Novick and CIM/CAM

An article in the Willamette Week yesterday details US Senate candidate Steve Novick's past support for the now defunct CIM/CAM testing program, and wonders if it will affect the upcoming endorsement by the Oregon Education Association:

Novick, a lawyer; and Merkley, speaker of the Oregon House, have been fighting over who is the strongest opponent of No Child Left Behind because teachers despise the Bush policy. Its purpose is to raise public-school students’ test scores, but it is also an underfunded mandate.

And on the eve of the Oregon Education Association’s union endorsement meeting this weekend, neither candidate wants to tick off the powerful teachers union’s 48,000 members.

But before there was the bane of teachers known as No Child Left Behind, there was an equally incendiary—and just as test-heavy—educational policy elevating emotions in Oregon. Some say it was even the state prequel to the federal No Child Left Behind.

The policy, passed by the Oregon Legislature in 1991, was known as CIM/CAM. And one of its defenders in the Democratic establishment was Novick, who from January to October 2003 was the legislative coordinator for the Oregon Department of Education tasked with warding off threats to CIM/CAM, which stands for Certificate of Initial Mastery and Certificate of Advanced Mastery.

The OEA was also a supporter of CIM/CAM, but eventually turned against the certificates as many of its members were screaming about the extra paperwork they created.

Novick publicly supported CIM/CAM through 2003 in the face of attempts to abolish the program:

Some of the problems with CIM/CAM were evident from the start. Teachers had little to no input on the program. Then things got worse. Despite its aspirations, CIM essentially became a series of standards-based tests put into practice across the state. CAM was a less widely implemented vocational training program. Together the programs cost tens of millions of dollars a year, but they were never fully embraced by many schools.

Because of that and because of the cost, a strange alliance of the left and the right emerged over the years to take down CIM/CAM.

And the efforts came to a boil in 2003, when Novick was working as legislative coordinator for State Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo. She started her term in January of that year as a CIM/CAM believer, at the same time that CIM/CAM opponents were working to kill the certificates.

First came House Bill 2415. The bill, which was backed by leading charter-school advocate and onetime Castillo opponent Rob Kremer, would have ended CIM/CAM. Novick testified in Salem against abolishing the program, saying, according to minutes from the May 1, 2003, meeting, that CIM/CAM was working fine and that it was a valid program that had been subjected to outside reviews.

Novick says now that “kill” bill was also an attempt to outsource Oregon’s own assessment programs to “off-the-shelf” testing companies, a move he and Castillo opposed. The bill never made it to the floor.

Read the rest. Discuss.

  • (Show?)

    Seeing as we have several editors here, and that there will probably be some intense interest and debate over this article, I thought I would let everyone know that I posted it.

  • (Show?)

    Before Novick's knee jerk protectors highjack this thread.....

    It is a question of Novick's judgement. We need to remember it was a Vera Katz education inititive that began the program, then the Bush program rolled in with No Child Left Behind when the CIM/CAM became a disaster. Teachers wasted their valuable time putting together portfolio's and students were short changed by the loss of meaningful instruction. No one cared, least of all employers who couldn't have cared less if a student had passed the CIM or CAM.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks for the transparency, Nick.

    By the way, did anyone else catch Jeff Merkley's bald-faced lie on KPOJ this morning, where he claimed Novick recently supported Ralph Nader.

    "There was a difference of opinion that had come up recently, in which Steve was saying how much he liked Nader and how disappointed he was in Barack Obama and in Clinton. And I just have exactly the opposite point of view. hen Nader put himself forward saying that democrats and Republicans are exactly the same, that Gore is exactly the same as Bush, that Clinton is exactly the same as Dole, to me that was just completely erroneous, completely about Nader, not about the truth, not about the facts because of vast differences on trade issues on health care issues on education issues. Huge differences. And so I have the reverse. I was very disappointed in Nader.

    Merkley was referring to a 10-year-old letter Novick wrote about a 12-year-old ('96) election that Bill Clinton easily won, and he tried to tie Novick to Nader's disastrous 2000 run. Unfortunately Novick vehemently supported Al Gore in that race. The Merkley campaign knows that.

    It was A BAld-FACED LIE that rolled off Merklye's tongue with a George-W-Bush-like ease.

    Boy, that's some change he's offering, 'cause there sure aren't enough politicians in DC willing to lie about their opponents.

    I refuse to vote for liars.

    Moreover, is it really that smart to go on liberal talk radio and bash Nader backers or lie about a candidiate who most of the station's listeners support.

    Lying is wrong and stupid. And the setting in which Merkley lied just another example of how politically tone deaf he really is.

    Gordon Smith would dispose of him faster than you can flush a stinky turd down a toilet.

  • (Show?)

    As Jack Murray asked in comments at Willy Weak,

    Why does Novick campaign manager Jake Weigler say that Steve Novick stands behind his decision to keep CIM/CAM, when Slovic writes that Novick says he probably would have voted with Merkley to kill it?

    If, as Jake Weidler asserted in reply to Jack, that "Steve's proud of the work he did at ODE," why is it conspicuously missing from his campaign and Facebook bios and Wiki pages?

    Let's look at the larger context here. A week or so ago the same Beth Slovic who wrote this gentle softball piece about Novick also wrote a much harsher piece about Merkley. Slovic went back to 2004 to tie Merkley to Charter Schools in a blatent attempt to influence the upcoming OEA endorsement. But all she could find from Novick's 2003 job as the ODE staff lobbyist is CIM/CAM? Nothing about Charter Schools?

    While this CIM/CAM thing is potentially uncomfortable for Novick, it's child's play compared to what Slovic could have written about.

    Ultimately this Slovic story is a gently lobbed softball to a waiting Jake Weidler.

  • (Show?)

    Lying is wrong and stupid.

    I couldn't agree more, Pat. Which is why I was so disappointed with Steve Novick's complicity in Liz Kimmerly's lie by omission at the now infamous PDA meeting in Portland. But of course you don't seem to have had a problem with that lie... And of course Jeff Merkley was absolutely correct when he said that this Nader thing came up recently, as the recent Mapes post on oregonlive.com proves.

    Surely your utterly off-topic rant here isn't an attempt to change the subject, is it?

    What is it that Novick is hoping nobody figures out about his lobbyist job at the ODE?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Not sure I trust the author, and a huge block of salt in my mind to anything Kremer said.

    I wonder if Backlund and the other legislators at the time would see things the same way.

    With regard to KPOJ this morning. I didn't hear what Jeff said (and yes, heard the whole interview, after waking up in the middle of the Novick interview earlier this morning) as saying Steve supported Nader recently.

    I heard the language more as "recently, Steve and I were arguing about Nader". There have been times when Nader made the "not a dime's worth of difference between the parties" argument. Which is why people got angry at him--did Nader really believe Gore would have been a copy of Bush had Florida gone the other way?

    Does the statewide primary really hang on statements made on a Portland radio station? How many people in the audience at the Eugene debate tomorrow are likely to have heard KPOJ this morning at 8:30?

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's abundantly clear from the transcript that Merkley was trying to smear Novick with Nader's 2000 run.

    That's a lie, and Merkley knows it.

    Novick vehemently supported Gore in 2000.

    "There was a difference of opinion that had come up recently, in which Steve was saying how much he liked Nader and how disappointed he was in Barack Obama and in Clinton. And I just have exactly the opposite point of view. hen Nader put himself forward saying that democrats and Republicans are exactly the same, that Gore is exactly the same as Bush, that Clinton is exactly the same as Dole, to me that was just completely erroneous, completely about Nader, not about the truth, not about the facts because of vast differences on trade issues on health care issues on education issues. Huge differences. And so I have the reverse. I was very disappointed in Nader.
  • (Show?)

    Why are you trying to change the subject, Pat?

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No I'm not, you are.

  • (Show?)

    I am a proud owner of a CIM diploma...I bet you all wish you had one.

    They gave me a medal, and I didn't even have to do some sport or join the military to get it.

    There were loads of benefits to getting a CIM

    ....show your medal and receive 25% off all tire changes at Les Schwab.

  • Skeptical Progressive (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The CIM/CAM debacle is just one of many examples from the Goals 2000 disaster spear-headed by Vera Katz. Goals 2000 was a very expensive and totally unnecessary effort to re-invent the wheel. It's a big part of why Oregon is spending more per student than every western state with the possible exception of California. It's not surprising that someone like Novick, without any kids in the public schools, wouldn't have a clue.

  • (Show?)

    Skeptical Progressive:

    The most recent numbers available show Oregon ranked #31 in the country for money spent per student ($9,035). We've been steadily falling. Washington's at #35 - $94 behind us. California's at #25, nearly $550 per student above us.

    Some other wester states - Wyoming: $13,433 (#6), Wisconsin: $10,997 (#17), and Minnesota: $10,359 (#20).

    National average: $10,159.

    There are some states in the west lower than us - Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, and Utah. Some, like Washington, are just barely lower, while others are thousands below the national average.

    It's one thing to say "we're higher than everyone else around us" (which the numbers above say we're not) if we're well above the national average, are near the top of the list, etc. But when you're #31 and below the national average, obviously the problem isn't that we're spending too much money.

  • George Seldes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For those of us who are not plugged into the personalities, can someone clarify something in the original post? If Steve Novick, attorney, is working as somebody's legislative director, and that somebody supports the CIM/CAM, how do we know that Steve Novick supports or did support the CIM/CAM? He may have, but that story does not make the point.

    One of the reasons I use a pseudonym (the late George Seldes is a hero of mine): There are a number of areas where having and expressing my own opinion would be career limiting, quite probably for good in certain sectors. Public officials are funny that way -- they expect and demand that policy statements coming out of their shop be their policy. Attorneys, who sometimes have to defend odious guilty people or prosecute people under laws they don't support, get this.

    So, I ask again, do we know that Steve Novick has the opinions being ascribed to him above, or are we just imputing his boss's views to him, the guy who was paid to advance her views in Salem?

  • Skeptical Progressive (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jenni,

    You missed the point. I never said we were spending too much money. We're just not getting our money's worth, thanks in no small part to the misguided efforts of Goals 2000.

    And don't forget that the numbers to which you refer are before the recent 18% increase in Oregon.

  • (Show?)

    "It's not surprising that someone like Novick, without any kids in the public schools, wouldn't have a clue."

    Then why did the thousands of teachers who make up OEA not have a clue either--since they supported it when he did?

  • (Show?)

    Kevin, it's WEIGLER. It must have been difficult to screw that up with his actual name right in the part you were quoting.

    As for Merkley's distortion this morning, he said the difference of opinion was recent--I don't recall any difference of opinion about whether Novick supported Nader...in 1996. To discuss his support of Nader, and then decry it based on events that happened long AFTER his support of Nader, is a deliberate attempt to create a false impression.

  • Skeptical Progressive (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torridjoe:

    "Then why did the thousands of teachers who make up OEA not have a clue either--since they supported it when he did?"

    Great question. If you try to find the answer (and I have) what you learn is that the vast majority of high school teachers despised the CIM/CAM as a bureaucratic waste of time, but would never dare say so publicly for fear of being branded as "trouble-makers."

  • (Show?)

    "Great question. If you try to find the answer (and I have) what you learn is that the vast majority of high school teachers despised the CIM/CAM as a bureaucratic waste of time, but would never dare say so publicly for fear of being branded as "trouble-makers."

    Then Novick acting as the designated spokesperson for his boss's position doesn't seem that unusual, does it?

    Since you seem to be plugged in, CIM/CAM is student-based rather than school based, is it not? In other words it tracks student achievement rather than the school's progress as different classes of students move through it? And also, CIM/CAM is a state program funded by state dollars, as opposed to an unfunded federal mandate. Correct?

  • (Show?)

    Oregon may have seen an increase lately, but so did other states. And because I don't have their numbers, I can't compare them.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have a problem with this in the story:

    To make sure Kremer and his cronies lost their battle to kill CIM/CAM, Rep. Vic Backlund (R-Keizer) introduced a compromise bill, House Bill 2744. That measure purported to limit CIM/CAM, but its purpose was to shift the discussion around CIM/CAM from the testing system’s deathbed to its recovery room, Kremer says. <<

    Was this bill rushed through with just one hearing, as sometimes happens? Or did it have hearings inside and outside the capitol (which also sometimes happens)? Was Kremer (not an elected official) outspoken on this bill as if he is more important than any legislator?

    Also, was Kremer part of the effort to oust Backlund and replace him in the next primary with Kim Thatcher? Many people were angry about that result, from friends of Backlund to some legislators and staff.

    Folks, the political universe is more than Novick vs. Merkley. By June we will know the result of that primary.

    But reporting a WW story using what sounds like Kremer as an authoritative source should raise questions about the story and the publication---no matter who anyone supports for US Senate.

  • jrw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torridjoe--CIM is now used as the 10th grade benchmark test in No Child Left Behind statewide assessment. It's used to measure school performance, and has been since the early 00's (since my son was in high school and since I got my own teaching certificate).

    It is one of the measures used to assess AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress for a school; others being attendance, behavior citations, etc), and whether a school is at risk.

    If it wasn't being used as a measurement tool, then the problems with Marshall, Jefferson, et al losing state/Federal funding and being taken over simply wouldn't be an issue. The schools are being measured on the performance of their 10th grade students, but the measure is not on how the student performs or grows from year to year--it's a comparison between school classes. Those of us who teach in small schools (and even big schools) know that the academic performance of a grade varies from year to year, depending upon its makeup. CIM has never been devised as a growth model. If it had been, there'd be yearly achievement testing in high school--and there isn't.

    Take a look at any special ed Individualized Education Plan. CIM matches the Federal testing. It's included in the Federal mandate.

    (Disclosure: I've been a special education teacher since 2004, and my son attended a Portland Public high school from 2001-2005.)

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: George Seldes | Mar 6, 2008 4:28:48 PM If Steve Novick, attorney, is working as somebody's legislative director, and that somebody supports the CIM/CAM, how do we know that Steve Novick supports or did support the CIM/CAM? He may have, but that story does not make the point.

    We really don't know. And that's actually an important factor here. The two central themes of Steve Novick's campaign are his "strong left hook" and that he's supposedly "a little different" kind of politician. Where's the evidence to back up either theme? Certainly not in his tenure with the ODE. Which is probably at least part of why he prefers not to mention it.

    The reality is that Novick's job with the ODE was a very senior position. He had plenty of opportunity to influence his boss behind the scenes. Either he was unable to ("strong left hook"???) or he agreed with her ("a little different"???).

  • rural resident (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "CAM was a less widely implemented vocational training program."

    CAM was originally intended as a requirement that kids emerge from high school with marketable skills. That was how CIM/CAM was sold to many people, especially vocational teachers, in order to gain their initial support. However, it morphed into something completely unrecognizble to those of us in vocational/technical education. It became nothing more than basic skills testing at the 12th grade level. That's one of many good reasons why it never was implemented.

    pam ... "then the Bush program rolled in with No Child Left Behind when the CIM/CAM became a disaster."

    CIM/CAM was an epic disaster long before Bush became President. It wasn't concurrent. CIM/CAM was an expensive, poorly-conceived example of reinventing the wheel, and many of us teaching at the time knew it right away. Many of us tried to suggest, as best we could without incurring the wrath of administrators, that it would be better if we didn't lose our focus on students by committing ourselves to courses of action that would be difficult to undo later. I will agree that the idiotic and shortsighted NCLB (even if fully funded) needs to be at least radically changed if not tossed on the scrap heap altogether. However, if Novick was still truly behind CIM/CAM as late as 2003, he ought to have his head examined. This definitely calls his judgment and knowledge of education into question.

  • Pliny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    However, it morphed into something completely unrecognizble to those of us in vocational/technical education.

    And this is the core of what went wrong with CIM/CAM. As a former student of a successful CIM pilot program (Beaverton's) I can tell you that what killed CIM and CAM was educator resistance.

    Across the state teachers and administrators banded together and flat out refused to consider trying anything new. Just ask the parents from Cottage Grove what happened - their children's education was held hostage by a staff that didn't want to put in the effort.

    And so the CIM/CAM standards were twiddled with - first by ODE, then by the Legislature, and then ODE took another shot, trying to make them more palatable. They only succeeded in making them incomprehensible and toothless.

    The plug should have been pulled a long time ago.

  • rural resident (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pliny ... Lots of staff time and effort went into trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. It wasn't "educator resistance" that did in CIM/CAM; it was doomed from the beginning because it was little more than a bunch of glory-seeking, resume-building politicians and other "leaders" trying to slam a bunch of political and educational junk down the throats of professional educators at the building level -- with no regard for what had or had not worked in the past. Even with all the baggage the program carried with it, teachers and administrators spent more time than they ever should have attempting to create standards and instructional approaches that were good for kids.

    If you look at Cottage Grove, the school held up as the guiding light for the rest of the state to follow, you'll find out that it wasn't a lack of support. It was the nature of the beast -- standards that couldn't be met given the timelines and a huge percentage of students who weren't going to earn high school diplomas because of it. Parents finally saw the light and demanded that the standards not be enforced so their kids could graduate.

    Finally, it was that "twiddling" by the legislature and ODE that told teachers and administrators that 1) Oregon's leadership didn't really believe their own malarkey about educational change; and 2) that the original justifications for the program rested on philosophical quicksand. When you're trying to help each individual student succeed on a day-to-day basis, you just don't have time for "leaders" who aren't committed to their own program.

  • George Seldes (unverified)
    (Show?)
    We really don't know. And that's actually an important factor here. The two central themes of Steve Novick's campaign are his "strong left hook" and that he's supposedly "a little different" kind of politician. Where's the evidence to back up either theme? Certainly not in his tenure with the ODE. Which is probably at least part of why he prefers not to mention it. The reality is that Novick's job with the ODE was a very senior position. He had plenty of opportunity to influence his boss behind the scenes. Either he was unable to ("strong left hook"???) or he agreed with her ("a little different"???).

    Ok, this seems like an attempt to have it both ways in order to slam Novick.

    You start by conceding that you can't conclude anything about Novick from his boss's positions and then you add a dig about a "very senior position" and imply that he is either a wimp or that we actually can infer that we know something about his views.

    But that's bunk. For one thing, his seniority was at least one level below that of a very important person in the story, his boss. And, Lord knows, there are plenty of people in politics who make boneheaded decisions that they refuse to reconsider all the time, and their staffers then have to defend and advocate for very positions.

    I think you have to look at his entire professional record to answer the question about whether the themes of his campaign are supported by his actions -- it's cherrypicking to select one incident and saying "See, he's just a phony," especially when he was not acting as a principal but as an aide.

    I know very little about the merits, but I care even less, because I know that there's very little you can say fairly about someone's suitability for a Big Kahuna job (such as a US Senator) because of the positions that they had to take while serving as a deputy/assistant/no. 2/legislative director/chief-of-staff/etc.

    What would be of interest to me are the opinions of people who worked with him or on the same issues, regardless of whether they were on the same side or not. HOW he operated during the debate on CIM/CAM, for example, is much more indicative of who he is than whether his boss was for or against it.

  • Pliny (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No regard for what had or had not worked in the past? You're kidding right? Outcomes based education was an idea kicked around since at least the '50s.

    CIM/CAM was pushed mainly on the strength of things being done in Vermont if I remember right.

    The failure in Cottage Grove was a self fulfilling prophecy. I met some of those people in the midst of their implosion. I remember thinking that if you say from the outset something isn't going to work, you shouldn't be surprised when it doesn't.

    I'll grant you your gripes about the Legislature though. I remember being in the audience on Town Hall back in '94 or '95 listening to a Legislator just baldface lying about a bill that was going to be the magic fix for CIM/CAM. I can't remember what the lie was about, but I might still have the highlighted copy of the bill I was franticly waving at the time...

    All I'm really saying is that CIM had a lot to offer when implemented by people who wanted to get the job done. When it became obvious that wasn't going to be the case statewide, losses should have been cut.

  • George Seldes (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>Well, it appears the teachers are fine with how Novick handled himself with regards to CIM/CAM.</h2>
in the news

connect with blueoregon