RTTT is the "Carrot That Feels Like a Stick," says Mike Petrilli (of all people). He "can’t help but feel remorse for the death of federalism."

As I prepare for a talk at DePaul University tomorrow, I’m racing (ha!) to review the assessment program of Race to the Top. After having vented yesterday, several things stand out as politically significant in the assessment competition.

It is key to understand that the content of Race to the Top is bribery. While in the past the main criticism from various quarters was that much of NCLB’s testing requirements were “unfunded mandates;” today they are funded, but in an even more coercive way. Those who do the bidding of Obama, Duncan and a host of venture philanthropists, will receive tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. This itself is significant, for as I’ve noted before, bribery as a method signifies illegitimacy: “The use of the public treasury to bribe educators is an open admission that the path being imposed by the ruling elite cannot be justified” — that is, it is against prevailing public opinion. Despite all the talk about putting children first, kids do not want more testing, they are not craving to have their entire academic experience converted to numbers and letters in some federal database (as RTTT appears to aim to create), nor are they demanding teachers who only spend a few weeks preparing to enter the classroom, high on a mission inspired by the White Man’s Burden. Nor are children and youth narrowly interested in education for a career. So, as is often the case, things are not what they seem. The irrationality of the project requires that its political functions be explored. Eligibility requirements for receiving the competitive grants are a good place to begin.

An Analysis of Select Requirements

To be eligable for the Comprehensive Assessment System (the first assessment competition), the Executive Summary states:

Eligible applicants are consortia of States. To be eligible to receive an award under this category, an eligible applicant must—1. Include a minimum of 15 States, of which at least 5 States must be governing States (as defined in the NIA); 2. Identify in its application a proposed project management partner and provide an assurance that the proposed project management partner is not partnered with any other eligible applicant applying for an award under this category; and; 3. Submit assurances from each State in the consortium that, to remain in the consortium, the State will adopt a common set of college- and career-ready standards…

It will be important to thoroughly explore the degree to which this arrangement has precedent, but there are, it appears, some significant breaks with past practice. Unlike national associations like the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) — which is nonetheless playing an important role in creating national standards — RTTT requires placing some states as “governing” over others and require states in the consortia to sign “assurances” of compliance with the governing state and executive demands at the federal level to receive funding. Whereas CCSSO and possibly other associations are framed as advocacy organizations, this arrangement appears to create new governance structures. It appears to structure a new form of political inequality among states as well.

So what of these new governance structures? First, it is important to take seriously the use of the word consortium. Similar to the increasingly used concept of partnership, consortium is typically understood as “an association, typically of several business companies.” The social and political arrangement in which this makes sense is typically understood as belonging to the private realm of private enterprise, or that of “civil society” in the form of a professional association or “non-governmental agency” — as distinct from the state. But here we have the federal apparatus, under the direction of an executive, and not the law making body, forming through the use of bribes governing structures that do not obviously conform to the U.S. constitution or even state constitutions. What are we to make of a group of states forming a governing alliance that controls curricular content and standards for assessment whether teachers are teaching and students are learning that content, under the direction of executive bodies of the federal government? Will such alliances compete with each other? Will there be a Confederate consortium?

In the Federal Register notice, we find this interesting option:

Application Requirements: An eligible applicant’s application must—1. Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, whether—(a) One member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf of the consortium; or (b) The consortium has established itself as a separate eligible legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf; 2. Be signed by—(a) If one member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf of the consortium, the Governor, the State’s chief school officer, and, if applicable, the president of the State board of education from that State; or (b) If the consortium has established itself as a separate eligible legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf, a representative of the consortium.

It is completely unclear, albeit on its face significant, what it means to allow for states to form a consortium that “has established itself as a separate eligible legal entity.” Such as a private corporation or non-for-profit institution?

Second, what might be most significant about this arrangement is not that it violates states rights (presumably the out for the Obama administration here is that Duncan is not actually forcing any state to apply for these grants) but rather that it restructures executive authority by creating “partnerships” between associations of states that relate as single entities to federal bodies, where these consortia appear to be de-linked both from federal and state law making bodies.

A related criteria for winning the competition is the role given to public institutions of higher education (IHEs). The Summary explains:

The Department gives eligible applicants competitive preference points based on the extent to which they have promoted collaboration and alignment between member States’ public elementary and secondary education systems and their public IHEs…Eligible applicants addressing this priority must provide, for each IHE or IHE system, a letter of intent that—(a) Commits the IHE or IHE system to participate with the consortium in the design and development of the consortium’s final high school summative assessments in mathematics and English language arts in order to ensure that the assessments measure college readiness; (b) Commits the IHE or IHE system to implement policies, once the final high school summative assessments are implemented, that exempt from remedial courses and place into credit-bearing college courses any student who meets the consortium-adopted achievement standard (as defined in the NIA) for each assessment and any other placement requirement established by the IHE or IHE system; and (c) Is signed by the State’s higher education executive officer (if the State has one) and the president or head of each participating IHE or IHE system.

This arrangement appears to have the effect of brining state public education systems under a governing apparatus of consortia of states — neither at the state level nor the federal level — that, in turn, interacts with the federal department of education. Of course, there is much to say about this — the implication of mandating the elimination of remedial courses for example — but that is for another time.

Another feature that suggests significant restructuring of executive power is this requirement stipulated under Consortium Governance. It notes that the “terms and conditions of the Memoranda of Understanding or other binding agreements executed by each member State” must include the “State’s commitment to and plan for identifying any existing barriers in State law, statute, regulation, or policy to implementing the proposed assessment system and to addressing any such barriers prior to full implementation of the summative assessment components of the system.”

Like Race to the Top requirements that bribe states into rewriting their laws — the most notable examples being the removal of caps on charter schools and rules limiting the use of test data for teacher evaluation purposes — this places executive bodies in a quasi-law making role. Along with venture philanthropy and other monopolies, governors and some legislatures are demanding changes to state law to increase state chances for winning Race to the Top funds. While a key point here is the clear focus on emasculating teachers unions and the spreading of massive disinformation about “putting kids first”, the point here is that this structure creates a new governing mechanism, neither at the level of state, nor clearly at the federal level; in some ways, it is not clear that the consortia to be formed are fully public in nature (e.g., a consortium that “established itself as a separate eligible legal entity”). It is important to understand that these changes are enabled by the ARRA, the result of the crimes of Wall Street (while some banks are “too big to fail” public institutions of historic proportion, such as public schools and universities, are being forced to fail).

Another clue that suggests limited public status for these governing structures is the manner in which RTTT insists on technical standards that are, generally speaking, open source or cross platform, while maintaining test secrecy. This ensures the public continues to be blocked from access to test content. Again the notice in the Federal Register is more helpful. It states:

In addition, we are requiring that eligible applicants receiving awards under either category in this competition develop assessment items and produce student data in a manner that is consistent with standards for interoperability, and that they make all assessment content (i.e., assessments and assessment items) developed with funds from this competition freely available to States, technology platform providers, or others that request it for purposes of administering assessments, consistent with States’ needs and with consortium or State requirements for test or item security.

Suggesting that public dollars are again being used to develop technology latter utilized by private entities, the notice reads:

We believe that these requirements will ensure that assessment content developed with funds from this competition is widely available, including to States that are not part of consortia receiving funds under this competition as well as to commercial organizations wishing to further develop, extend, and incorporate the content into assessment products intended for State use. Moreover, we believe that making assessment content freely available will spur innovation in assessment technology and enable technology providers to compete for States’ business on the basis of their developing efficient, effective, economical, and innovative assessment platforms.

It does not appear than that the issue is simply one of state’s rights and the death of federalism. Rather, it appears the very nature and scope of executive power is changing, and working to further distance governance from the public and its will.

Related Posts:

• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part 1 – Danger, Will Robinson, Irrational Discourse Ahead!
• The Common Core: Whose Standards Are They?
• Clever rhetoric won’t save your undemocratic reform from failure: An open letter to Arne Duncan on the occasion of teacher appreciation week
• Bruce Baker: Smart Guy (Gates) makes my list of “Dumbest Stuff I’ve Ever Read!”
• Detroit Free Press: MEAP may be replaced by national online test

Well, let’s examine the first paragraph of the Executive Summary (since that is how far I got before I had to say something before my brain exploded):

Authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the Race to the Top Assessment Program provides funding to consortia of States to develop assessments that are valid, support and inform instruction, provide accurate information about what students know and can do, and measure student achievement against standards designed to ensure that all students gain the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in college and the workplace. These assessments are intended to play a critical role in educational systems; provide administrators, educators, parents, and students with the data and information needed to continuously improve teaching and learning; and help meet the President’s goal of restoring, by 2020, the nation’s position as the world leader in college graduates.

Wow! If you’re not struck by the incompetence, read it again. OK, wow!

First, validity of these new assessments is presented as a criteria that is somehow separate from providing “accurate information about what students know and can do”. Would you consider it possible to have a valid assessment that cannot provide information about what students know and can do in some domain (assuming for a moment developing such assessments is a straightforward and problem-free endeavor)?

More troubling is this gem: “measure student achievement against standards designed to ensure that all students gain the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in college and the workplace.” Measurement is not the same as comparison. And the phrase “measure student achievement against” is inept and awkward. Of course one might counter that the sentence means to convey that college and career standards should be used to measure student achievement prior to college, or that these standards should be used to validate measures of achievement. But such re-renderings do little to help. By way of some spell developed by Voldemort, this measurement spiral will ensure “all students gain the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in college and the workplace”. Can standards ensure things like this?

Oh, it’s actually quite easy, like, when, uh, the standard measure of weight is used to ensure everyone loses weight! If only obese youth had access to more bathroom scales!

And wouldn’t it be great if schools prepared everyone for college and the workplace? That won’t be a challenge, because all colleges and degree programs are essentially the same, and we all work (those of us who have the will to get a job in this free market utopia) in “the workplace.” I think it is well established, using scientifically based methods, that all workplaces are essentially the same and require the same skills. The psychological literature is bursting with studies demonstrating how easily skills transfer from one domain to the next…that’s why CEOs have proven to be such effective educators.

And, I’m really happy that the Obama administration wants to provide parents with “data and information needed to continuously improve teaching”. Hell, since they, and many teachers, will be out of work, they might as well do something for their country…

Related Posts:

• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance
• The Common Core: Whose Standards Are They?
• Bruce Baker: Smart Guy (Gates) makes my list of “Dumbest Stuff I’ve Ever Read!”
• Detroit Free Press: MEAP may be replaced by national online test
• Maryland First State to Bar Schools Releasing Tests to Military

New York’s 908-page application included some choice phrases. It promises, “An intense focus on curriculum and meaningful professional development based on student performance; data-drive instruction where teams develop individual student action plans based on data from formative and interim assessments; differentiated professional development and coaching based on data” (page 6).

It also declares that it will create “clear, content-rich, sequenced, spiraled, detailed curricular frameworks” (yes, five adjectives) for new assessments (page 10).

And, impressive for the sheer amount of jargon that could be wedged into a single sentence, New York’s app promises “to support differentiated professional development closely linked to student growth data, identify coaches and mentors using effectiveness ratings closely tied to student growth data, and build data-driven feedback loops between professional development, coaching/mentoring activities, and teacher effectiveness” (page 144).

But the problem here is not “jargon” (defined as special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand) as it is reasonable for a field to develop a language specific to its scope of practice. Rather, the problem is that the phrases selected for mockery reflect the tendency to be irrational. “Differential professional development” is, if the notion of professional development is to be taken seriously, is at best redundant. PD would necessary include the idea that the prescribed development would be targeted to address a particular scope of practice; that is, the word differential is added to make us feel as if something more sophisticated is offered. Or, because we’re sick of hearing about professional development, we’re now going to advance by adding adjectives, such as differential, or, to take another example, content-rich, as if we would advocate for content-poor curriculum.

But wouldn’t it be more helpful to think about the conditions that give rise to this outcome of irrational verbiage? Isn’t the RTTT fixation on competition (like that of AEI) part of the context that gives rise to the degrading of thought by rendering it one long commercial aimed at convincing someone to pony up the dough?

Is Hess’s alternative any better? Not only do we find a “jargon” emanating from the AEI, but this jargon does not represent an improvement, but a call for a complete destruction of public education in principle as well as in practice. Here the most important notion is that of “greenfield”, borrowed from the real-estate developers, who are, by the way, in on the charter school scam to syphon off public funds (see, for example, Schools Matter). We are to accept that our only choice is between the irrationalism of technocrats and the “freedom” for venture capital to destroy the “contaminated land” of public schooling and, without restriction, let it plow the “clean, undeveloped land (greenfield)” that results as the public treasury is open to the likes of KIPP and Uncommon Schools.

Unless reforms takes as their starting point the articulation of the rights and responsibilities of all teachers, students, parents and administrators, a rationale discourse about improving education will not be forthcoming. In its place will be more disinformation about the problem being lack of choice, standards, “security,” and so on. The problem is not one of a lack of choice, but rather a lack of popular political power over their schools and other social institutions. Choice schemes–”Greenfield”-style reforms in Hess’s language–will only result in denying more children the right to education, denying parents and communities control over their education, resulting in even more segregation and inequality.

Related Posts:

• Evidence on the quality of for-profit higher education?
• Teachers have a right to unionize
• Inside Higher Ed: For-Profit Colleges Open Another Front
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part 1 – Danger, Will Robinson, Irrational Discourse Ahead!

November 23, 2009

South Court Auditorium, Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I am extraordinarily excited to have you all here today. A couple of special acknowledgements I want to make — first of all, two of my outstanding Cabinet members: Secretary Arne Duncan, our Education Secretary; and Secretary Steven Chu, who is our Energy Secretary. They are both doing outstanding work each and every day.

I want to acknowledge Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who is from Texas, and she is one of the members of our Science and Technology Committee and doing outstanding work. NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden is in the house. Where’s Charlie? There he is, right there in front. NSF Director Dr. Arden Bement is here, right there. Dr. John Holdren, my Science and Technology Advisor — where’s John? Right there. Melody Barnes, our Domestic Policy Council chair or head, director. (Laughter.) Director.

And then we’ve got some students from — some wonderful students from some wonderful schools: Oakton High School in Vienna, Virginia; Longfellow Middle School in Fairfax, Virginia; the Washington Mathematics Science Technology Public Charter High School here in D.C., and the Herndon High School in Herndon, Virginia. Welcome, everybody. (Applause.)

Now, the students from Oakton High School are going to be demonstrating the “Cougar Cannon,” designed to scoop up and toss moon rocks. I am eager to see what they do — for two reasons. As President, I believe that robotics can inspire young people to pursue science and engineering. And I also want to keep an eye on those robots, in case they try anything. (Laughter.)

It’s an honor to be here and to be joined by Sally Ride, the first American woman in space. Sally. (Applause.) This is a person who’s inspired a generation of girls and boys to think bigger and set their sights higher. I want to thank NASA and Charlie for providing the interactive globe — an innovative and engaging way of teaching young people about our world.

Welcome, Mythbusters, from Discovery Channel. Where are they? There they are. (Applause.) I hope you guys left the explosives at home. (Laughter.) And finally, allow me to thank the many leaders here today who’ve agreed to be part of this historic effort to inspire and educate a new generation in math and science.

We live in a world of unprecedented perils, but also unparalleled potential. Our medical system holds the promise of unlocking new cures — but it’s attached to a health care system that’s bankrupting families and businesses and our government. The sources of energy that power our economy are also endangering our planet. We confront threats to our security that seek to exploit the very openness that is essential to our prosperity. And we face challenges in a global marketplace that link the trader to Wall Street to the homeowner on Main Street, to the office worker in America to the factory worker in China — an economy in which we all share in opportunity, but we also share, unfortunately, in crisis.

The key to meeting these challenges — to improving our health and well-being, to harnessing clean energy, to protecting our security, and succeeding in the global economy — will be reaffirming and strengthening America’s role as the world’s engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation. And that leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our students today, especially in those fields that hold the promise of producing future innovations and innovators. And that’s why education in math and science is so important.

Now the hard truth is that for decades we’ve been losing ground. One assessment shows American 15-year-olds now rank 21st in science and 25th in math when compared to their peers around the world. And this isn’t news. We’ve seen worrying statistics like this for years. Yet, time and again, we’ve let partisan and petty bickering stand in the way of progress. And time and again, as a nation, we’ve let our children down.

So I’m here and you are here because we all believe that we can’t allow division and indifference to imperil our position in the world. It’s time for all of us — in Washington and across America — to take responsibility for our future.

And that’s why I’m committed to moving our country from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math education over the next decade. To meet this goal, the Recovery Act included the largest investment in education in history while preventing hundreds of thousands of educators from being fired because of state budget shortfalls. Under the outstanding leadership of Arne Duncan, we’ve launched a $4 billion Race to the Top fund, one of the largest investments in education reform in history.

And through the Race to the Top, states won’t just be receiving funding, they’ll have to compete for funding. And in this competition, producing the most innovative programs in math and science will be an advantage. In addition, we are challenging states to improve achievement by raising standards, using data to better inform decisions, and taking new approaches to turn around struggling schools. And because a great teacher is the single most important factor in a great education, we’re asking states to focus on teacher effectiveness and to make it possible for professionals — like many of the people in this room — to bring their experience and enthusiasm into the classroom.

But you are here because you know the success we seek is not going to be attained by government alone. It depends on the dedication of students and parents, and the commitment of private citizens, organizations, and companies. It depends on all of us. That’s why, back in April, at the National Academy of Sciences, I issued a challenge: to encourage folks to think of new and creative ways of engaging young people in science and engineering. And we are here because the leaders in this room answered that call to action.

Today, we are launching the “Educate to Innovate” campaign, a nationwide effort to help reach the goal this administration has set: moving to the top in science and math education in the next decade. We’ve got leaders from private companies and universities, foundations and non-profits, and organizations representing millions of scientists, engineers, and teachers from across America. The initial commitment of the private sector to this campaign is more than $260 million –- and we only expect the campaign to grow.

Business leaders from Intel, Xerox, Kodak, and Time Warner Cable are teaming up with Sally Ride, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as the Carnegie Corporation, to find and replicate successful science, math, and technology programs all across America. Sesame Street has begun a two-year initiative to teach young kids about math and science. And Discovery Communications is going to deliver interactive science content to 60,000 schools reaching 35 million students.

These efforts extend beyond the classroom. Time Warner Cable is joining with the Coalition for Science After School and FIRST Robotics — the program created by inventor Dean Kamen, which gave us the “Cougar Cannon” — to connect one million students with fun after-school activities, like robotics competitions. The MacArthur Foundation and industry leaders like Sony are launching a nationwide challenge to design compelling, freely available, science-related video games. And organizations representing teachers, scientists, mathematicians, and engineers — joined by volunteers in the community — are participating in a grassroots effort called “National Lab Day” to reach 10 million young people with hands-on learning.

Students will launch rockets, construct miniature windmills, and get their hands dirty. They’ll have the chance to build and create — and maybe destroy just a little bit — (laughter) — to see the promise of being the makers of things, and not just the consumers of things.

The administration is participating as well. We’ve already had a number of science-focused events with young people at the White House, including Astronomy Night a few weeks ago. The National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, under the leadership of a terrific scientist, Steven Chu, have launched an innovative — an initiative to inspire tens of thousands of students to pursue careers in clean energy.

And today, I’m announcing that we’re going to have an annual science fair at the White House with the winners of national competitions in science and technology. If you win the NCAA championship, you come to the White House. Well, if you’re a young person and you’ve produced the best experiment or design, the best hardware or software, you ought to be recognized for that achievement, too. Scientists and engineers ought to stand side by side with athletes and entertainers as role models, and here at the White House we’re going to lead by example. We’re going to show young people how cool science can be.

Through these efforts, we’re going to expand the scope and scale of science and math education all across America. And we’re going to expand opportunities for all our young people — including women and minorities who too often have been underrepresented in scientific and technological fields, but who are no less capable of succeeding in math and science and pursuing careers that will help improve our lives and grow our economy. I also want to note that this is only the beginning. We’re going to challenge the private sector to partner with community colleges, for example, to help train the workers of today for the jobs of tomorrow, even as we make college more affordable — so that, by 2020, America once again leads the world in producing college graduates.

Now, I have to say to the young people who are here, we can’t let students off the hook. In the end, the success of this campaign depends on them. But I believe strongly that America’s young people will rise to the challenge if given the opportunity — and given a little bit of a push. We’ve got to work together to create those opportunities, because our future depends on it.

And I just want to mention the importance not only of students but also of parents. You know, I was in Asia, I think many of you are aware, for a week, and I was having lunch with the President of South Korea, President Lee. And I was interested in education policy — they’ve grown enormously over the last 40 years. And I asked him, what are the biggest challenges in your education policy? He said, the biggest challenge that I have is that my parents are too demanding. (Laughter.) He said, even if somebody is dirt poor, they are insisting that their kids are getting the best education. He said, I’ve had to import thousands of foreign teachers because they’re all insisting that Korean children have to learn English in elementary school. That was the biggest education challenge that he had, was an insistence, a demand from parents for excellence in the schools.

And the same thing was true when I went to China. I was talking to the mayor of Shanghai, and I asked him about how he was doing recruiting teachers, given that they’ve got 25 million people in this one city. He said, we don’t have problems recruiting teachers because teaching is so revered and the pay scales for teachers are actually comparable to doctors and other professions.

That gives you a sense of what’s happening around the world. There is a hunger for knowledge, an insistence on excellence, a reverence for science and math and technology and learning. That used to be what we were about. That’s what we’re going to be about again.

And I have to say that this doesn’t get a lot of focus. Not once was I asked about education policy during my trip by the press. And oftentimes events like this get short shrift. They’re not what’s debated on cable. But this is probably going to make more of a difference in determining how well we do as a country than just about anything else that we do here.

Everyone in this room understands how important science and math can be. And it goes beyond the facts in a biology textbook or the questions on an algebra quiz. It’s about the ability to understand our world: to harness and train that human capacity to solve problems and think critically, a set of skills that informs the decisions we make throughout our lives.

So, yes, improving education in math and science is about producing engineers and researchers and scientists and innovators who are going to help transform our economy and our lives for the better. But it’s also about something more. It’s about expanding opportunity for all Americans in a world where an education is the key to success. It’s about an informed citizenry in an era where many of the problems we face as a nation are, at root, scientific problems. And it’s about the power of science to not only unlock new discoveries, but to unlock in the minds of our young people a sense of promise, a sense that with some hard work — with effort — they have the potential to achieve extraordinary things.

This is a difficult time in our country, and it would be easy to grow cynical and wonder if America’s best days are behind us — especially at a time of economic uncertainty, especially when we’ve seen so many, from Wall Street to Washington, fail to take responsibility for so long. But I believe we have an opportunity now to move beyond the failures of the recent past and to recapture that spirit of American innovation and optimism.

This nation wasn’t built on greed. It wasn’t built on reckless risk. It wasn’t built on short-term gains and short-sighted policies. It was forged on stronger stuff, by bold men and women who dared to invent something new or improve something old — who took big chances on big ideas, who believed that in America all things are possible. That’s our history. And, if we remain fixed on the work ahead, if we build on the progress we’ve made today, this is going to be our legacy as well.

So, with that, just as proof of the extraordinary promise of American young people, I’d like to invite Steven Harris and Brian Hortelano from Oakton High School to come up here and demonstrate what their team has built. And it’s flashing so far. I don’t see it whirling. (Laughter.) Where are they? Give them a big round of applause. (Applause.)

Related Posts:

• Remarks by the President on Strengthening America’s Education System
• Remarks of President Barack Obama — Address to Joint Session of Congress
• Obama’s speech at Hampton University commencement
• President Obama’s Speech to the NAACP Centennial Convention
• Remarks of the President at the National Academy of Sciences

Sternberg suggests this is how students see school:

It’s drudgery. We sit alone at our desks and silently answer lots of questions that our teachers tell us look like the ones we will see on the state tests. We’re not interested in what we’re doing. We hurry up to finish first, and if we’re done before the rest of our classmates, we get to sit quietly and take out a book or do other work. We follow the rules and speak out only when called upon. We leave for a break only when the teacher tells us it’s time to do so, or when the buzzer signals the end of the class. To get a good grade, we do what the teacher wants us to do. Our sole focus is to do well on the state tests. Quiet, discipline, and following the rules are valued.

Sternberg contrasts this dour picture with happy descriptions of “the culture of thriving, cutting-edge business environments”. She locates much of the difficulty “with an overreliance on narrow measures of achievement based on standardized tests. Such tests do not measure the skills and competencies needed to thrive in today’s world—teamwork, collaboration, creativity, and innovation.”

Most significant is her observation that “a much-respected private school in [...] Connecticut is running an advertisement to attract families that says, ‘Your child will develop into a person, not a test score.’” Put in the context of a general attack on that which is public — public participation, public space, public healthcare, public education — I cannot see this kind of development as an accident. Quality public schools were created in the nineteenth century in order to, among other things, attract children from wealthy families. Now, we observe the opposite trend. Public schools are being transformed by venture capitalists into charter work camps for working class and minority students (all in the name of helping them). Wealthy parents will most likely not choose such environments for their children, and suburban districts come under pressure to “perform” their support for public schools will likely wane.

Sternberg continues by highlighting the danger of “incentivising” (to use Ducan’s word) education. She writes:

One approach to improving education advanced in the federal government’s Race to the Top agenda is a teacher pay-for-performance system. It, too, no matter the intent, will end up being based on student test scores. Individual teacher evaluations and eventual compensation will be linked directly to student performance on standardized tests—a method that has little or no scientific backing and significant drawbacks.

She tells the following story in order to highlight that we in fact know such incentive systems do not serve to raise the level of education. She continues:

Consider the pitfalls of giving students tangible rewards to perform well—problems to which I can personally attest.

In 1972, when I began teaching as a mathematics resource specialist in San Jose, Calif., I was required to coordinate an individualized math program, kindergarten through grade 6, that included an elaborate system of rewards. The program was divided into specific objectives, and as each child mastered four of these, he or she was rewarded with a certificate of achievement. After mastering 16 objectives, the student received a small trophy. At each successive set of four objectives, students were awarded increasingly fancy certificates and trophies until they completed all the program objectives and received a trophy three feet high.

This system caused students to rush through their math in order to earn the rewards. When asked what they had learned, they would respond with the number of objectives they had finished, not with the content of the math they had learned. And what happened when these students went to junior high? They refused to do math. Parents begged the school system to extend the award system to the junior high level. They said that their children had “loved” math in elementary school, but wouldn’t do it in junior high without the awards. What had been a well-meaning attempt to motivate students undermined, in the long run, students’ motivation to learn.

This was a pay-for-performance system. It relied on external motivators, and in reality killed students’ intrinsic motivation. It also killed the joy of learning math, eliminating any pleasure the kids might have found in solving problems, by adhering to the misguided notion that to love math, children had to be lured with a tangible reward.

Years of research about “token economies” were borne out by this outcome. If those who chose the rewards program had only heeded the research findings, they could have predicted these dismal results.

Sadly, education leaders today are making the same mistake. In their quest to “race to the top,” they either do not know the preponderance of research findings about token economies and motivation, or they choose to ignore it.

Can’t we learn from the worst of our business environments—from the mega-banks that regularly use the pay-for-performance model? They created people and institutions so motivated by external rewards that they lost sight completely of their moral compass. Do we really want to emulate that model? Do we want to pay our students to take Advanced Placement exams and score well on them? Or do we want youngsters to choose to take classes and do well in them because they are pursuing their passions and interests?

Related Posts:

• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part 1 – Danger, Will Robinson, Irrational Discourse Ahead!
• Hess on Federal Jargon & the Jargon of Venture Capitalism and Wall Street Dictate
• Remarks by the President on the “Education To Innovate” Campaign
• Remarks by the President on Strengthening America’s Education System

For Immediate Release November 04, 2009

James C. Wright Middle School, Madison, Wisconsin

1:40 P.M. CST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Hello, Madison! (Applause.) Thank you so much. Thank you. Everybody, please, have a seat. Have a seat.

It is good to see all of you. Good to be back in Madison. I want to first of all just say that Jim Doyle is not only one of the finest governors we have in the country, but is also a great friend, a great supporter; his entire family has been wonderful. And so I just could not be prouder to associate myself with the outstanding work that Jim has done in the state. Please give him a big round of applause. (Applause.)

We’ve got two wonderful mayors in the house. First of all, your own, Dave Cieslewicz, is here. Dave. (Applause.) And Milwaukee’s outstanding mayor, Tom Barrett, is in the house. (Applause.)

I am so impressed with the work that’s been done here at Wright Middle School and I know that Principal Nancy Evans deserves a huge amount of credit, so please give her a big round of applause. (Applause.) And to the faculty and the staff, but most importantly, the students, who I had a chance to meet with earlier today, they are just some outstanding young people. So if there are any parents of students in the house you should be proud — and give them all a big round of applause. (Applause.)

Now, it’s great to be back in Madison, great to be back in Wisconsin. And I’ve heard great things about Wright, so I’ve got very high expectations for all the students here — and I told them this. I expect them to keep up the good work that you’ve already been putting in to make sure that you succeed not just in middle school, but also in high school, also in college, and for the rest of your lives. And parents, I want you to stay on them because — because that is an absolutely critical ingredient for their success.

You know, one year ago, Americans all across this country went to the polls and cast ballots for the future they wanted to see. (Applause.) Election Day was a day of hope, it was a day of possibility, but it was also a sobering one because we knew even then that we faced an array of challenges that would test us as a country. We already saw that there was a financial crisis that threatened to plunge our economy into a great depression — the worst that we’ve seen in generations. We had record deficits, two wars, frayed alliances around the world.

Facing this reality, my administration had two fundamental obligations. The first was to rescue the economy from imminent collapse. And while we still have a long way to go, we have made meaningful progress toward achieving that goal. We acted boldly and swiftly to pass a Recovery Act that has made a difference for families right here in Wisconsin, and Jim, your governor, described the difference that it’s made.

We’ve put a tax cut into the pockets of 95 percent of hardworking families. We created or saved over one million jobs, including 4,000 education jobs right here in Wisconsin. We’ve taken steps to unlock our frozen credit markets so that the ordinary American can get the loan that he or she needs to buy a home or a car, to go to college or start a new business. We’ve enacted measures to stem the crisis in our housing market to help responsible homeowners stay in their homes and curb the decline of home values overall.

So all these things contributed to the first quarter of economic growth that we’ve had as a nation in over a year. The rate of job loss is slowing, although not nearly fast enough yet. The work continues. But we’re moving in the right direction, and we are going to keep on fulfilling our obligation to do every single thing we possibly can to pull this economy out of the ditch and to make sure that people can find jobs that pay good wages. That’s our top priority. (Applause.)

So that was the rescue part of our job, just solving the immediate crisis. But we also came into office with another goal, another obligation — not simply to do what needed to be done to deal with an emergency crisis, but to make those long-term investments necessary to build our economy stronger than before. It was an obligation to tackle problems that had been festering, problems that had been kicked down the road year after year, decade after decade; problems that have to be overcome for America to move forward.

See, even before the crisis we were having big problems. We were just papering them over. Manufacturing was declining and we weren’t producing as many high-tech, high-skilled jobs as we needed to be. We had an energy situation where suddenly oil producers or speculators want to constrict supply, and next thing you know you’re paying four bucks at the pump. So we didn’t have energy independence. Health care costs were skyrocketing — before the crisis — so that families were seeing more and more out-of-pocket costs and essentially trading away salary and wages just to keep up with their premiums.

So we had an obligation to create a better health care system that works for our people, our businesses, and our government alike. (Applause.) And that’s why we’ve been pushing so hard on health care reform. That’s why we took up the cause of a clean energy economy that will free America from the grip of foreign oil and generate millions of good-paying jobs in the process — green jobs in retrofitting old buildings to make them more energy efficient, creating the batteries and other technologies needed for plug-in hybrids that can get 150 miles a gallon — and will help to curb climate change. And that’s why we’re taking up the cause that I’m here to talk about today, and that is offering the best possible education to America’s sons and daughters. (Applause.)

American prosperity has long rested on how well we educate our children. But this has never been more true than it is today. In the 21st century, when countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow, there is nothing that will determine the quality of our future as a nation and the lives our children will lead more than the kind of education that we provide them. Nothing is more important.

And here is what we know: Over the course of a lifetime, those with a college degree — and I want the young people here especially to listen to this — over the course of a lifetime, those with a college degree earn over 60 percent more than those with only a high school diploma — 60 percent more. Most of the fastest growing jobs require a bachelor’s degree or more. This is what we were talking about earlier in the classroom. Four out of every 10 new jobs will require at least some advanced education or training within the next decade. So put simply, the right education is a prerequisite for success. There was a time when if you just got a high school education and you were willing to work hard, you could get a job in a trade or in the factory that paid a middle-class wage. And those days are declining. The currency of today’s economy is knowledge.

And yet we continue to trail other countries in a number of critical areas. The United States, a nation that has always led the way in innovation, is now being outpaced in math and science education. A handful of states have even gone in the wrong direction, lowering their standards at the very moment that they should be raising them. We used to rank number one in the number of college graduates and advanced degrees. That’s not the case anymore. Meanwhile, African American and Latino students continue to lag behind their white classmates — an achievement gap that will ultimately cost us hundreds of billions of dollars because that’s our future workforce.

Of course, these problems aren’t new. We’ve heard about them for years. But instead of coming together to solve them, we’ve let partisanship and petty bickering stand in the way of progress. (Applause.) It’s been Democrat versus Republican — it’s been Democrat versus Republican, it’s been voucher versus public schools, it’s been more money versus more reform. In some cases, people have seen schools as sort of a political spoil having to do with jobs and contracts instead of what we’re teaching kids. And this status quo has held back our children, it’s held back our economy, and it’s held back our country for too long. It’s time to stop just talking about education reform and start actually doing it. It’s time to make education America’s national mission. (Applause.)

Now, I’m proud to say that thanks to one of the best secretaries of education America has ever had, Arne Duncan, who’s here today — stand up, Arne, so everybody can see — (applause) — thanks to Arne’s passion and understanding of these issues and the ability to bring people together, that’s exactly what we’re going to do. We are making this America’s national mission: improving our schools not in unrealistic ways, not in abstract ways, not in pie-in-the-sky ways — in concrete ways we are putting our resources behind the kinds of reforms that are going to make a difference.

In the coming weeks, states will be able to compete for what we’re calling a Race to the Top award. We’re putting over $4 billion on the table — $4 billion with a “b” — one of the largest investments that the federal government has ever made in education reform. But we’re not just handing it out to states because they want it. We’re not just handing it out based on population. It’s not just going through the usual political formulas. We’re challenging states to compete for it.

And I have to tell you, this was not an easy thing to get through Congress. This is not normally how federal dollars work. But because of Arne’s tenacity and our commitment to make sure that reform happens, that’s how we’ve structured it. We’re saying to states, if you are committed to real change in the way you educate your children, if you’re willing to hold yourselves more accountable, and if you develop a strong plan to improve the quality of education in your state, then we’ll offer you a big grant to help you make that plan a reality.

Now, before a state is even eligible to compete, they’ll have to take an important first step. And this has caused some controversy in some places, but it shouldn’t be controversial. Any state that has a so-called firewall law will have to remove them. Now, here’s what a firewall law is: It basically says that you can’t factor in the performance of students when you’re evaluating teachers. That is not a good message in terms of accountability. So we said, if you’ve got one of those laws, if you want to compete for these grants you got to get rid of that law.

And we’ll encourage states to take a better approach when it comes to charter schools and other innovative public schools. When these schools are performing poorly, they’ll be shut down. But when innovative public schools are succeeding, they shouldn’t be stifled — they should be supported.

And I’m proud to say that already a number of states have taken us up on this challenge. Across the country, different groups are coming together to bring about change in our schools — teachers unions and parents groups, businesses and community organizations. In places like New Haven, educators and city leaders have come together to find a smarter way to evaluate teachers and turn around low-performing schools. In states like California and Indiana and Wisconsin, you’re seeing steps taken to remove these so-called firewall laws so we can have a clear look at how well our children are learning and what can be done to help them learn better. States like Delaware and Louisiana, Tennessee and Illinois are all making efforts to let innovative charter schools flourish.

So, a race to the top has begun in our schools, but the real competition will begin when states apply for the actual Race to the Top grants. See, they had to make some changes just to even join the race. But now the race starts, and we’re going to start seeing even more interesting changes at the local level. So we’ll take a hard look at states’ applications to determine whether they measure up. We’ll take a look at a state’s track record to determine whether the steps they’ve taken have had real results when it comes to their students’ education. We’ll take a look at whether states are taking an all-hands-on-deck approach when it comes to reform. And in particular, we’ll take a look at how states are doing when it comes to four key measures of reform.

And I want to get into some details about this because I want you, as parents, as well as the educators, to understand what the data and the science and the studies and the research show actually make a big difference in terms of school improvement — because that’s what we are basing this stuff on. We didn’t just kind of make it up, didn’t just do it because it sounded good, this is what the research shows is really going to make a difference.

The first measure is whether a state is committed to setting higher standards and better assessments that prepare our children to succeed in the 21st century. And I’m pleased to report that 48 states are now working to develop internationally competitive standards — internationally competitive standards because these young people are going to be growing up in an international environment where they’re competing not just against kids in Chicago or Los Angeles for jobs, but they’re competing against folks in Beijing and Bangalore.

This is something I called for earlier this year, and I want to commend the leadership of the governors and school chiefs who’ve joined together to get this done. And because of these efforts, there will be a set of common standards that any state can adopt, beginning early next year. And I urge all our states to do so and to upgrade what’s taught in the classroom accordingly to meet these international standards.

I also challenge states to align their assessments with high standards — because we should — we should not just raise the bar, we should prepare our kids to meet it. There’s no point in having really high standards but we’re not doing what it takes to meet those standards. And I want to be clear. This is not just about more tests, because I know that in the past people have been concerned about, you know, is this about standardized tests, or are we going to have our young people being taught to the test? That’s the last thing we want. (Applause.)

But what we want to do — what we want to do is finally get testing right. So it’s not about more tests, it’s about being smarter about our assessments. It’s about measuring not only whether our kids can master the basics, but whether they can solve challenging tasks, do they have the skills like critical thinking and teamwork and entrepreneurship; assessments that don’t just give us a snapshot of how a student is doing in a particular subject, but a big picture look at how they’re learning overall; and assessments that will help tell us if our kids have the knowledge and the skills to thrive when they graduate.

So we’re not just interested in can they fill out a bubble. What we want to do is to take a look generally — are kids learning and gaining the critical thinking skills that they need to succeed. Now, these are the kinds of assessments that our states should be putting in place, and we’re setting up a separate competition where they can win grants, extra grants to help them do just that.

So, standards and assessments, that’s the first measure; are we doing that well? If the state wants to get a Race to the Top grant, they’ve got to do that well. And because we know that from the moment our kids enter a school, the most important factor in their success — other than their parents — is the person standing in front of the classroom, the teacher. The second measure is whether a state is committed to putting effective teachers in its classrooms and effective principals at the helm of its schools.

Now, it’s time to start taking this commitment seriously. We’ve got to do a better job recruiting and preparing new teachers. We’ve got to do a better job of rewarding outstanding teachers. And I’ve got to be honest, we’ve got to do a better job of moving bad teachers out of the classroom, once they’ve been given an opportunity to do it right. (Applause.)

And that means creating alternate pathways to teaching for talented young people by expanding programs like the one used in Boston, where aspiring teachers work side-by-side with effective mentors in a year-long residency. It means bringing quality teachers in — it means bringing quality teachers to the neighborhoods that need them the most, because right now a lot of what happens is, is that some of the best teachers, as they get seniority, they move on to the places — the school districts that pay better and, frankly, are easier to teach. And we’ve got to give them some incentives to stay so that the kids who need the most help are getting some of the best teachers. (Applause.)

It means boosting the number — the numbers of quality teachers who can help our special education and English language learners meet high standards — and you’ve done that here at Wright, so congratulations on that. (Applause.) It means improving instruction in science, technology, reading, math, and ensuring that more women and people of color are doing well in those subjects. (Applause.) So that’s the second — the second factor.

Third factor, third measure we’ll use in this Race to the Top competition, is whether states are tracking the progress of our students and teachers to make sure every child graduates ready for college and a career. (Applause.) So as I said earlier — as I said earlier, before a state can even apply for a grant, it has to change any laws that prevent us from factoring in the performance of students when they’re evaluating their teachers. But that’s not enough. If a state wants to increase its chances of actually winning a grant, it’s going to have to do more. It’s going to have to collect information about how students are doing in a particular year and over the course of an academic career, and make this information available to teachers so they can use it to improve the way they teach.

One of the things that teachers get so frustrated about is these standardized tests come at a time when it’s too late to use to actually help the students improve their performance. (Applause.) So if we’re going to collect — if we’re going to collect data on how kids are doing, let’s make sure the teachers have it in usable form so that they can actually start doing a better job. (Applause.)

That’s how teachers can determine what they should be doing differently in the classroom. That’s how principals can determine what changes need to be made in our schools. And that’s how school districts can determine what they need to be doing better to prepare our teachers and principals.

Now, even with stronger standards, better assessments, outstanding teachers, some schools will still be difficult to turn around. I want us to be honest about this. There are some schools that are starting in a tough position — a lot of kids coming from impoverished backgrounds, a lot of kids coming in that may have not gotten the kind of head start that they needed; they start school already behind. And even though there are heroic teachers and principals in many of these schools, the fact is that they need some extra help.

And that’s why the fourth measure we’ll use in awarding Race to the Top grants is whether a state is focused on transforming not just its high-performing schools, not just the middle-of-the-pack schools, but the lowest-performing schools. (Applause.) We’ll look at whether they’re willing to remake a school from top to bottom with new leaders and a new way of teaching, replacing a school’s principal if it’s not working, and at least half its staff — (applause) — close a school for a time and then reopen it under new management, even shut down the school entirely and send its schools — send its students to a better school nearby.

There’s always excuses for why these schools can’t perform. But part of what we want is an environment in which everybody agrees — from the governor to the school superintendent, teachers, principals, and most importantly parents and students — that there’s no excuse for mediocrity. And we will take drastic steps when schools aren’t working. (Applause.)

So these are the kinds of vigorous strategies that are necessary to turn around our most troubled schools: transforming our lowest-performing schools; using timely information to improve the way we teach our children; outstanding teachers and principals in our classrooms and our schools that are getting the support they need; higher standards and better assessments that prepare our kids for life beyond a classroom. These are the challenges, the four challenges that states have to take up if they want to win a Race to the Top award.

And these are the four challenges that our country has to meet for our children to outcompete workers around the world, for our economy to grow and to prosper, and for America to lead in the 21st century.

Now, let me just close by saying this — I’ve said this before, but I never miss an opportunity to impress this upon an audience. Lifting up American education is not a task for government alone. It will take parents getting more involved — (applause) — it will take parents getting more involved in their child’s education. It will take schools doing more to reach out with parents. It will take students — students — accepting more responsibility for their own education.

I was explaining to them that education is not saying where, you know, you just tilt your ear and you just pour it in your ear. (Laughter.) You’ve got to be an active participant in wanting to get an education.

These aren’t in my prepared remarks, but I think it’s important to note that Malia and Sasha are just wonderful kids, and Michelle is a wonderful mother. But in our own household, with all the privileges and opportunities that we have, there are times — look, there are times when kids slack off. There are times where they would rather be watching TV or playing a computer game than hitting the books. And part of our job as parents — Michelle and my job — is not just to tell our kids what to do, but to start instilling in them a sense that they want to do it for themselves.

So Malia came home the other day. She had gotten a 73 on her science test. Now, she’s a 6th grader. There was a time a couple years ago when she came home with like an 80-something and she said, “I did pretty well.” And I said, “No, no, no. That’s” — I said, “Our goal is” — “Our goal is 90 percent and up.” (Applause.)

Here is the interesting thing. She started internalizing that. So she came and she was depressed, “I got a 73.” And I said, “Well, what happened?” “Well, the teacher — the study guide didn’t match up with what was on the test.” “So what’s your idea here?” “Well, I’m going to start — I’ve got to read the whole chapter. I’m going to change how I study, how I approach it.” So she came home yesterday, she was — “I got a 95″ — right? — so she’s high-fiving. (Applause.)

But here’s the point. She said — she said, “I just like having knowledge.” That’s what she said. And what was happening was she had started wanting it more than us. Now, once you get to that point, our kids are on our [sic] way. But the only way they get to that point is if we’re helping them get to that point.

So it’s going to take that kind of effort from parents to set a high bar in the household. Don’t just expect teachers to set a high bar. You’ve got to set a high bar in the household all across America. (Applause.)

It will take teachers unions and parents and elected leaders working together as partners in common effort — not seeing each other as antagonists, but all of us having the same goal. It will take each and every one of us doing our part on behalf of our children and our country and the future that we share.

I’ll never forget a moment many years ago — this is long before I ran for President, before I ran for elected office. I was just starting out as a community organizer in Chicago. And we had set up a meeting to figure out how to rebuild our neighborhoods that I was working in — very impoverished neighborhoods on the South Side. And nobody showed up to the meeting. This is my first big meeting — nobody showed up. So I was pretty depressed. I had some community leaders, some volunteers who had helped me try to organize this thing, and they were depressed. They felt so defeated they were talking about quitting. Everybody was too apathetic, they said, there’s no point in trying.

But then, I looked outside as I was listening to them talk and I saw some young boys playing in a vacant lot across the street, and they were just throwing rocks at an old apartment building that was boarded up. And those boys reminded me of me, who didn’t have a father in the house and who had gotten in some trouble when he was young. And I turned to those volunteers and I said, “Before we quit, I want to ask you a question. What’s going to happen to those boys if we quit, if we give up on them?” And I thought, if we can’t see that we have got a stake in those young boys, if we’re not willing to do our part on their behalf, if we fail to recognize that the fight for their future is the fight for our own future, well, who is going to do it?

So one by one, those volunteers, they stayed. Family by family, we reached out to the community. Slowly people started coming to meetings. Block by block, we helped to turn those neighborhoods around and helped to improve some of those schools in the area.

And that’s the common spirit — the spirit of common purpose, that all of us have to have in America today. And I’m absolutely confident that if we’re all willing to come together and embrace that spirit — in the living room, in the classroom, and the State House, on Capitol Hill — then not only will we see our students reaching farther, not only will we see our schools performing better, not only are we going to help ensure our children outcompete workers abroad and that America outcompetes nations, but we’re going to protect the dream of our founding and give all of our children, every last one of them, a fair chance and an equal start in the race to life. (Applause.)

Thank you very much, everybody. All right. Thank you. God bless, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END

2:13 P.M. CST

Related Posts:

• Remarks by the President on the “Education To Innovate” Campaign
• Obama’s speech at Hampton University commencement
• President Obama’s Speech to the NAACP Centennial Convention
• Secretary Arne Duncan Testifies Before the House Education and Labor Committee
• Remarks of the President at the National Academy of Sciences