Archives for category: NCLB (No Child Left Behind)

Julian Vasquez Heilig is the most creative blogger I know in terms of his brilliant combination of flashy graphics, research, and informed commentary.

Here he describes the century-long battle between the managerial elites—who believe that schools can be improved by data, management, mandates and standardization, always controlled by them–and the pedagogical crowd–who have fought the managers that the starting point in education is the students, how they learn, what they need, not the management.

It is Taylor vs. Dewey.

The Taylorites run the show for now. They ARE the status quo.

The day of reckoning is coming.

They are losing because everything they have done has failed.

This was written by Raniel Guzman, who is a teacher in the School District of Philadelphia and an adjunct professor at Esperanza College of Eastern University:

May 100 % of your students score proficient or above on standardized tests by 2014.            

An attributed Chinese proverb is often wished upon one’s enemies by asserting, may you live in interesting times… This understated “curse” levied upon one’s enemies has a restrained Buddhist sensibility even as one wishes ill toward others. Educators today are indeed living in interesting times. Students and parents are certainly living in interesting times as well. However, the curse placed upon us all is not restrained but rather overt.

The curse is well known to educators and asserts the following, may 100 % of your students score proficient or above on standardized tests by 2014. So then, who has placed this “curse” upon us all? I am certain we can think of obvious enemies. Nonetheless, I am not certain many of us are thinking about the less obvious and thus more lethal enemies. They give politically correct speeches, and radiate a fatherly presence. Their threat resides precisely in the proximity to their victims, namely us. We often develop a blind spot for such figures and hope that they will protect us from sorcerers and things that go bump in the night. Unfortunately, simple examination of deeds, rather than speech, proves otherwise.

Their “curse” is characterized by dilution and diminution. Teachers, students, administrators and parents are diluted in endless paper chases disguised as tests, assessments and reports. Conversely, the edification of concepts and individual free will are systematically diminished. The combined effects may elicit the maddening image of a hamster running endlessly in a caged wheel. However, a more accurate image of these effects is more akin to desperate victims racing to the top of an inextinguishable inferno.

May 100 % of your students score proficient or above on standardized tests by 2014 is particularly stressful when father figures emphasize the deadline, by 2014. This has been the curse that has dominated the bulk of my teaching career. A curse so powerful it has decimated all attempts to render it inoperative. This “super curse” has brought forward other conjurers, who with wands in hand have temporarily waved away some provisions yet, have not been able or willing to undo this “super curse”. What would motivate someone to place such a curse?  Let’s entertain some thoughts.

Many profess that a goal as noble as ensuring that all students score proficient at the same time and place is beyond reproach. Well, it is simply reprehensible. This cynical goal suffers from a pernicious pathology, which advocates forgive as a delusion for perfection. Shamefully, these apologists hide the correct diagnosis. It is not a delusion of perfection that motivates the jinxers, but rather a pathology of exclusion. We all know the consequences of not scoring proficient and obtaining AYP, -they close your (our) school. However, 2014 can’t seem to arrive soon enough for some hexers. Hence, the rush by officials –this year-, to close as many public schools throughout our country under the convenient excuses of “austerity” and “scores” is well afoot. The unprecedented shuttering of dozens of public schools particularly in largely African American communities, as in Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. etc. are justified under the rationale of budgetary challenges.

This rationale anchors itself on the operational premise of right sizing. Irrespective of the fact that we are talking about children and their development -this thinking may have legitimate administrative basis in the private sector. However, the current juxtaposition of private sector practices and public sector commitments, such as providing an adequate and free education as stipulated in the constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, have dissimilar agendas and unequal strengths. Why then the rush if the “super curse” will effectively close thousands of public schools all across our country within a year? We will surely have the right size and number of schools soon enough. Could it be that the proponents’ zeal for the “super curse” is waning? Hardly.

In fact the “super curse” is going very well. The political party, pardon, -the political parties, both of them, have put away their “profound pedagogical partitions” to unite in this effort. Likewise, the industrial testing complex continues to redact tests, assessments, practice workbooks, study programs, while hiring consultants, garnering ever greater budget allocations, and accumulating data all aimed to ensure that scores comply with targets of soon to be imposed common core standards. But above all of these machinations, one supersedes them all, the president’s silence on these matters is the best indicator that all is truly going well among the jinxers and hexers. Conversely, hope for a change is sequestered. So again I ask, why the rush? Could it be that the “super curse” itself is waning? Hardly.

In fact, the jinxers are emboldened by their powers and lack of meaningful restraints, -why wait? “Let’s exclude NOW!” they demand. What we have in front of us now is a turn to Kronos, but an inverted Kronos. We have all seen the depictions of Kronos devouring his children. His filicides are motivated out of fear, a fear of competition from his children. Thus, he eats them. In our case, our Kronos is not committing filicide, but rather devouring the children of others. One can imagine a repented titan with a renewed paternal instinct and displaced fear of competition in the presence of other children asking another titan, “How do we devour the potential competitors of our children?” The other titan may respond, “Well, one way is to be proactive. For example, you offer your children greater pedagogical and assertive experiences and opportunities. In addition, you enroll your children in a school that is free of stigma, for example, one that does not administer standardized tests, say a private school or a divinity school. In other words, enroll your child in a school that does not partake in omens or curses.”

Nonetheless, there is still another way, a more reactive way, to devour your children’s potential competitors, -you close their schools and in doing so -eliminate the competition. Once shuttered, you place stigma upon the displaced children and adults. Moreover, you place a scarlet tattoo on both and you never lift the curse. The calculation is the following; the failure of some children will ensure that mine will thrive. This charter is an open collusion devoid of formalities.

I am well aware that we live in highly secular times, which are dominated by facts and figures. But for some of us who recognize the evil that lurk in men’s hearts, we cannot ignore the immutable. Those who conspire against children are devoid of judgment. Consequently, their motivations are drawn from an irredeemable well. They practice technical numerology, model apparitions, and consult conjurers. Some of them believe in curses. Others still are weary of omens. Some even fear children, often their own. I believe in God. Evil may cause great pain and destruction, but evil never prevails. Evil’s harvest never mature and eventually in its rage devours its own seed.

Marc Tucker posted a fascinating dialogue with two testing experts, Howard Everson and Robert Linn.

 

Here are some of the salient points.

MT: Is this country getting ready to make a profound mistake? We use grade-by-grade testing in grades 3-8 but no other country is doing it this way for accountability; instead they test 2 or 3 times in a students’ career. If the United States did it that way, we could afford some of the best tests in the world without spending any more money.

BL: Raising the stakes for our test-based accountability systems so that there will be consequences for individual teachers will make matters even worse. Cheating scandals will blossom. I think this annual testing is unnecessary and is a big part of the problem. What we should be doing is testing at two key points along the way in grades K-8, and then in high school using end-of-course tests.

HE: I am in the same place as Bob. The multiple-choice paradigm first used in WWI and eventually used to satisfy the NCLB requirements has proven to be quite brittle, especially when applied in every grade 3-8 and used to make growth assumptions. The quick and widespread adoption of multiple-choice testing was in hindsight a big mistake for this country, but—now — states will tell you it is all they can afford.

Bob Linn points out that the increased reliance on external tests reflects a fundamental distrust of teachers. Our nation relies on these tests because teachers can’t be trusted to test their own students. The conundrum is that the reliance on standardized tests demoralizes and deskills teachers and reduces the prestige of the teaching profession

BL: One big difference between the United States and other countries is the prestige and trust in teachers, which is very low in this country and tends to be quite high in the top performers. This has led to the development of accountability systems that use external measures to see if schools and individual teachers are doing a good job. This has morphed into the next level: evaluating individual teachers. Unless we can find a way to increase the prestige of teachers and public confidence in them, it will be hard to move too far away from using testing for these purposes.

I am not a testing expert. I am a historian. I have studied the history of testing (see Left Back), and I served for seven years on the National Assessment Governing Board. One thing I know: the testing industry is the greatest beneficiary of the testing mandates of No Child Left Behind and the Race to the Top. The testing industry has lobbyists who look out for the interests of the industry. They work on Capitol Hill and in the state capitols.

Can they be stopped? Can we bring the best interests of children to the fore, to replace the best interests of the testing industry?

Yes.

Opt out.

Do not allow them to test your child.

Show your disdain for their flawed product.

Do not allow them to use your children as data points.

David Leonhardt of the Néw York Times interviews Arne Duncan, Mitch Daniels, and John Engler on the state of the “reform” movement.

How fitting that Duncan would be paired with two of the very conservative Republican ex-governors, and the three sound alike.

What is interesting to me is that I hear a subtle shift in tone. They are admitting that scores are up and graduation rates are up, but that whatever progress we have made is not good enough. Do I detect a new line of rhetoric? Did someone summarize the first few chapters of “Reign of Error” for them?

Did they skip the chapter about international comparisons?

Heather Vogell, a stellar reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, has done in-depth investigative reporting on the standardized tests that now are used to determine the fate of students, teachers, principals, and schools.

She has found a surprising number of errors, though not surprising to those familiar with the testing industry.

Read this article. How should a student respond to questions where all the answers are wrong?

What does it do to students when they realize the questions or answers are wrong?

Here is an idea for this tireless reporter: investigate how much money the testing industry spends to lobby Congress and the states to maintain their hold over the minds of our students and the very definition of education.

Readers, after you read Heather Vogell’s excellent articles, please read Todd Farley’s eye-popping exposé of the testing industry called “Making the Grades.”

You will never forget his description of how student constructed responses are scored and who is doing it (minimum wage temps).

A teacher in North Carolina left this comment:

NC has requested a waiver that even though we are now on the new evaluation system (which, interestingly, is continuously being reworked (Home Base) because Pearson is still getting kinks out—-possibly another one of those airplanes being built in the air)—anyway, the waiver would allow that even though the online evaluator system (which I assume factors in test scores) is up and running (sort of) that it not be used to make personnel decisions until 2016-2017.
It seems to be the era of mandates that are impossible, and then a series of waivers to get out of them. It seems like a parent making ridiculous parameters for children, but then constantly giving passes to work around them.
Most want to still blame everything on W. I cannot accept that. What is going on right now has nothing to do with W, directly speaking. There was an opportunity, I am assuming, to move away from NCLB and instead we are even deeper into that type of mandating and waivering (wavering).
Platitudes never seem viable. To me they just indicate posturing on the part of decision-makers.
While it may be wiser to vote for Democrats in NC in you are pro-public school, I am still waiting for Democrats to take ownership in some of the troubles we are seeing.

Add to that—while teachers can always improve, I will say that as an institution public school is far more sophisticated than any reformer would ever want to admit. I read over the stack of IEPs yesterday provided to me by the special ed teachers (because I am on the team of teachers who teach the children and therefore need to know about accommodations, modifications, behavior patterns etc) and I was thinking to myself that no matter what kind of undergraduate education a young graduate has had, a building full of inexperienced educators (such as a charter could be—not sure that they ever have been), could not possibly offer the services to special education students that a well-established public school can. The problem is right now there are ideas that want to treat everyone the same. And we are risking throwing out the baby with the bathwater in a big way. A big, expensive way. We gotta figure this out. And we can’t just blame it on W.

Now here is a first for this blog. A comment that appeared
on the blog by Robert Rendo was picked up and posted by blogger
Jonathan Pelto. It was indeed a brilliant statement, and somehow I
failed to turn it into a post. So
I am taking the post from Jonathan Pelto’s blog
and
posting it here so everyone can read it. Rendo explains how Common
Core and the high-stakes testing mandated by No Child Left Behind
and Race to the Top have degraded schooling and education. Here is
a sample: In fact, we have stepped a long way back into a
new epoch of factory style education, where every student is a
widget, and every widget is hyper-inspected along the conveyor belt
to see if its frame will hold up once sold to the consumer, who is
now the future employer. And if the person hired to do the assembly
messes up just a few times, they are fired and replaced. This
process happens knowing full well the conveyor belt is moving at 45
MPH, up from 10 MPH several years ago.
Who can
really produce that many widgets when the belt is rolling by so
quickly? It conjures up the imagery of the classic factory
chocolate making scene from “I Love Lucy”.
But
it’s anything but cute or funny.
Students are
not widgets. Teachers are not robots. The process of teaching and
learning is a humanistic endeavor. There are bonds to be forged,
even while measuring situations and outcomes with data. The data
used to help contribute indispensably to that human bond.
Presently, the bonding has been devalued, thrown aside, and the
data has become the new humanism.

Here is the transcript from the Diane Rehm show and its interview with Arne Duncan. This is the interview where Duncan said he was “not familiar’ with the Justice Department lawsuit seeking to block vouchers in Louisiana because they will undermine court-ordered desegregation.

Two others were interviewed about Duncan’s policies: Mike Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Richard Rothstein of the liberal Economic Policy Institute.

Rothstein was asked whether Duncan was the most powerful and influential education secretary ever:

“Oh, yes, he certainly has because he’s had enormous flexibility without congressional authorization as a result of the stimulus bill and the Raise to the Top funds. The problem is that he’s got an entirely incoherent approach to education policy which, as I said, is doing enormous harm. He ended his comments before with promoting the importance of early childhood education. I fully agree with that.

“Everybody who studies student achievement knows that the one most important factors affecting student achievements is whether children come to school in the first place prepared to learn, whether they’ve had good literacy experiences in early childhood where they’ve had high-quality care. He promotes that. It’s very important. It’s wonderful that he promotes it.

“But then he turns around and advocates and implements an aggressive accountability policy which holds schools accountable for the same results whether or not their children have had high quality early childhood instruction. If early childhood is really as important as he says it is, and I think it is, how can you hold schools accountable for high standards and high accomplishment if children haven’t had those early childhood experiences?

“So, on the one hand, he advocates all the right things, early childhood. He advocates health clinics in schools. He advocates after-school programs and has promised neighborhoods program.

“But when it comes to actually implementing an accountability system, it makes no difference. It has no effect whatsoever.

“His Race to the Top program, for example, gave states no points for whether they had early childhood programs or health clinics in schools or after-school programs. And so he talks a good game when it comes to all of these important influences in education, but when it comes down to the actual accountability policies that he’s promoting, they have no effect whatsoever.”

Rothstein said earlier in the exchange:

“Well, the key point he made, which I think has been lost in the debate, is there’s a big difference between having higher standards and the consequences of those standards. Nobody objects to having higher standards, the common core or if they are higher and to the extent they are higher. The real issue is that what Secretary Duncan has been advocating is tying accountability to the tests that are based on those standards. We’ve had 10 years now of accountability tied to tests based on so-called lower standards, and they’ve completely corrupted our education system.

“They’ve made the system much worse. Teachers have had incentives to narrow the curriculum to the things that are tested. Students have been trained to take tests rather than to learn the underlying curriculum. The same thing is going to happen if we tie tests to these higher standards. Teachers will learn what kinds of things are going to be on the test. There’ll be a lot of test preparation going on. The tests will not reflect what children really know but rather how skilled they are at taking tests.

“And it won’t account for all of the other things besides classroom instruction that affect how high student achievement is. So the common core standards are one thing, but the real issue is the attempt — the misguided attempt to have very high stakes attached to tests to measure those standards. Those will corrupt education just as much as now as they have in the past, and it’s unfortunate Secretary Duncan and his colleagues haven’t learned the lessons from No Child Left Behind and are preparing now to implement the same kinds of mistakes that were done in the last 10 years.”

This is a book you should read if you want to understand
how assessments are now being misused. It sets a valuable political
and historical context for understanding the mess that is now
federal education policy. The Mismeasure of Education by Jim Horn and Denise Wilburn should be on your shelf. The publisher just dropped the price to $27.50.

 

 

With new student assessments and teacher evaluation
schemes in the planning or early implementation phases, this book
takes a step back to examine the ideological and historical
grounding, potential benefits, scholarly evidence, and ethical
basis for the new generation of test based accountability measures.
After providing the political and cultural contexts for the rise of
the testing accountability movement in the 1960s that culminated
almost forty years later in No Child Left Behind and Race to the
Top, this book then moves on to provide a policy history and social
policy analysis of value-added testing in Tennessee that is framed
around questions of power relations, winners, and
losers.
In examining the issues and exercise
of power that are sustained in the long-standing policy of
standardized testing in schools, this work provides a big picture
perspective on assessment practices over time in the U. S.; by
examining the rise of value-added assessment in Tennessee, a
fine-grained and contemporary case is provided within that larger
context. The last half of the book provides a detailed survey of
the research based critiques of value-added methodology, while
detailing an aggressive marketing campaign to make value-added
modeling (VAM) a central component of reform strategies following
NCLB. The last chapter and epilogue place the continuation of
test-based accountability practices within the context of an
emerging pushback against privatization, high stakes testing, and
other education reforms.
This book will be
useful to a wide audience, including teachers, parents, school
leaders, policymakers, researchers, and students of educational
history, policy, and politics.

REVIEWS “When the Obama
Administration decided to spend the billions it got for schools as
part of the stimulus package to launch the Race to the Top program
and the NCLB waivers, forcing many states to adopt teacher
evaluation based on changes in student test scores, leading experts
warned that this “value added” system did not have a reliable
scientific basis and would often lead to false conclusions. This
sobering and important study of the long experience with this
system in Tennessee (where it was invented) shows that it did not
work, was unfair, and took attention away from other more
fundamental issues.” Gary Orfield Distinguished Research Professor,
UCLA, Co-Director, Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles,
UCLA
“If The Mismeasure of Education offered
only its penetrating new look at Conant and Coleman, it would be
worth the price. But that’s just the beginning. Horn and Wilburn
uncover the obsessive instrumentalist quantification and
apocalyptic rhetoric soapboxed by both liberal and conservative
political elites. Their autopsy of value-added accountability
reveals the pathology of ed reform’s claim about teachers not being
good enough for the global economy.” Susan Ohanian Educator,
Author, Activist
“A well-researched (and
frightening) look at examples of shameful pseudoscience in America,
the latest manifestation of which is value-added assessment for
determining teacher competency… A well-documented and thorough
analysis, inescapably leading to the conclusion that student test
data cannot be used to determine teacher effectiveness. A must read
for policy makers enamored of the idea that value added assessments
will do what is claimed for them. They do not!….An excellent and
scholarly history of how we got to an
educational-testing/industrial complex, now promoting invalid
assessment strategies that are transforming education, but not for
the better. A scary book that should be thoughtfully read by those
who value America’s greatest invention, the public schools.” David
Berliner Regents’ Professor Emeritus, Arizona State
University
“The Mismeasure of Education is a
magnificent work, an elegantly written, brilliantly argued and
erudite exposition on why the “what,” “how” and “why” of effective
teaching cannot be adequately demonstrated by sets of algorithms
spawned in the ideological laboratories of scientific management at
the behest of billionaire investors… This book will serve as a
sword of Damocles, hanging over the head of the nation’s
educational tribunals and their adsentatores, ingratiators and
sycophants in the business community… The Mismeasure of Education
will have a profound resonance with those who are fed up with the
hijacking of our nation’s education system. This is a book that
must be read by everyone interested in the future of our schools.
It is a book that advocates real educational justice, for student,
teachers, administrators and the public; it is informed by
impressive scholarship and compelling argument. It is surely to
become a classic work.” Peter McLarenProfessor, GSEIS, University
of California, Los Angeles, Distinguished Fellow in Critical
Studies, Chapman University

NOTE: I cross-posted this piece on Huffington Post. Be sure to leave comments there too.

Two years ago, Kevin Kosar, a former graduate student of mine, conducted an Internet search for the term “failing school.” What he discovered was fascinating. Until the 1990s, the term was virtually unknown. About the mid-1990s, the term began appearing with greater frequency. With the passage of No Child Left Behind, the use of the expression exploded and became a commonplace.

Kosar did not speculate on the reasons. But I venture to say that the rise of the accountability movement created the idea of “failing schools.”

“Accountability” was taken to mean that if students have low test scores, someone must be blamed. Since Bush’s NCLB, it became conventional to blame the school. With President Obama’s Race to the Top, blame shifted to teachers. The solution to “failing schools,” according to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, is to fire the staff and close the school.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently took this idea to an extreme by saying that he wanted a “death penalty” for “failing schools.” His believes that when schools have persistently low test scores, they should lose democratic control.

They should be taken over by the state, given to private charter corporations, or put under mayoral control. In fact, none of these ideas has been successful.

Low-performing school districts in New Jersey have been under state control for more than 20 years without turning them into high-performing districts. Mayoral control in Cleveland and Chicago has been a flop. And private charters typically do no better than public schools, except when they exclude low-scoring students.

Undoubtedly there are some schools where the leadership is rotten and corrupt. In such cases, the responsibility lies with the district superintendent to review the staff and programs, and make significant changes as needed

But these days, any school with low test scores is called a “failing school,” without any inquiry into the circumstances of the school.

Instead of closing the school or privatizing it, the responsible officials should act to improve the school. they should ask:

What proportion of the students are new immigrants and need help learning English? What proportion entered the school far behind their grade level? What proportion have disabilities and need more time to learn? What resources are available to the school? An in-depth analysis is likely to reveal that most “failing schools” are not failing schools, but are schools that enroll high proportions of students who need extra help, extra tutoring, smaller classes, social workers, guidance counselors, psychologists, and a variety of other interventions.

Firing the staff does not turn around a low-performing school. Nor does handing it over to a charter chain. Nor does mayoral control. Most of the time, what we call a “failing school” is a school that lacks the personnel and resources to meet the needs of its students.

Closing schools does not make them better. Nor does closing schools help students. It’s way past time to stop blaming the people who work in troubled schools and start helping them by providing the tools they need and the support their students need.