Michigan: Destroying Education One Good Teacher at a Time.

                       

My Aunt has an MA in special education and for more than twenty years she's worked in a public high school teaching "emotionally impaired" students.  Most of these students live in poverty, many have been abused, some are foster kids, and many of said students have one or more parents who are incarcerated.  In the past some of her students have gone on to prison themselves for crimes like rape and murder.  Obviously, her job isn't easy.  Recently, she's taken an administrative position, even though she never wanted to be an administrator, simply to get out from under the thumb of a principal who has it out for her.

Why?  Good question.  Her peers and friends have speculated that perhaps he hit on her once and she rebuffed him, and maybe she didn't even know it.  Sound like they're reaching?  Well, if you knew her you'd be reaching too.  Simply put, she is an amazing teacher and an amazing human being.  Not only has she been a teacher for more than twenty years, she's also been a coach, a youth group leader, a mentor, and served on countless committees for her school. 

Her principal -- a person with business experience, NOT experience in education -- actually evaluated her in front of his cronies and began this evaluation/interview by asking her to repeat what he says are her shortcomings, allegedly prompting her with "and. . .?" when she stopped.  Obviously, he is an encouraging and sensitive leader.

So, with the educational overhaul in Michigan, she got out while the getting was good.  It's sad because without her in the classroom many students will suffer.  She was a great teacher (after twenty-plus years the principal allegedly said to her "someday I think you'll be a good teacher"), and she had a great rapport with students, and anyone who knows her knows that.  Of course, she's also been teaching in a school district where a huge portion of the students are failing their standardized testing.  The reasons for this are numerous.  As I've discussed with her before, her school budget is pitiful and she rarely has access to the type of technology that students love on the rare occasions she's able to utilize it.   And, again, she's teaching in an impoverished district, where her own students tend to be the most impoverished or coming from the worst situations at home.  To expect that they wouldn't experience a disproportionate struggle is absurd. 

As Michigan moves closer to privatization and using high-stakes standardized testing to put a choke hold on tenure and teachers, I think we should all be questioning the legitimacy of using testing as an accurate evaluation of teacher performance.  The entire premise of evaluations these days rest upon the all-mighty standardized test.  Yet the evidence that high-stakes testing EVER produced results is in a constant state of unraveling.

Before the stylized and emotionally manipulative Waiting for Superman hit the box office its star, former DC school chancellor Michelle Rhee was promoting the success of high-stakes testing using the supposed success story of the Crosby S. Noyes Education Campus whose proficiency in math went from ten percent to fifty-eight percent in two years.  The narrative of the poor inner city school district that thrived under high-stakes testing was everything Rhee and like-minded school reformers needed to appeal to politicians and the public in order to end unions and tenure. 

But here's the problem: Recent evidence indicates rampant cheating, not better teaching, was responsible for the dramatic increase in test scores. 

The news of cheating at Noyes hit the news on the heels of a report issued in Georgia that documented the systemic cheating that took place in forty-four of the fifty-six schools.  The report went beyond the statistical analysis in previous cases, and delved into the culture that was created after No Child Left Behind was enacted.  The report also shows that it was administrators forcing teachers into cheating, even gathering them into rooms where they spent the day erasing and rewriting answers. 

One would think that when supposed success stories used to prop up high-stakes testing turn out to be lies that some bright member of government would take notice, or perhaps an education reformer would admit that maybe they were wrong or, at the very least, more study is needed. 

Well . . . not if you're Michelle Rhee.  If you're Rhee you simply blame your "enemies" for somehow gathering every union sympathizing statistician to claim that the odds for  "winning the Powerball grand prize"  are better than the odds of having such a high number of erasure marks without alteration.  One problem with this conspiracy theory is that the developers of the tests actually have machines that are set up to recognize erasure marks and flag tests for an unusually high number of erasure marks.  So while Rhee and like minded defenders would like to explain this away as some sort of union driven character assassination, the facts don't support her delusions. 

Okay, so maybe it's really hard to let go of something you were once so sure of.  But even that theory doesn't make sense when you consider the cheating problem with high-stakes testing even before NCLB. After all, it was only 1996 when the Chicago Public School cheating scandal hit the fan.  Chicago had embraced high-stakes testing, before it became a national mandate, and it didn't quite work out.

So, where's the proof that high-stakes testing works?  In these cases a teacher who didn't cheat could have easily been fired, where as a cheating teacher could have been heavily compensated for producing inflated scores.

This idea of replacing the traditional education model with a business model has infected higher education as well, as evidenced by the growing for-profit college industry that churns out graduates with high debt and little hope of gainful employment.

Promoters of high-stakes testing and privatization fail to recognize the negative effect the high turnover of teachers has on students.  For many of the students in my Aunts course, they need solid long-term mentors because they already have enough failed relationships in their personal life.  Young transients spending a few years in Teach for America, or local college volunteers, aren't going to be around long enough for many of these students to create the stability so desperately needed.   

Since when has big business ever been good for children, anyway?  Remind me again, was it labor laws that stopped dangerous child labor, or did all the robber baron industrialists simply decide it was against their moral codes?

I'd like to be more hopeful, but it seems to me that Michigan is intent on killing public education, and the best I can hope for is resurrection, someday, when these so-called reforms fill us all with regret.