Anthony Cody posted yesterday that the high-stakes of the new testing system inevitably leads to high surveillance. Add to the high stakes the fact that the two tests are national, and you have a scenario in which the testing corporations are expecting teachers and administrators to help them spy on students’ social media. Apparently Pearson (and not Pearson alone) has a means of monitoring millions of students’ postings on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere, using key words as alerts.
Cody writes:
By creating a state-sponsored “accountability” system that attaches heavy consequences to student performance on tests, the state and its corporate test-making partners have created a compelling need for extensive surveillance of everyone that accountability system touches. Teacher and administrator evaluations and thus jobs depend on these scores. Schools may be closed. Funding to schools is increased or reduced. And the tests are supposed to determine which students are ready for college.
All these consequences create reasons for people to game the system – and this has been the hallmark of NCLB from its inception. The “Texas Miracle” that inspired NCLB was based on the creative practice of holding back the 9th graders whose scores would make the schools look bad. Result? A miraculous rise in scores, a Texas governor who bragged he was an “education governor” on his way to the White House, and brought us a whole system of accountability based on test scores. And NCLB has made test-based accountability a part of the basic contract between the Federal government and the schools that receive federal funding.
Any system that imparts heavy consequences for success or failure must have intense security. How do you impose test security on a system that must test as many as fifty million school children every year, when many millions of these students have smart phones and Facebook accounts? You MUST have a surveillance apparatus. You must also have local District personnel act as your deputies in monitoring these activities, and in meting out consequences for those who violate your rules. It is all an inescapable outgrowth of creating a system that rewards and punishes people based on student test scores.
So, we should not be surprised that the testing corporations are protecting their “intellectual property” by not allowing students to write about the test questions or even discuss them (how do they monitor discussions?).
Frankly, we should be even more concerned that the vaunted “test security” extends even to teachers. When the tests are over, they are not allowed to see any information about how their students performed on the test questions. They get a score, but nothing of diagnostic value. It is like going to a doctor feeling ill, taking tests, then learning that you won’t get the test results for four months or more, that the doctor won’t tell you what is wrong or give you any treatment, but he will give you a score comparing you to patients with similar symptoms across the state and nation. That’s crazy. But that is what is happening. Billions of dollars for tests with no diagnostic value.

Billions spent and no data for teachers that we, parents or students can use? Wow! NO accountability on how my tax dollars and that of others are spent? What a joke that almost borders…..better watch my words.
LikeLike
It is a waste of money and time. And now more money will be wasted on the “surveillance apparatus.” Sounds like something straight out of East Germany.
LikeLike
EduShyster is reporting that after pushback from BMad and the MTA, Massachusetts teachers are not being required to sign the security agreements: http://edushyster.com/?p=6586
LikeLike
Great question:
*This agreement is on PARCC letterhead but otherwise it is unclear who the parties to the agreement are. The school district as a governmental entity does not appear anywhere in the document. The link to the full document takes you to the Pearson website. Is this an agreement with PARCC? With Pearson? With the district? Who will enforce it and how?*
Maybe someone from PARCC/Pearson could respond? Who are the parties to the agreement? I have no idea what PARCC even is-a quasi-governmental organization?
LikeLike
It may not be legally enforceable…but I’ll guarantee you that they’ll flood you with threats, lawsuits and litigation to get up to shut up and not speak. Now students on the other hand…I wonder. I had to make up several versions of the same test to prevent a test compromise. I’m troubled by the muzzling of anyone’s voice or even dissent. Not a good precedent.
LikeLike
“Standard Test Disease”
Surveillance is a symptom
Of standard test disease
Which heats and chills the victim
And brings him to his knees
LikeLike
Can anyone in New York or another state that has already gone through the first round of PARCC testing let me know something?
Do parents ever get the percentile ranks of their children? Or are they just given raw scores?
I’ve heard that 70% of students tested in NY scored a 2 (out of 4) or lower on last year’s PARCC test. That means that a student could receive a score of “2” while being in the top third of students tested.
Without knowing their child’s percentile rank, the raw score of “2” for such a child would be worse than useless to their parents. They would see it and think that their child was likely behind the other kids, when in fact they were ahead.
This is a serious thing for me. I have not opted my own children out of the PARCC, but if there is no plan for me to ever receive their percentile ranks, I will opt them out. This is non-negotiable.
LikeLike
This is a page of “sample score reports” from “Achieve” which seems to be one the many, many, many ed reform groups.
“Achieve has developed sample student-level score reports for families and educators, as well as a sample score report at the school level. These reports are intended to illuminate effective practices in reporting assessment data to families, teachers and school leaders. As such, the reports are completely open to states to adapt for their own use in developing and refining reports (CC BY Achieve 2015).”
Anyway, take a look.
I bet YOUR STATE (fill in blank) score report will look a lot like this mock-up because it seems fairly obvious lawmakers have completely outsourced this process to a group of private contractors and lobbying groups 🙂
http://www.achieve.org/sample-student-assessment-reports
LikeLike
The public is the client here, and the testing contractor needs the huge public school market a lot more than US public schools need any one contractor.
We really don’t have to just blindly accept whatever security demands this contractor comes up with. We could ask them to justify the demand(s) or modify security monitoring pursuant to our specifications. That’s permissible.
I guess I’m not clear how we all ended up working for THEM instead of the other way around.
LikeLike
One factor may be that ~1990 US companies decided development investment in school publishing wasn’t worth it–so Time sold Scott Foresman to Rupert Murdoch, who later sold it to Pearson. Reed Elsevier bought part of Harcourt. Decades before, firms like CBS were willing to accept needed investment and profit margins to own a school publisher like Holt.
LikeLike
Did no one read the DEMOCRACY NOW piece on how the hedge funds re investing in the charter schools.. Diane posted it.
LikeLike
Once you put huge amounts of money, the egos and reputations of [in their own minds] VeryImportantPeople, the viability and usefulness of heavyweight political connections, and a great many other resources of all types on a large scale into play—
Ever-increasing surveillance is a feature, not a bug, of self-proclaimed “education reform.”
In response to the above posting, it seems almost inevitable that someone is going to write that CCSS is the greatest invention since fire, the wheel and sliced bread but its implementation has gone awry with all those tests and now surveillance and such.
Some people will never learn.
Arne Duncan: “testing issues today are sucking the oxygen out of the room in a lot of schools.”
Link: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/21/education-secretary-arne-duncan-loosens-reins-on-teacher-evaluations-testing
No, it’s not “testing issues” it’s the “testing” he and others are zealously inflicting, with great and increasing damage, on genuine learning and teaching.
And to tell the truth, the most visible places where the oxygen is being sucked out, are the brains of the self-styled “education reformers” like Bill Gates and Arne Duncan and Chris Christie and Jeb Bush and Rahm Emanuel and the rest.
Opt out. It’s the only sane and intelligent thing to do.
😎
LikeLike
And let’s not forget that using test results to rank children and teachers and use those rankings to fire teachers and close public schools is backed by no evidence to support using standardized test scores for that purpose, but there is a lot of evidence that it is TOTALLY WRONG—and it is clearly FRAUD!
The Economic Policy Institute reported on the Problem with the use of student test scores to evaluate trenchers.
“there is broad agreement among statisticians, psychometricians, and economists that student test scores alone are not sufficiently reliable and valid indicators of teacher effectiveness to be used in high-stakes personnel decisions, even when the most sophisticated statistical applications such as value-added modeling are employed.”
http://www.epi.org/publication/bp278/
If you haven’t read this report, you might want to take the time to do it. The report is supported with 64 Endnotes and an extremely long list of References in addition to a short bio for each of the ten authors of the report.
Eva L. Baker is professor of education at UCLA, co-director of the National Center for Evaluation Standards and Student Testing (CRESST), and co-chaired the committee to revise testing standards of the American Psychological Association, the American Educational Research Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education.
Paul E. Barton is the former director of the Policy Information Center of the Educational Testing Service and associate director of the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Linda Darling-Hammond is a professor of education at Stanford University, former president of the American Educational Research Association, and a member of the National Academy of Education.
Edward Haertel is a professor of education at Stanford University, former president of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chair of the National Research Council’s Board on Testing and Assessment, and a former chair of the committee on methodology of the National Assessment Governing Board.
Helen F. Ladd is professor of Public Policy and Economics at Duke University and president-elect of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
Robert L. Linn is a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Colorado, and has served as president of the National Council on Measurement in Education and of the American Educational Research Association, and as chair of the National Research Council’s Board on Testing and Assessment.
Diane Ravitch is a research professor at New York University and historian of American education.
Richard Rothstein is a research associate of the Economic Policy Institute.
Richard J. Shavelson is a professor of education (emeritus) at Stanford University and former president of the American Educational Research Association.
Lorrie A. Shepard is dean and professor, School of Education, University of Colorado at Boulder, a former president of the American Educational Research Association, and the immediate past president of the National Academy of Education.
LikeLike
Submitted on Monday, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:28:37 PM slink directly to Living in Dialogue
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/High-Stakes-Testing-Makes-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Anthony-Cody_Corporations_Evaluation_Funding-150316-145.html#comment53747
with comments taken from this log. Links are included at the Oped article comment section, but do not appear here. I included a link to the NPE and encouraged readers to go there.
Michael Elliott is an excellent film-maker whose children attend public schools in New York City. He understands the fight against high-stakes testing. Here is a short video he created to tell the story about how parents feel about PARCC.
Peter Greene reports that the dream of one big national assessment is finished. States are dropping out of PARCC and SBA. Some are dropping out while quietly buying a new test that looks like PARCC. None is dropping in. Fifty states will not take the same test. Period.
Jonathan Pelto reports that 70% of students will fail the Common Core test called Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBAC); the tests were designed to “fail” 70% of students, as is the PARCC test. Both Common Core tests are aligned with the “cut scores” (passing marks) of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP “proficient” is set very high; Massachusetts is the only state where 50% of students rate proficient on NAEP.
Pelto points out that 90% of students with special needs are expected to fail SBAC.
How much more do you need to know before you see that the NCLB act has caused a catastrophic failure of our public education institution, while enriching the corporations.
Get INVOLVED Go to the Network For Public Education… parents and teachers working got end the corruption that is takin gout our schools
It has been reported that the US House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 5, the “Student Success Act,” on Friday, February 27th. The bill, which is the House’s version of the long overdue reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, was rushed through the House Education and the Workforce Committee with no public hearings. The bill is deeply flawed, and raises many concerns for public education allies.
There are four crucial issues:
Requires that states test all children in grades 3-8 and once in high school, even though no high performing nation tests all children every year
Makes Title I funds portable, which will decrease funding to the schools in greatest need, and opens the door for vouchers
Limits Title II funding to 10% for class size reduction
Increases funding for charter schools and encourages the growth and expansion of Charter Management Organizations (CMOs), which will advance the privatization movement
The time is now to send a clear message that we demand better for our children and our schools. Please join NPE and write your Representative today to let him/her know you oppose the passage of this bill.
LikeLike
While it seems plausible that the current testing system makes surveillance more likely, it’s not obvious that it makes the kind of approach pursued by Pearson inevitable.
It might be true, but I think people need to be careful before just assuming that high stakes testing necessarily “requires” extensive surveillance.
It’s at least possible that what is being done in the name of test security” by Pearson (in conjunction with school officials) is a result of the particulars of the case and may well go beyond what is “necessary.”
The question about whether high stake tests necessarily mandates “extensive surveillance” should be answered with evidence, not speculation.
Massachusetts has had high stakes testing (MCAS) now for many years now (certainly while the internet existed)
Has that required “high levels of surveillance”?
What has been the experience of other states that have had high stake tests in the internet age?
LikeLike
I see the entire apparatus attached to the Common Core as far more extensive and intrusive than the MCAS was. We have colleges now being told they have to adjust their admissions policies to align with Common Core. These test scores are being used for so many purposes, and at the same time they are losing legitimacy. When they lose legitimacy, then organizations that depend on them, or profit from them, are obliged to exercise vigilance. That means monitoring, surveillance, and repression of speech. That is what we are seeing. I think it is a natural outgrowth of the high stakes. Can we have high stakes without this repression? Perhaps! But I have a simpler solution. Get rid of the high stakes. Let teachers go back to teaching rather than test preparation.
LikeLike
how very interesting. Love the conversations here.
LikeLike
I see the entire apparatus attached to the Common Core as far more extensive and intrusive than the MCAS was.”
Me too.
“Get rid of the high stakes. Let teachers go back to teaching rather than test preparation.”
No disagreement there.
I think the only thing I really disagree on is whether the surveillance Pearson is engaging in (with the help of school officials) is “inevitable”.
The problem with assuming that it is is that it effectively gives them a “pass” which I’m not sure they deserve.
My feeling is that all of the secrecy and surveillance is more about hiding what Pearson knows to be a poor test than it is about protecting test “validity” (not least of all because the test — and the standards it is supposed to be testing — has never been validated by an unbiased third party).
Secrecy and surveillance always go hand in hand.
LikeLike
You and I are on the same page, Anthony, and have been forever… In fact, I post a link to your LID site, often. You say what I am thinking and offer so much wonderful details.
I taught for decades and never was in a place where I was given any materials or instructions… never. I was given a class and a grade, and set of objectives, and my first task, then and always, was to get those young minds, the emerging intelligences — those “kids,” interested and motivated.
You may recall that ‘motivation was the first words in the lesson plan after the objective was stated. Then came the activities, and the assessment tools and finally the repetition and review, if needed.If anyone is interested, I have many of the NYS and NYC curriculum objectives in my back room.
Luckily for me, who had been a counsellor since I was 16, I knew how to have fun with youngsters, and it was easy to design lessons and to choose materials which were interesting and that accomplished the purpose… to get the students to think and to work, so they could LEARN what I knew.
It is a fact, Anthony, that we “cohorts” working with the LRDC heard the constant repetition that our practice was ALL about learning and how to (the ways in which) ENBLE AND FACILITATE IT. These are THEIR words!
Two other words that the standards research teams (the real McCoy) used all the time were: AUTHENTIC & GENUINE.
The thesis was to prove that there were really, and simply eight principles that underly genuine achievement! Put them in a classroom, and the children acquired real skills, the critical thinking skills that make all work possible. Just 8… with a few dozen indicators for each, that demonstrate the principle is being applied… sounds like a real rubric to me, a genuine way to make sure Johnny and Shenequa and Maria to learn!
This research certainly provided a rubric with which to ‘evaluate’ the practice of a “teacher.” No wonder it disappeared!
The word “teaching” was the Bush invention!
The tool was the test, and of course as Lloyd pointed out, the tests did not and could not meet the objective to evaluate the success of a teacher.
What genuine education practitioner would use anti-learning tools and materials like those being developed by the publishers that book lady described above! ( I do so love this blog!)
No wonder the real professional had to be eliminated!
I give you those four words to go with LEARNING
* authentic & *genuine
* enable & *facilitate
I give you the Principles of Learning thesis developed by Lauren Resnick, which describes eight characteristics of successful learning environments.
Click to access polv3_3.pdf
and Vicki Bill, who was the staff developer who was chosen to supervise the NYC cohort on this research
www.newvisions.org/page/-/Prelaunch%20files/PDFs/NV%20Publications/challengestandards.pdf
I can give you her email. After 2 years studying me and all the cohorts who taught writing she was the ‘TOOLS’ EXPERT who followed the unique ways that teachers met those principles.
Perhaps,USING the SAME WORDS of the real National Standards research (about LEARNING) we can FINALLY explain to the public that they were intentionally misled by the words “teachers” and “teaching’, AND that the Duncan rant about evaluating those “teachers’ teaching’ was the banter of a snake-oil salesman and was calculated to bamboozle them… the title of my 2011 essay at OEN
http://www.opednews.com/articles/BAMBOOZLE-THEM-where-tea-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-110524-511.html
Perhaps, what THE NPE CAN REALLY ACCOMPLISH is to change the narrative from one about TEACHING to one about Learning and HOW TO IDENTIFY WHEN IT IS ONGOING!
THIS, ANTHONY, would have been the national conversation if Bush hadn’t buried the Pew’s genuine, 3rd Level (it must work everywhere) Harvard research.
Learning CAN be evaluated by authentic performance assessment.
Teaching cannot be evaluated by any test.
Learning (by the human brain) IS the BASIS of education studies for professional educators as medicine is for doctors. The science of this, is what they actually study… at the best colleges (like many of the NYC colleges that prepare our talented education practitioners and which prepared me.)
The problem is when they get into the school and some top-down business-critter runs the show… into the ground (so it can be replied by a charter).
Perhaps, if we ALL use the the same words (like they did in the standards seminars when talking to us ‘teachers’) , we can explain to the public that a REAL, authentic, genuine eduction practitioner is no mere ‘schoolteacher, ‘ but someone who knows when learning was occurring in front of her eyes (what LEARNING looks like) and cannot be fooled.
That statement alone, explains why we professionals had to be removed, for them to invent failure.
Have you read this? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/opinion/krugman-inventing-a-failure.html
I link to it all the time and although Krugman is not addressing education, per se, it is about the same process.
I talk a lot about process, because I am a writer and an artist, and in order to ‘teach’ these things, I must grasp the AUTHENTIC process that ensures RESULTS… these results of my ‘teaching’ (writing and art processes) are determined by GENUINE performance of the process. Play the instrument, ride the bike, write the essay, paint the picture.
We ‘teachers’ do not teach anything. That is the message that needs to be the take-away. The best teachers SHARE what knowledge they have of ‘how-to do’ things, with kids who see the value in what they offer. I have always shared with kids what I myself know… and I know a thing for two about a lot of things!
Finally, the classroom needs to be re-defined as THE PRACTICE of the professional educator– GENUINE PRACTITIONER, and is a place where excellence resides with the professional in that room, –with the support of the administrator whose 4 principles for learning are:
1- to provide a safe, quiet, healthy facility/plant/site/ school
2- To provide expert organization and to promote cooperation as well as integration of services.
3- To provide materials and technology for the classroom practitioner’s sue.
4- To hire licensed professionals whose skills are appropriate for the job, and who know the CONTENT cold! No gym teacher teaching math, unless his other license and his degree major is in that subject, with a minor in education!
Imagine that! It is not the principal’s job to insist on tests, to purchase and to implement tests, or to tie a teacher’s career to how students do on tests. Tests,if given at all, are in the teacher’s toolbar to help him plan lessons.
Now, you can all see why the Pew research had to be buried.
I wonder when one of you is going to say to Dr. Resnick… what the heck happened?????????????
I think I will post this at OPED.
The Look of Learning: and what it takes to make it happen… to enable it.
by Susan Lee Schwartz
LikeLike
Not to ignore your warning about speculation, but I would speculate, or even bet, that Massachusetts has had test security policies that are surprisingly similar to the New Jersey policy under discussion recently. The same goes (perhaps double) for schools that administer high stakes tests like the SAT and ACT. I would also bet that some, maybe most, of these policies enunciate broad prohibitions against disclosing the content of tests that could conceivably be construed to apply to children discussing the content of tests with their parents. Perhaps even the low-stakes “gold standard” of the NAEP has an ominous policy of its own.
What I think is new and noteworthy is (1) the explosion of social media and the ubiquity of devices (among both children and adults) and (2) the alignment of standards and high-stakes tests among states. The incentives to game the tests are bigger than ever. Testing authorities have more riding on the integrity of the tests than ever before. It’s become incredibly easy for even a child to disseminate information globally in a flash. And it’s become incredibly easy to monitor that information, too. Why would we not expect testing authorities to use high levels of surveillance under these circumstances?
LikeLike
Here’s my take on it, sung to the tune of “Don’t Say Nothin’ Bad About My Baby” by The Cookies
Don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(Oh, no) don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(They spy on you)
Don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(You know it’s true)
Don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
It’s bad (it’s bad)
It’s bad for me (bad for me)
It’s all the government cares about
(Oh, no) don’t you tweet that
The PARCC test’s just a dumb test
(It’s hard to take) don’t you tweet that
The PARCC test’s just a dumb test
(For goodness’ sake) they will listen
To ev’ry single word you say
(Opt out now) don’t you tweet that
The PARCC test’s just a dumb test
It’s bad (it’s bad)
It’s bad for me (bad for me)
So, kids, you better stash your phone
(Everyone thinks it’s a hassle)
‘Specially when it’s testin’ me
(Everyone says it’s crazy)
Stay off your Twitter
And don’t Facebook me, oh, yeah
Don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(Oh, no) don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(I hate it so)
Don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(Oh, don’t you know)
Don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
They’ll stop (they’ll stop)
You when you tweet (when you tweet)
‘Cause that’s what Pearson cares about
[Instrumental Interlude]
(Oh, no) don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(Oh, no) don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(I hate it so)
Don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(Oh, don’t you know)
Don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
It’s bad (it’s bad)
It’s bad for me (bad for me)
But, boy, you better stash your phone
(Oh, no) don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(Oh, no) don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
Don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(Oh, no) don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(Oh, no) don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
(Oh, no) don’t say nothin’
Bad about the PARCC test
LikeLike
Of course, there can be no security with these tests. It will be very easy for students and teachers to share information about specific items. And they WILL find a way to “share.” ( I wouldn’t feel a bit guilty myself.)
As Diane says, the only way to test and expect valid scores would be by sampling. If you want to know the individual progress of every child, as well as the effectiveness of the teacher, you would have to have individual and frequent assessments done by skilled professionals. Just as there is no cheap way to monitor the progress of a child with a serious illness, there is no inexpensive way to monitor his academic progress or the skill of his teacher. How very foolish to think otherwise!
LikeLike
The more high stakes the tests are the more likely they will cheat. If they know social media is under scrutiny, they’ll probably just go to email.
LikeLike
Indeed, Pearson et al are getting to know everything about your child is so many ways, and all for a purpose:
LikeLike
The teachable moment of our lifetimes.
LikeLike