Daniel Katz says: When President Obama says so. Or Secretary Duncan. They like to use the words of their critics but change nothing.
He writes:
“Honestly, at this point in his administration, expecting President Obama to well and truly take action to reverse the damage of the “test and punish” era of school accountability is like expecting the Bush administration to not start unnecessary wars. That, however, did not prevent the national media from declaring that President Obama’s weekend call for reducing the burden of standardized testing in public schools a major departure from previous policies. David Dayen of Salon gushed that the President was breaking “with twenty years of precedent,” and Mother Jones’ Julia Lurie wrote that “the announcement represents a significant change in course for the Obama administration.” Nearly every major news outlet declared the announcement a move to limit the time spent on standardized testing in school…”
But that’s all blather, says Katz. The reformers are too lazy to identify which schools need extra help and which are beyond help.
“School accountability and improvement is difficult and often uncertain work. When used honestly, standardized test score data can tell you where to begin, but it should never be confused with evidence of what needs to happen in a school. Are there schools with low test scores and low value added that are Dickensian nightmares that should be closed as soon as possible? Sure. There are 98,000 public schools in the country. But there are also schools with low test scores and low value added that are full of devoted teachers, strong school leaders, and committed parents, but who need resources to provide genuine educational opportunities for all learners and to do so in a way that does not cheat them of a well-rounded and holistic education. For that matter, there are schools that boast of their great test scores and high value added, but they get there by being Victorian work houses worthy of Scrooge where children are basically beaten into submission.
“The point is that you do not know until you go to the school and actually investigate.
“But the Arne Duncans and the John Kings do not want to do that. They want to sit in offices in Albany and Washington, look over spreadsheets, and make sweeping judgements about which schools are winners and which schools are losers. They cannot really give up the high stakes attached to the standardized tests because that would mean they would have to do the hard of work of accountability and renewal, the work that actually can inform smart choices based upon community input.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“They cannot really give up the high stakes attached to the standardized tests because that would mean they would have to do the hard of work of accountability and renewal, the work that actually can inform smart choices based upon community input.”
Close, but it’s not the core of the matter. Giving up high stakes attached to standardized testing would mean the nullification of deals that have been made with privatizing profiteers who gain financially from testing, firing veteran teachers and closing schools based on test scores, so they can be replaced by non-union 5 week trained TFAers in charter schools.
With “free” market, neoliberal education “reformers” on both sides of the aisle, ALWAYS look at the financial incentives driving them and follow the money.
What was particularly astonishing was just how emphatically Robert Pondiscio of Fordham was in going after the “plan”. He pretty much eviscerated it, and I think he is at a point where he is willing to give up VAM (which he likes) if it means saving Common Core (which he loves) and at least some testing (which he desperately wants).
I know Rob personally; he is intelligent and well meaning, and a rare reformer who actually taught for at least a short while. Just not long enough. And like many who leave the profession, he has quickly forgotten the realities of teaching in a high needs environment. As an intellectual styled reformster, he thinks that solutions that seem logical just need to be implemented properly. What he fails to understand is that what appears to seem logical is just a surface feature. Dig down a few mm past the logic and one finds a world of damaged, neglected, and hopeless children living chaotic and dysfunctional lives that cannot be legislated away.
Willing or not, I hope he sees the handwriting on the court room wall: VAM is dead in the legal water.
He mistakenly thinks that Common Core standards offer the content rich experiences that are so desperately needed by disadvantaged and underprivileged children. Of course he couldn’t be more wrong. It baffles me how he ever formulated such a belief.
His desperate craving for “rigorous”, yearly, CC aligned standardized tests is rooted in his mistaken belief that the test score data will actually help underserved students combined with his adherence to the rule of buttered bread: never forget which side is buttered
He
Rob is an interesting reform disciple. One of the few who just might have enough scruples to flip some day. But then again, the butter on his bread is awfully rich and creamy.
Interesting image at the end there — and good insights.
Kindly show me a comment I’ve made — anytime, anywhere — expressing the idea that I like VAM, or that I “desperately want” testing. Or maybe there’s a different Robert Pondiscio you’re referring to? I will be happy to send you many more detailing what I’ve long described as a “complicated” relationship with testing.
“To be clear, I am not anti-testing. Far from it. The data from tests are the life-blood that courses through the arteries of much that matters to me in education and efforts to improve it.”
It is hard to question a desire for testing to continue when one calls it the “lifeblood” etc. etc.
And while you very honestly have noted in several places that current policies have created perverse incentives that drive test preparation to an unacceptable level, you also said, “It’s equally fanciful to expect a clear, fair, and effective evaluation in the absence of objective, test-driven measures.” You also acknowledge the use of test data in evaluation is unpopular, but you also called it “The most reliable means we have of evaluating performance.”
If that is not referencing value-added models, which promise objectivity but which are not supported by a robust research base, then perhaps more clarification is in order.
It seems fairly clear that you value standardized testing and would support VAM if it were not for the negative consequences in policy and practice that have come with it.
That nuanced view is commendable even though I dispute significant aspects of it, but it seems odd to deny it.
It is only a mindset that demands ideological purity that would interpret those comments as indicating things that I “love” or “desperately want.” Want to know my view of VAM? Ask me. Many do. My standard response is that I can *defend* it when it comes to subjects and classes where there is strong alignment between course content and a test. But I’ve written literally tens of thousands of words on how it encourages bad practice in reading instruction. Furthermore, I’ve noted that whether or not test-driven accountability measures (which I neither like, love, nor desperately want) are justifiable or not, at some point what matters is how the field interprets them, and their effect on classroom practice. And my sense is that it’s a net negative: The desire of some polIcy makers to use tests to evaluate teachers has overwhelmed all other uses of them (or as I often say, the testing tail is wagging the schooling dog).
I value the data from standardized testing and believe it is (or at least can be) a valuable diagnostic tool in sharpening our instructional lenses and making teaching a profession that runs on evidence, not preference, philosophy or politics. That’s pretty much it. My apologies if that makes me a poor bogeyman.
Frankly, the level of offense you are taking is far beyond the actual or implied criticism. I am hardly offering you as a “bogeyman” real or imagined. Another commenter in this thread implied you stick with the education reform community out of a desire for filthy lucre which strikes me as a much more serious accusation than quoting your own statements.
Your statements about the value of data from standardized testing are not ambiguous either in the statements I quoted or, honestly, here. We have a moderate disagreement on the value of those assessments although we may be part way towards an agreement on the limitations of the usefulness of the data and what be reasonably accomplished with it.
Regarding VAM – I have, both here and elsewhere, acknowledged that you, with honesty, see the negative impact of their use in assessment policy, especially high stakes. I do not think it is a mis-characterization of your statements that VAM is the “most reliable means we have of evaluating performance” to mean that you *like* value-added. I also think it is important to note that that assessment of VAM, even coupled with your admirable acknowledgement that it has negative consequences in practice, is not an assessment that can be made without significant dispute. Regardless, it is to your credit to see the nuances that come with policy, especially when those policies provide perverse incentives – that’s the second time I’ve acknowledged that in this exchange and I’ve acknowledged it quite openly in the blog post that Dr. Ravitch quotes here.
If I don’t respond to “more offensive” comments from others it’s because they don’t deserve a response. I appreciate that you have tried to earnestly and thoughtfully engage, therefore getting it right matters to me. I have simply never said (nor do I believe) that “VAM is the most reliable means we have of evaluating performance.”
I may have said that standardized tests are the most reliable means of evaluating STUDENT performance. That has nothing to do with evaluating teachers. If I said otherwise, I misspoke.
Okay, I can appreciate that and am grateful for the reciprocal compliment.
My inference about your position on value-added was tied to your discussion about it not being possible to have “clear, fair, and effective evaluation in the absence of objective, test-driven measures” (while you simultaneously acknowledged the net negative consequences). Since that was in the context of following your statement on performance reviews for teachers and since most test-driven measures for that purpose are some form of value-added, it did not seem far fetched to assume you see them as worthwhile on their own merits but not useable because of the consequences in practice.
I appreciate the effort to clarify these issues with you.
I was just googling “common core [stinks]” and I found this British tabloid article from a few days ago:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3291895/The-grade-math-question-puzzled-5-5-5-15-NOT-correct-answer.html
“Failing schools” is inaccurate and imprecise
We have allowed politicians, corporations, the media, and our selves to think that the problem with kids and education is “failing schools.” Now these same people are calling the problem “failing teachers.” Is this really the problem? Is this accurate and precise? No, but it does further some people’s own agenda (follow the money trail).
The problem with educating young people in today’s American culture is POVERTY. I do mean classic economic poverty and the unequal distribution of the country’s wealth … but I also mean a few other kinds of poverty. I believe that we have a poverty in parenting and I also believe that we have another more subtle, more dangerous poverty — a poverty in taking responsibility. If you think right now that I’m talking about someone else, I’m not — I’m talking to you. I mean all of us, we are not taking responsibility for this problem. It probably costs too much and would take a lot of effort.
Educating our youth is all of our responsibility, we have to holds ourselves to the highest standards, we have to work as hard as we can to be good examples for the children. We have to teach our kids that education is important, that they owe it to themselves to be well educated. More importantly, we need to teach kids that they owe the people around them — their community — to work as hard as they can. “Ask not what your country can do for you, etc. etc.” It is also all of our responsibility to pay enough in taxes to support that education. You can’t stop paying your school taxes when your kids graduate. Don’t you want your neighbors kids to be educated enough to be able to be your doctor, policeman, and pharmacist as you grow old?
Can we change the conversation so that it is more realistic to the problem? Can we quit blaming schools/teachers and start addressing the real problem?! A little accuracy and precision could help us move toward answering the problem. Let’s stop wasting time and start doing the right work — let’s address all forms of poverty.
I really disliked the President’s online clip on testing because he does what ed reformers in his administration always do- he sets this up as a battle between ed reformers + parents versus public schools.
I got news for him. I’m not allied with his administration versus public schools. I think the adversarial tone ed reformers adopt re: public schools is designed to manipulate opinion where reformers are the saviors of children and public schools are the enemy. I reject that whole frame because I think it’s politically calculated to advance the President’s narrow ed reform “movement” agenda.
Its the obfuscation, stupid.
I think the ease with which he adopts the frame indicates how completely his administration is captured by this “movement”.
This idea they have that the role of parents is to join with ed reformers in the private sector and government to “demand” schools do this or that is just not a cooperative or collaborative stance.
The President shouldn’t try to enlist us in his battle with public schools. Not only am I not joining them, I don’t know why they’re battling the schools they’re supposed to be assisting.
Don’t worry about parents joining forces. Here in NY they have seen through the smoke and mirror campaign against teachers and have lashed back against the damage being inflicted on their children. The opt out movement is going viral here (except NYC), so much so that it appears as if Dr. Cuomo just may be maneuvering to de-fang the testing monster he created. I have said this before and when the smoke clears (in a few years) it will not be the airplanes that killed the gorilla.
The reform movement will ultimately be defeated by a concept so far removed from their steely, money grubbing hearts: love. A parents love for their children will eventually bring the tests-as-weapons movement to its fitting end.
Take some time to read the parent comments here, and you will have no doubt this is true. Real parents. Real frustration. Real anger. Serious business.
http://www.petition2congress.com/15080/stop-common-core-testing/
After almost 8 years, it’s really hard to believe that Democrats are still falling for this stuff.
It’s pathetic.
How dumb can a person be?
Dumb. Dumber. Dumbest. Obama.
Years ago I watched a news clip of Obama interacting with young elementary students. And I thought to myself, how can an obviously intelligent adult be so damned clueless.
It’s very reminiscent of Lucy and Charlie Brown.
After nearly 8 years of pulled out footballs, Democrats keep holding out Hope that this time there will be a real Change and Obama will not pull out the football at the last second.
What lies behind all standardized testing (well maybe not all, there are few absolutes) is a belief that teachers cannot be trusted to assess truthfully and that therefore others must assess to keep teachers honest. I know there are some tests that are designed to identify where things stand overall nationally and internationally, but even this kind of testing creates mis-impressions that create other problems. But when I consider what is at the heart of standardized testing it is the standards and the standards measure skills. The goal of these tests is to identify the skills students do or do not have. But the problem with this is that skills are tested without a context. The skills do not necessarily challenge students to think or develop the imagination. If all writing is thinking there is some thinking going on but generally it all revolves around how can I beat this test, they do not develop insights that will remain with a student for any length of time. It is in reading and contemplating novels, essays, poems, plays, and the like where we are confronted with life altering issues that stimulate thought and the imagination and it is these insights that often change the direction a life takes. Julie Taymor in an interview in the Boston Globe said, “The Arts are the most dangerous, subversive thing in the universe. They have the power to change your mind and that’s why they’re pushed away.” Standardized tests not only do not change minds they discourage that kind of thinking altogether. The reason business interest like these tests, in my opinion anyway, is because it develops the skills they want their employees to have without developing the wisdom, maturity, or judgment that might encourage an employee to challenge the ethics of these businesses. Write your standardized response do not question the ratio between CEO compensation and employee compensation. Spray the insecticides where we tell you to, do not think about the damage it may do to the environment.
When I teach a book or a poem or an essay I am asking students to apply the skills they have to a specific text that raises specific issues, that challenges the imagination in specific ways, that investigates the way the world works. As Aristotle suggested, fiction (he called it Poetics) is better than history because it asks us to consider not what has happened in the world, but how the world might be changed and it is better than philosophy because it attempts to put our philosophical ideas into real world situations and consider how they might work. It is in stories that key concepts about how life is lived are defined, we do not discover the meaning of courage in a dictionary, we do begin to understand its definition from stories like “Beowulf” or “The Lord of the Rings.” We come to understand love from a play like “King Lear” that forces us to consider how love is shown in words vs. how it is shown in action. Or in Proust, in a book like “Swann’s Way” where one man’s true love (or obsession) is contrasted with a woman’s opportunism. Loyalty and faithfulness is seen more in Aeneas’ efforts to get his family out of Troy after the Greek destruction of the city, than in anything Noah Webster has said. We learn about maturity and what it means to grow up from books like “The Red Badge of Courage.” There is no standardized test that can measure, let alone inculcate these values, yet time that would be devoted to developing the skills the standards identify while encouraging students to think and develop as more wise, more mature, more thoughtful, more fulfilled human beings are set aside and sometimes ignored.
The study of the Arts and the Humanities is what often develops the human being inside all of us, their absence develops the child into a more effective machine. Of course this does not always happen because the human will come out in most of us at some point and when it does we are likely to become angry when we realize what has been done to us. But in practice the standards and the tests that accompany them are often dismissive of the Arts and the Humanities. In spite of the footnote on page 5, my school is still pressing us to replace literary texts with informational ones and to teach the literary texts that remain more as exercises in finding facts and informational type stuff than in challenging the mind, the heart, or the imagination.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.