Archives for category: Standardized Testing

The original purpose of the SAT was to sort students for the “right” college. Their scores on the tests would show whether they could succeed in an selective college. The designer of the SAT was Carl Brigham, a psychologist who had been a pioneer in developing IQ tests. Brigham wrote a book about intelligence expressing the then-common belief that IQ was fixed, innate, measurable, and inherited. Brigham also believed that different races and ethnic groups could be ranked by IQ. Since he believed that IQ was fixed and that it was tied to one’s race and ethnicity, there was little that schools could do to raise up children’s intelligence other than to identify it and place them in the right track. Brigham was the chief scientist who developed the Scholastic Aptitude Test, as it was then called. Today it is simply the SAT, standing for nothing in particular. It replaced the College Boards, which relied on essays and written answers, in 1941; the decision was made on December 7, when the U.S. joined World War 2. The machine-scored test was faster, easier to grade, and cheaper. (You can read more in my book “Left Back,” where I describe the history of standardized testing, which is rooted in the history of intelligence testing.

 

We now know that SAT scores are supposed to predict future success in college, but high school grade point average is a better predictor.

 

Our frequent commenter “Democracy” posted these thoughts on the SAT and the ACT:

 

 

Part 1

 

The SAT is a badly flawed and virtually worthless test, unless one is interested in determining the family incomes of students. And many colleges are, for reasons that have nothing to do with academics.

 

The best predictor of success in college is high school grade point average (including SAT score doesn’t add much). Moreover, research shows that “the best predictor of both first- and second-year college grades” is unweighted high school grade point average. A high school grade point average “weighted with a full bonus point for AP…is invariably the worst predictor of college performance.”

 

The College Board, which produces the PSAT, SAT, and Advanced Placement courses and tests, now recommends that schools “implement grade-weighting policies…starting as early as the sixth grade.” The SIXTH grade! If that sounds rather stupid, perhaps even fraudulent, that’s because it is.

 

College enrollment specialists say that their research finds the SAT predicts between 3 and 15 percent of freshman-year college grades, and after that nothing. As one commented, “I might as well measure their shoe size.” Matthew Quirk reported this in ‘The Best Class Money Can Buy:’

 

“The ACT and the College Board don’t just sell hundreds of thousands of student profiles to schools; they also offer software and consulting services that can be used to set crude wealth and test-score cutoffs, to target or eliminate students before they apply…That students are rejected on the basis of income is one of the most closely held secrets in admissions; enrollment managers say the practice is far more prevalent than most schools let on.”

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/the-best-class-money-can-buy/4307/2/

 

The authors of a study in Ohio found the ACT has minimal predictive power. For example, the ACT composite score predicts about 5 percent of the variance in freshman-year Grade Point Average at Akron University, 10 percent at Bowling Green, 13 percent at Cincinnati, 8 percent at Kent State, 12 percent at Miami of Ohio, 9 percent at Ohio University, 15 percent at Ohio State, 13 percent at Toledo, and 17 percent for all others. Hardly anything to get all excited about.

 

Here is what the authors say about the ACT in their concluding remarks:

 

“…why, in the competitive college admissions market, admission officers have not already discovered the shortcomings of the ACT composite score and reduced the weight they put on the Reading and Science components. The answer is not clear. Personal conversations suggest that most admission officers are simply unaware of the difference in predictive validity across the tests. They have trusted ACT Inc. to design a valid exam and never took the time (or had the resources) to analyze the predictive power of its various components. An alternative explanation is that schools have a strong incentive – perhaps due to highly publicized external rankings such as those compiled by U.S. News & World Report, which incorporate students’ entrance exam scores – to admit students with a high ACT composite score, even if this score turns out to be unhelpful.”

 

Part 2

 

As most people know, the Princeton Review does quite a bit of test prep for the SAT. Here’s Princeton Review founder John Katzman on the SAT:

 

“The SAT is a scam…It has never measured anything. And it continues to measure nothing. And the whole game is that everybody who does well on it, is so delighted by their good fortune that they don’t want to attack it. And they are the people in charge. Because of course, the way you get to be in charge is by having high test scores. So it’s this terrific kind of rolling scam that every so often, somebody sort of looks and says–well, you know, does it measure intelligence? No. Does it predict college grades? No. Does it tell you how much you learned in high school? No. Does it predict life happiness or life success in any measure? No. It’s measuring nothing. It is a test of very basic math and very basic reading skill. Nothing that a high school kid should be taking.”

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/katzman.html

 

Here’s author Nicholas Lemann –– whose book The Big Test is all about the SAT –– on the SAT’s severe limitations:

 

“The test has been, you know, fetishized. This whole culture and frenzy and mythology has been built around SATs. Tests, in general, SATs, in particular, and everybody seems to believe that it’s a measure of how smart you are or your innate worth or something. I mean, the level of obsession over these tests is way out of proportion to what they actually measure. And ETS, the maker of test, they don’t actively encourage the obsession, but they don’t actively discourage it either. Because they do sort of profit from it…every time somebody takes an SAT, it’s money to the ETS and the College Board. But there is something definitely weird about the psychological importance these tests have in America versus what they actually measure. And indeed, what difference do they make? Because, there’s two thousand colleges in the United States, and 1,950 of them are pretty much unselective. So, the SAT is a ticket to a few places.”

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/lemann.html

 

 

Part 3

 

As to AP courses and tests, the hype is as great or greater than with the SAT. Students are told that if they want to be “well prepared for academically strenuous college classes” then they have to take “rigorous” high school classes, and counselors tell them that means AP classes. Jay Mathews of The Post has popularized the myth that “AP is better.” But the research doesn’t support Mathews’ contention, although students seem to understand the importance of constructing a facade. Students admit that ““You’re not trying to get educated; you’re trying to look good.” And “The focus is on the test and not necessarily on the fundamental knowledge of the material.”

 

Klopfenstein and Thomas (2005) found that AP students “…generally no more likely than non-AP students to return to school for a second year or to have higher first semester grades.” Moreover, they write that “close inspection of the [College Board] studies cited reveals that the existing evidence regarding the benefits of AP experience is questionable,” and “AP courses are not a necessary component of a rigorous curriculum.”

 

The College Board routinely coughs up “research studies” to show that their test products are valid and reliable. The problem is that independent, peer-reviewed research doesn’t back them up. The SAT and PSAT are shams. Colleges often use PSAT scores as a basis for sending solicitation letters to prospective students. However, as a former admissions officer noted, “The overwhelming majority of students receiving these mailings will not be admitted in the end.” Some say that the College Board, in essence, has turned the admissions process “into a profit-making opportunity.”

 

Advanced Placement may work well for some students, especially those who are already “college-bound to begin with” (Klopfenstein and Thomas, 2010). Indeed, there are “systematic differences in student motivation, academic preparation, family background and high-school quality account for much of the observed difference in college outcomes between AP and non-AP students” (Geiser, 2007). College Board-funded studies do not control well for these student characteristics (even the College Board concedes that “interest and motivation” are keys to “success in any course”). Klopfenstein and Thomas (2010) find that when these demographic characteristics are controlled for, the claims made for AP disappear.

 

And guess what? ACT, Inc. and the College Board were instrumental in developing the Common Core. Both organizations say they have “aligned” all of their products with it. Both are avid supporters of it. And yet, it’s wholly unnecessary. It was based on the silly idea that better test scores are necessary for economic competitiveness and prosperity, a notion perpetrated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Wall street entities, and the Business Roundtable, among others.

 

Students, parents, teachers, and school leaders –– not to mention admissions officials, reporters, and politicians and tutors –– would do well to heed the research and to stop perpetuating the myths. Because the future of public education is at stake.

 

Three activists for racial and social justice take issue with the position of several civil rights organizations that opposed opting out of mandated tests. Pedro Noguera of New York University, John Jackson of the Schott Foundation for Public Education, and Judith Browne Dianis of the Advancement Project support the right of parents to opt their children out of state tests.

The NCLB annual tests have not advanced the interests of poor children or children of color, they say.

“Schools serving poor children and children of color remain under-funded and have been labeled “failing” while little has been done at the local, state or federal level to effectively intervene and provide support. In the face of clear evidence that children of color are more likely to be subjected to over-testing and a narrowing of curriculum in the name of test preparation, it is perplexing that D.C. based civil rights groups are promoting annual tests….:

“We are not opposed to assessment. Standards and assessments are important for diagnostic purposes. However, too often the data produced by standardized tests are not made available to teachers until after the school year is over, making it impossible to use the information to address student needs. When tests are used in this way, they do little more than measure predictable inequities in academic outcomes. Parents have a right to know that there is concrete evidence that their children are learning, but standardized tests do not provide this evidence….

We now know students cannot be tested out of poverty, and while NCLB did take us a step forward by requiring schools to produce evidence that students were learning, it took us several steps backward when that evidence was reduced to how well a student performed on a standardized test…..

The civil rights movement has always worked to change unjust policies. When 16-year-old Barbara Johns organized a student strike in Prince Edward County, Virginia in 1951 leading to Brown v. Board in 1954, she opted out of public school segregation. When Rosa Parks sat down on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955 she opted out of the system of segregation in public transportation. And as youth and their allies protest throughout the country against police brutality, declaring that “Black Lives Matter,” we are reminded that the struggle for justice often forces us to challenge the status quo, even when those fighting to maintain it happen to be elected officials or, in this case, members of the civil rights establishment.

This is the weekly summary of test resistance and reform from Bob Schaeffer at Fairtest:

 
Across the U.S., there has been no let up in grassroots pressure for meaningful assessment reforms at both the national, state and district levels as the final month of the public school year gets underway.

 

 

National Time for Civil Rights Establishment to Rethink Its Position on Annual Testing
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/05/annual_accountability_testing_time_for_the_civil_rights_community_to_reconsider.html

 
Support Senator Tester’s Amendment to End Federal Standardized Testing Overkill
http://fairtest.org/roll-back-standardized-testing-send-letter-congres

 

 

Arizona Parents Tell State Superintendent Testing Overkill is Main Educational Problem
http://svherald.com/content/sierra-vista-news/2015/05/30/396469

 

 

Arkansas Governor’s Advisory Panel Takes Testimony on State Assessment Policy
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2015/may/26/panel-on-exams-takes-next-step-20150526-1/?news-arkansas

 

 

California Standardized Testing Scores May Spark Backlash
http://www.govtech.com/education/California-Standardized-Testing-Scores-May-Not-Meet-Expectations.html

 

 

Colorado Problems with the PARCC Test
http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2015/05/31/trouble-with-parcc-testing/37887/

 

 

Connecticut Legislators Announce Plan to Eliminate 11th Grade Smarter Balanced Test
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Lawmakers-Hope-to-Scrap-SBAC-Test-305401021.html

 

 

Delaware PTA Supports Opt-Out Legislation
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/05/31/truth-parent-opt-hb/28267687/

 

 

Florida A Teachable Moment for Class Clowns Who Botched School Testing
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/romano-a-teachable-moment-for-those-class-clowns-who-botched-school/2231033

 
Florida Hiatus on Test-Based Retention is a Good Start
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-lombardo/floridas-hiatus-on-third-_b_7456048.html

 
Time to Eliminate High-Stakes Testing Across Florida
http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/2015/05/29/time-eliminate-high-stakes-testing/28160163/

 

 

Indiana Don’t Call the Ruin of Public Schools Education “Reform”

http://www.jconline.com/story/opinion/columnists/dave-bangert/2015/05/29/letters-editor-may/28155681/

 

 

Louisiana Charter School Leaders Resign After Questions About Testing Procedure
http://thelensnola.org/2015/06/01/scitech-academys-two-leaders-quit-amid-questions-over-testing-process/

 

 

Maryland Educators Call for End to PARCC Testing, Not Just a Reduction
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-parcc-testing-20150526-story.html

 
Maryland Voters Express Frustration with State Standardized Testing
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-voters-express-frustration-over-standardized-testing-in-schools/2015/05/28/2f167130-0550-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html

 

 

Massachusetts Teachers Seek Freeze on High-Stakes Exams
http://www.telegram.com/article/20150526/NEWS/150529352

 
Some Parents Give PARCC Test a Failing Grade
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_28223784/some-parents-give-parcc-test-failing-grade

 

 

Michigan Former State Legislator Urges Families to Opt Out
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2015/05/guest_column_former_state_legi.html

 

 

Mississippi Third Grade Promotion Test on Trial
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2015/may/27/tests-trial/

 

 

Minnesota Most Teachers Say Computer Testing Problems Affected Scores
http://www.knuj.net/2015/06/majority-of-educators-say-mca-scores-affected-by-glitches/

 

 

Missouri 64% of Teachers Say Public School Students Are Over-Tested
http://www.kfvs12.com/story/29168731/survey-64-percent-say-mo-students-are-over-tested

 

 

Missouri State Ed Dept Considers Fining CTB/McGraw Hill for Score Reporting Delay
http://www.bransontrilakesnews.com/news_story/article_370442d4-062a-11e5-8420-af57403943aa.html

 

 

Montana 4th Graders Detail Over-Testing to U.S. Senators
http://mtstandard.com/news/local/th-graders-give-tester-juneau-earful-about-testing-load-glitches/article_9e1b73cd-3159-5c9b-93b2-f8cddcded447.html

 

 

New Hampshire About Half of Nashua Juniors Opt Out Of Smarter Balanced Test
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150529/NEWS04/150539978

 

 

New Jersey Newark School Test Protesters Praised
http://localtalknews.com/newark/education/2142-school-marchers-praised-for-taking-action.html

 

 

New York Regents Assail Pro-Testing Rhetoric
http://libn.com/2015/05/26/reading-writing-and-reality-regents-assail-testing-rhetoric/

 
New York City Field Exams Fail the Logic Test
http://citylimits.org/2015/05/26/nyc-students-face-field-exams-that-fail-the-logic-test/

 
“You Know They Opted Out on Broadway,” a la Billy Joel
http://www.livingindialogue.com/from-around-the-web-opting-out-a-la-billy-joel/

 

 

North Carolina Local School Board Airs Testing Concerns
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/x219732815/School-board-tackles-testing-concerns

 

 

Ohio Considers Cuts in Student Testing Requirements
http://www.nbc4i.com/story/29160716/student-testing-changes-proposed

 

 

Oregon New School Tests Strain Key School Resources: Time and Money
http://www.opb.org/news/series/testing/new-exams-strain-key-school-resources-time-and-money/

 
Oregon Exams Cause Varying Degrees of Stress Across State’s Schools
http://www.opb.org/news/series/testing/testing-1-2-3-attitudes-approaches-toward-new-exams-vary-across-oregon/

 

 

Pennsylvania Lawmakers Consider Suspending Keystone Grad Test
http://wnep.com/2015/05/28/lawmakers-mull-putting-a-hold-on-keystone-exams/

 

 

Rhode Island Activist Summit for Children and Public Schools
http://www.rifuture.org/an-activist-summit-for-children-and-public-schools.html

 

 

South Carolina New Play Explores Problems of “No Child” Education Policies
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150601/PC2106/150609954/1093/-x2018-no-child-x2019-a-powerful-combination-of-play-and-actress

 

 

South Dakota Some Families Refuse New Exams
http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/education/2015/05/31/test-dodging-parents-refuse-new-math-reading-exams/28253077/

 

 

Tennessee State Officials Apologize to Educators for Test Score “Miscommunication”
http://tn.chalkbeat.org/2015/05/28/state-officials-apologize-to-educators-citing-miscommunication-about-recent-tcap-results/#.VWkEXkZLUZw

 
Tennessee Groups Call for Testing Transparency
http://columbiadailyherald.com/news/local-news/groups-call-testing-transparency

 

 

Washington Testing Cutting Into Learning Time
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/testing-cutting-into-class-time/

 
Washington Moving Toward Suspending Science Grad Test
http://tdn.com/news/state-and-regional/washington/house-passes-testing-reform-change-in-grad-requirements/article_db91db73-c712-59fc-bec6-1a69a151d6e3.html

 

 

The Testing Circus: Whose Fault Is It?
http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-testing-circus-whose-fault-is-it.html?m=1

 

 

States Should Ditch Use of Cut Scores on New Tests
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/06/03/states-should-ditch-cut-scores-on-new.html

 

 

The Fallacy Behind High-Stakes Testing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/the-fallacy-behind-highst_b_7441676.html

 

 

 

Bob Schaeffer, Public Education Director
FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing
office- (239) 395-6773 fax- (239) 395-6779
mobile- (239) 699-0468
web- http://www.fairtest.org

Dawn Neely Randall, a teacher in Ohio, is a passionate crusader for the rights of children. She posted this comment on the blog.

“Let me just tell you what stands out the most to me from a meeting I attended with legislators and educators about high stakes testing after school tonight. It wasn’t what the Senator said. It wasn’t what the State Rep. said. It wasn’t that the president of the college attended. It wasn’t that there were superintendents there (and I finally had the opportunity to mention how many were bullying parents for opting their children out of tests).

“What was it that stood out? It was the comment made by a teacher of special needs students who said that she had one student who pulled out every single eyelash the child had during all the hours of PARCC testing. Every. Single. Eyelash. Let that one settle on you for awhile.”

Peter Greene read a post that Checker Finn wrote for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s blog, in which Checker warned parents to be ready for the unpleasant news they would learn about their children’s failure when the Common Core tests results are reported. Peter did not agree with Checker because he thinks the tests are dumb, not the kids. Peter can’t understand why a “conservative” would want the federal government to take control of what all students in the nation ought to learn. He writes: Aren’t Fordham guys like Finn supposed to be conservatives? When did conservatives start saying, “The government should decide what a person is supposed to be like, telling people when they aren’t measuring up to government standards, and using government pressure to try to make them be the way the government says they should be.”

 

I am sort of in a tough spot here because Checker was my closest friend for many years. We worked together at the Educational Excellence Network, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (now Institute), the Koret Foundation at the Hoover Institution, and we shared many family events. However, when I turned against testing, choice, accountability, charters, and vouchers, our friendship did not survive. I am still fond of Checker, his wife Renu, and his children, but we don’t agree anymore about things we both care about, and we both understand that. I lost a very close friend when I changed my world views, and I am sad about that. But, I had no choice. Knowing Checker, he would do the same. But he didn’t.

 

I know that Checker has a low opinion of American students and teachers. He went to Exeter and Harvard, and very few meet his high expectations. When he was chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), which oversees NAEP, he led the creation of the achievement levels so the American public would see just how ill-educated their children were. The established NAEP scale was a proficiency scale from 0-500. Checker thought that the public did not derive a sufficient sense of urgency because they did not understand what it meant to be 350 or 425 on a scale of 500. What they would understand, he thought (correctly), was proficiency levels: basic, proficient, advanced (and, of course, the worst, below basic). He wanted the public to be duly alarmed at the sad state of education. Congress recognized that there is an arbitrary quality to proficiency levels; they still considered them to be “trials.” Experts disagree about how to set them and what they mean. Ultimately, the NAEP levels are set by panels of people from different walks of life who make judgment calls about what they think students in fourth grade and eighth grade ought to know. This is not science, this is human judgment.

 

Unfortunately, the public didn’t listen to the periodic alarums from NAEP and NAGB. The reports came out, and they didn’t get much attention. But after the passage of No Child Left Behind, the nation went into full-blown crisis mode about the state of education, and a hungry industry grew up to tutor, remediate, and school the students who didn’t pass their state tests. Then the charter industry emerged, and the henny-penny-sky-is-falling movement saw that the way to create a demand for charters and vouchers was to generate a steady narrative of “our schools in crisis.” Suddenly the regular NAEP reports were headline news. Suddenly the public became aware of the number of students who were “not proficient,” even though proficient was a very high bar indeed.

 

Now we have Common Core, more rigorous than any of the other standards, and Common Core tests, designed to find 70% of American kids falling short of the standards.

 

This is where Checker comes in again, to warn parents that their children will surely fail. Imagine this: the most powerful nation in the world, with the most advanced technology, the most influential culture, the biggest economy, yet somehow the schools that educated 90% of Americans are terrible. How can this be?

 

Peter Greene steps in now to take Checker on.

 

Read the whole thing, but here is the windup:

 

Finn’s basic complaint is that parents aren’t being forced to understand the Hard Truth that BS Tests prove that their children are dopes, and that said parents should be alarmed and upset. The Hard Truth that Finn doesn’t face is that the PARCC and SBA provide little-to-no useful information, and that parents are far more likely to turn to trusted teachers and their own intimate knowledge of their own children than to what seems to be an unfair, irrational, untested, unvalidated system.

 

Yes, some parents have trouble facing some truths about their own children. There can’t be a classroom teacher in the country that hasn’t seen that in action, and it can be sad. I’m not so sure that it’s sadder, however, than a parent who believes that his child is a stupid, useless loser. Finn seems really invested in making that parents hear bad news about their kids; I’m genuinely curious about what he envisions happening next. A parent pulls the small child up into a warm embrace to say, “You know, you’re not that great.” A parent makes use of a rare peaceful evening at home with a teenager to say, “I wish your test results didn’t suck so badly. Would you please suck less?” What exactly is the end game of this enforced parental eye opening?

 

Okay, I can guess, given the proclivities of the market-based reformster crowd. What happens next is that the parents express shock that Pat is so far off the college and career ready trail and quickly pulls Pat out of that sucky public school to attend a great charter school with super-duper test scores. The market-driven reform crowd wants to see an open education market driven by pure data– not the fuzzy warm love-addled parental data that come from a lifetime of knowing and loving their flesh and blood intimately, and not even the kind of chirpy happy-talk data that come from teachers who have invested a year in working with that child, but in the cold, hard deeply true data that can come from an efficient, number-generating standardized test. That’s what should drive the market.

 

Alas, no such data exists. No test can measure everything, or even anything, that matters in a child and in the child’s education. No test can measure the deep and wide constellation of capabilities that we barely cover under headings like “character” or “critical thinking.”

 

Folks like Finn try hard to believe that such magical data-finding tests can exist. They are reluctant to face the Hard Truth that they are looking for centaur-operated unicorn farms. The unfortunate truth is that they have dragged the rest of the country on this fruitless hunt with them.

Jimmie Don Aycock, a Repubilcan legislator from Killeen, Texas, has decided to retire from the House of Representatives in the state legislature. This is a great loss for the state’s children, because Aycock has been a great friend and defender of public schools. As chair of the House Education Committee, he tried to get a new funding formula that would fairly distribute state monies, without waiting for a court to declare the state’s formula to be unconstitutional. He has delayed, diverted, and stopped many efforts by ideologues to harm public education, whether by vouchers, parent trigger, or other devious means that would siphon money away from the public schools.

Before entering the legislature, Jimmie Don Aycock was a veterinarian and a rancher. He was also a graduate of his local public school in Bell County, and he served on the local school board. He will be fondly remembered by parents, educators, and perhaps even students, as the author of SB5, the bill that reduced the number of end-of-course exams required for high school graduation from 15 to 5.

Even if the children never heard his name, they have benefited from his wisdom and care for them. He is admired by both parties as a statesman, a man who really does put children first. One of his Democratic colleagues said that “he’s the kind of guy you’d buy a used car from, and wouldn’t look under the hood.” Certainly the children of Texas and public schools benefited from the fact that a member of the dominant party in red state Texas was their champion.

Will anyone else in the Texas legislature take on Jimmie Don Aycock’s role as a defender of the precious democratic institution of public education? Will anyone else take the lead to stop the evisceration and privatization of public education? The Lt. Governor, former radio host Dan Patrick, is an outspoken proponent of vouchers. Until now, a bipartisan coalition of big-city Democrats and rural Republicans have defended their community’s public schools. Will another Jimmie Don Aycock rise from the ranks?

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Aycock when I spoke in Austin to a combined meeting of the Texas Association of School Administrators and the Texas School Boards Association. He is a respected and beloved figure in Texas. With all the honors being heaped on him, this may not mean much, but I place him on the blog honor roll as a hero of public education in the nation.

Arthur Camins writes in response to Marc Tucker’s article about the failure of annual testing:

“One of the contributors to the problem that Mark Tucker identifies is cynicism.

“Few appear to believe anymore that government will do anything more than the meager attention effects of annual testing to address inequity. As a country, we have forgotten that it was the collective action of the labor and civil rights movements that has mediated inequality, not punishment regimes or the individualism inherent in the so-called choice notion behind charter schools. It’s not federal overreach that’s the problem, but reaching for the wrong things. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/01/13/u-s-education-policy-federal-overreach-or-reaching-for-the/

“It doesn’t have to be this way. We Can Be Better than the Audacity of Small Hopes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-camins/we-can-be-better-than-the-audacity-of-small-hopes_b_7284458.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

“Since the Reagan era, the Democrats have been on the defensive, and have run away from collective action for equity. It’s time to re-embrace community responsibility rather than selfish-individualism.”

http://www.arthurcamins.com

In this brilliant article, Marc Tucker explains why the civil rights community is making an error by supporting annual testing as a “civil right.” He knows their leaders believe that poor and minority children will be overlooked in the absence of annual testing. But he demonstrates persuasively that annual testing has done nothing to improve the academic outcomes of poor and minority children and that they have actually been harmed by the pressure to raise scores every year.

 

Tucker writes:

 

First of all, the data show that, although the performance of poor and minority students improved after passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, it was actually improving at a faster rate before the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. Over the 15-year history of the No Child Left Behind Act, there is no data to show that it contributed to improved student performance for poor and minority students at the high school level, which is where it counts.

 

 

Those who argue that annual accountability testing of every child is essential for the advancement of poor and minority children ought to be able to show that poor and minority children perform better in education systems that have such requirements and worse in systems that don’t have them. But that is simply not the case. Many nations that have no annual accountability testing requirements have higher average performance for poor and minority students and smaller gaps between their performance and the performance of majority students than we do here in the United States. How can annual testing be a civil right if that is so?

 

 

Nonetheless, on the face of it, I agree that it is better to have data on the performance of poor children and the children in other particularly vulnerable groups than not to have that data. But annual accountability testing of every child is not the only way to get that data. We could have tests that are given not to every student but only to a sample of students in each school every couple of years and find out everything we need to know about how our poor and minority students are doing, school by school.

 

 

But the situation is worse than I have thus far portrayed it. It is not just that annual accountability testing with separate scores for poor and minority students does not help those students. The reality is that it actually hurts them.

 

 

All that testing forces schools to buy cheap tests, because they have to administer so many of them. Cheap tests measure low-level basic skills, not the kind of high-level, complex skills most employers are looking for these days. Though students in wealthy communities are forced to take these tests, no one in those communities pays much attention to them. They expect much more from their students. It is the schools serving poor and minority students that feed the students an endless diet of drill and practice keyed to these low-level tests. The teachers are feeding these kids a dumbed down curriculum to match the dumbed down tests, a dumbed down curriculum the kids in the wealthier communities do not get….

 

 

It turns out that there is one big interest that is well served by annual accountability testing. It is the interest of those who hold that the way to improve our schools is to fire the teachers whose students do not perform well on the tests. This is the mantra of the U.S. Department of Education under the Obama Administration. It is not possible to gather the data needed to fire teachers on the basis of their students’ performance unless that data is gathered every year.

 

 

The Obama Administration has managed to pit the teachers against the civil rights community on this issue and to put the teachers on the defensive. It is now said that the reason the teachers are opposing the civil rights community on annual testing is because they are seeking to evade responsibility for the performance of poor and minority students. The liberal press has bought this argument hook, line and sinker.

 

 

This is disingenuous and outrageous. Not only is it true that annual accountability testing does not improve the performance of poor and minority students, as I just explained, but it is also true that annual accountability testing is making a major contribution to the destruction of the quality of our teaching force….

 

The evaluation systems recently created has serious flaws. Their goal is to fire teachers, and those likeliest to be fired are teachers in minority communities. Meanwhile applications to professional education programs are plummeting. This is a very bad scenario for children and teachers alike; it harms teachers by putting the fear of failure in their minds, and it harms the children by giving them a stripped-down schooling and a revolving door of teachers.

 

Time to think again, says Tucker. I agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In an article in Long Island Business News, three members of the New York State Board of Regents criticized the state tests, on which 70% of the state’s students failed to meet “proficiency.” They said, the students didn’t fail, the tests failed. The tests have questions that are above the students’ understanding, there is not enough time to finish, they have questions that are confusing and intended to lure students to the wrong answer.

Regent Kathleen Cashin, an experienced educator, said the tests may be neither valid nor reliable. Regent Judith Johnson, an experienced educator, said that students are fearful that their teachers will be fired if they do poorly on the tests.

Members of the Board of Regents at their meeting last Monday said the tests, due to poor design and process, may be doing damage. Rather than setting high standards, they may simply be failing to measure education, progress and skills.
“I’ve heard horror stories that, as I said to teachers, we did not hear in previous years,” Regent Judith Johnson said. “We’ve been testing forever. There are new stories that are coming out in greater numbers than ever before.
She said students are worried their teachers will be fired, if and when they do poorly on these tests – raising the stakes even higher than anticipated.
“How do we convert this notion that children have now acquired that their teachers’ livelihood depends on children’s performance in a classroom?” Johnson said, referring to the state’s comments regarding the use of results.”

Ken Wagner of the state education department defended the tests.

He said:

“He also suffers over the pain some students feel.
“If there’s anything I struggle with around assessments, it is the notion that students are crying or getting sick over the idea of taking tests,” he said. “That is s antithetical to my philosophy of how to work with children and to my assessment about what assessments are supposed to do.”
Wagner said the tests themselves are not necessarily the source of this stress, but rather the perception of them as an unrelenting and difficult master.
“It’s just an opportunity, an opportunity for them to come to the testing moment and show us what they can do and what they can’t yet do,” he said, “so the adults can help figure out how to move them from point A to point B.”

Regent Betty Rosa, an experienced educator, “said that these tests, far from being rigorous, fail to measure progress, but do damage by creating a pervasive aura of perceived failure – when the tests themselves may be what are failing.

The exams have become a failure factory, finding 70 percent of students falling short of what the test maker describes as the acceptable standard.
“At the end of it, try to pick them up. Tell them, ‘Don’t worry. You failed. But don’t worry. Next year you’ll have another opportunity,” Rosa said. “I think it’s a disservice. I think we are not being honest. I think we are not facing reality.”
Read more: http://libn.com/2015/05/26/reading-writing-and-reality-regents-assail-testing-rhetoric/#ixzz3biOGqHOi

Carol Burris posts a letter from a young teacher in DC who graduated from Burris’ school in Long Island. She is not happy with the high-stakes testing, test-based accountability, and Common Core. Want to know why so many teachers are leaving? Corporate, punitive, gotcha reform.