Archives for the year of: 2013

Erich Martel of D.C. posted the documents from the Atlanta investigation.

“These are the four Atlanta Public School (APS) Investigation Report documents:
There are some unexpected surprises. Supt. Hall hired two “experts” to do a review of a few schools in response to concerns. One is a well-known consultant, author of “Unpacking the Standards.” His report was very approving (he visited 8 schools in one day, during his 3-day stay). Supt Hall posted it on the APS website. The other, critical report she “lost,” claiming that she never received it. Go to p. 311 of the “Exhibits to Report.”

Click to access Volume-1.pdf

Click to access Volume-2.pdf

Click to access Volume-3.pdf

Click to access Exhibits-to-Report.pdf

The Rochester Teachers Union is running an ad campaign against the Common Core testing.

The state education department predicts that scores will drop by 30 percent.

“It’s a setup for failure,” said John Pavone of the Rochester Teachers Association. Teachers are worried they will be evaluated based on a curriculum that was rolled out this year.  “They’re going to blame me if the kids can’t pass the test and the kids can’t pass the test. It’s set up in such a way that you can’t pass the test.”

 

Last year, Jeff Nichols and his wife Ann Stone wrote an article that appeared in the New York Times about taking the “practice” version of the third-grade English language arts test. The test was sent home with one of their children as “vacation homework,” an oxymoron in itself.

Both college professors, they did it for fun with two friends. All have Ph.D.s. they couldn’t agree on the right answers and concluded the test was ridiculous. They became activists in the opt-out movement.

Recently, Jeff wrote a high-ranking official at the New York City Department of Education to inform him that his children will not be taking the tests this spring. The official (who was once an anti-testing activist when he was a teacher long ago) replied that parents have the right to t out but their school may be punished if the participation rate falls below 95%. Is this not a profile in courage? By the way, there is no risk that anyone at the DOE will see this blog, because the computers are set to block all WordPress sites.

Jeff Nichols wrote this letter, which he sent to many others, including me:

“Dear Mr. Suransky,

“An email you recently sent to various CECs in the city affirms that families in New York City do have the right to substitute a portfolio assessment for the mandated state tests, yet seems to hold over those families the threat that such individual acts of conscience can cause adverse consequences for schools:

· State accountability: Under No Child Left Behind, New York State measures each school’s rate of participation in state tests. If 95% of a school or one or more of its subgroups of students (e.g. Hispanic students, students with disabilities, Limited English Proficient students) do not take the assessment, the school does not make Adequate Yearly Progress – which has funding and intervention consequences for schools.

I am just a parent with a child in the NYC public schools. That is my only standing to challenge this statement. But I believe if the era of “accountability” in which we find ourselves is to mean anything at all, then education officials must be held accountable to children and the parents who raise them. So I would appreciate a forthright answer to the following questions:

Is it not a distortion of the original intent of NCLB’s 95% rule to penalize schools, not because the schools are concealing low performance on the part of their students (by having their least capable students stay out of the testing in order to receive a more favorable rating by the state), but because parents who are deeply involved in and concerned about their children’s educations (and whose children therefore are, if anything, likely to perform well on state tests) are choosing to opt their children out of a regime of high-stakes testing that the best minds in education in our country have long since repudiated?

And if the actual effect of a federal law as upheld in our state is not only destructive to schools but also directly contrary to the original intent of that law, then why would you and your colleagues not seek all means to mitigate the situation? In my opinion, local education officials with decision-making authority should be exercising their powers to the utmost to prevent such unjustifiable and unintended consequences from being realized, rather than passing along to parents a passive, worst-case interpretation of the potential impact of this malfunctioning federal law on their children’s schools.

My wife and I will not be allowing our children to take state-mandated standardized tests until those tests are designed and implemented in a manner we regard as consistent with best educational practices. This is our constitutional right, and we do not appreciate the DOE’s continuing efforts to intimidate parents with threats against schools that, given the mayor’s policy of shuttering dozens of schools for no discernible reason other than low test scores, are all too credible. The opt out movement is not going away and it is time for city officials to treat those of us taking this conscientious and proactive step to better our children’s educations with the respect we deserve.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these questions.

Sincerely,

Jeff Nichols
father of: Xxx, grade 3, and Xxx, grade 4″

The New York Times has an extended story on the indictments of educators for their alleged participation in cheating on tests.

Ex-superintendent Beverly Hall was one of 35 Atlanta educators indicted in the biggest cheating scandal in public school history.

A third-grade teacher agreed to wear a wire for the investigators:

She “admitted to Mr. Hyde [the investigator] that she was one of seven teachers — nicknamed “the chosen” — who sat in a locked windowless room every afternoon during the week of state testing, raising students’ scores by erasing wrong answers and making them right. She then agreed to wear a hidden electronic wire to school, and for weeks she secretly recorded the conversations of her fellow teachers for Mr. Hyde.”

The scandal reached all the way into the superintendent’s office:

“Dr. Hall, who retired in 2011, was charged with racketeering, theft, influencing witnesses, conspiracy and making false statements. Prosecutors recommended a $7.5 million bond for her; she could face up to 45 years in prison.”

Many lessons here. Cheating is wrong. It should be punished. It cheats children. Lying is wrong. It should be punished. A system that incentivizes cheating and rewards cheating is wrong and should be changed.

The odds are that the cheaters will be punished, as they should be, but the system that encouraged the cheating will remain unchanged.

Another lesson from Georgia: Cheating scandals should be thoroughly investigated by professional investigators.

G.F. Brandenburg is a retired math teacher who has a habit of plain speaking and a math teacher’s ability to get right to the point. His ability to dissect false claims using data is almost unparalleled; I say “almost,” because another math teacher, Gary Rubinstein, is good at this too.

In this post, he asks whether today’s indictments in Atlanta might be followed by similar indictments in the District of Columbia.

This is the question that many readers have raised.

A report in the New York Times says that Dr. Beverly L. Hall was indicted by a grand jury for her role in the Atlanta cheating scandal.

The story says, in part:

“Investigators laid blame for the biggest standardized-test cheating scandal in the country’s history on the superintendent, Dr. Hall, who led the 50,000-student school system from 1999 until her resignation in 2011. Dr. Hall, who was hailed as National Superintendent of the Year in 2009 for her role in making Atlanta’s once-failing urban school district a model of improvement, had “emphasized test results and public praise to the exclusion of integrity and ethics,” the report said.

“The report asserted that Dr. Hall, while not tied directly to cheating or the direct target of a subpoena, tried to contain damaging information and did not do enough to investigate allegations, especially after 2005 when “clear and significant” warnings were raised. As superintendent, she received hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses tied to bogus improvements in test scores.”

 

Julian Vasquez Heilig is one of the bloggers I enjoy enormously because he has the statistical smarts and energy to vet dubious claims. Follow his blog. He always has smart insights, with the data to back them up. It is called cloakinginequity.com.

The other day I put up a post about an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that asserted that Texas needs many, many, many standardized tests because students don’t know the classics. Presumably, the more Pearson bubble tests they take, the more they will know about Shakespeare, Milton, Melville, and the Founding Fathers. They went on to tout their own charter schools, which presumably were succeeding at all these tests while turning children into philosopher kings.

Gosh darn, Julian checked the data. He discovered that their charter chain was underperforming the regular public schools on those tests that the authors touted.

The Los Angeles Times is trying to figure out why Michelle Rhee is so evasive about being “a public school parent.”

Rhee lives in Sacramento. Her daughters live in Nashville, where her ex-husband is State Commissioner of Education (having been communication director for TFA). He is a major proponent of charters and vouchers.

In Tennessee, she told the Nashville reporters that she is “a public school parent.”

For some reason, she prefers not to admit that one of her daughters attends an elite private school in Nashville that has small classes, lovely facilities, a rich curriculum, and experienced teachers; better yet, the students do not take standardized tests. (Rhee herself graduated from an elite private school in Toledo, Ohio, with similar policies and practices.)

Why should she hide that fact?

Is it because she advocates that Other People’s children should have large classes, inexperienced teachers, merit pay, evaluations based on test scores, and nonstop testing?

Michelle Rhee should read some Dewey, at least one line:

“What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy.” 

Marc Tucker has published what he says will be the final round in his debate with me.

He noticed that I never actually responded to his first two posts. I printed the views of others.

I have not debated him because I don’t see how it is possible to debate a hypothetical.

OK, we can debate whether the moon is made of green cheese, but I am too busy to debate that.

Or we could debate whether test scores will go up or fall if we give every student access to medical care.

But we won’t know until we try.

He thinks the Common Core standards are fabulous; I don’t know whether they are good or not because they have never been field-tested. He doesn’t see the necessity of field-testing, but I disagree. You don’t impose new standards, new tests, and new everything without some advance knowledge about their consequences.

Do we know if they will improve students’ knowledge and understanding of math and reading and other subjects? No.

Do we know if they will widen the achievement gaps between students of different races and students from high- and low-income families? No, we do not.

Do we know if they are developmentally appropriate for children in K-3? No, we do not.

Wouldn’t it be useful to know these things before we change everything? I think so, Marc does not.

I don’t understand how we can debate a topic in which we know so little.

Here is what I do know.

The most reliable predictor of test scores is family income.

The Common Core will have no impact whatever in changing the scandalous proportion of children who live in poverty in this nation. Nearly a quarter of our children are living in poverty, as compared to far smaller proportions in other societies. If we were to make a dent on that number, bring it down to, say, 15%, that would have a bigger impact on test scores than Common Core. But that is just my guess.

The common wisdom, repeatedly predicted by state superintendents, is that test scores will drop by 30% or so when the Common Core standards are assessed because the tests are “harder.” This will feed the corporate reform narrative that “our schools are failing.” They will use the new stats to attack public education and demand more vouchers and more charters and more privatization. The entrepreneurs are eagerly awaiting the moment when the bad scores are announced, as it will give them new opportunities to sell their edu-schlock.

The fact that David Coleman, the architect of the Common Core standards, was an original member of the board of Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst–the corporate reformers’ attack machine against public education–is no comfort. The other members of her original board were Jason Zimba, who wrote the Common Core math standards, and a third person, who worked for Coleman’s Student Achievement Partners. In other words, Rhee’s board was the same as the Common Core leadership.

There, Marc, I debated you.

Mark NAISON is a professor of African-American Studies at Fordham University.

In this article, he explains why he will not permit TFA to recruit in his classes.

First, he became angry when he discovered that the organization gave preference to Ivy League graduates over his own students, who had grown up in many of the communities where TFA was placing its recruits.

But this is what his rejection came down to:

“Until Teach For America becomes committed to training lifetime educators and raises the length of service to five years rather than two, I will not allow TFA to recruit in my classes. The idea of sending talented students into schools in impoverished areas, and then after two years encouraging them to pursue careers in finance, law, and business in the hope that they will then advocate for educational equity really rubs me the wrong way.”