Adding Insult to Injury

Normally I am the sort defending business and community involvement in education policy matters to my educator colleagues, after all, it's called public education. This blog is a bit of an exception, and I want to be clear early on that I support the Math Engineering Technology Science (METS) initiative in broad terms.

But at the State Board meeting yesterday, I took gross exception to the METS team's request to insert themselves at this very late date into the GLE/end-of-course exam development. I literally questioned if the group even understands how education policy unfolds in Missouri, and was honestly shocked (then angry) at the contradictions in their thinking.

If you're reading this, you're probably aware that under NCLB, DESE had to create subject area grade-level-expectations (GLE's), so that the MAP and end-of-course exams test these expectations. Further, the State Board has sought for 3 years to change the high school assessments from MAP to another more useful. This has been a lengthy, in-depth process that started with GLE's and should end today with the hiring of a test development company to meet a ticking federal compliance deadline.

Yesterday, the State Board had a joint meeting with the Coordinating Board for Higher Education to discuss P-20 issues, including curriculum, preparing students for post-high school life, streamlining data systems, etc. (1).  The METS coalition, whose board comprises businesspeople plus one educator, presented on the good work they've been doing to support and improve math and science instruction. They then asked the State Board to allow them to develop GLE's based on their work of uncovering instructional "best practices," one day before the State Board was set to hire a testing company.

This is where I was astounded: Where has this group been?! This has been a transparent policy process for years. There were multiple opportunities to participate and comment on GLE's. Moreover, does the METS coalition realize the inherent contradiction in the idea that businesspeople would present their versions of classroom best practices, when the very people who ARE and DO "best practices" are the educators who set the GLE's in the first place?

Then again, why should anyone trust the expertise of Missouri teachers when reform efforts are based on the notion that teachers are mediocre, just-get-by bureaucrats? Here's one reason to trust educators: a 2007 academic review (2) of Missouri's math MAP tests indicates that our tests are the country's toughest, and the benchmarks were set by teams of Missouri teachers. The same kind of "best practice" teacher team set these GLE's. These are not average teachers, folks, these are the best. And DESE backs this team's work 100%.

I have never once questioned the METS coalition's position and ability to create change until now. I'll admit I'd have questioned the business group's knowledge regarding anything related to instruction, as teachers are instructional professionals. But observing their lack of awareness about the urgency of federal compliance and routine operations in the far simpler policy process makes me question that even more, and I never wanted to be in this position. I trusted that this group understands how and why policy is made, and I believed that the METS coalition on some level trusted good teachers.

So I am respectfully asking that the METS coalition trust educator discretion in this matter, and understand that leaving the education community out of their discussions also places them outside the education policy circle, asking for a chance to participate when it was available all along--you just missed it.  The thing is, if you'd trust us for a second, we could teach you to navigate the terrain, and we'd be happy to do it. We are, after all, teachers.

(1) When I started in Missouri education 11 years ago, this exact same conversation had happened for at least three years already.
(2) nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2007482.asp

Comments

[James Sigler]

How can the METS coalition insert themselves into the education process, if they obviously don't understand the process. They should know better than to ask to completely change the curriculum guidelines the DAY BEFORE the due date. They are acting like Freshmen college students waiting to begin a research paper until the night before it is due.

The coalition is admittedly freshly minted and do have a very go plan in place to supports Math, Engineering, Technology, and Science instruction in MO. However, they need to wait until the next curriculum cycle to add their revisions. Especially since the new NCLB may be right up their alley.