David Steiner, who preceded John King as New York Commissioner of Education, wrote an article defending the collapse of test scores in New York. Like Joel Klein and Arne Duncan, he agrees that we are finally telling the truth about the widespread failure of public schools (and, one might add, the even greater failure of charter schools, which had a higher fail rate than public schools). It’s amazing how those who were in charge, who made decisions about resource allocation, curriculum, standards, teacher qualifications, class size, and everything else that affect schools, now stand back and absolve themselves of any accountability.
The first letter responding to Steiner’s article nailed an important difference between Massachusetts, which has led the nation on NAEP in reading and math, and New York, whose scores have been almost flat for the past decade. Gregory McCrea wrote:
“Mr. Steiner leaves out one important point when he compares reform efforts in New York and Massachusetts. At the same time Massachusetts was demanding higher standards through their Education Reform Act, they were dramatically increasing funding to public schools. In fact, from 1993-2002, state spending on public schools increased 8% a year, for a total of over $2 billion.
New York has failed to do the same. Instead, funding for schools in New York has decreased or flat-lined through the political shell game known as the Gap Elimination Adjustment. Despite the politician’s suggestions otherwise, funding has not increased and GEA continues to be the most significant drain on public school funding across the state. More recently, boards of education have had to deal with a tax cap railroaded through by the governor and the legislature. As in Massachusetts decades before, the New York tax cap has made school districts more heavily dependent on state aid which only worsens the funding equation.
“Anyone who actually works in a New York public school (something most of the State Ed. bureaucrats have never done) will tell you that the dramatic shift in testing requirements combined with cuts in funding will decimate learning opportunities for New York’s children. Urban and rural schools alike, wrought with poverty, will be forced to redirect funds toward unproven curriculum models and canned materials based on the false promises of Common Core alignment and improved test scores. Music programs will be cut, art teachers will be directed to teach reading modules, class sizes will increase dramatically, and districts will be forced to cut valuable extra-curricular activities. Students will lose enriched learning opportunities and be herded into “interventions” to increase learning and achievement, the very thing that will most certainly not occur.
In his rush to defend his former employer, Mr. Steiner has narrowed his focus on increased standards for all and ignored the influence of funding, poverty, and parental involvement on student achievement (the latter two have the most significant impact). I am disappointed, but not surprised, that he could not offer a more complete review of the challenges facing schools today.”
Well said! During Bloomie’s reign of terror class size at my school has dramatically increased, the budget has been slashed, teachers have been excessed, music/art/phys ed classes have been cut, yet we have managed to give our students a quality education in spite of the testing frenzy. I am so tired.
Under mayoral control, the NYC DOE budget has gone up 54% adjusted for inflation, and the vast majority of that goes to teacher, administrator, staff, and retiree salaries/pensions and benefits.
I believe that about ten years ago, MA invested a lot of its reform effort and money in pre-K and early childhood. What we see now are the fruits of that investment, as those kids go through high school.
Petrilli is back tracking again
“Let me make it clear from the beginning that I, like everyone else here on the panel, am a strong supporter of standards-based reform and a strong supporter of accountability in education. I also think that for the vast majority of our schools, it makes a lot of sense to use the Common Core as the standards and Common Core–aligned assessments as the measures of whether or not schools are getting kids where they need to be. This approach is based on a hypothesis: If students do well against the Common Core standards and do well on the Common Core–aligned tests, then those students will be able to go on and do well in college or go on and get a good-paying job.
I think the hypothesis makes sense. And for 90 percent of the schools, I think this approach works fine.
But I would also argue that there might be, say, 10 percent of the schools for whom the Common Core, or any state standards, may not be a good fit, and states should be open to allowing them to opt out of the regular accountability system.
Which schools belong in this 10 percent? First, some schools of choice (including charter schools and magnet schools)—particularly those on the far progressive end of the spectrum—fundamentally don’t believe in testing as a great measure of what kids need to know and be able to do. Their educational approach is not a good fit with standards-based reform.
A good example is High Tech High in California. These are very successful charter schools, though their scores on state tests aren’t great. However, their college going rates and college graduation rates are through the roof, particularly for first-generation college students. High Tech High could argue, then, that the California tests don’t really measure what the school considers to be the most essential skills to help kids get ready for college.
My argument is that we should allow schools like High Tech High to be held accountable against an alternative set of measures—rigorous, outcomes-based measures to substitute for the state testing, especially college-going and college-graduation rates.
Another group of schools that should be eligible for the opt-out are uniformly high-achieving schools—those where virtually all the kids are high achieving and for whom the Common Core standards (or any other state standards) are actually well below where they’re already achieving. These are largely going to be schools in our affluent suburbs or exam schools in our big cities.
If schools such as these can demonstrate to the state that their students are passing the rigorous Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exams, then who cares how they do on the lower-level state or Common Core tests?
I see three main arguments for experimenting with this sort of opt-out.
First, we can more accurately measure the effectiveness of a handful of schools if we use these sorts of alternative metrics.
Second, the limited use of an opt-out will release some steam from the political backlash to standards and testing. On the political right, this backlash is coming from supporters of school choice who are worried that accountability provisions linked to the Common Core or other state standards will force charter schools (and tax-dollar-receiving private schools) into a prescribed mold. And on the political left, it’s coming from affluent suburban moms who think there’s too much testing and pressure in their public schools and don’t see what value it’s adding (at least close to home), as well as progressive educators.
Finally, an opt-out will allow us reformers to call the bluff of accountability critics. We can say to these folks, “OK, you hate testing, and we all know testing isn’t perfect, so show me other measures that you’re willing to be held accountable for that have to do with real outcomes for kids. Let’s say for high schools: Are you willing to be held accountable for getting more kids into credit-bearing courses as college freshmen or graduating with some kind of degree or certification? Or, over the long term, getting more of your students employed in decent paying jobs? What are you willing to be held accountable for?”
And maybe some educators will say, “Yes, sign me up.”
But many others will say, “Well, you have to understand that these kids are so far behind, and they are coming from poverty, or their families are dysfunctional and there’s not much we can do to help them.”
And then we’ll have called their bluff. We’ll demonstrate that in fact it’s not testing that’s the problem, it’s being willing to be held accountable for any outcomes.
That would be a useful conversation for us to have.
– Mike Petrilli
This first appeared on the Fordham Institute’s Flypaper blog.
“And on the political left, it’s coming from affluent suburban moms who think there’s too much testing and pressure in their public schools and don’t see what value it’s adding (at least close to home), as well as progressive educators.”
Really patronizing and arrogant of Mr. Petrilli. The one and only poll I’ve seen indicated that most people think there’s too much standardized testing in public schools.
I guess “parental choice” matters unless it contradicts Reform Religion, then it’s all dismissive assumptions about “affluent suburban moms”
Arrogance runs all thru this thing. It’s the single most prominent quality.
I agree. If we let wealthy and socially enriched families have the choice to not be burdened by such mundane things as standards, tests and rules and such, they may likely find some sort of generational dynasty or entiltlement trust-fund type system that will serve them well, usher their children into select schools and positions in law, politics, or finance, and we could possibly know someone to offer more private and exclusive schools to cater to these people.
If those children of the wealthy go to these less restrictive schools grow up to be wealthy and successful themselves-that will prove their schools were awesome! Also, if we give the whiners a legit break from testing we can force them to come up with their own restrictive, non-equitable, high stakes option for firing the teachers of high needs students. Because it’s a high stakes system of consequences that is needed-not socioeconomic equity and stability. The evidence would make that clear.
“This approach is based on a hypothesis: If students do well against the Common Core standards and do well on the Common Core–aligned tests, then those students will be able to go on and do well in college or go on and get a good-paying job.”
Hypothesis??? We’re subjecting thousands of school children to tests of unproven value and betting hundreds of millions of tax dollars on a hypothesis?
Mr. Sanders, you and your fellow “standards-based reformers” need to PROVIDE EVIDENCE that these standards and the tests that go with them correlate in any way whatsoever to students being “able to go on and do well in college or go on and get a good-paying job.”
It’s nice that you think that the hypothesis makes sense; however, parents, taxpayers and educators deserve more tangible evidence than the fact that you “think that the hypothesis makes sense” before they commit their resources and their children’s educational future to an unproven venture.
This is just the next step down the road after taking the federal bribe to accept RTTT money. It is a shame. When the NYT published a sample question from each of the 3-8 th grade math tests, I gave them to some of my relatives and friends, all of whom have either masters and Ph.Ds.
The result. All felt anxiety about the questions. Some got one wrong. Many had to reread more than one of the questions a few times.
All expressed a great surprise at the requirements in each grade. The area of a rhombus in sixth grade? I learned that in the sophomore year at the Bronx High School of Science. Word problems in 3rd? Ok if you can read at at sophisticated level? Exponents? Factors? Really?…..
Finally, the most asked questions were.. Who the hell made this test ? It’s is the expected curriculum?
Last thoughts? As most said….” This is crazy!”
Get used to it, David Greene.
Politicians, policy makers, and lobbyists made these tests by hiring psychometricians and testing companies to design the questions. . . . all was based on philosophy, not cognitive science and research on developmental stages of children.
All was designed to create a systemic but artificial failure among school across the state, all to show that charters and vouchers should come into paly and radically alter the public trust and financing our current system has had in its public schools.
But if you as a citizen were to tap EVERY polical forum, call and hound every NY politician, organize and mobilize every free moment you could spare, then there lies the beginning and continuation of the pushback we teachers, adminstrators, and familes have been conducting for the last 5 years, the last year being particularly accelerated . . .
Robert. Thanks for the advice, but obviously you don’t know me. I am quite aware of all of what you said and am quite active in the fight vs this. I am treasurer of Save our schools march.org and have been fighting this fight for the past two years. I have spoken at occupy Doe 1 and 2 as well, I have awoken at political rallies I Long Island and hope that you join my organization in organizing national resistance to tests and the privatization of public education.
http://saveourschoolsmarch.org/
Surely you know who is funding the test companies that are making these tests!!! A clue…it’s the same guy who funded the people who developed the Standards. BILL GATES!!!!!
It ain’t just Gates.
David Greene,
I am familiar with Save Our Schools, and it’s a great and important organization because it represents SO many parents.
Sorry to not know you by name, but it’s nice to meet you here in this forum. I will revisit the site again and proceed accordingly. I’ll keep you posted. I was actually introduced to the organization by Julie Kavanaugh of MORE and Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters quite a while ago.
By this brief introduction, there is no doubt you will have empowered hundreds of people reading the Ravitch blog.
Thank you for all that you do for the collective cause . . . .
Thanks Robert. We are all in this together.
The problems are that: (a) no one, except KIPP, and Seth Andrew, and apparently High Tech High, seems interested in even collecting the longitudinal data about students and alumni that really matter; (b) regardless of money, all students need high expectations, especially those in at-risk communities, who have been told by their teachers and administrators for generations that they are “no good,” “up to nothing,” and “going nowhere but the gutter” (these are literal quotations from colleagues in my own experience in Harlem and South Bronx public schools); and (c) from circa 2002 to circa 2007 there WAS a huge increase in spending in New York State on public schools–much needed, but much wasted. More money spent on more of the same ineffectiveness is not going to help.
A two word response regarding the value of anything Steiner might say about education: Cathie Black.
According to the most recent test data, the biggest waste of money in NYC has been on your beloved charter schools, which, despite their student cherry-picking and mayoral support, are a fraud.
Even by their own debased standards – fetishizing high stakes exams and fatuous “No Excuses” rhetoric – charters seem to have a lot of “excuses” they need to make.
Robert, you are right on the mark (as usual!). We can start, by making our local school board representatives aware. I have been simply forwarding information from Diane’s blog to the school board representatives in my home school district. (I teach in another school district.). I have also printed and sent Leonie Haimson’s sample letter about inBloom (the letter requests that the supt. of schools hold a meeting to inform parents, and to disclose his/her thoughts, AND to disclose whether or not the district will comply.) Copies of this letter are sent to school board members, school supt., NYS Board of Regents area rep. as well as state and federal reps. I have also forwarded this article. I may be rated “Developing” as a teacher, but I’m going to be “Highly Effective” in fighting this circus. THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT WE KNOW. THE INORMATION AND COMMENTARY ON THIS BLOG AND RELATED BLOGS NEED TO BE MADE PUBLIC. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT OUR UNIONS, AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARE NOT GOING TO FIGHT THIS FOR US.
Join us at SOS. http://saveourschoolsmarch.org/ We have several actions coming up over the next few weeks.
2 words: CATHIE BLACK!!!
That’s how David Steiner will be remembered.
Cathie Black: all glamour, gltiz, gossip, ads, fashion, home furnishings, society functions, event planners, haute couture, caterers . . .
And having NOTHING to do with ANYTHING even remotely having to do with public education. One of the most ribald, hilarious pranks ever pulled on the familes of NYC, and one of the biggest crimes against educational humanity ever committed on the planet.
Doomberg may as well have hired Regis Philbin. . . There would have been a lot more cheerfulness in all those APPR/CCSS firings under his rule . . .
Last time I heard, Cathie Black was applying for a gal Friday position as Randi Weingarten’s personal assistant . . . . 🙂
Massachusetts invested not just in higher funding but more equitable funding — which NYS has refused to do despite a court decision telling them they had to.
So true. That decision was years ago….even if we choose to discuss these invalid scores, all we need to do in comparing the results is put them side by side with district mean incomes……really? Has no one noticed!
Leonie… We at SOS have an important question for you…I will email you.
Also, can someone give me an actual difference between “progressive” reformers and Jeb Bush? Not some vague fuzzy trickle-down effect, but an actual policy difference? Bush is apparently the star speaker at ALEC. Do school reformers support ALEC’s agenda, and why would we vote for them if they do?
Excellent letter. Thank you for posting, DIane.
More for less is a lie.
More IS less.
Less is more!
At least in the current thinking about teaching a second language. And my administrators want me to go get professionally developed at seminars with that theme. Horse manure!
I am confused by Gregory McCrea’s response to Steiner. I posted the following comment in response to his original comment:
Gregory:
What data you using for per pupil expenditures? The data from the Census Bureau Report – Public Education Finances: 2011 (May 2013). Table 20 tells a very different story for the last 5 years.
Has anyone else looked at the actual per pupil expenditure numbers?
The Per Pupil Expenditure $ numbers for Massachusetts and New York for 2006 thru 2011 (the most recent figures) are as follows:
Massachusetts ……..
2011 13,941 2.6
2010 13,590 –3.7
2009 14,118 4.9
2008 13,454 5.6
2007 12,738 6.3
2006 11,981
New York …………
2011 19,076 2.5
2010 18,618 2.7
2009 18,126 5.5
2008 17,173 7.5
2007 15,981 7.4
2006 14,884
2006 – 2011 Massachusetts 16.36%
New York 28%
So since 2006 New York State’s per pupil expenditures appear to have increased by 28%
Thank you Thank you for countering Gregory assertion. Sometimes ideology makes us make statements that are wrong. I hope Gregory reads your comment or more to the point Diane and everyone else that assumed something not in evidence. AND it could have, would have and should changed the nature of the blog comments. Congratulations- this is really what we as teachers should be fighting for not just against!!!
Rob:
Thank you. I try my best. Please believe that I am as likely to source the data on assertions about the efficacy of testing as assertions about Per Pupil Expenditure Rates.
I am surprised that you have been the only person to comment on this set of numbers and their possible implications. But if you are proponent of critical thinking and note its presence and absence, you may be less surprised.
I highly recommend the late Aaron Wildavsky’s book, But Is It True?
David Steiner was also investigated by the NYS Attorney General for accepting junkets from Pearson.
Tim
And we can thank Steiner for helping to bring about the so-called graduate school known as Relay, birthed as Teacher U at Hunter College:
“Teacher U was founded by leaders from three prominent charter school chains — Achievement First, Uncommon Schools and KIPP — in part to provide a setting where their own teachers could receive master’s-level training that was tightly focused “on stuff that will help you be a better teacher on Monday,” said Brent Maddin, the program’s senior manager of teaching and learning, and Relay’s future provost.
Dr. Steiner, who had recused himself from the Regents vote on Relay, helped start Teacher U when he was the dean of the Hunter College School of Education. As commissioner, he led the rewriting of state policy on teacher education as part of New York’s successful Race to the Top federal grant application, and those regulations share some similarities with Teacher U policies.”
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/education/edlife/edl-24teacher-t.html?pagewanted=all
This is what Carol Burris says about RGSE.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/is-filling-the-pail-any-way-to-train-teachers/2012/07/04/gJQADViVOW_blog.html
When I followed the link that she gave to the video from RGSE I was horrified. As a parent, this is not the sort of teaching that I would consider appropriate for my children. I had read about these techniques, but seeing the video… a picture says a thousand words. Not sure why the teacher is in such a hurry that she doesn’t give the kids space to think. It seems like she’s looking for an answer that she already knows rather than engaging the kids in a genuine and thoughtful exploration about the concept of a character trait. I have the sense that she is afraid that she will lose control of the class if she allows the kids to more carefully and thoroughly consider the concept.
I will attempt to provide a link. See the video entitled, A Culture of Support under Great Teaching on Video.
http://www.relay.edu/videos
Having spent short stints in Albany (NYSED location) and met some of the key players, I cannot believe that they are intentionally malevolent. What is it that Steiner and King lack in understanding testing issues? 1) I would initially suggest the humility to indicate they don’t have all answers which would allow them to do the self-reflection needed to evaluate the larger issues of standardized testing 2) or if not 1 maybe they don’t have the courage to publicly state their reservations knowing it would be professional suicide. 3) or if not 1) or 2) could it be as with some of my students they don’t fully grasp the idea of “critical thinking”. Now I know there is a lot of reading here, but I can only say “Do the best you can”!