The Swift Fall of Testing. What Comes Next?

I've been in the education business for 31 years and I've seen many a fad come and go, from Teacher-proof curricula to shared decision making to Differentiation to Cooperative Learning, Curriculum Mapping, Goals 2000 and various reading programs that focus on inventive spelling, phonics, whole language and learning vocabulary in context. Many of my colleagues didn't believe me when I said that our present testing fetish would also shuffle off the educational stage at some point. What caught me by surprise was just how quickly that would happen.

The focus on testing and corporate-style accountability began with the publication in 1983 of A Nation at Risk, a report that essentially regarded the American education system as having failed our students, our economy, and our values. It repudiated many of the reforms that liberals had foisted on the system in the 1960s and 70s and said that if we didn't correct those flaws we would fall behind other countries whose schools were beginning to produce students who knew more math, science and analytical skills. Conservatives adopted the report as the clarion call for privatization, a back-to-basics curriculum that stressed factual recall, and of course, tests to measure not just students, but teachers, with the secondary goals of loosening the grip that the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers had on school policy and defeating Democrats who relied on union support.

And they almost succeeded. The testing movement, which reached its pinnacle last year and is now under more assault that that which we are using to fight ISIS, is in rapid decline. Lat year 44 states gave the PARCC tests, which measure how thoroughly students have learned the Common Core Curriculum Standards. This school year 7 states, including New Jersey, will be giving those tests. The rest will be giving a test adopted by their own Education Departments. Further, some states, most notably New York, won't be using the tests to evaluate teachers. The retreat is notable.

Is the assault over? Not by a long shot, but it is weakening. Conservative groups are still trying to get states to funnel money to Charter Schools, which, on average, do no better than public schools. Many charters do better within certain geographic areas, but much of that has to do with state governments that are abandoning public schools that are in poor urban centers. The fight to limit collective bargaining for teachers and other public workers reached its height in 2013 and has since paused, although the damage done to teachers' pay and benefits has been significant. And although New York is backing away from using tests to evaluate teachers, more states need to follow them for the good of education everywhere.

The bottom line is that teachers are doing a magnificent job with the dwindling resources and increased scrutiny that came with the rise of the know-nothing conservatives. Aligning teacher evaluation with student test scores only illustrated that the overwhelming majority of teachers were effective. Clearly, the know-nothing's intent was to use the test scores to fire teachers they thought were failing our students. That hasn't happened because their assumption was incorrect. They won't admit it, but it's true.

The next fight will now be on the state level as we return to local standards and local tests. In the past, most states have created tests where 90% of the students scored in the proficient range. That's just not statistically feasible. We do need national standards and we do need to measure how students are learning. The reaction to the Common Core and PARCC will not make this possible, and that's to the country's detriment.

Have no fear, though: If history is any guide, this reaction will only last a few years and something else will come along and replace it. Will it be better or will it be worse?

My answer? Yes.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Refugees From Reality

Leave it to the GOP (and some uninformed Democrats) to make a frightening situation something to panic over. The Paris attacks were terrible. The threat of more terrorist attacks on Europe is very real. But if you want to stop terrorists from coming into the United States, tampering with the refugee system is exactly the wrong place to start.

The United States has accepted about 70,00 refugees into this country since 2009.  And there's a lengthy process. One-third of them were from countries that, on first glance, might supply potential terrorists. How many of these refugees turned out to be terrorists or involved in potential terrorist plots? None.  Further, if ISIS or any other group wanted to send potential terrorists to the United States, why would they choose a process that could take up to two years? It makes no sense. Which is why, I'm sure, the Republicans are pursuing legislation that would affect the refugee program.

It would be far easier for a potential bomber to come in as a tourist. Or as a worker who doesn't need a visa. Or as a student.  But of course, no politician wants to shut down tourism or interfere with students who want to come to the U.S. to study or with someone who will do a job that an American won't or can't (including high tech jobs that require math, which seems to be another GOP weakness). That would be an economic catastrophe. So instead, they're going after the one program that vets all applicants over a specified period of time as their target.

Even better, Donald Trump leads the GOP with a policy of building a very high wall on the Mexican border to stop the hordes who are coming to the United States. The truth is that more people are leaving the US for Mexico than are trying to come to this country.  The people who really want to come in, the drug smugglers, have built sophisticated tunnels. A wall won't stop them.

President Obama is exactly right to veto any legislation that is built on fear, xenophobia and ignorance, which the right seems to think will win it an election next year. Hillary Clinton has proposed a specific, pragmatic policy for dealing with ISIS that goes beyond mere rhetoric and fearful slogans. It's a policy that even conservatives view as thoughtful and worth considering.

Fear has been the coin of the realm for the Republican Party since 2001. They've run on a platform that says only they can keep us safe and I'm sure they'll plug that exhausted line until November. What they need to do is to detail a plan for actually fighting ISIS both militarily and diplomatically with our allies. It will take thought and political will rather than blame. So far, I haven't heard anything that gives me confidence in their ability to confront the threat.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Does This Mean War?

I'm being a bit of a coward by posing my title as a question, but I do firmly believe that the western world is headed towards a much larger, more coordinated and, ultimately, more deadly military conflict. If it sounds like war, smells like war, destroys like war, breeds intolerance like war, then it must be a war.

And we're in one.

I fear that there are more attacks coming in places that think they're prepared, but are not. After all, Vladimir Putin thought he was going to help Assad is Syria and escape the fate that has befallen the United States, France and Great Britain. He was wrong, and 224 Russians savagely and tragically lost their lives. The French have been attacked twice this year. Israel is under constant threat.Who's next?

I went on Facebook on Friday night after reading about the attacks and saw many people who had attached the peace sign with the Eiffel Tower in it, the French flag, and pictures of the people I know from their Paris vacations. But I also saw some vitriolic hatred directed towards all Muslim, and I mean ALL Muslims, even though they are not terrorists, and I saw the requisite number of posts calling President Obama a Muslim and blaming him for this, and seemingly every other, attack, whether it was on US soil or not. It's still gauche, evidently, to blame GW Bush for September 11, but blaming Obama for an attack on Paris is de rigueur, at least among a certain segment of the population.

Foreign policy will be a key factor in the upcoming presidential election and the GOP field had better begin focusing on policies other than building a very high wall on the Mexican border, throwing people out of the country and reestablishing the fortress America that served us so badly from 1924 to 1965. It also means that Bernie Sanders had better come up with a foreign policy plank that offers Democrats a choice between him and Hillary Clinton. Obviously, she has the most experience in the field by a wide margin. She's got to make Americans believe that she can keep us safe, but engaged in the world. We need to stay strong.

My heart goes out to those who lost a loved one or who was injured in the attacks. The world has now shifted. 

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest