|
|
|
|
A Reply to "A Response to Mrs. Diana M. Fessler's Document, A Report on the Work toward National Standards,
Assessments, and Certificates." Date: May 1, 1997
Several weeks ago I received a copy of "A Response to Mrs. Diana M. Fessler's Document, A Report on the Work toward National Standards, Assessments, and Certificates." Since the cover letter to the December report was addressed to you, my fellow board members, and to Dr. Goff, I anticipated a written reply from at least one or two of you and/or Dr. Goff. In addition, I found it quite interesting that the March Response was undated, unsigned, and not on ODE letterhead. The Response to the Report was broken down into four themes:
In my opinion, these themes minimize the debate by focusing on minor
points rather than the overall theme of the Report. THE POWER OF AN IDEA: The Response begins with a statement that the premise of the Report was that the agenda of the National Center on Education and the Economy is going to be implemented nationally. The premise was not that the NCEE agenda is going to be implemented but that it is being implemented nationwide, and that we, as a board, should examine the NCEE agenda in-depth and as a whole. The Response states that "vortex of the debate" is whether children are being adequately prepared for jobs, but that is not the true vortex of the debate. What should be at the center of the public policy debate is the question of what is the function of our school system: Is it the function of our school system to educate youth to enable them to become productive, intelligent citizens in a free society prepared to independently chart their own course (which is part and parcel of what made our nation great); or is it the function of our school system to facilitate and fund the creation of a cradle to the grave workforce development system that produces workers for the good of the economy? Restated, should schools, with their compulsory attendance authority, be used to train children as future human resources for use by business and industry? The latter will reduce our children to dependent, intellectually stunted laborers for the future collective. To center the education of children around workforce development presumes that government can successfully predict employment needs five to twenty-five years into the future. I know of no known proven track record of government clairvoyancy. Moreover, it is reasonable to question the sagacity of utilizing the NCEE national agenda without question. The Response states that the "NCEE's recommendations have not been adopted cookie cutter style state by state" which is not to say that they have not been adopted, only that the adoption of them has varied state-to-state, either in the shape of the cookies or by the adoption of the entire cookie sheet. The Response also states that none of the New Standards partners adopted reference exams, CIMs, or NCEE assessments without public debate. However, based on personal observation, from November, 1992, until the present, the State Board of Education has not engaged in discussion, let alone debate, on national content, performance or assessment standards, and/or CIMs. However, rather than addressing this, the Response skirts the issue by saying that New Standards states such as Iowa, Kentucky, and Oregon didn't adopted reference exams, establish CIMs, or adopt any part of New Standards assessment system without open public debate. Oregonian Barbara Tennison responds to that statement as follows: "That is absolutely not a true statement. I speak only for Oregon when I assure you that the Certificate of Initial Mastery was adopted in 1991 long before parents ever heard about it. The public comment came during the 1995 legislative session when hundreds of parents, teachers, students and concerned citizens presented over 38 (+/-) hours of public testimony asking that QEA 21 be thrown out or drastically overhauled. What did we get for our troubles? We got a revised bill, HB 2991, that only strengthened and clarified the original bill and the privilege of hearing the Chairperson of the Senate Education Committee complain because he "had to spend endless hours being subjected to the ranting and raving of parents and teachers from across the state." Thirty-eight hours of debate is no debate if it's after-the-fact. The Response states that membership in the New Standards Project has fluctuated and that some partners have discontinued their membership. Although I am aware of the fluctuation in membership, that they are being phased out since the groundwork has already been completed, and the fact that most memberships expire this year, I did not mention those facts in the Report. Instead, I pointed out on page 17 that in June of 1997, New Standards, in a joint venture with Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement, will be selling their wares to school, districts and/or states. NCEE will no longer be funded through membership/partnership fees but rather through the sale of their goods and services. Membership gave states and districts access to the "Tasks" that were, and are being, developed for use in classrooms all across the nation. I find it noteworthy that standardized "tasks" show up in the proposed Standards for Schools. More noteworthy, the inclusion of "tasks" in the document was not at the request of the Standards Committee; it was simply inserted by the ODE writing team. On the surface, the inclusion of the term seems simple enough, however, the inclusion of it means that we have unknowingly laid the foundation for the use of NCEE's assessment tasks, thereby aligning us with NCEE's agenda. The Response states that participation has been, and continues to be, voluntary. Be that as it may, when multiple states and districts 'volunteer' to participate in the development and implementation of national standards, assessments, and certificates, the result is the creation of a national system, and in this case, a cradle to the grave, human resource development system that links education and job training together in a seamless web. In addition, it is important to remember that the general public has no knowledge that their respective districts and/or states have volunteered their children and grandchildren to participate in the initial phases of this wholesale experiment. The Response states that "concerns about the skill levels of
the nation's workforce raised by the NCEE are real in the minds of many." Who are the
many? The Response says that solutions continue to be debated. This of course,
raises the point that Ohio's citizens are not engaged in an informed debate
concerning national standards, assessments, CIMs, occupational certificates, labor boards,
etc. and neither are their elected representatives. If we, as members of the State Board
are not discussing these powerful ideas, and if the media is not reporting on them, how is
the general public to know what is taking place? PUBLIC DEBATE IN OHIO ON STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS. The Response references the adoption of (1) competency based education program; (2) excellent and deficient designations for schools; (3) the elimination of mandated achievement testing; (4) the expansion of proficiency testing; (5) and the repeal of the four-tier diploma system as examples of the specific "actions taken or decisions made by the State Board of Education, the Ohio General assembly, and others over the past decade or more" that brought us to "where we are now as a state." According to the Response, Ohio's decision to establish a "performance-based system" was initiated through legislative action in 1987. Initiated is the key word here; the system may have been initiated at that point, but did those who voted for relevant laws and regulations understand that they were merely taking first steps toward national standards, assessments, and certificates? According to the Response, "The performance-based direction proposed in the new standards under consideration by the Board are not new. . . What began with CBE requirements in the 1983 standards" has evolved over time. The phrase performance-based system is relatively new and to my knowledge it does not occur in Ohio law. Considerable space in the Response was devoted to the topic of
proficiency tests and the outcomes that are measured by them. Mention is made that the
outcomes and score standards were "brought forward . . . at least one month
prior to bringing a resolution to adopt . . .for the sole purpose of providing an
opportunity for all voices to be heard . . . " Certainly, one month is not sufficient
time to garner feedback from the general public; from professional societies and related
organizations yes; from the general public, no. However, the focus on the Report was not
on proficiency tests or outcomes. Thus, this is not a valid response to the Report, though
I think it noteworthy that the ODE has made the link between on-going school and
labor reform and the proficiency tests. LINKAGE TO NEW TEACHER EDUCATION AND LICENSURE STANDARDS In the Report, I wrote: "Further research will be required to establish the link between NCEE and NCATE." There may be a link or there may not be a link. What I am interested in learning more about is whether there is a link between the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)). The Response says: "To suggest that 'further investigation is needed before determining collusion with the NCEE and NCATE belies the fact that NCATE has been in existence since 1954." The fact that NCATE has been in existence since 1954 proves nothing. However, I have recently learned that Marc Tucker, president of NCEE, was the founder of the NBPTS. The implication of collusion and the need for investigation was raised by ODE, not by me. The Response included statements about the public wanting teachers to graduate from nationally accredited professional schools. I do not see a connection between the statement and the Report. The public wants teachers to be able to teach, meaning that they want teachers to be able to teach academics. If NCEE is indeed connected through Mark Tucker to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, as mentioned above, it follows that teachers are being taught to prepare future workers for the workforce. The public does not know about most of the school-to-work reform initiative, and does not realize that school teachers are becoming career counselors, facilitators, and mentors. OHIO'S SCHOOL-TO-WORK INITIATIVE: PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL. In this section, five items are covered:
INDIVIDUAL CAREER PLAN AND PASSPORT The Response pointed out that it is the Career Passport
that provides information to employers, colleges, and training institutions for screening,
interviewing, and selecting applicants rather than the Individual Career Plan that
transmits the information. A correction has been made in the most recent revision of the
Report, which is now available at: www.fessler.com on the Internet. CERTIFICATES OF INITIAL MASTERY In the Report, I quoted from Ohio's School-to-Work Grant dated June, 1995, that the Ohio Department of Education "will begin to explore the need for the development of a Certificate of Initial Mastery." The Response states: "That reference is true as it reads . . explore the need does not mean implement." In reply, I quote the following: "Continuation of Integration Progress - The Ohio Department of Education administered state system integration projects for FY96 are listed below. Project managers are being assigned, partnerships developed, and project specifications written. An additional $102,000 has been added to Core Curriculum Linkage Development in FY 97 for a total of $1,000,000.00 in FY 97." [Ten projects are listed under this heading; number six is as follows]: "Certificate of Initial Mastery Development (Work Keys Pilot) - $150,000 Strengthen the link between education and work by addressing workforce academic requirements and developing a comprehensive student assessment system to certify that students are prepared for the next education and career development stage." (Ohio's Request for Continuation of Funds and Performance Plan/Report Form p.7) One might possibly conclude that we are moving beyond mere exploration. Also regarding CIMs, the Response states: "Any discussion
on this issue would be within the context of the work of Ohio's State
Board of Education." Certainly the ODE can discuss the CIM "within the
context of the work of the SBE," but that does not translate that the SBE is part of
the discussion, or whether members of the SBE understand the true nature of the CIM as
being just the first of five national systems that are being implemented nationwide
while we are engaged in irrelevant discussions. OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING The Response states: ". . . clearly the 'occupational training' implied . . . in her Note on page 29 is misleading." The suggestion that my personal comments that were set apart in brackets are misleading is irrelevant to the main point of the discussion - occupational training. The Response attempted to diminish the monumental changes
embodied in the School-to-Work system by saying that we have always brought firemen and
police officers into the classroom, but that's not the issue. The real issue is that
School-to-Work represents a fundamental change in our historical view of education, and it
strikes at the heart of basic American freedoms. No longer will we inspire our young
people to pursue their goals and dreams; rather students will pursue goals and dreams
identified for them by those who want their labor. YOUTH CENTERS The Response states, " . . .Youth Centers have never been
discussed as part of School-to-Work in Ohio." That doesn't preclude that the
discussion may be taking place, it just says that it hasn't taken place in the context of
School-to-Work; nor does it mean that no discussion is taking place regarding alternative
schools. As stated in the Report, the Ohio Revised Code does make provision for the
creation of alternative schools for at-risk students. The law could easily be amended to
include students of a certain age who have not received a particular credential. In
addition, Section 3301-35-12 - Special Purpose Schools, of the April 3, 1997 Standards for
Schools draft, makes provision for chartering special schools for "at-risk
learners." I concede the point that in Ohio, we do not, as of yet, formally have
Youth Centers. Nonetheless, I contend that we have knowingly, or unknowingly, laid the
foundation for them. MANDATE FOR ALL The Response states that although "School-to-Work is for all students" (emphasis in the original), that does not mean that every student must participate in School-to-Work, Individual Career Plans, Career Passports, or work-based learning experiences. Likewise, children don't have to brush their teeth morning and night, but rest assured, positive or negative incentives to do so will eventually be brought to bear on the issue. Section 3313.607 of the Ohio Revised Code states: "A) The board of education of any school district may provide assistance to any student to develop a written career plan. If a school district receives any state money appropriated for the purposes of this section, career plans developed utilizing these funds shall be completed prior to the end of the eighth grade year, shall identify career goals and indicate educational goals to prepare for those career goals, shall be updated periodically as students successfully complete high school coursework, and shall culminate in a career passport described by division (B) of this section. "B) The board of education of any school district may provide an individual career passport to any student upon the successful completion of the coursework of any high school. If a school district receives any state money for the purposes of this section, a career passport shall be provided to each such student. Each such passport shall document the knowledge and skills of the student, including documentation of the student's coursework and any employment community, or leadership experiences. Each such passport shall also list the competency levels the student achieved, disclose the student's attendance record, and identify the career credentials the student gained." Since the School-to-Work system, and funding, is by its very nature, for all schools and all students, eventually all students "shall be provided" with a career passport. Is the state encouraging business and industry to make hiring decisions based on student portfolios? Yes. So, if the portfolio doesn't contain the requisite career plan, a listing of work-based learning experiences, the career passport, or the phantom CIM, what are the realistic chances of being hired for a high skill, high wage job? Poor to slim. Therefore, regardless of the professed disclaimer that "participation" is voluntary, the consequence of not "volunteering" will be a low paying job with little chance for advancement, since advancement hinges on the process, i.e., career plan, career passport/portfolio, work-based learning, and the CIM. The closing paragraphs of the Response state that it is "misleading to say that only totalitarian systems link education direction to work." The Response states that democratic societies such as England, Germany, Norway, and Denmark connect school to work. I should have included socialistic, as well, and then pointed out that Germany, even with its school to work connection, has an intractable 12% unemployment rate. "Germany has proven School-to-Work is not a formula for success. It is not about people being able to use their own creativity and initiative to improve their lot in life." (L.A. Times article Vision 2020, April 12, 1997.) England's school to work program has turned out an entire generation of functionally illiterate citizens. Embedded within the Response were disparaging remarks such as: Mrs. Fessler . . .is misleading . . ., Mrs. Fessler's report also fails to acknowledge . . . , and Mrs. Fessler seems to be confused. Such remarks are without merit. Nonetheless, they disclose the need for the administration to reach for a higher standard of professionalism toward members of the board who are engaged in serious public policy debate on behalf of those whom they represent. In just over 200 years, this country went from a colony of England to the Greatest Nation on Earth. We've had more Nobel prize recipients than any industrialized nation, we've sent men into outer space, pioneered open-heart surgery, and our science and technology are copied world wide. Those who accomplished these feats were the product of an education system that emphasized academics, not job-training for the good of the economy. A complete list of the names and mailing address of the recipients of the department's Response to my Report is hereby requested. Please make the necessary arrangements for each recipient of the ODE Response to receive a copy of this reply, including all members of the board, members of the General Assembly, the press, state agencies, and key business and industry leaders. Verification of the mailing will be appreciated. CC: Members of the State Board All members of the General Assembly Third District school boards, presidents and members Interested parties Attached: Revised "Report on the Work Toward National Standards,
Assessment, and Certificates." May 2, 1997 To read "A Response [from the Ohio Department of Education] to Mrs.
Diana M. Fessler's Document, A Report on the Work toward National Standards, Assessments,
and Certificates" CLICK HERE. |
|
|
Diana M. Fessler
· 7530 Ross Road · New Carlisle, OH ·
45344 |