Good Morning to all:
I'm am going to be out of my office until later this afternoon and the
4:00 pm(est) time for submission is 1:00 pm my time, so I thought I
better submit my closing statements now. Once again, I regret not being
accessible for a more dynamic and interactive exchange earlier in the
week, but I have thoroughly enjoyed being a part of this "preliminary"
discussion. I really feel that in order to do this topic justice, we
need to revisit it for at least another week after the first of the
year, perhaps in the Spring. If that is a possibility, I have some
suggestions for additional panelists that could certainly enhance and
expand the content and I would be happy to participate. I also welcome
any comments to my personal e-mail address and will be happy to respond
after we are off line. It's been a treat hearing from former colleagues
in that manner during the week.
I want to express my appreciation to Hilandia for including me. I also
want to say how much respect and appreciation I have for Christina and
for all of the work that has been contributed over the years from both
of the agencies she represents. I can only say "hear, hear" to all of
her comments. We have relied on her and her colleagues for factual
analysis and "watchdog" information for some time and I encourage all of
you to do the same.
For my part, I've attempted to share a "tip of the iceberg", because I
feel there is so much more to be said and researched on this topic. In
closing, I want to stimulate some other considerations: What if today's
modes of assessment are being driven by technology and the focus on
data-based decision-making (Which doesn't have to be all bad.)? What if
money and time are being spent en masse to encourage the teaching and
collection of huge amounts of information to sustain and perpetuate the
traditional gatekeeping that has always been the majority of our
governmental leadership and corporate structure? (Most of the
information taught was predetermined, prior to any considerations for
equity, in more privileged classrooms than most of our students will
ever attend. Most of the changes in content and materials have been
superficial and cosmetic, at best) There still have been no major gains
regarding diversity in impacting the classic material and content that
is either taught or assessed.
Regardless of the research, most decision-makers want it all boiled down
into a two-page "executive summary", which they use to impact all of our
lives. What if most of the decisions being made about assessment and
curriculum are tied to power and economics and expanding the need for
more software, more hardware and more business for those who make their
livings off of the biggest body of mandated "clients" in our country?
(Forgive me if I sound paranoid. I've just conducted a training next
door to a military session on dealing with "weapons of mass
destruction". I'm tired of feeling like schools are used for the same
purpose.)
As I've said previously, I really feel that one of our biggest
challenges as equity professionals and advocates is to take advantage of
the interest in accountability. We need to embrace the use of data
collection for program development and incorporate more of these topics
and processes into training sessions and techniques. One of the
advantages to all of this is that we can all go online and pull up our
state and local data and disaggregate it in ways that help all of us be
more informed. Wouldn't it be interesting to share and compare some of
that information with each other?
Time forces me to bring these comments to a close. (I'm just getting
started!) Thank you again for your indulgence in my "stream of
conscience". I wish all of you a joyous and peaceful winter season and
holiday period, if your traditions include one.
Sincerely,
Dolores (Dee) Grayson, PhD
dgrayson@iinet.com
909-246-2106
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:16:56 EDT