Sandra Stotsky was deeply involved in the transformation of public education in Massachusetts from 1999-2003. As senior associate commissioner of education, she oversaw the development and implementation of curriculum frameworks and testing of entry-level teachers. Massachusetts rose to the top of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. As she explains here, the Bay State did not have annual testing.
She writes:
“K-12 schools have coped with an abundance of mandated testing since the early 1990s. Worse yet, under federal guidelines, the consequences of poor student performance have in the name of accountability come to fall more on teachers than students. The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) expanded the educational-level testing mandated in the 1994 authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), mandating annual testing for reading and mathematics in grades 3-8, once in high school, and at several grade levels in science.
“The 2015 re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), called ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act), continued NCLB’s annual testing mandate. It did so in large part because of strong support from education researchers (e.g., Whitehurst, West, Chingos, Dynarski, among others, in Education Next). Yet, none provided evidence that annual testing via ESEA had significantly increased the achievement of low-income students in K-12 in both subjects. They couldn’t because there is none. Nevertheless, even though the national needle had not moved in reading at any National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)-tested grade in 50 years, ESSA punished the states with a continuation of annual testing and test-based accountability.
“A big question is why education researchers don’t look at what Massachusetts did and did not do to increase low-income student achievement. Remember, its average scores in both reading and mathematics, for grade 4 and grade 8, on NAEP tests in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015 were the highest or among the highest of all 50 states. On the one international test of curriculum-based achievement (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study—TIMSS), the state, entered as a separate country, tied with Singapore for first place in grade 8 science and was among the top six countries in mathematics in grades 4 and 8 in both 2007 and 2013. Surely, there should have been a long look at what the Bay State did, beyond its testing schedule.
“This is the testing that was done: From 1998 to 2000, testing took place in four major subjects (math, science, reading, and history) annually in grades 4, 8, and 10, or at one grade per educational level as mandated by the state’s 1993 Education Reform Act. After 2000, testing in math and reading took place annually but only at every other grade level (grade span testing) and at one grade per educational level annually in science and history until 2006, when NCLB’s annual requirements kicked in for math and reading because the tests were now ready for previously untested grades. The state’s high math and reading scores beginning in 2005 cannot be accounted for by annual testing. Nor can the state’s stunning performance in grade 8 science in 2007 or 2013.
“As the person in charge of the total revision or development of all the state’s K-12 standards, teacher and administrator licensing regulations, most teacher licensure tests, as well as criteria for professional development from 1999-2003, I have some basis for suggesting what I think likely contributed to students’ enduring academic gains in the past decade even if education researchers do not seem to want to learn what the Bay State did.
“Under my direction, the state department of education revised major documents to increase the content knowledge requirements in standards for all students, and to strengthen academically the licensure requirements for the state’s teacher and administrator corps. The results of high quality research were clear; teachers’ knowledge of the subject they teach is the only trait associated with enhanced gains in student achievement. The documents we developed during the years I was a public bureaucrat, including definitions of terms used, embedded policies approved by the field (via frequent public comment), the Commissioner of Education David Driscoll, and the Board of Education under James Peyser, chair.
“Annual testing at every grade level in math, reading, and science was not one of them. Nor was it apparently necessary for higher and enduring academic achievement in these subjects, even though ESSA froze it in for reading and math. Nor can the case be made today that annual testing improves low-income student achievement. It’s possible it may even retard achievement. We don’t know because the idea has not been explored by education researchers. Why civil rights organizations or the Gates Foundation support a policy that exists in no other country needs explanation.”
Thank you Sandra Stotsky to clearly state
1) GREEDY motive from testing corporate, and
2) DEVIOUS support from fake civil right groups under misguided goal to improve low-income student achievement.
[start sentences]
“Annual testing at EVERY GRADE LEVEL (from KINDERGARTEN TO GRADE 12) in math, reading, and science…the idea has not been explored by education researchers.
Why civil rights organizations or the Gates Foundation support a policy that exists in no other country needs explanation.”
It’s possible it may even RETARD achievement.
[end sentences]
Back2basic
if she is meaning West as Martin West he is the one who forced the testing of “grit” in Boston…. [Gabrieli et al]…. Martin West gets the ear of david driscoll; NAEP then must test grit. These guys are all on each other’s “Boards”… (include Andy Smarick who also serves on these boards).
Grover Whitehurst got bumped from his last job???? I thought he was reasonably appropriate in stating we need “evidence based” practice and it would be based in research that was valid and credible. Then the “research” took a whole diversion that became hyper marketing of a few corporate products when Arne Duncan gave precious R&D funds for the PARCC and other consortia… experimental tests using students as guinea pigs … they don’t even get the reading and math right on the PARCC tests etc and they now want to test kids on personality theory?
Education Next is the affiliate of Fordham Institute… if you check out their boards … (find Andy Smarick etc).. I wrote to one who is a lawyer and he wrote back that they don’t get involved in operations because they are a “board”. I wrote to M. Podgursky who is also on that board (he wrote about Principal Pension Payoffs)…. Please note how these same individuals show up again and again (David Drisscoll/NAEP etc)… am I allowed to use the word cabal?
Perhaps the word “cartel” is better.
yes, I have used interlocking directorate before but your suggestion is best
Education Next pulls in one guy from Harvard (with a couple grad assistants) and then one guy from Brown University and they attempt to show they have research authority of those institutions. (see the Gabrieli et al study). They have capitalized on the long standing reputation of Fordham Univeristy by using the name Fordham Institute and people don’t know those are two separate institutions. (with Education Next as the mouthpiece)
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
Why are so-called education researchers not looking at what Massachusetts did and did not do to increase low-income student achievement without the use of high stakes tests? The answer is obvious. It’s called GREED!
New York has had standardized testing for many years. Teachers viewed it as sort of thermometer or a snapshot of a given day’s performance, and the results went home to parents. While it was a waste of time, the harsh consequences of misused results were not part of the equation. There was no VAM, retention of students or school closings as a result of testing. The results were mostly used to ensure eligibility for Title 1 funds. The absurd punitive outcomes of today are used to undermine public education and punish schools with large numbers of poor students. This is a total misapplication of the purpose of testing.
I asked a local public school teacher to comment on this blog entry. Here is what he wrote:
“As you may know, Diane Ravitch supported and implemented NCLB from the federal DOE until she had an epiphany, left the DOE, and began a campaign to fight against what she helped implement.
Since then, she has very publically railed against (over)testing, using testing to evaluate teachers, the Common Core State Standards, and the assessment lobbying industry.
Stotsky’s claim that annual testing doesn’t improve student learning is, of course, valid. And raising the bar on teaching certification exams is a good idea, as well. What she can’t claim, scientifically, is the reason for MA’s success on national and international assessments. There are simply too many variables.
There’s a teacher shortage in most states. Making certification more difficult will exacerbate the problem, unfortunately. In Florida, for instance, the only way to address both the lack of teachers and the lack of high-caliber subject-area expertise is to greatly increase salaries. The median teacher salary in Massachussetts is $70,000, versus Florida’s $45,000. Granted, the cost of living is higher in MA, but not compared to Collier, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach, and a few other counties, where the population is densest.
My own bias about MA’s scores is that there are more college-educated parents in that state than in any other. It seems obvious to me that the children of college-educated parents will perform better than their peers whose parents have fewer academic credentials.
Stotsky is also one who initially worked on the Common Core State Standards but withdrew from the committee. She is quoted often by the extreme right for having done so. http://www.uaedreform.org/sandra-stotsky/”
I concur. Stotsky’s opinions are used by a local Tea Party/libertarian coalition to justify removing the current standards, even though there is no evidence that the standards are detrimental to education. We all agree that excessive testing must end, and teachers’ performance must not be evaluated by test scores. The Florida Citizens’ Alliance is working to undermine the public schools, so it can set up new charter schools. Posting Stotsky’s opinions on this high-profile blog helps the “reformers,” and hurts public school teachers in our region.
There is ample evidence that the knowledge and enthusiasm of teachers has a direct correlation on student achievement, even controlling for mother’s education level. So MA’s parent education level is not a factor, probably more a result! Stotsky did not participate in the development of Common Core standards, she was on a review committee. When her recommendations for improvement based on MA’s experience were ignored, she, and several others, wrote an opinion as to why Common Core standards should not be adopted by any state. There is no evidence Common Core standards will improve student achievement. This is reason enough to replace them with standards that do have evidence. Imposing unproven standards on all American children is a massive experiment, basically education malpractice.
” Imposing unproven standards on all American children is a massive experiment, basically education malpractice”
Ya think?
And imposing a system of deprivation of civil rights of teachers is basically CRIMINAL!!!
http://www.perdaily.com/2011/01/lausd-et-al-a-national-scandal-of-enormous-proportions-by-susan-lee-schwartz-part-1.html
http://www.perdaily.com/2010/02/yesterday-i-was-removed-from-class-in-handcuffs.html
http://protectportelos.org/does-workplace-bullying-continues-my-33-hrs-behind-bars/
http://blog.ebosswatch.com/2013/05/one-womans-legal-fight-against-workplace-bullying/
They took out tens of thousands of tenured teachers to impose that ‘experiement!
It is no experiment… it is the undoing of the road to income equality …public education…it was never meant to WORK. it’s only goal was to ensure that publics schools fail!
Malpractice is no problem in our culture where charlatans are the rule rather than the exception., where liars rule. I HAVE A computer file is called CHARLATANS & LIARS.
I was born in 1941.
I have seen liars come to power here in this country, like McCarthy.
I have never seen such twisting of reality.
Politicians have always lied, but this FLAGRANT lying is beyond anythin g in the past.
Bill Maher has a not-to-miss show tis week, His New rules ends with him that word– which fits the behavior we see before our eyes.
FLAGRANT. Yes! We saw it, as Maher pointed out, when the rating agencies lied and brought down the wealth of our nation. We see it in the demand for austerity, and the policy of defunding everything we need, from roads and infrastructure to education. Yes, he mentioned education.
He was referring to the nature of the LIES being told by the very people who are vying for our trust.
Carly Florin, comes to mind when he defines flagrant lies told in the face of the facts…: “It raises the question of American culture regarding — WHAT WE ARE BEING TOLD AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO!”
“Lies are the NEW truth! We are living in a time of a FACT FREE LIFESTYLELIARS have stopped caring when they are caught in a lie.”Truth is dead,” he says and “the internet killed it.”
I read Al Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”, years ago, and his book “Truth.” This was after the administration in District 2 of NYC demonstrated to me that they were not merely into petty misrepresentation; they were into bold-faced, Flagrant lying… the kind of factless allegations that are a direct result in the absence of any accountability.
Lawless is the word that describes a culture where liars rule the courts, the legislature and the elective offices.
Of course the larger culture is present in the bureaucracies that are our school systems.
” We see it in the demand for austerity, and the policy of defunding everything we need, from roads and infrastructure to education.”
Agreed, our state constitution says “thorough and efficient” education — the finance people will say “you cannot have excellence and equity both” (you can have some combination of the two values). J. Gutrhie works with school committees to work that out– to look for balance to accommodate both values. [at the present time I am leaving out the canon wars which adds a whole other dimension of internecine strife]
But over the years powerful forces (generally on the right extreme) have said , for example with special education , you “can have justbarelyadequte” when we know that more resources are needed for diversity of needs.
Now we have individuals who will not even support “thorough and efficient” and they have tack own definition of adequate through “accountability” which becomes operationally defined by experimental tests from Pearson (invalid, unreliable) and they want to tack onto that “grit” which is personalty theory with no construct validity.
Results from this type of thinking have re-segregated our schools. Also, we are forced into a malpractice situation because we are told to use their invalid tests to sort out in third grade which kids deserve the resources (with the belief “there aren’t enough to go around so select out those who are most likely to profit from the expense that we so grudgingly offer — and don’t expect clean water as well”.) I reject that form of rationing We still need to work in jut the opposite direction in opening up opportunities and avenues for students to increase developmental potential not shut it off at third grade with a test — that goal needs to continue)
Compromising for bipartisan policy we fall right into this trap. I stand on the Barney Frank, E. Warren, Bernie Sanders “extreme” and I hope to lead more people in that direction (whether it is regulation of banks, social security, public education, maintaining FDR’s “new deal’ without erosion … all of the above).
—————————————————–
nb. purposely run-on “justbarelyadequate”
please note that in my previous comments I have supported “evidence based practice” but not experimental tests with no construct validity, no predictive validity , no ability to measure growth over time etc)
We are on the same page in a demand for validity and evidence.
and I too, “. stand on the Barney Frank, E. Warren, Bernie Sanders “extreme” and I hope to lead more people in that direction (whether it is regulation of banks, social security, public education, maintaining FDR’s “new deal’ without erosion … all of the above).”
We are on the same page in a demand for validity and evidence.
and I too, “. stand on the Barney Frank, E. Warren, Bernie Sanders “extreme” and I hope to lead more people in that direction (whether it is regulation of banks, social security, public education, maintaining FDR’s “new deal’ without erosion … all of the above).”
and Jean “Wall Street stock picking chicken ” LOL!
adding a footnote: “In my home state I’m very comfortable with Governor Ducey’s goal to create a set of high academic standards unique to Arizona. I see little value in “common” standards (NAEP scratches my cross-state comparison itch) but I hate state tests that the Wall Street stock picking chicken could pass on his way to receiving a false state endorsement of “proficiency” with the burning hatred of a thousand suns. I have no idea where this will ultimately wind up and I can easily imagine better strategies than those adopted, etc.” this is a brief quote from Jay P Greene’s blog (they have various authors such as Richwine )
—————————————————————————————–
Some states did not choose to accept the NAEP cross-state comparison. There was much debate when Stotsky insisted on it (NAEP) in MA to align the curriculum (those who disagreed were largely defeated)… However, following the Commissioner’s pursuit of Pearson PARCC tests, teachers are now only permitted to add 15% to the commonness of core as defined by NCLB (which has no proven validity ). So what ever happened to “evidence based research”?
“Testing is bad..except when it isn’t”
High-stakes tests are fine
If every other year
Where we draw the line
I think is very clear
I left the DOE IN January 1993, for the record.
NCLB was passed by Congress in 2001 and signed into law on January 8, 2002. I did not “implement” it. I was a private citizen. The rest of my story appears in “Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education” (2010). I spent last summer updating this book. It will be released in June 2016
Stotsky is an outspoken critic of Common Core. Publishing her objections to annual testing does not help “reformers.” Reformers love annual testing.
I am currently reading “FAR & WIDE: Developing & Disseminating Research Based- Programs,” by Robert Slavin, in a 1998 issue of “The American Educator”.
The Slavin piece caught my eye, because I cannot help but wonder how the National Standards research disappeared, instead of being disseminated….although I do know why; (Gates CC and Pearson’s tests were waiting in the wings and the storerooms and big money was to be made.)
I came across it while looking through my files, for the issue that was published when NYC District 2 had been part of the ‘real’ National Standards research.*
* Lauren Resnick’s Effort Based Learning became the thesis that hazard advanced for the research on THE PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING, for which I was the classroom cohort.http://ramsey.spps.org/uploads/polv3_3.pdf
The topic of DISSEMINATION of research echoes with me, since I will be offering a workshop at the NPE on the authentic end-product — THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS— RESULTING FROM the incredible expensive 3rd level research— for which I was the cohort. So, I wanted to refresh my memory by reading the issue of American Educator which featured it.* It was the cover article. I still cannot find it… but word about that at the end…
Thie Pew research project met Slavin’s perameters, and focused on the ways in which successful teachers enable and facilitate exemplary student performance, and it offered the MODELS that showed this.
I was only one of tens of thousands of observed teachers, and the work of the students along with how the teacher practice made such work possible, are featured in these volumes which I will provide for all of you (who attend the NPE) who keep asking me “why do you call this research the REAL standards!
But, the Pew looked at all schools, low and high performing schools, and discovered that there were ingredients, criteria/principles, at work in EVERY classroom where students produced exemplary work; THIS demonstrated the late Ron Edmonds claim that: “wherever and whenever we choose, [we can] successfully teach all children…”
Yes, Tim,I worked in an ‘exemplary’ school, with a very smart, competent, educated team that shared a philosophy, much like the one discusses in another American Educator essay: We agreed that pedagogical content knowledge– a growing approach to teacher education— demands that teachers have a strong background in their subjects and find ways to communicate knowledge to others. We found the best ways to communicate what we knew to our kids, by motivating them to do hard work.
Click to access Mirel.pdf
Slavin pointed out “the problem with exemplary schools, is that we have not known how to replicate them. So, theY have provided visions of what CAN be done, but not models of HOW to achieve excellence in the thousands of schools that need improvement. In the exemplary schools don’t remain consistent over time; changes in principals, key staff, district politics funding, and even the passage of time may undermine a school that once gave minority children an education equal to the best.”
I am bringing to the NPE such models, so everyone can see the models that the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS provide, and the models that I myself provided from that time. This research was unique and should have been disseminated.
I can always do a power-point presentation with handouts to disseminate some of what I and ALL OF THE DISTRICTS TEACHERS WERE GIVEN) BUT, I will try to put some of it on Google docs, so they can be shared WITH YOU as I present… THAT IS, if I can learn how to do it (from my seventh grade granddaughter who uses this presentation method in her school… yes— an ‘exemplary’ school for which my son pays $25,000 a year.)
Anyone, who has suggestions on presentations —how to share what I have— feel free to message me at http://www.opednews.com/author/author40790.html
One last anecdote… about “The American Educator,” which addresses how exemplary teachers disappear.. I do remember that the superintendent of district 2 during my work with Pew was featured prominently in the article celebrating the NATIONAL STANDARDS RESEARCH! IT did not have a single reference to ME or MY celebrated work. Ironically, this woman, Elaine Fink, would put out —against me— charges of incompetence, within months of this article… as she left NYC to go to the Chancellorship of San Diego… until they sent her packing.
I think that speaks volumes as to why Gates and friends can do what they did even as the REAL tHing existed only waiting dissemination.
that’s a good historical coverage; if you have time look at the NDN national diffusion network and dissemination work and the “validation program”. Diffusion funds were available to assist from one state to another (if programs had been validated in a local school). There was also a National Practice File that only operated for a trial basis; it was separate from ERIC but the aim was to find programs with evidence/proven effectiveness and offer the descriptions and training across states. At some point there was a major turn in the road because the labs and centers were working on these issues and goals … It became so competitive and of course the corporate /business model preempted the “practice file” that was meant to share classroom programs and school practices/programs. If you have time to pursue NDN I could supply you with an extensive bibliography but it may not be in the focus of what you want to cover.
“My own bias about MA’s scores is that there are more college-educated parents in that state than in any other. It seems obvious to me that the children of college-educated parents will perform better than their peers whose parents have fewer academic credentials.” This is true; we also have great inequities among/between the districts. Families take interest only mortgage in order to get into the Ws (Wellsley, Weston, Wayland) etc. and we have rural areas and inner city /urban areas that do not have the same opportunities benefits with fewer resources. Boston at one time had 100,000 students and now it is down to about 62,000 (check me on the figures) and the population is less affluent, and more minority and ELL pupils.
I do believe that the alignment of the NAEP tests with the curriculum frameworks under Stotsky’s tenure directly showed up in the test scores in MA. However, I do not want the PARCC tests to be used now with a rewrite of the curriculum scope and sequence to align with PARCC TESTS and that is what is being pushed. And, I don’t think we are making any progress with the new CAP teacher performance and observational protocols (that are mostly in the hands of adjunct , part-time faculty with no tenure in their positions). As with the PARCC, there is no proven reliability /validity for these CAP procedures and everything is being reinvented because of Gate$ grant. ….. we seem to be going backwards in the area of evaluation of student teacher candidates.
Jean, thanks for your comment. I would really like to speak with you (could you message at oped?
Messages – Author’s Page for Susan Lee Schwartz | OpEdNews
http://www.opednews.com/author/author40790.html
As to the new alignment… it is the same old stuff.
Tenure is over, because any ‘REAL teacher, with long experience facing those kids and responsible for their LEARNING, will voice their objections and speak truth. That is why the did this, in order to remove the tens of thousands of tenured teachers in the past 2 decades.
it won’t change until teachers organize and demand that parents back them to bring about real change. The rubrics for enabling learning are available, as you and I know, they are simply not being disseminated, so that crap can be shoveled into the classrooms.
Don’t get me started. You are right, by the way… my focus is not on the why no valid research is ever used. I want to focus on what worked for the NATIONAL STANDARDS research on effort-based education… because:
it worked…they proved it.
The principles of learning worked for me, even though I had no idea that I was applying them. I was simply teaching as I always had, in ways that children enjoyed learning.
My story is THE story of the beginning of the end, and all the more sad because I was doing it so well… sharing what I know in ways that kids ‘get it.”
“The rubrics for enabling learning are available, as you and I know, they are simply not being disseminated, so that crap can be shoveled into the classrooms….my focus is not on why no valid research is ever used. I want to focus on what worked for the NATIONAL STANDARDS research on effort-based education… because:
it worked…they proved it . The principles of learning worked for me, even though I had no idea that I was applying them.”
There are still the “reading wars” and the “math wars”… I don’t know about you but when I hear from people at an IEP meeting it’s a statement like “we don’t do it that way any more (teach reading)” and two special ed teachers told me there is no more explicit instruction in their new rules. and my friends in teacher ed are called “dinosaur’ or worse.
At the annual meeting of teachers of education (2015) , Harvard and the State department and 2 or 3 colleges have provided “fascinating sexy” printouts of their “data” but I asked them the question what if your rubric is wrong and you get garbage in and garbage out?
This is why Sandra Stotsky’s issue of pinning the MA curriculum to the NAEP standards (aligning curriculum with test) was necessary even though she took a lot of grief for it (and there is always the question why the NAEP standard are presumed to be “valid”). To make a leap now and buy into an experimental test called PARCC (with no proven validity or reliability) and adjust your entire curriculum for that … no thank you. Plus we have a lot of this “personality research theory ” — and it’s just that THEORY on non-cognitve that NAEP now wants to measure (with the goal of proving we are lousy teachers, there are feckless parents and unmotivated kids who lie on questionnaires ).
Long ago, someone said to me, ‘how is it that in the field of education, andy cockamamie idea is adopted, and something that worked well i s thrown out the window?
In the past decades I saw schools in my suburban district adopt an open classroom (no walls, because of some experiment in California…. it led to utter chaos. I saw a principal demand a word wall replace sound learning techniques by a bi-lingual teacher, whose students did not speak or read a word of English. I have seen storerooms fill with ‘literacy’ materials that are worthless, but once there are mandated for use.
I think this nation of practiced liars has ended everything.
As Willingham says, no evidence is required for educational magic elixirs.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Magic-Elixir-No-Evidence-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-130312-433.html
quote after reading deustsch29 on the GED test : ““The scoring enhancements are based on an extensive analysis of test-takers’ performance data from the past 18 months, conversations with state policymakers and elected officials, and external validation with experts,” said GED Testing Service President Randy Trask. “This is part of our ongoing commitment to make data-based decisions, and continually improve the efficacy of the GED program.”
“sorry folks, we still have no statistics we can offer on reliability of our experimental tests; give us another 2 or 3 years and we’ll get back to you — in the meantime we will take any political considerations that you may have from the current chances of re=election in your state/district on a separate phone line”… but darn, if all those people keep opting out we will NEVER have any reliability statistics…. our populations are definitely skewed ….
A Hartley says:
“Stotsky is also one who initially worked on the Common Core State Standards but withdrew from the committee. She is quoted often by the extreme right for having done so.”
Hartley, someone didn’t do his homework. There was one group that formalize the Standards; they were business people. There was another group that served only as an advisory group- the Feedback Group; they had no power. In fact their suggestions were not heeded.
“Common Core State Standards Development Work Group and Feedback Group Announced”
http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-content/main-content-list/title_common-core-state-standards-development-work-group-and-feedback-group-announced.html
If you compare the members of the English-Language Arts Work Group and the members of the Mathematics Work Group you will find some of the same names on both the English and math group: Sara Clough, John Kraman and Sherri Miller. All three belong to a company. Most of the members on the “Work Group” were from one of the following companies Act, Achieve Inc. or were members of the College Board. “The work groups were dominated by three affiliations, one standards-writing nonprofit (Achieve) and two testing companies (ACT and College Board). Three are co-founders of ACT and Achieve and many others were member of the College Board.
As Stotsy stated, “What did the ELA Work Group look like? Its make-up was quite astonishing: It included no English professors or high-school English teachers. How could legitimate ELA standards be created without the very two groups of educators who know the most about what students should and could be learning in secondary English/reading classes?”
Almost all of the Feedback Committee were university professors. Dr. Stotsky was a member of the “Validation” Committee. She was never a member of the Work Committee.
The Feedback Committee served as an advisory role, not a decision –making role. The Work Group made all the decisions.
Dr. Stotsky wouldn’t sign the CCSS that the Work Group developed. She couldn’t approve of the CCSS. She was the ELA expert.
Learn all about the shenanigans of the Work Group via Dr. Stotsky “Common Core’s Invalid Validation Committee ”
Click to access common-cores-invalid-validation-committee.pdf
Thank you Mary DeFalco for two best links.
From these two links, I have gotten three important notes
1) Profiles of unqualified writers for Common Core tests
2) Devious intention to misuse NAMES of all innocent educational experts
3) Un-transparent process to loot/divert public education fund into testing corporate
[start notes]
1) The standards were created by people who wanted a “Validation Committee” in name only (=INVALID).
because these UNQUALIFIED creators are:
David Coleman, Founder, Student Achievement Partners (private = profit)
Jim Patterson, Senior Program Development Associate—Language Arts, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc. (private = profit)
Sue Pimentel, Co-Founder, StandardsWork; English Language Arts Consultant, Achieve (consultant = private = profit)
2) An INVALID process (because “Keep in mind that the final version was not released until June 2, 2010 and many changes were made behind the scenes to the public comment draft released in March 2010.”)
3) ENDORSED by an INVALID Validation Committee, (because “It quickly became clear that the VC existed as window-dressing—to rubber-stamp, not improve”)
resulted not surprisingly in INVALID STANDARDS
[END NOTES]
In short, here are two links to confirm Common Core State Standards un-transparent process is fraudulent
http://nyceye.blogspot.com/2013/08/mass-standards-czar-stotskys-letter-on.html
(Stotsky’s letter explaining why she could not sign off can be viewed here)
ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/final-report-for-validation-committee.pdf
(Milgram’s letter can be viewed here)
Back2basic
Terrific for Dr. Stotsky to speak out (rather late in the game, eh?) against the testing regime, but she is wrong in saying that “teachers’ knowledge of subjects they teach is the only trait associated with gains in student achievement” (or “enhanced gains,” a phrase that begs explanation): the research is far more equivocal than that. To put it most simply, teachers in fact need to know how to teach as well as what to teach.
she was talking specifically about what can be measured and what has been researched and published in peer reviewed journals or a substantial and credible research organization/institution. In the 1970s we were told that “teacher’s Vocabulary” is the only thing that could be measured and proven to show achievement gains in students using stringent research methods available with instruments at that time. (quoting Michael Scriven everything else was “stye”)…. Since that time newer research investigated many variables; I believe she will be not too far off the mark because that is the kind of precision she invokes. Also, she has repeatedly written and spoken out it is not just this week or this month. She has also testified in many different states; I think you will find her bibliography to be extensive. I hold her in high esteem for what she has done over her career (I first learned of her work in Calabasa CA at the Center for Civic Education before she came to MA as an Associate Commissioner).
during the Bicentennial of the Constitution Ted Kennedy worked with teachers in MA to bring programs from the Center for Civic Education (calabasas directed by Charles Quigley) to MA and other states; it was an exceptional program at the time. cf. 1992
This was Sandra Stotsky’s contribution to an international seminar… “Trend 7: The use of literature to teach civic virtues. Civic educators have recognized that the study of literature, both fictional and historical, exposes students to interesting people who exemplify civic virtues in dramatic situations. The characters in these stories, therefore, may become role models for students. At the very least, they are positive examples of particular civic virtues that can help students understand the meaning and importance of morality in civic life. Sandra Stotsky, an expert on using literature to teach civic virtues, stresses the educational value of exposing learners “to characters who exhibit such traits as courage, hope, optimism, ambition, individual initiative, love of country, love of family, the ability to laugh at themselves, a concern for the environment, and outrage at social injustice.” (Stotsky, 1992)”
Yesterday, I found myself defending Grover Whitehurst for his emphasis on “evidence based practice” (National Reading Panel et al)…. Louisa Moats’ work was included in Appendix to CC…. (National reading panel — research was significant — at the time there were canon wars.) The political views might differ from mine (as Lynn Cheney’s views grated on me at that time). There are one or two people at the state department who would vilify Stotsky’s work and that is uncalled for given what she provided for curriculum review in MA. I sent a comment to BATS yesterday that they need to watch for anti-intellectual comments and that words like “charlatan” or “obama-hater” are not helpful to our cause if we circle the wagons and attack each other. I am not singling out you personally, Dirck, but this gave me the opportunity to defend the lifetime career work of an individual. We get enough of that from the people at Fordham Institute and Heritage (where Richwine was released after his dissertation) .
Dick, I don’t understand what you are saying. Any one going to an accredited institution for a degree in teaching learns how to teach. After completing their foundation courses and the courses for their area of expertise they have to put in mandatory observation hours. Then the students Student Teach putting into practice all the skills and knowledge received during their four years at college. Foundation courses include child psychology, philosophy of education, teaching methods, and more.
I see Dick’s comment as related to the issues that Audrey Amsrein-Beardsly sums up here when she describes David Berliner’s research. This was previously posted on Diane’s blog but if you haven’t had the hour to actually watch the Berliner video it treats a lot of the issues ….http://vamboozled.com/author/audrey-amrein-beardsley/ (apologize if I spelled her name wrong)
for the Berliner video scroll down to Audrey’s December posting….
you can type in the “find” window Berliner’s name….. and it will automatically find it
title and date: “Why Standardized Tests Should Not Be Used to Evaluate Teachers (and Teacher Education Programs)
Posted on December 28, 2015 by Audrey Amrein-Beardsley
4
Susan, you are being very kind to the corporate world calling the CC an experiment.
“They took out tens of thousands of tenured teachers to impose that ‘experiment!”
The corporate world’s motive was more than just to ensure that the public schools fail. Money was the driving force.
History is repeating itself. Initially in 1912, Supt. Taylor of Schools wrote about privatization and taylorization. Next the corporate world tried to spin its wheels with “Nation at Risk” in ’83. Now the corporate world is forcing the “Common Core” on us.
It is well known how the Gates Foundation bought every aspect of CC from its development to its implementation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mercedes-schneider/gates-money-and-common-co_3_b_3986424.html
It is obvious as one reads the CCSS that the architect and his co-workers had no background in education in trying to change the way we teach our students. Literature, art, music, and all critical education are sacrificed so that children do well on standardized examinations. How schools and their teachers fare, including whether or not a school continues to exist, depends on students’ scores.
Reformers claim our schools are failures but the reality is they are determined to privatize schools and abolish unions turning teachers into factory like workers with no bargaining power but worst of all no academic freedom – no voice in curriculum, teaching, and testing. CC was established all for the sake of making money- a new source of revenue -tapping into the education world to stimulate our economy: all new text books, computers, trainers and the list goes on.
jeanhaverhill stated,
“…but darn, if all those people keep opting out we will NEVER have any reliability statistics…. our populations are definitely skewed ….”
How about dropping all standardized tests except one?
“Finnish students only take one standardized test during their entire primary and secondary schooling.”
“4 reasons Finland’s schools are better”
http://www.businessinsider.com/4-things-finlands-schools-do-better-than-america-2015-4
Watching this, we can see a system where learning and children are the focus.
http://blip.tv/hdnet-news-and-documentaries/dan-rather-reports-finnish-first-6518828