Translate

Showing posts with label testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label testing. Show all posts

Friday, April 15, 2022

"Admit it: Testing our kids has been a failure," by Fred Smith New York Daily News

And not just in New York. The only entities that are benefitting from the state's testing system are the testing companies as follows:

"Since its inception, CTB/McGraw-Hill, NCS Pearson and Questar have received state contracts to provide the tests and their scoring, amounting to $130 million. The state comptroller’s Open Book database details the combined cost of these services."

Once you factor in administrator, counselor, and teacher time in administering these tests, the actual cost of this system—and these systems nationally—is astronomical.  We don't need to keep following bad money with good money, my friends—particularly when we consider that these are folks' hard-earned taxpayer dollars going right into the coffers of these private companies. At some point, we have to cut our losses.

A healthy first step is indeed to admit that these testing systems have failed us miserably.

-Angela Valenzuela


Admit it: Testing our kids has been a failure Up to 1.2 million students, including 400,000 in New York City, will take the English Language Arts (ELA) exam. The math tests will come a few weeks later.

Too much. (Shutterstock/Shutterstock)

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS 
MAR 29, 2022  5:00 AM

It’s time to end the March madness.

The program was set forth in 2001 when Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, mandating annual English and math tests. Here we are 20 years later, still adhering to the regime without asking what we’ve gained and lost. A primary aim of NCLB was to close the test performance gap between Black and Hispanic students, on the one hand, and white and Asian-American students, on the other. This elusive goal has not been realized.

Since its inception, CTB/McGraw-Hill, NCS Pearson and Questar have received state contracts to provide the tests and their scoring, amounting to $130 million. The state comptroller’s Open Book database details the combined cost of these services.

Results have fluctuated wildly across the years, in large part because the state’s standards and grading procedures keep changing, pressure on students, teachers and principals to do well has been constant, stemming from functions and high-stakes decisions beyond the capacity of the test data to support. In 2006, 51% of students citywide were deemed to be proficient on CTB’s ELA exams. By 2009, the proficiency level had risen to 69%. The increase in math went from 57% to 82%. Observers knew gains of such magnitude were not plausible. One Board of Regents member questioned the wisdom of releasing the inflated, too-good-to-be-true results to the public.

More rigorous exams were then ordered by the Regents in 2010, and ELA proficiency suddenly fell to 42%. This began the transition from CTB to Pearson, ushering in tougher learning standards, aka the Common Core. By three years later, the 42% tanked to 26%, as Core-aligned exams became the new baseline. Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch said it was time for students to “jump into the deep end of the pool.”

Under Mayor Bloomberg, parents began to feel the stress placed on children who could be denied promotion if they failed to reach an arbitrary test cutoff point, they were supposed to be held back. And teachers spent an inordinate amount of time preparing students for the exams, which meant bonuses if they scored high.

As if that weren’t enough, Gov. Cuomo sought an accountability system to weed out ineffective teachers and principals on the basis of scores entered into incomprehensible formulas.

In 2013, an opt-out movement took root because of the harm testing had wrought in the classroom, where weeks of time and resources were wasted drilling children for the tests and fostering anxiety. Pushback grew strong on Long Island and upstate. By 2015, proficiency stood at 31%. Pearson was despised, and the parent-led resistance peaked in 2015 and 2016, with one out of five students abstaining despite ominous warnings from school authorities of dire consequences.

Mayor de Blasio kept parents confused while his old-school chancellor, Carmen FariƱa, said testing was a part of life and kids should show up for the exams.

Cuomo saw growing political risks, and had second thoughts about continuing to back the Common Core. It had been launched without sufficient instructional materials and lesson plans that are essential before tests can meaningfully measure whether learning standards have been met.

Through it all, National Assessment of Educational Progress has shown New York’s growth in achievement to be incremental, varying little over time. Based on NAEP’s carefully calibrated exams — which are given to a representative sampling of kids in grades 4 and 8 in just two hours every two years, not 200,000 students statewide per grade over a two-day period every year. The percentage of students proficient in reading ranged by only eight percentage points between 2003 and 2019.

In addition to seemingly perennial changes in publishers, standards and scales, other factors have scrambled efforts to interpret the yearly results. These include shifts in test population; the removal of time limits from the exams; and an uneven phase-in of computer-based tests. Footnotes in results released by the state concede that data cannot be compared from one year to the next.

So what are we really accomplishing here? The testing ritual was halted by COVID-19 in 2020 when the mandate was suspended, but the feds said testing had to resume in 2021. The State Education Department sought waivers. Under the disruptive circumstances, parents had the flexibility to opt out. A stunning 58% statewide and 78% citywide did not participate.

The last two years have confirmed that education can survive without the exams. Yet the testing cycle is about to begin again, even as COVID-related chaos has jolted schools the entire year. When will we come to our senses?

Smith was a testing specialist and administrative analyst for the city’s public schools.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Foul Ups Prompt State to Scrap School Test Scores

What a mess and what an incredible waste of scarce, tax payer dollars for Texas.  ETS still makes its money.

-Angela

Foul Ups Prompt State to Scrap School Test Scores

Editor's note: This story has been updated throughout.
Fifth and eighth graders who failed STAAR exams this year won’t be held back a grade or be required to retest later this month, Education Commissioner Mike Morath announced late Friday, citing “ongoing reporting issues” with the state’s new testing vendor.
“I apologize for the continuing problems our students and staff are being forced to deal with because of ongoing reporting issues with our testing vendor,” Morath said in a statement. “Kids in the classroom should never suffer from mistakes made by adults. We intend to hold the vendor, Educational Testing Service, accountable.”
This past school year was the first that the New Jersey-based company known as ETS developed and administered the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness exams, which 5th and 8th graders and high schoolers are supposed to pass before they can move on to the next grade or graduate. State law allows Morath to waive the requirement whenever necessary, the Texas Education Agency noted in a news release.
School districts have reported dozens of logistical and technical issues during the various spring administrations of the state-required exams.
Problems first surfaced in March, when school districts reported problems with online tests that caused students to lose answers. The computer glitch impacted more than 14,000 exams. Several other issues have surfaced since, including — most recently — claims from a high-performing West Austin school district that ETS had lost all exams taken by 3rd through 8th graders that it shipped to the company.
ETS denied it had lost the tests. A spokesman did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment late Friday.
The issues, which are not entirely unprecedented, have fueled an existing backlash against the state's testing and accountability system, the stakes of which many parents and educators believe are too high.
Morath's announcement marks a departure in opinion for the state education chief, who previously said there wasn’t enough evidence to warrant scrapping all statewide exams for the purposes of holding students accountable. Friday’s announcement did not address whether exam scores, including those of 5th and 8th graders, would be used to rate schools under the state’s accountability system. 
But Morath did make it clear that districts still may hold 5th and 8th graders back — or make them go to summer school — if they deem it appropriate.
"Even though state requirements have been waived, districts are still encouraged to use local discretion to determine on an individual basis whether accelerated instruction should be offered to support students," the news release said.
The problems also have affected high school STAAR tests, but state law doesn't allow the education commissioner to waive graduation requirements.
The announcement is a victory for parents and educators who had urged Morath to discount STAAR scores.
Last month, a group of parents sued the state in an attempt to block it from using STAAR scores results to make grade promotion decisions for younger students, including grades other than 5th and 8th, or to decide whether they should attend summer school.
“A large part of the relief which we were seeking has been voluntarily given by the [Texas Education Agency],” said the parents' lawyer, Scott Placek, describing it as “a good first step." "They know the administration of this year’s STAAR is indefensible."
Further review of the announcement is needed before they can decide whether to drop the lawsuit, Placek said. It seems that the exam scores still will appear in students’ records regardless of whether they are used to decide whether to promote them, he noted.
“They could completely toss the scores out, which in a way I think they’re trying to do without doing it,” he said, describing an ideal scenario.
Disclosure: Educational Testing Service has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune. A complete list of Tribune donors and sponsors can be viewed here.

Friday, October 30, 2015

Why I Am No Longer a Measurement Specialist by Dr. Gene Glass

Important read for the adherents of standardized, test-based measurement from FORMER nationally-renowned specialist, Arizona State University Professor Dr. Gene Glass.  Concise quote on why he's defecting from the field of measurement:
The degrading of public education has involved impugning its effectiveness, cutting its budget, and busting its unions. Educational measurement has been the perfect tool for accomplishing all three: cheap and scientific looking. 
The only thing that I might add is that it is important for progressives to study psychometrics so that they can critique/challenge from within.  But I totally get it that once one is in this community, it can be very seductive to the point that one can abandon one's original commitments to equity.  Not in Gene's case though.  He's simply defecting.  Check out Gene Glass' blog here.

 -Angela


Monday, August 17, 2015

Why I Am No Longer a Measurement Specialist

I was introduced to psychometrics in 1959. I thought it was really neat. By 1960, I was programming a computer on a psychometrics research project funded by the Office of Naval Research. In 1962, I entered graduate school to study educational measurement under the top scholars in the field.
My mentors – both those I spoke with daily and those whose works I read – had served in WWII. Many did research on human factors — measuring aptitudes and talents and matching them to jobs. Assessments showed who were the best candidates to be pilots or navigators or marksmen. We were told that psychometrics had won the war; and of course, we believed it.
The next wars that psychometrics promised it could win were the wars on poverty and ignorance. The man who led the Army Air Corps effort in psychometrics started a private research center. (It exists today, and is a beneficiary of the millions of dollars spent on Common Core testing.) My dissertation won the 1966 prize in Psychometrics awarded by that man’s organization. And I was hired to fill the slot recently vacated by the world’s leading psychometrician at the University of Illinois. Psychometrics was flying high, and so was I.
Psychologists of the 1960s & 1970s were saying that just measuring talent wasn’t enough. Talents had to be matched with the demands of tasks to optimize performance. Measure a learning style, say, and match it to the way a child is taught. If Jimmy is a visual learner, then teach Jimmy in a visual way. Psychometrics promised to help build a better world. But twenty years later, the promises were still unfulfilled. Both talent and tasks were too complex to yield to this simple plan. Instead, psychometricians grew enthralled with mathematical niceties. Testing in schools became a ritual without any real purpose other than picking a few children for special attention.
Around 1980, I served for a time on the committee that made most of the important decisions about the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The project was under increasing pressure to “grade” the NAEP results: Pass/Fail; A/B/C/D/F; Advanced/Proficient/Basic. Our committee held firm: such grading was purely arbitrary, and worse, would only be used politically. The contract was eventually taken from our organization and given to another that promised it could give the nation a grade, free of politics. It couldn’t.
Measurement has changed along with the nation. In the last three decades, the public has largely withdrawn its commitment to public education. The reasons are multiple: those who pay for public schools have less money, and those served by the public schools look less and less like those paying taxes.
The degrading of public education has involved impugning its effectiveness, cutting its budget, and busting its unions. Educational measurement has been the perfect tool for accomplishing all three: cheap and scientific looking.
International tests have purported to prove that America’s schools are inefficient or run by lazy incompetents. Paper-and-pencil tests seemingly show that kids in private schools – funded by parents – are smarter than kids in public schools. We’ll get to the top, so the story goes, if we test a teacher’s students in September and June and fire that teacher if the gains aren’t great enough.
There has been resistance, of course. Teachers and many parents understand that children’s development is far too complex to capture with an hour or two taking a standardized test. So resistance has been met with legislated mandates. The test company lobbyists convince politicians that grading teachers and schools is as easy as grading cuts of meat. A huge publishing company from the UK has spent $8 million in the past decade lobbying Congress. Politicians believe that testing must be the cornerstone of any education policy.
The results of this cronyism between corporations and politicians have been chaotic. Parents see the stress placed on their children and report them sick on test day. Educators, under pressure they see as illegitimate, break the rules imposed on them by governments. Many teachers put their best judgment and best lessons aside and drill children on how to score high on multiple-choice tests. And too many of the best teachers exit the profession.
When measurement became the instrument of accountability, testing companies prospered and schools suffered. I have watched this happen for several years now. I have slowly withdrawn my intellectual commitment to the field of measurement. Recently I asked my dean to switch my affiliation from the measurement program to the policy program. I am no longer comfortable being associated with the discipline of educational measurement.
Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

3 Dallas ISD trustees call for reducing focus on testing

Good news. -Angela

3 Dallas ISD trustees call for reducing focus on testing

Rex C. Curry/Special Contributor
Dorsey Martensen, whose son attends Rosemont Primary School, said ACP tests are inappropriate during a meeting Tuesday at Kessler Park United Methodist Church.
Three Dallas ISD trustees want Superintendent Mike Miles to pull back on testing after parents and teachers have complained about an excessive focus on scores and data instead of learning.
Parents and teachers have packed community meetings in recent weeks to voice concerns with the increase this year on school days used to take exams. They say children are spending too much time preparing for exams designed to evaluate teachers and determine their pay.
Board members Eric Cowan, Dan Micciche and Joyce Foreman said they share those concerns and will call for changes.
Micciche said parents have complained about the new district exams in elementary school for elective courses, such as art.
“Parents object to these new tests because they create new stress for very young children, take time away from learning and take the fun out of the special classes,” he said. “They don’t see a benefit from testing how well a kindergarten student draws.”
Cowan said he wants the district to do away with the exams — known as “Assessment of Course Performance,” or ACPs — in elementary school elective courses as soon as possible. “Parents are calling them unnecessary exams for classes that are supposed to be fun. It’s an easy win [to get rid of them] that we could implement right away,” he said.
The new teacher evaluation system, which started in August, relies on ACPs and other exams to help grade teachers and determine their pay. The trustees will get a chance to publicly propose changes during Thursday’s board briefing when Miles gives a presentation on the new evaluations.
In addition to testing changes, Cowan, Micciche and Foreman plan to request other modifications.
Micciche said he sent a list of possible changes to the administration, which includes:
• Reducing the number of spot observations, which is when an administrator visits a classroom to grade a teacher. Currently there are 10 per year.
• Changing the style of the spot observations to make them less about compliance and more about opportunities for coaching and training teachers.
• Eliminating ACPs at the end of the school year if students are also taking a STAAR test in the same subject.
• Better informing teachers about the content on ACP exams so students and teachers aren’t surprised by questions about topics not covered in class.
A request for comment from Miles about whether he would consider changes to the teacher evaluation system was answered by DISD spokesman Jon Dahlander. “The superintendent has said repeatedly that the initiative will continue to be refined over time,” Dahlander said in an email. “We continue to receive input regularly from teachers about TEI [Teacher Excellence Initiative] and are using that input to make changes where appropriate.”
Some parent groups and district superintendents in other parts of Texas have rallied in recent years against the influence and number of standardized tests. In Dallas ISD, parent concerns about too much testing reached a tipping point in recent months.
At a meeting Tuesday in Oak Cliff, parents said students as young as 5 are stressed about districtwide tests to be given later this month. Some schools have devoted the next two weeks to review and prepare for upcoming ACPs.
“You’ve got kids that just learned to use the bathroom six to eight months ago, and now you are expecting them to stand up and take a test,” said Michael Evans, whose daughter attends kindergarten at Harry Stone Montessori Academy. “It’s just wrong.”
Some parents suggested that their children refuse to take the ACP tests, which the district designs, administers and grades. But the parents decided against it because a failing score would hurt a teacher’s evaluation. Starting next school year, teachers’ pay will be determined by their evaluations.
Some of the loudest critics of DISD’s focus on testing and data were from middle-class families, which the district tries to keep from fleeing to private schools, charters and suburban districts. Several parents at the meeting said they are exploring other school options.
Some parents placed the blame on Miles.
The ACP exams, which are given in addition to state-mandated STAAR tests, were initially given to secondary grades. They were later given to elementary school students in core subjects. This year, however, Miles required ACPs in elementary-level elective courses.
Parents have voiced the most concern about tests in art, music and physical education. The second-grade physical education test requires students to roll on the ground and “travel independently in a large group while safely and quickly changing speed and direction.”
Amy Lee, who has a kindergartener at Rosemont Primary School, said she doesn’t understand the benefit of the new tests, especially the music ACP for first-graders. It requires students to sing a capella after a teacher plays a note.
“That breaks my heart. It is hard on the kids,” she said.
Staff writer Tawnell D. Hobbs contributed to this report.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Education Department’s obsession with test scores deepens

Geez, talk about experimenting with our children as though they were gerbils. In lieu of this blog's earlier posts discussing the "perversion of testing," how much is being invested in reducing success to a student's outcomes on a test? Sounds like more perversion at our children's expense. I'd like to see the media get a little more critical about these issues.

-Patricia


By Valerie Strauss | Washington Post
February 8, 2012

Apparently it’s not enough for the Obama administration that standardized test scores are now used to evaluate students, schools, teachers and principals. In a new display of its obsession with test scores, the Education Department is embarking on a study to determine which parts of clinical teacher training lead to higher average test scores among the teachers’ students.

This is explained in a notice placed in the Federal Register:

“Teachers who have experienced certain types of clinical practice features and who have completed those features are hypothesized to produce higher average student test scores than teachers who have not done so. Using a randomized controlled trial, students will be randomly assigned to a pair of teachers in the same school and grade level, one of whom will have experienced the type of clinical practice of interest (‘treatment’) while the other will not have experienced the feature (‘control’). Average test scores of the two groups will then be compared.”

The Education Department’s new study takes as fact the notion that standardized test scores tell us something important about how well a teacher does his or her job. They don’t, assessment experts say (over and over), but why let the facts get in the way?

This might seem like officials are about to take the use of test scores to extremes, but, actually, we passed extreme some time ago.

Let’s consider Tennessee as an example. Last fall the state (as did many others) enacted a new way of evaluating teachers that is heavily based on standardized test scores of students. But here’s one of the many problems with a system that relies on test scores: What do you do about teachers in subjects without standardized tests?

One way out of this dilemma is as obvious as it is horrifying: Create standardized tests in every subject. If you think I’m kidding, think again. This is where districts around the country are going with teacher evaluation. See this post by a student in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District, where last year 52 standardized assessments were field tested on students as young as kindergarten. The student asked, “Why do I have to take a standardized test in Yearbook?”Why indeed.

But Tennessee has added a whole new level of creativity to solving this problem.

There aren’t any student test scores — yet — for over half of the state’s teachers, including those who teach kindergarten, first, second and third grades, and art and music. So teachers without a standardized test to call their own are being evaluated by the test scores of other teachers’ students in the school. As Mike Winerip of The New York Times recently wrote, amid a “bewildering” collection of rules on how teachers should be assessed, “math specialists can be evaluated by their school’s English scores, music teachers by the school’s writing scores.”

Really.

Things have gotten so out of hand that even Robert Scott, the Republican education commissioner of Texas who is not exactly the poster child for progressive education, recently called the nation’s testing obsession a “perversion” of a quality education.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has called for a broad-based curriculum and said he doesn’t want schools becoming obsessed with tests. But his policies can’t lead to any other behavior.

Meanwhile, back to that new Education Department study, interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 27.

Here’s my comment: Please stop wasting our time and money on nonsense.

Monday, February 06, 2012

In Texas, a Backlash Against Student Testing

Friends, for those of you who are interested in understanding more regarding the parents opting out of testing here it goes:

What parents have discovered is that under law (see below), they have the right to withhold their child from any activity that conflicts with their moral belief under the Texas Education Code CHAPTER 26.

PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Sec. A26.010.EXEMPTION FROM INSTRUCTION. (a) A parent is entitled to remove the parent ’s child temporarily from a class or other school activity that conflicts with the parent ’s religious or moral beliefs if the parent presents or delivers to the teacher of the parent ’s child a written statement authorizing the removal of the child from the class or other school activity.

To support (and give parents a political safety net) they are also citing the various research findings that demonstrate how testing is morally wrong. Some of the research findings center on the affects of socio-emotional well-being, kills curiosity and love of learning, reduces the child's capacity for attaining new knowledge, replaces higher order thinking (in part) by narrowing the curriculum, wastes valuable educational time spent taking tests, and violates all childrens' rights to a free and appropriate education. Finally, these parents are also citing the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Check out the full letter here.

With regards to the impact of keeping your kids home on the testing day: what parents understand is that if you can taint 6% of the testing pool, you create a situation where analysts are unable to infer (with statistical validity) anything about the other 94%. As many of you know, the state is in the process of setting the passing score standards for the new STAAR tests and so parents across the state are attempting to disrupt this process.

As always, this blog and the authors are focused on providing information and research. We do not in any way advocate for any one method of being active in education and policy processes. Rather, we are about educating the public in hope that decisions are well informed.

-Patricia



by Morgan Smith | Texas Tribune
February 6, 2012

When Christopher Chamness entered the third grade last year, he began to get stomach aches before school. His mother, Edy, said the fire had gone out of a child who she said had previously gone joyfully to his classes.

One day, when he was bored in class, Christopher broke a pencil eraser off in his ear canal. It was the tipping point for Chamness, a former teacher, and she asked to observe his Austin elementary school classroom. What she saw was a “work sheet distribution center” aimed at preparing students for the yearly assessments that they begin in third grade and that school districts depend upon for their accountability ratings.

Now, with Christopher in fourth grade, Chamness will take a more drastic step: She intends to pull him out of standardized testing altogether this spring, in protest of the system that she said had sapped her son’s love of learning.

Chamness’s approach is more radical than what most parents are willing to do — and district officials are quick to point out that school policy does not permit students to miss test days for any reason. But it is part of a budding backlash against standardized testing in the state that spawned No Child Left Behind and its assessment-driven accountability requirements.

It is a precarious time for Texas school districts. Faced with roughly $5.4 billion less in state financing, districts this year will administer new, more rigorous state exams called the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, or STAAR. And for the first time in high school, the assessments are linked to graduation requirements and final grades.

There is anxiety among school leaders, educators and parents about meeting the increased standards with fewer resources. In the Panhandle, the Hereford Independent School District superintendent may withhold her district’s test scores from the state. An Austin parent is considering a lawsuit to stop the rollout of the tests. Some legislators are mulling how to postpone some of the tests’ consequences for students.

In a high-level turnaround, Robert Scott, the commissioner of the Texas Education Agency, said Tuesday that student testing in the state had become a “perversion of its original intent” and that he looked forward to “reeling it back” in the future. Earning a standing ovation from an annual gathering of 4,000 educators that has given him chillier receptions in the past, Scott called for an accountability process that measured “every other day of a school’s life besides testing day.” (Here is a full version of his remarks.)

Many viewed the speech as a reversal for Scott, who has rarely spoken publicly against the role of standardized testing in public schools. He declined to talk about his remarks for this article.

“I think he sees that we are at a cusp of philosophical changes in the Legislature and across the state over what we’ve been doing the past few years with accountability and whether there’s been any worthwhile gain from all the testing we’ve done,” said Joe Smith, a former superintendent and an education community fixture who runs the website
TexasISD.com, a clearinghouse of school-related news.

Kelli Moulton, the superintendent of Hereford ISD, is considering an outright rebellion. She said that she was still exploring the repercussions of refusing to send her students’ test scores to the agency but that she was encouraged by Scott’s remarks.

“We talk a lot, but nobody’s stepped off to do anything really bold,” she said. “Clearly now as a state, at least with a leader who is willing to say testing has gone too far, when do we put a stick in a wheel and say, that’s enough, stop? Because we are going to spend the next 10 years trying to slow that wheel down, and we’ve got 10 years of kids that are suffering.”

It also may be a sign of shifting political tides. State Sen. Florence Shapiro, the powerful chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee and a primary architect of the legislation that enacted the new assessment system, announced in September that she would not seek re-election. Shapiro, R-Plano, has been a staunch opponent of any retreat from the standards established by the 2009 bill. But her House colleagues, particularly Rob Eissler, the chairman of the Public Education Committee, have been more receptive to changing course.

During the last legislative session, Eissler, R-The Woodlands, attempted to ease some of the more stringent requirements of the new assessments, including how many exams high school students had to pass in order to graduate and how the tests had to count for 15 percent of their final grades. Eissler recently held a hearing on how school districts were fulfilling the requirements, and many parents and educators in attendance asked for a delay in the effects on students.

“I am very concerned about performance on the test. My expectation is for most students this would have the effect of lowering their grade,” said Dineen Majcher, a high school parent who has called on lawmakers and the education agency to find a way to waive the 15 percent rule for the first year of testing.

School districts have been given a one-year reprieve from having the test scores factor into their accountability ratings, and Majcher said it was “completely unreasonable and inappropriate” that the same was not happening for students and their grades. Majcher, an Austin lawyer, said she and other parents were considering a lawsuit, but she declined to elaborate on its grounds because she still hoped for a resolution outside the courtroom.

That may not come in time. Scott’s Tuesday speech, while popular with the state’s superintendents, inspired a flurry of reaction from members of the education community who favor moving forward with the new assessment system. Bill Hammond, the president of the Texas Association of Business and an accountability advocate, said he was disappointed in the commissioner’s remarks.

“It’s not going to be the end-of-the-world scenario,” he said. “The kids and educators in Texas are up for it. Every time we’ve gone through this, the standard has been met, and it’s resulted in a better-educated work force.”

Shapiro said that once the transition to the new exams occurred, students would be left with a much better assessment system, one that eliminated the need for educators to teach to the test because it was based on courses, not subjects. It was never lawmakers’ impression that they would have to change anything about the rollout of the exams, she said, because the planning had been in the works for the past five years.

She also questioned what Scott meant by calling the testing system a “perversion.”

“That’s a direction I’ve never heard him take,” she said. “He’s been the one that’s been talking about school accountability over the years. We’ve all been a part of this. School accountability is something we started many, many years ago, and we believe in it.”

Meanwhile, Chamness, who praised Scott’s remarks, said she has reached out to other parents at her elementary school about opting their children out of standardized testing — to mixed results.

“They are waiting to see what happens to us,” she said. “Nobody wants to get on the outside of the administration. I’m not excited about being out there alone, but that’s not going to dissuade me from doing what I know is right.”

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Lost Decade for Educational Progress -- NCLB 10th Anniversary Report

Here's the link to the Full Report

-Patricia


FairTest NationalCenterfor Fair & Open Testing

For further information:
Dr. Monty Neill (617)
477-9792

Bob Schaeffer (239) 395-6773
For use on or after Tuesday afternoon, January 3, 2012


The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law “failed badly both
in terms of its own goals and more broadly,” leading to a decade
of educational stagnation. That is the central conclusion of a major
new report marking NCLB’s tenth anniversary. President George W. Bush
signed the program into law on January 8, 2002.

The report, “NCLB’s Lost Decade for Educational Progress,”
summarizes data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) and dozens of independent studies. It was written by staff of
the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest).

Among the report’s major findings:
- NCLB failed to significantly increase average academic
performance or to significantly narrow achievement gaps, as measured
by NAEP. U.S. students made greater gains before NCLB became law
than after it was implemented.
- NCLB severely damaged educational quality and equity by
narrowing the curriculum in many schools and focusing attention on the
limited skills standardized tests measure. These negative effects fell
most heavily on classrooms serving low-income and minority
children.

- So-called "reforms" to NCLB fail to address many of the
law’s fundamental problems and, in some cases, may intensify them.
Flawed proposals include Obama Administration waivers and the Senate
Education Committee’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
reauthorization bill

“NCLB undermined many promising reform efforts because of its
reliance on one-size-fits-all testing, labeling and sanctioning
schools,” explained FairTest’s Lisa Guisbond, the new report’s lead
author. “A decade’s worth of solid evidence documents the failure of
NCLB and similar high-stakes testing schemes. Successful programs in
the U.S. and other nations demonstrate better ways to improve
schools. Yet, policymakers still cling to the discredited NCLB model.”

“It’snot too late to learn the lessons of the past ten years.
Now is the time to craft a federal law that supports equity and
progress in all public schools,” added FairTest Executive Director,
Dr. Monty Neill. The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA), which
FairTest leads, is promoting a comprehensive plan to overhaul NCLB.
The proposal calls for using multiple measures to assess student and
school performance. It also targets resources to improve teaching and
learning. More than 150 national education, civil rights, disability,
religious, labor and civic groups signed theJoint Organizational
Statement on NCLB, which FEA seeks to implement.
- - 30 - -
- the NCLB 10th Anniversary report is posted at
http://fairtest.org/NCLB-lost-decade-report-home

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Texas Students Switch to STAAR Testing



by Morgan Smith and Thanh Tan | Texas Tribune
8/8/2011

Day 8: Armed with fewer resources, teachers prepare students for rigorous new STAAR test.

In the fall, educators will begin to prepare students for a new series of test known as STAAR, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness. STAAR will replace TAKS, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Lawmakers passed the mandate to begin STAAR testing back in 2009. They will finally be implemented during the next school year despite a $4 billion cut to public education.

KUT News' Kelsey Sheridan recently filed a report on how educators are feeling anxious about the rollout. Listen to her story.

With STAAR, high school students will have to perform better on harder tests and take more of them. Under the current system, standardized tests do not count toward final grades, and students must pass four exit-level exams to graduate. Now, for the first time, students will have to achieve a cumulative score across 12 end-of-course exams to graduate. And their scores on the exams will count toward 15 percent of their final grade, with the option to retake the exam three times if they do not pass. (They are required to retake it if they do not achieve a certain minimum score.) Educators say that could result in more days spent testing students; they also worry that it could have students playing a game of risk with their scores — opting not to retake one test with the hope of scoring higher on a future one.

Districts are approaching the new test in different ways. Predicting reduced state aid, some have already eliminated many non-classroom positions for the coming school year. That means remaining employees will have far more responsibilities, a particular concern for school counselors, who have long worked to define their role as separate from that of testing coordinators.

Other districts, including Round Rock Independent School District, were able to re-hire teachers after anticipated cuts didn't pan out. Lora Darden, RRISD's director of curriculum and professional development, said teachers are undergoing training and should have "ample" time to prepare students for STAAR.

"In terms of curriculum it’s just a greater emphasis on rigor," Darden told the Tribune, adding that teachers are transitioning from TAKS to STAAR within a short period. "You have to live under the reality you’re in until you switch to the new system, so teachers will work really hard."

Darden says she views STAAR as a positive change because "people will have an opportunity to re-examine their practices, to refocus their teaching efforts, to pay close attention to the standard that Texas has set before us. We’ve had so much renewed interest, so I think in a sense it’s a fresh beginning."

Watch an overview of how the testing works in this video by Region XIII Education Service Center.


Resources for teachers and parents:

Texas Education Agency's STAAR resource page

Region XIII Education Service Center's STAAR resource page

Morgan Smith and Kelsey Sheridan contributed to this article.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Texas bucks U.S. trend on standardized scoring

It will tally multiracial students but not report their scores separately

By JENNIFER RADCLIFFE | HOUSTON CHRONICLE
July 25, 2011

Multiracial students are being tallied for the first time in Texas history, but their standardized test scores won't appear as a separate group when accountability ratings are released Friday.

As it grapples with increasing diversity, Texas has opted not to measure the scores of the state's 78,419 multiracial, non-Hispanic students as an ethnic subgroup whose performance matters in determining whether a school made "adequate yearly progress."

Instead, they'll join the ranks of the 180,000 Asian students lumped in with their schools' entire student body for accountability purposes.

Texas continues to only hold three racial subgroups accountable: whites, blacks and Hispanics. Other states have expanded their systems to measure as many as eight ethnic and racial groups.

"I don't know why Texas would go back, while the rest of the country is going forward," said Susan Graham, a founder of Project RACE, a California-based group that advocates for multiracial students.

Racial and ethnic categories are important not only to students' sense of identity, but also to the researchers and educators who depend on accurate data on high-stakes tests to determine campus rankings and bonus pay, among other decisions. Schools can face sanctions as serious as being closed based on the performance of students in one ethnic subgroup.

A 2007 federal mandate now requires all states to ask student whether they are Hispanic or not Hispanic, and then whether they are white, black, Asian, American Indian or one of two new categories — Native Hawaiian or two or more races.

While Hispanic students may identify themselves as multiracial, the federal government has ruled that they won't be included in that tally. They want accurate results, but they don't want to gather cumbersome amounts of data.

"Through this system, there will be no double reporting of persons identifying with multiple races," according to a U.S. Department of Education document on the decision.

It's up to each state, however, to decide which racial groups to measure separately in its ratings. The Texas Education Agency has said a racial group should make up at least 10 percent of the state's student population to trigger inclusion.

African Americans, the smallest group in Texas, slipped to 13 percent in 2010, down 1 percentage point with the introduction of the multiracial category.

About 1.6 percent of Texas students identify themselves as "two or more races." (The percentage jumps to 3.4 when you exclude the 2.5 million Hispanic students who are ineligible under the federal guidelines.)

While Texas is sticking to its three racial categories, California - where 1.8 percent of student are multiracial - is among those expanding to include the group. Any California school with more than 100 multiracial students will be measured on those students' performance. State officials weren't sure how many campuses, if any, had a high enough concentration to be included in the ratings, which will be released there in August.
Some scores moved

As Texas transitions to the new categories this year, state officials have opted to return some multiracial students' scores to their previous category, if records indicate that the student was originally listed as white or African American. Their scores will only count in that previous category if they improve the school's rating.

State officials said they're aware of the concerns that could be created this year by allowing students to be moved between categories. The TEA will analyze data from districts and campuses with significant discrepancies in the percentages of multiracial students between fall 2010 and spring 2011, spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson said.

Houston-area officials said they aren't sure what the new categories will mean to their ratings. Many districts have small numbers of multiracial students - Galena Park reported 110 - so chances are they would be inconsequential this year.

But the category is expected to grow quickly. Texas had 679,001 people self-identify as "two or more races" in the 2010 Census, up 32 percent from 2000.
'Part of both of us'

Advocates worry that the new guidelines don't allow students to accurately and specifically report their race and ethnicity. Many Hispanics, for instance, feel discounted because they cannot be considered multiracial, Graham said.

West Orange-Cove ISD parent Evelyn Smith is glad she no longer has to decide whether she should mark her mixed-race children as white or African-American. While they may look more like their father, Smith said she didn't like being cut out of the genetic equation.

"They're part of both of us," she said.

But the additional category is a hurdle for researchers attempting to track trends over time, said Bob Sanborn, CEO of Children at Risk, a Houston-based advocacy group.

"If you're trying to understand school performance under a microscope, mixed race is not really helpful," he said. "Multiracial doesn't act in a particular way."

Educators could, however, use the category to hide children whose performance could hurt another subgroup, he said.

"I like the idea of a mixed race category. I think it's a reflection of reality," Sanborn said. "It's a good thing for society. Researchers are going to have to adjust."

Resources

NEW NUMBERS

The latest standardized tests in Texas add two subgroups.

2010-11 enrollment

• Hispanic: 2,480,000

• White: 1,538,409

• Black: 637,722

• Asian: 169,338

• 2 or More Races: 78,419

• American Indian: 23,602

• Native Hawaiian: 6,127

2009-10 Enrollment

• Hispanic: 2,354,042

• White: 1,615,459

• Black: 679,351

• Native American: 18,984

• Asian / Pacific Islander: 180,008
Different mixes

2010 breakdown for Texas' non-Hispanic "2 or more race" students

• 29,770 were Black/African American and white

• 14,980 were white and Asian

• 14,810 were American Indian/Alaska Native and white

• Remainder were distributed among 23 other combinations

jennifer.radcliffe@chron.com

Friday, July 15, 2011

Highly rated instructors go beyond teaching to the standardized test

Some Southern California teachers are finding ways to keep creativity in the lesson plan even as they prepare their students for standardized tests.

By Teresa Watanabe, Los Angeles Times

July 11, 2011
Even as the annual state testing season bore down on her this spring, fourth-grade teacher Jin Yi barely bothered with test prep materials. The Hobart Boulevard Elementary School teacher used to spend weeks with practice tests but found they bored her students.

Instead, she engages them with hands-on lessons, such as measuring their arms and comparing that data to solve above-grade-level subtraction problems.

"I used to spend time on test prep because I felt pressured to do it," said Yi, who attended Hobart in Koreatown herself and returned a decade ago to teach. "But I think it's kind of a waste of time. The students get bored and don't take it seriously and it defeats the purpose."

Yi's approach seems to work: She is rated "highly effective" in a value-added analysis by The Times based on her students' standardized test scores in English and math. She also ranks among the Los Angeles Unified School District's top 100 third-, fourth- and fifth-grade teachers in English in that analysis.

Who says students need "drill and kill" exercises to raise their test scores?

The pressure to improve student test performance in California and across the country often meets with disdain from teachers who say they are compelled to throw out creativity and "teach to the test." The phrase is usually code for teachers who are forced to abandon creativity and focus exclusively on areas tested — reading, writing and math. That, critics say, shortchanges students of such other important subjects as art, history and even science in some grades.

A.J. Duffy, former president of United Teachers Los Angeles, for instance, dismisses the weeks before spring testing as "Bubbling-In 101," a reference to class time spent teaching students how to select correct answers.

Visits with Yi and other successful teachers around Los Angeles County, however, suggest that innovative teaching and rich classroom experiences need not be sacrificed in the quest for better test scores. But it's not easy to have it all. Several teachers interviewed said they spend hours of extra planning time and hundreds of dollars to create more interesting lessons. They say they must be supremely organized and strict enforcers of classroom rules. And some quietly skirt official district schedules to run with their own approaches.

Next door to Yi, Hobart fifth-grade teacher Rafe Esquith has cut down L.A. Unified's prescribed reading program from three hours a day to 75 minutes, saying his students can work on reading comprehension, vocabulary and other skills through other subjects. That opens up time to learn physics by building model roller coasters and rockets and to grasp history with Ken Burns documentaries. His students work on long-term art projects, perform Shakespeare and learn musical instruments.

"To teach all of the lessons they want us to teach using the official district schedule is impossible — it can't be done," said Esquith, who is rated "highly effective" by the Times and has won numerous national teaching awards. "Teachers have to finagle the schedule."

Esquith and Yi also bemoaned the increasing focus on testing and sympathized with frustrated colleagues.

At Los Angeles Elementary School in the Pico-Union neighborhood, fourth-grade teacher Maria Duarte lamented the loss of time to teach science — her favorite subject and one that she said most interests her students. Over the years, the time for that subject has dropped from 2.5 days a week to 1.5 days a week in favor of language arts and math. One casualty was a popular experiment growing radishes that Duarte said taught critical thinking and research skills.

Duarte was also rated highly effective in the Times analysis. Under value-added, a student's past test performance is compared with his or her current progress to measure whether teachers added — or subtracted — value to their students' academic growth.

"Painfully, I decided I had to let that go," Duarte said of the experiment. "There's just not enough time — or we need to think of better ways to use our time."

In Monterey Park, eighth-grade teacher Janice Pirolo said she no longer has time to delve deeply into the curriculum or stray much from it. When she does, she falls behind.

When her school, Monterey Highlands, received funding to visit the Japanese American National Museum, Pirolo prepared her students by teaching them about the World War II internment of Japanese Americans. She also spent time on Martin Luther King Jr. before the national holiday named for the civil rights leader .

But none of that is part of eighth-grade social studies standards, and Pirolo fell behind. For a month before the testing in May, she abandoned the textbook entirely to focus exclusively on test prep. As a result, she got through only the textbook's fourth chapter by year's end.

"We have stopped reading the textbook, sadly … but you live and die by the test," said Pirolo, a 34-year veteran who teaches social studies and language arts.

The nation's enhanced focus on testing began under the 2001 No Child Left Behind federal education law, which attempted to hold school districts accountable for student progress through mandatory annual tests. The law, which is under review in Congress, requires that by 2014 all students meet 100% proficiency levels in math and English — a target no one expects schools to meet.

Many educators see an upside to the national focus on student achievement, as measured by test scores, and have unapologetically instilled intensive preparatory programs. Alvarado Intermediate School in Rowland Heights conducts a concentrated test-prep program before the state exams, using assessment data to identify students who need to strengthen specific skills. The sessions are held after school to preserve electives, such as computers, art and music. Attendance is mandatory, with detention for those who miss and prizes for those who participate.

Principal Ying Tsao said she supported the move toward state standards and regular assessments. In earlier times, she said, teachers might skew toward language arts, say, while ignoring math.

Bruce Clark, Los Angeles Elementary principal, said testing has robbed educators of some flexibility, but he said the benefits of higher student achievement are worth it.

Not that there's no time for fun. Clark sheepishly said he "sold out" and held pep rallies to excite his students about the tests. Duarte motivates her students with a party and movie, bringing in treats to entice them to do well. Monterey Highlands has "March Math Madness" every year to pump up students with math-related scavenger hunts and "problem of the week" contests. To kick off the testing this year, Principal Joe Cash donned an apron and chef's hat to serve pancakes at a school breakfast — while asking math questions(How many pancakes does Johnny eat if he gets two pancakes each of the three times he comes up?).

Los Angeles Elementary aims to avoid last-minute cramming by requiring 15-minute skills sessions at the start of the day throughout the year, featuring questions similar to those on the state test. Duarte prepares her students at the beginning of the year with intense work on Greek and Roman roots of words and multiple-meaning words — areas of student weakness identified by testing data.

A different model is the UCLA Community School, a pilot school launched last year by the university and L.A. Unified in Koreatown. Teachers there are free to develop their own assessments. Kate Beaudet uses an individualized reading test that she said is more sophisticated, allowing her to pinpoint a child's actual reading level and areas of weakness.

Beaudet and two colleagues, who joined the staff from other L.A. Unified schools, said district testing requirements had taken weeks of instructional time, skewed teaching toward what was tested and led many teachers to rely heavily on worksheets.

"Teachers only want to teach reading, writing and math, because that's what's assessed," said Beaudet, who teaches a second-and-third-grade class.

To prepare for state exams, Beaudet incorporated practice questions into work she did all year with literary genres, a third-grade reading standard. Using a test reading passage from an African folk tale, she read the book with her students and helped them analyze the elements and write their own test questions — which both conveyed needed skills and boosted their confidence, she said.

At Hobart, Yi figures she has spent up to $1,000 a year designing more creative lessons than those offered by L.A. Unified. The district's fourth-grade reader presents only one chapter of "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH," C so Yi bought copies of the whole book to enable her students to read the entire story. She also bought materials so students could make stuffed rats.

Meanwhile, the project helped Yi's students practice a state standard: to read a set of directions and answer questions about them. She also wrote related vocabulary and comprehension questions. And Yi said that being able to read entire books has instilled in many a love of literature.

Not all teachers are willing to go to such lengths. Some of her colleagues have simply used test prep books all year, Yi said. But that's not for her.

"I enjoy challenging myself to think of better, different and fun ways to teach," she said. "I love to see the light of learning go on."

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Moore: Cornering the education market

By Michael Moore
May 4, 2011

It’s testing time around Georgia, despite widespread criticism about the inability of the state’s standardized tests to reflect student — let alone teacher — performance.

Georgia is hip-deep in the school assessment racket, which quietly lines the coffers of corporations beyond the view of an unsuspecting public.

Unfortunately, Georgia may soon be even deeper in the grip of these corporate interests.

Looming on the horizon is the multi-billion dollar battle for common core assessments. But what we don’t realize is that the real battle is over far more than assessments; it covers all aspects of curriculum.

A quick reminder of how we got to this point.

Georgia’s tests are not made by our state. CTB/McGraw-Hill, which is in the fifth year of a five-year, $62.5 million contract, makes our tests. CTB/McGraw-Hill also makes tests for at least 11 other states, Washington D.C., and the Department of Defense.

At the post-secondary level, the Pearson Company makes the Georgia Assessments for the Certification of Educators (GACE). Pearson makes certification tests for other states too.

The testing business is a
$2.3 billion business. But testing is not where the real money is made. If you want to pass the test, you’re going to need preparation materials.

If your child brings home a text from Glencoe, Macmillan, SRA, Open Court or The Grow Network, among others, then your child is using a McGraw-Hill text. The test preparation materials business surely dwarfs the testing business.

This is still small beer compared with what’s to come. This week, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Pearson Foundation (a non-profit organization owned by, well, the for-profit version of the Pearson company) announced that the two were working together to create complete online curricula for the new common core standards in math and English language arts for elementary through high school.

This off-the-shelf curricula includes the materials, the teacher preparation, teacher development and, of course, the assessments.

Interestingly, Phil Daro and Sally Hampton from America’s Choice, who helped draft the common core standards, are heading up this development.

Confused? Did I forget to mention that Pearson bought America’s Choice last summer?

This information is hardly surprising. Of the 14 members of the Common Core English/Language Arts Standards writing committee, seven worked for ACT or SAT, two of the biggest test makers in America.

Three members work for Achieve, another non-profit organization that helps states — guess what? — form assessments for standards, and happens to be the creator of the American Diploma Project Network.

See how nicely this dovetails with ACT and SAT? Another standards writer, David Coleman, formed the Grow Network, which he sold to—there they are again–McGraw-Hill.

I am usually not a conspiracy theorist. But my scorecard shows 11 members of the English/Language Arts Standards writing team had ties to companies with a financial interest in the committee’s decision.

Adding insult to injury, no members of the Work Group were K-12 teachers and no teachers were mentioned in the Gates/Pearson curriculum announcement.

If you’re following the money, it goes like this: Link the common core standards to winning “Race to the Top” money, then link this to these quasi non-profits (which really aren’t non-profit) testing companies who get to use federal money to fund the creation of standards’ assessments and who had a seat(s) at the standards writing table, and you’ve got the creation of quite the little market corner.

Georgia may be unintentionally proving the assessment of Grover “Russ” Whitehurst, a former research guru for the U.S. Department of Education and current director of the Brown Center for Education Policy at the Brookings Institute.

“It’s easier to have good-sounding rhetoric about new materials, thinking, approaches, technology than it is to do it,” he said.

Apparently, we are going to develop testing and curricula using the “Windows Model.” We’ll release it, and we’ll fix the bugs later.

If you’re a teacher, administrator or teacher educator, it has to be a bit overwhelming to realize that you not have a seat at the table; we don’t even know where the table is.

Michael Moore is a professor of literacy education at Georgia Southern University. mmoore@georgiasouthern.edu

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Gates and Pearson Foundations Team For Common Core Curricula

The Foundations have undertaken an ambitious project to create 24 courses in math and English from kindergarten through grade 12.

May 5, 2011

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is joining with the Pearson Foundation to write a set of math and English curricula that will be built around the recently introduced Common Core Standards, Education Week reports. The curricula will include 11 courses in math for grades K-10 and 13 in English and language arts for grades K-12. Of the 24 courses, four will be available online for free and the remainder will be purchasable through the Pearson Foundation. In addition to the course plans, the full program will also include tools for teacher assessment and professional development.

Each course will serve as a 150-day curriculum and will harness technological advances such as social networking, animation, and gaming to better engage and motivate students, Judy B. Codding, the managing director of the Pearson Foundation, told reporters.

The effort will be funded by a $3 million grant from the Gates Foundation. It is part of a recently announced $20 million project by the foundation that will use new technologies to craft teaching and learning tools for the Common Core Standards.

The first set of courses for secondary-level math and elementary school English is scheduled to be available for the 2013-14 school year, while the full 24-course set will be released in time for 2014-15. Officials from Gates and Pearson have said that they are working with experts both inside and outside the U.S and consulting with professionals from countries like Japan, Singapore, and Israel.

The effort has drawn both supporters and critics. Kent Williamson, the executive director of the National Council of Teachers of English, said that many previous attempts at a comprehensive curriculum failed because they didn’t have enough flexibility to account for local conditions. He added that NCTE has never written a model curriculum because it feels the best approach is for districts and schools to develop their own, only using comprehensive ones as a guide.

Grover J. Whitehurst, former director for the U.S. Department of Education and currently working for the Brookings Institution, was happy to see an attempt at a curriculum that covers so many grades with the new material smoothly building on the previously covered work. He was, however, unsure if the deadline the project organizers set for themselves was entirely realistic:

They’ve set out some ambitious goals if they expect [the curricula] to be truly innovative and groundbreaking. It’s easier to have good-sounding rhetoric about new materials, thinking, approaches, technology, than it is to do it. Ultimately, we have to see what it looks like.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Are more high-stakes tests inevitable? A teacher says 'no'

By Valerie Strauss | WA Post
January 13, 2011

This was written by educator Anthony Cody, who taught science for 18 years in inner-city Oakland and now works with a team of science teacher-coaches that supports novice teachers. He is a National Board-certified teacher and an active member of the Teacher Leaders Network. This post appeared on his Education Week Teacher blog, Living in Dialogue.

By Anthony Cody
There are a great many fallacies swirling around our schools, and perhaps the biggest among them is that more testing, and ever higher stakes attached to tests, is inevitable, and thus resistance by teachers, students and parents is futile. Nothing could be further from the truth. The proponents of educational reform have committed the greatest error of the powerful. They have promised far more than they can deliver, and their enterprise is already failing by the markers they laid down.

The original vision of No Child Left Behind was the rather absurd plan that every single child in the nation would be proficient by 2014.

Every day we move closer to that date, and more and more schools are labeled failures as a result of its relentless and irrational timetable. These failures belong not to the schools and teachers who work there - they are taking on the challenges in their community and usually working hard to meet them. These failures belong to those who, from the comfort of their offices, made the supposedly "courageous" decisions to hold someone else accountable for fixing problems society does not care to address in meaningful ways.

According to reformers such asMichelle Rhee, we have the opportunity to "fix our broken education system." She cites our recent performance on the PISA to prove her point. But as many have pointed out, this data proves just the opposite.

As high school principal Mel Riddile points out here,

"Schools in the United States with less than a 10% poverty rate had a PISA score of 551. When compared to the ten countries with similar poverty numbers, that score ranked first.

"The problem is not as much with our educational system as it is with our high poverty rates. The real crisis is the level of poverty in too many of our schools and the relationship between poverty and student achievement. Our lowest achieving schools are the most under-resourced schools with the highest number of disadvantaged students. We cannot treat these schools in the same way that we would schools in more advantaged neighborhoods or we will continue to get the same results.

Serious scholars and educators have known this for years. And Rhee had very little results to show for her years as the tough-minded chancellor of Washington, D.C. schools, similar to her counterpart in New York City, Joel Klein.

These are stubborn facts, and they will not go away with another round of new and better tests, nor when we have fired the teachers supposedly responsible for the low scores. Until we are prepared to invest in our schools and communities, and until our students have very real opportunities as a result of the education they are receiving, our schools in impoverished communities will not magically improve.

It is, in fact, inevitable that this test-driven reform will fail. It will fail because it cannot deliver on its lofty promises. The only reason the project totters forward is because of the steadfast sponsorship by an alliance of billionaires and the politicians and policymakers they employ, directly and indirectly.

The challenge for those of us who see that these emperors and empresses of reform are naked is to stay clear on our own vision of what school should be, and continue to call it out. Continue to speak the truth, and shame those who claim to have all the answers. And we must work with parents and students and our fellow teachers, so they understand that our schools will not improve when we have fired ten percent of the teachers, base evaluations on test scores, eliminate tenure and seniority, and expand privately run charter schools.

Instead, they will improve when we seek stability and growth in our struggling schools, and support the teachers there so they are retained, and have time to collaborate and learn together. We will improve these schools when we have small class sizes that allow teachers to give individual attention to students, and differentiate for diverse learners.

They will improve when we give teachers professional autonomy and challenge them to authentically assess their students on meaningful work, not do endless test preparation. They will improve when they have strong connections to the parents and communities in which they sit, and serve their aspirations.

These are the things that must be priorities for our schools -- not more and more money for more and more sophisticated tests and data tracking systems.

It is perhaps inevitable that when we have a society in which one percent of the population has more than one-third of the wealth, these billionaires will believe that they have that power due to their wisdom and intelligence - and thus are entitled to tell the rest of us what to do. But it is also inevitable that some of us will continue to think for ourselves, and continue to fight for schools that serve our communities.

Sunday, January 09, 2011

Leave No Bubble Blank

Also check out another article previously posted to this blog titled, Rethinking Advanced Placement. Some important technical changes being made as we gear up for a national conversation on K-12 college readiness standards. Already occurring here in Texas, by the way.

-Patricia


By INYOUNG KANG | NY Times
Published: January 7, 2011

IF you don’t know the answer, guess.

Come May, the next sitting for Advanced Placement exams, the College Board is switching to right-only scoring: each correct answer counts; no deductions for wrong ones. By guessing, you have a 20 or 25 percent chance of getting it right, depending on the number of answer choices.

The new scoring mirrors other standardized tests, except the SAT. A wrong answer there comes with a 0.25-point deduction. The College Board, which owns both tests, is changing only A.P.

Psychometricians advised that right-only scoring would simplify year-to-year comparisons as new exams are phased in, according to Trevor Packer, vice president responsible for Advanced Placement.

Rethinking Advanced Placement

By CHRISTOPHER DREW | NY Times
Published: January 7, 2011

WHEN Joan Carlson started teaching high school biology more than 30 years ago, the Advanced Placement textbook was daunting enough, at 36 chapters and 870 pages. But as an explosion of research into cells and genes reshapes our sense of how life evolves, the flood of new material has been staggering. Mrs. Carlson’s A.P. class in Worcester, Mass., now confronts a book with 56 chapters and 1,400 pages, along with a profusion of animated videos and Web-based aids that supplement the text.


And what fuels the panic is that nearly every tongue-twisting term and microscopic fact is fair game for the year-end test that decides who will receive college credit for the course.

“Some of the students look at the book and say, ‘My gosh, it’s just like an encyclopedia,’ ” Mrs. Carlson says. And when new A.P. teachers encounter it, “they almost want to start sobbing.”

As A.P. has proliferated, spreading to more than 30 subjects with 1.8 million students taking 3.2 million tests, the program has won praise for giving students an early chance at more challenging work. But many of the courses, particularly in the sciences and history, have also been criticized for overwhelming students with facts to memorize and then rushing through important topics. Students and educators alike say that biology, with 172,000 test-takers this year, is one of the worst offenders.

A.P. teachers have long complained that lingering for an extra 10 or 15 minutes on a topic can be a zero-sum game, squeezing out something else that needs to be covered for the exam. PowerPoint lectures are the rule. The homework wears down many students. And studies show that most schools do the same canned laboratory exercises, providing little sense of the thrill of scientific discovery.

All that, says the College Board, is about to change.

Next month, the board, the nonprofit organization that owns the A.P. exams as well as the SAT, will release a wholesale revamping of A.P. biology as well as United States history — with 387,000 test-takers the most popular A.P. subject. A preview of the changes shows that the board will slash the amount of material students need to know for the tests and provide, for the first time, a curriculum framework for what courses should look like. The goal is to clear students’ minds to focus on bigger concepts and stimulate more analytic thinking. In biology, a host of more creative, hands-on experiments are intended to help students think more like scientists.

The changes, which are to take effect in the 2012-13 school year, are part of a sweeping redesign of the entire A.P. program. Instead of just providing teachers with a list of points that need to be covered for the exams, the College Board will create these detailed standards for each subject and create new exams to match.

Trevor Packer, the College Board’s vice president for Advanced Placement, notes that the changes mark a new direction for the board, which has focused on the tests more than the courses. The rollout of “the New A.P.,” as the board describes it, will actually start this year with a new curriculum taking effect in two smaller programs, German and French language. Major revisions to physics, chemistry, European history, world history and art history will follow, with the hope of being ready for exams in 2014 or 2015.

“We really believe that the New A.P. needs to be anchored in a curriculum that focuses on what students need to be able to do with their knowledge,” Mr. Packer says. A.P. teachers made clear that such a shift was impossible unless the breadth of material covered was pared down. Courses in English and math are manageable, Mr. Packer says, and will not be revised until later.

The new approach is important because critical thinking skills are considered essential for advanced college courses and jobs in today’s information-based economy. College administrators and veteran A.P. teachers familiar with the new biology curriculum believe the changes could have significant reverberations for how science is taught in introductory college classes and even elementary school classrooms, and might bring some of the excitement back to science learning.

And here is one indication of how pumped up the College Board is about the revitalization: If Mr. Packer were a high school junior next year, would he take the old A.P. biology or wait till his senior year for the new one?

“I would absolutely wait,” he says.

WHEN A.P. testing began in 1956, memorization was not yet a dirty word, and it was O.K. if history classes ran out of time just after they finished World War II.

The College Board created the first exams at the behest of elite preparatory schools, which wanted to convince colleges that their best students could dart right into advanced work. The board based the exams on what colleges taught in freshman survey courses. As the testing expanded over the next several decades, the board began providing a brief description of college-course themes and breaking down the percentage of those courses — and thus the A.P. exam — devoted to each topic. But it was up to each high school to flesh out its own curriculum.

And it did not take long for instructors to start teaching to the test, treating the board’s outline as the holy grail for helping students achieve the scores of 3 or higher, out of 5, that might earn credit from a college.

That obviously became harder to do as breakthroughs in genetic research and cellular organization, and momentous events like the cold war, the civil rights movement, Watergate and the war on terror, began to elbow their way onto the lists. College professors could pick and choose what to cover in their introductory survey classes. But because the A.P. test can touch on almost anything, high school juniors and seniors must now absorb more material than most college freshmen.

So perhaps it is no surprise that while the number of students taking the A.P. biology test has more than doubled since 1997, the median score has dropped to 2.63, from 3.18. On the exam last May, slightly fewer than half of the test-takers scored a 3, which equates to a C in a college course. And while 19 percent of students earned 5’s, almost twice that many got 1’s, which could be a failing grade in college.

A committee of the National Research Council, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, called attention to these problems in 2002. It criticized A.P. science courses for cramming in too much material and failing to let students design their own lab experiments. It also said the courses had failed to keep pace with research on how people learn: instead of listening to lectures, “more real learning takes place if students spend more time going into greater depth on fewer topics, allowing them to experience problem solving, controversies and the subtleties of scholarly investigation.”

A few top universities have become more choosey about giving credit. In 2007, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for instance, stopped giving credit for A.P. biology, and developed its own placement exam. Stuart Schmill, M.I.T.’s dean of admissions, says the biology department found that even some of the students who scored 5’s did not have the problem-solving skills needed for higher-level courses. The University of Texas has also tightened its rules for biology placement, giving credit for 5’s only, though many large universities still accept 4’s or 3’s.

Several elite private high schools have also dropped A.P. courses. In defiance, the public school district in Scarsdale, N.Y., created its own in-depth courses called Advanced Topics. (For college credit, students still have to do well on the A.P. or another placement exam.)

The College Board took the criticisms to heart, and has been working with hundreds of college professors and high school teachers to develop the new approach.

For biology, the change means paring down the entire field to four big ideas. The first is a simple statement that evolution “drives the diversity and unity of life.” The others emphasize the systematic nature of all living things: that they use energy and molecular building blocks to grow; respond to information essential to life processes; and interact in complex ways. Under each of these thoughts, a 61-page course framework lays out the most crucial knowledge students need to absorb.

And to the delight of teachers who have gotten an early peek at the plans, the board also makes clear what will not be on the exam. Part or all of at least 20 of the 56 chapters in the A.P. biology book that Mrs. Carlson’s class uses will no longer need to be covered. (One PowerPoint slide explaining the changes notes sardonically that teachers can retire their swift marches through the “Organ of the Day.”)

Similarly, the new plans divide United States history into nine time periods and seven overarching themes. But instead of requiring students to memorize the dates of the Pequot War — which, for those of you who forgot, occurred from 1634 to 1638 and eliminated the Pequot tribe in what is now Connecticut — teachers will have more leeway to focus on different events in teaching students how to craft historical arguments.

Scarsdale High School sees some synchronicity. “It appears to be clearly much more in line with what we are trying to emphasize this year,” says Beth Schoenbrun, the school’s’ co-director of Science Research. “It certainly seems to allow for a good deal more flexibility in terms of what is covered in the classroom.”

William Wood, who teaches biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, was a key member of the National Research Council panel that criticized A.P. science. He says now: “I like the way they’ve tried to make it clear what the boundaries are, what they want students to actually remember and what can be left out.” He says he’s “pretty impressed” with what he’s seen so far.

MRS. CARLSON, who teaches A.P. bio at the Bancroft School, an affluent, private academy in central Massachusetts, has always made her lab an inviting place. A chalk-white skeleton watches over the students. So does Al, a rare clear gummy bear, in a paper-clip chair, surrounded by presents from students who view his lack of color as analogous to genetic mutations. He has a bag of mud from the Dead Sea, trinkets from Mount Fuji and a model of a fish from Bermuda.

Mrs. Carlson knows she is fortunate to have a board of directors that will buy whatever equipment she needs for the lab and a generous nine class periods a week for her A.P. course. Many teachers have to cover all the material in just five or six periods, and some must hold their labs after school or on holidays, if they have them at all — thanks to insufficient slots during the school day, and too many after-school activities.

Mrs. Carlson says several students drop her class each year after they realize how hard it will be. She is also frustrated by the predictable nature of many of the “dirty dozen,” the teachers’ nickname for the basic lab exercises now recommended by the College Board. In one that her class did last fall, the students looked at pre-stained slides of onion root tips to identify the stages of cell division and calculate the duration of the phases.

She and her students, who historically score 4’s and 5’s on the exam, were one of several schools asked by the College Board to road test one of the proposed new labs to see if it brought back the “Oh, wow!” factor.

The basic question: What factors affect the rate of photosynthesis in living plants? The new twist: Instead of being guided through the process, groups of two or three students had to dream up their own hypotheses and figure out how to test them.

Caroline Brown, a senior who stages the school’s plays, connected the lab to her passion for theater. She borrowed green, sky blue and “Broadway pink” filters from the playhouse to test how different shades of light affected photosynthesis in sunken spinach leaves. The pink surprised her by narrowly edging out the blue in triggering photosynthesis.

Ms. Brown had started to take both A.P. biology and A.P. United States history as a junior, but says she quickly realized that school counselors were right in warning “that’s one combination that will just about kill you.” So she stuck with history and went back to biology this year.

Robert Turley, a junior, created little disks of spinach with a hole puncher and dropped them into two beakers. He and his partner thought photosynthesis would occur more quickly in a slightly acidic solution, prompting those disks to shoot to the surface. But as they watched through safety goggles, all 10 of the disks in the basic solution rose, while none of disks in the more acidic solution budged.

“So for this lab, our hypothesis was actually wrong,” he says. “But it definitely felt more like a lab that would be done like a scientist in the real world than the other labs we’ve done.”

Even though Alyssa Kotin’s experiment was inconclusive, she and her partner presented a colorful poster with a graph of their findings to the class, just as the other groups did, to stimulate more discussion.

College Board officials say the new labs should help students learn how to frame scientific questions and assemble data, and the exam will measure how well they can apply those skills. When the new test is unveiled in 2013, biology students will need, for the first time, to use calculators, just as A.P. chemistry and physics students do. The board plans to cut the number of multiple-choice questions nearly in half on the new test, to 55. It will add five questions based on math calculations, and it will more than double the number of free-response questions, to nine.

“There won’t be any more questions like: here is a plant, and what is this tissue?” says Professor Uno of the University of Oklahoma, who is helping to decide what will be asked. Instead, early samples show that the multiple-choice questions will be more complex. They will require students to read short passages, or look at graphs, and pick the answers that explain why something happened or that predict what will occur next.

One sample essay question provides a chart with the heights of plants growing in either sunlight or shade and a graph that misinterprets the results. Students must decipher what went wrong, re-plot the data and design a better experiment to determine which grew faster.

WHILE many educators agree with the tack A.P. is taking, they also recognize that the change is going to be difficult for many teachers and schools.

Athena Vangos, who teaches A.P. biology at a public high school in Leicester, Mass., a blue-collar town where many students have part-time jobs, loves the idea of less memorization and more conceptual thinking. As is the case with many public schools, hers does not limit A.P. courses to only the top students. So while six of her students earned 4’s or 5’s on the exam last May, six others “just throw up their hands” at the amount of work and settled for 1’s.

While Ms. Vangos believes the program could inspire students who “like to think outside the box,” she worries that the new math requirements will discourage others. And with so many cutbacks these days in education budgets, she says, the need to improve lab facilities at many public schools “is absolutely going to pose a big problem.” Labs in resource-strapped urban schools often don’t have enough of even basic tools, like dissecting microscopes, for their students.

Studies indicate that relatively few high schools have laboratories equivalent to those used in first-year college courses. Professor Uno says that the new A.P. lab experiments will rely mostly on the same equipment as the old ones, and that program designers will provide “some low-cost alternatives where we can.”

Another concern is how well teachers — across the full range of A.P. subjects — will adjust to an approach that will require them to give up some control and let the students dictate more about where the class discussions go. Mr. Packer says the College Board is investing substantial resources in creating professional-development programs and online tools to help teachers make that transition.

In many ways, the changes will complete a broad turn for the College Board, from its origins as a purveyor of tests to a much more deliberate arbiter of what the nation’s top students will study. Its exams had already set that agenda indirectly, of course, and turned A.P. classes into a way of life for top students.

Yet as the board trumpets its new plans, it is also acknowledging how much the process had gotten out of hand. Students will still have to put in long hours, and there is no sign that the arms race will slow among students trying to pile up as many A.P. classes as they can to impress college admissions offices.

But, Mr. Packer says, the College Board supports the idea of schools’ placing limits on the number of A.P. classes students can take. And, he says, it sees the new courses as a step toward relieving some of the burdens.


The New A.P.


Advanced Placement is being redesigned to test more conceptual understanding. Click below for examples of the types of questions that will be found on the new U.S. history and biology tests.
Sample Questions: A.P. U.S. History»
Sample Questions: A.P. Biology »