Archives for category: Technology, Computers

Les Perelman, former director of undergraduate writing at MIT has been a persistent critic of machine-scored writing on tests. He has previously demonstrated that students can outwit the machines and can game the system. He created a machine called BABEL, or Basic Automatic B.S. Essay Language Generator. He says that the computer cannot distinguish between gibberish and lucid writing.

 

He wrote the following as a personal email to me, and I post it with his permission.

 

Measurement Inc., which uses Ellis Paige’s PEG (Project Essay Grade) software to grade papers all but concedes that students in classrooms where the software has been used have been using the BABEL generator or something like it to game the program. Neither vendor mentions that the same software is also being used to grade high stakes state tests, and in the case of Pearson, is being considered by PARCC to grade Common Core essays.

 

http://www.pegwriting.com/qa#good-faith

 

What is meant by a “good faith” essay?

 

 

It is important to note that although PEG software is extremely reliable in terms of producing scores that are comparable to those awarded by human judges, it can be fooled. Computers, like humans, are not perfect.

 

PEG presumes “good faith” essays authored by “motivated” writers. A “good faith” essay is one that reflects the writer’s best efforts to respond to the assignment and the prompt without trickery or deceit. A “motivated” writer is one who genuinely wants to do well and for whom the assignment has some consequence (a grade, a factor in admissions or hiring, etc.).

 

Efforts to “spoof” the system by typing in gibberish, repetitive phrases, or off-topic, illogical prose will produce illogical and essentially meaningless results.

 

Also, both PEG Writer and Pearson’s WriteToLearn concede in buried FAQ’s that their probabilistic grammar checkers don’t work very well.

 

PEG Writing by Measurement Inc.
http://www.pegwriting.com/qa#grammar

 

PEG’s grammar checker can detect and provide feedback for a wide variety of syntactic, semantic and punctuation errors. These errors include, but are not limited to, run-on sentences, sentence fragments and comma splices; homophone errors and other errors of word choice; and missing or misused commas, apostrophes, quotation marks and end punctuation. In addition, the grammar checker can locate and offer feedback on style choices inappropriate for formal writing.

 

Unlike commercial grammar checkers, however, PEG only reports those errors for which there is a high degree of confidence that the “error” is indeed an error. Commercial grammar checkers generally implement a lower threshold and as a result, may report more errors. The downside is they also report higher number of “false positives” (errors that aren’t errors). Because PEG factors these error conditions into scoring decisions, we are careful not to let “false positives” prejudice an otherwise well constructed essay.

 

Pearson Write to Learn
http://doe.sd.gov/oats/documents/WToLrnFAQ.pdf

 

The technology that supports grammar check features in programs such as Microsoft Word often return false positives. Since WriteToLearn is an educational product, the creators of this program have decided, in an attempt to not provide students with false positives, to err on the side of caution. Consequently, there are times when the grammar check will not catch all of a student’s errors.

 

MS Word used to produce a significant number of false positives but Microsoft in the current versions appears to have raised the probabilistic threshold so that it now underreports errors.

Kentaro Toyamo worked briefly as a tutor at the Lakeside Academy in Seattle, which is richly endowed with technology. He observed that what students needed most was adult guidance.

In this article, he discusses both the value and limits of educational technology. It may be used for education or for distraction.

But there are some systemic problems that technology can’t fix. Like inequality.

He writes:


In America, much of our collective handwringing about education comes from comparisons with other countries. In the 2012 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), American students ranked twenty-seventh in math and seventeenth in reading. But while the United States as a whole may be losing its competitive edge, stronger students aren’t sliding. At the annual International Math Olympiads, for example, where countries send their six best precollege mathematicians to solve problems that make SAT questions seem like 1+1, the United States regularly places in the top three.

“But as data from PISA show, high-scoring countries emphasize high-quality education for everyone, not just the elite. America, unfortunately, does poorly here when compared against thirty-three of the world’s wealthiest countries. We have the third-lowest school enrollment rate for fifteen-year-olds (nearly 20 percent of our kids are not in school!), and we’re ninth worst in educational disparity—scores vary particularly widely between well-off students and low-income ones. We all know that our schools are unequal. Less acknowledged is that this inequality is responsible for our lack of global competitiveness.

If educational inequality is the main issue, then no amount of digital technology will turn things around. This is perhaps the least-understood corollary of technological amplification. At a talk Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave at the South by Southwest conference, he pressed the case for more technology in education (mentioning “technology” forty-three times, and “teachers” only twenty-five). He claimed, “Technology can level the playing field instead of tilting it against low-income, minority and rural students—who may not have laptops and iPhones at home.” But this is wishful thinking; it’s misleading and misguided. Technology amplifies preexisting differences in wealth and achievement. Children with greater vocabularies get more out of Wikipedia. Students with behavioral challenges are more distracted by video games. Rich parents will pay for tutors so that their children can learn to program the devices that others merely learn to use. Technology at school may level the playing field of access, but a level field does nothing to improve the skill of the players, which is the whole point of education. Mark Warschauer, a professor at University of California, Irvine, and one of the foremost scholars in the field of educational technology finds that “the introduction of information and communication technologies in … schools serves to amplify existing forms of inequality.”

How many times have you heard Secretary Duncan say the word “inequality”? He has often said the opposite–that poverty can be overcome by “no excuses” charter schools, pointing to schools with high graduation rates and high attrition rates (“same school, same students, different results”). How’s that theory working out?

As regular readers know, this blog posted intensive and critical coverage of the failed iPad fiasco in Los Angeles, thanks to the many Los Angeles friends who forwarded articles and commentary. At a time when the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times continued to defend the commitment of $1.3 Billion for iPads, I questioned the legality of spending voter-approved bond funds dedicated to capital projects on disposable iPads.

Make no mistake: the iPad deal was Superintendent John Deasy’s creation. He said it was a civil rights issue. Anyone who opposed it, in his telling, did not care about civil rights.

Of course, the done deal with Apple and Pearson collapsed when journalists obtained emails showing contacts between Deasy and the winners of the contract well before the bidding. The FBI scooped up many boxes of documents and is still investigating the deal. Deasy moved on and now works for Eli Broad, the billionaire leading the national charge to privatize public education. Broad’s legacy will be: “I tried to destroy American public education…..” And we hope to add these words to Broad’s legacy: “And I failed.”

But don’t forget: the iPad mess was Deasy’s baby.

Now, however, the charter school industry (Deasy’s allies) is attacking school board member Bennett Kayser for approving the iPad deal.

This is the definition of chutzpah. Kayser, a former teacher, is a strong supporter of public education and was a critic of Deasy and an advocate for charter school accountability and transparency. That makes him an enemy of the charter lobby, which raises vast sums to silence critics. Anyone who wants accountability from the charter industry is its enemy.

Kayser’s opponent in the May 19 election, Ref Rodriguez, says he would have been more responsible than Kayser in oversight of the iPad deal. This is laughable since Rodriguez’s charter chain was recently criticized by a state audit for its lax financial practices. Rodriguez is treasurer of his charter chain. He didn’t notice, for example, that the husband of a high-level employee of the chain won a contract for food services, worth millions of dollars. Ref may have many strengths, but financial oversight is not one of them. Given his financial backing by the charter-Broad crowd, he would have been a reliable vote for Deasy.

Don’t forget to vote on May 19.

Vote for Bennett Kayser, dedicated friend of students and public schools.

While public schools suffer budget cuts and unfunded mandates, billionaires are funding a start-up chain of private schools. It is not clear whether it will operate for profit or not.

“With its vision of transforming the elementary- and middle-school experience through personalized learning and smart operating systems, AltSchool, a start-up in San Francisco, has attracted top-tier technology investors.

“Last year, it raised $33 million from Founders Fund and Andreessen Horowitz, as well as from First Round Capital, John Doerr, Harrison Metal, Jonathan Sackler, Learn Capital and Omidyar Network.

“On Monday morning, AltSchool announced that it had raised an additional $100 million from Founders Fund, Andreessen Horowitz, Learn Capital and First Round Capital, along with a couple of major philanthropists: a donor-advised fund financed by Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook, and his wife, Priscilla Chan, at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Emerson Collective, an organization founded by Laurene Powell Jobs that makes investments and grants in education and other endeavors, is also an investor.”

A message from Fairtest:

 

FairTest National Center for Fair & Open Testing
for further information:
Bob Schaeffer (239) 395-6773
cell (239) 699-0468
COMPUTER-ADMINISTERED SCHOOL EXAMS CRASHED
IN NINE STATES IN APRIL, 2015;
WIDESPREAD TECHNICAL, SECURITY PROBLEMS DEMONSTRATE
ANOTHER FAILURE OF POLITICALLY MANDATED TESTING
New, computer-delivered, school testing programs have been plagued by malfunctions across the nation. So far in April, exam delivery collapsed in at least eight states — Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Wisconsin. Several different companies are responsible for these faulty systems. The list includes American Institutes of Research (AIR), CTB/McGraw-Hill, Educational Testing Service (ETS), Measured Progress, and Pearson Education.
According to Bob Schaeffer, Public Education Director of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, (FairTest), which monitors standardized exams across the U.S., policy-makers should learn two lessons from these widespread technical problems.
“First,” Schaeffer explained, “State education officials must suspend the high-stakes testing mandate, as Montana’s education commissioner already did. Results from exams that have repeatedly been interrupted are not reliable, valid or even ‘standardized.’ The fact is students ended up taking them under widely different conditions.”
Schaeffer continued, “Second, state and national politicians must step on the brakes to stop testing overkill. Many schools lack sufficient up-to-date computers and other modern equipment for mass test administration. Large numbers of districts do not have the internet bandwidth to handle the volume. Testing company servers do not have the capacity to meet the surge from thousands of students logging on simultaneously.”
Proponents of computerized testing have tried to blame “hacker attacks” in some instances. But Schaeffer said state investigations have concluded that most problems have stemmed from issues within the testing industry’s control.
Schaeffer concluded, “This fiasco is largely caused by politically-driven assessment policies. Policy-makers ignored multiple warnings from educators, technical experts and parents.”
A regularly updated chronology of computer testing problems over the past three years is online at
http://fairtest.org/computerized-testing-problems-2013-2015

Leonie Haimson is a national treasure. She founded a group called Class Size Matters, which advocates for reduced class size. She is an unpaid worker for kids in Néw York and across the nation. She is also an expert on data-mining and student privacy. Through her research and testimony, she informed parents in seven states about the $100 million committed by the Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation to create inBloom, a vast data mining plan. Once exposed, arents protested, state after state withdrew and inBloom collapsed.

Here is a public letter from a parent to Leonie Haimson:

The California parent wrote:

Leonie Haimson’s Opt Out Message Rang Out Loud and Clear on the West Coast

—What a small but mighty group can do—

—RestorePVEducation —

We had the privilege of hearing Leonie Haimson speak on April 12th in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

Leonie spoke to the privacy issues, data mining and high stakes testing.

Parents heard loud and clear.

Today it was confirmed that 200 students out of a class of 464 Opted Out at Palos Verdes High School’s 11th grade class. Only approximately 40% are taking the SBAC.

Palos Verdes High School has a 98% rate of students going on to college.
We are already ‘College Ready’.

If Smarter Balanced thinks that CA parents have already been dumbed-down, think again.

Parents and community are waking up to the Smarter Balanced profiteering scenario and they don’t like what they are finding out.

Parents here questioned “Where is the Smarter Balanced Privacy Policy?” only to find out from Leonie that there is none. Absolutely no Privacy Policy to be found. How reassuring

Parents are questioning why Smarter Balanced has ‘locked out’ the public, school boards, administrators, parents and community from any information regarding the Smarter Balanced Executive Committee, its’ elections, decisions, agendas, minutes, etc.

There is no way to access the SB website for any of this type of information since September 1, 2014.

Yet Smarter Balanced is dictating policy decisions, lessons and testing to 17 states who have paid them with public funds.

Any decisions made by Smarter Balanced are done in secret, while Smarter Balanced functions on public funds.

Housed along with the CRESST center on the UCLA campus, parents fear, and rightly so, that the Hewlitt Foundation CRESST center is accessing our children’s data.

Why? And who else gets to see and use it?

Third party vendors are having a field day with our CA children’s data. We get the Big Data, Big Money Scheme. We don’t want that here.

While our local Palos Verdes Peninsula School District has been pouring funds to meet the unfunded mandates for technology, parents have stormed the Board room questioning why their children are in huge classes or combo classes.

Teachers have only seen a 2% raise over an 8 year period. There is no money for anything but technology to take the SBAC tests.

When asked parents will tell you that 1 teacher is worth a million computers to their child. We don’t need more tech to teach children–we need more teachers.

By 2012, 77 Palos Verdes teachers had lost their jobs, and have not been replaced.

What has come in instead is more computers and software.

Parents get it and will not stand for it any longer.

Thanks Leonie Haimson for bringing your message to CA. We are starting our chapter of Parents Across America.

Watch out Smarter Balanced–here we come!

MOOCs are Massive Open Onliine Courses. Many see them as the grand destiny for higher education, opening access for all at a low price. Some courses are taught simultaneously to thousands of students by star professors.

But here is a shocking statistic, reported by politico.com:

“A dismal 7 percent of MOOC students finish their courses.”

I can imagine huge improvements in online courses. They could take advantage of graphics and intetactive tools. Maybe they are the future. But we aren’t there yet.

Bob Schaeffer of Fairtest has kept track of computerized testing systems. They have failed in seven states:  Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Wisconsin.

U.S. COMPUTERIZED TESTING PROBLEMS: 2013 – 2015

compiled by National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest)

The ongoing litany of computer exam administration failures reinforces the conclusion that the technologies rushed into the marketplace by political mandates and the companies paid to implement them are not ready for prime time. It makes no sense to attach high-stakes consequences to such deeply flawed tools

Updates to this list will be posted at: http://fairtest.org/computerized-testing-problems-2013-2015

2015

INDIANA – “ISTEP Testing a Mess Again This Year,” WISH-TV, April 23, 2015

MINNESOTA – “Minnesota Suspends Statewide Testing Amid Technical Woes,” Minnesota Public Radio, April 21, 2015

NEVADA – “Breach of Contract Declared After Common Core Testing Crash,” KOLO-TV, April 21, 2015

FLORIDA –“Statewide Computer Glitch Causes More School Testing Woes,” Ocala Star Banner, April 20, 2015

NEVADA – “Common Core Test Crashes Again on First Day Back,” Associated Press, April 20, 2015

MONTANA — “Montana Lets Schools Cancel Smarter Balanced Testing After Technical Woes,” Education Week, April 15, 2015

NORTH DAKOTA – “More Glitches Plague Standardized Tests,” Bismarck Tribune, April 15, 2015

COLORADO – “Technical Difficulties Cause Statewide Shutdown of Standardized Testing in Colorado,” Colorado Springs Gazette, April 15, 2015

MINNESOTA – “Minnesota Student Assessments Snarled by Computer Crash,” Pioneer Press, April 15, 2015

WISCONSIN – “Latest Glitch Delays Common Core Testing in Wisconsin,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 26, 2015

COLORADO – “Computer Attack During Standardized Testing Delays Some Exams in Colorado Springs School District,” Colorado Springs Gazette, March 20, 2015

RHODE ISLAND – “Computer Glitch Forces Postponement of PARCC Tests in Bristol,” Providence Journal, March 17, 2015

CALIFORNIA – “New State Standardized Tests Begin After Rocky Trial Run,” Los Angeles Times, March 11, 2015.

FLORIDA – “Amid Technical Problems, Miami-Dade School System Postpones New Tests,” Miami Herald, March 2, 2015

GEORGIA – “Milestones Online Student Testing System Crashes in Test Run,” Athens Banner-Herald, January 21, 2015

ILLINOIS – “After Computer Hiccup, PARCC Test Up and Running at District 308,” Chicago Tribune, March 3, 2015

INDIANA – “Trial Run of ISTEP+ Online Exam Reveals Connection Issues,” Associated Press, January 16, 2015 and “When Testing Technology Fails, Students Fear They Will Too,” State Impact Indiana, February 5, 2015

MAINE – “Commissioner: State Will Look Into Lewiston Online Testing Concerns,” Sun-Journal, February 5, 2015

NEW JERSEY – “PARCC Tests Postponed at One School After Glitch,” NJ.com, February 20, 2015 and “Possible Hacking Postpones Tests in Union Township,” NJ.com, March 3, 2015

2014

ARKANSAS – “Dardanelle Experiences Testing Problems,” Courier News, May 13, 2014

CALIFORNIA – “State’s New Computerized Exam Tryout Plagued by Glitches,” Los Angeles Times, May 11, 2014

CONNECTICUT – “Stamford’s Common Core Testing Problematic,” Stamford Advocate, July 25, 2014

FLORIDA – “Computer Problems Shut Down FCAT Testing in Pasco, Hernando and Across the State,” Tampa Bay Times, April 22, 2014

INDIANA – “New ISTEP Glitches Put Educators on Edge,” Indianapolis Star, April 24, 2014

KANSAS – “Kansas Education Officials Extend State Testing Period Amid Computer Glitches,” The Wichita Eagle, March 30, 2014, and “Kansas Won’t Release Data From Reading, Math Tests,” Associated Press, July 8, 2014

MARYLAND – “Field-Testing of Common Core Exams Gets Off to a Shaky Start at MD High School,” Education Week, April 3, 2014 and “Md. School System Raises Concerns About Readiness for PARCC Common Core Exams,” Washington Post, November 9, 2014

NEBRASKA – “Problems With State Writing Tests Prompts Education Officials to Toss Results,” (Lincoln) Journal Star, July 22, 2014

NORTH CAROLINA – “North Carolina Warns About Problems with Online CTE Tests,” (Raleigh) News & Observer, May 22, 2014

OKLAHOMA – “President of CTB/McGraw-Hill Apologizes to Oklahoma for Disrupted Testing,” Tulsa World, April 25, 2014

SOUTH DAKOTA – “’Spinning Cursor’ Among Sioux Falls Common Core Testing Issues,” KELOland.com, May 12, 2014

WASHINGTON – “Glitches Disrupt Online State Testing for Students in Tacoma,” The News Tribune, May 1, 2014, “Digital Attacks on Kennewick School District Servers Affect Student Testing,” Tri-City Herald, May 30, 2014

2013

INDIANA, KENTUCKY, MINNESOTA, OKLAHOMA – “State’s Online Testing Problems Raise Common-Core Concerns,” Education Week, May 3, 2013

ALABAMA, OHIO – same problems with ACT testing technology as Kentucky

updated by Bob Schaeffer, 04/22/15

Minnesota testing was briefly halted when Pearson servers became overloaded–were they not expecting so many students?–and a “denial-of-service” hacker broke into the system.

“An overloaded processor and a “malicious denial-of-service attack” led to the shutdown Tuesday of Minnesota’s statewide student testing system, the state’s testing contractor said Wednesday.

“Pearson, the testing company, apologized for the problems and said the system had been repaired. By late morning, though, Minnesota Department of Education officials were not yet ready to give the all-clear.

“We still need to hear from Pearson exactly what the issue is, how they have resolved it, and receive an assurance that testing can resume smoothly,” department spokesman Josh Collins said.”

In an age when hackers can break into the computer systems of major corporations, can Pearson expect to remain immune?

Despite loud protests from the district’s teachers, the school board of Burbank, California, named Matt Hill as the next superintendent of schools.

Teachers were upset for two reasons:

1) Hill never was a teacher.

2) Hill is a graduate of the unaccredited Broad Superintendents Academy, which is known for promoting school closings and privatization.

Hill persuaded the board that it should give him a chance. He said it was just as unfair to demonize his business background as it is unfair to demonize teachers.

Hill was responsible for the disastrous iPad program and MISIS program in the Los Angeles public schools. In addition to an ongoing FBI investigation of conflicts of interests in the district’s procurement agreement with Apple and Pearson, the SEC is now probing whether the use of bond funds to buy iPads was appropriate.