I had the opportunity to be on a panel out at Swarthmore College this week with Rich Maraschiello of the PA Department of Education and Diane Castebuono of the School District of Pennsylvania. Rich is one of the folks actively involved in the implementation of the Keystone exams in Pennsylvania, and Diane is a self-described "policy wonk" who has worked both for the School District and the state. We had some prepared questions, but an honest-to-goodness debate broke out.

Let me start by saying that both my panel-mates are thoughtful education policy folks who are tasked with the unenviable task of trying to figure out how to create policy at both the district and state levels that will have a positive impact while minimizing any potential damage that "blunt instrument" policy (Diane’s term) might do. A challenge, to say the least.

It was an amazing discussion, and really, we had an incredible number of moments where we agreed as much as the moments when we disagreed. If nothing else, it highlights the challenge of this work in that most of the folks involved are good people trying to do right by the kids in the public school system. I think a lot folks at all levels have a hard time accepting that. What this should remind us is this – this is hard work. We are trying to educate a nation, and we don’t know how to do that, not really. Not for every child.

But by the end of the panel, I found myself frustrated that so much of the national debate is centered around outcomes – test scores. We spent much of our time that night talking about the coming keystone exams and graduation rates and measuring schools and such. And yes, we should be talking about outcomes – but not exclusively. If we only focus on outcomes – especially, but not exclusively, test scores, then we become incredibly susceptible to Campbell’s Law. We need a better policy conversation than that.

I think the key to school reform is pedagogical reform, and policy reform has done little to nothing to deal with that.

I believe deeply that we lose so many kids because schools are mini-fiefdoms where the language of teaching and learning can change from classroom to classroom. Sadly, the scripted curriculum is a really, really bad idea that is meant to address that, when what is needed is a way for teachers and students to talk across disciplines, across subjects, across grades, so that students get to build their meta-cognitive skills over time.

But how does policy reform move us to that? Perhaps there is a rational solution that could allow policy reform to deal with process and outcomes:

• States establish a school accreditation process similar to Middle States so that schools have to justify their processes – all of their processes – every three – five years.
• Schools establish school-based standards-based assessments – schools with a test focus could choose tests, schools with a project-based focus could establish projects, portfolios, etc… this would be similar to the (now gone) Nebraska STARS project.
• Test data is used for inter-rater reliability, but sampling data is used instead of testing every child ever year.

By focusing on process, authentic student work, and allowing for sampling for standardized test data, we could create policy that would put the focus on teaching and learning at every school, in every classroom. This could create the environment for schools to have the so desperately needed dialogue about what teaching and learning should look like, with schools still being held accountable for how students learn and demonstrate their learning, only in a healthier way that re-values the work of the child, every day, not just on the one week a year that they are tested.