Not many people outside Connecticut are familiar with President-Elect Biden’s choice for Secretary of Education. He went to public schools. He has worked in public schools his entire career. His children go to public schools in Meriden, where he lives. He is not aligned with DFER or Chiefs for Change or any billionaire-funded “reform” group.
Politico points out two stances that Dr. Cardona has taken that will concern many parents and teachers. In his own state, he has pushed to resume annual testing this spring, despite the pandemic. Also, he has prioritized reopening schools, which will please some but anger others.
For those of us who question the value of annual testing, a policy not found in any high-performing nation, the resumption of high-stakes testing will be a mistake when so many children have had unequal opportunity to learn. DeVos offered blanket waivers in the spring of 2020 but said she would not do it again in 2021. Students and teachers should not be required to take tests that are sure to demonstrate what we already know: Students in affluent districts will get higher test scores than students who are in impoverished districts. The gaps between them will be larger do to unequal access to education during the pandemic. There! I just told you what we will learn if we give tens or hundreds of millions to the testing industry in March.
Decisions about reopening schools should be made by local officials, not the federal Department of Education. Such decisions should take into account the availability of resources and the local conditions. We are in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic. Conditions vary, and so should responses.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thank you for this. I understand that he favors testing for the coming year, but not the use of those scores to evaluate teachers. BIG deal. He does not seem to have any understanding of the utterly disgraceful use of scores on standardized tests and hugely profitable testing industry. Or worse, he doesn’t care or care to learn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…or he has a great understanding of the profitability of the testing industry and has rode the wave like a world-class surfer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“He does not seem to have any understanding of the utterly disgraceful use of scores on standardized tests. . . ”
I seem to remember in my Assessment and Evaluation undergrad course, oh about 45 years ago that it was repeatedly stated that using test scores for any purpose other than what the test was designed was completely unethical.
I haven’t seen a new bulletin in the intervening years that would rescind/cancel that statement of ethics in assessing and evaluating students. Can anyone here show me where that has been overridden?
Ethics, who needs stinking ethics?
Obviously very few.
Obviously very few have even a rudimentary understanding of the ethics of the teaching profession.
LikeLike
nine of the most telling words for the entire legislative body where public education is concerned: “Or, worse, he doesn’t care or care to learn.”
LikeLike
One thing I think I’ve been fairly consistent about in the past 18 months, certainly since it became apparent that Joe Biden would be the nominee of the Democratic Party, is that we must vote for him, hope he is elected, and then roll up our sleeves and oppose his administration on education issues should he be timid after being elected. Well folks, as Laura writes above, this is a “BIG deal.” We have to break out of this coffee-klatsch and do something.
Unfortunately–and I don’t intend to be demeaning or dismissive–NPE is not the vehicle for change. It might well be, but it is not at present. The mere fact that the Biden team ignored it is evidence enough for me. Does anyone out there think they would have ignored NEA, AFT, etc, etc? That tells you all you need to know. Nice, well-meaning people, but no power or leverage.
So, what do we do? First, everyone, I mean everyone, who cares about this blog, sharpen your pencils and keyboards and write letters to the editor of everyone of your local papers. And if they don’t get published, figure out why. You may need to be more concise, you may need to ghost write for others to submit. And send them to NPE to be compiled. Next, get on the phone, call your representatives and senators and find out who their education legislative assistants are (if you get pushed to legislative correspondents, you are at a dead end and not being taken seriously). Talk to them, request to meet with them or their bosses in local or DC offices (local in times of COVID) or set up Zoom meetings. Explain to them what is important. Take notes and gather intelligence. Are the people you are talking to TFA alums? Public school alums? Non-public schools alums? Share with NPE. Let’s figure out who are our friends, who are our enemies, who has potential to be a friend.
Recruit teachers, administrators, and school board members who believe as you do (truth in advertising: I have none of these in my community school district, they could care less). Get them to work at the state level and ask them to keep you in the loop. If you are successful, you will have surrogates you can bring with you (live or through Zoom) for future meetings.
It’s time to work. The time for whining on a blog is over is you really care about the reasons it exists. It’s time to understand that we are not being taken seriously…now. If, a year from now, we are still not taken seriously, then we will know NPE will never be the vehicle for change. If we are, it might well be. The time of whining has come to end. Time to roll up your sleeves and commit to get some scrapes and bruises along the way.
LikeLike
I’m lost. What are we whining about? Right now it seems we are speculating about what Cardona might do. I must admit I haven’t finished reading all the comments, but am I right that we don’t really know what is going to happen at this point?
LikeLike
You make the case for me, spduktr. The following rant is not directed at you personally, but to every regular reader and contributor to this blog.
Waiting while we speculate about what anyone will do is counterproductive. Once the decisions have been made, it’s hard to call back ships that have started to sail. The fact the “we don’t really know what is going to happen” also means that that the incoming administration doesn’t know. Pressure has to be exerted NOW to get them to take our views seriously and shape policy. Sitting on the sidelines now, just commenting here, and waiting for others like NPE to act is the equivalent to capitulation.
Let me put this as bluntly as I can. Get off your fucking asses, quit whining, quit speculating and act. It’s hard fucking work. It’s frustrating fucking work. Quit being pundits and get fucking engaged. That means doing something substantive with your local school boards, with your state legislatures, in your congressional districts, and in your states on the federal level. You have to cultivate surrogates at every level who will commit to act on our priorities–local control, teacher autonomy, appropriately high teacher salaries, no centralized curriculum, no standardized testing, civic education, physical education, time to play, reading books instead of responding to screens. The next three-to-four weeks will determine most of what will happen in the executive branch in the next four years. Signing on to easy petitions and letters is fucking useless.
One wins a war in the trenches. Anonymous soldiers who selflessly give their full effort, and often their lives and become disabled are what win wars. Not people sitting on the sidelines sniping and pontificating or waiting to pounce with idiotic “I told you so” snark. If you don’t act now, then shut the fuck up. Everyone of single one of you. Now is the time.
LikeLike
Gee, I thought lobbying efforts were how we ended up with Cardona as opposed to a DFER choice. Isn’t that supposed to be an improvement? I assume those efforts will be continuing. There are a lot more people in the Department of Education than the head honcho.
I think you are making some assumptions about people’s activities because they may “gripe or whine” here. This is a place to vent fairly safely as well as a place to discuss and debate policy, but in and of itself this blog is not an advocacy or a lobbying organization.
LikeLike
Interesting aside. Writing fucking over and over again won’t get you into moderation, but James K. Polk will.
LikeLike
Polk did it again!
LikeLike
Greg,
I strongly disagree that Cardona’s selection proves that NPE is ineffectual. I got a last minute call from a progressive member of Congress urging me to speak up and support Fenwick because the decision was being made. I am very enthusiastic about her because she is a smart insightful person whose views I share. Last year I talked to her for an hour and was very impressed that we were on the same page. I wrote a post to endorse her, the NPE board endorsed her, we sent out emails abd tweets, but it was too late. The decision had been made, the deal was done.
Why does NPE matter? Because if you are in a battle to win political victories, there’s strength in numbers. We have allies in every state. We don’t have money but we can mobilize troops.
Do you want to fight for the future of education on your own or with hundreds of thousands mobilized with you. Each person his own foxhole?
We didn’t win this one but there are more actions ahead. Cardonas is a public school man. We wish him well. We look forward to working with him towards our common goals. We are impressed that he disciplined the powerful Achievement First charter chain in CT. A flunky would not have done that. We hope to meet with him and will push for the things we believe in. He is not our enemy. He is not a Broadie or a DFER or a “Chief for Change.” He is ten zillion times better than DeVos or Duncan or Spellings or Paige. Think of that.
LikeLike
I agree with your sentiments, Diane. My point that NPE was, to use your word, ineffectual, was not an attack on the people who try to make something effective out of it. My point was that until people engaged and did so consistently, NPE will continue to a source of good information and passion, but largely a debating society. As you will note in my third paragraph above, the rant before the second rant, I encouraged people to report back to NPE to build and organize.
But policy statements, online petitions, or white papers only preach to the choir. Many of the people who engage here are retired. They need to make advocacy, outreach, intelligence gathering, and all the work it entails a part-time job. There is no glamour in it. They need to engage their former colleagues, and their former colleagues need to engage their colleagues. It’s hard f’ing work.
And large memberships create a perceived mirage of political legitimacy. I don’t think it’s correct, but it is a fact. One of the reasons NEA and AFT have “a voice” is because they can point to a large membership, even when they don’t represent that membership. AARP is the poster child (retiree?) for this. They are useless politically, people join for discounts, not political reasons, yet AARP still gets seats at the political and policy tables in DC because of the size of their membership. NPE has an opportunity to actually be a representative body of an important constituency, but until it can create a perception of power and/or influence, it will not break out of of the current rut.
Until that happens, as much as it pains me, we will continue to gripe when things don’t go “our” way. As I have written on far too many occasions here, until a major political figure pays a political price for being on the wrong side of the issues, we must have the honesty to admit we’re losing and will continue to do so. I see us commenting to each other. I don’t see any evidence of us growing our constituency to make it more effective.
LikeLike
We do what we can where we can when we can.
LikeLike
My last word on this. Diane, I hope you understand that I am on your side and in full agreement with the theoretical, potential value of NPE. It’s got a long way to go. Exhibit A: You had a post Marla’s compilation of all the work (I agree there was activity, I disagree that it was heard by anyone) being done by NPE-affiliated “organizations” around the country on Dec. 2 (https://dianeravitch.net/2020/12/02/news-from-the-network-for-public-education-3/) with fully 6 (!) comments. By that measure, I would argue that even the people who comment here regularly and claim to be public education advocates had no interest in the work of NPE.
I want NPE to be an effective voice for public education. I attended the last NPE convention in Indianapolis (on my own dime and time), and as one who has organized numerous events like this in my life, I was completely underwhelmed. I conveyed those reasons to Carol after the meeting. The agenda I saw for the planned Philadelphia meeting was also underwhelming and I decided I would not attend because it was more of the same of what I saw in Indianapolis. People patting each other on their backs for fighting the good fight, absolutely no effective effort to build a vocal, effective coalition. Indeed, it reminded me of the typical stereotype of schools. The popular kids sat at the same tables and ignored or dismissed those who weren’t in the “in-crowd.” More importantly, there was not collective action plan that motivated the attendees.
With all due respect, “We do what we can where we can when we can.” is not an argument or exhortation to fight effectively on the front. It is an excuse, or to be more charitable, a rationalization. No one wants to see NPE succeed more than me. But the first thing the leaders and board of NPE have to do is look at each other and in the mirror and ask themselves if they are anywhere close to achieving what they claim to accomplish. I would argue they are not. And I’m a friend, not a DFER or neoliberal mole. When your friends critique your efforts honestly, perhaps it’s time to reassess, retool and figure out how to actually achieve goals.
LikeLike
Greg,
Everyone who attends NPE meetings does so on their own time and dime.
If you have some constructive ideas about what we should do differently, send them to me and Carol Burris, or post them here.
We started in 2013 with no members and no money. We have since grown to be the largest volunteer group fighting for public schools in the country. 350,000 people are part of our team, along with more than 100 local and state groups. We have produced a large number of reports that forcefully and factually refuted the propaganda of the Disruption industry.
I’m eager to hear your ideas.
LikeLike
As a small but significant example of NPE effectiveness, consider that DFER announced its list of candidates for Secretary of Education. In 2008, DFER proposed Arne Duncan and he won. NPE identified the members of the 2020 list as people who were associated with school closings and part of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change. None was chosen. Maybe it was due to other reasons, but I believe we played a part in blocking the DFER choice.
LikeLike
We began our annual conferences in 2014. Our experience every year is that people came from across the country and built alliances and learned from one another. I have been told again and again, “I thought I was alone in fighting privatization. Now I know I have allies.” We are up against a billionaire-funded effort to privatize public schools, to destroy the teaching profession, to kill off unions, and to monetize education. We are David. They are Goliath. The first thing you need to resist is to understand what’s happening. We have —not just NPE, but those who fight for better education—won some victories. They have failed again and again. They can win elections but then their remedies are even more glaring failures. New Orleans, their shining star, is a low-performing district in one of the nation’s lowest performing states. We didn’t make it so. Their ideas don’t work.
LikeLike
Addendum: In early January, learn who the House and Senate members of the committees and subcommittees–authorizing AND appropriations–are. Those of you who live in those districts and states will jump to the front of the line. You are more equal (important) than others.
LikeLike
Should have known. Hand has been tipped. Appreciate the early warning.
LikeLike
SIGH! 😱
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cardona appears to think there is some value in standardized testing. This is a rather narrow, short-sighted perspective. As someone with long professional relationship with both TESOL and NABE, I know that the prevailing belief is that without standardized testing ELLs will be “forgotten.” I always was a dissenting view in that I think standardized testing is harmful as it is often used to pigeonhole rather than elevate. Giving students a test before they are ready to legitimately take it undermines their self confidence, and the current crop of rigged tests are even worse.
Cardona believes we should give the tests, but not use it as an accountability measure this year. The bigger question in my mind is why would we use any standardized test as an “accountability measure” any year? There are many other formative tests that can do a much more effective job helping teachers and students than standardized tests that have been misused to drive a wholly political agenda. Maybe we should send Cardona a set of Diane Ravitch’s books? Even simply chapter six of ‘Slaying Goliath’ would be a good place to start, The Resistance to High Stakes Standardized Testing. Cardona has some homework to do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is someone who has risen remarkably quickly. In the climate of the last two decades, that doesn’t happen without a great feel for the testing industry. I hope we don’t let Secretary Cardona off the hook.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. If Cardona starts the heavy fisted imposition of testing and/or other harmful policies, I hope teachers and parents actively protest and make him very uncomfortable in his position. The article also said like Biden he is willing to compromise. The pressure of protest will make him more willing to compromise.
LikeLike
Yes — actively and PRO-actively!
LikeLike
There should be NO compromise! Compromise is what has happened all along and our children have been “compromised” out of an education they deserve in lieu of CC test prep garbage that teaches to a nonsensical test. All the money paid to the testing industry would be better spent in the classroom helping kids learn. Sorry…..teachers (and their union leaders) and parents need to stand firm on this issue and there should be NO high stakes testing period!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“our children have been ‘compromised’ out of an education they deserve” YES.
LikeLike
LisaM,
Thoroughly agree. NO COMPROMISE!
LikeLike
“The bigger question in my mind is why would we use any standardized test as an “accountability measure” any year?”
The tests are not designed to be “an accountability measure.” Supposedly they are designed to evaluate, assess, judge a student’s supposed knowledge of the subject matter of the test, nothing else (and it certainly is no “measure” of anything.)
I seem to remember in my Assessment and Evaluation undergrad course, oh about 45 years ago that it was repeatedly stated that using test scores for any purpose other than for what the test was designed was completely unethical.
I haven’t seen a new bulletin in the intervening years that would rescind/cancel that statement of ethics in assessing and evaluating students. Can anyone here show me where that has been overridden?
Ethics, who needs stinking ethics?
Obviously very few.
Obviously very few have even a rudimentary understanding of the ethics of the teaching profession.
LikeLike
Cardona’s plans as CT Comm of Ed give us only some insight into what his policy goals as US Secy of Ed would be. Here’s what he’s said on testing as a state commissioner:
In a 2019 article upon his appointment as state commissioner: “Testing for the sake of testing prevents educators from getting to the core work of teaching students the skills that (students) need to be successful.” https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Connecticut-s-new-education-commissioner-14338866.php
Recently: “This year, we want to provide some opportunity for [students] to tell us what they learned or what gaps exist so we can target resources,” Cardona said earlier this month in a news conference reported by the Connecticut Post. The state plans to seek approval to not use the scores in accountability metrics.” https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-12-22-what-to-know-about-miguel-cardona-biden-s-pick-for-education-secretary This CT schools paper makes it crystal clear Cardona wants test results excluded from any accountability measures: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SDE/Digest/2020-21/AssessmentAndAccountabilityin2021.pdf
Cardona’s background suggests he would have been on the Ted Kennedy side of the Bush-Kennedy “handshake” on NCLB [Kennedy reportedly walked away from the handshake in disgust when the Bush admin/ Congress welched on the necessary funding & teacher support.] This does not indicate support for the high-stakes aspect of our accountability systems.
His remarks suggest a belief that standardized testing can tell us things about student learning which it can’t in fact do. But he may simply find admin requires those scores to prove ‘achievement gaps’ as leverage for policy-making/ funding. If it’s the latter, he would probably be open to compromise, i.e., backing the annual reqt off to periodic testing.
The best thing about him is his apparent interest & ability to bring all players to the table and negotiate a solution.
LikeLike
Standardized tests are notoriously bad for offering specific information that is useful in planning instruction. Standardized tests are not diagnostic. The proprietary ownership of the tests prohibits any specific examination of the content. The results of the tests arrive at the end of the school year or even the summer, much too late to serve any instructional value at all. These tests waste valuable tax dollars that would be better spent on instruction.
LikeLike
So true. As Amer Stat Assn said yrs ago, they are being used for purposes for which they were not designed. This is why they can’t (& don’t) replace teacher-designed exams. The info they provide is general, helps to give an overall, regional comparison of school systems– a mere plot point among others from which to eyeball national policy. Which means they can/ should be administered every FEW years to a REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE ONLY.
LikeLike
“His remarks suggest a belief that standardized testing can tell us things about student learning which it can’t in fact do. But he may simply find admin requires those scores to prove ‘achievement gaps’ as leverage for policy-making/ funding. If it’s the latter, he would probably be open to compromise, i.e., backing the annual reqt off to periodic testing.”
You may have hit the nail on the head. I hope so. In addition, we have to remember that this man has essentially been “schooled” during a time period when high stakes testing has been the norm. The fact that he dismisses it for accountability/punishment is a positive sign.
LikeLike
I think that dismissal is just for 2021, Speduktr. Be wary.
LikeLike
What’s that line–”Trust but verify”? I did note that he has gotten his education degrees during a test friendly time. Used only as a broad population snapshot for the direction of resources is less offensive than as an accountability/punishment tool. I still don’t agree with our obsession for standardized testing, but his apparent position is less alarming. I don’t intend to go to sleep, though.
LikeLike
If Mr Cardona fails to provide testing waivers to states in 2021, he will be no different than DeVos. It would be another story if a federal aid check would go to the parents of every student who scores low on the test, but there is no assistance planned for young people in need. The tests are just punishment, punishment for not being born into privilege. Shameful. Simply shameful.
LikeLike
I blame the ed reformers for the fact that we seem to have lost the distinction between high stakes testing and annual testing.
I grew up with annual testing — in my case, it was “Iowa tests” and one year something like the “California Aptitude Test” (funny they were named after states!)
But those annual tests weren’t high stakes exams. They were just tests whose results didn’t impact any report cards or grades. I always assumed the results were taken with a grain of salt. But if a quiet student who had been ignored by teachers scored off the charts, that might be noted. If a motivated, high performing student seemed to have unusually low scores, that might be noted simply because there might be something that went unrecognized like a learning disability or even the need for eye glasses. But it also might be having a bad day. It was simply another tool in the arsenal, not a way to punish teachers or evaluate schools or determine the abilities of a student with certainty.
Even today, some public schools sometimes assess students with so-called “standardized” tests in October as a snapshot and some of the best and most experienced teachers my kid had (25+ years) who had seen it all thought they were one useful tool among many — but were under no illusions that they were absolutely accurate.
Aside from teachers, the first real parent push back on high stakes testing happened in suburbs where annual testing had been going on for decades. It wasn’t annual testing that caused the rebellion, it was the high stakes nature of the annual testing and how the annual testing was being MISUSED for political gain, and how that misuse was so damaging to public schools.
I think it should be recognized that there are a lot of parents who don’t see all standardized testing as evil, although there is a lot of support to get rid of high-stakes annual testing by parents who see how that has impacted education. But those two things are not the same, and perhaps that is the nuance that Cardona sees.
LikeLike
I have always been bothered by the way “high stakes” is used in this blog. NYCPPS says “But those annual tests weren’t high stakes exams. They were just tests whose results didn’t impact any report cards or grades.” The suggestion is that “high stakes” exams are ones that impact students grades. My impression is that this is not what most posters refer to as “high stakes” exams. After all, every teacher written and graded exam is “high stakes” in that sense, and I don’t think posters (except of course Duane) object to these “high stakes” exams. The concern of most here is only when the exam is “high stakes” for the teacher of the class.
LikeLike
High-stakes exams have maximal consequences for students and teachers and schools.
Students may or may not be promoted based on a test scores; they may or may not graduate based on a test score.
Teacher may win a merit award or be fired based on student test scores.
The school may be closed based on a test score.
Those are very high stakes, especially for a test of dubious validity that mainly reflects family income and education.
LikeLike
We probably should include “standardized” when we are talking about high stakes testing. TE is trying to conflate any test that may be high stakes for a student with the battery of high stakes standardized tests associated with CCSS. I don’t think anyone on this blog has ever made that assumption.
LikeLike
When you say students “and” teachers, does that mean that it must be high stakes for both or would it are better to say exams are high stakes if they have maximal consequences for students “or” teachers.
Alaska, Arkansas, New Mexico, and North Carolina, for example, all have exit exams that students must pass in order to get a high school diploma but do not require that teachers be evaluated using standardized exams.
LikeLike
Got me wrong on that TE!
I have little problem with teacher made assessments, tests, quizzes, etc. . . as long as they cover the material/subject matter studied, however, the main problem is when those assessments are made, not to assist with informing the student where he/she is in the learning process, but with attempting to supposedly state what a student knows and doesn’t know for the perusal of others besides the student and parent/guardian and teacher. The only valid reason in my mind for any type of assessment is “Does it help the student to learn more about themselves in the learning process?” Anything else is nonsense and harms the teaching and learning process, and, needless to say, harms the students.
LikeLike
I’m sorry as you are right that my reply implied that high stakes meant high stakes for students. My error – I didn’t intend to imply that.
I meant that that there was a time in the past when it was possible to have annual testing that wasn’t “high stakes” and didn’t have extremely negative consequences for schools and teachers and students. It was just another tool (one among many) that teachers and parents (if they wanted) had. They were used the way private schools now use annual testing.
I believe that private schools still give annual tests — CTP-4 exams — to their students (although perhaps not this year).
Private schools are not ranked nor judged on their students’ performance on the CTP-4 exams. The fact that they are not – and that guides to private schools and websites that evaluate private schools never look at the 4th grade scores on CTP-4 exams to denote which private schools are either superior or inferior to one another — tells you that those in power have never believed that a standardized test was useful in that way.
In private schools, those annual standardized test scores are entirely for internal use at the school, not as something used to evaluate the overall school or teaching.
But the private schools still give those exams. I see the argument that those private schools waste parents’ tuition money by giving them. But what I was trying to say is that those kinds of standardized tests are not generally misused the way the standardized tests given to public school students are. And that misuse is entirely political.
Politicizing and misuse of annual standardized testing has done so much damage to public schools. A return to the old way where those annual tests were used internally, the way private schools do and the way that public schools did many decades ago doesn’t seem so bad. I definitely understand the arguments against all standardized testing, but I also see why some parents and educators might support the low-stakes version as a useful tool (but just one of many).
LikeLike
Duane,
I think I got you right. You object to teacher produced tests being used to assign grades to students, to label students as “A” students or “C” students. You object to teacher produced tests being used to decide if a student can graduate from high school or not. You object to there being any consequence for the student for any exam result. Isn’t that right?
I think that is different from most posters here. Most are willing to have graded assignments and exams with very high stakes attached as long it is at the teachers discretion.
LikeLike
I compare my state to yours below (to get more margin room 😉 )
LikeLike
NYCPSP, your point is interesting: in your state, parents were accustomed to some sort of annual stdzd test, so only sat up when they became “high-stakes.” I’m a little confused by that, since NYS has the strongest & earliest pushback against Obama-era testing. NJ’s is strong too, but our progression looks different, & it wasn’t about introducing high stakes, it was just about over-testing.
NJ long gave Iowa’s or something similar 3 times [prox 2nd, 5th & 8th gr]—not annually—right up into the ‘90’s. But the state was hatching stds-aligned assessments. Their 1991 Core Curriculum Stds were rather good—framework-style & brief. By late-‘90’s/ early-‘00’s they’d rolled out 3 aligned state-stdzd assessments, administered end-elem, end-midsch, & pre-grad (replacing Iowa’s). These had some stakes: students could be held back or at least have their curriculum reshuffled to include remedial courses.
Busy little heads in Trenton were not done, & fully rolled out ANNUAL 3-8 state-stdzd tests by 2008-09 [plus retained the hisch grad exam]—before CCSS! These counted in student grades, and often got layered on top of teacher-designed tests because they were too general to inform instruction. [And let’s not forget the accompanying Danielson/ Marzano mini-tests for measuring progress that came in just after.] Parents weren’t happy. Meanwhile the state was already transitioning, replacing the [good] Core Curr Stds w/ the [bad] CCSS & gearing up for consortium tests. By 2015, teachers & families were already fed up with 7+ yrs of NJ ASK annual tests, & polled very negative at the prospect of computer-delivered, high-stakes-in-a-different-way PAARC even before it was administered in that Fall.
LikeLike
bethree5,
I apologize because I think my first reply was unclear.
I was just noting that growing up in a midwestern state, my public school gave Iowa tests every year or some variation of a standardized test. But it wasn’t something students prepared for and the results were only used internally in schools.
I recall thinking it seemed strange that in NY State, high school students took “high stakes” Regents’ exams back in the 1970s. We did not have anything like that, but it didn’t seem as if there was any NY State backlash by parents that Regents’ Exams were a very bad thing.
Did NYS have the strongest and earliest pushback against testing? I don’t recall that except that it did seem as if the pushback was happening in the suburbs more than in NYC and among more affluent parents. But I thought the pushback was a good thing and it seemed to me that it started in the suburbs because previously those annual tests had been low-stakes in the suburbs and no one really paid attention and then they started being used to judge the schools and teachers and parents were being advised to trust a test over their own eyes, and the high stakes nature made those tests far more unpopular.
There seems to be a very big difference between the way annual standardized testing is used in private schools and in public schools. Even some (many?) so-called “progressive” private schools often still do annual standardized testing. I don’t think there would have been the same pushback against testing by parents if it the testing wasn’t being misused.
Is that what you see as well?
I think there is a huge correlation between the promotion (with falsehoods and misleading statistics) of billionaire-supported charter schools that were willing to push out students to achieve high test scores and having public schools and teachers judged on test scores, thus turning the tests into high-stakes in a way they were not.
LikeLike
NYCPCP, personal observation here. Please don’t apologize. You have nothing for which to apologize. Explain, as you do (even on occasion when you lose me 😂). Others here need to apologize and repent. You are not one of them. You can take a hit.
LikeLike
Rhetorical hit, that is.
LikeLike
Thanks, GregB. You are very kind to say so. I probably do go overboard because I hope to head off a digression where people pile on criticizing my tone or accusing me of attacking them when I just had wanted to have a conversation about some issue I care about. I hope if I apologize if my too-long posts seem to be genuinely misunderstood by the reader, I can head that off and the conversation says on topic.
The irony is that I’m so long-winded because I don’t want to write mean or snarky replies to other people and I feel obligated to explain my reasoning even if most people don’t care!
LikeLike
No worries, nycpsp. I have diarrhea of the pen, far worse than yours. I have to edit it down so many times most are no longer reading at thread when I finally chime in. For me the editing helps me figure out what I’m trying to say– when I finally get there I often realize someone else already said it 😉
LikeLike
answering you below again
LikeLike
You are right, NYCpsp about the tests we took. I went to school in the late ’50s, ’60s & 70s (well, ACT or SAT–don’t remember even taking a pre-test such as h.s. kids take the PSAT as juniors, now). We took the Iowa Tests, & they were no big deal. No test prepping all year & can’t remember them used for anything much more than for you/your parents/teachers to see where we were, grade-level-wise. (I also can’t remember when we took them, & if the teachers received scores back in time to use diagnostically. Diane, you would know this, & had probably written about these tests/testing times in one of your earlier books.)
What testing has become is a nightmare–for everyone except Pear$on, et.al. who have made $$$$$$$$. As we all agree, SO much of that $$$$$$ could be used for…education! Smaller class sizes, more socai workers, school counselors, librarians, psychologists, school nurses, parapros & more. A world of education riches (necessities, really)–all there for our kids if “standardized” testing were a thing of the past!
Forget No Child Left Behind…it’s time to say Every TEST Left Behind!
(Yeah–& textbook tests {I always loved giving those, because those really were diagnostic–esp. Math}–& quick, so reteaching or moving ahead could be easily accomplished. &, of course teacher-made AND student-made tests–those were great days!
LikeLike
Do you think it is impossible to return to that time? Do annual standardized tests need to be abolished altogether? Were public schools spending a lot of money to give those Iowa tests back then?
I can see that it might be impossible to return to those days. But if private schools still do the kind of testing you and I experienced back in the 1970s, why can’t public schools do that too? I don’t think private schools spend a lot of money to give those tests each year, and I don’t think they spend any money on test prep education materials. Even more recently, suburban school systems in NY State seemed not to put any effort in teaching to the test or test prep until the promoters of ed reform demanded they be publicly judged by it the last decade or so.
And yes, you are absolutely right that we need money for smaller class sizes and all of those things. Especially since public schools now teach a far more disadvantaged population in this country than they did decades ago. It is outrageous that testing became “buy these various products to have your students do better on tests”. Pure propaganda that isn’t pushed to private schools.
LikeLike
The federal mandate for standardized tests should be abolished
LikeLike
nycpsp, re: last night’s reply.
Iowas: I learned somewhere along the way that a number of states near Iowa took the Iowas every year—that would be you! They were certainly no-pressure for me, & for my kids 40 yrs later. They identified areas of strength, & teachers used them in 5th gr to help parents in midsch course selection. Came in handy again in hisch for my middle son: a counselor showed me that his grades in strength areas id’d in the Iowas had been spiraling down. I put that together w/a sense he’d lost motivation & it led to a mutual decision: he enrolled in our alternative school-w/n-a-school project-based program & was a happy camper jr/sr yr.
Regents Exams: the old system was a good one (grad ’66 NYS). The world was different. 30% of hisch grads ave went on to college; they chose Regt Dipl path. There was Non-Regt Dipl for those w/ no intention or aptitude for college, & plenty of non-coll career opptys then. Many who weren’t sure went for the Regt Dipl anyway just in case, or because hisch counselor encouraged them. The exams were given in addition to [harder] teacher-designed finals & did not change course grade. You could get into college without passing them all anyway! So, they weren’t precisely high-pressure (less so than finals).
Things are very different today: all NYS public hisch students have to pass some regents exams to get a diploma, period. And from what I read, these do not replace teacher-designed finals (for the usual reason). So you now have “regular,” “advanced,” and “special” [IEP or ELL] versions of the reqts. There’s even “Regts w/Honors.” [Tracking lives!!] I can’t imagine what it’s like for those also dealing with AP and SAT-subject exams (plus SAT or ACT). Layering the fed-reqd Math/ELA stdzd tests on that mess was frankly insane, no wonder the Opt Out movement was started there.
I know nothing of priv-sch stdzd testing – did not exist when I was a priv hisch teacher decades ago. I read up on the one you mentioned. Looks extensive, detailed, & higher quality. But then those schools do not have to give Regents exams, nor ESSA’s.
LikeLike
grr. did not realize when you post at wordpress site they ignore your para spacing – sorry!
LikeLike
Ginny,
I have a lot of trouble with paragraph spacing when writing posts. WordPress.
LikeLike
bethree5,
Thank you for your kind post above and also this informative post. I like reading long posts, by the way. I come here to be informed so I appreciate when you and others take the time to explain in detail why you have an opinion, as opposed to just expressing that opinion. It’s why I respect Diane Ravitch so much, too!
It’s interesting to hear your own relatively positive – or at least not negative – experience with (pre-high stakes) annual standardized exams, both as a student yourself and as a parent. It seems similar to my own.
Yes, the Regents’ exams now in NY State are overdone. And there doesn’t seem to be much consistency in how each high school uses them anyway! Some high schools don’t count them at all as part of the final grade, some high schools count them as a final, and some use some hybrid version of that. And as far as I can tell, only NY State universities (and perhaps CUNY) would pay attention to whether someone has an “advanced” or “regular” regents’ diploma at graduation.
Diane Ravitch mentioned something I had not even considered — that it is the federal mandate for testing that caused so much harm. I can see how that is true, since there doesn’t seem to be a federal mandate for testing in high school yet (at least as far as I have experienced as a parent) so even though Regents exams for all is ill-conceived, it seems to have done less direct damage than the federal mandate for pre-high school testing.
And the other irony is that students don’t even need SATs or ACTs or APs in college admissions anymore, so it is certainly possible for students to avoid taking any of those unless their high school somehow requires it (but I think most public high schools do not force students to sign up for those 3 standardized tests.)
LikeLike
NYCpsp: True that last paragraph. Daughter went to a college that, early on, announced it was NOT taking ACT or SAT scores–very much focused on prospective students’ interviews, essays, high school classes, extra-curriculars, life experiences, teacher recommendations & grades. Unfortunately, we initially thought she did, indeed, have to take the ACTs. Such a perfectionist, she very nearly made herself sick. Dissatisfied with her quite acceptable test score, she retook the test, because she wanted a perfect or near-perfect score on the English portion–which she did achieve on the 2nd taking). That having been said, her grandfather had passed away right before the Sat. testing: the funeral was that Friday, & we told her she didn’t have to take the test, but she insisted. Really, all of this unnecessary angst & unhappiness, but the College Board got their $$$.
(BTW, her dad & I never pushed her to do any of this. In fact, I have been actively involved in the opt out movement, as you might imagine by my constant ranting here, & always pushing Todd Farley’s book {let’s send one to Cardona for a holiday gift!}. My husband was a less-than-enthusiastic student {his 1st Grade Teacher was a “Miss Papermaster”–I am NOT kidding!!! &…she was}, so he was very sympathetic.)
Finally–Diane was gracious enough (thanks again, Diane!) to post daughter’s interview w/Todd Farley–check post back on 12/27/2012.
Todd Farley, wherever you are, happy holidays, & thanks for one of the most important/informative books on the evils of “standardized” testing ever written. If you haven’t read it, you must–it isn’t a tome, but a very well-written, often humorous,* important read.
Buy it for your school board members for a holiday gift–both for them & for all the children/teens in your school district.
Todd is actually hilarious. Buy yourself the book: *Making the Grades: My Misadventures in the Standardized Testing Industry, 2009, last published by Berrett-Koehler Publishers, paperback, $19.95 (in 2015).
LikeLike
Another reason to cancel the tests: for those students engaged in online learning, they would have to take these tests remotely. This sets up a whole new set of obstacles, including the need to put surveillance spyware on the computers students are using, to ensure they don’t cheat. Such spyware is not only invasive, but also unreliable as many students have pointed out — incorrectly identifying people who simply talk to themselves or who have other habits that the spyware falsely interprets as cheating.
LikeLike