I had the honor of appearing on the Diane Rehm Show this morning, along with D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, Lisa Graham Keegan of the McCain campaign, Melody Barnes of the Obama campaign, Greg Toppo of USA Today, and Rick Kahlenberg of the Century Foundation. We discussed the candidates' education proposals, and all went according to plan until about halfway through the segment when Melody said that Obama wanted to look at different kinds of student assessments, including portfolios.
Portfolios? As Greg and I said on the air, this was news. We're not aware of the Obama camp ever saying before that portfolios might be part of the mix. I'm pretty sure I could hear Kati Haycock screaming from a few miles away. (And I bet that George Miller, the chairman of the House Education Committee, won't be so happy with this development either.) After all, several states experimented with using portfolios as large-scale assessments back in the 90s, and they were found to be completely unreliable, as their grading relies on subjective judgments to a large degree. If you think "adequate yearly progress" is complicated and leads to insane results, wait till you introduce portfolios. With every grader coming up with a different score, you are going to see mass confusion about whether kids are reaching standards or not. (This 2004 Education Next Jay Mathews article on portfolios is a good primer on the pros and cons of the approach. Note this quote from none other than Keegan: "A collection of student work can be incredibly valuable, but it cannot replace an objective and systematic diagnostic program. Hopefully, we will come to a place where we incorporate both."
Let me make a prediction: either the Obama campaign will clarify that the Senator would consider portfolios on top of tests, not instead of them, or the McCain campaign will pounce on this issue and argue that it shows Obama to be weak on reform. Because one thing is for sure: embracing portfolios is a clear signal of an intention to roll back accountability.
