Archives for category: New York

Some parents in New York have devised a creative way to protest the absurdly hard Common Core tests that most kids “failed” last spring. They are sending the scores back to the State Commissioner John King.

The word is getting out. The tests were designed to create failure. Test makers know exactly how each item will “function.” Whether the question is hard, easy, or in the middle. When they assemble a test, they know what proportion of students will faIl or pass. They typically design a bell curve. Why did New York commission tests that were supposed to make the public schools look bad? The joke was that the charters performed even worse than the publics!

Send ’em back.

Better yet, plan now to opt out in the spring.

Make this your watchword: Not with my child!

New York’s first Common Core tests, administered last spring, produced a dramatic score decline. 70% of the students across the state allegedly “failed.” State education leaders said the tests set a new “benchmark.” They implied that the tests demonstrated the failure of the state’s schools, that more “reform” was needed, and that more years of testing and accountability would cure the widespread “failure.”

However, suburban parents in successful districts see the matter differently. They know they have excellent schools. They don’t believe in the validity of the state tests.

The low scores have ignited a revolt against the state tests among parents and local educators.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

“But the state is looking at a hard sell, particularly in the Lower Hudson Valley and on Long Island, as a growing movement of educators and parents is questioning or outright dismissing the test results for grades three to eight. Their main argument: Most local students already go to good colleges and do quite well, thank you, so the state’s findings can’t be right.

“What do these results mean, that our kids are not at the level we thought?” asked Lisa Rudley, who has three children in the Ossining schools and recently co-founded a statewide group, NYS Allies for Public Education, that plans to fight “excessive” testing and sharing of student data. “I think parents are informed about what the state is saying, but they don’t like it and don’t accept it.”

“Her group has started a campaign urging parents to send their test-score reports back to Education Commissioner John King in Albany. The group is asking parents to write on the envelope: “Invalid test scores inside.”

The state’s strategy backfired. It has fueled the resistance to high-stakes testing.

Bruce Baker is really ticked about Erik Hanushek’s new video promoting the “education crisis” and asserting that money is definitely not the answer.

Hanushek holds up Florida as a model and points to Wyoming and New York to make his point that money doesn’t matter.

Baker doesn’t agree, and he assembles data to make the following points:

*States with weaker unions (higher number in ranking, meaning lower union strength ranking), have systematically lower state and local revenue per pupil and less competitive teacher wages.

*States with weaker unions have systematically lower average NAEP scores.

*States with higher reformy grade point averages according to Students First, have lower shares of children in the public school system, and have lower average NAEP scores.

*Average NAEP scores are most positively associated with state and local revenue and teacher wage competitiveness.

*Standardized NAEP gains over time are most positively associated with shares of 3 and 4 year olds enrolled in school programs/pre-school.

*Standardized NAEP gains are also positively associated with Students First grade point averages. But, standardized NAEP gains are pretty strongly related to starting point. That is, states showing greater gains are generally those who started lower.

Butch Cassidy asked the
Sundance Kid
about their pursuers, “Who ARE those guys?”

We could well ask the same about the posse now hoping to
standardize the nation’s children and teachers. What qualifies
Governor Cuomo, Chancellor King, and those others who are
cheerleaders for the Common Core (e.g., Joel Klein, Jeb Bush,
Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) to know
what children in the early and middle grades need to know to be
ready for college and careers?

This teacher writes: “As a 6-8 math
teacher in NYS, what I would like to see or find commentary on is
this question, “What qualifications do the Governor, Mayor,
Commissioner King, and others have to pinpoint precise benchmarks
toward ‘college and career ready’ in 3rd – 8th graders? I just
don’t believe the glide path toward readiness is accurate. Each
student’s path may be as varied and diverse as their own
backgrounds and motivations.”

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo called for the “death penalty” for failing schools recently, setting off a war of words between those who believe in closing struggling schools and those who want to kill them and fire the staff.

Bruce Baker takes a different view. Here he demonstrates that Néw York has a funding system that is unfair to the schools with the neediest students.

Instead of vilifying teachers and principals and pretending to advocate for the children and families, Cuomo should look at where the money goes. It is not going to the kids who need it most.

Baker writes:

“Put simply, what the New York public should NOT tolerate, is a Governor and Legislature who refuse to provide sufficient resources to high need schools and then turn around and blame the schools and communities for their own failures. (all the while, protecting billions of dollars in separate aid programs that drive funds to wealth districts).”

This principal works hard to support his staff and inspire them.

This principal protects the children in his school.

This principal learned that the State rated him as a 9.

Nine out of twenty.

That meant that no matter how many more points (out of 80) he might accumulate, he could never be rated “Highly Effective.”

So, in the spirit of evaluation madness, he decided to offer nine suggestions for State Commissioner John King (who by the way, has less experience as an administrator than the principal who wrote this post):

1) Our children, staff and communities are much more than a number. Instead of trying to reduce us all to a number (evaluative scores, test results, rankings, etc.) please take the time to get to know us and know what we are doing well because we are more than a number. 
 
2) Figure out what schools are doing well and try and emulate those practices instead of trying to make us all fit into the same box. I understand it’s difficult to know what’s going on in each school because there are thousands of schools in NYS, but a more robust understanding of the current landscape throughout the state would be greatly appreciated. Are there issues throughout the state? Yes! Are there schools and districts that need to improve significantly because the children deserve better? Yes! But, why must educational reform in NYS be rooted in what’s wrong in our schools instead of what’s right in our schools? Instead of feeling pressured to get our test scores up, I would much rather spend time sharing and collaborating with colleagues from around the state about best practices – these practices are what make a difference in the daily lives of children.
 
3) Give us time to shift, implement and take risks with our practices! We just adopted and implemented the Common Core State Standards all within the last year (many districts are still working on the implementation) and yet already, we are all being assessed against these standards. How is that fair? Just because a teenager passes his/her permit test and takes a few driving lessons, doesn’t mean he/she are ready to race at the Daytona 500! Instead, we need time to experiment, fail and problem solve without being judged. Give us time!
 
4) Take feedback from the people working in schools, with children, to help enhance, modify and improve various mandates and policies. We are living APPR each day – let us tell you what should change! We administered the Common Core NYS Tests to actual children – let us tell you what happened and what could be changed. We are struggling to “fit it all in” – let us tell you what could possibly change. Instead of implementing all these sweeping large scale changes across the entire state, things should have been piloted or tested in pockets so State Ed could have worked out the kinks before imposing it all on every child and educator in the state. 
 
5) Evaluating a teacher based on how students perform on high stakes testing is not a reliable measure (check out this article about the issues with value added models). The scores for individual educators will go up and down each year with little ability to predict where they will end up. So, what’s the point? For example, I know of an educator who received a 2 out of 20 last year but this year received a 13 out of 20. My guess is that next year the same educator will have a totally different score because of the student population. The number fluctuates dramatically each year and that is because there are too many variables to control for when evaluating an educator against how their students perform on high stakes testing. Eliminate this part of the APPR plan – let’s implement something more robust and thorough (maybe a digital portfolio) and less quick and dirty (ratings that are based on high stakes tests that rely heavily on multiple choice questions).
 
6) Change the NYS Tests! Instead of letting them be so one dimensional with an over abundance of multiple choice questions, give our children an opportunity to show you what THEY know and can do in the areas of literacy and mathematics. Instead of trying to trick them with multiple choice questions that many adults cannot answer and trying to exhaust them with days of testing, give them a chance to evaluate, synthesize, think critically and apply the skills they have to solve real life problems and situations. This way, we can have a true understanding of what our children know and can do. Instead, currently, all we can really figure out is if they bubbled in the right answer – not WHY they bubbled it in just if they did. The current testing situation, where the results are used to evaluate educators, does NOT work. Furthermore, it seems that NYS is saying that we can assess college and career readiness with how students perform on multiple choice tests – REALLY?!? We need to consider multiple data points – not just the results of one test! By considering multiple data points we do not have to rely on annual standardized state testing to evaluate our students or educators. For example, our students could be tested independently every three years, starting in third grade, using a standardized test. This way, we will have data points that span from elementary to high school graduation. Additionally, there should be group task oriented assessments during the years between standardized tests where the students must collaborate to solve a set of real life problems. Furthermore, our students should be expected to maintain a digital portfolio that will feature work from all content areas that will be scored against rubrics generated collaboratively between teachers and students. By integrating all these assessments we can use multiple data points to determine student growth over an extended period of time and across all content areas, not just in Mathematics and English Language Arts. Multiple data points mean that we do not have to rely on summative assessments for evaluation purposes and instead we will have access to formative assessment data that can help us meet the needs of our students in real time and give every student an entry point to learning. 
 
7) Give us data we can use to inform instruction and help our children learn and grow! Our children spend hours taking these tests, which we are never allowed to see again, and we receive the results just in time for the next school! What’s the point? We cannot do anything with this information because we don’t have all the pieces in a timely fashion. As educators, many of us dedicate our lives to using as many assessment points as possible to help us plan and guide future instructional decisions to best meet the needs of our children. The data from NYS seems to be used for one purpose, and one purpose only, to judge.       
 
8) Implement policies and mandates that foster and expect the use of 21st century skills and innovation in our schools! Challenge us to make technology a regular part of instruction- not an add on. Ask us to encourage our children to collaborate for the purposes of thinking critically and creating – that is the root of innovation. Innovative thinkers who are willing to keep failing until they perfect their vision are the ones changing the world and affecting the global economic landscape – not the people who can pick the correct answer on a multiple choice test.
 
9) Don’t use our children and educators as pawns in some massive money making scheme. Let Pearson figure out other ways to make money. Don’t try and privatize public education and turn it into a business. Our children should be the focus – each and every day we should be driven by doing what is best for our children; not what is going to put more money into the already fat pockets of different individuals and corporations. 

Steven Cohen is superintendent of the Shoreham-Wading River
Central School district on Long Island in Néw York. At a time when
others quietly acquiesce, Superintendent Cohen spoke out in
“Newsday.”

He wrote that the schools are being swamped by a
tsunami of untested “reforms,” at the same time that their budgets
are restricted by Governor Cuomo’s 2% tax cap, which voters may
override only by winning 60% of the local vote. Costs don’t stop
rising, so many district will be forced to cut teachers and
essential services to students. He bravely calls out the state
Regents for forcing a “reform agenda” on public schools that may
yet hurt children.

For his courage, insight, and willingness to
speak against an unjust status quo, Steven Cohen is a hero of
public education.

“By Steven Cohen Shoreham-Wading River Central
School District

“Shoreham-Wading River’s greatest challenges in the
2013-14 school year are the same as those of sister districts
throughout Long Island and the rest of NYS. Will we find ways to
preserve, and where possible improve, valued educational programs
without having sufficient resources to cover increasing costs? Will
NYSED’s demands to implement untested — and very controversial —
changes in curriculum standards and assessment, called for in the
Regents Reform Agenda, help or hurt children?

“We do not control increasing pension costs. We have little control over increases in
the cost of medical benefits. We have little control over costs
associated with state mandates. We are bound by the new tax levy
limit. What we do control is the size of our teaching and support
staffs. So if we do not get help to meet increases in pension
costs, health costs and mandate costs, either we must ask our
communities to provide greater resources by a supermajority vote
(while the economy continues to sputter), or we must increase class
size, eliminate valuable programs, or do both. And while we
confront these difficult fiscal problems, we are required to train
new teachers and retrain veteran teachers to instruct students
according to new, untested, curriculum standards, and assess both
students and teachers by methods whose reliability is highly
uncertain.

“Our public schools are being told to do things that no
private schools are forced to do. Private schools have not embraced
the so-called benefits of the Regents Reform Agenda (why not?). An
entire generation of children is being put at risk of receiving a
defective — and perhaps damaging — education should these
untested “reforms” prove to be what many of us fear: false gods.
Will the Regents, many of whom send their own children to private
schools that are not hobbled by insufficient resources, or subject
to their own “reforms,” insist that all children — whether they
learn in public, private or parochial schools — be forced to
benefit from their recommended improvements? “These are the
challenges we face in 2013-14.”

New York won $700 million in Race to the Top funding, which involved a commitment to measure teacher effective meant in significant part by test scores of their students. This theory, which Arne Duncan has imposed on the nation’s schools by using federal funds as a lure, has not worked anywhere. It has failed everywhere. Its main consequence is to demoralize teachers, like the one who wrote this comment:

“I am sick to my stomach over this APPR plan in NY. I just received my score, and I am two points away from being “effective” as a teacher. I scored 58/60 on my instructional practices which is effective. I scored effective on my local measurement, and I scored developing on my state measurement which was the ELA 7th grade exam.

“My students, as well as many others, tanked on the exam, so because of that, I am now a teacher who has to have an improvement plan. What should my plan include? More test prep? Teaching kids how to bubble in circles?

“This whole plan is absurd. I know I make a difference in children’s lives. This testing obsession is ruining education, our children, and our teachers. I come in early, leave late, work at home, volunteer for a million things, and yet am now deemed developing by some politically driven evaluation plan.

“Cuomo should come in and do what I do on a daily basis. He would get eaten alive. I’m actually questioning whether I can teach for the next 20 years. It’s all I’ve ever wanted to do, but this APPR garbage is effectively forcing out some of the best teachers I’ve worked with. I may be next.”

Governor Cuomo likes to complain that New York spends too much for education. That was one of his reasons for wanting a “death penalty” for schools with low test scores.

Instead of doing anything to help them improve, like expanding Pre-K or reducing class sizes, he wants to “kill” those schools by eliminating democratic control of education–that is, by state takeover, mayoral control, or privatization. None of these three measures will help the kids. They just wipe out local control. Where is the logic?

Makes no sense, but that’s his story and he is sticking to it.

This reader has a different take on the Governor’s use of data:

 

Governor Cuomo complains that New York spends more per child than any other state.

He advocates data driven instruction.

Here are two pieces of data that our esteemed governor should consider before he “executes” failing schools and fires teachers based on unproven standardized tests.

Average cost per year to educate a child in New York State – $18,618.

Average cost per year to incarcerate a prisoner in New York State – $60,000.

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/21/which-places-spent-most-per-student-on-education/

http://shnny.org/research/the-price-of-prisons-what-incarceration-costs-taxpayers/

 

Howard Schwach taught for more than 25 years, developed
test items for the state, and worked on curriculum development for
special education students. He
recently reviewed sample items from New York’s Common Core tests
and professed astonishmen
t.

 

He wrote:

 

From the
first moment that I looked at some practice tests for the English
Language Arts tests that were given recently, I knew that the kids
and their teachers were in trouble.
In his long
experience as a teacher and test writer and curriculum developer,
he said, “there was one guiding principal: never test
students on skills or material that you have not taught and
practiced.
To do so not only would have been
unfair to the students, but it would have made the tests unreliable
and downright useless at a measure of student ability and
knowledge.
That is why, when I looked at the
practice test, my first thought was that the questions were in the
deep end of the pool when the kids were just learning how to
swim.
One that stuck in my mind was a passage
from a 1920’s magazine about aspirin.
Because
the source article was written nearly 100 years ago, it contained
some archaic language and syntax that would have been confusing to
today’s adults, nonetheless eleven-year-olds.

So the kids were at a disadvantage right away, trying to
figure out the words they had never seen before, working them out
through context. Then, the question called for skills that have
never been tested before, nor taught by the teacher who showed me
the sample questions. She admitted that she had been “teaching to
the old test” for the past several years, trying to keep her kid’s
all-important test scores up while trying to keep her
job.
“Education has nothing to do with what we
have been doing for the past couple of years,” the teacher admitted
with a nervous laugh. “It has been all about the
numbers.”

 

He found questions that had two right answers.
He found questions that would send the kids into tears. And he
wondered, “What in the world was the state thinking?” Indeed, what
were state officials when they tested students on material they had
not been taught, using unfamiliar vocabulary, having ambiguous
answers, with the certainty that most students would fail? Was it
John King’s inexperience that led him to align the state cut scores
with NAEP’s proficiency levels? Did he not understand that NAEP
proficiency is not a “passing” mark but a measure that connotes
“solid academic performance”?

 

What were they thinking?