You know Common Core is in deep trouble when Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst creates a group to rally round the cause of high expectations. Somehow this new organization pretends to be antagonists to the union but the teachers’ unions have been generally supportive of Common Core. The criticism of the state’s rushed rollout has been nearly universal. Exactly what the demonstrators are supporting is unclear, unless the point is to defend the startlingly high failure rates generated by the state tests. Only 3% of English learners passed. Only 5% of students with disabilities passed. Less than 20% of black and Hispanic students passed. Maybe what StudentsFirst would like best is a test that no one passed. Now, that’s high expectations!
Archives for category: Testing
In this fourth installment in his series of posts criticizing PISA, Yong Zhao examines the claim that low-income children in China outperformed the children of professional in the rest of the developed world.
He begins with the shock value of the headlines, which are guaranteed to stir nationalistic fervor:
“China’s poorest beat our best pupils”—The Telegraph (UK), 2-17-2014
“Children of Shanghai cleaners better at math than kids of Israeli lawyers”—Haaretz (Israel), 2-19-2014
“Cleaners’ children in China beat kids of US, UK professionals at maths: study”—NDTV (India), 2-18-2014
“Children of Chinese janitors outscore wealthy Canadians in global exams”—The Globe and Mail (Canada), 2-19- 2014
He writes:
“These are some of the most recent sensational headlines generated by PISA with a 4-page report entitled Do parents’ occupations have an impact on student performance released in February 2014. These headlines exemplify the secret of PISA’s great success as a masterful illusionist: effective misdirection of attention by exploiting human instinct for competition.
“From the start, the entire PISA enterprise has been designed to capitalize on the intense nationalistic concern for global competitiveness by inducing strong emotional responses from the unsuspecting public, gullible politicians, and sensation-seeking media. Virtually all PISA products, particularly its signature product—the league tables, are intended to show winners and losers, in not only educational policies and practices of the past, but more important, in capacity for global competition in the future. While this approach has made PISA an extremely successful global enterprise, it has misled the world down a path of self-destruction, resulting in irrational policies and practices that are more likely to squander precious resources and opportunities than enhancing capacity for future prosperity.”
I won’t summarize his arguments but I will share his conclusion:
“The bottom line: Until OECD-PISA became the only employer in the world with PISA scores as the only qualification, I would not suggest lawyers and doctors in the U.S., U.K., or any nation to replace your children’s activities in music, arts, sports, dancing, debates, and field trips with math tutoring. For the same reason, it is not time yet for schools in developed countries to close your swimming pools, burn your musical instruments, end museums visits, or fire your art teachers.”
Karen Klein, who writes editorials for the Los Angeles Times about education (and other topics), told her 16-year-old daughter she could opt out.
Like many other parents, Klein reached the breaking point where the tests didn’t make sense any more. After years of complying with the testing regime, she realized that this test was pointless. She even envied home-schoolers, who could take their children on field trips and explore what interested them. Imagine that!
Most touching was her story about the teacher who offered poetry teas. By the time her child was old enough to take the class, the poetry teas had disappeared. Test prep.
And then there was this event: “After one of the earlier versions gave a low score to my eldest on reading comprehension, my husband and I shrugged and knew there had to be something wrong with the test. That’s the daughter who is now finishing off her dissertation for a doctorate in literature.
The Los Angeles Times has been a reliable supporter of the new era of corporate reform, with occasional deviations (I recall an editorial scoffing at the parent trigger).
High-stakes testing is one of the Golden Calves of the Corporate Reform movement.
Karen Klein’s defection, rooted in her experience as a parent, not a think tank ideologue, suggests that there is hope for the future, that the patina of certitude attached to the standardized testing regime may in time crumble as more parents realize how flawed, how subjective, and how limited these tests really are.
She says, “Take that, world of Scantron.”
We say, “Right on. Welcome to the fight against the status quo. If it’s right for your child to opt out, it’s right for other people’s children.
The world is divided into two kinds of people: those who think that the world can be divided into two kinds of people and those who don’t. No, let me try that again: those who think that everything that matters can be measured, and those who think that what matters most cannot be measured. Count me in the latter group. What matters most is love, friendship, family, imagination, joy….I see no reason to develop measures for those things. And if they were developed, I would doubt their value or accuracy.
But here comes another attempt to measure creativity. This comment was posted by Laura Chapman in response to a discussion of the PISA problem-solving test:
“The PISA examples are math and logic problems. They are not tests of creativity. Look up the tests and informed theoretical work of Joseph W. Getzels and E. Paul Torrance.
“The Torrance tests, available from Scholastic http://ststesting.com/2005giftttct.html, are most often used to identify children, adults, and “special populations” as gifted. The pictorial and verbal tests measure three strengths in thinking: fluency, flexibility, and originality. In the figural tests, participants create simple drawings and respond to images. Scores are derived from evidence of qualities such as elaboration, expressiveness, storytelling, humor, and fantasy.
“Relatively few people are aware that the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a developing a web-based scale for measuring creativity, one of several in the “EdSteps” project—funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and operated by the CCSSO
“EdSteps had a low profile until July, 2010 when Newsweek announced a “The Creativity Crisis,” citing a steady decline in scores on the Torrance Tests of Creativity since 1990. The tests are widely used and respected, in part, because records have been kept on the childhood scores and the later-in-life creative accomplishments of each cohort of test takers since the late 1950s (e.g., citations in art publications, patents and awards, books and articles published).
“In response to inquiries, the CCSSO issued a press release that dismissed the Torrance tests and referred its own work on creativity, emphasizing that EdSteps is a project to “advance creativity to the highest possible international standards, and measure creativity in a way that is situated in a context of actual activity.” Creativity is defined as “the valued uses and outcomes of originality driven by imagination, invention, and curiosity.”
“The Edsteps creativity scale a work-in process. The website solicits work samples on any subject from people of all ages and abilities, “globally”…”in any form, genre, or media”…” “writing, videos, images, charts, or other graphics.” People who visit the site are asked to compare two submissions and decide which is the most “effective” (undefined, but the favorite word of Bill Gates).
“That process is carried out in multiple iterations, by multiple judges, with multiple examples. This process is supposed to result in a scale representing a progression of achievement from novice to expert, without the need for written criteria or explanations.
“The process is not different from a popularity contest, with samples of work identified by age, gender, ability level, geographic region, type of work, and the like.
“I could not discover how the EdSteps addresses this fact: Works created by children can be judged more creative than work produced by well-trained adults (e.g., a quote attributed to Picasso: ”It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child”). I cannot imagine how a single scale of creative achievement can be constructed from an “anything goes” basket of work from around the world, subject to further editing by EdSteps into web-friendly snippets. The release forms for the project are horrific.
“I think this effort is a crock, but I could be wrong. My sources: Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. (2010, July 10). The creativity crisis. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html .///. Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). CCSSO response to ‘The creativity crisis.’ Press release Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/News_and_Events/Current_News/CCSSO_Response_to_the_Creativity_Crisis.html //// EdSteps. (2010b). February 22). Developing the EdSteps continuum: Report of the EdSteps technical advisory group. Retrieved from http://www.edsteps.org/CCSSO/DownloadPopUp.aspx?url=SampleWorks/EdStepsScalingApproach_Long.pdf // EdSteps. (2011b). Creativity launches. Retrieved from http://www.edsteps.org/CCSSO/ManageContent.aspx?system_name=nP6iGdNaft7MEwLG6uDXXA==&selected_system_name=DRkDdjiObdU=”
Jill Osler, a parent in Nebraska, wrote the following statement:
Parents Can Take a Stand Against Testing
Almost one year ago, I wrote an editorial stating my belief that high-stakes standardized testing is not necessary for, and even detrimental to learning. Teachers feel pressure to spend large amounts of instructional time preparing students for Ne-SA tests—which robs students of authentic learning opportunities while killing natural curiosity and passion for learning. No educational research supports standardized testing, yet districts must administer Ne-SA to comply with No Child Left Behind.
What can I do? This past year, I have contacted the Nebraska Board of Education, our former Commissioner, senators on the Education Committee, Nebraska State Education Association, our Governor, Secretary of Education, President, two school lawyers, and met with my state senator. I learned I cannot wait for the government and politicians to do what is best for kids.
Therefore, we are choosing to exercise our parental right to opt our children out of taking Ne-SA tests. I can no longer speak strongly against these tests, and then support them as I tell our children to do their best on them.
Is it possible to opt out? It is stated on page 27 of the Nebraska Department of Education’s Update: Standards, Assessment, Accountability 2013-2014, that parents or guardians can make a formal written request to the district that their student be removed from testing. No reason is required.
How will opting out affect our school? NCLB states that if fewer than 95% of a district’s students take Ne-SA, the district will not make Adequate Yearly Progress. However, I am doubtful any district will make AYP, because this year 100% of students are required to be proficient in Ne-SA Reading and Math. This is another reason I feel the time is right to opt out.
How will opting out affect our children? Our principal assures us they will never feel punished. On the Ne-SA results, our children will show a score of zero—which will not impact grades, future schooling, or graduation.
What will our children do during Ne-SA testing? We identified activities they could do independently, so direct supervision is not required. They are prepared to respond if peers ask why they are not participating.
It is up to us, as parents, to stand up for what is best for children. It is nothing personal against our school or state; it is a much larger issue. We love our school and state, however, we love our children more.
I asked Audrey Amrein-Beardsley to compile a list of the most important VAM research.
Here are her recommendations for the top 13 research articles about Value-Added Measurement:
Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2008). Methodological concerns about the Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS). Educational Researcher, 37(2), 65-75. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08316420.
Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Collins, C. (2012). The SAS Education Value-Added Assessment System (SAS® EVAAS®) in the Houston Independent School District (HISD): Intended and Unintended Consequences. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(12), 1-36. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1096
Berliner, D. C. (2014). Exogenous variables and value-added assessments: A fatal flaw. Teachers College Record, 116(1). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=17293
Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., Ravitch, D., Rothstein, R., Shavelson, R. J., & Shepard, L. A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp278
Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8-15. Retrieved from http://www.kappanmagazine.org/content/93/6/8.full.pdf+html
Haertel, E. H. (2013). Reliability and validity of inferences about teachers based on student test scores. Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICANG14.pdf
Haut, M. & Elliott, S. W (Eds.). (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education. Committee on Incentives and Test-based Accountability in Public Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://nfpcar.org/Archive/Education_Evaluation_12521.pdf
Hill, H. C., Kapitula, L, & Umlan, K. (2011, June). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794-831. doi:10.3102/0002831210387916
Newton, X., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., & Thomas, E. (2010) Value-Added Modeling of Teacher Effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23), 1-27. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/810
Papay, J. P. (2010). Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal. doi: 10.3102/0002831210362589
Paufler, N. A. & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2013, October). The random assignment of students into elementary classrooms: Implications for value-added analyses and interpretations. American Educational Research Journal. doi: 10.3102/0002831213508299
Rothstein, J. (2009). Student sorting and bias in value-added estimation: Selection on observables and unobservables. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 537-571. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2009.4.4.537
Schochet, P. Z. & Chiang, H. S. (2010, July). Error rates in measuring teacher and school performance based on student test score gains. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104004/
When asked for the top 25 (including the above), here is her list.
If your curiosity is not sated, here is an even longer list, thanks to Professor Amrein-Beardsley.
You too can be an expert.
You may recall that the website of United Opt Out was hacked and taken down on the first day of state testing. It provides information to parents in every state on how to opt out. Here is the latest:
Diane,
I posted a fundraising account for the new website online this past Sunday. By the time I got home from work on Monday/yesterday we had raised the full amount – see here 🙂 http://www.gofundme.com/83if88 . Seriously overwhelmed by the kindness of everyone.
I filed a report with the FBI last Thursday. Have yet to hear anything. We are rebuilding our website with the K-12 News Network (see here https://k12newsnetwork.com/ ) who already hosts some amazing public education websites. They also offer a lot of additional tools and supports within the website that previously we had to seek elsewhere. Very excited and very very grateful.
Cynthia Liu – owner of K-12 News Network says she should have quite a bit of the website ready to go in ONE WEEK. Cynthia is also on the committee (along with Fairtest and United Opt Out) which created the resistthetest.org site which was launched shortly before the NPE conference. We are in good hands!!!! Just had to share the fabulous update.
Best,
Peg
http://www.unitedoptout.com (Rebuilding!!! We will be STRONGER AND BETTER!!!!)
http://www.pegwithpen.com
Yong Zhao, who was born and educated in China, is a sharp critic of standardized testing. This article is the third in a series in which he criticizes PISA for misleading the world and promoting standardization and uniformity.
In this article, he reviews the many critiques of PISA by testing expert in other actions.
He writes:
“From the start, the entire PISA enterprise has been designed to capitalize on the intense nationalistic concern for global competitiveness by inducing strong emotional responses from the unsuspecting public, gullible politicians, and sensation-seeking media. Virtually all PISA products, particularly its signature product—the league tables, are intended to show winners and losers, in not only educational policies and practices of the past, but more important, in capacity for global competition in the future. While this approach has made PISA an extremely successful global enterprise, it has misled the world down a path of self-destruction, resulting in irrational policies and practices that are more likely to squander precious resources and opportunities than enhancing capacity for future prosperity.”
He reviews the OECD’s claim that the children of factory workers in Shanghai had higher scores than the children of professionals in the U.S. and finds it misleading.
Then he adds the “so what” factor:
“Even if PISA had done everything properly and indeed children of factory workers in Shanghai scored better than children of lawyers in the U.K. and the U.S., it does not necessarily mean they are better educated or prepared for the modern society, considering the limitation of PISA test scores as I discussed in Part 3 of this series. It could mean something entirely different: while PISA scores can be achieved with little resources and intense repetition of narrowly defined, uniformly prescribed content and skills, what truly matters—talent diversity, creativity, and entrepreneurialism—cannot. The multiplication table can be learned with a piece of paper, but it would be difficult to force anyone to play the piano without a piano. Everyone can be forced to memorize Hamlet, but it is unlikely to force anyone to invent the iPhone.”
Preliminary figures indicate that at least 33,000 students opted out of state tests in New York.
This is a huge increase from last year, when only a few hundred students refused to take the tests.
Given the growing criticism of the tests, which many teachers and principals say were “terrible” or developmentally inappropriate, the opt put movement will continue to grow.
It is an awful burden to place on children to tell them–and, yes, they know– that their test score will determine whether their teacher will be fired or their school will be closed.
As more states begin taking the Common Core-aligned tests, more parents will say no. We have heard from industry spokesmen that the online tests will be data mining, collecting information about children for future use, perhaps for vendors. Parents will say, “No thanks.” And they are right.
District 2 in New York City–one of the city’s highest scoring districts–plans protests this Friday against the poor quality of the ELA tests given last week. State officials tried to dismiss concerns from other districts, specifically from Liz Phillips, a respected Brooklyn principal who wrote a letter to all the parents in her school saying the tests were.”terrible.” More than 500 parents and teachers at her school joined to protest the ELA tests last Friday. The Néw York Times ignored Phillips’ informed judgment and accepted the assurances of state officials (and pupils–how large was their sample?) that the test was “easier” than last year.
District 2 principals agreed with Phillips.
Here is their statement:
Community Action:
Join Us in Speaking Out Regarding the NYS English Language Arts Exam
Friday, April 11th, at District 2 Schools
Dear District 2 Families,
Community School District 2 represents a richly diverse group of school communities and it is not often these days that we have an opportunity to join in a shared effort. Last week, and for several weeks prior, every one of our upper grade classrooms devoted hours of instructional time, vast human resources, and a tremendous amount of thoughtful effort to preparing students to do well on the NYS ELA exams and, ultimately, to administering them. Only a handful of District 2 families even considered opting out, and we are not advocating families do so, specifically because we believe our students are well prepared for the rigor and high expectations of the Common Core and our schools have worked hard for several years to adjust our curriculum and teaching to support students in meeting those expectations. We had high hopes for what this year’s tests would bring and assured families that they would reflect the feedback test makers and state officials had received from educators and families regarding the design of the test following last year’s administration. Our students worked extremely hard and did their very best. As school leaders, we supported teachers in ensuring that students and families kept the tests in perspective – they were important, but by no means the ultimate measure of who they are as readers, students, or human beings. We encouraged them to be optimistic, and did our best to do the same. Frankly, many of us were disappointed by the design and quality of the tests and stood by helplessly while kids struggled to determine best answers, distorting much of what we’d taught them about effective reading skills and strategies and forgoing deep comprehension for something quite different.
Last Friday morning, Liz Phillips, the principal of PS321 in Brooklyn, led her staff and her parent community in a demonstration objecting, not to testing or accountability or high expectations for kids, but to these tests in particular and, importantly, to their high stakes nature for teachers and students, and the policy of refusing to release other than a small percentage of the questions. 500 staff and parents participated.
By Friday evening some officials were dismissing the importance of their statement, claiming that Liz and her community represented only a tiny percentage of those affected, implying that the rest of us were satisfied. Given the terribly high stakes of these tests, for schools, for teachers and for kids, and the enormous amount of human, intellectual and financial resources that have been devoted to them, test makers should be prepared to stand by them and to allow them to undergo close scrutiny.
Many District 2 schools will be holding demonstrations this week, making sure our thoughts on this are loud and clear and making it more difficult to dismiss the efforts of one school. On Friday morning, April 11th, at 8:00am, we invite our families and staff to join District 2 schools in speaking out, expressing our deep dissatisfaction with the 2014 NYS English Language Arts LA exams and the lack of transparency surrounding them. Among the concerns shared by many schools are the following: The tests seem not to be particularly well-aligned with the Common Core Learning Standards; the questions are poorly constructed and often ambiguous; the tests themselves are embargoed and only a handful of select questions will be released next year; teachers are not permitted to use (or even discuss) the questions or the results to inform their teaching; students and families receive little or no specific feedback; this year, there were product placements (i.e., Nike, Barbie) woven through some exams. We are inviting you and your family to join together as a school community in this action, helping to ensure that officials are not left to wonder whether our silence implied approval.
Yours truly,
District 2 Principals
Adele Schroeter, PS59; Lisa Ripperger, PS234; Robert Bender, PS11; Tara Napoleoni, PS183; Jane Hsu, PS116; Sharon Hill, PS290; Amy Hom, PS1; Lauren Fontana, PS6; Jennifer Bonnet, PS150; Nicole Ziccardi Yerk, PS281; Susan Felder, PS40; Alice Hom, PS124; Nancy Harris, PS397; Kelly Shannon, PS41; Nancy Sing-Bok, PS51; Lisa Siegman, PS3; Irma Medina, PS111; Terry Ruyter, PS276; Medea McEvoy, PS267; Darryl Alhadeff, PS158; Samantha Kaplan, PS151; David Bowell, PS347; Lily Woo, PS130; Jacqui Getz, PS126; Kelly McGuire, Lower Manhattan Community MS
