It is all so predictable. With New York’s “rigorous,” confusing standardized state tests, most students “failed” to meet a standard set unrealistically out of reach. And the ones who were least likely to “pass” are the students with disabilities and English language learners.
Chancellor of the New York Board of Regents Merryl Tisch said a few weeks ago that if she had a child with special needs, she would “think twice” about letting the child take these tests. She was right. But in the latest press release, she insists that everyone should take the tests because the children will be ignored if they don’t have demonstrable evidence that they failed. Say what?
The state acknowledges that some 20% of students opted out of the test. That is the 200,000 that opt out leaders claimed.
The press release says about the opt out students: Department data show that students who did not take the 2015 Grades 3-8 ELA and Math Tests and did not have a recognized, valid reason for not doing so were more likely to be White, more likely to be from a low or average need district, and slightly more likely to have scored at Levels 1 or 2 in 2014. Students who did not take the test in 2015 and did not have a recognized, valid reason for doing so were lesslikely to be economically disadvantaged and less likely to be an ELL.
A majority of students across the state scored a 1 or 2, so this is not surprising.
Once again, a majority of the students across the state “failed.”
The department released test scores and opt-out data late Wednesday morning. They showed that 31.3 percent of students scored proficient on the ELA tests, and 38.1 percent of students scored proficient on the math tests.
Only 3.9% of current English Language Learners scored at level 3 or above (proficient) in English Language Arts and only 5.7% of students with disabilities.
Please bear in mind that “proficient” is used as a pass-fail mark. Please bear in mind that this is absurd. As defined by the two federally-funded testing consortia, “proficient” on the Common Core tests is aligned with the “proficient” achievement level on the federal NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress). I served on the governing board of NAEP for seven years. “Proficient” doesn’t mean “passing” or “grade level.” It represents a very high level of academic performance. On the NAEP, only one state–Massachusetts–has had as much as 50% of its students reach the proficient level. The national average hovers around 35-40%.
But also bear in mind that the “cut scores” or “passing marks” are not based on science. They are judgments that may be affected by politics. If too many children pass, the cut score may be raised; if too many children fail, the cut score may be lowered. Ultimately, there is no objective way to measure how many students are “college-and-career-ready.” Certainly it cannot be done for students in grades 3-8. There is no evidence behind the claims now made for the Common Core tests, for the cut scores, or for the predictions about which children are ready for college and career in third or fourth grade or any of the other tested grades.
What we can say with certainty is that these standardized tests–like all standardized tests–are unusually difficult for students with disabilities, students who are English Language Learners, and students of color, all of whom scored well below the state’s already abysmal averages.
The State Education Department press release (included in link above) said:
The State Education Department today released the results of the 2015 Grades 3-8 English Language Arts (ELA) and Math Tests. Overall, students statewide have made incremental progress in ELA and math since 2013, the first year assessments aligned to the more rigorous learning standards were administered in grades 3-8. In ELA, the percentage of all test takers in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient level (Levels 3 and 4) remained consistent in 2015 at 31.3 compared to 30.6 in 2014 and 31.1 in 2013. In math, the percentage of all test takers in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient level (Levels 3 and 4) increased by seven points in two years to 38.1 in 2015 from 36.2 in 2014 and 31.1 in 2013.
Progress for Black and Hispanic students held steady in 2015 ELA and math. While the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level edged up slightly in both subjects, Black and Hispanic students still face a significant achievement gap. English Language Learners (ELLs) also made small gains in 2015 in ELA and math but still lag behind their non-ELL peers. However, in New York City, Ever ELLs— students who received ELL services in years prior to the 2014-15 school year but not during the 2014-15 school year—had higher levels of ELA and math proficiency than NYC students who never received ELL services (Never ELLs).
In 2015, ELA performance for Black and Hispanic students remained consistent with prior year levels, while math performance improved slightly. In math, 21.3 percent of Black students scored at the proficient level this year, up from 19.8 percent in 2014 and 15.3 percent in 2013—a six point gain in three years. The percentage of Hispanic students achieving proficiency in math also jumped six points in three years to 24.5 percent in 2015, compared to 23.4 percent in 2014 and 18.5 percent in 2013. However, the achievement gap continues to persist statewide for Black and Hispanic students, as well as for ELLs. Current ELLs made small gains in ELA and math, yet they continue to lag behind their non-ELL peers.
In the state’s view, minimal progress means “held steady” or “consistent.”
The department’s leadership made clear that they had no intention of turning back from their course of high-stakes tests that “fail” most of the students in the state:
“This year, there was a significant increase in the number of students refusing the annual assessments,” Chancellor Tisch said. “We must do more to ensure that our parents and teachers understand the value and importance of these tests for our children’s education. Our tests have been nationally recognized for providing the most honest look at how prepared our students are for future success, and we believe annual assessments are essential to ensure all students make educational progress and graduate college and career ready. Without an annual testing program, the progress of our neediest students may be ignored or forgotten, leaving these students to fall further behind. This cannot happen.”
“We must also do a better job of explaining to parents the benefits of higher standards and annual testing,” Commissioner Elia said. “Since I became Commissioner, I’ve made it a priority to establish a dialog with parents so they better understand why we test. Annual assessments provide important information about individual students for parents and classroom teachers and allow us to keep track of how all student groups are doing. This year’s results show our scores are not yet where they need to be, but we will work to ensure continued improvement.”
So, once parents understand, they will feel good about their children’s failure. Maybe in thirty or forty years, we will see most children reach “proficient” or the cut scores will be dropped.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
WMS: weapons of mass stupidity.
So let me get this straight: rich kids at private schools aren’t hurt, since they’re not even tested. Kids in wealthy public school districts score disproportionately among proficient test-takers. Kids in poor areas, kids who speak a foreign language, kids who have special needs–these kids fail disproportionately. In a big way.
If this so-called education “reform” is the civil rights issue of our time, as the deformistas like to put it, then perhaps the persistent failure of poor and black kids to find work is also a wonderful sign because it means Obama et al will not be allowed to forget that unemployment among black Americans is off the charts!
Full employment here we come, finally. I feel so much better. Now black workers can rest confident that their champions are hard at work remedying the awful employment figures. College and Career Readiness has done the trick!
Cut scores certainly can be based on science. They just aren’t in this case, at least not yet. There are many published assessments with cut scores based on rigorous external criteria. For instance, cut scores can be derived from a probability of students passing their first college course, or likelihood of scoring above the average SAT or ACT score accepted by state 4-year colleges. This isn’t a strictly objective anchor for cut scores but it is substantively less-arbitrary than what exists now with PARCC, SBAC, and states that have written their own tests.
The real trouble comes with having to go through the current “messy” period before there’s enough data to do rigorous psychometric evaluation.
Nate, the cut scores for NAEP are set by panels of laymen using their best judgment.
Do you think that the Common Core tests will ever be able to predict who is college and career ready in grades 3? I don’t think psychometricians claim they can do that. Nor can these tests predict who is career-ready. If they did, this nation must be a failed state since most of our students are neither college nor career ready.
That cut scores for NAEP have been a point of criticism for a long time, along with sampling methods, and other issues. Though for the most part, people have conceded that a mediocre method of comparing performance across states is better than not having one at all. Not sure if agree with that, as bad data can lead to erroneous decision-making.
There’s copious literature exploring the ability to predict post-secondary outcomes as far back as ages 3 and 4. What we’ve ended up with is a stair step of diminishing probabilities. Third grade performance predicts 4th grade performance. Fourth grade performance predicts 5th grade and so on. There are some points that seem to really throw a wrench in the spokes of the predictive logic though. Natural variability in scholastic development is a big one. We all learn to walk and talk at different times. The same phenomena occurs with reading, writing, algebraic reasoning, etc.
From a pure measurement perspective, the CC tests aren’t particularly useful until the data is aggregated across the entire population. There’s simply too much construct irrelevant variance and measurement error at the student level. As more students take it, the error is “easier” to parse out (but only if error is equitably distributed across the population).
To answer your question, the confounding variables in using a 3rd grade students scores to predict eventual college readiness isn’t all that useful. It is somewhat useful though to know what is their likelihood of staying on the readiness path next year. It’s also useful in the aggregate for large-scale systematic district improvement. In this I’m talking about systems change not teacher change. Even the best teachers can struggle or even flounder when working in an unsupportive system.
“Though for the most part, people have conceded that a mediocre method of comparing performance across states is better than not having one at all.”
What people?
As far as predicting “college readiness” from third grade, hell, I can do it from birth. Tell me the kid’s parents’ household income and I’ll tell you his/her likelihood of attending college.
What possible relevance does probability of passing a college course or scoring above average have for elementary students passing a standardized test? Really?
“The real trouble comes with having to go through the current “messy” period before there’s enough data to do rigorous psychometric evaluation.”
Oh my. Psychometry, the modern version of entrail reading, astology, phrenology, and palm reading, wrapped in a mantle of academic rigor!
Snake oil is still snake oil. No one has ever proven scientifcally that thinking can be measured in any even modestly accurate way yet it has become a billion dollar industry that controls the lives of billions of children and teachers worldwide. Amazing!
And far past time to expose this hucksterism and its reliance on statistical magic to prove nothing.
Let’s assume all the kinks are worked out and someone figures out a reliable way to predict the likelihood of a third-grader earning a passing grade in first-year college English or Math. To the extent that people accepted the result, wouldn’t such testing lead many third-graders (and their families) basically to punt on school, since there would seem to be little reason to try to succeed at something that the statisticians say would be a fool’s errand?
So even if and when we can make such predictions, they would be pointless, if what one is trying to do is educate a young person. Educating is about helping young people to draw out what is in them, so telling them nothing much is in them would be pointless.
But as a sorting mechanism for some other purpose–work, army, etc.,–these tests are really peachy. As in “college and career” ready.
Testing of this sort, (no pun intended), is, by its nature, contrary to education.
I would urge any parent whose child is subject to such toxic deception to remove his or her child from that school.
Norm-referenced tests undermine genuine education. They sort. They do not stimulate learning. They stunt growth rather than cultivate it.
One important reason so many people have lost faith in public education is that public education has always had a sorting function, and since most of the kids were termed “losers” by this sorting function, kids and parents alike, consciously or unconsciously, realized that school would not promote healthy development–that school was, in short, an experience that harmed children.
And now the privatizers (and test maniacs) are using the self-inflicted harm done in public schools to eliminate public schools in favor of private testing mills!
As long as we allow testing of this sort to take up our time and emotional energy, public education will fail children, and they, and their parents will rightly despise the institution.
“Cut scores certainly can be based on science.”
Pure unadulterated bullshit.
“. . . cut scores can be derived from a probability of students. . . ”
Take that probabilility to Vegas and see how much money you can win.
AY AY AY, otro sabelotodo que no sabe nada sobre las ciencias.
Nate,
Read and comprehend (yeah, I’m requesting that you comprehend, I’ll gladly help, just respond hear and I’ll post my email so you can contact me if you have any questions) how many errors, falsehoods and fudges occur in the educational standards and standardized testing regimes that render any results/conclusions COMPLETELY INVALID in Noel Wilson’s never refuted nor rebutted treatise on those topics “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.
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.
Requiring standardized tests for students with disabilities completely negates the IEP or individualized educational plan.
Years ago we used to be able to have the options of giving the tests to high school students at their estimated grade level in reading. Of course, when “NCLB” came along it was not OK. Limit after limit has continued to defeat these students. It is deflating to their confidence having to take these tests, knowing deep inside that they understand very little of the content. I saw more improvement then than now. Just retired from urban district in CA.
Well, but if you don’t test them at their actual grade level, how will you know what their estimated grade level in reading is? I mean, how can you possibly know if a student has a disability without standardized testing??? And how can students possibly get the help they need without it???
/sarcasm.
As usual, well-stated, Dienne. And, once again, this topic stirring up memories of useless test prep/testing w/my LD students–them hiding under their desks, falling asleep, crying, throwing pencils into the ceiling, rushing through the tests & filling in any old bubbles, having tantrums, hitting themselves in the head (or knocking their heads into the desks), pulling their hair out, biting their nails off, having tantrums, etc.
And–worst of all–calling themselves “stupid,” & really believing that they are.
retiredbutmissthekids, why on earth would you “test prep”? The Gates MET study found that those with the highest VAMs were not judged by students to “teach to the test”. Those teachers taught effectively and then their kids showed great progress. Oh, and by the way, the high-VAM teachers are increased their students scores on tests of higher level thinking, increased students’ reported effort, increased students’ enjoyment of class, increased long-term incomes and college attendance rates, and lowered teenage pregnancy and incarceration rates.
I know what you are thinking… that’s exactly the reasons you give for “investing” in early childhood education like Head Start. If it sounds similar, it’s because the same methods were used to demonstrate each. It’s just that you support one because it means expending more taxpayer money to hire teachers but oppose the other because it means holding ineffective teachers accountable. Better to label every teacher as “great” and never have to criticize anyone. Oh, well, except for those horrible parents that prevent your excellent teaching from shining through on PARCC, SBAC, and the SAT/ACT. Right?
In all seriousness, aren’t there any teachers out there who do not teach to the test but still get good results? Can’t we hear from you? Is it absolutely necessary for teachers to try to teach to the test? The data says no but can we get some anecdotes (favorites of this crowd) to demonstrate the point?
The highest scores are in high wealth areas. We’d save a lot of time and money if we just posted school grades by income level.
@virginasgp
“The Gates MET study found…”
So what?
Krashen points out that ELLs by definition are not ready to tackle Common Core testing. Language development like human development is a process, and passing uninformed rules or laws will not change the process. For example, I can start a school to “tutor” six month old babies in walking, but I will fail because it is an unreasonable expectation for them. No matter how many tests I administer to ELLs, I have to see them through the process documented in Jim Cummins’ research. The ELLs’ failure has nothing to do with teachers or students “holding back” or incompetence. It is the state’s ignorant assumptions that are the problem. http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2015/07/the-ell-problem-and-common-core-solution.html
Where can I get the test results? They don’t seem to be on the NYS Ed website or the NYC Ed website.
Susan
I will post as soon as I see them
thanks for sharing!
Perhaps we can make more headway against all this testing if we emphasize cost? As a math teacher of over 8 years, I keep thinking, “why are we paying for this testing ? Don’t I already do this as part of my profession (and give better feedback and questions)? ” I’ve tried writing about this to the New York Times before, but haven’t made any progress. Perhaps you would like to team up and write something about this? We could ask “what if we didn’t need to pay for testing?” With a billion dollar budget in New York city alone, I am sure we could come up with some great alternatives and even package the article with questions in multiple choice format for the reader. Let me know if you are interested.
It is all so predictable – and crashingly redundant. It is so harm to sustain rage. Or hope. It’s like fighting w/Father Time. The odds are on his side. It’s been over 3 decades since 1983 and this “cycle” began – or so we thought. That we’d go thru a New Math cycle and things would cool down and classroom doors would be closed again. But it just goes on, and if anything, gets more damaging, and more threatening. I don’t think I can have a civil conversation about assessment and standardized testing anymore. I called the testing industry the real Evil Empire once at a school board meeting, and said apart from tobacco and hand gun industries, no other group does more harm to humans. It was called hyperbolic. Really?? That response is more and more irresponsible as time rolls on.
The linked piece is all about passing and failing scores. Of course it is, because reductive meaures are easy and no reporter will be evaluating schools on anything other than test scores.
Why do we continue to tell children this isn’t about test scores when it is so CLEARLY about test scores?
They’re not morons. They’re in school all day every day and they live in the same world we do. The least we could do is state what must be obvious to them. They’re being given a test and that’s how they will be measured. No point in pretending there’s some nuanced analysis going on here, as far as the general public. Read the comments to the story. People are stating that chldren are passing and failing this test, which anyone could have predicted, because that’s how the public views test scores and ranking.
Our daughter, about to enter her Junior year of HS, who has ADHD as well as other neurological language & memory-related disabilities, has since Kindergarten been attending an excellent special-ed private school paid for by the NY Dept of Ed. Despite the fact that her scores on school tests in Integrated Algebra were A’s & B’s, in January she got a 44 on the Integrated Algebra Regents (a special-ed pass is 55). Following 6 months of intensive study, including weekly remedial individual help with her teacher, she retook the Integrated Algebra Regents in June. We then had to wait an undisclosed time period (the time frame was, in effect, “When we get around to it”), which turned out to be nearly 2 months, for the state to score the tests, as they don’t permit private schools to score. During that 2 months, we & our daughter were on pins & needles awaiting the scores, while she attended Integrated Algebra Regents Prep classes at her school’s mandatory summer sessions (they have a 12-month program), in the event she didn’t pass. We finally got the score last week: 54 – *ONE POINT* AWAY FROM PASSING; is this single point *really* the difference that defines competency? As I write this today, she is retaking the Integrated Algebra Regents again, BUT this time it’s the more difficult Common Core version; June was the last time they were giving the non-Common Core test. So now that she’s worked hard for 6 months, with expert assistance, improving her score by 10 points, rather than that crucial 11 points, & come within 1 point of passing, her reward is that they’ve raised the bar. How is this fair? We have exercised our rights to request a re-scoring (not likely it’ll change anything, but at this point we have nothing to lose), & to review the actual test. My point in writing this is that we feel our daughter’s case isn’t special, but rather typical. Based on our experience, combined with what I’ve read in this blog, it seems the NY State exit exam structure is discriminatory against Special Needs students, & therefore outright illegal.
Are there any plans to institute a Class-Action suit on this issue in NY State, or is such a suit already in progress?
“. . . is this single point *really* the difference that defines competency?”
Yes, it is so sit down shut up and pass me some more of the koolaid they’ve been giving us. You’re daughter’s education is a blip on their moneyed interest screens.
“New York test scores are up! Percent of students proficient barely nudges up. the question is who opted out”
I can tell the US public will do their usual nuanced analysis of these scores. Yes, sir. It will be all about the individual worth of each child.
Maybe the kids who get tested constantly won’t notice that they, their schools and their teachers are being measured on these scores? Is that the plan? Deny their obvious, lived reality and insist they are “more than a score”? Yeah. That’ll work.
“Ultimately, there is no objective way to measure how many students are “college-and-career-ready.”
And that should be THE first priority concern/problem: “no objective way to measure. . . . ”
Until all involved with the teaching and learning process understand that TRUTH-NO OBJECTIVE WAY TO MEASURE anything in that process we will continue to harm, cause violence to occur to the most innocent in society, the children.
Aren’t you glad you support standardized testing, all you GAGAers??
Diane, I don’t understand. You are critical of states who set proficiency scores without a fullproof definitions, with accompanying research, of what constitutes “college readiness”. Yet, you seem perfectly fine if those same states relaxed the proficiency scores to almost any level. Why not use the NAEP scores?
Historically, about 1/3 (or less) of students have attended/graduated from college. That actually seems about right to me. Note that the “payoff” from college is calculated from the average student. Students at the cut line (barely make it in) are certainly less likely to earn that same return. In fact, one could argue that having excess college grads dilutes the benefits of college (more supply) and the studies show that college students aren’t actually learning much in school (or here is another story from a truly left-wing outlet but maybe you can critique this article as being reformer propaganda as well). The real benefit seems to be a piece of paper that says you graduated from college and which orgs (mostly gov’t) use to prevent others from attaining certain jobs. If NAEP and CC suggest about 1/3 of students are ready, what proof do you or anybody else have to suggest 1/3 is incorrect? Remember, if you can’t prove it’s wrong we can just dismiss your suggestion (or so goes the logic of the opt-out crowd).
Third, colleges all over the US are concerned about the poor skills of entering freshman. One of your readers tried to explain “college algebra” to me recently. But algebra is supposed to be a high school core class, certainly for a college-bound student. The fact that students must repeat algebra is college is alarming. Shouldn’t we be concerned that high schools teach the basic skills that students need to have a successful career in high school itself?
Finally, we live in a global marketplace. Certainly, the standards and skills of our global competitors must be considered when certifying US students as “college ready”. Since most developed countries outperform US students on tests similar to CC/NAEP (such as PISA), doesn’t that confirm the test’s cut scores? If CC/NAEP scores are too high, then that must mean the actual performance of other nations is through the roof and completely unnecessary. Maybe we can tell other nations they are simply trying to hard and they should slow down to give us a chance.
Where did I go wrong?
Btw, hope you are recovering well from your surgery.
Virginia,
People have been complaining about the dumb students and loss of Eden since the 1820s, yet we are the most powerful nation in the world. Did you know that NAEP scores are at highest point ever?
Diane, I was aware of that fact. The raw IQ results also continue to improve over time. But is that relevant?
In 1972, Mark Spitz won 7 gold medals at the summer games including a world record in the 100m freestyle. Four years later, that same time would have lost by over a second (an eternity in swimming). Within 36 years, the world record would drop by nearly 3 additional seconds. Mark Spitz’ performance in the 1972 Olympic games would not have registered in the top 50 heat times. In fact, he would have been 3 seconds slower than the last-place finisher in the finals completely out of the frame on TV. The same can be said for the 100m dash.
If we froze all foreign trade and built great walls around the US, I might agree with your position. But we live in a connected and competitive world. We will increasingly fall behind if we do not strive to compete. Are you suggesting that as long as our NAEP scores are at a all-time high, then we have nothing to worry about?
Virginia,
The biggest risk to US education are the vicious attacks on teachers, the stubborn indifference to the root causes of low test scores, and the absurd emphasis on brainless standardized tests. Please read Yong Zhao’s “Who’s Afraid of the Bog Bad Dragon? Why China Has the Best (and the Worst) School System in the World”
Diane, simple question (I typically respond to yours so might you please answer this one). Pensions are real compensation. A worker who receives a pension does not have to save as much of his/her salary for retirement as those with pensions. Pensions are legal contracts as well. While Social Security is not counted “on the books” for the US debt, the pension obligations of federal workers are counted as real liabilities. The same goes with states.
Would you support publishing both salaries and total compensation (to include the annual pension contributions) of teachers if it would help recruit more candidates into the profession? I work in IT and know of nobody that receives a pension. Even bonuses are small (maybe $500/yr). Yet pension contributions for teachers are nearly 20% of their salaries. With the average teacher making $60K/yr, that’s about $12K/yr in extra compensation.
What would be a good reason not to publish such “private sector equivalent compensation” tables? If it would help the teacher shortage, isn’t that a good thing? If teachers would understand they are paid (and valued) more than they currently believe, isn’t that a good thing?
Already happens in many states, SGP. In Utah, you can look up any teacher or administrator, by name, and see what the teacher “makes.” It includes health benefits, retirement, Social Security, and all. It’s kind of creepy, really, and makes it look like teachers make a lot more than they really do. In Utah, the age to get a pension has been increased by five years, so I have to teach until I’m AT LEAST 65, and probably eventually 70 years of age in order to get a pension. That means I will have had deferred compensation for as much as 43 years. That’s a lot of deferment. Don’t you think I will deserve a pittance of retirement (it’s not a whole lot per month) after teaching for 43 years???? Many teachers also save for their retirement separately, including me, because you can’t live just on state retirement.
Threatened Out West, are you referring to the Utah’s Right database? While I do think this is useful, it’s not what I am talking about for two reasons.
1. Potential employees need to compare jobs on similar terms. Private sector firms don’t advertise the value of “benefits” (generally health care, insurance, etc.) so that is ancillary. The main benefit in addition to salary in the private sector is a 3% 401K match. Many school districts now offer such a 401K match as well in addition to health benefits. The relevant comparison for teachers is their (salary + pension contribution of about 20%) vs the private sector salary. The most useful information to attract teachers would simply be to publish A) salary scales and B) salary + pension contribution scales. Can anyone explain why this is a bad idea? It certainly would open eyes of college grads. The Utah site doesn’t appear to include the pension contribution.
2. The Utah site also shows health benefits. In consulting, we must calculate our true costs of employees before we hire them out on projects. The term “wrap rate” or “multiplier” is used to refer to how much we much multiply an employee’s salary by to cover all the costs (benefits, insurance, office space, HR, overhead, etc.). A good reference is 2.0 so that it costs a company twice as much as the employee’s actually salary to employee that person. While this info is helpful for employees to know true costs, it doesn’t help college grads comparing jobs. Nobody advertises their “multiplier” and it’s only relevant for companies and clients.
Would you object if schools simply published both scales?
” You are critical of states who set proficiency scores without a fullproof definitions, with accompanying research, of what constitutes “college readiness””
No, I think Diane objects to the whole concept of “college readiness”, especially when applied to elementary students, especially when teachers are held “accountable” for students not being “college ready” in 3rd grade, even though we don’t expect all students to even go to college.
Or are you saying you support cut scores that guarantee about a 70% “failure” rate?
Dienne, if the cut scores “guarantee” that only 30% qualify as proficient, then how do NAEP scores rise over time? By definition, the NAEP scores are merely consistent across years. The same goes for the PARCC, SBAC and SAT/ACT tests. I have no idea where you get the idea that scores are so variable that a constant percentage fail every year.
Yes, SGPs are relative to other students so there will always be a bottom 5%. But until the raw scores rise, I don’t think we need to worry if only 5% of teacher qualify as ineffective. I’m sure the real number is closer to 20% right about now.
Once again, if you don’t agree and think only 1% are ineffective, please have your students choose the bottom 20% and let the rest of us choose from the top 80% by VAM scores. We both win, right? When will anybody answer this question as to why we both can’t have the teachers we like?
The linked article included the following quote from Students First’s Jenny Sedlis:
“We cannot deny the public school crisis these numbers so plainly expose. When more than two-thirds of students aren’t being taught to read and write on grade level, you have to question who this system is designed to serve. Incremental gains are not going to cut it. We need to dramatically improve teacher quality and school choices if we’re going to prepare students for college and careers.”
Diane, I know you’ve said here many times that cut scores pegged to NAEP proficiency are not designating “reading and writing at grade level.” But do you have any suggestions for us New York public school people on how we can get that understanding out there more widely? Tisch said publicly two year ago that scores should not be interpreted this way but Reformer PR mouthpieces nonetheless do this whenever it suits them.
Later in the article the reporter kind of indicates that New York test are now as “hard” or “harder” than NAEP, but he does not correct Sedlis’s statement that this means 2/3 are not at grade level.
Remember when those crazy conspiracy theorists said the ed reform lobby would use these scores to promote privatization?
Boy, were they nuts, huh? That would never, ever happen. Except it is.
The quote from Sedlis assumes teacher quality is the problem and school choice is the solution. Informed minds understand that poverty is one of the biggest problems of urban education along with chronic systematic underfunding. Research tells us that school choice is not the solution. In fact, it is a significant problem as it contributes to public schools being stripped of funds to address the problems of neediest students as well as increasing segregation.
“We cannot deny the public school crisis these numbers so plainly expose. When more than two-thirds of students aren’t being taught to read and write on grade level, you have to question who this system is designed to serve. Incremental gains are not going to cut it. We need to dramatically improve teacher quality and school choices if we’re going to prepare students for college and careers.”
Hey, remember when parents were assured these scores wouldn’t be used to push a political agenda? Another solemn vow immediately discarded for political expediency.
Are the ed reform lobbyists and the Obama Administration (but I repeat myself) planning to use my kid’s scores to push privatization? If so, I’ll opt him out next year.
Thanks but no thanks, adults. Use your own kids.
“We must do more to ensure that our parents and teachers understand the value and importance of these tests for our children’s education. . . . we believe annual assessments are essential to ensure all students make educational progress …”
This quote from Chancellor Tisch demonstrates the absolute absurdity of the conditions in which children are learning and teachers are teaching. First of all: teachers in NYS are almost univocal (a hard thing to achieve…ask any room full of teachers their opinions about almost educational issue and you will get a huge range of viewpoints–is is true for anything that is complex and matters) in their utter dismay and disgust at the state tests of the recent past. They KNOW these tests do not even come close to tapping into the learning their students have done in the months they have had with them. The items are seriously flawed, their length and complexity interferes with any genuine assessment of literacy and numeracy, having a timed test measures students’ fluency and processing speed more than it measures what has been learned; the tests are not vertically aligned and never have been: so cannot measure learning from one year to the next at all. So teachers in NYS KNOW there is no value in the tests. And for teachers in schools where they are required to engage in mindless test prep the wasted time is considered a travesty.
The second idea: that an annual assessment can ENSURE that students make educational progress makes me actually cry. I am deeply ashamed that Chancellor Tisch has a doctorate in education from the university at which I am a professor. The utter absurdity of claiming that a test can ensure progress has been made leaves me speechless. We know what can facilitate educational progress, especially for the most vulnerable learners: a full stomach, eye glasses, hearing aids, medical care, stable housing, living without air and noise pollution, getting a good night’s sleep, a teacher who cares about you and knows you and respects your family, small ratios between teachers and students, a school environment that feels safe, good books to read, friends who support you as a person, opportunities for what Christina Fuentes calls “three dimensional learning, opportunities to get out in nature and marvel at the world and its peoples, support for students to maintain their home languages and home cultures, support for families without print literacies to navigate our complex educational system, strong building principals who know each student and support teachers and families, opportunities to laugh regularly and cry when needed, opportunities to have your imagination sparked and fed, chances to see art and hear music that stirs your soul.
When will we demand that our politicians and bureaucrats be held accountable for supporting teachers to teach in they ways they know work? When will schools get the supports they need for mental health? Instead, we squander millions of dollars and precious time on a test that can nothing to ensure educational progress.
A friend of mine says there seems to be “no bottom” to how bad it can get. I would add that our bureaucrats seem incredibly willing to display their ignorance to the public and we must demand that they be held accountable.
The quote from Tisch underscores how little she understands about what helps students. Testing does not improve outcomes for students, and it may cause more harm than good as it labels and limits access to quality instruction for many students. She is disconnected from reality and research.
Former Obama Administration official dismisses all concerns as “drama”:
“But for all of the drama around the standards being too high and the tests being too hard, many teachers and students are rapidly acclimating to the more rigorous standards and curriculum and raising their games.”
So there, parents and teachers of public school students. You and your silly (and sorta girly) “drama”. Common Core is already a huge success, like every other experiment they’re paid to market.
If this is really happening, public schools and public school children really do deserve kudos since they did it without any support from the state and federal government. Those are some resilient and gritty kids, I must say.
http://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2015/07/29/rising_to_the_challenge_of_new_tests_1214.html
“It’s all so predictable.” Yes. And at what cost?
How many millions so far dollars to the testing companies?
Worse. How much real teaching/learning time lost. How many hours of “test coordinating” and “security”work stolen from servicing children?
Worse yet. How much exciting and real teaching/learning/community building/real growth stolen from kids and teachers for the test prep/pep rallies/administration/follow-up/make-ups etc. etc. etc.?
Worst of all, perhaps. How many children, parents and teachers will suffer for these results, in all of the self-confidence, dignity, “evaluations” and job security ways we know are tied to these tests?
HOW MUCH MORE? NY is just a step ahead of the rest of us.
HOW MUCH MORE, when, “It’s all so predictable . . . ?”
To Lenny Rothbart, above–to answer your question-I suggest you contact heads of parents’ organizations in your area (such as Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters, or the local Parents Across America or Carol Burris, who is local, & is now Exec. Director of the Network for Public Ed.–if they know of no such class-action suit, they’d probably be able to refer you to someone/some organization that would). If you find no evidence of such a suit, then I suggest you organize like-minded sp.ed. parents & instigate one.
IDEA (which started life as P.L. 94-142) was, after all, started by PARENTS. It has always been parental advocacy that has gotten sp.ed. students “a free & appropriate (public) education,” and it will always have to come from parental advocacy. (While I agree w/Duane about GAGAs–i.e., teachers/principals who “go along to get along”–too many teachers/admins.fear for their jobs, so it MUST come from parents.
Good luck, & keep us informed–you’ll be able to get more to sign on by commenting on Diane’s blog, which is so widely read.
Thank you for the contact suggestions. We’ll follow up & post any interesting developments.
What these tests do is label and mRginalize lower level test takers so that a measuring level can be determined for students who pass and as you say, it’s meaningless and degrading since the results are already known. Opt out to get rid of this waste of time.
Reblogged this on Exceptional Delaware.
Just opened, read your comment addressed to me, virginiasgp, on 8/12 @ 7:12 PM. “Why on earth would you test prep?” Well, obviously, v, you are not/have never been a public school teacher w/in the past decade. The curriculum has, unfortunately, BECOME “test prepping” to a large extent, & that is what teachers are told to do (or ordered to do). Of course, that was NOT all that we did (esp. since I retired in 2010; however, it’s much more prevalent now–I highly recommend that you read the blog Miss Katie’s Ramblings, esp. the posts about test prepping). I read education blogs & other ed. materials extensively, am involved in education organizations & have the opportunity to discuss what’s current in the public schools. Therefore, I know–for a fact–that teachers are instructed to test prep–& they have all the Pear$on te$t prep materials & computer program$. Hope this answered your question, because I’m not going to respond a second time. (I’d much rather respond to Lenny Rothbart, who has experienced the pain firsthand, asks an important question & who needs a REAL answer. Again, good luck, Lenny, & keep us apprised of your situation.)
&— it’ll be a hot winter day in Chicago that I would trust the results of any Gates funded study…are you kidding me?!
Tisch’s statement well explains the attitude of standardized test cheerleaders and education deformers. Their common message is something like, “we’ll think it twice if we have a child of special needs & disabilities.” To put it in a different way, it goes like, “Sorry, that’s not our concern because we don’t have any in our family. We have the privilege to make our own decisions on our kids’ education, not yours.”
Like Arne “the Frankenstein” Duncan and Campbell Brown.