This is the weekly round up of testing news from FairTest, which has been fighting the misuse of standardized testing since 1973:
The message from parents, students, educators and community leaders could not be clearer: the path to educational progress requires reducing testing and eliminating high stakes. Policy-makers in many jurisdictions are starting to listen and implement real assessment reforms. Keep the pressure on!
Florida Kindergarten “Readiness” Testing Is Part of War on Youngest Children
http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2018/05/fl-continuing-war-on-littles.html
Florida Increase in Exit Exam Alternative Cut Scores Could Reduce Graduation Rate
https://www.news4jax.com/education/higher-test-score-standards-could-lead-to-drop-in-graduation-rates
Georgia Parent Offers Advice for Gates and Zuckerberg on How to Really Improve Education
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/05/16/a-parent-writes-to-gates-and-zuckerberg-you-asked-for-advice-on-education-heres-mine
Louisiana Adding Up the Costs of State-Mandated Testing
https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2018/05/17/louisiana-to-spend-at-least-75m-on-five-years-of-parcc-ish-leap-2025-testing/
Maine High School Test Scores Are Not Good Predictors of Undergraduate (and Life) Success
https://www.journal-topics.com/articles/dist-207-sat-scores-good-but-not-indicative-of-life-after-graduation/
Massachusetts School Receivership Is the Ultimate Test-Score Misuse
Massachusetts Debunking Claims About Automated Scoring of Essay Tests
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/05/21/mass-ponders-hiring-computer-grade-mcas-essays-what-could-wrong/D7fX11PReUWzVsAAdqC1qN/story.html
Michigan Don’t Punish Schools with Poor Readers, Invest in The
https://dianeravitch.net/2018/05/15/nancy-flanagan-dont-punish-schools-or-kids-if-johnny-cant-read-invest-in-them/
Mississippi Licensing Test Cut-Off Score a Barrier to Entry for Aspiring Teachers
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2018/05/16/certification-tests-barrier-some-aspiring-mississippi-teachers/586518002/
New Mexico Teachers, School Officials Seek to Block K-3 Testing and Retention Plan
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/education/teachers-school-officials-urge-state-to-halt-proposed-reading-intervention/article_c29da3ee-514b-5307-b304-34178a49be83.html
http://krwg.org/post/new-mexico-ped-k-3-testing-and-retention-plan-illegal-and-hurts-children
New York Test-Based Teacher Evaluation Is a Ghastly Mistake That Will Not Die
https://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/perspective/2018/05/17/ny-teacher-evaluation-system/608665002/
North Carolina School Board Wrestles Over Role of “Irrelevant” Tests
http://www.thepilot.com/news/moore-county-school-district-wrestles-with-testing-s-importance/article_d54e2c12-588d-11e8-b46e-d3a2f9e5227a.html
Tennessee New Testing Company Owns Old One That Fouled Up
https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/tn/2018/05/15/tnreadys-new-testing-company-also-owns-the-old-one/
Texas Thousands of Test Takers Plagued By Computer Exam Glitches Again
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-education/thousands-staar-test-takers-plagued-glitches-again/V84LVmYua6k7rEx1eF3r9O/
Texas Special Ed. Students Most Impacted by Testing Foul Ups
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05/16/glitches-texas-staar-standardized-test-special-ed-students/
Texas Why Do Tests Dominate Education
http://www.oaoa.com/editorial/letters_to_editor/article_f81bd896-5a29-11e8-9f8c-0b19ca5d1f54.html
Utah More Standardization and Testing Is Not the Cure for Education Problems
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900019114/op-ed-a-crystal-clear-and-lofty-goal-for-utahs-education.html
Wyoming School Board Resists Directive to Test Youngest School Children
https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_news/state-superintendent-natrona-county-school-board-talk-testing-but-make/article_14aee93e-e533-5c0f-9063-9fe1684cc29a.html
University Admissions Why Hampshire College Refuses to Consider ACT/SAT Scores
http://ashokau.org/innovations/mission-driven-admissions-2018-awardee/
University Admissions Tests May Become Optional for Law School Acceptance
http://www.postbulletin.com/news/business/admission-tests-may-become-optional-at-law-schools/article_1edfb525-12a3-5c02-8978-8f299f08d7be.html
Worst Reading Test-Based Rankings for Teacher-Prep Programs Are Bunk
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2018/05/teacher-prep_rankings_that_use_student_test_scores_not_reliable_study.html
Bob Schaeffer, Public Education Director
FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing
office- (239) 395-6773 fax- (239) 395-6779
mobile- (239) 699-0468
web- http://www.fairtest.org
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
While I appreciate your posting what Fairtest has put together, I just have a serious problem with the thought that they still think there can be a fair standardized test. . .”which has been fighting the misuse of standardized testing since 1973″.
All uses of standardized tests (not including diagnostic assays) are completely invalid as proven by Noel Wilson in 1997. I challenge Bob and Monty to refute/rebut what Wilson has proven about those fundamental conceptual errors, falsehoods and psychometric fudgings involved in the standardized test making and giving process. Let’s see it boys!
Now, now, Duane, don’t overgeneralize. There are perfectly valid uses for standardized tests. For instance, I used my daughter’s to scribble a phone number on. As I’ve mentioned before, wrapping dead fish and lining bird cages are equally valid uses.
This thing is most useful! This thing is a “PARCC.” A
PARCC, a fine something-that-glows-in-
the-dark! It’s a test. It’s a count. It’s a
score! It’s a VAM! But it has other uses,
yes, for fraud and for scam. You can use
it for firing, for hiring, for cheats, for
charters, or covers for bicycle seats!
I heart both of these comments.
Your levity
And brevity
Light the dark:
We see that PARCC
Is poopy-scraper
Toilet paper
Only fit
For gallows wit.
Duane,
I have always been curious about how you think Wilson’s criticisms do not apply standardized tests used to diagnose learning disabilities. Could you explain why standardized tests like Woodcock-Johnson or Wechsler Individual Achievement Test escape condemnation?
TE,
Actually, Wilson’s criticism’s do apply to both of those assays, especially with construct validity issues. They both rely on the concept of a normal curve as a fundamental presupposition. So then, what is the difference between standardized tests that supposedly assess what students know and standardized diagnostic assays?
I’ve been thrashing your question around in my head for quite a bit now and have not completely formulated nor written down the differences yet. So consider this a first stab, that will eventually have revisions as folks chime in. Yours is a valid question no doubt.
As it is, there are a number of fundamental differences. The first being that a diagnostic assay does not have the same fundamental purpose that a student standardized test does. Both rely on the concept of a normal curve but the design is such that a diagnostic assay is an attempt to find the “outliers” whereas the standardized test seeks to sort, separate and rank the student somewhere along the curve-two different raisons d’être.
On diagnostic assays there are no correct answers, many times it is the tester that completes the actual assay, not the student, although at times a student will fill out an assay/survey as part of the evaluative process. There usually are no time limits in completing the tests and the assay questions themselves have been thoroughly vetted by the professionals, usually in a peer-reviewed process, involved to ensure as much construct validity as possible. That detailed vetting does not take place in the high stakes standardized test making process (although the test producing companies will claim otherwise-ask them for that vetting and see what you get-probably nothing).
There are no “cut scores” determining pass/fail, proficient/not proficient etc. There are ranges of assessment responses that combined with other information/data, allow the assessor to make a professional judgment about a student’s potential disability. It is just one of many assessment devices used to determine if a child has a learning, or other, disability. And learning disabilities are just one of many different types of disabilities, usually there is a different assay for the different types of disabilities.
Student standardized tests are completed by the student, almost always in a timed setting. They are linguistic word games and therefore privilege those students who happen to be good at those word games. Diagnostic assays do not attempt to trick the students as many standardized test questions do-diagnostic assays actually are designed so that the test giver and the student can understand what a question means.
That’s just a quick little dip into the differences. I’m sure others can come up with more distinctions.
Duane,
My first thoughts on your response.
Finding an “outlier” is a separation of students, is it not? It is my impression that these tests attempt to diagnose specific learning disabilities and the degree to which a student has those learning disabilities. This seems to me that this sorting of students is fundamental to the purpose of the tests.
I think you are mistaken that there are no wrong answers in diagnostic tests. It is the inability to produce the correct answer that reveals the learning disability. For example, in the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability, a student must be able to circle identical numbers in a set of numbers within 3 minutes as a test of perceptual speed and must analyze a row of images and identify the two images that are most closely related within 3 minutes as a test of mental comparison speed. The inability to do those things, demonstrated by incorrectly identifying the two images that are most closely related is diagnostic.
I am a bit confused by your defense of these tests based on the skill and effort used to construct them. My understanding of your position is that standardized tests are, by their very nature, invalid. Just as spending a great deal of time and effort on inventing a perpetual motion machine is a waste of time and talent, all the effort that goes into standardized diagnostic essays are simply a waste of time.
There are, of course, cut scores that are used to help label students as having a learning disability or not. Again, I think the use to which a standardized test score is used should be irrelevant to your argument that standardized test scores are inherently invalid. Does the fact that MAP scores in my local district has no impact on graduation make the MAP exam less illegitimate?
It seems to me that you need to find distinctions that are important from Wilson’s perspective if you are going to say that standardized exams used to diagnose learning disabilities are exempt from your general criticism that all standardized exams are useless.
“This seems to me that this sorting of students is fundamental to the purpose of the tests.”
What you seem to be missing TE, is that standardized tests are given to all (at least almost all). Diagnostic tests are given to individuals who for whatever reason have already been determined to need said diagnostic testing. There is a huge difference in that fundamental process of testing for each type of test, standardized-all take, diagnostic a predetermined student is assessed.
The particular diagnostic tests that you reference may have some questions that supposedly have “correct answers”. It is the usage of the information gleaned from the assessment process that is one of the major differences. Standardized test results, i.e., correct/incorrect answers are lumped into one designation (or perhaps a couple of different designations) whereas it is the differences in answers on a diagnostic test that provide the information/data about whether a student has a disability.
What I don’t understand TE, well I understand you are trying to catch me in a contradiction which would, at least according to you, invalidate all of Wilson’s and my arguments against standardized testing is your insistence that the fundamental purpose shouldn’t matter: “Again, I think the use to which a standardized test score is used should be irrelevant to your argument that standardized test scores are inherently invalid” Does the fact that MAP scores in my local district has no impact on graduation make the MAP exam less illegitimate?. Yes, as I said before, even diagnostic tests have all of the same problems identified by Wilson. The question is: To what end is the information used?
“Does the fact that MAP scores in my local district has no impact on graduation make the MAP exam less illegitimate?”
No, not at all, they are still completely illegitimate due to all the errors, falsehoods and psychometric fudgings that are inherent in the test making, giving and disseminating of the results.
My distinction in the fundamental purposes of the different tests doesn’t hold water for you. Without that distinction everything becomes one big muddle which you then use to excoriate my argument. I reject that muddling.
All of that points to a problem that Alfred Binet (originator of the IQ test) saw with his product and he cautioned against. He insisted that his test be used for diagnostic purposes only. It was not designed to be a sorting/separating/ranking test to be used to reward some and deny others educational opportunities. We know which purpose has won out in the long haul of standardized testing.
As I’ve said many times, I am not against teachers making, using classroom/curriculum focused assessments, tests, quizzes, projects, etc. . . . It is and should be a very localized assessment. Standardized test usage is far from that purpose and, as proven by Wilson completely invalid.
There is a whole lot more to Wilson’s argument than what I present. I suggest you actually read his work to more fully understand as I cannot in this format begin to touch all of the issues raised/delineated/shown by him:
“Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
I ask that you read the dissertation. Your a university level instructor, you should be able to understand what he says.
So read it and get back to me if you do not understand why that basic difference of purpose makes all the difference in the world.
Read and I’d bet you’d understand the difference.
Duane,
If I understand you correctly, you think all exams fall pray to Wilson’s criticisms, but those criticisms are more or less important depending on how a standardized exam is used. Is that correct? I had thought that it was your opinion that Wilson proved that all standardized exams were completely illegitimate, so using them for any purpose at all would also be illegitimate.
You have apparently softened your position on teacher made assessments, grades, gpa, and class ranks computed from those teacher assessments. You used to argue that they were subject to the same criticism as standardize tests.
Yes, TE, I have “softened” my stance a hair. Or perhaps, better said I am willing to refine my thinking as I’ve never contended that my thinking was anywhere near “perfect” (damn close, but not quite 🙂 ).
Yes, all standardized tests suffer those errors and falsehoods. Where I have altered my stance somewhat (I’ve never been against teacher made assessments, I have been against grading, GPA, ranking/sorting-haven’t “softened” in that regard-they’re all complete bullshit) or perhaps better stated again refining my argument, in that without examining the fundamental purpose of any assessment and determining what that purpose is, one cannot cogently discuss these issues. And so my modification of thinking is: First, what is the fundamental purpose, and once that is established, then one can discuss all of the various dilemmas involved.
And in not doing so, we are talking right past each other. For you to understand, I’d recommend that you read Wilson’s work. Because this is not the forum for a complete discussion of that work as the space is limited. Until you read and understand him, well, let’s just say we’ll continue talking past each other.
And in doing so one ought to keep in mind that there are quite a number of fundamental assumptions (that in many cases don’t hold up under scrutiny) of the types of evaluating students as described in Wilson’s work, with his four categories, what he calls “frames of reference” in assessing student work. Each category has various errors and assumptions that underpin the assessment framework. I suggest you read Wilson’s work to understand those “problems”.
As it is, you support those malpractices. Wilson (and I) have shown that those malpractices are bogus, again depending upon what the fundamental purpose of using any assessment is. Being from Missouri, please Show Me how they aren’t bogus. Hint: to do so you need to read Wilson first.
Duane.
I do think it a fine distinction when you say you have never been against teacher made assessments, but you have been against grading those assessments. Perhaps you could go into some detail about how something might be an assessment but is not assessed. As I recall, you argued against assessing your own students. Am I mistaken?
Perhaps you could go into more detail about why it is acceptable to sort students in those who are learning disabled and those who are not while it is unacceptable to sort students into other categories based on these standardized exams.
Well,
I’ve corrected many a test and quiz over the years. As the years went by though I realized that having the students review and correct their own tests (which I then went over) was actually in the students’ best interests. I contend that any and all assessments (except again, diagnostic assessments which are not part of the curriculum) should be designed, made and used with student learning of the subject as THE primary goal. Now how that works out in each teacher’s class is dependent upon many factors such as age, abilities, subject matter etc. . . . That being the case it is up to the professional, the teacher of each class to figure out what will work best for helping the students learn.
And yes, you are mistaken. I am not against assessing and helping the students assess their own learning. I am against the “grading” of students because that “grading” is a very piss poor way of verbalizing/commenting on/assessing students. Grades lack depth of information and serve to label students, many in a very harmful fashion.
Now, I didn’t get any choice in assigning percentages of total points which were then converted into a grade scale. But at the beginning of the year the students and I discussed that “grading” and how it was invalid and a very lacking mechanism. I made it clear that if they did the work, and put in the effort, that they were guaranteed at least a B and that actually when the students did put in that work and effort (and many did) I never had one get less than an A because I set up the point system so that it rewarded work and effort and not test-taking capabilities. They appreciated my honesty in reinforcing something that they had already figured out-that grades are bullshit.
Those that put in the work and effort actually did learn! How did I know? The students told me so and I could tell by their every increasing abilities to read, listen to, write and speak Spanish. I didn’t need any test or quiz to tell me who was learning, it was quite obvious from our interactions in class who was and who wasn’t-and sometimes in the case of more quiet, shy students, they were learning a hell of a lot more than I discerned.
And again, I implore you to read Wilson’s work. I’d be very interested in reading any analysis of it that you would do. It’d make for a lot better discussion than the very narrow focus of this particular discussion that we are having.
Some of these are laughable, like the one about an “aspiring educator” who could not pass a high school math test despite taking it 14 times. And he wanted to become a teacher?
Did you miss this part of the article: “His inability to demonstrate proficiency in mathematics at the high school level, however, is the roadblock that prevents him from instructing students in lower grade levels.” ?
Can you give me a good reason why a K-5 teacher needs to know high school math?
To me it’s sad that Mississippi kids – especially black males – will miss out on someone who could have been a good role model all because of a stupid standardized tests.
BTW, which other articles did you find “laughable”? How many have you had time to read?
Ugh, caught the typo just as I hit post – “a stupid standardized test”.
Can you give me any reason why a person, who graduated high school and has almost graduated college cannot pass high school test? What is the value of school if the graduates had not learn much? How many years he lost spending time in school? What advice he will be giving to 5-graders – “dudes, you do not need math, see I don’t know it and I am a teacher. Score!”
BA,
Extreme test anxiety for one. Mis-scoring of the test for another. Perhaps a learning disability directly related to mathematical thought processing. He might have missed the cut score each time by an amount that was in the margin of error but, you know, tough luck. He managed to fill in the wrong bubbles by accident. Other learning disability. Severe undiagnosed eye movement control issues.
There are many reasons why one may not score over a “cut score” on a standardized test. I’m sure I could come up with quite a few more if I spent more than 30 seconds on it.
Duane, I think a teacher is not an occupation for people with test anxiety or learning disability.
BA—“Duane, I think a teacher is not an occupation for people with test anxiety or learning disability.” You would be incorrect. Someone who has dealt with either or both of these would have an arsenal of strategies to help student with similar issues be successful.
Wow, BackAgain, teaching is noplace for someone with test anxiety or learning disability? AlwaysLearning is right. Case in point: my dyslexic sis struggled mightily with her disability, ended up switching major to SpecEd, had such success in helping students, she got best teacher of the yr in Bklyn&Staten Island her first yr at bat. Went on to get two masters’, successful teacher, then head of middle-school dept, now a respected & tenured asst princ at a major hisch.
YES.
See my separate post below.
As a secondary math teacher, I believe that it’s important for elementary school math teachers to know why their students need to learn certain things–in other words, foundations are being built for more complex concepts and procedures in the future. It makes no sense to me that someone without the higher level of understanding would be able to properly prepare children for their future years of education in math.
Do you think it’s also a good idea for a teacher who can’t pass a high school level English test or a high school level writing test to teach K-5 students? Part of the problem in this country with regard to math is that it’s usually seen as acceptable for teachers and other adults to say, “I’m not good in math.” Would we similarly be accepting of people who say, “I’m not good at reading” or “I can’t write worth a darn” or something similar?
The special ed resource teacher who spends a couple periods per week in my classroom sometimes has to be instructed (by me) on how to solve some of the 6th grade math problems I give my students. The aide (a paraprofessional without a teaching credential) also needs assistance. Is that what you would want in your child’s classroom?
The only thing they are testing is our patience.
YEP!
I found the article printed about Holyoke particularly disturbing. All those promises and all the lies to cover their abysmal failure. What is it going to take to undo the damage these power hungry profiteers have done?
speduktr: your first sentence is spot on.
From that article, third paragraph from the end, first sentence: “Holyoke’s leadership has also created a system that prevents students from receiving necessary services.”
IMHO, it shows how the selective use of numbers & stats can be used to not only avoid anything resembling genuine learning and teaching, but also to justify educational malpractice. And an excellent example of how the rheephorm mindset values form over substance: “The data gets rejected if it is not in the district’s preferred format.”
🤪
“Statistics are no substitute for judgment.” [Henry Clay]
😎
BREAKING NEWS:
Testing stinks.
Story #19 – how sad, how sad, – the only hopeful thing is it sounds like it is written by a young person and I have great respect for this ‘no Bullshit ‘ generation – hopefully they will bring change…
FL’s “Kindergarten Readiness Test” is laughable, outlandish, pathetic… but… well, FL.
Then there’s the reluctant WY district having K-2 reading tests forced on them because “it’s statutory” & worry they may have to ‘approach’ legislators – more teachers/ students/ parents getting shoved around by power-/ data-hungry hungry pols.
Pathetic, because kindergarten should have no expectations of prior education. On the other hand, the Nancy Flanagan’s piece about “punishing” third graders who cannot read is outlandish as well. Reading is the most basic skill one can obtain to continue individual learning. There is no point whatsoever to promote the students who cannot read. With so much being said about grouping by ability not by age this is the perfect case when this should be done.
There was a sensible comment below her article: “Assuming competent reading teachers, every native speaker of English student who reaches the end of 3rd grade without learning to read at an end-of-2nd-grade level absolutely needs to be tested; for hearing, for visual acuity and eye tracking, for general health, for overall intellectual development and for more complex learning disabilities. Then those with normal or above intelligence need either interventions (glasses, hearing aids, more protein in their diet, medications to treat any illnesses) or intensive, specialized, research-validated, multi-sensory reading instruction or both until they catch up to their age-mates.”
Whenever I hear of reading tests as gateway to 3rd gr, I think of my mother begging teacher & principal to allow one of my brothers to repeat 3rd gr because he still couldn’t read (they refused). It was mid-’60’s; the ed whim of the moment was that ‘holding back’ does irreparable social damage. He ended up having to be held back in 9th gr, & never got hisch diploma for want of a passing score on regents’ soc stud exam. Like many dyslexics, his hi intell was expressed thro other talents & he was successful in career. He learned about the disability, trained himself to become an avid & voluminous reader in his 20’s.
I agree re: age 8 is the time for intensive intervention for non-readers. But I disagree that gateway exam/ retention is the way to accomplish that. Just another example of heavy-handed bureaucracy w/cheapskate motives – in this case, it complements cutting SpEd budgets to the bone & de-professionalizing teaching.
Wait a minute. I’m confused. Are you advocating for holding back third graders who are not proficient readers? If a child still can’t read by the end of third grade, they probably need intensive reading instruction NOT a repeat of grade three. Third grade is so much more than reading. As you said, there was nothing wrong with your brother’s level of intelligence. His reading struggles required support. Making him repeat a whole year’s curriculum, most of which he probably mastered through other means than reading, would not have served him any better than just ignoring the problem. By the way, there is no good evidence that holding back students does any good. Intervention is not synonymous with retention. I think you know that judging from your last paragraph, but your first paragraph recounting your brother’s struggles seems to suggest the opposite.
Research conclusively shows that holding kids back contributes to dropping out. Most children are humiliated. It does wonders however for fourth grade test scores. Makes the state look good.
Sorry for the confusion, speduktr, my anecdote was just meant to confirm that 3rd gr does indeed look like the key point for intervention. Back in mid-’60’s there was no intensive intervention for reading-challenged 8-y.o.’s, no recognition of basic LD’s like dyslexia that interfere w/reading – brother’s social & verbal ability meant he was considered intelligent but lazy. Meanwhile he was falling swiftly behind in everything due to reading problem. Mom felt an extra yr in 3rd grade would give HER a chance to work intensely w/him at home & would be preferable to more damaging outcome (failure in hisch) which looked inevitable otherwise… (& was.)
In today’s world we have already discovered proven methods for dealing with this issue, & repeating 3rd gr curriculum certainly isn’t it– it’s just the latest “accountability” sales pitch used by cheap-o states hiding their not-so-secret agenda of slashing ed funding to the bone.
Gotcha. I knew there was more to the story than I was getting. Thanks for the clarification.
As a special educator who taught in Early Childhood, I can tell you that 3rd Grade should not be “the key point for intervention.” Intervention should take place before or as early as kindergarten. My colleagues & I had seen–time after time–that the earlier the intervention the more the student succeeds. We had so many students who didn’t receive help until 3rd, 4th, even 5th Grade or later (I taught middle school resource for the same # of years I’d taught EC–13–& I sometimes had middle school students who had been in EC. The ones in EC who had subsequent help before Grade 2 (resource or reading intervention) were much more successful, confident students in middle school.
In any event, it was shocking for me (anyone else?) to note that “Fair Test has been fighting the misuse of standardized testing since 1973.” 1973!!! Let’s make a note, here, that ALEC was established in 1971.
As I’ve said here before, this was the Master Plan for “other people’s children” & the 99% for ALMOST 50 YEARS!!!
Elections matter; legislators have been bought to bring this M.P. to fruition for ALMOST 50 YEARS. People: make sure of your votes, do your homework, vote wisely, & ON election day (“paper is safer”): early voting & voting-by-mail wasn’t developed for the convenience of the masses or to make voting easier, at least not since ALEC.* There has been an amazing amount of election fraud uncovered all over the U.S.; machines are easily tampered with. Results of recent elections as described on this blog are encouraging. Let’s keep the momentum going. We need to have the leaders our children deserve in order to keep them educated & in order to keep them safe.
*& make sure those great candidates get elected–organize, volunteer, work phones, contribute as much as you can, get others to contribute, organize fundraisers.
Our country–we–are now suffering the the truly grave consequences of complacency & inaction.
So true. The most effective action is to vote out the enemies of children and their teachers.
Retiredbutmissthekids,
Yes thanks for putting a sharper lens on it: perhaps 3rd-gr would better be described as the last point at which intense reading intervention may prevent further slippage in all subjects?
But I am curious as to how one identifies/ implements the need before 2nd-gr. My last close-up look was when my 3 were in K/1 20-25 yrs ago– it seemed then that most learned to read on a spectrum stretching across those two yrs, & that that was considered normal.
As a math teacher, I disagree with the implication raised in the linked article that requiring prospective elementary school teachers to pass a high school level math test is a bad thing. Teachers who provide math instruction in the early grades need to understand math both conceptually as well as procedurally. Too many elementary school teachers, who usually are responsible for teaching all subjects to students, are admittedly “not good in math” and, unfortunately, their students often turn out the same way. Why not start students earlier with teachers who are specialists rather than generalists? Then, the Mississippi man in the article who switched to a social work program, and others like him, can fulfill their dreams of working with children in schools for some subjects, and other teachers with more expertise in certain areas such as math can
Most of the high school and middle school students I’ve had in almost 15 years of teaching arrive in class with math skills 3-6 years below their expected level of preparedness. (This was true even before Common Core shifted academic requirements to earlier grades such that kids’ brains aren’t sufficiently developed to comprehend some of the early elementary math.) And students’ not having been exposed to math at a conceptual level in elementary school makes it more difficult for them to understand it in middle school and high school. Of course, it’s also extremely difficult for students to progress multiple years in a subject and be caught up after a single academic year. The idea that we teachers can “scaffold” that much material is absurdly unrealistic, but that is frequently what we’re told to do.
Also, by the time students start middle school in grade 6, if they haven’t done well in math, they’re already turned off of it and are far less willing to even put in the requisite effort to perform at grade level because it’s too big a stretch for them. At the same time, I’m directed by my administration and the school district to teach them the Common Core math standards for grade 6, even though I know that the students will be more willing to work at a skill level that builds immediately upon their level of knowledge rather than at a level that is far above their current comprehension.