Archives for category: Standardized Testing

Peter Greene here takes apart the claim by Mike Petrilli and Aaron Churchill of the Fordham Institute in the Wall Street Journal that closing schools is good for students. By good, they mean that the students will get higher test scores if their school is closed and they move to a different school.

Greene calls this “four kinds of wrong.”

To begin with:

“Before we even get into what they said or why it’s baloney, let’s open with the caveat that they themselves left out of the article. The study looks at the benefits of closing schools and was done in Ohio, where the Fordham operates charters that directly benefit from the closing schools. So this is, once again, a study touting the benefits of cigarette smoking brought to you by your friends at the Tobacco Institute.”

They claim that students gain an extra 49 days by switching schools. No serious researcher, he says, uses this metric. It is a meaningless reformer extrapolation, Greene says.

He adds, an increase from the 20th to the 22nd or 23rd percentile is a statistical blip.

Worst of all, they propose destroying social capital, which children need even more than a few points on a standardized test.

William Doyle writes that it is an insult to real corporate reform to confuse it with the misguided methods of those who call themselves school reformers.

Doyle writes:

“It is a mistake to refer to failing education reforms as “corporate reform.”

“No leading company would place the entire foundation of its business on inaccurate, unreliable, system-distorting and often “bad” data like multiple-choice standardized tests.

“No leading company would roll out a multi-billion-dollar national venture (like Common Core) nationally without extensive field-and-market testing first.

“And while much education policy is currently focused on rating, shaming, stressing and punishing teachers, schools and even students based on alleged “performance” on standardized test “data,” according to an article in the April 21, 2015, Wall Street Journal (“The Trouble With Grading Employees“), a number of leading companies including Microsoft, Adobe Systems and Gap, Inc., are realizing that “performance ratings” are counterproductive, are abolishing them, and achieving better results.

“The article reports that the companies “abolished such [performance] ratings after leaders decided they deterred collaboration and stoked staffers’ anxieties,” and quoted David Rock, the director of the NeuroLeadership Institute, as saying that ratings conjure a “threat response” in workers, or “a sensation of danger” that can last for months if they didn’t get the rating they expected.

“The article reports that “companies that have gotten rid of ratings say their employees feel better about their jobs, and actually listen to managers’ feedback instead of obsessing over a number.”

Here is my reaction:

My own view is that the people who think it is “urgent” for them to demoralize teachers and turn public dollars over to private entities with minimal (or no) accountability have honed their message with care. Billionaires, hedge-fund managers, even the U. S. Department of Education share the same vocabulary that portrays themselves as saviors of the poor, as civil rights leaders, as the righteous rich, even as they slander hard-working teachers, close beloved community schools, and promote privatization and segregation.

“I confess that I am guilty of calling these people “corporate reformers” because I can’t think of a better term. Maybe “privatizers” works better. Some call them “deformers,” others call them “privateers.” What do you think?

Seattle may top Long Island as the epicenter of opt out.

95% of students at Garfield High School–the very same school where teachers refused to give the superfluous MAP test–opted out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment.

“None of the students at Nathan Hale took the test, and at both Roosevelt and Ingraham, 80 percent of students opted out.

“Earlier this month, more than 100 juniors at Garfield submitted “opt out” slips.

“Many parents and teachers believe the state-required Smarter Balanced test is unfair, that it sets up the majority of the students to fail, and that it’s a high stakes test that could penalize the teacher or the school.”

More than 50% of the junior class at Palo Alto High School did not take the Smarter Balanced Assessment. It is hard to know whether the high test refusal at Palo Alto High School was a genuine opt out or just smart kids who knew that the Smarter Balanced Assessment didn’t count for anything. California has a law permitting students to opt out of testing if their parent signs a simple form.

Officials at the school said that next year they hoped everyone would take the test because it will affect the school’s state rating.

Last fall, two Tulsa teachers said they would not give standardized tests to their first-grade students. They said the test was developmentally inappropriate. They had a splash of national publicity and much sympathy from parents and outside observers. But their district superintendent was not at all pleased. Although he formed a task force to study the issue of testing in K-3, and the task force opposed it, their recommendation quietly died.

Now one of the teachers, Karen Hendren, has decided to teach in a school in Thailand for two years.

The other teacher, Nikki Jones, will soon learn whether she will be terminated for refusing to give the MAP test to her students. Wouldn’t it be great if all the parents of the children in her class opted out? What if there was no one to test? Nikki Jones deserves the support of the parents for protecting their children against this absurd, high-pressure regime of standardized testing. It’s just plain wrong.

Yesterday, Nikki Jones wrote about her ordeal:

Tomorrow is a big day in my public education career with Tulsa Public Schools. As most of you know, in October I made a decision to stop administering the MAP test to my students. A lot of uproar occurred. Most often, the question is “What kind of push-back did you receive?” I HATE answering that question! What I want to tell everyone is that I had a lot of support and was able to continue on my stance of not administering a test. Because, well, I did. I did have a lot of support from all over the nation. That wouldn’t be forthcoming though. That would be a minuscule part of the story. There is a big middle section. Everyone knows the beginning. But, tomorrow marks the end of the story. I have a choice. To die alone on the hill… or not.

Just a brief MAP Testing Explanation: MAP testing is a benchmark test. It is awful. The worst of all 13 options that meet RSA testing requirements. I am certain it is designed to set children up for failure. Certain. It is adaptive in nature and the target score is constantly moving. So, even if a child is at or above grade level in reading, there is a very high chance the child will still fail the test. Failing the test means remediation plans, money, services, and labels. We LOVE labeling children in this country. For some reason, we have the mentality that if we tell children they are stupid, oh, I’m sorry… “limited in knowledge” or “Unsatisfactory” they will then improve. This is research based. We also love utilizing research.

If we take a good look at MAP, we know that it is common core aligned. We have laws in this state HB3399 that speak to the specifics of utilizing common core testing for evaluation of teachers or students. How is this even legal?! Try to get anyone to answer that question! I dare you! I can’t even get a returned e-mail when I ask that question. (Walk away from the edge, Nikki…. walk away and stay on topic.)….

One of my most memorable moments was when a supporter/mentor of mine through the process said in all seriousness “Did you expect to draw this line and not get your ass kicked?” The answer is, no. No, I did not. I knew I would “lose”. I knew that the money and power in my district was greater than me. I knew at the end of the day that they would choose testing over children or good educators. I knew that a lot of the people who held the power to save me would cower. It’s simply the nature of the system. It’s not really all that personal. We are teaching/learning/testing in a system of fear. Everyone is scared! Everyone!

So, here I am… at the very end of the school year. If I do not give the test tomorrow, I will be fired. If not fired, I will be placed on a PDP. This PDP will be a result of a bad TLE score. Even though I have NEVER been docked on my teaching skills, they will fire me. The PDP will keep other principals in the district from hiring me. Nobody wants to take that on. It is a ton of paperwork and a large annoying workload.

What is so disheartening about the whole thing is the perspective of the district. It would be more beneficial for them to fire me than to listen to my concerns or work with me. They played a good game. They put up a big show for the media. They told everyone that we were putting together a testing task force. And, we did. Us teachers met together weekly and worked hard to research all the assessments going on in our district. We voted and put together a recommendation. That was in February. Even after multiple follow-up emails, we have never heard the results of those recommendations. Nothing has changed. Nothing was done. Just one more giant middle finger in the face of all those teachers that worked after contract hours to make the system better for children.

They do not care. That is the bottom line. I don’t know an adjective that properly describes this level of heartbreak I feel for our schools. They will openly, without care, choose to be in the business of eliminating good educators in order to get the testing data. Testing is the MOST important thing in public schools. I am living this reality. Your children are living this reality. Every other teacher in the district is living this reality.

So here I am… left to die alone on the hill, the testing martyr, or not. I am forced to choose between labeling children, causing children to pee their pants, throw their chairs, scratch their faces, and cry; or, I can not administer and be fired. Here I am. Left to die alone on the hill… or not.

This is one of the best articles you will read about Common Core and testing. It appears in the Long Island Business News. It shows the big business of testing, with a focus on Pearson.

Race to the Top, it turns out, unleashed a dash to the cash. And Pearson was the biggest winner. Since 1996, it has been buying up other companies in the testing industry. It is now the biggest provider of testing in the U. S.

You will learn about the big money behing the political decisions that affect children and why their parents want them to opt out.

New York Chancellor Merryl Tisch offered to delay Cuomo’s high-stakes testing regime for a year. Legislators were delighted.

But opt-out parents rejected the offer. They saw no change in the onerous testing, just a one-year reprieve.

The new system, under which teachers will be rated based on students’ standardized test scores as well as classroom observations, is bad policy, and delaying it a year won’t make it better, parents said.

“I love my teachers, but if you link the children’s achievement to the teachers’ evaluations, it turns classrooms into test prep, and it robs my child of a well-rounded education,” said Pamela Verity, a Suffolk County mother of three. “So I have to protect my teachers.

“This doesn’t calm me down,” Verity continued. “I want it all gone—Common Core, high-stakes testing, all of it. I want the federal government out of my schools. I want big business out of my schools. I want my schools back.”

(My grandson read this blog and added a few sentences. He tried to insert a video of himself responding to the blog, but I said no, absolutely not!)

A few weeks ago, I went with my eight-year-old grandson to Philadelphia with a friend of his who is the same age. Four grandmas, two grandsons. We visited the Liberty Bell, Constitution Hall, the Science Museum, and the Reading Market. A wonderful weekend.

I asked him what he was doing in school, and he said they were learning how to fill in bubbles to take a test. He said, without my prompting, “this is a really stupid way to find out what I know. If I don’t fill the bubble in correctly, my answer is wrong. If I color outside the lines, the computer marks it wrong. I am not good at coloring in tiny spaces. And I know so much more than they ask.”

Then came testing time, and I asked him if he would be taking the tests. This child, you should know, is a voracious reader who retains everything he reads and is passionately interested in animals, dinosaurs, and everything to do with science. He has a prodigious vocabulary. He told me that he was not taking the tests. I asked why. He said, “I don’t mind taking tests. I like taking tests. But I think it is wrong to evaluate my teacher by how I answer questions on the tests.”

And he doesn’t read my blog.

Stephanie Santagada, a high school English teacher, wrote this little essay and dedicated it to Governor Andrew Cuomo:

“There is a man in Albany, who I surmise, by his clamorous paroxysms, has an extreme aversion to educators. He sees teachers as curs, or likens them to mangy dogs. Methinks he suffers from a rare form of psychopathology in which he absconds with our dignity by enacting laws counterintuitive to the orthodoxy of educational leadership. We have given him sufferance for far too long. He’s currently taking a circuitous path to DC, but he will no doubt soon find himself in litigious waters. The time has come to bowdlerize his posits, send him many furlongs away, and maroon him there, maybe Cuba?

She added:

I’m not supposed to say this, but all these insanely hard words appeared on the 4,6, and 8th grade tests last week.

Pearson has a long history of errors in its textbooks and tests. Sarah Blaine, a parent and lawyer in New Jersey, discovered an error in a textbook and a Pearson representative apologized and promised to correct the error in future editions.

What if this had happened on a high-stakes test, Blaine wondered. Children would puzzle over the choice of answers and lose time on a timed test. They would lose points for choosing the correct answer. Suppose Pearson refuses to release the test questions–which is now its protocol–and no one finds out that the question is absurd (remember “The Pineapple and the Hare” question?), or the language was confusing, or the answer was just plain wrong. No one will know if there is no transparency. That is why parents must continue to insist that the tests be released for public review after they are administered. And that is why parents should show their opposition to this secretiveness by refusing to let their children take the tests.

If a large corporation is going to have the power to judge the child’s worthiness, parents and teachers should have the right to check the worthiness and accuracy of the testing instrument and catch errors. No one can catch errors if the tests are not made available for public review.