Discussing CEE’s Response to VAM Proposals To Affect Teacher Education

Spearheaded by Purdue University Professor of Education *Melanie Schoffner,* the Conference of English Education (CEE) of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) has drafted a statement of concern against currently-proposed regulations that would tie Value-Added Models (VAM/s) of evaluation to teacher education programs in the nation’s colleges and universities. If approved, these measures would pressure state governments to create apparatus for judging the effectiveness of teacher education professors and departments on how well their graduates’ (K12 teachers’) students perform on standardized tests.

Ed Reform-Critical Boxer (ERCB) and I (Doc Carter) had a chat about the document, which Dr. Schoffner has requested folks share with a wide audience. (We've hyperlinked to a copy of the response twice herein).

ERCB: It’s nice to see the Alice in Wonderland motif in the document as well as the “We’re all mad here” quote in the response's title. A literature-loving education organization ought to lead with a literary reference, I think. 

DC:*“We’re All Mad Here”: A Response to the US Department of Education’s Proposed Regulations forTeacher Preparation from the Chair of the Conference on English Education (CEE)* is a bit of a mouthful but certainly an accurate title. Yes, the double meaning of “mad” is fun and also good to see. So many educators are extremely upset with the way current education reforms are going, and it’s about time professionals embraced the fact that one can be angry and productive. As well, it’s clear many see current education reform as not quite the actions and results of sane, well-meaning individuals. 

ERCB: So the response can be read as a critique of the corporate education reform “mindset” as well.

DC: I’d like think it means to, yes, and that it suggests that mindset is not "well" or healthy for anyone except a small band of profiteers. 

ERCB:  The response urges timeliness, informing readers the actual cut-off date to offer feedback on the proposals via *Regulations.gov * is actually January 2, 2015. While the comment periods goes into February, apparently the politicians who will move to act will, theoretically, base their decisions in part on what they see by 1.2.15.

DC: That’s an important date to remember. At last check, only 64 comments had been published. I hope others will add their voices, for whatever they’re worth, or however they'll be received, and I am appreciative CEE exposed the February deadline as a bit of legerdemain.  

ERCB: Given the tight deadline, Schoffner says, “Therefore, we must state clearly and forcefully – to the DOE, as well as to US senators, state representatives, university presidents, state superintendents, school principals, teachers, students, neighbors and the public at large –that the proposed regulations will do more harm than good.”

DC: Yes. I wish I could feel better about the urgency of that call to arms, though.

ERCB: What do you mean?

DC: Well, I’m inclined to see a move toward VAM in teacher education as part and parcel of the larger corporate/market education reform movement, which includes the Common Core State Standards. Schoffner and CEE seem to think likewise: 

“Teachers are constantly labeled as ineffective, uncaring, unprepared. Patently unqualified corporations, millionaires and for-profit businesses are invited to “solve” educational issues while patently qualified teachers, teacher educators and educational researchers are excluded from the discussion. And now, teacher education programs have moved into the line of fire.”

ERCB: Go on.

DC: But if I’m a K12 teacher reading this statement, maybe a Badass Teacher who has been fighting VAM at the K12 level for years and has seen how it is affecting children but who feels like CEE and NCTE haven’t really helped me fight corporate reforms like CCSS and the VAMs associate with them, I might be skeptical or cynical of the document. Even if I agree with it, I might have negative feelings at seeing it.

ERCB: What do you mean?

DC: Well, CEE/NCTE has known about the Common Core State Standards since 2010 and still has not taken a hard stance against them, not at the organizational level, anyway.

ERCB: Right. I remember getting an NCTE Inbox a few months ago stating NCTE’s “neutral” position on CCSS. I found it insulting that an education organization would accept a notion of schooling that was “neutral,” as if education is not political.

Hear those noises? Those are Paulo Freire's screams.

DC: Mm-hmm. And, to my knowledge, the most formal statement regarding CCSS from NCTE is still former NCTE President *Keith Gilyard’s* denouncement of well-informed education bloggers and CCSS opponents as “either/or” thinkers and his ludicrous claim that NCTE “never endorsed those standards; neither do we profit financially from them.” 

Anyone can visit NCTE.org and easily see the products NCTE sells which play off the CCSS directly and which are marketed by utilizing associated catch phrases and "hot topic" vocabulary. Further, as someone who has worked directly with the publishing wing of NCTE (I published one book with them in 2007 and was contracted for a second before their turn toward CCSS-centrality), I know damn well marketability comes into play when NCTE decides what books and products it will publish.

ERCB: OK, but how does all this connect to the just-released response to VAM proposals?

DC:  CEE and NCTE have not taken a firm stance against CCSS, which has been in the public sphere since 2010, and which they know encompasses VAM at the K12 level, and which they know is harmful to children. We're going on five years of...what? Complacency? Complicity? Ambivelence? 

Yet when VAM threatens the professoriate – their careers, their colleges, their colleagues, their prodigies and wunderkinds – they have a response ready in less than three weeks after the proposals became public?  Those facts incline me to view the response with less gusto and endearing support than I might had NCTE and CEE taken a more pro-active interest in my career and, more importantly, my students' healthy development in relations to VAMs and the CCSS to which they appear inextricably entangled. 

ERCB: Understood. If I’m a practicing teacher I might be like, “Where were you when we needed you?” Or if I’m an anti-ed reform activist or agitator, I guess the urgency of the document might reveal to me the population CEE/NCTE seeks to protect most.

DC: Yes, and there have been members of those organizations who’ve pushed for a hard-liner stance against CCSS from their beginnings, but to no avail. So, there are valid justifications for viewing the report dubiously.

ERCB: On the other hand, the report does mention the absurdity of using VAM at any level, and can’t one assume Schoffner and CEE are aware that VAM in teacher prep will do more damage to more people than just professors?: VAMS will affect grown professors and legally-adult pre-service teachers, sure, but that damage will also filter through to the millions of kids who will not be well-served by the changes either.

DC: Thanks for saying "trickle through" rather than "trickle down," which is a phrase laced with hierarchy and bias. Absolutely, though: What you say is true in that a tortuous “trickle-through” effect will emerge.

ERCB: But overall, are we happy with this document?

DC: I think we can be happy it exists and hope it portends more strong language and action from NCTE/CEE regarding the totality of corporate/market education reform.

ERCB: It’s a good start, then?

DC: Assuming I’m correct in asserting CEE and NCTE have not, as organizations, purported a united front against the totality of the ed reform agenda to date, yes. It’s a good start. NCTE was formed as a radical organization. It should act for radical change beneficial to all in American education, but to and for children first and foremost.

ERCB: And Schoffner has plenty of pro-teacher and even pro-pre-service teacher language in there as well. I love how she ends: 

“Like Alice, we need to push away from our seat at this table by clearly speaking against the misguided beliefs propelling these regulations. We need to publicly proclaim this party for the madness it is, opposing those who lead it and shaking those who slumber while it happens. We know better, as teacher educators. Every day, we do better, as teacher educators. It’s time we spoke up, as teacher educators, and established that we are better at assessing our students’ abilities as teachers than the measures proffered by these fundamentally flawed regulation.”

DC: The rallying cry! The “Hell Yes!” moment! If it weren't for knowledge of the recent history of the organizations, that is. One of the troubles NCTE has gotten itself into stems from seeking that “seat at the table” in Washington, D.C. Certain NCTE leaders were hired due to their lobbying ability and D.C. connections, which many members wanted at one time, apparently, and felt previous executive-types weren't good at procuring. I think many assumed having a seat at the table would better position the organizations as whole bodies to have more voice and power, even when the CCSS conversation was nascent.

ERCB: You know my thoughts on having a seat at the table:

DC: To be sure. I think what happened is the place at the table ended up being very beneficial and – I conjecture here – lucrative for a few members of the organizations, but many, the bulk of their memberships, I’d say – got the scraps. Shoffner may be hinting at that here, subversively setting up a turning of tides. I hope that’s the case.

ERCB: You say “them” and “their.” You’re not a member?

DC: Not anymore, due in large part to the organizations’ soft stance on CCSS and associated accouterments. But, if this document represents a move toward more active resistance, I may just have to renew. I’d even be willing to forego reminders that such resistance is long overdue and might have been more powerful if articulated in words and actions several years ago.

ERCB: Here’s hoping!

DC: No, Here’s to ACTING. And how can our readers act?

ERCB: By reading Dr. Shoffner's *full response* for themselves, of course, and sharing it. And by letting their voices be heard regarding these regulations, as we and Dr. Shoffner and others have requested, by commenting at *http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ED-2014-OPE-0057-0001* and sharing their concerns with local, state, and national politicians as well.

DC: Good boy!

 

 CEE/NCTE finally putting in its Ed Reform-Fightin' Hat? Better late than never, right?