CURMUDGUCATION: Is the Right Splintering on Testing?

CURMUDGUCATION: Is the Right Splintering on Testing?:

Is the Right Splintering on Testing?

Last week both Rick Hess (American Enterprise Institute) and Robert Pondiscio (Fordham) turned up in the pages of US News, each to post his own response to the opt out movement. Since both of these guys come from the Fordham-AEI-Stanford axis of market-based reformsterism, it's interesting to note that they seem to disagree. Of course, the right is no more monolithic than any other segment of opinion, but it's still interesting to look for points of debate within reformsterdom.

Pondiscio presented Four Lessons To Learn from the Opt Out Debate, which was really a list of four things that opt-outers need to wise up about.

4) Unions are driving discontent. Pondiscio and Mike Petrilli have both tried to sell this idea, but it is a pig that will not fly. Has the union in NY successfully stirred up agitation among parents over everything? That's a clear "no." The union could not roil up opposition to the Big Standardized Test if the parents of New York thought the test was just peachy. One could argue that the teachers simply removed one last obstacle to opting out (fear that opting out would hurt beloved Miss Othmar) and let nature take its course.

Bottom line-- the union could not create discontent out of thin air.

3) Black test scores matter. Here Pondiscio tries to sell the "opt out is a middle class white thing" narrative, which ignores a great number of details (and makes the odd assumption that white = middle class and black = poor which-- really?) It also tries to sell the pretense that non-wealthy non-whites have really been benefiting by having their neighborhood school bulldozed and their democratic voices silenced.

2) Don't follow the money. Pondiscio's argument here is that everything in a school costs money.

"The test prep industry is lucrative," writes anti-testing NPR reporter Anya Kamenetz, who also points to a report that calculated $669 million spent on tests in 45 states, or $27 per student. That's it? The desk on which your kid takes his tests costs four times that amount.

Pondiscio is arguing that "money-making" does not automatically equal "evil and untrustworthy." But the difference between the test and the desk is that the desk has a proven and recognized purpose in the classroom. The test is there because of an artificially created "need," and since the test manufacturers were themselves instrumental in creating that artificial "need," they are suspect.

1) Respect parental choice. I saved this one till last because it is the crux of the issue. The opt-out movement has put many people (at least those who care about some level of intellectual consistency and honesty) in a bind. If you think parents should get to choose their own schools, it seems awfully inconsistent to say they should not get a choice when it comes to testing. (There's also a problem if you're anti-school choice but pro opt-out-- I have an answer for that, but that's for a whole other piece. I just didn't want you to think I'd missed that).

Those of us who value testing need to do a better job of explaining to unhappy parents what's in it for them. But we also must respect parental prerogative, whether we like it or not. 

Rick Hess went first, but he still calls Pondiscio on that last point.

Oddly enough, suburban parents seem oddly ungrateful for these efforts to help them see that their children’s schools actually stink. When reformers wonder why these parents don’t get it, the usual culprit is “messaging.” And the usual solution is better PR. 

Hess's piece "Opt out parents have a point" is pure Hess. Whatever you think of his goals and track CURMUDGUCATION: Is the Right Splintering on Testing?:

Charter school politics may change with Santa Clara County school board appointment - San Jose Mercury News

Charter school politics may change with Santa Clara County school board appointment - San Jose Mercury News:

Charter school politics may change with Santa Clara County school board appointment

In an apparent victory for teachers unions and a setback for charter schools, the Santa Clara County Board of Education has filled a vacancy on its board -- setting the stage for a possibly dramatic change in decadelong charter-school politics.

The board appointed Rosemary Kamei, of San Jose, after initially deadlocking over her and the other leading candidate, former San Jose City Councilwoman Judy Chirco.

Both were seeking to replace Leon Beauchman, a low-key but staunch supporter of charter schools, which are publicly funded schools operating largely independently of school districts and most of the state Education Code. Kamei was endorsed by presidents of 13 local teacher unions.

Trustee Grace Mah originally supported Chirco. While she said Kamei would be an asset on the board, "the question is whether she'll be able to vote independently."

Over the years, the county board has become one of the most sympathetic in the state to charters, which are vehemently opposed by teacher unions and often by school districts, for siphoning off funds and students and usually operating without union contracts.

The Santa Clara County school board has infuriated local districts by approving 20 Rocketship charter schools in one night in 2011 and by reversing district school boards' denials of other charter school applications.

Kamei, whose 39-page application packet included dozens of endorsements, said she knows of some good charter operators and wants to find out about others. "I want to be able to see for myself, and I welcome being able to learn from them."

She also said Thursday that she would like the county office of education to work more closely with school districts -- which often have seen the county office and county school board as heavy-handed.

Forty-five independent charter schools operate in the county, 20 of them under office of education oversight. They were approved by a solid pro-charter board majority that until last year included Beauchman, former trustee Julia Hover-Smoot, of Morgan Hill, Mah, of Palo Alto, and Joseph Di Salvo, of San Jose.

But Hover-Smoot lost in November to charter opponent Claudia Rossi, and Beauchman stepped down in March to pursue a master's degree. The split on the board was highlighted Charter school politics may change with Santa Clara County school board appointment - San Jose Mercury News:

A Child's First Teacher | The Jose Vilson

A Child's First Teacher | The Jose Vilson:

A Child’s First Teacher

 [Today’s special guest is Anthony Mullen, 2009 Teacher of the Year and awesome writer. Feel free to tell us what you think about his post in the comments below.]

Spring is in the air and I am surrounded by death. The countless small white headstones seem so clean, neat, tidy – each a small but insignificant reminder that a person once lived. I come here often but still get lost among the sea of stones. An old oak tree stood tall near my mother’s grave until a hungry fungus made it as lifeless as the departed who lie beneath my feet.

I have come to this vast military cemetery to visit my mother’s grave. She was married to a United States Marine who fought in the Second World War, and every soldier is entitled to a small piece of the land they once defended. I miss the shade and comfort of the familiar oak tree, but a map provided by the visitor center led me to her gravestone.

Sarah Mullen
April 8 1930
May 3 1970
Wife of PFC John Mullen
USMC World War II

My mother’s stone is cold and hard and completely still. It brings me no solace as I touch its weathered surface because I can no longer hold her the hand that bears the stone’s name. I last saw my Mom as she lay dying on our kitchen floor. I thought she had fainted because the oven door was open and the room was very hot. I did not know that a cerebral artery burst and had taken her life, forever leaving a nine-year-old boy puzzled about the role serendipity played in death.

My mother’s funeral mass was crowded with friends and family, and my hurriedly purchased suit did not fit well. I remember staring at her casket and wondering if she was wearing her favorite blue dress. I wanted to open the casket and place a photograph of my brother and me in her hands but was afraid to look at a dead person. I watched the hearse take my mother away to a place called Long Island, and later was taken to a neighbor’s house. I always regretted not leaving the pew and placing the photograph in my mother’s hands.

The Scots are strange mourners. Some treat the dead as though they have never left, and others pretend the dead never lived. I grew up never seeing a photograph of my mother or learning A Child's First Teacher | The Jose Vilson:

Will anything convince Connecticut’s teacher unions to join the Common Core Opt-Out Movement? - Wait What?

Will anything convince Connecticut’s teacher unions to join the Common Core Opt-Out Movement? - Wait What?:

Will anything convince Connecticut’s teacher unions to join the Common Core Opt-Out Movement?

All across the nation, teacher unions at the state and local level are joining parents, students and teachers in an unprecedented uprising against the massive unfair, inappropriate and discriminatory Common Core testing scheme.

Here in Connecticut, the Common Core Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) testing craze began on March 27, 2015.

Yet six weeks have gone by and there is still no public sign of support for the opt out movement from Connecticut’s two teacher unions – the Connecticut Education Association (CEA) and the American Federation of Teachers – Connecticut Chapter (AFT-Connecticut).

At this point, Connecticut’s teacher unions have forever lost the opportunity to help lead the charge.  But even running to jump on the opt-out train would be an important and appreciated gesture of support for Connecticut’s public school students, parents and teachers.

What is so incredibly strange, even bizarre, about the utter lack of action by Connecticut’s teacher unions is that it is in such stark contrast to what other teacher unions are doing around the country.

In New Jersey, the headline on the New Jersey Education Association website demands that Republican Governor Chris Christie and his administration, “Stop attacking parents…” for opting out of the Common Core Tests. 

And the pushback against New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo is just as strong, as  NYSUT, the union that represents more than 600,000 New York State teachers, school-related professionals and academic and professional faculty in higher education continues its full-fledged campaign to help educate and support parents who are opting out of that state’s Common Core Testing.

In New York, the union’s well-funded program has provided needed support for parents and students, which, in turn, has helped to boost the number of students opting out from around  40,000 last year to as many as a quarter of a million this year.

Numerous public high schools in New York State are reporting more than 50 percent of high school juniors have been opted out of the destructive Common Core test and many high schools are seeing opt-out rates exceeding 80 percent.

But here in Connecticut, Governor Malloy’s administration’s goes unchecked as it continues to lie and mislead parents about their right to opt their children out of the testing scam and some local school superintendents go unchallenged as they inappropriately tell highs school juniors that they cannot graduate unless they take the SBAC test – a policy that would be illegal if true.

In state after state, teacher unions have stepped up to leverage their political power and visibility on behalf of the opt-out effort.

This weekend, the Massachusetts Teachers Association joined the effort endorsing the fundamental right of parents to opt their children out of the Common Core testing.

The MTA’s resolution states;

That parents in Massachusetts deserve the choice to opt their public school students out of high-stakes standardized assessments.

That districts should be required to provide all parents with yearly written 

Will anything convince Connecticut’s teacher unions to join the Common Core Opt-Out Movement? - Wait What?:

With A Brooklyn Accent: The Seven Deadly Sins of Educational "Reform"- A Buffalo Story by Publius

With A Brooklyn Accent: The Seven Deadly Sins of Educational "Reform"- A Buffalo Story by Publius:

The Seven Deadly Sins of Educational "Reform"- A Buffalo Story by Publius

The Seven Deadly Sins (+1) of Educational “Reform”

 St. Bonaventure is a small, sleepy Franciscan catholic university in Olean, NY. Located among the gently rolling hills of the Allegheny Mountains. There is no prettier part of the country to visit in the Fall. The leaves of the Black Walnut, White Oak, Mountain Ash trees take on the vibrant hues of autumn while the bounty of Red Delicious, Cortland, Paula Red, McInstosh and Ida Reds ripen in the apple orchards. These bucolic surroundings inspire the undergraduates and Friars alike to love learning and to give kindly to their community. The university is named for St. Bonaventure who named by St. Francis of Assisi himself when he proclaimed “O buona ventura” after his prayers healed the young sickly boy.


St. Bonaventure alumni include former NBA great Bob Lanier, six Pulitzer Prize recipients and five former Congressman. Bonnies also claims (or maybe disclaims) a former New York gubernatorial candidate whose campaign was derailed by his threatening antics and the release of a spate of emails containing sexist and racist remarks so vile the details are better left to history’s dustbin. That person now sits on the Buffalo Public Schools Board of Education purporting to have a mandate to close “failing” public schools and open profitable charters. That person who has wreaked bad fortune upon the kids of Buffalo’s public and charter schools is Carl Paladino.

Nary a board meeting passes without his scripted claim that “I’m here for the children.” Recently, he has stopped making that false claim because the public’s boos and jeers drowned him into silence. To his credit, he marches forward undaunted, brash and loathed.

Lying may be considered a venial sin. Lying in vain to claim concern for children as a ruse to profit financially may not be so venial. Educated in the liberal catholic theology of the 1960s, Carl’s sins could betray his alma mater and certainly betray his faith. His actions will speak to the seven deadly sins, plus one.


Luxuria. The unbridled desire for money, fame and power.

Tapestry Charter School is housed in a building owned by Carl’s son (only recently having been transferred to his possession from Carl himself). This, With A Brooklyn Accent: The Seven Deadly Sins of Educational "Reform"- A Buffalo Story by Publius:

Mike Klonsky's SmallTalk Blog: I'm not 'anti-charter' but I am anti-this...

Mike Klonsky's SmallTalk Blog: I'm not 'anti-charter' but I am anti-this...:

I'm not 'anti-charter' but I am anti-this...

 

Mavericks charter founder Frank Biden, brother of V.P. Joe Biden.

"I give you my word of honor on my family name that this system is sustainable.”

"I'm very proud of what we're doing." We're on a  mission from God."  --  Frank Biden

As I have pointed out many times, I am not "anti-charter". But I am against what they've become and the way charter schools have been taken over by networks of politically-connected corporate privateers. They have co-opted the language of the small-schools movement, ie.  "choice" and "autonomy", in order to further debase teachers, erode public space and public decision making, to bust teacher unions, and to reap profits from urban gentrification.

The wild, unregulated expansion of these privately-run charter networks has come at the expense of public schools. It has also served to increase racial segregation. And to top it off, there's no evidence that these networks perform and better (often worse) than the public schools they were meant to replace.

A case in point, as if another one were needed... A large Florida-based charter network is called Mavericks (R.I.P. James Garner).  It was founded byFrank Biden, brother of Vice-Pres. Joe Biden. Yesterday's Palm Beach Postreported that Mavericks Principal Krista Morton was arrested while allegedly using drugs and having sex with a student in a car.

Okay, some might say. This is terrible but it has nothing to do with charter schools per se. After all, we read about incidents like this all the time, sensationalized in our gossip-hungry media. But that begs the question. This story not only highlights a school principal who probably shouldn't have been hired in the first place, but a charter chain, established by a politically-connected non-educator. It's one of many that has failed to keeps its promise to its students and their families. It also raises the question: Are charters really public.?

Back in 2011, when Krista Morton was the principal at Richard Millburn Academy — a charter school for dropout students in Manatee County — district officials investigated the school for graduating students who did not meet requirements, Mike Klonsky's SmallTalk Blog: I'm not 'anti-charter' but I am anti-this...:

The Circle of Courage – Native American Model of Education | Creative by Nature

The Circle of Courage – Native American Model of Education | Creative by Nature:

The Circle of Courage – Native American Model of Education

Posted on February 18, 2015by Christopher Chase

“Anthropologists have long known that Native Americans reared courageous, respectful children without using harsh coercive controls. Nevertheless, Europeans colonizing North America tried to “civilize” indigenous children in punitive boarding schools, unaware that Natives possessed a sophisticated philosophy that treated children with deep respect.” ~ The Circle of Courage

“The Circle of Courage is a model of positive youth development first described in the bookReclaiming Youth at Risk, co-authored by Larry Brendtro, Martin Brokenleg, and Steve Van Bockern. The model integrates Native American philosophies of child-rearing, the heritage of early pioneers in education and youth work, and contemporary resilience research. The Circle of Courage is based in four universal growth needs of all children: belonging, mastery, independence, and generosity.

These traditional values are validated by contemporary child research and are consistent with the findings of Stanley Coopersmith who identified four foundations for self-worth: significance, competence, power, and virtue. These are summarized below:

Belonging
In Native American and First Nations cultures, significance was nurtured in communities of belonging. Lakota anthropologist Ella Deloria described the core value of belonging in these simple words: “Be related, somehow, to everyone you know.” Treating others as kin forges powerful social bonds that draw all into relationships of respect. Theologian Marty observed that throughout history the tribe, not the nuclear family, always ensured the
survival of the culture. Even if parents died or were not responsible, the tribe was always there to nourish the next generation.

Mastery
Competence in traditional cultures is ensured by guaranteed opportunity for mastery. Children were taught to carefully observe and listen to those with more experience. A person with greater ability was seen as a model for learning, not as a rival. Each person strives for mastery for personal growth, but not to be superior to someone else. Humans have an innate drive to become competent and solve problems. With success in surmounting challenges, the desire to achieve is strengthened.

Independence
Power in Western culture was based on dominance, but in tribal traditions it meant respecting the right for independence. In contrast to obedience models of discipline, Native teaching was designed to build respect and teach inner discipline. From earliest childhood, children were encouraged to make decisions, solve problems, and show personal responsibility. Adults modeled, nurtured, taught values, and gave feedback, but children were given abundant opportunities to make choices without coercion.

Generosity
Finally, virtue was reflected in the pre-eminent value of generosity. The central goal in Native American child-rearing is to teach the importance of being generous and unselfish. In the words of a Lakota Elder, “You should be able to give away your most cherished possession without your heart beating faster.” In helping others, youth create their own proof of worthiness: they make a positive contribution to another human life.”

All text sources: Reclaiming Youth International & Circle of Courage

Related video:

The Circle of Courage – Native American Model of Education | Creative by Nature:

MOMS and dads: teachers “in loco parentis” | Reclaim Reform

MOMS and dads: teachers “in loco parentis” | Reclaim Reform:

MOMS and dads: teachers “in loco parentis”

Posted on May 10, 2015by Ken Previti

On Mother’s Day it seems right to celebrate all MOMS – biological, adoptive, guardians, step-mothers, grandmothers, etc.

Since the vast majority of teachers are women, and since all teachers are, by law, “in loco parentis” (Latin – meaning “in place of the parent.”), please celebrate all the wonderful MOMS who  nurtured and taught you every year of your childhood.

As a male teacher who is now retired, on Mother’s Day I gladly refer to them as MOMS while designating myself as one of the (lower case) dads. It was delightful to be surrounded by all of those wonderful women who willingly took on MOM responsibility and privilege by being “in loco parentis” to all of our kids.

Yes, every year we had more and more kids – our kids. Career teachers have a right to call them our kids. After years of teaching, we MOMS and dads were struck by the awesome awareness that all children are our children.

On Mother’s Day and every day, please celebrate all MOMS. They love you and remember you as their little darlings who were as different as snowflakes and as uniquely human as human can be.MOMS and dads: teachers “in loco parentis” | Reclaim Reform:

Education “reform’s” big lie: The real reason the right has declared war on our public schools - Salon.com

Education “reform’s” big lie: The real reason the right has declared war on our public schools - Salon.com:

Education “reform’s” big lie: The real reason the right has declared war on our public schools

Pro-business conservatives see U.S. public education budgets as pots of gold to be mined for private gain

Campbell Brown, Arne Duncan, Michelle Rhee (Credit: AP/Reuters/Jacquelyn Martin/Larry Downing/Andrew Burton)

Excerpted from "Sixteen for '16: A Progressive Agenda for a Better America"

Reform (noun): a policy that is designed to undermine the effectiveness of a public institution in a way that generates private gains.

Reform (verb): to make something worse.

When did reform become a dirty word? Thirty years of education reform have brought a barren, test-bound curriculum that stigmatizes students, vilifies teachers, and encourages administrators to commit wholesale fraud in order to hit the testing goals that have been set for them. Strangely, reform has gone from being a progressive cause to being a conservative curse. It used to be that good people pursued reform to make the world a better place, usually by bringing public services under transparent, meritocratic, democratically governed public control. Today, reform more often involves firing people and dismantling public services in the pursuit of private gain. Where did it all go so wrong? Who stole our ever-progressing public sector, and in the process stole one of our most effective words for improving it?

At least so far as education reform is concerned, the answer is clear. The current age of education reform can be traced to the landmark 1983 report A Nation at Risk, subtitled “The Imperative for Educational Reform.” Future dictionaries may mark this report as the turning point when the definition of reform changed from cause to a curse. In 1981 Ronald Reagan’s first Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell appointed an 18-person commission to look into the state of US schools. He charged the commission with addressing “the widespread public perception that something is seriously remiss in our educational system.” The commission included 12 administrators, 1 businessperson, 1 chemist, 1 physicist, 1 politician, 1 conservative activist, and 1 teacher. No students or recent graduates. No everyday parents. No representatives of parents’ organizations. No social workers, school psychologists, or guidance counselors. No representatives of teacher’s unions (God forbid). Just one practicing teacher and not a single academic expert on education.

It should come as no surprise that a commission dominated by administrators found that the problems of U.S. schools were mainly caused by lazy students and unaccountable teachers. Administrative incompetence was not on the agenda. Nor were poverty, inequality, and racial discrimination. A Nation at Risk began from the assumption that our public schools were failing. Of course our public schools were failing. Our public schools are always failing. No investigative panel has ever found that our public schools are succeeding. But if public schools have been failing for so long—if they were already failing in 1983 and have been failing ever since—then very few of us alive today could possibly have had a decent education. So who are we to offer solutions for fixing these failing schools? We are ourselves the products of the very failing schools we propose to fix.

Which gets to the point of the matter: For most of the 150-year- history of public education in the U.S., public schools have done a pretty good job. There is no crisis in public education. There never has been—or at least not until now. This time really is different. This time the issue is not the quality of our public schools. This time the issue is the survival of our public schools as public schools. Public schools today face relentless attacks from pro-business conservatives who see U.S. public education budgets as pots of gold to be mined for private gain. In the 2011-12 school year no fewer than 35 states supported for-profit “education management organizations” (EMOs) with taxpayer money; these for-profit EMOs collectively “managed” the education of 462,926 students. These figures from the National Education Policy Center include only for-profit “public” schools and do not include students educated at private schools at public expense through school voucher programs. They are also minimum figures; they include only the schools that the authors of the study could find and identify as being run for-profit providers. There is no centralized database for tracking the privatization of our public schools.

There is also a not-for-profit EMO sector that is roughly equal in size to the for-profit EMO sector. The dirty open secret of not-for-profit EMOs is that most (though not all) of them are essentially just pass-through front operations for profit-making companies. The fine line between not-for-profit and for-profit EMOs is finely delineated in Stephanie Strom’s in-depth 2010 report for the New York Times. For all practical policy purposes, the for-profit and not-for-profit EMO sectors can be considered one and the same. Putting both together, and assuming that 10% of the sector is not captured in the National Education Policy Center’s annual survey, puts the likely number of public school students sitting in for-profit classrooms at over one million. This is still a small proportion of all public school students, but it is growing rapidly. Taken to its rational conclusion, the conservative agenda calls for nothing less than the complete privatization of all public education in America.

The privatization agenda can be very seductive. Students aren’t studying? Threaten to fail them and hire private testing companies to keep them in line. Teachers aren’t teaching? Threaten to fire them and create private charter schools to replace them. Parents are voters and by definition always right, so empower parents as consumers to buy the education they want for their children. We choose and buy our children’s food, clothing, and toys. Why not choose and buy our children’s education? Why should government bureaucrats decide what’s best for our kids? The conservative agenda will put us in charge of our children’s education. What could be wrong with that?

First, our children’s education should be in the hands of professionals whose first and only priority is education. Do we really want our children’s futures to be in the hands of for-profit corporations? For that matter, do we really want our children’s futures to be completely in the hands of their parents? It is a sacrilege in politics to say anything bad about parents, but let’s face facts. Collectively, we give our children too much food and too little exercise. We use televisions and computers (sorry, educational videos and learning software) as baby-sitters. Our basements, closets, and garages are filled with piles of junk that pass for toys. Parents are great at love and security but maybe not so great at education. In contrast, public school teachers are full-time professionals who are trained in child development and paid to focus on our children all day (and often unpaid into the night). Sometimes it’s best to rely on professionals for things that really matter.

An important principle of professionalism is that professionals should not stand to gain or lose from the decisions they make in carrying out their professional duties. A serious problem in the medical profession is that doctors can make much more money working for the drug companies than working for their patients. A better model is to insulate professionals from financial considerations. Clearly, for-profit schools are dangerous because as for-profit companies they are obliged to care more about their profits than about our children. Ditto companies that provide pre-packaged educational products like standardized tests, test preparation software, pre-packaged lesson plans, and even school lunches. Buyer beware.

Truly public schools insulate educational decision makers from profit motives of all kinds. Unionized schools ensure even higher levels of professionalism by insulating educators themselves from the day-to-day pressures of financial performance. That’s not a bad thing. That’s a fantastic thing. Union protections reduce the incentives teachers face to give high grades just to keep everyone happy, to push “difficult” children out of their classes, and to teach to the test. Unions ensure that school districts provide appropriate professional training opportunities for teachers and administrators. And unions prevent favoritism in the awarding of raises and promotions, substituting instead the principle of seniority based on experience. In short, a unionized school may not be a perfect school, but it is a professional school.

The second reason that strong public schools are in the national interest is that the most important purpose of public education is not to educate students. It is to build the American nation. Think about it. Why is the government even involved in education? Why not leave parents to pay for their own children’s education? We don’t feed, bathe, house, and clothe each other’s children. Why do we pay others to educate them? The answer is not charity. We have programs to help feed, house, and provide medical care for the children of the poor. But we don’t provide these benefits to the children of the rich. We don’t even provide free medical care to the children of the rich. But we provide free public education to everyone.

We provide free public education to everyone because education is primarily about good citizenship, not academic learning. All those hours spent in classrooms should be used to help our children grow into happy, productive, moral, responsible, reasonably well-Education “reform’s” big lie: The real reason the right has declared war on our public schools - Salon.com:

Boycotters Might Be Winning the Battle Over Standardized Testing | TakePart

Boycotters Might Be Winning the Battle Over Standardized Testing | TakePart:

Boycotters Might Be Winning the Battle Over Standardized Testing

Thanks to pressure from parents and activists, a growing number of school districts and state boards of education are putting the brakes on new high-stakes exams.

In Chicago, home to the nation’s third-largest school system, the city superintendent has decided not to administer a test tied to the federal Common Core curriculum. The move eases the pressure on tens of thousands of students—and validates parents and educators who boycotted the test last year—but risks billions of dollars in government funds.  

Half a continent away, in California, state education officials are ready to follow Chicago’s lead and ask the federal government for an exemption from using scores on tests mandated by No Child Left Behind to measure progress in reading and math. Meanwhile, in Colorado, state education authorities recently voted 5–2 to walk away fromCommon Core and leave their share of Education Department money on the table—all because their kids are staggering under the testing burden.

In districts across the nation, from Florida to Alaska, the grassroots push for a rollback in high-stakes testing has gained momentum, and a broad coalition of parents, teachers, and advocates are poised to take advantage, even if it means an end to federal grants in tight fiscal times. But it also puts pressure on local and national education policy makers, including President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who see frequent testing as a key component in the education-overhaul tool kit.

“What you’re seeing is a response to a grassroots movement of parents, teachers, and students pushing back against testing overkill,” said Robert Schaeffer, public education director of FairTest, one of the organizations leading the test-reform movement. He said suburban schools where parents doubt the usefulness of standardized testing is worth the stress have linked arms with poorer ones that don’t have the resources to ensure students score well and will lose money if they don’t.

According to Schaeffer, school districts and state education boards are beginning to recognize that forcing students to take standardized tests—and using the results to determine federal funding, millions of dollars in education reform incentives, and teacher salaries—does more harm than good. The tests have barely moved the needle in the drive to improve public education.

“The [Common Core] tests were supposed to be a whole new generation, designed to get beyond the fill-in-the-bubble, multiple-choice tests,” he said. “But they’re the same tests, only longer and harder.”

Starting with No Child Left Behind and continuing with the Common Core curriculum, student testing has spiked in the last decade. Along with state assessments, some districts test their students as often as once a year on math and reading proficiency; before the change, testing usually happened just once in elementary, middle, and high school.

Proponents say testing is a valuable tool that helps parents measure school and teacher performance with an independent, unbiased, standard yardstick. But there’s a lot of pressure: Some tests can determine a student’s future education and career.

“This movement has been growing, and if Congress reauthorizes the [Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as No Child Left Behind], it may well trigger a larger test boycott movement across the country,” Pedro Noguera, an education professor at New York University, wrote in an email. “Many communities are growing weary of the amount of time devoted to testing—which comes at the expense of time focused on instruction—and they are increasingly willing to take on the federal government.”

Noguera and Schaeffer agree that Chicago Public Schools is Exhibit A, and perhaps the turning point the movement has been waiting for. After all, both President Obama and Secretary Duncan are standardized-testing advocates who have close ties to Chicago and to its mayor, Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former chief of staff.

When parents and some teachers boycotted the Common Core–affiliated Partnership Assessment for Readiness for College and Careers (known as the PARCC) test last year, “public opinion polls say the public backed them,” Schaeffer said. Other grassroots organizations and teachers’ unions threw their weight behind the boycott, leading Chicago Public Schools chief Barbara Byrd-Bennett to recently make the strategic decision to have only about 10 percent of the district’s 664 public schools take the test as a representative sample.

Disparities in school funding played a role in Bennett’s decision; the test is computerized, which isn’t a problem for schools in wealthier areas, but in some of Chicago’s poorest schools, it’s a disqualifier. That’s the situation in plenty of other cities across the nation too. “In many places, computer labs do not exist,” Schaeffer said.

Ultimately, he said, the movement has probably reached critical mass, and as many as 25 states are discussing opting out of the system—including New York, where Schaeffer predicted “widespread opt-outs and boycotts by parents” beginning in March, the start of so-called testing season.

“Politicians are scrambling and backpedaling,” he said. “This is a rapidly escalating moment, especially as testing season approaches.”

“This movement has been growing, and if Congress reauthorizes the [Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as No Child Left Behind], it may well trigger a larger test boycott movement across the country,” Pedro Noguera, an education professor at New York University, wrote in an email. “Many communities are growing weary of the amount of time devoted to testing—which comes at the expense of time focused on instruction—and they are increasingly willing to take on the federal government.”

Noguera and Schaeffer agree that Chicago Public Schools is Exhibit A, and perhaps the turning point the movement has been waiting for. After all, both President Obama and Secretary Duncan are standardized-testing advocates who have close ties to Chicago and to its mayor, Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former chief of staff.

When parents and some teachers boycotted the Common Core–affiliated Partnership Assessment for Readiness for College and Careers (known as the PARCC) test last year, “public opinion polls say the public backed them,” Schaeffer said. Other grassroots organizations and teachers’ unions threw their weight behind the boycott, leading Chicago Public Schools chief Barbara Byrd-Bennett to recently make the strategic decision to have only about 10 percent of the district’s 664 public schools take the test as a representative sample.

Disparities in school funding played a role in Bennett’s decision; the test is computerized, which isn’t a problem for schools in wealthier areas, but in some of Chicago’s poorest schools, it’s a disqualifier. That’s the situation in plenty of other cities across the nation too. “In many places, computer labs do not exist,” Schaeffer said.  

Ultimately, he said, the movement has probably reached critical mass, and as many as 25 states are discussing opting out of the system—including New York, where Schaeffer predicted “widespread opt-outs and boycotts by parents” beginning in March, the start of so-called testing season.   

“Politicians are scrambling and backpedaling,” he said. “This is a rapidly escalating moment, especially as testing season approaches.”Boycotters Might Be Winning the Battle Over Standardized Testing | TakePart:

“I’ve Got Ants in My Pants and I Need to Dance” - Students Need Physical Education

Students Need Physical Education:

“I’ve Got Ants in My Pants and I Need to Dance”

Students Need Physical Activity to Excel

Nothing gets me angrier or more upset than hearing that students in the Bronx, and other high needs communities, have almost no access to physical activity during their school day, both because they lack gym access and school teams, and because schools are now now using recess and gym for test prep because they fear being closed or subject to outside “intervention” if their test scores should go down

Not only does this hugely magnify health issues among students, ranging from obesity to circulatory problems, it has an even more negative impact on student behavior and academic performance. Asking young people to go through entire days sitting in their chairs, devoid of any regular physical outlet, is to ask them to do something entirely unnatural for any human being, much less a child. It will make students restless, make them angry, and inhibit their ability to concentrate on the material authorities want them to master. And though an emphasis on improving test scores is often promoted as a vehicle to promote educational equity, having test prep dominate the school day to the exclusion of physical activity, or artistic expression, is a prescription for long term academic disaster.

It pains me to think that there are brilliant young people all over this country whose intellectual or artistic potential is being squandered because their schools give them no exercise opportunities whatsoever!

This is something I know from first hand experience as well as the available academic research. I could never have had the patience to sit for hours doing historical research, something I started doing in high school and began to adopt as a regular routine in college, had not I gone through an extremely demanding regimen of physical activity. In high school, that consisted of daily gym class as well as being on a school team; in college it consisted of playing two hours of basketball several evenings a week after having tennis team practice every afternoon. It was that expenditure of energy that allowed me to spend three or four hours in a library at a time; the activity which ultimately became the basis of my career as a scholar and teacher. There is no way I could have done that without huge opportunities for physical release.

It pains me to think that there are brilliant young people all over this country whose intellectual or artistic potential is being squandered because their schools give them no exercise opportunities whatsoever! To put the matter bluntly, I would never have become an historian if I had to go through school with little or no exercise the way many Bronx youngsters do today. I might have even ended up in jail, because I would have been so angry and restless that I would have done something destructive.

We are doing a terrible thing to our children by denying them exercise.

This has to change and change now, even if it means a moratorium on testing. Come to think of it, that may be exactly what we need.

James Brown spoke for millions of children, including me, when he said ” I have ants in my pants and I need to dance.” That is a fundamental human need which current education policy makers are suppressing in their panic to raise test scores.

Mark Naison
With A Brooklyn Accent

About Mark Naison

Mark Naison is a Professor of African-American Studies and History at Fordham University and Director of Fordham’s Urban Studies Program. He is the author of three books and over 100 articles on African-American History, urban history, and the history of sports.Students Need Physical Education: