Chicago Teachers Union Launches Campaign Against ‘High-Stakes’ Standardized Testing, Supports Seattle Teachers Boycott
CHICAGO—The Chicago Teachers Union (CTU has launched a campaign in support of local and nationwide efforts to eliminate standardized non-state mandated tests—also known as “high-stakes testing”—from public schools. Test scores fail as measures of learning when high-stakes testing advanced by corporate education reformers dominates curriculum, and also fail to consider non-classroom stimuli that affects school-age children, especially in urban areas.
Children who do not have access to health care, who are hungry, who are fearful of violence in their communities, who do not have books or access to other informal learning at home, whose parents have limited education, and whose families are constantly stressed by economic problems are at an extreme academic disadvantage. These factors are highly related not only to testing outcomes, academic achievement, future education and socio‐economic success, but also to the racial, ethnic and class origins of individuals.
The inequitable history of American society, politics, institutions and economic relations are at the root of these outcomes. As a result, when academic outcomes are averaged across subgroups such as race and class, glaring gaps appear.
“These issues are the things that are important to our families, not performance on standardized tests,” said CTU President Karen GJ Lewis. “I think it’s important for us to go on record about this because we are likely to start seeing a more active anti-testing movement in Chicago.”
“The U.S. has gone far overboard in the overuse and misuse of standardized tests,” said Monty Neill, Ed.D., Executive Director of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest). “Now, teachers, parents and community activists are pushing back in places like Chicago and Seattle and even in Texas, where the testing craze began.”
Teachers at Garfield High School in Seattle are currently boycotting the district-mandated Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) standardized test. A group of teachers at Curie Metropolitan High School in Chicago successfully boycotted and ended a district-mandated test a year ago. Teachers, parents and students throughout Chicago and the U.S. have serious concerns about a number of aspects of standardized testing, including cultural bias, the disruption of early childhood learning and day-to-day classroom routines, and the lack of accommodations for special needs students.
“We see all these actions around the country, from resolutions to strikes to other kind of protests as linked to the loosely-knit resistance of people saying, ‘Enough is enough,’” Neill said. “It’s time to get back to real teaching and learning.”
CTU research reveals a few quick facts on standardized testing:
- · Since No Child Left Behind the testing industry has experienced double‐digit growth. In 2008 K‐12 testing was a $2.6 billion industry.
- · Errors in standardized tests resulted in thousands of students flunking, not passing college entrance exams, and incorrect state rankings.
- · CPS candidates in the National Board Certification program reported spending in some cases ten full school days per year (48 hours) on standardized test preparation. (CTU, NBCT Candidates internal survey)
- · Three out of five community college students need at least one remedial course because they are ill prepared for college. Less than 25% of these students earn a degree within eight years.
- · Excessive reliance on standardized tests results and test prepping makes for a poor transition from K‐12 to college.
CTU Vice President Jesse Sharkey and his wife, Julie Fain, have delivered a formal letter (Full text below) to the principal of their sons’ school exercising their right as parents to opt their children out of all non-state mandated tests for the current school year. In correspondence to Dr. Joenile Albert-Reese, principal of Chicago Public Schools’ (CPS) AN Pritzker School, Sharkey and Fain declared that testing is not in the best interests of their children’s education, and will no longer allow them to participate.
“I’m a CTU officer, but before that, I’m the father of two school-age children and to that end, I’m against the misuse of standardized tests and support the efforts of teachers, school administrators and other parents to resist the standardized testing insanity,” Sharkey said.
_ _ _
Joenile S. Albert-Reese
AN Pritzker School
2009 W. Schiller Ave.
Chicago, IL 60622
January 15, 2013
Dear Dr. Reese,
We are writing to inform you that we are exercising our right to exempt our children, Leo Sharkey and Caleb Sharkey from all non-state mandated tests for the current school year. This includes, but is not limited to: NWEA/MAP, REACH, DIBELS, and mCLASS. We will permit Caleb to take the ISAT. In addition, please do not place the grades, ISAT scores, or results of previous standardized tests of either of our children on display in the classroom, hallway, or other public place.
During whole class standardized testing we understand that our children will be provided with appropriate accommodations in order to engage in quiet, self-guided activity like silent reading, drawing, writing, or other appropriate activities so as to not disrupt the classroom in any way.
We do not take this decision lightly given the high stakes attached to performance on these tests for everyone involved-our children, our school, and our teachers. Unfortunately we do not believe these tests to be in the best interests of our children’s education and cannot continue to allow them to participate.
We have become alarmed at the incredible increase in high stakes standardized testing at CPS. This year our kindergartener is scheduled to take fourteen standardized tests. Our fourth grader is scheduled for twenty-four tests, including the ISAT, which is spread over 8 sessions, and REACH assessments in PE, library, music and Spanish. It’s simply too much, and too much of a drain on scarce resources at our schools.
These tests carry significant consequences for students, teachers and schools, and we see the effects of this. The curriculum becomes narrowed to cover what is on the tests. Teachers and students become stressed and demoralized. Ceaseless testing is driving out creativity, curiosity, and independent thinking.
We note that elite private schools have no use for standardized tests of any kind. They trust their teachers to assess students’ progress with authentic, multiple measures and intense attention given to each student. We are concerned that CPS is going in the opposite direction-towards larger classes with more standardized testing. We also do not support a competitive culture around testing where prizes are given for results or students’ scores are posted in public (a clear violation of their privacy).
We look forward to the time when our schools can nurture the natural inquisitiveness and love of learning all children should have instead of seeing them as data points on charts and spreadsheets. We are proud, grateful members of the Pritzker community. We look forward to many years of working together to improve our children’s education.
We are happy to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Julie Fain and Jesse Sharkey
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Help me to understand……….”we” are in favor of testing that IS state mandated? “We” object only to non-state mandated testing?
Teachers cannot stop the state mandated testing. That must be done through legislative actions. However, there is a ton of testing mandated by the school districts themselves because of the various programs’ requirements brought into the districts by the local school administrations themselves. This is what they are in favor of getting rid of. At least, this is the case in our area in “fly-over” country.
Here is one national group protesting the over-emphasis on testing and other USDoE policies: Read, sign, and share the NEW letter to Obama at http://dumpduncan.org.
Time to bring back the “Hands Off Washington” mantra. Public education is not for sale and democracy is not for sale.
Way to go, Jesse & Julie! BUT–and this is a BIG BUT–for opting out to be TRULY effective, parents (and older students) MUST opt out of the state “standardized” tests
(ISATs, for Illinois). These Pearson tests are the most poorly designed, incompetently scored (by computers & persons unqualified to score them) and most juked tests of all those mentioned. Additionally, these are the only tests upon which teacher evaluations and school closings (although in Chicago, at least, the school closing focus has shifted somewhat from “poorly performing schools” to “under utilization of buildings”) are predicated, aside from the millions of dollars the state pays Pearson for tests and test prep materials, money that could be well-spent directly on students. Please go the extra mile–and all you parents out there–and OPT OUT of STATE tests THIS YEAR!
STOP-THE-TESTING-IN-2013!!!
See the anti-MAP flyer….pass out to parents, students…personalize for your school.
Creativity NOT Control:
Click to access antimap-flyer-v3.pdf
This is precisely why it’s important to be specific with which reforms you are against. In this situation, the parents writing the letter are asking for their children to be exempted from ALL assessments, even ones which may be beneficial. This is a clear example of overgeneralization of the anti-reform movement – being against anything remotely related the item being protested. In familiar terms, these parents have taken a hammer, not a scalpel, to educational reform with potential dangerous effects.
Moreover, as the leader of an organization supposedly dedicated to the best interests of students, it’s unfortunate that Mr. Sharkey and his wife has demonstrated a lack of competence in basic education practice related to instructional assessment, and risk communicating to parents throughout his district and the country that assessments such as DIBELS – when used correctly – are harmful to students.
It’s also unfortunate that this blog would not be more discerning and recognize that assessment has both value and risk, depending on use, again potentially communicating to educators across the country that there is no value in classroom assessment.
There is no doubt that assessments in schools, districts, and states are often poorly planned, with too much emphasis on program evaluation and too little emphasis on progress-monitoring and instructional utility. However, assessment as a whole is not the enemy, but how it is implemented. I consistently am reading from the “anti-reform movement” time and time again what folks are against, with no real balanced discussion. Now, we are starting the see the effects – folks lashing out against any and all assessments, regardless of their potential benefits.
Although recent research has demonstrated that the United States may not be as poorly performing compared with foreign countries as we might have thought, let’s not forget that many, many children continue to struggle academically in this country, and – while teachers may not cause some of the contributors such as poverty, and may not always be able to work around those issues – we should always be focused on continuous improvement, and how we can best approach the struggles we face in the classroom. In this vein, it’s time to start focusing on what we CAN and SHOULD do, rather than just what we are against. Let’s stop our discussion focused on generating propaganda to “beat” the “reformers,” and start having healthier, more productive discussions that acknowledge the intricacies of many issues, such as the issue of classroom/school assessment.
Oh, please. Those of us who’ve implemented balanced literacy programs have done fine identifying student strengths and needs without subjecting kids to repeated testing with the DIBELS.
It’s time to give public school teachers the same trust, respect, autonomy and freedom from standardized tests as private school teachers at the schools where politicians and “reformers” send their own children.
DIBELS is more than about identifying strengths and weaknesses of student learning. Actually, while DIBELS can be used diagnostically to some degree, it’s more of a progress-monitoring tool. If you’re suggesting that you have an alternative method of monitoring progress of time, is it as efficient and effective as DIBELS (or other similar progress-monitoring tools)? Does it offer the same advantages?
BTW, I taught at private schools for decades and the only time I ever administered standardized tests was when I chose to do so, which was not very often.
The problem with allowing teachers to completely determine all educational practices is that teachers don’t have expertise in all relevant areas. For example, moving back to the DIBELS discussion, in an RtI model progress monitoring data is important. Allowing each teacher to separately decide his/her own assessment system would undermine continuity across the school/system, as well as to compromise reliability/validity as most teachers aren’t trained to design psychometrically valid assessment tools.
What is your profession? What grades, ages, subjects, cities, schools have you taught in? How do you know this? You are dead wrong. You are clueless.
Linda, my qualifications will not make my response and more or less right. If my ideas are wrong, they are wrong. Right, they are right. What specifically do you disagree with? I find your argument that I am “dead wrong” without any further comment to be invalid and unhelpful.
So you don’t have any qualifications?
I have decided not to engage anymore because I don’t care what you think.
Volunteer in a school, read to children, be a big brother. See and hear a child.
You know nothing about teaching and learning, a human interaction based upon relationships.
Linda, I find your comments rude and unhelpful. Feel free to not engage, but so far you have ignored the content of my contents and have provided no useful or thoughtful response to my comments. I look forward to productive discussion if you chose to have it.
I meant to be rude and unhelpful.
I am tired of self appointed experts who have never done our job and have not intentions of doing our job telling us how to do our job.
We are degraded, demeaned, insulted, disregard, disrespected and treated like lazy good for nothing union thugs.
I love the kids. I abhor arrogant, ignorant, pompous dillettantes who know jack $hit!
Goodnight.
I’m not sure you’re furthering your cause of promoting “teachers as experts” with your behavior here. If you want to be treated with professional respect, you’ll need to demonstrate it. If want to be treated professionally, you’ll need to be professional.
I don’t need or want your advice or your respect. I am not concerned with your opinion.
I am merely stating I don’t care what a non-educator thinks about a profession he evidently has not mastered himself.
As a result, you have nothing to offer HERE.
Linda, you mentioned you were tired of being disrespected, so it does sound like you are generally concerned with teachers being treated with respect. Is that the case?
In terms of being a non-educator, I’m not sure where you got that? No where have I stated that I’m not in education.
Like teachers who identify student strengths and needs would not then differentiate instruction and track student progress? Sounds like you have no faith in educators and want them to be standardized. That’s the business model, trying to find the magic bullet, then it bring to scale and force every franchise to serve up the same Big Mac.
Again, how many politicians and “reformers” care if the private school teachers at their children’s schools use their own formative and summative assessments, curriculum, etc? In my experience, parents at private schools prefer schooling that is not standardized and lock-step.
Politicians and “reformers” also give charter schools a pass on the testing mania. It’s just the double standard at work again.
All this nonsense is more likely to destroy public education than to improve it, which appears to be “the business plan”.
Linda: By “in education” I think he means that he works in Higher Ed. The references he has made here, in current and past discussions, to the DIBELS, DI, Carnine, literacy development etc. (including the discussion with Krashen last month) suggest this.
EdEd: Do you know Yong? Very different approach to addressing education reform matters than yours. If you treat public school teachers here as colleagues, not as students, you’re more likely to elicit mutual respect.
Cosmic Tinkerer – I’ll respond to your comments which are quoted below:
“Like teachers who identify student strengths and needs would not then differentiate instruction and track student progress? Sounds like you have no faith in educators and want them to be standardized. That’s the business model, trying to find the magic bullet, then it bring to scale and force every franchise to serve up the same Big Mac.”
Yes, I would assume that competent educators would differentiate instruction. My comments are specifically related to teachers designing and selecting their own progress monitoring systems, as opposed to their use of those systems. I gave an analogy below of a doctor designing and building an MRI machine vs. using that machine. I wouldn’t assume that a doctor could build an MRI machine, but I would assume s/he could use one in practice.
Another issue with each teacher separately selecting their own assessments is that there is no standardized way to assess student progress across teaching environments – from class to class, and year to year, or to compare similar students to look at typical progress (e.g., being able to compare a student’s progress against the progress of all children in that grade).
The discussion of assessment is obviously a broad one, but my main point is not that teachers aren’t competent, but that they shouldn’t be expected to be masters of all things.
“Again, how many politicians and “reformers” care if the private school teachers at their children’s schools use their own formative and summative assessments, curriculum, etc? In my experience, parents at private schools prefer schooling that is not standardized and lock-step.”
I have 2 main responses to this and similar arguments. First, I’m less concerned with what schools politicians prefer, and more concerned with which schools are good. To the extent that a school is using an evidence-based practice, that’s a good thing. Whether a private school is using the same practice is of less concern.
Second, each school is different, as are the the children who attend that school and their needs. I don’t support a “one-size-fits-all” approach, and as such wouldn’t look to any school and judge all others by the practices of that school. It’s quite possible, for example, that more politicians send their children to schools in which a majority of children have mastered basic skills, have academically enriched environments outside of school, come from different familial backgrounds, etc. Still other schools may predominantly serve children from high poverty backgrounds who may have more substantial needs in certain areas such as basic literacy skills. It would unfair and unethical to structure those two schools the same.
“Politicians and “reformers” also give charter schools a pass on the testing mania. It’s just the double standard at work again.
All this nonsense is more likely to destroy public education than to improve it, which appears to be “the business plan”.”
I’m not quite sure of the connection you’re attempting to make between politicians and certain assessments such as DIBELS. I might well agree with you that certain politicians and corporate reformers may not have a thorough understanding of how to best structure education, but I don’t see the connection with DIBELS, which comes from a research/university background.
“Linda: By “in education” I think he means that he works in Higher Ed. The references he has made here, in current and past discussions, to the DIBELS, DI, Carnine, literacy development etc. (including the discussion with Krashen last month) suggest this.”
I have worked in a variety of positions throughout the educational sector, from K-12 to higher education. Thanks also for reading the discussion with Dr. Krashen – that got fairly lengthy :).
“EdEd: Do you know Yong? Very different approach to addressing education reform matters than yours. If you treat public school teachers here as colleagues, not as students, you’re more likely to elicit mutual respect.”
I don’t know Yong, but would be happy to read any references you may have? I also don’t see how I’ve treated folks here as students. I have shared opinions that may be different and challenged folks, but have considered all of my statements to be professional. If you disagree, would you mind quoting any of my statements and indicating what has caused you to react in that way? I’m happy to apologize if that’s in order, but I can’t see where that may be yet.
EdEd: You are talking to many veteran teachers who have been inundated with testing for over a decade and the amount and frequency of tests have been ever increasing. They believe that is to the detriment of children, learning and instruction.
The way you have “challenged” teachers here with your perceptions about the value of tests, when some teachers have finally decided to stand up and speak out about the testing obsession, comes off as insensitive and holier than thou.
I have coached a lot of teachers in public school classrooms and I happen to think that the testing mania sends the message to teachers that they lack competence and that they are incapable of making sound professional judgments. I have also had the experience of having to administer assessments to crying babies, just because the tests were required by law, so I have to agree with teachers that this has reached a point where it’s counterproductive for both students and teachers –though it’s certainly expedient for testing companies. So I applaud these teachers for putting their foot down.
Cosmic Tinkerer, I agree with your main assertion that – in many schools – it seems that the assessment structure is cumbersome, bloated, redundant, and ineffective. I also see the connection you are making between legislation and those assessments. I also believe that such assessment structures are not helpful to teachers or students, do communicate that teachers (and administrators) are incompetent, and pose other problems as well. I also agree that it is noble that teachers enter the arena and communicate their professional experiences and opinion in this manner.
However, in any situation of protest, it’s very easy for that protest to overgeneralize, leading to statements that aren’t fully true, which can discredit the entire protest. It is simply not true that ALL assessments not created by a classroom teacher are faulty and unhelpful. Is that really the message you want to communicate? How do you think you will be taken by reasonable folks?
If you want to be effective in your protest, start with honesty. Admit/identify that the issue is complex, and that there are merits on both sides of many of the issues you’re protesting. It would be much more effective to say that some assessments are really important, but some aren’t, and the load of those ineffective (or redundant) assessments is harmful to students. If you phrase it like that, you will get a lot more folks to agree with you, and have a better chance of making change.
I always like to read about the stands that CTU takes on a variety of issues. They are absolutely correct about testing mania.
When the misguided emphasis on testing goes away, will there be a new business opportunity? Data Addiction Counseling. Withdrawal will be so hard for the chronic “reformers”.
EdEd says:
“Allowing each teacher to separately decide his/her own assessment system would undermine continuity across the school/system, as well as to compromise reliability/validity as most teachers aren’t trained to design psychometrically valid assessment tools.”
Which tests do you think are reliable/valid? You must also believe that teachers aren’t capable of monitoring student progress based on formative tests, questionnaires, inventory, and surveys. These so-called “psychometrical valid assessment tools” you refer to are mainly used to expliot teacher and students, take away instruction time, narrows the curriculum, while generating profit for corp.
Maybe your focus should be on advocating for social services, as you indicated “let’s not forget that many, many children continue to struggle academically in this country, and – while teachers may not cause some of the contributors such as poverty, and may not always be able to work around those issues”.
In addition, while these tests you refer to (Diblels in particular) may serve as monitoring tools as you also indicated, there has not been an improvement in student learning across the board for those struggling students you’ve acknowledged.
Let’s face it, we cannot rely on testing as a source of monitoring students if that is all it can do. Have you ever considered it might be the CCSS and the tests are flawed? EdEd, we are tired of discussing your thought on “start having healthier, more productive discussions that acknowledge the intricacies of many issues, such as the issue of classroom/school assessment.” Sorry we are past that discussion. We are in the stage of demonstration and protest.
Thanks for your reply jon – I’ll respond to each section separately, with your words in quotes:
“Which tests do you think are reliable/valid?”
My comment specifically included DIBELS, but two follow-up comments. First, my issue wasn’t as much with DIBELS specifically as the blanket discard of all assessments, regardless of their worth. Second, assessments aren’t valid in all situations, but for specific uses. So, DIBELS may not be reliable and valid in terms of evaluating a teacher’s skill with guided reading, but may be reliable and valid for measuring progress related to a particular general outcome measure.
“You must also believe that teachers aren’t capable of monitoring student progress based on formative tests, questionnaires, inventory, and surveys.”
In general, those formative assessments you mention are very good for assessing mastery of particular skills as instruction is delivered, but are poorly designed for progress monitoring for a variety of reasons.
Consider this analogy – most doctors would not be able to build an MRI machine, but they are expected to be able to interpret and use results competently. Similarly, teachers aren’t expected to have full competency in designing every tool they are expected to use. So, I believe teachers – when trained appropriately – are more than capable of using a variety of assessments in the classroom. However, designing psychometrically valid progress monitoring tools may be beyond the capacity of most teachers. This isn’t a knock on teachers, just as it wouldn’t be derogatory to say a doctor typically can’t design an MRI machine.
“These so-called “psychometrical valid assessment tools” you refer to are mainly used to expliot teacher and students, take away instruction time, narrows the curriculum, while generating profit for corp.”
Since we’ve been talking about DIBELS, DIBELS was generated at a university (University of Oregon), and are given away for free. It’s incredibly quick and easy to administrator, does not “narrow the curriculum” as it is a general outcome measure and is curriculum independent, and does not (itself) exploit teachers and students. Again, any tool can be used the wrong way, but that would be fault of the user, not the assessment.
“Maybe your focus should be on advocating for social services, as you indicated ‘let’s not forget that many, many children continue to struggle academically in this country, and – while teachers may not cause some of the contributors such as poverty, and may not always be able to work around those issues'”
Thanks jon – I agree with you here, and spend a good amount of my time doing that.
“In addition, while these tests you refer to (Diblels in particular) may serve as monitoring tools as you also indicated, there has not been an improvement in student learning across the board for those struggling students you’ve acknowledged.”
Research has actually demonstrated that progress monitoring does make a difference with student achievement. However, more broadly, if you are referring to the lack of progress with children with high poverty backgrounds, keep in mind that some interventions may be necessary or helpful, but not sufficient, in producing desired change. Take this car analogy: if I put oil in my engine, but not gas, the car won’t run. The fact that the car won’t run isn’t evidence that oil is not important, but that it – by itself – is not sufficient to produce change. Similar arguments can be made with progress monitoring tools, NCLB, or even highly effective teachers – if it were true that any intervention implemented in the last year was ineffective, then you’d have to argue by default that everything every teacher reading this blog has done has been ineffective. This is, of course, not true. Students from high poverty backgrounds ARE making progress, and progress monitoring HAS shown to be effective, but as a whole those may not be enough to make a total difference. This doesn’t mean you should discount the validity of what HAS been done.
“Let’s face it, we cannot rely on testing as a source of monitoring students if that is all it can do.”
I’m not sure I understand your statement here, but I agree that we shouldn’t rely on any single test to demonstrate student progress. It’s important to gather information from a variety of sources.
“Have you ever considered it might be the CCSS and the tests are flawed?”
Since they are so new, I haven’t had time to review any of the psychometric properties of any of these tests. I’d be happy to read any information you might be able to point me to?
“EdEd, we are tired of discussing your thought on “start having healthier, more productive discussions that acknowledge the intricacies of many issues, such as the issue of classroom/school assessment.” Sorry we are past that discussion. We are in the stage of demonstration and protest.”
That’s too bad to hear. I would say this to you: there are many reasonable folks out there who do not support privatization and corporate reform, but who also support things like progress monitoring. I am one of those people, as are many folks in a variety of positions across the country – from classroom teachers to university professors. Your stance of “demonstration and protest” – when based on ill-conceived notions such as a protest of progress-monitoring tools such as DIBELS – will alienate many folks who might otherwise agree with some of the ideas that you share. By engaging in discussion, and being open to not already “having all the answers” yourself, you demonstrate a willingness to find the best possible route forward in education. I’d encourage you to reconsider your stance on discussion.
EdEd, you are lost in a world that believes the so-called “sophisticated” tests accurately capture the complexities of student learning and intellectual growth.
No matter how much one wishes this were true, all testing is flawed and high-stakes decisions based on theseresults, are doomed from the get-go.
Until the “reformers” grasp this revelation, the misery will continue.
If EdEd really wants to learn something and stop preaching, he will listen to Brian.
Can you spare 36 minutes and listen to the real teachers of the USA?
Education activist Brian Jones discusses Real vs. Phony Education Reform and punctures the myth that privatization (charter schools, high-stakes testing, merit pay) will create racial and economic justice for underserved communities. Jones is an elementary school teacher in New York City, union activist and author, most recently of a chapter in the book Education and Capitalism on The Struggle for Black Education.
Off to school
readingexchange, there is no single assessment that can fully capture the complexities of learning, even in one particular area. Assessments help us understand learning, but can never fully capture it. Would you agree with this statement?
EdEd, I agree that assessments can never capture the full complexities of learning. That is why they should never be used for high-stakes purposes–not to judge the character of students or the quality of teachers.
I agree with you Diane, and I want you to know that while I often end up posting comments in disagreement to something that is said on this blog, I agree with many of your underlying positions.
Linda, I appreciate any links and will certainly check it out. I’m always up for learning. However, again I find that your combatant tone is offensive, and will turn folks off if you are genuinely interested in discussion. It strikes me as odd that you would categorize my responses as “preaching” with the nature of your responses.
I’d also say that you continue to want to move the conversation back to a general discussion of big topics such as privatization, and seem unwilling to discuss any of the details or nuances I bring up. I’ve been writing here about specific topics, and I’m not sure how privatization is related to the instructional utility of curriculum-based progress monitoring assessments. If it is, please share your thoughts and make that connection.
Jon–You make such a good point in your third paragraph where you tell EdEd “Maybe your focus should be on advocating for social services…issues.” In large part, a reason to stop this Pear$on “standardized” testing NOW–all other harmful effects considered, as I mentioned (& continue to mention in all comments)in my 1:26 PM post above, Pear$on is draining MILLIONS of dollars from state education budgets, money that would definitely be best spent directly on students, precisely for
programs such as increased social services. Especially when we’re talking about schools with enrollments of 450 to 700…and ONE social worker. There COULD be an adequate number if our state superintendents just said NO to Pear$on. If all the other reasons given weren’t good enough, this is the one that should upset the apple cart or knock down the house of cards.
retiredbutmissthekids – I certainly can’t support an entire company like Pearson, and admit that I haven’t followed all of the stories about their practices. I will leave that to folks more qualified to comment. However, there are various Pearson assessments which are good assessments that help kids, such as AIMSweb. It’s certainly a difficult position if you feel that the company as a whole is engaged in bad things, but specific products they offer are good. I’m not sure the best course of action, but I’m not sure in the short-term that kids benefit from us stopping our use of good assessments. Maybe it might be helpful to find alternative forms of those assessments if you don’t support Pearson, or to address the specific issues you have with Pearson, rather than making blanket statements about all of their products?
Oh, also, EdEd–R.T.I. (Response to Intervention) has been nothing but an obstacle in identifying students who are desperately in need of special education services. It has set back special education to its pre-Public Law 94-142 days (early 1970’s).
Absolutely criminal!
retiredbutmissthekids – one huge problem is that RtI varies in implementation from school to school and district to district, so it’s not possible to make definitive statements about the success of RtI as a whole.
RtI – as a concept – is immensely helpful in children receiving services. Previously, many children needed services who were otherwise denying services because they didn’t fit the narrow (and relatively arbitrary) definitions of special education. In addition, under a discrepancy model, many children have to demonstrate multi-year failure before their achievement scores fall so low that they begin to qualify for services.
On the other hand, some schools are using RtI (inappropriately) as a means of delaying services by implementing lame-duck interventions over and over in order to stall services, presumably because those services cost more money. In this case, though, the culprit is the school inappropriately using RtI, as in a true RtI model those intermediary (Tier II) services are actually very effective with many kids. If certain kids do not respond, then they are (relatively quickly) provided even more intensive services.
Has your experience been different? If so, how specifically?
Sorry–I didn’t see this until today! I agree that the original premise of RTI might (& I DO say “might”) have been a helpful concept BUT–as I am in contact with numerous teachers (administrators and social workers, as well) from all over the country–most feedback on RTI is that schools ARE using it inapproriately and that, of course, is the problem. My former district was egregious in its mis-implementation and, unfortunately, I hear it has gotten even worse since I left. It has been a real Catch-22.
retiredbutmissthekids – in response to your comment about RtI, I think we’ve found some agreement. We could have a lengthy discussion I’m sure about the merits of RtI or lack thereof as we’d see it, but I think we both agree that implementation has caused less-than-ideal returns in the RtI department. Still, I’d point out that this is user error on the classroom, building, district, and perhaps state levels. This is not the fault of federal or top-down reform efforts, except in their lack of planning at times regarding implementation integrity. My main experience has been that districts do not fully understand or fully fund RtI, giving it no real chance to succeed in the way it was designed.
To EdEd–I have used Pear$on products–year after year after year, & I can tell you that–from workbooks to samples (you just have to look at how their crazy writing sample tests are so badly scored–we middle school SpEd & L.A. teachers use to puzzle over–then laugh {otherwise, we would’ve cried} about the assigned scores). Plus–we used AIMSWeb, and it’s not so great. Pear$on is ALL about the profits. As I’ve written before, many math questions would have more than one correct answer or NO correct answer, and that would be the case for the science tests, as well.
Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder were asked to write long response answers to questions that asked them, “How would you feel if…?” These are students with social and emotional problems who REALLY DON’T know how they feel–they cannot even explain it verbally, let alone in writing. One of my A.S.D./highly intelligent students put his head down on the desk and sighed, “Mrs.K, I’m just DUMB.” If that’s not enough, finally, go back and read Diane’s
December 27th post “Interview w/Todd Farley” (where he states that Pear$on is the worst). And–if you haven’t yet read his book,
“Making the Grades: My Misadventures in the Standardized Testing Industry,” you MUST!
retiredbutmissthekids – in response to your post about Pearson, it’s simply too broad of a company to say that “all Pearson products are ineffective.” I have also used a number of Pearson products, from AIMSweb to the BASC-II, and have found a number of their products helpful in a number of ways. This is largely because Pearson simply own products – it doesn’t necessarily develop (all) of them. It would be like saying all products from Target are uniformly bad – Target is simply the middle man.
I think there are two healthy approaches to a company like Pearson: first, examine each of their products specifically. While some products might be bad, others may be good. There are numerous products on their roster which are educational and clinical standards, developed by researchers (and later purchased and distributed by Pearson), and demonstrate adequate psychometrics given their intended uses. To suggest otherwise would assume you have sufficient in all product areas, from neuropsychological assessment to speech therapy. Here’s another way of thinking about it: pick your favorite text book, curriculum, or assessment tool NOT owned by Pearson. Now, imagine tomorrow they announce that they’ve bought it. Does that make that product suddenly ineffective?
Second, it’s more than valid to find many Pearson products very helpful, but to find the company’s behavior – as a company – undesirable. You may find that they are motivated by profit, not benefit to children/clients, or a number of other problems, and that’s valid. In that case, attack the company’s behavior – not all of its products.
As a side note, I would also disagree with you about your AIMSweb comments. It’s an immensely helpful system for a range of classroom assessment needs, and continues to release innovative updates. As an example, see their recently released growth norms – it’s really changing the game with goal setting and progress-monitoring. It’s actually a great example of a company that’s leveraging the it’s commercial viability to continue to develop very practical and useful tools.
I am so proud of both the Garfield High teachers and the Chicago teachers for taking a stand on something that we, as teachers, know is wrong! For years we have been taking true instructional time away from students by giving these meaningless tests. It is time for us to make our voices heard. My hope is that other teacher unions will get behind these teachers and start taking the tough stance to do what’s right for our students.
Just a point of clarification: 12 English teachers at Curie Metro HS boycotted the CASE (Chicago Academic Standards Exams) in 2002 because as those teachers say, it was a “particularly bad” test. Here is the link to the letter they wrote to the (newly appointed) CEO of Chicago Public Schools, Arne Duncan, courtesy of SubstanceNews.net. http://substancenews.com/archive/Oct02/curie12letter.htm
My colleagues and I at Curie are following the Seattle Boycott of Testing very closely, however NWEA in Chicago is used differently. Some of the same teachers who boycotted CASE actually came out in favor of MAP testing in 2011 (at least initially, but we no longer administer it in 2012-13). The difference maker was the fact that we teachers were using the data.
On a regular basis, I ask those teachers who boycotted CASE so bravely if they are once again ready to boycott against the testing culture that has gripped us. They say, “it is different now, too immersed” in our day-to-day. They wouldn’t know where to begin. I think the Seattle teachers have the right idea. We begin where it hurts the most.
I applaud my Union leadership (CTU) for standing up with the Seattle teachers.
Yes, begin where it hurts most–start with the ISATs (perhaps,then, Illinois schools won’t be so broke–the Pear$on dollars will go back to the public schools, & then a school of 750 could have many more than ONE social worker!).
And I applaud YOU, classroom sooth, as one of the rank-and-file (CORE) who made that leadership possible.
For those advocating getting rid of Pearson products and hiring social workers, counselors, or other support staff, I’d encourage you to look at the list of Pearson products and realize that several on that list are very standard assessments that those folks use on a daily basis to help children. If you were to suddenly make Pearson disappear, you’d render many of those support personnel much less precise and effective in their jobs.
As I mentioned in another comment above, it’s fine to be against Pearson as a company or their behavior, but it doesn’t really make much sense to be against all Pearson products. They own such a large share of educational and clinical tools that you’d literally have to be against pretty much everything from speech/language assessments to neuropsychological assessments. So much would be practically impossible without their products.
I do not use or need any of their products. I create my own assessments. I know my kids. I am a professional.
Linda, to clarify, are you saying that any teachers who use assessments that they didn’t personally craft by hand are not professionals? Are you also saying this about all professionals – counselors, social workers, etc.?