Archives for the month of: October, 2015

Our reader who calls himself Krazy TA often reminds us that Secretary Duncan was for testing before he was against it, and was against it after he was for it, but is still for it even as he is against it.

Krazy TA writes:

“Arne Duncan. April 30, 2013. His speech to the annual AERA meeting.

The current rebranding is no major shift. This is no minor shift. The words were already out there 2 1/2 years ago. And then, as now, the current administration takes very little responsibility for the consequences of its own policies, mandates and advocacy.

The main problem according to rheephormsters? Somebody, anybody, everybody else.”

😎

[start excerpt]

… I’d like to discuss the challenges I’ve highlighted about asking hard comparative questions and heeding those counterintuitive outcomes, but with special attention to standardized testing and assessment.

I think we can generally agree that standardized tests don’t have a good reputation today—and that some of the criticism is merited. Policymakers and researchers have to listen very carefully—and take very seriously the concerns of educators, parents, and students about assessment.

At its heart, the argument of the most zealous anti-testing advocates boils down to an argument for abandoning assessment with consequences for students, teachers, or schools.

The critics contend that today’s tests fail to measure students’ abilities to analyze and apply knowledge, that they narrow the curriculum, and that they create too many perverse incentives to cheat or teach to the test. These critics want students and teachers to opt out of all high-stakes testing.

The critics make a number of good points—and they express a lot of the frustration that many teachers feel about today’s standardized tests.

State assessments in mathematics and English often fail to capture the full spectrum of what students know and can do. Students, parents, and educators know there is much more to a sound education than picking the right answer on a multiple choice question.
Many current state assessments tend to focus on easy-to-measure concepts and fill-in-the-bubble answers. Results come back months later, usually after the end of the school year, when their instructional usefulness has expired.

And today’s assessments certainly don’t measures qualities of great teaching that we know make a difference—things like classroom management, teamwork, collaboration, and individualized instruction. They don’t measure the invaluable ability to inspire a love of learning.

Most of the assessment done in schools today is after the fact. Some schools have an almost obsessive culture around testing, and that hurts their most vulnerable learners and narrows the curriculum. It’s heartbreaking to hear a child identify himself as “below basic” or “I’m a one out of four.”

Not enough is being done at scale to assess students’ thinking as they learn to boost and enrich learning, and to track student growth. Not enough is being done to use high-quality formative assessments to inform instruction in the classroom on a daily basis.

Too often, teachers have been on their own to pull these tools together—and we’ve seen in the data that the quality of formative tools has been all over the place.

Schools today give lots of tests, sometimes too many. It’s a serious problem if students’ formative experiences and precious time are spent on assessments that aren’t supporting their journey to authentic college- and career-readiness.

[end excerpt]

Read the rest. It’s simply been recycled to serve the political needs du jour.

Link: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/choosing-right-battles-remarks-and-conversation

😎

*AERA: American Educational Research Association.

Mercedes Schneider here reports the disappointing news from Louisiana.

More than $3.5 million of out-of-state money swamped the candidates for the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, who among them raised only about $50,000. Only two opponents of corporate reform survived the election, and both are in a run-off.*

Four billionaires put up more than a million dollars.

Democracy lost.

But the good news is that the likely next governor is John Bel Edwards, a Democrat who is not in sympathy with the mean-spirited policies of Governor Bobby Jindal and who has said that he will fire ex-TFA State Commissioner of Education John White, who is known for hiding and spinning data.

*THE ORIGINAL POST NOTED ONLY ONE CRITIC OF CORPORATE REFORM WHO SURVIVED THE BILLIONAIRES’ ONSLAUGHT, BUT THERE WERE TWO: DISTRICT 4 AND 6.

One of the groups I have come to admire is called Pastors for Texas Children.

They regularly testify before the state legislature against vouchers because they believe in separation of church and state.

They have been especially effective in making the voices of rural communities and small town heard, places where people like their public schools.

They need your help to continue their battle for better public schools:

As many of you already know Pastors for Texas Children has received a matching grant from The Meadows Foundation! They will award us $30,000 on November 10, 2015. If we can raise that amount between now and then they will award us an additional $30,000 to benefit our children in Texas. Here is the amount we have raised and the amount we still need.

Amount Raised: $9,080.00

Amount Needed: $20, 920.00

Remember, we will need to raise the $20,920.00 by November 10, 2015 – counting today that’s just 19 days left.

Many of you have already generously donated, and we would like to express our sincere gratitude to you! If you haven’t given already, please donate $50,$100, $200 or any amount you would like to:

Pastors for Texas Children
PO Box 471155
Fort Worth, Texas 76147

You may also donate by credit card online at http://pastorsfortexaschildren.com/donate by clicking on the red Donate button.

Please give so we can receive these matching funds and help us make the local church and the local school a “dynamic duo” for God’s common good in every community in Texas!
God bless you, your family, your ministry, your school, and your district, and thank you for standing strong for our schoolchildren.

Blogger Educational Alchemy sees behind the Department of Education smokescreen. The goal of the Obama administration’s “Testing Action Plan” is not what it appears.

Now that almost every school is testing online, it is time to move on to the next stage of the education revolution. Outsourcing online testing to vendors.

The wave of the future: Competency-based assessments.

Here is an excerpt:

This is what the “Testing Action Plan” (TAP) says:

The new plan will “include competency-based assessments, innovative item types.” It states also “The Department will also share tools already available to do this work, including The Council of Chief State School Officers’ (CCSSO) Comprehensive Statewide Assessment Systems: A Framework for the Role of the State Education Agency in Improving Quality and Reducing Burden and Achieve’s Student Assessment Inventory for School Districts.”

This is what it means:

Remember CCSSO? They are the ones who crafted the Common Core State Standards. The standards were developed to create a “standardized” system that allows third-party companies to develop systems for outsourcing education. Now with a set of “national” standards as benchmarks, instruction can be metered out by online edu-tech companies who provide new “competency” based instruction and assessment. No teacher required.

In 2010, the Foundation for Excellence in Education (who supported Common Core) convened the Digital Learning Council, a diverse group of more than 100 leaders in education, government, philanthropy, business, technology and members of policy think tanks led by Co-Chairmen Jeb Bush, and Bob Wise (both integral in the creation and promotion of Common Core). It’s an ALEC model-endorsed comprehensive framework of state-level policies and actions “designed to advance the meaningful and thoughtful integration of technology into K12 public education.”

This idea is stated again toward the end of the Testing Action Plan (TAP): “Congress should continue to require the Department to work with external assessment experts to ensure states are using high-quality assessments that are aligned with state-developed standards and valid for the purposes for which they are used.”

TAP Says:

“…the Department granted a temporary waiver to New Hampshire to pilot a competency-based assessment system in four districts ….” as a way to set a national example. (and), “The Department will work with external assessment experts…”

What this means:

The department will outsource education curriculum and assessment to corporations just like it did in NH where they “…have adopted unique and innovative learning approaches, such as digital learning, that create a more flexible learning schedule that extends beyond the school day.”

The Alliance for Excellent Education (Bob Wise serves as president) in 2013 stated: “Competency-based advancement is an important part of New Hampshire’s strategy for implementing the Common Core State Standards.”

Read the post with care. Every element is there for a transition to the next stage of relinquishing control of curriculum and assessment to the vendors.

Tim Farley, principal of an elementary/middle school in upstate New York and founding member of New York State Allies for Public Education, writes here that the new Obama testing policy might increase the time spent testing students.

Andrew Cuomo, governor of Néw York, was quick to applaud the Ibama plan and to note with pride that New York had already enacted a 2% cap on testing time.

Farley writes:

“In New York, as Cuomo has reminded us, we already have a 2% cap on time spent on standardized testing. What does that actually mean? In New York we have 180 school days and an average school day runs about 6.5 hours. If one does the math that’s 180 x 6.5 x 2% = 23.4 hours of testing. So, by law, we cannot exceed 23.4 hours of standardized testing in grades 3–8.

“This begs the question — How much time do kids in grades 3–8 spend on the state tests in English Language Arts and math? If you are a general education student, you will spend roughly nine hours in a testing room for both the ELA and math tests. If you are a student with a learning disability (SWD), and you have a testing accommodation of “double time,” you get to sit in a testing location for eighteen hours. As insane as that seems, it is still 5.4 hours short of the time allowed by law. A 2% cap isn’t a step forward, it’s a giant leap backward.

“How much testing is too much? I don’t know the magic number that will give the state education departments and the U.S. Department of Education the data they supposedly need in order to determine the effectiveness of the schools, but I do know that nine hours of testing is too much for a nine-year-old, eighteen hours is abusive for nine-year-olds with a learning disability, and 23.4 hours of testing for a child at any age is criminal.”

Paul Thomas writes a scathing indictment of the U.S. Department of Education’s blind faith in standardized testing. He might have included the U.S. Congress, as well as most governors and legislatures, and a large number of think tanks and foundations. Certainly, one of the primary malefactors of the testing obsession is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And let’s not forget George W. Bush, Margaret Spellings, and Sandy Kress (architect of NCLB and Pearson lobbyist.) Then there is the cluster of testing zealots attached to the Common Core.

I could devote an entire post to listing those who shaped the current regime of testophilia. I would include myelf for my sins, but at least I recanted my sins.

Thomas attributes a large part of the damage to non-educators put in positions of authority.

“And let’s not fail to acknowledge that such vapid bureaucratic nonsense is inevitably the result of know-nothings being appointed to positions of power (think never-taught Arne Duncan serving as Secretary of Education in the wake of Margaret Dishonest-or-Incompetent Spellings turning her hollow SOE gig into becoming president of the University of North Carolina, resulting in her bragging about having none of the background experiences typical of leading higher education).”

Thomas includes links to valuable articles and studies about the uselessness of high-stakes standardized testing. Does anyone at the U.S. Department of Education read research? Or has it been turned into a cheering squad for whatever administration is in charge?

Peter Greene carefully reviewed the Obama administration’s “Testing Action Plan” and concluded it is phony, a duplicitous confirmation of the status quo.

Did you think the administration realizes that the billions of dollars spent on 13 years of standardized testing was a waste? Think again.

Did you think the administration really wants to reduce time spent on testing? Think again.

Did you think the administration understands that it is not fair to give exactly the same test to children who can’t read English, children with disabilities, and others of their age? Think again.

Have they lost faith in standardized testing? Not a bit.

Here is what they see as the problem that needs fixing, Greene writes:

“Before you get excited about the administration taking “some” blame for the testing mess, please notice what they think their mistake was– not telling states specifically enough what they were supposed to do. They provided states with flexibility when they should have provided hard and fast crystal clear commands directions for what they were supposed to do.

“Because yes– the problem with education reform has been not enough federal control of state education departments.”

Dad Gone Wild is a blogger in Nashville whose children attend the local public schools. In this post, he recounts his decision to start serious running, first for his health, but then because he became obsessed with collecting data about his running.

You see, it started with a simple app that measured time and distance and kept a running total for a benchmark. But then it progressed to enough of a dependency to justify getting a top-of-the-line Garmin race watch because, well, dependence on data requires more data. Where I once was only concerned with how far and how fast I ran, I am now measuring footfalls, cadence, and several other categories that a) I don’t know exactly what they mean, and b) I wouldn’t know how to change them even if I knew what they meant. I imagine that my running has gotten better over the years, but I attribute that to running more and trying to eat better, not measuring my cadence and footfalls. My sense of accomplishment has certainly not grown; in fact, I’ve noticed a weird phenomenon.

If I head out on a run and one of my measurement tools isn’t working, I’ll either quit the run or proceed without the measurement. The weird part is, that if I continue the run sans measurement, it’s almost like it didn’t happen. I’m going the same distance. I’m burning the same miles, but for some reason it doesn’t feel real. When I look at the data for the month, those runs cease to exist and any progress I might have made is discounted. When I compare my results to friends I “compete” against, it almost feels like I’m lying about those results.

He realizes that the data have taken over; he no longer thinks about why he runs, but only about the measurements. That’s data addiction.

We also say that standardized tests are for the good of the child and that we are preventing minority children from slipping through the cracks, the opposite is actually true, but I ask you, how many people have cited that one test back in 7th grade that opened the door to learning for them? Until they took that test they were lost in the wilderness, but that test inspired them to greatness. Now substitute test with book or mathematical concept, and I bet you get a different answer. By putting emphasis on learning for the measurable we are actually restricting people’s potential. Like when I fail to take a 3-mile run because it doesn’t add significantly to my monthly totals, similarly, students will potentially fail to partake in opportunities to learn because it will produce no measurable results.

Data addiction also leads to putting undue pressure on suppliers. Let’s face it, that is what we are turning our teachers into, data suppliers. Our teachers are under a constant barrage to deliver more data. They are losing valuable time and sanity trying to meet the ever-increasing need. They are in an endless churn to produce more data under the threat that if they don’t, we will replace them with people who can, though we never mention a viable source for these replacements. Perhaps there is a teacher orchard producing an overabundance of quality teachers willing to work for decreasing pay and autonomy that I am unaware of.

Our thirst for more that is measurable has reduced the art of teaching into that of a producer. We’ve lost sight that teaching children is more than just about instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Think about the teachers who had a profound effect on you and your growth. Do you remember them because in fifth grade they had you reading on a seventh grade level, or is it deeper than that? Is it because you felt that they cared for you and were truly vested in helping you understand your place in the world?

Can data addiction be cured or are we doomed to reduce everything we do to numbers, forgetting why we do those things?

We will have a life with data, but a life without purpose.

Doug Garrett, regular reader, wrote the following about the U.S. Department of Education’s new stance on testing:

“So… Arne Duncan seems to think STATES do too much testing. Therefore he thinks the FEDERAL government needs to add more rules on top of bad rules and laws… And that will fix things?

“Classic bureaucracy out of control. Every district will have to eliminate teaching positions in order to afford the test reporting administrators need to prove to Arne that they aren’t violating this new rule by implementing Arne’s tests imposed in a different rule.

“Duncan needs to see the movie Brazil or read 1984. Perhaps a close reading?”

Peter Greene warns us not to be taken in by Secretary Duncan’s latest pretense of disavowing testing. We have heard this song before. So he wants to limit testing to “only” 2% of class time? That’s more testing, not less. Will he cancel his ironclad demand to evaluate teachers by student test scores? Is VAM dead and finished? He didn’t say that.

Peter writes:

“Remember that theoretical problem where someone keeps moving half the distance to a point, and how that means they’ll never actually get there? Well, today Arne Duncan once again moved half the distance to the point at which he will someday theoretically accept responsibility for the administrations failed education policies and then actually do something about them.

“Duncan issued a statement about testing, and I’d like to be excited that he almost admitted culpability in the Great Testing Circus while stating some actual policy changes to address the problem. But he didn’t get there, and I’ve seen the Duncan “I’ll Kind of Say the Right Thing Almost and Then Go On Acting As If I Haven’t Said Anything At All” show far too many times.”

No, says Peter, it is not a problem of implementation. The problem is the policy itself. And Duncan did not renounce the policy. What did he offer? An apology for ruining American education for seven years? No. A policy to free teachers, principals and schools from the tyranny of testing? No. A promise to stop punishments based on test scores? No.

What did he offer?

False hope.