Latest News and Comment from Education

Show All

Sunday, April 19, 2015

A step forward in Washington, a step back in New York | Randi Weingarten

A step forward in Washington, a step back in New York | Randi Weingarten:

Common Core: Test refusal pushed by middle class families:








 Something stunning happened this week in Congress. The Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted 22-0 to overhaul No Child Left Behind. That's right, policymakers from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) listened to the people they're sworn to represent and found common ground on public education.

Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) led the charge. They're the ultimate Odd Couple--he served as President George H. W. Bush's secretary of education; she was known as the "mom in tennis shoes" who entered politics to save her local preschool.
Together, they listened to business leaders, community partners, civil rights activists, parents and educators--including nearly 20,000 AFT members. Overwhelmingly, the message was: Instead of obsessing over test scores, let's give our students what they need to climb the ladder of opportunity and succeed. Schools should be places of learning and joy, not testing and agita. And, let's give our teachers the latitude, supports and resources necessary to do their jobs well.
The outcome is promising: While not perfect--no compromise is--their bill restores the original intent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as NCLB was first known, to address poverty and educational inequality with targeted funding for poor children. It moves away from the counterproductive focus on sanctions and high-stakes tests, and ends federalized teacher evaluations and school closings.
Meanwhile, in New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is going down a different (albeit well-worn) path, ramming through ideology as part of his budget, ignoring those closest to the classroom.
Across the state, students, teachers, parents and community members pleaded with the governor to listen to their concerns and visit their schools. Sixty public forumswere held. Thousands rallied. But the governor refused to listen. He hasn't visited a public school in his second term. It just seems he won't have an honest conversation about what New York's children and families are facing.
Instead, the governor, who's really too smart to operate in an evidence-free zone, has bought into his hedge fund backers' idea: that the correlation between teachers and their students' test scores is the only thing that matters. We saw this idea play out in NCLB and Race to the Top, where the over-reliance on high-stakes testing may not have been the intention, but it's been the end result.
Pretty much everyone agrees that it hasn't worked. And it's no wonder: As important a role as teachers play, they ultimately account for 10 percent of the variance in test scores, according to economists. But while most policymakers are trying to strike a new balance by addressing the other 90 percent, Gov. Cuomo is doubling down on testing and sanctions.
Thankfully, the state Assembly and some in the state Senate have stuck to their values, fighting for more funding and moving some decisions to the Board of Regents, a board with educational expertise. Still, the governor's actions are just plain wrong. New Yorkers, who, despite their calls to curb sanctions, despite already being put through the ringer with the fixation on high-stakes testing, continue to be ignored.That's why we're seeing so many parents choose to opt their children out of these tests.
I've worked in public education for 30 years--as a teacher, a lawyer and union leader. I've visited hundreds of schools and districts. I've seen leaders from the classroom to the national stage who have been willing to set aside their differences and do the hard work that's necessary to create real, enduring change.
It might be surprising that this kind of leadership is wilting in a state like New York, while blooming in the most unlikely of places: Congress. The U.S. Senate bill represents an important step forward and the most positive development we've seen in public education policy in years--because of both the bill's content and the committee's very intentional move to leave partisanship and politics at the door.
There's no silver bullet when it comes to helping all children achieve. Great public schools are our best shot. But until we have more leaders willing to look past ideology, listen to those closest to the classroom and find common ground, we won't move forward. And, in a welcome change, it's the U.S. Senate that has shown us what's possible.

Posted by at

Common Core: Test refusal pushed by middle class families

Common Core: Test refusal pushed by middle class families:

Middle-class families lead opt-out movement




An examination of opt-out rates in the Lower Hudson Valley suggests that the anti-testing movement is being pushed almost exclusively by middle class families. Socioeconomic factors appear to be the driver of the movement — a culture of academic achievement at one end, poverty and a real need for better schools at the other. But if socioeconomics is the driver, politics is clearly sitting shotgun and holding the map.
More than 11,000 students refused to take the state-administered English language arts exams in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties last week. All told, roughly20 percent of students on average opted out of the exams in 41 of 54 districts that responded to data requests from The Journal News.
But the differences in participation, district to district, were stark. In nine Lower Hudson Valley districts, fewer than 5 percent of students refused to take the test.
Districts with a high test participation rate fell into one of two categories — they are either home to a large number of adults with advanced degrees and high household income, or where more than half the students are categorized by the state as "economically disadvantaged."
At the high end, in districts with fewer students opting out of tests (5 percent or less of eligible students), more than 65 percent of adults have a bachelor's degree or higher, and median annual household income levels are higher than $130,000. Of the districts with the lowest opt-out rates this year, seven were the top-performing school districts in state tests last year.
For instance, Bronxville, which had the lowest test refusal rate in the area —1.4 percent — also ranked No. 1 among districts in the region in 2014, with 71 percent of its students judged to be "proficient" in the English exams.
Well-heeled, well-schooled
The median household income in Bronxville is among the highest in the Lower Hudson Valley, $195,000. Among people 25 and older calling Bronxville home, 81 percent have at least a bachelor'sdegree, according to U.S. Census data.
Perhaps for the wealthiest families, tests are not something you decide to take, they're something on which you score well. According to Robert Schwartz, professor emeritus of practice in educational policy and administration at Harvard's Graduate School of Education, parents who believe that testing can help prepare a student for the college admission process will expect their children to succeed regardless of their opinions of the tests.
"Parents most focused on keeping their kids on track to get them into competitive colleges are not opting out of these tests," Schwartz said. "Parents who may not be as sophisticated about college education pressures and of the importance these tests play in preparing them could be more easily persuaded, especially when cheered on by teachers unions. The interests of the adults are getting in the way."
The stated purpose of the statewide tests is to level the playing field, to hold teachers, schools and school districts, regardless of economic advantage or academic achievement, accountable to the same benchmarks and parameters. This year, districts where more than 50 percent of students were categorized as "economically disadvantaged" reported low opt-out rates.
Only 1.5 percent of students in Mount Vernon refused the test, for example, and 5 percent in Greenburgh.
On the other hand, districts where more than than 30 percent of students refused to sit for tests have adults with lower levels of education, an average income for the area, and less than half a student body considered proficient.
In Mahopac, where 50 percent of eligible students opted out, only 36 percent of students were deemed proficient on the English exams last year. There, 43.5 percent of residents 25 and older have a bachelor's degree or higher. The median household income was $100,458 in 2013.
Across the Hudson River, the North Rockland school district had a 49 percent opt-out rate and only 33 percent of students were proficient in English language arts last year. In Pearl River, which had an opt-out rate of 38 percent, the median income was $84,951 in 2013, which mirrors the median for the county. There, 40 percent of adults 25 and older have a bachelor's degree or higher and student proficiency levels were at 49 percent on state English tests last year.
Political play
Beyond socioeconomics, the politicization of the issue has played a major role in driving the number of students opting out higher this year, though it's very difficult to come to any conclusions regarding the partisan nature of the debate.
The opposition to testing is not distinctly Republican or Democratic. Majority Republican Bronxville had some of the lowest opt-out numbers in the region, but of the nine towns with the lowest numbers of students refusing the test, eight have Democratic majorities.
Looking within the Democratic Party, lawyer and former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Zephyr Teachout, who launched a primary challenge in 2014, lent her voice to a robo-call urging parents to refuse the test. The New York State United Teachers union got into the game, too, encouraging its members to refuse the tests.
NYSUT President Karen Magee was vocal in encouraging parents to opt out. Some local teachers unions, including those in New Rochelle, Ramapo Central and Mahopac, adopted resolutions supporting the parents' rights to refuse the tests.
The fact that test results were tied directly to teacher evaluations became one major bone of contention, as was the hurried implementation of the associated Common Core standards, and the necessary time devoted to test preparation to the exclusion of creative elements of teaching. Under Gov. Andrew Cuomo's 2015 budget, adopted by the state Legislature, teachers deemed ineffective on two rounds of state tests could Common Core: Test refusal pushed by middle class families:


Posted by at

What psychology tells us about student achievement — and how it is ignored - The Washington Post

What psychology tells us about student achievement — and how it is ignored - The Washington Post:

What psychology tells us about student achievement — and how it is ignored







 Modern school reform has focused primarily on “accountability” measures — or, how to hold students, teachers, principals, schools and districts “accountable” for higher standardized-test scores, but, unfortunately has failed to look at many of the real problems children face in their classrooms.

The following post, by Geoffrey L. Cohen and Sara Goldrick-Rab, looks at some of the issues students face that are being ignored by policymakers who have chosen to look at academic progress through a narrow window.  Cohen is a professor of psychology, education, and (by courtesy) business at Stanford University, and Goldrick-Rab is professor of educational policy studies and sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

By Geoffrey L. Cohen and Sara Goldrick-Rab
When preschool children put on Superman capes they are three times more likely to resist a temptation and wait for a larger reward.
When ethnic minority students get feedback from their teachers accompanied by a note that says that they can reach a higher standard, the students reach that standard. In fact they perform as well as their white classmates.
And when poor urban students are taught to see intelligence as similar to a muscle that grows with practice, they achieve better grades and test scores.
These results from scientific studies in psychology are important because the ability to delay gratification, to learn from feedback, and to score well on tests predict lifelong success in school and beyond. Yet they can be changed in an instant. How can this be?
The lesson is that students are capable of far more than they achieve in the typical classroom. Improving that setting can help a child soar.
When we see someone succeed or fail, it is easy to over-credit the qualities of person and under-credit the qualities of their circumstances. Poor people are often said to be inherently less intelligent. But studies show that poor people perform as well as rich people on an IQ test—until they are reminded of a financial stressor. Then their IQ test scores plummeted. Although deficits in IQ seem to reflect a lack of smarts, it also reflects circumstance. If the circumstance recurs, so does the deficit.
Many people think that educating a child is akin to filling a cup. Open heads and pour in knowledge, skills, and virtues. This metaphor is seductive because it calls on deeply held stereotypes that paint poor and minority children as not having enough drive and smarts.
But the original meaning of education is “to draw out,” not to “fill up.” Yes, we need to teach children strategies for maintaining self-control in difficult circumstances. But we also need to create classrooms that draw out what students already have inside them. Often times, current performance underestimates potential.
Children reproduce the character of their schools and the society around them. In one study, far fewer children resisted a tempting treat in order to obtain a larger reward later if the experimenter had failed to deliver on an earlier promise. That kind of untrustworthy environment resembles the one that poor and minority children live with every day. In one study, African Americans’ race lessened their hiring prospects as much as having What psychology tells us about student achievement — and how it is ignored - The Washington Post:
Posted by at

LAUSD'S MATT HILL CONTINUES TO FAIL UPWARD AS BURBANK UNIFIED'S NEW SUPERINTENDENT DESIGNANT - Perdaily.com

LAUSD'S MATT HILL CONTINUES TO FAIL UPWARD AS BURBANK UNIFIED'S NEW SUPERINTENDENT DESIGNANT - Perdaily.com:

LAUSD'S MATT HILL CONTINUES TO FAIL UPWARD AS BURBANK UNIFIED'S NEW SUPERINTENDENT DESIGNANT








 In opposing the choice of LAUSD's Matt Hill as the new superintendent of the Burbank Unfied School District (BUSD), the Burbank Teacher's Union regrettably missed its strongest argument when it only faulted Mr. Hill for his not having ever been a teacher. While it has always been conventional wisdom that teaching experience is an absolute prerequisite for even being considered as a superintendent, the reality of that job shows that nothing could be further from the truth in handling the day to day running of what in the final analysis a more than 6 billion a year business.

The superintendent as fiduciary of the district in reality should have a normal adversarial relationship to the vendors of goods and services whose exclusive interest is in maximizing profit, which is clearly antithetical to that of the district. It Is Hill's lack of business acumen, along with that same deficit in Cortines, Deasy, and other prior LAUSD superintendents that continues to see the district being constantly raked over the financial coals with iPad, student records, and other very expensive scandals attributable to a culture of institutionalized bad business practices.

Where Hill has failed in the past and is likely to fail in the future is not because he was never a teacher, but rather because he is a bad businessman without the independence necessary to put LAUSD's or BUSD's interests above those of charter proponent and public school privatizer Eli Broad who initially artificially inseminated Hill into LAUSD back in 2009 during a prior tenure of the present LAUSD Superintendent Ramon Cortines. At the time, Eli Broad was even willing to pick up the cost of Hill's salary, which I am sure that Broad viewed as a small cost for owning Hill in much the same way he clearly owns John Deasy, who predictably went to work for the Broad Foundation after finally being unloaded by LAUSD.

The clearly disengenuous nature of three-time and present LAUSD Superintendent Cortines is attested to by his reaction to his being told about Hill's being chosen as superintendent at BUSD: Cortines salutes Hill for "his ability to think out of the box," when it is clear when one looks at the involvement of Cortines, Deasy, and their subordinate Hill that they all live in a "box" where the interests of the Eli Broad Foundation, charters, and highly profitable privatization are always put above the interests of the district, students, teachers, and parents. I take a very different meaning when Cortines says about Hill, "There isn't anything he isn't willing to try and 'no' was not in his vocabulary," even when we now look at the iPad, student records system, and other fiascos that Hill was deeply involved in where his lack of any independent judgment lead to a blind following of Cortines and Deasy to the profound financial and consequential academic detriment of LAUSD.

If the experience of now three-time-loser ex-teacher Superintendent Ramon Cortines or his equally no business savvy predecessor John Deasy are any indicator they show again and again a business naivete that makes it easy for them to be hoodwinked by LAUSD's vendors who are not adverse to taking advantage of an LAUSD administration comprised of ex-teachers with little or no knowledge of either business or finance. In fact, I would argue that the main reason present three-time-LAUSD-loser Superintendent Ramon Cortines has never been successful in any one of the NINE SCHOOL DISTRICTS he has headed in his long and anything but illustrious public education administrative career is precisely the fact that he and his successor John Deasy were teachers with little or no business expertise required to run an 6 billion a year plus public education business, where such business acumen is far more important than whether a Cortines or Deasy had teaching experience.There is a certain sick irony to school districts targeting teachers at the top of the salary scale on fabricated charges of incompetence, while ignoring clear and convincing evidence of systemic corruption of administrators.

In writing about Matt Hill for the L.A. Times Broad-party-line reporter Howard Blume seems hard pressed to find anything positive that Hill has done during his tenure at LAUSD, so he tries in a rather tenuous manner to allude to questionable "academic gains over [Hill's] time." But what Blume and other reporters seem to have no curiosity about in light of the recent test cheating scandals coming out of LAUSD'S MATT HILL CONTINUES TO FAIL UPWARD AS BURBANK UNIFIED'S NEW SUPERINTENDENT DESIGNANT - Perdaily.com:
Posted by at

What do we mean by good schools?

What do we mean by good schools in Detroit?:

What do we mean by good schools in Detroit?






Living in Detroit, I attend many public lectures and expert panels on the future of the city. At most, someone in the crowd inevitably says that none of the positive changes happening in the city make any difference if we don't "fix" our schools. The young folks moving in will move right back out when they have school-age children.
At face value, this argument is unassailable — of course we need good schools. But what do we mean by good schools? And which comes first, the city or the schools?
A first talking point in any discussion on school quality is test scores. By this metric, Detroit has a long way to go. On the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), fewer than 8% of the city's fourth- and eighth-grade students were labeled proficient or above in math and reading. Top cities like Austin, Texas; Charlotte, N.C., and San Diego were closer to 40%.
One could take this as an indictment of Detroit's education system. But this is where things get tricky because the "quality" of a city's education system, as measured by test scores, marches in lock-step with the income of the families living there.
If we look at the percentage of families in a city making less than $30,000 per year, and the percentage of students in that city proficient on NAEP tests, we find that the two variables have an almost perfect negative correlation. In other words, the higher the percentage of families in a city making less than $30,000, the lower the test scores.
In Detroit, where around half of families have an annual income of less than $30,000, and only a quarter are earning more than $60,000, just 8% of fourth-graders were proficient in reading. In Charlotte, where only a quarter of families make less than $30,000 per year and more than half earn more than $60,000, 40% of fourth-graders are above proficiency. The 2013 NAEP exam didn't tell me anything I couldn't have learned from the census.
This leaves me wondering: In those wealthier cities, which came first — the city or the schools? Did a city's education system improve drastically, causing middle and upper income folks to move back or stay in the city and help improve test scores?
Or does it work the other way? Young, educated adults move in to the city, find the best school possible when they have kids, recruit their friends to join them, and work to make the school better. And as this cycle continues, test scores rise, both because of the new wealthier kids, but also because low-income students perform better when going to school with their wealthier peers.
Rather than waiting for a top education system to somehow take form in a city with high levels of concentrated poverty, maybe we need a greater mix of folks to all build this system together.
This is obviously easier said than done. New parents with a choice of where to settle may be worried about sending their children into a school system consistently labeled the worst in the nation. And even an influx of middle-class families into the city is no guarantee that any of the low-income students currently in the school system would gain any of the benefits that come with greater socioeconomic diversity, as middle-class parents would likely center around a few schools, leaving the vast majority of the city's schools untouched.
So my response to that person at the panel discussion is "of course we need better schools in the city." But the path to those better schools is long and winding. Our best hope of systemically improving our schools long-term, both in Detroit and in our nation as a whole, is to get a greater mix of incomes and races going to school together. For a variety of reasons, getting low-income students into classrooms with middle and high-income students results in better outcomes for those low-income students.
But this will only happen if all students are able to attend those schools. To break our system of de facto racial and economic segregation in schools, we need housing policies that encourage a greater mix of incomes to all live together, followed by progressive education policies that push for schools to be more demographically representative of the entire community in which they're situated.
Until then, Detroit schools will never be "good" enough for those on the sidelines saying we need better schools. We need all those folks to help build that school system. And that's the hard part.
Patrick Cooney is college success manager, focusing on college readiness at high schools in Detroit run by Michigan Future Schools.What do we mean by good schools in Detroit?:
Posted by at

Common Core, standardized testing could change with burgeoning opt-out movement - Newsday

Common Core, standardized testing could change with burgeoning opt-out movement - Newsday:

Opt-out movement builds pressure to change standardized testing



An explosive student opt-out movement on Long Island and across the state may reshape standardized testing for years to come, a top state education official says, though exams based on the Common Core academic standards aren't going away any time soon.

Even the staunchest defenders of the state's English Language Arts and math tests, which affect more than 1 million students, acknowledge that pressure for change is mounting. Statewide, anti-testing activists estimated that more than 155,000 students in grades three through eight refused to take this week's English exams, and some school officials expect numbers to rise higher next week, when the math test is administered.

Merryl Tisch, head of the state's policymaking Board of Regents, said in a recent radio interview that growing test refusals could force a switch in the type of tests that are given.
SEE ALSOSearch opt-out rates

 "That is particularly why I am very interested in curtailing this opt-out movement, because in order for us to be able to have a viable test, we need a viable number of students in every district showing up to be tested," Tisch told WNYC's Brian Lehrer on April 7, a week before the English Language Arts test started statewide. "In the absence of that critical number, we will be forced unfortunately, and I truly believe unfortunately, to adopt a national test."

Multistate effort

New York already is positioned to make that leap. The state is part of a multistate consortium known as PARCC, which has developed a separate set of computer-based tests that could be introduced within two or three years, if the Regents decide to take that route.

Most on the 17-member Board of Regents are familiar with PARCC -- the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers -- which also bases tests on the Common Core standards. In February 2014, amid an outcry from educators and parents over the rushed rollout of curricula tied to the Common Core and its first, more rigorous tests the previous spring, the board loosened some requirements for testing and teacher evaluations.


As part of that retreat, the Regents backed away from a prospective timetable for implementing PARCC. At the time, a growing number of districts had expressed deep concerns about who would pay for the computers and bandwidth needed for the tests, and had raised questions about practical matters, such as where schools would find the space for scores of students to take tests on the machines.

Since then, PARCC tests have been field-tested in school districts across the state -- including some on the Island -- but the Education Department has not unveiled a concrete proposal for full-scale usage of the computer assessments.

Over the same period, the opt-out movement, far from being curtailed, has grown exponentially.

This week, 71,764 students in grades three through eight in Nassau and Suffolk counties -- more than 42 percent of those eligible -- refused to take the English Language Arts test, a Newsday survey of 110 of the Island's 124 districts found. Last year, nearly 9,500 students in 67 districts that responded to the newspaper's survey declined to participate in the ELA.

Several New York City news outlets have described the movement as driven largely by high-income suburban parents. Newsday's survey found, to the contrary, that districts with the highest percentages of test refusals were mostly middle-class -- for example, Comsewogue, with an opt-out rate of nearly 82 percent; Rocky Point, with 77.3 percent; Sayville, with 67.9 percent; and East Islip, 62.9 percent.

"We want our classrooms back, and I want my children to regain their love of learning," said GiGi Guiliano, an East Islip mother active in the movement. Two of her sons stayed home for three days this week while English tests were administered.

Guiliano, who works part time as an MRI technologist, said she was particularly angry that time spent on test prep and testing was restricting her sons' opportunities to pursue their interest in music.

Many parents who have rallied against state testing and the use of test scores in evaluating teachers' job performance express hope that the number of opt-outs will grow to the point where the state's teacher evaluation system will be dropped altogether.

Can still gather data
Statistical experts said, however, that the state still collects enough data to keep the system functioning. Under state rules, 16 student scores are considered adequate to calculate a teacher's state rating known as a "growth" score -- meaning that eight children taking both English and math tests in a single class would be enough.

State Education Department officials voiced confidence this week that the latest rounds of testing would generate scores valid for assessing both students' progress and teachers' job performance.

Ken Wagner, the state's senior deputy education commissioner, said in an interview that he expects more teachers to fall short of the required 16 scores this year than last year, when an estimated 447 teachers statewide were in that category. More than 38,000 teachers were issued growth scores in the latest round of evaluations.

Teachers in grades 3 through 8 with fewer than 16 student scores are rated according to another measure known as a Student Learning Objective, or SLO. This often consists of a composite of English and math scores for all students in a school building.

The rationale behind this schoolwide measure is that all teachers in a building -- even those involved in subjects such as art and music -- are broadly involved in improving students' academic literacy. Not all educators are convinced, however.

"It is absurd to evaluate teachers based on students that they don't even teach," said Brad Lindell, a school psychologist and union leader in the Connetquot district. "Why are they doing that?"

Tremors from what some describe as a parent "revolt" have been felt in Washington, D.C., as well.

On Thursday, a U.S. Senate committee approved a revision of the federal education law from President George W. Bush's administration, known as No Child Left Behind, on a bipartisan vote of 22-0.

One provision in the revised proposal would ban federal officials from setting rules for the way in which school districts rate the job performance of teachers and principals. New York State currently has a federally approved system that uses English and math scores to help rate teachers and principals -- a particular sore point that has prompted many of those educators to support the opt-out movement.

Bob Schaeffer, a former Port Jefferson resident and now one of the nation's leading critics of standardized testing, noted that No Child Left Behind was supposed to expire in 2007, but that Congress delayed action until this year. He credits the impact of parents' test refusals on Long Island, in New Jersey and elsewhere for the sudden turnaround.

"A major reason why 'No Child Left Behind' amendments have finally appeared -- eight years after they were due -- is that a huge grassroots movement including parents, teachers, school board members and others has put pressure on federal officials to stop test misuse and overuse," said Schaeffer, who is public education director for FairTest, a Boston-based advocacy group.

Still, the amended bill leaves in place the central components of No Child Left Behind: annual testing in English and math for all public school systems nationwide, coupled with annual reports on score results.

Even testing experts and local school leaders who worry that the increasing number of opt-outs will render test results less reliable than in the past say that they have to continue working with whatever data the system provides.

"So it is skewed," said Lorna Lewis, superintendent of Plainview-Old Bethpage schools and co-chairwoman of a curriculum committee for the New York State Council of School Superintendents. "Nevertheless, when we talk to people in [the] state [Education Department], they still say their figures are pretty robust and that the results will stand up."

David Morganstein, president of the Virginia-based American Statistical Association, the world's largest organization of statisticians, noted that when the percentage of people responding to a survey drops below 80 percent, results have to be carefully analyzed to check for statistical "bias." The same principle applies to testing, he said.

Thus, if 20 percent or more of students skip a test, results should be checked to see if those opting out included disproportionate numbers of students who were rich or poor, academically gifted or academically struggling, and so forth. Such aberrations can be adjusted statistically to validate results, Morganstein added.

"It certainly reduces the value of results," he said, "but it doesn't invalidate them."Common Core, standardized testing could change with burgeoning opt-out movement - Newsday:


Posted by at

Ohio's standardized test-makers preparing revisions | The Columbus Dispatch

Ohio's standardized test-makers preparing revisions | The Columbus Dispatch:

Ohio's standardized test-makers preparing revisions













Posted by at

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Senate ESEA Draft: Review of Approved Amendments, Part I | deutsch29

Senate ESEA Draft: Review of Approved Amendments, Part I | deutsch29:

Senate ESEA Draft: Review of Approved Amendments, Part I



US Senate Ed Committee




 On April 16, 2015, the Senate education committee approved the Alexander-Murray draft of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), a 601-page document entitled, The Every Child Achieves Act of 2015.

The draft approval was accompanied by 29 amendments, which can be found on this Senate ed page.
I reviewed the entire original 601-page Alexander-Murray draft in a series of six posts that can be accessed here.
In this post, I begin my review of the 29 amendments with the first 10. (I will review the remainder in subsequent posts.)
I am reviewing the amendments in alphabetical order by file name. Below each file link is my review for that particular amendment.
Here we go:
Sixteen pages long. Adds Section 1202: “Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments”
States that apply for this grant under Title I (amount to be “not less than $1,500,000 per fiscal year) can use the money to develop assessments aligned with their “challenging State standards”; these assessments can be those designed for “measuring student progress or academic growth over time, including multiple measures,” or “comprehensive academic assessment instruments” which can include “computer adaptive assessments, and portfolios, projects, or extended performance task assessments.”
This grant comes with requirement of a publicly-available audit of the state and local assessment systems, including examination of “the purpose for which the assessment was designed and the purpose for which the assessment is used, including assessments designed to contribute to systems of improvement of teaching and learning” (pg. 6). This is not a mandate for states to use student tests to measure teachers. The language does not assume that assessment design and usage are one and the same, and it is possible for this publicly-available audit to detect states using tests designed to measure student achievement as wrongly being used to assess teacher performance.
States must also provide information on the state laws mandating the state’s assessments; the time it takes to disseminate results, assessment costs, and assessment schedules.
Local education agencies (LEAs) using this grant money (as such is passed from state to LEA) must also conduct publicly-available audits of their assessment systems.
The audits require an opportunity for education stakeholder feedback, which is to include the extent to which assessment data are made readily available; time spent on test prep and time spent on administering assessments.
Based upon the complete audit (including education stakeholder feedback), each state must submit a plan to the US secretary for improving the state assessment system, which might include cutting unnecessary assessments by buying out the testing contract (if necessary), reducing time between assessment administration and dissemination of results– and which might include eliminating assessments “used for accountability purposes” and that are not valid and reliable and that are inconsistent with nationally recognized professional and technical standards” (pg. 10).
The remainder of this amendment includes revision of some details of the federal government’s funding of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The total per-state funding for NAEP will remain at at least $3 million per fiscal year.
This one-page amendment requires that state report cards include information on “the Senate ESEA Draft: Review of Approved Amendments, Part I | deutsch29:

Schneider is a southern Louisiana native, career teacher, trained researcher, and author of the ed reform whistle blower, A Chronicle of Echoes: Who’s Who In the Implosion of American Public Education.

She also has her second book available on pre-order, Common Core Dilemma: Who Owns Our Schools?, due for publication June 12, 2015.

CC book cover
Posted by at

Hillary Clinton Feeling Common Core Pains - Living in Dialogue

Hillary Clinton Feeling Common Core Pains - Living in Dialogue:

Hillary Clinton Feeling Common Core Pains





By Anthony Cody. 
One of Hillary Clinton’s first campaign appearances was this week at Kirkwood Community College in Monticello, Iowa. There was a roundtable of hand picked questioners, one of whom lobbed this softball: (minute 50 on this C-SPAN video).
Diane: I think we are very blessed to live where we do. Where education starting very young through high school, this community college, college. We have all these opportunities and we are fortunate here. I worry that not all of America gets to experience this treasure we have. And I think the Common Core is a wonderful step in the right direction of improving American education. And it’s painful to see that attacked. I’m just wondering what can you do to bring that heart back to education? What can we do so that parents and communities and businesses believe in American education and that teachers are respected and our schools are respected and our colleges are respected? And we offer a quality education to all Americans throughout the United States?
Hillary Clinton responded:
Hillary: Wow. That is really a powerful, touching comment that I absolutely embrace. When I think about the really unfortunate argument that been going on around Common Core, it’s very painful, because the Common Core started out as a bi-partisan effort – t was actually non-partisan. It wasn’t politicized, it was to try to come up with a core of learning that we might expect students to achieve across our country, no matter what kind of school district they were in, no matter how poor their family was, that there wouldn’t be two tiers of education. Everybody would be looking at what was to be learned and doing their best to try to achieve that. I think part of the reason Iowa may be more understanding of this is you’ve had the Iowa Core for years, you’ve had a system, plus the Iowa Assessment tests. I think I’m right in saying I took those when I was in elementary school – the Iowa tests. So Iowa has a testing system based on a core curriculum for a really long time, and you see the value of it, you understand why that helps you organize your whole education system. And a lot of states, unfortunately, haven’t had that, and so don’t understand the value of a core, in the sense of a common core that then – yes of course you can, y’know, figure out the best way, in your community to try to reach.
But your question is really a larger one. How did we end up at a point where we are sooo negative about the most important non-family enterprise in the raising of the next generation, which is how our kids are educated. There are a lot of explanations for that, I suppose. Whatever they are, we need to try to get back into a broad conversation where people will actually listen to each other again, and try to come up with solutions for problems, cause the problems here in Monticello are not the same as you’ll find in the inner cities in our biggest urban areas – that’s a given – we have to do things differently. But it should all be driven by the same commitment to try to make sure we do educate every child. That’s why, I was a senator and voted for Leave No Child Behind (sic) because I thought every child should matter.
It was interesting to watch Clinton’s emotional state, since she began by describing the issue as painful. She seems most genuinely animated when describing how the a testing system based on a core curriculum “helps you organize your whole education system.” That is exactly why macro-managers like Clinton (and Bill Hillary Clinton Feeling Common Core Pains - Living in Dialogue:


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)