Alan Singer attended a conference in Madrid, where he delivered a paper called “Hacking Away at the Pearson Octopus.” He writes that the movement to break Pearson’s stranglehold on education is indeed global.
In April, protesters from teacher unions and global justice groups stormed the gates at Pearson’s annual general meeting held in London. Protesters accused Pearson of turning education into a commodity and profiting from low-fee private schools in poverty-stricken regions of Africa and India. They claimed is making millions by privatizing education in the global south. Pearson’s Chief Executive Officer John Fallon, forced to respond to dissidents, declared his enthusiastic “support free public education for every child around the world.” However he did not offer to provide Pearson’s educational services for free….
A joint letter from Great Britain’s National Union of Teachers (NUT) and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) and the organization Global Justice Now, declared “From fuelling the obsessive testing regimes that are the backbone of the ‘test and punish’ efforts in the global north, to supporting the predatory, ‘low-fee’ for-profit private schools in the global south, Pearson’s brand has become synonymous with profiteering and the destruction of public education.”
ATL general secretary Mary Bousted said: “School curricula should not be patented and charged for. Tests should not distort what is taught and how it is assessed. Unfortunately, as the profit motive embeds itself in education systems around the world, these fundamental principles come under ever greater threat leading to greater inequality and exclusion for the most disadvantaged children and young people.” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, added the voice of American teachers to the protest movement. “We fight this kind of profit making to get kids a good education and fight for governments which gives students a high quality education…..’
According to Kishore Singh of India who works for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:
“At the beginning of the new millennium, the international community made a commitment to achieve universal primary education for all boys and girls. Today, 15 years later, we find huge gaps between these commitments and reality. Across the world, 58 million children still don’t have access to schools, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. Millions more fail to graduate, or fail to learn what they need to participate in society meaningfully. Capitalising on the inability of governments to cope with rising demands on public learning, private education providers are mushrooming. I see this not as progress, but as an indictment of governments that have failed to meet their obligation to provide universal, free and high-quality education for all. Education is not a privilege of the rich and well-to-do; it is the inalienable right of every child. The state must discharge its responsibility as guarantor and regulator of education as a fundamental human entitlement and as a public cause. The provision of basic education, free of cost, is not only a core obligation of states but also a moral imperative.”
Singer repeats:
“The provision of basic education, free of cost, is not only a core obligation of states but also a moral imperative.” A very good reason to hack away at the Pearson octopus.
By now many of you know New York State has sent Person packing, selecting another vendor to create its BS tests for the next 5 years.
The new vendor promises that actual educators and teachers will be involved in the writing of the exam questions, and there will be greater transparency.
I’m not a cynical person by nature. I hope it turns out to be true.
No mention of Common Core in the press release.
The cynic in me thinks that this is a move intended to snuff out the opt out movement.
When I think of the millions of dollars New York has wasted on one reform after another, I get sick to my stomach. I get sick when I think of my school’s 2 computer labs closed for a month to give way to PARCC field testing … all of that precious time where students could have been engaged in real learning … all of that money gone down the great big money pit of the oligarchs. I get sick when I think about NYC children completing surveys designed to yet again “assess” teachers just as the regents are approving the new “mandates” where surveys for assessing teachers are forbidden … all of that precious time where students could have been engaged in real learning … all of that money gone down the great big money pit of the oligarchs. I think of the obscene amount of time and money wasted on a ridiculously complicated and poorly designed “new” test for English Language Learners. Enough is enough. We’ve had it. Just stop!
Sorry, Pearson.
Ohio just gave up PARCC. It has been replaced by AIR. I’ve heard that AIR has horrible reviews too. It is a shame that public education has become all about testing and no longer teaching. I could not have taken my present stress for 30 years. Teachers start the school year and everything is directed towards the testing the entire year. We all know that the goal of all this testing is to evaluate teachers and end as many careers as possible.
What do parents do with the elaborate score reports we paid for and will be getting sometime in November? I’m going to have to hire a consultant to compare test scores from one year to the next.
Maybe they shouldn’t “scale up” experiments and waste tens of millions of dollars and thousands of hours. The Ohio legislature didn’t know the tests were “too long” when they rubberstamped them?
What would be so wrong with admitting error, calling a time-out and figuring out what it is they seek to accomplish here before putting teachers and students thru another experiment? They would probably actually gain credibility and cooperation with an admission of error and some reasonable compromise.
AIR, American Institute for Research, is a bait and switch move for the politicians. AIR is also responsible for developing the VAM formulas in current use in NY and FL; I’m sure other places too.
AIR’s use of VAM is enough to let you know that this organization is not about true research despite its name. Their standardized tests are no better than PARCC or SBAC – in other words NOT GOOD.
“Their standardized tests are no better than PARCC or SBAC – in other words NOT GOOD.”
Not only NOT GOOD, but COMPLETELY INVALID as are all educational standardized tests that are foisted upon the children/students. See below for details.
Utah has had AIR tests in place for two years now. The appalling length and failure rates seen in the PARCC and other CC testings are just as apparent in the AIR tests. There’s no difference.
Yeah, still not seeing the “rigorous and lively debate!” I keep hearing is happening in ed reform. I listen to the US Congress and my own state legislature and it’s all the same slogans- sometimes dressed up with slightly different language but the same stuff over and over.
Looks pretty lockstep internationally, even:
“Teachers, students and union members in seven cities across Italy took to the streets on May 5 to protest education reforms currently being pushed by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.
Marches took place in Aosta, Milan, Bari, Catania, Palermo and Cagliari with about 100,000 protesters at the main march in Rome, according to Italian magazine Panorama.
The protests were in response to Renzi’s “La Buona Scuola,” or “Good School,” education reforms, which were approved by his cabinet in March and are now set to go through the parliament. The reforms would give permanent contracts to 100,000 substitute teachers by September, pay increases to teachers based on merit rather than seniority, principals more authority to handpick who gets hired, and increase the number of hours of unpaid internships high schoolers must perform.
“This is the key reform for our country and we are convinced and proud of it,” Renzi told Reuters in March after his cabinet approved the proposed reforms.
Protesters, on the other hand, say these reforms will only leave public schools underfunded, give private schools an unfair advantage, and exclude many substitute teachers who are currently working on temporary contracts.”
Why is “ed reform” always so closely associated with “cheaper labor” and “privatization”?
That’s a rhetorical question 🙂
http://wagingnonviolence.org/2015/05/italys-teachers-and-students-strike-against-proposed-education-reforms/
Reblogged this on VAS Blog and commented:
We are not alone in our concerns – this is a huge threat …
I’m glad Kasich is running for President because the Ohio ed reform debate in ’16 should be really interesting. It’s no longer lockstep here. Politicians can’t run on “charter schools !” anymore. We have a real record and there’s widespread media analysis of reforms.
Ultimately I think it comes down to “did ed reform improve Ohio public schools?” simply because 90% of Ohio students attend public schools. That should have always been the measure of success – “are public schools better under this agenda?” but the ed reform obsession with charters and private schools made a debate on ed reform’s impact on PUBLIC schools impossible. Public schools were simply not considered.
That’s changed:
“And the culmination of this was a national ranking of 5th best education system in the country, as judged by Education Week’s national Quality Counts report.
But things started changing when Gov. John Kasich took office. Most of those award-winning changes were wiped out. His own funding formula was trashed and dropped by his own party. Ohio’s charter schools are now a national joke. And his efforts at local, urban reform are off to a dubious beginning.
The culmination of Kasich’s work? The state is now ranked 18th in the country.”
http://www.10thperiod.com/2015/07/kasich-education-record-from-5th-to-18th.html
This may be part of the efforts to “rebrand” the Common Core.
Just because the education deformers are “taking off the shelves” one poison pill, watch out for the new one that comes in a different color, shape, and size.
The same garbage, intended to do the same harm to our children and our public education system…
In a brand new wrapper…
Sugar coated…
Untested…
Praised by the politician who signed for it (and quietly signs for the “contributions” from its manufacturer)…
And just as lethal as before.
Every Tuesday and Wednesday, during our Pearson Professional Development, I want to throw up because I know what they are up to!
Don’t be timid, you can do it*. What a perfect statement about the supposed quality of those oh so important Professional Development sessions.
*it = vomit
From above concerning the inherent invalidity of AIR’s tests.
“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 wownder if Mr Singer will make his paper public?
‘ “The provision of basic education, free of cost, is not only a core obligation of states but also a moral imperative.” ‘
Free basic education might put a hole in some mighty big wallets. 🙂 It’s time to look at the allowance of the accumulation of extreme wealth by a small group of individuals (and corporations) as a detriment to a healthy society and not a sign of superiority or entitlement.