Archives for category: Testing

The public schools of Scotland have decided to take a different path, one that rejects the Anglo-American obsession with testing and standards.

“In the same week that Britain’s education minister, Michael Gove, announced yet another measure to make the national exams taken by high school students in England more rigorous, their counterparts in Scotland were taking a curriculum in which national exams for 16-year-olds had been abolished.”

Said one educator:

“Some people believe that increasing assessment increases standards, but we’ve moved away from that,” said Barry Smedley, the school’s deputy head. “It used to be that only students who did well on exams were thought of as the smart ones. But we’ve learned that there are different kinds of smart, different kinds of intelligence.”

“The changes mean a slightly longer school week, and more time for music, drama, sports and community service: precisely the areas that have been squeezed in England by the need to prepare students for so many exams.”

I received the following email:

Hi, Dr. Ravitch:

I am a film teacher at a Buffalo Public School (www.cityhonors.org) and one of my students made a video on her own time about the draconian cuts that the Buffalo Public Schools is making with its instrumental music program. This is a direct effect of the per pupil funding that has been instituted in the BPS. I thought you might like to see it. It is interesting that NYS has billions to pay Pearson, but we can’t keep instrumental music programs in place.

Thanks…

Sincerely,

Melisa Holden
Librarian & IB Film teacher

Today, the Indiana Department of Education announced that it is suing the corporation that administered the state tests and experienced massive computer breakdowns.

Wow.

We are used to seeing a cozy relationship between state departments and testing companies, who ply them with expensive vacations to conferences in exotic locales and hire lobbyists to cozy up to them.

But the new State Superintendent Glenda Ritz was elected last fall to solve problems, not to harass the public schools and teachers as her predecessor Tony Bennett did.

The legislature and governor have been trying to hobble Ritz because she is not a Republican. They should not. They should recognize that she is fighting to protect the public interest.

June 21, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Daniel Altman
daltman@doe.in.gov
Office: (317) 232-0550
Cell: (317) 650-8698

Statement of Indiana Department of Education Regarding ISTEP+ Damages

INDIANAPOLIS – The Indiana Department of Education announced preliminary damages that it will seek from CTB McGraw-Hill related to ISTEP+ interruptions experienced by schools throughout the state this spring. These amounts are not final, and may well grow as results are reviewed by a third party and additional information is gained.

The preliminary damages amount sought will not be less than $613,600 and could reasonably go into the millions. That amount includes $400,000 in liquidated damages provided for in the contract between the Department of Education and CTB. It also includes $53,600 that the Department will spend to have a third party conduct an analysis of the scores of students that had their testing sessions interrupted and at least $160,00 for other related costs associated with enhanced reporting data

In addition to the preliminary damages, additional damages may be sought after further investigation. Those potential damages include, but are not limited to:

-Reimbursement to Indiana schools for additional costs incurred to administer ISTEP+ during the extended testing window.
-Reimbursement to the Indiana Department of Education for additional costs incurred because of ISTEP+ testing interruptions.

“I have worked closely with CTB throughout the ISTEP+ testing process,” said Superintendent Ritz. “The consequences of CTB’s server failures were real and significant for Indiana schools. As Superintendent, I will work to ensure that schools are made whole while continuing to negotiate with CTB in good faith.”

-30-

Alan Singer points out that instances of verified cheating are extremely rare.

Newsday identified 36 cases in a 10-year period on Long Island in New York. He flips the narrative and says that teachers did not cheat 99.99999% of the time.

The media misses the point. The problem with high-stakes testing is not cheating, which is rare, but the way it distorts education.

To prove that he is definitely not over-reaching, definitely not telling states what to do, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is giving states more time to meet his deadlines to tie Common Core test results to teacher evaluation.

He is apparently responding to Randi Weingarten’s request to postpone “high stakes” until teachers have curriculum and professional development.

I hate to be the skunk at the garden party, but I think it is wrong to attach high stakes to testing.

There is very little evidence to support the value of high stakes testing–after all, we have had a dozen years of No Child Left Behind– and plenty of evidence that it is harmful. If it were so great, why aren’t other nations evaluating their teachers by their students’ test scores.

But now states may ask Duncan’s permission to defer the axe. Some members of Congress are beginning to think this is arbitrary and capricious. They don’t remember writing legislation putting the Secretary in charge of every public school in the nation. They don’t remember when they approved national standards and tests.

Duncan doesn’t seem ever to doubt that test scores matter more than anything else. He doesn’t care if value-added modeling narrows the curriculum or mislabels teachers or demoralizes teachers. That’s not his problem.

Remember, he is the guy who reformed the Chicago schools.

In response to the question, “Can You Do the Wrong Thing in the Right Way?,” this teacher responded with a fascinating account of how she conquered the testing monster in her first-grade classroom.

She writes:

I’ve been thinking about testing too. A lot. I teach first grade. My students arrive at the tender age of 5 or 6 and exit at 6 or 7. I give my students 6 benchmark tests a year, 3 in literacy and 3 in math. This past year, 4 more tests were added to the roster – this time on computer. That adds up to 10 – yes 10 -multiple choice tests every year for children who still cry for their moms, pee on the carpet, fall asleep spread eagle on the floor, and poke, prod, tease, and growl at each other. Oh –did I say that the children can’t read, at least for the first third of the year –the first 3 or 4 tests?

I am told the tests are to help inform my instruction. But I know the truth. The tests are there in first grade to get the kids ready for the tests in second grade –the tests that really matter – the tests that will count on the schools’ API and AYP reports. (California tests 2nd grade).

As a pragmatist, I’m efficient, organized, hold traditional values, and like rules and order. I know how to do what is expected of me and how to show results. So I reasoned I could use these structural strengths to get the tests over with, show the expected results, meet the smart goals, so that I could move on to the creative part of teaching –the part that cannot be quantified– the part of teaching where I get to interact with the children I am charged with developing academically, I get to know their passions, fears, ideas, the part of teaching that educates children – where there are no borders between painting and reading and playing basketball and building towers and writing , the part of teaching that is magical, that combines knowledge of standards, expertise, and passion on the part of the teacher with excitement, willingness, surprise, and vision from children.

But that is not what happened. Every breathing space I created for myself and my students by my efficiency got filled up with another expectation. More students – 18 one year, 20 the next, 24 for a few years, then 26; a new policy of all-day, full inclusion of special needs children in the general education classroom; a neighborhood impacted by the housing market decline and its resultant mobile population – causing more to move in and out of my classroom during the year; a school in program improvement – in effect designated as failing, and the resultant punishments – more administrative scrutiny, narrowing of curriculum to math and reading, canceling of arts programs during the school day; flight of families to school with better scores; and noisy classrooms in buildings without connecting walls.

So I got tired. I got beaten down. I got discouraged. And if you think I had it bad, think of the kids. Imagine a teacher for them who is always cross, always serious, harps about the test, never takes the time to ask them how they are doing, is too busy to tie a shoe lace or rub a boo-boo. That is me. I cringe as I write this.

Standardized tests don’t just stop my students from thinking, they teach them not to think. Imagine a 5 year old child who doesn’t read, and may not even speak English. They look at an 8 by 11 inch white paper devoid of all but one or two sketches. They listen as I read the question to them. Then I read the 3 or 4 choices. They pick the choice and fill in the bubble. Imagine the time I spend teaching them how to find the question, scroll with their eyes through the 4 choices, all while listening to me drone on and repeat the question and the choices until all 26 of them have bubbled something in. Imagine that this one test has 8 pages of questions – 15 or 20 questions in all. No wonder I’m cross. No wonder their eyes are glazed and they are growling.

But it gets worse. I am complicit in this next part. Standardized tests actually make students stupid. Yes, stupid. Not only are the kids not thinking, they are losing the ability to think. In my zeal to get administrative scrutiny off me and my students, I mistakenly thought that if I give them the test results they want, then I could do what I know was best for my students. To that end I trained my students to do well in these tests. I taught them to look for loopholes; to eliminate and guess; to find key words; to look for clues; in short, to exchange the process of thinking for the process of manipulation. I capitalized on my knowledge of young children, and the fact that they want to please adults and like to get the answer “right”. I justified my actions by saying that I had no choice, that the consequences of low test scores at my school were too dire to contemplate, and I wasn’t willing to put myself in professional or financial jeopardy. Clearly, testing made me stupid too.

I can’t speak for all my fellow teachers at my school, but I suspect many of them would, at the very least, recognize similar behaviors in their test-teaching practices. So, when despite our best collective efforts at raising test scores failed and my school entered 2nd year program improvement, I surrendered my stupidity and started speaking up, and eventually speaking out. I read research, blogs, government publications, and journals. I read widely from educational, historical, economic, pediatric, and psychological literature. I challenged administrative authority at my school to do the same – read, think, debate, discuss, and much to my surprise, did not get rebuffed. Astonishingly, I got ignored.

At about the same time I woke up out of my testing-induced nightmare , I started to notice the monster I had helped create. My students were only happy when they got the answer right. For many years my collegues and I had noticed a trend in young children – a trend toward passivity in learning. We had theories – all the kids had TV’s in the bedrooms, they had far too much screen time – computer, games, cells, TV’s in cars, lack of adult supervision and interaction, lack of conversational models at home, lack of social models at home, the list went on. But what wasn’t on the list was what I was culpable for – I had become about the right answer. They wanted to please me. They knew that if they waited long enough I would help them find the right answer. And I did.

One day, during small group math rotation, I put up privacy boards during the practice part of a lesson on math reasoning. The story problem went like this: There are 10 buttons on my coat. 6 are red and the rest are blue. How many are blue? We have worked on these kind of problems frequently, and the children have seen them in test format. Using connecting cubes as buttons, the children had to make a model of the problem. Three kids cried that day. The stress of thinking for and by themselves got to them. You see, many of the children had become expert at copying – watching what other children did in the group to get an answer and then providing “their” answer a nanosecond later. The children did not trust themselves enough to even attempt an answer. Their discomfort was palpable, and I was appalled.

Crying notwithstanding, I continued to use privacy boards. I also started to coach the kids about my belief in their abilities. I found that as they worked out a math problem using manipulatives to represent objects, I could lean in and coach them, one to one. Then, when they all had their answers, we pushed down the privacy boards to explore what we had all done. Ever so slowly, over many weeks, they started to regain their confidence.

You might wonder why I had not been doing this kind of teaching all along. I had, 11 years ago, pre-NCLB. Testing, along with the breadth of the standards and the resulting mountain of material to cover, much of it developmentally inappropriate, slowly eroded my professional judgement. Pressure to produce results through collaboration and mind-numbing analysis sapped my energy. A constant barrage of media stories about the ineffectiveness of teachers, some of it supported by leaders at my own school, drowned my spirit. Then I heard you, Diane, speak as a guest of my district and union. I started to read your work and have never looked back.

So thank you from the bottom of my heart. You are truly brave. You inspire me to speak up and speak out. You remind me that knowledge is power –I had forgotten. Now I get my ducks in a row, collect my facts, back up my intuition and experience with research, and speak up without fear or rancor. And in the process of speaking up for myself, I speak up for my students. And ever so slowly I start to rebuild my confidence too.

A reader sent the following observation about parallels between educational developments in Chile under the dictator Pinochet, an admirer of free-market reforms, and in the U.S. today. He writes:

“I have recently been studying the neoliberal privatization of public education in Chile since this is the path we are now on in the USA. Initiated by the dictator Pinochet and encouraged by the same world players who are advocating these changes here, it is frightening and sobering to see how the policies of choice and privatization have destroyed the system there and how, instead of democratizing the system, the system has become a cesspit.

After 30+ years the students and the people are finally taking to the streets in protest and the government is fighting back with an iron fist. If we do continue on this path this is our future.

Sobering, indeed.

Here are jus a few articles that outline the Chilean neoliberal education machine. It is identical to what is being imposed upon us here, with school choice, vouchers, de-professionalization of the teaching profession, high-stakes testing, and profit-seeking in schooling.

http://www.academia.edu/1836169/Neoliberal_Education_and_Student_Movements_in_Chile_Inequalities_and_malaise

http://www.isa-sociology.org/universities-in-crisis/?p=914

http://www.bostonreview.net/world/lili-loofbourow-no-profit?

http://educationincrisis.net/learn-more/country-profiles/latin-america/item/489-chile/489-chile?start=2

Now it is teachers in Ohio that have been rated by a secret value-added formula.

Teachers in affluent schools were twice as likely to score well as those in low-income schools.

Here is the key language:

“The details of how the scores are calculated aren’t public. The Ohio Department of Education will pay a North Carolina-based company, SAS Institute Inc., $2.3 million this year to do value-added calculations for teachers and schools. The company has released some information on its value-added model but declined to release key details about how Ohio teachers’ value-added scores are calculated.

“The Education Department doesn’t have a copy of the full model and data rules either.

“The department’s top research official, Matt Cohen, acknowledged that he can’t explain the details of exactly how Ohio’s value-added model works. He said that’s not a problem.”

Think of it. The person at the Ohio Department of Education in charge of the ratings doesn’t understand how the model works. He says it is not a problem.

Well, it is a problem for excellent teachers who were told they were “least effective.”

These models,based on standardized tests, are inaccurate and unstable.

Do not trust the ratings. They are garbage. No high-performing nation is rating teachers this way. It is mean-spirited, mechanistic, and meaningless.

https://www.facebook.com/TexasKidsCantWait

Texas parents created a Facebook page to vent their anger at Governor Perry for vetoing HB 2836, which would have reduced the heavy burden of testing in the elementary and middle school grades. Presently, as much as one month–sometimes more–of the school year is devoted to testin and testing preparation.

HB 2836 passed both houses of the Legislature unanimously.

Our hero? Rep. Bennett Ratliff.

Read more here.

But don’t forget, Pearson has a contract for $500 million for five years of testing. It would be rather unpleasant, wouldn’t it, if the state didn’t want so much testing. After all, the state already reduced the number of graduation tests from 15 to 5. Pearson can retreat just so much and no more. Fortunately, Pearson has its top lobbyist, Sandy Kress, taking care of business. You know Sandy, the architect of NCLB. The testing industry’s best friend.

If you want to keep up with the anti-testing movement, follow their Facebook page.

Now that parents understand that all that testing doesn’t help their children, the game is up.

Governor Perry of Texas vetoed HB 2836. This was a bill that would have reduced the pressure to test and test and test, then test some more, in the early grades.

He earlier approved a bill to reduce the amount of testing for high school students but the anti-testing moms forgot about the elementary school children.

So Governor Perry vetoed a bill that would have cut back on testing the little ones.

Jason Stanford explains what happened here and why Perry did it.

The bill he vetoed was passed unanimously in both chambers.

This isn’t over.