Message in a Bottle

AlbertOwlSBAC

Like a message in a bottle, the following email arrived in my inbox just the other day. It is the Snohomish School District (Snohomish, WA) collection of teacher responses to their survey concerning the recent SBAC Field Tests.

SBAC Results Email

As I read the full report, which is attached here, I began to consider ways that this limited anecdotal document might inform future decisions on testing and instruction.

I decided to use these survey results to test the statements made by leaders in the standardized testing industry. Jeff Nellhaus, director of policy, research and design at the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC was quoted as saying: “We think the field tests were a huge success,” in the Washington Post. Joe Wilhoft, Executive Director for the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, (SBAC) called his alternative test “…a bitter pill for some to swallow, but…a key step toward providing all students with the education they deserve and need to thrive in our competitive global economy.”

First, the willingness of this district to share this information with teachers is laudable. It should be common practice, of course, and my comment is meant to recognize that openness is a necessary practice to assure that the terms “public” and “education” continue to have a meaningful relationship. Far too much secrecy has surrounded the creation of the Common Core State Standards, the PARCC and the SBAC tests for the public to be confident in either instrument or the people behind it.

SBAC Administration

While the bar graph provided in the district document indicates a relative balance between frustration and satisfaction, the anecdotal evidence weighs heavily to the former. Lengthy, complex directions were cited numerous times; difficulty with technology and various online test tools was also a major theme.

These kinds of issues are “glitches,” to be expected and worked out, according to Wilhoft. What would be necessary to “work out” these problems? Developmental appropriateness of directions would require attention to factors well known already to K-3 educators, including Dr. Wilhoft, who points to his time as a third grade teacher as a source of pride. Of course, for the directions−or the test itself−to be considered “age appropriate,” the standards themselves would have to be suitable to the learners. They are not.

Technology issues require not only adjustments by the test creators, but also large and ongoing capital investments by school districts across the nation if the SBAC test is to become the gauge of academic attainment for American students. You simply can’t ignore the regular outlay of money the creators of these tests propose, driven not by a desire to enrich student learning, but to establish a culture of testing that perpetuates profits to testing companies and technology magnates. These expenses are unsustainable for many districts.

SBAC Field Testing Impact

The disruption of the educational environment due to the SBAC field test was extreme by any standard. 54% of teachers found the test to be “very disruptive,” with another 26% calling it “disruptive.” What brought on such damning statements? Lack of access to a limited number of computers for anything but testing was the main factor. Between SBAC and “EasyCBM” testing, it appears that some schools were unable to accommodate students from “…the middle of March” to sometime in May. In addition, educational assistants (EAs) were diverted from their normal duties in the classroom to test proctoring and technology trouble-shooting.

When tests pre-empt instruction, the tail is wagging so hard that the dog is hardly recognizable. If standardized testing has a place in public education (a notion that I reject), then its validity is challenged when it compromises instruction. When EAs are not working to assist learning they are no longer EAs, they are wardens.

SBAC Math/ELA Student Attitudes

To say that students generally disliked the tests is to sugarcoat the results. 40% of students considered the math test “negative” or “very negative.” Only 14% considered it “positive” or “very positive.” Results for the ELA test were nearly identical.

Frustrations with technology, with long instructions, and with the formatting of questions highlighted the concerns in math. The ELA test contained long prompts and reading articles that challenged the readiness of many students. Keyboarding skills seemed a particular obstacle for many children.

Teachers know that student attitudes toward difficult tasks can be extremely varied, and attempt to structure classroom experiences to limit frustrations that distract from active learning. Here, however, the reactions indicate a significant disconnect between the test takers and the test makers. If a test has little meaning to a student, and if the activities of the test have only a limited relationship to what occurs in the classroom, it’s likely that students will find the testing experience awkward and unfriendly.

Final Observations

While there are additional teacher comments on technology issues and various other concerns, I want to return to the statements that began this piece. Anyone spinning standardized tests as “huge successes” ought to carefully consider the data the Snohomish School District has provided. Jeff Nellhaus had a huge success in the sense that he was able to coerce school districts in the PARCC group into providing unpaid guinea pigs for norming a test according to standards that have never been validated. Beyond that accomplishment, any claim to success is smoke and mirrors, meant to preclude reasonable challenges. Joe Wilhoft ‘s statements about SBAC testing are likewise coded to conflate economic security and educational standardization. Any school, district, state official or U.S. Dept. of Education representative that claims they have the secrets students need “to thrive in our competitive global economy” is blowing some serious smoke, indeed. Decoded, this translates to, “Your student will emerge from this system a compliant individual, consumer and worker bee, ready to do what corporate structures deem vital to their survival.” The ideas of being educated and being employable are, and should remain, separate notions.

The SBAC Field Test is a great failure due to the commitment to corporatized standardization it represents and sanctions. The creators of SBAC, PARCC and other instruments that are planned for the future ought to be drummed out of public education.

I’m stuffing this message back in the bottle I got my original email in and I’m tossing it back in the Internet Ocean. I trust it will land on your shoreline and provoke conversations about better possibilities for educating students than either SBAC or PARCC represent.

 

© David Sudmeier, 2014

Data—Dada—Dodo?

DataDataDodoPic2

 

“Speak roughly to your little boy


and beat him when he sneezes

he only does it to annoy


because he knows it teases.”

Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

The word “data” has invaded my teaching environment in new and un-intriguing ways over the past few years. To my mind, data is verifiable quantification of some variable over a period of time or space. Data sources I like to use in my history classes include maps—which are almost magical in packing both time and space together—and charts, which permit analysis of varied combinations of data. New on my living room wall is a map of the original Jamestown Colony, which constantly provokes new questions of relationships and consequences. Struggling with the questions that data suggests is some of the most rewarding work I do along with students. We don’t usually find the answers, but we expand our understanding and sure rack up a list of good queries to pursue!

I like data.

That side of data is not what I hear much about. Instead, teachers are asked to collect “data” on student achievement in their classroom in order to “improve instruction.” Districts need data! Are students up to standard? Did you use the Common Formative Assessment that your district Committee to Forestall Creativity and Professional Judgment created to go along with the Uncommonly Boring State Standards that were produced by a Secret Committee for Undemocratic Mandates? Since teachers must provide “data” to prove that students who don’t care about standards are mastering standards teachers did not choose to create or abide by, a “smart teacher” creates goals that are almost impossible not to achieve, or simply alters the data to suit. Data is no longer a tool of informed judgment, but a means of quantifiable coercion. Data “speaks roughly” to us in the tones of Duchess Michelle Rhee rather than conversing with us as Socrates might.

The surreal feeling of participation in a system that corrupts the meaning and use of data not only prompts alienation of teachers from their occupation, but also incites self-loathing. Somehow, teachers know that collecting data for an end of the year summary evaluation meeting has limited relevance to the development of student ability to participate effectively as an individual in a democracy. If you are compiling a stack of “evidence,” you sure aren’t talking with students, or working alongside them as meaningful, productive data is pored over. Data can lead us to greater interaction and thoughtful engagement in the process of learning, or it can limit our scope to one or two measurements, chosen a priori. Data becomes dada, because the natural and dynamic quality of data has become an obstacle to education.

I love the absurd and participate in it daily with gusto, but a system that is supposed to have serious merit should not be based on a preposterous notion. It is definitely absurd to think that persons drawn to a humanistic endeavor like teaching would value the reductionist quantification of learning this notion of data represents. Absurdity ought to make me laugh. This absurdity makes me wince, and every administrator doing their final evaluation meetings ought to cringe with embarrassment if they are focusing on numbers rather than the professional judgments that stem from them.

The true purpose of this system is to transfer students to a system where achievement can be thoroughly quantified and “individualized,” with those poor learners all becoming perfect replicas without blemish—of a systematically neutered blandishment. Machines do this sort of thing better and better, and do it without internal conflict. Computers collect data faster and more accurately than any human, and apply it without concern for irrelevant factors like, say, whether the learner had breakfast or a parental hug before school.

Data—Dada—Dodo. The extinction of teachers as a species is inevitable if we do not contest the perception of data as the final arbiter of educational excellence. I believe teachers will speak up to demand attention to the un-quantified and undervalued professional judgments that are necessary to a rounded educational experience and which do not exist without human interaction.

I may be a dinosaur, but nobody’s diggin’ my bones yet.

 

© David Sudmeier, 2014

 

Academic Football with No Pads

batsfootball2

 

I’ve got to admit a level of hypocrisy when it comes to the subject of football. I’m against it. I’m also a Seattleite who went as nuts as anyone when the Seahawks took all the marbles. Still, those are two different subjects, really. Putting children in a situation where concussions are likely, not just possible, is unconscionable in my book. The risk an adult athlete wants to take in order to earn a significant salary is, short of outright murder in the ring, an appropriate decision to leave up to the individual.

The children in our care in the public schools are subjected involuntarily to a daily game of academic football, minus pads. The “concussions” are emerging even now; Louis C.K. speaks eloquently on that subject, and I expect many, many similar stories to emerge in coming days. When abusive standardized testing is forced upon students, the curriculum narrows, the educational experience is diminished, and the need for more testing is justified…and the circle goes ‘round and ‘round.

It’s time to admit the damage done due to institutionalized underfunding that has led school districts everywhere to become dependent on federal or corporate dollars. That need for funding has opened the door to coercion of state and district leaders by federal officials who have no constitutional authority to demand anything of them. When dollars, politics, and educational philosophy intersect, it ain’t a pretty sight, though…stuff happens.

The damage is evident when students—regardless of developmental disability, emotional instability, academic background or language understanding—are required to take a test, lest the school be penalized for being unwilling to test everyone. When a decision for kindness, for reason and humanity is declared inappropriate in order that corporations may more easily calculate “academic goals” in winning educational contracts, the system tosses children without reasonable protection into a game they do not comprehend. These students gain nothing from participating in the process, but are mined for information of value to a corporate entity.

The damage is evident in the diminished commitment to the process of education I see in student eyes year by year. As demands for “rigor” have grown, alongside the institution of “safety net” classes to improve test scores, the academic breadth of experience has diminished for students who give up “electives” to double up on a purely academic subject. Increasingly, we will see these remedial courses placed on-line, and if any specific connection is necessary between student and teacher…best of luck. Students who experience learning as a deeply personal collaboration will resent the constraints of “standards” as much as they do standardized testing now.

The damage is evident in the time students lose for further enrichment and guidance in the classroom due to excessive standardized testing. The amount of time varies widely from state to state, but it has increased dramatically for all during the past two decades. A lost week? Is that justified? How about places where yearly testing takes up even more time? Are their teachers able to use the time while students are testing to do productive work, or are they misused as very expensive proctors? How much do students lose when school administrators, office staff, and instructional support personnel are entirely focused on the organization of test materials, staff training, and test administration rather than the real and present needs of children? I think the public at large would be outraged to know the true costs of standardized testing, including hours spent on proctoring, organization and administration.

Students deserve a safe, healthy environment for learning. Excessive standardized testing is not conducive to that end. The information generated by those tests is unlikely to benefit students either directly, or through the creation of greater opportunities in their future. Rather, that information will be exploited to extract value in form of payment for increasing student adeptness in taking those same lousy tests that tell students nothing.

The only profit in public education should accrue to the learner, who should feel that they have gained by the opportunity to pursue happiness in a socially responsible way, and that they are ready to accept the responsibilities of citizenship. When that basic principle is met, students will find themselves in a safe and healthy environment , with pads firmly in place as they compete and cooperate in the supreme individual and team full-contact learning challenge!

 

© David Sudmeier, 2014

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall…

AlbertHandsome

I used to live in a room full of mirrors

All I could see was me

I took my spirit and I smashed those mirrors

Now the whole world is here for me to see

Jimi Hendrix

 

It is maddening to be assaulted with the cacophony of demands on public schools today. Schools (and by that I mean teachers) are expected to “fix society” in any number of ways. Each of these goals has a degree of merit, and it is not surprising that non-educators might hope that they would be met within the K-12 years. These expectations cannot be met, however. Schools have never, and will never, “fix society.” Instead, schools reflect the society they exist within.

Anti-bullying programs will not rid us of people who want to push society in one direction or another. Ask the Koch Bros. and Bill Gates if this isn’t so. “Raising standards” will not cause children to escape the effects of poverty or emotional deprivation. Teaching Shakespeare in elementary school will not inoculate future generations against the Duck Dynasties of the future.

The purpose of public schools is to preserve a democratic society by assisting citizens in their pursuit of happiness and to prepare citizens to take an active role in public affairs. Corporatists instead insist that education is utilitarian; that it functions to provide a workforce that will maintain American dominance in world markets. They work toward ensuring that every reflection of corporatism remains permanent—toward a society that shapes itself to a corporate structure, paralyzed by a need for certainty.

Corporatists are determined folks. They can amplify their messages and the political consequences of their beliefs in proportion to their willingness to use their cash. They believe that their position in society is evidence of the equivalence of capitalism and democracy, and that their socioeconomic status therefore entitles them to dominate the political scene. It’s a circular argument that has the added advantage of perpetuating their power.

It does not serve corporatists to have an engaged citizenry. They would much rather that citizens be passive spectators, disaffected by political chicanery and alienated from a government they do not think they can affect. This leaves civic affairs firmly in the hands of the one percent who distort democracy by manipulating the language of debate and purchasing the loyalty of persons who possess political power.

Corporatists want us to change the “mirror” rather than change our society. They demand a school system that conforms to market-driven forces. The mirror they offer is a distorted one; one that reflects with limited focus and exaggerated promise the possibilities of an instrumentalized education. We who have great experience in keeping the mirror in focus have been excluded from decisions that only those anointed by corporatists or their lackeys are permitted to influence. These anointed ones possess little or no experience with the population of students we engage with daily, yet feel entitled to meet behind closed doors to undermine the curriculum and limit student opportunities.

Jimi Hendrix encouraged us to smash the mirrors surrounding us, but I believe that refocusing and a bit of polish may yet permit us to enlarge and expose the image of society those mirrors reflect. Truth exists in mirrors that are square and plumb, not those built with distorting curves. That refocusing can only begin when the warping curves of education deform are straightened by teachers who demand transparency in the processes leading to determination of curriculum and the goals of public education.

At the same time, we must not permit corporatist initiatives such as CCSS and excessive standardized testing to dishearten us. If we do, our dismay will breed the apathy that permits corporatists’ unfettered control of the one institution that exists to provide students with experiences likely to instill commitment to democracy rather than oligarchy.

No, mirrors don’t fix anything, but they do permit us to consider those aspects of ourselves that might deserve attention. The discussions that can result from honest self-reflection are the heart of democracy. But there is no honesty in the reflection I see from the corporatist’s mirror. Their vision is of a profit-driven and profit-producing educational system, for that is the sort of society they are committed to. It is a society as bereft of humane interest as it is ravenous for mammon.

And yet, the number of people who have encouraged me during these “dark times” heartens me. If we all will reach out to others with and for support, our schools and world–and we ourselves–will be better for it. If we connect, then we will be able to make a commitment to a society that we will be proud to be mirrors for. My commitment is to a society that is inclusive, supportive, and fundamentally democratic and to an educational system that reflects those values.

What do you want to see in the mirror? Let’s make the changes to our society needed to bring that vision into focus in our schools.

 

© David Sudmeier, 2014

The Teeches & Leeches… by Dr. Soods

The Enemy

 

The peeples of Lernville were learners—the best!

They shared what they learned; it was school, sans contest.

 

The pathways of Lernville were twisty and turny,

Fun things to look at, no one in a hurry.

 

The Pooples of Lernville were taught by their Teeches—

The Teeches of Lernville: adored by their Pooples.

 

Learning’s the journey peeps wanted to last,

They never got finished, “What for?” they all asked.

 

The Teeches all knew each Poople they taught

And the Pooples were happy—they learned quite a lot!

 

The Teeches helped Pooples with readin’ and writin’,

They helped them with buildin’, they helped ‘em stop fightin’.

 

Teeches taught Pooples old songs and new dances

They talked about kings, long ago happenstances.

 

Pooples learned to count numbers, they learned algebratin’

It weren’t always easy— it could be frustratin’…

 

But all of the Pooples knew Teeches were there

To help them and guide them if they felt despair.

 

Teeches helped ‘em explore the world and its voices,

The Pooples of Lernville, they made learning choices.

 

Their neighbors in Gatesville weren’t nearly so lucky,

The Schoolmeister there was really quite touchy.

 

“A box for each student! A box that they’ll fit in—

We chop ‘em, we pound any part that is stickin’!

 

“We make sure they learns every fact in the book,

Or go back and start over, by hookety-crook!”

 

Gatesville was orderly; neat and quite straightly,

No wasting of time, no Poople-come-lately.

 

Schoolmeister McDuncan was very specific,

His speeches on learning were, alas, quite prolific.

 

A standard for reading, a test when that’s finished,

More standards, more tests to keep students skittish!

 

Obedient students reading 70/30,

Not too much fiction; it makes your head hurty!

 

The two Bros. Kooks were both up for a quest,

They relished a chance to purloin an int’rest.

 

They handed McDuncan their credit-y cards,

And told him to spend ‘til the stack reached to Mars.

 

And the man Gatesville’s named for, he told them to hurry,

“We got to remember, Standards must be quite sure-y!”

 

Together they Kooked up a doozy for students,

They called it the Kommon Kore Standard Impudence.

 

“No student can do this! It’s truly implacable–

With this we can show Lernville Teeches are laughable!”

 

“Once Lernville parents lose faith in their Teeches,

We sell them our Kommon Komputery Leeches!”

 

Quite soon in Lernville, the message descended,

Less fun for Pooples! No school open-ended!

 

It’s got to be done to fight off the foreigners,

National security calls for cast-iron outcomers.

 

The Teeches of Lernville were terribly stressed,

They didn’t believe what they worked for were tests.

 

The Pooples of Lernville felt less than inspired—

Their grades on the tests could get Teeches fired?

 

In place of the Teeches the Leeches were tendered,

Costly machines that Poople minds might be rendered.

 

At this point, Teeches and Pooples became furious,

They hated the changes, which had grown rather serious.

 

And all of the Teeches, they came to consensus

That all of that testing made no common senses.

 

They marched to the office of Principal Doopt,

“This testing is tedious, it’s dull and we’ve drooped,”

they said in one voice, “Away with this scam!

We want to help Pooples, that’s who we am!”

 

And all of the peeps of Lernville that day

Decided to make sure that Teeches would stay.

 

“We don’t want Leeches or any machines

That don’t know our Pooples and walk in like kings.”

 

And that’s how they ended the Kooky Kore Schemin’

While Pooples resumed both learnin’ and dreamin’:

“We want to do stuff, and share what we’re learning,

School always includes things we might need for earning.

But don’t try to stuff us like moon pies for parties,

‘Cause the dreamin’ part makes us more than just smarties!” 

 

© David Sudmeier, 2014

Call Me Unreliable

AlbertUnreliablefinal

New grading models are based on the premise that a standards-based system requires that scores on assessments be both valid and reliable.

Many believers in standards-based grading claim a score is valid when the score represents a student’s performance on a standard and that a score is reliable when students who demonstrate the same understanding of a standard receive the same score.

This is all very “scientific” sounding. How much real science is involved, though?

Reliability is the central issue—so what makes an assessment reliable? Well, a measurement made once should be replicable; if we are measuring distance, we use a tool that accurately measures it, like a ruler. If we are measuring time, we might use a “reliable” stopwatch. Doing so should make replicating measurements simple and practical. Both distance and time can be measured reliably because we agree that each has an objective reality and a corresponding system for its measurement.

So what are we measuring at school? I assume we are measuring student learning.

I’ve never seen an objective measurement of learning. Learning is not an objective construct. It has been operationally defined by some as “What you know and can do,” but a remarkable number of educators and psychologists reject that notion as a convenient reductionist fallacy. That definition is based on the belief that learning is an outcome. Learning can be described in a variety of ways—as open-ended inquiry, for example. If we view learning as primarily a process or journey that has no distinct conclusion, then we ought to accept that learning is best judged by the unexpected outcomes that accompany it—and we will reject authoritarian notions that outcomes conform to pre-ordained “standards” or “proficiency scales.”

Since it isn’t possible to measure or observe learning directly, it must be inferred from the performance of students. We give tests; we ask students to respond to questions or to solve problems or perform some skill relevant to a content area. We create scales to clarify how performance is to be evaluated—in the hope and belief that we’ll all “measure learning” reliably. We create “common formative and summative assessments” so that students can be “guaranteed” a specific experience and outcome.

But it doesn’t work.

Human beings seldom see things in exactly the same way as other humans. Tools like proficiency scales are subject to variable interpretation and application. Humans make subjective judgments of non-objective realities, using measuring tools that are blunt instruments.  Judging complex thought and performance—even with established standards—is a messy, awkward process that ought to caution against certainty, guarantees, or claims of “objectivity.” Taking the illogic of standards-based evaluation to its nadir, proponents also want to use these unreliable scores for evaluation of a second party—teachers themselves.

In the end, education itself is inherently un-reliable. That’s one reason it holds fascination for both teacher and student. Acknowledgement of this fact may free us from the discomfort that trying to shoehorn objective measures into a subjective framework produces.

And if reliability eludes us, validity is out the window as well.

Just ask a scientist.

We’d be better off with an honestly un-reliable system.

© David Sudmeier, 2014

Truth In Labeling

plc award

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

 Inigo Montoya: The Princess Bride

 I hate buying things and finding out they aren’t what they were advertised to be, don’t you? You’d think that when people put a label on something, that “something” should be exactly as described. I either feel cheated or manipulated when stuff like that happens, and I’m unlikely to respect or trust the company or person who treated me that way. I remember accompanying a friend to an auto dealership—he was looking for a truck, and was assured by a salesperson he had talked to over the phone that the “Custom Deluxe” model had all the bells and whistles he’d ever need. Upon examination, it became obvious that the truck’s label ought to have been “Generic Unequipped.” It didn’t even come with a radio or floor mats…you had to select each desired option and wait weeks for the items to be shipped from the factory for installation. Neither of us has ever purchased a vehicle from that automaker since walking (running?) away from the lot.

“Professional Learning Communities” are another good example of mislabeling.  They are neither professional nor learning-centered, and are as likely to be divisive as they are to unify.

When I first heard of Professional Learning Communities, I had high expectations of meaningful dialogue and exploration of ideas in education. I love ideas, and an opportunity to sit with respected colleagues and engage in heated discussion as we debated new (or old) educational initiatives sounded ticky-boo to me. Imagine my discomfort after discovering that no debate was included—I was treated to a PowerPoint on the “correct” way to teach and collaborate. A behaviorist definition of learning was assumed; students have objectives to master, they demonstrate competency or are assigned involuntary “interventions” to assure that they progress in lockstep with their peers. Every teacher uses the same “common formative assessments” so that every student receives a “guaranteed” education. After the PowerPoint, I got to sit down with my peers and “clarify essential outcomes” so that our “achievement data” would be aligned for later “discussion.” Over time, I’ve discovered that challenging the underlying assumptions or the practices of PLC dogma is enough to trigger questions of one’s “professionalism.”

Yawn.

Professionalism, in my book, is a concept that deserves more consideration before being equated with compliance with one philosophy of education or learning. Professionalism means making decisions based on a deep understanding of the history and philosophies related to a discipline; it means autonomy within a range of practice; it means being part of a self-governing body of practitioners. I try to behave as a professional, but I’m pretty sure I’m not treated as one by society, and I’m convinced that the PLC folks have hijacked the term for purposes unrelated to its true meaning. They want to eliminate teacher autonomy and replace it with lists of standards to comply with.

Learning, as a concept, has also been corrupted by the PLC folks. If you accept their limited definition of learning (“what you know and can do”), you’re likely to accept the rest of their dogma without question. I don’t accept it, because I believe that their definition is only one of many ways to parse the term. Humanists often describe learning as an ongoing process rather than as attainment of a particular goal. To constructivists, the act of imparting meaning to the world by assimilating and accommodating experiences is an internal process a teacher can assist, but only occasionally trigger.  There are many other definitions, but it’s sufficient to say that the PLC brigade rejects them all because they do not focus on utilitarian outcomes open to measurement. The absolutist attitude of this behavioral stance should be repulsive to anyone who wants to treat education as an interactive journey of exploration rather than a prescriptive march to an unwavering end.  Try suggesting an alternative to the PLC definition at a staff meeting—it’s guaranteed to cause administrators to blanch and assessment supervisors to gasp at your heresy. They want certainty, and any suggestion that acceptable alternatives exist endangers the house of cards they are building.

Community is a term that connotes kinship and identity, but that’s not what is being created by PLC. I have kinship with my family, and they certainly provide me with an identity, but I am not expected, by virtue of my family membership, to believe or behave in exactly the same manner as my parents or siblings. The advocates of PLC demand exactly that. No? Then why is there an entire book devoted to the subject available for sale on the Delusion Tree website called Working With Difficult & Resistant Staff? If you’re not on board with every detail of the PLC belief system, you will be plastered with a label. You must be one of these:

  • An Underminer (Or are you just digging a hole to jump in and hide?)
  • A Contrarian (Because you must be a negative person not to drink the Kool-Aid…)
  • A Recruiter (“Come to the dark side of progressive thinking, Luke…”)
  • Challenged (…you can’t possibly be “normal” since you have an alternative viewpoint…)
  • An On-the-Job Retiree (You’re just bellying up to the public trough, aren’t you, you slacker?)
  • The Resident Expert (Hey, that master’s degree on your wall isn’t really yours, is it?)
  • An Unelected Representative (Gee, and you hadn’t even considered running for office…)
  • A Whiner & Complainer (Just stick a hanger in your mouth before the next meeting, huh?)

The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind as I peruse the list. There is no room for dissent if you call yourself an educator! True believers will burn you at the stake. Straw man arguments like this do not bear up to the slightest examination, and are insulting to those who think deeply about education—but think differently than devotees of the PLC cult. PLC is a belief system akin to a religion, requiring the faith of believers rather than the contributions of thinking skeptics.

Just as the truck my buddy and I went shopping for deserved a truthful label, so does what is now termed “PLC.” Let’s call the initiative “ABC,” or Amateurish Behaviorist Congregations. After all, it advocates a sloppy and un-professional treatment of the multi-dimensional concept of learning according to behaviorist maxims, requiring unthinking obedience from the converted.

I claim religious freedom as my ticket out.

If that won’t work, just burn me as a heretic and scatter my ashes on the doorstep of the Gates Foundation.

© David Sudmeier, 2014