Archives for category: Standardized Testing

Brace yourself for a flurry of statements about how testing is out of hand, and we have to be careful. We need more transparency. We need accountability about accountability. That’s more or less what the Council of Chief State School Officers and the Council of Great City Schools said. Add the allegedly progressive Center for American Progress. What they did not say is that the testing mania is out of control. That the need to pump billions into the coffers of Pearson and McGraw-Hill is insatiable. That parents and educators are sick of the testing overload. That it is time to say, “Enough is enough.”

Behind both statements is a desire to protect the Common Core assessments. All of these organizations are funded by the Gates Foundation, and they are not about to align with Fairtest.

What the “leaders” refuse to see is that their followers are way ahead of them. Parents and educators don’t want higher-quality tests (that unicorn, that elusive mermaid). They want a moratorium on testing. They want the beatings to stop.

CCSSO and the other members of the Beltway establishment refuse to see that we are the over tested nation in the world; that a dozen years of testing have left educators demoralized, children graded like cuts of meat, thousands of schools closed, and urban communities devastated, their public schools closed and privatized by test scores.

There is a revolution brewing on the ground against this testing madness. It is time for the leaders to get outside DC and talk to teachers and parents. Or get out of the way.

For years, I used to see this graffiti in the New York City subways and on random walls: “Question authority.”

 

This is the message from Yong Zhao, who was born and educated in China and now is a professor at the University of Oregon.

 

In this post, EduShyster interviews Zhao about his new book, “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon? Why China Has the Best (and the Worst) Education System.

 

She questions his views about testing, PISA, and the future of education reform.

 

Yong Zhao is refreshingly candid. He thinks America became a great nation because it did not put too much emphasis on standardized testing.

 

Standardized testing, he argues, is synonymous with authoritarianism. It kills the creativity, the divergent thinking, the skeptical mindset that is necessary for entrepreneurialism and innovation.

 

He says it is not too late to change, not too late to escape “the witch that cannot be killed.”

Politicians these days just can’t spend enough on testing. They will starve the schools of money for the arts, librarians, and nurses, while throwing millions and millions for more tests. They seem to be under the delusion that kids will learn more if they take more tests but there’s no evidence for that. (My wish: the people who commission these tests should be required to take the tests and post their scores.)

Case in point: Georgia.

In this superb article, journalist Myra Blackmon writes in OnlineAthens about the testing madness that has caused the state to shell out more than $100 million to McGraw-Hill for five years of tests. At the end of five years, state officials won’t know anything different from what they know now. And then they will buy more tests.

She writes:

“More insanity came largely from the Georgia General Assembly and an unelected Georgia State Board of Education. I’ve lost track of how many education bills have been passed the last few years, many of them mandating testing for teacher evaluation or school “grades.” Other legislation has piled on the paperwork that eats up instructional time. The testing and textbook companies have made out like bandits here, though.

“Everyone professes to hate testing, with the exception, perhaps, of the billionaires and their companies who make more money the more we test.

“Oh, yes, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sees high-stakes testing as fundamental, and President Obama — whose daughters are exempt from the nightmare — doesn’t seem to care.

“If high-stakes testing is so great, why do the Obama children, as well as the children of Bill and Melinda Gates, whose foundation funds education “reform” initiatives, and the children of other wealthy elites go to private schools that don’t use such tests? If it’s so great for evaluating school performance, why aren’t private schools all over the country adopting the same practice and touting their test scores?”

And she adds:

“Testing has become absurd. Clarke County teachers have had to spend hours developing tests based on Student Learning Objectives that are not covered by the limited state Milestone and Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests. According to Clarke County Schools Superintendent Philip Lanoue, district teachers have been required to develop, administer (often several times a year), score and enter the data for some 60 tests beyond what the state provides. But the state doesn’t look at the data beyond the summary data in the cover sheet.

“Contemplating the costs of staff time, lost instruction and implementation is mind-boggling. Little data from the required testing is practically useful to teachers, parents or administrators…..

“High-stakes testing is not about measuring “student growth” or helping teachers do a better job. It is actually a new blunt instrument, used to bludgeon schools to spend limited funds for no good reason, to beat teachers until they are ready to quit and to abuse millions of school children who have little choice.

“We must contain this lunacy before it cripples our nation for generations.”

Alyson Klein of Education Week reports that the powerful in Congress are beginning to hear the massive discontent of parent, educators, and local school boards about the excessive testing imposed on the schools by No Child Left Behind, and multiplied by Race to the Top. Some districts are developing standardized tests for pre-tests and post-tests. Some are creating standardized tests for pre-schoolers. Since most of the testing is going to be online, the tech industry is beside itself with joy. The testing industry is clapping its hands with delight. But parents are furious. They don’t see why their children spend so many hours taking tests. They don’t understand why their schools have cut back on teachers of the arts and on librarians and nurses, all to fund the new testing. Teachers rail against the loss of instructional time to testing mandates, which then require periodic assessments and test prep.

 

It is amusing that the article finds only one defender of the regime of nonstop annual testing: Sandy Kress, who was not only the architect of No Child Left Behind but is a paid lobbyist in Texas for Pearson whose nearly $500 million contract is being reviewed now.

 

My view: how about a 5-year moratorium on standardized testing, except for diagnostic testing that has no stakes for students or teachers? Let’s find out what it feels like to have standardized-test-free zones in schools. Let’s find out what happens when teachers write their own tests, based on what they taught. Let’s follow the example of Exeter, Andover, Lakeside Academy, Sidwell Friends, and other great schools where standardized testing is kept to a bare minimum if  used at all. Dream, imagine a better world, make it happen.

 

How can we make it happen sooner? Opt out. Don’t let your children take the tests. Let them take as many tests as they give at Lakeside Academy and Sidwell Friends. No more.

Kenneth Chang, who writes about STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects realized that his child in a Jersey City charter school would be taking the Common Core test called PARCC this year. He noted that while 42 states have signed on for Common Core, the federally-funded testing has “fractured.”

He writes:

“Supposedly, the economies of scale were to lead to better tests at lower costs, and initially, almost all states signed up with one of two federally financed organizations developing Common Core tests: the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or Parcc, and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (Some states belonged to both groups.)

“Parcc has dwindled to 12 states plus the District of Columbia. New York, a member of Parcc, will continue to use its own Common Core-inspired test. Smarter Balanced has 21 states participating, but four members will not use the tests, at least not this school year. A survey by Education Week found that less than half of public school students would take either test this year.”

Nonetheless, millions of students will take one of them this spring.

Chang took a practice version of PARCC, the test chosen by New Jersey.

He writes:

“In many ways, it is a better test than the fill-in-the-bubble multiple-choice exams of my youth. With a computer-based test, the questions can be more complicated but still easily graded. Both consortiums also offer paper versions for the time being, because not all schools have enough computers and Internet connectivity.

“Some questions require several calculations to come up with the answer, testing a deeper level of understanding. For example: “Hayley has 272 beads. She buys 38 more beads. She will use 89 beads to make bracelets and the rest to make necklaces. She will use 9 beads for each necklace. What is the greatest number of necklaces Hayley can make?”

This is a multi-step problem but not that difficult (but then, I have a Ph.D.). I will wait to hear from fourth grade teachers whether it is a good question.

What struck me about Chang’s comment was that he said the PARCC test was better than “the fill-in-the-bubble multiple-choice exams” of his youth. As a student in the 1950s, I never took multiple-choice tests. Why does he assume that is the natural order of things? Did he think about the cost to his charter chain of the technology to administer the tests? Did he wonder who (or what) would grade any written answers? Does he know that his daughter will get a grade but the teacher will not be allowed to see her answers on the test and will get no diagnostic information from the test to help her? What is the value of the test if the teacher learns nothing from it other than a score? Is the grade all the father expects from this expensive investment? Did it occur to him that the real purpose of the test is to derive data to evaluate the teacher, not to provide information to help his daughter?

Alfred North Whitehead on Standardized Testing, from his collection of essays, “The Aims of Education” (1929).

Give a copy to your favorite reformer.

Whitehead writes:

“In education, as elsewhere, the broad primrose path leads to a nasty place. This evil path is represented by a book or a set of lectures which will practically enable the student to learn by heart all the questions likely to be asked at the next external examination. And I may say in passing that no educational system is possible unless every question directly asked of a pupil at any examination is either framed or modified by the actual teacher of that pupil in that subject.”

“A common external examination system is fatal to education. The process of exhibiting the applications of knowledge must, for its success, essentially depend on the character of the pupils and the genius of the teacher.”

“The best procedure will depend on several factors, none of which can be neglected, namely, the genius of the teacher, the intellectual type of the pupils, their prospects in life, the opportunities offered by the immediate surroundings of the school and allied factors of this sort. It is for this reason that the uniform external examination is so deadly. We do not denounce it because we are cranks, and like denouncing established things. We are not so childish. Also, of course, such examinations have their use in testing slackness. Our reason of dislike is very definite and very practical. It kills the best part of culture.”

Peg Robertson is a teacher and a founder of United Opt Out, a national group that encourages parents, students, and other educators not to take or give the state tests. She writes here that though she has refused to administer the PARCC assessments, someone else will do it. Try as she might, she admits, she cannot protect the children from endless test prep and the age-inappropriate practices introduced into the early grades by Common Core.

She writes:

“Across the nation teachers are fighting back hard. Across the nation – actually across the world – teachers will shut their doors and do their best to protect children from high stakes testing, test prep, nonstop district and state mandated testing and more. But – the truth is this, our best is not good enough, because in order to attempt to do our best we are jumping through hoops, shutting our door to secretly do what is right for children, spending our own money on resources for our classrooms and on supplies for children who have none, and we are spending hours and hours gaming our way through “teach to the test” curriculum and massive amounts of mandated corporate formative and summative assessment – in order to attempt to “do our best.”

“So, I’m going to be blunt here. I cannot do my best under these conditions. I can attempt to do my best, but my best under these conditions is not good enough. And my attempts to play the game and resist where I can will not be enough to protect your children from what is happening….

“And I cannot protect children from certain non-negotiables within common core curriculum and on-going assessment. We cannot protect the children from the common core professional development which takes us away from our buildings and leaves children with substitute teachers. As a literacy coach, I do what I can to rephrase and rid my school of corporate reform language such as rigor, grit, calibrate, accountability, no excuses and college and career ready. I can even replace these words with language that represents inquiry, heart, relationships, community, equity, creativity and more. But ultimately, all of my attempts are simply band aids.

“Even though I have done my best to make writing “on-demand” prompts developmentally appropriate for kindergarten (let’s face facts -there is NO such thing), it is still an “on-demand” writing prompt for kindergarten. Even though I will do everything in my power to support children in their inquiries about bugs, outer space, poetry, sports, cooking, their favorite authors, music, art, history and more; I cannot stop the testing train which makes stops in every classroom every week in some shape or form. The classroom is no longer driven by the rhythm of learning, it is driven by the testing schedule which continually interrupts our children’s talk and exploration of their interests – the testing schedule extinguishes the passion for learning. It makes all of us tired with the constant stop. start. stop start. as we try to regroup and get back on track with the real learning that is occurring in the classrooms. I can’t tell you how many “ah ha” moments have been lost for children as they had to break away from their projects, their thinking, their conversation, in order to hunker down over an assessment as they labor for the corporations…..

“Some days I feel like a nurse inside a war tent with wounded soldiers. And no matter how brave I am, no matter how much I stand up to these reforms, it is not enough – they have taken away so much of my power, and my ability to make professional decisions in order to protect children and do what is right for all children.

“I teach at a school with 73% free/reduced lunch. Over 40 languages are spoken within my school. I know what our children need – they need wrap around services for poverty, books, librarians, small class size, health care, nurses, counselors, recess, quality food, and the opportunity to express their interests as they talk, read, write, play, sing, dance, create and smile. But you see, that doesn’t create corporate profit. Poverty must be ignored in order to keep corporate profit churning.

“Parents, I cannot protect your children. I must be honest in telling you that the war is alive and well in our classrooms, and children are being harmed every day. What is happening is evil, cruel and abusive. Refuse the tests and deny the corporations the profit, deny the district, state and federal government your child’s data (which they can share with corporations), deny the publishing companies the opportunity to create more common core products. Without the data, the profit ends and we have an opportunity to reclaim our public schools, our profession. We have an opportunity to do what is right for all children. I am done smiling and saying, I am doing my best. I’m not.”

A new group called Voices for Public Education has organized in Douglas County, Colorado. This is a district whose elected board favors market reforms and hired Bill Bennett to speak before the last election ($50,000), as well as paying Rick Hess to write a laudatory paper about its policies.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Innovation Schools Do Not Mean Less Testing

Highlands Ranch, Colorado -September 15, 2014 – Voices For Public Education (Voices) opposes the Douglas County Board of Education (BoE) resolution authorizing the submission of innovation waivers to the Colorado Board of Education and the BoE’s use of the Innovation Schools Act of 2008 to waive state assessments. The resolution passed at the September 2nd board meeting.

This resolution authorizes schools to submit waivers from testing required by the READ act to the Colorado Board of Education. These waivers will be submitted under provisions from the Innovation Schools Act. Voices for Public Education supports fewer high-stakes, state and district-mandated tests, but they do not support this resolution.

Amy DeValk, co-founder of Voices for Public Education, believes this resolution will not result in less testing. State-mandated tests will be replaced by district-mandated tests.

“Passing this resolution has nothing to do with standardized testing. The board is using testing as a distraction to the real intent of submitting Innovation Waivers. These waivers will allow the BoE to get out of state requirements they do not agree with, ultimately giving them the ability to implement their own agenda and testing with little to no oversight from the state. Teachers and parents need to learn what this really means for their school.”

Voices urges parents to demand community meetings regarding this resolution and to oppose its implementation. Voices also encourages parents to oppose all standardized testing, whether it is mandated by the state or the district. Parents should demand testing that supports learning and helps teachers to guide instruction.

About Voices for Public Education:

Voices for Public Education is dedicated to educating the community to empower individuals to act and take back our public schools.

We educate by:

• Bringing in national education experts to discuss education reform and offer alternatives

• Building personal relationships to tell our story

• Supporting other community groups fighting education reform

We empower by:

• Working with our school communities to develop actions to take back our schools

• Giving teachers, parents, students and community members a voice in decision-making

We act by:

• Creating actions for both quick “wins” and long term goals

• Providing the resources and information for people to take individual actions

• Partnering with and supporting other grassroots organizations

https://www.facebook.com/VoicesForPublicEducation

Contact:

Amy DeValk, Voices for Public Education co-founder
wasnoyes@comcast.net
303-350-7206
Stefanie Fuhr, Voices for Public Education co-founder
tutucker@comcast.net
303-483-1196

Frank Breslin, retired teacher of foreign languages and history, calls for Congressional hearings about the cost and misuse of testing.

He points out that test scores are used to close public schools, fire teachers, and privatize schools, even though charters do not get better results than public schools.

He warns that the federal government has used testing to impose its failed ideas on schools, eviscerating local control. Breslin concludes that the best way to end federal intrusion is to abolish the Department of Education.

On September 4, I posted two things about Marc Tucker’s latest accountability proposals. One was a brief summary of his ideas. I was especially impressed by the point he made that no other advanced nation tests as much as we do.

The second was a critique of Tucker’s accountability plan by Anthony Cody.

Cody wrote the following:

““We need to learn (and teach) the real lesson of NCLB – and now the Common Core. The problem with NCLB was not with the *number* of tests, nor with when the tests were given, nor with the subject matter on the tests, or the format of the tests, or the standards to which the tests were aligned.

“The problem with NCLB was that it was based on a false premise, that somehow tests can be used to pressure schools into delivering equitable outcomes for students. This approach did not work, and as we are seeing with Common Core, will not work, no matter how many ways you tinker with the tests.

“The idea that our education system holds the key to our economic future is a seductive one for educators. It makes us seem so important, and can be used to argue for investments in our schools. But this idea carries a price, because if we accept that our economic future depends on our schools, real action to address fundamental economic problems can be deferred. We can pretend that somehow we are securing the future of the middle class by sending everyone to preschool – meanwhile the actual middle class is in a shambles, and college students are graduating in debt and insecure.

“The entire exercise is a monumental distraction, and anyone who engages in this sort of tinkering has bought into a shell game, a manipulation of public attention away from real sources of inequity.

“We need some accountability for children’s lives, for their bellies being full, for safe homes and neighborhoods, and for their futures when they graduate. Once there is a healthy ecosystem for them to grow in, and graduate into, the inequities we see in education will shrink dramatically. But that requires much broader economic and social change — change that neither policymakers or central planners like Tucker are prepared to call for.”

For some reason, Tucker decided that Cody and I are one and the same person, apparently using different names when it suits our purpose. Cody wrote the second piece, and I quoted it.

I actually think that Tucker agrees with Cody, and I agree with them both, on the main issues at hand. We all agree that our schools would have higher test scores if there were less poverty. I think I can safely say that we believe that more testing and higher stakes won’t reduce poverty. I think I can say we agree that teachers should have better preparation for their work, more mentoring and support, and higher salaries. (Marc, correct me if I am wrong.)

Maybe where we diverge is on the value of high-stakes standardized tests. I don’t think they are necessary to improve teaching and learning. If they were, we would surely see them used at Sidwell Friends, Lakeside Academy, Groton, Dalton, Exeter, and Deerfield Academy. Instead, these institutions have small classes, respect their experienced teachers, have extensive programs in the arts, a well-stocked library, and assure that all students have a full and balanced curriculum. These schools do not judge their teachers by value-added metrics based on test scores. They are not faced annually with the threat of budget cuts and layoffs.

That’s what I want for all children. Marc, let me know where we disagree.