Archives for category: Standardized Testing

Carol Burris recently retired as principal of South Side High School in Rockville Center on Long Island, Néw York. She is now executive director of the Network for Public Education. She read recently that MaryEllen Elia, the new Commissioner of Education in New York, said that she would be “shocked” if any educators encouraged parents to opt out of state testing, and she said such educators (if they existed) were “unethical.”

Burris wrote:

“Well, Ms. Elia, be shocked. I am turning myself in to your ethics squad. I absolutely encouraged the opt-out movement last year. In fact, I did so right here on the Answer Sheet. I don’t think I could have been clearer when I wrote this:

‘But there comes a time when rules must be broken — when adults, after exhausting all remedies, must be willing to break ranks and not comply. That time is now. The promise of a public school system, however imperfectly realized, is at risk of being destroyed. The future of our children is hanging from testing’s high stakes. The time to opt out is now.'”

Yes, indeed, Burris encouraged opting out, as did many other administrators, both superintendents and principals.

Burris believed it would have been unethical to stand by in silence.

She wrote:

“It would have been unethical to not speak out after watching New York’s achievement gaps grow, indicating that the tests and the standards on which they are based are not advancing the learning of the state’s most vulnerable kids.

“It would have been unethical to ignore watching the frustration of my teachers whose young children were coming home from school discouraged and sick from the stress of test prep designed to prepare them for impossible tests.

“It would have been unethical to not respond to the heartbreaking stories that I heard from friends who are elementary principals—stories of children crying, becoming sick to their stomach, and pulling out hair during the Pearson-created Common Core tests.

“And it would have been unethical to not push back against a system of teacher evaluation based on Grade 3-8 test scores that is not only demeaning and indefensible, but also incentivizes all the wrong values.

“So if there is a place called Regents Jail, I guess that is where I will have to go.”

Burris noted that Elia would have to lock up her boss, Regents’ Chancellor Merryl Tisch as well, since Tisch recently said that if she had a child with disabilities, she would “think twice” about allowing the child to take the state tests.

Who is “unethical”? The educator who complies with orders regardless of her personal and professionsl values or the educator who refuses to do what she knows is wrong?

Leonie Haimson and Jeanette Deutermann explain here why the opt out movement is right and necessary. If policymakers continue on their present path, they predict, the opt out movement will grow and spread to many other states who see the power of grassroots activism.

They do so in response to editorials in the New York Times and the Washington Post criticizing the parents who opt out of mandated testing.

The mainstream media echoes the Obama administration’s line that high-stakes testing will somehow promote equity and reduce the achievement gap, but as Haimson and Deutermann contend, thirteen years of No Child Left Behind demonstrate that this assertion is false.

Haimson and Deutermann write:

Why should parents put their children through this time-consuming, anxiety-producing and pointless exercise? When parents are repeatedly ignored by policymakers, opting out is their only option.

For months leading up to the assessments, and especially during the two weeks of testing, parents report their children show signs of anxiety, sleep problems, physical symptoms, school phobias and attention difficulties. This phenomenon has been growing among children as young as 8 years old. To add insult to injury, for the last three years the exams have become overly long and confusing, with incoherent questions like the pineapple passage on theeighth-grade exam in 2010, and the talking snake passage on thethird-grade test this year. Our youngest learners sit for up to 18 hours of state testing.

The most vulnerable children – students with disabilities and English language learners – are asked to endure exams that are so inappropriate even the state asked for waivers from the federal government, which were denied. Only 3.9 percent of English language learners and 5.7 percent of students with disabilities passed these exams. The bar should be set high for all children, but at an appropriate level for each child.

Parents have become increasingly frustrated at watching the alarming changes in their children and their education, along with the waste of precious tax dollars. More than 220,000 New York state parents chose to have their children refuse the state exams this year, in both high-performing suburban districts and struggling city schools, to express their anger. Many teachers joined parents in the fight to protect their students and the integrity of their profession. The question is, will the powers that be listen and make the necessary changes? If not, the number of opt-outs will continue to grow until parents’ voices are heard by policymakers, the tests are improved, the punitive, high-stakes exams removed, and real teaching and learning return to our classrooms.

Emmanuel Felton and Sarah Butrymowicz write in the Hechinger Report that students in New York have shown little progress in three years of Common Core teaching and testing. Experts warn that three years may be too short a time line to reach a judgment. Nonetheless, the widening achievement gaps are cause for concern. According to the conventional wisdom, the writers say, scores were supposed to rise as teachers and students became accustomed to the new standards. The reality is different.

Three years into the transition to harder tests, scores across the board have remained low and largely stagnant.
Thirty percent of all fifth-graders passed the English exam, for instance – while just 7 percent of special education students did. In math, 43 percent of all fifth-graders were proficient, but only a quarter of black students were….

The past three years of testing have been rough for New York. Complaints began right away in 2013 when the state switched to the new exam and continued when the scores showed proficiency rates had dropped roughly 24 percentage points in English and 34 percentage points in math. In the subsequent two years, criticism grew – over the stakes attached to the exams, the tests themselves and the standards. A robust “opt-out” movement led by disaffected parents and supported in part by teachers resulted in 20 percent of New York students not taking the exams, up from 5 percent the previous year….

And scores have not improved much in the three years. A Hechinger Report analysis found that English scores were essentially stagnant across the state and math scores went up slightly. White and Asian students, however, drove this increase, while the gulf between black and Latino students and their peers has widened.
In 2013, for example, 30 percent of fifth-graders passed the state math exam. This year, when the vast majority of those students were in seventh grade, 35 percent of seventh-graders passed the test. But while white students went from 36 to 46 percent proficiency, black students only increased from 15 to 17 percent and Hispanic students from 18 to 20 percent…

In addition to looking a lot like last year’s results, these scores also match New York’s results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often called the Nation’s Report Card, which is considered the gold standard for student exams.

But the alignment with NAEP is precisely the problem. The state exams now consider “NAEP Proficient” to be a “passing mark.” This is utterly absurd. NAEP Proficient was never intended to be a passing mark, nor is it “grade level.” NAEP Proficient represents a high level of achievement. No state has seen as many as 50% of its students reach NAEP Proficient except for Massachusetts. As long as the states continue to use tests whose “cut scores” are aligned with NAEP, a majority of students will be considered “failures.” This is not sustainable. Think of the consequences of failing most students year after year.

Angie Sullivan teaches young children in Clark County, Nevada. She is a one-woman crusader for the rights of children.

She writes:

How best to discriminate against small young persons of color in Nevada. . .

1. Fail to hire teachers for impoverished communities – staff with substitutes.

2. Ensure that no one will want to work in impoverished communities because you punish anyone who does.

3. Fail to fund.

4. Replace instruction with repeated and incessant testing – if the students fail, test them some more rather than provide additional support. Drive them into the pavement with testing. Smash them. Make sure they cannot get better by replacing all instruction with additional testing. 13 tests is not enough! Let’s invent another! We don’t need the same test – we just need more tests!

5. Retain. Any small child who is not able to score like a white kid in Connecticut by the time they are seven . . . Punish them with repeating another non-instructional, non-supported year obsessed with testing year. Ignore every study that shows that retention is closely linked to not graduating and social stigma. Punish small children and punish them hard! Don’t you dare support them as would be required to succeed – whip them, whip their teachers, whip their schools.

That is a summary of what is occurring right now in the Nevada State Board meeting

___________________

I cannot watch this destruction.

Kids are more than a score.

It is a rare few kids that benefit from retention.

It takes between 5 to 10 years for language learners to be proficient in academic English – if they are supported.

Underfunding and no recognizing the significant need because of poverty in our community – is a problem.

The kids who will be retained will be brown – because that is what has happened in every state that has implemented #readby3.

O God hear the words of my mouth let those who implement this horrible crime see. I cannot bear to watch. All I can do is weep. How did we get to this horrible relentless place?

Fred LeBrun of the Albany Times-Union is one of the most thoughtful commentators on education in Néw York state. He knows that Néw York’s test-and-punish regime is a disaster. Unlike the Néw York Times editorial board, he hails the opt out leaders as heroes.

Civil disobedience is justified when your elected representatives turn their backs on you and refuse to listen. Opt out is a beautiful and intelligent response to a ridiculous testing regime that undermines education and demoralizes educators.

Fred gets it. He writes:

“So much rests on such tiny shoulders.

“And make no mistake while you pack those lunches, it’s all about a political agenda being crudely and arrogantly imposed on education across the country. We know who the banner carrier has been here in New York.

“Of all that Gov. Andrew Cuomo will have to answer for after he finally vacates his current post for whatever cave will have him, near the top has to be the damage he’s done to public schooling in New York.

“With his trademark heavy hand, Cuomo has politicized public education down to every student, and for our times and state, singlehandedly taken the pleasure and satisfaction out of learning, and teaching. Not to mention he put new and needless pressures and anxieties on tens of thousands of young parents caught in the middle of these wars.

“All in the name of the most misused word in the dictionary: reform.

“Although we can indeed thank Cuomo for helping make New York No. 1 somewhere on the public education scoreboard.

“We lead the nation in opting out of high-stakes standardized tests, primarily because those privatized tests of questionable merit were rammed down our throats earlier here than in other states…

“So, look for another tempestuous spring on the Opt Out front, with numbers refusing the tests increasing.

“That’s despite empty threats the feds may withhold some Title 1 funding. Empty because the emerging bipartisan will of Congress for the coming reauthorization of Race to the Top is to detach fiscal consequences from opting out of standardized tests. A response to an emerging public will.

“Long term, things are looking up. The Cuomo fiasco will collapse. Commissioner Elia promises a committee including parents and teachers will look hard at New York’s Common Core plan with an eye toward changes. That’s a necessary step in the right direction.

“The Board of Regents is growing a brain on the subject as its membership changes, and the Legislature is likely to become emboldened to make right what they voted poorly on when Cuomo had them over a barrel.

“Much of this is driven by what Opt Out has accomplished. We owe them a great deal.”

Gene V. Glass is one of our mation’s superstar researchers of education. His field for many decades was measurement. He describes how hopeful the field was that better measurement of students would solve important problems.

But in this post, he explains that he is resigning from his field. Measurement has over promised and under delivered.

“The degrading of public education has involved impugning its effectiveness, cutting its budget, and busting its unions. Educational measurement has been the perfect tool for accomplishing all three: cheap and scientific looking….

“Teachers and many parents understand that children’s development is far too complex to capture with an hour or two taking a standardized test. So resistance has been met with legislated mandates. The test company lobbyists convince politicians that grading teachers and schools is as easy as grading cuts of meat. A huge publishing company from the UK has spent $8 million in the past decade lobbying Congress. Politicians believe that testing must be the cornerstone of any education policy.

“The results of this cronyism between corporations and politicians have been chaotic. Parents see the stress placed on their children and report them sick on test day. Educators, under pressure they see as illegitimate, break the rules imposed on them by governments. Many teachers put their best judgment and best lessons aside and drill children on how to score high on multiple-choice tests. And too many of the best teachers exit the profession.

“When measurement became the instrument of accountability, testing companies prospered and schools suffered. I have watched this happen for several years now. I have slowly withdrawn my intellectual commitment to the field of measurement. Recently I asked my dean to switch my affiliation from the measurement program to the policy program. I am no longer comfortable being associated with the discipline of educational measurement.”

Everyone understands that the key fact about Néw York’s test scores is that they will be used to measure the “effectiveness” of teachers. The progress of children has been small over three years, and the scores align closely with demography, language, disability, and family income. Ho-hum.

Mercedes Schneider reminds us of basic facts:

“Under no conditions is it a valid use of student test scores to evaluate teachers or schools.

“The students are the test takers; these tests purportedly measure their achievement. There is no way to account for all of the possible variables that would enable the New York State Education Department (NYSED) to accurately evaluate teachers and schools using student test scores.”

This is a terrific article about whether test scores lose their value for accountability when so many students opt out.

What’s terrific about it is the comments of opt out leader Jeanette Deutermann, who says the purpose of test refusal is to bring down the system, to make test-based accountability impossible. She is a parent and she knows how testing has undermined education.

Then there is Tom Kane, the Harvard economist, insisting that without the scores, poor kids and minorities will be neglected. Where is the evidence that 13 years of testing has closed gaps or helped the neediest children?

The Néw York Times opposes the opt out movement and asserts–with no evidence–that the rigorous Common Core standards and tests will raise achievement and close the gaps among racial groups and between affluent and poor.

This is magical thinking. Or wishful thinking. Or illogical thinking.

Alarmed by the fact that 20% of students didn’t take the tests, the Times’ editorial asserts that the test boycott could damage the Common Core standards: “The standards offer the best hope for holding school districts accountable for educating all students, regardless of race or income.”

If the editorial means that teachers, principals, and schools will be punished for low scores on unrealistic tests, it is right. Heads will roll. People will be fired. Schools will be closed. Chaos and disruption are not good for children or learning.

Will these standards and tests ensure that all children have an excellent education? No. Setting standards a grade or two above where children will not make the children smarter; those who are most advantaged will move ahead, while those who are lagging will fall farther behind.

Why does the editorial board defend standardized tests whose cut scores are absurdly high, guaranteeing that most children will fail? Why defend tests that fail almost every student with disabilities and almost every English language learner? Why defend tests that actually widen the achievement gaps? These tests accomplish the exact opposite of what the Times says it wants: an excellent education for all.

Has common sense deserted the editorial board of the New York Times?

Carol Burris analyzed the New York State results in the third year of Pearson testing for the Common Core, and she was underwhelmed.

She says the results are “a flop. The proficiency needle barely budged.” Achievement gaps grew.

“The percentage of students scoring proficient in English Language Arts rose less than 1 point, to 31.3 percent. The percentage of students who met math proficiency rose less than 2 points, to 38.1 percent. At this rate of increase, it will take about 70 years for all New York students to meet both New York Common Core proficiency cut scores.

There was no closing of the gap—in fact when it comes to proficiency rates, the gap between white students and black students and white students and Latino students widened in both ELA and math. The math proficiency gap increased by more than 3 percentage points. Both black and Latino student math proficiency rates rose about 1 percent–gains by white students were largely responsible for most of the increase in state math scores.

“Only 4.4 percent of all English language learners and 5.7 percent of students with disabilities were proficient in English Language Arts, and their math proficiency gains were respectively 0.6 percent and 1 percent….

“Three years of data make it crystal clear that the New York State Education Department is giving inappropriate tests, which are, for most students, a prolonged and arduous exercise in multiple guess.

“No one should be more embarrassed by that sad state of affairs than Chancellor Merryl Tisch. Answer Sheet readers may remember her big promise after the first year of Common Core tests. Comparing herself to Babe Ruth, Tisch said, “He called that shot, and he said, ‘I’m going to hit it there…A year from now, God willing, if we’re all sitting here, I promise you test scores are going to go up.”

“That promise was made after the first year of testing. In Year 2, there were flat ELA scores and a tiny tick up in math. Year 3 is once again a bust.”

Burris writes:

“The second clue came July 20 when Tisch said, ““Personally, I would say that if I was the mother of a student with a certain type of disability, I would think twice before I allowed my child to sit through an exam that was incomprehensible to them,”

“The “incomprehensible” test to which she refers is her own State Education Department’s Grade 3-8 Common Core tests. She does not explain what exactly that “certain type of disability” is. Apparently nearly 70 percent of all New York students have it.”

Chancellor Tisch believes in the theory that raising the bar higher and higher causes children to try harder. But if they fail year after year to meet goals beyond their reach, will they keep trying?

A few years ago, before the first of the Common Core tests, Tisch said it was time to throw kids into the deep end of the pool. Now we know–or should–that this is not a good way to teach swimming.