|
The
State of A
Report Addressed to Faculty, Students, and the Public Over
the last two decades federal and state laws and regulations were
enacted
ostensibly to improve academic standards, extend educational
opportunity, and
raise the quality of public schools and teacher education. These laws
are not
only failing to achieve these goals; they are obstructing efforts by
local
communities, school districts, classroom teachers, and university
faculty to
educate. The legacy of intensive control by governments is degradation
of
curriculum and learning, and increased educational inequalities.
Mandated
standardized curriculum and standardized testing threatens academic
freedom and
undermines the ability of universities and colleges to fulfill their
mission to
educate teachers and advance research and learning. The
following paragraphs provide an overview of Together these
tests take an
estimated nine to fifteen hours of class time to administer depending
on grade
level, and consume two weeks or more of schooling excluding test prep
time.
High school students are also required to take the California High School Exit
Examination (CAHSEE); a
61/2-hour standardized test in English
language
arts and math. This test also is tied to the State’s mandated
curriculum, and
passing scores are set by an appointed panel with State Board approval.
The
Board in 2003, bowing to strong public pressure, voted to delay use of CAHSEE as a requirement for the high
school diploma until 2006. All three tests are standardized,
multiple-choice
format with the exception of the standardized writing tests. CAHSEE, CST,
and CAT scores are statistically
converted to produce a school's API
or Academic Performance Index. The API is the equivalent of a Dow Jones Average for
schools. It is
used to rank order the educational productivity of all the public
schools in
the State in order to distribute rewards and inflict punishments on
low-scoring
students, schools, and teachers. Each school
is
ranked on a scale from 200 to a high
of 1000, with 800 set as the minimally acceptable score. Schools are
also
classified in terms of parent incomes and ranked 1-10 in comparison to
schools
that serve the same economic class. It is this number that is often
taken as
the indicator of a school's quality. Schools must
gain a specified number of points yearly to meet API targets.
Those successfully meeting
the targets are eligible for additional state funds (though none have
been
allocated for the last two years). Schools falling short of the annual
growth
targets are classified as failing and subject to sanctions or
"corrective
action" at the discretion of the State. After several years of failing
to
meet targets, a school
may
be “reconstituted", which means that the principal, teachers and school
staff are fired or reassigned, and the management of the newly
reconstituted
school passes to the State and may be subcontracted to a management
company. There
is near unanimous agreement that this system of accountability is
increasingly,
driving the curriculum and schools' educational priorities At the
elementary
level it has often led to the near elimination of time and resources
spent on
citizenship education, multicultural curriculum, health and physical
education,
interdisciplinary studies, the arts, and critical thinking. At the secondary level it pushes teachers to
focus on mastery of content that can be assessed by standardized tests
at the
expense of writing, oral, analytical and inquiry skills that are
fundamental to
further learning and to civic society. California
Teacher Credential Regulations. Before 1998 to be accepted to
an
elementary education credential program at a California university or
college,
applicants had to have completed a Liberal Studies or equivalent
program with
an average of B or better, or passed a battery of standardized tests.
Candidates for secondary programs had to have completed a major in their teaching field(s) with a B or better
record or passed
one or more standardized tests. All
completed a BA prior to admission to a teacher education program that
met the
standards, prerequisites, and requirements set and monitored by the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CCTC). Programs
included courses on social foundations of education, psychology of
teaching and
learning, teaching reading, linguistic and cultural diversity, and the
equivalent of a semester of supervised student teaching. (Bilingual and
special
education teachers meet a host of other requirements.) In 1983, passing
CBEST, a standardized basic English
literacy, writing, and math test, was added by the CCTC
as a precondition to admission to a teacher credential
program. This eliminated from the pool of
otherwise qualified candidates as many as 62%, of African-Americans,
50% of
Latinos, 47% of Asian-Americans, 2O% of whites.
In 1998 the
legislature passed Senate Bill 2042 which forced
colleges and universities in California to make massive changes in
teacher
education programs. The chief architects of the Act argued that it
provided the
missing piece in California's "Master Plan" for education. The Act adopts
an approach to organizational management called
"Total Quality Control" borrowed from the corporate world and touted
as the answer to failing schools and poor teaching by Louis Gerstner
and Donald
Fisher, former CEOs of IBM and the Gap respectively, by the Business
Roundtable, Achieve Inc., the Education Trust, the Broad Foundation,
and
numerous other corporate funded groups. The Act
discarded the requirement that candidates earn a BA before
admission to a credential program. It
requires that programs be in compliance with a set of thirteen Teacher
Performance Expectations (TPEs)
written by experts and consultants selected by the State Department of
Education
with input from education professionals and the public.
On their face
there is nothing remarkable nor apparently
controversial in the language of these broadly stated standards or TPE's. What, however, is remarkable and
controversial is the extraordinary degree of control over what these
require in
practice. For each TPE
there is a catalogue of skills, abilities, and bodies of
knowledge specified for satisfying that standard. In addition, new
regulations
issued by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) specify in even greater detail
the expectations (TPEs) that each
candidate must meet to be eligible for a teaching credential. Key to "Total
Quality Control" is standardized
assessment of results or outcomes. CCTC
rules require each program to develop and install a system of Teacher Performance Assessments (TPAs)
to identify who is qualified to
become a certified teacher. Though each institution defines the
components of
its own program and devises the specific assessment tasks that
candidates must
perform, highly detailed descriptions of the syllabi, and proposed
assessment
tasks must be submitted in advance to State officials in order for
programs to
be approved to certify teachers. The TPEs
mandate that
credential candidates demonstrate their knowledge of and ability to
teach the
State's required curriculum, and to prepare students for the California
Standards Test (CST), the California
Achievement Test (CAT), and the exit
exam (CAHSEE). The State, in effect,
exercises control of the content and methods of elementary and
secondary school
curriculum in two ways: Directly through the states' mandated testing
program,
and indirectly by controlling how colleges and universities educate
teachers --
the content of the courses, required readings and field experiences,
and how
candidates' progress is to be assessed and evaluated.
Note that regulatory reach of the State
extends far beyond professional education requirements and includes
courses and
programs in the humanities, arts, and sciences. Six years after
SB2042, the disruptions and complexities wrought
by the bill continue and are becoming increasingly troublesome in
teacher
credential programs across the State. The development of the Teacher
Performance Assessment tasks (TPAs)
and a system of record keeping by each institution is key if the entire
system
is to function. It is also by far the most complex task and most
consuming of
faculty time and energy. To date no State funds have been allocated
except to
the State Department of Education for training and administrative
purposes. Yet
State officials continue to press for "voluntary" compliance in the
face of unprecedented cuts in the State's education budget. The effect of
these regulations has been to marginalize issues
related to cultural and language diversity and social justice. One of
the most
explicit intrusions on faculty and university prerogatives is written
into the
language of the Act itself. The law specifies that all courses in the
teaching
of reading be scientifically based, and cites as scientific a
particular
approach to reading instruction --direct instruction, structured,
phonics.
There are few areas in the social,
behavioral and educational research sciences as complex and contested
as early
language acquisition and the development of reading literacy. Questions
surrounding these issues have been and will continue to be studied and
debated
by numerous research traditions in anthropology, sociology,
linguistics,
psychology and education. There is also a large body of practical
teacher
knowledge to draw upon. The claim that final scientific truth is so
firmly
established as to warrant a claim to scientific legitimacy for one
perspective
is absurd on its face and without foundation. It also should not be
left to
governments to make such determinations.
The
No Child Left Behind Act The
federal No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB)
signed into law in 2002 by George W. Bush was a revision of ESEA, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965.
It runs to 700 pages with ten titles that authorize the vast majority
of
federal aid to schools. Included under the Act are Indian education,
teacher
education, early literacy, school libraries, bilingual education,
technology,
school safety, and charter schools. Title I of the Act funds programs
that
serve the poor, providing in 2004 about $12.5 billion federal tax
dollars to
approximately 53% of the nation’s public schools. Almost 65% of
children served
are of color, predominantly African-American and Latinos. NCLB overlays a federal regulatory
structure
atop the State's existing structure. It requires that states accepting
federal
funds adopt content standards in basic school subjects, and test
students in
reading and math in grades three through eight and once in grades
10-12, plus
once each in grades 3-5, 6-9 and 10-12 in science. Using 2001-02 as the
base
year, each school and district has twelve years for all students to
attain the
"proficient" level in reading and math. Levels
are set by each state in accord with
federal guidelines. There are very limited exceptions for students with
disabilities or who are recent non-English speaking immigrants. Schools
receiving NCLB funds are required to
make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
toward that goal. After two years
of failure, numerous restrictions and sanctions begin to apply. After
failing
to improve by the required number of points for five consecutive years,
a
school is subject to state takeover and "reconstitution". In
California, as in other states, schools live under a maze of
regulations and
threat of sanctions using two entirely different formulas for measuring
educational performance and productivity -- the federal government's AYP and the states' -- in California,
the Academic Performance Index or API.
Numerous California schools, some celebrated by their
communities as
success stories under state API rules, are now considered as failing
schools
according to No Child Left Behind 's AYP
rules. Another
provision of NCLB
appears at first glance to be an admirable effort to improve teaching
quality. By the end of
the 2005-06 all teachers must be "highly qualified", defined as
meeting full certification requirements in the school subject(s) they
teach.
This burdens states and districts with another set of requirements,
imposing
what are impossible goals without significant investments by federal
and state
government in educating teachers. One
provision of NCLB seeks to undercut
state certification laws by authorizing development of a fast track,
web-based
certification process that requires almost no practical school
experience and
relies almost entirely on standardized testing. Finally NCLB uses
language also contained in state certification law mandating, for
example, that
all materials for teachers or students purchased with government fund
be
"scientifically based ". The Bush Administration uses this authority
to impose its particular view of teaching and learning as scientific
truth on
teachers and university faculty. Conclusion
However well
intentioned, we believe that the effort of state and
federal governments to control school curriculum and teacher education
is ill
considered and a failure. The inordinate reliance on multiple-choice,
standardized testing coupled to government regulations degrades
teaching and
learning and increases educational inequalities. It also serves as a
barrier to
recruiting and retaining qualified teachers, particularly teachers of
color.
Government regulation of content of courses and programs not only fails
to
achieve its avowed purpose, it erodes the academic integrity of
university
faculty, undermining academic freedom and the critical role
institutions of
higher learning must play in educating teachers in a democratic
society. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Roberta
Ahlquist; Secondary
Teacher Education; San Jose State University Ann Berlak, Elementary
Education, San Francisco State University Lillian Vega
Castaneda; Language,
Literacy and Culture, CSU Channel Islands Virginia Lea; Literacy Studies
and Elementary Education, Sonoma State University Therersa
Montano; Chicana/o
Studies. California State University, Northridge Members
Teacher Education Caucus, California Faculty Association Report
written by Harold Berlak, independent
researcher; senior research fellow, Applied Research Center, Oakland
CA; fellow,
Educational Policy Research Unit, Arizona State Univ., Tempe AZ hberlak@sbcglobal.net |