What should happen next in New York after the Common Core testing debacle?
I won’t share my thoughts here, which are strong, but instead share the views of an experienced educator. Jere Hochman is superintendent of the Bedford Central school district in Westchester County. This is what he concludes:
“Schools have always used standards, designed curriculum, taught kids, and assessed learning and acknowledged there is a lot of room for improvement. Still, SAT, ACT, and AP participation and scores are up as is college attendance and hundreds of thousands, millions of student success stories.
“But after the “Nation At Risk Report” in the ‘80s and other critiques going back to the late ‘90s, politicians and CEOs saw an Achilles heel that would advance their interests on the backs of kids and teachers while ignoring administrators and local school boards. Well intended efforts to “level the playing field” and “a new civil rights movement” were about as sincere as billionaires using the momentum of sincere Tea Party activists and the same billionaires converting the original Peace Corps mission of Teach for America into a business model to bust unions and segregate and oppress kids.
“Since 1999, since 2009, and since last spring, many of us have written about the attack on public education in the form of No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and the most recent New York reform measures. While trying to make them work and being supportive, protecting local norms and curriculum, and making the best of bad laws, this week the politicos and CEOs chicken little mantras came home to roost.
“So What?
“After numerous position papers, calls for cost-benefit analyses, pleas to slow down, and cries for communication; the convoluted efforts of Race to the Top became the proverbial and overused perfect storm: unproven college and career ready standards, excessive standardized testing, and a rushed teacher and principal evaluation plan. And, the storm hit this week when kids became collateral damage of tests that said, “You used to be smart – not so much now.”
“Yes, “We told you so.” We told you so when NCLB was railroaded under the shadow of 9/11. We told you so when we pointed out that RTTT was just the carrot version of the NCLB’s stick approach. We told you so when we illustrated APPR was not “building the plane while flying it” but rather a train wreck about to happen. We asked for information, explanations, test samples, and definitions. We asked for seats at the table, time, communication, and input.
“So, here we are. We hold our students to high standards and we have the data and work products to prove it. We hold ourselves to high professional standards. Maybe we needed to be hit over the head with a two-by-four to get our attention to high academic standards and meaningful professional evaluation. So, yes, you got our attention but then kept hammering away. And, all the while, you diverted funds from our schools and championed segregated, regimented, uniformed, information regurgitated charter schools.
“Now What? In order to be part of the solution that raises standards and expectations constructively, uses professional evaluation, and fair and meaningful testing, demand that the Board of Regents and Governor
“Re: CCSS and State Testing
1. Declare a one-year moratorium on State testing
2. Implement State testing only in transition grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 beginning in 2014-2015
3. Utilize transition year testing as benchmarks for student and cohort progress in multi-year clusters and review of curriculum implementation and alignment
4. Analyze 2013 tests and result for validity, reliability, and grade level match
5. Provide opportunities for teachers and principals to analyze all test questions, results, and standards for alignment and gaps
6. Utilize 2013-2014 to field test common core standards aligned state tests
7. Provide an extensive comment period reviewing PARCC assessments and other testing options
Re: APPR
1. Declare a one-year moratorium on the 40% tested subject and local assessments component of APPR
2. Utilize 2013-2014 to concentrate on rubric application confidence and inter-rater reliability
3. Utilize 2013-2014 for school districts and BOCES regions to field test local assessments
4. Provide irrefutable evidence for the use of Value-added measures or declare the application ceased
Re: RTTT, CCSS, State Testing, APPR, and State Reform Efforts
1. Report a complete expenditure review of RTTT funds
2. Provide a cost-benefit analysis of all components of CCSS, APPR, and state testing
3. Provide irrefutable evidence of privacy assurances on all aspects of data collection
4. Develop a revised timeline leading to 2014-2015 implementation with bi-weekly communications to the field
=

I think the key is “provide irrefutable evidence”.
LikeLike
Now that “education reform” is hitting the suburbs, those of us who have been fighting privatization and abuse of high stakes testing in urban systems are getting some help.
LikeLike
You are right Patrick. We in the suburbs should hang our heads in shame for not jumping in sooner. But now ts the opportunity for powerful alliances and to never forget.
LikeLike
“Value Added” measurements are “Fuzzy-Math!” We need a moratorium on all State (especially CCSS) testing. It is time to review the last ten years of results, see what has happened, revisit if possible the children who are stuck in the middle of all this, past students and present, and see if anything “Standardized” test related has proven of value. This has been a major waste of time, taxpayer dollars, and student education.
LikeLike
In San Diego, several schools that serve low-income students have implemented the IB (International Baccalaureate) program. Instead of the Common Core, why not use a program such as IB that has been recognized internationally for 40 years? Unlike the Common Core, IB has a proven track record of providing students with skills that will make them “college ready”. That is why colleges, not only in the United States, but internationally, accept IB credits. That is why high schools throughout the word (including Finland) have implemented the IB program. If the concerns are that our students are not competitive internationally as evidenced by scores on the PISA and the TIMSS and that they are not college ready, why not implement a program that is internationally recognized and has decades long track record of doing both? This should be available for all students, including those that come from low-income urban backgrounds.
Please note that I am not a salesperson for IB, nor do I think that it is perfect, but my own children were able to take IB courses at our local public school and I do think that it provided them with skills that helped them to be successful in college.
Below is a link to an article regarding the aforementioned schools in San Diego. Unfortunately, it seems that budget cuts may cause some of these schools to lose the IB program despite the fact that their students have seen significant academic gains during the time that IB has been implemented. Can IB really be more expensive than Common Core/PARCC mandated computer testing?
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/may/09/budget-cuts-could-drive-successful-program-out-san/
LikeLike
hrh88:
Bravo, another constructive alternative with potential data and evidence of whether it makes a difference or not.
LikeLike
Spot on, Patrick.
Here in Texas, some districts want to opt out of yearly testing because their kids always score well.
That’s not okay with me because it leaves the poor kids being thrown to the wolves.
I hope suburban NY parents do what’s right for all the kids and not just their own (as they have been doing).
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
Wait till the 2015 tests are given and the results will be horrendous! School districts KNOW this, have NO curriculum to avoid the debacle and the teachers, once again, will be the evil doers who are the reason for the rot! I feel this will be the final coup de tate to public schools…this country doesn’t deserve the dedication and sacrifice of teachers! They’d rather JEER than CHEER us!
LikeLike
The corporate reformers are pulling the strings in NY education. I predict that next year the scores will improve (either through easier questions or different cut scores which they control). The reformers will shout how great we are doing, heading in the right direction, we just need to put more money into their corporate reform and everyone will be college ready at least for the charter school graduate programs!
LikeLike
Maybe, but the reformers have been widely and severely discredited by this latest overstep.
The tests have been proven to be meaningless and taxpayers are not going to want to keep paying for them.
LikeLike
Can you point to where the tests have been proved meaningless? I agree that the reporting of the results appears to be grossly flawed. You need to do an item analysis before you can say that the results are meaningless. Dr Hochman’s recommendations do not involve the automatic rejection of the tests though that might be the outcome if his steps are followed.
LikeLike
Bernie, the scoring of the tests was arbitrary. Many posts in the past week have demonstrated how the cut scores were devised. When a child is told that he failed, even though he is a good reader and is doing well in math, then the scores are meaningless. They have lied to us before and they are lying to us now.
LikeLike
Diane:
I have no idea how anyone can evaluate the cut scores until they look at the actual items and do the item analysis. It is fair enough to call the cut scores arbitrary – by definition cut scores always are arbitrary – and, therefore, the published test results as problematic, but that is not the same thing as saying the tests are meaningless. This was the pointed I raised when I first started commenting last week and why Peter’s and Jere’s points are very important.
LikeLike
Bernie, maybe you can persuade John King to release the questions and the answers and allow independent researchers to do an item analysis. For tests to be useful for students and teachers, the questions, answers, and analyses of items should be released. The NYSED has not released them.
As I have written, any test failed by 70% of the children was written poorly or designed to fail 70%. Testmakers know in advance by their own analyses how items “perform.” They know which are easy, which are moderate in challenge, and which are above the students’ capacity to answer. Pearson designed tests that they knew were too hard for students in each grade. John King chose cut scores that he knew would produce massive failure.
What part of this do you not understand?
LikeLike
I even had to contact Pearson about practice questions on their math program. Some were written poorly, some confusing, some wrong. Yet we trust them to design an instrument to evaluate both students and teachers.
LikeLike
deb:
I just tried to access the questions but it wouldn’t work with the #1 browser in use!!! This is not good!!! It certainly raises questions about their competence. But it is truly a separate issue from the appropriateness of the test items. See the example I described to Diane.
LikeLike
Separate but parallel. I am speaking to their ability or inability to adequately create appropriate questions.
LikeLike
Do you have any of the practice questions that you can share? Have the practice questions been compiled and analyzed anywhere?
LikeLike
I would if I could. I don’t have access since I retired. The kinds of “question problems” were often due to poor wording or ambiguous answers. Sometimes it was difficult to know what mouse movement was needed to complete the answer.
LikeLike
Diane:
I understand what you are saying. But I have looked at sample questions and, presumably, distributions of answers. What you define as a choice to choose questions that few children answer correctly does not address the issue of whether or not they should be able to answer the questions correctly. You may of course be correct and the whole thing was a put up job – but we need evidence to support that conclusion.
Here is an example from the 8th Grade NAEP where the results surprised me and I think put the question in the range of your “poor” questions.
:
The circular spinner shown below is divided into 6 congruent sectors. The sectors are yellow or blue.
The test apparently includes an image of 6 equal segments with a box in each segment that can be labeled Y or B
Label each of the sectors either yellow (Y) or blue (B) so that the probability of spinning the arrow once and landing on yellow is 1/3
Is this a fair question? What % of 8th graders should correctly answer this question?
Responses to the question:
Percentage of eighth-grade students in each response category: 2011
Correct Incorrect Omitted
52 46 2
Is it still a fair question? What additional information on student responses do you need in order to understand what led to incorrect answers?
I would need to see the items and answers before I made any judgment as to whether the test was reasonable or not.
LikeLike
Bernie, as I have repeatedly explained, NAEP standards are far higher than those of any state. Proficient on NAEP means superior academic achievement. Should we fail all B and C students?
LikeLike
Diane:
I am not talking about NAEP standards, I am simply arguing that you need to look at specific questions and the responses thereto in order to determine whether the items are appropriate and well designed items or not. Should basic probability be part of the 8th Grade Math curriculum? If so, does this question capture the type of reasoning 8th Graders need to master? Are there unnecessary ambiguities in the way the question is framed?
I have already agreed that having tests with high cut off scores can lead to problematic outcomes.
LikeLike
The problem is they’ve already committed a lot to this test and future testing. That the law mandates that they begin to use testing to hire and fire teachers ensures that no matter how unpalatable, these tests will hurt students and teachers.
I’m not sure the general public is paying as close attention to this as we are and is being subdued by the NY FAILED headlines.
If we don’t get them to backtrack and backtrack now before the school year starts (and that seems unlikely as they’ve spent so much time telling us how this is all growing pains) – then we are going to be stuck with a flawed evaluation system based on flawed testing and the inevitable result will be the mass firings of teachers.
How in the world would you replace more than half of our teachers if so many are failing?
LikeLike
“Now What? In order to be part of the solution that raises standards and expectations constructively, uses professional evaluation, and fair and meaningful testing, demand that the Board of Regents and Governor”
I am confused – we, the parents, should demand? How is that going to work? They don’t listen to a word we or teachers say. What needs to happen is parents must refuse to take part in the demise of the public school system by opting their children out of these detrimental tests. In fact, we don’t have to wait till next spring to take actions. As has been mentioned on this blog, parents should send back their children’s test scores marked INVALID. Imagine the scene at the post office in Albany.
By the way, is anyone else bothered by the fact that NYSED informs us that 70% of our children across NYC “failed” yet won’t let us know if our kid is one of the lucky few who actually “passed” until the end of the month. It’s an outrageous, disrespectful way to be treated and yet another good reason to send back the invalid scores!
The time for action has come.
LikeLike
All you can do is vote out the school board, the governor, the state reps–anyone who gets money from the testers and the reformers.
LikeLike
Voting takes too long. The only way to “fix” this is a nationwide movement by parents and teachers to boycott attendance or to find a way to petition all state governments on the same day. This is too important to wait for election day.
LikeLike
In our New York suburban school district, our Board of Education (school board) are elected volunteers. They are local community members who donate their time. They do not receive money from testers or reformers and they do not receive any financial compensation whatsoever.
Our Board of Education recently passed a resolution calling on Governor Cuomo, Commissioner King, The State Legislature and the Board of Regents to re-examine the imposition and effectiveness of high stakes testing as well as the implementation of PARCC. Many other BOEs in our area have done they same. Our Board of Ed is not the problem. While I will certainly evaluate all candidates when they stand for election, I would not automatically vote against any of the current board members because of the recent testing debacle.
LikeLike
I should add that I do hold the Governor and the state reps responsible for appointing the people who created this mess, i.e. the Regents who appointed NY State Education Commissioner King. None of them have sufficient educational credentials to get a job as a vice principal in our school district much less create and implement educational policy for New York’s public schools. I intend to demonstrate my displeasure at the ballot box during the next election.
LikeLike
Well, in Ohio, we used to have tests in 3,5,8, and 10. But in order to make ALL teachers vulnerable to evaluation based on test scores, they expanded the testing. There will be testing in all grades and they are devising ways to keep music, art, phys ed, and other subject teachers “accountable”, too. After all, who wants to teach in a grade level where you are in danger of losing your job based on the events of two days of test administration? We are not an urban district, but a suburban/rural district.
LikeLike
This plan looks great, provided your school or district doesn’t need any Title I money. Since Federal funding comprises about 15% of the NYC DOE’s operating budget, I doubt they’ll want to participate in a testing moratorium.
LikeLike
People across the nation need to both support the hero superintendents, principals and teachers of New York as well as New York students and parents AND do everything possible to keep this form happening in their city and state. This could happen in any of our backyards if we are not careful about who we vote into office at any level.
LikeLike
The difference in the suburbs, where there aren’t necessarily any options for private or charter schools, the use of the AYP on tests to create threats and terror in the lives of the teachers. This reaches much further than the charter/private school problem. Students are still made to feel inadequate. Districts can go into state takeover for not meeting the goals. It is just pervasive and invasive.
LikeLike
Love the message right up to the action items at the end. Completely disappointing. “In order to be part of the solution”? Bah. It’s back to the old make nice, be constructive education-speak. A one-year moratorium? Ridiculous. Demand a stop this crap now of on no other grounds that it is child abuse. “Analyze, utilize, declare, provide ….”? Patty-cake, patty-cake. It is time to take bold action and stand up to these charlatans. These wimpy “recommendations” are yet another sad, frustrating example of why education has been overrun by politicians, billionaires, and hucksters looking to make a big bucks, a name for themselves, or both.
LikeLike
I truly don’t believe these reformers are interested in a truthful dialogue anymore. Any argument should be started with the premise that one party has the ability to change the mind of the other – in these cases – money and power talks and BS walks.
Any dialogue serves as a diversionary tactic to show they are compassionately listening, understanding, and rejecting good educational practice as rational human beings.
I think their own self interest either blinds them to this, or they make calculated decisions to ignore them.
Part of the run-up with “easy” standardized tests was to pacify parents in the suburbs into believing it was only the urban schools with problems. Now, that they think people have accepted standardized tests as valid, they are going after the suburbs. Once one market is saturated, you expand to another.
Sickening – I don’t think dialogue is constructive anymore – these people need to be taken down through votes and “we’re not gonna take it anymore” displays.
Right now education has very little other than the best children’s interests to push the public education agenda (and they claim that mantle too). They have a huge marketing machine, millions of dollars in grants, and a bought-off grassroots campaign a la Parent Revolution to show that “it’s not coming from them”.
Each display that shows that people understand the issues, and that they do not like businesses pulling the strings of public education will move the needle back a tiny bit…but right now we have to have our own organization (a la BTA) to organize, push back, and get the real deal out that these people are using children as walking checkbooks.
LikeLike
I get your response and welcome suggestions of what bold action might work.
There have been marches in Washington and in Albany – and Chicago and other cities. There have been calls for resignations. There is very public criticism in all the right newspapers pressing for change in DC and State government efforts on education. There are truth squads that have critiqued the “waiting for superman” mantras. Parent advocacy groups are popping up everywhere. There have been countless confrontations with the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Chancellor and others. State legislators have sat for hours learning of the plans and the implications. The Board of Regents is well aware of what is going on.
A handful of parents have had their kids opt out of testing which actually makes the child doing the adult work of being different and taking on the cause of the adults.
Bold action? School districts not administering the tests is one option at the risk of losing all State funding and other penalties.
There has always been standardized testing – just not annually and such high-stakes. Whether the CCSS are the right ones or not, there have always been standards for curriculum and for teaching.
What is different now is this is reform on steroids and all the wrong approaches in all the wrong places. That message is being sent loud and clear – mostly on deaf ears (but not completely).
But, they (DC and states) expect to hear from educators, from unions, self-proclaimed experts claiming to be superman and the corporate lobbyists (and guess who they listen to)Maybe more people need to contact their legislators and Regent and asked “What did the State spend $700,000,000 on?” Ask if there has been a cost-benefit analysis of that. Any return on the investment that is raising the bar for all kids? Ask for data that show that Charter schools are working beyond fewer discipline problems and good attendance.
So, yes, the wimpy diplomacy and educate the decision makers route is on my “now what” list. And, there are many experts providing that information (see many of the posts by Carol Burris and others) that the State folks have actually read. The State finally “got it” that the value added measures approach is not ready for prime time and it may never be. They have (finally) released some (not all like other states) of the test questions so teacher can do what teachers are supposed to do, analyze results.
So, maybe some of the bolder actions like the marches in Albany and the stinging posts and editorials and others in place will make a difference – at least it keeps the pressure on. At the same time, there ought to be some balance, common sense, and educationally sound practice as intended outcomes, too.
LikeLike
I think it worthwhile to point at something I wrote for Valerie Strauss almost three years ago. It is titled Too many curricular aims creates assessment problems. I think it is something increasingly relevant, because so few of the people pushing the high stakes use of testing understand that testing is a sampling that contains all kinds of measurement errors, just as polling does.
LikeLike
Jere:
The informed voice of reason. I love it. We only differ significantly on the efficacy of CBA before a major system change has been fully implemented.
One question. I recognize the value of a powerful PR slogan such as “High Stakes Testing”, but exactly what is at stake and for whom. It seems to me that it is the teachers who have the high stakes not the students.
LikeLike
Bernie, I think the “high stakes” for students is not as explicit as it is for teachers, but high stakes just the same. The stakes for students with disabilities and students in low income districts, where issues of poverty play a huge role in a child’s school readiness and support from home, is significant. More often than not these students come to class already leaden with low self esteem and social struggles due to institutionalized racism that the results of the test, in their mind and in their parent’s mind, perpetuates self doubt. So these tests are more than high stakes for teachers. They are devastating to the students and their families. Furthermore, districts that struggle with making the “grade” end up becoming focused schools. The money and time that is spent fulfilling the state edicts regarding being a focused school is insane. The school, teachers, administrators, and students are demoralized, even if the cause for the low scores was due to an inequality in distribution of SWD’s.
LikeLike
Peggy:
First many thanks for your constructive response.
I agree that summary judgments of capabilities and skills of students can be problematic. That would argue for using valid and reliable tests largely as diagnostics. Do you agree? It seems to me to be merely a matter of modifying the reporting to change this aspect of the tests are far as releasing the results to students, parents and their relevant teachers. The reporting to these groups could simply eliminate any summary ratings. Would this change your perception of these tests – assuming they are valid – as high stakes for students?
That leaves open the issue of using summary measures based on these tests as part of the evaluation of classroom teachers and building principals. Obviously such metrics or the change in such metrics should not be the dominant measure of teacher effectiveness: what weight, if any, should be given to them. At what weight would they no longer constitute high stakes tests but moderate stakes tests?
LikeLike
“using valid and reliable tests largely as diagnostics…..simply eliminate any summary ratings. Would this change your perception of these tests – assuming they are valid – as high stakes for students?”
Parents won’t go for no summary rating. All parents want to know how their child did compared to others. The nature of the beast…
Valid? It depends if the tests themselves were valid. These tests, in my opinion, were not. First, teachers have not had the time to properly prepare themselves, let alone students, for a more intense focus on text based answers in writing. Second, students have not had enough time to navigate more complicated texts than previously given. Third, the rushed timing of the test, which did not allow the teacher to help the students pace themselves, (9 year olds I’m saying) is unacceptable. Lastly, the cut scores have to be commensurate to what NAEP deems “basic”, or on grade level.
“…what weight would they no longer constitute high stakes tests but moderate stakes tests?”
I take issue with the fact that they have any weight at all! LOL. My district decided to give the students a different test to use as the other 20% for the total of my 40%. It was insane what they did. They used the NY State sample test as their assessment. So in reality, the students had two difficult Common Core exams to pass in order for me to get an effective rating. Doesn’t seem quite fair when you look at the fact that only 25% of my class came to me close to or on grade level. I received a 59 ½ % with the 60% weight, but that won’t hold me at effective if I receive a developing in the other two 20% ratings. In my impoverished district, I highly doubt I will receive effective on the VAM of the 20% state exam. Do you? I had 31% of my class pass. I was shocked, but they did. I worked hard and it showed. However, it seems to me that the same old saying stands true. Those teachers in middle class districts will be effective and those in impoverished districts won’t. “Therefore, those who teach in impoverished districts are bad teachers.” Not true.
Also, it’s not just the weight of the state’s 20% that is an issue, it is also the weight of the other 20% that comes from the local districts that is a problem, depending on the district in which you teach. You see?
There is one more issue I have. That is with the Common Core. AS I have been preparing to teach the NY State modules this year, I have noticed a great flaw. I doubt I will have any time for my students to engage in self selected reading of their choice or to work very often in small book groups. For a nine year old, who is a reluctant reader, this is a travesty. We need to first and foremost “hook” a child into reading. Stringent teacher selected reading is not the way to do this. Just an added two sense from me.
Thanks Bernie! Sorry for my long winded response.
LikeLike
Jere,
BTW I too enjoyed your sound comments. I Agree with it all.
LikeLike
Diane, I’ve never posted before but want to begin by letting you know that you’re a great resource. I’m a fed-up parent of a NYC middle-school student. In the course of casting around for tactics to fight this madness, I remembered a great short story by Ursula K. LeGuin, “She Unnames Them,” which deals with human conceit (in this instance, the conceit of naming the animals) and begins: “Most of them accepted namelessness with the perfect indifference with which they had so long accepted and ignored their names.”
I’ve made the following modification: “Most of them accepted low standardized test scores with the perfect indifference with which they had so long accepted and ignored high standardized test scores.”
LikeLike
Thank you. Welcome to our community. Everyone here is passionate about education and kids.
LikeLike
“Report a complete expenditure review of RTTT funds”
This is a really important piece. I think if people knew that none of this money is going into classrooms they would be furious. How much have they spent on teacher assessment models by now? I cannot imagine.
LikeLike
Danielson is laughing (and complaining about the misuse of her system) all the way to the bank.
LikeLike
I can tell you where the money goes; Not to the kids! All the money goes to advisers and data collection to satisfy state requirements to prove that you are doing what you are supposed to do. Teachers spend endless hours collecting and organizing data only to show the state that they are collecting data. Districts have to hire people to manage data collection. Districts are spending millions on new CCLS curriculum materials, which have not been tested. In the past ten years I have changed curriculum materials in math three times! The amount of paper work required by RTTT is unfathomable. I could go on and on…..
LikeLike
I applaud Dr Hochman’s approach to the situation he is confronted with. He suggests the following very reasonable steps – my thoughts for what they are worth are in italics :
***********************************************
“Now What? In order to be part of the solution that raises standards and expectations constructively, uses professional evaluation, and fair and meaningful testing, demand that the Board of Regents and Governor
“Re: CCSS and State Testing
1. Declare a one-year moratorium on State testing Seems very reasonable given the massive screw up to date.
2. Implement State testing only in transition grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 beginning in 2014-2015 I am a big fan of incrementalism when it comes to massive experimentation.
3. Utilize transition year testing as benchmarks for student and cohort progress in multi-year clusters and review of curriculum implementation and alignment This sounds right, but I am not sure operationally what this means.
4. Analyze 2013 tests and result for validity, reliability, and grade level match Absolutely. I assume plans are already in place for this. If not, Pearson or whoever is developing the tests should forfeit their contract and pay damages.
5. Provide opportunities for teachers and principals to analyze all test questions, results, and standards for alignment and gaps Absolutely. This goes to the item analysis point raised by Peter.
6. Utilize 2013-2014 to field test common core standards aligned state tests This sounds right, but I am not sure operationally what this means.
7. Provide an extensive comment period reviewing PARCC assessments and other testing options OK, but this should not stop moving ahead on #2. No delaying tactics should be acceptable.
Re: APPR I am not sure what APPR actually refers to. Can someone briefly explain?
Re: RTTT, CCSS, State Testing, APPR, and State Reform Efforts
1. Report a complete expenditure review of RTTT funds Transparency should not be an issue.
2. Provide a cost-benefit analysis of all components of CCSS, APPR, and state testing In principle this makes sense, but you can only do a meaningful CBA when you have actually implemented something on sufficient scale and for a sufficient period of time that you can measure real costs and benefits. Otherwise it is simply a political exercise.
3. Provide irrefutable evidence of privacy assurances on all aspects of data collection There should be no compromise on this, recognizing that those involved in classroom activities will need to see the data to address individual student needs.
4. Develop a revised timeline leading to 2014-2015 implementation with bi-weekly communications to the field I would probably switch to monthly and make progress against the timeline very public.
=
LikeLike
APPR = Annual Personnel Performance Review (though I might be off on the first “P”) – it’s shorthand for the evaluation system that judges teachers by multiple measures including 40% being test scores.
LikeLike
Thanks M
LikeLike
OMG. New York City, we have a candidate.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2013/08/8532815/quinnipiac-poll-de-blasio-moves-weiner-falls-down
What now? Let’s see, what has DeBlasio been going around saying to bring about a “populist upsurge? Keep the charter cap, build up the resources of community schools to serve all New York City’s children.
LikeLike
Beautifully articulated! 🙂
LikeLike
so will Andrew Cuomo listen to an experienced educator like Jere Hochman, or continue to listen to someone totally unqualified for his position like John King? Want to take any bets?
LikeLike
As there are a few references to Andrew Cuomo, let me clarify the chain of command here in NY. Commissioner King is appointed by the Board of Regents. Merryl Tisch is currently the Chancellor of the Regents. The Regents are appointed by the State Assembly. So if you are in NY and unhappy with educational policy, talk to your Assembly member.
LikeLike
Thank you for clarifying this. I asked this question regarding accountability on another of Diane’s posts. According to the New York State Department of Education website, “About the Board of Regents”,
“The Board comprises 17 members elected by the State Legislature for 5 year terms: 1 from each of the State’s 13 judicial districts and 4 members who serve at large.”
“…elected by the State Legislature…” Are they elected or appointed? And if they are elected, what is the process whereby they are elected? This seems murky and confusing. As a Long Island resident, what input do I have for the “election” of the Regent who represents Long Island, Roger Tilles? For the record, Regent Tilles has publically expressed concern over the way that the CC standards are being implemented; however, he claims that there is little that he can do because he is outnumbered and outvoted by his Regents colleagues who represent New York City.
Neither the Regents nor Commissioner John King have any motivation whatsoever to listen to the concerns of the people whom they supposedly serve. The only way that they can be held accountable is if the people who appointed/elected them start losing elections.
LikeLike