What Does it Mean to Put Students First?

Last night, a student communicated with me her dilemma over taking the AP Psychology exam in May. This student is one of my best students and would more than likely score a five on the exam.

The college she will attend next year does not accept a score lower than a five, and she has a second AP exam scheduled the same day as the AP Psychology exam. She doesn’t want to risk taking two exams on the same day and not doing her best on both, and the other exam is more relevant to her future plans.

What I’m really thinking: Please, take my exam. Even if you don’t prepare for it I’m sure you’ll get at least a four. When students like you choose to not take the exam it makes me look worse.

What I know is right: The AP program and exams should provide a benefit to students. (actually, maybe all aspects of education should). Students and parents, with the informed advice of teachers and school support can make appropriate educational decisions.

What I could do: I could insist that every student take the AP exam for my class. If I want a true measure of how well this class prepares students then it would make sense that all students take the test—high achievers, low achievers, and everyone in between.

What I’m happy about: My end-of-course test isn’t as high stakes as many “core” classes. I can look at my students test scores to inform instruction without having to worry so much about how the numbers look.

So what do I say: As I suggest to all of my students, if you were successful in this course you should expect success on the test. If you haven’t earned at least a C, your chances aren’t so good. If you haven’t earned at least a B and don’t plan to make time to prepare for the exam, your chances aren’t so good. Check the colleges you plan to attend and determine their policy on AP exams, compare it with your expectations, and if needed, talk to me and make an informed decision.

In the end, I’m driven by the value that responsibility for educational outcomes are shared by myself, the instructor, and the students taking my course. The test provides a significant tool to evaluate the extent to which each of us live up to our part of the responsibility. I am able to compare class grades to test scores. When discrepancies arise between a student’s class performance and assessment score I can look at all of the variables that might have contributed.

From year-to-year, I am able to modify instruction in response to information gleaned from previous year’s data.

This test has become a tool to inform and improve instruction. Students are not forced to take it for the primary purpose of providing evaluation of their teacher. Students are given the choice of determining whether the test will ultimately be in their best interest. The teacher is freed from the burden of teaching to the test and able to cover the curriculum in a meaningful context.

Current education reform debate too often pits teacher vs. student and falls back to the argument of “students first.” Is the practice of forcing every student to test for hours every year for the primary purpose of creating a system to evaluate teachers and schools a system that is focused on the best interest of the child, or on the teachers and schools that teach them.

Moving Past Shallow Accountability

accountable  (əˈkaʊntəb ^ə l)

-adj.

1.	responsible to someone or for some action; answerable
2.	able to be explained

Since the early 1990's (perhaps before, but I wasn't particularly concerned before then) both state and federal politicians have been calling for measures to "hold teachers more accountable." Most of their ideas have lacked creativity and instead of searching for true measures of accountability, have searched for efficient and scaleable ways to sort the good from the bad. Instead of rich, multi-dimensional measures of accountability, we get mechanized testing.

Students corralled into auditoriums, gymnasiums, any available classroom in front of computer screens for several hours a day over a two to three week period taking mostly multiple choice tests. Schools and teachers are then judged on the results. Schools must go through great efforts to make sure that every child sits for a test. If they don't for any reason, it counts against the school. Testing coordinators must track down transfer students who've moved from out of state or who've failed tests in other Virginia districts to take the tests. If they do poorly, the school is accountable even if they haven't provided the instruction. Students only need to pass a set number of tests to graduate. If they've met this requirement, they still must take the additional tests. Their performance doesn't affect them, but again, it will count for the school.

Schools have had informal methods of accountability for decades. Whenever I give a grade to a student, or make a decision about their instruction I am accountable to a student, parents, and administrators at all levels. From A-F, my class policies are clearly defined and in print year after year. From time to time, a student or parent will ask for an explanation while a term is in progress or after a grade is received. I am answerable to them, and on more than one occasion in my career, that answer has not been acceptable. 

Then it moves up a level. Those conversations are difficult and uncomfortable, but usually lead to growth. Sometimes a parent is left dissatisfied and angry.  Sometimes the teacher is left unsupported and frustrated at having to make a change. Usually a compromise is reached, both sides having a chance to dialogue with each other, and future actions informed by the outcome.

Teachers live with accountability.

I can understand that what I described above doesn't always work so well. Some parents are not empowered to advocate so well for their child and some schools are not so inclined to responsiveness. But accountability should belong to the very individuals most influenced and invested in a given action. We're moving in the direction of making teachers accountable to the influence of corporate standard setters, test makers, and data gatherers.

We can create a better system of accountability. It's not as easy as giving a test and applying a score, but the informal systems of accountability like what is outlined above could become more formal through policy. It would also place accountability into the hands of the ones who deserve it the most.

The Best Technology Tool Ever- BubbleSheet

I found this gem today in the iTunes App store. Who says technology doesn't revolutionize education?

Here's the description from the App store site:

MasteryConnect is a web-based system that allows teachers to assess and monitor student performance of the Common Core and state standards, share common assessments, and connect in an online professional learning community.  With the BubbleSheet app, teachers save time in grading student assignments and assessments as scores are automatically populated in the MasteryConnect’s scoring system.  

I came up with this:
From the makers of DigiRoll the computerized Wheel comes BubbleSheet.  Paper and Pencil is so old fashioned, why not add some critical thinking and analysis to your assessment by enhancing it with technology. Twenty-first century learning just got easier.
 

Think you can create a snarkier description than that?

 (Here's a link to the site if the screenshot quality is poor)

A Thought Exercise

Assume you have one hour to prepare to teach a forty-five minute class on any subject you wish. You have no materials available and a budget of ten dollars for any resources and supplies needed. Would you:

a) Find a useful and short article, story, or graphic on the topic for students to read (ten minutes;about five dollars to copy) Question and discuss with students relevant points (twenty to thirty minutes depending on students; no cost) Assess understanding by having students write a short response to an open-ended question (five to fifteen minutes; a few dollars for paper and pencils for students)

b) Provide direct instructions to students and answer questions (fifteen to twenty minutes; no cost) Assign a project or problem for students to work on together with your assistance and/or direction (fifteen to twenty minutes; ten dollars for as many supplies as it will buy) Give each group one to three minutes to share how they approached the problem (five to fifteen minutes; no cost)

c) Lecture on the topic giving students a quarter each time they add a meaningful comment or question to the talk. (forty-five minutes; zero to ten dollars)

d) Spend time in conversation with students, getting to know them and informally assessing how much they know. (ten to fifteen minutes; no cost) Ask open ended questions on the topic that allow relevant points to be discussed.(fifteen to twenty minutes; no cost) Give a short assessment using multiple choice, fill-in the blank, or short answer responses. (ten to fifteen minutes; four or five dollars for copying and pencils.

e) Prepare by creating forty or fifty multiple choice questions on a topic before class. Briefly teach students the main points of the topic. (five to ten minutes) Have students spend the rest of class taking the test. (thirty-five to forty minutes; eight to ten dollars to copy the test for the entire class and pencils to answer)

There is no single right answer, but at least one obviously wrong answer. All teachers and schools have limited time and limited resources; both are shrinking. Class requirements are increasing and budgets are not growing. Testing and teaching both play a role in education, but one occurs at the expense of the other in our current environment. Most people would choose a balanced approach above. Instruction paired with reasonable assessment. But when the dollars and time get tight, assessment can't take the place of instruction. As time and money becomes more scarce in public education, the amount of time and money required for testing continues to grow. Without increasing the time or money available to schools, the cost is quality instruction. If you spend all of your time and money on testing, nothing is left for teaching.

We haven't gotten to choice "E" yet, but we're certainly heading in that direction. Can we change course before it's too late?

"Always Learning"

The solution to America's education problem:
1) Fire all of the bad test makers
2) Give principals the authority to get rid of bad assessments or questions
3) Get rid of the self-interested corporate lobbyists

This shouldn't upset the good test companies. I'm sure all of the good test-makers out there want the bad one's out just as much as the rest of us. But until we stop yielding to the union of corporate test-makers and start making policy that benefits children first we are stuck in this status quo of subjecting children to sub-standard testing.

If anyone complains about this idea then it's probably because they're afraid of change. They've become complacent with the protection that lack of transparency has afforded. The quality test-makers will applaud this approach as healthy and necessary for the success of our children in the 21st century.

Some might argue that publishing the errors of these testers is unethical, but in a system of public education, parents have the right to know what kind of quality they're getting. We learn from mistakes, but when those mistakes interfere with the future of our children and the vitality of our economy nation, we must put the children first.

Click on the pictures below for a better look at one of the latest failures of this status-quo entrenched testing business.

How to Add Detail to Your Writing

The Virginia Department of Education has posted an excellent document of an easy and effective way to add detail to your writing.  We found this gem while searching for something to help us use results from state testing to improve our instruction in the classroom. According the the department of education website:

 "the performance level descriptors (PLD) for the Standards of Learning (SOL) tests...convey the knowledge and skills associated with each performance (achievement) level. The PLD indicates the content-area knowledge and skills that students achieving at a certain level are expected to demonstrate on the SOL...may guide educators and parents in understanding the type of student performance required for each achievement level... there is a detailed description, a brief description, or both.  The brief description is a summary of the content-area knowledge and skills that students are expected to demonstrate on the test and appears on the score reports for some courses. The detailed description provides additional explanation of the knowledge and skills that students are expected to demonstrate".

So, here's what you get.  This is what the brief description for the World History to 1500 test:

 But, suppose that's not enough and you would like a little detail.  Well the folks at the VaDOE aren't going to fail you.  They've created a "detailed" performance level descriptor for the course.  Here is the detailed descriptor:

I'll stop with the snark now.  This really isn't funny.  Someone at the DOE simply added bullets to a paragraph of text and called it "detailed" instead of "brief."  There is no difference in the text from one document to the other.  This is supposed to be information that informs parents, students, and teachers understand what a given test score means about a child's ability.  And to think the Governor of Virginia wanted to pass legislation making it easier for administrators to fire bad teachers, who is accountable for the creation of this document?

To most people this seems like over-reacting, but the people who work for the state and direct education policy for YOUR children either don't care enough to actually add detail, don't think you deserve the detail, or think this is good enough, and somehow nationally the narrative goes "if we could just get better teachers in the classroom."

In addition to the fact that the only differences in the "brief" descriptor and the "detailed" descriptor are bullets, the language itself is troubling.

1) We can actually describe a students level of performance if they fail?  They should be able to locate, identify, and match.  If they demonstrate a proficiency in these skills, congratulations they fail.  What is the label if they fail to locate, identify, and match?  "Fail Really Badly."

2) How about a little creativity?  I'm a fan of Bloom's and all, but this document just walks up the taxonomy without much thought to how it's getting there. Identify, Locate, Match/ Describe, Explain, Explain/ Compare, Organize, Interpret, Analyze.  Was there any thought about "the type of skills a student is expected to demonstrate", or does it just sound good to use the accepted language of the educational establishment to legitimize and strengthen a vague explanation?

3) Can a multiple choice test really measure whether a student is able to describe, explain, compare, interpret and/or analyze?  Try this: 
What is your interpretation of the charts above: 
a) they are an excellent attempt to inform the public of what SOL test results mean.
b) they are the product of overworked and underpaid public workers at the DOE trying to do their best.
c) they are a disingenuous attempt to mislead the public about the reality of testing.
d) they aren't perfect, but we're making progress toward a worthy goal.

Did I measure your ability to interpret?  You may never know because I'm not going to tell you whether you missed the question or not.  That's how SOL testing works silly.  If you don't agree with me you certainly won't meet the requirement of effectively interpreting.  If you do agree with me I'll give you the credit, but then it wasn't really your interpretation either, was it?  I gave it to you and all you had to do was recognize it.  I guess we just fell off of Bloom's ladder.

Look out for a more detailed post tomorrow, I didn't have time to add bullets to the text today.

The documents pictured above were taken from: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/scoring/performance_level_descriptors/index.shtml on May 10, 2011.  Posted tables were found at the link for History and Social Science Performance Level Indicators, World History and Geography to 1500.

Bowling for Test Scores

The white soles slide without effort across the hardwood.  A film of disinfectant spray covers the multi-colored leather uppers.  Left leg bent one-hundred and thirty degrees, right leg tucked neatly into the back of the left knee.  Bend at the waist, as the arm descends like a pendulum, release the ball onto the floor and wait...

                                  wait.......
                                                    wait..................
                                                                                    wait..........................
                                                                                                                         
My students took the AP Psychology Exam yesterday, so we won't find out the end of this story for a few months.  Many of my colleagues have already laced up their rented shoes and selected a ball, but they won't have a turn to bowl for another week or two.  But then, they'll be in the same place as me: waiting.

There are two kinds of bowlers.  Type I releases the ball and either watches its path or simply turns away checking the results after the pins fall.  Type II will stand at the foul line, shaping the balls path with concentrated mental effort and intentional body contortions-- staying active in the process until the last pin falls.

Type II bowlers waste too much energy trying to control what is out of their control-- just release the ball and let it work.

The same is true for teachers in this era of testing.  I know the stakes are not as high for me as for those teaching "core classes" with state mandated testing, but the analogy is true for all of us.  We teach, we release, we wait.  We trust that we've done our best and realize that now our students are sitting in front of the test (and later waiting for scores) it's up to them to finish the job.

It's hard to find good analogies; metaphors that don't break down somewhere.  Here's where the bowling/testing comparisons end, so let's change the story a bit to make it fit.

...release the ball onto the floor and wait...

The ball starts off just right of center, on target to hit between the
one and two pin.  Perfect release.  But the ball looks ahead, those pins look different than in practice-- two red stripes instead of one-- distracted, the ball veers a bit off course, but there's still a chance.  Half-way down the lane, the ball realizes it's off track, trying to get back to center it over-corrects, setting it further off-track than before.  It still has a chance of hitting four or five pins.  As the ball gets closer it sees the extra pins.  They don't count for a final score, but the alley needs to test them out to see how they react in a real game.  The ball doesn't know this and sees the extra row of four pins in the back and realizes it is impossible at this point to even salvage a spare for the next ball.  The ball rolls without effort to the end and manages to knock over five pins-- but only two really count.  The crowd boo's the bowler.

Too many people think this testing game is just like bowling-- teach, release, wait.  Use good technique, practice well, and the outcome should be predictable.  They don't realize the bowling balls have brains.  Not just rational, thinking brains.  Real human brains-- subject to physiology, environment, events of the day, events of the past, emotions, etc.

Rather than a bowler, a teacher is more of a coach-- a coach whose team owner hopefully doesn't insist on keeping a high profile and/or micro-managing the team.  The overall success of the team is largely the responsibility of the coach.  But the coach can only take so much responsibility for a bad decision from a player (like an elbow to the head), bad calls from the refs (remember the fifth down), or a player who doesn't take practice seriously (I mean we're just talkin' 'bout practice).  It is a shared responsibility.

So in honor of National Teacher Appreciation Week (and National Charter Schools Week and the ten year anniversary of Iverson's "Practice" Speech), Happy Testing Season teachers.  May your bowling balls roll straight.


                                   

The Resolution

Imagine you're in the middle of a difficult task.  You've exhausted all of your options, finally found a course of action that moves you in the right direction, and someone comes into the picture with a fresh idea.  If you haven't thought of it before you might be grateful for their insight.  But too often they simply suggest something you've already tried or thought of.

It's no problem if they shrug their shoulders and move on, but, you know the type, some people will just stand over your shoulder and criticize your efforts and tell you how they would do it until you finally break and give in.  You try it their way (again, because you already did it once), they observe how difficult the task really is, and move on.  Still, sometimes they insist that you're missing something and perhaps try to get their hands in on the task in another effort.  Finally, they give up, and you start all over, unless you give up and leave them to figure out on their own what you've already figured out... before you had to start all over.

Do I need to make the connection to everyone pushing the test-based accountability movement?

So far, I see no significant mainstream political or media push-back against the building momentum of excessive testing in public education.  The push back exists, and in large numbers, but it hasn't gained enough traction to translate into policy.  Perhaps there is hope.  Texas has generated a great deal of publicity with the 300+ school districts that have passed a resolution opposing the prominent place that high-stakes testing have taken in public education.  Now, 'Time out for Testing' has created a national resolution modeled after the Texas resolution and so far over 3000 individuals have signed on and over 150 organizations.

Read the resolution and decide whether you agree with the ideas presented.  If so, add your name to the list of signatories and encourage others to join you in adding a voice to the movement to restore sanity to public education by placing standardized testing in its proper place. 

National Resolution on High Stakes Testing

A Problem of Articulation

Ever tried explaining electricity to a nine year old? I gained another level of respect for Virginia's elementary school teachers tonight.  My daughter has a test tomorrow on electricity. Nothing complicated: open and closed circuits, conductors and insulators, series and parallel circuits, resistance, etc. We used iPod headphones, turned switches on and off in the house, and even made some sparks with jumper cables to see the principles of electricity at work.

She really got it. Then I started quizzing her with the study guide. Maybe she didn't get it after all. She could show me and even explain what all of the terms and concepts were all about while we were moving around the house and looking at electricity at work in our world.  But something about putting it into clearly articulated words, absent the tangible examples, escaped her.

After a little work, she managed to articulate a little better, but when I read the definitions from the page for her to identify, she struggled a little more.  The terms and language used in the review guide didn't quite match the language she had used to understand the concepts. 

Tomorrow, I don't know how her teacher will assess her.  I'm sure that with over twenty other students taking the test at the same time she won't have a chance to just explain it to him, much less show him. If she's asked to write about it her chances are much better. I do know that at least by next year she will have to answer multiple choice questions about it for the fifth grade Virginia Standards of Learning test, the type of test that doesn't value what you know or give you the chance to express what you've learned-- it is the type of test that exposes what you don't know and expects the student to understand the narrow scope pre-determined by the "standard-setters" and "test-makers."

My experience tonight leads me to wonder how many students are harmed because teaching them to truly articulate their learning is no longer valued. We expect to assess learning through an easy and streamlined process.  We define what should be known, how it should be expressed and if students learn to articulate differently than what is prescribed they are punished rather than rewarded.

I don't have a well "articulated" conclusion to my thoughts, but after spending time engaged in learning with my daughter I found myself sad that even though I'm convinced that she understands, I'm not sure how she'll test. And in our world today, the test is all that matters.

(Post-Script- I first wrote this post over a month ago.  My daughter aced the test.  It was fill-in the blank and short answer.)

A Fact that Speaks for Itself

LSAT  (test for law school applicants)- Three-hour and twenty-five minute test

MCAT (test for med school applicants)- Five and one-half hour test

For the 2012 Virginia Math SOL Tests (9-12 grade high school student test to earn verified credit for math) schools are increasing their testing block to accommodate the 4-6 hours that many students need to complete it.

Seriously-  if you are a decision-maker in Virginia and you honestly think it's ok for fourteen year-olds to take four hour long math tests you should go ahead and turn in your decision-making credentials now.

This sample is one item, but in fact requires students to work five equations.  It is also possible to get the answer partially correct; but the student would not get partial credit.  This link connects to the Virginia DOE website's .pdf guide to the Algebra II SOL test practice items.

#OccupyWallStreetEducation

Nearly six months ago I wrote a post titled “The Education Market.” Since then, things have only gotten worse.  The American public is divided on the Occupy Wall Street movement and it’s decentralized nature makes it difficult to figure out exactly what they’re asking for, but it’s origin is certain. Increasingly, Americans are losing trust in their Government to hold corporations accountable for their actions.

While the 99% Occupy Wall Street, I would issue a challenge to the 99% of our education world. While 99% of us either occupy a classroom as teachers or students or occupy an office as administrator, the 1% who control the wealth and spending in education are making poorly informed decisions that will cost us all in the long term.

“Reformers” and politicians try to cast the teacher’s unions as the bad guys, looking to protect the self-interest of educators. While corporations pushing an education agenda leading to higher profits escape the criticism of being self-serving. While the NEA reports revenue approaching $377 million, the Pearson corporation generates over $300 million in revenue from just three states with whom they provide services. (Illinois- $138, Virginia- $110, and Kentucky-$57. Compare that to state education association revenues in those states at $48, $15, and $11 million respectively.) source

If money is power, even the teachers’ unions can’t compete with “Wall Street.” Pearson is not the only corporation earning money from education, it just happens to be the biggest.

A few weeks ago, the big news in educational marketing came from the National Summit on Education Reform. In addition to founder, Jeb Bush, the Chiefs for Change, Joel Klein, and the Gates, media mogul Rupert Murdoch was invited to give a keynote address.  Not long ago, Rupert Murdoch extended the reach of his media empire into education through the acquisition of Wireless Generation, a data management/ instructional technology company similar to Pearson’s SchoolNet.

This deal transpired shortly after former New York City public schools chancellor, Joel Klein, resigned his post to take a position as executive vice president with Murdoch’s News Corp organization. Under Klein, the NYC school system had already established a relationship with Wireless Generation.

Recent articles in EdWeek (Report: Pearson Foundation Finances Trips Abroad for State Ed. Officials) and The New York Times (When Free Trips Overlap With Commercial Purposes) show that questionable relationships between private business and educational leaders and institutions are not isolated local matters. Current federal and state legislation places such large demands on states and local districts for testing, data-collecting, and reporting that school systems (local and state) have little choice but to determine what companies will receive a lion’s share of their resources to comply.

And the lions lay in wait to claim their share. Last year, Albemarle County decided to abandon the GradeSpeed student information system owned by SchoolNet after consistent trouble with the platform.  In it's place, the county contracted with PowerSchool, a Pearson company while continuing to use the SchoolNet data system.  A short time after this decision, the education lion, Pearson, bought the parent company SchoolNet, increasing its reach into the education market even further.

We must have common standards, the standards must be tested, the tests must be graded, the grades must be sorted into data, the data must be reported, and the reports must show that we’ve reached the standards. Companies like Pearson find their way into every element of this circular equation, standing to profit at every arc.

The two articles referenced compare what is happening in education to the way pharmaceutical companies court doctors in order to promote their products. Pearson has been financing trips for top state education officials to Finland, Brazil, and Singapore to meet with education leaders in other countries and Pearson representatives. In a follow-up article in the New York Times, top state officials from Virginia, Iowa, and Kentucky declare that they see nothing wrong with accepting these trips and providing marketing statements to Pearson despite the multi-million dollar contracts the states have signed with Pearson.

Indeed, in a cash-strapped economy, who could blame state and local decision-makers for taking the incentives offered by companies to provide a service that is de facto demanded by state and federal law. If you must choose a product, choose the one with the most attractive package.

Reports from earlier in the year indicate how Pearson hopes to benefit from our current direction in education:

“Pearson, which has spent around $1.4bn on education companies since selling its stake in Interactive Data Corporation for $2bn last year, said the acquisition would be earnings neutral in 2011. It believes Schoolnet will benefit from the Obama administration's $17bn drive to support school improvement through measures such as comprehensive data systems.” (Pearson among FTSE gainers as it buys US group Schoolnet)

As the American economy dries up and traditional markets lose profitability, corporations such as Pearson have moved into the untapped revenue source of local taxpayers through public school spending:

“The greatest risk of having such a significant slice of the revenue pie coming from US education is the dependence on state budgets. However, Barack Obama's government has highlighted education as an area of the US that requires reform.”(Pearson bets on growth in US education: Pearson has spent years building its US education business and clearly sees more room for growth.)

Having spent billions of dollars in building an educational corporation, certainly companies in this market have a voice in our government. As much as teachers’ unions are criticized for holding up education reform, can they possibly command as much influence. I’m not sure that the NEA has ever funded a trip to Singapore for government education officials. Yet, the multi-national profit machines have managed to convince an American public that teachers and especially teacher unions are the problem.

On several Lobbying Reports filed on behalf of Pearson in 2011, the following statement summarizes their lobbying efforts:

“Pearson, the foreign entity identified on the LD-1, supports reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act that includes quality assessments, technology, student data systems and records, literacy programs and opposes government funding of open education resources development.”

We more commonly refer to the current manifestation of the ESEA as No Child Left Behind. As of today, 37 of 50 states have indicated their intent to apply for a waiver from this law. Republicans and Democrats alike criticize the act. Across the nation, students, teachers, and parents have raised their voices in concern over the emphasis it places on standardized testing. In a season of declining budgets, prevalence of “assessment, technology, and data” has led to diminished respect and support of the role of teachers in education.  And, private interests push for ownership rather than collaboration through opposition to open resource development.

The corporate educators of America continue to influence and direct public education policy in a way that allows the corporate sector to earn significant revenue at the taxpayer’s expense.

For argument’s sake, let’s say that I am doing the same thing. My paycheck comes out of your pocket. If you don’t like what I’m doing as a teacher, come on down to Albemarle High School and have a talk with me. If that doesn’t work, try my principal. Not happy with the outcome yet? We’ve got a Superintendent and an assistant or two who would be glad to discuss your problem with me. It’s happened before and it is a good thing. That’s accountability.

On the other hand, let’s say you believe a question on your child’s last standardized test was biased, or perhaps you have reason to believe the test score is inaccurate. Maybe you have a problem with single shot multiple choice assessment in general. Who do you go to about that? I doubt the office doors at Pearson are open to the public. You my taxpayer, parent, concerned citizen friend are out of luck.

All of this discussion leaves me feeling quite quixotic. What can we do? The policy makers at state and local levels use test data to justify their decisions this year and then explain them away the next when the latest round of data show they didn’t make AYP. Our educational and political leaders engage in rhetoric that promotes deeper thinking and learning, praising teachers for their efforts. When you follow the money, the direction of their words make little sense. They continue to support reforms driven by corporate interest by contracting with the very companies who stand to profit the most from test-driven, data-generating, technology based reforms.

In the world of education, we are the 99%; parents, students, teachers.  It's time for our voice to make a difference.

Are We Really Going There?

D.C. Schools Prepare for Nation's First Sex-Education Standardized Testing

Go ahead, click the link.  That title's not a joke.  Our capital's school system plans to use multiple choice standardized testing to gauge student knowledge in 5th, 8th, and 10th grades on a number of health related topics.  Officials created the test to comply with a recent policy enacted by the D.C. City Council.

Officials said that the test, which will also include questions on nutrition, mental health and drug use, is based on a provision of the Healthy Schools Act of 2010, which the D.C. Council passed to address health issues in the 75,000-student system.

But the legislation’s sponsor, council member Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), said the law requires only that the District produce an annual report describing progress on student health concerns. It does not mandate creation of another standardized test.

As silly as this sounds, every time the citizens of our nation sit back and allow passage of what appears to be reasonable education policy our schools take one more step down the slippery slope of insanity.  Did you hear about the 52 new standardized tests last year in Charlotte-Mecklenburg?  To implement the new Pay for Performance systems students took standardized tests in nearly every subject, including Yearbook!

Now, Virginia is among the bandwagon states that want to link teacher evaluation to student "growth and performance."  Here's the catch.  Can anyone argue that teachers should be rewarded for promoting student growth or assissted when they don't/can't?  Not at all.  Whether you refer to "growth models" or "value added", the idea that teachers should be judged on how much a student learns in a given year can't be refuted.  So no one pushes back against legislation that tries to enable this.

We're beginning to learn this year in Albemarle County about our new Teacher Performance Appraisal system.  We've started changing the system to comply with state requirements that at least forty percent of a teacher's evaluation is based on "student growth."  So far we haven't fallen prey to the testing craze, we don't have to specifically link all of our "growth goals" to standardized testing.  It's going to be hard.  Administrators will have to ensure that teachers set reasonable and rigorous enough goals.  They will have to make sure that standards are applied equally across the division.  Some teachers will have specific data to include (with SOL testing) while others can be more creative (music, art, Psychology, etc.)  In the end, it might look easier to just give the kids a test see how they do.

Standardized testing for Sex ed?  Really?  Wake up America.  Republican or Democrat, education policy isn't working, and until more people stand up and expose the consequences of current education policy we're likely to see more of the same until we finally break this system and start over from scratch.  That idea might sound good to some, but for the millions of students who are being broken down along with the system that is supposed to support them, that is not good enough.

That's the Truth Truth

That's the Truth Truth

My colleague in one of his latest posts gave some perspective on the idiocy of NCLB. We are back at work this week diligently attending meetings out the wazoo. In many of these conversations, talk turns to moving beyond the SOLs. On  Orientation night I ran into a parent of one of my kids from 1st semester and she mentioned her child's result on said SOL and I felt like the butler in this video. Like most teachers I wanted to be Rocky Balboa at the end of a fight and raise my hands in the air with my students and claim victory. No such luck. The truth is that moving beyond something as ginormous as the SOLs will be tough for many reasons.

In a post earlier this year I shared my state of mind when I got the SOL results. These determine whether or not our school makes AYP(we did not), how I am measured, and many other things. After 2nd semester's results came in I wasn't so much confused as I was frustrated and angry. SOLs have made me like Rocky in the later movies, my brain turning to mush from constant pounding. The punches coming from all this SOL/AYP talk. I just can't get this whole SOL conversation out of my head. It has become all consuming. Not because I focus only on SOL content or whether the school or division is making AYP. It's because like many teachers I think about the impact on individual kids. Too often when I see a parent or kid the test comes up. And it should. People should be outraged...protesting...calling for firings(not mine please)...or at the very least not buying Dixie Chick Albums.

What do these scores and test results mean? In other words..."what is the truth behind the SOL?"

I'll avoid the school or division wide discussion here. This Spring's results got my dander up(whatever that means) so with some colleagues we expended some effort back in June trying to find out what the truth was about how we really did. As we peeled back the layers of the testing onion it got pretty stinky at times. I thought sharing some of what we learned might illicit a degree of empathy from the non-teachers among you that went to school before we migrated to this other-worldish test driven planet. After all we teachers can't be malcontents all of the time and need some help.

At first glance the numbers appeared to show me 2 things about my kids. No surprises passing wise...but there was an pronounced drop in Pass Advanced(scores over 500). So I started to ask what exactly the difference was in how scores were labeled (Pass Advanced/Pass Proficient) and then how exactly the test scores were calculated(not that I hadn't asked this before mind you). What I found, or didn't find was troubling. The labels applied to results seem to have little to no value as an educational tool. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Back to my conversation with the parent where I shared that my own feelings on SOLs are pretty complex. I can only imagine the feelings and confusion involved for parents and kids. Testing generates one powerful thing. Data data data...I spent more time this year looking at my numbers than I did in the previous 10 combined. To be fair it could be said I was not looking at data this time but instead trying to find the answers I wanted. When those in the higher ranks of education policy engage in this practice I am highly critical. I tried to share with the parent a combination of brief history of SOLs and some analysis at the same time and somewhere communicate something resembling the truth. This included the fact that these numbers have to be interpreted and despite claims to the contrary, numbers can lie.

To begin a little background:
400 is passing proficient, 500 is pass advance, 600 is a perfect score.
Tests and questions in Social Studies EOC tests are not released.
The state adopts a cut score and this is a criterion referenced test(I am not sure those statements are compatible).
No one other than the people who make and grade the tests seem to fully understand everything about these tests and that seems to be the way they like it. The amazing lack of transparency is troubling.

So as I explored my results I was bothered by the logic of a grading system where one kid answers 35 correct and gets a 417, another student in the same class who gets a 415 but got 36 correct(different test versions). The company (Pearson) points this possibility out but again my brain is mush so I don't get it. So mush and all let's look at a random student who got a 492 and received a Pass Proficient rating. What does that mean? Not that much honestly from what I could tell.

On the World History I test there are 6 categories and a score of 50 means the students answered all of the questions in that category correctly. The amount of questions in each category varies by the weight of the category.
Here are the results for that student:
40 RC1 = Human Origins and Early Civilizations
38 RC2 = Classical Civilizations
50 RC3 = Postclassical Civilizations
45 RC4 = Regional Interactions
42 RC5 = Geography
34 RC6 = Civics and Economics

Usually the reports we get from Pearson are about as clear as Rocky's vision when he uttered the phrase "cut me Mick."

We get an overall number and some scores in the six separate categories. My favorite part is this section of the report that reads... "Reporting category scores, which are on a scale of 0-50, can be used to identify students' strengths and weaknesses. A score of 30 or above indicates a strength. A score of less than 30 indicates that the student may benefit from additional instruction in this area". So this particular student was judged as "strong" in each area but only received a Pass Proficient.

So why not Pass Advanced?
We asked the same thing when we saw the drop in scores and what kids got what scores. Here is what I found and it honestly came a little late to comfort me or any of my kids when they were judged as only "Proficient". As for what that means here is a link to the VDOE summary of performance level descriptors for each grade and end of course test(note the absence of Social Studies descriptions). These labels are supposed to assist parents, students and teachers in understanding how they did. But few understand what the labels actually mean or how they are determined. AYP for our school only factors in pass rates and is unaffected by these terms. But kids are and some took it pretty hard. Use of these without proper context would be as dangerous as a kid running with scissors and likely invalid when used to measure how we are doing. Is the same true for individuals? Some of my kids and parents were disappointed especially those who got a Pass Proficient. My disappointment stemmed from the drop in Pass Advanced scores and seeing the reaction of kids who have grown up with these tests and sadly measure themselves by how they do.

These pie charts graphically illustrate the data from my honors classes only.
What a difference a year makes! Before you call for my firing or resignation spend a second thinking about some of the stuff we've written about on this blog that affected our results. Adding an additional class to teachers and student workloads and switching to the 4x4...guess what. Looks like it made a difference. But so did the test.

The graph above shows the difference in 4x4, A/B and totals the last 2 years. Ouch is all I said. To an outsider it would be evidence we weren't doing as good of a job. But that is misleading to say the least. On the 4x4 we had to go fast and that meant cut some things out. The obvious choice is material that is not going to be assessed and that is a shame. I still felt I gave them a solid class that was rich and varied enough to feel they were prepared to do well. The test was made "more rigorous" which I welcome but it is apparent the test makers view of what to stress is different from the people who actually teach kids. (I 'll have to thank the State Super for the heads up on these shifts next time I see her) I had some really smart kids who knew their stuff and was as surprised as them when they didn't get a Pass Advanced.

Nothing I have found gives any meaning to the terms Pass Advanced/Pass Proficient in social studies and I have looked everywhere. But that is the first thing parents see that has any meaning to them. The difference is simply it says one is a 400(31 right) and one is a 500(53 right). We spent some time figuring out the exact scale(neither the state nor Pearson gave us this...maybe because they don't want people to know that kids only need to get 1/2 of the questions to pass). If they used the scale from previous years the drop in my kids scores would not have been as dramatic.

The tough part is many kids define their performance by these terms but don't even know what they mean. They might know(most do not) they can miss 29 questions and pass but incorrectly assume that the break from 400 to 500 is halfway to a perfect score. It is not. So the truth appears to be these labels and numbers have little substantive meaning. They just fall in from where they set the cut score for 400 and exist in a vacuum until they are pulled out by a bean counter somewhere or by parents who are unable to put these in proper perspective. So I hear frustration and confusion when results come up. Well what do you want for a couple million...?

Since "they" have yet to release more than 1 test in social studies(I have yet to see a test or question still being used beyond the things like the sparse examples found here)) and also do not provide specific feedback, I can't really tell what kids knew and what they didn't. Consequently I have no way of doing a better job preparing my 2nd semester kids by using results from 1st semester and no way to improve next year. This is the type of thing that says to me the SOLs and a great deal are not really for the benefit of the teachers or kids. This quote seemed fitting on so many levels of the testing approach in my state: "Is there anything that we are doggedly pursuing without regard to the actual impact it is having on our intended audience? If it only makes sense to us, it may not be making sense at all."

Staying with the theme of not making sense, the kid's detailed report reads something like this: "Question Description: Describe an essential belief of a major religion.---- Incorrect." So I can tell they missed a question about religion but not which religion or what specifically they didn't know. Was it Islam or Christianity? The founder or how they worship? Imagine one about civilization,...but was it Greece, Rome, Japan Inca...who knows? Throw in the silly graphics, poorly worded questions and inferences required and the misses start to add up. Pretty useless honestly other than just assigning a score and determining minimal competence for AYPs sake.

So here's the truth, truth... I think SOLs do more harm than good and I hate them. I hate people who promote their use and do so from a position far from their impact. I hate the fact people point to kids scores but not kids accomplishments. I hate I am being asked to move beyond the SOLs but still have to deal with issues like this. I hate how they are adding a "college ready" designation in some subjects...think for a second about the impact that'll have on kids who don't meet that mark. I hate that the term "failing schools" has gained footing and is commonly used but like an SOL score it carries little concrete meaning unless you fully understand it. As for measuring the kids performance, I'll stick to my more holistic measure...I call it a grade.
Hope some of this "truth" made sense and you didn't get too punchy towards the end.

Reforms Jump the Shark?

David Sirota penned something I read the other day that signaled the arrival of something I knew was coming. I doubt I am alone but I don't see many folks in the summer and reactions often take time to come in. High Stakes Test Mongers may finally have donned the water skis, that stupid life ring thing around their waists and jumped the shark. That phrase is an underused cultural reference but one we here at TU are very fond of.


Henry Winkler would roll over in his grave if he saw this headline. What...? He's still alive? Well that's good news. But it just bolsters my point. At what point do the reforms involving more testing lose momentum and do more harm then good in an effort to revive support? Winkler's career moves on without Fonzie and let's hope our reforms will be the same. It took Happy Days 10 years to run out of steam and I can only hope a similar fate for all this test driven reform.

My daughter is four. I know what four year olds are like. High stakes for her is whether or not we get a treat before she goes to bed or gets to watch a kids show after breakfast while Mom and dad get ready. I can only imagine her performance on any test might be connected to whether or not she got to listen to "I like to Move it, Move it" on the way to said test. Four year olds get tested for scoliosis and lice...not in academics. Argh! Sirota convincingly points out the flaws with a testing heavy approach to reform and skillfully uses Finland as a model of success. A worthwhile read. Finland has problems too, ....uh...well it is really cold much of the year in Finland. And they likely have several people that can't read even though everywhere I see has their literacy rate at 100%.

Seriously though comparisons such as this lose some of their teeth when one considers the multitude of factors that affect education. It might still be worthwhile to try and learn from each other in order to improve but rankings and comparisons used for motivation? I can't say that makes much sense. There is a new film on the subject. The Finland Phenomenon which no doubt presents a more in depth look at what makes Finland's educational system tick. It's not testing.

What we need here is a trusted social or cultural figure to stand up, say no, and inject some insanity to all this craziness. Someone as iconic as Richie Cunningham. Wait... who was driving that boat? Who? Seriously? So what you are saying is while it was Fonizie's who jumped that shark, Richie, actually helped by driving the boat? Man what is the world coming to? I'll tell you...a place where someone actually thinks giving four year olds important tests is a good idea.

Planning for Upcoming Year During the Summer

As I took everything down from the walls in my room in the hopes it could be painted for the first time in 15 years I remembered that my colleague and I had floated the idea of putting tables and chairs in our rooms to replace the desks. The furnishings we have are somewhat dated and showing their age(most have been in my room longer than me). We thought the table setup might allow for a more effective environment to learn. We'll see what happens with that plan.

In the meantime I thought I'd pass along this photo and invite anyone interested to add a fitting caption or two in the comments section. Good luck.

Testing and the Flux Capicitor

Imagine having the power to influence the future.  You could go back in time and undo all the wrongs and make things "right." Essentially that's what every teacher has when they administer the SOL test to their classes.  Of course that would only be if we received the proper feedback after testing.  The social studies EOC reports are less than helpful and seem designed to keep everyone involved as much in the dark as possible about what actually went on.  For my kids that pass I receive a nebulous number which means very little to anyone who lives in the real world and not the criterion referenced normed testing world.   I spent the better part of 6 hours trying to determine what pass proficient(400-499) and pass advanced(500-600) mean only to discover they mean very little.
 Most movies I recall dealing with time travel involve the moral dilemma of changing the future and touch upon the unforeseen consequences of trying to do right and fix the past.  Looking at my results I am not sure I would actually know what to go back and do better.  For me movies on time travel tend to be predictable and boring...my hope is to avoid the same fate for this post.  My recent SOL results have been anything but predictable.   The most notable film was Back to the Future.  That is exactly where we are headed with all this testing.  Backwards.  No one except Dr. Emmett Brown(Christopher Lloyd) knew exactly how the Flux Capacitor worked and it caused a bunch of trouble for Marty(Miachael J. Fox), these tests are much the same.  Difference here is we don't see them so we wouldn't know what to fix.

I observed recently while my students took the World History up to 1500 SOL test.  It was a painful experience and makes you feel about as powerless as one could possibly be. This feeling is one which today's teachers are growing more familiar with.  As I monitored them with the other proctors I could not help but imagine they were missing all kinds of questions as they took the 60 question online assessment.  Surely they were making stupid mistakes on content we have drilled on in the previous weeks and more importantly learned earlier in the year.  These were smart kids and most wanted to do well on this SOL and yet somehow I could just sense they weren't....ARGH!  Much of this anxiety stemmed from the results of last semester's test, which were unexpectedly lower than they had been in the past. 

So there's your plot for the movie.  The protagonist... the teachers... against this antagonist testing culture.  I could have walked around and looked at the test and maybe grunted or found some other way to inform them of their mis-steps.  But I did not, which is unlike what appears to have happened in DC and elsewhere.   Believe it or not most schools are actually staffed by ethical people who follow the rules.  Though these individuals are overlooked by the news in favor of the student punching, criminal, just plain bad people teachers who do sometimes hold jobs in our profession.  But back to the testing ...the whole process is cloaked in so much secrecy it can sometimes be rather dumb.  I'll admit I am not even certain what they are being asked and how it is being asked and I teach the course! 

During the test I sat stone faced with the other proctors while they worked and my mind played out all the scenarios.  I knew many of them were missing questions.   Would that mean little Susie will fail?  What about little Johnny...he's not that good with tests and can't concentrate for more than 5 minutes.  I know I had asked similar questions of them recently in the run up to the test, but I had likely done so in a slightly different way(I'd say better). Will that mess them up?  For those that don't know these tests are in fact rather easy for most kids.   Higher level kids know this and as a result few do any "real" preparation.  I did ask them to take a post SOL survey on how many had "studied" beyond the reviews we had done in class.  Only 7 of 29 students raised their hands.   Awesome.  Speaking generally all they care about is the test and yet, it appears they don't care.  Despite being "easy" to pass it appears hard to receive a Pass Advanced score.  And what of the kids whose skill set means any form of testing is a challenge?  I have found too often their level or preparation quite similar.  But too many of them do not do as well.  Thinking more globally on the impact the weeks leading up to the test we went into test shutdown mode and these weeks after have been like waiting in line at the grocery store(all you want to do is get out).  Tell me again how this is learning?

Thanks to the State Board of Ed what they did now affects how I am evaluated.  Am I mad?  What do you think?  All I know is this test doesn't really hold them accountable.  School yes, teacher yes, them no.  When they miss a bunch of easy questions it hurts me not them(and the scores say they did miss questions).  I would be hurt no matter the result if they did poorly which was the case for some of them.  These kids wanted to do well but not quite as much as I wanted them to do well.  I think that's part of what makes them kids.  The only impact from recent value added legislation so far is that I am more disillusioned with the whole process.  And keep in mind this I am referring mostly to the highest achieving population at our school.  Our district ranks pretty well compared to the rest of the state. So does this really measure me as a teacher?   Click Here to Link to an executive summary that was sent along with individual results.  It is an overall summary sent to each teacher measured by the assessments.  It is highly scientific and I think I understood it properly.    It was signed by John Winger.  Seriously though... I questioned my impact when I saw a big drop in Pass Advanced scores for my kids.  I'll save my analysis for another post but the process of analysis was mind numbing.  One might understand my frustration when you see there is nothing on the VDOE site that references or even defines the terms Pass Advanced/Pass Proficient/Fail  for social studies End of Course Tests.  Click here for Detailed Performance Level Descriptors

Compared to last year the message was clear...overall average-down, number of perfect scores-way down, pass advanced-down, the trend is uniform and absolute.  My results were similar to those from my first semester students though my year long classes did perform slightly better(Click Here to see my reaction earlier in the year)  Most teachers shared  similar experiences.   One senseless revision to the testing process is the fact that when they are done I now read from a script when they submit their test.  Hypothetically speaking if a student has left 3 questions blank and says they are done, I am forbidden from saying something like "Hey there Bobby-Joe, you left two questions blank, come on now... let's finish up and maybe answer those last couple...what do you say?"  I know, I know a kid that leaves questions blank deserves what they get.  But it could be they have to use the restroom and just want to finish.  Maybe they can no longer stand being in a gym filled with 200+ kids.  Maybe their parents got in another drunken brawl last night and for the moment at least this test doesn't matter much.  Get my point?  Yet I cannot do the most human thing and remind them to answer all the questions.  How does that assess what they really know or even what the teacher has given them in terms of value?

This test and all the tests leave much to be desired as does how we value and use them.  I'll play devil's advocate and ask why since 2000 they have only released 1 full test and only 13 additional questions in Social Studies  (This page shows every other testing area has released tests).  For some reason Earth Science and History are kept locked inside Fort Knox Kentucky.   Sad to think this is the best we can do.  I know we could do better.  I have and do all year long in my classroom yet the last weeks schools are consumed by this maelstrom of testing.  The disjoint between those IN the classroom working with kids and those IN control of policy only continues to grow wider.  Who is at fault?  Based on everything I read it is the opinion of policymakers that the problem must be at the bottom. That mentality is our biggest problem.   If you've been down with the Underground then I think you have a pretty good idea how I feel about that.  So if I could travel in time what would I do?  I'd don't think I'd go backwards so much as forwards....That would then give me the proper insights to affect positive change today.  I'd find that bolt of lightning that finally saved Marty and generated enough electricity to propel the DeLorean to 88 MPH and use it to steer our schools in a better direction.  Towards the future.   Deep stuff ... I know...


Hey the Underground is gonna be at half speed for summer so there will be a drop in the frequency of our posts.  We'll do our best to maintain the quality but come on...we are teachers after all.

Test Driven Creativity

May Madness is Here!  Testing season is officially open.  My third grade daughter told me just the other day that her school had a pep rally.  Confused about why an elementary school without sports or other competitive activities would have a pep rally, I would find out quite matter of factly, "for SOLs dad."

I can't find fault with the measures that our elementary schools take to encourage students to perform well on their end of year tests.  I've yet to really figure out if there are any incentives (external or internal) for the students to perform well, but I know for certain that our teachers and schools face quite a bit of external incentive for their students to perform well.  That probably explains the trio of videos I want to share this week that my son shared with me last week.

This one is a parody of "Tik Tok" by Ke$ha.  I have to hand it to the band director that created this one.  Well made and quite entertaining.  If you're out there, I'm not poking fun, I admire your ability and creativity.  It does pain me that there is a need to direct this talent toward motivating students to do their best on standardized tests.


The next video comes from the same creative mind.  Geared toward a middle school crowd, who better to parody that Justin Bieber.  "Benchmark, Benchmark, Benchmark ooohhhhh".  At forty-one seconds, we are able to see what has become the "holy grail" of education, the completed bubble sheet.



I'm not quite as much a fan of this next one.  I can't quite explain it, maybe it's the song, but the mood of this video just seems so much more "Brick-in-the-Wall" Pink Floyd than "Teach Your Children Well" Crosby, Stills, and Nash.  These are fifth graders ready to put on their "Test Taker Face."


I don't intend to be offensive toward any of the students or teachers who created these videos. Your creativity and excellence in production is quite evident. The reason these videos stand out so much for me is because I've seen first hand from my own children in elementary school, from other elementary schools that I've visited, and in the high school where I teach just how these standardized tests take over a school and bring it to a stand still. Activities, educational and otherwise cease to accommodate and make room for the sacred space of testing.

The Education Market

Is there a market for education?

If you keep up with the news from the education world, a number of influential members of the business world are ready to put this question to the test.  From Zuckerberg and Gates to Klein and Black, whether through donations and special projects or appointment to administrative positions, we are experiencing much high profile involvement in the way public education functions in the United States.  I won't doubt their motives, but I find it hard to believe in their efficacy.

The focus on education zooms in during crises, and the first decade of the millenium has been one of crisis.  Across the nation, unemployment has grown, and school budgets have shrunk.  We face pressure to prepare students for a new economy with fewer resources than before and the task seems impossible.

Many districts believe that the innovation and efficiency driven/profit maximizing strategies of the business world may be the solution to our problems in education.  I'm baffled why.  If asked to explain why we are in a financial crisis today, would most people point the fingers at our schools or our business and financial leaders? 

Yet for some, Superman has an MBA, or some other business world credentials.  Superman is an entrepreneur who can market an idea.  He is skilled at the art of PR and looks really good on paper.  He is ready to prepare students for the 21st century by placing the latest and greatest technology in their hands.  He collaborates with like-minds and creates a network of groupthink while dismissing critics as backward or stuck.  And with a reputation built on good ideas and courageous execution, he moves on to the next great thing before the fruits of his labor are ripe (or perhaps rotten).

Another consequence of the "educational marketplace"-- focusing more on PR and marketing than on what really works.  I recently read a blog post titled Educational Programs That Work: Funding the National Writing Project.  Recently, the federal government cut funding for this program and educational bloggers have rallied to support the National Writing Project.  I found the following paragraph from this post particularly relevant to the issue of the "education market."

The National Writing Project makes an easy target because it is a relatively quiet, modest program. Despite nearly 4 decades of success, they don't use the hyperbolic rhetoric that marks much of the current discussion around education reform. They don't oversell what they do, or oversimplify the amount of work required to enact meaningful change. And unlike many of the newer crop of educational reformers, when they talk about helping kids learn, their conversation is shaped by people who have direct experience working with kids. People working with the National Writing Project tend to focus less on marketing their work, and more on actually doing the work of transforming classrooms through day after day of thoughtful, reflective practice.

Districts are increasingly pressured to "buy into" this "education market" because of the political decisions of state and local governments.  The nationwide attack on teachers serves to undermine their credibility to measure student performance and improvement.  Accountability has been outsourced.  While teachers (and for that matter, we can include everyone in the school district) are expected to provide instruction, the only meaningful measures of accountability are administrated by testing companies.  (Several recent articles do a great job of pointing out the flaws not only in testing, but in the testing industry itself- here and here)  

Textbook publishers have long taken the criticism of profiting in the education market, but today, technology for testing and managing student and teacher data increasingly takes the lion's share of public education funding.  (Many of which are already tied to long-time textbook publishers). 

This is our problem.  I'm a teacher, and I sell my subject to students.  I motivate them by trying to unleash their natural sense of curiosity on the content of the topic that I am supposed to teach (or or should that read "they are supposed to learn").  I'm not good at selling myself, or my methods to anyone uninterested or unable to spend a little time inside the walls of my classroom or to talk with my students about what we do.  Unfortunately, in today's educational climate, the ability to "market" an idea is beginning to trump the ability to effectively engage the 21st century learner.

2012 or 2014?

As the Underground wraps up Spring Break I find my mind wandering and relax watching ALL of the Masters so pardon my lack of focus with this post. But I am reminded the "end" is near.

I recall just last week my classes sped through our unit on Mesoamerica before one of many looming deadlines. We watched one of my favorite videos on the Maya and it included a segment on how the cycle of creation comes to an end and the Mayan Long Count expires on December 21st, 2012. The end of days. It sparked some interesting discussion and we chose to ignore the potential Federal Government Shutdown and its impact. Most people are now familiar with the doomsday predictions for when the Mayan Calendar ends. I found it funny how both political parties are spinning out similar predictions about the effects of a shutdown. What's the connection? Great question(sorry not on the test though).

Flashback 50 years ..."First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind..." these words came from President John F. Kennedy in May of 1961. Powerful rhetoric that put the heat on everyone involved to achieve this goal. I spoke recently to man man(who asked to remain anonymous) who after staging moon landings and covering up the JFK assassination said that if we make it to 2013, we might not make it much past 2014. That's the year when the much maligned No Child Left Behind legislation demands that all children be proficient in reading in Math. "Who's the we" I asked. Did he mean schools? He mumbled something about President Obama's proposed revisions to the law and how he and Congress weren't likely to do much better and then pressed a flashy red thing on his pen(did I mention he was dressed in black?).

The 2001 NCLB Act was President George W. Bush's(erroneously referred to in all failing public schools as Bush Jr.) call to action to make our schools better. NO child would be left behind in an ambitious plan reminiscent of the days of the Space Race. Among the authors of this bill were current House Speaker John Boehner and President Kennedy's late brother Ted. The bill did something pretty amazing, it took a well intentioned effort at reform and created a federal act that messed everything up. In fact it makes many of us teachers feel analogous to the Russians during the Space Race. I'll borrow heavily here from Gerald Bracey and his "THE SEVEN DEADLY ABSURDITIES OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND"
critique but it went about things the wrong way. Actually many wrong ways...a mistake that continues today. So states and schools have chimed in with their own ominous prediction when most of their schools are deemed "failing" and kids allowed to transfer. While Bracey rants a bit at the end( something I do well myself), pardon him as he illustrates much of what went wrong. Imagine if Kennedy(had he not been killed by the Oswald, the mafia, CIA, Castro, Russians, man on the grassy knoll or all of the above) had punished an entire agency or dept at NASA when one engineer miscalculated something? Somehow we made it to the moon but where is NCLB and now Race to the Top taking us? Another great questions...ask again at the end of class.

As a young teacher in 2001 I paid no attention to the law. Did anyone in schools really? That changed when scores started to matter. Admitting some good has come from the law it is the unintended effects that are frightening. Will it bring the end or at least contribute to the undoing of our public schools as some predict? I am uncertain but I have grave concerns about where we continue to be driven by Federal legislation intended to improve our schools. In my view new reform ideas are even less likely to realize improvement than the old. Where they succeed is making schools focus too much on testing, demoralizing our educators and potentially undoing much of the good we have done educationally the last century. When others ask why I oppose a lot reform they overlook the reality that there are just some things teachers know and understand that others cannot.

Bracey gets this and also talked in a separate post about the "schools suck bloc" and in some small way connects the title of this post, my unfocused rantings and actual events. Schools can only do so much and in that sense they are just like my unit on Mesoamerica. Set some realistic goals, make a plan, and get going. Just don't forget about the people involved. A rocket and a kid are different...though both can go off course without warning sometimes.

I have not fared well in predicting the future but I will say one thing for certain. Kids, schools, teachers, even our federal budget all face an uphill climb at times and we don't need any scary partisan rhetoric or cumbersome legislation making the hill steeper. Is 2012, 2014 or tomorrow the end? Another great question. I have to go back to the last government shutdown and I guess that also depends on what your meaning of is, is.That's for a later post