Part of the Problem or Solution

Last week we reported on the new Virginia plan for meeting federal waiver requirements from No Child Left Behind. Pass rates were set at 82, 68, 52, and 45 percent for Asians, whites, latinos, and blacks respectively. After talking to several other educators, the state's explanation-- "if we look at where these children are starting from, we're making efforts to move them forward"-- sounds somewhat reasonable.  Maybe you remember a little of your "forms of reasoning" from philosophy. If the premise is true and the logic is sound then the conclusion is true.  For example-- all birds fly, penguins are birds, therefore penguins must fly.  We could argue all we want about how sound the reasoning is, but anyone can see that penguins don't fly.  We got something wrong.

To all of my educator friends-- if you think the logic behind this plan is sound, just look at the conclusion, something is wrong.  If not the logic, then our premise. It would do our system well if instead of defending such an egregious plan we would step back and figure out how we got here because somehow good intentioned efforts at progress just resulted in some pretty serious regress.

First, the ever present statement that "teachers are the most important factors in student achievement." Most everyone who uses this line fails to add the caveat of the most important in school factor. Many out of school factors impact student achievement. Remind policy-makers and other high-ranking ed officials of this and the reply goes something like this-- "we only have the ability to control what is in our power to control"-- leading us to complacently accept the reality that no one is addressing the issues outside of school that impact our students. So yes, students are coming into our classrooms with different abilities, many times as a result of their environment.

Second, if students are coming into our schools (their starting point according to the Virginia Superintendent of Education) at such various levels of performance, why don't we try to find the reason. When colleges find that too many incoming freshmen are in need of remedial classes, don't we first look to the high schools from which they graduated as the reason. Why satisfy ourselves with the excuse of lower starting points instead of asking why these children are already underperforming by the time we get them.

I have a feeling that race may not be the answer. If it is, what does that mean? It means that there is some inherent difference in ability based on race. We know this isn't true, so what else could be the cause? George Bush is famous for saying that we need to fight the "soft bigotry of low expectations", but I don't know who added "instead of addressing the hard bigotry of  poverty." Why are we still separating these children into categories in 2012? Won't we find the greatest correlation between school performance and economics rather than race?

In the end, consider the national narrative regarding education for the last ten years. We've increasingly focused on racial differences in performance and ignored the harsh reality that economic differences have the greatest impact. Last year, when the Teaching Underground attended the NCSS national convention, we listened to Geoffrey Canada's keynote address. He shared his heuristic on decision-making in his Harlem Kids Zone-- "when in doubt, do what the rich people do."

In this ongoing debate between so-called education reformers-- the people who want to measure everything, expand test-based accountability, evaluate teachers on growth models, get unions out of the way-- and people like us at the Teaching Underground, we're often cast as a voice for the status quo.

Come by my classroom one day and look out at the brilliant black students that are taking my AP Psychology course and explain to them why it's a good idea to have a lower pass-rate for "their people." When you put it like that, status quo doesn't sound too bad.  But then again, maybe the progress we're being sold isn't really progress at all.

When Numbers Betray Reality

Target pass rate of 82% for Asians. Target pass rate of 68% for whites.  52% for Latinos and 45% for blacks.  Those are the new performance goals for math in the state of Virginia and it's good enough for a waiver freeing us from the untenable mandates of No Child Left Behind.

No matter how reasonable the explanation sounds, the result-- 82% pass rate target for Asians, 45% pass rate target for blacks-- is absolutely unreasonable.  My psychology class is in the middle of a unit on Testing and Intelligence and we looked at group differences in I.Q. scores last class.  We discussed the 1994 book The Bell Curve and how sometimes inferences about race and ability based on testing results are seriously flawed.  A diagram from the book shows overlapping normal curves of I.Q. scores between Asians, whites, hispanics, and blacks from right to left on the curve.

I was shocked to hear news of the new Virginia targets that evening after viewing this diagram in class.  NPR's All Things Considered ran the story titled "Firestorm Erupts Over Virginia's Education Goals." The story stood out to me after hearing the percentage target rates that matched the order of I.Q. scores presented in the diagram.

We listened to the audio in class. I didn't anticipate how awkward the transition would be. "We've just listened to people talking about Asians and whites and latinos and blacks, but when you look to your left and look to your right you see people with names, your friends. And I can't look at any of you and say that I expect any less of you because of who you are."

Is it reasonable for an entire state to articulate that our expectations of performance are different depending on your race?

For over a decade now, schools, divisions, and entire states have struggled to prove their merit based on the primary metric of the standardized test. Percentages, percentiles, and pass rates have surpassed the noble goals of civic responsibility, critical thinking, responsibility, and achievement.  Never mind that some schools don't even have high enough numbers of "sub-groups" to qualify in that reporting category, we've found a way to numerically rate and therefore compare quality from one location to the next.

When schools started meeting the required pass rates of state testing, No Child Left Behind came along and labelled them as failing because not every reporting category met the benchmark pass rate.  It essentially created an all-or-nothing system.  Success didn't matter unless it was complete success.  Any partial failure became the character of the entire school.

Expectations of perfection looming in the next few years prompted the offer of waivers for NCLB. The education world has always promoted an "every child can succeed" attitude. You can't  achieve excellence in this field without that attitude. But most teachers learn within the first year of teaching that just believing that every child can succeed doesn't make every child succeed.

We hear that new state pass rates are set with the understanding that these racial groups aren't starting at the same place.  So we want to look for growth.  We hear that what's important isn't where we finish, it's how much improvement we've accomplished.

Either way, we're left with numbers. 82, 68, 52, and 45, and they define success depending on your race.

If that doesn't wake you up to the damage that our reliance on test based accountability has done to education and American society I'm not sure what will.  Welcome back to 1954 Ms. Brown.

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)

Merit Pay Considered in Albemarle?

Teaching is sharing, not competing.

In a seemingly unimportant story about a meeting between the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the County School Board about compensation strategies the following screamed out at me:  "Supervisors also asked the board to consider a merit-based compensation scale. "

Come again?  One would think that something as important as Merit Pay or Merit-Based Pay would fly a little farther up the news flag pole locally but sadly that is not the case.  No worries, Teaching Underground has you covered.   In fact we've had you covered on the topic of Merit Pay something like six times already.  We will say again with a loud and unwavering voice that making kids part of the pay equation is a bad idea.   Don't believe us?  Keep reading.

"Merit Pay" seems like a Panacea for all that ails schools performance wise, but also financially.
Can this be so?  The concept is to boost student achievement and improve our schools using bonuses for teachers.   Many are supporting this flawed concept.   Common sense and mounting evidence suggests Merit Pay is not only a failed solution but that it is not even an improvement.   For this idea to be suggested is contrary to what most educators already know.

Nashville schools were part of the most scientific evaluation to date and after 3 years of study Matthew Springer, executive director of the National Center on Performance Incentives announced the following:.

 “We tested the most basic and foundational question related to performance incentives — Does bonus pay alone improve student outcomes? – and we found that it does not.”  

I tend to be wary of "centers for" things but it seems prudent to point out the above name seems to suggest they would be looking for evidence that it did positively affect student performance.   The RAND corporation's mission is to improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.  It might seem RAND has failed on the front end part of their mission here.  Meanwhile New York City, Chicago along with the State of Texas tried and abandoned such plans after showing no improvement.  But here we are.  Still dealing with faddish cavalier approaches to reform.   Education Historian and expert Diane Ravitch has a better sense of things and doesn't mince words here on the subject.

Bad  reform ideas seem more contagious than good ones.

No Child Left Behind and now Race to the Top pushed by our Education Secretary Arne Duncan fail to comprehend the complexity of what motivates all of us who teach.  A uniform system of pay does indeed do little to motivate us yet we show up every day and good teachers have yet to beat down the local government or statehouse door calling for such a shift.  We teach not to be rich but to make a difference.  Fair pay and work conditions are far more important.  It is exceedingly difficult to measure teacher effectiveness and quality and designing a valid system is elusive so we settle for something else. The only result of PfP is the further demoralization of teachers and more reliance and focus on standardized exams which are debatable in terms of their measure of showing teacher quality.  Something they were not designed to do.    The United States is constantly compared to Finland where they've focused instead on reduced class size, boosted teachers’ salaries, and eliminated most standardized testing.   It would appear we are resolved to forge our own reform path come hell or high water.  It is hard to turn the reform train around.

We could separate Merit Pay and Value Added(another topic we've covered pretty well) and they both amount to Pay for Performance.  You can pay me for what I do, or, you can pay me for what my students do.  The latter is a bad a idea and no sound example of the former truly exists.  That does't change the fact that current compensation practices are inadequate and potentially outdated.  I can only hope is the same will soon be true for Merit Pay.   Most teachers simply ask they be paid what they are really worth something that is rarely the case.

In the meantime we plan on doing our best to "educate" our local representatives on the subject with the hope that Merit Pay might not progress far beyond consideration.    We'd encourage you to voice whatever our your view is as well. 

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?

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.

Victory or Defeat

The current General Assembly of Virginia is considering a law to eliminate third and fifth grade Standards testing in Science and Social Studies. (Senate Bill 185)  The bill comes from a Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee report on "Promoting Third Grade Reading Performance in Virginia."

This legislation could be a positive move toward acknowledging the pitfalls of so much standardized testing of students, but unfortunately the tone of the legislation points to other motives.  The rationale stated for this change is that eliminating the focus on Science and Social Studies testing, teachers and schools can focus more on the basic skills of reading and math.

Sen. John Miller (D) is quoted as saying "I think it's more important that the students be able to learn to read history textbooks than just to test them."  True, that without a foundation in reading and math, students will later struggle with History and Science.  But, current legislation creates such "high stakes" for testing that elimination of Social Studies and Science testing will certainly lead teachers and schools to de-emphasize these subjects.

Research shows that students who fail the third grade test are fifty percent more likely to fail in fifth grade.  Officials doubt that Virginia will reach the goal of a 95% pass rate under the current framework.  So what are the pass rates?  Currently, rates are between 80% and 86% (83% in 2010).  This means that 15%-20% of Virginia students are not reading at an acceptable level (as measured by standardized tests for which schools and teachers, not individual students are held accountable).

What about the 85% who do learn how to read in 3rd grade and will continue to improve into 5th grade?  In a one-size-fits-all (maybe even one-test-fits-all) system, those students are likely to suffer through redundant and unnecessary additional practice in order to make sure reading and math scores are acceptable, instead of widening their learning into other subjects.

Here's a solution.  Test the third graders in math and reading.  Then, instead of punishing their teachers or schools, provide the resources needed to help these students achieve while also providing them and their peers a well-rounded education.  I am glad that third and fifth graders may have two less tests to take in the coming years, but I fear that my children will attend elementary schools that have become well-oiled math and language arts factories geared to produce the best test scores before sending their students on to the next testing machine.

*this bill passed the Senate on January 24, 33-7

1989-2011: School Reform Going in Circles, Going Anywhere?

In 1989 President George H. W. Bush brought together the nation's governors in my hometown for a summit on education.  I was just starting as a high school junior and skipped school that day with my father in the hope I'd see the President speak at UVA's University Hall.  I ended up back at school a short time later after being denied entry.  The doors were shut just as I reached the front of the line.  I was told at the door that even though I had the hard to come by ticket, it was common to oversell the tickets to such events to ensure the President spoke to a full house.

Twenty two years later it is clear that policies that grew out of that summit caused a massive shift in educational power from localities and states to the federal government. The climate of schools then and now and who they worry about satisfying differs a great deal. The economic turmoil of the 1970s and 1980s became linked to an educational crisis.  Whether that link actually existed or not.  The same is true today.  This belief brought about major changes.  Those changes now permeate daily life inside that same building I returned to that September day.   The federal mandates have rained down onto localities, often without the needed funds.   Among the biggest things that that summit produced was reliance and faith in testing as a means to remedy the now accepted belief that public schools were in big trouble.  A direction begun and driven home under Bush then Clinton and again under Bush and now under Obama.  Change is good when things get better.  But the opposite is equally true.  Change can be bad.  The summit produced six goals(later expanded to 8) all of which have merit. 

1. Annually increasing the number of children served by preschool programs with the goal of serving all “at-risk” 4-year-olds by 1995. 
2. Raising the basic-skills achievement of all students to at least their grade level, and reducing the gap between the test scores of minority and white children by 1993. 
3. Improving the high school graduation rate every year and reducing the number of illiterate Americans.
4. Improving the performance of American students in mathematics, science, and foreign languages until it exceeds that of students from “other industrialized nations.”
5. Increasing college participation, particularly by minorities, and specifically by reducing the current “imbalance” between grants and loans.
6. Recruiting more new teachers, particularly minority teachers, to ease “the impending teacher shortage,” and taking other steps to upgrade the status of the profession.

President Bush(center) with Governor Clinton(far right)

It is the pursuit of the goals that has seen less agreement.  We've detailed the folly of that course ad nauseum but the over-influence of big testing companies, lack of research based evidence, and more than a decade of efforts without substantive results ought to mean that this approach has run its course.  Instead we are in deeper and have perhaps literally invested too much in testing to give it up.  In truth there have been few new ideas and true reform has been set aside in order to plow forward with testing, school accountability and privatization.

1983's A Nation at Risk report was the spark that lit the failing schools need fixing fire.  Funny thing about that report and its' recommendations.  It appears the Feds only read the cliffs notes versions and skipped some other important parts.  It certainly is something we'll have to revisit down the road and warrants more than a cursory review from everyone in involved with education.  There were more than a few phrases that caught my eye:

-the urgent need for improvement, both immediate and long term-how's that going almost 30 years later?
-we refer to public, private, and parochial schools and colleges alike- and what is actually getting  "reformed"
-The tests should be administered as part of a nationwide (but not Federal) system of State and local standardized tests.    Very interesting
-assistance of the Federal Government should be provided with a minimum of administrative burden and intrusiveness.  I think some important people missed that point?

The 1990s saw this testing approach gain traction and support in both the statehouse and inside the beltway.  It soon became clear there was money to be made.    All of a sudden politicians, urged on by large companies now with a vested interest in promoting this direction started to take notice.   Cynics would say lawmakers did so for either political or financial reasons.  Others might say the rhetoric was just too irresistible.  What began as basic skills testing is states like Texas blossomed into testing in competencies in periodic grades all along the path to graduation.

This reached its zenith under the heavily publicized but little understood Elementary and Secondary Education Act(NCLB).  In the wake of the September 11th attacks most domestic policy remained 2nd tier at best.  This law was a notable exception.  No one gave the long term consequences much thought.  When passed the Feds generally left it up to states to set marks and measure these standards.  When asked if this approach compromised the law then Secretary of Education Rod Paige said the following:

"No. In our country we made that decision when the Constitution was drawn up. This is a state responsibility. This isn't a federal responsibility to set standards for states. So that argument's already been settled."

At the same time in 2002 noted testing expert from UCLA  James Popham said of testing:

"Most educational policymakers, state board members, members of legislatures, are well intentioned, and install accountability measures involving these kinds of tests in the belief that good things will happen to children. But most of these policymakers are dirt-ignorant regarding what these tests should and should not be used for. And the tragedy is that they set up a system in which the primary indicator of educational quality is simply wrong.     ....   We have to create tests that really do reflect how well teachers have been teaching. Those kinds of tests will allow, I think, public education to survive. The kind of tests that we're using now is setting up public educators for absolute failure"

Rod Paige and Arne Duncan both led large urban school systems and it would be fair to say the issues they faced there might not have been exactly the same as most districts in the nation.  For certain there were and are kids in every school in our nation that are historically underserved.  But testing has proven far from an ideal solution.  Many educators contend the unintended consequences have damaged our schools and hurt kids.   Resistance to such test heavy approached was and is dismissed as defense of the status quo.  This works given the accepted assumption that schools are and have been failing our nation for some time.

So where are we now and where are we headed.  It was a comment by Geoffrey Canada which got my attention.  His close contact with influential national leaders led him to observe  "There is no plan".  The comment referenced whether or not the feds or states had a solution to fix this perceived problem.   Canada has done much to help kids and no doubt saved many.   He's a common sense leader who was connected to teachers, school and what was really happening.  A rare combination.   In another address  “You want to save your kids? You’re going to have to do it yourself,” he said. “Nobody’s coming.”  Yet the Feds came.  And so did the states.  It started way back when and now appears the new paradigm in education is top down, test heavy and completely reliant on measurable results.  The public seems to demand such outcomes if efforts and funding of public education is to be justified and seen as worthwhile.

 The quest to remedy what we are and were doing wrong has led to the neglect and in some cases abandonment of what we were doing right.   No doubt some things are better.  I agree with much of what Mr. Bush called for 22 years ago.  But some things are worse.  The narrowing of goals, curriculum and focus on misguided measures of quality are not good things.  In my state of Virginia 3% if school division made AYP in 2010-2011.  If they really believed that meant something they'd fire everyone wouldn't they?

We can now tell whether a student has acquired needed information.  But we might be losing sight of what makes a good school, a good teacher or a good education in our one size fits all approach.   The lofty well intentioned individuals who affect school governance have increased control over what we do and how we do it.  My only hope is that as we move forward I and all the other teachers will not be shut out of the conversation like I was shut out of U-Hall in 1989.  I wonder if our state leaders were once again called to Charlottesville if the rhetoric would appear any different.  Or would the call for reform simply reflect a consensus that our schools are in trouble and for the good of the nation something must be done. 

Can a school board member and some principals stop the insanity?

The answer to that Question:  They can try.  The TU has been vocal about our stance on testing, value added, and the like.  As influential as we are, we realize it will take a powerful shift to change course to a more sensible path.  It will also take large numbers of people.  Where do you stand?  Do you buy into all the testing talk?  We certainly don't.  Some recent news has lent a lot of support to our position and if nothing else makes us feel better.

Ask yourself this:  Have you ever seen any of the tests that measure student performance?   I have taught for years with such a test and have yet to see more than a handful of questions and the outdated released version.  Now, such tests will most likely directly affect how I am evaluated.  More questions arise like how specifically does this make me a better teacher and how does it help kids learn?  Is this approach working after decades of effort? 

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently spoke at the NCSS conference in DC and called for continued accountability.  From his speech(and for the record we rarely shout):


"Testing advocates are often outshouted, however, by those who view testing as the problem. They say that testing—especially fill-in-the-bubble, high-stakes standardized testing—is a flawed tool for evaluating students—let alone teachers.
Now it is absolutely true that many of today's tests are flawed. They don't measure critical thinking across a range of content areas. They are not always aligned to college and career-ready standards. They don't always accurately measure individual student growth.
And they certainly don't measure qualities of great teaching that we know make a difference—things like classroom management, teamwork, collaboration, individualized instruction and the essential and remarkable ability to inspire a love of learning."

I preferred Ravitch myself.  

Francis Gary Powers probably failed a test

Ever ask why these tests are so secret?   I do all the time.  I wish they'd guard our unmanned spy aircraft this closely.  Then we wouldn't be looking at photos of one sitting in Iran right now. Who is holding these tests and all this testing accountable.  Answer: Not enough people. 

This week has seen some people above the TUs pay grade and level of influence become much more vocal in opposition to such measures.  Maybe the TU should do as Iran did this week and call the Swiss ambassador to protest.  It would likely have the same result.   But Iran is a problem.  We're not.


The links below will take you one the TU's favorites, The Answer Sheet and two posts that share the story of a school board member who arranged to take the FCAT in Florida.  His story is very telling.  

Part I
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/when-an-adult-took-standardized-tests-forced-on-kids/2011/12/05/gIQApTDuUO_blog.html
Follow-Up
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/revealed-school-board-member-who-took-standardized-test/2011/12/06/gIQAbIcxZO_blog.html#pagebreak


This story out of New York where public school principals are publicly opposing their state's newly developed teacher evaluation system. The whole issue of accountability, value added and the merits of testing is starting to be called into question at an increasing rate.  Thank goodness.   Hope it is not too late.  The only rule from psychometricians I know about is do not use tests for purposes other than that for which they were intended.

All this is a step in the right direction but it will take more teachers(like the TU), more principals and most importantly parents to stop the insanity.

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.

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.