Archives for category: Students

Reader Chiara shares the following:

Politico has a good piece about the contractor(s) doing the monitoring.

“Chris Frydrych, the CEO of Geo Listening, says his service routinely alerts school principals to students whose posts indicate they’re feeling particularly stressed or angry. He also points administrators to students who share too much personal information online, leaving them vulnerable to cyber predators.

Boasts about cheating. Dares to act recklessly. Taunts. Threats. Trash talk about teachers. For $7,500 per school per year, his service will scoop it all up and report it all to administrators.

“Our philosophy is, if someone in China can type in your child’s user name and see what they’re posting publicly on social media, shouldn’t the people who are the trusted in adults in a child’s life see that information?” Frydrych said.

He responds to critics who worry about privacy violations by quoting a student tweet he spotted while monitoring a school: “Twitter is not your diary. Get over it.”

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/cyber-snoops-track-students-116276.html#ixzz3V24EuBKl

Someone should inform this guy that he works for, and is paid by, the students and parents he’s sneering at. The arrogance is just incredible. The contractors we’re all paying seem to be running the show.

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/cyber-snoops-track-students-116276.html#ixzz3V23ajlPV

The ubiquity of online communications in the schools opens up new possibilities for entrepreneurs to collect and mine confidential, personally identifiable data about children. Under the terms of a bill to protect student privacy, corporations will not need parental consent to access this data.

As reported by politico.com:

“DATA PRIVACY BILL ON THE WAY: The long-awaited student data privacy bill is expected to drop on Monday. Reps. Luke Messer and Jared Polis have been working together to draft it, following principles that President Barack Obama laid out in January [http://politico.pro/1O71PUT]. An aide to Polis said the bill’s language would draw heavily on a voluntary, industry-backed Student Privacy Pledge [http://bit.ly/1zhrSlR ] that has been signed by 124 ed tech companies of all sizes, from startups to giants such as Apple and Google. A bill echoing the pledge would please the ed tech world. But it would likely raise red flags for privacy advocates, who have expressed concerns that the pledge contains too many loopholes to be useful. Among their objections: The pledge doesn’t require companies to get parental consent – or even to give parents advance notice – before collecting intimate information on their children’s academic progress and learning styles. It also explicitly allows companies to build personal profiles of children to help them develop or improve ed-tech products. They can’t sell those profiles, but some parents are uncomfortable with any use of student data for commercial gain. A refresher on the pledge: http://politico.pro/192EYsW”

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.”

Troy LaRaviere, principal of Blaine Elementary School in Chicago, recently wrote an electrifying letter urging parents in his school, in his state, and in the nation to OPT OUT!

 

Now he has written an open letter to Barbara Byrd-Bennett, the Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools, reprimanding her for pressuring students not to opt out.

 

He writes:

 

Ms. Byrd-Bennett,

 

In response to parent and teacher support for opting children out of the PARCC Test, you sent a message to all CPS principals. It states:

 

“Please be advised that ISBE does not recognize a parent’s right to opt a child out of required student assessments, as there is no law in Illinois allowing this. While a parent cannot “opt a child out,” there may be students who refuse to participate in required state assessments.”

 

There are numerous faults and inconsistencies in your letter. I attempt to address a few of them here.

 

“Choice” Hypocrisy

 

It is pitifully ironic that you, Mr. Emanuel, and ISBE Chairman James Meeks—self-professed proponents of what you call “parental school choice”—would fight so vigorously to deny parents the choice of opting their children out of testing.

 

Posturing, Bullying and Wasting Learning Time

 

Your letter states that even if the parent states, in writing, not to test the child, school officials still must present each child with each one of the five sections of the PARCC tests and force the child to refuse each section separately. In April—when the second half of the PARCC is administered—you have directed us to repeat this process with up to 3 sessions. In total we have been directed to force students to verbally or physically refuse the PARCC on up to eight distinct occasions.

 

Your letter goes on to state:

 

“It is unfortunate that ISBE’s limited guidance on this matter has placed the burden of refusing the test on students. I believe this is unfair to our students, families, principals and staff. However, we are obligated to follow ISBE’s limited direction to avoid sanctions that would have a devastating impact on our district.”

 

If you believe it is “unfortunate,” and “unfair” then why are CPS officials forcing children in some schools to refuse not only to the teacher, but to the principal and the network chief? If you believe it’s “unfair,” why was a network chief sent to Mollison School—my elementary alma mater—where the chief forced each student to refuse directly to her; in one case allegedly forcing a fourth grade autistic child to articulate his desire to opt out despite the fact that he’d already made his desire clear when he himself submitted a signed note from his mother?

 

Then there’s what is alleged to have happened at Taylor school on the far southeast side, where a teacher reported an administrator, “got within a few inches of the face of one young man in the [opt-out] line, and asked him loudly, “DID SHE PUT A TICKET IN YOUR HAND?!!!”, then ordered the teacher to “PUT A TESTING TICKET IN EVERY STUDENT’S HAND AND PUT THEM IN FRONT OF A COMPUTER!”

 

Although the facts behind both of the above incidents are in dispute, it is noteworthy that the people making the above claims are all parents of low-income minority children—the children our mayor said would “never amount to anything”; the children whose schools he shut down; and the children who he funnels to charter schools where they experience less academic growth than in the public system they came from. Why has CPS added PARCC bullying to the long list of offenses it has committed against these children and their families?…..

 

CPS has exhibited intense hypocrisy in regard to parental choice. It has bullied children and their families, been deceptive in its repressive framing of the law in regard to opt out rights, and parroted dubious claims about losing funds in relationship to opting out.

 

As a result, I will be taking the following course of action and call on you to advise all CPS principals to do the same:

 

Our school will meet its responsibility to administer the PARCC to all students who want to take it. Nearly 80% of our students have already expressed their decision to refuse the PARCC by submitting letters from their parents opting them out of the test. When students handed that opt-out letter to their teachers, that act was an expression of their refusal to take the test. That is enough for me, and it should be enough for CPS and ISBE. No child under my watch, who has expressed his or her decision to refuse the PARCC, will be sat in front of any computer to take it, nor presented with any materials. We will not waste even more learning time by subjecting our students to ISBE’s deceptive fear-mongering and CPS’s hypocritical test-driven political theater.

 

Respectfully,

 

Troy LaRaviere

 

CPS Graduate
Former CPS Teacher
CPS Parent
CPS Principal
Email: TroyLaRaviere@gmail.com
Twitter: @TroyLaRaviere

A high school principal sent the Grit Scale that is used in KIPP charter schools and possibly in other schools as well to measure whether students have “grit” and how much of it they have. The idea of “grit” was popularized by Paul Tough in his best-selling book “How Children Succeed.” The commonsense idea that is summarized as a four-letter word is that character, perseverance, and determination enable children even in the most difficult of circumstances to overcome obstacles and succeed. Who would disagree? But the question I have after reading this scale is whether it actually measures the qualities it says it measures, and whether those qualities can be taught in school. Is saying that one has perseverance the same as persevering? I don’t know. What do you think? I am reminded of the self-esteem craze of about 20 years ago, when California actually created a task force to study how to teach self-esteem; the bubble was burst (I think) by scholars who said that the typical measures of self-esteem might identify a bully, whose ego was so inflated that he became aggressive when anyone challenged him. I am not saying that character cannot be taught, but that in my experience it is taught best by a combination of modeling, expectations, and behavioral guidelines of family, school, religious institutions, and other environments in which children live. What do the adults do? What do they admire? What do they expect?

 

 

Grit Scale

 

Directions for taking the Grit Scale: Please respond to the following 17 items. Be honest – there are no right or wrong answers!

1. I aim to be the best in the world at what I do.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

2. I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important challenge.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

3. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

4. I am ambitious.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

5. My interests change from year to year.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

6. Setbacks don’t discourage me.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

7. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

8. I am a hard worker.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

9. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

10. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to
complete.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

11. I finish whatever I begin.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

12. Achieving something of lasting importance is the highest goal in life.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

13. I think achievement is overrated.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

14. I have achieved a goal that took years of work.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

15. I am driven to succeed.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

16. I become interested in new pursuits every few months.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

17. I am diligent.

  • 􏰀 Very much like me
  • 􏰀 Mostly like me
  • 􏰀 Somewhat like me
  • 􏰀 Not much like me
  • 􏰀 Not like me at all

Directions for scoring the Grit Scale

For questions 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17, assign the following points: 5 = Very much like me

4 = Mostly like me
3 = Somewhat like me
2 = Not much at all like me 1 = Not like me at all

For questions 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 16, assign the following points: 1 = Very much like me

2 = Mostly like me
3 = Somewhat like me
4 = Not much at all like me 5 = Not like me at all

Grit is calculated as the average score for items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17. The Consistency of Interest subscale is calculated as the average score for items 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 16. The Perseverance of Effort subscale is calculated as the average score for items 2, 6, 8, 11, 14, and 17.

The Brief Grit Scale score is calculated as the average score for items 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 17. Ambition is calculated as the average score for items 1, 4, 12, 13, and 15.

Grit Scale citation

Duckworth, A.L, & Quinn, P.D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit- S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166-174. http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~duckwort/images/Duckworth%20and%20Quinn.pdf

Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D., & Kelly, D.R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1087-1101.

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!”

This statement was posted as a comment on the blog:

 

 

The Rights of the Children

 

An education is the right for us, the children

And even now here in the USA

More than half of us don’t have enough clothes or food

Please don’t test our educational rights away

Don’t fire those teachers who are on our side

Please don’t make them go away

Just because we couldn’t get those very high scores

Testing us doesn’t help us learn more

Testing us more doesn’t increase our scores

An education is our ticket to our future lives

So our kids won’t come home to what we do now

An empty home, an empty house

No one to help us study or do homework

Because our parents have to work hard and long

They do not care about tests, but they care what we learn

Please don’t test our educational rights away

Don’t fire those teachers who are on our side

Please don’t make them go away

Just because we couldn’t get those very high scores

Testing us doesn’t help us learn more

Testing us more doesn’t increase our scores

An education is our ticket to our future lives

Cynthia DeMone

A suggestion from a very creative and imaginative reader:

 

Someone suggested attaching hashtags #PARCC and #Pearson, or just using those words, in all tweets. Sharing your Aunt Celia’s mac and cheese recipe? #Pearson. Tweeting about the next big storm coming? #PARCC Congratulating your cousin on his promotion? “Great job, Cousin Joe! You worked hard for this. PARCC!”

 

Their monitoring system would be overloaded with hits.

 

Why not add #SBAC and other hashtags that will draw attention from the overseers??

Bob Braun says that Pearson closely monitors students during and after testing, to protect test security. They expect educators to collaborate with the state contract with Pearson.

“Another New Jersey school district–Hanover Park Regional in East Hanover–was notified by state officials that “monitoring”–spying?– by the British test publisher Pearson revealed at least one student had used a social media account to post a forbidden message regarding the PARCC tests. No surprise, really–it’s happening everywhere, including Maryland where a state official said he gets daily reports from Pearson on what students are saying about testing on their social media accounts.

“PARCC has a very sophisticated system that closely monitors social media for pretty much everything (comments like the one you shared, test item questions that students use cell phones cameras and take),” said Henry Johnson, the state assistant education commissioner in Maryland. The state, like New Jersey, has a contract with Pearson.

“We get those reports daily.”

Let’s run that one by you again:

“PARCC has a very sophisticated system that closely monitors social media for pretty much everything….”

The phrase “pretty much everything” aptly describes the broad reach of how this brave new world of testing and cooperation with government works. Pearson will say–as it told the Washington Post–that it is doing it for “security” reasons.

But security is itself a broad term. Here is what the State of New Jersey and Pearson agreed encompassed the idea of security and its possible breach–it’s codified in the testing manual developed by the state and sent out to all the districts:

“Revealing or discussing passages or test items with anyone, including students and school staff, through verbal exchange, email, social media, or any other form of communication.”

Another opportunity for repetition for emphasis here–discussing? Any other form of communication?

So, if children come home from school and their parents ask–”How was your day, sweetheart?” and the children talk about a really dumb question on the PARCC, they will be violating the rules and be subject to whatever punishment is meted out for cheating–as a blogger did who learned from a child who hadn’t taken the test that there was a passage on it about The Wizard of Oz.”

New Jersey is paying Pearson $108 million to run its PARCC testing program

Meanwhile Breitbart reports that a Superintendent in New Jersey confirmed Bob Braun’s initial story about spying on students.