Archives for category: Testing

In a rare break from its established stance of applauding whatever Mayor Bloomberg’s Department of Education does, the New York Daily News published an editorial ridiculing both Pearson and the schools’ chancellor Dennis Walcott.

Only
Sat week the News had an editorial defending the Pearson Common Core tests, even though the vocabulary and content of the fifth grade exam that was available to the editors was age-inappropriate.

What seems to have moved the editors to high dudgeon was that Pearson made so many errors in scoring the high-stakes exams for preschoolers hoping to enter a kindergarten for gifted and talented.

A deeper question might have been to ask why there are G&T programs for 5-year-olds.

The latest administration of the SAT has been canceled in South Korea, due to allegations of widespread cheating. The nation is known for its “hyper-competitive academic environment.”

Test questions that were on the exam scheduled for May 4 were circulating in test prep centers. Staff members at some test prep centers were detained for questioning.

Thousands of students were affected.

The article says:

“Though academic cheating is a world-wide concern, high-profile scandals over unfairly earned or bogus qualifications are commonplace in South Korea. Those seeking top government office are among those who have been caught with plagiarized dissertations or fake degrees. Huh Tae-yeol, the chief presidential secretary, issued a public apology in February—when he was still a nominee for his post—for copying part of his doctorate degree in 1999. He argued that standards at the time weren’t as stringent.”

South Korea has the highest number of college graduates among the advanced nations of the world and high scores on the international assessments.

Joe Bower teaches in Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. He blogs at http://www.joebower.org.

He wrote this for us:

DO I SERVE YOU OR ARE YOU TO SUPPORT ME?

As a classroom teacher, I spend the majority of my time working with students while they are still learning, so I have an intense understanding for how important it is for kids to be engaged in learning by doing projects that are in a context and for a purpose.

Without the information (read: observations) that I gather from such projects, I could not call myself a teacher, nor could my students call themselves learners.

But how often is data defined like this?

As a classroom teacher, I have absolutely no use for data that reduces learning to a number for the convenience of administrators, policy makers and others who wish to judge the classroom without ever stepping foot in the classroom.

I will not be an accomplice to those who have needs and have absolutely no intention of ever even meeting my students. A system with authentic accountability would never ask me to do so.

If you are a politician, superintendent, schoolboard trustee, administrator or someone else who rarely visits the classroom, you might be thinking to yourself: “I need spread-sheet friendly data to report the successes, failures and growth of the schools.”

To you I say: “As a classroom teacher, am I here to serve your needs for your spreadsheet, or are you here to support me so that I may better serve my students’ needs

If you read State Superintendent Deborah Gist’s description of K-12 education in Rhode Island, you got a pretty upbeat assessment.

Tom Sgouros, her most persistent critic, sees a different story.

He sees a state wedded to high stakes testing and unable to look beyond the testing regime.

Here is the absurd consequence of the terrible ideas that have dominated education policy in the US. for the past 20 or so years.

The governor and legislators in Michigan have stripped more than a billion dollars from the public schools even as they better test scores. Now, as they plan to cut public school budgets even more, they want to tie teachers’ salaries to test scores.

The fact that test-based incentive have failed and failed and failed does not have any bearing on the state’s policymakers. No doubt they can claim they are marching in step with Arne Duncan, who believes that test scores must be a significant part of teacher evaluation.

The formula of slash and burn is not good for children, not good for schools, and not good for the quality of education. The tests will rule every decision. I wonder how many of the legislators could pass the tests that will determine the reputations and lives of teachers.

David Kirp, professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of “Improbable Scholars,” describes here the ruinous consequences of high-stakes testing.

Everything associated with the corporate reform movement is failing. How much longer will the hedge fund managers and the federal government continue to fund failing strategies?

He begins:

“It’s a terrible time for advocates of market-driven reform in public education. For more than a decade, their strategy—which makes teachers’ careers turn on student gains in reading and math tests, and promotes competition through charter schools and vouchers—has been the dominant policy mantra. But now the cracks are showing. That’s a good thing because this isn’t a proven—or even a promising—way to make schools better.

“Here’s a litany of recent setbacks: In the latest Los Angeles school board election, a candidate who dared to question the overreliance on test results in evaluating teachers and the unseemly rush to approve charter schools won despite $4 million amassed to defeat him, including $1 million from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and $250,000 from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Former Atlanta superintendent Beverly Hall, feted for boosting her students’ test scores at all costs, has been indicted in a massive cheating scandal. Michelle Rhee, the former Washington D.C. school chief who is the darling of the accountability crowd, faces accusations, based on a memo released by veteran PBS correspondent John Merrow, that she knew about, and did nothing to stop, widespread cheating. In a Washington Post op-ed, Bill Gates, who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting high-stakes, test-driven teacher evaluation, did an about-face and urged a kinder, gentler approach that teachers could embrace. And parents in New York State staged a rebellion, telling their kids not to take a new and untested achievement exam.”

In an earlier post, a teacher in Tennessee wrote critically about the PARCC assessments of the Common Core. The teacher said that the assessments did not permit accommodations for students with disabilities.

Chad Colby of Achieve, one of the organizations responsible for developing the Common Core, says that these claims are wrong.

He writes:

“The information presented in this post is factually incorrect.

“Students with disabilities will have access to accommodations on the PARCC assessment. A draft accommodations manual is currently out for public comment: http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-releases-draft-accommodations-manual-public-comment and we encourage parents and educators to review and give feedback.

“Also, IEP teams will still determine what accommodations students with disabilities should receive. It’s the law.

“From the Individuals with Disabilities Act Regulations:

http://idea.ed.gov/download/finalregulations.html

“In §300.320(a)(6), it states that the IEP must contain:
(6)(i) A statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the child on State and districtwide assessments consistent with §612(a)(16) of the Act”

Chad Colby – Achieve
(202) 419-1570
(202) 297-9437 cell

A reader comments:

Wow, for those opposed to T-cap, wait until you get a good look at common core and the PARCC assessment. The nightmare is about to get worse. As a teacher, I have been working with the debut of common core in Tennessee this year. I don’t even know where to begin to express my frustration with the entire common core movement. It combines an exceptionally narrow curriculum with testing that is vague and open to interpretation (when our group of 6 teachers scored student work we frequently came up with three different scores). The narrow focus of common core does not coincide with the broad based knowledge required for ACT/SAT testing. So until they get all testing aligned, students caught in the middle are screwed. (I have one of these students)

The PARCC assessment is proposing to do away with students accommodations (for students with disabilities) because it invalidates the test! So we now have TESTING dictating what accommodations a special education student may receive. All students besides the very most severe will be expected to sit in front of a computer and take the test. If a special education student didn’t have a disability they wouldn’t need accommodations!

The worst crime of state assessments is that they they fail to recognize the individuality of learning. Students have brains that mature at different rates, learn at different rates, learn in different ways, and benefit from testing in different ways.

It is all insane!

A student in a gifted program wrote this piercing analysis of the state tests he and his classmates just endured.

The tests he took had many brand names and registered trademarks. He realized this is product placement.

He wrote:

“Non-fictional passages in the test I took included an article about robots, where the brands IBM™, Lego®, FIFA® and Mindstorms™ popped up, each explained with a footnote. I cannot speak for all test takers, but I found the trademark references and their associated footnotes very distracting and troubling.

“According to Barbara Kolson, an intellectual property lawyer for Stuart Weitzman Shoes, “The fact that the brands did not pay Pearson for the ‘product placement’ does not mean that the use is not product placement.” To the test-takers subjected to hidden advertising, it made no difference whether or not it was paid for. The only conclusion they (and this test-taker) made is that they could not be coincidental.”

When I served on the NAEP governing board, there was. Flat prohibition on any reference to brand names. I studied the guidelines of every publisher a decade ago when writing “The Language Police,” and all of them specifically banned brand names.

What gives here? Why the marketing in the new Common Core tests?

Jason Stanford writes a smart blog about education in Texas.

In this one, he explains that when the stakes get too high, bad things happen, whether in business or any other activity.

Most businesses are honest, most educators are honest. But it is wrong to tie a child or an adult’s future to standardized tests.

Stanford writes:

“Standardized tests have a valid role in education, but closing down schools or giving principals cash bonuses based on test results is new. That started when then-Gov. George W. Bush instituted a business mindset in Texas public schools and measured all schools by their tests scores. Enron did much the same thing with its stock price, gaming the system by hiding debt and booking future earnings. The stock price soared while the former pipeline company cratered. In Texas public schools, dropouts rose, preparing for the tests ate up more than half the schoolyear, and scores rose. Bush proclaimed it the “Texas Miracle.” Many of the schools he cited as proof of his miracle were later investigated for cheating, including Wesley Elementary in Houston, where the principal coached teachers “to administer a test the Wesley way,” which meant walking around the classroom and standing behind a student until they chose the correct answer. But by then, achieving miraculous gains on test scores had become a national goal.”

If we opened our eyes, he says, we would realize that what we are doing now is wrong. It is not working. It doesn’t help students and it doesn’t improve education. It is actually pretty dumb to put so much weight on bubble tests.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56,801 other followers