Archives for category: Testing

NAPLAN is Australia’s national system of tests. The acronym stands for “National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy,” a series of tests focused on basic skills administered annually to Australian students. It was introduced in 2008, in large part because of American influence and the pressure of international tests like PISA and TIMSS.

But since the adoption of NAPLAN, Australia has declined in the rankings.

One of the most persistent of NAPLAN critics is Phil Cullen, who has a blog called The Treehorn Express.

His latest post is “Maintaining Mediocrity”


MAINTAINING MEDIOCRITY

“It’s not the kind of education system that one envisages for the 21st Century. Schooling in Australia has lost its way.”

Clearly, Australia has reached the stage that its polically-controlled schooling system is satisfied with maintaining a level of schooling that is statistically [i.e. bits that can be measuered] mid-way. In preparing our future citizens for a world that no longer exists, we are not doing a very good job of it. It uses a testing system to see how well it is going; and pretends that the use of this one device will motivate pupils to try harder so that Australia will be amongst the top of the class in international tests such and PISA and TIMMSS {Maths}. We used to be up there amongst the first half-dozen in the PISA results but we are seriously moving back down on the list of the 72 countries that participate, well behind most Asian and European countries and a few obscure others as well. We started to slide down the rankings from 2000, as Managerialism established itself in government and schooling operations…… and seriously increased the rate of slide following the introduction of NAPLAN in 2008.

There must be….there is…. something wrong! Very wrong.

Both Managerialism and Naplanism are products of neo-liberal, big-corp., alt-right ideologies that have taken control of schooling, more dedicated to ‘control’ than to ‘schooling’. NAPLAN is its weapon of control and it impairs rather than improves schooling as such. How come?

Australia uses NAPLAN testing as a motivator and an evaluator. It controls the system. In failing as a motivator, it has provided clear evidence as to why the system is now “failing and getting worse” on PISA international rankings.

The most recent tests results have provided clear evidence as to the reasons for our failure. There are messages.

There is a root cause that is so obvious. By using the well-known stress-ridden naplan testing techniques that are well-documented, we are teaching Australian children to hate maths and science and reading and literature with a passion that previous pupils have never possessed. NAPLAN is a thoroughly nasty brute. Instead of trying to introduce children to these really beautiful and magic subjects with an enthusiasm that their normal learning talents desire, we simply turn up the pressure and make things worse. Of course it means that our nation’s progress on all industrial, intellectual and entrepreneurial fronts will be limited in the future; and we don’t seem to care. It’s all more of the same.

At this time of the year NAPLAN preparation dominates the schooling landscape. The wholesome, holistic curriculum is shelved, time-tables are adjusted, homework is test-based and unexciting, parents panic and each child’s mental compass gets screwed.

It’s not the kind of education system that we once envisaged for the 21st Century. Schooling in Australia has lost its way.

Some countries have got it right by thinking. THINKING! Our system is a simplistic, worn-out New York model, based on a Bronx mentality that believes that fear is the best learning motivator known to the island of Manhattan and its satellites. especially Australia. Schools are forced to maintain it. You’d have to wonder why, wouldn’t you?

And by the way, Scott. Costing millions and millions each year, it’s a bad debt…..a very bad debt.

We seem to be struck with it.

C’est la vie

This posting comes from Phil Cullen in Australia, whose blog is The Treehorn Express. You will see some familiar names, like Rupert Murdoch, who is a media baron in Australia, and Joel Klein, who was Murdoch’s favorite education expert. As Phil Cullen explains on his blog: Treehorn is the hero of an easy-to-read children’s book: “The Shrinking of Treehorn” by Florence Heidi Parry. It clearly illustrates the disregard that adults demonstrate towards children at school. Treehorn’s principal and his teacher, even his parents give him ‘short shrift’.

NAPLAN is Australia’s national assessment, inspired by American influence. The acronym stands for National Assessment Program–Literacy and Numeracy. It is offered in years 3, 5, 7, and 9.

Hey, Phil, Australian students are fortunate. American students are tested every year in EVERY grade from 3-8 and also once in high school. Be glad you didn’t get the full dose of NCLB-Race to the Top Standardized Testing Obsession.

IT’S NAPLAN TIME

Bring out the law book.

[An essay from a Manager’s diary]

On Tuesday, May 9 NAPLAN testing will hit all Australian Children’s Factories with a ferocity that cyclone Debbie could never match. The level of destruction to Australia’s learning capital will be vast and there is no way that anyone can compensate nor be compensated for the damage. Once the natural desire to learn has been decimated, reconstruction becomes a long-long-long term effort. It’s been happening for nine years now and all of Australia must know of the damage it is causing. If we don’t, we soon will.

The sooner we get rid of it, the better. From the start of this Menticide Epidemic in 2008, when powerful political creatures arranged for the systematic destruction of Australia’s school learning culture for the sake of their pals’ financial profit, we have endured a system of schooling that brings no credit to any one of us. Our testucation nerds have instituted a schooling program that guarantees paralysis of the intellect from the first day of school, where, in some states, kids are tested before they start. We have been abusing our children’s keenness to learn with merciless abandon. Only the love and compassion of the everyday classroom teacher maintains any semblance of progress these days, but their super-efforts can never compensate adequately for the nastiness of the testucating end of town. The present generation of school attenders may never recover and the ‘fat little men will simply sit there and grin’, as Alice predicted.

This year, some testucators will be searching for modest ways to make the tests easier, in the manner that many of us reformed-testing-freaks used to do to make tests harder. The public is supposed to believe that NAPLAN is good for its children and this can only be done if the scores get better. They were shocking in 2016. Manipulation can be part of the game. For instance, there used to be statistical data available that listed which tables were more difficult than others……9+7 is much more difficult to remember than 8+4, for instance. This ‘level of difficulty’ applies to all kinds of testable items, whether it be in Maths, Science or Grammar. Teachers know this. Some are easier to handle than others for some reason. In that earlier era of testucation, we test freaks had to eat crow eventually; and reform our attitude to schooling.

If there is anything more dangerous to a country’s future than testucators, it’s an elite politician who has ‘fallen for ‘ a special kind of testucator. Julia has confessed to describing Joel Klein as her ‘pin-up boy’. You let him fool-ya, Julia, didn’tya?. Despite the appearance of her office wall on behalf of her corporatocracy who paid for Joel’s trip down under and whose photos probably adorned the rest of her wall, she envisaged a system of millions of classrooms where little Aussie darlings would sit still each day working assiduously at tables and spelling and sums and grammar and practice tests and related bumfuzzle with zest and ‘heils’ for their ultimate success at PISA. Her cuckservative fopdoodlers, those compliant conservatives whom she had cuckolded and paddocked in the bozone layer of confusion early in the piece, then attached their own fictile associations to her apron strings to strengthen their political anti-child animus. The Australian Primary Principals Association was easily moulded into one of hers; and the whole schadenfreude business was in place to her great satisfaction; and to Kevin’s, who had told her to do it; and to BSU; and to NYCity’s finances; and to Rupert; and to Amplify and co-test-manufacturers and tablet-program producers who continue to ridicule the young and sneer at their declining mental distress.

As Sir Wally said : “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.

In Orwellian terms, cynics now comment that NAPLAN is a kind of political prolefeed that keeps the proles [proletariat] in their place in case they became too knowledgeable; which is what it is doing. However, this was not her ladyship’s intention. She is of Labor background…just doing as she was told by the big end of town….a disposition maintained by present day Labor.

POLITICS

Treehorn has conducted a crusade for kids for some years now. It has been a daily effort and the longer it has gone, the more it is clear that the NAPLAN tragedy can be regarded as an exercise in politics rather than a reform in education. Clearly UBS, the world’s largest banking enterprise controls schooling in Australia and has done so from the outset. Its control over political behaviour is monstrous. In political terms, its history of school CONTROL is pretty clear., but largely overlooked or ignored.

1. Circa 2008, UBS instructed Kevin Rudd that it wanted something done about schooling.

2. Panicky Kevin instructed his Minister for Education to do something.

3. Minister Julia Gillard headed straight for the USA [not Finland, Singapore, New Zealand or other countries that had progressive, high achievement schooling ‘going for them’ at the time], where, after reporting to Rupert Murdoch before attending a Carnegie Foundation party, she met the controversial boss of a large New York school district, who sweet-talked her into a belief in his scheme; which was based heavily on fear….[fear of failure and disgrace for kids, fear of loss of job for teachers, fear of closure of school for parents]…and she was enthralled. It was a pure and simple FEAR-based scheme.; nothing to do with real achievement-oriented, progressive learning as in Finland and places that developed kids’ love for learning. It meant POWER. She fell for his charm. He became her ‘pin-up’ boy and, following Julia’s liaison with UBS, he and wife Nicole received a free trip down under at UBS expense where he spoke only with UBS connections. [He later called them ‘education officials’.] His Immenseness spoke of ‘enacting tranformational change’ to the UBS audience in Melbourne; of ‘reporting and grading systems’ to the chosen audience at the Press Club in Canberra and about ‘relationships between businesses and schools’ at a UBS dinner in Sydney before concluding that Australia had “…a lot of understandable concern about putting together an accountability system and transparency.”

4. So….Julia and Joel and the UBS installed his scheme. This meant that state system initiatives had to be taken over and controlled, but that was a piece of cake for our future P.M. We now have Kleinism as our national schooling system well controlled by UBS and its New York connections, who, incidentally, are making billions in the U.S. and anticipate making more in Australia following the surge in the use of tablets in Aussie schools. Their testing programs, curriculum program, learning games are ripe for the using, and the whole project is now turning to gold.

5. Psychometrics only were appointed to conduct a rigorous testing program through an organisation called ACARA. The ‘C’ stands for Curriculum, even though teaching experts were banned from appointment at the test centre.. UBS was on its way to total command.

6. In her public acknowledgment of the power of kleinism and its mightiness, which she spruiked at the special UBS dinner for Joel Klein in November 2008, Julia Gillard sought approval from her political superordinates for her scheme, quoted Rupert Murdoch who said that “thousands of children are being betrayed ” and, he added, there is “a gap between those who are getting an education and those who are not.” Strange words.

7. She thanked the large companies like Freehills and Corrs Chambers Westgarth for their support “…to the development of the program and their pro-bono contributions.” and encouraged others to consult their boards to contribute to the “partnership of leading employers.” She was in with Flynn having persuaded all the big boys that this scheme meant educational improvement. All her scheme [party?] needed was more money.

8. The Labor Party, Liberal Party and Greens all took note and decided never to examine the context of NAPLAN, its effects on schooling nor on the mental health of children [which became quite startling by 2011], nor the connection to ‘the establishment’. The Libs conducted a couple of fizzer Senate inquiries which used-up time and paper and delayed any serious examination of NAPLAN as an educational device. Not one political party has shown any interest in the plight of kids at school during the past decade nor bothered to question what is going on. They seem to be too afraid. NAPLAN has yet to be used as an election issue, which is what it should be. If any party uses it, it’s bound to be a boomer…and its banning of Naplan a clear winner….but the forces of evil…

9. The Australian Education Union voted unanimously at its January, 2010 Conference to ban NAPLAN, then suddenly changed its mind….no reason given…..and the barber kept on shaving.

10, The government took over the control of the once-doggedly-determined professional society, the Australian Primary Principals’ Association and some like organisations in case they remembered their duty of care to kids and returned to their ethical principals.

11. The Murdoch and Fairfax Press, believing that discretion is the better part of valour, have never conducted any serious ‘investigative surveys’ of the NAPLAN EFFECT ON SCHOOLING. They’d need to be brave, wouldn’t they? Even the ABC has been super-cautious as have respected journos who were once open and forthright. Things are very tight and totally controlled.

This unified pro-NAPLAN force is much too formidable for any care-for-kids campaign. Australia is stuck with a mediocre system trailing other countries by a country mile. The cock-up with its present operations does not provide parents with any promise for a reasonable future. You will know so many of them being regularly actioned…..

LAWS OF MANAGEMENT

In management terms, NAPLAN has had an obvious Cobra Effect or Rat Effect [aka Rule of Perverse Intentions] on Australia’s schooling system “…which occurs when an attempted solution to a problem makes the problem worse as a type of unintended consequence. The term is used to illustrate the causes of incorrect stimulation in economy and politics.”

Principals associations, usually seen as the protectors of Child Rights, school standards and professional ethics were the first to fold and to illustrate, by their reactions to the reality behind known, unwarranted laws of management as applied to educational administration. These laws [see below] became unwarranted and unnnecessary replacements for the basic administration of schools that enhance the conditions of freedom and dignity for children.

Campbell’s Law clearly applies to the NAPLAN disaster and has been noticeably ignored since the outset….

The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making,

the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be

to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.

[Use of tutoring shops, extra homework, post-school classes are instances of cheating the system and corrupting the results.]

as was the Settlage Definition of a test score also ignored……’

“A mark or score on a blanket test represents an inadequate judgement

by a biased, inexperienced and variable non-schooling judge,

of the extent to which an undefined level of mastery of unknown proportions

of an inadequate amount of material has been completed

under tense conditions that render the outcomes useless.

[Indeed! How can distant testing ever replace shared evaluation at the point of learning?]

That’s NAPLAN testing. It’s the wonder of the age that it has lasted as long as it has. The efforts of the mythmakers and their low-level, coercive, politico-totalitarian forms of control seem to have convinced a gullible public that its diagnostic credentials magically turn NAPLAN into a learning motivator and, at a cost of millions of dollars annually, kids will get smarter, quicker It is a downright furphy. Such measures of control get what they deserve: low levels of response that are just formal, bordering on rejection. The low level of teacher enthusiasm and pupil dislike for the subjects combine to produce the weak results that the hyper-political scheme deserves. Insecurity and uncertainty ensure the exposure of established credos of management…

1. Eichmann’s Plea. We do as we are told without regard to humane requirements.

2. McGregor’s Theory. Theory X is better than Theory Y. Fear, mistrust, deceit and a punitive atmosphere motivates operators better than does humanity and trust and normal ethical behaviour.

3. Stockholm Syndrome. An irrational psychological alliance [e.g. A.G.P.P.A] between captor and captured, leads to total capitulation of ethical principles by the captured.

4. Hawthorne Effect. Behaviour and mental attitudes alter, depending on the level of personal interest taken.

5. Goodharts Law. When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a measure.

6. Streisand Effect. Attempting to hide important information, like parents’ right to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to testing, sometimes has unintended consequences by increasing the number who will say ‘No’.

6. The New Stupid. A condition that occurs when excessive data, expensively gathered, is misused to draw conclusions that entice powerful politicians to make erroneous decisions.

7. The Boondoogle Effect. Doing useless, wasteful or trivial work as a consequence of The New Stupid; like wasting time on excessive practice, teaching to tests, neglecting a wholesome, holistic curriculum.

Observers of the NAPLAN debacle have noted many instances of each of these laws and their effects in action during the past few years.
The busy presence of these laws and the dark history of Australian schooling over the past decade, surely indicate that NAPLAN has nothing to do with schooling or the learning business. It is a gross, ugly political gimmick and the forces that support it are much too powerful for sad little children….like Treehorn.

Do you remember back in the old days when the privatization movement began that choice was going to “save poor children from failing schools”?

Well, that slogan is now obsolete. Now the advocates say that the purpose of choice is choice, regardless of results.

That subtle shift has happened because of the many recent studies and evaluations showing that charters and vouchers do not necessarily get better results, and that they may even have a negative effect, as we learned from recent evaluations of voucher programs in D.C., Louisiana, Indiana, and Ohio.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos sounded the bugle call for retreat after learning of the poor results of the latest evaluation of the D.C. voucher program, funded by the U.S. Department of Education.

In the past, she had said that choice would “save poor kids from failing schools.” Now, however, she says, “When school choice policies are fully implemented, there should not be differences in achievement among the various types of schools.” Parents are satisfied, and that is good enough for her, even if the children’s test scores are falling. If you parse this sentence, what she is saying is that when everyone chooses, none of the schools will be better than any others. They will all get the same results, even if they are dismal. The purpose of choice is choice.

Results don’t matter. Only parent satisfaction matters. If poor kids are moved from a “failing public school” to a “failing charter school” or “failing religious school,” that’s fine. An opinion piece in a D.C. paper suggested that we should not pay attention to those studies, because critics of school choice twist their findings anyway, especially if their findings are negative.

Audrey Amrein-Beardsley of Arizona State University is one of the nation’s most prominent scholars of teacher evaluation. She is especially critical of VAM (value-added measurement); she has studied TVAAS, EVAAS, and other similar metrics and found them deeply flawed. She has testified frequently in court cases as an expert witness.

In this post, she analyzes the court decision that blocks the use of VAM to evaluate teachers in Houston. The misuse of VAM was especially egregious in Houston, which terminated 221 teachers in one year, based on their VAM scores.

This is a very important article. Amrein-Beardsley and Jesse Rothstein of the University of California testified on behalf of the teachers; Tom Kane (who led the Gates’ Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Study) and John Friedman (of the notorious Chetty-Friedman-Rockoff study) testified on behalf of the district.

Amrein-Beardsley writes:

Of primary issue will be the following (as taken from Judge Smith’s Summary Judgment released yesterday): “Plaintiffs [will continue to] challenge the use of EVAAS under various aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment, including: (1) procedural due process, due to lack of sufficient information to meaningfully challenge terminations based on low EVAAS scores,” and given “due process is designed to foster government decision-making that is both fair and accurate.”

Related, and of most importance, as also taken directly from Judge Smith’s Summary, he wrote:

HISD’s value-added appraisal system poses a realistic threat to deprive plaintiffs of constitutionally protected property interests in employment.

HISD does not itself calculate the EVAAS score for any of its teachers. Instead, that task is delegated to its third party vendor, SAS. The scores are generated by complex algorithms, employing “sophisticated software and many layers of calculations.” SAS treats these algorithms and software as trade secrets, refusing to divulge them to either HISD or the teachers themselves. HISD has admitted that it does not itself verify or audit the EVAAS scores received from SAS, nor does it engage any contractor to do so. HISD further concedes that any effort by teachers to replicate their own scores, with the limited information available to them, will necessarily fail. This has been confirmed by plaintiffs’ expert, who was unable to replicate the scores despite being given far greater access to the underlying computer codes than is available to an individual teacher [emphasis added, as also related to a prior post about how SAS claimed that plaintiffs violated SAS’s protective order (protecting its trade secrets), that the court overruled, see here].

The EVAAS score might be erroneously calculated for any number of reasons, ranging from data-entry mistakes to glitches in the computer code itself. Algorithms are human creations, and subject to error like any other human endeavor. HISD has acknowledged that mistakes can occur in calculating a teacher’s EVAAS score; moreover, even when a mistake is found in a particular teacher’s score, it will not be promptly corrected. As HISD candidly explained in response to a frequently asked question, “Why can’t my value-added analysis be recalculated?”:

Once completed, any re-analysis can only occur at the system level. What this means is that if we change information for one teacher, we would have to re- run the analysis for the entire district, which has two effects: one, this would be very costly for the district, as the analysis itself would have to be paid for again; and two, this re-analysis has the potential to change all other teachers’ reports.

The remarkable thing about this passage is not simply that cost considerations trump accuracy in teacher evaluations, troubling as that might be. Of greater concern is the house-of-cards fragility of the EVAAS system, where the wrong score of a single teacher could alter the scores of every other teacher in the district. This interconnectivity means that the accuracy of one score hinges upon the accuracy of all. Thus, without access to data supporting all teacher scores, any teacher facing discharge for a low value-added score will necessarily be unable to verify that her own score is error-free.

HISD’s own discovery responses and witnesses concede that an HISD teacher is unable to verify or replicate his EVAAS score based on the limited information provided by HISD.

According to the unrebutted testimony of plaintiffs’ expert, without access to SAS’s proprietary information – the value-added equations, computer source codes, decision rules, and assumptions – EVAAS scores will remain a mysterious “black box,” impervious to challenge.

While conceding that a teacher’s EVAAS score cannot be independently verified, HISD argues that the Constitution does not require the ability to replicate EVAAS scores “down to the last decimal point.” But EVAAS scores are calculated to the second decimal place, so an error as small as one hundredth of a point could spell the difference between a positive or negative EVAAS effectiveness rating, with serious consequences for the affected teacher.

Hence, “When a public agency adopts a policy of making high stakes employment decisions based on secret algorithms incompatible with minimum due process, the proper remedy is to overturn the policy.”

A few days ago, I posted a letter that James Kirylo and his wife wrote to school officials in South Carolina to explain why they were opting their children out of testing. Kirylo is a professor of education; the letter laid out the reasons why standardized testing was wrong and provided a bibliography of research to support the parents’ decision.

But it turns out that South Carolina does not respect “parents’ right to choose” whether their children take tests.

Read Professor Kirylo’s harrowing account here, appearing as a guest post on Mercedes Schneider’s blog.

He writes:

“On the morning of the first test for my fifth grader, I received a call from the school, from a Dr. Chief Instructional Officer (I will withhold the name) from the Lexington 2 SC school system, informing me that my son was placed in the classroom, and that he was given the standardized test. I was shocked, to say the least.

“First, I never spoke to this Dr. Chief Instructional Officer before. But she certainly let me know in a quick second that she was “Dr. Important” from the school system.

“Second, I expressed my great displeasure, and said it was completely inappropriate for my son to be placed in the class, especially after I was given every indication by the school that accommodations would be made. Third, I said I was on my way to the school to talk further about the situation.

“When I arrived at the school, I saw two police patrol cars in front.

“They were there for me.”

Ralph Ratto teaches fifth grade in New York. The state math tests are ending today. His students spent nine (9) hours being tested about math and reading. This is child abuse. Why should students spend more than an hour on a math test or a reading test?

The tests, he says, are ridiculously hard for fifth graders. He thinks that most members of Congress could not pass the tests.

He can’t post any of the actual questions but he offers a question comparable to those on the test:

Here is a general idea of what one of these questions looks like.

A factory produces 4,861 items in 30 days. They then package them in crates hold 8 each. These crates are delivered to 26 distributers daily. How many are delivered each week to each distributer?

Ten year old children must be able to answer this question correctly, otherwise their teacher may be labeled ineffective.

Education Week reports that Oregon is dropping the Smarter Balanced Assessment for high school students and will use the SAT instead. Oregon will continue to use SBAC for testing 3-8 and 11.

The SAT is a college admissions test, and it is wildly inappropriate to use it as an accountability test. It is a test of reading, mathematics, and writing. It does not test the curriculum that students have studied. It is norm-referenced and preordained that many children will fail, who will be mostly students who are poor, students with disabilities, and students whose English skills are weak.

As even the College Board knows, the SAT reflects family income.

The cardinal rule of psychometric is that a test should be used only for the purpose for which it was designed. The SAT was designed as a college admissions test. It comes close to being an IQ test, which are its roots in the history of testing. It was not designed as a test for all high school students, either for accountability or for graduation.

Oregon is making another costly mistake. This one will hurt the most vulnerable students.

According to Newsday, the major newspaper on Long Island, about half of eligible students opted out of state math tests. This shows the resilience of the opt out movement and confounds the ability of the state to rank schools by test scores. The statewide number are likely to be about 20%, as in other years.

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/common-core-math-test-boycotted-by-79-780-long-island-students-1.13551045

“Nearly 80,000 public school students in 100 districts across Long Island refused Tuesday to take the state mathematics exam given in grades three through eight, in a fifth straight year of boycotts driven by opposition to the Common Core tests, according to a Newsday survey.

“On the first full-fledged day of math testing in Nassau and Suffolk counties, 79,780 students in the districts that responded opted out — 53.1 percent of the pupils eligible in those systems to take the exam. There are 124 districts on the Island.

“The state’s Common Core math exams began Tuesday morning for most students in grades three through eight. The math test, like the English Language Arts exam administered in the same grade levels in late March, is given in segments during three days and will finish for most students on Thursday.

“Educators and leaders of the opt-out movement on the Island had said they expected refusals to remain high on the Island, a hotbed of anti-test activism. Nearly 85 percent of eligible students in the Middle Country district boycotted the test Tuesday.

“Until state assessments are cleanly and clearly uncoupled from teacher evaluations and are used solely to inform instruction, opt-outs will continue to be a reality,” Middle Country Superintendent Roberta Gerold said. “Parents have to believe that activities in which their children are involved are free of politics and have instructional value and no one can honestly say that is true about the current grades three-through-eight assessment.”

“This is the fifth consecutive year of boycotts of the Common Core tests. On Long Island, the number of refusals mushroomed to about half of all eligible students both last year and in 2015, according to Newsday surveys of the 124 districts in Nassau and Suffolk counties at the time.

“On Tuesday, figures from the 100 responding districts showed 32,239 students in Nassau and 47,541 in Suffolk opted out of the exams. Newsday’s survey showed a broad range: In the Plainedge district, for example, 79 percent of students refused to take the test, while in Hempstead, less than 7 percent opted out.

“More than half of the 100 districts that responded reported that more than 50 percent of their eligible students were sitting out the exam.

“Those opposed to the exams object to the Education Department’s reforms, saying that children are being over-tested and the tests are not developmentally appropriate to children’s ages.

“The state agency has made some changes. Last year, the department shortened the exams, established a statewide moratorium until 2019-20 on using test scores in teachers’ job ratings, and included teachers in devising test questions.

“The ELA exam, given the final week in March, was boycotted by more than 97,000 students on the Island — more than half of those eligible — according to results of a Newsday survey to which 116 of the 124 school systems responded.

“There is a significant difference in the number of students who take the math exam compared with the ELA, because some middle school students in accelerated math classes may not sit for it.

“Districts can waive the state math test for seventh- and eighth-graders who will take the Regents exam in algebra and for those who will take the Regents exam in geometry. In Newsday’s survey Tuesday, tallies of eligible students in three districts included students slated to sit for the Regents exam.

“This year, several systems on Long Island are offering computer-based testing, a new program implemented by the Education Department. Those exams also are given during three days.

“The Franklin Square district on Monday had third-graders in one of its three elementary schools taking the electronic test. Eighteen of 78 eligible third-graders there — 23 percent — opted out, the district said.

“In the South Huntington school district, more than 47 percent of eligible students opted out of the math test on Tuesday. School officials there said they encouraged parents to make their own choice.

“Our position on the opt-out or opt-in movement is that we respect each family’s right to make their own decision regarding testing and have worked hard to keep this polarizing issue from diverting focus away from the important instructional work taking place in our classrooms,” Superintendent David Bennardo said.

“Last year, nearly 88,000 students in 106 districts that responded to Newsday’s survey opted out of the math exam — nearly 53 percent of eligible students in the responding districts.

“In 2015, 66,000 students in 99 districts that responded to Newsday’s survey boycotted the math tests — 46.5 percent of eligible students in the responding districts.”

Denis Ian writes:

Lots of parents agonize over the opt-out decision … especially when they have a very confident and competent youngster who’s anxious to show his or her proficiency. This seems especially true with the math assessments.

These parents know the inherent flaws of the entire assessment experience, but they think this one exception … for this one test … might be okay.

Think again. There’s a larger life lesson here.

Sometimes we all have to teach our children hard lessons. And, as they grow older, we have to let them know that they’re not the center of the universe.

That there are issues larger and more important than their lives … larger than their comforts. And larger than their personal triumphs.

And that sometimes … being right and noble … is very uncomfortable. Especially if it involves going against some authority … or some peers … for the very first time.

I get this dilemma. Lots do, too.

Folks know these tests are wrong. Educationally unsound. Hurtful.

I get that their child is the confident sort … and that he or she wants to ace those tests. I dig kids who dig challenges. I had kids just like that. They made me proud. Still do.

But there are longer-lasting life lessons in refusing these tests. Lessons of much more value.

First, your child learns to champion others … even if it dims some of their own spotlight.

Second, your child learns to take the “first step”. That’s how leadership is learned. And how leaders are made.

Third, your child will gain an understanding of the important process of resisting a wrong … and the uncomfortable feeling it sometimes creates. And how to manage that unease.

And last … and most important … it teaches your child that an injustice is still an injustice even when it never touches them. And that it requires them to act.

Now, tell me … over a lifetime … what lesson will have more permanence in that child’s character?

Shining for a moment on some bubble test? Or standing tall … as a leader … for themselves and for others?

Denis Ian

David Kristofferson tutors students for AP exams in California. He sees a scam that benefits mainly the College Board, which sells the exams for $100 per students and rakes in millions.

He wrote this article to share what he has learned.

The first thing that parents and others need to do is that the passing scores on these exams are very low.

Parents don’t realize that the passing scores for at least some of these exams are set very low. When their son or daughter passes with a 3, 4, or 5, parents are elated without understanding what this really means.

For example, the minimum passing score to get a 3 for AP Physics 1 for 2015 was only 41%. Despite that low bar, 63.1% of all students who took the exam were not able to pass it!

41% was the minimum score for a 4, and 71% for a 5.

Unconfirmed reports state that the AP Physics 1 passing grade in 2016 may have been 36%, but the College Board does not readily release such information to the public.

Meanwhile their test fees are pushing close to $100 per exam!

Jay Mathews of the Washington Post has been a strong advocate for the AP exams. He believes that students benefit even if they don’t pass them.

Kristofferson disagrees. He writes:

From my direct experience with students, the AP curriculum covers a large amount of material very quickly. Because the exams are in early May, the curriculum must be completed before then, wasting the final month of school, and making the pace of “learning” even more hectic.

The exams are also filled with very tricky, challenging questions to fulfill the College Board’s quest to, in old school, sexist language, “separate the men from the boys.”

The consequence of this fast-paced, trick-filled curriculum is not quality learning for a very significant number of students, but instead, frantic memorization of test methods and past exam question tricks, most of which disappears right after the student completes the course.

Even worse, this curriculum leads to significant amounts of cheating on local classroom tests!

Read Kristofferson’s article. What do you think?