Archives for category: Testing

Gary Rubinstein’s analysis of the charter schools founded by Congressman Jared Polis showed that the schools posted low test score growth. Congressman Polis responded in a comment (posted below) that this was understandable because his charter schools enroll very low-performing students, many of whom barely speak or read English, and many of whom are overage for their grade and far behind. It is understandable, he says, that these kids are not posting big score gains. He also notes that the teachers at his schools are not judged by value-added assessment, given the students they serve.

Congressman Polis is making my case for me but he doesn’t realize it. He should read my book.

He would discover that I support charter schools that enroll the kids who didn’t make it in public schools. They should exist to do what the public schools can’t do. They should exist to help kids who were left behind, not to skim the brightest kids from the poorest communities. Schools should not be closed because of their low scores, and their teachers should not be judged by test scores. Charter schools and public schools should collaborate, not compete. Charter schools should fill a need, as Polis’ schools seem to do, not fight public schools for market share.

If Congressman Polis would read my book, he would see that his are the kinds of charters I endorse.

If he would take the time to familiarize himself with the research on test-based accountability, he would join me in opposing it. He would withdraw his support for Colorado’s SB 191, which bases 50% of a teacher’s evaluation on student test scores. This is one of the nation’s worst, most punitive, and most ignorant teacher evaluation law, based on no research or evidence, just the whim of young State Senator Michael Johnston, ex-TFA. There are good ways to evaluate teachers, and test-based accountability is not one of them. That is why Jared Polis’ charter schools don’t do it.

Since we have now found common ground, despite the fact that Polis called me “an evil woman,” and despite the fact that he stubbornly refuses to apologize for his outburst, I invite him to meet with me in Brooklyn to discuss whether he can overcome his irrational contempt for traditional public schools. Even though he is a billionaire, I will pick up the check for breakfast, lunch, or dinner on one condition: read my book. If you don’t like it, Jared, I will give you your money back. Just promise not to throw it at me.

Here is his comment on the blog in response to Gary’s post:

“Thank you for your post defending the efforts of New America School. New America School (NAS) serves almost entirely NEP (non-English-proficient) and LEP (limited English proficiency) students, many of whom are several grade levels behind when they enter NAS. Nearly all of their students are drop-outs or have major gaps in their education.

“Given that the tests are only available in English, the NAS students have a significant disadvantage.

“A primary metric the school uses to demonstrate success is measuring the acquisition of the English language. Many NAS students are 19 or 20 years old, and only have a 6th grade or 8th grade education prior to entering NAS. Sadly in Colorado students “age out” of public education at age 21, and few students can accomplish 4 or 5 years of learning in 1 or 2 years. But even if they don’t earn a diploma, the students gain functional English language literacy.

“This analysis is a good example of why test scores should not be the only criteria used to evaluate schools or teachers. NAS teachers are hard working and dedicated and have literally transformed lives. To be clear, I support transparency on aggregate test scores, and Mr. Rubinstein is welcome to use that information to make whatever charts he wishes to show that a school is good, bad, or otherwise but it is important to educate the reform community about the importance of alternative education and serving all kids.

“Rubinstein mentions that “Colorado is one of the states that has been most aggressive about tying standardized test scores to teacher evaluations and to school rankings. ” but NAS does not use standardized test scores to evaluate teachers, nor has any kind of “ranking” hurt the school’s effort to fulfill its mission “to empower new immigrants, English language learners, and academically under-served students with the educational tools and support they need to maximize their potential, succeed and live the American dream.”

Reader Gordon Wilder wonders why we lost sight of the
purpose of education: “My view: People have forgotten what real
education is about, the search for ultimate values: good, truth,
beauty. To value integrity, love etc. It is searching out the best
ideas of humanities greatest minds, greatest teachers. It is NOT
about passing test scores. When this first came out – the “nation
at risk” era, we laughed. Pretty soon they will be having classes
on how to pass tests. That is not funny anymore. It is reality. Has
the era of corporate leadership which took us to the brink of
worldwide financial collapse, within hours, the panacea for our
problems. Is it that we are not producing enough scientists and
mathematicians or that 50% of marriages – when they occur – are
collapsing, that 23% of our children live in poverty, that our
health care is amongst the worst in the world, ad nauseum. How do
we view our children, as objects, widgets, into which we pour
government – corporate – approved facts or as human beings to reach
their highest potential as human beings? How do we define
education? Who defines it, scholars and educators or politicians?
What yardstick do we use to measure success, test scores, or lives
lived to their fullest?”

This was written by Raniel Guzman, who is a teacher in the School District of Philadelphia and an adjunct professor at Esperanza College of Eastern University:

May 100 % of your students score proficient or above on standardized tests by 2014.            

An attributed Chinese proverb is often wished upon one’s enemies by asserting, may you live in interesting times… This understated “curse” levied upon one’s enemies has a restrained Buddhist sensibility even as one wishes ill toward others. Educators today are indeed living in interesting times. Students and parents are certainly living in interesting times as well. However, the curse placed upon us all is not restrained but rather overt.

The curse is well known to educators and asserts the following, may 100 % of your students score proficient or above on standardized tests by 2014. So then, who has placed this “curse” upon us all? I am certain we can think of obvious enemies. Nonetheless, I am not certain many of us are thinking about the less obvious and thus more lethal enemies. They give politically correct speeches, and radiate a fatherly presence. Their threat resides precisely in the proximity to their victims, namely us. We often develop a blind spot for such figures and hope that they will protect us from sorcerers and things that go bump in the night. Unfortunately, simple examination of deeds, rather than speech, proves otherwise.

Their “curse” is characterized by dilution and diminution. Teachers, students, administrators and parents are diluted in endless paper chases disguised as tests, assessments and reports. Conversely, the edification of concepts and individual free will are systematically diminished. The combined effects may elicit the maddening image of a hamster running endlessly in a caged wheel. However, a more accurate image of these effects is more akin to desperate victims racing to the top of an inextinguishable inferno.

May 100 % of your students score proficient or above on standardized tests by 2014 is particularly stressful when father figures emphasize the deadline, by 2014. This has been the curse that has dominated the bulk of my teaching career. A curse so powerful it has decimated all attempts to render it inoperative. This “super curse” has brought forward other conjurers, who with wands in hand have temporarily waved away some provisions yet, have not been able or willing to undo this “super curse”. What would motivate someone to place such a curse?  Let’s entertain some thoughts.

Many profess that a goal as noble as ensuring that all students score proficient at the same time and place is beyond reproach. Well, it is simply reprehensible. This cynical goal suffers from a pernicious pathology, which advocates forgive as a delusion for perfection. Shamefully, these apologists hide the correct diagnosis. It is not a delusion of perfection that motivates the jinxers, but rather a pathology of exclusion. We all know the consequences of not scoring proficient and obtaining AYP, -they close your (our) school. However, 2014 can’t seem to arrive soon enough for some hexers. Hence, the rush by officials –this year-, to close as many public schools throughout our country under the convenient excuses of “austerity” and “scores” is well afoot. The unprecedented shuttering of dozens of public schools particularly in largely African American communities, as in Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. etc. are justified under the rationale of budgetary challenges.

This rationale anchors itself on the operational premise of right sizing. Irrespective of the fact that we are talking about children and their development -this thinking may have legitimate administrative basis in the private sector. However, the current juxtaposition of private sector practices and public sector commitments, such as providing an adequate and free education as stipulated in the constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, have dissimilar agendas and unequal strengths. Why then the rush if the “super curse” will effectively close thousands of public schools all across our country within a year? We will surely have the right size and number of schools soon enough. Could it be that the proponents’ zeal for the “super curse” is waning? Hardly.

In fact the “super curse” is going very well. The political party, pardon, -the political parties, both of them, have put away their “profound pedagogical partitions” to unite in this effort. Likewise, the industrial testing complex continues to redact tests, assessments, practice workbooks, study programs, while hiring consultants, garnering ever greater budget allocations, and accumulating data all aimed to ensure that scores comply with targets of soon to be imposed common core standards. But above all of these machinations, one supersedes them all, the president’s silence on these matters is the best indicator that all is truly going well among the jinxers and hexers. Conversely, hope for a change is sequestered. So again I ask, why the rush? Could it be that the “super curse” itself is waning? Hardly.

In fact, the jinxers are emboldened by their powers and lack of meaningful restraints, -why wait? “Let’s exclude NOW!” they demand. What we have in front of us now is a turn to Kronos, but an inverted Kronos. We have all seen the depictions of Kronos devouring his children. His filicides are motivated out of fear, a fear of competition from his children. Thus, he eats them. In our case, our Kronos is not committing filicide, but rather devouring the children of others. One can imagine a repented titan with a renewed paternal instinct and displaced fear of competition in the presence of other children asking another titan, “How do we devour the potential competitors of our children?” The other titan may respond, “Well, one way is to be proactive. For example, you offer your children greater pedagogical and assertive experiences and opportunities. In addition, you enroll your children in a school that is free of stigma, for example, one that does not administer standardized tests, say a private school or a divinity school. In other words, enroll your child in a school that does not partake in omens or curses.”

Nonetheless, there is still another way, a more reactive way, to devour your children’s potential competitors, -you close their schools and in doing so -eliminate the competition. Once shuttered, you place stigma upon the displaced children and adults. Moreover, you place a scarlet tattoo on both and you never lift the curse. The calculation is the following; the failure of some children will ensure that mine will thrive. This charter is an open collusion devoid of formalities.

I am well aware that we live in highly secular times, which are dominated by facts and figures. But for some of us who recognize the evil that lurk in men’s hearts, we cannot ignore the immutable. Those who conspire against children are devoid of judgment. Consequently, their motivations are drawn from an irredeemable well. They practice technical numerology, model apparitions, and consult conjurers. Some of them believe in curses. Others still are weary of omens. Some even fear children, often their own. I believe in God. Evil may cause great pain and destruction, but evil never prevails. Evil’s harvest never mature and eventually in its rage devours its own seed.

While I was traveling to Denver, I received a request from The New Republic to respond to an article by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the provost of the University of Pennsylvania, who asserted that we need more tests, because studying for tests makes kids smarter. I wrote this article, responding to Dr. Ezekiel that what matters most about tests is who writes them, how quickly results are reported, and what they are used for. The best tests, I argue, are made by the teachers. They know what they taught. They get. Almost instant feedback. They can see which students need extra help. And they can learn how to improve their teaching.

Yes, Dr. Emanuel is the brother of the mayor of a large US city.

Marc Tucker posted a fascinating dialogue with two testing experts, Howard Everson and Robert Linn.

 

Here are some of the salient points.

MT: Is this country getting ready to make a profound mistake? We use grade-by-grade testing in grades 3-8 but no other country is doing it this way for accountability; instead they test 2 or 3 times in a students’ career. If the United States did it that way, we could afford some of the best tests in the world without spending any more money.

BL: Raising the stakes for our test-based accountability systems so that there will be consequences for individual teachers will make matters even worse. Cheating scandals will blossom. I think this annual testing is unnecessary and is a big part of the problem. What we should be doing is testing at two key points along the way in grades K-8, and then in high school using end-of-course tests.

HE: I am in the same place as Bob. The multiple-choice paradigm first used in WWI and eventually used to satisfy the NCLB requirements has proven to be quite brittle, especially when applied in every grade 3-8 and used to make growth assumptions. The quick and widespread adoption of multiple-choice testing was in hindsight a big mistake for this country, but—now — states will tell you it is all they can afford.

Bob Linn points out that the increased reliance on external tests reflects a fundamental distrust of teachers. Our nation relies on these tests because teachers can’t be trusted to test their own students. The conundrum is that the reliance on standardized tests demoralizes and deskills teachers and reduces the prestige of the teaching profession

BL: One big difference between the United States and other countries is the prestige and trust in teachers, which is very low in this country and tends to be quite high in the top performers. This has led to the development of accountability systems that use external measures to see if schools and individual teachers are doing a good job. This has morphed into the next level: evaluating individual teachers. Unless we can find a way to increase the prestige of teachers and public confidence in them, it will be hard to move too far away from using testing for these purposes.

I am not a testing expert. I am a historian. I have studied the history of testing (see Left Back), and I served for seven years on the National Assessment Governing Board. One thing I know: the testing industry is the greatest beneficiary of the testing mandates of No Child Left Behind and the Race to the Top. The testing industry has lobbyists who look out for the interests of the industry. They work on Capitol Hill and in the state capitols.

Can they be stopped? Can we bring the best interests of children to the fore, to replace the best interests of the testing industry?

Yes.

Opt out.

Do not allow them to test your child.

Show your disdain for their flawed product.

Do not allow them to use your children as data points.

David Leonhardt of the Néw York Times interviews Arne Duncan, Mitch Daniels, and John Engler on the state of the “reform” movement.

How fitting that Duncan would be paired with two of the very conservative Republican ex-governors, and the three sound alike.

What is interesting to me is that I hear a subtle shift in tone. They are admitting that scores are up and graduation rates are up, but that whatever progress we have made is not good enough. Do I detect a new line of rhetoric? Did someone summarize the first few chapters of “Reign of Error” for them?

Did they skip the chapter about international comparisons?

John Thompson has an excellent post on Anthony Cody’s blog, trying to figure out why the architects of Race to the Top ignored a wealth of social science evidence by demanding more test-based accountability than even No Child Left Behind.

He notes that both Elaine Weiss of the Bolder Broader Approach and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) take a dim view of RTTT.

Elaine Weiss reviewed the evidence and found that RTTT was not likely to meet its lofty goals. States made promises they could not keep, and RTTT has been accompanied by punitive strategies, conflict, and deprofessionalization of teaching. “Districts heavily serving low-income and minority students, especially large urban districts, face some of the most severe challenges. Tight timelines and lack of resources compound RTTT’s failure to address poverty related impediments to learning. Heightened pressure on districts to produce impossible gains from an overly narrow policy agenda has made implementation difficult and often counterproductive.”

The GAO report found that implementation of teacher and principal evaluation systems were proceeding slowly and problematically. Some districts report that the cost of implementation exceed the value of the award. No one can say with assurance that education has been improved by the DOE’s demand to put even higher stakes on testing.

Of course, test-based evaluation of professionals is bound to be challenging because most teachers are not teaching tested subjects; many are “evaluated” by the scores of their school, or by the scores registered by students in subjects the teachers don’t teach. This is not only a challenge, it is nonsensical.

I have been searching, but I can’t find another nation in the world that is pursuing this means of evaluating teachers. If anyone who reads this knows of one, please let me know.

I am aware of several books that will be published over the next year explaining why teachers should not be evaluated by test scores. Of course, the U.S. Department of Education was warned not to do it. It was warned in a strong letter written by the National Academies of Sciences Board on Testing and Assessment. Here is a key paragraph, warning that value-added measures (VAM) were not ready to be used to evaluate teachers:

In sum, value-added methodologies should be used only after careful consideration of their appropriateness for the data that are available, and if used, should be subjected to rigorous evaluation. At present, the best use of VAM techniques is in closely studied pilot projects. Even in pilot projects, VAM estimates of teacher effectiveness should not be used as the sole or primary basis for making operational decisions because the extent to which the measures reflect the contribution of teachers themselves, rather than other factors, is not understood. Even in pilot projects, VAM estimates of teacher effectiveness should not be used to make operational decisions for teachers with students who have achievement levels that are too high or too low to be measured by the available tests because the estimates for such teachers will be essentially meaningless. Even in pilot projects, VAM estimates of teacher effectiveness that are based on data for a single class of students should not used to make operational decisions because such estimates are far too unstable to be considered fair or reliable. 

The U.S. Department of Education ignored the advice of testing experts, and now, three years after handing out $4.35 billion, there is no evidence that Race to the Top has accomplished anything other than to create massive demoralization among teachers and principals.

Heather Vogell, a stellar reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, has done in-depth investigative reporting on the standardized tests that now are used to determine the fate of students, teachers, principals, and schools.

She has found a surprising number of errors, though not surprising to those familiar with the testing industry.

Read this article. How should a student respond to questions where all the answers are wrong?

What does it do to students when they realize the questions or answers are wrong?

Here is an idea for this tireless reporter: investigate how much money the testing industry spends to lobby Congress and the states to maintain their hold over the minds of our students and the very definition of education.

Readers, after you read Heather Vogell’s excellent articles, please read Todd Farley’s eye-popping exposé of the testing industry called “Making the Grades.”

You will never forget his description of how student constructed responses are scored and who is doing it (minimum wage temps).

Emma Brown of the Washington Post explains that DC test scores in math reached a historic high point because of a decision by DC officials.

But the math gains officials reported were the result of a quiet decision to score the tests in a way that yielded higher scores even though D.C. students got far fewer math questions correct than in the year before.

The decision was made after D.C. teachers recommended a new grading scale — which would have held students to higher standards on tougher math tests — and after officials reviewed projections that the new scale would result in a significant decline in math proficiency rates.

Instead, city officials chose to discard the new grading approach and hold students to a level of difficulty similar to previous years’, according to city officials as well as e-mails and documents obtained by The Washington Post.
Brown writes:In the District, the discarded grading scale would have yielded a mixed picture of achievement on the 2013 tests. The reading proficiency rate would have been 6.6 points higher than was reported in 2012, but math would have been 3.6 points lower.

The choice that D.C. officials faced suggests that proficiency rates — which are used to make employment and pay decisions for teachers and principals and to judge the city’s efforts to improve public education — are as much a product of policymakers’ decisions as they are of student performance.

The lesson in this episode is not that DC officials are not to be trusted, but that the scoring of tests is a matter of human judgment, not science.

The human judgment may be based on political considerations. Or not.

But we must stop believing that standardized tests are a scientific measure, like a barometer or a thermometer.

It is human beings who decide where the passing mark should be.

They may decide to make it easier or harder to pass.

But it is not science. It is human judgment.

Test scores are the result of subjective judgment, not objective measures.

Pearson has good lobbyists in Texas. Really really good lobbyists. A reader sent this comment:

“See page 19 TAMSA presentation: $1,178,723,689.00 funneled to Pearson in Texas for high-stakes testing nonsense since 2000.

Source: Center for Education, Rice University

Click to access 2013-01-13-tamsa_overview.pdf

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20130616-after-3-decades-texas-legislature-rolls-back-high-stakes-school-testing.ece