Archives for the month of: April, 2014

As the debate about universal pre-kindergarten heats up, it bears listening to one of our nation’s pre-eminent researchers, David Berliner.

He writes:

 

There are some European citations about early childhood education that are often left out of the debate in the USA. But we use them in 50 myths and lies that threaten American public education (Berliner, Glass and Associates, 2014, Teachers College Press:

 

“One recent study by economists in the United Kingdom examined data from the international test called PISA, the Program for International Student Assessment (seeMostafa & Green, 2012). They used data from the United Kingdom and Sweden, both of which had extensive programs of early childhood education, but the programs were not universal. That is, among the 15-year-olds tested in 2009, about 30% had not attended preschool. Not surprising, when they were younger, participation in early childhood programs was correlated with social class. The children of wealthier families, throughout the Western world, participate in preschool education at high rates. The researchers asked what the effects would have been on PISA literacy scores if all the children had gone to preschool, not predominantly those from the higher social classes. Their conclusion? In the United Kingdom, students in the lowest social class grouping benefited from preschool on average by an increase of 9.2 points on the PISA test, while those in the top social class grouping benefited by 5.5 points. Similarly, in Sweden, individuals in the lowest social class grouping benefited from preschool by an increase of 7.8 points on PISA, while those in the top social class grouping benefited on average by 4.1 points. Universalizing preschool apparently helps all children, but it helps the poorest children the most. These researchers estimate that the United Kingdom would have improved 12 ranks and Sweden would have improved 7 ranks, had their nations had universal preschool.

 

Green and Mostafa (2011) found that in all of the 34 countries in the European Economic Community, students at 15 years of age who had attended pre-primary education for more than 1 year outperformed those who did not, by an average of 54 points! Even after controlling for social background, attending preschool for more than 1 year increased performance on average by 33 points. These researchers found no strong evidence that early childhood education reduced inequalities in performance between those who were high and those who were low in social class standing. As a function of attending high-quality preschool programs, all students score higher on academic measures over a decade later. These researchers also discovered that in most countries high-quality preschool allowed more people, particularly women, to be employed. From their research they estimate that a 10% increase in availability of high-quality day care leads to a 6.1% increase in female employment, providing both a boost for the economy and a reduction in payments for unemployment.”

 

If we are in an international race to achieve excellence in educational achievement, perhaps data from other countries should be part of the discourse!

 

Kenneth Mitchell, a school superintendent in the Lower Hudson Valley of New York, has been concerned about the costs imposed on school districts by Race to the Top. He previously estimated that six districts in his region would spend $11 million to comply with the mandates of Race to the Top, which paid these districts $400,000.

In this comment, he describes a recent meeting with lawyers about possible lawsuits that will be brought because of New York’s flawed Educator Evaluation System.

 

On Friday, March 14, The Lower Hudson Council of School Superintendents hosted a panel of education attorneys to address the following topic:

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF NEW YORK STATE’S NEW TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EVALUATION SYSTEMS

Supervision, Evaluation & Tenure Decisions

• What is the effect of Education Law §3012-c on a school district’s ability to terminate probationary teachers and principals?

• How might overly prescriptive, rigid statutory and regulatory policy frameworks, such as §3012-c, regarding teacher evaluation, tenure, and employment decisions withstand teacher and principal appeals?

Statistical Reliability and Validity of Data in Supervision, Evaluation & Tenure Decisions

• How might the statistical reliability and validity of measures of teaching effectiveness – state assessments, VAM, SLO’s, school-wide assessment scores – affect teacher evaluation, tenure, and employment decisions?

• How will the metric of ‘confidence intervals’ be considered in a legal decision about a teacher’s effectiveness?

• How will the number of years of value-added assessment data to determine teacher quality be a factor in a teacher or principal appeal?

• In what ways will the use of locally-developed assessments, such Student Learning Objectives (SLOs), be challenged in an appeal?

• How will the individual evaluation of a teacher based on school-wide data, such as the 4th grade math assessment, withstand an appeal?

Implementation, Professional Development, and Resources

• How will such factors as consistency, training, and quality be considered in observations and evaluations developed by supervisors?

• How will equity issues, such as the access to materials (e.g., Common Core units) or technology, be a factor in an appeal?

• Experts in child and adolescent development have asked for a review of the Common Core to ensure that all of the standards are developmentally appropriate.
Since assessments are being developed on the basis of Common Core and teachers and principals being assessed accordingly, how will the aforementioned concerns be considered?

Other References

“Evaluation Law Could Limit Ability to Terminate Probationary Teachers”; Warren Richmond III (Harris Beach), New York Law Journal, (May 2013)

“Legal Issues in the Use of Student Test Scores and VAM to Determine Educational Quality”; Diana Pullin, Education Policy Analysis (2010 Manuscript)

In addition to these references, we have posted other related legal articles on the main page of our website: http://www.lhcss.org. We have also raised other concerns about the model that we have shared with state legislators, members of the Board of Regents, officials at the State Education Department and with representatives of the governor’s office. There are many other questions that will need to be answered once this enters the legal arena.

We shared that many in our organization have concerns that a) the design of reform model is flawed on multiple levels; b) the expedited and unsupported implementation will further contribute to inevitable legal challenges; c)the weak technical basis and very limited or no research behind elements of the model will not withstand legal challenges. These are just a few of our concerns. As a result, school districts will be wasting even more time and money on legal costs. Unless significant changes are made on the basis of substantive evidence, New York’s reform model is headed for trouble that will move beyond the anxiety and frustration of over-tested students, angry parents, weary teachers, and harried administrators.

Jeffrey Weiss here writes in the Dallas Morning News about “How the Texas Testing Bubble Popped.” 

 

One man, the courageous State Commisssioner of Education, Robert Scott, said what was on everyone’s minds.

 

Everyone thought he was a loyal soldier in Governor Rick Perry’s army, a slave to standardized testing.

 

But then he said the words that gave hearts to parents and educators in Texas and across the nation.

The main consequences of Race to the Top are chaos, disruption, demoralization, and teachers exiting their profession. Judged by results, the program is not just a failure, it is a menace to children, teachers, and education.

But that’s not the way the DOE describes their $4.3 billion boondoggle.

This is what Peter Greene says.

In case you didn’t know it already, privacy is dead. The
National Security Agency has asserted the power to listen to your
phone calls and read your emails.

Now we
learn from Pearson and the esteemed (Sir) Michael Barber (the
architect of a philosophy known as “Deliverology”) that the
capability to monitor the actions, behaviors,
even
thoughts of every student is at hand. We are all about to take a
dive into the Digital Ocean, whether we want to or not. Big data
will tell Pearson and other vendors whatever they want to know.
They will know more about our children and our grandchildren
than we do. Arne Duncan loosened the federal privacy regulations in
2011, so there is no limit on the information that Pearson and
others will collect. But never forget: It is all for the
kids.

Peter Greene shared his thoughts about Pearson’s digital ocean here.

he writes:

“Barber assures us that personalized learning at scale will be possible, and again I want to point out that we already have a system that can totally do that (though of course the present system does not provide corporations such as Pearson nearly enough money). I will not pretend that the traditional US public ed system always provides the personalized learning it should, but when reformy types suggest that’s a reason to scrap the whole system, I wonder if they also buy a new car every time the old car runs out of gas (plus, in that metaphor, government is repeatedly pouring sand into the gas tank).

“But no. There will have to be revolution:

“…schools will need to have digital materials of high quality, teachers will have to change how they teach and how they themselves learn…

“This shtick I recognize, because it is as old as education technology. Every software salesman who ever set foot in a school used this one– “This will be really great tool if you just change everything about how you work.” No. No, no, no. You do not tell a carpenter, “Hey, newspaper is a great building material as long as you change your expectations about how strong and protective a house is supposed to be.”

“You pick a tool because it can help you do the job. You do not change the job so that it will fit the tool…..Barber praises the authors of the paper for their “aspirational vision” of what success in schools would look like.

“They see teaching,learning and assessment as different aspects of one integrated process, complementing each other at all times, in real time;

To which I reply, “Wow! Amazing! Do they also envision water that is wet? Wheels that are round?”

On the new website testingtalk.org, educators are venting their rage at tests that are developmentally inappropriate and overly technical in their approach to reading. Go to the website to read more comments.

Here is one principal: http://testingtalk.org/response/day-3-grades-3-5

Day 3 of the Common Core NYS ELA is absurd. The third grade test includes an excerpt from a book that, according to Scholastic, is written at a Grade Level Equivalent of 5.2. Its Lexile Measure is 650L, and it’s categorized as a Level X Guided Reading selection. Yet, it appears on a test that has been written for third grade students.

Day 3 of the Common Core NYS ELA is incongruous with Common Core Learning Standards. The same third grade test asks students to identify how specific paragraphs support the organizational structure of a selected piece of literature. The Reading Standards for Literature in Grade 3, with respect to Craft and Structure, state that Grade 3 students should be able to: Refer to parts of stories, dramas, and poems when writing or speaking about a text, using terms such as chapter, scene, and stanza; describe how each successive part builds on earlier sections. It is not until Grade 5, according to The Reading Standards for Literature, that students should be able to: Explain how a series of chapters, scenes, or stanzas fits together to provide the overall structure of a particular story, drama, or poem.

Day 3 of the Common Core NYS ELA is ill-conceived. A short- answer question that appears on the Grade 4 exam calls upon students to explain why a specific piece of text is effectively written. Regardless of what the Reading Standards say, or don’t, about evaluating text, how in the world can a test be created around such an entirely subjective question?

An administrator of a suburban public school, I take seriously my responsibility to students and teachers. It seems to me that the most responsible thing that I could have done this morning would have been to excuse teachers and students from being bullied by an absurd, incongruous and ill-conceived test.

Here is another: Kate Mathews, principal: Day 3 exam, esp for 3rd Grade poorly written, developmentally inappropriate & soul crushing- http://go.shr.lc/1mFdECB

Valerie Strauss received an odd April Fool’s column, allegedly written by her, announcing that Peter Cunningham, known as Arne Duncan’s mouthpiece or his brain, had had a conversion experience, has turned against the Race to the Top policies, and plans to go on tour with me to explain why we now are on the same page.

Valerie checked with him, and he is game. Now, I admit I like Peter even though I don’t agree with the things he used to say.

But I want to debate Arne or Bill.

No insult, Peter, but I don’t want to take a victory lap with you. I am delighted to know you have joined our side (how about joining the Network for Public Education?).

I want to go to the source. If I can persuade Arne or Bill to stop tormenting children and teachers, well, game over, a new day in America.

Then I will meet you for a few Bailey’s, and I will even pick up the check.

A new report by the Education Law Center, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, the Alliance for Quality Education, and the Public Policy and Education Fund of New York contrasts the funding of public education in New York and New Jersey and finds two different worlds in two neighboring states:

On opposite sides of the Hudson River, New York and New Jersey stand only a mile apart. But when it comes to how they fund their public schools, the yawning gulf between these two states is wide and deep.

Unfair describes school funding in New York. Many New York children in high poverty districts are not provided with the basic resources and opportunities necessary to succeed in school, while their peers in affluent districts enjoy all the advantages of well-­‐resourced schools.

In sharp contrast, New Jersey school funding is fair. The state’s finance system adjusts for the additional need created by student poverty and other disadvantages, and includes funds for universal, high quality preschool for all three-­‐ and four-­‐year-­‐olds in its lowest wealth communities.1

The bottom line is that New York’s academic performance, as measured by high school graduation rates and test scores, trails New Jersey’s by wide margins.

Bottom line is that equity produces better schools, higher academic performance. And it is just.

Jonathan Pelto writes here that yesterday was a very bad day for public education in Connecticut.

The State Board of Education voted to hand out $80-100 million over five years to privately managed charters, most known for excluding the neediest kids.

And they voted full steam ahead on Common Core, pet project of the corporate elite, guaranteed to increase testing and costs of hardware, software, and materials with no known benefit to children.

Pelto concludes:

“But whatever his reasoning, it is worth repeating again and again… Dannel “Dan” Malloy has become the most anti-teacher, anti-public education Democratic governor in the country.”

New Yorkers would disagree. We accord that title to Andrew Cuomo

Greg Taranto, principal of Canonsburg Middle School, was named was named 2012 Middle Level Principal of the Year by the Pennsylvania Association of Elementary and Secondary School Principals.

He now joins our Honor Roll for his courage in speaking up for students and good education.

 

Taranto says that testing is out of control, it is absurdly expensive, draining resources from schools, and of course he is right. Everyone seems to know it except our legislators in the statehouses and Congress. Parents know it. Teachers and administrations like Taranto know it. Students know it.

 

We no longer have schools devoted to development of every child’s full human potential, but devoted instead to ever higher scores on standardized tests. How did the testing industry manage to capture the minds and hearts of our policymakers? Don’t they realize that tests are useful for diagnostic purposes, but they are not the goal of education. They are a measure, they are not a replacement for instruction.

 

Taranto writes:

 

Testing makes a lot of money for education companies. Here in Pennsylvania in 2013 we paid more than $200 million to the company responsible for the development of the Keystone exams — tests aligned with the Common Core curriculum (known as PA Core in Pennsylvania). Our state legislators just approved another five “optional” Keystones in the coming years. Can you imagine the cost to taxpayers?

Unfortunately, the many-headed hydra of standardized testing is not like the mythical creatures made by my seventh graders. It is real. And we need real heroes to slay the beast.

Parents and educators must start speaking out and talking to our school districts, school boards and state and federal legislators. State and federal legislators are especially important, because they are the ones mandating tests such as the PSSA and the Keystones and thus tying the hands of district officials and school boards.

Some groups already engaged in this fight include Education Voters PA, Yinzercation, PA Against the Common Core, the Network for Public Education and Fairtest.org.

Do you think testing has gotten out of control? Please become a hero in the fight against this many-headed hydra. We need more ordinary heroes — people like you and me — to wrest control of our kids’ education away from the testing beast and to restore educational agency to parents, teachers and principals.

 

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/2014/03/26/Slay-the-testing-beast/stories/201403260004#ixzz2xDdSQf55