Rick Hess, senior education fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, did not join the crowd of apologists and excuse-makers who downplayed the meaning of the 2015 NAEP scores. He said the scores were “dismal,” “a train wreck,” and “mass carnage.”
He noted that Secretary Duncan was in “damage control” mode.
Hess writes:
“Viewed against more than two decades of prior scores, these results can only be described as a train wreck. They were so disturbing mostly because we’ve gotten so used to steady improvement in NAEP scores. Never before had fourth-grade math scores declined. Eighth-grade reading scores hadn’t fallen since 1996. Fourth-grade reading scores haven’t dipped since 2003, or eighth-grade reading since 2005. In other words, the widespread carnage on display this year is wholly unprecedented. The Obama administration, which has bragged about the efficacy of its federally fueled school-reform agenda, immediately moved to aggressive damage control. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan explained that the declines should in no way raise questions about Obama-promoted education policies such as Common Core or the administration’s Race to the Top program. “Big change never happens overnight,” Duncan said. “I’m confident that over the next decade, if we stay committed to this change, we will see historic improvements.”
Duncan’s insistence that it will take a while for Obama policies to bear fruit would be more compelling if he had not — just last week— already credited Obama policies such as the School Improvement Grant program with boosting the nation’s graduation rate. Or if, two years ago, he hadn’t credited administration policies for 2013’s NAEP gains. At the time, he said, “All eight states that had implemented the state-crafted Common Core State Standards at the time of the 2013 NAEP assessment showed improvement . . . and none of the eight states had a decline in scores.” He added, “Tennessee, D.C., and Hawaii have done some really tough, hard work, and it’s showing some pretty remarkable dividends” on the NAEP results.”
Other commentators blamed the recession of 2008, but Hess pointed out that the recession did not affect scores in 2009 or 2011.
There are many reasons why scores go up or down, but whatever they may be, NAEP 2015 is a disaster for Duncan and Obama’s years of boasting about their education agenda. You can’t claim credit when scores go up but disown the scores when they go down.
Having heard about the fierce urgency of reform for seven years, now we are told that it will take a decade to see the fruits of high-stakes testing and racing to the top. That doesn’t sound like fierce urgency. It sounds like the worn-out status quo, making excuses for failure.
My own hunch about the test-score stagnation is that teachers, principals, students, and schools were confused by the constant disruption that reformers prize. Children and schools need consistency and stability. That’s precisely what reform could not deliver.
Corporations can re-invent themselves, but schools must be a refuge from a world of uncertainty. To import that uncertainty into the school does not improve education. It turns the schools into heartless, soulless, cold institutions where teachers and principals come and go; staff members disappear. The school itself may close and vanish.
Turmoil is not conducive to teaching and learning.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426222/reading-math-national-assessment-educational-progress-arne-duncan

I think students have taken so many standardized tests that they have become apathetic to them. Their feeling is that the NAEP was another test that had no impact on them. why should I try.
LikeLike
This is truer than any non-teacher realizes. The opt out movement has had a dramatic affect on student’s “why bother” attitude toward standardized testing as well. All in all, test scores have been rendered moot by the combined forces if adolescent psychology and reformer ignorance of it.
LikeLike
“All in all, test scores have been rendered moot . . . ”
Standardized test scores have been moot, actually COMPLETELY INVALID from the day the first standardized test was devised. To understand why, all should read and comprehend Noel Wilson’s never refuted nor rebutted “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 words 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.
LikeLike
Duane
In a perfect world you (and Wilson) would be right.
LikeLike
RATT,
I’m not interested in a perfect world as there is no such thing and never will be. I am interested in humans operating on a “fidelity to truth” (F2T^) basis. F2T means that once your current “truth” is shown to be false, have error(s), have contradictions, then one must adjust that “truth” to take into account the new information. This actually isn’t a very new concept as it really is the Enlightenment way of thinking/being, the scientific way that has overtaken the “truth as revealed by god” regime that, unfortunately, still has many idiologues* thinking that “revealed truth” (whether “revealed” by a god, prophet, human oracle, religious seer, etc. . . ) is the best/good/proper means of living and being a human being.
^Couldn’t resist making up an acronym.
*idiologue (n.) One who believes in any idiology**.
**Idiology (n.) A belief system based in/on error and falsehood with little to no rationo-logical basis. The belief system of idiots.
LikeLike
I’m no fan of much of what passes as ed reform these days. But is this one-year change statistically significant? Just asking what I think Deming would ask….
LikeLike
Of course the smart way to look at NAEP results is to look for trends over time. The trend over time has been for scores to go up. Even though the results may be statistically significant, one year does not make a trend. However, Duncan and company left themselves open for criticism since Duncan claimed credit for previous gains.
LikeLike
Also, and maybe more importantly, the achievement gap on NAEP has not decreased. Scores on NAEP have been trending up over decades, (even before data driven, high stakes testing, NCLB) while the achievement gap has been increasing. The whole purpose of school reform is to narrow this gap because it is a sure indication of inequity in the system.
The achievement gap was narrowest in the late 70s, early 80s, when, by the way, the distribution of wealth in the US was at it’s height, and union membership was also at it’s height.
LikeLike
Any discussions of standardized test scores, which by definition are COMPLETELY INVALID to begin with, is just a bunch of mental masturbation that has no basis in rationo-logical thought. The educational malpractice of standardized testing and psychometrics should be on the trash heap of failed ideas such as eugenics, phrenology, geo-centric astronomy, blood letting, the four humors, etc. . . . One might rightly conclude that standardized testing is actually a sub-study of eugenics.
LikeLike
“My own hunch about the test-score stagnation is that teachers, principals, students, and schools were confused by the constant disruption that reformers prize. Children and schools need consistency and stability. That’s precisely what reform could not deliver.”
Bingo! The past 4 or 5 years have seen multiple, useless, confusing initiatives foisted on my high school. Huge amounts of time, money and effort were required to satisfy administrative demands that continue to this day. Every minute that I, and other teachers, spend on this junk takes away from quality education. I am not surprised at the NAEP declines.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I totally agree. The disruption is time consuming and confusing. Our union asked that no new programs be implemented this school year – let’s just stick to what we are already doing and improve it. As mathman says so much of it seems to be busy work and data and trying to show results to some higher ups. It takes away from your planning and prep time because something needs to be turned in by a certain date. Amplify Burst was a prime example of this. Thankfully we dropped it – after spending gobs of money. Reduce class size? No – we need the money to spend on another program that will save education and save teachers from themselves.
LikeLike
Rick Hess has given you another occasion to be eloquent about education, and the absurdity of recent history. In this case his hyperbole is a bit like the irritant that produces another pearl of wisdom from the host of this blog.
LikeLike
There is no doubt regarding the absurdity of recent history as it relates to education reform. However, what is recent? Obama and Duncan and RTTT? Governors and state supers endorsing the education reform efforts of Achieve, The Fordham Foundation, and Education Trust starting with the America Diplpma Project that leads to the CCSS? The Palisades conference in 1996 that creates Achieve? Or the fact that on the one hand NAEP was going up since the 1990s but a whole bunch of folks were endorsing the conclusions of A Nation at Risk and partaking in an all out assault on our public schools via a corporate education reform approach? Hess is correct regarding the education reform politicies of Obama and his b-ball buddy. However, they were going along with all those Republican and Democratic Govs who went along with those who made the CCSS happen. They also went long with all those Dems and Repubs who called public schools a failure and jumped on board the testing bandwagon. Does Hess want us to forget how we got to this point by only focusing on Obama and Duncan? Every rime I read soemthing like this by Rick Hess I check my wallet!
LikeLike
Let me suggest that NAEP score fluctuations are as meaningless and irrelevant as are fluctuations on other nationally normed tests, including the SAT and ACT. Thus, it is pretty ridiculous of those of us who call for truth in testing, fairness in testing, sanity in testing, etc., to gloat over drops in NAEP scores and cite them as “proof” that Common Core or any other item in the corporate deform agenda has failed. I’ve read several pieces this week from advocates for public education doing just that, and I was tempted to remind them that if you want to use NAEP scores to taunt the corporate profiteers, you simply give legitimacy to the game they’re playing. Your short-term pleasure in pulling their beards will be soon forgotten in the next round of testing abuse. These guys can’t lose as long as we given credence to standardized test scores; they can’t win as long as we disabuse the public and ourselves of such absurd notions. And it has been disappointing to see some otherwise sane, rational people fall prey this week to the temptation of the cheap laugh and fleeting pleasures of schadenfreude found in an “I told you so” that next week will be turned around once again on teachers, schools, kids, and communities via the Bigger Lie: US Public Education Is Failing.
LikeLike
Michael,
I agree with you about the scores. But the reformers have made scores the Holy Grail. Duncan boasted in 2013 about Tennessee and other Race to Top states. Hoist by his petard. But it is fool’s gold.
LikeLike
I think it’s fair to point out that if we took such things seriously, then we could declare deform a failure based on what they claim to value. But I believe it is vital to temper such criticism by pointing out that in fact we do NOT accept standardized test scores as a valid measurement for school or teacher competence or success, particularly not as they are currently being abused.
I worry that some of the articles that have appeared this past week really fail to grasp the danger.
LikeLike
Just fighting fire with fire. If the fluctuation was a bounce, the reform crowd would be crowing about the success of Common Core and their pro-testing regime despite the fact that any small one year change is insignificant at best. This has never been a debate about the pros and cons of competing educational philosophies, programs, or policies. It has never been about the truth or what’s best for kids. It was a propaganda fueled attack on public education by corporate privatizers and their political shills. Fighting their lies and distortions and bogus claims with mere rational, academic arguments was never a fair fight.
LikeLike
Completely agree MPG!!
LikeLike
Reformers will soon start clamoring that NEAP needs to be better “alligned” with common core.
LikeLike
It is the deformers themselves that are train wrecks in both professional and personal regards. ALL indicators point to this. If it walks like a duck and talks in reverse Latin, French and gibberish while projectile-vomiting pea soup, it’s a deformer.
LikeLike
“Arne Duncan” (parody of Casey Jones by The Grateful Dead)
Driving that train, high on no brain,
Arne Duncan better, watch your deed.
Parents ahead, teachers behind,
And you know that testing just crossed their mind.
This Common Core makes it on time,
Leaves Gates Foundation ’bout a quarter to nine,
Hits White-House Junction at seventeen to,
At a quarter to ten you know it’s travelin’ again.
Driving that train, high on no brain,
Arne Duncan better, watch your deed.
Parents ahead, teachers behind,
And you know that testing just crossed their mind.
Trouble ahead, states are in red,
Take my advice, fund libraries instead.
Coleman’s sleeping, the Common Core’s poo, it’s
Gone off the rails and done-for, it’s true.
Driving that train, high on no brain,
Arne Duncan better, watch your deed.
Parents ahead, teachers behind,
And you know that testing just crossed their mind.
Trouble with you is the trouble with Rhee,
Got two good eyes but you still don’t see.
Come round the bend, you know it’s the end,
Pearson schemes and manure just steams
LikeLike
You just need music and images. Light up the comment section with sound and video, then pipe it into Duncan and Cuomo’s cell phones, on an emergency self-charging hookup! But wait until cameras are recording.
LikeLike
Thanks SDP. For those not familiar with this tune:
LikeLike
By the way, some time ago you requested “School Deform from A to Z”
Here it be
A is for Avarice, driving the Huns
B is for Billions, from public school funds
C is for Coleman, the Core of the trouble
D is for Duncan, who made it all double
E is for Eva, a charter school nut
F is for Failure, for those who are cut
G is for Gates, who has bankrolled deform
H is for Hack, the Deformian norm
I is for Ignorance, willful and not
J is for Journey, to Plunderland spot
K is for Kopp and her front, TFA
L is for Loopy, the Common Core way
M is for Money, the ultimate goal
N is for Nihilist, standardized soul
O is for Onerous, testing in schools
P is for Pearson, for tests and for tools
Q is for ‘Quality’, gauged by a score
R is for Rigor, of zombies and more
S is for Standards, established by hacks
T is for Testing irrelevant facts
U is for Unicorns, fairies and rest
V is for VAM, which is random, at best
W’s for Winnowing, wheat from the chaff
X is for X-out, of schools and of staff
Y is for “Y’all better do as we’ve said”
Z is for Zimba, quite clueless ‘bout ed
LikeLike
Nice!
B is loaded. Yes billions is good, but there’s Bloomy, Broad and Brown to start.
M could also be for the two Mikes, Bloomy and punchy Mulgrew.
Don’t have to remind you of what BM stands for.
So many transgressors, so few letters!
LikeLike
They just don’t have any credibility on what these test scores mean, because they use them selectively to promote the “movement” agenda.
This is a high-profile ed reformer in Ohio. Ohio has adopted each and every ed reform gimmick, fad and experiment over the last 15 years. If it’s pitched by one of these lobbying groups, our lawmakers seem absolutely incapable of saying “no”, to anything.
Scores were down in Ohio, so what does the ed reformer do? He cherry picks Cleveland and says reforms are “working”. On that same day he trashes Detroit Public Schools because they have low scores, even though Detroit ALSO adopted every single ed reform fad and gimmick that came down the pike and Detroit is now something like 50% charter schools.
Public schools can’t win this game. It’s rigged. Scores go up it is credited to privatization. Scores go down the decline is attributed to the failure of public schools.
LikeLike
They don’t just move the goalposts – they replace them with soccer nets or basketball hoops; which ever suits their needs. Parents need more than just a weatherman to tell which way their wind blows. An ed-reform movement built on obfuscation.
LikeLike
They’re doing another big push to expand charter schools in Ohio, helped along by a huge Obama Administration grant.
https://www.toledoblade.com/Letters-to-the-Editor/2015/11/01/Ohio-charter-school-improvements-a-reality.html
93% of the kids in this state attend public schools, and the public schools have not fared well under ed reform leadership at the federal and state level. There’s never any discussion of that huge, glaring failure in ed reform. Instead the entire ed reform focus is on opening more charter schools. That’s what political capture looks like. The President can’t see it because he’s in it.
LikeLike
It is an incredibly small “toolbox” the reformers are working with. Testing and Charters. Charters and Testing. And one begets the other.
For a reform movement that has spent so much time spouting the importance of 21st century, critical thinking skills and problem solving skills, it is astounding how skill deprived they really are. They have a climbed inside the incredibly small, “testing-charter box” and have demonstrated no desire to think outside of it.
Like a dentist who says, “There are so many sick people in this country that need help, I’m glad I have invented the one cure.”
LikeLike
Of course, these people have learned nothing from the past. When they started the test-them-til-they-scream policy that has made their administration infamous, we had already had 10 years of NCLB and, ahem, “test-based accountability” (which, you will remember, was going to make ALL students proficient by, ahem, last year).
They looked at an obviously failed policy and said, “We need to do a lot more of that.”
And not actually being in any of the schools that they make policy for, they had no clue about the extent to which testing had ALREADY entirely warped ALMOST EVERYTHING in our schools–
how often, for example, kids were missing class in order to take baseline tests and makeup tests and interim tests in preparation for THE TEST;
how often lessons were taking the form of test prep;
how many textbooks and curriculum plans had given up on having any rational organization and content to make room for prep for THE TEST;
how much learning was not taking place in the tested areas because those areas were being devalued or distorted to become extensions of the tested areas;
and, of course, they didn’t have a clue how invalid and unreliable their tests were and how absurdly conceived were the purported “standards” supposedly being tested by THE TEST.
And now, the masters of THE TEST tell us that there is too much testing. The only proper reaction is derision.
Secretary Duncan, Mr. President: You reap what you sow.
LikeLike
Dear Bob S, It’s good to read your comments again. You’re into 2nd quarter of school year, right? We’d enjoy reading your perceptions – you said you’d be teaching a class that has state testing.
LikeLike
How to Prevent Another PARCC Mugging: A Public Service Announcement
The Common Core Curriculum Commissariat College and Career Ready Assessment Program (CCCCCCRAP) needs to be scrapped. Here are a few of the reasons why:
1.The CCSS ELA exams are invalid.
First, much of attainment in ELA consists in world knowledge (knowledge of what—the stuff of declarative memories of subject matter). The “standards” being tested cover almost no world knowledge and so the tests based on those standards miss much of what constitutes attainment in this subject. Imagine a test of biology that left out almost all world knowledge about biology and covered only biology “skills” like—I don’t know—slide-staining ability—and you’ll get what I mean here. This has been a problem with all of these summative standardized tests in ELA since their inception.
Second, much of attainment in ELA consists in procedural knowledge (knowledge of what—the stuff of procedural memories of subject matter). The “standards” being tested define skills so vaguely and so generally that they cannot be validly operationalized for testing purposes as written.
Third, nothing that students do on these exams EVEN REMOTELY resembles real reading and writing as it is actually done in the real world. The test consists largely of what I call New Criticism Lite, or New Criticism for Dummies—inane exercises on identification of examples of literary elements that for the most part skip over entirely what is being communicated in the piece of writing. In other words, these are tests of literature that for the most part skip over the literature, tests of the reading of informative texts that for the most part skip over the content of those texts. Since what is done on these tests does not resemble, even remotely, what actual readers and writers do in the real world when they actually read and write, the tests, ipso facto, cannot be valid tests of real reading and writing.
Fourth, standard standardized test development practice requires that the testing instrument be validated. Such validation requires that the test maker show that the test correlates strongly with other accepted measures of what is being tested, both generally and specifically (that is, with regard to specific materials and/or skills being tested). No such validation was done for these tests. NONE. And as they are written, based on the standards they are based upon, none COULD BE done. Where is the independent measure of proficiency in CCSS.Literacy.ELA.11-12.4b against which the items in PARCC that are supposed to measure that standard on this test have been validated? Answer: There is no such measure. None. And PARCC has not been validated against it, obviously LOL. So, the tests fail to meet a minimal standard for a high-stakes standardized assessment—that they have been independently validated.
2. The test formats are inappropriate.
First, the tests consist largely of objective-format items (multiple-choice and EBSR). These item types are most appropriate for testing very low-level skills (e.g., recall of factual detail). However, on these tests, such item formats are pressed into a kind of service for which they are, generally, not appropriate. They are used to test “higher-order thinking.” The test questions therefore tend to be tricky and convoluted. The test makers, these days, all insist on answer choices all being plausible. Well, what does plausible mean? Well, at a minimum, plausible means “reasonable.” So, the questions are supposed to deal with higher-order thinking, and the wrong answers are all supposed to be plausible, so the test questions end up being extraordinarily complex and confusing and tricky, all because the “experts” who designed these tests didn’t understand the most basic stuff about creating assessments–that objective question formats are generally not great for testing higher-order thinking, for example. For many of the sample released questions, there is, arguably, no answer among the answer choices that is correct or more than one answer that is correct, or the question simply is not, arguably, actually answerable as written.
Second, at the early grades, the tests end up being as much a test of keyboarding skills as of attainment in ELA. The online testing format is entirely inappropriate for most third graders.
3. The tests are diagnostically and instructionally useless.
Many kinds of assessment—diagnostic assessment, formative assessment, performative assessment, some classroom summative assessment—have instructional value. They can be used to inform instruction and/or are themselves instructive. The results of these tests are not broken down in any way that is of diagnostic or instructional use. Teachers and students cannot even see the tests to find out what students got wrong on them and why. So the tests are of no diagnostic or instructional value. None. None whatsoever.
4. The tests have enormous incurred costs and opportunity costs.
First, they steal away valuable instructional time. Administrators at many schools now report that they spend as much as a third of the school year preparing students to take these tests. That time includes the actual time spent taking the tests, the time spent taking pretests and benchmark tests and other practice tests, the time spent on test prep materials, the time spent doing exercises and activities in textbooks and online materials that have been modeled on the test questions in order to prepare kids to answer questions of those kinds, and the time spent on reporting, data analysis, data chats, proctoring, and other test housekeeping.
Second, they have enormous cost in dollars. In 2010-11, the US spent 1.7 billion on state standardized testing alone. Under CCSS, this increases. The PARCC contract by itself is worth over a billion dollars to Pearson in the first three years, and you have to add the cost of SBAC and the other state tests (another billion and a half?), to that. No one, to my knowledge, has accurately estimated the cost of the computer upgrades that will be necessary for online testing of every child, but those costs probably run to 50 or 60 billion. This is money that could be spent on stuff that matters—on making sure that poor kids have eye exams and warm clothes and food in their bellies, on making sure that libraries are open and that schools have nurses on duty to keep kids from dying. How many dead kids is all this testing worth, given that it is, again, of no instructional value? IF THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NOT OBVIOUS TO YOU, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR A SCHOOL OR AN EDUCATIONAL POLICY-MAKING DESK.
5. The tests distort curricula and pedagogy.
The tests drive how and what people teach, and they drive much of what is created by curriculum developers. This is a vast subject, so I won’t go into it in this brief note. Suffice it to say that the distortions are grave. In U.S. curriculum development today, the tail is wagging the dog.
6. The tests are abusive and demotivating.
Our prime directive as educators is to nurture intrinsic motivation—to create independent, life-long learners. The tests create climates of anxiety and fear. Both science and common sense teach that extrinsic punishment and reward systems like this testing system are highly DEMOTIVATING for cognitive tasks. The summative standardized testing system is a really, really backward extrinsic punishment and reward approach to motivation. It reminds me of the line from the alphabet in the Puritan New England Primer, the first textbook published on these shores:
F
The idle Fool
Is whip’t in school.
7. The tests have shown no positive results.
We have had more than a decade, now, of standards-and-testing-based accountability under NCLB. We have seen only miniscule increases in outcomes, and those are well within the margin of error of the calculations. Simply from the Hawthorne Effect, we should have seen SOME improvement!!! And that suggests that the testing has actually DECREASED OUTCOMES, which is consistent with what we know about the demotivational effects of extrinsic punishment and reward systems. It’s the height of stupidity to look at a clearly failed approach and to say, “Gee, we should to a lot more of that.”
8. The tests will worsen the achievement and gender gaps.
Both the achievement and gender gaps in educational performance are largely due to motivational issues, and these tests and the curricula and pedagogical strategies tied to them are extremely demotivating. They create new expectations and new hurdles that will widen existing gaps, not close them. Ten percent fewer boys than girls, BTW, received a proficient score on the NY CCSS exams–this in a time when 60 percent of kids in college and 3/5ths of people in MA programs are female. The CCSS exams drive more regimentation and standardization of curricula, which will further turn off kids already turned off by school, causing more to turn out and drop out.
This message not brought to you by
PARCC: Spell that backward
notSmarter, imBalanced
AIRy nonsense
CTB McGraw-SkillDrill
MAP to nowhere
The New Scholastic Common Core Achievement Test (SCCAT)
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (“All your base are belong to us”)
LikeLike
In 1640, Francis Bacon published his Novum Organum Scientariam, the upshot of which was that one studies specific instances in the world, comes up with a general hypothesis based upon those, and then tests the general hypothesis against other specific the world to see whether it continues to be substantiated.
Now Duncan is promulgating his Novum Novum Organum, the upshot of which is that you ignore past experience, formulate a hypothesis ex nihilo, and insist that it must be true, whatever the results of applying it in the world.
Interesting approach, Secretary Duncan.
One suggestion: whatever you do after serving at the helm of this wrecked train, don’t get a job teaching elementary- or middle-school science.
LikeLike
Cx: the Novum Organum was published in 1620, and the title is Novum Organum Scientiarum. My college Latin teacher would be horrified at that mistake! : )
LikeLike
Duncan’s approach: “Novum Novum Orangutanum“
LikeLiked by 1 person
Note the basketball.
LikeLike
LOL. Yes.
LikeLike
“My own hunch about the test-score stagnation is that teachers, principals, students, and schools were confused by the constant disruption that reformers prize. Children and schools need consistency and stability. That’s precisely what reform could not deliver.”
AMEN!!!
The carnage in the trenches is chaos.
No source materials, teachers don’t know what they will be teaching 2 weeks from today, district created tests lead to students being tested on content they’ve never seen. Formerly well resourced schools spiraling into pure chaos thanks to constant disruption and so much change. FIVE YEARS OF THIS!!!
An entire generation with high school transcripts failing to reflect ability but rather reflecting chaos.
No wonder they want to make community college free. That’s going to be the only choice for a lot of kids trapped on this created chaos.
LikeLike
For some, chaos is a feature, not a bug. The best way to take control is to create chaos — and to instill fear in teachers, administrators and students.
“The Perfect Reform Storm”
When public school reform
Becomes a perfect storm
The stakes align
Like fronts in time
And chaos is the norm
LikeLike