I was thrilled to hear that Barack Obama doesn't want to dump standardized tests and replace them with portfolios. A campaign spokesperson emailed Education Week's Michele McNeil this note last night, in response to my posts: "Senator Obama has said he supports testing but wants to make sure our tests are better and smarter. He does not support replacing the current structure of NCLB with portfolios and to suggest otherwise is a willful misreading of his comprehensive agenda on education." Alexander Russo* quotes Obama himself from his speech in Colorado in May: "This doesn't mean that we won't have a standardized test, I believe children should master that skill as well and that should be part of the assessments and tools that we use to make sure our children are learning. It just can't dominate the curriculum to the extent where we are pushing aside those things that will actually allow children to improve and will accurately assess the quality of teaching that is taking place in the classroom. This is not an either/or proposition, it is a both/and proposition, and that's what we will be working on by fixing NCLB."
So that's the good news.
The bad news is that in last night's Education Week debate, Obama advisor Linda Darling-Hammond muddied the waters again. Once more, from McNeil's Campaign K-12 post:
Darling-Hammond, one of several education advisers to Obama, said quite a lot about assessment: "If you look at other countries, their assessments include relatively few multiple-choice items and in some cases none. Their kids are doing science inquiries, research papers, technology products. Those are part of the examination system." (Are those examples part of a broadly defined "portfolio"?)
Darling-Hammond addressed what Barnes said-and didn't say-on NPR directly:
She said in addition to standardized tests we need to look at other assessments. She did mention portfolios. They are used in the charter school she is on the board. ... And we have to get knowledgeable about what does go on in other countries. ... They routinely include elements like research products, they are scored, they are scored in consistent and reliable and valid ways.
I'm sorry, but that sure sounds like support for portfolios to me! Here's the question: would Obama back a new version of NCLB that would allow a state to use just the sort of portfolios that LDH describes, sans standardized testing? Comments from Obama himself indicate that the answer is no, but how to reconcile that with Hammond's statements?
That brings us to the ugly. The whole reason this fracas matters is that it illustrates the deep divides within the Obama camp. It's pretty obvious that the Obama team doesn't know where it wants to go on No Child Left Behind, and that team is definitely not speaking with one voice. So if Obama wins the election (which looks likely), the internal battles will continue. Here's hoping that the good guys and gals win.
* Russo also charges that I stubbornly refuse to admit when I'm wrong. Meanwhile, Andy Rotherham charges that I'm not stubborn enough and change my mind too easily. Hey guys, fight it out and let me know what you decide.
