Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Dyche calls for SB 1 debate in the House

Louisville columnist John David Dyche would have us believe that the motives of Senate Bill 1's sponsors are as pure as the driven snow, and everyone should play nicely. ...otherwise he presents a nicely balanced view of the bill. Maybe Dyche is right. Personally, I think at least one of the key players has worked hard to earn his reputation. But, Dyche correctly outlines the way things ought to be.

Dyche wants to sweet talk Democrats into a lovely floor debate in the House. Kentucky is nowhere near ready to resolve this issue and it's hard to see how SB 1 could be amended without turning it 180 degrees. But, OK ... let's talk about it. It should never move out of committee, however. Better is Commissioner Jon Draud's effort to put a task force together to draft a new plan over time.

If Kentucky's leaders were truly "passionate about the agreed goal of all students achieving at high-levels" we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, these "well-intentioned men" would have already supported an adequately funded system of schools throughout the state, producing better student achievement and fewer students needing remediation as college freshmen.

This from John David Dyche in today's Courier-Journal:

SB 1 sparks productive debate

... [Senate Bill 1's] sponsor, Senate President David Williams, R-Burkesville, and two other Senate proponents, Dan Kelly, R-Springfield, and Ken Winters, R-Murray, do not deserve the scorn some ideological adversaries reflexively heaped upon them. Whatever one's opinion of SB 1, these smart and well-intentioned men performed an important public service by challenging old assumptions and forcing high-profile discussion of testing alternatives.

SB 1's supporters sometimes swerved off the legislative high road in ways that distracted from the substantive issues. Still, seeking better student-specific data, more instructional days and savings makes sense.

But the bill's backers failed to make a compelling, broad-based case for the radical change they advocate. There were credible witnesses, like the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce's Dave Adkisson, but insufficient evidence of either urgent need or widespread sentiment among administrators, parents or teachers to immediately abolish CATS altogether.

Among SB 1s opponents, Sens. Gerald Neal and Tim Shaughnessy, both Louisville Democrats, shone in committee, as did Senate Minority Leader Ed Worley, D-Richmond, on the Senate floor. They are open to reform, but they reasonably argued the benefits of CATS.

Other SB 1 foes featured Education Secretary Helen Mountjoy, who is dedicated, knowledgeable and deserving of great respect, if not deference. So are Robert Sexton and the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence, which Williams was wrong to impugn in his Friday floor speech.

Roger Marcum, the Marion County superintendent and president of the Kentucky Association of School Administrators, and Brent McKim, representing Jefferson County teachers, spoke with the prudence that real-world experience produces.

Rep. Harry Moberly Jr., D-Richmond, who gave a feisty tour de force in defending CATS on the "Kentucky Tonight" show, says SB 1 may rest in his committee "for years." But the House should hold hearings and vote. Like the stream-saver bill Moberly is helping to liberate, testing reform is too important for any one chairman to kill.

Task forces are frequently farcical or futile, but since SB 1 is probably dead this session, Education Commissioner Jon Draud is correct to convene one on assessment. In the meantime, maybe legislators should let some individual districts, like flourishing Fort Thomas Independent, opt out of CATS as a pilot program.

After watching this robust debate, albeit from a distance, this dad wants both sorts of assessment for his children. Neither CATS nor SB 1 covers all bases, but from a parental perspective, each test type has its virtues. A blended or hybrid assessment strategy seems desirable and should be possible. But time constraints may dictate that there must ultimately be an either-or choice.

Public school families know well that budget woes and partisan politics infuse this issue. They wish more mutual respect would, too. For despite all Kentucky's past policy struggles and present pedagogical disputes, we are grateful so many talented people are passionate about the agreed goal of all students achieving at high-levels.

No comments: