Post a Comment On: Curriculum Study Commission

I must confess that like Brad, I've not paid much attention to our Blog. Rather than commenting on Ernesto's posting (except to say that I don't have as much concern about Friday night oracy in decline--my major concern has always been the tendency of a few to dominate the dialogue at length. But as I reread earlier posts, especially those commenting on NCLB, I'd like to respond to one thread--Brad's comment on the need for top-down pressure that "needs to be thoughtful, sensitive and compassionate" leads me to ask who has seen or can give an example of such top-down pressure? He suggests that top-down pressure should be met midway with grassroots pressure but has "seen precious little of that grassroots pressure that is organized and systematic and truly student-centered." I sympathize with his frustrations regarding staff development workshops evaluations. I also am familiar with research and National Writing Project experience showing that voluntary teacher participation in staff development is far more effective than "top-down" dictated workshops. I've said this during our CSC discussions, but bear with me while I repeat myself: The Writing Project model of teachers teaching teachers and the CSC Asilomar Conference model that one might argue provided Jim Gray with a model for The Writing Project at its best seems more effective in changing teaching behavior than any top-down or NCLB-directed staff development I've heard of. I've read or seen little to think that NCLB has led to much thoughtful, systemic change. My other major concern with NCLB (and most local top-down school reform efforts) is that it has led to a criminal misuse and misinterpretation of statistical test data.