The 21st Century Principal

Accountability systems whether in education, business, or government are based on mistrust; a mistrust that those who are its subjects are unable to or unwilling to carry out the jobs they have been assigned. Theodore Porter, author of the book, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, writes:

"Perhaps most crucially, reliance on numbers and quantitative manipulation minimizes the need for intimate knowledge and personal trust."

It stands to reason that when education systems, (or any governmental or business system) come to rely on accountability systems, trust is shifted from the “intimate knowledge" of individuals and their capabilities to systems of numbers and statistics that are declared by the hierarchy in the system as being both more trustworthy and representative of truth. In order words, when there’s an intense distrust that those who occupy production positions in the system, systems of accountability and audit are established in order to force the system to do what it’s designed to do. In education systems, “learning” is the object of production, so naturally accountability systems are designed to force the system, made up of administrators, teachers and students’ to “produce learning.” However, “learning” is an object of contention in the first place, with few people agreeing on what it is.

Even with the disagreement on what learning is and what learning is worthwhile, there is more contention with how to measure “learning" it in a way that accurately captures it. Accountability systems look to tests for this task. Tests are developed, one after another in a fruitless effort to measure this idea of “learning” which is actually an exercise in trying to grab water. Just when educational measurement thinks it has “grasped the learning” that it thinks is significant; it escapes through their fingers. That’s while since the dawn of the accountability era, there have been wave after wave of “new standards and new tests,” all in an effort to try to capture the elusive quarry, “learning.

But I have a novel idea, at least novel in the face of accountability and testing; if teachers are professionals, then what if we were to transform teaching back into a profession where practitioners exercise “professional judgment” to determine whether learning takes place and that the system “trust their judgment"? Teachers could once again be educated to teach and use their judgment to decide whether learning has happened, and be trusted, rather than subjected them and to the mistrust of an accountability and auditing system that fails to capture the nature of “learning” in the first place. This endless pursuit of new standards and new tests that have costs millions and billions of educational funding could be shifted to fostering more effective professional teachers and a teacher professionalization system, that avoids trying to mimic and ill-suited medico-professionalization system, to create its own, never-before-realized profession.

At its heart, we are deforming our education system with both accountability and auditing methods that inadequately define “learning” and by default, are incapable of capturing “effective teaching." The mistrust of the professional educator and “trust in numbers and quantitative manipulation” doesn’t fit the task of teaching. It’s perhaps time to stop trying to make education into the image of either business or medicine, and invent a whole new profession that remembers that teaching and learning are much too complex to reduce to numbers anyway.

To continue my critique of the “accountability and testing regime,” I have been thinking about what the ultimate goals of those whose faith and belief in the promise of standardized testing, statistical technologies, and classroom surveillance are. They have captured the discourse in education and conveniently made unacceptable anything critical anyone else has to say about testing and its high stakes deployment. An educator who questions it is not taken seriously and is deemed out of bounds. Testing and accountability seeks, in a nutshell, to make teaching and learning “measurable, calculable, in order to be controllable."

What does it mean to make teaching and learning “measurable?” It means reducing teaching and learning to “indicators” or “standards” that can simply be determined to be not present or present. It means making teaching and learning into something that can be captured using the available technologies at our disposal, such as teacher observations and standardized testing. Teaching, then, is made measurable by teacher evaluations, and, more recently, using statistical measures such as value-added models, which both result in what is hopefully “objective” and widely accepted as being “true” measures of acceptable teaching and learning, because they happen to be numerical.

As an administrator, I have heard many of my colleagues make the statement, “If it isn’t measurable; it didn’t happen.” That statement captures beautifully the complete faith in testing and measurement that currently exists in education. But it is also a statement of ignorance. Even the best psychometricians will say that “NOT EVERYTHING IN TEACHING AND LEARNING THAT IS WORTHWHILE IS MEASURABLE.” But this faith in “educational measurement” is at the heart of current educational reform, and it is still believed by many educators, politicians, and policymakers to hold the “silver bullet” that will finally make all public education effective. “We just don’t measure enough and measure effectively” is the belief that keeps driving round after round of testing-and-accountability-based reforms” in education. Tests are cheap in comparison to really dealing with the equity issues of healthcare and poverty. With tests and statistical tools, the belief that one can erase these social justice problems, but sadly that is not the case.

For those of us in the schools, those of us in tune with the teachers and students there, we see the results of this: an education system that continues to be distorted and twisted, that ultimately meets the needs of a few, mainly those who can use these “measurable results” to determine their own effectiveness and the effectiveness of their own ideas. An education where test results are still valued over individuals, and any old methodology that results in higher test scores is acceptable. Testing takes precedence over everything else schools do: just look at a state’s testing regulations if you want to see this. In other words, no matter the rhetoric coming from testing and accountability addicts, testing is driving everything in schools, and that’s they way they want it. That keeps them in power and needed.

Making teaching and learning “calculable” is very much akin to making it “measurable.” Making what we do in schools “calculable” is seeking to reduce what we are supposed to be doing to numbers. Somehow, our current system views “numbers” as somehow more objective, therefore superior to other things like judgment or intuition. This desire to make everything “calculable” leads to bizarre decision-making, where outcomes are ridiculously reduced to numerical values, even if those values distort the process and result. Standardized tests do this very well. They can’t measure an “effective essay” for example. Determining whether an essay , or musical composition, or painting is “effective” is by nature a “judgment.” And, whether it is effective in all instances and in all ways is relative. It might be effective at one thing or in one instance, but not another. Rarely are major literary pieces simply “effective for all time” or “in all ways.” The same applies to music, art, and so many other human endeavors. So, in the name of “objectivity,” current testing manics send essays, compositions, and even paintings to “outside” observers to evaluate all in the quest for “objectivity.” But such actions might create a facade of objectivity based on faith, but it completely results in an unfair evaluation of student work. For, who knows better whether a student has progressed than that teacher who has been in the trenches with that student, day after day and seen their incremental growth first-hand. So, the pursuit of making teaching and learning “calculable” is to simply turn it into numerical values or make it have the facade of “objectivity” because the belief is that “numbers don’t lie.” Testing and accountability becomes more about distrust of teachers and their judgments, than really trying to provide an effective education for students. "We can't trust teachers' judgments about students, so must use tests and other outside evaluators," is the rationale.

It is this desire to make teaching and learning both measurable and calculable that leads me to the final goal of accountability and testing as I see it: to make teaching and learning controllable. Policymakers, education reformers, and even politicians all believe they hold the “ultimate vision” of what effective teaching and learning is. They believe, armed with their many contradictory studies on the subject, that they hold the answers. Answers in hand, they seek to control teaching and learning in order to mold it into their image of effectiveness. Through tactics of measurement and calculability based in standardized testing and measurement, they use high stakes decision-making to weed out the “deviant” practices that don’t meet “best practices standards.” The problem lies though with the truth that both teaching and learning is so complex that to reduce it to universal rules of effectiveness ends up distorting it and neutralizing it to simply a “technical knowledge” that anyone can understand, including administrators and policymakers and education reformers who have never spent a day engaging in teaching in classrooms and making decisions about student learning. Teachers, as a result, find themselves engaging in a strangely distorted form of teaching that must jump through the hoops of “best practices” in order to get the “results” desired by this twisted system of education. Teaching the test and test prep are two examples of this distortion. They have become assembly-line workers who “add” knowledge to students as they roll down the assembly-line, and testing with this value-added component is the “quality control mechanism” that drives teachers in the entire system to produce even more “globally competent graduates" that can produce ‘number one test scores’ on international tests such as PISA. Under the testing and accountability regime, teachers are reduced to technicians whose judgement does not count and means nothing. Test results and other “quantitative” measures are hierarchically superior.

In the end, if you wanted to design an education system that turns education into a factory-like system that produces standard results, you couldn’t have done better with that created by our current accountability and testing regime. If you wanted to create a system that transforms and de-professionalizes teaching as a profession, you can’t do much better. In the end, our public education system might ultimately match up to the vision of those who adhere avidly to accountability and testing practices, but I can’t help but wonder whether those teachers in this system find the same level of satisfaction and dedication to students when test results are valued so highly. I also have to wonder what kinds of students such a system of this really produces. Perhaps, that’s what’s desired by accountability and testing advocates: they want students who don’t question; who don’t criticize; who don’t engage in learning deemed irrelevant such as the arts, and learning seen as deviant. They want both students and teachers who “just do their jobs” and not engage in dreams of how things might be different or better.

"The test obsession is making public schools, where nine out of ten American children are enrolled, into unhappy places." Anya Kamenetz, The Test: Why Our Schools Are Obsessed with Standardized Testing---But You Don't Have to Be

At the center, high stakes accountability and standardized testing policies are an attempt to justify public education. Politicians need quantification for the expenditure of tax dollars for education, no matter what the quality of the accountability system providing them with that justification. Various groups of people are happy with the massive increase in standardized test administration in spite of the fact that such testing has indeed began to suck the life out of our public schools.

Politicians want these accountability systems for a variety of reasons. Some are fine with public schools being unpleasant places because they do not want them to exist in the first place. They want evidence that public schools are performing poorly, and testing gives them the evidence. Other politicians blindly see these tests as the "objective" tools of salvation for public education. They have the faith that "objectivity" is possible, and that tests can fairly measure all that is worthwhile in schools. They are true believers in standardized testing.

Then there's the federal and state level policy makers who want all this standardized testing too. They see them as vital "measures" that tell them how schools, principals, teachers, and students are doing. Test scores give them purpose. "Let's get those test scores up!" becomes their focus, without which the existence of their job is questionable. They find the justification in what they're doing rooted in standardized testing.

Finally, there are administrators, from the national to the school level, who want these massive testing systems too. It gives them an "easy and simple" way to measure how their teachers are doing their jobs and how students are performing. No judgments are required: if a school, teacher, or student doesn't get the score, "dump'em." That makes leadership all tidy and neat, because there's no need for thinking, and there's no need for courage either. Test scores are used by school leaders as evidence of their own leadership as well; when scores go up, they feel validated. If scores drop, they can blame the teachers under their charge, the students, or lack of support from elsewhere. In addition, focusing on test scores is an excuse by many to ignore advocating for social justice and true actions taken to deal with poverty.

It's simply true, a lot of educators and politicians need test scores, otherwise, they don't have justification for their existence or evidence of their success. If there's nothing to count, then they can't show anyone "numbers" which, in their eyes, is the only convincing evidence of success in this thinking. But what if there are other ways to show success?

Maybe, it's time to rethink the high stakes accountability and testing paradigm. Maybe, if accountability is ultimate goal, there is a way to get that without this continued chasing of shadows. Perhaps, it we really put our heads together we could find a way to really improve schools and know it, rather than this multi-decade search for the measure and punish tactic that will work.

“How reward power is exercised affects outcome. Compliance is most likely if the reward is something valued by the target person. Thus, it is essential to determine what rewards are valued, and a leader should not assume that it be the same for everyone.” Gary Yukl, Leadership in Organizations

As our political leaders and state level policy makers continue to try to find ways to “improve our K-12” systems of education, one persistent idea that just won’t go away is the idea of merit pay and punishment by accountability. They still remain faithful to the idea that somehow teachers will raise test scores if they are offered a big enough carrot or if their livelihoods are somehow placed in jeopardy enough to bring about a level of fear strong enough to give them the test scores they desire. After over a decade of “test-reward-and-punish” policies under No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, you would think they would finally give up. Instead, money is still being poured into even more standards development and testing, in the hope that somehow education reform magic will happen. What these educational policymakers and politicians just don’t understand is performance pay and punishments are dead in the water before they are even implemented.

One of the reasons for the uselessness of merit pay is captured succinctly by Gary Yukl in his book, Leadership in Organizations. Rewards will only bring about compliance if those rewards are something valued by the "target person.” Don’t get me wrong, teachers and educators want to be paid fairly and be able to live comfortably, but educators know going into the the job that what they are doing is an endeavor much greater that a paycheck. Most are just not built to pursue the big carrots for their own sake. That is one thing that politicians and policymakers don’t get. Perhaps they are motivated by greed, but many of us are not.

Another problem with the carrot and stick approach to education reform is that many educators just don’t believe that test scores are a worthy goal to pursue. Most teachers who have been in the classroom see the tests for what they really are: a single measure focused on a small portion of learning given at a single point in time. That means the test can give s snapshot of only a sliver of learning, but it can’t be the ultimate goal of learning because so much of learning falls outside testing. Our current public education system is asking educators to believe that test scores are an important goal of learning, and many aren’t buying it, and never will.

As Yulk points out, “Even when the conditions are favorable for using rewards, they are more likely to result in compliance rather than commitment.” Rewards only get people to do what is required; they do not engage people’s hearts and minds totally in the goal of education. Under rewards, people aren’t committed to their jobs, the kids, or to the profession. Our current system of accountability and testing along with its reward and punish for test score performance will never work because at its heart, because teaching requires more than compliance; it requires dedication and commitment and no amount of money can purchase that.

One of the most insidious by-products of the age of testing and accountability is the suggestion that educators should "focus on bubble students" in order to raise a school's test scores. For those who might not know what the term "bubble student" is, in education lingo, the bubble student is the student who has the greatest chance of demonstrating growth or an increase in test scores. Many a scheme has been devised to determine who these students are, and talk to any educational or curricular material salesmen, and you are more than likely going to hear this phrase: "Our materials will help you identify those students who have the greatest chance of demonstrating growth, and we give you the materials to focus on them."

Is there not anyone else who feels a bit of disgust at this sleazy sales pitch and idea? Basically, the suggestion is this: you can identify those kids who have the greatest chance of demonstrating higher test scores and focus on them. This also implies that "less focus" will be on other students for whom gains will be harder and more resource-intensive. Whatever happened to teaching "all students?

We have our testing and accountability culture to thank for this perversion. Because test scores become the ultimate indicator of quality, any strategy is on the table, including ignoring some students in order to help those who show the greatest promise of demonstrating growth. If I were a parent of a lower-ability student or a gifted student, who are usually likely victims of "bubble-student" strategies, I would hire a lawyer immediately. There's a pretty good chance that behind the use of such talk is the idea that the school is going to purposefully focus on "money students", that is, students who have the greatest chance of producing test scores, and neglect those at the very bottom and the very top who aren't going to demonstrate the greatest test score gains.

The practice of focusing on "bubble students" or "money students" as its also called is unethical and perverse. No one would suggest to a physician that he only treat those who have the greatest chance of healing. I certainly don't want a mechanic who only takes the easiest cases of repair, and writes the others off as too resource intensive. Any suggestion of this strategy for raising test scores has zero place in schools.

The practice of focusing on bubble students is a direct consequence of this fetishization and idolization of tests present in education today. Make test scores the ultimate goal, and you get perverse educational practices like focusing on the bubble students and ignoring other students because they are less likely to "bring the gains desired." By the way, any sales person who uses that in pitching his products, has immediately lost a sale.

"We would like to dethrone measurement from its godly position, to reveal the false god it has been. We want instead to offer measurement a new job—that of helpful servant. We want to use measurement to give us the kind and quality of feedback that supports and welcomes people to step forward with their desire to contribute, to learn, and to achieve." Margaret Wheatley, Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time

Want to know what's wrong with testing and accountability today? It's more about a "gotcha game" than really trying to help teachers improve their craft. Over and over ad nauseam, those pushing these tests talk about using test data to improve teaching and thereby student learning, but that's not what is happening at all.

In American education, despite what many testing and accountability advocates say, testing is driving our education system. Decision after decision is based on what will "produce the best test scores." What's wrong with that? Nothing at all, if those tests truly and accurately capture worthwhile learning, but sadly, our quest for the "Holy Grail" of tests has not been productive. All the tests and bubble sheets we subject students to are incapable of capturing real learning. I don't have the same faith in testing that many educators have. There will never be a test, nor a set of standards that saves education.

I suggest that we do as Wheatley suggests in her book Finding Our Way. Let's "dethrone measurement," in this case testing and reveal that it is a "false god." We've had well over 10 years of "test worship" and absolutely nothing to show for it. No Child Left Behind began elevating testing to deity levels, and Race to the Top has only elevated testing even higher, to the point that we're now deciding the fate of teacher assistants, teacher careers, student promotions, even the status of whole schools based on single test scores. We have made "tests" our crystal balls through which we can identify a bad teacher or bad school. We have test scores to tell us how much impact a kindergarten teacher might have on future earnings. Really? Do we really believe in the power of tests and the power of data that much?

We do need to dethrone testing a bit and make it a servant of good education rather than the dictator it has become. I'm afraid that won't happen until this fundamental faith in the infallibility of test scores ends. Let's hope our education system isn't destroyed first.

What happens when schools and school districts let test scores rule the day? Check out letter of resignation by a 14 year veteran teacher from Tennessee who was found "ineffective" due to her TVAAS ratings.

"What Defines an 'Ineffective' Teacher?"

What immediately becomes clear to me is the following:

• The problem with the accountability in education movement, like in this case, is that too many educators, politicians and state level testing bureaucrats think "any old test will do" when it comes to obtaining data for teacher ratings. Little time is taken to check to see if the tests really test what is being taught, and whether or not using the tests to evaluate teacher effectiveness is even valid. In this accountability madness, there is always an assumption that test data does not lie and that it's objectivity is a given. Both are wrong. Test data is just numbers, but the inferences, like teacher effectiveness, we make from those numbers can be wrong. Any old test will not do when high stakes of any kind are attached.
• Our education system has become blinded by its own test data. In other words, our education decision-makers have blinders on because it is somehow seen sacred that all decisions should be tied to data, and good data are test scores. You can't rely on teacher judgment because it is tainted with subjectivity, so those making these bizarre decisions about accountability through test scores and value-added measures immediately discard everything else. In this case, and I fear in many others around the country, the teaching profession and our education system is being destroyed by "testing fundamentalists" who have become blind to reason and to the possibility that their teacher evaluation systems are hurting real people and even that they might be wrong.
• The "testing fundamentalists" are beginning to see the fruits of their blind, ideological belief in sacredness of test score data. When test scores matter above all else, educational decision-making gets just "plain stupid." It is just plain bizarre that a 14 year veteran teacher was coached by an instructional coach WHO WAS ONCE HER STUDENT TEACHER. The person she mentored four years earlier is now mentoring her. When educators blindly follow the data trail, they end up in bizarre situations like this one.

“Simply put, smart superintendents don’t poke hornets’ nest with sticks.” John Kuhn, Fear and Learning in America: Bad Data, Good Teachers, and the Attack on Public Education

Since the dawn of No Child Left Behind all the way through the Obama administration’s signature Race to the Top program, finding school administrators willing to criticize these federal programs and what they've done to public education is often difficult. As Kuhn points out, smart administrators “don’t poke hornets’ nests with sticks,” because it isn’t the smartest thing to do politically, but that is exactly what Kuhn does in his book, Fear and Learning in America: Bad Data, Good Teachers, and the Attack on Public Education. He takes on, with wit, energy, passion, and solid logic all the current education reforms that seem to be directed toward tearing down the teaching profession and public education brick by brick.

According to Kuhn, this anti-public education agenda began all the way back when the media, policymakers, politicians, and even educators uncritically accepted the problems with public education outlined in the Reagan-era education report, A Nation at Risk. This report set our nation on its current path of education deform because no one critically questioned its broad negative declarations about public education in the United States. As pointed out in Kuhn's book, this report "spurred a rising tide of negative reports" that were often accepted entirely at face value and uncritically, often, even by the educational establishment.

Throughout Fear and Learning in America Kuhn repeatedly takes on these education reform measures and those pushing them. He takes on the obsession with standardized testing in this country and the use of what he calls "standardized junk science" or the use of value-added measures to evaluate teachers. Kuhn also points out that "At some point education reformers stopped asking teachers to be accountable for quality teaching and started asking them to be accountable for miracles" and that the current reform movement powered by "policymakers, journalists, and think tank wonks embraced the pursuit of superteachers as a way to fix schools, and, ipso facto, society."  This "pursuit of miracales" as Kuhn calls it, has left teachers with three choices all bad: "perform miracles, fail, or cheat."

John Kuhn's book Fear and Learning in America is both entertaining and informative. He disperses anecdotes throughout the book that communicate the often unforgotten and human side to what this current reform agenda has done to our schools. He describes how all these measures have ultimately placed public education in America in "The Educational Dark Ages" where there are those well-meaning reformers who are pushing change out of noble intentions, but there are also those pushing these reforms who have more sinister and self-serving agendas. He goes on to point out that current educational reformers have conveniently discarded poverty and all other achievement-influencing variables because they have been deemed either off limits or too difficult to tackle.

Unlike some of the current books examining the anti-public education sentiments in the United States, Kuhn does not just passionately detail what's wrong with current education reform; he offers at the end of the book his own ideas on what can be done to improve education in America for all students. These all stand in contrast to the current educational reform agendas being pushed by state and federal policymakers and politicians.

I have read several books that examine this American phenomenon of attacking public schools, but Kuhn's book, Fear and Learning in America: Bad Data, Good Teachers, and the Attack on Public Education is one of the best yet! It's readable, entertaining, and passionate style make it both a page turner and an inspiration for any educator interested in the current state of public education.

The debate over Common Core continues. This video captures a high school senior Ethan Young speaking eloquently about some of the concerns about establishing a national curriculum and our current education system's obsession with testing, accountability and standards. Perhaps our policymakers forget that standardization doesn't equal equity though they might think so. Maybe it is equally true that many who are so powerfully pushing these new standards are the very ones who stand to benefit the most financially from their implementation. Take a look at Ethan Young's take on this. It renews our faith that young people are passionate and do care about their education.

“While it has been many years since I was in high school, there is a tradition that has continued since I was a student at Staunton River High---tests are given at the end of each course.” June Atkinson, Superintendent, North Carolina Public Schools

In a recent blog post entitled “How Many Tests Do North Carolina Students Have to Take?” North Carolina State Superintendent Dr. June Atkinson justifies North Carolina’s massive increase in the number of high stakes tests by pointing back to her own days in high school. Her reasoning is that “It is a tradition to take tests at the end of the course” so what’s the big fuss about all these tests North Carolina is asking students to take?

Here’s what she does not mention in her post that was not in existence when she was in high school.

• Tests did not determine by policy whether students failed courses or grade levels. In Dr. Atkinson’s day, there was an understanding and common sense that all students do not have the same abilities and skills so their effectiveness could not be judged by a single test score. Teachers in Dr. Atkinson’s high school did not have to condemn students to “not being proficient” by a single test score. Instead, they were able to make holistic decisions about student performance that was based on teacher knowledge of that student.
• Tests scores were not used to judged the effectiveness of teachers and administrators because educators understood that was not what the tests were designed to do. The tests designed by Dr. Atkinson’s teachers were designed to see if students learned what that teacher taught, not judge teacher performance. And, teacher tests were designed by the teacher who taught the students not by teachers in the far-off state capital who have never met the students being tested. Fundamentally, Dr. Atkinson’s teachers tested what they taught and what they thought students should know. Not today, North Carolina teachers are forced teach what 800 teachers who met in Raleigh decided should be on the test.
• While students may only spend 10 hours testing, though I question this number, teachers are forced to spend days in test-prep mode, after all these tests are used to determine their effectiveness. Teachers in Dr. Atkinson’s day prepared students for life, not the next test because their job performance was not judged by an exam score. They judged their success as a teacher by how well their students did in life. The reality of testing that state leaders and politicians ignore is that what’s on the test is what gets taught, period, hence, that’s why North Carolina schools have become massive test-prep centers.

Dr. Atkinson’s post seeks to justify North Carolina's massive increase in the number of tests using that age-old argument, “It’s a tradition.” But her arguments ignore much of what was not tradition. Her argument that North Carolina teachers “now have access to standard, quality exams that they do not have to develop on their own” doesn't make these new high stakes exams more palatable either. There "quality" is yet to be determined. In the end, what has changed about Education in North Carolina? Nothing that’s good if you look at our state testing program.

As an administrator, I am always looking for solutions to managing the many tasks that come with being a school principal. During the course of the day, one or two dozen tasks can often come across my desk, and trying to find a way to keep track of all of these is problematic. Of course there are the usual Web 2.0 tools like Google Calendar, Remember the Milk, and Ta-Da Lists. All of the online tools have their positives and negatives, but I am always game for trying new software.

I honestly do not recall when and where I first heard of taskTome, but I do remember reading about it in some open source review. It looked promising so I downloaded a copy from http://tasktome.shanemca.com/. After installing it, I found it really does work as advertised. It basically has five main features:

1. Planner: You can use this feature to keep track of events. It allows you to enter an event, just like many calendar programs, but there is no alarm or reminder feature. The calendar has a very simple interface.

taskTome Calendar Interface

2. Tasks Manager: The Tasks interface for taskTome is also simple. It gives the user the ability to create tasks by clicking a single button. These tasks can then be given due dates, placed in a category, and assigned a priority. Again, though, there is no reminder alarm system with the software.

taskTome Tasks List Interface

3. Diary Entry: One feature that I found interesting with taskTome was the ability to enter Diary entries. During my tenure as an administrator, I keep a running administrative log that contains notes regarding administrative actions taken and the incidents and situations faced every day while on the job. This feature is a handy one to have for someone who is keeping a daily log of activities for documentation purposes. The only feature I wish was included was a timestamp button so that I could easily enter the time.

taskTome Diary Interface

4. Notes Entry: TaskTome also gives users a place to enter notes. This is basically a simple notepad like interface where users can enter information and insert dates and objects into them. Useful for keeping additional notes tied to tasks or events.

taskTome Notes Interface

5. Financial Tracking: TaskTome’s financial tracking feature was personally the least useful feature for me. Perhaps that is because so much of the schools expenses are tracked in other ways. Still, it looks simple enough and might prove useful to some.

taskTome Financial Interface

TaskTome is a very simple Task tracking program. For the user who really does not need a lot of extra bells and whistles, this program fits the bill. It has the ability export its event list, task list, diary entries, and notes, and will also export these same documents into PDF files. The program is also small enough to install and operate from a flash drive. It truly is a simple task management program.

When I started teaching about twenty years ago, a veteran teacher once told me when I elatedly said that I was glad our state government was changing some education regulation, “Be careful what you wish for. What they often come up with is often worse than what we have.” Twenty years later, that veteran teacher’s fear is alive and well inside my head as discussions heat up about the re-authorization of No Child Left Behind. I have long suspected that the original motivations behind the No Child Left Behind legislation was to set public schools up so that they automatically fail. Why else would you set up the totally ridiculous and impossible standard of having all students proficient by 2014. It does not take someone with the intelligence of a rocket scientist to see that having ALL students proficient by that deadline is not going to happen, ever. In fact, you could set that standard deadline for 2050 and it will never happen. I realize to some idealists that statement sounds pessimistic coming from a school administrator who should have high expectations for all students, but as the discussion about NCLB re-authorization heats up, I honestly think this country is in desperate need of a reality check.

Let’s face it, education is an extremely messy process. Contrary to what all the politicians behind NCLB or its re-authorization think or believe, education is not a business. Education is not a factory. NCLB has a basic assumption that education can be a business or a factory. The discussions about the re-authorization of the legislation and this “Race-to-the-Top” rhetoric still have the same basic assumptions at their core. For example, the discussion of national standards and national tests to measure those standards is only extension of the same factory-model view of learning. The difference now is that states like Tennessee and Texas are going to directly tie teacher performance to test score performance. That should be a frightening prospect to all educators. Not because we do not want to take responsibility for our students’ learning, but because there are so many environmental factors about learning that we do not control. For example, we do not even control our own budgets which means we ultimately do not control the resource stream into our classrooms and schools. Yet, there are those who tie student performance on tests to teacher performance. That is clearly a sign of the delusional factory-model thinking of our political establishment.

I do think we must take responsibility for our students’ learning, and I am not just making excuses by pulling the environment card. But, instead of tumbling headlong into the next standards and accountability fad, we must also back up and critically look at the entire accountability and standards movement and what is has done to education as a whole, and to our teachers and students specifically. No matter what anyone says, we have an educational system that “teaches to the test.” Some might argue that this is not a problem, but anyone who has actually worked with these high-stakes tests know their many limitations. In a sense, we are basing a child’s entire future and a teacher’s on a test. That is frightening!

Where then is this current standards and accountability push taking us? Will we have national standards and a national test that determines the fate of both students and teachers in this country? Perhaps instead of “racing to the top” we need to walk for a bit to assess our ideas. If we do not do that, I am afraid what that veteran teacher told me long ago is true. “Be careful what you wish for. What our government and educational establishment develops to replace what we have is often worse than what we had before.”