Archives for category: Testing

Dale Hansen in the Detroit News explains in this blog post how Governor Rick Snyder has underfunded the public schools while claiming (falsely) to have increased funding.

By the way, the title of his article is: “Governor Rick Snyder Is Working to Destroy Public Education.”

He shows how the Governor is pushing teachers out of the pension system, contributing to its woes as there are fewer teachers to pay into it.

He shows how the Governor favors charter schools, and will continue to convert public schools into charter schools wherever and whenever possible.

More than 80% of the charters in Michigan are operated for-profit, meaning that taxpayers’ dollars are going to pay off investors and stockholders, not into the classroom where they belong.

Hansen writes:

Regardless of all of these potential problem areas, Rick Snyder and Michigan Republicans know that every school they deem failing will simply be converted to a charter school, which pulls more students out of traditional public schools. This means less teachers contributing to the public retirement fund and with fewer teachers contributing it requires the state to kick in more. The perception then becomes that greedy teachers are taking money out of the classroom and that public schools are expensive and inefficient.

This is the self-fulfilling prophecy Republicans hope will be the undoing of public schools. The Republican solution to inefficient and expensive public schools makes public schools more inefficient and expensive. It’s a win-win for Republicans. They make public schools look bad while simultaneously putting more kids on the charter school gravy train.

The question of money in education is important but when it comes to the Michigan governor’s race the better question should be, what do we want our education system to look like in the future? Do we want schools that are subject to local checks and balances or a couple massive corporations that make their money based on quantity, not quality? Because regardless of how much either candidate pledges to spend, their goals are profoundly different.

Veteran political analyst Jason Stanford attended the Network for Public Education conference in Austin, and he sensed the beginning of a movement against high-stakes testing and the corporate takeover of public education.

He writes:

“In the state where high-stakes testing began, a few hundred teachers, academics, and activists came together last weekend to hasten what one leader called an “Education Spring.” The Network for Public Education gathered in Austin to plan the resistance to the status quo of high-stakes testing and an encroaching corporate privatization movement. This first-of-its-kind convention might finally provide an effective opposition to the corporate reform movement that wants to run education like a business.

“With groups like this one and so many others, all of which are active in so many ways, in so many parts of the country, we are standing on the threshold of the Education Spring,” said John Kuhn, a Texas superintendent known for his fiery speeches. “We’re here to shake up the educational world, and our movement is only growing. This is our spring.”

This spring may be the biggest mass protest against standardized testing ever, and school officials are worried, according to Education Week.

At the conclusion of its first annual conference, the Network for Public Education announced a call for Congressional hearings on testing:

NPE Calls for Congressional Hearings – Full Text

March 2, 2014 NPE News

We are writing to request that the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee hold hearings to investigate the over-emphasis, misapplication, costs, and poor implementation of high-stakes standardized testing in the nation’s K-12 public schools.

Starting with No Child Left Behind legislation in 2001, which mandated standardized testing of every student in grades three through eight, many states have since rolled out testing in additional grades. This emphasis on testing has increased under policies of the Obama administration, such as Race to the Top and the NCLB waivers, that tie test scores to teacher and principal evaluations and school “turnarounds” and closures. There is a danger that tests now seem to have become the purpose of education, rather than a measure of education.

The tests were initiated to measure whether schools were delivering an education of high quality to every child. It makes sense to determine whether all students are achieving at a minimum level of proficiency in English and math, and standardized tests can help discern whether they are.

Our concern is that high-stakes testing in public schools has led to multiple unintended consequences that warrant federal scrutiny, including the following questions, among others.

Do the tests promote skills our children and our economy need? The most popular form of tests today are multiple-choice because they are easy and cheap to grade. But many educators and parents worry that teaching children how to take these tests doesn’t teach them how to think. The new standardized exams from the multi-state testing consortia do not appear to be significantly better, and will likely be scored by computers, which cannot gauge higher order thinking.. The challenges of the future and our nation’s economic success require the ability to solve and identify new problems, think creatively, and work collaboratively with others.

What is the purpose of these tests? Assessments should be used as diagnostic tools, to help teachers figure out where students are in their learning. But in most states, teachers are forbidden to see the actual test questions or provide feedback to students. Teachers do not see how their students answered specific test items and learn nothing about how their students are doing, other than a single score, which may arrive long after the student has left their classrooms. Thus, the tests have no diagnostic value for teachers or students, who do not have the opportunity to review and learn the material they got wrong.

How good are the tests? Problems with the actual content of tests have been extensively documented. There are numerous instances of flawed questions and design, including no right answer, more than one right answer, wording that is unclear or misleading, reading passages or problems that are developmentally inappropriate or contain product placements, test questions on material never taught, and items that border on bizarre, such as a famous example that asked students to read a passage about a race between a pineapple and a hare. Tests are not scientific instruments like barometers; they are commercial products that are subject to multiple errors.

Are tests being given to children who are too young? In many states, high-stakes standardized tests are required for even the youngest school children. In Chicago, for instance, Kindergarten students face four standardized tests two or three times a year and can spend up to a third of their time taking tests. Children of this age typically do not know how to read or even hold a pencil or use a keyboard. Subjecting 5-year-olds to a timed test is not only hopeless from a practical standpoint, but subject children to undue stress.

Are tests culturally biased? Every standardized test in the world is an accurate reflection of socioeconomic advantage and disadvantage. Thus, students from racial and ethnic-minorities, students with disabilities, and students of lower socioeconomic status tend to have lower scores than their more advantaged peers. Further, test results are often used as rationales for closing schools that serve low-income communities of color.

Are tests harmful to students with disabilities? Over the past few years, there have been numerous instances in which children with significant health situations, even undergoing life-saving procedures, were pressured to complete required tests – even from their hospital beds. Children with severe brain disorders have been compelled to take a state test. Recently in Florida, an eleven-your-old boy who was dying in hospice was expected to take a test. Such behavior defies common sense and common decency.

How has the frequency and quantity of testing increased? Testing is taking significant time away from instructional learning time. In Chicago, elementary school students take the REACH, the TRC, the MAP, the EXPLORE, the ISAT, and DIBELS every year. In North Carolina, third-grade students are tested in reading 36 times throughout the year – in addition to other standardized tests. Middle schools students in Pennsylvania may take over 20 standardized tests in a single school year. High school students in Florida can have their instruction disrupted 65 times out of 180 school days by testing. In New York, the time taken by state exams has increased by 128%. When so much time is devoted to testing instead of teaching, students have less time to learn.

Does testing harm teaching? Now that test scores are linked to principal and teacher evaluations in many states, teachers engage in more test prep because they are pressured and afraid, not because they think the assessments are educationally sound. Principals are nervous about their school’s scores. Many educators have admitted they are fearful of taking students on field trips, engaging them in independent projects, or spending time on untested subjects like science or history, art or music because it might take time away from test prep. As a result, the curriculum has narrowed and students have lost their opportunity for a well-rounded education.

How much money does it cost? It is difficult to calculate the entire costs of standardized testing – including the many classroom hours spent on test prep. But it is well known that nearly every state is spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to develop more high-stakes tests for students, and requiring local districts to spend hundreds of millions more to get their students ready to take them. In addition to the cost of the tests and the interim tests, there are added costs of new curriculum, textbooks, hardware, software, and bandwidth that new tests require. There are also opportunity costs when money allocated for testing supersedes other education expenditures, such as libraries, art and music programs, social workers and guidance counselors, and extra-curricular activities.

Are there conflicts of interest in testing policies? In many states, a company that has a multi-million dollar contract to create tests for the state is also the same company that profits from producing curriculum and test prep materials. In some states, a single testing company has been able to win a contract worth many millions of dollars by lobbying and engaging in backdoor influencing of public officials. In other states, school districts buy textbooks from the same company that makes the tests so their students have an advantage on the tests.

Was it legal for the U.S. Department of Education to fund two testing consortia for the Common Core State Standards? According to federal law and regulations, the U.S. Department of education is not allowed to supervise, direct, or control curriculum or instruction. Yet the funding of testing consortia directly intervenes in the curriculum or instruction of almost every public school in the nation, as the tests will determine what is taught and how it is taught.

We believe that every child in the United States deserves a sound education. Every child deserves a full curriculum in a school with adequate resources. We are deeply concerned that the current overemphasis on standardized testing is harming children, public schools, and our nation’s economic and civic future. It’s our conclusion that the over-emphasis, misapplication, costs, and poor implementation of high-stakes standardized tests may now warrant federal intervention. We urge you to pursue the questions we have raised.

Kevin J. Glynn, a teacher who founded Lace to the Top (those ever-present green laces and green bracelets that are meant to remind us that children are more than a test score)*, sends an exciting report from his school district on Long Island. The powers that be have abolished test prep!

Kevin writes:

The message to teachers changed today in the South Country School District, and tomorrow the actions will follow.  To the joy of students and their parents, there will be no test prep, at all, in any form.  In its place will be collaboration, imagination, inspiration, and love for the students in all third grade classes.  This is news because yesterday, the message to teachers was the same as in most other districts- prepare students with rigorous test prep.

South Country follows Lucy Calkin’s Units of Study.  This amazing, differentiated reading and writing program allows students to apply strategies within their independent levels. The one downfall of the program is that it dedicates a unit of reading and writing to test prep. I have communicated with Lucy Calkins and the the test prep unit exists to appeal to the districts that value and have requested a “test prep unit”. 

Yesterday, South Country School District gave teachers complete autonomy to replace the reading and writing test prep unit. The reading test prep unit was replaced with a study of genres absent of thoughtless multiple choice questions and built around questions that would encourage deeper level thinking & meaningful conversations. The writing test prep unit was replaced with blog responses to literature. Again, absent of the typical canned test prep and replaced by 21st century technology partnered with higher order questions. 

This is a step toward fully recognizing our kids are more than scores on ill-conceived tests that inhibit instruction and are designed to fail everyone in the school house and community.  In the words of South Country Assistant Superintendent Evers, “Test prep is a lie!”  Test prep neglects great teachers who know and love their kids and wastes talent, money, and our children’s only time they get as elementary school students.  Test prep does nothing of what it claims to do and in fact impedes the quest for quality education.

 Until now, the focus has been on outputs. South Country’s Superintendent, Dr. Joseph Giani has committed to supporting quality inputs that are focused on meeting students’ needs.  Test scores may not rise, but a love and foundation of learning has been secured. 

 

This is Kevin’s explanation of “Lace to the Top”:

We did not put green laces in our shoes, green looms on our wrists, and green lanyards around our necks because we hoped we would win. We put them on as a bold and impossible to ignore reminder of why we will win. We will win for our children, our schools, our teachers, and our communities. When we win, students will know they mean more than a score, parents will know that their rights mean more than the Core, and teachers will be allowed to be more than a scripted module. Kings are falling, politicians are scrambling, and corporations are worrying. 

Wear your green knowing that children will be happier and their education will be stronger because of your commitment to their future. 

As one.

From a reader in Chicago:

Teachers at 2nd Chicago school bravely boycott State ISAT tests
Also 1,000 parents in 57 schools opt out

http://www.wbez.org/news/education/teachers-2nd-school-boycott-isat-109797

Here’s a petition to share with your supporters on the “ICE the ISAT” movement. They need 500 more signatures.

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/support-the-testing-boycott

The Providence Student Union said it first: it is wrong to use a standardized test for graduation.

They fought the state superintendent Deborah Gist all year.

Then the Providence superintendent said she agreed withthe students. The tests will hurt the most disadvantaged students, who will never get a diploma.

Now the battle rages because the state board if education won’t back down. They don’t care if those students never graduate. It is Other People’s Children.

Linda Darling-Hammond describes the possibilities for the transformation of assessment in the Common Core era.

Embodied in her analysis is a devastating critique of value-added measurement, which has been enacted by many states under pressure by the US Department of Education.

Did you know that the National Assessment Of Educational Progress used to test much more than reading and math, much more than academic subjects? Did you know that it was designed originally to assess student cooperation and behavior as well as skills? Did you know that the narrowing of NAEP testing is fairly recent?

Richard Rothstein knows what NAEP was supposed to be and he explained its history to the governing board of NAEP on the occasion of its 25th anniversary.

He wrote:

“Education policy in both the Bush and Obama administrations has suffered from failure to acknowledge a critical principle of performance evaluation in all fields, public and private—if an institution has multiple goals but is held accountable only for some, its agents, acting rationally, will increase attention paid to goals for which they are evaluated, and diminish attention to those, perhaps equally important, for which they are not evaluated.

“When law and policy hold schools accountable primarily for their students’ math and reading test scores, educators inevitably, and rationally, devote less instructional resources to history, the sciences, the arts and music, citizenship, physical and emotional health, social skills, a work ethic and other curricular areas.

“Over the last decade, racial minority and socio-economically disadvantaged students have suffered the most from this curricular narrowing. As those with the lowest math and reading scores, theirs are the teachers and schools who are under the most pressure to devote greater time to test prep, and less to the other subjects of a balanced instructional program.

“One way the federal government promotes this distortion is through its National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), an assessment administered biennially in every state, but only in math and reading. Government officials spend considerable effort publicizing the results. They call NAEP “The Nation’s Report Card,” but no parent would be satisfied with so partial and limited a report card for his or her child.

“Twenty-five years ago, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to create NAEP policy. At NAGB’s conference today celebrating its silver anniversary, Rebecca Jacobsen and I describe (in a presentation drawn from our book with Tamara Wilder, Grading Education. Getting Accountability Right) how NAGB’s disproportionate attention to math and reading was not intended when NAEP was first administered in the early 1970s.

“In those early years, NAEP attempted to assess any goal area for which schools devote, in the words of NAEP’s designers, “15-20% of their time…, [the] less tangible areas, as well as the customary areas, in a fashion the public can grasp and understand.”

“For example, to see whether students were learning to cooperate, NAEP sent trained observers to present a game to 9-year-olds in sampled schools. In teams of four, the 9-year-olds were offered a prize to guess what was hidden in a box. Teams competed to see which, by asking questions, could identify the toy first. Team members had to agree on which questions to ask, and the role of posing questions was rotated. Trained NAEP observers rated the 9-year-olds on their skills in cooperative problem-solving and NAEP then reported on the percentage who were capable of it.

“NAEP assessors also evaluated cooperative skills of 13- and 17-year-olds. Assessors presented groups of eight students with a list of issues about which teenagers typically had strong opinions. Students were asked to reach consensus on the five most important and then write recommendations on how to resolve two of them. The list included, for 13-year-olds, such issues as whether they should have a curfew for going to bed, and for 17-year-olds, eligibility minimums for voting, drinking, and smoking. NAEP observers rated skills such as whether students gave reasons for their points of view and defended a group member’s right to hold a contrary viewpoint.”

For the full presentation, written with Rebecca Jacobsen, read this.

The Momma Bears are one of the potent forces that will drive the corporate-style reformers out of business.

You see, the Momma Bears are not in it for the money or the fame or the power or the control.

They are Mamma Bears, and they don’t back down. They protect their cubs.

They don’t particularly care whether Arne Duncan calls them names or whether the Governor likes them.

They are in it for their children, and (as we say in the South) they ain’t giving up or going away.

In this post, they single out a teacher who told parents the truth about what the state was doing to their children.

They know this teacher is on their side and on the side of their children. He wants to teach, not test. Imagine that!

Who imposed all this testing on these kids? They know:

You can thank these people for this asinine TVAAS evaluation system:

  • TN Board of Education (appointed by Gov. Haslam)
  • TN Commissioner Kevin Huffman (appointed by Gov. Haslam)
  • Governor Haslam (who sent his kids to private schools that didn’t excessively test or rate teachers by test scores)
  • William Sanders (the statistician who came up with this awful system to rate agricultural growth and somehow it is now it is being used to abuse teachers)

The Mamma Bears know that all this testing doesn’t help their children.

They know that it helps Pearson!

If their child fails, guess what they get? More testing!

These are smart Mamma Bears. They will be there after the name Bill Haslam and Kevin Huffman are long forgotten.

You see, there is justice in the world.