Agreeing To Disagree Not Disagreeing To The Death

Today, I participated in a "Capacity Review" for the Oklahoma State Department of Education. May I say first, BOY WAS I HAPPY TO BE ASKED! I'm no prognosticator - I can't see ahead to the end of Supt. Hofmeister's term - but I can tell you that as of now, I'm impressed. It feels so good just to be ASKED for input and not stiff-armed or walked out on, or indirectly called a liar. Going into her new position, it is at least apparent that Mrs. Hofmeister understands the rule, "You get more flies with honey than vinegar". She may not hear or take into consideration a word we said, but again, just indicating interest salves a lot of wounds!

The meeting of the group in which I was placed (I assume we were the 'parent' group) was this morning at 8:00am. Other than having to leave the kids Home Alone (insert face of Macaulay Culkin here!) from 7:30am to 10:00am, it was no trouble and the facilitator shepherded the meeting diligently, allowing the seven of us to be excused in just about an hour.

Our group contained representatives from PTA, Oklahoma Central PLAC, Stand For Children, VOICE, Oklahoma Parents/Educators for Public Education and a Sand Springs Teacher also coordinator of Parents and Teachers. Several of these groups clashed with ROPE over Common Core last year and others have been frustrated by our support for Education Savings Accounts/school choice this year. Consequently, I have to admit once the group assembled, I began to hear the Sesame Street classic, "One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others" playing in my head while I wondered how and where the conversation would go.

In the end, I appreciated hearing what others had to say in response to the questions posed by the facilitator, and agreed with a number of the opinions provided. In fact, I re-learned a valuable lesson; oftentimes people have more in common than not, it's finding common ground that's often hard.

Sadly, finding common ground has been made more difficult in just the last decade due to many factors culminating in political polarity unseen since possibly the sixties and the Vietnam War. Today, Americans at large seem to believe that even the slightest disagreement should be handled as Gladiators fighting to the death in the Colosseum. In fact, numerous research and articles such as, "Torn Apart: 11 Charts That Show How Americans Are More Divided, Partisan, And Ideological Than Ever Before" by Business Insider, recount this nationwide trend.

There also appears to be a general degradation of basic social skills I blame in large part on social media. In the 'old days' of my youth, until the dawn of 'texting' and email, we'd actually call people on the phone or meet face to face to discuss possibly divisive issues. Voice to ear, or face to face, it's much harder to launch into an emotion-filled, intellectually-deflated tirade, than when you let your fingers do the walking across an impersonal keyboard to a 'send' button.

I've found myself on the receiving end of unpleasant remarks from time to time over politics and opinion. Though I don't enjoy it, I attempt not to go tit-for-tat because I'm a mouth - I freely (and frequently) state my opinion - so it seems fair that if someone somewhere doesn't agree, that person has the same right as I to their own view. It seems at cross purposes to return unpleasantries with someone for their opinion when taking that path will inevitably lead to a dead end. Writing something akin to "Your mother wears combat boots" in all caps in a social media forum - or even within the confines of an email - does nothing but alienate the person on the receiving end, effectively shutting down discussion that could lead to some kind of common understanding on some level.

Everyone who reads this blog knows I self-identify as Conservative. I've very little patience for big government/bureaucratic solutions to any situation that can't be addressed on some level through personal control and/or a non-profit organization. When I first awakened politically, I considered anyone with a "D" after their name on their voter registration, the "enemy". Then I found Pat Caddell. Then I found Dr. John Thompson. Then I began to digest the fact that people are people, not the sum total of their political thought.

I remember meeting Dr. Thompson outside the Committee room at the Capitol where anti-Common Core activists/teachers/parents were testifying against the standards in 2013. He walked over to me and introduced himself as a "liberal Democrat who doesn't like Common Core". I was still in political 'stiff arm' mode with those on the 'other side of the fence' so it took me some time to find listening mode on my hearing aid, but once I did, I realized a number of things: 1. He was a really nice guy 2. He was incredibly knowledgeable about a number of issues and I gained new perspective listening to him 3. We had more things in common than I would have ever thought before actually TALKING to him, and 4. When we don't agree, I think we can do so civilly with the idea we don't dislike each other personally, we just don't agree on a specific issue.

The only cure for my deeply-rooted small government/social values bend will be the shaking off of my mortal coil. I'm not going to suddenly adopt a different internal compass to agree with someone on a point with which I simply can't agree philosophically. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to find common ground where I can with others who don't share my political/social values.

To conclude our meeting today, our facilitator asked what we could do to support the Department of Ed - how we could support the new Superintendent. I think I voiced the notion that I would when I could and I wouldn't when I couldn't, but that was okay. Disagreeing doesn't mean I 'hate' the Department or the Superintendent, it simply means I don't agree. I also pointed out that most of us in the room wouldn't agree on a number of issues, but that debate was healthy and fostering civil discussion opened doors to understanding. It does. We just need to be sure we're agreeing to disagree, not disagreeing to the death.

Guest Post: Dr. John Thompson on ACT Cut Scores and Other Issues

GUEST POST BY DR. JOHN THOMPSON: ACT: Cut Scores and Other Issues

A recurring suggestion by good people is the proposal that the ACT replace Oklahoma’s EOIs. While I don’t think that’s a good idea, I’d like to limit this email to a couple of ways of keeping such a policy from dramatically increasing the dropout rate.

The problem is setting an ACT cut score that is high enough to be politically viable, but low enough to prevent an explosion in the dropout rate. 

I’m basing this on data provided by the ACT to Sen. Ford’s interim committee in October 2009, and it is my understanding that the ACT routinely reissues up-to-date charts with this data. Back then, 30% of eligible Oklahoma students were excluded because they didn’t take the ACT, and a disproportionate number of them would be unable to pass such a test. 

The ACT material showed that 16% of Oklahomans failed to get a 14 on an ACT. If the cut score was set at 15 then 22% would fail. If it took a 16 to pass an exit exam, then 28% would fail. Add those numbers to those in the 30% who don’t take ACT (which includes disproportionately high numbers of poor, urban kids of color) and who wouldn’t pass it, and you can see the potential disaster. 

Of course, with an administration (like that of Joy Hofmeister) that has the trust of educators, some of these problems might be addressed, quietly, and a less dangerous set of rules might be possible. But, such solutions might not be possible. (And, I've seen to pattern where policy people and educators juice each other up, pushing standards higher and higher until the targets are clearly impossible.)

That leads me back to the suggestion I made previously; I just believe that the ACT possibility makes this proposal deserve a higher priority.  The law currently allows for portfolios as an alternative option, even though that path is largely spurned and stigmatized. The better path would be to make the portfolio/project option a normative and equally respected course for graduation. 

Please think of what we would want for children who fail their EOIs if they were our own children. In poor schools, those children are subjected to repeated remediation and test prep. They basically lose the chance to have a holistic high school experience, and they lose their senior year to a focus on retaking EOIs. If they were our children, would we want a choice between an unflinching focus on passing the EOIs to a portfolio that builds on their strengths? 

I understand that money is short. Urban districts could divert the resources that have been devoted to “EOI Boot Camps,” and other remediation to project-based efforts to meet graduation requirements. That would require leadership from the State, and I believe most districts would trust the Hofmeister administration on this. But, I would also offer encouragement in terms of funding for the portfolio route.  

This week, alone, I spoke with both a Tea Party education leader and a “No Excuses” charter school leader, and we found ourselves in agreement that high-quality portfolios should become a common and respected path to graduation and parents should be free to choose that path without their children being stigmatized. I believe this could be a very popular, common sense policy that would enjoy the support of all stakeholders.