William Johnson is the superintendent of public schools in Rockville Centre, Long Island, New York.
He is an experienced educator.
He can tell the difference between education and miseducation.
For his willingness to speak truth to power, to defend the children and staff in his care, he is a hero of American public education.
When he saw the scores generated by New York’s Common Core tests, he blew his stack.
He said to a reporter:
“Never at the end of the day could you, as a result of what you saw with a child’s actual performance on these tests, know what they know and what they don’t know,” Johnson said in April.
The data that the tests provided the district, Johnson said, is “uninterpretable and unusable.” He gave an example: in eighth grade, Rockville Centre students take the algebra Regents exam, which is usually administered in ninth grade. This year, about 95 percent of students passed it. The eighth-grade state math exam is supposed to determine how prepared students are to take algebra, yet only 39.5 percent of them passed that exam.
“To hell with these scores,” Johnson said. “They do not matter. They’re not informing us in any way; they’re not giving us any new information. In fact, what they’re doing is serious damage. Kids who had a [Level] 3 last year and ended up with a [Level] 1 this year, how do I tell them they can’t read, when in fact we know they can?”
The story says, “Last year, an average of about 81 percent of Rockville Centre students passed the state exams, which are given in grades 3 through 8 in English Language Arts and math. This year, with the new tests the state gave, the passing rate in Rockville Centre plummeted to 48 percent. The state average was slightly over 30 percent.”
In response to the sharp drop in the district’s scores, Johnson said:
“Our conclusion, after reviewing this with my staff in the central office and talking to a number of colleagues, is that we’re just going to put it on a shelf someplace and just leave it there,” said Dr. William Johnson, the district superintendent. “We’re not going to use this information to make any kind of determination about what kind of services we need for children, and we’re not going to use it in any capacity whatsoever to make informed decisions about our staff.”
Ahh! The great comfort of finding an administrator with some sense and the courage to let people know the truth.
Allow me to correct the first part of your statement, Ahh! the great SURPRISE of finding an . . . .
Agree
Thank you for stating it so bluntly, Bill. As we’ve said, it’s just a bunch of numbers that mean nothing until we get some substance to break it down (see note below). BUT – then yesterday we get the dreaded HEDI (ugggggh) scores and teacher / principal labels. So the only “meaning” of the scores is not about figuring out what kids learned, it’s about labeling teachers.
Assuming some – some of the questions measure learning about knowledge or skill at a higher level, only releasing a few (which is better than before when it was none) does no good. The great teacher has high standards, works with colleagues on a curriculum, designs great units and innovative lessons, and yes, assesses if kids learned by some measure and analyzes the assessments for extended learning, review, filling a gap. What good is a standardized “benchmark” (and there is some value in that) if we can’t analyze.
I have become so cynical that it crosses my mind that there is an intention to dumb all children down and the testing fiasco is being used to hide this fact.
I wish our superintended was this honest and bold! Bravo. If every superintendent would speak the truth, it would help empower teachers and staff to focus on what really matters – the kids. Thank you, William Johnson. Please consider reaching out to superintendents & school boards across the country and forming a coalition of successful public schools. Parents need our school leaders to lead, and to do so boldly, honestly, and quickly. There are many districts like Rockville Center, and if we stand together, we will have the strength to be the common core kryptonite.
Ah if only Dennis Walcott were the same… NYC is preparing to fire teachers and close schools based on these “phony” test scores
Sent from my iPhone
This is not linda from CT.
Those outside of education who champion these measures Mr. Johnson has rejected may have as their central premise that those of us in education have “meaningless” certifications as they “relate to quality.”
I had a e-newspaper comment conversation with the bank executive husband of the CEO of the biggest charter school chain in Connecticut. (I do not mean to disrespect and vilify this person.)
I quote from this executive and supporter of charter schools:
“Theoretically a degree is a validation that the individual scholar has attained some level of achievement in a particular discipline. And yet we all know that a certified teacher is not necessarily a qualified teacher. Isn’t that why private and parochial schools pay no attention to state certifications? They are meaningless as it relates to quality.”
and his comment continues with:
“In reality, certification has become merely a way for the current public education complex to maintain control of the labor market for teachers and also to keep charter schools out.”
You can see the thread of these comments at:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/64_head_to_teacher_leader_camp#cmt
I think this person’s comments provide a portal into the thinking or mindset towards teachers that is worthy of contemplation and discussion. His comments seem to indicate a kind of dismissal or contempt towards the training of a certified teacher because after all, the comment does state that teacher educator certifications “are meaningless as it relates to quality.”
This might explain a bit further the “research” that surfaced recently calling into question the teacher education schools and programs around the country. (Most were found to be of poor quality)
This kind of thinking might also explain why the governor of CT would appoint a non-certified lawyer as our state commissioner of education, why the city of Bridgeport would appoint a non-certified Superintendent of Schools (Paul Vallas), why the state of CT would appoint a non-certified Special Master to Windham Schools (Steve Adamowski) and why the state of New Jersey would appoint a non-certified Superintendent of Schools to Camden.
Maybe I am making too big a leap to conclude thusly. I do think that considering all that we can from the thinking of those who oppose public education is valuable.
Brutus,
What profession has no requirements for practicing it?
Would that banker want a doctor who skipped medical school and had five weeks of training?
Not to mention, teaching in a tony, private, uncrowded school with upper midde class and upper class children involves far less behavioral management skills than it does in a typical public school, where the attitudes towards education need development.
This banker is clueless. . . . He’s like a child who has not learned the ways of the world, yet insists that his view is the only view.
You can tell him that to sell stocks, insurance, and real estate, one is legally required to become certified in New York State. Maybe he thinks all those trades should be deregulated and allow anyone with or without certification to sell those commodities.
Unlike the commentor, I have no problem villifying this banker not due to whether or not he has a good heart, but based on the fact that his thinking is beyond moronic.
I don’t suffer fools gladly, and innocent stupidity is just as nefarious and heinous as willful malice because the net results of such thinking end up being the same . . . . . .
Brutus,
“Isn’t that why private and parochial schools pay no attention to state certifications?”
The correct response to that question is: NO, because the private and parochial schools pay less and therefore have to take the leftover pickings from the public school hiring process. Remember in the “free market” (sic) the best in any business are paid the best (go teach in public schools) and the rest fight for the scraps.
The case against this nonsense is inarguable. Blog commenting help us all vent, but what’s next? HOW DO WE STOP THE MADNEESS?????
NYTeacher, we WILL stop the madness. Stupidity will collapse of its own weight as more and more people stand up and speak out.
NY Teacher,
Your last sentence should become a focus of all blogs, small and large.
The first step in solving a problem is coming to a consensus on the definition and causes of the problem.
DONE!
The second step is to organize and plan pushbacks.
NOT DONE, but in development.
The third step is to execute what you planned and organized by launching and mobilizing.
STILL IN EARLY STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT!
But you last sentence is a game changer, a defining moment, and a catalyst. Let’s all focus on your last sentence. Thank you for such a simple but powerful (perhaps THE most powerful reminder.
RR
I think that serious legal action will eventually STOP the MADNESS;
after all, CCSS/APPR provided legal relief from the NCLB act.
A principal that I know told me that privately, many administrators in NY were calling the CCSS/APPR reform, “No Attorney Left Unemployed”.
I read somewhere that if the PARCC consortium of states (now at 20) drops below 15 – all federal funding will be lost. But all of this is still tied to the original NCLB federal legislation, so I’m not so sure what recourse will really work . NCLB was set to punish every school district in the country this school year for “failing” to reach 100% proficiency. So, unless NCLB is re-legislated I don’t see a way out, unless a complete mutiny (non-compliance) occurs.
On June 8, thousands of teachers, parents, and students protested in Albany NY as “One Voice United” – yet, the testing madness continues.
NY Teacher,
“I read somewhere that if the PARCC consortium of states (now at 20) drops below 15 – all federal funding will be lost.”
As it stands now and as you know, funds form RttT pay for a tiny fraction of all the newly mandated services and products used to collect data on teachers and rate their performance, tests, test prep material, implementation of the CCSS, and the technology that is intertwined with all of the above . . . Title 1 and III funding has changed in its orientation to defer more to the CCSS as well, in part.
The funds from RttT are NOT legally allowed to pay for more teaching space, more highyl qualified teachers, more books and teaching supplies, more specialists, such as librarians, reading teachers, therapists, nurses, etc. . .
We essentially have taxation and edcuation without representation, not only with regard to CCSS, but with our hard earned tax dollars and how they are allocated to the public infrastructure of schools.
“No attorney left unemployed” is spot on.
It is my hope that attorneys will empathize with the idea that a co-hort of the population with little to no experience in education is vastly dominating education policy. I am sure the ABA would not want the same to happen to lawyers and the legal progression. I cannot imagine Eli Broad using his influence to change civil procedure, although I would not put anything past anyone. Still, if that were to happen, at least lawyers on the defense would have the legal skills to defend themsleves, unlike teachers.
Thank you for your insight.
It’s time to act. Let’s pick a date and have a state (nation) wide sick day in protest.
There’s a call out in Chicago to boycott schools on August 28 (the anniversary of the March on Washington). Let’s expand on that.
Johnson hits it on the spot when he calls out the problems of misalignment between tests – Regents subject matter tests, State tests, SAT scores, AP course scores, NAEP, etc, etc. I ran a school where nearly 90% of our students took Regents tests 2-5 years earlier than they were supposed to (according to NYSED curriculum grid) and yet 85% passed the tests, and between 25 and 50% got “honors” level scores. They did well in the middle school state tests, but not as well as in the Regents (even though the later were more advanced! grade level). About half of our students took the John Hopkins test for gifted students and scored very high (but we found little correlation with the state grade level tests). The test metrics are all misaligned – suggesting one of several things: a) They measure totally different and largely non-overlapping sets of knowledge and skills (and if this is so then one has to be very careful in extrapolating from these tests to “college readiness”). b) Possibly the tests (or some of them) are unstable measures (fluctuating across cutoff points in ways that are not related to each other, or the worst case scenario c) Possibly (some? all?) are poorly designed and are not measuring anything of significance….. Someone ought to do this cross standardized test stability and correlation analysis – and include PISA and TIMSS, Cambridge A level examinations, etc… We keep going in circles and over-analyzing test scores and what they mean, often mixing tests results in ways that I doubt are valid statistically. My sense is that when this is all said and done – the standardized tests don’t really give us that much more information that report cards – and are thus this testing craze is likely to (have been) be an enormous waste of time and effort. Better to have spent the money on improving schools with limited financial resources, improving on the quality of teachers and school administrators, and expanding school offerings to make school rich and special places for all children.
Gabriel,
“. . . a) They measure totally different and largely non-overlapping sets of knowledge and skills (and if this is so then one has to be very careful in extrapolating from these tests to “college readiness”). b) Possibly the tests (or some of them) are unstable measures (fluctuating across cutoff points in ways that are not related to each other, or the worst case scenario c) Possibly (some? all?) are poorly designed and are not measuring anything of significance….. ”
In regards to point a: These tests don’t measure anything as attempting to measure the testing and learning process is a logical falsehood as proven by Noel Wilson. It’s impossible to logically measure a quantity. Point b: They are definitely “unstable” which is what makes them invalid, again see Wilson. Point c: they are all poorly designed and don’t measure anything of significance as proven by Wilson.
See Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A quality cannot be quantified. Quantity is a sub-category of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category by only a part (sub-category) of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as one dimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing we are lacking much information about said interactions.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. As a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it measures “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society
I just received my back to school letter, and believe me, my superintendent is no hero, but he wrote that the scores were not an indication of student performance, but the state giving a test teachers couldn’t prepare for. I was shocked. Lets see what he had to say at the opening day meeting.
This superintendent is an outright hero. Thank you William Johnson, for your courage and integrity.
My own superintendent came out with a letter of support for teachers, parents, and students, and he provided a link to an article in the Huffington Post or Washington Post by Carol Burris. I want to personally thank him for his courage and integrity. My district has a burgeoning low income Latino ELL population, and we are always under the closer watch of Albany. For my superintendent is not even 44 and in his position for only one year so far. To come out and show such support is an indication of his bravery, compassion, intellectualism, and thirst for truth and justice.
Just as we’ve had a “New York Principals” movement, now too do we need the same to happen with New York Superintendents. Ditto for New York State School boards and the New York State School Boards Association.
Let’s not leave out the fact that Johnson is Carol Burris’ superintendent. Great minds attract.
We should all follow their lead, take these scores place them on a shelf in the shed, then burn the damn shed down.
Superintendents who remain silent are enablers. Their silence and lack of action continues the addictive practices of the abusers.
Bravo to William Johnson for standing by his teachers, his students and his convictions. Your leadership is to be commended. Thank you.
They should have joined together with their staff years ago. They need to all join together and put up a real fight
Can this superintendent come to Cali. We’ve got a job for him in LAUSD.
My hero for sure! Loved the idea of “put it on a shelf someplace”.
As a symbolic, photo-op protest we could surely find a sturdy school shelf and line up a few uniquely-decorated cremation urns, vessels or vases.
RIP uninterpretable and unusable!
Bill Johnson is an outstanding leader who holds high expectations for every child. At the same time he understands the effects of poverty and he fights to get kids the support they need. He is a former NYS Supe of the Year.
When SED loses Bill’s support, they really need to re-think.
This superintendent has true integrity.
I wish the same could be said for NYS Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch.
In her 8/15 interview with WNYC’s Brian Lehrer, http://nyceye.blogspot.com/2013/08/transcript-of-tisch-interview-common.html
she comes off as tin-eared and stone-hearted when responding to callers about formerly 4 level tested students weeping during the Common Core tests and a teacher’s own third grade son getting sick from the tests.
She speaks in contradictory terms, leaving confusion as to how damaging the Common Core test results will be to reputations of teachers.
Teachers need to challenge their unions to give straight answers on the impact of the CCSS tests on their ratings and careers. As you posted a few months ago the UTLA of Los Angeles were heroes of Public Education for refusing to sign off on Race to the Top because of the value-added assessments. https://dianeravitch.net/2012/10/30/this-union-is-a-hero-of-public-education/
NY? It’s blindly follow the orders dictated from Race to the Top, no matter what.
If only more superintendents –– and principals, and school board members…and teachers –– had the courage and professional integrity to speak out against stupidity like William Johnson has done.
Sadly, most do not.
Instead, many talk about the value of “data-driven” (test score-driven) decision-making. They emphasize the importance of “business practices” applied to education. At the University of Virginia, there is a joint education-business master’s degree program, called the Partnership for Leaders in Education (PLE), to integrate the “business model” into public education. The dean of the education school says he wants it to be a “first mover” in this arena, and he told the UVa Board of Visitors that he wanted UVa to “foster, incubate, test and market innovations.” Uh-huh.
Meanwhile in Virginia, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell, who brought Jeb Bush’s A-F school grading to the Commonwealth, appointed a school superintendent to the State Council for Higher Education. This particular superintendent thinks technology is more important than teachers, and she imported an expensive ($2 million) technological boondoggle to her district called SchoolNet (founded by Denis Doyle and an investment banker), which was sold later to Pearson. As Larry Cuban noted in reference to big spending on technology, “There is insufficient evidence to spend that kind of money. Period, period, period.”
After a local weekly newspaper exposed the problem, the superintendent withheld 268 emails between her office and SchoolNet officials. The school of education at UVa gave this superintendent an award for integrating technology into the school system, calling her a “visionary leader.”
Such is the state of much of what constitutes public school “leadership.”
See, for example: http://www.readthehook.com/100248/no-school-administrator-left-behind
I met Bill on Long Island and he has the reputation among his staff as the real deal! But, one has to wonder where they (we) find such bright young people with such little ability to think through the logical inference of policies. Here I refer to our Commissioner and the “fellows”.
Schools, indeed are finding the assessments no longer useful in planning for students. In order to provide justification of these assessments as meaningful, as more than a “snap shot”, Dr. King talks about the value-added between two snap shots:) VAM’s are not reliable, at least per the in the 93 page APPR guidance document that only cites research saying that VAM’s are unreliable.
My prediction re: the next featured mockery of quantified social science will be their new rant: the “similar student” categories. How presumptuous and condescending can we get?
Yay, Bill Johnson! And here’s the NEXT STEP everyone’s been talking about–Bill, you start it–REFUSE to have your students take the tests! YOU OPT OUT the ENTIRE DISTRICT!!! If Rockville Center has not yet ordered tests/put in numbers to the state yet, do NOT do it! If it has already been done, REFUSE to take delivery of the boxes!
SEND BACK test prep materials–preferably to Pear$on–make THEM pay the shipping costs!
Bill Johnson–you are, indeed, an Education Hero! Be even more so–an Education Hero Extraordinaire–be the first superintendent in the United States to save your kids
from the testing monster!
And how about the rest of you superintendents out there?!
Yes WE can and yes we WILL!!!!
Bravo, William Johnson! NY Superintendents should simply toss test results in the garbage and not even send out the results. Everyone should opt out next year.
Please note that while I realize that this might be the case or many, not all Parochial school teachers are able to get away without being certified; my Archdiocese requires us to be state certified and all of the schools in it are accredited through SAACS as an Archdiocese. We are up for recertification next school year and are already preparing for this.
Smartest decision I have heard in a long time….shelve the meaningless data, stop punishing children and those who teach them and get on with the business of generating authentic, individual, and relevant data that teachers can purposefully use to support children’s success! May other superintendents follow!!!!!!!
Thank you Mr. Johnson for supporting your schools and your professional staff. Finally a voice we can listen to,and it makes great sense.
Thank again Keep writing and spreading your news.
Hmmm… Why can’t everyone who knows the harm these test are doing to kids speak up in the same way and put a stop to this madness?
There are 700+ school districts in NY. Perhaps looking the scores in the top 10% would provide better insight because clearly the current scoring mechanism is being completely dismissed by some administrators, teachers and parents.
“We’re not going to use this information to make any kind of determination about what kind of services we need for children, and we’re not going to use it in any capacity whatsoever to make informed decisions about our staff.”
Words that bring tears to my eyes. This is a person I could work with!
Bill
Could you please take Arne’s place!
America needs you!
It is wonderful to hear an educator that is willing to agree with what the teachers have been saying for years. Some children are just not good test takers and it’s not fair to them or any of the other children. We spend half the year teaching for the exam. It’s not fair to our children.
I hear the superintendent speaking on the test results, but not the actual standards. I believe we are losing the value of the standards because we are so blinded by all of the “related” ills such as testing, money, etc. The super is right – at this point of serious misalignment, the scores should not carry much, if any weight. Everything is so new and unaligned, there is no real connection – yet. We need to allow ample time for teachers to learn the new standards and how to teach in a fashion that serves those standards well. That takes time; and while the new assessments may not be all that bad, they are untimely. This is no different that what has historically trended – new standards manifest in an initial dip in test scores. As teachers learn the standards and align their teaching, scores inevitably increase. Let’s just hope they got it right this time so that once the scores creep upward (and that will happen), we won’t see yet another change in standards and curriculum and start all over again.
The scores are aligned with NAEP. That is wildly unrealistic. NAEP proficient is solid performance, not a passing mark. New York mistakenly set the passing mark so high that only 31% passed it. In 20 years of state testing, only one state (Mass.) has 50% of children at that level.
NYS Regents Chancellor Tisch was asked by WNYC’s Brian Lehrer, whether the passing mark on the tests represent A level work or grade level work.
She responded after a noticeable pause:
“In my opinion, it measures grade level work.”
Given that the test prep materials have been so challenging, challenging even to adults, I would doubt her estimation.
The Common Core tests for eighth grade should be given to 100 accomplished professionals. The results should be published. Chancellor Tisch, the Board of Regents, and Commissioner King should take the tests.
The purpose of the Common Core is put forth as means to compare education on a national basis. Since we parrot initiatives as they bubble up from the business sector, and always have , the resulting confusion about Common Core is not surprising. We are nonetheless stuck with with some method for comparison. Common Core in some form is vital to our national interest and must be implemented . We ,as a nation ,have used a hodgepodge of measures for comparison from state to state and even areas within a given state. Though I like Bill Johnson’s blunt push back ,and we can expect nothing less from a savvy Long Island superintendent. The politics of this are as plain as day. Why would any superintendent accept a lower assessment of students in his/her district?
A Common Core assessment on a national level is a priority and must be implemented sooner rather than later. Rejecting the current version as flawed is the duty of concerned citizens particularly and especially educators. The issue is how we influence the proper development and implementation of Common Core. The business sector seems to have had a large say in what we are presently experiencing with Common Core and bringing influence to bear seems the issue at hand.
Rockville Center had the most opt-outs for LI last year.