[EDEQUITY Assessment Dialogue] Inequitable opportunity, access

From: Dolores.Grayson, (dgrason@iinet.com)
Date: Fri Dec 14 2001 - 15:38:07 EST


and.....
Sender: owner-edequity@mail.edc.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: edequity@mail.edc.org

Hello All:

Well, I'm back @ my own computer where I have actually had an
opportunity to read through all of the comments from the last two days.
It makes it much easier to participate in a "dialogue".

First of all, I had no idea that Christina and I would be the only panel
members, so I really welcome the time, thought and energy some of you
have taken to contribute your thoughts on this topic. Secondly, one of
the reasons I agreed to participate is because I believe the topics of
Testing, Assessment and Accountability (which are inseparable) to be of
major importance to those of us committed to equity in education. I also
believe it to be most timely. This week's events have proven that to be
the case. As pointed out by Barbara Tavares, bipartisan lawmakers
completed work on Tuesday of this week and headed to the whitehouse
yesterday to congratulate each other on the anticipated passage of the
"no child left behind" education bill.

(At this point, I had not yet received the communication from the
moderator, Hilandia, regarding the bill. I started this in the morning,
was interrupted, and am just having a chance to finish it. Thanks to
Hilandia for sending it out to the Listserv)

  Interestingly enough, the debate on the editorial
page of yesterday's USA Today included an opposing view from Christina's
Executive Director @FairTest, Monty Neill. The article acknowledged many
of the things that we have already discussed, including our concerns
about reducing learning and accountability to test scores. (I won't
reiterate all of this. I'll leave it up to Christina to share their
perspective).

What I do want to say is that many times those of us working in equity
end up pushing the rock uphill against insurmountable odds and sometimes
we shoot ourselves in the foot. The fact is that many of the
constituents we've been working with, many parents and community
members and many practitioners are absolutely fed up with the way public
education has been conducted and are quite tired of business as usual.
While the "foxes may be in charge of the chicken house", there are many
who feel that even legislation that doesn't go far enough or is bad is
better than the status quo or no change at all. It's the old "40, 50 or
60 percent of something is better than 100% of nothing". For those of
us who have been motivated by connecting equity to increased student
achievement and considering equity as a criterion of excellence, there
is language in this legislation that can be utilized to accomplish some
of our goals.

It has taken a long time to even get any federal legislation that
specifies disaggregating data on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender,
etc. or acknowledges that there is any reason to be concerned over
something called performance gaps. While I know this can be misused to a
disadvantage, it can also be used to prove the need for what many of us
have been working toward and at least some money will be available to
address these issues. Just as the administration has co-opted the
phrase, "no child left behind" from Marion Wright Edelman, some of our
concepts and suggestions from over the years have also been co-opted and
included. Please understand that I agree with much of the criticism.
Those of you who are familiar with my work and previous writings know
that I have been supportive of alternative assessment and the importance
of its being aligned with curriculum based on student needs. I believe
in accountability. I believe in competency and in high expectations and
high standards for all students. However, I've spent most of my
professional career working on the importance of solving issues of
inequitable opportunity, access and treatment designed to truly equip
all students with the skills to meet those high expectations and
standards.

What I am suggesting is that we need to rally around our state and
federal legislators and organizational leaders of like minds, support
what has been accomplished and help identify what needs to be refined,
expanded, modified and/or changed. We give a lot of lip service to the
concept of infusing equity in a systemic way. This administration and
this legislation challenges us to apply what we've learned and move
forward in spite of the obstacles, like we haven't been challenged since
the 1980's. A major difference between then and now is that many of our
former colleagues, supporters and allies are in statehouses and on
capitol hill and in the board rooms and district offices, as well as
schools around the country. And we have two more decades of research at
our disposal.

I have spent a lot of time with practitioners this year. Not all of
them are hating the attempted improvements. Most of them just don't
want to see the same mistakes repeated or perpetuated. Most of them
really are looking for ways to help all of their students be more
successful and to feel better about themselves and our profession.

I for one am going to take a closer look at every aspect of this
legislation and attempt to see how it can be used to make a stronger
case for an equity impact component in every district's funding. If we
put our heads together, I'm not convinced that we can't use it to our
advantage.

Dolores Grayson
<dgrason@iinet.com>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:16:56 EDT