Marla Kilfoyle and Melissa Tomlinson wrote this challenge to Arne Duncan in response to his article in The Washington Post, where he salutes the cutback on testing for which he is responsible, where he simultaneously salutes high-stakes testing and warns of its overuse. He claims that other nations are leaving us in the dust, but neglects to mention that any shortfall occurred on his watch. The combination of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have left the U.S., in Duncan’s own words, in an era of “educational stagnation.” He promises more of the same.
Kilfoyle and Tomlinson urge him to listen to experienced teachers:
“BATs Lay Down a Challenge to Duncan”
By Marla Kilfoyle, General Manager Badass Teachers Association and Melissa Tomlinson, Asst. General Manager of the Badass Teachers Association
The Badass Teachers Association, an organization of over 52,000 teachers, has a bold challenge for Arne Duncan. Duncan released an opinion piece in the Washington Post last night titled “Standardized Tests Must Measure Up” . In this piece he attempts to respond to parent outcry against the current education culture of toxic standardized testing. He continues to not see the real problems and issues that teachers and parents face. Therefore, BATs cordially invites the Secretary to conduct a Town Hall phone conference to hear the real concerns of parents, students, and teachers.
Arne Duncan fails to recognize a few important factors in his piece. He fails to acknowledge his role, in conjunction with the Department of Education, for paving the way for states to become test taking laboratories that are experimenting on children and teachers. He states that “the Education Department has provided $360 million to two consortia of states to support that work.” Duncan’s Race to the Top, defined by the educators in this nation as No Child Left Behind on steroids, has perpetuated a testing culture in our schools that is focused on punishing children, blaming teachers, and closing schools.
The money that is being spent to develop and implement these new tests could have far better use. Money should be used to provide safe school environments through financing construction and renovation of school buildings, to implement before and after school programs, and to support wrap around services in schools for our communities in need. Secretary Duncan does not see his role in creating the test mania we see in our schools today. He does not see that funding used to pay for tests is the main contributor to the funding pitfalls that schools are currently facing. He claims to want to help his own children “build upon their strengths and interests and work on their weaknesses” but what his children get and what public school children get are NOT the same. Duncan shows no understanding for the position that children, other than his own, have been placed in. Schools that are facing budgetary crises are forced to starve in order to have money to implement new standardized tests, which are forced upon districts as an “unfunded” mandate.
His statement, “A focus on measuring student learning has had real benefits, especially for our most vulnerable students, ensuring that they are being held to the same rigorous standards as their well-off peers and shining a light on achievement gaps.” Duncan, once again, perpetuates the false narrative of blaming schools and teachers for the achievement gap (which continues to widen). He continues, once again, to NOT acknowledge that poverty and inequality are direct indicators of the widening achievement gap. Standards of learning should not be set until all children, regardless of zip code, have access to the resources they need to be successful in school. Until that is achieved, the Secretary of Education, and the people within the Department of Education, should be charged with the task of finding ways to make that possible. The standards that they should be discussing should be a standard of equal resources for all children. The Secretary should NOT be discussing a standard of learning that will never be achieved until other societal issues are faced and dealt with, namely poverty and inequality.
Sec. Duncan fails to realize that yearly snapshot testing is not indicative of how a child is progressing in their educational journey. It is constant communication and attention of parents and educators to daily classroom interactions that drive this journey. A yearly assessment that is based upon the presumption that all children start off on an even playing field serves no purpose other than to put a spotlight on children living in poverty and the fact that they cannot compete with students that have been given more opportunities and have access to more resources.
Sec. Duncan mentions the waiver that he has offered during this first year of transition to provide flexibility on connecting teacher evaluation to test results. The allowance of such practices by the Secretary speaks volumes about his concern for the future of our educational system. As test results get tied to decision-making with regards to schools, the potential for a great disservice directed toward our children looms ahead. Teacher performance ratings tied to test scores will result in the loss of many excellent teachers and future educators. There are too many other factors that impact the educational performance of a child which, sadly, the Secretary continues to ignore this.
Throughout this whole process, the lack of communication with actual teachers by the Secretary has been apparent. Arne Duncan speaks to communicating with his children’s schools and teachers to create a collaborative team that is working towards the end goal of providing for a better future. We feel that it is time that Arne Duncan applies this to the country as well. As an association that represents over 52,000 educators, and interested parties, the Badass Teachers Association is extending a direct invitation to Arne Duncan to communicate with teachers who will give him a direct vision of what is really happening in our schools.
We invite you, Secretary Duncan, to participate in a Town Hall phone conference to speak with those that really care, those that have real experience, and real knowledge about education; America’ s teachers.
Consider this your formal invitation to get informed!
We await your call!
Marla Kilfoyle and Melissa Tomlinson

Great work BATs! If there are teachers reading this blog who are in Miami Dade County and would like to join a local group of BATs for the purposes of organizing around local issues, please join the Facebook group “Miami Dade County BAT Teacher Association.” You can read more about it here, http://kafkateach.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/miami-dade-county-bat-teacher-association/
LikeLike
Arne should be monitored closely should he take the challenge. No wire directly to Gates or Broad. He should be forced to answer questions, no sound bites or slogans. And
Randi is past due on her “improvement plan” update. Let’s get going AFT.
LikeLike
35 states are providing less funding for K-12 schools than they did before the Great Recession. This is true in my state, and I count 5 new ed reform mandates one of which is new testing to comply with Duncan’s teacher ranking schemes.
He’s directly responsible for additional testing in Ohio that is used to rank teachers. His agency pushed it and his agency made funding contingent on adopting it.
Maybe he could write a follow-up piece addressing that specific issue and what he plans on doing about it. Was the obsession with VAM and ranking teachers a mistake? Is it actually harming public schools, given that most public schools have lost funding under his watch? Is he willing to take a political risk and break with the huge ed reform lobby that has so dominated his agency and re-examine teacher ranking schemes?
How much time and money are we spending testing students for the sole purpose of ranking their teachers? Maybe he could break that out for parents, and defend his focus on it.
LikeLike
Duncan’s op-ed piece is nothing more than a political ploy to limit the conversation on testing by using vague and ubiquitous terms to absolve his administration of responsibility for the damage it has caused to public education. I often say that while the Bushes (Jeb and George Jr.) may have built the coffin of public education, Obama and Duncan have put in all the nails and buried it 100 feet under the ground. When Duncan, in his article, states, “And to reduce stress on teachers during this year of transition, my department in August offered states new flexibility on connecting teacher evaluation to test results,” what exactly does “flexibility” imply. If he is going to take the time to have someone write this insidious nonsense for political expediency, why not at least be explicit. Teachers are under enormous stress without the districts tying their pay (and other outcomes) to their students’ annual test results. Ultimately, when you hire a basketball player to run the country’s department of education, even one who has had experiencing functioning as a CEO of a large public school system like Chicago, you basically tell the country that public education is not valued, that teachers are nothing more than employees who have to perform, and students are nothing more than widgets in a factory that have to be measured in quick, expedient, and efficient ways. Shame on Duncan. But moreover, shame on Obama for choosing him as our Secretary of Education. I have never been more disheartened by a president of this great nation.
LikeLike
Michelle Obama was here in Philadelphia this week campaigning for Tom Wolf who is for a fair funding formula for our public schools, taxing the frackers to pay for teachers and school resources, and denounced the union-busting tactics of Tom Corbett and the SRC which just unilaterally and in the dead of night cancelled its contract with the PFT?
I wonder. Does she know that her husband and his Secretary of Education are against all those things?
LikeLike
When Duncan says he permitted states “flexibility” on teacher evaluations, what Duncan means is he knows the policy has failed, and so now is negotiating partial waivers in exchange for other concessions, case by case, depending on how states play ball.
In NY what this looks like is select districts (many BOCES programs) spending millions extra to devise alternatives to “local” test measures, which were the SECOND round of tests beyond the CC state tests.
They also have been offering individual NY teachers a choice, saying they can skip administering the second round of “local measures” if they agree to make the CC state tests count for 40% instead of 20%.
Inotherwords, we’ll spare your students about two weeks of test drudgery hell if you buy more deeply into our evaluation scheme which uses the state test to judge teacher quality.
The biggest absurdity is that MOST teachers do not teach Math or ELA, so having Math or ELA test scores attached to our evaluations is almost completely meaningless in showing our effectiveness. Taxpayers should be pissed at this monumental waste of education dollars, but most people probably don’t realize this is happening. Hence the need for a big public debate with Duncan.
LikeLike
‘ to reduce stress on teachers during this year of transition, my department in August offered states new flexibility on connecting teacher evaluation to test results,” — Arne Duncan
“Flexible Straight-jackets”
A straight-jacket that is flexible
Is what we have provided
For teaching that is testable
The hands are simply guided.
LikeLike
Flexibility means that my district, because of the requirements of my states’ NCLB waiver, has added TEN additional hours of testing in world languages and social studies to the ten hours students already take, and will next year add standardized testing in FINE ARTS. Some flexibility.
LikeLike
It would be very difficult for Duncan to back off testing to rank teachers now, given that there is now a specific lobbying group using teacher rankings to get rid of tenure by bringing lawsuits and Duncan publicly backed that tactic and endorsed a trial court decision.
If teacher ranking turns out to be bad policy, will he have the political courage to admit that, given how powerful and influential those ed reform lobbying groups are in the Obama Administration?
Are we stuck with VAM and teacher ranking forever, whether it’s worthwhile or not, simply because so many powerful people endorsed it and relied on it? How much are we supposed to spend on it, in time, money, trust and goodwill? Was it wise and prudent to invest so much in what is an experiment?
LikeLike
Of COURSE he won’t admit the mistake. And he’ll be gone from office by then anyway. Apparently these days, making education policy means never having to say you’re sorry…
LikeLike
Big mistake in your reasoning, Chiara. Duncan has his own view of reality. He doesn’t need political courage because consistency, logic and thoughtfulness are not in his realm.
LikeLike
Y’all have just described the leading lights of the self-styled “education reform” movement.
And it’s not a benign description.
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” [MLK]
Thank you for your comments.
😎
LikeLike
Arne and his staffers always hide behind numbers and cherry pick data to portray public education as a failed enterprise. Then they rush to put a new competition in place with bureaucratic regulations.
The people who have drafted the regulations are not educators and don’t care about the “spillover effects” of their mandates.
If you look at Ohio’s SLO website at the “frequently asked questions,” you will see a version of the games “Mother May I” and “Father May I” but with high stakes penalties for teachers who cannot outguess the rules for writing the SLOs.
The answers to some questions are non-answers, meaning evasions. The answers to others make no educational sense but are framed to ensure that teachers produce data in formats required for the Gates funded Teacher -Student Data Link system and USDE’s Longitudinal Data System and the Improving Instruction System.
All of these systems are designed to standardize and micro-mange the work of teachers, principals, and administrators in a version of Drucker’s “management-by-objectives” proposals to increase the efficiency of a business, especially by increasing the productivity of workers.
Within two decades, most successful businesses had ditched this practice of MBO because it rewarded workers who could game the system, produced an ethos of destructive competition, and drowned everyone in compliance-driven paperwork.
The name given to this constellation of unproductive practices was “Bureaupathology.”
Adding a bit of insult to injury, the FAQ replies are filled with grammatical errors and redundancies plus a few outright contradictions.
The most obvious indicator of the intent to micromanage teachers with an iron fist is this: After teachers have gained approval from a principal, or a committee, or an SLO evaluator, the SLO cannot be changed unless there is the equivalent of a natural disaster or extended closing of the school.
LikeLike
Laura—-From the US Department of Ed dated September 2013:Using alternative student growth measures for evaluating teacher performance:what the literature says:
“More generally, because teachers can customize SLOs, it is difficult to use them fairly for evaluation. Their validity as measures of teacher performance depends on reasonable consistency
in how difficult they are to achieve. Wide variation in the rigor of SLO targets among teachers within or across schools could vitiate their usefulness for teacher evaluations and be unfair to teachers who set high expectations.
No evidence exists on how to solve this problem entirely. But standardizing the process within and across schools might be one way to mitigate the adverse effects. Other potential
ways to improve consistency of difficulty within and across schools is to authorize principals to modify SLO targets and to institute district training systems and auditing systems. Studies are needed to determine whether such measures would be sufficient to ensure the validity of SLOs for teacher evaluation. Without such systems it is likely to be nearly impossible to make valid and reliable comparisons of teachers using SLOs.”
LikeLike
AlwaysLearning; one thing we have learned in past five years: “Research” from US DOE is politicized and bent to support this administration’s agenda.
LikeLike
They don’t care about validity and reliability, they just want a stinking number to plug in for 50% of your evaluation. In Miami Dade County the district cannot possibly make 1,000 new tests to cover every course in the district for the main purpose of ranking teachers, so the county’s solution is to have some teachers design their own End of Course exam for their evaluation. So some teachers get to create their own exam and prepare their students to pass that exam, while other teachers have no idea what the test for their subject even looks like. Even the AP teachers get to see an actual released copy of the AP exam so they know what types of questions are on the test.
The Florida Department of Education doesn’t care that no baseline assessment exists to actually measure student learning gains on the new exam. They will VAM away because according to their statisticians, “the greatest predicator of future performance on a standardized test is past performance on a standardized test.” So they will just use whatever standardized test score for the baseline variable.
LikeLike
Always learning.
The report that you mention about SLOs clearly states: “…no studies of SLOs have looked at reliability” (p. ii). Not one. Nor has the validity of this process for teacher evaluation been established. Only three studies considered validity and only by seeking correlations with VAM for standard-ized tests (p. ii).
Given that VAM ratings are unstable and not relevant to content and standards in “untested” subjects, it is clearly a mistake to think that correlations of VAM with SLOs are meaningful indicators of the validity of each other.
The authors have exactly one recommendation for policymakers: Only use SLOs for instructional planning, not for evaluation (p. ii). This recommendation cavalierly ignores the reality that states and districts are already using SLOs for high stakes decisions, including compensation.
The literature review omitted one of the most nuanced and thorough criticisms of the use of SLOs for teacher evaluation (Marion, DePascale, Domaleski, Gong & Diaz-Bilello, 2012). I am aware of other omissions from the literature review, all of them addressing known issues in quality control for SLOs (American Institutes of Research, 2012; Prince, Schuermann, Guthrie, Witham, Milanowski & Thorn, 2009).
By design, this report provides a gloss of academic respectability for a deeply flawed teacher evaluation strategy. The basic function of SLOs in education today is not different from Drucker’s outdated management-by-objectives in business, but combined with mid-twentieth century reforms that focused on measurable behavioral and instructional objectives, especially for programmed instruction (e.g., Gagné & Briggs, 1974; Gronlund, 1970; Mager, 1962).
A more thoughtful literature review would acknowledge this legacy and its revival under the banner of reform.
This is one of four recent USDE-funded reports on SLOs from federally supported agencies–in addition to at least 30 other marketing publications, most of these with no clearly identified authors other than “Reform Support Network (RSN). RSN is one of the marketing arms of RttT, funded in 2010 with a $43 million grant to IFC International, a for-profit consulting firm.
SLOs are a blunt instrument to standardized the work of teachers and to feed a one-size-fits all data infrastructure funded since 2005 by Bill Gates and USDE. The premises of the SLO process are that teachers are incompetent and need to be properly managed to reach annual or end-of-course “learning targets” and that pre-tests and post-tests in every grade and subject are needed to audit the performace of teachers. My references come from an unpublished paper on SLOs available by request.
Diane is absolutely on the mark in her judgment about “research” from USDE–smoke and mirrors and mostly PR for an agenda so bad that it has to be “spun and sold” by professional in PR.
LikeLike
Laura—I could not agree with you and Diane more. I referenced this research because even their own research indicates they need more studies. They acknowledge problems with SLO’s especially with validity and reliability. I believe they are opening districts and states up for litigation with the use of SLO’s. It appears that yes it is all smoke and mirrors.
LikeLike
Note that of the more than 93 comments on Duncan’s PR piece none–zero, defend Duncan!
LikeLike
Wait. Give it some more time. We have yet to hear from our education experts, people like Jonathan Alter, David Boies or Larry Tribe.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Dolphin and commented:
Duncan’s Race to the Top, defined by the educators in this nation as No Child Left Behind on steroids, has perpetuated a testing culture in our schools that is focused on punishing children, blaming teachers, and closing schools.
~~~~~~~~
Well said.
LikeLike
Way to go, BATs! It is time to call Duncan’s bluff! I am waiting anxiously for his response.
LikeLike
BATs have kicked us into gear. It was Marla on a panel at last year’s NPE conference who gave me the succinct explanation for opting out. She said: If a test is not used by the teacher to inform instruction, my son does not take it. Period.”
After seeing Arne’s sales brochure/Op Ed posted on BATs, I commented as wolfepack1:
I’m a mother not a teacher. One gauge on the dashboard? Nonsense. Standardized tests have become the jet fuel in the Race to the Top. Tests should give my kids’ teachers immediate information so they can review unlearned material and I can reinforce it through conversation around the dinner table or by a trip to the Science Center. Mr. Duncan knows that is impossible with standardized tests because they’re not graded by the teachers and no one even sees the results (a lump sum score) until the following school year. They’re not designed to inform instruction at all. They’re designed to evaluate schools and teachers.
Standardized tests are forcing schools to narrow curriculum. When your school is judged by one test score, that’s where most of the energies will go. Who has time for “critical thinking, adaptability, collaboration, problem solving and creativity”? Such things are luxuries in this high stakes atmosphere.
It’s time to slam the brakes on standardized tests. ^0^ Mom
LikeLike
If a test could be designed that could fairly and accurately evaluate schools and teachers it would have merit. However, it has been shown (on this blog and elsewhere) over and over that that is not possible. The perpetrators of the current testing regime know this and cynically design the tests to fail schools and teachers so that they can be replaced by charters and vouchers and nonunion TFA teachers. Sadly their motives are clear–money and power.
LikeLike
About time for Arne Duncan to sit down face to face on camera with some teachers and hash out the issues with standardized testing.
LikeLike
^LOVE^, Melissa and Marla! Our BAT leaders are truly fearless! Call us, Arne. Consider this a “test” of your ability to lead by example.
LikeLike
“The Era of Arne Err”
Stagnation, let’s be clear,
Is era of Arne err
No education here
Just testing, VAMs and fear
LikeLike
Besides the destructive effect of testing on inner city schools, we also need to emphasize how mandated standardized tests affect high-performing districts. Besides having to displace their regular curriculum to take the tests and do test prep, the results are skewed due to the high concentration of students whose parents hire private tutors. These tests therefore cannot accurately show the effect of the classroom teacher.
In inner city schools like mine, it’s even more inaccurate as so many kids fill out answers sheets without reading the questions. This, after struggling to make sense of tests that are years ahead of their actual functioning grade level.
If Arne thinks that it’s helping to inform kids that they are way, way behind expectation, year after year, it’s not, they go the other way, trying less and less, not more and more.
Seeing this, I didn’t even show my daughters the test scores that come in the mail for them, deeming them both “not proficient” as students scores were pegged to the top students in the state. In NY, 70-75% of students were labeled “not proficient” because the tests were designed for the highest achievers.
LikeLike
52,000 teachers with BATS? They are meditating on their belly button with no experience in the classroom. BATS is a tool of the AFT, so teacher evaluation is more important than the real scourge of the Common Core linked to the testing, which hurts children more than teachers, as the AFT does with their CC support.. They party with Randi at her East Hampton House. Maybe Randi should sign the letter too, as she is opposed to demanding that Arne step down. They just may be buds.
LikeLike
It’s a Facebook group that you can join by clicking a button. They’ll accept anyone who clicks the button. They don’t know how many of their members are actually teachers. But they certainly know that not all of them are. The statement that the BATs represent “52,000 teachers” is simply a lie.
LikeLike
Who cares? We all oppose Arne except for TFA/E4E temps.
LikeLike
Vandykel@mi.gov
LikeLike