Kris Neilsen wrote the most amazing post I have ever posted.
It was called “N.C. Teacher: I Quit.”
It went viral.
On one day, it was opened over 66,000 times.
It went around the world and was reprinted on many other blogs.
Here is one of his latest posts.
Kenneth Bernstein is an award-winning NBCT who recently retired as a teacher of government. He is now caring for his wife, who is recovering from a major illness. He usually blogs at the Daily Kos but has taken the time to share his insights here as a comment. Thank you, Ken.
He writes:
We have had a decade of the “reforms” of No Child Left Behind. The approach embodied therein actually is traceable back 30 years, to the release of A Nation at Risk, continued through Goals 2000 which claimed that it would result in America being first in the world in math and science by that date, has seen policy doubling down through Race to the Top and the proposals in the Obama administration’s “Blueprint,” and now we continue the insanity through Common Core and the common assessments. In each of these cases what was excluded in the making of education policy were the voices of those expected to implement the policy choices, professional educators – teachers and principals.
Instead we have had think tanks, we have had politicians, we have had organizations that stand to profit from the decisions – and that includes ostensibly non-profit organizations such as the College Board and ETS among others.
The results to date have not been as promised.
We have failed to address many of the real issues affecting our students, starting with the high percentage (compared to other industrialized democracies) of children in poverty, children who do not get proper nutrition or health care, whose teeth may be rotting, who need glasses but do not have them.
We have had imposed policies that have already been tried and found wanting – turning schools over to “educational management” organizations, converting them to charters, turning to mayoral control – or not yet piloted and evaluated – here the Common Core is one of the best examples. The “data” that has been produced is often either incomplete or in fact downright manipulated – such as graduation rates in Texas, from which we got No Child Left Behind. We ignore contradictions in policies – we have too many students dropping out so to fix that we are going to raise the bar and impose “standards” that are not based on what we know about brain development and differential development rates.
Unfortunately too often the media organizations which should serve to explain things jumps on board the bandwagon. Perhaps it should be expected when the corporation which owns one of the major national newspapers, The Washington Post, gets most of its profits from a for-profit educational venture, Kaplan, which benefits from policies such as increased emphasis on tests.
Fortunately modern means of communicating and organizing are allowing pushback – by parents, students, teachers, administrators, even school boards.
Slowly Americans are beginning to realize that the emperor of educational “reform” is naked – that is, what is being forced upon America’s public schools is less concerned about real learning by students and more concerned about political and economic power.
Perhaps it is time for major media organizations to be far more transparent in their presentations on education, to give equal voice to the voices that have not been heard.
I once had a conversation with a sitting governor, close to a decade ago. The governors had just had a conference on education. Each governor had brought a business leader, which he acknowledged. I asked why each governor had not brought a teacher, or some other educator. He was shocked and acknowledged he at least had never considered the possibility. That is symptomatic of what is wrong in how we make educational policy.
It is also why so many educators – principals as well as teachers – are so demoralized. They are excluded from the making of policy, they are demonized when they object and try to raise the issues that should be discussed. Meanwhile they continue to see the conditions necessary for serving their students disappear, what protections they had to enable them to do their jobs correctly are being taken away from them.
I once told Jay Mathews that I might not object to having my students assessed by quality tests at the end of a course, but I refused to be held accountable if you told me how I had to teach them, because then I had no ability to shape my instruction according to what I knew of my students, and how they were learning.
Increasingly we are trying to tell our teachers not only what to teach but also how to teach it. Sometimes we are even imposing scripted lessons.
Should not the real evaluation be of the results of what has been imposed by those who are not educators, who are not attempting to address the individual needs of the students in their classes, in their schools? And were we to evaluate that way, would w not find almost all of the “reforms” to be failures?
Except the ‘reforms’ have not failed in their other purposes
– increasing profits for testing and curriculum companies (often the same)
– breaking the power of teachers unions
– diminishing the professionalism of teachers, principals and superintendents
– effectively privatizing one of the most important public functions
– removing democratic control of public education and politicizing it in places where it becomes easier to impose the corporatizing agenda.
You know all this.
You have written and spoken out about this.
We need more voices speaking out, loudly.
Thanks for being an important voice.
There will be a demonstration at the U.S. Department of Education from April 4-7.
One of the speakers will be Mark Naison, who teaches African-American studies at Fordham University.
Here he explains why he will be there:
I am coming to Washington because our public education system is being systematically dismantled by people whose power derives solely from the unprecedented concentration of wealth in a small number of hands. Without the Gates, the Broads, the Waltons, the Bloombergs and the hedge fund executives, the three bulwarks of current Education Reform policy- privatization, universal testing and school closings- would have never gained traction because they are unsupported by research and are abhorred by most educators.. What we are facing is not onlythe degradation of the teaching profession and the transformation of the nation’s classrooms into zones of child abuse, but an attack on what little democracy we have left in this country. Therefore, I am not only coming to Washington defend the integrity of the profession I have dedicated my life to, but to join a movement which is one of the most important fronts of resistance to Plutocratic Rule
I also come to Washington, as a scholar of African American History, and a long time community activist, to strip the false facade of “Civil Rights” legitimacy from policies which promote increased segregation, push teachers of color out of the profession, open our schools to profiteering by test companies,and promote narrow workforce preparation as a substitute for the creation of active citizens who can change the world. So I will not only be calling out the billionaires and those who are directly on their payroll, but those who call themselves “progressive- who give aid and comfort to those policies, either because of the hope of political gain or a deficit of courage.. ,
It is rare to see a high-ranking leader of a major association speak hard truths to power. For her courage and candor, Joann Bartoletti joins the honor roll as a champion of public education.
In the March 2013 issue of NASSP’s “News Leader,” Bartoletti, the executive director of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, blasted the new teacher evaluation systems that were foisted on the nation’s schools by Race to the Top and its highly prescriptive waivers.
She notes that these dubious, non-evidence-based evaluation systems are coming into use at the very time that the Common Core is being implemented. Common Core–untested, never validated, whose consequences are unknown, arriving with not enough time or money for implementation or adequate technology for the computer-based testing–is widely expected to cause test scores to fall. It would be hard, she writes, to “come up with a better plan to discredit and dismantle public education.”
What motives should one attribute to policymakers who wreak havoc on their’s nations public schools and who blithely ignore all warning signs? Bartoletti won’t speculate.
Malice or stupidity? You decide.
She writes:
• A perfect storm is brewing, and it will wreak havoc on the collaborative cultures that principals have worked so hard to build. New teacher evaluation systems have begun making their way into schools, and over the next three years, more than half of states will change the way they assess teachers’ effectiveness. The revised systems come as the result of Race to the Top and NCLB waivers. To be eligible for either, states had to commit to developing new teacher evaluation systems that use student test scores to determine a “significant proportion” of a teacher’s effectiveness. In a January survey of NASSP and NAESP members, nearly half of respondents indicated that 30% or more of their teacher evaluations are now tied to student achievement.
There is no research supporting the use of that kind of percentage, and even if the research recommended it, states don’t have data systems sophisticated enough to do value-added measurement (VAM) well. Still, the test-score proportion on evaluations will increase at a time when we predict that test scores will decrease.
These evaluation systems will be put in place just as the Common Core State Standards assessments roll out in 2014. This volatile combination could encourage many teachers and principals to leave the profession or at least plan their exit strategies. I don’t want to attribute a malicious intent to anyone, but if policymakers were going to come up with a plan to discredit and dismantle public education, it’s hard to think of a more effective one.
Identity Crisis?
One of the most troubling issues, as Jim Popham describes in this month’s Principal Leadership, is that the overhauled evaluations are being designed to serve dual purposes.
Principals want to believe that the evaluations are formative and are inclined to give constructive feedback to teachers to help them improve their instructional practice. Lawmakers, on the other hand, see the evaluations as being summative—a way to identify weaknesses and fire ineffective teachers. Principals are caught in the middle: they want to offer frank feedback but are all too aware that any criticism is a black mark that can be used to deny a teacher’s con- tract renewal or tenure. In this case, killing two birds with one stone—when those birds have about as much in common as a penguin and a pigeon—is extraordinarily ineffective.
And so, principals tread lightly. Although the days when 99% of tenured teachers earned “satisfactory” ratings are long gone, emerging data shows that even with the new evaluations in place, the majority of teachers are still being deemed “effective.” Education Week noted in a February 5 article that at least 9 out of 10 teachers in Michigan, Tennessee, and Georgia received positive reviews under the new measurements.
With little difference in outcomes, it’s hard to justify the extensive training and time com- mitment that the new systems demand. In some districts in Rhode Island, a popular off-the-shelf model requires principals to view 60 hours of video training and pass a test before administer- ing the evaluation tool. If they fail, they’ll have to wait three months to take it again. Other states are developing their own systems that dramatically increase the hours spent assessing teachers.
Tennessee principal and NASSP board member Troy Kilzer devotes nearly six hours to a single teacher’s evaluation, not counting the time spent observing that teacher in the class- room. This figure is similar to the respondents’ answers in the NASSP survey. Almost all (92%)
said they spend anywhere from 6 to 31 or more hours evaluating each teacher.
These evaluations are simply trying to accomplish too much. What’s even worse, principals must apply them across the board—66% of the survey respondents are required to use one instrument for all teachers and staff, includ- ing those in non-tested subjects. School nurses, athletic directors, and school psychologists are expected to be assessed with the same tools. Since when can a nurse’s capacity for empathy be measured by a student’s ability to factor polynomials?
High Anxiety
Although only some states have fully imple- mented the new models, exhausted teachers are showing signs of wear. The “teach-to-the- test” frenzy is compounded by the fact that their evaluations will rely on scores over which teachers have limited control. NASSP’s Breaking Ranks tells about the importance of a positive culture, yet the atmosphere that the new evalua- tion systems create is anything but positive.
Shawn DeRose, an assistant principal in Virginia, said that since the implementation of his state’s new evaluation system this past fall, many teachers in his school have indicated that they feel additional stress. It’s no wonder. Fifth-grade teacher Sarah Wysocki was fired at the end of her second year with the DC Public Schools because her students didn’t reach their expected growth rate in reading and math under the city’s new value-added model. Never mind that she received positive ratings in her observations and was encouraged to share her engaging teaching methods with other district educators. This is hardly an isolated event.
The anxiety levels raise an even more acute challenge for principals in urban, high-poverty schools. No teacher wants to teach in a school with a traditionally low-performing population. Add test scores as a part of their evaluation, and it now becomes impossible to recruit teachers for high-needs schools. But regard- less of a teacher’s placement, the onus is still on principals to ensure that evaluations are fair and meaningful—and that they improve teachers’ capacity to enhance student learning.
NASSP is regularly delivering this message to Congress and the
Department of Education. In meetings with Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education Deb Delisle, I’ve shared NASSP’s recommendations and have reinforced that teacher evaluations should serve their intended purpose: to help teachers improve their instructional practice. NASSP is making it glaringly clear to policymakers that if they want to push out inef- fective teachers, there are other ways to go about it. Throwing the entire profession into a tailspin is not only ineffective and mis- guided, but it’s a poor way to play the long game as well.
Please read this article that appears in the latest issue of the journal of the New York State School Board Association.
It describes how many teachers, principals, and superintendents are feeling overwhelmed by the changes raining down on them.
Then comes these paragraphs:
“John King is on the wrong side of history,” author and blogger Diane Ravitch told On Board. “He is acting like a petty dictator, threatening to hurt the children to retaliate against the adults who did not do his bidding.”
“On the other hand, “If you don’t put teeth into the system, no change is going to happen,” said Allison Armour-Garb, who served as chief of staff to former Education Commissioner David Steiner and is one of the architects of New York’s accountability system.
“Although the Obama administration’s approach is research-based, the RTTT states are the first to take it to scale, Armour-Garb noted. “I’m confident that the Common Core, data-driven instruction, and teacher and principal evaluation are going to lead to improvement in student outcomes – over time.”
“Armour-Garb has a personal interest in school accountability because she is the mother of two children, 10 and 12, who attend public schools.
“In her school community, Armour-Garb tends not to bring up her professional background, which includes working on New York’s RTTT application and being a point person in developing regulations that defined New York’s APPR system. “Change is hard,” she said. “And testing and accountability are provocative topics that don’t lend themselves to a quick conversation.”
Notice that Armour-Garb is careful not to let anyone in her school community know her role in developing the onerous regulations for the state’s educator evaluator system. A wise decision. More than a third of the principals have signed a petition opposing that system, and if people were not afraid for their jobs, the petition may well have been signed by more than 90% of the state’s principals.
She is right to hide her role in this tightening of the testing noose around the necks of the state’s teachers and principals. She is a lawyer and public-policy consultant, not an educator.
While she asserts that Race to the Top is “research-based,” she fails to mention what part of it is research based. Certainly not the educator evaluation system, which has never been applied successfully anywhere. John King described it as “building a plane in mid-air.” That is not research-based.
Coach Bob Sikes has been reading Pearson’s report to investors. 2012 was a really good year.
No mention of Pineapplegate:
” The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), a consortium of 23 states, awarded Pearson and Educational Testing Service (ETS) the contract to develop test items that will be part of the new English and mathematics assessments to be administered from the 2014-2015 school year. The assessments will be based on what students need to be ready for college and careers, and will measure and track their progress along the way.
” We continued to produce strong growth in secure online testing, an important market for the future. We increased online testing volumes by more than 10%, delivering 6.5 million state accountability tests, 4.5 million constructed response items and 21 million spoken tests. We now assess oral proficiency in English, Spanish, French, Dutch, Arabic and Chinese. We also launched the Online Assessment Readiness Tool for the PARCC and the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium (SBAC) Common Core consortia to help 45 states prepare for the transition to online assessments.
” We won new state contracts in Colorado and Missouri and a new contract with the College Board to deliver ReadiStep, a middle school assessment that measures and tracks college readiness skills. We extended our contract with the College Board to deliver the ACCUPLACER assessment, a computer-adaptive diagnostic, placement and online intervention system that supports 1,300 institutions and 7 million students annually.
” We won five Race To The Top (RTTT) state deals (Kentucky, Florida, Colorado, North Carolina and New York) led by Schoolnet. PowerSchool won three state/province-level contracts (North Carolina, New Brunswick and Northwest Territories). We launched our mobile PowerSchool applications and grew our 3rd party partner ecosystem to over 50 partners. PowerSchool supports more than 12 million students, up more than 20% on 2011 while Schoolnet supports 8.3 million students, up almost 160% on 2011″
In this terrific article, you can see the beginnings of a popular uprising against the testing obsession and the rush to put public dollars into private hands.
In Texas, Republicans are paying attention, even threatening to pull the plug on testing. Rural Republicans seem set to ally with Democrats to stop the voucher movement and protect their community public schools.
Will the national Democratic Party pay attention to its base? It’s base is working people, not Wall Street. Educators, not the 1%.
I have thought long and hard about the Common Core standards.
I have decided that I cannot support them.
In this post, I will explain why.
I have long advocated for voluntary national standards, believing that it would be helpful to states and districts to have general guidelines about what students should know and be able to do as they progress through school.
Such standards, I believe, should be voluntary, not imposed by the federal government; before implemented widely, they should be thoroughly tested to see how they work in real classrooms; and they should be free of any mandates that tell teachers how to teach because there are many ways to be a good teacher, not just one. I envision standards not as a demand for compliance by teachers, but as an aspiration defining what states and districts are expected to do. They should serve as a promise that schools will provide all students the opportunity and resources to learn reading and mathematics, the sciences, the arts, history, literature, civics, geography, and physical education, taught by well-qualified teachers, in schools led by experienced and competent educators.
For the past two years, I have steadfastly insisted that I was neither for nor against the Common Core standards. I was agnostic. I wanted to see how they worked in practice. I wanted to know, based on evidence, whether or not they improve education and whether they reduce or increase the achievement gaps among different racial and ethnic groups.
After much deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that I can’t wait five or ten years to find out whether test scores go up or down, whether or not schools improve, and whether the kids now far behind are worse off than they are today.
I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation.
The Common Core standards have been adopted in 46 states and the District of Columbia without any field test. They are being imposed on the children of this nation despite the fact that no one has any idea how they will affect students, teachers, or schools. We are a nation of guinea pigs, almost all trying an unknown new program at the same time.
Maybe the standards will be great. Maybe they will be a disaster. Maybe they will improve achievement. Maybe they will widen the achievement gaps between haves and have-nots. Maybe they will cause the children who now struggle to give up altogether. Would the Federal Drug Administration approve the use of a drug with no trials, no concern for possible harm or unintended consequences?
President Obama and Secretary Duncan often say that the Common Core standards were developed by the states and voluntarily adopted by them. This is not true.
They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association, both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. There was minimal public engagement in the development of the Common Core. Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states.
In fact, it was well understood by states that they would not be eligible for Race to the Top funding ($4.35 billion) unless they adopted the Common Core standards. Federal law prohibits the U.S. Department of Education from prescribing any curriculum, but in this case the Department figured out a clever way to evade the letter of the law. Forty-six states and the District of Columbia signed on, not because the Common Core standards were better than their own, but because they wanted a share of the federal cash. In some cases, the Common Core standards really were better than the state standards, but in Massachusetts, for example, the state standards were superior and well tested but were ditched anyway and replaced with the Common Core. The former Texas State Commissioner of Education, Robert Scott, has stated for the record that he was urged to adopt the Common Core standards before they were written.
The flap over fiction vs. informational text further undermined my confidence in the standards. There is no reason for national standards to tell teachers what percentage of their time should be devoted to literature or information. Both can develop the ability to think critically. The claim that the writers of the standards picked their arbitrary ratios because NAEP has similar ratios makes no sense. NAEP gives specifications to test-developers, not to classroom teachers.
I must say too that it was offensive when Joel Klein and Condoleeza Rice issued a report declaring that our nation’s public schools were so terrible that they were a “very grave threat to our national security.” Their antidote to this allegedly desperate situation: the untried Common Core standards plus charters and vouchers.
Another reason I cannot support the Common Core standards is that I am worried that they will cause a precipitous decline in test scores, based on arbitrary cut scores, and this will have a disparate impact on students who are English language learners, students with disabilities, and students who are poor and low-performing. A principal in the Mid-West told me that his school piloted the Common Core assessments and the failure rate rocketed upwards, especially among the students with the highest needs. He said the exams looked like AP exams and were beyond the reach of many students.
When Kentucky piloted the Common Core, proficiency rates dropped by 30 percent. The Chancellor of the New York Board of Regents has already warned that the state should expect a sharp drop in test scores.
What is the purpose of raising the bar so high that many more students fail?
Rick Hess opined that reformers were confident that the Common Core would cause so much dissatisfaction among suburban parents that they would flee their public schools and embrace the reformers’ ideas (charters and vouchers). Rick was appropriately doubtful that suburban parents could be frightened so easily.
Jeb Bush, at a conference of business leaders, confidently predicted that the high failure rates sure to be caused by Common Core would bring about “a rude awakening.” Why so much glee at the prospect of higher failure rates?.
I recently asked a friend who is a strong supporter of the standards why he was so confident that the standards would succeed, absent any real-world validation. His answer: “People I trust say so.” That’s not good enough for me.
Now that David Coleman, the architect of the Common Core standards, has become president of the College Board, we can expect that the SAT will be aligned to the standards. No one will escape their reach, whether they attend public or private school.
Is there not something unseemly about placing the fate and the future of American education in the hands of one man?
I hope for the sake of the nation that the Common Core standards are great and wonderful. I wish they were voluntary, not mandatory. I wish we knew more about how they will affect our most vulnerable students.
But since I do not know the answer to any of the questions that trouble me, I cannot support the Common Core standards.
I will continue to watch and listen. While I cannot support the Common Core standards, I will remain open to new evidence. If the standards help kids, I will say so. If they hurt them, I will say so. I will listen to their advocates and to their critics.
I will encourage my allies to think critically about the standards, to pay attention to how they affect students, and to insist, at least, that they do no harm.
Abetted by the example of Race to the Top, as well as encouragement from the Gates Foundation, the William Penn Foundation, and the rightwing Corbett administration in Harrisburg, the state-appointed School Reform Commission in Philadelphia is poised to close an unprecedented number of Philadelphia public schools. The schools are under enrolled, says the commission, but the commission created the under-enrollment by opening charter schools. now Philadelphia will run a dual system, like many other cities, even though the charters are no better than the public schools.
Cui bono?
Robert Scott, who recently stepped down as State Commissioner of Education in Texas, told Georgia legislators that he was pressured to adopt the Common Core standards before they were written.
He said, in the video that appears in the linked article:
“My experience with the Common Core actually started when I was asked to sign on to them before they were written. … I was told I needed to sign a letter agreeing to the Common Core, and I asked if I might read them first, which is, I think, appropriate. I was told they hadn’t been written, but they still wanted my signature on the letter. And I said, ‘That’s absurd; first of all, I don’t have the legal authority to do that because our [Texas] law requires our elected state board of education to adopt curriculum standards with the direct input of Texas teachers, parents and business. So adopting something that was written behind closed doors in another state would not meet my state law.’ … I said, ‘Let me take a wait–and–see approach.‘ If something remarkable was in there that I found that we did not have in ours that I would work with our board … and try to incorporate into our state curriculum …
“Then I was told, ‘Oh no no, a state that adopts Common Core must adopt in its totality the Common Core and can only add 15 percent.’ It was then that I realized that this initiative which had been constantly portrayed as state-led and voluntary was really about control. It was about control. Then it got co-opted by the Department of Education later. And it was about control totality from some education reform groups who candidly admit their real goal here is to create a national marketplace for education products and services.”
Supporters of the Common Core dispute his claim.
Scott made national headlines when he was State Commissioner because he spoke candidly against the excessive testing of students in Texas. He said testing had become “the heart of the vampire” and had perverted the purpose of education. He didn’t last long in his job after being so brutally frank. Texas has long been obsessed with testing and accountability, and Scott spoke from the heart. He also helped to ignite the national anti-testing movement.
