"A child's learning is the function more of the characteristics of his classmates than those of the teacher." James Coleman, 1972

Monday, March 10, 2014

First of Many Tennessee Lawsuits Filed Over Use of High Stakes Value-Added Testing

Andy Spears has more here.

From WATE in Knoxville:

NOXVILLE (WATE) - The Tennessee Education Association has filed a lawsuit against the Knox County Board of Education saying its use of Tennessee Value Added Assessment System estimates in high-stakes bonus decisions is unconstitutional.

"It is unacceptable for any teacher to be punished financially or otherwise as a result of unreliable, flawed statistical estimates that can vary years after a student was in that teacher's classroom," said Gera Summerford, TEA president.

TEA says Knox County teacher Lisa Trout was unfairly denied the district's APEX bonus after being misled about how her TVAAS estimate would be calculated.

TEA officials say a guidance counselor incorrectly claimed 10 of Trout's students for her TVAAS score without her knowledge, causing her to get a lower estimate than she should have. She was denied the bonus.

The lawsuit also says the TVAAS estimates are too arbitrary, only using test results of a small segment of a teacher's students to estimate overall effectiveness.


TEA says it expects this to be the first of many TVAAS lawsuits across the state.

Bill de Blasio Under Fire from Wall Street Billionaires and Vulture Philanthropists

Corporate Welfare Queen, Eva Moskowitz
With the Oligarchs now marching out Eli Broad's rabid poodle, Steve Barr, to attack Bill de Blasio for his position on charter schools, the Mayor has his hands full.  Thankfully, he is not flinching, even with the lead corporate welfare queen and snapping hyena, Eva Moskowitz, in full attack mode.

With her half-million dollar salary at stake, Little Eva canceled school for her 22 schools and bused the students to Albany last week to use them as props for the fake Democrat, Andrew Cuomo, to offer a speech that could have been written by Wall Street hedge funders.

With the New York Times ready to disparage the Mayor for going on popular radio talk shows to get his message out, and with Rupert Murdoch calling de Blasio a bully, the Mayor has limited options in terms of being heard above the billionaires and their stooges.

Please share this interview, which addresses several important education issues for New Yorkers and every other urban center in America.

Support Chicago Boycott of ISAT

Support Chicago Teachers’ Test Boycott: Call and Sign Petition

Chicago teachers, joined by parents and students, are boycotting the Illinois ISAT tests at several schools. The district is threatening teachers with loss of certification, and bullying and intimidating parents and students who have opted out or wish to opt out of the ISAT.

They need your support. Please call the Chicago Board of Education and voice your support for Chicago's teachers, parents and students standing up for their rights. Call 773-553-1600 and tell the Board:

"I’d like to leave a message for all members of the Chicago Board of Education. I support families boycotting the ISAT and there should be no retaliation against teachers who stood up for their students on the ISAT."

Also, please sign the support petition at http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/support-the-testing-boycott.

The Chicago Teachers Union and allies have organized a rally today, March 10.

-- 
Monty Neill, Ed.D.; Executive Director, FairTest; P.O. Box 300204, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130; 617-477-9792;http://www.fairtest.org; Donate to FairTest: https://secure.entango.com/donate/MnrXjT8MQqk

Sunday, March 09, 2014

Michelle Rhee Loves Bob Behning and Other Indiana Right-Wingers

by Doug Martin

Michelle Rhee’s political funding machine has entered Indiana, and the fake Democrat who once spoke at the statehouse with former governor Mitch Daniels and has been involved in one scandal after another is now handing cash to the rightest of the right-wing in Indiana, the latest none other than ALEC member Bob Behning.
In 2013, Rhee’s Students First PAC, registered in California, slid Behning $1,000 (page 9). The PAC is also funding the campaigns of Cisco System’s Todd Huston, Religious Right’s Carl Yoder, and ALEC’s Jim Banks. 

But Rhee's is not the only fake liberal outfit which has tossed money to Indiana Republicans to keep Daniels’ corporate-theocratic school locomotive rolling. 

Stand for Children, which used millions in hedge fund money to throw Illinois teachers and students under the bus in 2011, gave the Republican Behning $1,000 (page 7) last year and $500 in 2012 (page 4).

In fact, Stand for Children has financially supported many Republican lawmakers in Indiana, including Tony Bennett, Carl Yoder, ALEC’s David Frizzell, and Todd Huston. 
Yet to keep his base happy,  let it be known that Behning is still a favorite of the rightwing billionaires from Amway and Walmart.  Beginning its funding to Behning in 2009 (page 8 in pdf), the Amway/Walmart/hedge fund/charter school group Hoosiers for Economic Growth handed Behning $3,000 (page 5 and page 10 in the PDF) to help plant a for-profit charter school on every street corner to  duel it out with voucher schools. 

The other guilty parties giving to Behning in 2013?  Eli Lilly—which owns the Mind Trust with Bill Gates and insures that David Harris can make $200,000 per year —gave him $500 (page 7).

K12 online learning’s lobbying branch K 12 Southpoint II, out of Virginia, tossed Behning $1,000 (page 3) in 2012, with the money it had left from buying our neighboring lawmakers in Illinois in 2010.

But let’s be fair.  Alice Walton got a little bit back, since Behning paid around $1000 to Sam’s Club for parade candy and other campaign things recently (page 14).  
Behning gave back to the religious community, too, donating $500 from his campaign chest to the voucher-sponsored Lutheran High School in Indy (page 14).

 

The common core: An untried curriculum plus nonstop testing


Sent to the Salt Lake Tribune, March 9, 2014

M. Donald Thomas is right: "Common Core supporters (are) providing misinformation" (March 7). In addition to the points he makes, there are other serious problems.

First, the common core standards are untested.  There were no pilot studies.
Second, the common core requires a huge increase in testing; research has indicated that increasing testing does not mean greater achievement.
Also, the new tests will cost a fortune because they must be delivered online. This requires internet access, and up-to-date computers that will be obsolete nearly as soon as they are in use.



The real problem in American education is poverty, not low standards: Our child poverty rate is 23%, second highest in the world among economically advanced countries. Poverty means, among other things, food deprivation, lack of health care, and little or no access to books. The best teaching will not help when students are hungry, ill, and have little to read. When researchers control for the effects of poverty, American international test scores rank near the top of the world. 



Instead of protecting students from the effects of poverty, we are wasting billions on what Susan Ohanian has accurately described as “a radical untried curriculum overhaul and … nonstop national testing.”  



Stephen Krashen

M. Donald Thomas letter: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57642648-82/common-core-public-academic.html.csp


Sources:
Huge increase in testing: Krashen, S. 2012. How much testing? http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/25/stephen-­‐ krashen-­‐how-­‐much-­‐testing/
 and: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/

Increasing testing does not mean greater achievement: Nichols, S., Glass, G., and Berliner, D. 2006. High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability increase student learning? Education Policy Archives 14(1).
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n1/. OECD. Tienken, C., 2011. Common core standards: An example of data-less decision-making. Journal of Scholarship and Practice. American Association of School Administrators [AASA], 7(4): 3-18. http://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx.

Cost of tests: Krashen, S. and Ohanian, S. 2011. High Tech Testing on the Way: a 21st Century Boondoggle? http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/04/high_tech_testing_on_the_way_a.html

Level of poverty: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2012), ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report Card 10, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

Poverty means: Berliner, D. 2009. Poverty and Potential:  Out-of-School Factors and School Success.  Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential;   Krashen, S. 1997. Bridging inequity with books. Educational Leadership  55(4): 18-22.

Control for poverty: Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13; Bracey, G. 2009. The Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/Bracey-Report. Berliner, D. 2011. The Context for Interpreting PISA Results in the USA: Negativism, Chauvinism, Misunderstanding, and the Potential to Distort the Educational Systems of Nations. In Pereyra, M., Kottoff, H-G., & Cowan, R. (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers. Tienken, C. 2010. Common core state standards: I wonder? Kappa Delta Phi Record 47 (1): 14-17. Carnoy, M and Rothstein, R. 2013, What Do International Tests Really Show Us about U.S. Student Performance. Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute. 2012. http://www.epi.org/).

Saturday, March 08, 2014

No Unnecessary Testing, Not No Testing

Submitted to the Indy Star, March 8, 2014
Tim Swarens writes that "Diane Ravitch’s opposition to accountability isn’t realistic," (March 7) because we need to "identify those who excel and those who lag behind."
Agreed. But we don't need to test every child every year on every subject to find this out.  The NAEP test, a zero-stakes standardized test, is given to samples of students every few years, and the results are extrapolated to get an accurate assessment of how districts, states and the country are doing.
If we want to expand the NAEP to measure performance for individual schools, we need to determine, through careful study, how many students need to be tested and how often.  The evaluation of individual students is best done by teachers, according to recent research.
When you go to the doctor, they don't take all your blood, just a sample. 
I recommend the principle of NUT: No Unneccessary Testing. Test as much as we need to and no more. 

Stephen Krashen

original article: http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2014/03/07/diane-ravitchs-opposition-to-accountability-isnt-realistic/6181929/
Some sources:
Evaluation of individual students: Bowen, W., Chingos, M., and McPherson, M. 2009. Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Universities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Geiser, S. and Santelices, M.V., 2007. Validity of high-school grades in predicting student success beyond the freshman year: High-school record vs. standardized tests as indicators of four-year college outcomes. Research and Occasional Papers Series: CSHE 6.07, University of California, Berkeley. http://cshe.berkeley.edu

Friday, March 07, 2014

It's Time for Congress to Investigate High Stakes Testing


More than 400 educators, citizens, bloggers, activists and parents met in Austin, Texas for the first Annual Network for Public Education Conference. The press release just doesn't seem to be getting much press.  Diane Ravitch was on the Ed Show last night on MSNBC. I suppose that's a start but the real story, Ed, is the call for investigative Congressional hearings on how high stake standardized testing has become the WMD in the takeover of public schools by for profit corporations. 

Pick up the phone and call your representatives and let them know that you've had enough of this garbage and you would like to know why the private schools where their children go to school do not focus on high stakes standardized testing. 

NPE Calls for Congressional Hearings – Full Text

We are writing to request that the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee hold hearings to investigate the over-emphasis, misapplication, costs, and poor implementation of high-stakes standardized testing in the nation’s K-12 public schools.
Starting with No Child Left Behind legislation in 2001, which mandated standardized testing of every student in grades three through eight, many states have since rolled out testing in additional grades. This emphasis on testing has increased under policies of the Obama administration, such as Race to the Top and the NCLB waivers, that tie test scores to teacher and principal evaluations and school “turnarounds” and closures. There is a danger that tests now seem to have become the purpose of education, rather than a measure of education.
The tests were initiated to measure whether schools were delivering an education of high quality to every child. It makes sense to determine whether all students are achieving at a minimum level of proficiency in English and math, and standardized tests can help discern whether they are.
Our concern is that high-stakes testing in public schools has led to multiple unintended consequences that warrant federal scrutiny, including the following questions, among others.
Do the tests promote skills our children and our economy need? The most popular form of tests today are multiple-choice because they are easy and cheap to grade. But many educators and parents worry that teaching children how to take these tests doesn’t teach them how to think. The new standardized exams from the multi-state testing consortia do not appear to be significantly better, and will likely be scored by computers, which cannot gauge higher order thinking.. The challenges of the future and our nation’s economic success require the ability to solve and identify new problems, think creatively, and work collaboratively with others.
What is the purpose of these tests? Assessments should be used as diagnostic tools, to help teachers figure out where students are in their learning. But in most states, teachers are forbidden to see the actual test questions or provide feedback to students. Teachers do not see how their students answered specific test items and learn nothing about how their students are doing, other than a single score, which may arrive long after the student has left their classrooms. Thus, the tests have no diagnostic value for teachers or students, who do not have the opportunity to review and learn the material they got wrong.
How good are the tests? Problems with the actual content of tests have been extensively documented. There are numerous instances of flawed questions and design, including no right answer, more than one right answer, wording that is unclear or misleading, reading passages or problems that are developmentally inappropriate or contain product placements, test questions on material never taught, and items that border on bizarre, such as a famous example that asked students to read a passage about a race between a pineapple and a hare. Tests are not scientific instruments like barometers; they are commercial products that are subject to multiple errors.
Are tests being given to children who are too young? In many states, high-stakes standardized tests are required for even the youngest school children. In Chicago, for instance, Kindergarten students face four standardized tests two or three times a year and can spend up to a third of their time taking tests. Children of this age typically do not know how to read or even hold a pencil or use a keyboard. Subjecting 5-year-olds to a timed test is not only hopeless from a practical standpoint, but subject children to undue stress.
Are tests culturally biased? Every standardized test in the world is an accurate reflection of socioeconomic advantage and disadvantage. Thus, students from racial and ethnic-minorities, students with disabilities, and students of lower socioeconomic status tend to have lower scores than their more advantaged peers. Further, test results are often used as rationales for closing schools that serve low-income communities of color.
Are tests harmful to students with disabilities? Over the past few years, there have been numerous instances in which children with significant health situations, even undergoing life-saving procedures, were pressured to complete required tests – even from their hospital beds. Children with severe brain disorders have been compelled to take a state test. Recently in Florida, an eleven-your-old boy who was dying in hospice was expected to take a test. Such behavior defies common sense and common decency.
How has the frequency and quantity of testing increased? Testing is taking significant time away from instructional learning time. In Chicago, elementary school students take the REACH, the TRC, the MAP, the EXPLORE, the ISAT, and DIBELS every year. In North Carolina, third-grade students are tested in reading 36 times throughout the year – in addition to other standardized tests. Middle schools students in Pennsylvania may take over 20 standardized tests in a single school year. High school students in Florida can have their instruction disrupted 65 times out of 180 school days by testing. In New York, the time taken by state exams has increased by 128%. When so much time is devoted to testing instead of teaching, students have less time to learn.
Does testing harm teaching? Now that test scores are linked to principal and teacher evaluations in many states, teachers engage in more test prep because they are pressured and afraid, not because they think the assessments are educationally sound. Principals are nervous about their school’s scores. Many educators have admitted they are fearful of taking students on field trips, engaging them in independent projects, or spending time on untested subjects like science or history, art or music because it might take time away from test prep. As a result, the curriculum has narrowed and students have lost their opportunity for a well-rounded education.
How much money does it cost? It is difficult to calculate the entire costs of standardized testing – including the many classroom hours spent on test prep. But it is well known that nearly every state is spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to develop more high-stakes tests for students, and requiring local districts to spend hundreds of millions more to get their students ready to take them. In addition to the cost of the tests and the interim tests, there are added costs of new curriculum, textbooks, hardware, software, and bandwidth that new tests require. There are also opportunity costs when money allocated for testing supersedes other education expenditures, such as libraries, art and music programs, social workers and guidance counselors, and extra-curricular activities.
Are there conflicts of interest in testing policies? In many states, a company that has a multi-million dollar contract to create tests for the state is also the same company that profits from producing curriculum and test prep materials. In some states, a single testing company has been able to win a contract worth many millions of dollars by lobbying and engaging in backdoor influencing of public officials. In other states, school districts buy textbooks from the same company that makes the tests so their students have an advantage on the tests.
Was it legal for the U.S. Department of Education to fund two testing consortia for the Common Core State Standards? According to federal law and regulations, the U.S. Department of education is not allowed to supervise, direct, or control curriculum or instruction. Yet the funding of testing consortia directly intervenes in the curriculum or instruction of almost every public school in the nation, as the tests will determine what is taught and how it is taught.
We believe that every child in the United States deserves a sound education. Every child deserves a full curriculum in a school with adequate resources. We are deeply concerned that the current overemphasis on standardized testing is harming children, public schools, and our nation’s economic and civic future. It’s our conclusion that the over-emphasis, misapplication, costs, and poor implementation of high-stakes standardized tests may now warrant federal intervention. We urge you to pursue the questions we have raised.

Let's do some critical thinking

Sent to the Denver Post, March 7.

The Douglas County school superintendent says that students should not just "compare and contrast" but "create and evaluate" and engage in critical thinking ("Educators to state: Let's go above common core," March 6).

Agreed.

Let's start by evaluating whether we should have common core standards and tests at all.

How many policy makers are aware of these facts?
(1) US students do very well on international tests when we control for poverty: There is no crisis.
(2) 23% of our children live in poverty.
(3) Poverty means lack of good food, lack of health care and little or no access to books. All of these have a devastating impact on school performance.

Now let's do some critical thinking and evaluate this proposal: We can protect children from the effects of poverty with improved food programs, more school nurses and investing in libraries for a fraction of what we are about to spend on the common core, especially online testing. This will improve school achievement as well as the quality of life for millions of students.

Stephen Krashen

Original article: http://www.denverpost.com/dougco/ci_25273289/educators-lets-go-above-common-core

Sources:

Control for poverty: Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13; Bracey, G. 2009. The Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/Bracey-Report. Berliner, D. 2011. The Context for Interpreting PISA Results in the USA: Negativism, Chauvinism, Misunderstanding, and the Potential to Distort the Educational Systems of Nations. In Pereyra, M., Kottoff, H-G., & Cowan, R. (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers. Tienken, C. 2010. Common core state standards: I wonder? Kappa Delta Phi Record 47 (1): 14-17. Carnoy, M and Rothstein, R. 2013, What Do International Tests Really Show Us about U.S. Student Performance. Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute. 2012. http://www.epi.org/).

Level of poverty: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2012), ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report Card 10, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

Poverty means ...:  Berliner, D. 2009. Poverty and Potential:  Out-of-School Factors and School Success.  Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential;   Krashen, S. 1997. Bridging inequity with books. Educational Leadership  55(4): 18-22.
Cost of the common core:  Krashen, S. and Ohanian, S. 2011. High Tech Testing on the Way: a 21st Century Boondoggle? http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/04/high_tech_testing_on_the_way_a.html

David Coleman's New SAT: Still Racist, Still Classist

It should come as no surprise that the head of the College Board, David Coleman, has made the new SAT more in line with the Common Core.  One thing he can't change, even with efforts to provide some online tutorials to those who can't afford $5000 SAT prep courses, is the fact that students from poor backgrounds score lower than those with higher incomes.   

It has always been the case, ever since Carl Brigham took the work of his eugenicist pal, Robert Yerkes, to turn the Alpha A test for sorting GIs in WWI into as a college admissions test for keeping the poor out of the best colleges after the War. 

Coleman has the audacity to claim that his cheap online tutorials for the poor will relieve the moral bankruptcy of promulgating another generation of a racist and classist screening test that, even by his own admission, is less effective in predicting college success than student grades issued by teachers.

“It is time for the College Board to say in a clearer voice that the culture and practice of costly test preparation that has arisen around admissions exams drives the perception of inequality and injustice in our country,” Mr. Coleman said Wednesday. “It may not be our fault, but it is our problem.”
How much will the chart below change next year?  Want to take any bets?

SAT Bad Press = SAT Reboot

Please consider a couple responses to the SAT 2016 reboot announcement, and then another piece on the cost of the Common Core. Put the pieces together:

SAT Reboot 2016: "Nonsense It All Is" (P. L. Thomas)

Changes To The SAT (The Onion, satire)