This is part 2 of my interview by Abby Rappaport of the American Prospect. This came at the end of a long day in Austin, after I gave two speeches, one in the morning to the Texas School Boards Association and Texas Association of School Administrators, and another in the afternoon to parents and teachers. I was too tired to choose my words. I said what I think.
In part 1 of the interview, we talked about testing and accountability.
I just concluded an amazing visit to Austin.
I love going back to Texas. It’s my native state. I am a graduate of the Houston public schools. I like the sounds of Texas voices. I like the twang, the earthiness. These are the accents I grew up with.
I like meeting with racially integrated groups. I attended segregated schools in Houston. I’m proud that public education led the way in creating a racially diverse society, a society where people of all colors interact as equals.
I like the friendliness and openness, the lack of pretense and stuffiness that characterizes Texans. I have lived most of my life in New York City, but my heart belongs to this crazy state.
I arrived on Saturday and was met by Sara Stevenson, the tireless librarian at O’Henry Middle School, who has written many opinion pieces and letters to the editor in support of public education. Sara brought me to my hotel, where I met Karen Miller, a vigorous parent leader from Cypress-Fairbanks, who frequently sends me links to important news articles about corporate raiders of public education. It’s people like Sara and Karen who are the front-line combat troops defending our public schools, and they do it out of a fierce devotion to the common good, a sentiment that corporate reformers don’t understand. People like Sara and Karen are our secret weapons.
After an hour of rest (tweeting and blogging), I met two of the “fighting professors” of the University of Texas, Angela Valenzuela and Carolyn Heinrich. These scholars have been warning about the inequity of high-stakes testing for years, and their careful work will eventually turn the tide against the high-stakes mania. (By coincidence–or not–Sandy Kress, the architect of NCLB and now a lobbyist for Pearson, had an opinion piece in the local newspaper extolling the success of NCLB. He and Margaret Spellings may be the last two living defenders of that failed law.)
Saturday night, I had dinner with about forty superintendents from across the state who told me how frustrated they are with high stakes testing, how much time is wasted every year. A group of them have been working for several years on what they call their “visioning project.” Working with Phil Schlechty, they’ve been trying to dream up the kind of education they want for the children in their districts.
Last year, the Legislature passed a law allowing 20 districts to opt out of the state accountability system, which gets more onerous every year. The legislators just keep piling on more and more tests. The superintendents plan to use their autonomy to reinvent accountability and reduce the burden of testing.
Phil Schlechty gave a passionate five-minute talk about how our idea of democracy depends on the connection between the community and its public schools. He warned that if we lose public education, our democracy will be at risk. Phil also talked about his grandson, who made a video for school on “the value of doing nothing. The value of lying on your back and looking at clouds. The value of watching a caterpillar crawl on a branch. The value of counting the leaves on a tree.” Beautiful.
On Sunday morning, I spoke to a general session of the annual convention of the Texas School Boards Association and the Texas Association of School Administrators. More than 800 school boards have passed resolutions against high-stakes testing. I encouraged them to stand strong and to carry their righteous protest to the next level.
I asked, What if an entire district said to the state, we are not giving the tests this year? If the whole district says no, they can’t stop you. What if many districts opt out? If everyone does it, they can’t punish you. They-the legislators and other officials–will have to pay attention. They will have to stop and think of better ways to monitor the progress of education.
There is power in saying “no.” The more people say it, the more powerful it is. Texans have a long history of independence. Texans don’t like to be bullied. I would love to see a bunch of districts try it.
Sunday afternoon, I spoke to an enthusiastic crowd of parents and teachers at Eastside Memorial High School. The district has already promised to give the high school to a charter chain, and the community is furious. They didn’t ask for a charter, and they don’t want to lose their school. They are angry about the way the Broad-trained superintendent of the Austin Independent School District insisted on giving their local elementary school to the same charter chain, over the loud objection of the parents and local community. AISD was not responding to local demand (most of the local students abandoned the school when the charter opened last month). The locals are still angry, and they intend to hold onto the high school if they can.
Austin has several activist groups that are working to stop the encroachment of privately managed charters into the district. They are mobilized to elect school board members in November who will support community sentiment in favor of public schools.
Sunday night I went for Texas barbecue with local parent leaders.
Monday morning, I met with legislative staff to discuss the big issues in Texas. One is funding: the state cut $5.4 billion from the schools in the past two years. Another is the growth of online for-profit charter schools, which take public dollars with minimal accountability and poor results.
I ended my visit with an interview by Evan Smith before a live audience, on his PBS show “Overheard.” Wonderful audience, great questions, a good opportunity to address issues that are important to Texas and the nation.
I had a wonderful time in Austin, experienced a whirlwind of activity, and enjoyed the chance to meet so many people who care about children and our future.
Diane
I spent the last three days in Austin and had a great time. I’ll write about it on the flight home. I’m sitting on the JetBlue flight and the doors will close in 3 minutes.
Thought you might want to see this interview with me and Evan Smith. Only 24 minutes.
I take it back. I posted this as the doors were closing. When I landed, I learned that the link didn’t work. I wrote the producer and found out that it won’t go live until October 18, when the show airs. At that time, I’ll post the link and make sure it works.
Texas brought No Child Left Behind to the nation.
Remember that candidate George W. Bush said that Texas had figured out how to fix the schools. He said test every child every year, post the results, reward the schools where scores go up, humiliate those where scores go down. And, wow, a miracle: the scores go up, up, up; the achievement gap closes; graduation rates go up. Win-win-win-win.
Except it didn’t happen. And now the whole country is stuck with a testing regime that is sucking the life out of education.
This report from Texas describes a growing revolution against testing. The schools are up in arms: 77% of the school boards enrolling 86% of all Texas students have passed a resolution opposing high-stakes testing. The Houston superintendent said that 65 days (out of 180) are consumed by testing.
Now a group known as “Moms Against Drunk Testing” has joined the fray. They are mad as hell and they are not going to take it anymore. Last year, the state cut the school budget by $5.4 billion, while handing a fat contract to Pearson for $468 million. Meanwhile the state wants more and more and more testing.
(A few hours after this post appeared, I received the following message: So glad we have support around the country! Our real name is TAMSA (Texans Advocating for Meaningful Student Assessment) and we have a facebook page and a website. Please “like us” and “join in” on our website! The more members and “likers” we have, the stronger we will be in the upcoming legislative session.
website: http://tamsatx.org/
facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tamsatx)
Go, Texas, go! If the testing vampire is slain, the whole facade of faux reform collapses. No test scores, no merit pay, no evaluation by test scores, no closing schools by scores.
Don’t mess with Texas!
I am speaking on Sunday morning to a joint convention of the Texas School Boards Association and the Texas Association of School Administrators at the Austin Convention Center.
On Sunday from 2-4, I am meeting with parents and teachers to talk about the kind of stuff we discuss on this blog. Eastside Memorial High School. Y’all come!
This parent supports the professors at the University of Texas, whose patient work is paying off. More than half the school boards in Texas have passed resolutions against high stakes testing, and the head of the state workforce commission just denounced it.
Thanks for their scholarship and courage!
The parent writes:
I love my alma mater, the University of Texas at Austin. This fine institution boasts the likes of Walter Stroup:
Carolyn Heinrich:
Julian Vasquez Heilig:
And Angela Valenzuela:
http://www.forumforeducation.org/conveners/angela-valenzuela
I believe that there are many more fine and distinguished professors at UT who “support the profession of teaching”. Conducting research and reporting the harmful effects of high-stakes/standardized testing is vitally important. Why aren’t more parents receiving this information?
Here is an article written by a Texas businessman and former legislator complaining that young people in Texas are woefully underprepared for college or the workplace.
The answer: more testing and accountability.
He fails to note that Texas has been pushing that testing and accountability thing for at least 20 years. Remember Ross Perot? Remember the Texas miracle? The whole country is stuck with NCLB because of all the “Texas Brags” that turned out to be all hat and no cattle.
Some people say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get different results.
I’d say that the definition of ideology is doing the same thing over and over again without regard to evidence or experience.
When your method fails, and fails, and fails, and fails, don’t blame the kids. Blame the method.
Sorry, once again, I forgot to add the link to the article. It’s here now. Please read it.
Tom Pauken is not only the Texas Workforce Commissioner, he is a prominent member of the Texas Republican party.
He says that labeling schools by test scores based on formulas written in Washington, D.C., and Austin is a sort of “abstract intellectualism” that doesn’t work.
He says there are lots of good jobs that go begging because young people aren’t prepared for them.
Here is his testimony to the state legislature.
His only error is in assuming that the demand for high-stakes testing prepares students for college.
It doesn’t. To prepare well for college, you need far more than the ability to answer bubble-test questions. You need to be well read, able to write well, able to think for yourself, able to figure out complex problems, know a goodly amount of history.
None of these things matter for NCLB–or for that matter, for the Race to the Top.
Both NCLB and RTTT are “abstract intellectualism” at their worst.
Sara Stevenson, librarian at O. Henry Middle School in Austin, Texas, is a tenacious, fearless writer of letters and articles about education. She has been the kind of stand-up leader that every community and every school needs. Here is her latest.
The Texas GOP and Pro-Choice in Education
“If a students feels, a family feels they need a better opportunity,
they should have that right,” he said. “And especially, students with
disabilities and autism, to be trapped in a school that can’t help you
get over a disability, is a sin. And we’re going to stand up for that
community.” He received sustained applause.
Dallas Morning News, August 30
When I read the quotation above, I realize that Senator Dan Patrick and I live in different universes. First of all, children with autism and disabilities are well served in public education. In fact, the Special Education laws and lobbies are the most powerful in public education. By law, we must serve every child who enters our school, nomatter what her disabilities. Many students with special needs have one-on-ones. These are trained adults who accompany the special needs child daily from class to class. These employees are expensive, but they are necessary and the right thing to do. I can’t imagine a private school would want to take on the additional cost of hiring a one-on-one for a special needs child when the proposed voucher covers less than $6000 of tuition per year.
Proponents for school choice pitch their arguments as a way for the
poor and disabled to have the same choices the rich have in choosing
the right school for their children, to save students from “failing”
schools. Due to NCLB, students in failing schools already have choice.
When their school fails to make adequate yearly progress, they may
transfer to any passing school in the district. I know because my
school received seventy sudden students a week before school began,
even though we are at full capacity and closed to transfers. This law
strains the passing schools by causing overcrowding and drains
struggling schools of its most involved students and families, making
it that much harder to pass the following year as standards rise.
The resurrection of the voucher issue is extremely troubling. While
the proponents talk about vouchers as “the Civil Rights issue of our
day,” I suspect it’s merely a cover for families, who already send
their children to private and parochial schools, to get a tax break.
Furthermore, the data supporting voucher schools is thin. Recently,
Matthew Chingos and Paul Peterson advocated vouchers in the Wall
Street Journal, pointing to a long-term study (1997-2011) which shows
a higher percentage of students who accepted vouchers enrolled in
college than those who applied but didn’t receive them, particularly
among African-American students. However, when looking at the data
more closely, the study reveals that these African-American students
enrolling in college were more likely to be only children and more
likely to have at least one college-educated parent.
Still, it’s interesting that Chingos and Peterson chose to use the
measure of college enrollment rates. Why didn’t they argue that the
voucher students attending private schools have higher test scores
than their peers left behind? Perhaps it’s because the Milwaukee
voucher system, which has been in place for over twenty years, and the
DC voucher program show no significant difference in test scores
between the two groups.
Texas, the land of Friday Night Lights, the state where 10% of the
nation’s public school students attend school, does not need a private
school voucher system. We need to invest in our current public schools
and lower the student/teacher ratio so that it matches the ratio in
private schools. Calling for private school vouchers at a time of
drastic public education budget cuts is a non-starter.
This letter is posted on Facebook. The parent sent it to me:
Dear (school principal),
This letter is to respectfully inform you of the decision my husband and I have made to opt our children out of the 3rd grade STAAR tests on Apr. 24 and 25 and the make-up tests on Apr. 26 and 27. We understand it is Austin ISD’s position that “by law there is no opt out for students” and that even though the test will not count towards school ratings this year, our children’s “unexcused” absences may negatively impact the school’s Adequate Yearly Progress report. We have been active, involved members of the school community, and our family has always supported the school and its many wonderful teachers, but after long and careful thought about what is best for our children and a great deal of reading on the topic of high-stakes standardized testing, we feel we must act on our convictions and engage in civil disobedience rather than be coerced into participating in a testing system that is deeply flawed morally and pedagogically, the result of corporate greed and political agendas that do not serve our children or anyone else’s.
The decision to engage in civil disobedience is not an easy one, and I would like to explain how we came to it. Our opt out story begins exactly two years ago when David, then a first-grader, came home from school and blurted out, “I hate the TAKS test!” At a loss to understand how he could be so upset about a test he didn’t have to take, I started asking questions and was stunned to learn that his class had had a substitute most of TAKS week because his teacher was required to serve as a proctor for the test. The substitute, it seems, was little more than an unenthusiastic babysitter who sat at her desk and handed out worksheets day after day. As David understood it, she told the children they couldn’t use the bathroom so much because the noise of the flushing toilet would disturb a child testing in the next room.
As the mother of first graders, the TAKS had barely been on my radar, but when I questioned David further, I was upset to have to learn from my seven-year-old what impact the TAKS was having on the entire school: all specials and recess had been cancelled not only for testing grades but for every grade.
In his email to school administrators explaining that “Parents may not opt out of testing of any kind,” AISD General Counsel Mel Waxler encourages “parents who believe the standardized tests place undue pressure on their students . . . to meet with their child’s school counselor to develop solutions tailored to their child’s needs.” But “undue pressure” is endemic in high-stakes testing! When schools are virtually hermetically sealed during testing weeks, when all visitors, mentors, and parents who just want to have lunch with their child in the cafeteria are virtually banned from the school, when everyone must tiptoe and whisper in the hallways, when adults responsible for children’s well-being tell them they can’t go to the bathroom because the toilet flushing makes too much noise, children absorb it all, and the damage is done. I vividly recall my own “culture shock” seeing the window in the door of the testing coordinator’s office covered in black construction paper. No matter that I was an adult who didn’t have to take the test, even I felt anxious.
It was after I posted a rant on the school listserv the following fall, hoping to start a discussion with the new school year, that I learned I needed to redirect my outrage. Without legislative change, the teachers and administrators, too, are under “undue pressure,” trapped in an education system in which there is way too much emphasis placed on standardized test scores.
I learned from talking with you after your STAAR presentation on March 20 that what children endured with the TAKS was even worse than I had realized. I had had no idea that because the test had no time limit, some children were still testing at 5:30pm and later, laying their head down to nap when too tired to continue. Since the STAAR is timed, hopefully no child will be testing into the evening, but a four-hour exam for third graders is still far too long.
You explained to me that it’s not really a four-hour test but a four-hour testing window, and you fully expected the third-graders to finish the test in 2 to 2 1/2 hours, after which they would return to their usual schedule.
I’m still concerned that most of testing week will be far from “learning as usual.” First of all, Ms. A, the AISD administrator you referred me to, confirmed that the test will contain field test items and “the inclusion of field test items will make for a longer [than four-hour] exam.” Almost certainly there will be at least a few children who use most or all of the time allowed, so for two days in a row many children may be forced to sit in their seats after finishing a long, stressful exam and read silently for over an hour while others struggle to finish the test. Also, unlike a normal day, not only are all specials cancelled but so, too, are afterschool classes, which I cannot understand the need for now that there is a time limit on the test and presumably no students will be testing anywhere in the school at that time. The sad irony is that it’s the creativity class that’s cancelled.
I’m even more concerned about the quality of the test. The dearth of information from TEA about how the STAAR was written and field-tested casts doubt on the validity of the test itself as an assessment tool. Are the test items fair and well written? Do they measure what they’re intended to measure?
I emailed Ms. A with several questions about the STAAR. First, I asked if I might be able to see not only sample test questions but also the corresponding standards a sample question assesses to help clarify for me the difference between standards for the “current year’s grade,” vs. “readiness for the next grade” vs. “readiness for the year after that” (from your PowerPoint presentation). Without examples, this is obfuscating language. It seems to me that success at the current grade in itself should indicate readiness for what comes next. Ms. A took the time to send me what sample test items she could, and I sincerely appreciate the effort she put into her reply to my email, just as I do yours. Unfortunately, what I was looking for is not available.
The only information I could find pertaining to STAAR field-testing on the TEA website states, “field-test items will, for the most part, be imbedded in the actual test,” (as Ms. A confirmed) but nothing about how the test has been field-tested. After reading the Pearson test passage about a sleeveless pineapple that’s been in the news and learning that same nonsensical passage with its ridiculous questions has been in several Pearson tests, I’m more skeptical than ever about the quality of test items on the STAAR, which is produced by Pearson.
Based on all I’ve read, even if I could confirm the test questions are valid and well written, I still could not agree with you that the STAAR is of value to parents because, as you say, it will “provide valuable information on [a] child’s performance relative to others in the school, district, and state.” Just as researchers have rejected TAKS test results as bad data, so, no doubt, will they dismiss the results of the STAAR, another criterion-based test with arbitrary passing scores, which won’t even be decided for this year’s test until fall!
How did we get here? The obsession with high-stakes testing, it seems, began with NCLB; Education Commissioner Robert Scott recently called the current system a “perversion” of what was originally intended. Even when research shows that standardized testing is a poor measure of both student learning and educator effectiveness, even when we know a test-driven curriculum does not “promote innovation, creativity, problem solving, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking” (National Resolution on High-Stakes Testing), our legislators pretend the emperor has clothes. Why?
Superintendent John Kuhn speaks truth to power when he says, “Follow the money and you will find where our education dollars go and who benefits the most from those dollars. You will not find teachers. You will not find students. You will not find parents. You will not find effective teaching and learning. You will find Pearson [with whom the state of Texas has a $500 million contract] and legislators,” and “when it’s about profit, it’s not about kids.”
A system that fails to cultivate creativity and innovation will never prepare our children for the future. “The Creativity Crisis” describes Indiana University professor Jonathan Plucker’s tour of China, where “there has been widespread education reform to extinguish the drill-and-kill teaching style. Instead, Chinese schools are also adopting a problem-based learning approach. Plucker recently toured a number of such schools in Shanghai and Beijing. He was amazed by a boy who, for a class science project, rigged a tracking device for his moped with parts from a cell phone. When faculty of a major Chinese university asked Plucker to identify trends in American education, he described our focus on standardized curriculum, rote memorization, and nationalized testing. ‘After my answer was translated, they just started laughing out loud,’ Plucker says. ‘They said, “You’re racing toward our old model. But we’re racing toward your model, as fast as we can.”‘”
As strongly as we feel against high-stakes testing, we would not be opting our children out without their full support. When it came time to ask both boys, “What would you say if I told you that you could choose whether to take the STAAR test or not?” David started cheering and hugged me and Paul grinned. I’ve explained to them the gist of what I’ve learned and assured them that we know and their teachers know they’re fully capable of passing the test; opting out has nothing to do with concern they won’t pass. They understand that they will miss out on a post-test celebration, and they’re fine with it. “That’s okay, Mom, I’ve missed other parties.”
In fact, I briefly considered asking their teachers if they would allow them to do a research project as an alternative challenge to earn the right to attend the party, but when I started to tell David and Paul about my idea, I got no further than “research project.” David, who this year grew from a fact sponge into a researcher, was literally bouncing up and down with excitement, “I LOVE research projects! I want to research more about deep ocean creatures and learn more about creatures I haven’t studied yet! I want to make a poster, I love making posters!” Paul, who loves learning about the natural world just as much as his brother, was very excited, too. At that moment I realized they really just want to learn and have fun doing it, no reward necessary, and the knot in my stomach over the decision to opt out completely disappeared.
We are taking full advantage of opt out week and David and Paul will be night fishing in Port Aransas and visiting the Texas State Aquarium, where they will gather information for a poster display. On Thursday they will have a tour of Amy’s Ice Cream, go to Amy’s website for a reading scavenger hunt, and use the menu for math practice.
To conclude, our reasons for opting out of the STAAR are twofold: to do what we feel is best for our children and to protest against the high-stakes testing industry by choosing not to participate in it. Now that the school board has passed the resolution on high-stakes testing, my hope is that the momentum will build and the legislature will gather the political will to tackle real education reform. When you see David and Paul next week, you might ask them what they learned this week. If you do, you’re likely to be buried under a happy avalanche of information about the ocean and ice cream.
Sincerely,
Texas Parent Against High-Stakes Testing
John Kuhn, superintendent of the Perrin-Whitt Independent School District in Texas, is a hero superintendent. He has been a voice of reason and at the same time an exemplar of passion and courage since he burst onto the national stage a year ago at the national Save Our Schools rally in Washington, D.C.
That is when many people discovered this fearless advocate for education and children.
He has said loud and clear that schools must serve the neediest children and raise them up, not avoid them for fear of dragging down the school’s ranking and scores.
He has taken to the national arena to oppose high-stakes testing.
He has encouraged those who want to boycott testing.
See here and here and here too.
If every superintendent were as outspoken as John Kuhn, we could take this nation back from the privatizers and restore our ideals and mission.
Diane Ravitch's blog 