Letter to Mazie Hirono

Ms. Hirono,

I am a teacher at Moanalua High School and am have concerns about the Re-Authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

First, any good educator knows that a single source of evaluation (e.g. a state test) cannot possibly provide enough information to determine whether a person or organization is successful or failing.  This type of evaluation does, in effect, limit what good teachers can do, and eventually what students will be able to do.  This is the most damaging aspect of this Act.  However, I do believe in standards.  There are many renowned educators that promote standards (but not the typical state standards we see) without standardization.  I am sure you know of these educators, but here is a short list: Debbie Meier, Ted Sizer, Grant Wiggins, and Dennis Littky.  All of these educators promote high standards, but really work at preparing out students to contribute and compete in our democratic society.  They have even proposed better ways of school accountability (see Tony Wagner's "Making the Grade," which was highly publicized by our own DOE).



Second, any good educator knows that people do not develop at the same rate (both physically and mentally).  A true standards-based system allows students to progress appropriately and provide adequate support along the way.  This does not mean students are left to stuggle, but it provides more of a time cushion than expecting all 3rd graders (who are not all born on the same date) to have the same reading ability at the same time.  An excellent example of standards-based progression is being done in the Chugach School District in Alaska.  This allows students to progress accordingly but not let them flounder without support.  Therefore, the examination system (an important part) should take differences in development, such as students take the exam when they are at that stage and schools report who has been at all stages for how long.

Third, in order for education to be successful, teachers need to know their students.  It is difficult (if not impossible) to motivate and support a student you do not know.  This again is nothing new.  The highly recommended Breaking Ranks and Breaking Ranks II both make a teacher load a priority.  However, I must make a concession here.  I personally do not believe "class size" is the issue as much as total "student load."  This is usually more prevalent in secondary schools where a teacher sees multiple classes of students in a day.  I believe good teachers can handle reasonable size classes (25-35 students) but should only have two or three of these classes.  This would limit a teacher's load to around 80-100 students.  Although this is one way of organizing the day, it would also provide teachers what they need in order to actually respond and plan to the students' needs: TIME.  Could you image if the U.S. actually gave teachers the time they need to plan and assess and respond to students?  (Most other countries do it.)  This idea would impact several areas of the law such as funding, possibly teacher quality, and others.  However, if this issue (knowing students well) is crucial to education, it must explicitly or implicitly be address in this Act.

Lastly, I do want to comment that the actual concept behind the 2001 version of this Act is not bad.  I do believe that schools and teachers need to really examine their work and reflect on what is working to make improvements.  However, the implementation has been misguided and led to a lack of understanding about what started as "standards."  The General Learner Outcomes (with some additional details) really provide us with the guidance of real standards, but these outcomes cannot be measured by a test at the same time for the same "cohort" of students.  Push for methods that take multiple data points from a variety of sources and provide teachers with limited number of students and necessary time to actually know and respond to those students.

Thank you,
Robert Widhalm
Teacher