[RSCT] Broader Bolder Approach releases ESEA assessment recommendations

[Monty Neill]

Below find the text of the announcement from the EPI website - http://www.epi.org/ with a link to the report. Then a few brief comments from me. Monty
New report on education policy
June 25, 2009

The Accountability Committee of the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education campaign has released its report with recommendations for the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, known temporarily during the Bush Administration as the "No Child Left Behind Act," or NCLB). The new BBA report recommends that ESEA expand the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a test given to a representative sample of the nation's students, to cover a broad range of subjects, not only math and reading, to counteract the narrowing of the curriculum spurred in recent years by NCLB. And the report further recommends that ESEA permit states flexibility in designing their accountability systems, provided these systems include qualitative evaluation of school quality and do not rely primarily on standardized test scores to judge the success of schools.

http://www.boldapproach.org/report_20090625.html

>From Monty: This report closely tracks Richard Rothstein et al.'s recommendations in their valuable book "Grading Education" (see FT review at http://www.fairtest.org/improving-accountability-review-grading-education. In some very important regards it corresponds well with the recently released blueprint for ESEA overhaul from the Forum on Educational Accountability (http://edaccountability.org), perhaps primarily in some underlying conceptualizations: the need to end the ham-handed, counterproductive, test-and-punish NCLB approach; the need for better quality and broader indicators; the need to overhaul state assessment practices. BBA is relatively silent on federal support for states to fundamentally overhaul individual assessments, a central tenet of FEA's proposals (see also FEA's expert panel report) to say nothing of FT's own views. 

FEA does not call for state inspectorates, as BBA does (and would make mandatory). FairTest has supported this approach for the past decade, however, notably in its co-sponsorship of proposals to overhaul MA's assessment and accountability propsoal, the CARE call (at http://www.fairtest.org/call-authentic-state-wide-assessment-system. FairTest just testified in behalf of legislation in MA that would maintain a statewide exam (with in the end greatly reduced stakes), create an inspectorate, and most centrally enable the development of strong local assessments, including using classroom-based evidence. 

There are some distinctions of emphasis and prioritization in these different approaches, ones that can be addressed productively in aiming to end NCLB's destructive impact by allowing state flexibility in developing systems that can be fair and support real learning, not just test prep. 

Finally, BBA like FEA both call for far greater attention to out-of-school indicators and in-school indicators beyond academic outcomes. We both recognize that schools alone cannot overcome the impact of poverty, tho they can often be greatly improved; and that the federal government has a very important role to play in spurring states to pay attention and act. 

PS: Somewhat ironically, the Fordham Foundation has praised BBA's latest, since it focuses on schools.  (http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/index.cfm?issue=501&edition=N - it is at the end of the first piece, "revolutionaries..."). Perhaps they missed the call for the feds to focus on out-of-school indicators as well as school indicators. Is this a case of 'be careful because your enemies now like you'? Perhaps, and perhaps because in some ways BBA is rather vague - lots of devils can leap out of the work on details and all that. Still, it seems that conservative forces such as Fordham and Rotherham's Education Sector are getting the message that current assessment is educationally destructive. Rotherham just proposed criteria for assessments under the stimulus package, and they are insufficient but not bad (see http://www.quickanded.com/2009/06/assessing-common-core.html - I inserted the first comment addressing why what he said is not sufficient). A national test is still a bad idea, however. And there is a long way to go before it becomes clear that the Finn's and Petrilli's and Rotherham's get it on assessment. But there is some motion that at a minimum, we can use. 

Monty 

Monty Neill, Ed.D.
Deputy & Interim Executive Director
FairTest
15 Court Sq., Ste. 820
Boston, MA 02108
857-350-8207 x 101
fax 857-350-8209
monty at fairtest.org
www.fairtest.org
Donate: https://secure.entango.com/donate/MnrXjT8MQqk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.criticalteach.org/pipermail/rs_criticalteach.org/attachments/20090625/412d9a63/attachment.html>