Morning Shots

If you’re a homeschooler who thinks No Child Left Behind and standardized testing doesn’t affect you, think again.

Recently, ACT issued a report, “Ready for College and Ready for Work: Same or Different?” Quoting from the press release:

“This landmark report makes it clear that we must ensure high school is relevant and rigorous for all students,” said Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, chair of the national Governors Association Education, Early Childhood, and Workforce Committee. “We need to bring accountability and focus to our classrooms in order to prepare graduates for the fiercely competitive global economy, whether their next step is college or a career.”

“Rigor with relevance” are the new buzz words in education and the reform that is pushing toward consistent standards in all 50 states. It should also be no surprise that the ACT commissioned this report. Or that they are actively endorsing uniform standards and testing. They have a lot to gain with uniform testing.

In a separate post on my blog, I focused on how career tracking and universal preschool are two mechanisms that are being used to further the state’s economic goals at the expense of children. There is another component that the government is “investing” in as well. Testing and high school exit exams. Standardized testing is closely tied in with career tracking and managing the economy.

Right now California is in a court battle for their high school exit exam.  We are also hearing about problems with the SAT test.  Despite these negative reports, there is one test that is gaining a lot of positive press, the ACT. They are positioning themselves to be the “test of choice” in education. Several states are considering or have already adopted this test as their state high school exit exam. Kentucky

Read More …

Over the past six months, the need for national education standards has been talked up. The idea, in short, is that the U.S. should have brief written statements of the skills and knowledge children should attain at each grade level for each subject area. The federal government would either encourage or require states to base their schools’ curricula on these standards. Education colleges, in turn, would train would-be teachers in the standards.

Much of the talk has come from those in the federal education policy circles. In November 2005, the progressive think-tank, the Center for American Progress, released a report that declared, “The federal government should support the crafting, adoption, and promotion of voluntary, rigorous national curriculum standards in core subject areas….” Education Week, the newspaper of record for school news, recently carried an op-ed by Diane Ravitch arguing for national education standards. Ravitch, a former assistant secretary for the U.S. Department of Education, also participated in an online chat on Education Week’s website, where she advocated a “national core curriculum.” Meanwhile, Denis Doyle, a long-time observer of schooling and education policy, wrote about national education standards in his online newsletter in January. And, in March, Education Sector, another think-tank, has hosted a debate on… yes, national education standards.

Outside this wonky loop, the New York Times editorial board has made inchoate rumblings about establishing some sort of national education standards policy. “It will be impossible to improve math and science education until we assess teachers’ preparedness based on the same high standards in all parts of the country,” it opined on January 24 th . Whether these teacher education standards should also be used in the classroom, though,

Read More …

I was amused, as I’m sure are many others, to read about a group of education researchers involved in what is being called “The Think Tank Review Project”. Driving my laughter was the discovery that the funding for this endeavor comes from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Board of Directors for this organization reads like a “who’s who” of NEA and Midwest Education Association executives.

Evidently, the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado will be joining forces with “Think Twice” which has already begun monitoring the Buckeye Institute, Ohio; Center of the American Experiment, Minnesota; Heartland Institute, Chicago; Wisconsin Policy Research Institute; the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michigan; the CATO Institute; Manhattan Institute; Heritage Foundation; and others.

Interestingly, topics garnering their interest are findings which advocate privatization in education, the very ones which the NEA fights tooth and nail to discredit publicly in the media. These include: Charter Schools and Public School Choice; Vouchers and Tuition Tax Credits; Deprofessionalization of Teaching; NCLB and Accountability/Testing; Sorting and Stratification of Opportunities; Privatization and EMOs; Education of English Language Learners; Virtual/online learning; School Funding; and Home Schooling.

Because of the source of their funding and the objects of their interest, one would have to be suspicious of this group’s motivation. Furthermore, sowing the idea that traditional think tanks have little credibility among academic researchers, hoists a red flag about whose interests are being served by this project.

Any person who visits a think tank on the web can read the “about us” section to know what ideological agenda is being served, be it conservative or liberal. Although think tanks advance agendas, they certainly do not disguise their “ideological arguments” as research, as

Read More …