Archives for category: Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Peter Greene on the Big Money-Machine Called the SAT

By dianeravitch
January 4, 2016 //
23

I try not to put up two posts by the same writer in the same day, but this one followed naturally from the one that precedes it.

 

Peter Greene reminds us that the SAT is not just a testing company; it is big business. Right now, the SAT is in hot competition for market share with ACT.

 

He writes:

 

When the company brought in Gasper Caperton to help solve some cash flow issues, he announced that he didn’t want to run just “a testing company.” Caperton boosted fees, increased market by (among other things) getting states to punch PSAT tickets for students, and selling student information to colleges. Revenue reports for the non-profit College Board run from “$500 million to $1 billion” The College Board’s Form 990 from 2013 shows total revenue of $840,672,990 with a whopping $98,894,865 left over after expenses.

 

The College Board is a non-profit, which means it doesn’t have to share any of that $100 million profit with shareholders or owners. When Caperton left, he was making more than the head of Harvard, more than the head of the American Red Cross. Nineteen other executives were making over $300K. David Coleman, in his first full year of head honchoship after being hired mid-2012, received a full $734,192 in compensation.

 

Meanwhile, the SAT is battling for market share with ACT. Part of that battle has involved a technique familiar to manufacturers of soft drinks and beer– create a larger line of products to suck up space in the store and build market loyalty among customers. To that end, the College Board has rolled out a full range of products, allowing students to start taking some version of the SAT as early as eighth grade.

 

Think of it. When your state, say, Connecticut or Colorado, makes a deal to test every student with an SAT product, you are aiding the corporation improve its bottom line. This has nothing to do with improving the education of your child. The state has decided to trust the standardized test more than its teachers and is willing to transfer millions of dollars to the corporation that might have gone to hire teachers of the arts or to reduce class size. The same goes for the ACT. You don’t get college-ready by taking tests more often or earlier. You get college-ready by reading more, writing more, and pursuing your interests more deeply.

 

Your child is neither a product, as Exxon chief Rex Tillerson believes, nor a consumer. He or she is a developing human being. Standardized tests give you standardized information that may be useful in limited settings. But no standardized test can measure his or her worth or potential or gifts. You cannot measure what you treasure.*

 

 

*I use that line from time to time because Peter Cunningham, who was Arne Duncan’s Assistant Secretary for Communications and now runs “Education Post,” once said to me in defense of testing that “you measure what you treasure.” I thought about it and decided that it was the other way around. What I treasure cannot be measured. Here is a trivial example: I adore my dog Mitzi and my cat Dandy. How can I measure my love for them? I love my children and my spouse. What scale should I weigh them on? How can I measure my love for them? The Data Gods speak, but they don’t speak for me.

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Testing

Colorado: SAT Replaces ACT, With No Advance Warning

By dianeravitch
January 4, 2016 //
20

This post arrived the day before Christmas. The author, teacher Michael P. Mazenko, says the decision took everyone by surprise.

Why did Colorado switch from the ACT to the SAT overnight? No one who knows will explain.

 

 

Michael P. Mazenko writes:

 

This week, David Coleman and College Board pulled off a big coup in both Illinois and Colorado by getting state departments of education to shift from the ACT to the SAT for the state-mandated junior college exam. These are the only two states to require a college test in high school, and both states had history with ACT going back more than a decade. In Colorado, this decision was announced yesterday, December 23, 2015, just as CDE closed for the holidays, and schools were out on break. While Eric Gorski of Chalkbeat did an admirable job reporting the news, there were few people around to answer significant questions. Many in Colorado’s education community are critical and suspicious of the unprofessional timing of the announcement.

http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/12/23/goodbye-act-hello-sat-a-significant-change-for-colorado-high-schoolers/#.Vnw3rLHn_IV

 
Here in Colorado, the decision by CDE to contract with SAT rather than ACT was shocking to say the least. To begin, the state has been dragging its feet on this decision for nearly eight months for no clear reason. And, up until today, every indication was that the state would remain with ACT. Yet, here we are with a surprise announcement to switch testing companies in the middle of the year. The state has done a huge disservice to schools and students by voting for this significant change so late in the year with little time to prepare for it. And, it’s not just switching from ACT to SAT. College Board has announced a significant re-design of its test, the SAT. Thus this spring’s test is an entirely new SAT for which students and educators have no context, piloting, data, score comparison, training, or understanding of the new format. I am deeply concerned for junior-level students who will be asked to take an entirely new test, blind, and allow that test to become part of their permanent academic record.

In following the story, I am particularly bothered by mention of the decision being made by “a selection committee” that no one I know following the issue has heard of. When Colorado passed HB1323 which required that the junior level test be put out to bid, there was no talk of a committee. Previous coverage and discussion of the subject made no mention of the committee. With no names of members, no one was available for questions and comment beyond CDE’s spokesman. Additionally, I am troubled by the connection to the PARCC test and implication that the decision is an attempt to force Colorado to remain tied to PARCC. Just a couple weeks ago, CDE interim head Eliot Asp and State Board of Education President Steve Durham implied that Colorado would leave PARCC after this spring’s test. Durham noted that a majority on the Board are “opposed to this test.” Yet, shortly after those comments, the state named Rich Crandell – of Arizona and Wyoming – as the sole choice to head CDE. That surprised many in state, for Crandell was instrumental in promoting CCSS and PARCC in Arizona. Prior to this week, most people expected that Colorado would stay with ACT and withdraw from PARCC to replace it with the ACT-Aspire for grades 3-10. Now, everything is up in the air, and schools will scramble to prepare for an entirely new test and system in just three months.

Both ACT and SAT carry a significant decrease in test time, but the ACT is preferable for Colorado based on history and experience alone. ACT has been the state and national benchmark for “college readiness” for decades. It is a known commodity that is trusted by Colorado’s students, parents, teachers, and colleges. The state and Colorado schools also have fourteen years of data for student performance on the ACT, and numerous school districts have UIPs written around ACT data. And, now the ACT is aligned with Aspire for grades 3-10 with ACT at grade 11. Thus, the state could have had solid data for practically a child’s full career, and it would have synced with the 14 years of ACT data we already have. With the State Board and CDE indicating a probable withdrawal from PARCC, it only made sense to stay with ACT and use the Aspire for the grades 3-10 test. And those tests significantly decreased test times, which is what parents and the legislature voted for. Interestingly, Colorado’s new “graduation requirements” for the year 2021 according to CDE’s own document use ACT as one required benchmark. They’ve just contradicted their own plan. It seemed logical that Colorado would maintain a trusted relationship with ACT. Thus, the decision to switch to SAT is all the more baffling.

This decision is a problematic game-changer, and the most troubling part is the “newly designed” nature of the SAT. The SAT given this spring will be a new style and format with no piloting for test score comparison and data. Just like CDE did with PARCC, they are using Colorado’s students as guinea pigs for a new test. I know juniors who took the SAT this fall – which is early – because the test was familiar, and they wanted a score for a test style they knew and for which the scores were already established. They are wary of this new test because there is no data or experience with it, and we don’t really know what the scores will mean or what the cut points would be. Taking this new test for the state is risky. Obviously, many students will take this new SAT, but why would they take it as a school/state test, for which it will become their public record? As an educator, I must administer this test. But if my child were a junior, I would have serious reservations about taking this new test for the state. While I would encourage my child to take the ACT and SAT on a Saturday for which he can choose if he sends the scores, I would be wary of allowing the state to put scores for a brand new and unfamiliar test on his transcript. Colorado parents should be made aware of this concern.

 

In all, the decision by CDE to switch from the ACT to SAT should be met with suspicion and criticism. The majority of Colorado students have little history or familiarity with the SAT. The primary question we should all be asking is this: Who is benefiting from this decision? It’s not the schools or the students.

 

 

Michael P. Mazenko
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
A Teacher’s View
Twitter – @mmazenko

Categories Testing

Here Comes the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

By dianeravitch
January 3, 2016 //
21

Valerie Strauss has a good column introducing you to the new Acting Secretary of Education John King. Why will he be “acting”? Apparently there is some concern that, in light of his controversial tenure as state commissioner in New York, he might not be confirmed. Maybe busloads of angry parents will arrive from New York to testify against him. Whatever.

 

As you will see, John King as an impressive resumé. He earned both a law degree from Harvard and a doctorate from Teachers College at the same time! The resumé doesn’t mention that King was one of the leaders of the Uncommon Schools network, which is an unusually harsh “no-excuses” charter chain. Not long ago, his school had the highest suspension rate in the state of Massachusetts.

 

You will also read that he managed to alienate many parents in New York and was probably the spark plug for the Opt Out movement. He and the Chancellor of the Board of Regents Merryl Tisch set up a series of public hearings around the state. Parents showed up in large numbers, and King lectured them almost to the point of hectoring. After one of the stormiest hearings, he stormed out and called parents a “special interest group.”

 

Like Duncan, he is a fervent believer in high-stakes testing and the Common Core standards. His own children attended a Montessori school when he lived in New York, where there is neither high-stakes testing or the CCSS.

 

He is a quintessential reformer.

Categories Charter Schools, Common Core, Testing

Mercedes Schneider on Arne Duncan’s “Legacy”

By dianeravitch
January 3, 2016 //
13

Mercedes Schneider reflects on Arne Duncan’s legacy. He was described by President Obama as a man who “has dedicated his life to the cause of education.” Now he is gone. He left behind, said the President, “a good product.” We will somehow have to persist without him.

 

But his “legacy” of bullying states and school districts lives on.

 

Mercedes notes that one of his aides, Ann Whalen, sent out a threatening letter to several states, warning that there would be serious consequences if they permitted or experienced high number of opt outs. They might even see the loss of federal funding for their poorest kids. Imagine that: the U.S. Department threatening to hurt poor kids as a punishment to states where many children opt out of testing.

 

This letter violates the spirit of the new federal law, Every Student Succeeds Act, but the new law has not yet taken effect. So, the Duncan crew must bully and intimidate as much as possible until the new law kicks in.

 

Ann Whalen, by the way, wrote a blistering attack on experienced educator Carol Burris last year for doubting the transformative power of high standards and daring to question the Common Core standards. Whalen has a BA in political science from Stanford; that makes her assertive and confident. She has apparently never been a teacher or principal, unlike Burris. Whalen worked for Duncan in Chicago before he became Secretary. She has been a bureaucrat now for many years, but she has some nerve lecturing Carol Burris. I suppose we should forgive her messianic belief in high standards and the Common Core because her attack was penned before the release of the 2015 NAEP scores, which showed that after 15 years of relying on standards and testing, after five years of Common Core, NAEP scores were flat or declining in almost every state.

 

What I can’t forgive, however, is the very idea that a federal official would attack a private citizen. When I served in the U.S. Department of Education under Lamar Alexander in 1991-92, that impropriety would not have been permitted. Something about working in Arne Duncan’s space seems to give his aides the belief that they are relieved of the rules of civility and propriety. I still recall that he accused me of “insulting” teachers, principals, and students “all across the country” when I wrote an article in the New York Times debunking his absurd claim that his favorite schools were achieving miraculous results merely by having high expectations and firing experienced teachers or closing the school and restaffing it. I used data to demonstrate that there were no miracles. No, I wasn’t insulting teachers, principals, or students; I was calling out the hype and spin that is now customary from the U.S. Department of Education. The only thing they haven’t been able to spin is the NAEP scores. And the NAEP scores raise serious questions about the Bush-Obama reliance on standards, testing, firing teachers and principals, and closing schools as a strategy for reform.

 

 

 

 

Categories Accountability, Common Core, Education Reform, ESSA, NCLB, Opt Out, Testing

Peter Greene Eviscerates the New York Times’ Editorial on Education

By dianeravitch
December 31, 2015 //
27

I wrote the last entry before I saw Peter Greene’s razor-sharp evisceration of the New York Times’ editorial praise for high-stakes testing and the Common Core. The editorial cited a number of spurious sources, all of them from cheerleaders for the Common Core.

 

I took on the general point that the Times makes: that high-stakes testing produces higher achievement. Surely after 15 years of NLB and Race to the Top, and five years of Common Core, no one believes that unless they are paid to do so or are hoodwinked by the former.

 

Peter looks at the underlying sources for the Times’ editorial and identifies each of them as fraudulent. For example, the editorial cites Education Trust for its claim that one of every five high school graduates were rejected by the military, but Greene finds this response from the Department of Defense:

 

For the military, the largest single disqualifying factor is health, including such problems as obesity. The estimate for those who are disqualified only because of aptitude is about 2 percent, said Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman. That includes not just people who failed the test but also those with other academic deficiencies, such as failure to get a GED.

 

The editorial claims that high school graduates in South Carolina won’t be prepared for the jobs available at automakers in the state.

 

But, writes Peter, this is not true.

 

Five minutes of googling indicates that they can be less worried. BMW appears ready to add more jobs in South Carolina, and these jobs include Forklift Operator and Production Associate. Production associates must have a year of steady job experience and be able to pass a drug test; they must also be willing to work any day they’re called, for a 10-12 hour shift. Forklift operators must have experience operating a forklift. Clearly more AP math courses would help graduates be better-prepared for these jobs.

 

How could the New York Times get everything so wrong? Peter says it is because they relied for their “data” on organizations funded by the Gates Foundation to promote the Common Core standards. Are these trustworthy sources?

 

He writes:

 

I suppose they are “bi-partisan” in the same way that The Tobacco Institute and most lobbying groups are “bi-partisan.” In that sense, the NYT board just stopped short of flat out lying by saying that these two groups are impartial or unbiased. But the Education Trust is a Gates-funded advocacy group from the earliest days of the Core. And Achieve is the organization that “helped” the CCSSO and NGA write the Common Core to begin with– no organization is more highly invested in the continued support and push of the Core Standards and the tests that are welded to them. And they earlier this month released a report that says– well, it says pretty much exactly what this editorial says.

 

In short, the NYT board has done the opposite of journalism here. This belongs with such classics as “Cigarettes Are Totally Good For You” or “US Must Solve Critical New Car Gap.” This is endorsing one political candidate without ever actually talking to any of the others.

 

The problems that face public education are complicated. In fact, right now they’re more complicated than ever because we have a muddy mix of actual problems (e.g. poverty, refusal to fully fund), created problems (e.g. charters stripping public schools of resources), and made-up problems (e.g. Oh Nos! Our students aren’t taking enough standardized tests!). All of these problems exist at the intersection of larger national issues such as income inequality, systemic racism, and the proper relationship between corporate and citizen interests.

 

What would help? Information. Correct, well-researched, thoughtful information. If you want to find one of the problems getting in the way of finding a remedy for everything that ails education, a good first step would be for journalists to stop uncritically running the PR of the people who want to dismantle public education and sell off the parts. The NYT did not solve any problems today, and they didn’t identify any, either. But they surely provided an example of one of them. Come on, New York Times– do journalism better.

 

 

 

Categories Common Core, Education Reform, Testing

New York Times’ Editorial Defends High-Stakes Testing and Common Core

By dianeravitch
December 31, 2015 //
33

The New York Times published an editorial (“The Counterfeit High School Diploma”) today lamenting the poor preparation of high school graduates. The Times enthusiastically supported No Child Left Behind and applauds the continued federal mandate for annual testing. The editorial is a caricature of the criticism of high-stakes standardized testing. The editorialist believes that opposition to high-stakes testing was cooked up by teachers’ unions to protect their members, ignoring the parent-led opt out movement and the solid research base for opposing such testing (including statements by the American Statistical Association, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Educational Research Association).

 

 

The Times’ editorial says:

 

 

Teachers unions and other critics of federally required standardized tests have behaved in recent years as though killing the testing mandate would magically remedy everything that ails education in the United States. In reality, getting rid of the testing requirement in the early grades would make it impossible for the country to know what if anything children were learning from year to year.

 

 

The statement above is sheer nonsense. The loudest criticism of “federally required standardized tests” has come from parent groups, not teachers unions. No one has ever said that “killing the testing mandate would magically remedy everything that ails education in the United States.” And it is beyond ridiculous to state that without the testing requirement it would “impossible for the country to know what if anything children were learning from year to year.”

 

 

Note to New York Times editorial writer from Planet Reality: There is a federal testing program called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) that reports on what U.S. students are learning every other year. NAEP has been testing students since the 1970s and reporting on states and individual districts since 1992. The scores on NAEP have steadily increased until the adoption of NCLB in 2002, when progress slowed. Test score gains came to a crashing halt in 2015, as NCLB, Race to the Top and Common Core converged in a frenzy of exactly what the New York Times wants.

 

 

If students are graduating with empty high school diplomas, it cannot be because there wasn’t enough testing. We have had a federal policy of high-stakes testing, and students are graduating unprepared for college and careers. So the New York Times’ solution: keep on doing what hasn’t worked for 15 years. Keep high-stakes testing and add Common Core so that standards are higher.

 

 

The New York Times blames states and teachers unions for the failure of high-stakes testing. It bemoans the loss of enthusiasm for the Common Core standards. Maybe the editorialist should do some research and learn that high-stakes testing creates perverse incentives to game the system, teach to the test, and cheat. Maybe he could start by reading Tom Loveless’s prediction in 2012 that the Common Core would make little or no difference in test scores, because the test-score differences within states (with exactly the same standards and curricula) are as great as differences between states. Test scores reflect demographics, not curricula, standards, or teacher quality. Anyone who believes that the Common Core standards will magically improve achievement and close achievement gaps has not been paying attention to research, evidence, NAEP, or reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories Common Core, Testing

FairTest: The Latest News on Test Resistance and Reform

By dianeravitch
December 30, 2015 //
4

The week between Christmas and New Year’s Day is supposed to be quiet. Not this year for the assessment reform movement, as this collection of news stories, opinion columns, and social media postings makes clear. Across the U.S., grassroots organizers are using this period to prepare for even more victories in 2016!

 

 

If these “Testing Resistance & Reform News” updates are helpful in your work, please consider making a year-end donation to FairTest to support their collection and distribution, as well as our activist campaigns. Not only will your contribution be completely tax-deductible but it will also be DOUBLED via a matching grant from FairTest Board member Deborah Meier, the first public school educator to win a MacArthur “genius” award.
https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/fairtest#

 
See you in 2016!

 

 

National Assessment Reformers Push States to Adopt More Sensible Testing
http://www.districtadministration.com/article/outlook-schools-push-sensible-testing

 

Colorado Standardized Test Results Yield Nothing New
http://www.vaildaily.com/news/19591350-113/standardized-test-results-yield-nothing-new

 

Connecticut Needed Teacher Evaluation System Overhaul Now Possible Under ESSA
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Wendy-Lecker-Teacher-evaluation-system-needs-6718379.php
Connecticut Feds Claim Opt-Out Rates Too High in 148 Schools
http://ctmirror.org/2015/12/29/feds-say-too-few-students-took-required-tests-in-148-ct-schools/

 

Florida How Much Time Do Students Really Spend on Testing?
http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-education/do-florida-students-spend-too-much-time-taking-tes/npqqX/

 

Georgia What the New Federal Education Law Means for Local Public Schools
http://www.macon.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article51704895.html
Georgia Test-Based “Merit Pay” for Teachers Does Not Work
http://www.myajc.com/news/news/opinion/it-doesnt-work/nprJb/

 

Illinois Students and Schools Should Not Be Defined By a Single Test Score
http://www.mywebtimes.com/news/local/not-defined-by-single-test-score/article_512a62b4-512d-53c9-ac86-efc892f30a9b.html

 

Indiana Teachers Call for State Testing Pause
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2015/12/22/letter-teachers-call-pause-istep/77758056/
Indiana Time to Find Better Assessment System
http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/local_story/Column-Time-to-find-system-bet_1450913685

 

Massachusetts Standardized Testing Is Not Educationally Meaningful
http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20151226/NEWS/151228241/?Start=1
Massachusetts Feds Threaten State with Fund Loss for Not Administering Same Test to All Students
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/12/23/warns-mass-could-lose-aid-over-two-test-approach/sHKHrOmslFmESgz5aZk9WM/story.html
Massachusetts What Do Test Score Increases Really Mean?
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20151227/OPINION/151229691

 

Michigan Schools Celebrate More Local Control with New Federal Education Law
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/12/schools_under_more_local_contr.html

 

Montana Grading the Test: Glitchy Exams and Poor Funding
http://helenair.com/news/education/state/grading-the-test-how-glitchy-exams-and-poor-funding-left/article_26259d5b-3c19-5d0f-b193-57b7ef217b61.html
Montana Testing Cutback is “Christmas Present” for Juniors
http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/education/principals-on-testing-cutback-for-juniors-this-is-my-christmas/article_feadec01-d67a-512d-b952-d2375d5ab3a6.html

 

New Jersey As Students Opt Out of State Tests, Feds Threaten to Withhold Funds
http://www.northjersey.com/news/education/feds-detail-penalties-for-test-refusals-1.1479704

 

New York Opt Out Leaders Promise to Grow Test Refusal Movement
https://dianeravitch.net/2015/12/26/momentary-lapse-will-ny-opt-outs-grow/
New York Shifts in Testing Policy May Help Schools in 2016
http://www.recordonline.com/article/20151227/NEWS/151229623
New York Twas the Night Before Christmas (for Assessment Reformers)
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2015/12/twas-night-before-christmas-by-fred.html

 

North Dakota K-12 Standardized Testing Needs Reform
http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/letters/3911509-letter-k-12-standardized-testing-needs-reform

 

Ohio Parents Should be Leery of New PARCC Test Results
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/12/27/score-drop-no-big-deal-this-time.html
Ohio Schools Prepare for Another Round of Testing Changes
http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20151228/northeast-ohio-schools-prepare-for-standardized-testing-changes

 

Pennsylvania Unless We Are Careful, ESSA May Leave Some Students Behind
http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/12/unless_were_careful_the_new_no.html#incart_river_index

 

Rhode Island Survey Shows Parents Want Less Standardized Testing
http://www.valleybreeze.com/2015-12-22/cumberland-lincoln-area/schools-survey-shows-parents-want-less-standardized-testing#.VnqUR-bvvm4

 

South Carolina Teachers Won’t Be Judged on Students’ End-of-Year Exam Under Proposed Revamp
http://thetandd.com/news/state-and-regional/teachers-won-t-be-judged-on-end-of-year-tests/article_4f27fcec-7f38-5264-bc64-a51f5da6099f.html
South Carolina Some Common Sense Comes to Teacher Evaluations
http://www.indexjournal.com/opinion/editorial/Common-sense-comes-to-SC-public-education

 

Tennessee Reformers Try to Spin Test-Accountability System’s Failures
http://www.livingindialogue.com/reformers-continue-to-spin-failed-accountability-schemes/

 

Texas Assistant Superintendent Guilty of Federal Charges for Encouraging, Covering Up Test Cheating
https://www.fbi.gov/houston/press-releases/2015/former-beaumont-isd-assistant-superintendent-guilty-of-federal-charges

 

Vermont Educators Take Wait and See Approach to New Federal Education Law
http://mountaintimes.info/vermont-educators-take-wait-and-see-approach-to-new-federal-every-student-success-act/

 

Virginia Is Testing Really the Answer to Educational Problems
http://norfolkdailynews.com/blogs/is-testing-really-the-answer/article_19274108-a986-11e5-9342-c73af18e3fc1.html

 

West Virginia Big Testing Changes From Feds and State
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/20151227/state-federal-changes-leave-questions-about-future-of-wv-education

 

ACT/SAT Many More Colleges Are Dropping Admissions Exam Requirements
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/12/29/colleges-are-dropping-entrance-exam-requirements
List of 850+ Test-Optional or Test-Flexible Colleges and Universities
http://fairtest.org/university/optional

 

Gaslighting and Turnaround Schools
http://www.pegwithpen.com/2015/12/gaslighting-turnaround-schools.html

 

Exams Are “Disempowering Students” and Ignoring Their Abilities, International Experts Warn
https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/exams-are-disempowering-students-and-ignoring-their-abilities

 

 

Bob Schaeffer, Public Education Director
FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing
office- (239) 395-6773 fax- (239) 395-6779
mobile- (239) 699-0468
web- http://www.fairtest.org

Categories Resistance, Testing

ESSA Does Not Protect Opt Outs

By dianeravitch
December 24, 2015 //
24

Remember how the Every Student Succeeds Act was transferring power from the Feds to the states? Well, not everything. The law still requires annual testing as before. It still requires a participation rate of 95%. The U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to education officials across the nation to advise them about these basic facts.

 

But what happens when large numbers of students opt out to protest over testing, loss of the arts, and lousy tests?

 

As Alyson Klein explains in Edweek,

 

 

When it comes to opt-outs, ESSA has a complex solution. It maintains a requirement in the previous version of ESEA, the much-maligned No Child Left Behind Act, that all schools test at least 95 percent of their students, both for the whole school, and for traditionally overlooked groups of students (English Language Learners, racial minorities, students in special education, kids in poverty). Under NCLB, though, schools that didn’t meet the 95 percent participation requirement were considered automatic failures—and that was true under the Obama administration’s waivers from the law, too. (That part of the NCLB law was never waived.)

 

Now, under ESSA, states must figure low testing participation into school ratings, but just how to do that is totally up to them. And states can continue to have laws affirming parents’ right to opt their students out of tests (as Oregon does).

 

This is the year of opt-outs, and no less than a dozen states—Rhode Island, Oregon, Wisconsin, Washington, Delaware, North Carolina, Idaho, New York, Colorado, California, Connecticut, and Maine, received letters from the U.S. Department flagging low-participation rates on the 2014-15 tests—statewide or at the district or subgroup level—and asking what they planned to do about it. The department is reviewing the information it got from states. So far, the administration has yet to take serious action (like withholding money) against a state with a high opt-out rate.

 

So what’s this letter about? It sounds like the department is reminding states that they must come up with some kind of a plan to address opt-outs in their accountability systems, even in this new ESSA universe. And if they don’t have some sort of a plan in place, they’ll risk federal sanctions.

 

And, in a preview of what guidance could look like now that ESSA is in place, the department gives a list of suggested actions states could take in response to low participation rates. These actions are all pretty meaningful, like withholding state and district aid, counting schools with low participation rates as non-proficient for accountability, or requiring districts and schools to come up with a plan to fix their participation rates.

 

The letter makes it clear that states can come up with their own solutions, though. So it’s possible a state could decide to do something a lot less serious than the options listed in the letter. But importantly, states’ opt-out actions would likely have to be consistent with their waiver plans, since waivers are still in effect through the end of the school year. 

 

But the bottom line is that no state can prevent parents from opting their children out of state tests. They may threaten sanctions, but the larger the number of opt outs, the hollower the threats. This is called democracy. When the government announces a policy–in this case, a policy that was agreed upon behind closed doors, without any democratic discussion or debate–the citizens can register their views by saying NO.

 

No other nation in the world–at least no high-performing nation–tests every child every year. Annual testing was imposed on the nation by Congress in 2001 and signed into law as NCLB in 2002. We were told that annual testing meant that “no child would be left behind.” That didn’t happen. What we got instead was narrowing the curriculum, billions for the testing industry, cheating, and teaching to bad standardized tests.

 

The people who love high-stakes testing make sure that their own children attend schools like the University of Chicago Lab School (Arne Duncan, Rahm Emanuel) or Sidwell Friends (Barack Obama), where there is no high-stakes testing. The onerous testing of NCLB and the Race to the Top is not for their children, just yours.

 

Despite the failure of annual testing to fulfill the promise, Congress imposed it again. The more parents opt out, the sooner Congress will get the message that this policy is wrong.

 

Protect your children. Protect education. Cut off the money flow to Pearson and friends.

 

Opt out in 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

Categories Education Reform, NCLB, Opt Out, Parents, Race to the Top, Resistance, Testing

Mercedes Schneider: Sure Is Hard Getting an Independent Review of Common Core

By dianeravitch
December 22, 2015 //
26

Mercedes Schneider writes about Louisiana’s fake review of the Common Core standards. State Superintendent John White responded to protests against the CCSS by promising a thorough review by Louisiana teachers. But when the math committee assembled, the Louisiana teachers of math found that they would be joined by two members of the state education department’s Common Core committee. One of the math teachers, Brenda DeFelice, resigned, saying that she could not participate under these circumstances.

 

DeFelice wrote in her resignation letter:

 

During our last sub-committee meeting in Monroe, two people were introduced as experts and were invited to be seated at microphones to answer questions and to offer input to the sub-committee as we conducted the review. I have since learned that the two experts who were added to the group, Carolyn Sessions (LDOE standards coordinator and PARCC cadre) and Nancy Beben (LDOE curriculum director), were two of the original writers of the national Common Core State Standards in Mathematics. In my opinion, they had absolutely no place at the table or in front of a microphone as the sub-committee conducted our review. In fact, in the very first Standards Review Meeting in August, the Standards Steering Committee rejected a proposal to form a panel of experts to assist in this review process, saying that the work was to be done by the appointed committee members only.

 

This morning in Baton Rouge, in an effort to continue the high school discussions prior to the full sub-committee meeting tomorrow, several of the high school sub-committee members met to review the Geometry standards revisions, with the rest of the high school sub-committee members reporting in this afternoon to continue the review. Imagine my surprise to find, seated at the sub-committee table, Scott Baldridge (LSU math professor and author of Eureka Math) and James Madden (LSU Cain Center and another of the original writers of the national Common Core State Standards in Mathematics), both strong proponents of Common Core. We were also joined by Carolyn Sessions (LDOE and PARCC) again. Not surprisingly, all three spoke strongly against the sub-committee members’ proposed changes to the current Louisiana Common Core Geometry Standards, and once again, I feel very strongly that these people had absolutely no place at these discussions.

 

Why are we conducting a review if the same people who brought us Common Core are invited to a seat at the table and are encouraged to influence the committee in a particular direction in which they benefit?

 

As I read this account, I wonder why advocates for CCSS are so desperate? Why are they fearful of an independent review by qualified math teachers? Why do they try to control any honest critique? What do they have to gain or lose?

Categories Accountability, Common Core, Louisiana, Testing

Jamaal Bowman to Black Parents: Time for Civil Disobedience!

By dianeravitch
December 21, 2015 //
5

Jamaal Bowman, principal of the Cornerstone Academy for Social Action Middle School in the Bronx, gives a dynamite interview aimed at black families about how to change the quality of education for their children.

 

He says we are investing billions in standardized testing and ignoring what we should be doing in our communities.

 

Black and brown children are being miseducated by current policies.

 

The “right to be tested” is not a right that helps children. It hurts them.

Categories Education Industry, Education Reform, Race, Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »