Archives for category: Testing

The corporate reform movement is built on a series of suppositions, hunches, and unfortunately, fraud. The innocent reformers impose their will on teachers who know more than they do and say it’s “for the kids.” But others are in it for money, control, and power. The problem for the reform movement is that they ARE the status quo. They rail against it, but in doing so they have to pretend that No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top are not federal policy. While the reformers demand more budget cuts, more testing, more standardization, they have precious little to show for the 12 years they have been in charge of education in America. Teachers are angry and demoralized, the latest NAEP Long-Term Trend shows stagnation from 2008-12, privatization is proliferating, public schools are under siege.

Anthony Cody writes here that the Tony Bennett scandal is the beginning of the end. The game is nearing an end. The reformers’ have pulled the wool over the eyes of the public and the media. They are flush with cash, but at some point the foundations and Wall Street will realize they are doing harm, not good. It will not benefit society to privatize public education. Those who lead this campaign are not heroes. They will one day look back and wonder how they were duped into supporting so many bad ideas. They might even wonder why they insisted on one kind of education for their children, and something far less for other people’s children.

The Washington Post has an opinion piece today by Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, defending the regime of standardized testing and high stakes that has created a vigorous opt-out movement among parents, teachers, and school board members.

This is actually a victory for the critics of high-stakes testing because it shows that those in power now find it necessary to defend their harmful policies.

And defend he does, with a varied assortment of cherry-picked and obsolete data.

He quotes Dan Ariely of Duke, for example, to defend the measurement-matters-most claim, but doesn’t realize that Ariely was a member of a panel at the National Research Council that issued a report critical of test-based accountability. In his writings, Ariely emphasizes the importance of intrinsic motivation, not rewards and punishments. He opposes merit pay. He said that test-based accountability fails because it treats people like “rats in a cage.”

Augustine chooses to cite the 2009 PISA test results but ignores the 2012 TIMSS results, where American students did very well indeed. In fact, eighth-grade black students in Massachusetts performed as well on TIMSS 2012 in math as students in high-performing Finland. But you won’t read that in Augustine’s column.

Why don’t American schools copy the examples of our own top-performing schools, like Sidwell Friends and Lakeside Academy and other elite schools that never give standardized tests? Or copy our top suburban schools where the tests are minimized, and all students have the arts, history, civics, physical education, foreign languages, experienced teachers, and small classes?

Pasi Sahlberg, Finland’s education ambassador to the world, recently warned the British government that high-stakes testing would not improve student achievement and that choice would undermine equity.

Pasi’s excellent book “Finnish Lessons” has been translated into 15 languages.

Finnish education is the reverse of everything we do, yet their students excel on international tests.

When asked what advice he would give England’s education secretary, he said:

“‘I am afraid, Mr Secretary, that the evidence is clear. If you rely on prescription, testing and external control over schools, they are not likely to improve. The GCSE proposals are a step backwards’.”

Pasi was equally dismissive of the minister’s enthusiasm for academies (similar to our charters). He said:

“He is similarly dismissive about Gove’s enthusiasm for academies and free schools, largely modelled on those in Finland’s neighbour, Sweden. “In Sweden,” Sahlberg says, “everybody now agrees free schools were a mistake. The quality has not improved and equity has disappeared. If that is what Mr Gove wants, that is what he will get.”

A reader posted this comment:

“In Gainesville a school called Einstein Montessori received an “F.” It is a charter school specifically created for children with reading disabilities. They gave the children with reading disabilities and their teachers an F because they didn’t do well enough on a reading test!!! It is insanity and dispicable! Parents must be the ones to make this stop!!!”

Jan Resseger, one of our most articulate and passionate advocates for public education, has started her own blog. She lives in Ohio, which is one of the states where the privatization movement is moving fast to take money from public schools and transfer it into private hands.

Please consider following her blog.

Here are her reflections on the the Republican proposal to reauthorize No Child Left Behind. Note that even though the Republicans want to shift control from the federal government to states and localities, their legislation is still obsessed with testing and setting targets based on standardized tests:

 

House Passes NCLB Rewrite Version

This morning in a highly partisan vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a Republican version of a No Child Left Behind (NCLB)  reauthorization.  However, a reauthorization this year remains unlikely because a version previously passed by the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee is vastly different in important ways, and it is unlikely the differences can be resolved.  Whether the Senate version will even be brought to the floor this year remains in question.

The “Politics K-12 Blog” at Education Week is probably the best source of information aboutthe debate in the House this week and the bill’s passage this morning.  The NY Times summaryof the bill and the politics of the NCLB reauthorization debate is excellent.

Here is a summary of the bill passed by the House this morning:

  • Would maintain the annual standardized testing schedule of NCLB.
  • Would continue to break out students’ scores by demographic groups and economics.
  • Would eliminate the federal requirement that evaluation of teachers be tied to students’ scores on standardized tests.
  • Would give states leeway in setting achievement goals for specific groups of students.
  • Would cut federal education funding by locking in budgeting at today’s level, including the cuts imposed by the sequester.
  • Would turn Title I, which now is directed to helping school districts meet the needs of poor children, into a block grant that would also encompass programs for English Language Learners, neglected and delinquent children, rural students and American Indian children.  Many worry this would further deplete funding for all of these groups with special needs.
  • Would end the competitive grant programs like Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants that have undermined the Title I formula and supported grant writers and consultants at the expense of direct investment in Title I schools that serve a large number or concentration of children in poverty.
  • Would eliminate the requirement that, to qualify for federal funds, states must at least maintain current state funding levels for public education.
  • Would permit Title I portability, permitting parents to carry federal Title I dollars to a different public or charter school if a student transfers to another school.  This would tie the money to the child, not to the school providing service and would be a very significant change in federal funding.  It is a sort of public school voucher program.

While the law would  reduce the involvement of federal intrusion into local schools (positive in some ways), it would also reduce federal funding, and through Title I portability once again reduce support for public schools in America’s poorest communities and neighborhoods, further threatening the viability of such schools and undermining support for the teachers there.

A blogger in Tennessee notes that Rand Paul of Kentucky is excited about what is happening in Tennessee.

He wants Kentucky to follow Tennessee’s lead.

But this is very odd because by almost every measure, Kentucky is more successful in education than Tennessee.

Unlike Tennessee, Kentucky has no charter schools. It does not aspire to enact vouchers. It is doing none of what the corporate reformers love.

And yet, having not followed the reform path to privatization, this is what Kentucky does have:

 

– Higher scores on the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) than Tennessee in seven out of eight categories.

– A higher ACT composite average than Tennessee

– A larger percentage of its population with 4-year college degrees than Tennessee

– A lower unemployment rate than Tennessee

Please ask Senator Rand Paul why Kentucky should copy Tennessee.

Plain logic suggests that Tennessee should strive to be like Kentucky.

Frank Breslin is a retired teacher. He taught English, German, Latin, and social studies for forty years.

In this article, he writes that Chris Cerf “is driving a stake through the heart of public education by his maniacal insistence on perpetual testing.”

Breslin writes:

“Welcome to New Jersey, Land of Standardized Testing and Education’s Brave New World. Without relentless testing of the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic, students cannot hope to survive, let alone prevail, in the Darwinian jungle of this world. So, at least, runs the advertising copy.

Yet, as crucial to survival as these basic skills are, there exists the danger that we can lose our perspective concerning these tests. Amid the incessant drumbeat that the basics alone should be taught and frequently tested, we can neglect the very things to which these basics are basic!

The question, of course, is “Basic to what?” If this question isn’t answered, New Jersey’s students will, indeed, not survive —not because of not learning the basics, but rather, having learned them alone, they needed far more, which they couldn’t get, because it was never offered.”

Please understand the context. New Jersey is one of the highest performing states in the nation on the NAEP.

In fourth grade reading, New Jersey ranks second in the nation, behind Massachusetts.

In eighth grade reading, New Jersey is in a three-way tie for first place with Massachusetts and Connecticut.

New Jersey has a specific problem of low academic performance in its poorest and most racially segregated school districts.

Yet Chris Cerf insists that all public school students must submit to endless rounds of standardized testing.

Breslin says the consequences are devastating to the quality of education: Christopher Cerf is literally ruining education in New Jersey.

Breslin writes:

“Teaching only the basics is the rankest of follies, since one would be taught only to crawl, but never to run; be given only the building blocks, but no idea of what to do with them; be able to survive, but not know the things worth surviving for.

“Yet this is precisely what is occurring in New Jersey today. Chris Cerf, commissioner of education, in essence is saying: “Away with everything except tests and preparing for them! What isn’t tested isn’t important and needn’t be taught! And to make sure that teachers teach to the test, they’ll be graded on how their students perform!”

Breslin suspects that Cerf’s demolition of education in New Jersey is a purposeful, calculated effort to destroy public education so that parents in the cities and the suburbs are so disgusted that they clamor for charters, where teachers and students will be free of Cerf’s testing mania.

He is on to a big idea here. Politicians who want to privatize public education, like Cerf and Christie, are tightening the regulations on public schools, choking them with testing, demoralizing their teachers, at the same time they offer privately managed charters as a refuge from their own policies. in this way, they create a public demand to abandon the public schools that their policies have made unbearable.

They must be stopped. There must be non-stop exposure of their war on learning, their war on communities, their war on public education.

Frank Breslin’s terrific article is a good beginning.

Amanda Shaw writes here about what happened when students were allowed to write without the threat of a test hanging over them. She is a full-time elementary school teacher of music, who also helps students learn to write. In this post, she describes an experience that reminded her why she loves teaching. Imagine giving students the freedom to be creative!

I wrote a blog critical of the race-based, ethnicity-based, income-based targets for student achievement in Alabama’s Plan 2020, which many other states have adopted.

I received the following critique from Melissa Shields, who teaches in Alabama:

As a nationally board certified teacher in Alabama of more than 20 years, I have long admired Dr. Diane Ravitch and read her blog regularly. She often says what I’m thinking and seems to “get” what’s really happening in education. However, my admiration took a jolt when I read the recent post, “Alabama Sets Un-American Goals for Students.”

She was referring to our Alabama PLAN 2020. Unfortunately she relied on one newspaper article that focused on one narrow area of this plan. Since she is one of the country’s best-known education researchers, it is regretful she didn’t try to learn more. She would have discovered that rather than being vilified as a race biased effort to set lower expectations for certain groups of students, PLAN 2020 should be applauded (and I wonder why Dr. Ravitch ignored comments in the article by a local superintendent and the dean of the College of Education at the University of Alabama defending PLAN 2020).

Plan 2020 looks at individual students and groups of students, determines baselines as to where they are functioning, acknowledging the fact that some students and groups of students are not on a positive trajectory for success and follows with an individualized and differentiated trajectory of improvement to address those gaps. The entire system is based on a goal of ALL students reaching 100% proficiency while at the same time understanding that everyone may not get there on the same day at the same time which was perceived as failure under NCLB.

Dr. Ravitch states in her piece about Alabama using subgroups to better determine how instruction should be individualized, “the state of Alabama should ditch the race-based, economic-based, disability-based goals and focus on one center American idea” equality of educational opportunity for every child.”

But I would remind her that this is not the fantasy world of Lake Wobegon where “all the children are above average.” Instead, the real world is one where at-risk and poor children often do not perform as was as their wealthier and/or gifted counterparts. I have been fortunate to have taught in a thriving Christian private school, affluent public schools, and rural lower-income public schools. I know what it takes to help children believe in themselves, often when no one else does. I also know it takes to help our “at-risk” students find academic success, even surpassing the successes of their wealthier grade-level peers. If the truth be known, those successes are my proudest moments in the classroom. Teaching children who want to learn is easy; teaching those who don’t think they do is a challenge, one we teachers embrace with vigor. It didn’t matter if these students were black, white, or purple (or what NCLB projected their success rate should be), I wanted to help each of them find growth in my classroom…..and they did.

As a side note, I’m an English teacher. I taught 150-170 students a day (6 classes). Boys do not typically perform as well in English as the girls. I often wished I could receive more data on how well my male students were doing in relation to the females. Because I did not have that data, I gathered it myself, reflecting on how I might better meet the boys’ needs and interests to improve their performance in language arts disciplines. My point is, if we don’t follow students’ progress per subgroup, how can we ensure growth? The percentages in PLAN 2020 are actually higher than we’ve had before, which of course means we’re trying to raise the bar of expectation for them—not lower it.

The fact that we have publicly owned the fact that black/EL/poverty students (as a whole) are achieving at a lesser level than many their peers is the first and most important step to change this unacceptable reality. Regretfully sharing these facts and acknowledging that a HIGHER expectation must be put in place to remove this gap is being portrayed as racist. Would Dr. Ravitch prefer that we have this knowledge and not aggressively address it? I find it hard to believe that she would. </em

This is my response to Melissa:

I am sorry for singling out Alabama since many other states, encouraged by No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, are doing the very same things.

But I do not withdraw my distaste for setting goals by race, ethnicity, and income.

I wrote to Melissa that this approach represents stale NCLB thinking. Every child is a unique individual, and knowing his or her skin color or heritage or parental income should not be the basis for goal-setting.

There is a reason that Moses spent 40 years wandering in the desert before he was able to bring his people to the promised land. They had to learn to think like free men, not slaves.

We have to learn to think again like educators, not data hounds or accountants meeting arbitrary targets.

Jersey Jazzman does his customary digging to show what is happening in Montclair, New Jersey, long considered one of the state’s best districts.

Reform means more testing.

Reform means excluding the views of patents, students, and the community.

Reform means that the town has a superintendent trained by the unaccredited Broad Academy and determined to raise test scores.