FairTest National Center for Fair & Open Testing
for further information:
Bob Schaeffer (239) 395-6773
cell (239) 699-0468
for immediate release Saturday, October 24, 2015
GRASSROOTS ASSESSMENT REFORM MOVEMENT
REACTS TO OBAMA ADMINISTRATION STATEMENT,
SCHOOL CHIEFS SURVEY ON STANDARDIZED TESTING OVERKILL
The Obama Administration’s weekend statement calling for “fewer and smarter” tests “belatedly admits that high-stakes exams are out of control in U.S. public schools but does not offer meaningful action to address that very real problem,” according to the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest), a leader of the country’s rapidly growing assessment reform movement.
FairTest Public Education Director Bob Schaeffer explained, “The new Council of Great City Schools study to which the Obama Administration responded, reinforces widespread reports by parents, students, teachers, and education administrators of standardized testing overuse and misuse. Documenting testing overkill is, however, just the first step toward assessment reform.”
“Now, is the time for concrete steps to reverse counter-productive testing policies, not just more hollow rhetoric and creation of yet another study commission,” Schaeffer continued. “Congress and President Obama must quickly approve a new law overhauling ‘No Child Left Behind’ that eliminates federal test-and-punish mandates. State and local policy makers need to heed their constituents’ ‘Enough is enough!’ message by significantly reducing the volume of standardized exams and eliminating high-stakes consequences. That will help clear the path for the implementation of better forms of assessment.”
Founded in 1985, FairTest advocates for valid, equitable and meaningful assessment of students, teachers and schools. The organization predicted negative “fallout from the testing explosion” when No Child Left Behind and similar state policies were adopted. FairTest works closely with grassroots education stakeholders around the country to reform national, state and local testing policies.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
See comment on related and prior post.
My first reaction: EMPTY WORDS. Look who is replacing Arne. OY!
I think this so-called call for a 2% limit on class time testing is a ploy so the Democrats do not lose votes during the 2016 Presidential election. Obama has lied to teachers before. Don’t trust him. Keep the pressure on and keep threatening to vote for candidates who support public schools and are TOTALLY against the testing culture of failing students ranking teachers, punishing teachers and closing public schools so someone in the private sector profits.
The only candidate I know of at this time who deserves a vote is the Green Party candidate for President.
Total equity in ALL schools ( charter schools are not public schools) for ALL children! Get rid of Pearson and other corporate entities completely out of our schools!
Kill all high-stakes testing!!!:
http://unitedoptout.com/about/
Totally agree
Back when this news of the Atlanta cheating scandal broke, what was Duncan’s take?
Mehhh, it’s no big deal.
ARNE DUNCAN (blase): “This is an easy one to fix: better test security.”
Watch the August 2011 video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/atlanta-cheating-scandal-_n_892169.html
Oh, I’m so glad Arne got to the bottom of this whole problem, and identified the cure. We can all relax now.
This interview is great. Apparently, this was just some local Atlanta reporter, but she asked some pointed questions.
She asks him if the unrealistic expectations of NCLB are part of the problem, and he’s totally non-responsive… he doesn’t give a yes or no to this. Instead, he just says, “There are great teachers who are amazing… beating the odds… blah blah blah”
Later, she says that “a lot of this is about money”, and asks if punishments and monetary rewards “need to be de-coupled from student learning.” Instead of owning up and admit this obvious reality—painfully obvious, in the light of what just happened in Atlanta– Dun-an says… oh no… not at all. We need to do this MORE.
Check out this word salad (including the usual Duncan smarmy “snow job” of praising teachers and principles… the same folks whose profession Duncan has destroyed):
————————————————————–
DUNCAN: (at 02:30) “Well, I think rewarding teacher excellence is important. I think I would argue the opposite (i.e. don’t “de-couple”), that far too often we haven’t we haven’t celebrated great teachers. We haven’t celebrated great principals who are making a huge difference in students’ lives. You just want to make sure that they’re doing it honestly, and again, the vast majority of teachers are doing an amazing job, often in very difficult circumstances, in helping students beat the odds every single day. I think we need to do a better job of spotlighting that, and incentivizing that, and encouraging that, and learning from that.
“In education, we’ve been far too reluctant to talk about success. We just need to that. We just need to make sure that we’re doing it with integrity.
“Not too hard to do.”
————————-
Really Arne? “Not too hard to do”? “Merit pay” and basing personnel decision on test scores has been tried countless times for over 100 years, and it has always failed.
What you claim is “not hard to do” HAS NEVER WORKED.
IT WILL NEVER WORK.
In fact, when it’s tried, it actually causes severe harm—narrowing of the curriculum, turning schools into test prep factories, etc.
Duncan’s corporate reform masters need testing to drive privatization, corporate profteering, and union-busting, and so Duncan will defend to the death the misuse, the over-emphasis on testing, the massive over-testing in general, etc.
http://www.pegwithpen.com/2015/10/no-victory.html
There is no victory here. Obama’s administration suddenly does not care about our children. King doesn’t suddenly care either. These folks and their corporate cronies have been pummeling our public schools for how many years now and suddenly – now suddenly – they are listening and here to save the day? NO. As Morna McDermott (UOO admin) says – the folks who have been destroying you suddenly do not come up with a solution to save you. NO. Do not fall for the latest “testing action plan” from the US Dept of Ed. Arne is gone and now King (CHARTER SCHOOL KING???) is going to make things right? HELL NO. Not happenin’. They plan to roll out testing that is competency based – tied to our curriculum – impossible to opt out of – online – seamless – with no end of year test necessary. No victory. None.
Let’s realize the enormous money behind large-scale testing makes it almost impossible to back down.
It’s about the tests and the data. And the test prep curriculum.
Unfortunately Bob S. and Fair Test still hold onto the false belief that standardized testing can be of help in the teaching and learning process even after having been shown the COMPLETE INVALIDITY of the malpractices that are educational standards and standardized testing nonsense. Practices based on errors, falsehoods and psychometric fudging can only result in error and falsehoods in the supposedly “objective” results of said process.
Noel Wilson has proven the complete invalidity of those two educational malpractices in his never refuted nor rebutted 1997 treatise “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 words 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.
You seem to believe politicians seek to do what is right or best for citizens. Even if the tests are completely invalid and unreliable and unfair in terms of assessing the quality of education (and they are, to be sure), the fact that testing has been written into our law supersedes that concern for those of us in the schools. And the fact that states seek to save money (and therefore take shortcuts on developing good tests — ahh, I long for the days of the MSPAP in Maryland) supersedes FairTest’s concern for more effective and “better” tests for those who work in state governments. Margaret Spellings under Pres GWB famously said NCLB, by no reading of the law, required high-quality tests, so we fell into a multiple-choice testing realm because it was cheaper. I don’t know what else states were supposed to do under NCLB, but the whole testing regimen is a big lie. It started with NCLB, and Pearson, the Common Core, PARCC, etc., to me anyway, are completely logical developments of that law on the ground.
Paul,
Rest assured I do no believe that “policicians seek to what is right”-ha ha!
Unless right means that which will line their pockets.
“I don’t know what else states were supposed to do under NCLB . . . .”
If every state told the feds to keep their Title 1 money and skipped the testing, they would have saved money and saved a generation of students from test-prep abuse.
When does one practice civil disobedience when a law is unjust, wrong and harmful to many innocents??? If the law is supposedly the ultimate arbiter/determiner of right and wrong what do we do when the law is unjust? Obey? That was the Nazis’ defense at Nuremburg and that argument was rejected. Let me leave you with some thoughts by A. Comte-Sponville:
“Should we therefore forgo our self-interest? Of course not. But it [self-interest] must be subordinate to justice, not the other way around. . . . To take advantage of a child’s naivete. . . in order to extract from them something [test scores, personal information] that is contrary to their interests, or intentions, without their knowledge [or consent of parents] or through coercion [state mandated testing], is always and everywhere unjust even if in some places and under certain circumstances it is not illegal. . . . Justice is superior to and more valuable than well-being or efficiency; it cannot be sacrificed to them, not even for the happiness of the greatest number [quoting Rawls]. To what could justice legitimately be sacrificed, since without justice there would be no legitimacy or illegitimacy? And in the name of what, since without justice even humanity, happiness and love could have no absolute value?. . . Without justice, values would be nothing more than (self) interests or motives; they would cease to be values or would become values without worth.” [my additions]
I wonder if President Obama has realized yet that his record on Education will be the downfall of his legacy. That the corrupt real estate deals from closed schools , the giveaways and outright fraud of unsupervised charters, the firing of thousands of minority teachers for ivy league edu-tourists, and the long, lasting damage to the nation and its children will mar his record for all of time to come.
More than just the downfall of Obama’s legacy. This could be the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party. Today, there are so many Americans unhappy with both major parties that in 2015, Gallup reported a record high 42% of Americans identify as independent voters—I’m one of them—way ahead of the 31% who are registered Democrats and the 25% who claim they belong to the GOP.
With numbers like that it is Amazing that the GOP now controls the majority of state legislatures and governors mansions and both Houses of Congress.
A dime late and a dollar short.
Thanks to all of you who see through yet another empty statement. This new one means nothing. We were duped…twice. I just love it how the press (& we can trust them, right?!) is overpraising Sanders for “pushing Hilary to the left.” Yeah, in your dreams. Have people not learned the lesson of the Obama Administration that he repeatedly said one thing while campaigning, & then turned his back–for the most part (w/o a doubt, on America’s children, parents & educators)–on the 99%? WHAT “walking shoes?” Therefore, we ALL, ALL know that it doesn’t make one bit of difference what Hillary SAYS NOW–just look at who’s funding her (hint: Wall Street, PACs, corporations).
Beyond an insult to the rank-&-file of the AFT & the NEA to have early endorsed her–in fact, to have endorsed her at all. I used to be a big fan of Hillary’s–she WAS, very early on, a champion for children & a fighter for the 99%. But–just as she was a Republican who became a Democrat–she has changed–& she will be a Democrat on the heels of Obama Administration policies–in that you can believe, because she is not about to bite the hand that feeds her campaign, making her what we would call a DINO–Democrat in Name only.
Having said all that, please give Bernie Sanders credit for what Bernie Sanders plans & ideas are, & what his record has been. If you go to Bernie.com, look for the survey where he ASKS people to tell him their #1 issue in this election (you can write it in the comments box). It is amazing what has happened in the Dem race, what with Biden not running, & 2 dropping out (& I predict that O’Malley will, as well). Bernie is running as a Dem because–no matter what anyone says–a third party cannot win–not yet. I have been working on his campaign, & he IS the real deal. Please support him, please work for him, please donate–we are the ONLY people he is getting money from (he just turned down $2K from that young punk pharmaceutical exec., who inflated the price of a drug to–what–was it 400%?). He is the ONLY candidate talking about wealth inequity & poverty in this country–& has plans to do something about this.
Only WE can prevent another choice of “the lesser of two evils.” (&, in 2012, it was said–on this blog–that the erosion of public education would be faster & worse if Romney were elected. Of course, I am NOT saying that we should have elected Romney,
but Obama did a pretty good job of ruining American public education, keeping Arne Duncan (turning an absolutely deaf ear to all of us), & then, further twisting the knife, appointed John King.
We cannot withstand any more of this, & whether Hillary or Republican, it will be the end of public education.
Bernie 2016.
“We were duped…twice”
No rbmtk, “we” weren’t duped twice. Quite a few of us weren’t even duped once. Some of us do vote our conscience and for our choice which doesn’t include the two main political mafias, oops I mean parties.
Be careful with the “we”, Arne just used the “we” meme in his statement referenced in the post “we all share responsibility. . .”. No “we” don’t “all share responsibility”. The “we” meme is a way to deflect responsibility to others.
And, Duane, thank you once again for the Wilson rant. (It must be reintroduced on this blog periodically, both for new readers & those who might forget!)
There IS NO “STANDARDIZED” TESTING–ESPECIALLY NONE PUBLISHED BY PEAR$ON!!!
Thanks, rbmtk! Don’t take my above critique of one of your statements too hard. I say it as I see it, that’s all.
Until we address teacher “accountability”, current “tests-as-weapons” reform is going nowhere. Politicians are convinced that effective teaching must produce good test scores. Until we change this line of thinking by offering an alternative accountability method, we will be stuck in the rut of testing abuse.
Again, even prior to “tests as weapons” one must acknowledge the COMPLETE INVALIDITY of the educational malpractice known as standardized testing. Eliminate the tests and you’ve eliminated the weapon.
No, Rage, I really disagree. Politicians aren’t convinced of anything regarding ‘effective teaching’, or learning for that matter. They are GAGA– going along to get along, bipartisan & ‘third-way’ bobbleheads repeating politico-pop notions.
The ‘accountability’ meme is hobbling not just education but every walk of American life– the UK too, & it’s spreading globally. ‘Accountability’ is just a tool in a much bigger picture which has been developing for decades: call it the marriage of Friedmanism [public services can be delivered more efficiently by the private sector] & Taylorism [production efficiency methodology].
A poster in another thread passed along Henry Giroux’s latest essay on this phenomenon (http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/culture-of-cruelty-the-age-of-neoliberal-authoritarianism/). Puts our piece of it in perspective. I think our best efforts can be spent in supporting opt-out of stdzd tests (so as to cut data off from the accountability maw), rebuilding unions, & supporting campaign reform (as a 1st step in regaining voter voice).