Archives for category: Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

What We Can Learn from Japan

By dianeravitch
August 3, 2012 //
5

The New York Times had a front-page story about a generational divide in Japan.

The article begins, “As Japan has ceded dominance in industry after industry that once lifted this nation to economic greatness, there has been plenty of blame to go around. A nuclear disaster that raised energy costs. A lack of entrepreneurship. China’s relatively cheap work force.”

The article says that the government’s decision to have a strong yen favors the elderly and protects their pensions, but makes Japanese products prohibitively expensive, which is “hollowing out the country’s industrial base” and “exacerbating the nation’s two-decade-long economic stagnation.”

As I read the article, I thought about how American policymakers look enviously at Japan’s high test scores on international assessments.

And it struck me that the economic problems in Japan are not caused by the schools. And the high test scores are not a source of entrepreneurship, nor have they guaranteed a strong economy.

All this deserves consideration. In our nation, our greatest strength is creativity, innovation, risk-taking, and imagination.

Now our policymakers want us to use Japan and other nations with high test scores as a model, claiming that this will lead us to even greater economic growth in the future.

Japan’s dilemma today disproves the theory on which contemporary corporate-driven school reform is based.

Let us learn from their example.

Economic decisions drive the economy. Creative people build a better economy. Higher test scores do not produce a better economy, nor do they nurture the creative genius needed for future innovation.

Will there be an “aha!” moment when leaders of the corporate reform movement realize they are on the wrong track?

Categories Corporate Reformers, Economy, Education Reform, Global Education Reform Movement (GERM), International, Testing

Should You Game the System?

By dianeravitch
August 2, 2012 //
10

in response to a post about the meaning of fiction in our lives today, a reader sent this advice:

To my dear teachers of America,

I ask you to game the system. Yes, you must teach how to tackle the test, you must teach how to use elimination to solve multiple choice questions. But you can ALSO teach the real thing. Who is stopping you? Take extra classes. Use the normal classes to teach according to the system but take extra ones to really teach.

We are accustomed to a system that works and is now broken. But despair not. Those of us who were product of broken systems did not wait for system to reform. We gamed it. We learnt all the important things through mentors, friends, seniors, and more importantly teachers who chose to guide us in their spare time.

You are faced with similar choice.

The metaphor for you is not Montag [Fahrenheit 451′, but the woman who chose to keep the books. You have to “keep the books” for if you cannot be Montag, at least you will help one when he/she comes along.

Remind yourself of Schindler from “Schindler’s list”. Or the deservingly famous Anne Frank whose family gave asylum to strangers.

Can you give asylum to a way of learning that is necessary when the current system is out to destroy it? Or will you burn the books without questioning?

My apologies if I sound inappropriate. Sometimes anger and passion are difficult to contain.
Categories Education Reform, Teachers and Teaching, Testing

VAM Madness in Florida

By dianeravitch
August 1, 2012 //
13

A reader describes the madness of value-added assessment as practiced in Florida:

I teach English in a Florida high school. Although I taught all juniors last year, my VAM score was based on the school average for 9th and 10th grade. Why? Because they cease testing in 10th grade except for those who don’t pass. Of my juniors who didn’t pass FCAT as sophomores, I had a stellar retake pass rate–but that’s not going to count for me. Only what other teachers are doing with other kids I couldn’t identify if you paid me big bucks.

Don’t even get me started about what they’re doing to my colleagues in the arts, JROTC, or other electives. Data selection is arbitrary. Considering that we were in a high-needs, inner-city school, none of us came out looking good.

I’m all for evaluation, but to conflate test score results with teacher quality is wrongheaded, misguided, and downright crazy. Unfortunately, better ways of doing this take money and time and won’t enrich outside providers’ wallets, so it’ll never happen.

For the love of Pete, folks, get noisy. Talk to everyone, and vote for sane candidates in November!
Categories Accountability, Teacher Evaluations, Teachers and Teaching, Testing

Arne Duncan Is Imposing NCLB on Teacher Education

By dianeravitch
August 1, 2012 //
32

The U.S. Department of Education is trying to compel institutions of higher education to accept regulations that judge the quality of teacher-training institutions by the test scores of students taught by their graduates. If Johnny gets a low score on standardized tests, Arne Duncan wants to punish his teacher, his principal, his school, and the university that prepared his teacher.

Is there no end to these dunder-headed policies?

Higher education associations are outraged. A group of major organizations representing higher education convened a task force to respond to pressure from the DOE to use standardized testing as the measure of teacher-preparation institutions. To find its statement, google “Higher Education Task Force on Teacher Preparation.” Its statement was signed by:

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education American Association of State Colleges and Universities American Council on Education
American Psychological Association

Association of American Universities
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities

 

Here is a letter from David Warren of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, a member of the task force, to Secretary Duncan:

The Honorable Arne Duncan
Secretary of the U. S. Department of Education Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Secretary:

On behalf of the nation’s non-profit private colleges and universities, and the undersigned organizations that represent the broad diversity of private higher education, I write to share our concerns about the pending regulations on teacher preparation and TEACH Grants.

As you work on preparing the regulatory language to issue an NPRM for public comment, I hope you will take our concerns into consideration, since consensus was not reached during the negotiated rulemaking process earlier this year. Meredith College, a small women’s college in North Carolina, represented NAICU and private colleges as an alternate negotiator during the process, so we have first-hand knowledge of the discussions that took place around the negotiating table.

The draft regulations proposed by the Department during the final negotiated rule making session raise four major concerns for private colleges. The proposals circumvent current statute, apply the tenets of NCLB to higher education, prescribe an untested one-size-fits-all accountability model for teacher preparation, and set the precedent of awarding Title IV student financial aid based on program evaluation rather than student need.

No Child Left Behind for higher education: While Congress is trying to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and get states away from NCLB high stakes tests, the draft regulations would require states impose such high stakes test in higher education on teacher preparation programs. States would be required to rate every teacher preparation program on a four-point scale, using criteria that have not been determined to be valid and reliable for this purpose. These criteria represent a federal mandate on the state for quality control in a field governed by individual states. There is no statutory authority for either requirement.

One size fits all accountability: The draft criteria have not been documented by research to be valid and reliable measures of preparation program effectiveness. While value-added assessments are helpful for classroom evaluations, we are concerned that those scores, stretched beyond their intention, do not reflect the quality of a teacher preparation program. Job placement and job retention rates do not reflect the quality of a preparation program. Multiple factors outside of graduates’ preparation have an impact on their ability to find a job and their decisions to remain in the teaching workforce. Multiple factors influence K-12 student performance beyond the teacher’s preparation, such as school working conditions, school leadership, and school resources. It is unfair to the teacher candidates, the schools and the children in the classrooms to have so much riding on their outcomes.

Unprecedented link between Title IV student aid eligibility and program quality: We are greatly concerned that the draft regulations make an unprecedented link between need-based student aid and the rating of the teacher preparation program quality. Defining “high quality preparation program” for the purposes of TEACH Grant eligibility based on the state rating mandated from the federal government criteria is a complete change in the federal role in providing Title IV need-based student aid. Any changes to Title IV student aid should be made through the congressional reauthorization process. Student financial aid should be based on the students’ financial need and the quality of the institution (as determined through institutional accreditation), not on the programs in which they enroll.

States and colleges aren’t ready: While many states are building data systems, few of these systems are developed enough to follow graduates into the workforce, as would be required by the proposed regulations. The proposal adds multiple reporting requirements – not authorized by statute – to the current institutional and state teacher preparation report cards. There is no cost- estimate for state and college implementation of the increased regulatory burden, such as the cost for collecting the new data, conducting annual employer and graduate surveys, could be exorbitant.

With more than 1,000 members nationwide, NAICU reflects the diversity of private, nonprofit higher education in the United States. Members include traditional liberal arts colleges, major research universities, church- and faith-related institutions, historically black colleges and universities, women’s colleges, performing and visual arts institutions, two-year colleges, and schools of law, medicine, engineering, business, and other professions. NAICU is committed to celebrating and protecting this diversity of the nation’s private colleges and universities.

We would be happy to meet with you and your staff before the NPRM is issued this summer. We look forward to commenting on the proposed regulations once they are released.

Sincerely,

David L. Warren President 
Categories Accountability, Duncan, Arne, Higher Education, Testing

How Valuable Are Standardized Tests?

By dianeravitch
August 1, 2012 //
17

A recent post noted a story in the New York Times that described a design flaw in the Texas tests created by Pearson (at $100 million per year). It reported that the state tests did not reflect the improvements observed in connection with an outside intervention because the tests are designed to show improvement only in relationship to previous and future versions of the test.

I am not a statistician or a psychometrician and do not feel competent to say that this is a Eureka! moment. I leave that to others more competent than I. My reaction is that this finding bears further investigation. Otherwise the only way to improve on the tests is to prepare for the tests and to learn the subject in no other way.

Someone commented negatively in response to this post and questioned the claims and “provenance” of the study.

The central figure in the news story, Professor Walter Stroup of the University of Texas, responds:

It’s hard to know what to make of someone who would find the provenance of a PhD thesis “suspicious” because, in its standard use, the word provenance simply refers to “the chronology of the ownership or location of a historical object.” Anyone who has read a thesis would have to know that in conformity with long-established practices such issues are typically addressed in the first few pages. Given this, one can only assume that “provenance” and “suspicion” are invoked in proximity to one another in the previous post for reasons having more to do with an effort to discredit the particular work being discussed. The implication is that somehow the artifact, in this case a PhD thesis by my former advisee Vinh Pham, is not what it purports to be, and thus is worth less than it might be if its provenance was secure.While one might admire the elegance and subtlety of this form of malice and character assignation directed at both myself and, more importantly, my former student, I would suggest that in general: (1) PhD theses, especially those that emerge from top-rated graduate programs, are routinely cited in nearly any realm of formal inquiry as credible sources of scholarship and (2) that the best way to evaluate the quality and significance of that scholarship is to actually read it.

You might also note the NYT article does in fact refer to myself “and two other researchers” in the second of two introductory paragraphs. Both names — Drs. Vinh Pham and Guadalupe Carmona were given to the reporter, Morgan Smith. My guess, and I should stress it is only a guess, is that she left them out only for reasons having to do with style.

Having now addressed your concerns about provenance, I would close by simply expressing our sincere hope that you might now settle into actually reading the work you seem so committed to disparaging. A place to start might be Dr. Pham’s Thesis:

http://generative.edb.utexas.edu/presentations/2009PMENA/pham/VinhHuyPham09Dissertation.pdf

 
Categories Accountability, Education Reform, Pearson, Testing, Texas

Texas Conservatives Turning Against Pearson

By dianeravitch
August 1, 2012 //
8

The Texas testing system is a pot of gold for Pearson–a five year contract worth $500 million.

Pearson has a problem. More than half the school boards in Texas have passed a resolution against high-stakes testing.

The parents and citizens have watched the stakes go up and  up for the past 20 years and they don’t see how it helps their children or their state.

They didn’t see any miracle in Texas.

Now an influential conservative blogger has spoken up and called for a halt. Enough is enough. Put the money into the classroom.

Is there a real possibility that common sense may be breaking out in the great state of Texas?

As a native Texan, I sure hope so.

Texans may talk funny (to non-Texans), but we are not stupid.

Categories Accountability, Pearson, Testing, Texas

Is There Nothing New Under the Sun?

By dianeravitch
July 31, 2012 //
6

Just when I thought we had a winner for the loss aversion contest–the proposal that the teacher threaten to kill the children’s favorite pet–another reader sent this magazine cover from 1973.

How ever will we motivate teachers now, if neither incentives nor threats work?

We might try reading Daniel Pink or Edward Deci or Dan Ariely. They say that professionals work best when they are allowed to exercise autonomy, when they are driven by a sense of professionalism and idealism.

But don’t expect our policymakers in Washington and the state capitols to listen to wisdom.

Categories Education Reform, Merit pay, Teachers and Teaching, Testing

Attention, Roland Fryer, This May Be a Winner!

By dianeravitch
July 31, 2012 //
12

So we are having this “loss aversion” contest. The idea is that teachers will work hard to avoid loss than they will to win a bonus.

Roland Fryer and colleagues say that this works. Offer teachers a bonus at the beginning of the year and take it away if the scores don’t go up.

I thought we have a winner when a reader suggested taking away the teacher’s first born.

But that idea pales next to this one. This looks like a winner.

Don’t threaten the teacher. Threaten the kiddies!

What do you think?

This is for elementary students and would work particularly well when high stakes tests are pushed down to the K-3 grade band.

The mistake in the original plan is that it focuses on having teachers have to avoid loss. That’s simply one layer removed from the REAL target: the kiddoes being tested. After all, the threat of the teacher’s loss of $4000 means little or nothing to them.

So near the beginning of the school year, the teacher buys several lovable classroom pets. Perhaps a class bunny, kitty, and puppy would have maximum appeal, but the skillful teacher will be sure to find out in advance what animals are most beloved to the children s/he’ll be working with.

And then, after ample time has passed to ensure that every child is head-over-heels in love with at least one of the animals, signs go up over each pet’s enclosure that read, “If your test scores don’t go up, I’ll shoot this [puppy/kitty/bunny, respectively]. Love, Ms. Williams”

I’m confident that those students who don’t succumb to nervous breakdowns in short order will kick some serious high-stakes test bootay.

Categories Accountability, Merit pay, Testing

What If We Had Another $20 Billion for Schools?

By dianeravitch
July 30, 2012 //
12

The cost of standardized testing has increased by many multiples in the past decade. By the estimate in this article, our nation now spends $20-50 billion on testing and preparing for testing. Texas, for example, spends almost ten times as much on testing as it did a decade ago.

What has that money produced? Let’s see, a dramatic lowering of teacher morale; cheating on a scale previously unknown; narrowing of the curriculum. How valuable was the expenditure? What if the same amount of money was spent differently? What would it produce?

Categories Accountability, Education Reform, Testing

How to Create Failing Schools

By dianeravitch
July 30, 2012 //
4

Mike Deshotels of Louisiana has figured out how the scheme works.

Create a program that rates all schools by a standard that assures that half will be above the standard and half will be below.

Of course, schools that enroll affluent students will appear largely in the top half, and schools that enroll poor students will rank largely in the bottom half.

Declare those in the bottom half to be failing schools.

Privatize those schools.

Start over.

Categories Accountability, Jindal, Bobby, Louisiana, Privatization, Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »