Archives for the month of: August, 2012

I regularly read the posts from Phil Cullen in Australia, which he calls “The Treehorn Express.” Here is one of his best.

You  will notice that he includes a link to Valerie Strauss’s Answer Sheet, showing how ideas travel fast around the world.

NAPLAN is the Australian national assessment program of literacy and numeracy.

The Treehorn Express
 
 
Scores, Scores, Scores
The delusional, paranoiac obsession with scores and numbers in educational dialogue, and their use by educators who should know better, constantly diverts attention from the real issues. We have all been guilty of using statements like:- “Finland has the best system in the world, because it topped the PISA tests in 2009.” “USA has a poor system of schooling. It ran 27th on the PISA tests.”  “Australia and New Zealand are in the top ten of the best school systems in the world.” “Asia’s cram schools are raising the stakes.”  What is this system of ranking that has led us to the use of such inanities?
PISA is a Programme for International Student Assessment, operating under the auspices of OECD. It tests only 15 year-olds [considered to be school leavers] in a number of countries to see how well-equipped they might be to face the world at large. Although the PISA is only able to test the testables in reading, mathematics and problem solving, it has no link to any school curriculum and provides great fun for the measurement nerds at OECD, Paris. It is claimed to be “…a powerful tool to shape government’s policy making.”   Heaven knows why. Thus far, it has created chaos and panic amongst those in countries who don’t understand what it is.  It tested reading in 2000; mathematics in 2003; science in 2006; reading again in 2009. For 2012 some 15 year-olds are being randomly selected from about 30 countries to test mathematics and try an optional computer-based assessment of mathematics and reading. PISA carries more punch than it deserves. For curriculum use and for comparative standards, its punch would not explode a paper bag.
It is influential, however. Countries, states and authorities around the world have gone numbers-mad to copy its impetuous ardour:- giving tests invented by local non-school measurers, assigning numbers as scores to each participant, averaging the numbers to declare some ridiculously impossible assessments of teachers, principals, schools and systems; publishing results as if they carried some sort of evaluation of what was going on in regard to teacher competencies, school performance, principals’ curriculum leadership and systems’ organisation.
In Australia, these unreliable, comparative number-scores are used as the basis for serious but totally inaccurate descriptions of pupils, schools, of teachers, of principals; have given rise to an amazing array of gimmickry; enhanced the coffers of private schooling; and enriched the coffers of publishers. Nothing much else. They have been used to describe ‘best’ schools and ‘worst’ schools, ‘good’ teachers and ‘bad’ teachers. Some newspapers have been cruel, with commentators pontificating on standards of schooling. the needs for this and that, They have even been used to describe countries as providing outstanding educational services because of success in this test, that is unfamiliar to most commentators and has yet to be extensively examined as a reliable device for what it says it does.  The Australian Gratten Institute, founded in the same year as NAPLAN, established to advise governments on policy matters, contributes to the heresy by its reliance on numbers to make judgements. It’s report: “Catching Up: Learning from the Best School Systems in East Asia” where after-school tutoring to raise test scores is rife, bases it’s contents on numbers scored. [http://www.saveourschools.com.au ] “The report is seriously deficient and one-sided.” says Trevor Cobbald.   One hopes that policy-makers will consult with humanity-biased commentators and the education community before any serious decisions are taken as a consequence of this report.
And all this malarchy costs over $540million with more to come to prop-up the [officially] failed NAPLAN testing scheme!
The reliance and over-use of Arabic numerals for educational purposes is catastrophic. Measurers are people who dwell on the outskirts of educational activities and who  greatly exaggerate the power of number scores. They should get back in their box with their childish toys.  Number is number. When its hieroglyphics are used for descriptive purposes, scores and marks and numbers are inappropriate. Used for serious evaluation of education’s human effort as they are during the present testing pandemic, the use is satanic.
saynotonaplansaynotonaplansaynotonaplansaynotonaplansaynotonaplansaynotonaplansaynotonaplansaynotonaplansaynotonaplandaynotonaplansaynotonaplan
        [Kelvin Smythe’s criticism of a NZ Shadow Minister’s statement contains some brilliant summaries of the effects of ‘national standards. The Minister then responds.]IMPORTANT READING:     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/eight-problems-with-common-core-standards/2012/08/12/821b300a-e4e7-11e1-8f62-58260e3940_blog.html#pagebreak
                                          [Marion Brady comments: “Future historians…are going to shake their heads in disbelief. They’ll wonder how, in a single generation…democracy has dismantled its engine.”]

I read Romney’s education agenda carefully.

You should do the same.

It’s pro-privatization.

It repeats the myth of “failing” public schools.

There is not a good word in it for public education.

Romney is avid for charter schools and vouchers.

Here is the analysis of his agenda that I wrote for the New York Review of Books.

Karen Francisco writes about education for the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette. Whenever I see her work, I wish I lived in Fort Wayne, so I could see everything she writes. She is one of our most thoughtful commentators on the subject of education.

In this article, she ponders the complexity of school choice.

What happens when parents want their children to go to a school even though it has low scores?

What should public officials do? What are the tradeoffs between accountability and choice?

What should we expect of public officials who say on one hand that parents know best, but then proceed to shut down a school that parents love?

How should we balance priorities?

The following post was written by a teacher in Louisiana who is a former journalist. Private schools that accept vouchers can score an F with no accountability. Students may enroll in a private school that is far lower-performing than their own public school, and the private school gets $8,000 of public money:

Academically Unacceptable? Not If It’s A Private School.

Nobody wants a doctor who scored an F in medical school. Nobody wants a plumber who scored an F in training courses.

Conventional wisdom holds that nobody wants her kid to attend a school that scores an F.

But what about a private school that scores an F? According to the state of Louisiana, private schools that score an F are A-OK.

If there was any question of whether Louisiana’s much-publicized school voucher program is an effort by State Superintendent John White and the rest of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s administration to overtly favor private schools over public schools, the recently released “accountability” requirements for private schools in the voucher program should clear up any doubts. The requirements trumpet “a common standard for student performance across the system of traditional public, charter public, and nonpublic schools,” yet the standards for private schools receiving vouchers are far lower than those for public schools–so low that public schools meeting those standards are considered failures.

Louisiana evaluates its public schools using a 150-point scale, which is then converted into letter grades of A, B, C, D and F, based on students’ scores on standardized tests, as well as measures such as attendance and graduation rates. If a public school scores below a B on the accountability index, students from that school whose household income does not exceed 250 percent of poverty level can apply for vouchers.

Despite White’s own assertions about the importance of accountability to the voucher program, he has chosen not to hold voucher schools to the same standards. Private schools receiving vouchers will be able to continue receiving tax money previously earmarked for public schools–more than $8,000 per pupil–while scoring in the F range.

Yes, that’s right, an F. Private schools can score an F and continue receiving public funding.

Specifically, private schools receiving vouchers, whose voucher students will take the same standardized tests as public-school students, will be required to score only a 50on the scholarship cohort index–which the documentation states will be “substantially similar” to the public-school scoring matrix–in order to be eligible to receive more voucher students, and the money that comes with them. Judging by the public-school matrix, such a score places a school squarely in the F category. In fact, with just 60 schools out of 650 in Louisiana scoring below a 51 in the most recent round of grading, such a score would place a school in the ninth percentile of all tested schools. A similar score in a public school would lead the state to deem that school academically unacceptable and would render its students eligible for vouchers.

Given the emphasis that Louisiana officials place on test scores as incontrovertible measures of school (and teacher) quality, it is fair to ask under what logic one ninth-percentile school is considered superior to another ninth-percentile school, simply because one is private and the other public. That question is unlikely to be answered anytime soon, as is the question of how schools were chosen to receive vouchers in the first place; White and the Jindal administration have refused to release the records of the voucher-program deliberations.

Indeed, many people are beginning to wonder whether the state used any criteria at all, as stories of legal troublesschools without teachers and self-proclaimed prophetsemerge among the institutions chosen to receive vouchers, to say nothing of the overtly religious agendas of the program’s legislative supporters or the disturbing claims found in textbooks used by some voucher schools.

White has previously proven sensitive to bad press over vouchers, but apparently he is not sensitive enough to the state’s citizens to give them the clarification they deserve. He did announce earlier this week that the state would be tightening the rules for voucher applicants because, according to the Times-Picayune, “this process now has greater importance.” White apparently did not elaborate on why he did not find the process greatly important to begin with.

Besides demonstrating the state’s prioritization of funding private schools over funding public ones–a prioritization that may be unconstitutional–Louisiana’s differing standards for public and private schools raise another interesting question: What do test scores really mean, and what do they really mean to policymakers? The “school accountability” and “school reform” movements–both of which have gained significant ground in Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina seven years ago–take for granted the fact that standardized tests are the best way to measure learning and to hold schools accountable. Louisiana’s low test-score standards for private schools, however, trumpeted concurrently with calls for improved education, complicate the narrative. Could White, Jindal and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education possibly believe that factors other than test scores can be indicators of student learning? Or do they believe that private schools are just inherently better, no matter what the test scores say?

One thing’s for sure–when it comes to evaluating White’s own accountability, Louisiana’s leaders are apparently not that eager to find out whether the superintendent scores an A, a B, a C, a D or an F. The state just postponed his first performance review.

 

Elizabeth Walters teaches in southeast Louisiana.

 

What do you do when you want to reach the public but you have no money and no access to the mainstream media?

Here’s what:

Some very brilliant educators decided to try a novel way to explain the issues to the public. They used comic journalism, a simple, direct means of communicating complex ideas.

What do you think? Is it an effective medium?

A reader does some Internet searching for pre-K standards and comments:

A simple Google search for “Pre-kindergarten and Common Core State Standards” brings up 4,100,000 matches. Here are just a few interesting links: New York State’s “P-12 Common Core Standards” document: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/common_core_standards/pdfdocs/nysp12cclsmath.pdf From “eye on early education” regarding Massachusetts Pre-K Common Core initiative: http://eyeonearlyeducation.org/2010/12/22/frameworks-include-pre-k-and-common-core-standards/ Maryland’s “Common Core State Curriculum Framework” beginning with PreK Math Standards: http://mdk12.org/share/frameworks/CCSC_Math_grpk.pdf Connecticut’s PreK Common Core State Standards: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/ccss/math/crosswalk/pk_to_kindergarten_mathematics_continuum.pdf I could go on and on with Louisiana, Ohio, and the rest but I won’t. Those who claim that the CCSS are not for PreK are sadly misinformed and out of touch with the reality on the ground in the public schools of America. Florida has its own newly adopted (2011) PreK standards for 4-year olds that are for sale to interested states and co-developed with the Workforce . The document is amazingly long (247 pages!) and complicated and said to be aligned to the Kindergarten Common Core State Standards, developed by the FDOE and the Agency for Workforce Innovation, now called the Office of Early Learning. Interesting connection there between workforce innovation and 4-year olds, isn’t it? http://www.fldoe.org/earlylearning/pdf/ListofStandardsandBenchmarks.pdf The genie is indeed out of the bottle. Next in line: infant CCSS? In-utero CCSS?

 

A reader–a parent and teacher–writes.

Does she refer to the way that education policy is made by non-educators? Or to the reduction of education to data? Or the reduction of children to data points on a graph? Or the indifference to the developmental needs of children and adolescents? Or to the arrival of greedy for-profits into managing schools? Or the galloping privatization? Or all of the above?

This is such a sad time in education and a tough time to be a kid. It sickens me as a parent, and frustrates me as an educator.

Just got airtime.

CNN interview on Newsroom tomorrow at 8:40 AM EST

 

 

A reader asks an important question:

Born on the cusp of the New Math, where I first got catechized in the Old Math and then had to learn the New Math in order to help my succeeding siblings through their homework, I am the survivor of more national curriculum reforms than either fashion of Math taught me to count.

But the one thing that distinguished all those Old Style reforms was the question of who was in charge of reforming the curriculum.  No matter how much textbook publishers may have had their hands in the till and their thumbs on the scales, it was the professional educators who mainly ran the show.

That is the main thing that no longer holds true today, and that is making all the difference.

Professional educators need to quit fussing over the red herrings in this current kettle of fish.  Curing the Common Core will not happen unless the professionals who still have a clue what education is start asking who has now captured control of the ever-continuing process and start taking control back from those who know nothing but how to cash in on other people’s bees-wax.

Dear friends,

Watch the program. Reach your own judgment.

Do not react or complain until you have seen the segment, about 5 minutes.

Watch, listen, think.

Diane