New nationwide poll shows parents find standardized tests of little value

High Achievement NY put out a press release trumpeting a new poll from Achieve -- both organizations funded by the Gates Foundation to promote the Common Core and testing.  Though the poll did find that parents are concerned that their children may not be sufficiently prepared for college and career, there is little to show that the Common Core standards and more testing leads to better preparation. 

The results of the poll itself is interesting and shows growing discontent with the testing regime.

See this slide, revealing that 13% of parents opted their children out of standardized tests last year.

Despite lower rates overall than upper-income suburban Moms (their words, not mine) African-America and  Hispanic Moms intend to opt their children out in greater numbers next year -- with the number of African-American mothers nearly doubling.

Also, respondents give a variety of reasons for opposing standardized testing, with 49% saying the exams do a poor job capturing their children's true abilities, and 48% say that the exams yield no positive benefits to children taking the exam. Especially interesting is that 53% of African American  Moms say their children are subjected to too many tests. 

 Altogether, these responses must be very discouraging to Gates et. al. which has spent millions of dollars funding organizations and media outlets to spread the message that parents who opt out of Common Core exams are selfish, mean-spirited and misguided.

Our Children are more than test scores, Part 3: What Bloomberg, Duncan and Klein should learn from the Chinese

Today, Mayor Bloomberg announced that he would order Joel Klein to tie all teacher tenure decisions to student test scores. Whether this violates state law and/or the union contract is a matter for others to determine.

What I can say is that his decision is the logical outgrowth of the rigid, unreliable and damaging accountability system that he and Klein have imposed on our schools, and that the Obama administration is now attempting to foist on the nation.

Check out Yong Zhao’s critique of the US Dept. of Education's “Race to the Top” program, and its attempt to force states to measure success and reward teachers on the basis of standardized test scores:

I have been reading through the 775-page final notice document to be published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009. It includes the final versions of application guidelines, selection criteria and priorities for the $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund (RTT), the largest education grant in U.S. history.

I can guess from news reports, op-ed pieces, and blog posts that many states are working hard to prepare their applications. From my reading of the criteria, I think the following are the winning strategies and actions to include in the application, although they may be inconsistent with research findings or common sense.

Suggestion #1: Stop paying teachers and principals a salary. Instead pay teachers and principals on a per standardized test point basis each day. At the end of each school day, students should be tested using a standardized test, what a teacher and principal is paid is calculated at the end of the day based on the growth of the student, i.e., how much has the student improved over the previous day. This is true accountability and will for sure keep teachers and principals on their toes! ….

Suggestion #2: Remove all “non-core” academic activities and courses and reduce all teaching to math and reading because what the Secretary wants is “increasing student achievement in (at a minimum) reading/language arts and mathematics, as reported by the NAEP and the assessments required under the ESEA” … Actually, no need to teach them these subjects, just teaching them how to pass the tests may be even more effective.

For his other (clearly ironic) suggestions, check out Over the Top: Winning Strategies for the Race to the Top Fund.

Zhao is a Distinguished Professor at Michigan State University, and his perspective is particularly interesting, as he was raised in China and once taught there. See what he says in another posting about what the Chinese government has learned from its top-down approach – and what America should learn from China's self-acknowledged mistakes:

China is determined to reform its education to cultivate a diversity of talents and creativity. China has recognized and suffered from the damaging effects of standardized testing and has been trying very hard to move away from standards. If America or any other nation wants to worry about China, it is its determination and focus on creativity and talents, not its test scores.

Once standardized test scores become an accepted way to judge the potential and value of a child, the performance of a teacher, and the quality of school, it is very difficult to change. We are already seeing signs of this in the U.S., thanks to all the education reformers who want to make Americans “globally competitive.”

Zhao is author of Catching Up or Leading the Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization, and was recently on the Brian Lehrer show, Comparing Education in China to the U.S. Here is an excerpt from his book:

Clearly, American education has been moving toward authoritarianism, letting the government dictate what and how students should learn and what schools should teach. This movement has been fueled mostly through fear—fear of threats from the Soviets, the Germans, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, and the Indians. The public, as any animal under threat would, has sought and accepted the action of a protector—the government.

Let's hope that Americans reject this reflexive, damaging vision of education, and take a closer look at the potential consequences before we let our government turn our public schools into those like China's.

See also this Huffington Post column about how like China, South Korea is trying to move away from a system based solely on standardized test scores.

More cuts to the classroom , despite Tweed's claims

In today's Daily News, it is revealed that schools will be forced to pull teachers out of their classrooms for up to three days next month to score the state exams.

This will even affect students in grades, like Kindergarten, who do not have to take these tests. Why?

"[Some principals] said they were reluctant to pull teachers in older grades out of the classrooms so close to the state math exams, which are given in March."

In the past, DOE hired teachers to score these standardized tests during the February break. Now, schools will have to pay substitutes to take their place.

Yet in a budget presentation to the PEP, DOE officials falsely described the revision in the “scoring of state assessments in Math and ELA” as a major part of its “$40 million cut to Central and Field.”

In another budget document circulated by Tweed, this change was listed as having “No Impact to Schools.”

Instead, this represents yet another major budget cut to our schools. Not to mention its damaging effects on the classroom.

More testing, less learning. And more evidence of how the DOE’s claims to be making major cuts to administration cannot be trusted.

Budget Cuts Update at Panel for Educational Policy

At last week's meeting we heard the latest on the budget cuts. Click here for the presentation. There is information on page nine about where schools have started to cut. The largest categories are classroom supplies, before/after school per-session funding and substitute teachers.

I again asked for cuts in the Office of Accountability and Press Office. Now that my own children are in third grade, I can see firsthand the excessive test prep and the complete absurdity of paying McGraw Hill $80 million for interim assessments to be presented online in the Acuity system. If we must have test prep, then a paper practice test is infinitely cheaper and far more practical. When I explained to the Chancellor that there was no benefit to teaching or learning, in fact it's harder for parents to see the information, he simply admitted he would not convince me of the benefits, nor I dissuade him.

And so despite the woeful situation of the city and state budgets, the Bloomberg administration is determined to pour money into the Accountability Initiative. Testing materials, test prep, databases for test scores and test-related staff positions devour the education budget. For example, see this expensive position for Knowledge Manager advertised while schools cannot even fund substitutes or tutoring. All this money spent on testing while the mayor himself has vowed to send another $526 million in cuts directly to the classroom. This one on top of the $385 he's already sent us.

Here is an apt photo-illustration by Dave B; Data-Zilla wipes out a city starting with the education budget.

School Budget Cuts Presented at Panel for Educational Policy

Monday's Panel for Educational Policy meeting included a briefing on the budget cuts. Click here for the full Powerpoint. At Mayor Mike Bloomberg's insistence, the cuts must total $180 million for this year and $385 million for next year. Most of the cuts will come directly out of school budgets.

After the presentation, I asked for cuts to be made in the new standardized testing program, specifically for teachers to do their own interim assessments instead of the $26 million scheduled to be spent and for elimination of the pilot program extending testing in the K-2 grades. I also asked for the Chancellor's large press office to be shuttered and instead have DOE senior leaders speak directly to the press without intermediaries. As you'd expect, Chancellor Klein dismissed these suggestions. It has become increasingly clear that no matter what cuts are required, the Bloomberg administration's massive ramp up in standardized testing will go largely untouched. For more ideas on better places to cut see our list compiled here.

Here is how the cuts were presented by DOE -- in five "buckets":

Bucket 1: $40 million* for a 6% cut to Central and Field

• Includes reduction of 338 positions for 8% of Central and Field positions through a further rationalization of these operations.*
• Revise scoring of state assessments in Math and ELA, grades 3-8
• Reduce and/or combine publications in OSEPO
• Reduce meeting/conference expenses
• Cancel mid-year teaching fellows program, reduce size of next cohort of teaching fellows
• Eliminate citywide science assessments
• Defer OTPS spending for the Office of School & Youth Development
• Hold ARIS training in DOE facilities only
• Reduce training in DIIT
• Reduce consulting expenses for ECLAS2 assessment program
• Reduce HS enrollment tool costs

Bucket 2: $27 million cuts with an indirect impact on schools

• Reduce facilities work – will monitor cleanliness and make necessary repairs
• Reduction in custodial services
• Reduction in maintenance and repair contracts and related materials
• Elimination of 137 positions in the trades workforce and management
• Delay initial trial of GPS implementation (transportation)
• Eliminate school bonuses for AS and WD on the progress reports
• Reduce family worker positions (not required) for Pre Kindergarten as revise support and technical assistance for PK in public schools
• Mandate that schools with ATRs use them as substitutes rather than hiring an external substitute teacher
• For FY10, estimating cutting less than half of a percentage point from the transportation budget

Bucket 3: Reduce school funds by $104 million for a 1.3% reduction in FY09

• Schools were notified of targets on November 10th
• Schools have through Nov 21st to work with ISC/CFN/SSO to identify specific targets
• Guidelines on reductions were provided to schools
• An estimated cut for FY10 was provided to help schools consider impact on and from FY10
• No school layoffs for FY09
  

Bucket 4: District 75 -- $2 million

• District 75 schools were exempt from the last 2 round of cuts but this year will take under a $2 million cut for 0.26% reduction to their tax levy funding in FY09.

Bucket 5: Other – Fringe

• FY 09 cut: $7.5 million
• FY 10 cut: $12.3 million

NYC standardized tests -- formative or not?

See Test Industry Split Over 'Formative' Assessment, in Education Week, about how standardized testing companies are selling their products as “formative” assessments, even though, according to most experts, formative assessments are diagnostic tools that are supposed to be classroom-based and designed by teachers themselves.

The Princeton Review described their much-derided NYC interim assessments as “formative” --the tests that DOE paid millions for and later rejected. See this Princeton Review presentation:

“Interim Assessment with Instructional Impact: How to use the formative, low-stakes testing system to support teaching and learning in New York City. …. We have a 20+ year history of using formative testing to support teaching and learning.

The subsequently renamed “periodic assessments” that the Accountability office under James Liebman contracted out to McGraw-Hill at $22 million annually, also known as “Acuity,” are commonly characterized as “formative” by Liebman et. al. See this recent pdf document from the DOE Accountability office:

Periodic Assessments support schools by providing …. formative, instructionally valuable feedback to support differentiation of instruction, determination of professional development needs, and selection of instructional resources.”

See the long list of periodic assessments now required in all NYC public schools in the chart above.

The EdWeek article quotes James Popham, professor emeritus at UCLA and former President of the American Educational Research Association: “When test companies sell things and call them formative...these vendors are being disingenuous—we used to call it lying.”

Unfortunately, they appear to be lying to a very eager clientele at the DOE.

Bloomberg Testing Mania Decried by Public Advocate

New York City Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum issued an analysis and statement today in support of parents complaints about excessive testing. The analysis confirmed what parents are seeing -- that eight year old third graders are now faced with twelve standardized tests, made up of two state tests and ten Bloomberg-mandated city tests.

For the full statement click here. See press coverage here in the Sun and here in Newsday. In the press coverage, DOE spokesman Andrew Jacob adopted the condescending tone that has become standard when the Bloomberg adminstration addresses parent concerns.

The new standardized tests are part of the DOE's "accountability" initiative, the primary thrust of the administration's education reforms.

While state governments, Congress and presidential candidates are questioning the wisdom of excessive standardized tests, the Bloomberg administration continues to hew to its extremist positions. DOE Chief Accountability Officer Jim Liebman has overseen both the sharp ramp-up in standardized testing and the system to assign letter grades to schools based on the test results. The letter grading system has been widely criticized by parents, teachers, academics and our political representatives. Gotbaum's report is welcome scrutiny of the similarly misguided testing regime.

Jane Hirschmann: the problem with high-stakes tests

Parents are meeting in every borough to talk about the excessive and high stakes tests which drastically affect our children's education. Tests are being used to determine virtually every aspect of school: promotion, graduation, entrance into middle school and high school, teacher's merit pay, principals' jobs and school report card grades.

What has happened to public school education in New York City? Tests are driving curriculum and instruction and our children's education is suffering.

The conversation is no longer about how we can offer our children a quality education, how we can instill a love of learning, help them remain curious and read and write with enthusiasm. Instead of these goals we now have an unending diet of testing--test scores, test prep, test materials, and improving test scores. Tests have become synonymous with schooling.

The private schools in New York State told the State Education Department that they would never introduce high stakes tests because it dumbs down curriculum and results in poor quality education.

So what can public school parents do? Believe it or not, parents have the power to change things. I'll give you one example from my own experience. Many years ago when my 27 year old was in 2nd grade, the Board of Education had the idea that they would give 2nd graders a high stakes reading test.

We PROTESTED, we organized and we did not allow this policy to go into effect. That is why today, there is no 2nd grade high stakes reading test, yet. I say "yet", because the DOE is now planning to give K-2 standardized tests. We must say NO!

TIME OUT FROM TESTING HAS THE FOLLOWING DEMANDS:

1. No high stakes for students or schools. Scores from tests given by the city or state MUST NOT be used to determine promotion or graduation.
2. Eliminate all commercial standardized tests for interim or periodic assessment use.
3. No testing for grades K-2.
4. Eliminate the use of the School Report Card and promote accountability through the use of multiple assessments.

We are willing to meet with parent groups anywhere in the city. If you can organize a group of 30 or more parents, get in touch with us and we will come. If you are an individual parent and want to know how to organize other parents, email or call us.

MANY PARENTS HAVE IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO STOP THE DOE's TESTING FRENZY. WE MUST JOIN TOGETHER TO RETURN PUBLIC EDUCATION TO THE PUBLIC.

Jane Hirschmann
http://www.timeoutfromtesting.org/
917 679 8343

more testing=more learning, according to the Chancellor

As our blog discussed more than a week ago, DOE announced that McGraw Hill will provide the new periodic assessments -- the same company that came up with the infamous Brownie the Cow.

According to the DOE, schools must give five assessments per year in grades 3-8 and four in High School in ELA and Math. More subjects will come later.

These tests will cost $80 million over five years and are separate from the state tests that are already required in grades 3-8. This, plus the cost of the ARIS supercomputer (another $80 million) could have paid for a whole lot of smaller classes. According to the New York Times,

“…few major cities administer standardized tests as frequently as five times a year, several education experts said, and the move instantly drew criticism from the array of groups that have mobilized against the growing reliance on standardized tests that has accompanied the No Child Left Behind law.

“It’s certainly more than any other city than I know of,” said Monty Neill, an executive director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing in Boston, which is skeptical of standardized testing. “We’ve reduced schooling to preparing for bubble tests.”

Randi Weingarten, the president of the United Federation of Teachers, said in an interview that many teachers say they already spend at least one day a week preparing for standardized tests. “Our issue is, how much teaching time is this eating up?” she said. “You’re spending a lot of time doing test prep and doing paperwork associated with test prep instead of teaching.”

What’s the justification?

“I don’t think it means more pressure,” Mr. Klein said. “I think it means more learning.”

When did more testing become more learning? In the jargon of the Accountability office, more test results supposedly allows for more “differentiated” instruction “ which will lead to more learning.

Yet the smaller classes that would really make individualized instruction more possible are not considered. Instead, DOE has omitted the crucial step of improving classroom conditions – because mandating more testing will somehow substitute for everything else.

Apparently DOE could find only one principal in support of the new assessments: Elmer Myers, of PS/MS 194 in the Bronx. He is quoted in both the Daily News and NY1.

"This gives much more specificity from what I've seen for far, than what we've had in the past,” said Elmer Myers, a Bronx school principal. “We'll be able to take that information, sit down as a professional development team, and design ways we can improve instruction in a classroom."

According to Insideschools, Meyers is a new principal this year. The school’s report card shows that 14% of the students at PS/IS 89 are black, 64% Hispanic, 17% Asian, and 93% are eligible for free lunch.

According to the DOE, class sizes at the school range from 24.6 students in Kindergarten to 31.7 students per class in 4th grade. Sixth to eighth grade classes range from 27.4 to 29.8 students, with each middle school teacher usually responsible for five classes.

That means every middle school teacher has about 150 students, with charts to be analyzed for each class in different eye-glazing, color-coded categories five times a year. (See p.19 of this pdf file for an example of a class of only 17 students.)

Then, the revealed weaknesses of each of these 150 students will somehow addressed – that is, if the results are meaningful at all, which they won’t be, according to many testing experts and the record of the previous version from Princeton Review. And, of course, this will also depends on there being sufficient time in class to do so, along with all that test-taking.

Good luck to Mr. Myers, his teachers and most of all, the students at this school.

(For more information on the periodic assessments, see the DOE website here.)