Archives for category: Testing

Yesterday I called for John King’s resignation.

This teacher says John King should be fired.

Here are her reasons:

“A New York Teachers Letter on the Failed Leadership of John King

I am dismayed by the leadership provided by John King, Education Commissioner of the State of New York. He is deliberately creating a testing and curriculum that penalizes children – especially children with emotional illnesses and learning disabilities. I have spent my summer working with students who cannot graduate because they have not passed one of the five required Regents or RCT exams. These students have met all other local requirements and have passed the other four required Regents/RCTs – and would have passed the last remaining exam had the cut scores not been raised recently.

“Certainly, it is a lofty goal to want all HS graduates in NY State to achieve superior academic performance at the A+ level. I have been teaching HS English for 30 years and each year I hope that this will be the year that each of my students achieves an A in my course. It has never happened. Until we can eliminate emotional illness, learning disabilities, poverty, and other sources of family strife, this is unrealistic.

“I am dismayed by the changes made to the current HS Regents exams and the proposed Common Core Regents exams. Labeling 70% of our elementary students as failing is atrocious. BUT, preventing students from earning a HS diploma is shameful. This spring, the cut scores were raised on the Comprehensive English Regents. This shift resulted in failing grades for a number of students who would have passed the exam a year earlier.

“Simultaneously, the questions were more difficult and the readings were more complex than on previous exams. This shift was unannounced and therefore unfairly penalized hundreds of children and also prevented many of them from earning a diploma. In addition, the US History and Global Studies readings have also increased in difficulty. I might not object if the tests were more difficult in Social Studies content, but the tests are more difficult in reading complexity. The result is that students who have passed the English Regents or RCTs are failing the US History and/or Global Studies Regents or RCTs because they do not read well enough – not because they don’t understand Social Studies concepts. One of the first things I learned in my education courses is to determine what it is I am trying to assess and then to create a question that assess the appropriate learning. My students are weak in vocabulary and reading comprehension – yet they have all passed the Regents and/or RCTs in HS English. Why must their score on the US History exams be based on their documented disability in reading?

“The newest proposed version of the English Comprehensive Regents will be given in June of 2014. John King proudly announced that this exam is modeled after the AP exam in English Language and Composition. Really? The AP test is our new benchmark for college and career readiness? The AP test is the bar for our graduation requirements? Why?

“I used to believe in the integrity of the Regents exams. I no longer believe that the NY State exams are valuable, worthwhile, or educationally appropriate. The new Common Core curriculum – along with the modules and activities crafted by Odell Learning (promised – but not delivered) – is not a curricular improvement. None of this is best practice. None of it relies on current research. None of it has been field tested. None of it is proven. It is all snake oil. I am ashamed to be part of this sham. Commissioner King is not only overseeing this disaster; he is proud of the fact that 70% of our students will be labeled failures.

“I am no longer interested in “building a plane in mid-air.” I want to teach children. I want to expose them to fiction. I want them to be creative and engaged. I want them to fall in love with learning (preferably through literature) the way that I love learning. I, however, do not love this new way of learning (and teaching.) I do not love watching kids cry. I do not love hearing them as they call themselves stupid after failing a Regents for the third time. I will not love making the phone calls later today that inform children and parents that they have failed a Regents – again”

Susan Murphy Oneonta, NY

The best use of tests is for diagnostic purposes, to help teachers learn what students got wrong and where they need more instruction. Students learn too from their errors. But if the results take months to score, they arrive too late to matter. And if the questions and answers are never released, and students never see their errors, then the tests are used only for ranking, not for helping kids.

This NY teacher calls out state officials for their failure to release the tests:

“Why we will never be permitted to see those tests? I always tell my students and even my own child, “go over the question – look at what you got wrong and try to understand why you got it wrong.” And when my own students do poorly on a test I created, I take a closer look at the test items and try to understand why they got the questions wrong – perhaps I made a bogus test – it’s happened to every educator out there. We won’t be able to do that here. Could it be that these kids didn’t really get all that much wrong? Or is it that the construction of the test items were so riddled with ambiguity and multiple correct responses that they don’t want us to see what a poorly crafted instrument it was? Or, perhaps it is because they tested 4th graders with 7th grade materials? Or that the Commissioner of Education in the state of New York doesn’t have any experience teaching (I’m not sure many of us in the trenches would consider 3 years in a private charter school without open-enrollment “teaching experience”) OR at all as an administrator. Or…or…or… #Want2CtheTEST’

Mega-publisher Pearson admitted that it released the wrong grades for 4,000 students in Virginia.

“Pearson issued a similar apology last spring for making mistakes in the scoring of admissions tests for gifted and talented programs in New York City public schools. Other scoring problems by Pearson in recent years caused delays in final test results in Florida and Minnesota.

“Pearson and state education officials said the problem in Virginia was not in the scoring but in how the scores were converted into proficiency levels: fail, pass/proficient or pass/advanced.”

Ah, those pesky cut score. Who sets them? What do they mean?

Why don’t we trust teachers to write their own tests and grade them so they can give timely help to students who need it?

The education-industrial complex errs again. With no accountability, no consequences for failure.

In response to my call for John King’s resignation, this principal in New York wrote:

“Thank you, Diane! Last night I finally had the heart to review my school’s test scores, child by child. As I read their names and numbers, I saw their little faces on the days of the testing, so many in tears, and I cried.

“This is so wrong for children.

“I have an excellent school, smart, hard-working kids and outstanding teachers. My students were not 30% smarter a year ago, but John King has deliberately turned many of them into “failures.”

“In the year ahead, the students will not miraculously get 50% smarter or the teachers suddenly better, yet I already know that the scores will go up – so that John King can look like a hero on the backs of little children. Mean-spirited is too kind a word.

“Should John King resign? No. He should be removed.”

This letter was written by a New York City teacher to his union president.

“I am writing as a loyal union member and as a special education teacher in a middle class ethnically diverse neighborhood who knows a lot about testing because I spent nearly two decades assessing disabled children as part of a school assessment team.until this Mayor deemed my psychometric skills to be worthless Nevertheless, under my belt is a lot of graduate level coursework as well as thousands of hours of field experience in administering and analyzing valid and reliable norm-referenced educational assessments.

“Therefore, based upon a lot of research and reading, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that the Common Core Standards were developed by educators and that these standards represent a valid instrument to determine if a student is college or career ready.. The Common Core Standards were not developed by educators. Many of those who developed these standards are deeply involved in the corporate educational reform movement. Many articles I have read about its development stated that the developers basically worked backwards and often disregarded some basic tenets of child development. Furthermore, we are taking on faith standards that have not even been longitudinally tested. We are basically taking on faith that these standards will make students college or career ready. We all know that so many reforms in the past half a century failed because, like the Common Core, research was lacking. Where are those “open classrooms” or the “New Math” of my childhood? Both were just fads, just as I believe the Common Core is a fad, that led to no significant educational achievement.

“I, and many others, could only accept the efficacy of the Common Core Standards if there were real research over a number of years showing that students who learned by a curriculum derived from these standards had higher achievement than those students taught by a more traditional curriculum. I have a sense that many of your rank and file teachers are unwilling to put their careers on the line based on standards that I feel was developed with a political agenda. The agenda is to convince the American people that our present public school system is a failure and that only a privatized charter-based system is the way to go. A system, that will in the end, destroy our progressive union movement.

“Any assessment in which only 25% to 35% of students can pass is invalid. A valid test is standardized in such a way that it creates a bell curve. These assessments do not come even close to creating a bell curve. Instead these assessments look more like cliffs. Many students are set to fall off such a cliff–especially students with disabilities. Special educators are taught that to help students with learning challenges, one must start where they are at. One does not start at the bottom of an unclimbable precipice. I work with many students who have, through no fault of their own, significant language impairments that make this curriculum impossible to master. What will become of many of these students when they reach 8th grade and modified promotional standards terminate? How many times are we willing to leave back such students and destroy their self esteem before we realize that what is really needed are many vocational programs that will serve the needs of a very diverse disabled population? There is a big difference between a high IQ child with minor sensory problems and one who may have a severe language impairment which results in a borderline IQ. Sadly, this curriculum will result in many special education teachers, like me, who are willing to work with the latter child, being punished by someday being rated ineffective because of an invalid assessment based upon invalid standards that work against the educational needs of such children.

“Every child needs to reach their potential. Unfortunately, I see these Common Core Standards setting up roadblocks based upon a student’s economic class, language proficiency and disability. Those born economically advantaged will either go to private schools or charters exempt from these standards or whose parents have the resources to get them the extra tutoring needed to pass these tests. Those children born to parents who do not have the resources will end up in schools that will not have the funds necessary to create the academic intervention services needed to compensate for their parent/guardian’s inability to afford the extra tutoring needed to pass from grade to grade.

“Our focus is completely wrong. These standards are broken and unrepairable. I fear, in the end, it will lead to the dismantling of our system of public education and social stratification in this great nation. In the 18th century, our founding fathers created a flawed constitution called the Articles of Confederation that they realized was unworkable. But they were smart. They scraped the document and started anew. Many of the best and brightest, at that time, got together, and through compromise and negotiation, came up with something workable. They came up with a constitution that was flexible enough to change with the times. These Common Core standards are unchangeable stone monoliths that block our way to creating a society and nation that has always believed in education as the great leveler as well as creator of economic opportunity and social mobility.

“Let us think before we jump!”

Gary Rubinstein has a well established reputation as a careful investigator of miracle schools. On many occasions, he has debunked miracle claims. See his wiki site here.

In this post, he takes a close look at the scores of Success Academy on the new Common Core tests.

I don’t think Gary would classify the Success Academy schools as “miracle schools,” because they don’t have the same demographic profile of nearby public schools, but their scores on the recent Common Core were nonetheless impressive.

Gary notes that some of the schools are K-3 and tested only third grade. Some of the newspapers printed misleading stories about the success of the school based only on one grade.

He also notes a high attrition rate among students and teachers.

But with all those caveats, Success Academy has succeeded in outpacing most of the city schools.

He speculates that this might set off a civil war among the charters because some of the others that boast of their success–notably, KIPP and Democracy Prep–got low scores and performed below the average for public schools.

He writes:

In general, these good test scores, I think, should make the ‘reformers’ more nervous than elated.  From my perspective, I don’t think that the scores are devastating to my cause.  I don’t think they really prove that there are super teachers out there who can get the ‘same kids’ to excel, even if it is just on standardized tests, since I’m not convinced they are truly the ‘same kids.’  But the ‘reformers’ should be very careful about this.  They already had Success as a big success story, as well as a bunch of others like KIPP and Democracy Prep.  Now they still have Success, but they have lost some of their schools they used to take credit for.  I’m not sure how they can reconcile their idea that test scores are an accurate measure of school quality with the fact that many of the schools they have been touting have lost their luster by that measure.

And what ‘excuse’ is there for these other schools.  Surely behind closed doors they are accusing Success of some kind of manipulation, either by extensive test prep or by booting even more kids than they do.  I wonder if this could start some kind of charter civil war.

 

This is the third and final post about Education in Chile by Professor Mario Waissbluth, which he wrote for this blog to help us understand a system that took Milton Friedman’s advice and relied heavily on testing and choice.

 

Chile´s Education (III): A necessary change of course.

In my two previous columns I described the Chilean political, economic and educational model. In short, growth with inequity and segregation, which is showing serious signs of being questioned in its roots… in the streets.

In this context, can the educational model change its course, given the fact that, constitutionally, Congress is almost by definition tied up in two halves, therefore giving to both sides veto power over major changes?

If the November election is won by the same coalition which invented the present model, I am afraid that the change of course will be microscopic, if any. After all, they are the proud parents of this by now grown baby, and their ideological faith in it is blind. Evidence does not matter. If, on the other hand, the center left coalition wins the election (more likely), they have shown sufficient public repentance with their omissions, so that there is more ground for hope… depending on the results of the simultaneous election in Congress, which in the end will define the depth and feasibility of the transformations.

Our Foundation, Educación 2020 (www.educacion2020.cl) published in April a document called “The educational reform that Chile needs”, which in essence presents a middle course, hopefully acceptable to both aisles in Congress. The more radical students call it “yellow”, the “tea-partyists” call it “marxist”. Such is life. Our proposals are based on eight strategic pillars, designed to change course gradually, from what Hargreaves and Shirley have named as “the 2nd way” (in this case ultra-pure, skimmed and distilled, far worse than the US and British models) not towards a “Finnish 4th Way” (politically and culturally impossible) , but towards a middle course, something like a “3.5 Way”.

The eight pillars, each having a set of short, medium and long term proposals, are:

1. A program for the reconstruction and appreciation of the teaching profession, at the pre-school and school level.

2. 350.000 new spaces of high quality preschool openings, free and non-selective, from ages 1 to 5.

3. Rebirth of public education, to transform it into a formidable competitor of private education in every district, regardless of its socioeconomic composition.

4. Rebirth of technical education at the high school level, where close to 45% of kids study in the utmost decay of quality and motivation.

5. Use market tools and special funds to “perforate” market competition and promote collaboration amongst all types of schools, teachers and principals.

6. Gradual but steady moderation of the “command and control” bureaucracy and the teaching to the test abuse.

7. Radical innovation in the teaching models being taught in Schools of Education, to bring them from the XIX to the XXI century.

8. Last but not least, the hardest one from the ideological viewpoint: slow down and reverse segregation as much as possible, by gradual elimination and control of financial segregation (i.e. charging fees to parents in state subsidized schools), gradual elimination of profit in the school system, and serious prohibitions regarding selection, skimming and early expulsion of the less promising students.

This reform would require approximately 1.5% of GDP in additional public expenditure, not from one year to the next, but gradually over 6 years, thus reaching levels closer to OECD standards. Wish us luck.

New York’s Commissioner of Education John King should resign.

The job of state commissioner is to support and strengthen education and educators, not to undermine them.

In his short tenure, King has used his position to wreak havoc on the state’s education system.

He has demoralized educators.

He has imposed an evaluation scheme that no one understands, but which he famously described as “building a plane in mid-air.” He doesn’t realize that no one wants to ride on a plane that is being built in mid-air—not students, not teachers, not principals, not parents, not superintendents.

More than one-third of the principals in the state bravely signed a letter warning King of the negative, punitive consequences of his ill-conceived evaluation plan. Typically, he didn’t listen.

But now he has gone too far.

He has hurt children.

In his zeal to inflict punishment on students across the state and prove what a tough guy he is, he imposed testing that was developmentally inappropriate, that did not provide enough time for many students to finish, and that had no curriculum to support it.

Many months ago, he predicted that proficiency rates would plummet across the state by at least 30%, and he engineered the result that he predicted. He made it happen by design.

Students and teachers across the state have been obsessed with testing and test prep in recent years. Now they learn that despite their best efforts, their test scores dropped precipitously.

The students and teachers didn’t fail.

John King failed.

King chose passing marks aligned to NAEP achievement levels, which was wrong. Students who are proficient on NAEP have demonstrated superior academic performance. NAEP proficient is not “grade level,” yet King is using it as a passing mark, dooming the majority of students to “fail” because of King’s inexperience and statistical ignorance.

If we are to judge teachers and principals by the rise or fall of student test scores, as King wishes, then so too should he be judged.

As the state’s highest education official, King is not above accountability. On his watch, he devised and caused a massive test score decline, causing unnecessary anguish and discouragement to students, parents, and teachers in every school in his care.

If he were a business CEO and his actions caused the stock price of his company to fall by 30% overnight, the shareholders would force him out at once.

By his actions, he abdicated his responsibilty to students and to the state’s education system.

He was hired to be the steward of the state’s children, not a mean-spirited boss of the state’s educators and students.

He should resign.

Contact the Néw York State Board of Regents if you agree. Will they have the courage and integrity to defend our state’s children?

Blogger Edward Berger has a test for those who claim to be reformers.

What do you know about teaching? How long did you teach? What gives you the authority to tell teachers how to teach? And that’s just the beginning.

He concludes that most reformers are quacks.

Anthony Cody has written another brilliant column, this one explaining the lessons of New York’s disastrous Common Core testing, in which 70 percent of the state’s children allegedly “failed.” I say allegedly because this was failure that was designed and manufactured by State Commissioner John King. King predicted what the scores would be before the students took the tests. How did he know? He decided what the passing mark would be.

In his column, Cody draws certain lessons from the New York debacle:

The biggest mind blower is that this whole project has been sold with the idea that its proponents are pushing “college for all.” Orwell taught us that in the future, those in power will use “doublespeak” to disguise their intentions. This feels like a classic case of double speak. We have been told a string of falsehoods, leading to a huge lie.

Falsehood number one:
Our future economy needs many more college graduates. There is very little evidence to support this and lots to the contrary.


Falsehood number two:
Common Core Standards were developed by educators. Demonstrably false. See this post of mine from 2009 describing the process then under way to write the standards.

Falsehood number three: The Common Core tests somehow predict who will succeed in college. See Carol Burris’ analysis of how these tests were written.

Falsehood number four:
This high stakes testing machine will somehow decrease inequity and create more opportunities for poor and minority students. In fact the achievement gap on these tests is proving to be even wider, reflecting the powerful influence underlying social conditions have on student performance.

As wealth has become ever more concentrated, and social mobility has declined, it is ever more important to create a social rationale for that inequality. People who are disenfranchised and deprived of meaningful opportunities must somehow be convinced that their second-class status is THEIR FAULT. It is because they have not applied themselves in school, not learned to be “critical thinkers,” that they are stuck in minimum wage jobs. Inequities must be rationalized. The sorting will occur. It must be explained so that it is accepted and not rebelled against.

Read the whole column. Cody nails it.