Here is a comment from a first-year teacher who knows more than the “reformers” who wrote the laws in Florida.
|
I have met so many teachers who are so wise about teaching, about students, and about what really needs to be done to make schools work better. One of them is Arthur Goldstein, an experienced English teacher in New York City. His students are mainly English language learners. As his longtime fans know, he teaches in a trailer, which is cold in the winter and hot in the summer. He has a blog called nyceducator.com. It is sharp, incisive,fearless, and often laugh-out-loud funny.
I got a comment from Arthur this morning to my earlier post. Arthur asks the right questions and shows how dumb current “reform” policies are.
The state has an underlying assumption that test scores are representative of quality of instruction. I would argue they do not. A role model, sorely needed by kids whose parents work 200-hour weeks, would and should do more than show a kid how to pass a standardized test. In fact, my experience with standardized tests suggests that I’m better able to write meaningful tests for my own students. Now I’m not bragging, because the quality of standardized tests I see ranges from abysmal to “meh.”
It’s preposterous for teachers to be lectured on differentiated instruction when the tests are all the same and the only thing that matters. As a teacher, I know when I’m at my best. I’m at my best when left alone to do whatever it takes to teach my kids what’s important, and I know very well what’s important to English language learners, as well as what they will need to avoid taking zero-credit remedial courses when they enter college. From all I’ve seen, the state and city governments haven’t got the remotest clue.
Teaching is an act of seduction. It’s about making kids love what you’re selling, which is education, their future. The obsession with testing is destroying that. The notion that a teacher can be judged on a test which is likely to be total crap is absurd, and it’s remarkable we even need to discuss it.
It is teachers like Arthur Goldstein who are the best answer to the dilettantes, foundation executives, hedge fund managers and corporate executives who love to decry and shred their garments over “teacher quality.” (Actually, I speak metaphorically, they don’t shred their garments, they just decry.) The difference between him and them is that he knows what he is talking about. It comes from experience. It is the wisdom of a teacher.
Diane
When the budget cuts start, the first victim is usually the arts.
The people who make the financial decisions think that the arts don’t matter.
How wrong they are. Why do they prioritize the budget for assessment over the budget for singing, dancing, and the joyful activities associated with the arts?
Do they think that students come to school just to be tested? Don’t they understand anything about the need for expression, the need to feel joy in creating and designing and singing and acting together?
Students know. Teachers know. Parents know. Why don’t the politicians and the policymakers know? Weren’t they once children?
Life without the arts, school without the arts, is nasty, brutish and way too long.
In districts across the country, the arts are in jeopardy because of budget cuts and misguided priorities. Districts are digging deep to pay for more tests even as they axe the arts.
One district that is fighting back is Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. Upper Darby is facing massive budget cuts, and the arts are on the chopping block. Parents and community members created a video that is joyful to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh8RNhMo4Ks
Every district should create a video to showcase the talents of its students. Kids are amazing. The bands and orchestras and string groups and jazz groups and dance groups and drama groups are better than anything you will watch on television tonight.
Can your district do what Upper Darby did? Maybe it will educate the budget cutters if we can get them to watch.
Do not let them kill the younger generation’s creative spirit, its joy in performance, the sheer exuberance that the arts unleash. We are the adults. We owe it to them to prioritize what matters most, to them and to us.
Diane
In district after district, budget cuts are decimating the curriculum. Teachers are laid off, programs are cut, class sizes are rising, libraries are closing.
This is insane. We are supposed to be in the midst of a great education “reform” movement, but for reasons that are not obvious, the alleged reformers never say anything about budget cuts. They don’t care if the public schools are devastated. They claim to care about education, but budget cuts don’t seem to cross their radar screen.
The more they are silent, the more it demonstrates that they don’t care about education; they don’t even care about children. They care about power. They care about gaining control of public schools and of the funding stream that goes to public schools.
So, those who are silent reveal their fundamental beliefs. The more that public schools are impaired, the better the case for privatization.
In fact, we can discern a train of events. First, the reformers’ favorite experts assure us that we spend way too much on education. Second, the message is amplified by public figures like Bill Gates, even Arne Duncan (remember his claim at the conservative American Enterprise Institute that reduced budgets are “the new normal”?). Third, public schools feel the devastation of the budget cuts as class sizes rise to 35 then 40 or more; as the arts are eliminated; as libraries close; as facilities are untended because custodians were dismissed. In the final act of this play, the reformers step forward to save the children from their “failing” schools.
Those who claim to be reformers should speak out against the budget cuts or lose all credibility. If they do not, we will know them for what they are and we will know what they want.
Diane
Last night, I appeared on the Ed Show. It was brief, possibly four or five minutes. But I have learned that in television, one minute is an eternity. Every minute is precious. Out there is a huge audience, maybe a million people. It is rare to be on any TV program where there is time for an extended discussion.
What I appreciated about the Ed Show is that it is the first television program, to my knowledge, where the host has a fundamental understanding of the historic threat to the future of public education. He gets it. He ran a clip of a protest in Philadelphia against the actions of the School Reform Commission. Ed may or may not know that Pennsylvania has systematically underfunding the public schools of Philadelphia. He may or may not know that the chief executive officer of the district, a former gas works executive, recently commissioned a plan from the Boston Consulting Group that would privatize a large segment of the district’s public schools. Boston Consulting Group is one of those ubiquitous business strategy groups that tells everyone what to do without knowing anything about their business. Romney’s former company, Bain, was an outgrowth of BCG.
Yes, there is a historic threat to public education. For over a century, we have treasured our system of public education. Now it is encircled by rightwing ideologues who see a chance to achieve their goal of getting the government out of education; by hedge fund managers who think they know everything; by corporate executives who think that a business plan will solve all problems; by ambitious politicians who see a chance to please their major campaign contributors; by for-profit entities that see a money-making opportunity; and by opportunists who teach for two years and then leave to make their name as “reformers.”
We need to see and hear more on the Ed Show. And we need other influential figures who are willing to think for themselves, stand up to the powerful, and defend the commons.
Diane
I get many thoughtful comments. I read them all because I learn from readers. This reader asks a very good question. Can you answer the question?
“There is an observation regarding these high stakes tests that has been nagging me as I witnessed, another year of my 3rd through 8th grade students painfully struggle through the hours, days and weeks of these insane and brutal standardized tests. All the while wondering what my future will be based on the quality of their performance. Now, perhaps someone reading this, can add their discussion on the topic. Here goes:
The legally mandated student school year in PA is set at 180 instructional days covering from Sept to June. That computes to be the equivalent of 180 instructional days times 6.5 hrs/day or, approximately 1170 instructional hours per school year. These are hours for which I am financially compensated. These are hours for which I am also expected to be accountable for the achievement effect my instruction has on my students during the 11-12 school year. A test administered to each of my students regardless of their variations in strengths, weaknesses, tolerances and language proficiencies will determine my very professional survival, let alone my personal survival, quality of life as well as that of my family. I understand that. These are the life changing stakes. What I realized this year is that this test was administered on day # 125 of my district’s school calendar.
My students are being tested on their recall of content and on their literacy proficiencies assumed to have been ‘acquired’ from their instructional time in my charge during the duration of the 11-12 school year. This, by law, is supposed to be 180 calendar days. However, the actual truth is, my students are being assessed and scored based upon only 125 days of my instruction, or 812.5 instructional hours. What happened to the rest of the legal school year? What happened to those other valuable and precious instructional hours/days of lessons? What happened to the measurement of the other 56 days X 6.5 hours that equal 364 hours? My students, my district and I are facing the potential for major disastrous consequences of these test scores, because it is deemed by the funding powers to be the ONLY recognized accountability measure of our professional worth. When in fact, the state is not permitting the public schools a full legal school year to engage in instruction. This year we were permitted only 2/3 of the instructional time mandated by law before the state imposed its accountability gauge on our practices. Perhaps, the Dept of Ed feels that the balance of that instructional time (April to June) will be assessed the during via the next year’s 12-13 tests. Well, hold on there! That means I was assessed THIS year for 56 days of last year teacher’s instructional time with my students. One third of my students’ instructional time was with another teacher (s), yet my salary, my retention /dismissal, and my certification are to be determined based on the productivity of someone other than myself for 56 instructional days! My students’ 56 days duration with another teacher or teachers from a previous year is an crucial variable which the state has put beyond my control. And yet, I am being held responsible for it as if it were instructional time for which I indeed, had controI!
Logically that makes any assumption regarding my teaching skill, based on the score of test, a faulty premise. Statistically, it invalidates the score as a measure of my functioning during ‘11-12. The truth is: the test score can only assume to measure 125 days of my instruction time, not a full 180 days. At best , the score can only be deemed to represent 2/3’s of my teacher quality, not 100%
I am being held accountable for 180 days of instruction, despite the fact that I have only been allowed to engage with my students for 125 days. This is no petty matter. I can be fired based on this score. I can be denied salary based on this score, or (hah) merit pay. My district can lose funding for the arts, science, music, athletics, counseling and its very existence. This, I do believe, is a scandalous injustice, one which has the potential to cause hundreds of thousands of teachers and school employees to be unemployed.
For those who interpret all of existence from a business model perspective. Let me use corporate jargon…
Would a financial entity allow one of their investment instruments be evaluated for dividends gained derived from only 2/3 of its fiscal investment period? And furthermore, would they see as fair, if the other 1/3 of fiscal investment period assumes the dividend performance of an unknown investment instrument managed by an unknown competitive financial entity?
Certainly not. They would be in a court room faster than you can say, RIP OFF!
We should not stand for it either. Any thoughts?”
Do you think that it is fair to judge a teacher by scores that reflect the work of previous teachers? The teacher might also have added that the tests reflect the students’ willingness to study, the students’ sense of urgency about the test, the family’s support for the student, whether the student has a quiet place to study, whether the student is working after school and has no time to study, whether the student can read English, whether the student is experiencing a major life crisis during the school year, whether the school has good leadership, whether teachers collaborate, whether the school has a strong curriculum, adequate resources, reasonable class sizes, and what the weather was on testing day, as well as about 100 other factors.
Diane
The popular rising against high-stakes testing grows larger every day.
In Texas, more than 500 school boards have endorsed a resolution opposing high-stakes testing.
A coalition of organizations and individuals prepared a national resolution against high-stakes testing. Hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals have signed it. (Please add your name.)
Florida parents are up in arms against the FCAT. Even editorial boards are beginning to see the sham perpetrated on students using tests of dubious quality.
Parent groups around the country are organizing to resist, as they see the unnecessary pressure applied to their children. The issue is personal, not theoretical. They may not have read the policy briefs, but they see their own children spending weeks preparing for the state tests, weeks in which there is no instruction, just test prep. Parents know this is wrong.
In New York City, parents are planning a public protest on June 7 at the headquarters of testing behemoth Pearson. Their immediate grievance is the field tests in June, which Pearson needs for its R&D but which steals away yet another day of instruction. But their underlying grievance is with the whole lockstep top-down regime of high-stakes testing, which distorts the meaning of education.
All of this is happening because our elected and appointed leaders are in love with accountability. For accountability, they need data. They will use the data to rank students, to rate teachers, to grade schools, and then to apply sanctions and–in rare circumstances–rewards (but there is little or no money for the rewards). Based on test scores, some teachers will be fired. Some principals will be fired. Some schools will be closed. Students will learn that they are not as good as other students. Schools will get a letter grade. Everyone will be ranked, rated, graded.
And this whole structure rests on the standardized tests.
Folks, the tests were not designed for high-stakes purposes. And they are not good enough to bear the weight now placed upon them.
The basic rule of psychometrics is this: Tests should be used only for the purpose for which they were designed.
That rule is violated every time a student is flunked, a teacher is fired, a principal is fired, or a school is closed, based on test scores.
Tests should be used to help, not to punish or reward.
So, as the title of my blog promises, I have a solution.
All of this will end if we do this one simple thing.
Insist that all policymakers, think tank gurus, academic experts, and politicians who believe so passionately in standardized tests do this:
Take the tests in reading and mathematics and publish your scores.
Do not demand for other people’s children what you are not willing to do yourself.
Take the tests and publish your scores.
Say that. Say it whenever they praise the tests. Say it whenever they impose them on your children.
And watch what happens.
Diane
The Romney campaign released its education policy paper last week, which included a number of factual inaccuracies.
One of them, which we are likely to hear more of during the course of the campaign, is that Romney presided over a dramatic improvement in academic achievement in Massachusetts while he was governor. In fact, during his time in office, as Jeb Bush states in the introduction to the Romney plan, Massachusetts’ students were recognized as first in the nation in fourth and eighth grade tests of math and reading.
He refers, of course, to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which has been testing state-level performance in those grades since 1992.
Romney’s plan states that no new money is needed to improve education. What is needed, he believes, is school choice: vouchers, charters, online learning, tutoring, in short, a free market of choices.
Mitt Romney had the good fortune to be elected as governor of Massachusetts in 2003. He was in that office until 2007.
Be it noted that the Massachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA) was signed into law by Governor William Weld in 1993. It doubled state funding of education. It established foundation funding for every district in the state, with more funding for those that needed it. It authorized the creation of curriculum frameworks and tests, as well as graduation requirements and tests for incoming teachers. Massachusetts added new funding for early childhood education and professional development.
There are three salient points to be made about the Massachusetts reform:
1. It was successful: Massachusetts is indeed at the top of NAEP in fourth and eighth grades, in reading and math.
2. It was expensive: state funding increased from $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion from 1993 to 2000.
3. Mitt Romney had nothing to do with its success.
Diane
Mitt Romney launched his foray into education by visiting the Universal Bluford charter school in West Philadelphia, an impoverished, largely African-American neighborhood. He went to tout his plan for vouchers and charters as the new civil rights crusade of our era.
While there, thinking he was in friendly territory, he made some unfortunate remarks. First, he asserted that class size wasn’t important. That is no doubt the advice he had received from his advisors, who like to claim that having a “great teacher” is far more important than class size reduction. Then, he advised his listeners that one of the keys to education success is to be a child of a two-parent family. He got called out on both comments.
A music teacher rebuked him on the class size issue, saying: “I can’t think of any teacher in the whole time I’ve been teaching, over 10 years — 13 years — who would say that more students would benefit them. And I can’t think of a parent that would say ‘I would like my kid to be in a room with a lot of kids,’” Morris said. “So I’m kind of wondering where this research comes from.”
His advice about having a two-parent family was not well received. It’s the kind of analysis one expects to hear in a think tank discussion, but not the advice you offer to a community that deals with real-life circumstances rather than academic speculation.
When challenged to explain his comments on class size, Romney said that the global consulting firm McKinsey concluded that class size doesn’t matter. Of course, it mattered a lot to the Romney family. Mitt Romney went to the Cranbrook School in Michigan, where class size is said to be less than 6:1. His children also went to an elite private school, and elite private schools are known for small classes.
Parent activist Leonie Haimson called on President Obama (for whom she worked in 2008) to take a stand on the class size issue. She wrote an open letter to the President, asking him to repudiate comments by Secretary Arne Duncan that sounded no different from what Romney had said. Secretary Duncan is a graduate of the University of Chicago Lab School, where class size is 10:1. Just a year ago, Bill Gates set off a firestorm among teacher bloggers when he said that better teachers were more important than smaller classes. Gates went to Lakeside School in Seattle, where classes are never more than 16.
I propose a rule for advocacy by politicians and academic experts: Never advocate for other people’s children what you are unwilling to accept for your own.
Diane
Diane Ravitch's blog 