Luna Plan Part 2

Hey, I promise all the posts I make will not merely ridicule Luna's plan. After bringing forth the flaws, I will offer alternatives to saving money, and still give our children the best education.

As copied from Luna’s plan, “All ninth graders will receive a laptop as part of their educational experience. Laptops: $4.7 million a year, all maintenance, repair and support provided by the state. Teacher training: $800,000 a year. Purchase laptops for every high school student.”

Did Tom Luna, Butch Otter, or anyone who thinks this plan has merit, ever have a fifteen year old child in their house? What is the life expectancy of a laptop computer in the hands of fifteen, sixteen and seventeen year old children? I can make a real accurate guess! I don’t want my child having his own laptop. Gee, I wonder if fifteen, sixteen and seventeen year old kids will look at any pornography if they have their own computer. I wonder what the ratio of time spent on academics will be compared to that of time spent on Facebook?

Wait, I already know, I was an Assistant Principal in a middle school for two years. There are attempted pornographic searches in school, on school computers, about two to three times a week. These are students that are ten to thirteen years old, now we’re talking full-bloom, adolescent people.

How many young students are self motivated enough to get on a computer and complete coursework? I believe there is no substitute for another human being, encouraging, showing how to tackle curriculum. 4.7 million, plus maintenance and teacher training I’ll bet the total cost is more like 10 million per year. How many teachers could we hire with ten million dollars? How many teachers could we give a raise to for their amazing work? Machines can not encourage, or teach, it takes the human element. Every child that struggles will fail with only a computer for encouragement and delivery of information.

Lastly, pay for performance – merit pay. How are the teachers and administrators going to be judged on their performance for higher pay? The only way possible is the standardized ISAT test given to students every year. To judge a teacher, an administrator, an entire school, on a one time snapshot test is simply ridiculous. Some smart children bomb standardized tests, some very academically low students guess well and come out too high. I’ve seen it many times since 2002. Check out the findings from the following scholarly, researched based article:

A self-fulfilling prophecy
Iris C Rotberg. Phi Delta Kappan. Bloomington: Oct 2001. Vol. 83, Iss. 2; pg. 170, 2 pgs



Current accountability measures particularly high-stakes testing may have seriously weakened the academic standards they were intended to raise, Ms. Rotberg argues.


ACCOUNTABILITY has become the centerpiece of political rhetoric on education reform. The underlying assumption is straightforward: hold teachers and students accountable for students' scores on standardized tests, and academic standards will rise. Sounds good. But it doesn't work. Our current preoccupation with standardized testing began in the 1980s with the publication of reports claiming that the U.S. education system had declined. While this conclusion was not supported by the data, the accountability measures it triggered- in particular high-stakes testing - may have created a self-fulfilling prophecy by seriously weakening the academic standards they were intended to raise. These are a few of the unintended consequences of our national fixation on high stakes testing.

* High-stakes testing weakens academic standards when the test becomes the education program. The emphasis on cramming for the test is inevitable as long as teachers and students are held accountable for test scores. Many schools now spend weeks, even months, on test-preparation activities. Because the tests are not typically derived from the curriculum, teachers have no choice but to teach to the tests. The tests themselves become the curriculum and, in turn, replace the school's ongoing academic program. The focus on testing, therefore, narrows the curriculum and encourages rote learning. Even the few tests that measure broader skills, such as writing or analytical thinking, were never intended to serve as the basis for a course of study. It is not surprising, therefore, that private schools and some charter schools (when they have the option) do not participate in high-stakes testing programs.

* High-stakes testing weakens the quality of education by encouraging, or even requiring, policies that may not be in the best interest of the children. Some jurisdictions pressure educators to include "all children" in the testing program. Others make it easier to assign students to special programs specifically to exempt potentially low-scoring students from the test. The risk is that children's experiences may depend more on the incentive systems in each state and school district than on a careful examination of their individual needs. Moreover, high-stakes testing gives school systems incentives to retain potentially low-scoring students in the grade immediately preceding the test-- administration year - a practice that leads to the appearance of gains in test scores but also increases dropout rates.

My point here is not hypothetical, nor is it limited to the current generation of accountability plans or to the United States. In the 1 940s Irish schools responded to accountability pressures by increasing grade retention.1 More recently, World Bank studies report exclusions in China and Kenya.2 Similar reports are now emerging in the U.S., for example, from Kentucky and Texas, states that place strong emphasis on test-based accountability. An assessment coordinator in Kentucky put it this way: "I'm concerned because we have fewer students after grade 9, and it looks like it's to a school's advantage to get kids to drop out rather than to keep them on the rolls and have poor test scores at grade 12."3

* High-stakes testing weakens academic standards when it discourages the most qualified teachers and principals from remaining in the profession. A focus on test-based accountability has significant implications for the teaching environment because it affects instructional practices, public image, salaries, school takeovers, and the resources available to schools. If well-intentioned policies lead to excessive demands on teachers and principals, they may have adverse effects on job satisfaction and, in turn, on the ability of the profession to attract and retain highly qualified educators. There are reports of teachers leaving the field or requesting transfers to a grade that is not tested because they feel that the tests are having adverse effects on instructional methods and working conditions. It is also becoming increasingly difficult to attract and retain principals. An article in the New York Times, reporting on shortages of principals, described it this way:
As the academic year begins for the nation's 53 million students, a growing number of schools are rudderless, struggling to replace a graying corps of principals at a time when the pressure to raise test scores and other new demands have made an already difficult job an increasingly thankless one .... In Kentucky and Texas, where the pace at which principals are fleeing is as accelerated as it is in Vermont, job openings in some districts that drew more than a dozen applicants as recently as five years ago are now attracting as few as three, according to principals' associations there.4

If policies intended to strengthen academic standards exacerbate current shortages, they will have precisely the opposite effect from that intended.
While it is an illusion that highstakes testing creates high academic standards, many people have come to use the terms almost interchangeably. When we read that states have raised academic standards, all we know is that they have initiated a high-stakes testing program. We know nothing about whether the quality of the education program has improved. For example, if 25% of students drop out of school because they fail the test, we have not improved our schools - they simply are not serving the lower-performing students.

The irony is that, after all the energy and resources devoted to test-based accountability, the tests tell us little about the quality of the education program a school offers. They tell us mostly about student selectivity (which students actually take the test) and about how much the school teaches to the test (or about occasional cheating). They also tell us about how long the test has been administered by the district. Educators are familiar with the protocol: a new superintendent; a new test, which results in low test scores; cramming for the new test; gains in test scores; another superintendent; another new test ...
Most troublesome is the fact that the focus on test-based accountability has diverted attention from the underlying causes of low academic achievement. We cannot improve education for "all children" without addressing problems of poverty and the serious inequalities in resources between schools that serve affluent populations and those that serve low-income populations. Nor can a test substitute for a comprehensive and sustained academic program or a working environment that encourages the most qualified teachers and principals to remain in the profession. Without attention to these matters, no amount of testing -- high-stakes or otherwise - will improve our schools.