State Rep. Cameron
Henry claimed
in the letter to Jindal that implementation of these standards shifted
oversight from parents to bureaucrats, were not scrutinized prior to adoption,
overrides state choices in curriculum, educational standards, and the “proper
role of parents and teachers,” through its testing mechanism violates privacy
rights, and imposes additional costs. He wrote not only that he would file legislation
to halt implementation at the last minute, but also asked Jindal to complement
that effort by getting the Department of Education, run by the Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education through its appointed superintendant John White, to stop the
process.
For
his part, Jindal asked White to review with Henry these concerns but said
little beyond previous
comments about then issue, where he cautioned that the CCSS effort not
become the imposition of a federal curriculum. However, Jindal does not have
any formal authority over this kind of policy, except for his ability to
appoint but not remove three of the 11 members of BESE to an unlimited number
of terms. And, to date, White and BESE have shown little enthusiasm for any
substantive changes to the course; in fact, Louisiana was one of the initial
adopters and leaders of the effort in 2010, shaping the concept more than most because
the allied testing program that goes along with it largely replicates what
Louisiana already does.
Now less than a year away from implementation, 45 states have chosen to
participate fully in the state-organized effort, with one partially involved
and the other four having created similar standards, which is the path Henry
recommended. Most, but not all, of the 45 also have signed on to a common testing
framework, which Henry (ironically, since it is modeled closely on Louisiana’s)
also wants to shelve and to head in another direction. Here, he has common
cause with Democrats and unions, who wish to interject more subjectivity into
the testing process because that would make less obvious the underperformance
of some teachers and administrators in public schools. However, all states,
whether adopting CCSS and its testing framework, have adopted a set of
standards and testing of them in accordance with certain federal guidelines because
without demonstrating proof of that they would be ineligible for much federal
money to finance education; nor is CCSS required to be eligible for such
funding.
The mix of complaints registered by Henry range from the unsustainable
to the intellectually intramural predicated on worldviews without definitive
proof for the validity of any of them. While the notion that the enterprise
received no vetting – dozens of organizations representing stakeholders of all
kinds, plus the oversight of state educational leaders makes this assertion appear
counterfactual – arguments about who controls curricula and standards are
complex (for example, read this
about what is a “national curriculum” or a “nationalization of curriculum”). Supporters
will point out that content is left entirely up to the states, while detractors
claim that the federal government can, maybe, might be able to slip in rules in
funding decisions to affect content. Supporters will note that withdrawal by
states can occur at any time, while detractors say that in its grant paperwork
from the past the federal government can, maybe, might be able to foist
penalties on states that do so, and so on. Remarkably, skeptics about federal
control over education end up arguing on both sides.
Henry’s most valid point concerns the privacy of information derived from
testing. While much of CCSS has come from bottom-up processes, the data sharing
elements have been driven more
from the top down enabled by federal power unconnected to CCSS, and unless
Louisiana can ensure that proper parental informed consent procedures and measures
to prevent sharing beyond data use for diagnostic purposes, perhaps it’s best
that it should withdraw from the testing consortium as several other states
have.
Ironically, even as Henry cites cost concerns as a reason to bail out,
that very withdrawal itself would be an expensive proposition, in that the
state would have to use resources to modify its current educational delivery
superstructure to create a compliant equivalence for the purposes of eligibility
for federal grants. That would be worth it to avoid long term problems of CCSS
if they manifest, yet the case that these ineluctably would happen is far from
having been made.
For Henry’s approach smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There may be risk of unwise and inappropriate federal intrusiveness but that
neither is proven nor obvious at this point. And while Louisiana’s made progress
in education, it’s hard to argue more could not be made by adoption of
standards designed to enhance learning basic abilities. Thus, the appropriate solution
to minimize that potential threat resides in federalism – create state-based
barriers to prevent that, or to allow the state to exit CCSS if these cannot be
satisfactorily formulated. Legislation should concentrate on that, rather than
ask the state to exit the plane of beneficial education reform in concept without
a parachute.
And maybe any bill should attempt to find a parachute, which for
Louisiana might not be all that difficult. For the largest outlier to CCSS,
like Louisiana with an improving educational system although better, is neighboring
Texas, which this summer ended its debate by rejecting CCSS participation. It’s
of such size that publishers print textbooks to its standards, and would
provide plenty of data for comparison purposes and might alleviate concerns of
federal government-led data sharing. Aligning to its standards might prove an
escape hatch that doesn’t sacrifice quality, holds down costs, and conveys the
benefits of cross-longitudinal comparisons.
No comments:
Post a Comment