Jason Stanford has written a jaw-dropping article about what happened to the professor who debunked standardized testing. It’s not pretty.
Walter Stroup, a professor at the University of Texas College of Education, made a remarkable discovery about standardized tests: “what the tests measured was not what students have learned but how well students take tests.”
He shared what he learned with the Texas legislature in 2012, as the testing rebellion was heating up across the state among parents. Legislators had long clung to the dogma that the way to improve test scores was to test more and make the tests harder. The state had recently signed a big contract with Pearson to deliver the tests.
“Stroup testified that for $468 million the Legislature had bought a pile of stress and wasted time from Pearson Education, the biggest player in the standardized-testing industry.”
After 15 years of high-stakes testing, the state was still waiting for the promised results. What they got instead was a huge number of students who could not graduate high school and a parent uprising against testing.
What happened to Stroup was alarming. Pearson tried to discredit his research. Pearson has some high-powered lobbyists on its payroll in Texas.
“Stroup had picked a fight with a special interest in front of politicians. The winner wouldn’t be determined by reason and science but by politics and power. Pearson’s real counterattack took place largely out of public view, where the company attempted to discredit Stroup’s research. Instead of a public debate, Pearson used its money and influence to engage in the time-honored academic tradition of trashing its rival’s work and career behind his back.”
But even more alarming, the Pearson Foundationade was already a major benefactor of Stroup’s employer, the University of Texas College of Education.
“In retrospect, Stroup might have anticipated that the UT College of Education wouldn’t celebrate his scholarship on standardized tests. In 2009, the Pearson Foundation, the test publisher’s philanthropic arm, created a $1 million endowment at the College of Education, which in turn engendered the Pearson Center for Applied Psychometric Research, an endowed professorship, and an endowed faculty fellowship.
“Tax law allows corporations to establish charitable foundations. What tax law doesn’t allow is endowing a nonprofit to supplement the parent corporation’s profit-driven mission. Last December, Pearson paid a $7.7 million fine in New York state to settle charges that the Pearson Foundation “had helped develop products for its corporate parent, including course materials and software,” reported The New York Times. There is some evidence that the same thing is going on at UT, mainly because Pearson said so in a press release posted on the College of Education’s website:
“Pearson Foundation’s donation underscores the company’s dedication to designing and delivering assessments that advance measurement best practice, help ensure greater educational equity and improve instruction and learning in today’s global world,” wrote Steve Dowling, Pearson executive vice president. “Through our endowment with The University of Texas at Austin, we are investing in technology-driven assessment research that will promote and personalize education for all.”
Six months after Stroup testified before the Legislature, he learned that his tenure was in jeopardy.
The story is not over. It is about politics and power. It is not about what’s best for children or how to improve education.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
all part of healthy competition and the large scope of choice, right???
Who do you think you are TE???
Or are you Gautam or Tarun???
TE phone home
Duane,
I am a bit confused here. Did you mean to comment on Joanna’s post? Do you think my name is Gautam or Tarun?
What has happened to Professor Stroup is why teachers have been reluctant to reveal what they know – “that the emperor has no clothes”. They know all too well, that something similar can / may / will happen to them too.
It may only be when the parental backlash achieves a critical mass that that the current deform movement might implode, but for an individual teacher / professor / researcher such as Stroup, to bravely stand in opposition with a voice of reason, is as ineffectual as trying to stop a tsunami.
So sad what it has all become….I guess education is the last thing they can get their hands on and completely ruin and destroy ….just like this country. There’s no money to be made anymore in industry (they took care of that), so the goldmine is now tech in education.
My students will be testing constantly this year (with pretests, posttests, benchmarks, quarterly assessments, and PARCC). I don’t begin to know where I will fit in all my teaching. Add to that the schools now require so many workshops outside of your day in the classroom to learn how to utilize all this nonsense which you know has no educational value. It is all so frustrating. Thank you, Diane, for your column. I think I would go crazy without it.
Week three coming up for us, and yes, the first rounds of tests. We must establish their growth from last year so as to calibrate our evaluation schemes. They will then be horrified that kids forget over the summer. Some teachers game this even further, knowing the early tests are coming, they make sure they do little teaching until the first tests are done. Tests are driving us….right over a cliff. I am right there with you Sad Teacher.
“A student in the third grade did as well on a math test as that same student did in the eighth grade on a language arts test as the same student did in the 10th grade on a different test. Regardless of changes in school, subject and teacher, a student could count on a test result remaining 50 to 72 percent unchanged no matter what. Stroup hypothesized that the tests were so insensitive to instruction that a test could switch out a science question for a math question without having any effect on how that student would score.”
It’s anecdotal, but this is actually true of my four kids. The eldest and the youngest are the high-scorers and the middle two scored lower, and that has basically never changed- not year over year and not school to school (for the eldest, who was in three different systems). There isn’t a whole lot of variance.
Part of the problem with testing, in my opinion, is that it isn’t just K-12. Adults who did well on college entrance tests (ACT and SAT) are very personally invested in the idea that those tests measure how smart they are. That’s how we measure merit. If they were on an “elite” track (as a lot of our current policymakers were) those tests are HUGE. They determine which college you get into.
It’s profoundly “disrupting” to the “status quo” to even HINT that tests might not be measuring what we thought they did, because it threatens everyone who was on the winning end of the SAT and ACT system, and a lot of powerful people were on the high-scoring end of the college entrance exam tests.
Quite correct in your last two paragraphs Chiara!
From my comment below:
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.
At the most basic level, standardized tests are how we measure merit, right? There’s a reason SAT and ACT prep is a huge industry. Those tests are important. We pretend they’re not (sometimes) but everyone knows they are.
I think there was a natural inclination among people who accept that measure of merit to extend it to K-12.
My state, Ohio, has now taken this one step further. One of the ways to “qualify” for their new high school diploma measuring system is to score at “X” on the ACT.
Our whole system is based on standardized tests, to a large extent. To question that calls a whole lot of peoples’ “merit” into question. 🙂
One of my kids doesn’t test well; his two siblings are champs. As teachers, we always downplayed the importance of this kind of metric to our children. Nonetheless, when my son accidentally found out his score on a particular exam, it led to his belief that he was “stupid” compared to the other two. It took more than 5 years to undo that damage to his self esteem. Now, he kinda gets a kick out of all the attacks on these invalid tests.
Our daughter earned great grades (she graduated from HS with a 4.65 GPA), but didn’t test well. She’d get very nervous during any type of standardized testing and always landed as average or slightly below and this haunted her no end, because she was convinced that would keep her out of the college of her choice, which was Stanford.
Well, too make a long story short, she was accepted to Stanford and graduated this last June, and she now has her first job that pays well above the average income for all households in the U.S. The average median income for a female in the U.S. who is 25 or older is $26,507 annually. Our daughter is under 25 and earns more than twice that number.
Who or what protects tenure at the university level? If a K-12 teacher’s “tenure” (due process right) is threatened, the union will defend that teacher. Whose job is it to defend Stroup?
Will somebody please step up and answer this very important question? Clarify the difference between “tenure” and “due process” maybe? [I believe “due process” is a civil right (4th amendment, habeas corpus, etc.), where “tenure” is a contractual obligation between a professor and the university.]
It is my understanding that tenure affords the right of due process in secondary education. But in higher ed it is a lifetime appointment that requires a whole series of steps involving a lot of original research, publishing etc… (unless something really egregious occurs). I took the comment in this article to mean that he was on tenure track prior to testifying but now this is in jeopardy thanks to Pearson’s power and influence (and that any original research, publications, great courses he teaches will not gain him tenure because he in effect is black-listed)..
Artseagal,
Professor Stroup is a tenured associate professor at UT Austin.
The tragedy in this is that the university system is so thoroughly compromised by corporate money that they can’t defend tenure. Systematically selecting for conformity and political loyalty does not reward integrity or encourage originality of thought.
I don’t know about the “who” part, but it’s my understanding that university tenure is a contractual right. So if a professor is terminated for reasons that are impermissible under the contract, or without the procedure provided by the contract, that’s a breach of contract. If the university is a state actor, it may also be a violation of due process, to the extent the contract is construed as having created a property right.
GE2L2R is right on the mark. We teachers are actors/actresses in a scary Lifetime movie. Power and greed is everywhere around us. When you speak up and say the truth, your job is in jeopardy. They are then immediately after you to silence you. I know this sounds farfetched, but believe me it’s happening everywhere. I am trying to just quietly finish my teaching career, keeping my students as my center focus, and count the days to get out of a profession which has been taken over by evil. I will have to retrain in another field to continue a paycheck (I had my children later in life), but it is well worth it.
We are never going to fix this without addressing this:
“Rep. Eissler never called another hearing to have the debate between Stroup and a Pearson representative as Rep. Aycock had suggested. Eissler retired from the Legislature and now lobbies for Pearson.”
Which is the root cause. The corruption level in government is genuinely alarming to me. I’m not talking about actionable lawbreaking, I’m talking about complete and utter capture at every level and an ethical collapse. It’s scary, because it just continues unabated. No one seems to have any interest in demanding higher standards. ALL of this is excused, because most of the people who might call it out are benefitting from it themselves.
We have to do better than this, demand better. It can’t just continue unabated and get worse every year. Systemic corruption brings whole nations down. We’re not special or unique. It will happen here too.
“Everyone knew the system was broken, but no one knew exactly why.”
Oh, YES, there are many who knew/know exactly why the standardized testing “system was/is broken.” It’s been know since 1997 at least. Noel Wilson has proven that the educational standards and standardized testing “system” has so many epistemological and ontological errors that the educational malpractices that are that “system” is COMPLETELY INVALID. It’s broken even before it was started.
“Stroup argued that the tests were working exactly as designed, but that the politicians who mandated that schools use them didn’t understand this. In effect, Stroup had caught the government using a bathroom scale to measure a student’s height. The scale wasn’t broken or badly made. The scale was working exactly as designed. It was just the wrong tool for the job. The tests, Stroup said, simply couldn’t measure how much students learned in school.”
THOSE TESTS MEASURE NOTHING! The teaching and learning process is not amenable to being measured. Again, Wilson has proven so in his never refuted nor rebutted “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 description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional 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 the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
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. And 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 attempts to measure “’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.
Boy, that attempt at bolding some parts didn’ work very well. I guess I need to put a space between the , and the text.
Yep that’s it!
That’s what I like most about your posts, Duane, that they are so bold.
The GREED of Capitalism at its worse…wrecking other people’s lives because they speak out against CORRUPTION. This is GREEDY and IMMORAL.
Pearson is a social disease that has invaded most of Texas, and is becoming a pandemic worldwide – it came from the UK as the AIDS in Education, was then was spread by dirty politicians, corrupt business “leaders, and a shadowy Houston billionaire named John D. Arnold. These so called “leaders” who are spreading this nasty pestilent filth are immature “frat boys” who have not changed since their rowdy days at UT and A&M. They were never scholars, but party animals, boozing and bonding in some of Austin and College Station’s finest frat houses and strip joints. They were Mama’s Boys because they had Bully Daddies, so they never grew up and still get their kicks from bullying kids. Here’s Bill Hammond, the loud mouthed alcoholic President of the Texas Business Association and at the same time, a Lobbyist for Pearson! He pounds on his chest in the state Capitol yelling, Rigor, Rigor, Rigor, yet he is clueless about education, used his wife’s influence to get elected in state politics, beat on his own children when they were young, and is now trying to bully all the children in the state of Texas, while feathering his nest with Pearson money. Yep, it’s a nasty infection that blossomed with Pearson’s first Cheerleader Bush, then became epidemic with Cheerleader Perry and his Pioneers of Faggotry. Fellow Texans, this disease is going to get worse as long as the taxpayers play dead while these douchebags continue their elephant walk through the state capitol and The University.
Has than been any research into the consistency of teacher assigned grades for a given student across disciplines and over time? It seems to me that there is same kind of thing going on there as Professor Stroup observed with standardized tests.
Professor Stroup is the target of a particular kind of dark conspiracy that involves dirty politics enmeshed with dirty business leaders. Professor Stroup’s case is similar to numerous others in Austin who have spoken up about corruption in the university and public schools, as well as government. He is just one more example of the mafia style management that has become pervasive in Texas, not just in the capitol, but in the university system and TEA. It can be recognized by Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy, which are a combination of psychosocial characteristics valued in dirty politics and dirty business. People with these characteristics are insecure bullies who are drawn to power and greed. They are ruthless and have expert skills at manipulating others. Their Narcissism causes them to see themselves as superior, and think they know what is best for everyone else. Their ruthlessness and lack of morals is what causes them to be recruited by greedy corporations like Pearson. This will continue, with the blessing of taxpayer money, until people wake up and see reality.
Kurt,
Do you know of any research on the consistency of teacher assigned grades across disciplines and over time? All I have is anecdotal evidence. I know that the top 10% of the local high school class has a high school GPA over 3.85 (on a 4.0 scale) which suggests that a significant portion of the students in the high school get an A in almost every class no matter the discipline for 4 years, but I do not know if those same students did the same before high school.
Empirical evidence please.
Titleone,
I was, of course, asking if anyone knew of any empirical evidence.
The best I could come up with is based on high school graduation GPA for high GPA students. If a students has a 3.85 or better it (about 12% of the graduating seniors in my local high school achieve this) means that the student has received something on the order of six grades of A for every B. These students pretty clearly receive about the same grade for every class they take for the four years of high school.
It is less clear for students that have a lower GPA. A student who graduates with a GPA of 3.0 might have received an A in half of the classes and a C or might have received the identical grade in every class in every year of high school. This is where a more detailed analysis is needed.
So much for tenure, free speech and democracy. Welcome to the authoritarian oligarchy. May it not reign supreme.
It’s a good thing Jason Stanford is free lance or else he would certainly be trashed for exposing this. Although free lance doesn’t rule out hit-list, so watch your back Jason.
It is shocking to hear about some of the trashings that brave folks in the schools and universities of Texas have taken as a result of trying to expose injustices and abuse.
Their careers are ruined and they suffer untold grief. Texas Exes and Donors to the university need to follow this case closely! UT’s covert attack on a professor who was doing his best to present meaningful research is similar to their attacks on numerous campus rape victims who sought help in prosecuting their attackers, but were attacked themselves and scapegoated by the university, while their rapist was protected. This pattern of punishing the victim and defending the perpetuator is becoming too common in Texas universities, just as it is in politics and the corporate world.
I am a proud Texas Ex, and I don’t want to see my university ruined by Pearson’s mafia. Thank you Jason for your excellent article, and please keep us informed as this case progresses.
teachingeconomist,
Please stop trying to detract us from the topic. The topic here is:
Valid research from a highly regarded UT professor is threatening Pearson and their gang, so in turn the professor is being attacked.
That doesn’t actually take research to figure out, just careful observation of the facts as in scientific thinking or common sense!
Kurt,
I am talking about the substance of Professor Stroup’s concern with standardized testing. Let me quote from the article linked to by Dr. Ravitch:
“What he noticed was that most students’ test scores remained the same no matter what grade the students were in, or what subject was being tested.”
My admittedly anecdotal observation is that this is equally true for teacher assigned grades, but I had some hope that there was some research confirming this or refuting it.
As it happens I have a son that took the SAT exam twice, once as a seventh grader for the Duke TIP program, once the summer before his senior year in high school. He did significantly better on the SAT as a rising senior than he did in junior high. I would think this is a typical result when a student takes the same test several years apart.
Maybe he did better in high school than as a seventh grader because the SAT is more inappropriate for a 7th grader than an 11th grader.
Christine,
That is my point. If we asked a sixth grader to take a test normally taken by third graders, we would expect the sixth grader to do much better on it than he/she did in third grade.
Professor Stroup is the victim of what has become too common in the university system. He is a highly regarded researcher and tops in his field. He was doing his best to present valid research, but because that research was threatening to Pearson & gang, the professor became the target. “Beware the Messenger’s Head” is becoming too common as a management style in our university system now that it has been infiltrated with Pearson’s money and corruption. This case is similar to the numerous cases of rape that university administrators have tried to cover up by scapegoating the victims and protecting the perpetrators. Too many others like Professor Stroup in the faculties of both the university system and the school system have been trashed for standing up to injustice and abuse in those systems. It is shocking to hear some of details of the nefarious abuse in those cases, and the devious dark side of our administration. It makes Penn State smell like a rose!
I am a proud Texas Ex and I cringe to see The University’s reputation ruined by Pearson’s control of our current corrupt administration. I hope all our Exes and Donors will follow this case closely and take a stand against this abuse to Professor Stroup. If anything, this publicity should be used to focus on Dr Stroup’s research and educate the parents and people of Texas to understand just how crappy Pearson’s testing is.
His research was not based on any accepted statistical theory and was widely discredited. You don’t get tenure if you produce bad (not peer reviewed!!) research, and then widely publicize it. To top it off, it was actually work done by a grad student that he passed off as his own.
Don’t blindly defend a rogue researcher if you haven’t even read his work just because you have a common enemy. It makes your whole movement look bad…
Robert,
Can you please link to any substantial articles that will verify what you have posted?
TIA!
By the way, how often do we get peer reviewed articles from the reform movement?
Reformers seldom refer to peer reviewed articles, only to reports by “think tanks” or advocacy groups they have funded.
Everything in this society is about money and power, everything. Do anything to allow corporate America to increase their bottom lines and increase compensation to the highest 5%, talk all social services, including education and give them to private industry so they can make money from the public revenue trough and never be held accountable for anything as far as results since they have greased the palms of those who should be asking the question. You have the same thing happening in the military and Brown and Root, subsidiary of Mr. Cheney’s Halliburton now employees nearly as many civilians to support the shrinking actual military force so they can claim a reduction in the armed services when in reality it is just being move to Brown and Root at even higher outside contractor cost.
Until we put a cap on campaign spending in the elections low enough that true grass roots candidates can have a chance to take our political processes back to where the executive and legislative branches are filled with people who actual care about the whole population and the country rather than the professional politicians and professional administrators who have built their own empires we will continue down this path with the rich getting richer and the poor getting pooer and the middle class quickly disappearing until we are the largest “banana republic” in the world.
The only thing we are the best in the world at today is building weapons and we have to keep international conflicts going in order to maintain the military industrial complex, the only stable, growing and innovative sector of our economy.
And what you have written Terry is unknown by probably 95% of Amuricans.
Teaching economist. Do your own research. You seem to be asking about grade inflation or the general role of intelligence in taking tests regardless of subject,
This thread is about intimidation of a researcher by a corporation that operates a foundation.
Corporate foundations” are buying up academic posts at a faster pace than ever. It is well past the bricks and mortar buildings and endowed professorships of yesteryear.
While investigating federal policy and philanthropic investments in 2011, I tripped upon the following in EdWeek:
In April (2011) the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced a collaboration with the Pearson Foundation in a press release that stated:
“One of the central pieces of this work [aligning resources and instruction to the CCSS] is developing full curricula on a digital platform, and we’re excited the Pearson Foundation has taken a leadership role in leveraging new technologies. Pearson is developing digital courses in math and English language arts that will help teachers and principals implement the standards, with printed materials and online courses using video, interactive software, games and social media. We are pleased that through our partnership with the Pearson Foundation, four of these courses—two in math and two in English language arts—will be available for free online.”
What this announcement did not reveal is the fact that this collaboration between two foundations was supporting the development of 24 courses. Only four were to be “free,” leaving 20 available for sale by Pearson (the world’s largest publisher of educational materials with operations in 60 countries). Moreover the key persons involved in designing these courses led the teams who wrote the CCSS. Pearson INC thus ended up with a nicely branded line of CCSS products marketable as “internationally benchmarked.” Coincidently, Microsoft INC was also expanding its relationship with Pearson in the international marketplace for online education.
The “through-put” of money from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to the Pearson Foundation is one of many examples of a new form of market-based philanthropy. The resources of deep-pocket non-profits are mobilized for organized agenda-setting campaigns through “partnerships” with other foundations, a host of professional organizations, and interest groups organized as lobbies.
This kind of throughput extends to huge investments in institutions by corporate foundations that will bring credibility to the for-profit corporate “parent.” The commercialization of higher education happens wit a lot of rhetoric under the banner of “partnerships” as well as “sponsored research” promoting products. The usual newsmakers are collusions between academic researchers in medicine and pharmaceutical companies.
According to the Global Philanthropy Forum, these complex arrangements among non-profits are legally structured to secure government contracts and generate commercially viable products or services. See http://www.philanthropyforum.org/forum/2010_Annual_Conference.asp?SnID=1807066400
Laura,
I take this thread to legitimately include a discussion of Professor Stroup’s research findings.
I am not asking about grade inflation. I am thinking about the quote in the article stating that Professor Stroup found that “….most students’ test scores remained the same no matter what grade the students were in, or what subject was being tested.”
My impression is that, as a general rule, most students grades are the same across years and across subjects. Students who have a 2.0 in academic classes as freshman in high school are much less likely to get a 4.0 in academic classes in their senior year than students who had a 4.0 in academic classes as high school freshman.
In other words, how accurate is it to say that most students’ class grades remained the same no matter what grade the students were in, or what subject was being tested?
It sounds as if you are talking about each student’s individual study habits or lack of study habits.
For instance, if an incredible, charismatic teacher has a student who doesn’t read outside of school, study for teacher created tests, doesn’t do homework and only does the bare minimum in each class to earn a D or C-, how can anyone hold that teacher accountable and then rank and yank that teacher based on too many students who are like the example described in this paragraph?
This issue is covered in depth from the report that came out of the Economic Policy Institute.
“Social scientists have long recognized that student test scores are heavily influenced by socioeconomic factors such as parents’ education and home literacy environment, family resources, student health, family mobility, and the influence of neighborhood peers, and of classmates who may be relatively more advantaged or disadvantaged. Thus, teachers working in affluent suburban districts would almost always look more effective than teachers in urban districts if the achievement scores of their students were interpreted directly as a measure of effectiveness.”
“There is simply no shortcut to the identification and removal of ineffective teachers. It must surely be done, but such actions will unlikely be successful if they are based on over-reliance on student test scores whose flaws can so easily provide the basis for successful challenges to any personnel action. Districts seeking to remove ineffective teachers must invest the time and resources in a comprehensive approach to evaluation that incorporates concrete steps for the improvement of teacher performance based on professional standards of instructional practice, and unambiguous evidence for dismissal, if improvements do not occur.”
http://www.epi.org/publication/bp278/
Lloyd, You are so right on the mark. There is no shortcut to get rid of poor teachers. It takes time.
The new teacher evaluation system is attempting to assign a number on a rubric and then eliminate the teacher within 3 years. In my district, excellent teachers, who no one would ever want to fire in a million years because they do an awesome job, are averaging out to be “developing” teachers. “Developing” is one step above ineffective. Many of these teachers are being targeted because they are older teachers. Some of these teachers just happened to get a challenging group a couple years in a row.
Then, there are some teachers, who everyone knows are not the greatest teachers, but they are scored the highest on the rubric because they are friends of the higher-ups. It is a very troubling time in education. I’ve never seen so many teachers this discouraged in my entire time in education. As I’ve said many times before, I am so grateful to be close to retirement. i can’t take this stress anymore.
Kurt Schneider: accurate summary of the posting.
And as Dienne points out, tenure is key here as well.
Again, I will use the following as a description of the playbook of the charterite/privatizer movement: the Potemkin Village Business Plan for $tudent $ucce$$.
Not only for the public pageantry of colossal failures covered by phony bandages of success. Or for the casual acceptance of massaging and torturing numbers & stats in order to meet goals. Hitting the right numbers, then and now, was also about rewarding [the few] and punishing [the many] and preserving an inequitable status quo.
Those Potemkin Villages existed in a place long long ago, far far away called the Soviet Union. When someone at that time and in that place pointed out similar things to what Professor Stroup has, those counterparts of yesteryear of our self-styled “education reformers” [aka the “education establishment” aka the “education status quo”] followed a mangled version of Sun Tzu’s observation:
“The wheels of injustice grind slowly but they grind exceedingly fine.”
But then, when it comes to time and place and name, what’s the diff? From Soviet style communism to American free market fundamentalism, it’s all about the golden rule: he who has the gold, rules. And they ain’t gonna change their minds, at least willingly.
“You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks.” [Dorothy Parker]
Old comrades. New comrades. It all makes perfect ₵ent¢…
😎
These tactics are not new. They were also used in “tort reform” with devastating and destructive success—-according to the documentary, 90-percent of the time. If you think tort reform was needed, think again. I changed my brainwashed thinking after I watched this award winning documentary last night that you may watch free on You Tube. We bought the DVD.
The documentary clearly shows that if you are one of the rare individuals who actually wins a battle against the corporations, they will destroy your reputation and demonize you in a blizzard of media propaganda lies.
In a knowledge based 21st century global society, your knowledge must match the state’s knowledge in order to maintain career readiness and carer opportunities.
myonlyissue
“your knowledge must match the state’s knowledge in order to maintain career readiness and career opportunities…”.
Ha! In that case we are in deep do-do in Texas since politicians in this state have no knowledge beyond the Anal stage….To them, career readiness means getting an opportunity for the Big House…..!
Who said the 21st century was a knowledge based global society…Duh? In ‘merica we been dumbed down too long to know what century we in !
It is very interesting to read from this thread
“Mute the Messenger”
When Dr. Walter Stroup showed that Texas’ standardized testing regime is flawed, the testing company struck back.
by Jason Stanford Published on Wednesday, September 3, 2014, at 8:00 CST
“My son came home from the third grade, and he said, ‘You know daddy, someone is out there trying to trick me, and all I have to do is figure out how they’re tricking me,’” Stroup told the legislators. “I’m not sure if it translates all that well to society if we teach kids gaming. All right, we end up with adults and professionals spending most of their time gaming the system.”
Dr. Stroup’s son at the age of 7 or 8 can recognize the goal of standard testing about the trick, not about education.
How sad it is for DOE leaders whose absence of conscience and intelligence intentionally destroys the best American Public Education, and leads all young American future citizens to become “gaming robots!”
I am sure that all educators know very well who will be the puppet master that controls all gaming robots. What is the ultimate solution? We cannot wait for:
“The wheels of injustice grind slowly but they grind exceedingly fine.” as shown in Krazy TA’ s post.
Maybe, it is time for all educators to unite and to have a plan regarding this golden rule:
“…it’s all about the golden rule: he who has the gold, rules.” as shown in Krazy TA’ s post.
Why should educators let bankers to manage their substantial amount of their pension fund? Please note that bankers are controlled by barbarous tycoons who are destroying teaching profession, and ruining American Public Education plus Public Post Secondary Education. Back2basic
It’s also about Texas, where the criminally insane and pathologically stupid and pathologically psychopathic are in charge. And white people vote for them. (They do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.)
Stroup’s supposed finding is pretty weird — if students have similar test scores over time, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the tests, it means that each student’s performance in a given year is indeed related to how much knowledge that student already had the previous year, plus his or her IQ, family background, and economic circumstances.
I’m always surprised when I read that policy makers think a standardized test is an valid method of very much at all. It is a crude statistical instrument — not without value, but over hyped to the point of insanity.
Correction: I’m always surprised when I read that policy makers think a standardized test is a valid measure of very much at all. It is a crude statistical instrument — not without value, but over hyped to the point of insanity.
Good use of that word. It always amazes me how politicians and political educators constantly try to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
The only thing to end standardized testing is enthusiastic teachers, passionate about their subject. If you don’t involve yourself in it AFTER school, DON’T teach it in a school.
Why would a congressperson care? Their kids go to private schools and enjoy many activities that enrich their lives.
Dear parents, it is time to educate your own children. If you don’t know how, then educate yourself and ask them to join you. If you don’t know how to educate yourself, get a dictionary, a card to access the public library, and start reading books about learning and education.
You will need pens, pencils, and notebooks. You will need to take notes and write about what you read. You will not successfully learn from books without writing about them.
There is a book by Mortimer Adler, titled How to Read a Book, and I think it is an excellent starting point for anyone seeking to educate their children.
Here’s my quick and easy recommendation for how to educate your kids. It starts by finding a book and asking your kids to join you in this journey.
1) Read the book’s table of contents. Write down any (any!!!) question you have while you’re reading it.
2) Read the book’s index. Write down any (any!!!) question you have while you’re reading it.
3) Read the book (quickly) all the way through, without trying to make your understanding perfect. Write down your questions and little notes.
4) Read the book (slowly) all the way through and take the time to write down unfamiliar words, facts, and concepts.
5) Go back to your notes and answer all of your questions. Use your dictionary to learn the meanings of words and how to use them. Look up facts and concepts to understand a) where they came from, b) how they were used, and c) how they are relevant to what you are reading.
6) If you can’t fully answer your questions, leave more space after them so that you can come back and answer them later. (You may never find the answers to some questions. That is ok.)
7) Read the book a third time (slowly) with the intention of integrating your new understandings of words and ideas with the text. This time, write a sentence for each paragraph you read. This sentence should summarize the paragraph and/or tell the understanding you have about it. You can also write a question that you have for each paragraph. (Questions are awesome for learning!) You should have a sentence for each paragraph.
8) Read the book a final time and write a short summary of each chapter after completing the chapter. When you are finished reading the book, write a paper. The paper should include a summary, critique, and what you learned.
9) If you are not good at doing these things, don’t worry – just keep practicing these by moving forward to the next book, and the next one. Use this process each time and you will get better and better. One day you realize that you have learned a lot.
Education is truly the key to a free and democratic society.
Standardized tests do not work and rich test-making companies are willing to poison the education system in order to make profits.