Archives for category: Standardized Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Tech Entrepreneurs Gather in Austin

By dianeravitch
March 9, 2016 //
2

Caitlin Emma reports in Politico from the SXSW conference in Austin, Texas, where thousands of ed tech entrepreneurs meet and greet:

 

 

DISPATCH FROM SXSWedu: Thousands of students have indicated that they’re interested in getting credit since Arizona State University and edX announced [http://politico.pro/1UbIAgi ] a partnership last year to make freshman year available to students entirely online, allowing students to complete the courses and then decide later whether they want to pay for academic credit. edX CEO Anant Agarwal told our own Caitlin Emma at SXSWedu in Austin that while just 323 learners were actually eligible for credit in the Global Freshman Academy’s first year, he expects that to grow. Having online courses deliver real credit has rocketed edX into an era of “MOOCS 2.0,” he said. Thinking ahead, Agarwal said he’s also focused on a recent announcement [http://bit.ly/1U28unX ] to pilot “MicroMaster’s,” which will allow learners to take a semester of courses online and then spend a single semester on campus. The pilot now offers only the courses in “supply chain management,” but Agarwal said he hopes to expand it to dozens of subject areas in the coming years.

 

 

ARIZONA’S APPETITE FOR A MENU OF TESTS: There’s a good chance that Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey will sign a bill that would make the state the first in the nation to offer schools a menu of assessment options. The legislation doesn’t let parents opt children out of tests, but would comes as the opt-out movement warns of another strong showing this spring. The state board would have to approve alternative tests. State lawmakers envision a scenario where schools use the ACT instead of the state standardized test, for example. The Obama administration has supported some states that wanted to move from the state test to the ACT or SAT in high school for accountability. And the Every Student Succeeds Act provides states with the flexibility to pursue this option. But federal officials might take issue with individual schools using different tests for accountability because it could become difficult to measure student learning across the state and hold all schools accountable to a similar standard. More in The Republic: http://bit.ly/1UcaNng.

 

 

As I have said many times on this blog, standardized tests should never be used as a graduation requirement or for accountability. An accountability test should be akin to a test for a driver’s license, not norm-referenced. This is called a criterion-referenced test. Everyone who is able to meet the agreed-upon requirements should be able to do so. A norm-referenced test guarantees that a certain proportion must fail.

Categories Education Reform, Standardized Testing, Technology

Here Comes “Personalized Learning”

By dianeravitch
March 8, 2016 //
39

As we have seen again and again, in the rhetoric  of the Gates Foundation, Mark Zuckerberg, and assorted tech entrepreneurs, “personalized learning” means learning on a machine. In typical corporate reform talk, where up means down and reform means destruction, personalized means impersonalized.

 

And here it comes, as described by Politico Education:

 

“DISPATCH FROM SXSWedu: “Who here has ever complained about No Child Left Behind?” iNACOL President and CEO Susan Patrick asked a room full of people during a panel discussion at SXSWedu in Austin. The vast majority of hands shot up, our own Caitlin Emma reports. “The future is now,” she said. The Every Student Succeeds Act represents an “incredible opportunity,” Lillian Pace of KnowledgeWorks said: States couldn’t fully implement personalized learning systems under No Child Left Behind, but now there’s an opportunity to do something different. That’s particularly true when it comes to testing, she said. And there’s been a lot of discussion at SXSWedu about what New Hampshire is already doing with its Performance Assessment for Competency Education pilot. It took a while to get federal officials on board, New Hampshire Deputy Education Commissioner Paul Leather said. Leather said he first pitched former Education Secretary Arne Duncan on the idea just six months into the Obama administration. But Duncan told Leather to come back when the idea was more fully formed. So Leather did and blew Duncan away with his presentation: New Hampshire’s assessment pilot received federal approval last year.

 

“- Leather said his state has been working on competency education for about two decades. “It’s not a Johnny come lately” idea for the state and it shouldn’t be one for other states, he said. Seven states will have the opportunity to pilot [http://politico.pro/1QCPQAx ] innovative assessment systems under ESSA. But New Hampshire is a pioneer and for most states that are considering applying for the pilot, it’s their only frame of reference for an innovative assessment system, Pace said. States considering these systems should think carefully about what works best for them, Leather said – because what works for New Hampshire won’t necessarily work everywhere.”

Categories Education Reform, Online Learning, Standardized Testing, Technology

Meet David Coleman: Master of the SAT and Architect of Common Core

By dianeravitch
March 8, 2016 //
31

Here is David Coleman, the arbiter of what America’s children should know and be able to do.

 

This is quite a lofty perch. First, he oversees the writing of what are supposed to be national standards.

 

Now, he is in charge of testing whether students are qualified to enter college.

 

What an amazing career trajectory for a guy who never taught and whose primary experience was with McKinsey and later with his own testing business, which he sold to McGraw-Hill for $14 million.

 

 

Categories Coleman, David, Common Core, Education Reform, Higher Education, Standardized Testing

Mom in New Mexico: Are My Boys Failures?

By dianeravitch
March 8, 2016 //
31

A mom in New Mexico doesn’t understand why the schools in her state treat her twin sons as failures and refuse to acknowledge their strengths. Is there room in our schools for children who are gifted with their hands and highly skilled at fixing things but not so good at taking standardized tests?

 

She writes:

 

I recently retired (forced out, actually) after 30 years in education. I still have three kids in school; one thankfully will graduate this year. She has no desire to go to a traditional college, although extremely capable. She fears it will be too much like high school..She has plans to go to a cosmetology school.

 

But it’s my twin 14 year old boys I’ve always worried about. Every year on every standardized test they are on the “cusp.” Not proficient, but just barely. Now as they get older and more aware it frustrates them. They are all boy, can operate every power tool in the house, build elaborate shelves, swings, chairs, and recently have convinced their dad to let them “work on” his 1977 pickup that’s been sitting idle for 20 + years.

 

They are avid hunters, can build a campfire if needed, fix most broken items in the house, and willingly take electronics apart to figure out how they work.

 

They are in no AP classes because they cannot make the grade. They are in lower level classes with most teachers who have the attitude that they won’t learn much (which they really haven’t because of the teachers attitudes toward them.) They can’t join the robotics team because it’s for Gifted only.

 

They are super bright, capable, hands-on kind of boys. One has decided that mechanic or welding school is in his future. He has no confidence that he could even make it to college, The other still has aspirations of going to college, but that too is being squelched with his poor performance on PARCC (which, btw, scores were just released to parents –it’s February!)

 

I am saddened that my own kids have been robbed of developing at their own pace. I too was a late bloomer. My high school teachers never thought I could make it through college. I have an Ed.S. In educational leadership.

 

How does a parent turn this around?? My husband and I have saved all our lives so we could help our kids through college, but guess what, our educational system, has destroyed that dream.

 

Thanks, Superintendent Hanna Skandera and Governor Susana Martinez.

Categories Education Reform, New Mexico, Standardized Testing

Teacher: Why I Hate Pearson

By dianeravitch
March 6, 2016 //
291

The following comment was posted by a frustrated teacher in Florida, who has had to take a Pearson exam again and again. In the past, 86% of applicants passed the exam on the first try, she writes. After Pearson revised the exam in 2014, only 24% passed on the first attempt.

 

 

 

 

“Hello, Diane:

 

 

“I came across your blog after making a search using the following words: Why can’t I pass the Florida Educational Leadership Exam 3.0 (FELE 3.0)? I read one entry in your blog that made me realize I may not alone, and inspired me to share my own experience dealing with Pearson. I thank you deeply for your blog and the opportunity to share. I have been trying to find an answer to my question for exactly 12 months. I took the FELE 3.0 four times since last year and have not been able to pass one of its four sections. I am retaking it again this coming week. The exam used to be three subtests, but Pearson or the state split the last subtest into two parts, which are deemed today the most difficult by Florida university professors. I was able to pass that subtest and the second subtest the first time around. My battle a year later is still trying to pass the first subtest of this state exam.

 

 

“I have been a teacher in Florida for 13 years. I am certified in two areas. I wanted to pursue my master’s degree for several years and finally was able to do so in the summer of 2013 by enrolling into a two year educational leadership program at a local state university. Throughout my two years of study, every single one of my professors found me to be a very intelligent candidate. They shared their observations about my research abilities and commitment and constantly told me I was a great student. I aced every single one of my courses with 100%, except for one where my final passing grade was a 96%. For two years, I thought I was doing great, until I sat to take the mandatory and upgraded Florida Educational Leadership Examination 3.0. The university will not grant me my diploma until I pass that exam.

 

 

“The new exam has been around since January 2014. They call it the FELE 3.0 to differentiate it from the previous FELEs. I found out that about 86% of candidates who sat for the older FELEs used to pass the exam the first time. Now, only 24% of candidates taking the new FELE 3.0 passed the first time in 2015!! Yes, Pearson and the State of Florida made the test more rigorous, but give me a break; only 24% are passing this exam the first time?! The rest of us keep taking subtests of the exam several times, with some of us missing the 200 mark within 10 points or much less. In my case, I have failed it by 3 points twice! Several of my classmates from a year ago are still struggling with passing some subtests of the test as well. In the meantime, Pearson is laughing its way to the bank.

 

 

“The infuriating thing about my experience is that:

 

 

“1. Every time I sit for the subtest, I have to pay Pearson the entire exam fee of $225, as if I’m taking the entire 7-hour exam all over again. I am only taking a two-hour subtest. They lower the fee for the third subtest because it is the one most candidates are not passing, but those of us having to retest on other sections have to pay the full fee.

 

 

“2. I have to remain enrolled at the university and paying tuition until I pass the exam (no one can give me a straight answer to the question: Is this a state or university policy? They keep giving me the run around.) In the meantime, I owe Sally Mae $70,000 so far for a master’s degree I have not yet finished because I fail the state exam by a few points. Yes, $70K. No kidding.

 

 

“3. I have to wait a minimum of 3 weeks to find out how I did in the test, which increases the amount of wait time (and keeps me longer in limbo).

 

 

“4. Pearson charges you $75 if you want to know what questions you missed, but don’t offer any guidance as to how to prepare better to pass the next time. On top of that, you have to wait longer, 31 days, to sit for the exam after doing this. (They really milk it.)

 

 

“5. I have had to find my own resources to study from (basically national research and studies I find on the web) since the exam is so new and nothing like the older one. Most of the FELE resources I’ve had access to, including one seminar I had to pay on my own, are outdated).

 

 

“6. When I contacted the state twice to find out where I can study from (because my university had no clue), they gave me a list of reference books. I bought every single one of them, spending a lot of money on books that have vast information. I don’t know what to pinpoint and what is it I am still missing that is making me fail by 3 points! My professors are at a loss too. I found out the second time when calling the state that my calls are re-routed to Pearson, who refused to tell me who they were. I only know it was Pearson because of the area code of the number, which is in Andover, Massachusetts.

 

 

“Most people know that, because of all the major changes the Common Core State Standards brought to education, everything else has changed, including how schools are expected to be managed. Now, administrators are called to be instructional leaders rather than the building managers they once were. This is fine with me; I agree with all of that. I agree that rigor needs to be increased in most classrooms and that students must be challenged. I welcome school reform, but not at the expense of companies getting richer from those who cannot afford to continue taking exams and taking loans until they pass a state requirement that doesn’t really measure the real-time success of an aspiring administrator. I am not OK with an organization such as Pearson getting rich from unsuspecting graduate candidates.

 

 

“I am getting ready to take the exam again for the fifth time this coming week. Will I pass it? Will I not? If the exam is rigged to the point that African Americans and Hispanics cannot pass it, then I am royally screwed. I am Latina and black. Here I am, with my career in limbo because I cannot pass a Pearson exam by three miserable points. I really want to know what the hell is going on. I would like to see more people with my experience come forward and speak out. Something needs to be done about this.”

 

 

Categories Accountability, Pearson, Standardized Testing, Teachers

Laura Chapman: Who Fights to Keep Testing?

By dianeravitch
March 5, 2016 //
49

Laura Chapman explains the political force that fights to keep high-stakes standardized testing in place. It is puzzling that so many civil rights groups have demanded the retention of high-stakes standardized tests, because it is the children they represent who are labeled, ranked, and rated by tests that are normed on a bell curve and that invariably favor the most advantaged students. If ever there was a socially constructed instrument that does not advance equity or civil rights, it is the standardized test. I wrote about the history of standardized testing in my book Left Back. It is a story in which certain racial and ethnic groups were labeled as “inferior” based on IQ tests; those tests were the direct forerunner of today’s SAT. In fact, the first SAT was created by one of the pioneers of IQ testing, Carl C. Brigham, who was notorious for writing a book about racial differences that were revealed by IQ testing. The most constant correlation found with all standardized tests is between scores and family income: the higher the family income, the higher the test scores are likely to be.

 

 

Chapman writes:

 

This is one reason why the testing absurdities continue and who is supporting them.

 

Well before ESSA was passed, civil rights groups demanded the continuation of NCLB testing requirement. Several letters, with a changing number of signatories, were sent to Congress advocating the retention of NCLB tests.

 

Here are excerpts from the most recent The Advocacy Letter, dated after the passage of ESSA (01/21/16). It comes from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. It is addressed to the U.S. Department of Education

 

“ In direct response to the request for information regarding regulations to implement programs under Title I of ESSA, as discussed in more detail below, we encourage the Department to propose regulations regarding (the topics of) accountability, assessment, supplement not supplant, educator equity, data reporting, and inter-district resource equity.”

 

“State Accountability Systems
…in order for disaggregated data to be meaningful, “n-sizes” must be kept low so as not to hide student performance, as had been a practice in the past. It will be important to ensure that regulations reinforce the statutory requirements of identification and intervention in schools in each of the three categories identified in the law—the bottom 5 percent, schools with grad rates below 67 percent and schools with consistently low performing groups of students….

 

Assessments
Regulations to implement the assessment provisions of the law should ensure that the 95 percent participation requirement is enforced so that the performance of all students is taken into account. It must be affirmed that the 1 percent cap on the alternate assessment applies to student participation in the assessment by subject….( and that) in order for disaggregated data to be meaningful, “n-sizes” must be kept low so as not to hide student performance, as had been a practice in the past.” ….”it will be imperative to ensure that assessments meet the highest standards of validity, reliability and comparability and that students with disabilities and English learners are fully included in the assessments with appropriate accommodations. These assessments should not be an excuse to provide vulnerable students with lower quality assessments or obscure disparities in student outcomes.” (last sentence was in bold face type).

 

This letter was signed by The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (a group with over 200 members) with slightly more than 30 explicitly signing on.

 

Here is the list. Alliance for Excellent Education, American Association of University Women (AAUW), American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) ,Association of University Centers on Disabilities, Children’s Defense Fund, Council of Parent , Attorneys and Advocates, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Easter Seals, Education Law Center – PA, The Education Trust, Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, League of United Latin American Citizens, MALDEF, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Center for Learning Disabilities, The National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools, National Council of La Raza ,National Disability Rights Network, National Down Syndrome Congress, National Indian Education Association, National Urban League, National Women’s Law Center, New Leaders, Partners for Each and Every Child, PolicyLink, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, Stand for Children, TASH, Teach For America, Teach Plus, TNTP, UNCF, United Way Worldwide.

 

It is no small irony that the list includes many charter school supporters and that many charters schools work hard to exclude who have disabilities. It also well known that the Gates and other foundations provide operating and “advocacy” support for some of the groups so they will advance the policy preferences of Billionaires.

Categories Civil Rights, Education Reform, Standardized Testing

Teacher: Why Am I Testing This Child?

By dianeravitch
March 4, 2016 //
30

A reader comments:

 

“In all seriousness, the level of absurdity is reached when a profoundly disabled student is required to be tested and the testing looks something like this… a teacher pulls a chair up to the student’s wheel chair and reads a test question to the student. The student has nearly no use of his limbs or body but can turn his head. Then the teacher reads the possible answers “A”… blah blah blah “B” … blah blah blah and then the teacher holds up a sheet with letters on them and tracks the students eyes trying to guess at where the child’s eyes are looking at A, B, C or D! Meanwhile most of the test material (if not all) is not even relevant to the child or part of the child’s learning day. His day is focused on physical therapy to learn to swallow or to increase motor movement in his very stiff arms and legs. He is well below grade level because along with his physical issues there are cognitive ones too. Is this really the best use of this child and teacher’s valuable time to force him to endure a grade level test based on his chronological age because EVERYONE MUST BE TREATED EXACTLY THE SAME so that data crunchers are happy?”

Categories Education Reform, Special Education, Standardized Testing

Florida Superintendent to Schools: Opt Out Is Not Permitted

By dianeravitch
March 3, 2016 //
45

Florida superintendent Pam Stewart sent a stern message to every district:

 

“We all know there have been questions about opt out and that there were situations where this occurred last year. Section 1008.22, F.S., regarding statewide, standardized assessments, states clearly that participation is mandatory for all districts and all students attending public schools. My belief is that students that do not want to test should not be sitting in public schools, as it is mandatory and required for students seeking a standard high school diploma. Statewide, standardized assessments are part of requirement to attend school, like immunization records. That is our message and what we send to you to be shared with your staff.”

 

Opting out of state tests is not allowed. Taking the standardized tests is mandatory. Parents have no right to refuse the tests for their child.

 

Remember that Florida is the state where a dying boy with severe disabilities was expected to take the test. His parents had to present proof that he was in hospice to the state.

 

The test was more important than his life.

Categories Education Reform, Florida, Opt Out, Parents, Standardized Testing

Peter Greene: National PTA Sells Out to Testing Industry

By dianeravitch
March 2, 2016 //
21

Peter Greene read an article written by a spokesperson for the National PTA and reacted with a combination of dismay and disdain.

 

The article, written by Shannon Sevier, vice-president for advocacy for the National PTA, echoes the talking points of the testing industry, Greene writes.

 

Sevier is pleased that her own children took the standardized tests because, while they had trepidation, she can now remember “the importance of the assessments in helping my children’s teachers and school better support their success through data-driven planning and decision-making.” You would expect to hear that sort of talk from a Pearson rep, not a parent. Or as Peter Greene might say, “Said no parent ever.”

 

Greene quotes from her article some more, and responds:

 

Did I mention that Sevier is a lawyer? This is some mighty fine word salad, but its Croutons of Truth are sad, soggy and sucky. While it is true that theoretically, the capacity to withhold some funding from schools is there in the law, it has never happened, ever (though Sevier does point out that some schools in New York got a letter. A letter! Possibly even a strongly worded letter! Horrors!! Did it go on their permanent record??) The number of schools punished for low participation rates is zero, which is roughly the same number as the number of politicians willing to tell parents that their school is going to lose funding because they exercised their legal rights.

 

And when we talk about the “achievement gap,” always remember that this is reformster-speak for “difference in test scores” and nobody has tied test scores to anything except test scores.

 

More to the point, while test advocates repeatedly insist that test results are an important way of getting needed assistance and support to struggling students in struggling schools, it has never worked that way. Low test scores don’t target students for assistance– they target schools for takeover, turnaround, or termination.

 

The Sevier segues into the National PTA’s position, which is exactly like the administration’s position– that maybe there are too many tests, and we should totally get rid of redundant and unnecessary tests and look at keeping other tests out of the classroom as well, by which they mean every test other than the BS Tests. They agree that we should get rid of bad tests, “while protecting the vital role that good assessments play in measuring student progress so parents and educators have the best information to support teaching and learning, improve outcomes and ensure equity for all children.”

 

But BS Tests don’t provide “the best information.” The best information is provided by teacher-created, day-to-day, formal and informal classroom assessments. Tests such as PARCC, SBA, etc do not provide any useful information except to measure how well students do on the PARCC, SBA, etc– and there is not a lick of evidence that good performance on the BS Tests is indicative of anything at all.

 

Well, actually, I disagree here. It is not true that test scores tell us nothing at all. They are actually a pretty good measure of family income. There are variations, of course, but the correlation between test scores and family income is strong. And the “achievement gap” is itself a product of standardized tests. The tests are normed on a bell curve, and the ends of the curve never converge. The curve is designed to be a curve, so there will always be an upper half and a lower half.

 

Greene adds:

 

Did the PTA cave because they get a boatload of money from Bill Gates? Who knows. But what is clear is that when Sevier writes “National PTA strongly advocates for and continues to support increased inclusion of the parent voice in educational decision making at all levels,” what she means is that parents should play nice, follow the government’s rules, and count on policy makers to Do The Right Thing.

 

That’s a foolish plan. Over a decade of reformy policy shows us that what reformsters want from parents, teachers and students is compliance, and that as long as they get that, they are happy to stay the course. The Opt Out movement arguably forced what little accommodation is marked by the Test Action Plan and ESSA’s assertion of a parent’s legal right to opt out. Cheerful obedience in hopes of a Seat at the Table has not accomplished jack, and the National PTA should be ashamed of itself for insisting that parents should stay home, submit their children to the tyranny of time-wasting testing, and just hope that Important People will spontaneously improve the tests. Instead, the National PTA should be joining the chorus of voices demanding that the whole premise of BS Testing should be questioned, challenged, and ultimately rejected so that students can get back to learning and teachers can get back to teaching.

 

I agree with Peter here. If there is one thing we have learned over the past 15 years, it is that policymakers are entirely out of touch with children and classrooms. They make laws and regulations and mandates with little or no concern for their practical consequences on real children and real teachers. They listen only when parents make noise. Which is reason for opt out to increase, because otherwise they won’t listen at all.

 

 

 

 

Categories Opt Out, Parents, Resistance, Standardized Testing

Pennsylvania: Opt Outs Expected to Grow, Thanks to a Documentary

By dianeravitch
March 2, 2016 //
11

After a showing of Shannon Puckett’s powerful documentary “Defies Measurement,” the opt out movement in Pennsylvania got a large boost. Shannon, an experienced teacher, made the film with the help of Kickstarter, and has made it available for free online.

 

After they saw the film, parents asked for yard signs declaring their opposition to the state tests, and organizers ran out of them.

 

The more people see this documentary and others showing the punitive nature of these tests (why should little children take standardized tests that last for several hours? Why can’t their reading and math skills be divined in a 45- minute test?), the more they want to withhold consent.

 

The more parents understand that these tests provide no useful information about their child (how does it help to know what percentile rank your child is in compared to children of the same age in other districts and states? How does the teacher learn more about her students when she can’t see the questions and the scores arrive when the student is no longer in her class?), the more they want to opt out.

 

The more parents understand that the tests are about profits, not education, the more they will opt out.

 

Go online for a viewing of “Defies Measurement” and help your friends and neighbors understand why they should say no and fight for their children.

 

“State Sen. Andy Dinniman (D., Chester), who cosponsored the bill delaying the Keystones, said he has watched a surprising bipartisan consensus emerge as parents in more affluent suburban districts complain about the number of days devoted to testing, while poverty-stricken communities say they lack the money to implement the changes.

 

“It wasn’t helping anyone,” Dinniman said of the Keystone requirement. “All we were doing was stamping failure on the backs of students in impoverished areas where there weren’t any resources to pass these exams.”

 

 
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20160228_As_protests_rise_over_high-stakes_tests__more_students_likely_to_opt_out.html#GvVVJZ2LRcR4q2Kl.99

Categories Opt Out, Parents, Pennsylvania, Standardized Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »