Archives for category: Standardized Testing

David Coleman, president of the College Board (and architect of Common Core), announced plans to revise the SAT. Read here about the changes. Critics now believe that the SAT accurately measures family income, especially the ability to pay the cost of expensive tutors.

Coleman says that will change. Currently, the ACT has more test takers than the SAT.

FairTest is not satisfied with the changes. It hopes more colleges will join the ranks of “test optional,” since high school grades predict college success better than entry tests.

Bob Schaeffer of FairTest wrote:

National Center for Fair & Open Testing

Bob Schaeffer (239) 395-6773

cell (239) 699-0468

for immediate release, Wednesday, March 5, 2014

“NEW” SAT PLAN FAILS TO ADDRESS EXAM’S MAJOR FLAWS —

WEAK PREDICTIVE VALUE, SUSCEPTIBILITY TO COACHING, AND MISUSE;

UPCOMING OVERHAUL LIKELY TO SPUR TEST-OPTIONAL ADMISSION

Changes to the SAT college admissions test announced today fail to address many major concerns of independent researchers, standardized exam critics, and equity advocates. According to the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest), the revised test is unlikely to be better than the current one. It will not predict college success more accurately, assess low-income students more fairly, or be less susceptible to high-priced commercial coaching courses.

FairTest Public Education Director Bob Schaeffer explained, “The College Board’s failure to tackle the SAT’s historic weaknesses means that more schools will go test-optional. Since the 2005 introduction of a flawed ‘new” SAT, nearly 100 additional colleges and universities dropped admissions exam requirements. A recent research report demonstrating that test-optional admissions policies enhance both diversity and academic quality will further accelerate this movement. The truth is no one needs the SAT, either ‘old’ or ‘new.”

Schaeffer continued, “Rather than simply making the essay optional to compete with the ACT, now the most popular admissions exam, the College Board should stop misuse of SAT results. The company should refuse to transmit scores to schools and scholarship agencies that improperly require minimum scores for admission or financial aid.”

“Providing free SAT prep is laudable, but it already exists through programs such as Number2.com. The partnership with the Khan Academy is unlikely to make a dent in the huge market for high-priced, personalized SAT workshops and tutoring that only well-to-do families can afford. Like most of the other College Board initiatives announced today, this move is less significant than its promoters claim.”

The first administration of the revised SAT is scheduled for 2016. A database of more than 800 institutions that do not require ACT or SAT scores to make admissions decisions for all or many applicants is online at: http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional

– – 3 0 – –

The following charts are available on request

– Chronology of 95 schools de-emphasizing ACT/SAT use since the last revision of the SAT

– List of 150+ test-optional and test-flexible schools ranked in the top tiers of their respective categories

– Comparison of number of high school students taking the ACT and SAT annually over the past 20 years

– Links to other fact sheets on the SAT and related topics at: http://www.fairtest.org

Here are links to the Network for Public Education’s resolution calling for Congressional hearings on the misuse, abuse, overuse, and cost of standardized testing in our schools:

PRESS RELEASE: http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/2014/03/press-release-npe-calls-for-congressional-hearings/

SUMMARY: http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/2014/03/npe-call-for-congressional-hearings-summary/

FULL TEXT: http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/2014/03/npe-calls-for-congressional-hearings-full-text/

The Network for Public Educstion has called for Congressional hearings to investigate the misuse, overuse, and multiple costs of standardized testing.

A panel about accountability st Austin’s SXSW, Randi Weingarten and Duncan’s former Assistant Secretary for Communications Peter Cunningham, discussed the issue. Then NPE’s peerless leader Anthony Cody asked the first question. “Will you support our resolution for Congressional hearings?”

Randi immediately said “Yes!”

Even Cunningham said yes.

Who is the man behind the curtain who is wasting billions on testing, forcing severely ill children to take tests, making little children hate school ?

No one knows.

Eva Mancuso, the lawyer who heads the Rhode Island Board of Education, accused the superintendent of schools in Providence, Susan Lusi, of “grandstanding” because she came out against using NECAP as a high school graduation requirement.

Lusi sided with the Providence Student Union, which has steadfastly opposed the use of a standardized test for graduation.

Mancuso and State Commissioner Deborah Gist (a member of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change) have refused to relent in defending NECAP (pronounced Knee-Cap).

As the linked article by Tom Sgouros shows, the choice of this test will disadvantage and harm the state’s neediest students unfairly.

He writes:

“As I’ve written in the past, I have completely failed to find a forum in this state even for simply presenting a technical critique of the use of NECAP tests to anyone in authority. What’s remarkable about this is that a technical critique is more than just a statement of opinion. It’s an opinion about how the future will unfold. What I observe is a natural consequence of arithmetic, statistics, and the choices of the test designers. The results are impervious to the attention they get. Whether anyone listens to the critique or not is irrelevant to whether or not its effects will be felt. To date, I have not heard or seen a single response to my critique that did not rely on purposefully misconstruing it, and it has been endorsed by people who know a lot more about testing than I do.

“If my critique is correct, then lots of kids will flunk the NECAP test, pretty much no matter what. I don’t have to be heard at a Board of Education meeting for this to come true. If my critique is correct, then RIDE is wasting a lot of money forcing school districts to undermine the test they have spent so much money designing and promoting. I don’t have to be on the radio for this to come true. If my critique is correct, performance on the NECAP test will not be well correlated with performance in college or a job. I don’t have to be called by a reporter for a response to RIDE’s many misstatements for this to come true.

“These are serious consequences, with dollar signs attached to them. Not to mention thousands of damaged lives. Unfortunately, they are no longer just future possibilities. At this point, six hundred Providence students, along with over a thousand of their peers around the state, are at risk of not graduating from high school. To some extent their school systems have failed those kids, and to a large extent RIDE has failed them.”

“Policy makers have a responsibility to consider the consequences of their actions. Simply ignoring the possibility of bad consequences — precisely what has happened — is utterly irresponsible. Eva Marie Mancuso and Education Commissioner Deborah Gist, by doing everything they can to shut down debate over their policy, have demonstrated that they simply do not care about the consequences of their decisions. They claim to care about the students for which they are responsible, but belie those empty claims with their actions.”

Read the article to see his many excellent links.

– See more at: http://www.rifuture.org/eva-mancuso-stifles-debate-wonders-why-debate-went-elsewhere.html#sthash.4AI9NeSI.dpuf

The Providence Student Union said it first: it is wrong to use a standardized test for graduation.

They fought the state superintendent Deborah Gist all year.

Then the Providence superintendent said she agreed withthe students. The tests will hurt the most disadvantaged students, who will never get a diploma.

Now the battle rages because the state board if education won’t back down. They don’t care if those students never graduate. It is Other People’s Children.

NEA, the larger of the nation’s two teacher unions, never ceases to surprise.

In December 2011, Dennis Van Roekel co-authored an article in USA Today with Wendy Kopp of Teach for America, expressing their agreement on how to improve the preparation of teachers. Needless to say, the article provoked outrage among some NEA members, especially those who rightly see TFA as a placement agency for inexperienced, ill-trained youngsters who provide staff for a growing number on non-union schools.

Now NEA has announced a new partnership with the Gates-funded Teach Plus, which advocates for the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Its model is Colorado’s SB 191, one of the nation’s harshest laws, where student test scores count for 50% of a teacher’s evaluation. Bear in mind that evaluating teachers by the scores of their students has been shown by researchers to be inaccurate and to punish teachers whose classes include the neediest students. See here and here, for example.

Mercedes Schneider here explains why Teach Plus is a strange bedfellow for NEA.

She assumes that the teachers’ union wanted “a seat at the table” by aligning with an organization that is deeply embedded in the corporate reform movement. She warns that the union and experienced teachers will be “at the table,” but they will not have a seat. They will be on the serving platter.

In this post, which arrived a few days ago as a comment, Ron Lapekas, a retired teacher, explains why standardized tests have no value or validity for many students:

“I am a retired teacher. I always thought the SBT’s (Stupid Bubble Tests) had little value for my East Los Angeles 99% Latino students for several reasons.

“First, vocabulary necessary both to understand the questions and the answer choices made any test results meaningless, even in math. If you don’t understand the question how can you evaluate the correctness of the answer?

“Second, we didn’t get the results until the end of summer. I never gave SBT’s to my students because, as I told them, I grade work, not answers. If a student doesn’t know which answers were incorrect, if there is no way to review how the answers were selected, and if there is no way to give feedback to the students, SBT’s are not education tools at all.

“Third, SBT’s are so standardized that they are useless for our most challenged and disadvantaged students. Unlike business models used by the Broad-Gates advocates, you can’t order students to learn and you can’t demand that they all learn at the same rate in the same way. That is like pushing rope.

“Fourth, evaluating teachers by student test results is like comparing the driving skills of drivers driving different models of cars built in different years. My students arrived with different levels of knowledge so I taught from the lowest level. This bored some of the better prepared students — but they were “better” because of test scores, not because they understood how they got their scores. By the end of the year, 70% of my students were at grade level and the other 30% had significantly improved their understanding. (As one teacher told, me he would rather have my “F” students than some teachers’ “A” students.) But I could do this because I had tenure.

“Fifth, the administrators have lost touch with the classroom. If they have been out of the classroom for more than five years, they have no clue how to teach the “new” standards. Therefore, they abdicate their duty to evaluate the teacher’s teaching schools and use the arbitrary test scores and “measurable” or observable factors such as disciplinary records, pretty bulletin boards, and classroom organization instead. For example, I was once down-checked because I re-taught a topic my students didn’t understand and, therefore, did not follow my scripted lesson.

“Lastly, SBT scores are used more as “evidence” to dismiss teachers than they are to identify areas in which to focus attention to improve teaching skills. As noted above, few administrators have a clue about how to teach subjects according to the “new” standards so they use checklists with ambiguous and arbitrary descriptions.

As most readers of this blog will agree, until all students enter a classroom with uniform background knowledge and skills, proper nutrition, and enough time to learn, evaluating teachers by the scores of their students will create false data for the Broad-Gates “data driven” models.”

Tom Scarice, superintendent of schools in Madison, Connecticut, has already been named to the honor roll for his leadership and vision in bringing together his community to plan for the future of Madison public schools.

Now, he steps up and speaks out again to take issue with those, like Governor Dannell Malloy, who call for a “pause” in the implementation of misguided reforms.

In a letter to his state representatives, Scarice explains that education policy must be based on sound research and experience. What Connecticut is doing now, he writes, is merely complying with federal mandates that harm schools and demoralize teachers.

If every superintendent had Tom Scarice’s courage and understanding, this country would have a far, far better education system and could easily repel the intrusions of bad policies.

Here is his letter:

January 29, 2014

Senator Edward Meyer
Legislative Office Building,
Room 3200 Hartford, CT 06106
Representative Noreen Kokoruda
Legislative Office Building, Room 4200 State of Connecticut
Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Senator Meyer and Representative Kokoruda:

As a superintendent of schools it is incumbent upon me to ground my work with my local board of education. My work must be grounded in two areas: in accurately framing problems to solve, and most importantly, in proposing solutions grounded in evidence, research, and legitimate literature to support a particular direction. Any other approach would be irresponsible and I’m certain my board would reject such shortcuts and hold me accountable.

In our profession, we have the fortune of volumes of literature and research on our practices. We have evidence to guide our decision making to make responsible decisions in solving our problems of practice. This is not unlike the field of medicine or engineering. To ignore this evidence, in my estimation, is irresponsible.

Legislators across the state have heard from, and will continue to hear loudly from, educators about what is referred to as education reforms. Webster defines “reform” as “a method to change into an improved condition.” I believe that legislators will continue to hear from the thousands of educators across the state because the reforms, in that sense, are not resulting in an improved condition. In fact, a case can be made that the conditions have worsened.

To be fair, the reforms did, in fact, shine a light on the role of evaluation in raising the performance of our workforce. There were cases of a dereliction of duty in the evaluation of professional staff. This is unacceptable and was not the norm for all school districts.
However, I would like to make the case that these reforms will not result in improved conditions since they are not grounded in research, the evidence that supports professional decision-making, like a doctor or engineer. It is simply a matter of substance. The evidence is clear in schools across the state. It is not working.

We have spent the better part of the last 12 years with a test-based accountability movement that has not led to better results or better conditions for children. What it has led to is a general malaise among our profession, one that has accepted a narrowing of the curriculum, a teaching to the test mentality, and a poorly constructed redefinition of what a good education is. Today, a good education is narrowly defined as good test scores. What it has led to is a culture of compliance in our schools.

We have doubled-down on the failed practices of No Child Left Behind. Not only do we subscribe to a test and punish mentality for school districts, we have now drilled that mentality down to the individual teacher level.

We have an opportunity to listen to the teachers, administrators, parents, and even the students, to make the necessary course corrections. We know what is coming. We’ve seen it happen in other states. We can easily look at the literature and predict how this story ends. New York, Kentucky and so forth, these states are about one year ahead of Connecticut. Why would we think it will end any differently for our state? We can take action to prevent the inevitable.

We have an opportunity. You as legislators have an opportunity. Our students and communities are counting on us.
I am pleased to see that the Governor has asserted his authority to address this deeply rooted problem. But we cannot stop there.

I ask the following:

Do not be lulled into solutions that promote “delay.” Although the problem is being framed as an issue of implementation timelines and volume, I contend that this is much more about substance than delays. Revisit the substance of these reforms, particularly the rigidity of the teacher evaluation guidelines.

As you revisit the substance, demand the evidence and research that grounds the reforms, just as a board of education would demand of a superintendent. You will find, as I have, that the current reforms are simply not grounded in research. As legislators, demand the evidence, particularly the literature that illustrates the damaging effects of high stakes test scores in teacher evaluations. Demand the evidence that demonstrates that this approach is valid and will withstand legal scrutiny. Demanding evidence is how every local board of education holds their administrators accountable.

Build on the Governor’s first steps and create even greater flexibility for local districts to innovate and create. This is 2014…standardizing our work across all schools is not the answer. That’s the factory / assembly line mentality that got public schools into this mess. We need a diversity of thought, similar to a “crowd sourcing” approach, if we are to solve the problems of the 21st century. Above all, commit to the principle that “one size fits all” does not work. We would never accept that from individual teachers in their work with students, why should we accept “one size fits all” for very different school districts across the state? There are indeed alternative approaches that fit the context and needs of individual districts. I would be happy to provide with you with our example.

You, as legislators, can create the space for innovation to thrive. Promote innovation, not mere compliance.

Revisit the No Child Left Behind waiver that was filed with the U. S. Department of Education. This is consistently presented as the trump card in any discussion involving modifications to the reform package passed a couple of years ago. We’ve been told that we cannot make changes because of promises made to the federal government. Was there a lower threshold for compliance with the No Child Left Behind waiver? Can we take a more aggressive approach for our state and not be dictated to by the federal government to this degree? This resonates at the local level and ought to at least be considered.

Finally, do not be a cynic, but be a skeptic about the common core. How can this be done?

Demand the evidence to support whether or not the standards are age-appropriate for our youngest learners. Demand the input of early childhood experts like the 500+ nationally recognized early childhood professionals who signed a joint statement expressing “grave concerns” about the K-3 standards. Or perhaps seek input right here in Connecticut from the early childhood experts at the Geselle Institute in New Haven.

Demand the evidence that supports that every child should master the same benchmarks every year when we know that all children develop at different rates.

Demand an accurate accounting of the current and, more importantly, future costs of implementing the common core and the new Smarter Balanced (SBAC) testing system.

Demand the evidence that supports coupling the common core to unproven tests. In just weeks, many students will sit for these new tests. They will serve as subjects to “test out the test.” It is quite possible that you will hear even more from parents after the tests are administered. Be proactive and seek these answers in advance of the inevitable questions you will be asked.

I want to close by stating that I personally have between eighteen to twenty more years to serve in this state and I look at these problems in a very long-term sense. What can we do now, not for this year or next, but in the long-term to be the shining example for the rest of the country that Connecticut’s public education system once was considered? I’m committed to this work and I will continue that commitment for nearly two more decades.

I ask you to seize this opportunity.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Thomas R. Scarice Superintendent

This post was written by Don Batt, an English teacher in Colorado:

 

There is a monster waiting for your children in the spring. Its creators have fashioned it so that however children may prepare for it, they will be undone by its clever industry.
The children know it’s coming. They have encountered it every year since third grade, and every year it has taken parts of their souls. Not just in the spring. Everyday in class, the children are asked which answer is right although the smarter children realize that sometimes there are parts of several answers that could be right.

And they sit. And they write.

Not to express their understanding of the world. Or to even form their own opinions about ideas they have read. Instead, they must dance the steps that they have been told are important: first, build your writing with a certain number of words, sentences, paragraphs; second, make sure your writing contains the words in the question; third, begin each part with “first, second,” and “third.”

My wife sat with our ten-year-old grandson to write in their journals one summer afternoon, and he asked her, “What’s the prompt?”

I proctored a standardized test for “below average” freshmen one year. They read a writing prompt which asked them to “take a position. . .” One student asked me if he should sit or stand.

There are those who are so immersed in the sea of testing that they do not see the figurative nature of language and naively think that the monster they have created is helping children. Or maybe they just think they are helping the test publishers, who also happen to write the text books, “aligned to the standards,” that are sold to schools. Those test creators live in an ocean of adult assumptions about how children use language–about how children reason. They breathe in the water of their assumptions through the gills of their biases. But the children have no gills. They drown in the seas of preconceptions.

They are bound to a board, hooded, and then immersed in lessons that make them practice battling the monster. “How much do you know!” the interrogators scream. The children, gasping for air, try to tell them in the allotted time. “Not enough!” the interrogators cry. Back under the sea of assumptions to see if they can grow gills. “This is how you get to college!” the interrogators call. And on and on, year after year, the children are college-boarded into submission.

What do they learn? That school is torture. That learning is drudgery.

There are those who rebut these charges with platitudes of “accountability,” but, just as the fast food industry co-opted nutrition and convenience in the last century, the assessment industry is co-opting our children’s education now. As Albert Einstein [William Bruce Cameron*] said, “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” Would that the measurement advocates would measure the unintended consequences of their decisions.

Our political leaders–surprise–have bent under the pressure of businessmen wearing the masks of “rigor” and “accountability.” They have sacrificed our children’s joy of learning on the altar of expediency.

Here’s what should happen: teachers in their own classrooms, using multiple performance assessments where children apply their knowledge in the context of a given task, determine what their students know and what they need to learn, based on standards developed by that school, district, or possibly, state. Teachers should take students where they are and help them progress at their own developmental rates. And good teachers are doing that every day. Not because of standardized tests, but in spite of them.

Students’ abilities can be evaluated in many, creative ways. The idea that every student take the same test at the same time is nothing more than the warmed-over factory model of education used in the 1950’s, now, laughingly called “education reform.” As Oscar Wilde has observed, “Conformity is the last refuge of the unimaginative.”

Don Batt


English teacher
Cherry Creek Schools
Aurora, Colorado

*http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/26/everything-counts-einstein/

Robert Kolker has written an excellent analysis of the anti-testing movement. The central figures are not “white suburban moms,” but a family from the Dominican Republic. Young Oscar, who loved school, loses interest when his favorite subjects and activities are replaced by test prep. The larger the test looms, the less Oscar cares about school.

Into this vivid story, Kolker weaves an overview of the opt out movement. For years, it was small but noisy. With the advent of Common Core testing, which failed 70% of students in New York State, the movement is flourishing. The more disgusted the students and parents are, the more their education is turned into endless testing, the more the movement finds new converts.