From a parallel Snook discussion about ever-more spectacular school system failures that defy logic and increasingly alienate all those real, regular members of the public whether they join the damned PTA or not (the learned author wants his ideas out, so he's granted permission for use):

by Marion Brady -- long-time Florida teacher, administrator, publisher consultant, teacher educator, policy analyst, author of texts and
professional books, myriad journal articles, and six years of newspaper columns on education for Knight-Ridder/Tribune.

The real FCAT issue isn’t about accountability. All educators believe in it. Always have. Always will. It isn’t being held accountable that frustrates them, but the FCAT’s superficial, simplistic approach to it.

A source of even greater frustration for many is the degree to which the standardized testing fad has shut down dialog on education-related questions of great importance, questions bearing directly on student performance and societal well-being.

Here are some of those questions:

. The present thrust of education “reform” assumes the familiar curriculum, now locked in place by “standards and accountability,” is as appropriate
today as it was when it was adopted in 1892. Is it?

. If there are problems with the traditional, same-thing-for-everybody curriculum, won’t “raising the bar” make the problems worse?

. The FCAT is part of a reform movement that assumes market forces can shape schools up. At least one Florida legislator is even considering introducing
legislation to pay students for passing scores. Does this mean that learning is unnatural and won’t happen unless teachers and kids are threatened or bribed?

. Management experts say poor institutional performance almost always indicates unaddressed “system” problems. Poor FCAT scores aren’t being
blamed on the system but on the people in the system. Are the experts wrong?

. The FCAT is rapidly pushing “frills” out of the curriculum. Has research now established that art, music, physical activity and so on have nothing to
do with developing reasoning ability?

. On critical, instruction-related questions, local educators and school boards are increasingly being pushed out of the decision-making loop. Does the history of top-down, centralized control suggest this change strategy works?

. Statewide, thousands of kids are being held back because of poor reading and math scores. Is the ability to interpret symbols and fill in ovals on
multiple-choice tests the only way kids learn, and therefore sufficient reason to flunk them?

. Education is supposed to teach kids to think for themselves, not just recall what they’ve been ordered to remember. Are corporately produced, machine-scored tests able to judge the relative quality of complex thought processes? If so, why aren’t they already doing that?

. Will manipulating the curriculum to “maintain America’s competitive position in world trade” be more likely to ensure America’s future well-being than helping kids love learning because it lets them pursue their abilities wherever they lead?

. Frantic to avoid the test-triggered “failing” label, educators use myriad strategies to “game” the system. For example, administrators, knowing ahead
of time which kids will and which likely won’t pass the FCAT, ignore them and flood the “marginals” with attention. Is it possible to track and counter all such score-distorting strategies?

. If, as Acting Commissioner of Education Jeanine Blomberg says, state officials “…will go back and re-equate and rescale the 2006 third-grade FCAT reading exam…” isn’t this an admission of how open the scoring process is to political manipulation?

. The FCAT’s defenders insist that it’s legitimate because it’s tied to the Sunshine State Standards. Those “standards” have no overarching aim, fail to
capitalize on the mutually supportive nature of school subjects, and emphasize knowledge rather than what kids can actually do with what they know. Aren’t these problems sufficiently serious to warrant a fresh look at the Standards?

Back in the 1980s, before the leaders of business and industry and the politicians hi-jacked education reform, thoughtful educators were beginning to explore ways to move student intellectual performance to a whole new level. The keys were World War II-developed General Systems Theory and research into how the brain organizes information. The FCAT’s “mother” - the No Child Left Behind legislation - stopped that effort dead in its tracks.

The new model for education reform is the 19th-century classroom of Charles Dickens’ “Mr. Gradgrind.”
Future generations will look back on this era and shake their heads in disbelief at the educational naivete of the amateurs now writing education policy.