Liz Rosenberg, New York City public school parent, has a
new idea about her daughter’s test scores: she ignores them. This
is what she wrote: Refusing our Daughter’s Test Scores Earlier this
month, New York state made headlines when it revealed how poorly
schools and districts had fared on the state’s new Common
Core-aligned standardized tests. Beginning August 26, families of
the roughly 400,000 New York City public school pupils who took the
tests can log into ARIS (the system that stores student records) to
see their children’s ELA and math scores. My partner and I,
however, have decided that we will not be joining our fellow
parents in this endeavor. Instead, we are sending our school a
letter asking that they not share this year’s scores with our
daughter nor send them home via backpack or snail mail. Why? In
order to trust the reliability of this year’s scores, we would need
to believe that the tests are valid instruments that can accurately
measure what our daughter knows and is able to do. But how can
we–or educational experts, for that matter–assess the tests when
we can’t even see them? When New York signed a contract allowing
Pearson LLC, the producer of the tests, to keep the actual tests
private, it enabled the for-profit testing behemoth to shield
itself from scrutiny–and to dominate the lucrative test-prep
market. Since only small fragments of the tests are being made
public, the only other state-condoned resource that we have to go
by are the curricula the state has purchased and posted online
(produced by Core Knowledge and Expeditionary Learning). Looking at
a series of lessons that focus on frogs, we find a text called
“Everything You Need to Know about Frogs and Other Slippery
Creatures (DK Publishing). Who wouldn’t want third graders to read
a book by this title? But reading a book in class with your teacher
is quite different than testing students on their ability to
analyze a particular text. Everything You Need to Know about Frogs
and Other Slippery Creatures has a Lexile score of 1040 (Lexile is
a well regarded system for mapping the complexity of texts), which
puts it in the 6-8th grade range of text complexity. The Lexile
“analyzer” predicts that an average 3rd grade reader will
comprehend 50% of this text. Assessing students using texts that
are 3-5 years above their grade level does not help teachers or
parents learn much of anything about what those students know and
are able to do. Many high profile ed reform advocates, like Arne
Duncan, have voiced their support of NY state Education
Commissioner John King’s choice to set the bar for proficiency on
the tests so high. “I think the only way you improve is to tell the
truth, and sometimes that’s a brutal truth….,” he commented.*
Aside from “telling the brutal truth,” is there something else to
be gained politically from King’s choice? Perhaps he (and by
extension, his boss, Governor Andrew Cuomo) want to use low
proficiency rates to justify some of the reforms they have put in
place. The more “trouble” our schools are in, the more we need the
state or city to move to fix them. The fixes range from assessment
driven “personalized learning environments” (part of the national
Race to the Top applications for this year) or commercially
produced curricula to closing district schools, opening more
charters, and placing more schools on the turnaround list. They
also include expanding standardized testing to even our youngest
students–those in kindergarten through 2nd grade. As money and
personnel are diverted to these “reforms,” the byproducts are
larger class sizes; curricula that have no ties to schools,
students, or communities; an exodus of talented teachers frustrated
by their loss of autonomy; a stronger argument for charter schools,
and a weakened union. Given all of this, the state has not given us
any reason to trust the scores our daughter (or anyone’s daughter
or son) received this year. So like Michelle Rhee, President Obama,
Commissioner King and federal Department of Education Secretary
Arne Duncan–all of whom send their children to private schools–my
partner and I will have to rely on factors other than the state’s
standardized test scores to evaluate our child’s learning and
progress towards the standards. Our faith will lie with our school,
our daughter’s teachers, and with our own ability to assess her
learning in relationship to the standards. For other parents who
question the content, methodology, and uses of NY State’s 3rd-8th
grade tests, please consider refusing the scores with us. Our hope
is that this action will not only be the best choice for our
family, but that it will help spur a conversation about these
issues among parents/guardians around the city and state.
*http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/schoolbook/2013/aug/06/lower-scores-expected-duncan-backs-ny-new-state-tests/
Liz Rosenberg is a co-founder of NYCpublic.org, an organization
that is creating more opportunities for public school parents to
learn, organize, and take action — together. She lives in Brooklyn
with her partner, Sue Schaffner and their two children.
What do you think about Los Angeles spending $1 billion on
iPads, money taken from school construction bonds approved by
voters for……school construction. The iPads will be obsolete in
3-4 years. The bonds won’t be paid off for 25 years. Really
disturbing, but here is a hopeful comment, suggesting that there is
some oversight: “●●smf responds: I am a member of that selfsame
bond oversight committee and I voted to approve this iPad for
Everyone deal as a pilot at some 30 plus schools. Only that and
nothing more. “Notwithstanding grandstanding from he
superintendent’s office nothing further has been approved by
anyone. The Apple contract purchases iPads for every student ONLY
IF AND WHEN the Bond Oversight Committee and Board of Education
approves Phases Two and Three. There is is no autopilot. “Your
concerns for your students at your school are our concerns. We on
the bond committee cannot by law buy your school new library books
or arts or choral music programs. Deputy Superintendent Aquino may
wax poetic about how the iPads will give your school art and music
programs; like all good salespeople he believes it what he’s
selling. But I don’t buy that balderdash than any more than you do.
“Our kids don’t need arts applications, they need Arts Teachers.
“We don’t need music apps or dance apps or drama apps – we need
Dance Teachers and Music Teachers and Drama Teachers. We need
Teacher Librarians in secondary and Elementary Librarians in in the
early grades. “And Health Teachers and Nurses and
Counselors.”
Are there large classes in Los Angeles Unified School
District? Some commenters say yes, some say no. The average for the
district does not answer the question, because students with
special needs may be in a class of 5 or have a teacher assigned
only to her because of the severity of her disability.
The LAUSD board recently passed a resolution directing Superintendent John
Deasy to reduce class size, but
he said on a radio program that he would ignore the
directive. Instead, he is buying iPads for all students and
spending more money on Common Core. Apparently the $1 billion
produced by Prop 30 will be used for Common Core, not for class
size reduction.
What do teachers and parents say? Here is a comment
by a parent who is also a teacher: My son’s sixth grade
academic classes at Hale Charter Academy (an affiliated LAUSD
charter) have 44 students in them. Yes, I said 44. In math,
English, social studies, and science. He is in the School for
Advanced Studies and the school does not turn away any qualified
SAS students. I am not arguing with their policy, because they are
doing the best they can. But that class size is RIDICULOUS! He is
not allowed to bring his backpack to classes because there is not
enough room. I also would like to see
statistics at the individual class level, because so many factors
mask these large class sizes. For example, we have at least six
certificated teachers who are out of classroom. A Title I
coordinator, two discipline deans who are elected from the staff, a
bilingual coordinator, a college counselor, a career counselor and
now, a “Core” math coach (Common Core? I haven’t found out yet).
Though most of these people do not teach at all (I think one of
them teaches one class) they are still counted in our student to
teacher ratios, which makes class sizes look small.
Another extenuating factor is that we have small learning
communities, and that creates some smaller classes. That means
other classes have to be bigger. We are
co-located with a great magnet program. Magnets have a “norm” of 34
to 1, while the rest of us have 42.5-1. So the magnet hired a
teacher this year, while we lost one, and our class sizes are
already huge. Administrators have to make very
difficult decisions, but there should be an actual cap on
individual class sizes. Teachers who speak out are not popular on
campus. The governor’s budget, I believe, does away completely with
any class size mandates, leaving that to “local control.” Trust me,
that can and will be abused. Do you want YOUR kid in classes with
40-50 students, and more? None of us do. I,
too, would like to see some real numbers on class size. And I don’t
think we will get that from LAUSD or the UTLA. So I think there
needs to be a place where teachers can post their actual,
individual class sizes. I had a journalism
class with 55 students last year and complained to no avail. It’s
even worse with electives…they can have 55 students, according to
my school. And they often do.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo called for the “death penalty” for failing schools recently, setting off a war of words between those who believe in closing struggling schools and those who want to kill them and fire the staff.
Bruce Baker takes a different view. Here he demonstrates that Néw York has a funding system that is unfair to the schools with the neediest students.
Instead of vilifying teachers and principals and pretending to advocate for the children and families, Cuomo should look at where the money goes. It is not going to the kids who need it most.
Baker writes:
“Put simply, what the New York public should NOT tolerate, is a Governor and Legislature who refuse to provide sufficient resources to high need schools and then turn around and blame the schools and communities for their own failures. (all the while, protecting billions of dollars in separate aid programs that drive funds to wealth districts).”
I often receive questions, on and off the blog, about
virtual charter schools. This post will summarize the key things
that you need to know to be an informed consumer. Begin with the
politics and money promoting virtual charter schools. Colin Woodard
won the prestigious George Polk award last year
for this expose of the effort to bring virtual charter
schools to Maine. It is a stunning piece of investigative
reporting. Virtual charters have a terrible track record. They have
a high attrition rate, low test scores, and low graduation rates.
Their one positive feature is that they make a lot of money for
investors. This is
what the National Education Policy Center wrote about
virtual charters. This is what CREDO
found about the performance of virtual charters in
Pennsylvania, the state that has more of them than any other. This
is what the
New York Times wrote about K12, the biggest of the
virtual charter corporations. This is what
the Washington Post wrote about virtual charters. This is
the
post I wrote about a statement called “Digital Learning
Now!” written by a group led by Jeb Bush and Bob Wise to promote
the expansion of virtual charters without any regulation. The post
contains a link to the statement. Campaign contributions and
lobbying have allowed the cyber charters to expand without adequate
regulation and supervision of their quality or financing. The head
of the nation’s largest cyber charter school, Nicholas
Trombetta, was indicted only days ago by federal
prosecutors, charged on 11 tax and fraud violations and accused of
stealing nearly $1 million. In the future, if your state
superintendent or governor or legislators want to bring virtual
charters to your state, send them copies of these reviews. Be aware
that some may be pushing virtual charters because they want to cut
costs by replacing teachers with computers or because they received
campaign contributions from the individual corporations that stand
to benefit. And do not forget that the money that the virtual
charters receive is taken away from public schools across the
state. This money is then used for advertising, recruitment of new
students, and paying off investors.
Dr. Stephen Mucher is an assistant professor of history and
education at Bard College. In
this public radio interview, he explains the original
(and still valid!) purpose of teacher evaluation.
Professors visited classrooms not to grade teachers, but to learn about
instruction and how to improve it. It was a mutual endeavor,
intended to help, not to destroy and punish and fire. History has
much to teach us, if only we are willing to learn.
Here is my take, not Mucher’s:
The current era of teacher evaluation can be traced
to the social efficiency movement that began with the work of
Frederick Winslow Taylor. His time-and-motion studies emphasized
the importance of measuring the worker’s output and challenging all
workers to meet the same metric. In the 1920s, efficiency experts
took a leading role in the field of curriculum and instruction. Men
like John Franklin Bobbitt and W.W. Charters devised elaborate
checklists to measure teacher quality. Bobbitt came up with
cost-benefit analyses for subject matter, and he decided that Latin
should be discarded because it cost too much and produced nothing
of value, by his measures.
I wrote about the efficiency movement in
my 2000 book Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School
Reform. The original title was Left Back: A
Century of Failed School Reforms. I hated the title and
I hated the subtitle. The editor at Simon & Schuster, Alice
Mayhew–a legendary figure–insisted that the title had to have the
word “fail” in it. When the book came out in paperback, I was
allowed to change the subtitle to more accurately reflect the
content of the book (forgive the split infinitive).
One of the most effective ways to throw a monkey wrench into harmful mandates is to resist. Say no. Refuse to participate. When they tell you to walk the plank into a sea of sharks, don’t do it.
In the case of high-stakes testing, a growing number of parents are keeping their children home on testing day. If enough parents opt out, the numbers for the school and for the district become invalid. The machine can’t run without the willing participation of those it harms.
Think about it.
This comment was posted in response to Richard Rothstein’s critique of Arne Duncan’s laissez faire approach to integration:
As a teacher in an extremely poverty-ridden neighborhood school in an urban district in CT and a parent who sent my children to an integrated school in Evanston, IL, (where white children were from generally affluent families and black/Hispanic children were from generally poor, single parent families), I feel qualified to weigh in on this debate.
My experience is this: if we want to raise children out of poverty, then we MUST not just talk about school reform, but we must develop policies that reform the culture of poverty that affect an entire family. The “Comer School” model does that and makes the school a community center where parents are welcomed for programs that deal with everything from pre-natal care to understanding how to apply for a job or get off drugs. The school becomes the wise, extended family that can actually change the trajectory of a dysfunctional family so that the same mistakes of drugs, gangs, prison, teen pregnancy, etc., etc. are not repeated generation after generation.
Aside from the kids who start out with very difficult personalities from abusive experiences (about 40%), I have seen time and again, students who come to me as happy 7th graders, and then inexplicably change into sullen, or angry kids who act out everyday, only to find out that they have witnessed some horrific event like a parent getting beaten by a boyfriend, or someone shot on the street. We have extremely limited social work resources, and no good Common Core lesson and testing, testing, testing, seem to ease their pain. (And since I had the audacity to try to reach them on a human level before I could teach them anything, I was put on probation and am in the process of being terminated because my test scores were not good enough!)
So, please, Arne Duncan and all the others, let’s shift some of the millions of dollars that are being spent on the “Emperor’s New Clothes” and figure out how to lift families out of poverty before we just blame the under performing teachers and schools as the root of the problem.
Wendy Lecker extends her analysis of reformer actions and policies and how they purposely do the opposite of what they say.
In part 1, she quoted Orwell’s definition of doublethink:
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality.”
— George Orwell, 1984
Orwell’s definition of “doublethink” explains Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s education reform strategy. His playbook consists of starving our neediest children of educational basics, while claiming he is “helping” them prepare for the 21st century.
In part 2, she quotes Orwell: “”War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Ignorance is strength.”
What reformers say and do are opposites:
Reformers say they want creativity and critical thinking as they impose more standardization and punish nonconformity. They say they don’t want teachers to teach to the test, but make the tests more consequential than ever.
Lecker writes:
“The Common Core’s roll-out intensifies the homogenized, test-focused approach to instruction. In one needy Connecticut district, children were handed identical “contracts” with the following expectations: “all children will grow by at least one level on the Common-Core aligned rubric each trimester;” and “all students will improve their reading levels by at least two years by the end of the school year.” The Common Core rubric and tests define learning.
“Regimentation is the reformers’ ideal of a teacher-student relationship. In his campaign to expand the charter school empire in Connecticut, Commissioner Pryor handed two public schools over to Jumoke/FUSE charter chain. The teacher attitude there is exemplified by this fifth grade teacher at Bridgeport’s Jumoke-controlled Dunbar school. Her opening line to her 10-year-old students was: “While I am teaching, I want to see you in ready position … feet flat on the floor, hands folded on the desk and eyes on me.” In the normal world, rapt attention is the result of engaging teaching. This teacher foists that responsibility on the child. The lesson here is: compliance above all. You need not be actually engaged — just act the part.
“Even superintendents are being whipped into compliance. Pryor handed down a ready-made Powerpoint with Common Core “talking points” that principals and teachers are to present at all school open houses.
“In a recent Orwellian twist, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has issued “guidance” mandating that states cease the use of modified assessments. Thus, students with disabilities must now take the exact same tests as everyone else.
“Identical tests, identical goals, identical results and identical behavior may work with automatons. However, as Steve Nelson, director of New York’s Calhoun School, recently observed, real children are not standard. They develop at different rates and learn in different ways. If we seek to develop creative innovative thinkers who can thrive in the real world, we cannot park them in front of a computer to learn and practice disembodied skills, nor have them taught by automatons parroting scripted lessons.
“To suggest that these reforms are “good for our children” is the most Orwellian claim of all.”
The first part of her two-part series is here.
Edushyster obtained internal planning documents from Teach for America in Chicago.
The document displayed on her website shows plans for 52 new privately-managed charters that will open over the next five years.
These charters will be staffed largely by TFA’s young recruits, with five weeks of training.
Just weeks ago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel closed 50 public schools, claiming they were “underutilized.” But the school closures presented an opportunity to expand the charter sector.
EduShyster notes that the plan is symbolic of TFA’s new role:
“TFA has largely abandoned its earlier mission of staffing hard-to-fill positions in public schools, serving instead as a placement agency for urban charters. In Chicago, however, TFA’s role appears to go far beyond providing labor for the fast-growing charter sector. An internal TFA document indicates that the organization has a plan to dramatically expand the number of charter schools in the city.”
TFA has become the handmaiden of the privatization movement. Without TFA’s ready supply of eager and inexperienced young college graduates, willing to work long hours without a union and with meager wages, it would be impossible to expand these private-sector schools at such a rapid clip.
Since the projected hiring of many more TFA corps members coincides with the layoff of large numbers of Chicago public school teachers, it is safe to say that TFA is helping not only to privatize the Chicago public schools but to bust the union.
This may fit right in with the far-right ideals of the Walton Family Foundation, which gifted TFA with $50 million, but it somehow does not sound all that idealistic.
Imagine the new TFA recruiting poster: Join TFA and Privatize America’s Public Schools! Bust the Teachers’ Unions!
Diane Ravitch's blog 