Archives for category: Standardized Testing

Todd Farley wrote an insider’s view of the testing industry called “Making the Grades.” I highly recommend it. He said in the book that the standardized tests should not be used to determine anyone’s future. Read it!

He writes:

Opting Out?

​I spent fifteen years working in the testing industry, so of course I’ll be opting my sons out of the state tests.

Like I’d allow a completely-unregulated multi-billion dollar industry with a staggering history of errors to have any say in my children’s lives???

In fact, not only will I be opting my boys out, I’m doing it preemptively: My oldest is only in kindergarten, but I’m getting the letter ready now. My youngest is about seven years away from third grade, but if these silly tests still reign supreme then I can promise you I just won’t be opting the kids out: I’ll be leading a torch- and pitchfork-waving mob up to Pearson’s headquarters in midtown New York City, where some meddlesome education reformer who thinks he can make decisions about my boys’ lives is gonna’ get himself tarred and feathered.

And if anyone has any doubt that opting out is the only sane choice for your children, hear what really goes on behind the curtain of the standardized testing industry:

Tuesday
March 24
5:30-7pm

Earth School Auditorium
(600 E 6th St)

“Your Kids, Bad Data, and Corporate Profits:
Why a Testing Industry Insider
Is Refusing the Tests”

Arthur Camins, director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J., warns that bipartisan agreement on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind may be bad news.

 

Just as parents are expressing their disgust with annual testing, Congress is close to mandating annual testing for yet another seven years (or maybe another 12 years if past experience is any guide).

 

 

He writes:

 

Bipartisan agreement makes for strange bedfellows as seeming opponents engage in an uncomfortable collective embrace of federal mandates of yearly, high stakes assessment. In the absence of obvious political alternatives some civil rights groups fear that without the harsh light of disaggregated data poor performance will be ignored. Those whose ideology bends their policy choices toward privatization see inevitable failure in the face unreasonable demands as a means to undermine faith in public education. Some are in the campaign contribution thrall of testing companies that stand to gain or loose billions from publically funded testing expenditures. Still others have an abiding faith in the power of rewards and punishments to compel behavior.

 

The continued focus of high-stakes assessment is the education equivalent of building inspectors requiring pipe wrenches to be used by all plumbers, framers, electricians, roofers and tile-setters, while bypassing the advice and needs of contractors and workers. For education, the sure losers are deep sustainable learning and equity.

 

Like building a home, creating an education system is a complex endeavor. As anyone who has undertaken it knows, significant remodeling may be even more challenging. When building or remodeling a complex system, it’s best to have a large, varied set of tools. Choosing the right tool for the right purpose is an obvious but often ignored principle- not least in education assessment policy. Pipe wrenches are great for large plumbing valves, but wreak havoc on smaller nuts. They have nasty teeth that rip and apply too much torque. Selection from a full set of open-ended wrenches would be a far better choice. Needle nose pliers are just the right tool for bending wires for electrical connections, but far too imprecise for removing the accidental building-related splinter. So it is with large scale standardized testing in education. The right tool can get the job done. The wrong tool fails and often causes damage….

 

Let’s start with the big picture. Education has three equally important purposes: Preparation for students for life, work and citizenship.

 

The values principle of equity implies that the design of our education system should accommodate and address the diverse needs of all students. To be clear, equity as used here has two meanings: opportunity equity and lived equity. The former refers to what is often called a fair shot to move up the socioeconomic ladder. The latter refers to a shorter ladder, in which position on the lower rungs does not preclude access to a decent secure life, with adequate food, clothing, housing and health care– what we have come to expect of a middle class life. The United States has neither kinds of equity and needs both.

 

The precision principle suggests the need to develop and select a variety of tools to assess progress and success with respect to all of the purposes and components of an effective education system. To assess education’s how are we doing questions, we need subsystem precision, lest we make the education-equivalent mistake of using meter sticks when micrometers are needed….

 

 

Equitable resources are essential, but they do not ensure equitable outcomes. While constitutionally, much of education decision-making authority in U.S. is delegated to the states, the interconnectedness of the nation clearly indicates that local outcomes are a national concern. Ineffective or poorly funded education in one state impacts another. The periodic National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) serves to monitor outcomes across the states. The NAEP is not given to every student at every grade in every year. Instead, it is administered at the end of grade bands and uses the well-known statistical strategy of sampling. Politicians know this technique well. They rely upon it extensively when they do polling to gauge potential policy positions because querying every citizen is impractical and not needed to get the information they need. As a tool for fair state or large city level big-picture achievement monitoring, NAEP does the trick, but different non-comparable state-designed tests do not….

 

 

ESEA reauthorization should not:

 

Mandate consequential state testing;
Include requirements for student assessment-based teacher evaluation.

 

ESEA reauthorization should:

 

Ensure funds to provide for and measure the attainment of equitable resources;
Provide funds to locales to increase educator expertise in the use formative assessment strategies to improve daily learning.
It is past time for all supporters of equitable education for life, work and citizenship to call out No Child Left Behind with its high-stakes testing centerpiece as a failed Faustian bargain. Choosing the right tools for the right purposes is a common sense starting point.

 

 

Jennifer is a Momma Bear in Tennessee. The Momma Bears are a parent group that fights for their children and their schools.

Jennifer had a fantasy: She imagined she was stuck in an elevator with Bill Gates. Trapped between floors. And she told him what she thought. In the time they were stuck, she insisted he watch a video that disproved his world-view. She even gave him fruit snacks (he was famished).

What did she teach him? Read and enjoy.

Bill Ashton, a teacher in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, was suspended for discussing opting out with his students. They launched a campaign to “Bring Back Ashton,” and he was reinstated.

 

But the leaders of the school and the district made it clear that he had violated district policy and was on thin ice. They accused him of editing anti-testing fliers that ridiculed the Rhode Island Department io Education. They were especially angry that his son was leading an anti-testing protest.

 

“Ashton was sent home on paid leave last Friday after telling students at the Jacqueline M. Walsh School for the Performing and Visual Arts that the school would not lose funding if they did not take the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers exam, according to a letter written that same day by JMW Principal Elizabeth Fasteson. Ashton was back to work on Tuesday morning, according to school.”

Can you believe this? A reader of Peter Greene’s blog pointed him to New Mexico’s administrative code.

 

Section 6.10.7.11 of the NMAC deals with staff responsibilities regarding testing, and it includes a list of “prohibitive practices”– things that staff are forbidden to do. At the end of the list, that it shall be prohibitive practice for the staff member

disparage or diminish the significance, importance or use of the standardized tests.

 

This is ridiculous. Imagine if a class read chapter 4 in my book Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform. They would learn about the history of standardized testing, about the flaws of I.Q. testing, about the eugenics movement, about the origins of the SAT. This would start a great debate about how students should be tested. But part of the discussion might lead some students to disparage the standardized tests and to question their significance, importance, use, and misuse.

 

But this discussion is prohibited. So which takes precedence: The First Amendment to the Constitution or the New Mexico Administrative Code. I wonder if any other states have similar gag rules for discussions of standardized testing.

Richard K. Munro, a veteran high school teacher in California, posted an interesting comment about the uses, abuses, and misuses of standardized tests:

 

“A highly qualified teacher knows his or her subject material. He or she also knows what works with students and what units are very difficult for students (Industrial Revolution/ Russian Revolution, “Cold” War; or in English conventions of grammar or literary devices). Putting too much emphasis on “the scantron God” (standardized testing) takes away from the teacher’s class and eventually makes his or her grades meaningless. If the grades become meaningless then classroom motivation and discipline decay too. If all the emphasis is “accountability” the temptation for administrators or teachers to cheat or let the students teach is enormous.

 

“We have an APEX program on the computer so students can make up credits. I only know the program indirectly from students and from subbing occasionally in that room. I find it amazing that students who are completely incompetent can pass all their APEX tests in just weeks and get credits for a Semester or Two Semester class. But then who is really taking the tests? Students tell me there is a black market business to log in with someone else’s ID and take the test. The time to do this is when the classroom teacher is absent. The teacher of record knows the students and has a special screen to watch log in and monitor each screen from his or her desk. But substitutes do not have access to that screen and cannot monitor (easily) log ins. All they can see is students are “on task” taking the test. If there is a way to cheat (using cell phones to take pictures of a good student’s screens or test papers) or having someone else log in for you using your password it will be done. Belief in mass testing like this is scientism. Mass testing is merely a dip stick. Ask any classroom teacher who has graded A VARIETY of assignments (maps, essays, charts, short answer etc.) and that teacher will know more correctly the academic level of student than a scantron test alone. And more importantly that teacher will know what remediation the student needs.

 

“I find mass testing an important piece of information to VERIFY and CLARIFY what I already know -the student has low reading ability or the student cannot do basic arithmetic or does not know literary devices or has poor grammar or punctuation skills. But once that information is shared it is up to the teacher to motivate and instruct the student. And yes, the student has to be willing. I had an Asian student who is a senior. He was DESPERATE to pass his English exit exam. He asked if he could study with me after school and during lunch for SIX WEEKS prior to the exit exam. In addition he attended Saturday sessions with other teachers. The result? He improved his CAHSEE (exit exam) score not 5 points or 10 but 39 points easily passing the exam (350 is passing and ALMOST scoring “proficient at grade level” 378 -380 is proficient). I don’t need to add he improved more than any other of his peers. One could put students in two categories : 1) those with almost 100% attendance and who also came for extra tutoring whenever they could 2) those with poor attendance -long tardies and 20% or more absenteeism who NEVER came for tutoring and who only occasionally completed class assignments. Most in the second category (not all) failed. Those who passed showed very little improvement and most passed by one 1 point or more.

 

“BEWARE OF THE SCANTRON GOD. BEWARE of COMMON CORE COMPUTER TESTS as a panacea. At best they are an imperfect dipstick. Such tests should inform classroom teachers. They should not drive graduation rates or have anything to do with school rankings or school sanctions. Quizzes and tests should be used only as review exercises to help students learn and to help them identify their deficiencies. The real test, as my old DI said, is the battlefield. The real test as I tell my students…is life itself. Learn as if your life and career depended on it. Because it does.”

No sooner did Mercedes Schneider post a blog about the disintegration of Jeb Bush’s “Chiefs for Change,” than the group decided it needed a makeover. After all, as Mercedes pointed out: As of March 10, 2015, it boasts only four members, down from 13 in October 2014. The remaining members are John White of Louisiana, Deborah Gist of Rhode Island, Hannah Skandera of New Mexico, and Mark Murphy of Delaware. And one of the four, Deborah Gist, is on her way to Tulsa to become superintendent. Which brings the “Chiefs” down to only three. The “Chiefs” have been a reliable echo chamber for Jeb Bush’s policies, favoring high-stakes testing, the Common Core, charter schools, evaluation of teachers by test scores, digital learning, and A-F school grades. The new leader of this tiny group of three Chiefs is John White, a big supporter of vouchers, for-profit charters, and the rest of Jeb Bush’s agenda.

 

But now that their number has diminished so dramatically, the group has decided to open its ranks to city superintendents (allowing Gist to remain a member). And now that Jeb Bush is a Presidential candidate, it will strike out on its own, no longer an adjunct to Bush’s “Foundation for Educational Excellence.” The group says it is looking for “bipartisan education leaders” and hopes to have a voice in the debate about the future of No Child Left Behind.

A dozen superintendents in Connecticut issued a manifesto for real reform. It is one that parents and teachers–and students too!–would happily embrace in place of the current stale and test-driven juggernaut that crushes learning and creativity.

They say, in part:

“Our public school landscape is littered with initiatives, while the vision for learning in Connecticut lacks clarity and coherence. In this “vision void” our measures (i.e. test scores) have become our goals, confounding the purpose of schooling and perpetuating yet another round of piecemeal initiatives.

“The path we should avoid taking is the one that implements the NCLB waiver plan as the de facto vision for the education of Connecticut’s children. Instead we should identify a clear and compelling vision for education in our state and employ all of our resources to achieve it. Staying the course of current reform efforts without a deep analysis of the effects in actual classrooms across the state will further cement the system of compliance and “one size fits all” that grips our very diverse school districts like a vise.

“One way to clarify the vision is to answer the direct and simple questions:

“What are the most worthy outcomes of our public education system?

“Are we preparing our students for the world they will enter when they graduate?

“Is our public education system positioned for continuous improvement, as opposed to ranking, sorting and punishing?

“To what extent do our laws increase conformity at the expense of innovation?

“The answers to these questions imply the need to foster the cognitive, social/emotional and interpersonal student capacities for work, citizenship and life. Additionally, they demand a deep analysis of the systemic efforts to continuously improve. Confronting these questions, and others, will require:

“A redefinition of the role of testing,

“An accountability model (mandatory in the NCLB waiver) matched to a clarified vision for 21st Century learning in Connecticut

“Statewide systems that incentivize innovation and a broad sharing of innovative programs…”

“Districts and teachers are suffocating from a “one size fits all”, compliance-based approach to schooling. One size does not fit all in education, no more than it does in medicine, social work or any other endeavor in which human beings are at the core of the enterprise. In an era that rewards and requires innovative thinking to solve complex problems, public schools have endured a stifling of professional autonomy through increased standardization and homogenization. As a result, energy is drained, a passion for teaching and learning evaporates, and many teachers and leaders question the lack of purpose to their work. Some ways to foster innovation include:

“Creating a “Districts of Innovation” program through which the State Department of Education would administer a rigorous process identifying various district approaches to current challenges faced by schools, such as, reducing bullying, improving school climate, evaluating the performance of individual teachers and administrators, etc. These districts would apply for a waiver or modification from state requirements in order to innovate their practices, while analyzing the impact. These districts could be required to partner with a university, commit to sharing their results, and, if successful, serve as a provider of professional development for other districts. The incubation of fresh, innovative ideas, by classroom teachers and administrators would exponentially grow the capacity of educators in the state.

“Working with Regional Education Service Centers (RESC) to develop an “expert in residence” program with area districts. Districts could grant a yearlong sabbatical to individual teachers to share their innovative work and provide professional development to schools across the state.
Pairing schools to work across different districts to collaboratively confront professional challenges. These partnerships could foster such promising practices as “lesson study”, peer to peer observations, and collaborative analysis of student work.”

These are but a few of the good ideas, grounded in experience and research, that these thoughtful superintendents propose. It is a vision for positive reform that should replace the sterile strategy of carrots and sticks.

Joyce Murdock Feilke, a child psychologist, warns of the harm our society is doing to children by subjecting them to 10-12 hours of high-stakes testing. This stress does nothing positive for them. By the time the scores are returned, the children have a new teacher. The teacher is not allowed to see what they got wrong. The tests have no diagnostic value. The only beneficiaries are the testing corporations.

Feilke writes:

“The reformers have created a machine that is turning our children into emotionally desensitized functional robots via spiritual annihilation, and good teachers with moral courage are refusing to participate in “soul murder”.

Dr Shengold, clinical professor of psychiatry at the NY University School of Medicine, describes “soul murder” in his book:

SOUL MURDER: The Effects of Childhood Abuse and Deprivation”.

“To abuse or neglect a child, to deprive the child of his or her own identity and ability to experience joy in life, is to commit soul murder. Soul murder is the perpetration of brutal or subtle acts against children that result in their emotional bondage to the abuser and, finally, in their psychic and spiritual annihilation. In his compelling, disturbing, and superbly readable book, Dr. Shengold explores the devastating psychological effects of this trauma inflicted on a shocking number of children.

Every parent needs to be able to recognize “the subtle acts against children that result in their emotional bondage to their abusers”. Spiritual annihilation is what is happening to children captive in this dark environment of authoritarianism that has reared its ugly head in schools from mainstream society. Adults who remain silent and allow this to happen to our nation’s children are participating in “Soul Murder”:

Can you recognize this guise in your child’s school? It looks pretty on the outside but it’s dark inside. The only way you can see it is to be able to recognize the signs of traumatic stress in your children (regression, dissociation, anxiety, depression), and when those signs appear, the damage has been done. Stop it Now: Opt Out!”

Anthony Cody posted yesterday that the high-stakes of the new testing system inevitably leads to high surveillance. Add to the high stakes the fact that the two tests are national, and you have a scenario in which the testing corporations are expecting teachers and administrators to help them spy on students’ social media. Apparently Pearson (and not Pearson alone) has a means of monitoring millions of students’ postings on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere, using key words as alerts.

 

Cody writes:

 

By creating a state-sponsored “accountability” system that attaches heavy consequences to student performance on tests, the state and its corporate test-making partners have created a compelling need for extensive surveillance of everyone that accountability system touches. Teacher and administrator evaluations and thus jobs depend on these scores. Schools may be closed. Funding to schools is increased or reduced. And the tests are supposed to determine which students are ready for college.

 

All these consequences create reasons for people to game the system – and this has been the hallmark of NCLB from its inception. The “Texas Miracle” that inspired NCLB was based on the creative practice of holding back the 9th graders whose scores would make the schools look bad. Result? A miraculous rise in scores, a Texas governor who bragged he was an “education governor” on his way to the White House, and brought us a whole system of accountability based on test scores. And NCLB has made test-based accountability a part of the basic contract between the Federal government and the schools that receive federal funding.

 

Any system that imparts heavy consequences for success or failure must have intense security. How do you impose test security on a system that must test as many as fifty million school children every year, when many millions of these students have smart phones and Facebook accounts? You MUST have a surveillance apparatus. You must also have local District personnel act as your deputies in monitoring these activities, and in meting out consequences for those who violate your rules. It is all an inescapable outgrowth of creating a system that rewards and punishes people based on student test scores.

 

So, we should not be surprised that the testing corporations are protecting their “intellectual property” by not allowing students to write about the test questions or even discuss them (how do they monitor discussions?).

 

Frankly, we should be even more concerned that the vaunted “test security” extends even to teachers. When the tests are over, they are not allowed to see any information about how their students performed on the test questions. They get a score, but nothing of diagnostic value. It is like going to a doctor feeling ill, taking tests, then learning that you won’t get the test results for four months or more, that the doctor won’t tell you what is wrong or give you any treatment, but he will give you a score comparing you to patients with similar symptoms across the state and nation. That’s crazy. But that is what is happening. Billions of dollars for tests with no diagnostic value.