Katie Zahedi is principal of Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, New York, which is located in upstate Dutchess County. She is active in the association of New York Principals who bravely oppose the State Education Department’s educator evaluation plan based mostly on test scores. Zahedi has been a principal and assistant principal at her school for twelve years. The views she expresses here are solely her own and not those of the district or her school. Suffice it to say that she is a woman of unusual integrity and courage, who is determined to speak truth to power. She wrote this piece for the blog in response to the release of the Common Core test results in New York, in which scores collapsed across the state.
Katie Zahedi writes:
Days before the release of embargoed New York Common Core test scores, laced within comments/double talk about “higher standards”, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan joined Commissioner John King in assuring New Yorkers that lower scores on the Math and English Assessments were expected. The NYSED claims to have formulas to account for all sorts of nuanced variables so maybe they will produce one for the testing fiasco called the Bunkum Conversion Table!
What the public may not understand in the midst of today’s controversy is that when a test yields 80% (of a particular cohort) of students passing over a 5 year span, and scores suddenly drop to below a 35% passing rate, that the problem is probably unrelated to student performance. In fact, the last two years of tests produced by the NYSED have been rife with mistakes, missing tables needed for computation, and confusing and misleading questions.
The failure rates on the NYSED site are dissimilar to reported numbers in the 8/6/13 New York Times, leaving principals unsure how the data is being or will be manipulated for public reporting. What is immediately clear is that the NYSED is out on a limb with its political machinations of student test data.
Historically, up to 15% of my students have been scheduled for Academic Intervention Services (AIS) for remedial help. Now, thanks to “higher standards”, those students’ needs are obfuscated by the new facts that nearly 70% of my students have been identified (by a state test) to be in need of remedial math.
I shouldn’t complain since I serve as principal of a high performing middle school. Last year our 8th graders (the same cohort described above) won the New York State Math League Award for 1st place in Dutchess, Ulster, Orange, Putnam and Rockland Counties, which is the reason that up to 70% of my students will require special pull-out classes designed to work on “their weaknesses”. After all, that is much better than many New York schools having 80-90 % failure rates.
Sitting around a table with my fellow administrators, our astonishment was somehow normalized in the run-off of a year saturated in convoluted, nonsensical, time-consuming and expensive directives from the NYSED. After disbelieving stares, I said “people, we have a responsibility to directly address the individuals responsible for this fiasco”. Educators are a hearty bunch so after a brief pause we got back to work on compliance.
While not representing the views of my school district, I submit that we ought to take a look at the core problem. We have a duty to speak truth to power (and his best friend: money) and hold the NYSED “accountable” for the failures that they are producing. The NYSED is need of internal reform. Straight up, my school is not in need of full scale revision and neither are most schools in New York. All schools should run in a constant state of improvement led by experienced principals and struggling schools need investment, support and a team relationship with a partner school that is successful.
Mistakes like the fiasco of the NY State Assessments are to be expected when individuals who are scarcely qualified to apply for an assistant principal role in a district like mine are appointed to lead the state and federal education departments! Unsurprisingly, much time and public money will be wasted by well-meaning people who are appointed to important posts based on political association and/or possession of inordinate amounts of money.
The NYSED is a stately and dignified building that is waiting for benevolent and wise leadership. Doing his best, John King is working hard, holed away with privately hired “fellows” who are young, overpaid and fabulously confident considering their profound lack of experience in teaching and school administration. Regardless of the plausibly good intentions of NYSED leadership, it is objectionable for New York State to allow the normal process of schools to be interrupted and for principals and teachers to be distracted from their important work with students to try out the half-baked ideas of politically appointed newbies. Whether on the state or federal levels, the appointment of individuals with insufficient experience in public education, should be discontinued.
If the name of the game is accountability for higher standards, let’s require that all appointees to state and federal leadership roles possess the education and experience required to serve with wisdom and dignity.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Whether on the state or federal levels, the appointment of individuals with insufficient experience in public education, should be discontinued.”
Discontinued? It should be illegal.
Thanks for an excellent post.
RIGHT ON
Stepping back to take in the bigger picture, it is time to stop using the word “reform” altogether and call this movement what it really is — the War on Education — It is just one front in the ongoing Civil War against Community, Democracy, Equality, Labor, Public Institutions, Science, and everything else that made the American way of life what it once was.
Excellent comment Jon Awbrey! You said it all, so beautifully.
Jon and Kathy:
Are you saying that the performance of schools in the US is OK and that our inner city schools are meeting the needs of their students?
In response to another commenter, I just looked up the 4YR HS graduation rates for school districts around Hartford, CT. They are as follows:
West Hartford – 92.7%
East Hartford – 74.0%
Hartford – 59.8%
The graduation rates for Asian students in these schools districts are:
West Hartford – 98.6%
East Hartford – 89.2%
Hartford – 90.9%
Is there or is there not room for improvement.
Have you seen how the US compares to other countries? What would you call an effort to improve the performance of our schools?
Are you going to forbid parents from homeschooling or seeking other types of schools?
Your tendency to hyperbole, and that of many other commenters here, makes it difficult to figure out how to discuss these topics.
Now compare the demographics between Hartford and West Hartford. The differences are startling: income levels, education levels of parents, homelessness, crime, etc.
It isn’t just the schools. You are oversimplifying for some reason.
Linda:
I know the Hartford area pretty well. Of course I understand the differences in the socio-economic and demographic make up of the three districts. Certainly the problems go far beyond what happens or does not happen in the classrooms and the schools. Why do you think I added the graduation rates for Asian students who are attending the same schools with more or less the same teachers? My comment was in response to your endorsement of what I see as a statement that denies the existence of real issues. Are you saying there is not room for substantial improvements in classrooms and schools, especially in our inner cities?
Never said that ever. The Asians seem to do well everywhere, all settings. I know the area extremely well. Hartford has been sliced and diced, charterized, magnetized, and the schools left over get the least in resources and supports and it was set up that way by design to create failure and the need for more “choices”. The goal is to destroy the neighborhood concept staffed by unionized teachers.
Here’s are two experiences from an HPS teacher:
When I went to a magnet school fair at my school last year I was struck by two things:
1. the amount of money spent on marketing or selling (brochures, websites, power point, and the paid staff manning the booths, and putting together the brochures, websites, etc)
2. The inequity in the way the room was set up with the magnets & charters and their glossy displays upfront and the “others” w/o mimeographed sheets on cardboard tables in the back of the room.
I asked the person in charge why the room was clearly set up with the more desirable schools in front and the “others” at the back of the bus and she replied, “They are lucky to even be here.”
So there you have it. The two tiered system supported by the powers that be and perfectly willing to brag about it.
When I taught in that neighborhood I had a student who was the son of an addict finding his dinner in the garbage can of his neighbors until DCF got around to placing him with grandma. I had students lose parents to AIDS, car accidents and jail. Students witnessed murders by gun, knife, and machete. Students were being raped by 14 year old uncles, saw the cops shoot their dog, had the cops break down their door looking for drugs, got evicted and were homeless. And they were 6 or 7 years old. These children are not welcome at charters because the parents are unable to provide the support. But these children show up at our public schools and they need more tlc than other students but with money going to charters and a larger concentration of the neediest students in the non charters you are overwhelming the resources and setting the other schools up to fail.
Linda,
As a Hartford teacher for the past ten years, I have seen precisely the same things.
Linda:
Your stories are truly sad. Your arguments about resources and manipulation of the system for questionable policy alternatives certainly do not surprise me. They do not, however, address the point and do not suggest solutions that are within the purview of school systems. Charter schools may not be the solution but there is no evidence that they created the problems that you described. There was plenty of careerism among administrators before the various reform movements and will be there in the future. So granting all your points as to the problems in inner city schools, how do we determine whether any of the changes we make in the schools or classrooms are actually making a difference?
Bernie,
Your statistics about Hartford are very incomplete and only present a myopic view. Look at the socioeconomic data; it will present a far different picture than that you are painting.
Demographic data for Hartford includes a significantly higher percentage of non-English-speaking students than in surrounding areas. We also have a significantly higher percentage of students living in poverty. We have a higher violent crime rate, as well as a non-violent crime rate. All of which adversely affects the numbers.
In Hartford, we have a very high number of students from the Karen refugee camp straddling Burma and Thailand. None of these students speak English. So, two years ago, I hired a Karen translator out of my own pocket who translated all of my textual references and assignments into Karen, only to find that these students cannot read their own language! I spent thousands of dollars out of pocket needlessly. These students had never attended school in their own countries! Then they were placed in my tenth grade classes. I guess that that makes me a bad teacher.
In another situation, I had to teach a class of 27 students in a class of 24 different languages. I was the only English speaker. That I achieved anything at all is somewhat remarkable; I had no ELL support. Again, I guess that I am a bad teacher.
“After disbelieving stares, I said “people, we have a responsibility to directly address the individuals responsible for this fiasco”. Educators are a hearty bunch so after a brief pause we got back to work on compliance.”
So did the administrators fulfill the “responsibility to directly address the individuals responsible for this fiasco? NO, not the vast majority! (except for a few like Carol B. and of few others like the author of this post, and thanks Katie Z for having the cojones to do so) So, the “hardy bunch”, otherwise known as the “go along get along gang*”, “got back to compliance” making sure that the trains are running on time ensuring that the banality of evil continues unabatedly. (And no, this response in not a manifestation of Godwin’s law** as it is very appropriate if one considers the vast harm done not only to many students by this educational standards and standardized testing insanity but also to the teachers and administrators who sell their souls**** to comply with the testing devil.)
Katie Z, to understand just why your continued compliance in comporting/consorting with the testing devil is completely illogical and unethical please read Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700 . See below for a summary.
Continuing to look for my Dulcinea!
Duane
*Going Along to Get Along (GAGA): Nefarious practice of most educators who implement the edudeformers agenda even though the educators know that those educational malpractices will cause harm to the students and defile the teaching and learning process. The members of the GAGA gang are destined to be greeted by the Karmic Gods of Retribution upon their passing from this realm.
**From wiki: ‘Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”[2][3] In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis. Although in one of its early forms Godwin’s law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[4] the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.[5]” The comparisons I make are real, not inappropriate as the harms caused by the testing regimes do cause innumerate harms to many people.
***Karmic Gods of Retribution: Those ethereal beings specifically evolved to construct the 21st level in Dante’s Hell. The 21st level signifies the combination of the 4th (greed), 8th (fraud) and 9th (treachery) levels into one mega level reserved especially for the edudeformers and those, who, knowing the negative consequences of the edudeformers agenda, willing implemented it so as to go along to get along. The Karmic Gods of Retribution also personally escort these poor souls, upon their physical death, to the 21st level unless they enlighten themselves, a la one D. Ravitch, to the evil and harm they have caused so many innocent children, and repent and fight against their former fellow deformers. There the edudeformers will lie down on a floor of smashed and broken ipads and ebooks curled in a fetal position alternately sucking their thumbs to the bones while listening to two words-Educational Excellence-repeated without pause for eternity.
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A quality cannot be quantified. Quantity is a sub-category of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category by only a part (sub-category) of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as one dimensional 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 we are lacking much information about said interactions.
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 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. As 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 shit 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 measures “’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.
Interesting final paragraph there, Duane. I blew the doors off a standardized test in the third grade. The school wanted to promote me to fifth grade on the spot. My mother didn’t like that idea, so she agreed to have me bumped up to fourth. Before that test, I had no particular view of my intelligence. After that test, I thought I was the smartest person in every room, even if I wasn’t. I think that one test retarded my growth as a person in significant ways.
Standardized exam scores can work to a student’s advantage as well. My middle son was given the freedom to pursue the education that best suited him after he blew the doors off the math MAP exam. This score provided a useful alternative to his math teachers assessment.
Test taking is one and only one small part of what school is or should be all about…not an indication of the value of a person…yes, testing does retard personal growth at the “bottom” whatever that is and “the top”
My understanding is that this is the first time these particular tests were given. If so, how can there have been a drop in scores?
That’s exactly what I’ve been wondering! Everyone is freaking out because scores are significantly different from previous assesments. Aren’t they going to naturally be different since this is a completely different sort of assessment? We dont really have anything to accuratley compare the scores with.
Perhaps, they need to go back to the drawing board with some of the questions or the rubric they use to grade the exam, but otherwise, I really like the idea of a national assessment. The piece-meal way America does it right now, where states get to choose their own test is completely absurd. How can a country accurately understand its educational needs if it doesnt hold each state to the same standards?
“How can a country accurately understand its educational needs if it doesnt hold each state to the same standards?”
How can a country become the supposed eeconomic juggarnaut that is is without any standardization in its educational system up until very recently (this century)?
Why do you have a need for standardization? Why do you feel a need to compare the various states educational systems?
Yes, it is a different type of test, but unfortunately it was and will continue to be given under the same name as its predecessor. And students who took this “new” test as a 5th grader took the previous version in 3rd and 4th grades and now these students and their families have been led to believe that they did not fare as well, that their scores have dropped, and that they need remedial support.
How about a vocablulary “test” on what “test”,”drop”, “scores” means
The basic problem is that many people don’t understand that Student Cohort B cannot be measured against Student Cohort A; the only reliable and valid way to measure how Student Cohort B is doing is to repeatedly measure it against itself over time instead of using only one test.
Think. Tests are given in high school in the tenth grade. These students are tested (measured) only once. Is it possible to show their growth if they are never retested in the future? Of course not!
The reformers claim to be able to measure Cohort A by testing Cohort B the following year! It is an asinine proposition that makes no statistical sense, yet, the reformers have been able to dupe the public by doing juts that!
Now, the reformers are claiming to be able to assert that student performance has dropped after using this test only once. It is an absurd claim!
Bill,
“. . . the only reliable and valid way to measure how Student Cohort B is doing is to repeatedly measure it against itself over time instead of using only one test.”
There is no reliable and valid way to measure what you are attempting to measure. See Wilson’s work referenced above in one of my prior posts.
Bernie,
See my post above. How can anyone really claim to be measuring student growth by giving them a test only once? Giving a test only once to a given cohort of students is simply establishing a baseline for that particular cohort. Testing the following year’s cohort will derive a baseline only for that particular cohort; the two scores have nothing to do with each other.
You are deliberately being disingenuous when you claim that testing opponents reject standards per se. Testing does not establish standards; testing should measure standards that are in place. Most districts across the U.S. have their standards in place; state high-stakes testing have nothing to do with local standards ( which often exceed state standards.)
Bill:
I absolutely agree that without a repeated measure one cannot determine if there has been a change in the thing being measured.
However, that does not mean that the scores do not have any meaning. The relative performance of schools in different cities or students with different backgrounds are worth further consideration.
Your argument about cohorts is both true and untrue. If you define a cohort as a particular group of individuals and your interest is in that cohort per se then you are correct. However, this definition is not necessary and has very narrow applications. This type of standardized test can certainly be used to evaluate the outcomes of a group of individuals who have received x years of schooling. The results need to be reported carefully and with due acknowledgement of the limitations of the test and the circumstances of the test,
I do not believe I am being disingenuous at all. You said “Most districts across the U.S. have their standards in place; state high-stakes testing have nothing to do with local standards ( which often exceed state standards.)” You may be correct, but what is the actual basis for your last assertion, namely, “which often exceed state standards.” Do you have a measurement system that supports that contention. Moreover, I see a world of difference between articulated standards and the measurement of performance against those standards. If you have a valid and reliable way of measuring performance against standards then please say more.
Actually, we in Hartford had a terrific system until the Great Fraud Adamowski took over. I will give one example. I am a History & Social Studies Teacher. We had a coordinator of Social Sciences who had a well-structured curriculum in which all Social Studies teachers throughout our 48 school district were held accountable. We also had an extraordinarily run professional development program in which we all met and participated in forums with leading historians and educators throughout the United States. We had common grade-appropriate and level appropriate mid-terms and final examinations for each of our courses from grades 1-12 that were monitored and evaluated by our district coordinator, after which, we met and critiqued the data from those exams.
Adamowski took over and fired her. He then allowed our curriculum to expire, replacing it with nothing. We History & Social Studies teachers were informed that we were to be accountable only to the state wide Connecticut Academic Performance Test, or CAPT. This test has nothing to do with History or Social Studies, let alone, each course broken up by student grade and level.
This is but one example of the misuse of tests. I have seen many others. Statewide high-stakes, corporate generated standardized tests cannot measure students taught to local standards. Period.
Bill:
With respect to your comment above at August 8, 2013 at 12:44 pm that starts with “Actually, we in Hartford had a terrific system until the Great Fraud Adamowski took over…” Based on what you describe, it certainly seems as though you had a well-structured curriculum in place. Certainly it is hard to see how Adamowski could justify dismantling such a system – though you must admit that the HS graduation rates and SAT scores in Hartford are clear indications that there is considerable room for improvement. Even though you seem to have implemented a structured curriculum, it does not address directly the issue of how to measure performance across and within schools in a reasonably efficient and reliable way.
Please note that I am no great fan of multiple choice standardized tests. I grew up in the UK where we had standardized exams but few standardized tests.
Bernie,
I do not believe that any statewide or nationwide standardized test can reliably assess student mastery of standards, let alone be an indicator or school and teacher success. Certainly, no standardized test currently devised can do so with any statistical validity. There are far too many independent variables. The tests used to do so in my state were not designed for this purpose but have been used thusly by the reformers.
Assessment should be left to the districts. As I described in my earlier response, we were doing a good job of assessing our students based on grade level and ability level (something the reformers ignore), and were using the data locally to improve upon our program.
You cite graduation rates and the SAT. First, read the disclosure in the front of the SAT. It states that this test has not been designed to measure what has been learned in high school; rather, it is a predictor of college success. Look at the socioeconomic environment in which our students live. SAT scores can be interpreted as a reflection of these socioeconomic conditions. Concerning graduation rates, again, the SAT is no measure; we have an extremely high transient rate among our student population. Those students who stay in school to the twelfth grade usually graduate. Again, socioeconomic factors apply here as well.
This test has only established a baseline for this particular cohort of students taking this particular test. These scores have nothing to do with previous scores for cohorts taking an entirely different type and form of test. And, these scores only apply to these students. I wonder how these students would do if they re-took this type of test in the future?
My understanding is the test was designed by Pearson, not SBAC or PARCC.
Who determined it was aligned with the national standards if they say it was and who measured the validity, if anyone did at all?
This was a set up from the get go. The kids were props to further a predetermined goal.
This is legally sanctioned child abuse and it really pisses me off.
Pearson was paid a TON of money to make the test. The tests were full of mistakes and in some cases did NOT match the new Common Core Standards. The tests were longer than the law boards. Even the directions were confusing. Honestly, no one should take these results seriously.
Linda,
I couldn’t agree more.
But, the larger issue centers on the reporting of lower scores. First, as I’ve said often before, comparing scores between different cohorts across years, especially when different versions of tests are given, is statistically problematical due to the huge numbers of potential independent variables between cohorts. Claiming that scores are lower in the first round of an entirely different test is even more questionable. And, it is dishonest.
So we have to look at the agenda, which is obviously to destroy public education. There can be no other purpose for this entire event.
The “Opt Out” Movement is looking better and better.
State Opt Out/Refusal Guides found HERE.
http://unitedoptout.com/opt-outrefusal-guides-for-each-state/
Below is the response from the NY State DOE to parents chose to opt their children out last year:
“Two years ago the Board of Regents announced that the State would begin testing students on more rigorous academic standards beginning this year. The goal is to make certain that all students are on track to succeed in college and meaningful careers when they graduate high school. Parents who keep their children from taking these tests are essentially saying, ‘I don’t want to know where my child stands, in objective terms, on the path to college and career readiness’ — and we think that that’s doing them a real disservice.”
-New York State Department of Education Associate Commissioner Ken Wagner’s response to parents who chose to opt their children out of the NYS Standardized tests last April.
Unfortunately, in the media echo chamber, parents don’t get a chance to respond, or when they do they complain that the tests were too long and their kids got stressed and threw up and the DOE responds that yes the tests are more difficult but everyone must take the bitter medicine because our eight year olds must get ready for college and careers.
When are parents, the media, someone??? going to DEMAND EVIDENCE from the NY State DOE that the passing marks on the tests correlate to college and career readiness???? When is the media going to publish the credentials of the people who are leading the state and federal education departments? If the credentials of the people making the educational decisions about our children’s future are marginal and evidence supporting the validity of the tests themselves is nonexistent, then it would seem that the entire enterprise lacks credibility.
“But, the larger issue centers on the reporting of lower scores. . . ”
And THE LARGEST ISSUE OF ALL is of the whole process of making educational standards, using and disseminating the results of the accompanying tests. See above post for details.
It’s all a bunch of mental masturbation, folks which, unfortunately harms too many innocents, the students.
The only problem I see with this article is the author keeps referring to reformists as well meaning. I disagree completely. If they were well meaning they wouldn’t be destroying public education, teacher reputations, student sense of accomplishment and individuality. There is an agenda and there is no good will included.
You are defining the problem of our schools away. Are you suggesting that American Schools in general are doing OK? What about inner city schools?
Yes, in general American (sic) publ schools do better than OK!
It’s called shock doctrine. There’s money to be made in the dismantling of the public education system. Follow the hedge funds, follow the money.
It is impossible to comment meaningfully on the above without actually seeing the substance of the tests. Can someone provide a link?
Arguing against standardized testing on principle strikes me as rejecting the notion of standards per se. If you have a better way of establishing and maintaining standards in our schools that is operationally feasible, I would be delighted to hear them.
Bernie, the test questions have not been released. But the issue is not the questions but the scoring rubric. Comm. King chose to use NAEP cut scores and did not understand that proficient on NAEP is an A. So anything less than an A is a failure in NY.
Diane:
Certainly the cut scores need to be clarified and if they have been used to score cheap political points then that is deplorable and counter-productive to any effort to improve classroom outcomes. However, cut scores having meaning only in the context of the substance of the tests. Surely both are needed to understand what test results mean or do not mean – given that these tests are purportedly designed to reflect new and more appropriate standards.
” . . . strikes me as rejecting the notion of standards per se. . . . ”
Exactly! Read and understand Wilson’s work referenced above to understand why.
Has anyone followed the money? Just a thought.
Companies have to find ways to keep the consumers coming back year after year, right?
The same old “easy” tests used year after year won’t bring in the revenue like a NEW test, almost impossible to pass and widely publicized (yes, lots and lots of free publicity here), which for many years to come absolutely everyone will be scrambling to purchase new test preparation materials for.
The money issue is a rather silly red herring and has little bearing on the substantive educational issues in play.
Alas, Bernie,
Far too many things in life are motivated by money or power or both.
Perhaps they will destroy them, only to ride in later like the cavalry in order to “save” them, and they’ll sing your praises and follow you anywhere.
Let the child receive poor grades in the first marking period whether he/she deserves them or not, then raise their grades as the year progresses to provide the illusion that it has something to do with your knowledge and guidance.
Hermione:
I am beginning to think that the cynicism of many educators limits their effectiveness.
As compared to the lies spun by the non educators (Duncan, Bloomberg, Gates, King, Rhee, Emanuel, etc…the list is endless)?
Throwing money around while lying and manipulating children is child abuse and this limits their effectiveness immensely.
I’ll stick with my children’s teachers any day over bloviating blowhard billioanaires and their edudilettante buddies.
Astonishing!
So many here have already pointed out that the powers that be who are now in charge of this whole fiasco are business types and/or politicians (instead of those best suited for this tough but not impossible job -educators!) Is it such a far cynical stretch to then arrive at the conclusion that business types will treat it like a business? It seems very obvious that the greater good is not on their to-do lists at the moment.
Hermione: Some business people undoubtedly fit your profile. The vast majority, however, do not. They are not 19th Century Robber Baron cartoon figures nor are they Mike Douglas Wall Street types. I have worked with hundreds of executives of large companies and, for the most part, they are pretty normal folks. Bill Gates has given Rotary 100s of millions to eradicate polio. He is actually a pretty nice guy, though he does not suffer fools. Business people are no more or less self interested than teachers or university professors. Philanthropic data clearly indicates that as a group they are more generous to charities as a % of their incomes than their critics.
Moreover what exactly does treating something like a business actually mean? Do you mean that they identify problems, size them, develop practical, cost-effective solutions and make sure those solutions get implemented in a way that actually solves the problem? So what precisely is wrong with that?
Bernie are you saying that Pierson is one of these benevolent, public welfare, solution oriented, for the good of the many, type corporations? I have no beef with business as long as you face the reality that profit IS the motivation at the level of their prime directive. Everything they create flows from the notion of servicing a market for the benefit of their shareholders, not their consumers. Sometimes that mean creating a quality product but “for a profit”. It is the role of government regulation to make sure that for a profit does not harm the consumer. In many cases the government regulators are now the very corporations that produce the product. It is our duty, our obligation to hold government, and corporations accountable for the creation of products like “tests” . You seem to represent that the good intentions are sufficient and that Gates is a good guy. He may well be but this column seeks to hold their feet to the fire and that’s why you MUST follow the money.
“The book Shock Doctrine argues that the free market policies of Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman have risen to prominence because of a deliberate strategy of certain leaders and business interests to exploit crises by pushing through controversial, exploitative policies while citizens are too busy emotionally and physically reeling from disasters or upheavals to create an effective resistance. It is implied that some man-made crises, may be created with the intention of pushing through these unpopular reforms in their wake.”
Our Failing Education System…..? Our Failing Teachers, Unions?
Buying into these notions creates an OPPORTUNITY, not a conspiracy. Don’t you remember when smoking was healthy?
My book disproves the reform narrative of failure with facts and graphs from US Department of Education website. Our schools are NOT failing. Our leaders are. Federal policy is. Let’s pin failure where it belongs.
Diane:
When is your book being released.
September 17….you can pre-order today!