Civil rights groups, led by Kati Hatcock of Education Trust, assert that standardized testing is a civil right. Without it, they say, black and brown children would be overlooked, neglected, forgotten. No one would know about the achievement gaps.
Of course, we do know about the achievement gaps in the nation, states and major cities whose NAEP scores are reported every other year. It is not necessary to test every child every year to report what is already known.
Nonetheless:
““Removing the requirement for annual testing would be a devastating step backward, for it is very hard to make sure our education system is serving every child well when we don’t have reliable, comparable achievement data on every child every year,” Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust, said in recent testimony before the Senate education panel. Her group joined 20 civil rights organizations to lobby Congress to keep the requirement to test all children each year in math and reading.
“The civil rights argument adds a new dimension to one of the most contentious education issues in decades: whether standardized testing is good for students. Congress is wrestling with that question as it reauthorizes No Child Left Behind. The Senate education panel is expected to begin debating a bipartisan bill next week that would maintain annual testing, but it is unclear how the bill will fare in the House, where conservative Republicans want to drastically scale back the federal role in education.”
But Gary Orfield, a long-time civil rights watchdog, says that testing does not help minorities:
““The main victims of this misguided policy are exactly the people the civil rights groups want to help: teachers and students in high-poverty schools,” said Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA. The focus on math and reading has squeezed out science, social studies and the arts from high-poverty schools, he said.
“Tests don’t address the social problems that poor children bring to school or the fact that many start kindergarten already lagging behind more affluent children, he said.
“They also don’t fix the inequality of a public education system funded primarily by real estate taxes, where schools in wealthy communities are well equipped and attract the strongest teachers, while high-poverty schools often have fewer resources and weaker teachers, he said.
“The idea that you can just ignore the conditions that create inequality in schools and just put more and more pressure on schools and if that doesn’t work, add more sanctions, makes no sense,” Orfield said. “As if it’s just a matter of will for the students and teachers in these schools of concentrated poverty.”
The civil rights groups apparently are unaware if the history of standardized testing, and its ties to the eugenics movement. I wrote about that in chapter 4 of “Left Back.” Historically, standardized tests were used to deny educational opportunities to under served groups and to re-enforce theories of white supremacy, based on test scores.
Like school choice, standardized testing was a weapon used by racists to deny civil rights, not a force for civil rights.
The civil right is to get the resources to be brought up to speed for all students identified in the tests. It’s only money.
The truth doesn’t matter anymore, and our political and civil rights leaders will listen to Kati Hancock and block out Gary Orfield so long as Citizens United is the law. I will be shocked if Hillary deviates at all from the bipartisan support for standardized testing, charters,and TFA (as indicated by the pending Senate ESEA Bill) since this is what her financial backers will demand.
I hope would-be individual donors, in the next campaign cycle, send their hard-earned dollars to charities of their choice or to a progressive candidate, and not to the two major political parties which have deserted us. And a vote for a progressive third-party candidate would be a step in the right direction.
Follow the funding and you’ll find out why they are saying such ludicrous things.
Diane Ravitch has had their number since the beginning.
8-29-2013:
“Why are they in favor of high-stakes testing, even though the evidence is overwhelming that NCLB has failed the children they represent? I can’t say for sure, but this I do know. The Campaign for High School Equity is funded by the Gates Foundation. It received a grant of nearly $500,000. Some if not all of its members have also received grants from Gates…”
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
Gary Orfield, a long-time civil rights watchdog, says that testing does not help minorities:
““The main victims of this misguided policy are exactly the people the civil rights groups want to help: teachers and students in high-poverty schools,” said Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA. The focus on math and reading has squeezed out science, social studies and the arts from high-poverty schools, he said.
“Freedom Tests”
Standardized test
Is civil right
This isn’t jest
It’s Freedom fight
Underprivilaged students start first grade already two grade levels behind more privileged students. The obvious solution to this discrepency is to give the underprivileged kids more time, as in another year at the beginning of primary school. That would appear to some to be grade retention (which some do not like), and it would also cost more (which others don’t like), because the underprivileged students would be getting the extra year in school they need.
But, politics intervenes, from all sides. Radical egalitarians, currently a dominant philisophical force in our schools of education, say grade retention is wrong and does not work (ignoring the fact that it works quite well in other countries where mastery is emphasized), and would be happy to deliberately hold the advanced students back until the underprivileged students can catch up. Self-titled education reformers put all responsibility on the teachers–“the single greatest school-based influence on education achievement” (if you count students as not “a school-based factor”). Neither approach is realistic or fair.
There are some impediments to practical education solutions for which both the polar sides in education debates are responsible. But, because the press and policy-makers rarely talk to anyone in the no-man’s-land in between the opposing vested interest groups, they rarely consider the obvious and the practical.
Richard P. Phelps
In my school district we applied for grants to allow many of the poorer students to attend summer school and after school programs. The problem with retention is that while it sounds logical, it results in students being more likely to drop out. It is a crushing blow to students’ self esteem. An even more promising approach would be to expand access to quality preschool for poor children. If we can support poor families through parenting programs and offer them access to medical services, we can improve outcomes for poor children. The testing-punishment regimen in place today is a huge failure, and the government would know this, if they actually studied the data.
“Holding back” absolutely has negative connotation. “Instructional equity,” maybe not so much?
Yong Zhao, WHO’S AFRAID OF THE BIG BAD DRAGON: WHY CHINA HAS THE BEST (AND WORST) EDUCATION SYSTEM IN THE WORLD (2014).
Standardized testing ensures equity and fairness? Over more than a millennia, what were and are the results?
That single book suffices if you pay heed to a genuine American hero:
“Once you learn to read, you will be forever free.”
Frederick Douglass was right then. He’s right now.
Put the money and resources into classrooms to support teachers and students.
Starve the testing beast.
Opt out.
😎
“Testing Reality”
Testing’s always been a way
To keep folks “in their place”
For polls or other racist sway
It biases by race
Back in the 70s I’d argue with a particular social worker (RIP) who said if “our kids don’t score well on these tests, give them the answers”. That’s what I see in charter schools: chanting the answers while wearing bow-ties. This gap between those whose sole focus is gaining ground for African-Americans and those of us who look at education more broadly was what has dogged the Black community since Booker T. Washington and DuBois: do we go for job-training or an education? Practicality or broader aims? IT degree or humanities? Workers or citizens? (cf. Botstein’s essay). It is not an easy choice. The Hancocks want micro-management of achievement; educators know that play, creativity, games, exercise, diet…. all lead to cognitive abilities, but micro-managing the curriculum, teachers, testing, and students doesn’t get to achievement. Why don’t they micro-manage funding? My son works in one of only two districts in the state (AZ) getting a raise; my son-in-law’s school goes to a 4 day week with huge classes b/c the retirement community voted down a bond. Climate change will make all this moot.
Constitutionally, I believe opting out of the current SBAC testing is protected by my 3rd amendment right not to quarter soldiers which has been interpreted to protect privacy of the home. As my child is a minor, I believe I have the right to deny the federal government intrusion in forcing to collectmy childs data. Since the 3rd is not incorporated, my rights as a parent at state level og government are not addressed. However, I do believe forced testing falls within the pneumbra of the 3rd.
With all due respect, I would question the definition of Education Trust as a “civil rights group,” though I suppose an organization may choose its own definition. To give it a clear, accurate, non-BS label, it’s a propaganda/advocacy operation.
Mercedes Schneider: “Education Trust was founded by Katherine “Kati” Haycock in the 1990s. The organization was granted nonprofit status in 1997. Haycock advocates for “closing achievement gaps” via test-driven reform. She is a longtime supporter of test-driven, “100 percent proficiency in reading and math by 2014″ No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (also see here and here and here and here).
In fact, Haycock’s Ed Trust was involved in writing NCLB.
Between September 2004 and March 2014, the Gates Foundation has paid Education Trust $30.7 million for “general operating support.”
Total Gates funding to Education Trust as of January 2015 is $49.1 million.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mercedes-schneider/education-trust-profoundl_b_6460576.html?
“Total Gates funding to Education Trust as of January 2015 is $49.1 million.”
So it would be more accurately called “Education Trust Fund“
or better still” “Gates Foundation Trust Fund”
Diane,
The Washington Post article also noted that Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights who testified before the congress promoting testing has served on the board of Educational Testing Service for a decade. He made $88,250 in 2013 from them. Follow the money.
Testing is not only a civil right but an inalienable right that all minorities are born with. How soon we all forget. It wasn’t that long ago when the greatest civil rights leader of the 21st century, William Henry Gates III, delivered his stirring and inspirational, “I Have a Scheme” speech.
Like
A Civil Rights Movement?
I Have a Scheme
I have a scheme, that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of my education plan: “We sold these standards with no evidence, so all children are tested equal.”
I have a scheme that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former teachers and the sons of former reformers will be able to sit down together at the computer, where personalized adaptive instruction and assessment will determine their college and career readiness.
I have a scheme that one day, even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering in the heat of ineffectiveness, sweltering in the heat of grade inflation, will be transformed into an oasis of teacherless classrooms, teeming with Microsoft instructional programs.
I have a scheme that my presidents two daughters, will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by their color of their skin, but by the value of their standardized test scores.
I have a scheme today!
That’s great.
You left out just one part
“Rich at last. Rich at last. Thank God almighty, we’re rich at last”
Beautiful.
TAGO!
NY Teacher-Too funny!
PRICELESS!!!
Is Kati Haycock a person of color? Because if she isn’t, I tend to give more credence to Seattle’s own Jesse Hagopian at Garfield High when it comes to the connection between high-stakes testing and the widening racial divide.
Kati Haycock is not a person of color.
To KATI HATCOCK:
I do not know how many children at age K-12 you have as your own children or your nieces, and nephews. Please remember that testing is the sole purpose from the creators who pay for its design to serve them selfishly.
The true testing MUST BE DESIGNED from direct source or by Teachers who teach directly in order to give feedback and to improve and to motivate students’ learning, knowledge APPROPRIATELY.
I hope that you will read THOROUGHLY all posts from Dr. Ravitch, Dr. Schneider, Dr. Cashin, and many Gurus in educational field in the particular website.
Please simply read two example posts as follows in order to define the meaning of current testings that serve for Pearson and Gates without any feedback, transparency, BUT ONLY forcefully imposing with bullying penalty on teachers. Back2basic
From: pbarret April 11, 2015 at 2:13 pm
“our kids don’t score well on these tests, give them the answers”
…what has dogged the Black community since Booker T. Washington and DuBois: do we go for job-training or an education? Practicality or broader aims? IT degree or humanities? Workers or citizens? (cf. Botstein’s essay). It is not an easy choice. The Hancocks want micro-management of achievement; educators know that play, creativity, games, exercise, diet…. all lead to cognitive abilities, but MICRO-MANAGEMENT the curriculum, teachers, TESTING, and students DOESN’T get to ACHIEVEMENT.
From: NY Teacher April 11, 2015 at 4:52 pm
A Civil Rights Movement?
I Have a Scheme
I have a scheme, that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of my education plan: “We sold these standards with no evidence, so all children are tested equal.”
…
The only thing anyone has to say is that a decade and half of NCLB standardized testing later, the achievement gap still exists.
If standardized testing was going to close that gap, it would have already, and all of us here, who would like nothing more than to close the gap, would be celebrating.
Cause and effect: it’s an inescapable law of the universe.
The “cause” of standardized testing is not having the “effect” of closing the achievement gap. Really, it is that simple.
We need to get in front of this! Testing every kid every year in every subject is nor about helping students. It is about finding a way to get rid of teachers without dealing with repercussions. If they use a test, regardless if how bogus it is, to determine a teacher’s “value” then they feel they don’t need any other justification. Esp in a day of obsession with computers, where the older a teacher is, the more likely a teacher is to be less interested in their use and the more likely criteria can be used to “weed out” older teachers and get around age discrimination.
You can see that this is merely a ploy to use more and more tech and testing to transfer salaries that teachers have been earning to tech companies.
If these tests were to help students, they would be given at the beginning of the year, graded quickly, and used to assist the teacher in diagnosing the needs of each student. They would not be used punitively. They would be instructive and constructive.
I am so tired of the “big education lie”.
To answer the question of the post:
NO!, Its a civil WRONG!
People seem to be baffled by the support from civil rights groups for standardized testing and for the Common Core. The most vocal activists are 27 civil rights groups affiliated with the 200 + member Council of Civil and Human Rights (CCHR).
These groups are certain that one-size-fits-all standards and tests are the most effective and perhaps the only means of securing political support and the actual benefits of equitable treatment in schools. That is a tragedy, but it is also the motivating force for activities of The Leadership Conference Education Fund, the non-profit advocacy arm of the CCHR
An April 7, 2015 press release featured some highlights from a national survey on testing and standards. I suspect that funds for the survey came from a September 2014 of $1, 730, 567 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation “to educate, inform, convene and communicate with its (the Fund’s) national coalition of civil rights advocates about the US Program’s Education Strategies.”
I have looked at the survey, where four objectives are identified:
“To explore predisposing factors of support for and opposition to the Common Core State Standards.
To provide a baseline measure of attitudes regarding the Common Core.
To segment audiences based on a variety of factors that will facilitate a targeted approach to communication efforts, including messaging and outreach.
To pretest messages about the Common Core and public education.“
The following highlights come from the national sample of 1,375 adults contacted through land and cell phone interviews with over-sampling “to ensure responses from 282 African Americans and 241 Hispanic Americans.” As in many push surveys the aim is to generate data to support a predetermined viewpoint.
The executive summary says that two basic issues divide Americans on education: (a) “Half believe there is too much testing in schools,“ and (b) nearly half (46 percent) believe the federal government should NOT have a role in education.
What else did the survey turn up on testing?
Participants were asked to report on the extent to which they agreed with the statement: “There’s too much testing in our schools.” The responses differed by gender, income, educational level, and race/ethnicity. More women (about 59 percent) are likely to agree there is too much testing, also those with $75 K to $100K income (about 60 percent), and college graduates (about 63 percent). The agreement on “too much testing” was also higher for Caucasians (53 percent) than for African Americans (39 percent).
So, from the standpoint of the civil rights groups looking for a messaging strategy to keep testing in place—might they not say: “That anti-testing crowd is mostly a bunch of affluent white women who are college graduates.”
OR is that the reality? Arne might say so. How might that impression (perhaps a stereotype) be defeated?
What about the federal role in education?
Those who commissioned this survey seem to think that the Common Core—having the same standards for all students—describes the proper role of the “federal government in education.” The writers of the executive summary say, flat out, that their messaging needs to focus on the Common Core…a concept under serious attack.
Why? This is the reasoning: “19 percent of American adults don’t know how they feel about the Common Core. The undecided fifth of the adult population represents an important opportunity for The Education Fund. A basic lack of awareness of the Common Core may be contributing to the less-than-universal support.” In fact…”a quarter (24 percent) said they have never heard of the Common Core.”
I have looked at the survey to identify extremes of “support” and “opposition” to the Common Core. In surveys, extreme positions may indicate difficult-to-change opinions. Given the non-stop PR for the Common Core since 2009–much of that paid for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation–some of the results are surprising.
Question: How much would you say you know about the Common Core State Standards?
24 percent have never heard of the Common Core. These “never heard” responses are greater for African Americans (37 percent) and Hispanic Americans (33 percent), for those with low income (34 percent), and those with a high school degree or less (36 percent). That same percentage is present for adults who live in households where at least one child attends a public school, including charters and magnets.
13 percent of adults indicated they know “a lot” about the CC.
Question: To what extent do you support or oppose the Common Core?
16 percent strongly oppose. Strong opposition is more likely among Republicans (24 percent) than Democrats (10 percent); and among Caucasians (19 percent) than African Americans (12 percent) and Hispanic Americans (11 percent).
Only nine percent strongly support the Common Core. Strong support is more likely among African Americans (13 percent), Hispanic Americans (11 percent); and persons with 100K + income (13 percent).
The experts in “messaging” want to target the 19 percent of adults don’t know how they feel about the Common Core especially the uncertain African Americans (26 percent). The messengers may not feel the need to focus on testing and the enormous problems it creates for all students—a case of “equal” but not “equitable” educational policy.
Over six years of promotion of the Common Core with big bucks from the Gates and other foundations as well as the US Department of Education has by-passed about one in four adults who have never heard of the Common Core. Gates wants Arne’s policies to live on. Many will, especially non-stop testing, but the fate Common Core will be determined on a state-by-state basis more than Incentives from the feds.
The survey is available here: http://www.civilrights.org/press/2015/common-core-survey.html
I recently submitted a copy of the letter below to the Boston Globe newspaper.
Dear Editor,
Frankly, I see nothing in Chokal-Ingam’s (4/8/15) life experience that would situate “affirmative action” as an instantiation of racism. So I wonder why The Boston Globe provides him a forum in which to create and attack straw African Americans. When test centric algorithmic thinkers work to actively suppress the societal participation of those who think differently, American Society becomes a much poorer place. For Mindy Kaling’s brother, a more eye opening study might have been about the debilitating influence of statistically construed racism in American Society.
Outrageous Orwell-speak!!