Archives for category: Testing

I just received notice from the organizers of the letter opposing the league tables of PISA that the letter has been translated into Swedish and German.

 

Hopefully, it will be picked up and translated worldwide.

 

If you are in Korea or Japan or South America or anywhere else where the local language is not English, please translate the letter, send it to the local news media, and let me know about it.

 

OED has created an international competition for test scores that no one asked for and that encourages the establishment of destructive policies like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, both of which have diverted billions and billions of dollars to testing corporations, taking that money away from classroom instruction as well as the services that students need.

 

If you have not done so yet, please take the time to read the letter and if you agree, please sign.

Rebecca Steinitz is a literary consultant, writer, and editor in Massachusetts. She has a Ph. D. In English, coaches in urban districts, and has a daughter in seventh grade.

She wrote a letter to President Obama about the PARCC Tests, which her daughter must take, but the President’s will not.

Her daughter has always done well in school, but the PARCC test was a trial.

Here is a typical question:

“You have learned about electricity by reading two articles, “Energy Story” and “Conducting Solutions,” and viewing a video clip titled “Hands-On Science with Squishy Circuits.”In an essay, compare the purpose of the three sources. Then analyze how each source uses explanations, demonstrations, or descriptions of experiments to help accomplish its purpose. Be sure to discuss important differences and similarities between the information gained from the video and the information provided in the articles. Support your response with evidence from each source.

“Eva’s comment on this question: “It’s impossible, and there’s like 15 parts.” Just as I feared, she exaggerated. There are only four parts. But take a close look at those parts. Can you figure out what you’re supposed to be doing here, President Obama? And could you have done it in seventh grade?

“I know a lot of seventh graders. They know how to compare and contrast, and they know how to provide evidence, but I’m quite sure that unpacking this prompt, let alone accomplishing it, would feel pretty “impossible” to most of them.”

But that’s not all.

She writes:

“I have a Ph.D. in English, I’ve been in college and high school classrooms for over 20 years, and for much of that time I’ve trained and coached high school English teachers. I was shocked that the ninth grade test included an excerpt from Bleak House, a Dickens novel that is usually taught in college. I got seven out of 36 multiple choice questions wrong on the eleventh grade test. And I had no idea what to do with this essay prompt on the third grade test:

“Old Mother West Wind and the Sandwitch both try to teach important lessons to characters in the stories. Write an essay that explains how Old Mother West Wind’s and the Sandwitch’s words and actions are important to the plots of the stories. Use what you learned about the characters to support your essay.

“Would Sasha have been able to figure this out in third grade? And, more importantly, is there any reason a third grader should have to figure out an essay prompt this broad and abstract?”

If these questions are typical, expect massive failure rates and massive protests. These are not good tests of reading comprehension. They are traps and snares.

This NPR report summarizes the 12th grade NAEP report: Scores for high school seniors are flat. Reading scores in 2013 were lower than in 1992.

 

While there were small gains for each racial and ethnic group since 2005, there were no gains at all since 2009, when Race to the Top was initiated.

 

Achievement gaps among racial and ethnic groups remain wide.

 

Secretary of Education gnashed his teeth and said the results were troubling, and he is right. The chair of the National Assessment Governing Board said the results were unacceptable, and he is right.

 

In mathematics, the states that made the biggest gains in proficient students were: South Dakota, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire. Only one of these–Massachusetts–won a Race to the Top award.

 

Also in mathematics, the states that had a lower percentage of proficient students than the rest of the nation were: Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Florida. Two of the lowest performing states won Race to the Top awards: Tennessee and Florida.

 

In reading, the states that outperformed the nation were Idaho, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Dakota. Only one of these states–Massachusetts–won a Race to the Top award.

 

Also in reading, the states that had the lowest percentage of proficient students were: Tennessee, Arkansas, and West Virginia. Tennessee won a Race to the Top award.

 

These twelfth graders started school about the time that No Child Left Behind was signed into law, on january 8, 2002. Their entire school lives has been dominated by testing. The survival of their school depended on their test scores. Billions and billions of dollars have been diverted from classroom instruction to testing corporations. Many districts have increased class sizes and reduced services to students. Some leave closed libraries and laid off librarian, social workers, counselors, and psychologists. Many thousands of teachers have lost their job. But the testing industry has grown to be a multi-billion dollar enterprise, fattened by NCLB and RTTT.

 

Secretary Duncan is right. This is indeed troubling. It is time to change course. The policies of the Bush-Obama era have failed.

 

 

Nearly 100 educators from around the world signed a letter warning that the over-emphasis on testing inspired by PISA was killing the joy of learning. This unelected, unaccountable organization is driving international competition and bad education policies. It is time for parents, educators, students, and researchers to join together and say “Enough is Enough.” Focus on access to education; focus on opportunity to learn; focus on the needs of children, teachers, and schools. But stop with your league tables. Stop the international Race to a mythical top. Let teachers teach. Stop enriching Pearson. Stop the ranking and rating that serves no purpose other than to corrupt education.

Please add your name to the signers of this letter. Here is the link:

http://oecdpisaletter.org/

An Open Letter: To Andreas Schleicher, OECD, Paris
Heinz-Dieter Meyer and Katie Zahedi, and signatories – 5th May 2014

Dear Dr. Schleicher,

We write to you in your capacity as OECD’s director of the Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA). Now in its 13th year, PISA is known around the world as an instrument to rank OECD and non-OECD countries (60+ at last count) according to a measure of academic achievement of 15 year old students in mathematics, science, and reading. Administered every three years, PISA results are anxiously awaited by governments, education ministers, and the editorial boards of newspapers, and are cited authoritatively in countless policy reports. They have begun to deeply influence educational practices in many countries. As a result of PISA, countries are overhauling their education systems in the hopes of improving their rankings. Lack of progress on PISA has led to declarations of crisis and “PISA shock” in many countries, followed by calls for resignations, and far-reaching reforms according to PISA precepts.

We are frankly concerned about the negative consequences of the PISA rankings. These are some of our concerns:

-while standardized testing has been used in many nations for decades (despite serious reservations about its validity and reliability), PISA has contributed to an escalation in such testing and a dramatically increased reliance on quantitative measures. For example, in the United States, PISA has been invoked as a major justification for the recent “Race to the Top” program, which has increased the use of standardized testing for student-, teacher-, and administrator evaluations, which rank and label students, as well as teachers and administrators according to the results of tests widely known to be imperfect (see, for example, Finland’s unexplained decline from the top of the PISA table);

-in education policy, PISA, with its three-year assessment cycle, has caused a shift of attention to short-term fixes designed to help a country quickly climb the rankings, despite research showing that enduring changes in education practice take decades, not a few years to come to fruition. For example, we know that the status of teachers and the prestige of teaching as a profession has a strong influence on the quality of instruction, but that status varies strongly across cultures and is not easily influenced by short-term policy;

-by emphasizing a narrow range of measurable aspects of education, PISA takes attention away from the less measurable or immeasurable educational objectives like physical, moral, civic, and artistic development, thereby dangerously narrowing our collective imagination regarding what education is and ought to be about;

-as an organization of economic development, OECD is naturally biased in favor of the economic role of public schools. But preparing young men and women for gainful employment is not the only, and not even the main goal of public education, which has to prepare students for participation in democratic self-government, moral action, and a life of personal development, growth, and well-being;

-unlike United Nations (UN) organizations such as UNESCO or UNICEF that have clear and legitimate mandates to improve education and the lives of children around the world, OECD has no such mandate. Nor are there, at present, mechanisms of effective democratic participation in its education decision-making process;

-to carry out PISA and a host of follow-up services, OECD has embraced “public-private partnerships” and entered into alliances with multi-national for-profit companies, which stand to gain financially from any deficits—real or perceived—unearthed by PISA. Some of these companies provide educational services to American schools and school districts on a massive, for-profit basis, while also pursuing plans to develop for-profit elementary education in Africa, where OECD is now planning to introduce the PISA program;

-finally, and most importantly: the new PISA regime, with its continuous cycle of global testing, harms our children and impoverishes our classrooms, as it inevitably involves more and longer batteries of multiple-choice testing, more scripted “vendor”-made lessons, and less autonomy for our teachers. In this way PISA has further increased the already high stress-level in our schools, which endangers the well-being of our students and teachers.

These developments are in overt conflict with widely accepted principles of good educational and democratic practice:

-no reform of any consequence should be based on a single narrow measure of quality;

-no reform of any consequence should ignore the important role of non-educational factors, among which a nation’s socio-economic inequality is paramount. In many countries, including the United States, inequality has dramatically increased over the past 15 years, explaining the widening educational gap between rich and poor which education reforms, no matter how sophisticated, are unlikely to redress;

-an organization like OECD, as any organization that deeply affects the life of our communities, should be open to democratic accountability by members of those communities.

We are writing not only to point out deficits and problems. We would also like to offer constructive ideas and suggestions that may help to alleviate the above mentioned concerns. While in no way complete, they illustrate how learning could be improved without the above mentioned negative effects:

-develop alternatives to league tables: explore more meaningful and less easily sensationalized ways of reporting assessment outcomes. For example, comparing developing countries, where 15-year olds are regularly drafted into child labor, with first world countries makes neither educational nor political sense and opens OECD up for charges of educational colonialism;

-make room for participation by the full range of relevant constituents and scholarship: to date, the groups with greatest influence on what and how international learning is assessed are psychometricians, statisticians, and economists. They certainly deserve a seat at the table, but so do many other groups: parents, educators, administrators, community leaders, students, as well as scholars from disciplines like anthropology, sociology, history, philosophy, linguistics, as well as the arts and humanities. What and how we assess the education of 15 year old students should be subject to discussions involving all these groups at local, national, and international levels;

-include national and international organizations in the formulation of assessment methods and standards whose mission goes beyond the economic aspect of public education and which are concerned with the health, human development, well-being and happiness of students and teachers. This would include the above mentioned United Nations organizations, as well as teacher, parent, and administrator associations, to name a few;

-publish the direct and indirect costs of administering PISA so that taxpayers in member countries can gauge alternative uses of the millions of dollars spent on these tests and determine if they want to continue their participation in it;

-welcome oversight by independent international monitoring teams which can observe the administration of PISA from the conception to the execution, so that questions about test format and statistical and scoring procedures can be weighed fairly against charges of bias or unfair comparisons;

-provide detailed accounts regarding the role of private, for-profit companies in the preparation, execution, and follow-up to the tri-annual PISA assessments to avoid the appearance or reality of conflicts of interest;

-slow down the testing juggernaut. To gain time to discuss the issues mentioned here at local, national, and international levels, consider skipping the next PISA cycle. This would give time to incorporate the collective learning that will result from the suggested deliberations in a new and improved assessment model.

We assume that OECD’s PISA experts are motivated by a sincere desire to improve education. But we fail to understand how your organization has become the global arbiter of the means and ends of education around the world. OECD’s narrow focus on standardized testing risks turning learning into drudgery and killing the joy of learning. As PISA has led many governments into an international competition for higher test scores, OECD has assumed the power to shape education policy around the world, with no debate about the necessity or limitations of OECD’s goals. We are deeply concerned that measuring a great diversity of educational traditions and cultures using a single, narrow, biased yardstick could, in the end, do irreparable harm to our schools and our students.

Sincerely,

Heinz-Dieter Meyer Katie Zahedi
State University of New York (SUNY Albany) Principal, Red Hook, New York

Signatories as of May 4, 2014:

Andrews, Paul- Professor of Mathematics Education, Stockholm University

Atkinson, Lori – New York State Allies for Public Education

Baldermann, Ingo, Professor of Protestant Theology and Didactics, Universität Siegen, Germany

Ball, Stephen J. – Karl Mannheim Professor of Sociology of Education, Institute of Education, University of London

Barber, Melissa – Parents Against High Stakes Testing

Beckett, Lori – Winifred Mercier Professor of Teacher Education, Leeds Metropolitan University

Bender, Peter – Professor, Fakulty of Elektrotechnik, Informatik und Mathematik, Universität Paderborn, Germany

Berardi, Jillaine – Linden Avenue Middle School, Assistant Principal

Berliner, David – Regents Professor of Education at Arizona State University

Bloom, Elizabeth – EdD, Associate Professor of Education, Hartwick College

Boland, Neil – Senior Lecturer, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand

Boudet, Danielle – Oneonta Area for Public Education

Burchardt, Matthias – Academic Council; Society for Education and Knowledge, Vice-Chair, Cologne University, Germany

Burris, Carol – Principal and former Teacher of the Year, Co-Founder of New York Principals.

Cauthen, Nancy – Ph.D., Change the Stakes, NYS Allies for Public Education

Cerrone, Chris – Testing Hurts Kids; NYS Allies for Public Education

Ciaran, Sugrue – Professor, Head of School, School of Education, University College Dublin

Conneely, Claire – Programmes Director, Bridge21, Trinity College Dublin.

Danner, Helmut – Private Docent, Nairobi, Kenya

Deutermann, Jeanette – Founder Long Island Opt Out, Co-founder NYS Allies for Public Education

Devine, Nesta – Associate Professor, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

Dodge, Arnie – Chair, Department of Educational Leadership, Long Island University

Dodge, Judith – Author, Educational Consultant

Farley, Tim – Principal, Ichabod Crane School; New York State Allies for Public Education.

Fehlmann, Ralph – Coordinator, Forum for General Education, Switzerland

Fellicello, Stacia – Principal, Chambers Elementary School

Fleming, Mary – Lecturer, School of Education, National University of Ireland, Galway

Fransson, Göran – Associate Professor of Education, University of Gävle, Sweden.

Giroux, Henry – Professor of English and Cultural Studies, McMaster University

Glass, Gene – Senior Researcher, National Education Policy Center, Santa Fe, NM

Glynn, Kevin – Educator, co-founder of Lace to the Top

Goldstein, Harvey – Professor of Social Statistics, University of Bristol

Gorlewski, David – Director, Educational Leadership Doctoral Program, D’Youville College.

Gorlewski, Julie – PhD, Assistant Professor, State University of New York at New Paltz

Gowie, Cheryl – Professor of Education, Siena College

Greene, Kiersten – Assistant Professor of Literacy, State University of New York at New Paltz

Gruschka, Gruschka – Professor, Educational Sciences, Goethe Universität Frankfurt, Germany

Haimson, Leonie – Parent Advocate and Director of “Class Size Matters”

Hannon, Cliona – Director, Trinity Access Programmes, Trinity College Dublin

Heinz, Manuela – Director of Teaching Practice, School of Education, National University of Ireland Galway

Hoefele, Joachim – Department of Applied Linguistics, University for Applied Sciences, Zurich, Switzerland

Hopmann, Stefan Thomas – Professor, Institute for Educational Sciences, Universität Wien

Hughes, Michelle – Principal, High Meadows Independent School

Jahnke, Thomas – Institute of Mathematics, Universität Potsdam, Germany

Jury, Mark – Chair, Education Department, Siena College

Kahn, Hudson Valley Against Common Core

Kastner, Marie-Theres – President of League of Catholic Parents, Germany

Kayden, Michelle – LOTE Teacher, Linden Avenue Middle School Red Hook, NY

Kempf, Arlo – Program Coordinator of School and Society, OISE, University of Toronto

Kilfoyle, Marla – NBCT, General Manager of BATs

Kissling, Beat – Psychologist and Education Science, Gymnasium and University Instructor, Zürich, Switzerland

Klein, Hans Peter – Chair, Didactics of Bio-Sciences, Goethe Universität Frankfurt

Kraus, Josef – German Teacher Association, President, Germany

Krautz,Jochen – Professor, Department of Art and Design, Bergische Universität Wuppertal

Labaree, David – Professor of Education, Stanford University

Lankau, Ralf – Professor, Media Design, Hochschule Offenburg, Germany

Leonardatos, Harry – Principal, High School, Clarkstown, NY

Liesner, Andreas – Professor, Educational Sciences, Universität Hamburg

Liessmann, Konrad Paul – Professor, Institut für Philosophie, Universität Wien

MacBeath, John – Professor Emeritus, Director of Leadership for Learning, University of Cambridge

McLaren, Peter – Distinguished Professor, Chapman University

McNair, Jessica – Co-founder Opt-Out CNY, parent member NYS Allies for Public Education

Meyer, Heinz-Dieter – Associate Professor, Education Governance & Policy, State University of New York (Albany)

Meyer, Tom – Associate Professor of Secondary Education, State University of New York at New Paltz

Millham, Rosemary – Ph. D., Science Coordinator, Master Teacher Campus Director, SUNY New Paltz

Millham, Rosemary – Science Coordinator/Assistant Professor, Master Teacher Campus Director, State University of New York, New Paltz

Oliveira Andreotti, Vanessa – Canada Research Chair in Race, Inequality, and Global Change, University of British Columbia, Canada

Mitchell, Ken – Lower Hudson Valley Superintendents Council

Mucher, Stephen – Director, Bard Master of Arts in Teaching Program, Los Angeles

Naison, Mark – Professor of African American Studies and History, Fordham University; Co-Founder, Badass Teachers Association

Muench, Richard – Professor of Sociology, Universitaet Bamberg

Nielsen, Kris – Author, Children of the Core

Noddings, Nel – Professor (emerita) Philosophy of Education, Stanford University

Noguera, Pedro – Peter L. Agnew Professor of Education, New York University

Nunez, Isabel – Associate Professor, Concordia University, Chicago

O’Toole-Brennan, Kathleen – Programmes Manager, Trinity Access Programmes, Trinity College Dublin

Pallas, Aaron – Arthur I. Gates Professor of Sociology and Education, Columbia University

Parmentier, Michael – Museum Pedagogy, Göttingen, Germany

Peters, Michael – Professor, University of Waikato, Honorary Fellow, Royal Society New Zealand

Pongratz, Ludwig – Professor, Institute for Pedagogy, Technische Universitaet Darmstadt, Germany

Pugh, Nigel – Principal, Richard R Green High School of Teaching, New York City

Radtke, F.O. – Professor (em), Education Sciences, Goethe-Universitaet Frankfurt

Ravitch, Diane – Research Professor, New York University

Reitz,Tilman – Junior Professor, Sociology, Universitaet Jena

Rekus, Juergen – Institute for Vocational and General Pedagogy, Karlsruhe Institute for Technology (KIT), Germany

Rivera-Wilson, Jerusalem – Senior Faculty Associate and Director of Clinical Training and Field Experiences, University at Albany

Roberts, Peter – Professor, School of Educational Studies and Leadership, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

Rougle, Eija – Instructor, SUNY Albany

Rudley, Lisa – Director: Education Policy-Autism Action Network

Saltzman, Janet – Science Chair, Physics Teacher, Red Hook High School

Schirlbauer, Alfred – Professor, Institute for Education Sciences, University of Vienna, Austria

Schniedewind, Nancy – Professor of Education, Suny New Paltz

Schopf, Heribert – Professor, School of Pedagogics and Education, Vienna, Austria

Silverberg, Ruth – Associate Professor, College of Staten Island – CUNY

Sperry, Carol – Professor of Education, Emerita, Millersville University

Sjøberg, Svein – Professor (em), Science Education, University of Oslo, Norway

Spring, Joel – Professor, Education Policy, City University of New York

St. John, Edward – Algo D. Henderson Collegiate Professor, University of Michigan

Suzuki, Daiyu – Teachers College at Columbia University / Co-founder Edu 4

Swaffield, Sue – Senior Lecturer, Educational Leadership and School Improvement, University of Cambridge

Tangney, Brendan – Associate Professor, School of Computer Science and Statistics, Trinity College Dublin

Tanis, Bianca – Parent Member: ReThinking Testing

Thomas, Paul – Associate Professor of Education, Furman University

Thrupp, Martin – Professor of Education, University of Waikato

Tobin, KT – Founding member, ReThinking Testing

Tomlinson, Sally – Emeritus Professor, Goldsmiths College, University of London; Senior Research Fellow, Department of Education, Oxford University

Tuck, Eve – Coordinator of Native American Studies, State University of New York at New Paltz

VanSlyke-Briggs, Kjersti – Associate Professor, SUNY Oneonta

Vohns, Andreas – Associate Professor of Mathematics Education, School of Education, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt

Wilson, Elaine – Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge

Wittmann, Erich – Professor of Mathematics Education, Technical University of Dortmund

Wrigley, Terry – Honorary Senior Research Fellow, University of Ballarat, Australia

Zahedi, Katie – Principal, Linden Ave Middle School, Red Hook, New York

Zhao, Yong – Professor of Education, Presidential Chair, University of Oregon

FairTest comments on today’s release of 12th grade NAEP scores. Their conclusion: a dozen years of test-based accountability has had no discernible effect on the test scores of seniors.

This accords with the 2010 report of the National Research Council, which released a report saying that incentives and test-based accountability are ineffective.

Although I have never put much stock in 12th grade NAEP results, due to lack of student motivation on a test that doesn’t count, there ought to be some residual effects of 12 years of testing, testing, testing.

 

 

FairTest
National Center for Fair & Open Testing

for further information:
Bob Schaeffer: (239) 395-6773
mobile: (239) 699-0468
for immediate release May 7, 2014
STAGNANT GRADE 12 NAEP RESULTS UNDERSCORE
FAILURE OF TEST-DRIVEN PUBLIC EDUCATION;
“NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” AND STATE HIGH-STAKES EXAMS
DID NOT LEAD TO IMPROVED PERFORMANCE

Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for twelfth graders “underscore the failure of federal and state test-driven school policies,” according to the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest). Today’s report shows no NAEP score improvement for high school seniors in reading or math since 2009 and little progress over the past decade. Over the same period, performance gaps between racial groups have not narrowed significantly.
The NAEP trend is consistent with results from the ACT and SAT college admissions tests, where average scores continue to stagnate and racial gaps persist.
“How much more evidence do federal and state policy-makers need that driving schooling through standardized exams does not increase educational quality?” asked FairTest Public Education Director Bob Schaeffer. “It is time to abandon failed test-and-punish policies and adopt assessments that have been shown to improve teaching and learning.”
Schaeffer continued, “Across the country parents, teachers, students, and community activists are saying ‘enough is enough’ to testing misuse and overuse. They are opting out of tests, organizing protests against high-stakes exam overkill, and successfully pressing politicians to overhaul assessment policies. More elected officials must start listening to their constituents, who know what is going on in public school classrooms.” FairTest is a founder of the national Testing Resistance & Reform Spring campaign.

Now begins the struggle for billions of dollars for Common Core testing. Bear in mind that this is public money that should be spent on reducing class sizes, providing arts programs, hiring librarians and counselors, and supplying other necessary services to students and schools. The next time you hear some politician or pundit complain about the cost of public education, remind them of the billions of dollars that Pearson and its rivals will collect to administer and score Common Core tests. This is the national marketplace that Race to the Top was designed to create. It succeeded beyond Arne Duncan’s wildest dreams–in enriching testing corporations and impoverishing schools.

 

Is this a crime in plain sight? The victims are our students, educators, and schools. Who will be held liable for this massive diversion of taxpayer dollars into the testing industry?

********************************

Politico reports this morning:

 

RIVAL PROTESTS PEARSON CONTRACT: The contract to administer and score Common Core tests for states in the PARCC consortium was expected to be worth several billion dollars through the end of the decade. So it surprised some in the industry that Pearson was the only bidder, in a consortium with a handful of subcontractors. Now a rival, the American Institutes for Research, is claiming it was no coincidence: It’s pressing a lawsuit alleging the bid was rigged. (h/t EdWeek: http://bit.ly/1s0Ksap).

– The PARCC bidding process was run through the state of New Mexico, which put out a request for proposals last year. The request bundled development and delivery of the first year of testing – which Pearson was already working on – with administration of the test in subsequent years. AIR, a nonprofit that administers tests in several states, claims Pearson got an automatic, insurmountable advantage because of the bid’s set up. AIR filed a protest with New Mexico last December, claiming the bidding process unfairly and unlawfully restricted competition. It sent its complaint to the individual identified by the state as the only person testing companies could contact about the process. But some time later – after the deadline for filing a complaint passed – New Mexico told AIR the protest was sent to the wrong office and it missed the deadline. Then it declined to hear AIR’s claim of an illegal bid process. AIR appealed in district court; a hearing is scheduled for later this month.

– “The RFP looked designed to go to Pearson, and it seems that every other firm in the industry must have drawn the same conclusion,” Jon Cohen, AIR’s president of assessment, told Morning Education. “To make a multi-billion-dollar decision based on an anti-competitive RFP won’t serve PARCC, New Mexico or all the other PARCC states well in the long run.’ For more, dive into the (very lengthy) AIR complaints: http://politico.pro/SyehVG and http://politico.pro/1uxz2PE.

– Pearson declined to comment. PARCC also declined to talk, referring questions to New Mexico officials, who could not be reached.

Tony L. Talbert, a professor of social/cultural studies education and qualitative research in the Baylor University School of Education, writes in the Waco News that we as a nation have failed to recognize “the reality that our students, our teachers and our entire system of pre-K-12 public school education has been significantly and negatively impacted by the very tests we allowed to be enacted over the past 30 years through a combination of hyperbolic fear-mongering and subsequent public detachment from deliberative discourse in matters of public education.”

In short, we–as citizens–dropped out from our responsibility to maintain a public school system that aimed for values more important and valuable than our current test-based system.

Ivy started with President Reagan’s “A Nation at Risk,” which “set off a chain of subsequent predictions, monographs and reports of dire consequences for our nation’s future that could only be resolved by imposing a system of high-stakes testing, narrowly defined curriculum content (i.e., reading and mathematics) and ultimately adoption of a punitive accountability system that had the effect of stymying resistance and silencing critical questioning by educators, parents and even students on the legitimacy of such a radical shift in public education philosophy and practices.”

“As a result, for the next 30 years the American public increasingly “opted out” of direct dialogue and engagement in local, state and national public education philosophy, policy and practice debates. The impact of “opting out” of informed engagement in public education debates has been the radical shift in the quality and value-orientation of public school curriculum from a Transformation-Based Education System to an Information-Based Education System.

“In a Transformation-Based Education System the core value is the education of the whole student through a broad and inclusive humanities, mathematics, science, technology, performing arts and physical education curriculum as measured by the quality outcomes of the improvement of the student’s individual mind and life for the betterment of the collective community. In contrast, an Information-Based Education System embraces the core value of information acquisition, consumption and regurgitation of a basic curriculum by all students as measured by the quality of outcomes on standardized test performance and school ranking.”

Can we change the vicious cycle in which we are now trapped?

Yes, he insists:

“Can we recover what we’ve lost in our education system as a result of “opting out” of our responsibility as guardians of our most valuable democratic institution of pre-K-12 public education? Absolutely! We can restore the fundamental values and quality of a Transformation-Based Education System by choosing to “opt in” to public discourse and democratic action. An obvious way an informed citizenry can express intent to change the high-stakes testing education philosophies, policies and practices is by holding local, state and national elected officials accountable for education legislation at the ballot box.”

In short, my friends, become politically active. Throw out the narrow-minded technocrats that see our children as data points. Elect only those who treasure education as human development, a process of becoming in which we all take part.

Do your part. Get engaged. Be the change.

Reader Lloyd Lofthouse finds President Obama’s education reforms to be as unrealistic as those of George W. Bush. The basic theory of action is to set I reachable goals and to punish those who can’t reach them.

He writes:

“The Common Core high stakes testing that judges teachers, gets them fired and public schools closed took public education systems that operated based on individual state legislation with minimum or no standards and demanded the highest possible standards that have never been achieved anywhere on earth at any time in history without building a new system and implementing it over at least an entire generation—and maybe several generations.

“Instead, what Obama did with his Race to the Top and Common Core Standards was the same as expecting a 1908 Model T Ford that’s rated at a top speed of 45 mph to suddenly hit moon rocket velocity or face failure and behind sent to the dump. And to achieve this federally UN-Constitutional mandate, Obama did nothing to replace the Model T’s engine. Nothing!”

Mercedes Schneider reports the news: Pearson has won the contract for the Common Core test called PARCC.

Remember all the promises about how national standardization would clear the way for competition and innovation?

Why does it look instead like monopolization?

Why are we not surprised?

She writes:

“Here is the reality of “free market competition” in this time of unprecedented education profiteering: A few education/assessment giants will run American public education (and beyond, as some private and parochial schools sell their freedom for access to state or federal tax dollars).

“One of those few is the ubiquitous Pearson.

“CCSS was tailor-made for Pearson. It is quite the love story.

“Pearson is one-stop CCSS shopping, from curriculum, to assessments, to evaluation of teacher training… and Bill Gates has even paid Pearson’s nonprofit to assist with the endeavor.

“Gates’ assistance is apparently paying off; on May 2, 2014, Pearson “landed a major contract… of unprecedented scale” with another nonprofit (a popular way to set up reformer shop), the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC).”

A New Contract, A New Beginning
The other day the largest teacher union in the nation (New York City’s United Federation of Teachers) and the New York City Department of Education reached a ground breaking agreement on a new contract. Subject to approval by union members, this agreement should explode many of the myths that corporate education reformers like to spread about teacher unions. It shows that in an environment of trust and respect unions and districts can come together and agree on innovations that make sense for students. These innovations are not driven by the unimaginative test-based accountability metrics and privatization schemes that corporate reformers espouse and are now being imposed on the community and students in nearby Newark. Rather, they are founded on principles of mutual learning, collaboration, and support.

 

 

First let’s take a look at the history.

 

New York City’s teachers have been working without a contract for five years. There was no agreement because Mayor Bloomberg insisted that in any new contract “schools identified as being at risk of phase out or closure” be forced to follow “a modified, scaled down version of [the] collective bargaining agreement.” This ignored the fact that it was Bloomberg’s own policies, such as deliberately overloading specific schools with the most challenging students, which created these so-called failing schools. Bloomberg wanted to modify the pay scale so that teachers with high value-added scores would receive additional pay. This, despite all the research showing that such metrics are not valid. At the same time Bloomberg insisted that teachers not get raises that, at a minimum, kept up with the rate of inflation. Bloomberg demanded that any teachers who lost their positions due to declining school budgets or closure be fired after 4 months if they did not find another permanent position (they were, of course, used to fill temporary teaching positions and were working with students every single day). Again he ignored the fact that more experienced educators were over-represented in this pool, due to his policy of charging schools for the actual salaries of teachers rather than the district average. This meant that schools were incentivized not to hire experienced educators. Research in other districts has already shown that this approach does not help students and must therefore be chalked-up to pure ideology rather than an interest in improving public education.
What changed? Carmen Farina, the new Chancellor, is a true educator, having taught for 22 years before becoming a principal, then a superintendent, and then deputy chancellor for teaching and learning. Bill DeBlasio, the new mayor, praises public servants for their dedication to public service. Together with the UFT leadership they were able to come to agreement on a genuinely innovative set of ideas.
First they addressed the bread and butter issues. Teachers will receive raises that slightly exceed the rate of inflation over the past 5 years and will receive additional raises, including back pay, going forward. These raises and payments will be spread out across a number of years, which will ease the impact on the city budget and allow city social programs to access funding after being squeezed for many years. Teachers will continue to receive free health insurance which, in an environment of continuously increasing healthcare costs, represents an additional and significant raise. At the same time the city and the union agreed on over a billion dollars in savings through more efficient provision and management of the health insurance programs.
Then they agreed to build cultures of collaboration and learning in schools. Schools will be permitted to modify the contract to meet the individualized needs of their school with the agreement of 65% of the faculty. Teachers who take on leadership roles by sharing their expertise with colleagues, coaching colleagues, spreading best practices in their schools, and opening up their classrooms as learning labs will be eligible for career ladder bonuses. None of this will happen in a top-down manner.
They agreed to move away from an overemphasis on test-prep by ending the 150 weekly minutes of small group test-prep sessions. They repurposed that time to create structures for professional development and parent engagement that will support genuine teaching and learning. This includes adding parent-teacher conference days, adding weekly professional development and collaboration time for faculty, and adding time for weekly parent outreach.
They also agreed that teachers would not be evaluated based on the test scores of students they don’t teach. That this was even a possibility is one of the absurd outcomes of the corporate reformer obsession with putting a number to everything, even when that number clearly makes no sense.
They agreed that teachers will hold each other accountable to the highest standards of the profession. This includes teachers serving as peer-observers and validators for colleagues who received poor ratings the year prior.
They agreed to ease out the small number of teachers who are not suited to the profession. This includes an expedited firing process for teachers who are unable to find permanent positions (despite being given the opportunity to teach at schools with openings and their salaries being paid independently of the school’s budget) and who have been released from two schools for documented unprofessional behaviors.
Importantly the New York City Department of Education committed to providing curricula to all teachers. Under the former management, when the headquarters building was populated by data analysts with no expertise in education, such a promise would have been impossible to fulfill. This foreshadows a return of educators to the central offices who can support teachers and schools, appointed to positions of influence.
This agreement will help turn the page on the corporate-reformer playbook. For all their money, and powerful lobbying groups, and media influence, it will be hard to argue now that top-down mandates, teacher bashing, and test-driven accountability is the way to innovate in education. Districts such as Cincinnati, Ohio, Union City, New Jersey, and Meriden, Connecticut have already shown that collaboration and educator-driven change create the innovations that lead to better student learning. With this agreement, New York City has joined this group of dynamic innovators.