In an article in Long Island Business News, three members of the New York State Board of Regents criticized the state tests, on which 70% of the state’s students failed to meet “proficiency.” They said, the students didn’t fail, the tests failed. The tests have questions that are above the students’ understanding, there is not enough time to finish, they have questions that are confusing and intended to lure students to the wrong answer.
Regent Kathleen Cashin, an experienced educator, said the tests may be neither valid nor reliable. Regent Judith Johnson, an experienced educator, said that students are fearful that their teachers will be fired if they do poorly on the tests.
Members of the Board of Regents at their meeting last Monday said the tests, due to poor design and process, may be doing damage. Rather than setting high standards, they may simply be failing to measure education, progress and skills.
“I’ve heard horror stories that, as I said to teachers, we did not hear in previous years,” Regent Judith Johnson said. “We’ve been testing forever. There are new stories that are coming out in greater numbers than ever before.
She said students are worried their teachers will be fired, if and when they do poorly on these tests – raising the stakes even higher than anticipated.
“How do we convert this notion that children have now acquired that their teachers’ livelihood depends on children’s performance in a classroom?” Johnson said, referring to the state’s comments regarding the use of results.”
Ken Wagner of the state education department defended the tests.
He said:
“He also suffers over the pain some students feel.
“If there’s anything I struggle with around assessments, it is the notion that students are crying or getting sick over the idea of taking tests,” he said. “That is s antithetical to my philosophy of how to work with children and to my assessment about what assessments are supposed to do.”
Wagner said the tests themselves are not necessarily the source of this stress, but rather the perception of them as an unrelenting and difficult master.
“It’s just an opportunity, an opportunity for them to come to the testing moment and show us what they can do and what they can’t yet do,” he said, “so the adults can help figure out how to move them from point A to point B.”
Regent Betty Rosa, an experienced educator, “said that these tests, far from being rigorous, fail to measure progress, but do damage by creating a pervasive aura of perceived failure – when the tests themselves may be what are failing.
The exams have become a failure factory, finding 70 percent of students falling short of what the test maker describes as the acceptable standard.
“At the end of it, try to pick them up. Tell them, ‘Don’t worry. You failed. But don’t worry. Next year you’ll have another opportunity,” Rosa said. “I think it’s a disservice. I think we are not being honest. I think we are not facing reality.”
Read more: http://libn.com/2015/05/26/reading-writing-and-reality-regents-assail-testing-rhetoric/#ixzz3biOGqHOi
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I’m curious why there was a unanimous vote for Elia for State ed comm by the regents, clearly a choice for testing. Maybe there were circumstances but these 3 have to be held accountable for not standing up when it counted.
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
agreed – odd, to say the least –
Amen! And as another commentor mentioned Tisch is guilty of child abuser. I would add so are the rest of the regents. Three talk a good talk, but vote with the education deformers and politicians.
There are various stories (theories) but the one that seems to make the most sense is that most of the candidates were vetted prior to the new Regents appointment and the majority was going to go for Elia. Those who did not feel strongly for Elia did not want to waste political capital on a “no” vote here when they would need it for later. Plus, there were not a lot of candidates willing to take the position, working with Tisch or Cuomo. And, there was a concern that if they did not come to a consensus, we would have ended up with Berlin/Wagner as Commissioner. So, only bad choices….
At least, these are some of the reasons I have heard bandied about.
I take this as good news, that the truth is coming out right in the nest of eval activity, but I just have to pause.
I’m celebrating because some of our Regents Board are sentient? Isn’t this sort of a DUHHH! moment, I mean after all this time? What if they were tasked to build a rocket in mid-space and finally realized years into it they might need space suits and lots of durable material?
Exactly how I see it. I’m assuming these policymakers are better than their unquoted partners, but I’m shaking my head in disbelief at their inability to fully grasp the obvious. Too many “may”s and “if”s in their quotes.
So, yes, good news…but very hard to give much credit.
they could start by telling the truth, and this isn’t true:
“It’s just an opportunity, an opportunity for them to come to the testing moment and show us what they can do and what they can’t yet do,” he said, “so the adults can help figure out how to move them from point A to point B.”
If they’re using or planning to use the tests for high stakes decisions then it doesn’t matter how many times they repeat this “just an opportunity” mantra- it isn’t true, and they should stop saying it.
Ken Wagner should go do some struggling around talking directly to parents and see how far his assessment philosophy and Hey, the exams are alright attitude gets him.
Agreed.
Wagner, like many reformers, seems to live up in his head.
he says: “the tests themselves are not necessarily the source of this stress, but rather the perception of them as an unrelenting and difficult master.”
It’s not the perception that the tests are an unrelenting and difficult master,
The problem is the the tests ARE an unrelenting and difficult master!
Jonathan: your last paragraph is spot on.
Other commenters have made excellent points but let me add—there is a very simple core belief among the self-serving “thought leaders” and enablers and enforcers of self-styled “education reform”:
That the whole world revolves around them and their expectations of others, and that the rest of the world needs to meet their expectations no matter how unrealistic or toxic they are. [Caveat: as a rule, excepting THEIR OWN CHILDREN.]
So the actual experiences of the students taking the tests don’t matter. They just haven’t learned to “turn that frown upside down” and develop some grit and determination. And think of this: he is accusing the parents of making the children fail! That is, that the children have been duped by their parents into having negative attitudes about high-stakes standardized testing.
The whole thing sounds like someone blaming victims of vicious hazing rituals for not enjoying and profiting from the experience because someone else has told them that being abused and demeaned is improper, damaging and morally wrong.
One other thing. His emphasis on testing and getting from “point A to point B”—wow! What an incredibly narrow and hollowed out idea of learning and teaching he has.
Like all rheephormsters, he finds very old and very dead and very Greek guys completely miss his point:
“The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.”
And this won’t be on the next Ken Wagner test.
Good. Plutarch deserves to be in better company.
😎
Yes he does, and it’s our job to take him there.
Thanks for the quote (Plutarch’s)
The ultimate high-stakes test is the ELA regents taken in 11th grade. If you do not pass with an acceptable score (moving target), you will not receive a high school diploma. The recent re-allignment to CC standards equates the reading difficulty similiar to an AP lit exam. Statewide confusion over how to develop curriculum, impending disaster, especially for the first wave of kids being pushed through a system that still doesn’t know which end is up. Educational malpractice.
I just think it’s the politics of the ed reform movement. The “accountability” caucus has a lot of power so they insist on sanctions related to testing (no matter whether that makes sense or not) and no one within the “movement” has the guts to stand up to them. The ideologues and the “accountability” freaks roll over the “moderates” in the ed reform “movement” every time, which is what tends to happen when you have a political coalition that has a strong set of true-believer ideologues and a wishy-washy, weak set of “agnostics”.
More and more I feel like we’re all just watching a struggle for dominance between the various factions WITHIN the ed reform “movement”. The strong factions don’t compromise and The Agnostics get rolled by them, but the important piece is they’re all “movement” members. There’s no real dissent or opposition, which is why the debate is so narrow.
Well said.
Discourse is futile!
Hopefully their ridiculous, hurtful, and damaging agenda will become more and more apparent for what it is, so that the waters of resistance will rise and rise and rise, and wash them away.
I’m thinking of the recent elections in Philadelphia. Despite millions of outside, hedge fund dollars supporting data crazy, school privatizing candidates for city council and mayor, the public school supporters won!
As Helen Gym points out, in her interview with Edushyster, Philly has been hammered with school reform to the point of numbness, without significant benefits. The reform message sounds hollower and hollower in this town. Hopefully (once again) this trend will continue.
It is not only the tests that have failed our children, but more horrifically, it is those in position to protect our children
This falls first and foremost on the desks of Cuomo, the “heavy-hearted” New York State Assembly, and the Board of Regents, for unanimously giving New York it’s latest travesty in phony leadership, a commissioner who thrives on testing and firing professional educators, and the master witch, Tisch…who has failed our children so miserably, so cunningly, and so miserably.
The people of New York have demonstrated more than the normal share of patience and humanity, using civil disobedience to rightfully do what parents should always do…to protect their cherished loved ones…their children.
Tisch is guilty of many things…including systematic child abuse of the children of the State of New York…
She should not only be arrested, but taken out in chains and locked up for the remainder of her life. An extremely wealthy woman…worthless to the people of New York.
The temperature of the people is rising…it is going to get a lot hotter as the people come to the realization that our government, instead of protecting its citizens, is totally in conspiracy to destroy the rights and freedoms of the people…
Cuomo and Tisch, and the Board of Regents…are the heart and soul, and body of the conspiracy against our citizens, and must be dealt with accordingly.
Correction…who has failed our children so miserably, so cunningly, and so completely.
I’m wondering what they plan to do about it?
That’s the $64,000 question. Or maybe I need a few more zeros.
Probably double down, it’s the quickest way back up when you’re down.
Maybe something logical like make student test scores 100% of the teacher’s evaluation
Under Arne Duncan’s (Foolean) logic (which is also Andrew Cuomo’s and Meryl Tisch’s logic), the test scores would be 110% of the teacher evaluation.
May… may… may?
How about the tests are neither valid nor reliable…are doing damage…are failing to measure education…?
“May be” are weasel words.
Exactly, SDP!!
The saddest fact to me is that so many, not only the edudeformer crowd but almost all others in education believe that the teaching and learning process can be “measured”. They’ve swallowed it hook, line and sinker and the gaffe has them impaled to throw them on ice.
Mr. Wagner should read this blog where he would learn about all the flaws and problems with these tests. Experts have analyzed the readability levels on the test finding them to be at least two years above the grade level tested. There have been problems with wording and ambiguity of the test questions, and problems with the math assessments as well. Since no one can fully analyze them, they remain an unfair, invalid mystery. All we know is that the tests were designed to fail about two thirds of the students through a rigged, arbitrary cut score.
Students should be concerned about their teachers’ futures. Students and teachers get no concrete information back at a time that is useless to instruction. The tests serve no purpose other than to blame teachers for all the “failure.” The ultimate purpose of the tests has little to do with the students. They are pawns in the governor’s agenda to discredit and take over public schools in the state. The true purpose of the tests is political, not educational.
“Since no one can fully analyze them, they remain an unfair, invalid mystery.”
NO!, no mystery there. No need to re-analyze them as Wilson has proven the COMPLETE INVALIDITY of the whole educational standards and standardized testing regime in his never refuted nor rebutted 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.
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.
I hope all this at least makes us teachers think more deeply about how we assess and grade students, and our own assumptions and convictions about what tests can show and can mean.
Allen,
Have your read Wilson’s work?
What is Ken Wagner’s background? The others are stated to have a background in education.
Oops…..should have read the article…..it’s psychology. And he’s using psychology as an excuse. Maybe he should first see if these educators have a point before defending a poorly-written test.
I know these tests are top secret, but do the Regents take a look at them? If we are paying Pearson big bucks, who is supervising our tax dollars at work???
Come on schoolgal, that’s too easy of a question: NO ONE, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON.
Words are cheap. If any of these “sentient” Regents had common sense or were truly listening to the people, they would not have voted for Elia.
This is both total misdirection and hypocrisy: if these posers really believed what they say, they wouldn’t have voted unanimously voted for Elia, whose entire reason for coming here is to combat parent opposition to the tests (and at which she will fail miserably, btw).
These comments were simply put out to cover their sorry asses, so they can use them in the future as attempted distractions from their culpability, when the inevitable and exponentially larger waves of resistance to the tests are again upon them.
“Members of the Board of Regents at their meeting last Monday said the tests, due to poor design and process, may be doing damage.
yes, if only they could improve the test “design and process’, the tests would be fine.
“Poor Execution”
Iraq and school “reform”
Are really a success
It’s simply execution
That makes them seem a mess
“Good job, Tischie”
Reblogged this on stopcommoncorenys.
If I gave a test that 70% of my students failed, I would know that my test had failed. If I failed 70% of my students, I would be called into my supervisor’s office for a little chat–and/or be rated poorly (in the old system). Any educator worth his/her grain of salt could do better than these jerks. What a travesty! My favorite part of the article, though, is: “How do we convert this notion that children have now acquired that their teachers’ livelihood depends on children’s performance in a classroom?” Johnson said, referring to the state’s comments regarding the use of results.” Excuse me? The notion? How about the reality?!
Shelley: yours comments—down-to-earth, composed on a place called Planet Reality.
The comments of Ken Wagner—composed on an ethereal plane of existence called RheeWorld, shaped by a self-imposed Rheeality Distortion Field.
I’ll go with yours…
😎
“Planet Reality.”
Planet Reality rejects any “grading” of students, whether 95% “passed” or none.
Now Planet Rheeality is where the “grading” of students is acceptable. Unfortunately the vast majority of folks on this planet Earth still live on Planet Rheeality when it comes to “grading” students.
Krazy TA, thanks! I’ve enjoyed reading many of your posts, as well!
Interesting on a couple of levels. First, the admission the tests are failing. Tests are a poor measure of what students know, and are of very little value in measuring teacher effectiveness. (The research says 10% to 14% at best…) So, yeah, the tests are failing!
Secondly, the 70% failure rate is an arbitrary number. John King, and his cronies, had predicted a 70% failure rate BEFORE students ever took the test. I won’t go into how the pass score was determined, but obviously teachers had no say. When the first results came in, New York state students passed at about a 50% rate on a standardized test. At this point King, and his cronies, decided to raise the pass score to reflect a 70% failure rate.
One thing is sure, getting rid of THE test to end all tests until the next one isn’t going to happen. The powers that be can’t have a test where 50% of the students pass it after banging on students, communities, teachers, and schools for the past 35 years. Those in power simply cannot be wrong…
John Frazzini—I refer you to the psychometrician Daniel Koretz’s MEASURING UP: WHAT STANDARDIZED TESTING REALLY TELLS US (2009).
Bottom line: the process of designing, pre-testing and producing high-stakes standardized tests is more exacting—and more exact—than you might think.
The 70% fail rate was known beforehand. That is because such tests are rigorously pretested against sample populations before being actually inflicted on students.
To put it another way: the testing company produced a test that met their clients’ specifications. If the clients had wanted a 70% pass rate, that’s what they would have gotten, or something very very close to that.
It’s all a calculated sucker punch.
My advice to one and all: when you know a sucker punch is coming, bob and weave and avoid.
English translation: opt out. Why? Because when you are going to be the target of a sucker punch and you know exactly where it’s coming from, then only suckers let themselves be punched.
Just my dos centavitos worth…
😎
Actually, it wasn’t that good in this case. I believe it may have this or the BATs page laying out what I described. If they had vetted the test the way you describe I might not have such a huge problem with it. But when 45% of the kids in Kentucky passed the same test, we know the powers that be are playing games… As far as I’m concerned, we have no Earthly idea the validity of PARCC, much less if our students are truly passing it…
Oh, and opt out! In the meantime, I will see if I can find the article, but it was an eye opener…
I believe it was Valerie Strauss publishing a Carol Burris article… Check this out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/29/the-scary-way-common-core-test-cut-scores-are-selected/
“Tests are a poor measure of what students know, and are of very little value in measuring teacher effectiveness.”
Those “tests” do not “measure” anything. They piss-poorly attempt to assess what a student may or may not know/be able to do and through a logic that is incomprehensible to me, supposedly assess “teacher effectiveness” (whatever the hell that is).
Folks we need to break out of the mindset/meme/cultural habitus that the teaching and learning process is “measurable”. It is not, in no way, in no fashion. The teaching and learning process is a very human process (even when mediated through technological devices) that rationo-logically cannot be quantified/measured. Attempting to measure many human actions/feelings/thoughts/emotions is a falsehood, illogical and otherwise spitting in the wind. It literally is an insanity.
Please, anyone explain how you measure the love you have for your children, parents, spouse, friends, pets, etc. . . .
And how do you “measure” the ability to think critically, independently and creatively? (claimed goals of Common Core)
Even if it were possible to do such a thing in principle, standardized tests (including “IQ” tests) are geared toward conformity (getting the “right” answer) so are completely inimical to such a task.
Pearson’s agenda is to make tests that are so challenging that most students need some type of remediation. Then guess who’ll provide the resources for that remediation. Pearson is shameless. The main reason we’re doing all this testing is to line their pockets. Think of all the money that we’re wasting on the tests they;re creating. Then add all the time we’re spending teaching to those tests. If they can also sucker us into purchasing their remediation resources, we’re really fools. Teachers usually know what is needed and have a solid handle on what and how to teacher their students. We need to trust them! Pearson is right up there with Monsanto in my book, no scruples and extremely greedy. They don’t care who they hurt or what the cost to society.
The flawed tests are only a part of the problem.
– First we have the philosophy that the USA should use the same measurements for every 3-8th grade child, class, school, district and state.
– Then we have the new standards, designed for the top third, but used for all, knowing most will not pass the tests and that many teachers aren’t even qualified to teach them
– Then we have the weeks of classroom time lost to testing, practice and scoring
– Then we have the narrowing of curriculum to just two subjects.
– Then we have the high stakes added, creating perverse incentives
– Then we have six days of flawed tests, which make kids hate school, where 1 of 4 answers can be guessed, and where questions have multiple or no correct answers
– Then we have the scoring, where written portions are subjectively scored, often by $11/hr temps
– Then we have the state manipulating the proficiency thresholds, or “cut” scores
– Then we have the state manipulating outcomes by secretly withdrawing test questions
– We then use the resulting scores in a secretive, complex “value added” growth formula for teacher evaluations that relevant experts call invalid and unreliable
– We then rank teachers and administrators according to these invalid measures, threatening their jobs and tenure
– We also rank teachers in non-tested subjects like art or gym on the same math or ELA scores, making the evaluation policies a joke
– We then rank schools and districts according to these flawed metrics, affecting home values
– With massive “failure” sweeping the state, he conditions then become ripe for teacher dismissal, school closings or district takeovers
With over 200,000 higher-performing children opting out of tests this year, tests scores are likely to be even less accurate, with no recognition of the people’s record-setting protest against a completely faulty system of assessment
You have to be careful, when you put it that way, people might actually see the tests as a bad thing. 🙂
Excellent summary of the situation.
This years scores have zero validity. The opt out movement did not only remove nearly 20% of the mostly higher performing students, but the psychological effect on the remaining test takers have completely corrupted the results.