Virginia's Candidates for Governor on Education

If you’re unfamiliar with the 2013 race for Virginia Governor, this statement from Larry Sabato sums up why this election is so peculiar:

“These two are running against the only people they could beat”

No doubt, we’ve got two terrible choices. All politics aside, we’ve decided to look at both candidates' education platform. I could never endorse either of these two as a candidate, but there are significant differences in their plans for education.

Ken Cuccinelli

Cuccinelli’s plan begins by pointing out the obvious. Despite a history of success in Virginia schools, our biggest problem lies in racial, economic, and geographic disparities in student outcomes. His plan is based on four principles described below.

1) Empowerment

In order to ensure all of our students have the best possible education, we must empower

parents with the option to determine the best academic setting for their child’s education.

One could argue we already do this. Parents can discern from many rankings (including the states A-F rating) what schools are good. Once they’ve done so, they simply move into that district. Yes, that is ludicrous, but only in its extreme from the idea that parents can simply choose a good school. Factors of economics and parent involvement will still keep disadvantaged kids, well, disadvantaged. What about the goal of providing every parent’s child with the best academic setting?

2) Excellence

We need to always remember that teachers are the backbone of our education system. Study after study proves there is no more important variable in terms of determining a student’s long-term success and financial security than teachers.

Anyone propagating this falsehood has zero credibility. It is a statement meant to promote an agenda and a disservice rather than a complement to good teachers. Some studies show that teachers are the most important IN SCHOOL VARIABLE determining student success. This lets policy makers off the hook in addressing the most important variables that happen out of school. It also provides an easy target when reforms don’t work.

3) Opportunity

All children, regardless of who they are or where they live, deserve the opportunity to attend a quality school and learn from motivated teachers.

The obvious fix, provide support and resources to make every school a quality school. The reform fix, punish bad schools and reward the good. Create more disparity and place the outcome for children in the hands of whether or not their parents make the right choices.

4) Accountability

If we care about our students’ progress, we must implement real and verifiable measures

that allow our education system to replicate success and remedy failure.

Several decades of “accountability” haven’t moved us very far. Instead of starting over to find something that works, we keep tinkering with the tests. The best question to ask is “to whom are teachers accountable.” In today’s testing climate we are accountable to “big government” to borrow a phrase. Our students and their parents should be the ones to whom we’re accountable. A real education platform would figure out how to make that happen.

Terry McAuliffe

Like Cuccinelli’s plan, McAuliffe's plan uses numbers. That makes it easy on us. Here’s what he says about plans for education.

1) Reforming the SOL tests.

We must have a strong system of student achievement and teacher evaluation.

How about scrap and start over? I do like his ideas about what needs to change, but I don’t trust his plans to change them. The plan seems to place much faith in the validity of “growth measures” and still focuses on the purpose of SOLs being teacher evaluation rather than student learning. He also calls for a “Blue Ribbon Panel” to reassess content. How about we just release some of the content and let parents, teachers, and students judge for themselves whether the tests are fair?

2) Innovation in Education.

Quality educational systems need to think more creatively. Partnerships with businesses and community colleges, emphasis on STEM and Computer Science, and increased flexibility for our school districts will all help bring our schools into the 21st century.

Public/Private Partnerships and an emphasis on STEM are good, but if we’re not careful, we sacrifice other areas of equal importance. Education should not be solely driven by economic incentive. As a teacher, my job is not to prepare students to earn as much money as they can when they grow up. Let’s not sacrifice the arts and humanities for the sake of preparing students for a global economy. And, the quest for private/public partnerships should not overshadow the fact that education is a public trust and the public has a responsibility to support it, fully. The addition of private partnership should enrich, not support. (On a side note: Quality political systems need to think more creatively. Can’t we do better than just using words like Innovation, STEM, and 21^st century and really focus on what we’re doing now in the present)

3) Supporting our Schools

Over time, the Commonwealth has reduced state investment in our schools, reducing the resources of our schools and shifting the burden to local school districts.

I agree. But the biggest obstacle to spending money on education is accountability. I think the public wants to know what they’re getting for their investment and the lack of transparency in educational spending creates a public sentiment of distrust. I don’t think the public wants test scores, I think they want to know how their money is being used. We don’t do a good enough job of letting them know.

4) Let Teachers Teach

Our teachers need to be relieved of the growing amount of paperwork and administrative tasks so they can focus on the job they signed up for: educating our kids.

Let’s focus here. Paperwork and administrative tasks are a nuisance, and when I’m overworked, they become the proverbial “straw that breaks the back.” I did sign up to “educate kids” but I’m educating about 35-50 more of them a year than I did in the late 1990’s when I started. Before worrying about the administrative burden, we need to understand the “job that we signed up for.” It takes much energy, effort, and time to “educate our kids.” Many teachers today are not doing their best, they’re doing the best they can.

"Let Them Play"- Homeschoolers and High School Athletics

I couldn't play In VA.  Or the Jets.

Tim Tebow's fortunes changed a lot in the past 12 months as he went from Denver Bronco playoff winning QB to New York Jets afterthought.  The same cannot be said Virginia Delegate Rob Bell's bill that affects the eligibility of home-schooled athletes playing on public school teams.  The Virginia version of the Tebow Bill failed for a 2nd consecutive year in a Senate Committee vote.  So should we "let them play?"  We briefly touched on this issue before.  It is a lively and complex discussion.  

Three bills began a journey but Bell's advanced to this point falling short by only one vote.  The bill would have allowed homeschool students to play for Virginia High School League athletic teams. A move opposed by the Vigrinia High School League(VHSL).  Ken Tilley represented the VHSL and shared the concerns over fairnss issue such as take 5 pass 5. “A basic eligibility requirement is that an individual must be enrolled in a member school as a full-time student in order to represent that school in interscholastic competition. It is impossible to equate academic requirements when one group must attend and pass at least five subjects offered for credit toward graduation and another group has no such requirement.”

Opponents maintain participation in sports is a privilege surrendered when students opt out of the public school system; that home-schoolers might take roster spots from public school students; and that it would be extremely difficult to apply the same academic, attendance and discipline requirements to home-schooled students as to those who are monitored daily in public schools.

Another opponent and former state superintendent of public schools, Ken Bosher,  who generally supports home-schooling said: “I support choice, but if you’ve chosen that, you can’t use public schools as an à la carte system." 

Bell and supporters of the bill, which has appeared in some form for the last 3 sessions,  bring up fairness maintaining it is unfair that student who are home-schooled pay taxes but are denied the chance to play.   Many see this as an issue of choice in our nation which is hard to argue against.  The bill was scripted in such a way requiring  home-schooled athletes to live in their public school districts to play.   Also they must have been home-schooled for at least 2 years to be eligible.  He added the bill would still allow local school districts to set their own participation rules, which could limit or prohibit home-schooled athletes.  The bill will likely be introduced again next year and there is a great deal of sound logic to justify why the law should be changed.  Time will tell if a year will change its fate. 

As a teacher and coach I personally oppose the bill.   Maybe I am just mad and thinking "If our school and teachers are not good enough for you, why should our teams and coaches be?"  That some would only value what our athletics has to offer, just seems hypocritical.  But I am not sure I have a sound position based on reasonable analysis.  That's the rub.  I am not sure why I know it is not a good idea.  On principle I suppose.  I know we are not talking about that many kids and I can't rationalize keeping any deserving kid from benefiting front the experience of team sports.  I wouldn't feel good about denying them that opportunity simply based on how they are educated.  Can I?

I can.  I think this is my best attempt to articulate why.    It's not fair.  As a coach I am unable to keep all who try out.  So next week I'll likely have to look into a few young players' eyes and say, "I'm sorry."  That's not easy and could be argued, its not fair.  Could their parents use the same fairness argument and maintain they should not be excluded since they pay taxes and have even met specific requirement? Increasingly High School sports are less significant to college scholarships in favor of  AAU. Junior Olympics, club soccer being preferred for elite athletes.  Today there are many opportunities to participate in organized sports beyond the schoolhouse door in most communities so they would likely still be able to play.

Further the difference between classrooms and sports is that sports are a privilege, not a right.   I see it that student-athletes have to earn  the honor of representing our school.  How can they do that if they don't even go here?  That privilege can be taken away or even denied based on what most of us agree are acceptable criteria.   Sports do much to further our educational mission and contribute to our sense of community.  The change would undermine some of that and open schools to a lot of sticky situations.  Kids are required to meet certain criteria and not the least  of which is managing it all.   Students and families who want to participate in organized sports may have to make significant sacrifices to do so.   Similarly the freedom afforded to Home-school families costs them in some ways as well and in this case it is the chance to play for a local high school team.   No matter how well they fit in, a home-schooled kid will always be a home-schooled kid. 

Is my logic flawed?  Probably.  Certainly others might see it differently.    I guess I am happy I don't have to make that call.  It is now up to the state to change the law.  Politics being what they are it wouldn't surprise me to see more conservative forces get this through in the near future.   Maybe one day the division or the school will decide.  Maybe even one day me as a coach.  Like I said.  It's complicated. 

There is more to it than that.  I often find myself chanting "Let Them Play".  So the tail end of this post might explain why I do that and shed a little more light on the issues involved though odd metaphor. 

-----------
The debate is much like one of the most "American" films of all time,  Bad News Bears in Breaking Training.  When one of my idols, Kelly Leak,  drove his team of misfits to play the Toros and ended up at the Houston Astrodome in an awesome van.  There, united with his estranged dad, played by William Devane, they had to convince stadium and game officials to "Let Them Play" while another of my idols Tanner Boyle races around evading capture.   I might be underselling the movie or oversimplifying the current discussion.  No matter.  How you see this depends on where you are sitting in the first place.

My observations:
Home-schoolers aren't the bad guys.  Neither were the Toros or the officials who wanted to end the game so the pros could play their game.  They just see things differently.

Its not the same- No matter what the sequel to Bad News Bears could not live up to the experience of the first.  Maybe it is worth the effort, maybe not.  Perhaps the same could be said of allowing Home-schoolers to play.

Kids can't always win-We can't forget the Bears lost in the final game in the original.  Failure is a great teacher and that is why I also don't think no cut is a good idea.  maybe this year the Bears won because of the lessons learned from their loss the previous season.

The Astrodome Scoreboard was awesome- I don't need to add anything to that and feel that the debate in the Senate should have mentioned that somewhere. 





For more on the Issue
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/14/senate-panel-sacks-tebow-homeschooling-bill-again/

Accountability for Some

accountable  (əˈkaʊntəb ^ə l)

-adj.

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

 
"We must embrace a culture of innovation and accountability by adopting proven reforms"

 -Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, January 3, 2013

The last two years in Virginia have seen calls for limiting continuing contract status for teachers (similar to tenure), changing dismissal policies to make it easier to fire teachers, and increases in accountability measures to make sure that schools and teachers are doing a good job.

Governor Bob McDonnell is a strong supporter of teacher and school accountability. Apparently not so much for leadership accountability.

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is one of six regional accrediting organizations recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. K-12 public schools and colleges in eleven states receive accreditation from SACS. They are a recognized and legitimate source of accountability for institutions.

This organization issued an official Warning to the University of Virginia for non-compliance with it's standards. A warning that if not addressed could lead to loss of accreditation. This warning had nothing to do with academic quality at the University. The warning applies solely with leadership of the institution, specifically, minority control of the board and decision-making. This warning is a direct result of the Board of Visitors actions last summer in dismissing President Teresa Sullivan.

How did the Governor hold the Rector of the UVA Board of Visitors accountable for leading the board down this improper path?

He reappointed her to the position.

How is the Virginia Legislature holding her accountable for her actions?

They're moving forward with approving her nomination to the Board.

Don't pretend to care about accountability if you're only interested in accountability for some.

Maybe if teachers contributed more to political campaigns we'd get better treatment?



From the University of Virginia Website:

In response to the resignation and subsequent reinstatement of President Teresa A. Sullivan, SACSCOC required that the University document compliance with three principles – Principle 1.1 (Integrity), Core Requirement 2.2 (Governing Board), and Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5 (Faculty Role in Governance). After reviewing the response from the University’s Board of Visitors, the Board of Trustees of SACSCOC found the University non-compliant with Core Requirement 2.2 and Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5. In a recent press conference after the announcement, the president of SACSCOC cited concerns related to minority control of the board (Core Requirement 2.2) and policies surrounding faculty role in governance (Comprehensive Standard 3.7.5).

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.

"New" Virginia Teacher Evaluations- The Foundation for Merit Pay?

Merit Pay. A simple idea.  Increased pay will increase the amount of good teaching.   Based on the logical idea that the harder and better you work, the more your students learn and the better they perform.  So you deserve compensation accordingly.   But the practical world and theoretical world too seldom cross paths in public education.  There's too many moving parts.

Whether you stand inside or outside a classroom may have a large impact on whether you see such an effort as a good or bad thing.   The TU works in a classroom and sadly no bad idea stays dead long.  Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have shown they favor Merit Pay and have enacted policies to encourage it.  Many like-minded reforms gain widespread support at the onset, but when programs are implemented they often bring about troubling unforeseen consequences. You 'd be hard pressed to find those who thought in NCLB was a bad thing when it was passed...not so hard today. Maybe there's a lesson in that.

It is not easy to define good teaching. That reality makes Merit pay iffy. I've had kids in the same class earn the same grade and one would say I was great..the other might use more colorful language to describe my teaching.  Yet they are both correct.  One might vastly outperform the other on a standardized test despite my best efforts.  Or they might score the same  but I may have had to work much harder with one of them for that result.  So it seems reasonable I might suggest that merit and pay should stay far apart in public education.  I see people who make more money often doing less(I'm among those who make less so that cannot be seen as an objective statement).   Merit pay rewards in unreliable ways that can and have misrepresented student progress.  To suggest it should be the only way to measure teachers is dumb, to have student performance play a role might only be foolish.

Lab Rats?  The result is not always what is intended.  NCLB anyone?

 New York City tried and failed with a merit pay system.  Many other districts across the country are sticking with theirs(Houston, Denver, Chicago). Who's right?  More on this later.  I recall an article and a quote from DC Chief of Human Capital(whatever that title means) “We want to make great teachers rich.”  I'd sit that cat down and say."You can't."  If he questioned why I'd ask him to find a good teacher who took the job with getting rich in mind.  I'd then say that person is an idiot.  No offense.  If you try to sell me on something by saying "You COULD make up to $X" I will bet its either Amway or an offer written on a sign on the shoulder of the road at a stoplight.

Teachers should be paid more but we remain in sometime horrific working conditions because of the non-monetary rewards.  My colleague has called teaching a life giving profession and at times that is so true.  Merit Pay discussions are not one of those times.  It would in fact suck the life and energy from far too many teachers.  We are not lab rats after all.  Here's a news flash.  Morale matters.    Merit systems show up in a puzzling variety of ways.  If it was so simple and so effective then it should look the same everywhere.   It does not.  The simple reason is because it does not do what it promises to do long term but decision makers still accept the premise. 

I will be the first to admit that the way we are compensated today, based solely on degrees, years experience and additional duties doesn't always make sense.  There is differentiation but I think the wrong people make more money.  But if it is nothing else it is predictable and predictability in public school budgets is important.  That is not certain under a merit pay system.  There is individual merit pay and also some exploration into providing bonuses on the building level for a sort of pooled merit pay.   The attractive part in principle is that if you do a good job you students are better served and you stand to make more money.  The frightening part is that students might learn less on the whole and teachers also stand to make significantly less money over time.   If we are asked to "compete" for bonuses from a fixed amount of funds that won't foster much cooperation and collaboration, the lifeblood of teaching and developing new new young talent.  Merit supporters dismiss this and use all sorts of misguided analogies to paint opponents as whiny alarmists.  I am a lazy teacher who took the job so I wouldn't have to work hard and I'd still get paid...right?

What do teachers think will actually make them better?

Sure in some other jobs people make more or less based on performance but don't drink the kool-aid and believe what you hear from "meritists".  This commonly believed trend is in no way true in many fields and based on the changing economy the number of jobs where productivity affects pay is in decline.  Some suggest it is true in less than 6% of the workforce.(that article is a must read)  But we are not talking about other jobs where units sold, or contracts closed are tangible and make sense.  We are talking about education and our kids.   We are talking about teaching young people.  Are we able to create something that rewards MERIT in something as complex as education?  Give that some deep thought.   Is merit pay the way to achieve an improved teaching workforce?      Hardly.   I believe and some evidence and studies confirm it will achieve the opposite and do more to drive away good teachers rather than attract them.  We aren't lab rats after all    There are countless variables at work and so many moving parts that creating an equitable and potentially effective system becomes too colossal a task to complete.

One flaw is that teacher performance is only part of the equation and the students are not incentivized.  Numeric measures grow to misrepresent what students are actually learning since what is being measured becomes the focus.  I believe as a teacher I could be more effective teaching fewer students with fewer preps and more planning time.  Yet this is not even in the discussion. If indeed people did work harder why not pay me per unit..I mean pupil?  How about simply by the hour?  Money, that's why.  Many criticize proposals as simply an effort to save money and not truly a way to improve education.  I'd add that however you choose to measure teacher performance, it will always fail to fully measure everything that is involved in what good teachers do. 

With revisions to how teachers statewide are to be evaluated the cynical eye might spot a clear framework for the implementation of a statewide merit pay system. That worries me.  I've read enough to confirm my suspicions that people with influence want to bring Merit Pay to the Commonwealth.  Revised versions of a evaluation standards are intended to provide a more uniform and "objective" way to evaluate teachers.  And don't forget one that is more....cringe...data driven. 
In April of 2011 Governor Bob McDonnell announced a pilot program to institute merit pay in  169 "hard to staff" schools across the state.  In response Kitty Boitnott of the VA Education Association, which represents teachers had this to say:   “Paying teachers to work in hard-to-staff schools is one thing, but it’s totally different to allocate pay based on how students do on an SOL on a given day in a given year,

"Yes, your salary and job security depend on this student."

Many of the measures used under the pilot are simply derived ratings from SOLs.  I and many other well informed people contest that student performance on standardized tests are a poor measure of teacher performance.  Few sane people argue that.  The issues relating to the secrecy, merit, quality, and efficacy of such tests are something the TU and countless other teachers have blasted as highly flawed.  Yet standardized testing continues to be the favored approach by too many politicians and legislatures across the country as a barometer of how we are doing.   No longer a measure of just students or schools, but now individual teachers.  The key phrase I've heard used quite a bit over the last year and in particular over the past week is Student Academic Progress or Student Academic Growth.  As I write these blogs I often circle back to the constant effort by many to turn teaching from an art and into a quantifiable science.  And starting this year I will be assigned a numeric value to how well I teach. 

Maybe this effort grows from the Feds and the Race to the Top program's preference to states that had something along the lines of merit pay.  Maybe it is an effort to level the playing field and find was to more objectively measure non-core teachers in subjects like art and music.  Maybe it comes from ALEC or the Gates Foundation and their deep coffers. It is coming from somewhere and wherever that is, they are unfamiliar with good teaching.  Let's look for a moment at how VA  judges its  teachers:

------------------
The Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers set forth
seven performance standards for all Virginia teachers. Pursuant to state law, teacher evaluations must
be consistent with the following performance standards (objectives) included in this document:
Performance Standard 1: Professional Knowledge- 10%
The teacher demonstrates an understanding of the curriculum, subject content, and the
developmental needs of students by providing relevant learning experiences.
Performance Standard 2: Instructional Planning-10%
The teacher plans using the Virginia Standards of Learning, the school’s curriculum, effective
strategies, resources, and data to meet the needs of all students.
Performance Standard 3: Instructional Delivery-10%
The teacher effectively engages students in learning by using a variety of instructional strategies
in order to meet individual learning needs.
Performance Standard 4: Assessment of and for Student Learning-10%
The teacher systematically gathers, analyzes, and uses all relevant data to measure student
academic progress, guide instructional content and delivery methods, and provide timely
feedback to both students and parents throughout the school year.
Performance Standard 5: Learning Environment-10%
The teacher uses resources, routines, and procedures to provide a respectful, positive, safe,
student-centered environment that is conducive to learning.
Performance Standard 6: Professionalism-10%
The teacher maintains a commitment to professional ethics, communicates effectively, and takes
responsibility for and participates in professional growth that results in enhanced student
learning.
Performance Standard 7: Student Academic Progress-40%
The work of the teacher results in acceptable, measurable, and appropriate student
academic progress.
-------------


Standard #7 sounds good doesn't it?  But ask yourself for just a moment how that will be demonstrated to someone.  It quickly devolves into either an over-reliance on standardized testing or on a subjective judgement leaving uncertain outcomes.  This creates a threatening shadow that hangs over you as a professional.  Not the best environment to do your best teaching.

In the hopes of receiving a positive rating should I set low growth goals for my students so that they will meet expectations?  Or should push them risking that the appearance they fell short?  Should I target what is on the test, inflating perceived growth?  Will I be as likely to innovate and experiment or will I play it safe with more regimented instructional approaches?  Thinking more broadly can you even measure all that a teacher does?  And if you do, how in the world can create a measure of good teaching that fails to even watch the teacher teach?     

I simply cannot support any measure of a teacher that does not not involve spending time in that teachers classroom.  Further any system that undermines the collegial nature of education and fosters a more competitive environment is bad.  No it is worse.  It threatens the very fabric of what the best practices in teaching and learning are.  A proprietary, for profit, competitive, business minded approach to education is a terrible idea.  So for those arguing in favor, please stop.  Not only are you doing things most teachers oppose you are potentially making them worse teachers and thus hurting our pupils.    I'd strongly encourage fellow teachers in our state to educate themselves on these changes and speak up if they oppose them.

My division seems for now to have avoided the pitfall of simply plugging in SOL scores into Indicator #7.  That is a good thing. But we have to comply with new standards established by the DOE.  When push comes to shove the bottom line is simple: Is merit pay effective long term?

Getting ahead of yourself?  If only it were this simple.

Much of our state's course seems plotted by the Virginia Association of Superintendents.  They do not seem to overtly favor merit pay, but the politicians they influence often make choices based on what is politically expedient and cheaper, not what is wise.  In the "cost versus benefit" discussion their short attention span means they only hear the word cost.  Only time will tell.  Virginia's plans seem to be driven or at least be driven by the Education Commission of the States which seems to lean far more toward the establishment of that system.  That statement is backed by four of the conclusions summarized fro their report Teacher merit pay: What do we Know? :

Each of the studies of the four pay-for-performance systems found no conclusive
evidence to link the new merit pay system with higher student achievement. There are
several potential reasons why there is a lack of conclusive findings:
1. The programs are too new:
2. The implementation of the programs has been too limited:
3. Funding levels may not yet be significant enough:
4. The level of incentive pay may not be high enough to promote change:
5. Perhaps merit pay does not contribute to student achievement:

At least in #5 they are thinking like a teacher.

I'll conclude with an excerpt from the  Educational Reform in Virginia: Blueprint for the Future of Public Education  by the Virginia Association of Superintendents
Page 38 begins the discussion of Merit Pay:

Merit pay programs for educators — sometimes referred to a “pay for performance” — attempt
to tie a teacher’s compensation to his/her performance in the classroom. While the idea of merit
pay for classroom teachers has been around for several decades, only now is it starting to be
implemented in a growing number of districts around the country. One example of the increased
interest for merit pay systems can be seen in the recent increased funding level for the federal
Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF). The TIF program, which is run through the United States
Department of Education (USDOE), provides funding to school districts to help them implement
merit pay systems. The USDOE has increased funding for the TIF program this year by more
than four-fold — from $97.3 million to $437 million. But with all of this increased interest and
funding for merit pay programs — what if anything do we know about the costs versus the
benefits of these systems?

Think what you want.  Just remember in education, it is never THAT simple. Money matters but the last thing I am thinking when I am working my tail off teaching is how much I am getting paid.  Is that simple enough?

"MUST TEACH BETTER..."

Cracking the Code: How Testers Language Means Nothing

As a teacher of Ancient World History, one area I find interesting about the period of study is language.   Thousands of years separate civilizations and written language offers a window affording us a glimpse as to the way things were for people who have long since disappeared.  When a language is "lost" to time or cannot be translated, a great deal of misunderstanding exists.   Often some catastrophic event or mysterious demise brings on such a void.  Sometimes it is geographic distance which separates cultures and prevents mutual understanding.  Only about 60 miles separates my school from the decision makers in our state capital of Richmond but it might as well be a million.  The gap between us is wide indeed.  I think they might even be on another planet.

My students have taken this year's SOL test.  I tried to prepare them as best I could for this test that I have never seen.  I can''t prepare them for receiving their scores and not knowing what they missed.  Somewhere in the language of the test and the scoring there exists a disjoint which results in a process devoid of much value.   This test requires a Rosetta Stone in order to decipher what exactly is measured and how. Far worse, without having seen the test or any of the questions, it is impossible to judge its merits fairly, point out flaws, or seek clarification.  The secrets of the test are even more mysterious than the language of the ancients. 

Why do we place such a degree of legitimacy on the tests when it is clear they inherently lack legitimacy?  How can anyone be allowed to make a test like this and get away with not being more transparent to those that are judged by it?  Is the quagmire of documents, forms and numbers designed purposefully to deceive or misdirect?  One is left to speculate.

We have explored these issues in several previous posts on the TU. See Bottom, Truth, Fact, $#!%,  Flux among others.  There are so many things wrong with the tests themselves and the way they are used that for those not directly involved in today's schools it is difficult to comprehend.  Painfully evident is the reality that testing  is leading us to a place where a growing number of common sense people and countless educators know is bad. A representative in the state legislature of Indiana, Randy Truitt voiced some of this in a recent letter  to his colleagues.  

Imagine the opportunity to sit with a leader of the society like the Maya or Easter Island and simply ask..."What happened?"   If I had the same opportunity with the folks at Pearson and the state DOE I'd do my best to dig deep.  My conversation would ask among other things what exactly are you trying to accomplish? 

I'd begin with a printout of "raw" scores.  What makes it raw is how you feel when you try to figure out what these scores mean once they are scaled(I usually say chapped not raw).  This year is no exception. From VDOE website "the raw score adopted by the Board to represent pass/proficient on the standard setting form is assigned a scaled score of 400, while the raw score adopted for pass/advanced is assigned a scaled score of 500."  That makes perfect sense except when you look elsewhere on the site.

So never mind the 53/60 cut score above since my students who missed 7 questions (53/60) only received a 499.  I would bet that very few students and even fewer parents would have any idea where the 400 and 500 delineations come from.  Aliens perhaps?  Apparently that will remain a mystery.

The vagueness there is surpassed still by what the teacher responds when a kid asks, "what did I miss?"  All I can offer is the kind of imprecision usually reserved for an ancient text translation or interpretation.    "OK Johnny... it is obvious, you missed four in both Human Origins and Early Civilizations and Classical Civilizations.  The Classical Civs questions had something to do with achievements of a person, architecture, role of a key person in a religion, and a figure's accomplishments.  Not sure what ruler, where they were from or what you didn't know.  But what is important for you to remember is that although there were more questions in the HOEC category(thus in theory they each had less value), you again are mistaken because in fact, you only got a 31 scaled scores versus a 32.  You got a 394 so you failed.  Just do better.  Make sense?  No?  Good." 

After consultation with our legal department(each other) and careful inspection of the Test Security Agreement we all sign we elected not to include an actual copy or portion of the grade report.  The rationale being that we need paychecks and both have families to support.  How sad is it that teachers are scared to question the validity of a test by referencing the actual test or results from it?

If we had included a copy of this student's actual score report you would have seen:

(1)Reporting categories contain vague language like "idenitfy characteristics of civilizations" to describe question that the student answered incorrectly.
(2) category A had 11 questions of which the student missed 4.  Category B had 10 questions of which the student missed 4.  The student's scaled score for category A was 31, for B 32, with no explanation of why question in category A are are given greater weight.
(3) The scores, grade reports and feedback is clearly not useful to improve student or teacher performance with specifics as to where weaknesses exist.

Imagine that conversation with a student who fails and trying to help them.  We are asked to "re-mediate" which I would imagine means we target areas where the student has weaknesses.  That is a much tougher task without knowing where exactly they are weak.  I can understand not wanting us to teach to the test.  How about teach to the kid?  

I and my students are judged by a test which in no way serves as a tool to improve my teaching.  How on Earth are we to try to do better next year?   Those that devise such an approach remain as distant as any of the cultures my students are required to learn.  What's more is they manage to encrypt any relevant information in such a way to make it utterly meaningless. 

The numbers and stats derived from massive student testing across the state serve little more purpose than to send the message that policy-makers and testing Corporations like Pearson want to send.  When scores are too high, standards are raised.  When scores are too low, standards are lowered.  Neither the Department of Education nor Pearson are able to state in clear language an objective explanation of how scores are calculated and why certain cut score choices are anything less than arbitrary.

The twenty-first century process for holding American students, teachers, and schools accountable should not prove more difficult to translate than Ancient Hieroglyphics.

No Pearson..."Thank You"

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.

Bottom 10 Things about Virginia SOLs.

As we enter the "silly" season, AKA SOL season, we thought a list of this variety might be interesting. 

So below is TU's list.  Please feel free to add.

1. How they intrude upon the schedule.  For at least 2-3 weeks a year, schools basically shut down.
2. The money that is poured to testing.  They exist and the testing machine must be fed.
3. The amount of time spent prepping specifically for tests, that could be used to teach/learn.
4. They (the tests) now define us, as in schools.
5. End of Course Tests start in March?  How does that make sense?
6. Their secrecy.   How much time gets wasted because of “test security.”
7. S.O.L.  The acronym is appropriate for obvious reasons.
8. Kindergarten through 8^th graders are only “expected to take the test”- that should read "can if they want to" and extend that approach to High School.
9. 2% of schools met the standard in 2001, that number was up to 92% in 2005-2006
10. The tests were developed in secret, and are still pretty much handled that way.  To avoid “teaching to the test”                                                                                                                                                            

(10 Just wasn't enough) 

     11.  The impact on students is so profound.  They are changed by these tests and not in a good way
     12.  Not being able to use the gym or media center for 2+ weeks kinda sucks.  
     13.  Pearson-controls the curriculum materials, create the test, grade the test, any questions? At least they don't write the standards (maybe).

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.

Hey Virginia Teachers-- Great Job!

Growth Model evaluations, loss of continuing contracts, budgetary woes getting you down?  Never fear teachers of Virginia, the Teaching Underground is ready to give you a pat on the back.  You’re doing great!  Keep up the good work and don’t let the political rhetoric and imposter reform movement ruin your day.  Here’s a short list of Virginia's achievements in the past year.

Reported by CNBC, Virginia ranks as America’s number one state for business.  Among the reasons for this ranking:

This year, Virginia powers back to the top spot with the best overall score in the history of our study — 1,660 out of 2,500 points. Texas slips back to number two with a respectable 1,578 points.  In Education, Virginia jumps seven points to rank sixth, reflecting an effort begun in 2009 to reduce class sizes.

First of all, it’s nice to see that someone realizes that class size matters, but it’s also nice to see an acknowledgement that in Virginia, education isn’t to blame for our shortcomings.  What is you ask?

Not all is rosy in Virginia. The state fell eight spots to number 26 in Quality of Life, which, among other things, measures healthcare. The number of uninsured residents in Virginia has risen steadily in recent years.

What else are we getting right in our Virginia schools? 

Oh, yes, Education Week rated Virginia schools fourth overall in the nation this year.  Across five categories, Virginia scored an overall grade of 82.6 compared to the national average of 76.5.  Guess what categories reflect the most room for growth.

One of our three lowest scores came in Spending- 71.1 percent.  Accountability was 93.3.  The argument used to be that we expected money without accountability.  I guess one out of two isn’t bad.  Speaking of one out of two, our lowest score was a 50 percent in college readiness, but…

… according to College Board’s “Connection” web newsletter: “In an encouraging national trend, all but four states showed that an increasing number of public school graduates participated in the AP Program. Maryland again led the nation with the highest percentage of its graduates (27.9 percent) participating in AP and scoring a 3 or higher on an AP Exam. Following Maryland in the top 10 were New York (26.5 percent), Virginia (25.6 percent)…

So Virginia ranks third in the College Board’s ranking of the percentage of graduates scoring a three or higher on AP exams, positioning themselves to earn college credit in high school.

We hear a lot of talk nationally about the importance of STEM, so Virginia schools' performance in the area of Science education is important.  According to the Science and Engineering Readiness index-- developed by Susan Wite from the Statistical Research Center at the American Institute of Physics and physicist Paul Cottle of Florida State University-- Virginia ranks 6^th with a score of 3.73, above average.

The SERI score is a scale of 1 to 5 reflecting how well states perform and allow opportunities for success in physics and math education and teacher qualifications.

According to The Fordham Institute report, The State of State Science Standards 2012, Virginia is one of only five states scoring a grade of A- or better.

Virginia didn’t do well on one ranking system.  The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—which heavily influences the legislative agenda in Virginia— ranks Virginia schools 26^th, by using the sole measurement of NAEP test results for low income fourth and eight graders.  Worse, they give Virginia a grade of C- because of Education Policy in the areas of Standards, Charter Schools, Home School regulations, Private School Choice Programs, Teacher Quality and Policies, and Virtual Schooling.  This report is supposed to provide a road map for legislators to follow to bring about educational excellence in their state.

Based on Governor McDonnell’s education proposals for 2012 it would appear that Virginia is following that road map.  So instead of recognizing the quality of public education in Virginia by congratulating teachers, principals, and superintendents on a job well done, we get empty words of gratitude and a policy plan that reflects the empty assumption that Virginia schools are failing.

It may not be worth much, but to the public educators of Virginia, The Teaching Underground says, "Keep up the good work.  You've achieved much and we're sure you know that as educators we always seek improvement.  Be proud of your efforts, continue to appreciate your students, their families, and communities, and despite policy-makers and pundits who seem bent on proving differently-- Know that your hard work, expertise, and experience makes a positive difference to the Commonwealth."









Stop reading.  That's it, really.  I know that statements like that  always have a "but" following that essentially negates every positive comment.  Not here.  Good job.  Knuckle Bump. That's the end of the story.

To Play, or not to Play...

That is the question, before the Virginia General Assembly as among the many bills being considered on education is one that will impact whether or not home-schooled student-athletes in the state are allowed to compete/participate in public school sports programs.  

Read more details below:
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2392927

Take the survey and share comments through the survey (or simply post a comment at the end of the post.)

What Me Worry?

Let's get rid of the bad teachers.  It can't hurt can it?  Honestly, who can argue with a plan to recognize excellence and eliminate roadblocks for getting rid of incompetence.  After all, if you're a good teacher, you've got nothing to worry about.  Right?

Current legislation in the Virginia General Assembly (HB 576 and SB 438) seeks to enact such a law.  Here is a summary of what it will do:

1- any teacher during their probationary period may be dismissed without notice or reason; this includes any teacher, regardless of experience, in their first year in a new district.

How it's different from today- currently, probationary teachers have the right to "notice" and "hearing" if dismissed during the current school year.  It is already possible to "non-renew" a probationary teacher.

2- all teachers will work on an "annual contract" and "continuing contracts" will be eliminated.

How it's different from today- essentially, new teachers have "annual contracts."  This means that dismissal during the year requires documentation and good reason for dismissal.  "Continuing contract" teachers may be dismissed, but even a non-renewal requires "notice" and "hearing" and cannot occur without a justified reason.  On the annual contract, as long as a teacher is notified by June 15, they can be refused a contract for the following year.

3- evaluations must follow the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation. These standards are new as of 2011 and call for teacher evaluations to be tied to student growth.  Measurements for student growth are not clearly defined and differences in testing, or lack of testing in some areas make this provision very different from teacher to teacher.  All teachers must be evaluated yearly, new teachers twice a year.

How it is different from today- local school boards must create a system to address student academic progress and the instructional skills and knowledge of teachers.  Furthermore, local boards decide the frequency and type of evaluation for experienced teachers.

This is just a brief summary.  I encourage you to read the entire bill, or at least a better summary found here.

I consider myself a pretty good teacher.  Not the best, probably in the top half.  Should I worry?  I remember my first year.  An administrator (not my direct supervisor) had heard from students that students were out of control in my class.  The administrator couldn't offer any specifics, but required me to complete a discipline plan and come back for follow up in three weeks.  I never heard another thing about it, and the follow up didn't happen.  I wonder if that happened after this law passed whether this nebulous assumption that my classroom lacked discipline could have led to dismissal.

In my fourth year, a new chair was appointed to our department.  In our initial meeting, he said, "I'm sure that you're aware of the concern about your teaching, so we'll continue to work on that."  He was shocked that I was shocked at this statement.  I hadn't heard a thing.  Luckily, he was willing to observe my class and try to discover the problem.  A former department chair really had it in for me.  Apparently the administration was aware of these supposed problems, but rather than investigate, they assumed it was true.  I was able to request several evaluations to show that I was doing my job, but if that happened today, perhaps it would be easier to wait until June 15 to let me know I don't have a job in September.

Most of this proposed legislation simply ups the stakes of the system without providing the additional training or input to make it work appropriately.  To borrow from the gun lobby, we don't need new laws, we need better enforcement of the laws we have.  Bad teachers can be dismissed under current law.  It is just a matter of providing the support to schools and administrators to effectively use current systems of evaluation and applying them appropriately. 

This proposed legislation will not result in removing bad teachers and recognizing good ones.  Even if it did, will better teachers magically appear to replace them.  I spoke directly with my principal and the division assistant Superintendent about this proposal.  Both of them said that as administrators, they wouldn't likely use the law so much to get rid of teachers as much as they would use it to encourage existing teachers to step up their performance.

In the end, as a teacher, it is a demoralizing message.  It says I don't have the motivation to do my job well, so with a little incentive and threat of punishment maybe things will get better.  In reality, with proper training and oversight, the current system would function better-- without proper training and oversight, the proposed system will be worse.  It just isn't good policy.  If you agree, let someone know.

HB 576 will be heard in the House Education Subcommittee on Teachers and Administrative Action on February 2 at 5 p.m. The committee members are as follows (all phone numbers are in 804):

LeMunyon (Chair) 698-1067, DelJLeMunyon@house.virgnia.gov
Cole 698-1088, DelMCole@house.virginia.gov
Robinson 698-1027, DelRRobinson@house.virginia.gov
Yost 698-1-12, DelJYost@house.virginia.gov
Yancey 698-1094, DelDYancey@house.virginia.gov
McClellan 698-1171, DelJMcClellan@house.virginia.gov
Morrissey 698-1074, DelJMorrissey@house.virginia.gov
Keam 698-1035, DelMKeam@house.virginia.gov


SB 438 will be heard by the Education Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Health. The committee members are as follows:
Blevins (Chair) 698-7514, district14@senate.virginia.gov
Howell 698-7532, district32@senate.virginia.gov
Locke 698-7502, district02@senate.virginia.gov
Black 698-7513, district13@senate.viginia.gov
Carrico 698-7540, district40@senate.virginia.gov 

*this information was copied from the VEA Daily Reports 

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