A decade ago, Marilyn
Cochran-Smith, then president of AERA, gave us a portrait of teacher education
at a major crossroads – for better or for worse – and invited us to see where
these divergent paths might lead us. At the time, in that hotel ballroom, her bleak portrayal of
a future hostile to the ideals and values so many of us held, brought me to
tears as I thought of my graduate students who were making so many sacrifices
and working so hard to become exemplary urban educators in schools others had
written off as “failing” or “ghetto” and doomed.
Why then today, when the draconian education
reform ideas of Governor Cuomo have succeeded in a budget vote last night in
Albany, do I feel there is cause for hope? Because last night I attended a
lecture at Teachers College by the brilliant scholar and public intellectual
David C. Berliner. Known especially for his exhaustive defense of public education,
The Manufactured Crisis, a 1995 book co-authored with Bruce J. Biddle, Berliner
is a master of reasoned argument and robust evidence, all presented with
clarity and that wow factor that makes you wonder how anyone could possibly
disagree with him. His latest book, 50 Myths & Lies that Threaten America's Public Schools: The Real Crisis in Education, written with Gene Glass, is a must read. He began by characterizing current efforts to evaluate
teachers and teacher education using standardized test scores of students as
“ridiculous” and proceeded to enumerate a dozen slam dunk arguments against
these misguided reforms. I was reminded of the spell Harry Potter learned from
Professor Lupin to cast on a boggart, Riddikulus, transforming the scary into
the humorous. Below is a photo of the final slide summarizing his reasons.
Berliner, D. C. (2015) "Evaluating Teachers and Teacher Education Using Student Test Data: A Misunderstanding" |
The
Teachers College Sachs Lecture Series has set out to explore teacher education
– its future, worth, and change (both reactive and transformative) – by
examining curriculum, current practices, beliefs about knowledge, and needed
research. Prior to Berliner, Marilyn Cochran Smith spoke of education reform, a
“hot and huge topic” she defined as “a set of practices and policies, many of
which were set into motion with NCLB, although with deeper roots, and continued
or accelerated by RTTT. These were intended to fix America’s broken education
system keeping with a neoliberal, market-based approach and a heavy focus on
accountability.” She described the current state of teacher education as at
best, uneven, and at worst, uninspired, ineffective, and out of touch.
Many of the pessimistic ideas outlined in her AERA address
ten years ago are now in motion. We are getting closer to a national database
to track teacher education programs and their impact on student test scores,
rewarding those effective in test results and enabling them to become, in her
words, “lucrative national franchises.” Just look at the expansion of Relay. Politicians
and policymakers continue to believe that creating competition and ranking
programs, rewarding winners and sanctioning or closing down losers, is going to
lead to improvement.
What
concerns me is that current ideas about teacher quality are terribly
ill-defined, in large part because much of the research is based on statistics
of standardized test results, which are horrible proxies for anything
meaningful, and as Berliner pointed out, they measure next to nothing about
teacher effects. Right now we are stuck, trapped in the bad idea that all that
matters is successful teaching defined as making test scores go up. We have
lost all regard for whether good teaching matters, whether the ends to means
are ethical and justifiable. Driven by data Data DATA, it seems there is no
trust in human judgment, or testimonials of stakeholders who can speak
passionately to the difference teachers have made in their lives. They only
want numbers.
Take for
example the latest incarnation of the bad ideas in teacher education reform,
the Deans for Impact. Based in Austin, Texas with a million dollar start up
grant, a group of deans from various colleges of education across the country
have resolved to be “data driven, outcomes focused, transparent and
accountable” and to use “empirically tested” features in their programs that
improve student learning. On their website they boast, “We want to inject some
of the values of start-up culture into higher education.” Their first order of
business was to write a support statement in early March for the new accreditation
organization, CAEP, stating “Deans for Impact stands ready to bring all hands
on deck to help CAEP succeed.” Mercedes Schneider has already done the
necessary investigation to connect the reform dots and money behind this
venture.
As Jorge Cabrera wrote recently, we are witnessing “a form a social engineering under the guise of ‘urgency’
and ‘reform’” and it comes as no surprise that these deans want to speed up the
phase-in of new federal regulations by two years. A rush to implementation will
create exactly the sort of chaos and havoc that allows them to ramp up the rhetoric
of failure. Their litany of complaints is all too familiar: “teacher prep” is
awful, there’s too much theory and not enough practice, it’s too easy to become
a teacher. Backed by the simplistic critique of Arthur Levine, these ideas have
paved the way for erroneous experiments of throwing beginners to the wolves
with little more than a few weeks of boot camp preparation.
But the
hopeful side has some promise and I believe that we have reached a tipping
point. The misuse of value-added measures, or VAMs, in evaluating teachers and
teacher education programs is poised for some harsh pushback. The AERA
publication, Educational Researcher, has dedicated its latest issue to the VAM controversy. In a succinct and lucid
editorial by my former professor at the University of Michigan, Stephen
Raudenbush, he deplores the distorted use of VAMs. He cautions, “The hard
question is how to integrate the new research on teachers with other important
strands of research in order to inform rather than distort practical judgment.”
He goes on to pose the question, “Does the answer to a precisely focused
research question, by itself, have
implications for practical action?” Aside from consistent and reliable
evidence, he argues the need for a powerful theory of action to synthesize all
of the evidence.
Get ready
for some intense work ahead of us. They will continue to put lipstick on the
pig with slick ads, propaganda and celebrity endorsements, and splashy rallies,
but money and political power can only go so far. Parents, teachers,
professors, and students of all ages must work together on their common educational
goals to restore sanity for the good of our universities, schools, and
communities.
The just approved NYS budget embeds the CAEP standards for schools of education, which will lead "corrective action plans" and probably the decertification of programs. Of course as soon they staple the chip in the earlobe we'll all become superfluous
ReplyDeleteI rather wonder if/suspect that recent gains may be triggering increased push back in response to gains made resisting bad reform and privatization. I see similar happening with adjunct academic labor issues following the success of National Adjunct Walkout Day
ReplyDeleteAn update from Berliner via Gene Glass, posted by Diane Ravitch, with chilling commentary especially from the ever-insightful Laura Chapman: http://dianeravitch.net/2015/04/20/david-berliner-speaks-out-about-the-teaching-profession-and-americas-future/
ReplyDelete