Historical Perspectives

In my message to employees last week, I reminded them to be mindful of the fact that February was Black history month. The week prior to that message, I had watched a documentary on the History Channel about the Tuskegee Airmen that was quite good. I used that opportunity to pass along a few resources I thought might be useful in the classroom. I also opined that a lot of network television programming lately had focused more on diversity and race relations in our country. I wrapped up my message with a brief mention of a piece of legislation that is working its way through the state legislature right now that seeks to ban the use of the 1619 Project in Iowa schools. I mentioned the legislation not as an endorsement of the material, but as an observation of the ongoing racial tension we are experiencing in our country. 

For those of you who don't know, the 1619 Project is a curricular resource published by the New York Times that contextualizes the story of slavery and juxtaposes it with the founding of America. If you have been following the discourse, the use of the material in schools around the country has been met with some very strong feelings. My mention of it in the weekly staff newsletter spurned a discussion with a faculty member who asked a very sincere question. What were my thoughts and opinions on the Project? 

Admittedly, my knowledge is somewhat limited since the material is not used here in Hudson. I haven't investigated or studied the collection of essays other than through a cursory examination to gain a 'working knowledge' of the resources. It was within that paradigm where I explained that I was not at all equipped to offer an accurate assessment as to the veracity of the material. 

The broader question however, is what role should legislators play in dictating what should or should not be used as curriculum in the classroom? I would argue very little. While it is wholly appropriate for our elected representatives to provide a basic framework that includes such things as the Iowa Core Academic Standards (what it is that children should know and be able to do when they graduate), mandating the textbooks that are or are not used is bridge too far. They are out of their lane and don't fully understand what it is they are tinkering with. In this particular case, I have questions about whether or not legislators have undertaken the type of serious study that is needed to make good decisions about the usefulness of this or any other material used as curriculum in our classrooms. 

In most school districts, a process already exists for the adoption of curriculum that includes multiple steps over many months from inception to adoption. Right here in Hudson, we have a whole series of policies dedicated to the development, implementation, and evaluation of our curriculum. You can read all about them here. We even have a process for parents to object to instructional material. Simplistically, curriculum promulgation is implemented on a rotation as determined by administration. Once up for adoption, the research, alignment, and review is delegated to the content experts and building administrator. This study and research takes multiple months before the committee makes a presentation to me with a recommendation. Often times I'll ask for additional clarification or have other questions that need to be answered before I am ready to move the adoption forward. After all those questions are answered to my satisfaction, I'll craft a recommendation for the board. 

Ultimately, oversight is placed squarely where it belongs: with the local school board. They can either accept that recommendation, ask for further clarification, or reject the material. Granted, I haven't recommended anything controversial, but if parents or members of the local community disagree with material that is being used in the classrooms, they can do so following our policies. It is much more appropriate to bring those concerns to bear with the school board as opposed to running to the legislature for relief. Truth be told, if you don't like the answer the board gives, the local community can keep that in mind the next time they visit the ballot box. Frankly, we are seeing way too much of this (running to the legislature) right now, and as I mentioned a few weeks back it appears the entire state is being held accountable for the perceived 'sins' of a few. 

But alas in this instance, we should consider the point of teaching history. Is it the rote recitation of facts, figures, and events? Well, even if that were the goal in the industrialized model of education under which many of us grew up in, one would be hard pressed to suggest so today. With a focus on critical thinking skills and problem solving; context, debate, and perspective would seem to have role to play. Like many of you, I was taught in school to believe the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria caused World War One. While it may have been the immediate cause of the war, it was not the sole cause. 

Facts and dates are obviously undebatable and of critical importance in the study of history. There is no dispute the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the second continental congress on July 4, 1776. Nor will anyone argue the US Constitution was adopted on September 21, 1787 to create a stronger national government with checks and balances among three co-equal branches of government. But to suggest facts are the only thing(s) that should be taught is a gross oversimplification of the discipline. I rhetorically asked the question about how the American Revolution is taught in Great Britain and received a surprising answer: it's not. That in and of itself tells us something. 

Basketful of Bad Ideas

Generally speaking, this time of year isn't all that much fun. It's cold (boy is it ever cold), there is snow (oh, we have snow this year), and it gets dark early (at least by this point the days are starting to get a little longer). Each January in my first message to employees following the Christmas break, just like clockwork, they hear the same message from me: it's too cold and dark to do anything else; so we may as well buckle down and push student learning. I call this the 'long stretch', from January to spring break, and typically the part of the school year where we see the most student growth. Aside from that, there just isn't a whole lot of fun to be had!

Speaking of not much fun, another thing that happens this time of year is the legislative session. From January through roughly April each year, our legislators meet in Des Moines. In addition to holding my breath as I plow through snow drifts crossing Holmes Road, (hoping I don't get stuck at 4:30 in the morning while trying to decide whether or not we are going to have school on any given day of the winter); I hold my breath and brace myself for whatever crazy idea is going to be proposed in Des Moines. 

There have been no shortage of crazy ideas this year. A whole basketful of bad ideas if you ask me. Granted, each year we tend to see the same bills brought up for consideration. There seems to be sort of a rhythm to it, and then the sanity of each caucus prevents these bad ides from gaining traction. Unfortunately this year it appears as if the safety valves have come off and there is no stopping this freight train. 

If some of these proposals become law, it will end up being a very bad year for Iowa's public education system. But it won't just be this year; the implications will be far reaching into a distant future where our public school system is stripped of its resources and see them funneled to private and for profit corporations. The bill to which I am referring is labeled SF 159. 

This is an enormous piece of legislation that runs some 50 pages. It has 7 distinct divisions with policy proposals that will no doubt do harm to public schools, and includes fiscal implications that are not yet fully understood. The most onerous of these divisions are I and II, which deal with the implementation of a voucher system (Division I), and the ability to set up a charter school without the consent of the local school board (Division II). Proponents of this policy are quick to point out the limited nature of the policy and that it is targeted at schools deemed in need of comprehensive support as identified by the Every Student  Succeeds Act. In this case 34 schools, evenly split between urban and rural. Now, before you breathe a sigh of relief because Hudson isn't one of those schools let me say: not so fast. 

Imagine a snowball at the top of a hill. As it is pushed over the summit and rolls down the hill, it picks up speed and gets bigger. That is exactly what will happen here. Next year it will be expanded to even more schools and more state dollars will be funneled away from our public schools. In fact, that is exactly what has happened with the STO program (which are tax credits for non-public schools). What started out as a 'small' tax credit for private school tuition has grown, with millions more added each year. Any by the way, every state that has implemented a voucher system has started out small--and then it just rolls down the hill. 

In a typical year when such a large and paradigm shifting piece of legislation is proposed our legislators take their time, gather input from constituents and set up a subcommittee. During the subcommittee, they'll hear arguments for and against and then make a decision as to whether or not to advance it to the full committee. Now, it isn't uncommon for the subcommittee to advance what I'll call a 'toxic' bill, but once it gets to the full committee, rational minds prevail and it doesn't advance any further. That didn't happen in this case. In this instance, the omnibus bill was first introduced on January 20th. By January 28th, it had cleared the full Senate and was messaged to the House. Luckily it's future is less certain in this chamber. But the speed at which something this large and comprehensive moved is, well, incomprehensible. Lightspeed in any year. Mind boggling when one stops to consider the ramifications of this legislation (and I haven't even mentioned any of the other Divisions). 

While this was going on and moving at such a rapid pace, it was interesting to note that Supplemental State Aid (SSA), the number with which we use to plan school budgets, wasn't even being discussed. The number that the law requires to be set within 30 days of the release of the governor's budget targets. Now, frankly it is no surprise SSA hadn't been set and that we once again missed the legally mandated deadline for approval. After all we miss the deadline year after year. But in this case, it has been proven that we can move quickly if needed.

It makes one wonder, why are public schools being punished? That is certainly what it feels like with a lot of these ideas. In another instance with the Senate SSA bill, a provision was included that would award school districts with a supplemental appropriation if they had been in school full time since the beginning of the school year. While great news for us, perhaps not so much for others. One proposal would even penalize schools who operated a hybrid model even if they were in compliance with the governor's proclamation. 

All of our public schools have worked hard over the last year to do the very best they can not only for their students, but the communities they serve. While I may strongly disagree with some of the decisions that have been made by some of my counterparts around the stated, I do believe they did so with pure intentions. However, implementing policies with such austere provisions certainly seems to be the wrong approach, particularly when so many school districts played by the rules and followed the law. 

We Need to Administer the Test

I have never been a big fan of standardized student assessment. In fact, over the course of my career I have continued to lambast the annual administration of the Iowa Assessment. Calling it like I saw it, it was an antiquated test best left in another decade (or two). Then the Iowa Statewide Assessment of Student Progress (ISASP) came along. Granted, it took a lot of years to get it done but we finally crossed the finish line. Yes, it required several legislative sessions, rules being written (then rewritten again when-get this: they were followed), and even argument between the state board of education and legislature about who had plenary authority on the  matter. Indeed it is far from a perfect instrument. But it is a huge improvement over what we had previously administered. Two key features include the fact it is criterion referenced and is aligned to the Iowa Core Academic Standards.

Criterion referenced means students are measured by whether or not they know the content, as opposed to norm referenced which simply measures how well the students perform compared to their peers across the state. When this new statewide assessment was first administered in 2019, most school districts braced themselves for significantly depressed scores, particularly when compared with the previously administered Iowa Assessment. Why? Well, the new test was designed to be more rigorous. By comparison, the Iowa Assessment was based largely on a students' ability to recall information as opposed to applying critical thinking skills. Indeed this was and is a huge flaw of a test that relied on multiple choice response. Contrast that with the IASAP where there are fewer multiple choice questions; and instead short answer response, and questions that require the pupil to think. This no doubt leads to a more rigorous assessment. That coupled with the perception that schools across Iowa held the belief that, in general didn't really have a strong alignment of instruction to the core academic standards. 

When we administered the test in the spring of 2019, we ended up being pleasantly surprised with the results. While all would (or should) agree there are areas of improvement that we can build on, the results were not as depressed as we thought they would be. In fact, in many instances they were quite good. In retrospect, the evidence seemed to suggest that we did a decent job of preparing for a new assessment by first and foremost ensuring the content area depth of knowledge was much more than superficial recall. Further, I think we realized our alignment to the Iowa Core Academic Standards was much stronger than we had realized. 

We were in the midst of preparing for the 2020 version of the ISASP when we shut down last spring. In fact, an agenda item included on our March 2nd cabinet meeting included a discussion on the logistics of the administration of these tests. That meeting happened of course, but then two weeks later we closed and would remain so until school resumed this fall. The ISASP didn't happen in 2020.

Now we are beginning some of those preliminary conversations about the test this spring. Granted we haven't started those preparations in earnest because it is too early, but we are beginning the preliminaries. With these preparations a new debate has begun to emerge. Simply stated, there are some who think we shouldn't administer the test this year.

Perhaps those arguments are valid. We are experiencing a very unusual school year. Instruction is being delivered unevenly: some are participating in remote learning while others are onsite. Students who have to go into quarantine aren't always that motivated to keep up with their studies. Then of course there is the loss of instruction that occurred last spring. And there is a worry about how depressed test scores are going to impact the state report card. For the record, our vanity should have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the statewide assessment is administered this spring. Further, does anyone honestly believe the reason for poor test scores is going to be anything other than the pandemic? Give me a break!

Look, I get it. But here is the thing. We need to administer the test. We need this data to help us uncover where gaps in learning have occurred so we can mitigate and fill those gaps with high quality instruction. It will shine a light on what we have been saying for decades: access to in person learning with high quality instruction matters a lot. Absent that, we won't really know for sure how we are performing and how much students are really growing. All we will really succeed in doing is delaying access to valuable data that can be used to help us target and guide instruction. 

Thankfully we are no longer administering a norm referenced test. If there was ever a reason to completely discount the usefulness of understanding the relationship between one students test and your own child, it is now. We are already well aware there has been lost instruction. What we need to drill down to exactly at this point is what. We need know what they know. I'll say it again. We need to administer the test.