks we give them are fair, and that the process is transparent.” This document is divided into ten main sections, which include the following: The Purpose of Assessment and Evaluation, Eleven Guiding Principles, The Achievement Chart, Grading and Reporting, Assessing Learning Skills, Late and Missed Assignments, Students with Special Needs: Modifications and Accommodations, English Language Learners: Modifications and Accommodations, and Credit Recovery. As apparent in the document’s division, it emphasizes the importance of assessment and evaluation in improving student learning. Furthermore, it recognizes the need for accommodations and modifications throughout the assessment and evaluation process, especially for special education and ESL students. In the ‘Purpose of Assessment and Evaluation’ section, the document states that “research has shown that the most effective type of assessment for improving student learning is formative assessment, or assessment for learning”; the document does make reference to the two other forms of assessment, which are ‘assessment of learning’ and ‘assessment as learning.’

            I am writing about this document because I agree with its assertion that ‘assessment for learning’ is the most effective way to improving student learning. In my view, ‘assessment for learning’ constitutes the best assessment approach to fostering growth and improving performance in students. As I’ve mentioned in class, I utilize this assessment approach in my instruction of the formal literary essay – the most important skill that students can take from my class if they wish to progress onto university.  My assessment of each part of the essay-writing process represents a step toward the final major assessment – the essay itself.  An unfortunate difficulty of assessing such as process that leads to a final product comes from the mark culture which has been ingrained in students; many students do not see any value in completing something despite the feedback if it is not given a mark.  Regardless of this challenge, we, as educators, uphold our professional duty through ‘assessment for learning’ as it informs are practice and allows for differentiated instruction to meet the needs of all students (Drake et al., 2010).  In this respect, ‘assessment for learning’, which is advanced in Growing Success, ensures a form of accountability that is not based on the numerical outcome of a test. I really do hope that the notion of ‘assessment for learning’ can form such a part of the public’s awareness that it accepts a “definition of accountability that values a learning and growth at least as much as a test score” (Drake et al., 2010, p. 17). Hopefully, such a paradigm shift will constitute the new story of accountability.

Works Referenced

Drake, S., Reid J.L., Beckett, D. & Volante L. (2010, January). Assessment Literacy and  

            educators’ perceptions of accountability: Examining the relationship in a

            Canadian context.  Paper presented at the ICSEI Conference, Malaysia.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS: FOUNDATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Document Reflection

http://www.oct.ca/publications/PDF/foundation_e.pdf

Ontario College of Teachers (2006). Foundations of Professional Practice. Available

            at http://www.oct.ca/publications/PDF/foundation_e.pdf. Retrieved on 10 July

            2011.

           

I have decided to reflect on the document, Ontario College of Teachers: Foundations of Professional Practice because I am a member of the Ontario College of Teachers as a secondary school teacher in Ontario. This document encompasses three subdocuments which include Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession, and Professional Learning Framework of Professional Practice. This overall document is relevant to me because it outlines the principles of ethical behaviour, professional practice, and ongoing learning for the teaching profession in Ontario.  Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession lists the ethical standards of care, respect, trust, and integrity that should guide its members in their professional roles and relationships.  Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession describes the required continuum of knowledge, skills, and professional practices, which include the following:  Commitment to Students and Student Learning, Professional Knowledge, Professional Knowledge, Professional Practice, Leadership in Learning Communities, and Ongoing Professional Learning. Lastly, Professional Learning Framework of Professional Practice presents the different ways in which its members may pursue ongoing opportunities for professional learning.

As a teacher and member of the Ontario College of Teachers, I am professionally accountable because I have committed to the above guidelines laid out by this professional body. According to Moller (as cited by Drake et al., 2010), “professional accountability means that the educator makes a commitment to adhere to professional standards” (p. 6). In my daily practice, I do my very best to ensure that my role and relationships as a teacher are guided by trust, respect, and integrity. My enrolment in this MEd program underlines my commitment to ongoing professional learning.

This document is relevant to our study of accountability because it deals with professional standards; however, I am quite surprised that it does not even allude to personal accountability, which Moller (as cited by Drake et al., 2010) defines as adhering “to ones personal conscience” (p. 06).  To say the truth, I am more guided by a sense of personal accountability, which makes the standards of practice a “living standard – a standard that one lives by because it is the right thing to do, not because one is expected to do it” (Drake et al., 2010), than the dictates of my professional body.  While it is important to have professional standards and professional accountability, genuine or “good” teachers are those who are guided by a personal conscience as opposed to any external factors such as a professional body.

Works Referenced

Drake, S., Reid J.L., Beckett, D. & Volante L. (2010, January). Assessment Literacy and  

            educators’ perceptions of accountability: Examining the relationship in a

            Canadian context.  Paper presented at the ICSEI Conference, Malaysia.

Capacity building and technology - A REMARKABLE TRANSFORMATION: UNION CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Article Reflection

http://www.edutopia.org/remarkable-transformation

Curtis. D. (2003). A Remarkable Transformation: Union City Public Schools.

            Edutopia. Available at http://www.edutopia.org. Accessed on June 7, 2011.

I decided to reflect upon this article because it examines how capacity building and technology, in other words, a move to a new story helped a New Jersey school district. The article outlines the means by which the teachers and community of a school district in New Jersey increased test scores and prevented the take over of their schools by the state.  The school district’s remarkable transformation is largely evident by the facts and figures: “Eight percent of the district’s students currently meet state standards, up from 30 percent.  Attendance at the 11-school, 11, 600-student school district increased, while the dropout rates and absence rates decreased; meanwhile, students clamoured to transfer into Union City Schools.  The numbers for the test scores speak for themselves: “eighth grade test scores jumped from 33 to 83 percent in reading, from 42 percent to 65 percent in writing, and from 50 to 84 percent in mathematics.”  This improvement in test performance largely occurred due to the school’s adoption of a new approach to curriculum, assessment, professional development, and technology.  Firstly, the teachers and community tried to add substance to the school’s philosophy of education, resulting in a specific vision for the school.  Secondly, the school leadership and faculty improved performance by raising expectations for the largely immigrant population which came from lower socio-economic backgrounds.  Thirdly, the teaching community adopted an approach which transformed students from passive learners to active ones with the help of technology such as software reading programs, Powerpoint, and the internet. Lastly, the teachers had a say in the education and the allocation of money for technology.

            I would strongly argue that this article reinforces the viewpoint that student success cannot be achieved without teacher input and decision making. I would strongly argue that the school district would not have achieved success if the teachers had not been empowered to determine its philosophy of education.  In my opinion, positive change cannot occur without the support of teachers because they are the ones who are in direct contact with students on an almost daily basis.  If strategies are imposed upon teachers, they will ultimately result in minimal success or may even end in failure. When teachers are empowered with the decision making process, they will be, in my view, more motivated to achieve successful results, benefitting all students.

According to Stoll (2009), top-down strategies are not sufficient enough to establish the internal commitment and agency that is needed to maintain improvement. From experience, I recognize that a policy or goal cannot be successful if teachers are not “on board”, feel that they have not had “a say”, or believe that they have not been treated as professionals.   I believe that the New Jersey school district improved its student performance because it combined all the elements of capacity building.  It incorporated the features of capacity building which include a focus on teaching and learning, high quality professional development, embedded with professional learning communities; leadership and community involvement, and external support (Stoll, 2009). In fact, a “combination of focused leadership, research-based overhaul of the system, technology, site-based decision-making” explains the turnaround of the school district.

            I also found this article to be insightful and relevant to our course of study because it presented a case whereby technology played a significant role in raising student achievement.  I have always maintained that students can achieve more success if they are active learners, as opposed to passive ones. In reading the article, I found a real-life example of technology helping to create active learners by allowing them to learn at their own pace, convey knowledge in a variety of ways, and access knowledge in a quick manner. From my own experiences, I support the view that students can acquire a greater understanding if they actively learn something on their own, as opposed to being ‘fed’ the information by the teacher. I strongly believe in the ability of technology to transform the learning process. Shirley (2011) argues that educators need to be in tune with the technological tools of their diverse and individual students, as technology can be used to customize and personalize education.  According to Shelley (2011), technology may help to modify and alleviate the problems our schools are experiencing today. It may introduce  play and creativity into education in ways very much attuned with Fourth Way principles” (p. 206).

Works referenced.

Shirley, D. (2011). The Fourth Way of technology and change.  Journal of Educational

             Change.  (12), 187-209.

Stoll, L. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for

                           learning. Journal of Educational Change (10), 115-127.

A new story: AT ELITE SCHOOL, LONGER CLASSES TO GO DEEPER

Article Reflection

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/education/02calhoun.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Anderson, J. (2011, June 01). At Elite School, Longer Classes to Go Deeper.  Retrieved

            from http://www.nytimes.com

              I’ve chosen to write about this article because it presents a school moving from an old story to a new story in trying to improve student learning and performance.  This private school moved away from a traditional schedule of eight 45 minute classes each day, with courses broken into two semesters; instead, high school students study three to five subjects in each of five terms, or modules that are 32 to 36 days long.  Students are now also given approximately 45 minutes of “community time” each day, which is an intentionally unstructured period for the students.

When I read this article, the changes that this school undertook brought to mind the concept of a new story which I’ve come to understand and interpret since taking EDUC 5P3.  For me, the notion of a new story has come to mean a new approach to educational policy, teaching and learning, as well as a dispensing of old modes of thought, practice, or ways of doing things. This school has certainly moved away from an old story to a new one as it has become progressive by “embracing more depth over breadth” and by allowing more experiential learning.  This experiential learning occurs through such experiences as trips to parks and museums.  This emphasis on experiential learning and depth constitutes a more student-centred approach than one that is strictly focussed on the numerical results of standardized tests.  Shirley (2009) outlines the importance of experiential learning when he writes that “access to museums and concerts – all play decisive roles in the education of the young” (p. 205).

Although this private school may have had little difficulty in adopting change due to greater flexibility and resources, it is important for all schools to reconsider old modes of thinking or doing things. By considering a new story, there are possibilities to maximize both the learning experiences and potential of students.

Works referenced

Shirley, D. (2011). The Fourth Way of technology and change.  Journal of Educational

             Change.  (12), 187-209.

My views on EQAO PROVINCE-WIDE TESTS: THE POWER OF GOOD INFORMATION

Document Reflection

http://www.eqao.com/pdf_e/11/Cpogi_ne_0211_WEB.pdf

Educational Quality and Accountability Office. (2011). EQAO’s Province-Wide Test:        

The Power of Good Information. Retrieved from http:www.eqao.com/pdm_e/11Cpogi_ne_0211_WEB.pdf

              In this blog posting, I have decided to reflect upon the Ontario Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) document, EQUAO’s Pronvince-Wide Testing: Power of Good Information because EQAO testing impacts my teaching practice and professional duties.  It is obvious that this document has been produced for the general public as it provides a rationale for EQAO testing, outlines the responsibilities of school boards, gives an overview of different EQAO tests which are administered at different grade levels, and promotes the supposed successes of testing.  The document is littered with phrases that serve this purpose, which include the following:

• “The public education system is accountable to the public”;
• “Each question on every EQAO test is based on learning expectations set out in The Ontario Curriculum, which is what teachers are responsible for teaching in classrooms every day”
•  “Teaching the curriculum is preparing students for the test”
•  “EQAO is an independent audit of the Ontario curriculum, and if you are

   teaching the curriculum in the proper order, at the proper rate, at the proper

   depth – your students will do well.

• “Continuous improvement by constant transparency and reliable data”

This guide may be viewed as a piece of promotional ‘propaganda’ because it presents EQUAO testing in a positive light by addressing its apparent benefits and addressing expected critiques.  As a member of the general public, it would be difficult to argue against claims of accountability, continuous improvement, and transparency; however, as a teacher, I do “take issue” with some of the statements listed above.  The document’s claim that “teaching the curriculum” is preparing students for the test” does not necessarily hold true or provide a full picture of EQAO test preparation. From my experiences as an Ontario English teacher, I can attest to the fact that preparing students for the EQAO literacy test goes beyond simply “teaching the curriculum”, but to implementing lessons that teach students required skills for the test, having students write practice tests, assessing practice tests, as well as holding in-school and afterschool workshops for weaker students. I personally know of one teacher who creates her grade 10 Applied English exam in the same format as the EQAO literacy test, with multiple choice, news report, short answer, and essay-writing components.

In this regard, teachers are teaching to the test despite statements to the contrary. Oxford, Gray, and Ozga (2005) write that  90% of English teachers in both English and Scottish school systems, which have their own EQAO-type body known as QAE, warned that ‘public ranking of schools leads to teaching to the test.”  The EQAO document leaves out the fact that “continuous improvement by constant transparency and reliable data” by publishing school results is unhealthy, unfair, and leads to competition among schools as opposed to collective responsibility – a characteristic of the Fourth Way (Shirley, 2009).

          I also take issue with document’s statement that if one teaches “the curriculum in the proper order, at the proper rate, at the proper depth – your students will do well.” This statement does not hold true as students with learning disabilities and ESL students have an obvious disadvantage.  Furthermore, this above statement ignores the “role of factors such as poverty and social disorganization on learning” (Shirley, 2011, p. 205).  Finally, I have a problem with this statement because it places all the responsibility for students’ success on the test on the shoulders of the teachers – if the teacher is doing his or job properly, the students should experience no difficulty. Again, this statement ignores socio-economic factors that affect test results.  This statement is problematic because it seems as if there is a distrust of teachers’ professionalism within the system, and that this test is a way to ensure that teachers are teaching properly.

Works Referenced

Croxford, L., Gray, J., & Ozga, (2009). J. Teacher Attitudes to Quality Assurance and

Evaluation (QAE) in Scotland and England. The Briefing Reports. (51).

Shirley, D. (2011). The Fourth Way of technology and change.  Journal of Educational

                          Change. (12), 187-209.

NATIVE CHILDREN ASK UNITED NATIONS TO PROBE EDUCATION PROBLEMS

Article Reflection

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1005122--native-children-ask-united-nations-to-probe-education-problems

Talaga, T. (2011, June 8). Native Children ask United Nations to probe education

            problems. Retrieved from http://thestar.com

            Although this article does not deal with standardized testing or teacher accountability, it does cover an important issue of educational accountability – that of First Nations education. Specifically, this article deals with the Canadian government’s accountability or lack thereof to its First Nations population and the United Nations with respect to children’s rights, lives, and education.  It presents a number of problems in reserve schools across Canada such as mice that eat lunches, no playgrounds or doors that close properly, a lack of school supplies, book or gym supplies, which were identified by students in a letter as part of a report to the United Nations. This report requested the United Nations to launch an investigation into the historical inequities of native education.

            I chose this article because it highlights the fact that the government has been held unaccountable up to this point in meeting its constitutional/jurisdictional obligations of providing First Nations children with proper access to education. The Canadian government has clearly failed in meeting its ethical obligation of providing a proper schooling system to First Nations children, which is above all safe and equitable. It is quite shocking to me that the Canadian government and its bureaucracy have failed to show an ethical responsibility or ethical accountability to one of the most vulnerable segments of its population – children. This failure is quite sad, and it seems incompatible with our societal values of equality and our political values of good governance.

            I found this article to be relevant because it underlines the fact that national governments are now accountable to not only their people, but to global bodies as well.  The First Nations Report entitled, “Our Dreams Matter Too: First Nations’ children rights, lives and education” was submitted to the U.N. Committee of the Child.  As a member of the U.N., Canada is accountable to meeting all agreements dealing with human rights, children, and education of which it has been a signatory. First Nations leaders hope that the U.N. will order what is known as an “Article 45” review exploring inequities in education, child welfare and health-service delivery on reserves.  It is rather unfortunate that a report had to be submitted to the U.N. Committee of the Child before there was any significant media focus on this issue, or government declarations to view this issue as a priority. It is certainly hard to believe that we let this happen here in Canada.

RETHINKING ACCOUNTABILITY MODELS IN U.S. PUBLIC EDUCATION

Article Reflection

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/rethinking-accountability-models-in-964398.html?cxtype=rss_news_128746

Gaddis, S.M.  (2011, June 1). Rethinking accountability models in U.S. public education.

            Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

            I have decided to reflect upon this opinion piece by S. Michael Gaddis from the Atlantic Journal Constitution because it highlights an issue of accountability that has arisen as a result of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) – a nationwide accountability system that sets out annual proficiency targets in math and reading.  The article outlines that while some data shows an increase in test scores since NCLB’s implementation, reports indicate that their has emerged a disturbing pattern of cheating on the part of teachers and administrators to achieve desired outcomes on tests.

            While I do not condone cheating in any form, I agree with Gaddis’s view that the focus of blame should not strictly fall on the teachers or school officials, but the root of the problem which is a narrowly defined system of accountability based on measurable outcomes. In my opinion, Gaddis makes a reasonable point in his argument that cheating scandals “should serve as an example of the serious unintended effects that can arise from such a narrowly focused accountability system” that uses test scores as the only indicator of performance. Even without cheating, Gaddis also presents a compelling argument in viewing high test scores as skewed because many teachers focus on subjects that they are accountable for, as well as those students whom they believe have a realistic chance of passing the test. Unfortunately, cheating occurs in the most extreme cases.

            Although we do not have such a test-driven system here in Ontario, it may be argued that the pressures of performing well on standardized tests do not lead to widespread cheating, but rather a skewing or manipulation of data.  Due to the emphasis on outcomes-based results and the ranking of schools, many weaker students are placed on ‘temporary’ IEPs, which gives them extra time or even a recorder during EQAO tests. In other cases, some weaker students have their test differed to the following year. In both cases, administrators and teachers take these measures in an effort to ensure that all students pass and that the school’s public ranking is not lowered.  According to Croxford, Gray, and Ozga (2009), almost 90% of teachers in both the English and Scottish systems warned that the ‘public ranking of schools leads to teaching to the test’ and reported that ‘there was a real danger that public ranking of schools might lead to manipulation of data’.  Although cheating may occur in extreme cases, it is very probable that a manipulation of data by schools occurs on a considerable scale in order to ensure a respectable ranking.

            In his opinion piece, Gaddis asks the following rhetorical question: “Should passing a test score be the primary focus of the education system?”  He correctly argues that “students’ knowledge and preparedness for the world are more than just a number on a piece of paper,” but that “we should reward teachers for fostering critical thinking, emotional development, teamwork and creativity, among a myriad of other important skills.”  Our reading of Moller’s (2009) article, “School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability” addresses the emphasis on testing over the holistic development of the student. Moller (2009) argues that “by this shift in focus there is a risk of ignoring some of the most critical purposes of public schooling, for example preparation for participation in a democratic society or processes that creates and sustains social justice, which is not easily or cheaply measured” (p. 40).

            In this respect, I agree with the view that a test-driven system ultimately results in failure: it sometimes leads to unethical practices among educators, and it fails in the holistic development of the child.

Works Referenced

Croxford, L., Gray, J., & Ozga  (2009). A. Teacher Attitudes to Quality Assurance

                        and Evaluation (QAE) in Scotland and England. September (51).   

Moller, J. (2008).  School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between

managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational

                         Change (10), 37-46.

           

TESTING TO GRADE TEACHERS: A DANGEROUS OBSESSION

Article Reflection

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/05/30/testing-students-to-grade-teachers/execessive-testing-is-a-dangerous-obsession

Darling-Hammond, L. (2011, May 30). Testing to Grade Teachers: A Dangerous

Obsession. The New York Times Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

            I have selected this opinion piece from the New York Times because it covers such topics as the merit of testing to ensure teacher accountability, the degree of testing that is beneficial as opposed to disadvantageous to student learning, and varying forms of effective assessment.  Darling-Hammond critiques the overemphasis on testing in U.S. education, and her position is especially clear in the closing remark of her piece: “At the end of the day, stronger learning will result from better teaching, not more testing, as leading notions having long understood.”

            I believe that Darling-Hammond utilizes strong points and evidence to underline the weaknesses of the U.S. emphasis on testing or standardization.  Darling-Hammond points to top scorers such as Finland and Korea, which we’ve examined in class, to highlight that the U.S. policymakers’ turn to testing in order to cure ills within the school system is misguided.  Korea and Finland are top scorers on the Program for International Assessment, and their success may be attributed to the elimination of crowded testing. Darling-Hammond further underscores the fallacy of the U.S.’s over-reliance on standardization by arguing that “American students, who spend weeks of every school year from 3^rd grade to 11^th grade bubbling in answers on high-stakes tests, currently perform well bellow those of other industrialized countries in math and science, and have more trouble writing, analyzing and defending their views, because they have much less practice in doing so.”   

Many of our readings and discussions, particularly those which have focussed on moving to the Fourth Way, have underlined the fallacy of this approach to improving student learning and quality of instruction.  The article by Alma Harris (2011) entitled, “Reforming systems: Realizing the Fourth Way” strongly upholds Darling-Hammond’s position that the heavily standardized system of the U.S. does not produce better results, or enhance the development of learning or skills.  Harris (2011) argues that such imposed policies are ineffective in the long-term as they are based on government needs to acquire quick solutions in the short-term; “the time rate for change in terms of policy makers and politicians is much shorter than the time for real, sustainable change in schools and school systems.”  The poor results of U.S. students on an international level, which Darling-Hammond notes, seems to verify Harris’s (2011) argument that short-term approaches based on “soulless standardization” do not provide a way of “securing higher standards and better outcomes” (p. 162).  The reforms have not produced results because U.S. policy makers are fixated with the “nature, type, and focus of change,” as opposed to the outcomes of change, or the children themselves (Harris, 2011, p. 161).

            I believe that Darling-Hammond makes a compelling argument in her statement that the current desire to attach tests to teacher evaluation will make matters worse: tests are error-prone and do not adequately measure teachers; they result in teachers teaching to the test; and they may cause teachers to avoid special education and ESL students whose learning is not adequately measured by testing.  As shown in Darling-Hammond opinion piece, a system dependent on testing leads to the distrust and de-professionalization of teachers, as curricular programs become “teacher-proof” (Harris, p. 161).   Sahlberg (2010) argues that such test-driven systems overlook the broader aims of learning, and lead to a suspicion of teachers and schools. According to Salberg (2010), the presence of trust does not guarantee improved educational performance, but its absence signals failure” (p. 53)

            The focus on tests in the U.S. has not only failed to improve the learning or international results of American children, but has ultimately led to an absence of trust in teachers and the school system as a whole.  An absence of trust in teachers is a mark of failure in an education system. Darling-Hammond thus makes a strong case against the U.S. obsession with testing in order to grade teachers.

Works Referenced

Harris, A. (2011). Reforming systems: Realizing the Fourth Way. Journal of Educational 
                Change. (12), 159-171.  DOI: 10.007/s10883-011-9156-z

Sahlber, P. (2010). Rethinking Accountability in a Knowledge Society.  Journal of

            Educational Change. (11), 45-61. DOI: 10.007/s10883-088-90898-2.