Open Memo to Wonks, Pundits, and Bloggers
TO: Education policy wonks, pundits, bloggers, and/or twitter addicts
A little depressed and wondering what you’ll write about now that Race to the Top’s first round winners have been revealed? Sure, you could beat the various transparency/process stories to depth, begin immediate second-round speculation, or call for an even tougher second-round judging standard (crappy applications actually lose money!!). But, really, don’t you want to do something different?
Here’s an idea…
Consider writing about the administration’s initiative that could impact classroom learning the most: the $350 million fund to improve student assessment. In fact, here are just a few things that are driven by or dependent on high-quality assessments:
- Race to the Top plans that evaluate teachers based on student learning
- Accountability determinations in any new ESEA re-authorization
- Data for our fancy new data systems and colorful data walls
- The actualization of common core standards
- Evaluation of charter schools and other “innovations”
I know, your eyes bleed over with all that stuff about validity, reliability, item theory, psychometric blah, blah, blah. I hear you. My first conference session on equating processes was one too many.
But, there’s a lot of intrigue here, too. There’s big money at stake, a variety of shifting consortia and players, and heavy lobbying from vendors. For those that like handicapping, states are scrambling left and right to make sure they’ve placed their bets with the winning group (what that means is another thing entirely). And for those wishful thinkers who’d like to see multiple providers and a system where financial and other resource inputs can be related to performance—keep an eye on