A widely
distributed AP story claimed that parents favor
high-stakes standardized testing and think that their children are
taking the right number of tests. The obvious intent of the story
was to deflate the anti-testing movement, which has been surging in
recent years (consider that almost every local school board in the
state of Texas passed a resolution opposing high-stakes testing and
the legislature, facing popular opposition to the state’s
over-reliance on testing, backed down and reduced the number of
mandated tests). In
this post, Mercedes Schneider shows how the analysts at
the AP massaged the survey questions and parent responses to get
the results they wanted. What the survey really shows is that
parents are generally very satisfied with their public school and
their child’s teachers. They turned some fairly straightforward
responses into an endorsement of high-stakes testing, by carefully
manipulating the questions and their reporting of the answers. It
is not too strong to say that the AP story is propaganda for the
corporate reform agenda. Where are the rallies of parents saying,
“Please keep testing our kids! Test them more! Fire their
teachers!” I haven’t seen any, have you?
A site to discuss education and democracy
31 Comments
Leave a comment
-
Diane Ravitch's Blog by Diane Ravitch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at dianeravitch.net.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The ASM (anti-social media) cannot be trusted on this score because they have become competitors for what used to be education dollars.
Gotta love Mercedes! No matter how crafty or convoluted, you can be sure that any shenanigans won’t be getting past her vigilant perceptions and astute analysis!
Yes, Mercedes is a treasure. What a duo: Diane Ravitch and Mercedes Schneider. Watch out Arne & friends!
You’re right: “What the survey really shows is that parents are generally very satisfied with their public school and their child’s teachers.” Is that newsworthy? NO… because it contradicts the “schools-are-failing” meme that USDOE has promoted since Terrell Bell released “A Nation at Risk”.
Thanks, Diane. When I saw the AP story on Saturday it struck me as absurd on its face, so lopsided were the numbers. It sounded cooked. Nowadays you expect tendentious, self-serving junk research from pressure groups; it’s disturbing to see that putatively objective news oreganizations aren’t immune to it.
The important part of this survey is the fact that it shows (once again) that the majority of parents are pleased with the public schools attended by their children. And these are the people, along with their friends, relatives, neighbors etc., who will keep their local school from being privatized.
The American people are not stupid.
Mercedes has done a good job pulling apart the AP report. I haven’t spent a lot of time on the results since the survey is really capturing attitudes that may or may not be informed – a point that Mercedes rightly stresses.
Among other things the survey is way too long. In overly long surveys respondents begin to chose answers that reflect the least amount of psychological effort.
The survey sample includes a surprising 20% who are in a household with at least one teacher. This may explain the aberrant finding about what to do about a bad teacher that Mercedes caught.
Responses aggregate parents of Elementary and HS students. There appears to be no separate category for MS students.
The survey was conducted outside of the school year during the summer. The earlier survey was conducted during the beginning of the school year in September. Neither strikes me as optimal.
I have not spoken to a SINGLE parent who supports these high-stakes tests. The opposition to them is extremely strong and growing.
Diagnostic testing can be quite useful, if, that is, people using the diagnostic tests are very much aware of their limitations. Formative testing is extremely useful. Summative testing, less so. High-stakes summative testing using a single instrument is just awful. The instruments tend to be unreliable and invalid for the purposes for which they are used, and teaching to the tests narrows and distorts curricula. These end-all tests become the be-all in the classroom.
People who do this much massaging of data run a great risk. If, today, someone reported poll results that said, for example, that 80% of US citizens oppose gay marriage or oppose decriminalization of marijuana, it would be clear, prima facie, that the study had been manipulated to achieve the results that its sponsors wanted because it’s clear that public opinion is running in precisely the opposite direction. The people are not idiots. Parents know that they hate the tests, their students’ teachers hate the tests, their kids hate the tests, that everyone they know hates the tests, that one ONLY finds support for them among a) those who have to toe the party line because of their jobs and b) a few pundits, politicians, educrats, plutocrats, and test makers.
Joyce Foundation = Barack Obama = school privatization = no credibility on educatoin
So TRUE. susannunes. You got it.
All you have to do is look at who sponsored it. The blogger did a great job on it and more than she really needed to do.
This is like the Cato Institute doing a “report” on Social Security. You know how it is going to turn out without even reading it.
“education”
Anecdotal evidence (my own conversations over several years with well-educated middle/upper-middle-class parents), the overwhelming majority of parents approve relying, at least in part, on student test scores to evaluate teachers, including to discharge teachers. In these conversations, I argue that high-stakes testing is 1) too unreliable to use for evaluation purposes due to variables impacting test scores that are beyond the teacher’s control, and 2) counterproductive because it has too many adverse side effects (i.e., encouraging cheating, narrowing the curriculum, discouraging teacher-teacher cooperation, and discouraging teachers from accepting assignments in low-SES schools). Usually, my arguments fall on deaf ears.
These conversations suggest — to me — that most parents do not know enough about what goes on in a classroom today (particularly a classroom in a low-SES-area school) to recognize the many variables that can impact student test scores and that the teacher cannot control. Similarly, most parents have not thought enough about high-stakes testing to recognize the adverse side effects it has on education. Unless the parent is him/herself a teacher in a low-SES-area school, the parent does not have sufficient information and has not spent sufficient time thinking about the issue of high-stakes testing to recognize its unreliability and adverse side effects.
If you would have asked me 15 years ago about high-stakes testing, I would probably have said it was a good idea. Since then, I have discussed the issue with family members and close friends who have taught in low-SES-area schools and, since my retirement a few years ago, have followed the high-stakes-testing debate on the blogs. As a result of these discussions and research, I am now strongly opposed to high-stakes testing. However, very few parents/voters (other than low-SES-area teachers) have experienced this level of exposure tot he high-stakes-testing issue.
The main culprit here — in my opinion — is the main stream media that has reported at length on high-stakes testing while devoting virtually no time to in-depth analysis of the problems inherent in high-stakes testing. The main stream media usually quote a sentence or two from a teachers union official regarding the union’s opposition to the testing without presenting or examining the union officials’ underlying arguments. The main stream media then follows the union official’s comments with responding comments from a pro-testing advocate to the effect that the union officials’ are merely trying to protect poorly-performing teachers, leaving the reader/listener with no guidance re which side of the debate has the better arguments.
A second important culprit are the elected officials — city, state, and federal — who have seized on high-stakes testing as an inexpensive and superficially reasonable solution to the problem of poor academic performance in the inner-city public schools. These elected officials are under significant pressure to “do something” about the inner-city schools and are also reluctant/unable to spend much $ on school reform. High-stakes testing is an easy solution to this political problem. So, we’re not likely to see elected officials — who have ready access to the mainstream media — out there attacking high-stakes testing.
A third culprit are union officials (and ed experts generally) who attack high-stakes testing (correctly) but fail to suggest alternative procedures for identifying/improving/discharging poorly-performing teachers. Virtually every parent/voter during his/her own school days or during his/her children’s school days came in contact with one or more teachers who appeared to be performing poorly and who continued doing so, year after year. These parents/voters will reject out-of-hand the argument that there are no poorly-performing teachers and the argument that current methods of teacher evaluation are effectively identifying/removing the poorly-performing teachers.
Bottom line: Unions and ed experts should strongly advocate for peer-review evaluation systems (like that in Montgomery County, MD — a large suburban school system outside DC — that has resulted in the discharge or resignation-in-lieu-of-review of over 500 teachers over 10 years) while continuing to attack the high-stakes testing.
Labor Lawyer:
Nicely said. It makes perfect sense to me though a peer review process is not easy to implement and maintain over a period of time. Can you recommend a write up on the Peer Review process in Montgomery County?
Here is one write up of Peer Assistance and Review. It costs less than VAM, has the confidence of teachers and administrators, and is more effective at evaluating teacher quality.
I also think peer evaluation is the best way to go and was surprised at the vigorous opposition of some of the frequent posters on here.
I do not recall “vigorous opposition”.
Linda,
I don’t get why TE keeps saying that, either. Maybe confusing peer review with merit pay? Either confused or trying to confuse others? Your guess as good as mine …
Must be merit pay..very few teachers would be against peer review. What we have now is get rid as many teachers as you can, especially the experienced veterans who make too much and ask too many questions. Doe-eyed temporary bobble heads are easier to control and more likely to follow a test prep regime.
So peers should be trusted to fire teachers, but not determine salary? Why is a salary of zero not a decision salary based on merit.
Looking through site google search to locate LG’s comments among others. Summer of 2012 if memory serves.
I’m not debating you TE..you just jump from one point to another. It’s never ending. There never was vigorous opposition…that’s all. Goodnight.
I brought up merit pay?
No that’s not what was said. Maybe you were thinking of merit pay as there never was a vigorous opposition to peer review….did you read the comment carefully?
I am just pointing out that giving fellow teachers the power to fire each other might e seen as related to the power to influence a teacher’s salary.
TE:
Peer review does make sense as a process so long as it actually leading to changes. Unfortunately, the clearest and least ambiguous indicator that it is actually working is firings of teachers who are not performing or who are unprofessional. If Peer Review is working in Montgomery County then we should see a higher rate of dismissals. Is this actually true?
On the one hand a Michael Winerip NYT article reports that 200 poor performing teachers have been removed in Montgomery County and 300 resigned rather than go through the PAR process:
In the 11 years since PAR began, the panels have voted to fire 200 teachers, and 300 more have left rather than go through the PAR process, said Jerry D. Weast, the superintendent of the Montgomery County system, which enrolls 145,000 students, one-third of them from low-income families. In the 10 years before PAR, he said, five teachers were fired. “It took three to five years to build the trust to get PAR in place,” he explained. “Teachers had to see we weren’t playing gotcha.”
There are apparently close to 10,000 teachers in Montgomery County. Dismissing 50 per year seems like progress when compared to 1 every 2 years – but is it enough to demonstrate that the process is working? I suspect not.
The other data I found suggests that whatever happened early on in terms of improving the quality of teachers is no longer happening. I am not sure who Advocates for Children and Youth are but their March 2010 newsletter indicated that in 2008-9 2 out of 9728 Montgomery County teachers were removed for incompetence. For Maryland as whole, 11 out of 55,990 were dismissed for incompetence.
Click to access Teacher_Dismissal.pdf
So I think Peer Review makes sense. But this type of evaluation system is very hard to implement and sustain. Based on this data, I see no evidence that it is in fact working. This is not to say that the PAR process has not helped teachers where it has been implemented but I would like to see more robust evidence that it is in fact working. I would be interested in more recent data.
“Either confused or trying to confuse others?”
I probably should have mentioned that those are not mutually exclusive alternatives.
Duncan is pushing the poll:
Arne Duncan @arneduncan 6h
It’s good to see parents engaging and embracing needed change. Now it’s on all of us to make it work for kids. http://wapo.st/16nQgmb
I wouldn’t worry about it.
He’s trying to drive a wedge between public school teachers and parents, because that’s useful politically, but if he read the poll he would see that parents are quite happy with public school teachers. Teachers actually poll very well, much better than politicians like Duncan.
So keep on keeping on, teachers. Parents trust local teachers far more than politicians and celebrity reformers.
Why, you can just look at the poll Duncan is pushing but didn’t bother to read!
wouldn’t it be great if some reputable polling firm polled teachers about No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, Common Core, and Arne Duncan?
“Overall, 82% of parents rate the quality of their child’s teachers as either excellent (42%) or good (40%). When asked to expand upon what makes the teacher “excellent,” the highest ranking response was “attentive to student’s needs” (35%). “General teacher performance/effectiveness” ranked among the lowest, at only 2%.”
Interesting how Duncan focuses on the wedge issue and sets this up as “parents v teachers” on testing when in fact the poll he cites says clearly that 82% of parents rate teachers much, much higher than Arne Duncan does.
He’s a political hack. Wedge issues are classic hard ball politics. Ignore the testing issue.
I’d focus on that 82% approval rating, teachers. Duncan would kill for an approval rating like that of teachers. Any political hack would 🙂
Thank you for all the tips. I left twitter love for Arne.
Keep giving us updates. I look for your posts.
Here’s one:
@arneduncan did you read the push poll? parents trust teachers more than politicians and their appointees, why lie?
http://t.co/C4SjOjJjml
In fact, a lot of reform governors are really unpopular. We’d have to poll to see if education is what’s driving their numbers down, but Bobby Jindal has been endorsed by both Michelle Rhee and Arne Duncan. The problem is, people in Louisiana don’t like Jindal much.
Reformers love Jindal, people in Louisiana not so much.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-bobby-jindal-is-still-very-unpopular-in
The same is true of Governor Corbett in PA, Snyder in MI and Scott in FL.
All free market reformers, all enthusiastic bashers of public schools and all energetic privatizers. Not so popular with citizens in their states.
Duncan is a politician. He’s playing hard ball politics by trying to drive a wedge between public school parents and public school teachers. Public school advocates should respond in kind. Reformers aren’t all that politically popular. In fact, teachers are way more popular with the public than Duncan’s boss 🙂