Teachers in Portland, Oregon, voted in opposition to administering the Smarter Balanced Assessment. The best part of the resolution calls on the superintendent, the school board, and principals to take the test and publicly release their scores!
“About 70 Portland Association of Teachers representatives from schools across the district voted to approve the resolution Wednesday night, said PAT President Gwen Sullivan. The resolution was crafted by a union committee and references the Oregon Education Association’s vote last spring for a moratorium on administering the test.
“”It’s not just going against something, it’s about what we’re for,” she said. “It was even more of a symbol of (what) people honestly feel about this particular issue. Teachers do not support this test.”
“The resolution references multiple concerns with the test, such as predictions that approximately 65 percent of students will fail this year and that Smarter Balanced test scores have not yet been determined to be valid or reliable. The resolution also points out the millions of federal and state dollars that have been allocated for test design and implementation.
“The resolution calls for PAT members to speak and petition about the amount of time students will spend preparing and taking the test. Members are also encouraged to hold parent informational sessions about Smarter Balanced and opting out and practice sessions for parents and teachers to take the test.
“The PAT also asks for Portland Public Schools Superintendent Carole Smith, school board members and principals take the Smarter Balanced test and publicly release their scores. The school board is encouraged to quit using standardized test scores to make decisions, the resolution states.”
Here is a video clip of the President of the Portland Association of Teachers speaking out about teacher concerns regarding the Smarter Balanced Assessment at last week’s school board hearing:
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Here is an article in the Eugene Weekly. Eugene is a couple hours south of Portland. The movement is gaining strength in Oregon.
http://www.eugeneweekly.com/20150226/lead-story/too-much-testing
LikeLike
Keep up the good work Portland teachers!
The reformers have created a machine that is turning our children into emotionally desensitized functional robots via spiritual annihilation, and good teachers with moral courage are refusing to participate in “soul murder”.
Dr Shengold, clinical professor of psychiatry at the NY University School of Medicine, describes “soul murder” in his book:
SOUL MURDER: The Effects of Childhood Abuse and Deprivation”.
“To abuse or neglect a child, to deprive the child of his or her own identity and ability to experience joy in life, is to commit soul murder. Soul murder is the perpetration of brutal or subtle acts against children that result in their emotional bondage to the abuser and, finally, in their psychic and spiritual annihilation. In his compelling, disturbing, and superbly readable book, Dr. Shengold explores the devastating psychological effects of this trauma inflicted on a shocking number of children.
Every parent needs to be able to recognize “the subtle acts against children that result in their emotional bondage to their abusers”. Spiritual annihilation is what is happening to children captive in this dark environment of authoritarianism that has reared its ugly head in schools from mainstream society. Adults who remain silent and allow this to happen to our nation’s children are participating in “Soul Murder”:
Can you recognize this guise in your child’s school? It looks pretty on the outside but it’s dark inside. The only way you can see it is to be able to recognize the signs of traumatic stress in your children (regression, dissociation, anxiety, depression), and when those signs appear, the damage has been done. Stop it Now: Opt Out!
LikeLike
A day or two ago I posted that the top 4 hedge fund managers made 10.4 billion [inadvertently I said in 1983, obviously incorrect – it was in 2013 and that 158,000 kidg. teachers made 8.3 billion] and someone who googled it challenged that figure.
Today I googled it by typing in the top 10 hedge fund mangers income in 2013:
David Tepper 3.5 billion
Steven Cohen 2.4 billion
John Paula 2.3 billion
James …. 2.2 billion [I cannot read my own hastily written writing.
Total 10.4 billion
I did not google the kdg. t eacher figure but as the above was accurate from my source:
Jim Hightower: in the Lowdown I feel comfortable in assuming that that figure is also correct.
Whatever the figures: The discrepancy between those who teach and those who work the hedge funds is “substantial” – to say the least.
AND who makes the greatest contribution to society.
In looking up the above I found that one of these, I did not write it down so cannot say for sure but the text was that that person, perhaps Steven Cohen was indicted, maybe convicted of inside trading so that this year that person will NOT be making the amount of money as he did in 2013.
I apologize for in the first blog of saying 1983. I do not know how I made that error.
I blogged the information twice and the second time got it right.
I hope this clarifies my former blog.
LikeLike
“. . . that Smarter Balanced test scores have not yet been determined to be valid or reliable.”
And the Smarter Balanced test CAN NEVER BE DETERMINED TO BE VALID OR RELIABLE as proven by Noel Wilson in his never refuted nor rebutted 1997 treatise “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
By Duane E. Swacker
LikeLike
SBAC a.k.a. ‘the neither nor’.
LikeLike
The ed reform “movement” are all abuzz over the start of Common Core testing.
Why do they only pay positive attention to our schools when our kids are taking a test they all backed? I haven’t seen this much attention directed at Ohio public schools for the last 20 years. All of a sudden “we’re GREEEAT!”
When the Common Core tests are in the can do we go back to 24/7 public school bashing from The Movement?
LikeLike
It seems POTUS’ anti-torture position does not include public education.
LikeLike
If you think the Obomber is anti-torture, well RT, I’ve got some great ocean front property over at Lake of the Ozarks in Central Missouri for a bargain price. Call now, operators are standing by.
LikeLike
Excellent, excellent, bravo…terrific idea
LikeLike
Pearson’s Smarter Balanced standardized test (SBAC) has issues with validity and reliability – according to its own literature!
• Hand-scoring: An SBAC manual states: “The majority of the components were designed to be scored by humans.” (K-12 Center at ETS, March 2014). Although taken at a computer, the majority of SBAC requires fill-in-the blank and essay answers. Yet hand-scoring is subjective and unreliable due time pressure and the fact that the majority of scorers are not English teachers. Consequently results are inconsistent.
• Validity studies haven’t been completed. “Smarter Balanced INTENDS to build vertical scales. … Smarter Balanced WILL SUPPORT a comprehensive validity research agenda…. Smarter Balanced HOPES to benchmark results from the summative assessments to the NAEP and PISA. … Finally, validity studies WILL BE conducted to establish the connection between indicators of college- and career-readiness from the Consortium’s assessment system and evidence of success in college or careers.” (K-12 Center at ETS, March 2014)
Even the Academic Senate at California State University takes issue with the SBAC’s lack of validity. “The Smarter Balanced score is not currently intended to be a placement tool vis-à-vis determining how much and what type of developmental work is needed to achieve proficiency and/or the appropriate level of credit-bearing work consistent with readiness; the Smarter Balanced score may not be reliable enough to be used for placement of this nature.” (April 2013)
LikeLike
If the Oregon teachers and parents are truly committed to opting out of Common Core tests, then have they also boycotted the ACT and SAT and AP tests? Because if they haven’t, then they are helping to perpetuate Common Core.
LikeLike
Bingo!
LikeLike
I could not be more proud to be a PAT Union member!
LikeLike
This is a letter sent by some parents at one of our Portland Public elementary schools.
Dear PPS Parents Opt Out Group members, I thought you would be interested in our opt out letter and how we shared it.
March 1, 2015
To Whom It May Concern:
Please be advised that we are opting our child out of all state-sponsored standardized testing, particularly the Smarter Balanced Assessments, until further notice. Because we love Vernon, our neighborhood school, and because we believe in the integrity and democracy of public education, we refuse to allow our child’s test score to be included in the high stakes testing that is driving education and that is being challenged locally and nationally.
We resent the intimidating language that School Chief Rob Saxton and Portland Public Schools have used recently to insist that students take these tests. We concur with the hesitancy about our current testing situation that many educators and local, state and national leaders have expressed.
High-stakes testing
• fosters test score-driven education;
• teaches children that test scores matter, not learning;
• takes time away from learning in the classroom and other educational activities, especially for the child who does not pass the first time;
• becomes the focus of instruction – teaching to the test in order to boost scores;
• favors middle class students and is a disadvantage to low-income and minority students, and to students limited in English proficiency;
• fuels unnecessary stress in younger children, drop-outs in high school and overall low morale in schools.
We will submit the exemption form and work with teachers and staff to create alternative learning activities for our child during the testing times. Thank you for honoring our request.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Bilyeu and Tim King
CC:
Superintendent Carole Smith (superintendent@pps.net)
PPS Board Members:
Ruth Adkins (radkins@pps.net)
Matt Morton (mmorton@pps.net)
Bobbie Regan (bobbie.regan@pps.net)
Steve Buel (sbuel@pps.net)
Pam Knowles (pknowles@pps.net)
Tom Koehler (tkoehler@pps.net)
Greg Belisle (gbelisle@pps.net)
Minna Jayaswal (mjayaswal@pps.net)
Representative Lew Frederick (rep.lewfrederick@state.or.us)
Senator Chip Shields (sen.chipshields@state.or.us),
Senator Michael Dembrow (Sen.MichaelDembrow@state.or.us)
Vernon Staff
Vernon Site Council
Vernon PTA Board
Tamika Fuller (contact@educationreforme.org)
Bill Bigelow (bill@rethinkingschools.org)
Sue Mach (suema@clackamas.edu)
OEIB Chief Education Officer Nancy Golden (nancy.l.golden@state.or.us)
Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction Rob Saxton (c/o crystal.greene@state.or.us)
Governor Kate Brown (http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Pages/share-your-opinion.aspx)
LikeLike
On April 2nd 2016 we sent an email to all school board directors in Southwest Washington State asking them to pass a resolution requiring all board members and senior school district leadership to take the test and report their scores to us. We also gave them the process for filing an Opt-Out (Refusal) request. Happy to share that document with anyone who wants it.
LikeLike