Carol Burris' testimony on the current testing regime

On Monday, the NYS Senate held hearings on testing.  Here is the testimony of Carol Burris, LI principal and one of the co-authors of the principals' letter to Commissioner King.

Dear Senator Flanagan:

I would like to thank you for holding a public hearing on the evolution of student assessments. It is vitally important that we think long and hard about the role of assessments, the quality of assessments, the learning we wish to measure by assessments, and the appropriateness of the assessment for the child being tested.  It is also important that policymakers understand the limitations of assessments—they are a snapshot of a subset of skills and content knowledge. Truth be told, learning that is important is often left out of standardized assessments due to cost as well as the difficulty involved in measuring non-traditional achievement.

When I became a principal, nearly thirteen years ago, the era of high-stakes testing known as NCLB was just beginning. I was in a doctoral program at Teachers College at the time. I would argue with great passion for why we needed NCLB and testing to close the achievement gap. I can remember many a discussion with former commissioner, Thomas Sobol, who was one of our professors, on the topic of high stakes testing.  Frankly, Dr. Sobol was right, and I was wrong.  The downside of high-stakes standardized testing has far outweighed the good.

During the past twelve years, I have seen our Regents exams diluted in rigor. I have seen the raw scores for passing bounce up and down. Many exams, especially in mathematics, have become collections of questions stitched together based on difficulty formulas derived from field test results.  Prior to NCLB, the math tests were carefully prepared based on the New York State curriculum, and the final draft was edited by a true content expert who understood not only the science, but the art of good assessment. They were tests in which parents, teachers and principals had confidence.

I applauded when standardized state testing began in elementary and middle schools. I naively believed that students would come to high school better prepared.  Frankly, that has not happened at all. I have not seen any increase in preparedness of ninth-graders due to increased standardized testing. This is not a critique of our middle schools or elementary schools--there simply has not been any improvement that can be linked to 3-8 testing.  What I have seen since ‘the bar’ was raised several years ago, is students mandated for ELA AIS services who do not need them and students with a shallow knowledge of algebra because their teachers had to frantically prepare them for a Mathematics 8 assessment as well as for the Algebra Regents.  This will be much worse next year when middle-school math teachers are themselves evaluated by scores on the Math 8 tests.

In earlier grades, testing resulted in misguided policies like Mayor Bloomberg’s 2004 policy of forced retention of low-scoring students. He was warned by researchers that multiple retentions nearly always result in students dropping out of school.  On June 1^st, eight years later, the mayor acknowledged that his policy of automatic retentions was detrimental to students and he restored the power of principals to make retention decisions. When test scores, rather than professional judgment, take front and center, poor decisions that negatively alter the lives of students occur far too often. 

Although testing has not been an effective lever to increase student learning, the time spent on testing, the cost of testing and the consequences attached to the test continue to increase.  Certainly, the stress placed on our young students continues to increase as well.

This spring, the level of student stress was at its highest levels as the tests became longer, especially for the youngest students.  In order to investigate the anecdotal reports that we were hearing, I worked with a group of New York principals to create a short survey designed to give parents and teachers an opportunity to share their experiences with this year’s New York State testing. Over the course of two weeks, we were astounded by the results. Over 8000 parents across the state responded to our online survey regarding their children’s experiences with the recent 3-8 Assessments in ELA and mathematics.  Over 6000 teachers of students in Grades 3-8 weighed in on our teacher survey, as well. Although the surveys were informal, it would be a mistake to ignore what we learned.  

The New York State parents who responded expressed serious concerns regarding the impact that tests have had on their children’s health and their learning.   Of the 8000 responding parents:

•   75% reported their child was more anxious in the month before the test.

• Nearly 80% reported that test prep prevented their child from engaging in meaningful school activities.

• 87% reported that the current amount of time devoted to standardized testing is not a good use of their child’s school time.
•   95% were opposed to increasing the number and length of tests.

• 91% were opposed to standardized tests for K-2.

•  65% reported that too much time is devoted to test prep.

In addition to responses to questions, nearly 4000 of the respondents left comments and short anecdotes.  Parents reported that their children displayed physical symptoms caused by test anxiety, including tics, asthma attacks, digestive problems and vomiting.  Parents also wrote anecdotes that reported:

·           Sleep disruption, crying

·           Refusal to go to school

·           Feelings of failure, increasing as the tests progressed

·           Complaints of  boredom and restlessness from students who finished early and were required to sit still for the full 90 minutes of each test.

Teachers echoed many of the same concerns. 

• 65%  of over 6000 responding teachers said that their students did not have enough time for independent reading, project-based learning and critical thinking.

• 89% of teachers reported that their students became more anxious in the month prior to testing and during testing itself.

• 88% said that test prep had impacted the time spent on non-tested subjects such as science and art.

Fewer than 3% believed that their students’ learning had increased because of testing.

Teachers, like parents, reported that students were anxious, stressed, nervous, exhausted, overwhelmed and suffered from headaches and stomach pains. I would be happy to share all survey results with you if you are interested.

Of course we need to assess student learning, so reform, not the abolishment of testing is needed. In my opinion, there are two simple principles that if followed, would go a long way toward bringing sense back to assessment.

First, a test should not be used for a purpose for which it was not designed.  When tests are used to evaluate schools and the people who work in them, students need to be tested for prolonged periods of time every year. When the high stakes nature of tests diminish, time spent on testing and the unintended consequences of testing, (such as adult cheating and teaching to the test),

diminish as well. Standardized tests should be one of a multiplicity of measures that let students, their teachers, and their parents know what they have learned and where they still need to grow. When a teacher and a principal look at whole class results, those results can also be used to inform instruction and modify curriculum.

Second, excellent assessments depend on trusting teachers. In my opinion, the very best assessments are the assessments of the International Baccalaureate (IB) program. The IB treats teachers as professionals. There are  IB assessments that are internally scored as well as externally scored. They fall naturally within the instructional program. They are not scantron based and develop and measure students’ critical thinking skills and writing skills. Students and teachers understand the tests and the rubrics for scoring.  They are designed to help students grow, and learning and assessment are intertwined.  The IB understands that assessment has a backwash effect on instruction, therefore the quality of the assessment matters a great deal. I assure you, there are no ‘talking pineapples’ on IB exams. Feedback from teachers is seriously considered.  They are a model of student-centered assessment.

Thank you again for holding a public hearing on the evolution of student assessments. As I am sure you are aware, more than half the school boards of Texas, where all of this started, have now signed a resolution opposing high-stakes testing. Such resolutions are being passed by school boards across the nation.

I also thank you for patiently reading this long letter. As an experienced school leader who used to believe that measurement and data should drive school improvement, I fully understand the appeal of test-score driven policies.  I would ask, however, that you consider this question. On any given week, would you prefer that your eight-year old child or grandchild take standardized tests for 90 minutes or more, or be engaged in active learning?  What we want for our own children is what we should want for every child in New York State.

Sincerely, Carol Burris Ed. D., South Side High School, Rockville Centre

New special education policies vs. failed special education policies by Jaye Bea Smalley

There are City Council hearings on the DOE’s new special education initiative tomorrow, Tuesday, June 12, starting at 1 PM at 250 Broadway. The DOE is intent on pushing through this initiative despite the fact that their own power point [see slide 13] shows no gain in attendance or achievement for students with disabilities who were moved into general education classrooms in Phase I of the initiative. Moreover, the DOE special education reference guide provided to principals tells them they must enroll any students suitable for inclusion in regular general education classrooms until the class size hits the contractual maximum of 25 in Kindergarten, 32 in grades 1-5, and 30 or 33 in middle school (depending on whether the school gets Title one funding.)  

This is the first time I have seen DOE openly mandating maximum class sizes in any grade since 1990, when the first state class size reduction program began; defying both state-mandated Contracts for Excellence goals and the supposed autonomy of principals to use available funding to reduce class size if they so choose.  Finally, the same document contains clear warning with a punitive tone to principals, unlike any I have seen before in a DOE directive:

If patterns of recommended programs suggest inappropriate recommendations that do not seem in the best interest of students, central teams will conduct a more intensive audit of student IEPs. For recommendations that are not in the best interest of students, regular progressive disciplinary measures for school leaders and IEP teams will apply.

In my mind, this has the potential for disaster; for both general education and special education students crammed into classes of up to 32 – with insufficient attention and support.  The below was written by Jaye Bea Smalley, an expert parent on this issue,who is head of the Citywide Council on Special Education.    -- Leonie Haimson

____

With an assault of school co location/closing hearings slated for most of the year and testing scandals making national headlines, the education advocacy community can focus attention on the reform.  With the recent funding changes and mounting concerns brewing at the school level, I don't see anyone winding down for summer break.  I serve on the Citywide Council on Special Education (CCSE) as the co-chair.  This is my second term since it was reconstituted under the reauthorization of mayoral control in 2009. We have been in dialogue with the DOE and multiple stakeholders regarding the phase one and the implementation of the special education reform for two years now.  I would like to provide my perspective on the special education reform.  

I became involved in my leadership role as a result of my personal experience: I am a parent of two children with disabilities; they have very different needs, one doing quite well with a program in the spirit of the reform.  That’s right, I said in the spirit, not embracing the reform.  I thought this would be a good time to give my perspective on the reform.  With all the stuff circulating, I feel there are some key points missing that are needed to fully contextualize it all.  

The reform isn't failing students with disabilities, well at least not yet, the current system is.  In NYS 8.4% of 8th grade students with disabilities were proficient in reading according to the 2011 ELA results.  Less than 1% were above proficient.

It is important to consider that the majority of students are classified as learning disabled, followed by speech and language impaired.   

The data presented to date on the reform is irrelevant.  Phase one schools moved more students to a LRE [less restrictive environment] is meaningless without considering the progress of those students.  The graduation rates they show moving a hair are completely pathetic.  They should all be buried until they get within the same universe as any other group.  To complicate matters, one year of ELA/Math scores is not enough call to draw an association between the two.  Most of the people reading this are familiar with the problems of only giving schools three years to show progress.  

Has the DOE failed to inform the public on the results of the reform?  Yes. See the CCSE's questions and DOE responses.  They should identify best practices from schools which have been able to best utilize their resources to ensure the continuum of services is delivered to give SWDs more access to the general education curriculum and environment.  They should identify changes to budget allocations to better serve all students inclusively.  They should identify instructional strategies put in place for SWDs that become strategies for their general education peers.  All of these should be institutionalized so they are shared among parents, the public and educators. There are schools out there, but how are the practices being systemically shared?  

Articulating students who require services 20%-60% of the day are going to get double amount of funding following them.  How do we know what those dollars will be spent on and that that they will go directly toward resources to support them?  After all, the money is following the student right?  Veronica Conforme, the CEO for DOE told me that most successful schools did not use different resources, but used their existing resources differently.  Wait, hmmm is the money really following the student?  

Parents and community members have been frustrated by the lack of accountability at the network level for some time.  The answer is that they are a support department.  So what is a support department doing monitoring placements for LRE and deciding which principals have suspicious referral patterns?  That seems like regulation, not support.   Do networks have the authority to this monitoring?  LRE is an indicator IDEA monitored by the state at the district level as part of our IDEA state performance plan.  We have heard detailed plans for professional development (PD) of network staff but very little if any for comprehensive at the elbow PD in schools.  When you consider the direction for class size and capping this does not bring comfort to anyone.  

While I realize this may all be kosher from a contractual and legal standpoint, it is beyond the moral brink.  Class size is one of the most tried and true research based methods for ensuring educational progress.  Many parents are unaware that the state raised the level of SWDs that could be in a co-teaching class from 12 to 14 with mandate relief last year.  [LH note: the DOE is also mandating that SWDs be placed into general education classes with no limit to the number, until the total class size reaches the contractual limit of 32 in grades 1-5, and 30-33 in MS; see above.] The argument to the legislature was that it would only be for instances when general education students already in the class started to receive services, not to add additional SWDs.  I am curious to see how this plays out in articulating grades across the city.

Yes, it is all truly outrageous, unconscionable, and all the more reason to count down the days until we have a new Mayor.  Yes, there will be some children who are not served well due to these policies.  Yes, they have tons of litigation coming their way, and rightly so.  Having said all of this, I still see opportunity for our students with disabilities.  Something had to change.  In the words of independent living father, Ed Roberts, maximum danger equals maximum opportunity.  He believed when things get really bad and you are most vulnerable, you have the most significant opportunity for change.  Ending mayoral control would solve many problems but not the progress of students with disabilities.  The reform gives parents an opportunity to push for systems change.   

Before there was ever a reform, some people had successfully fought for our children to be educated in program and schools that did not traditionally welcome students with disabilities including myself and living legend Ellen McHugh. She will tell you, this is hard work.  In many instances children do need very specific programs.  However, many children with learning disabilities are placed in self-contained programs that lower expectations and ultimately put a Regents Diploma out of reach.  We should fight for the reform to be implemented properly; with full support for our students, teachers and schools and with transparency.  We should expect fidelity in the implementation; consistent communications and full parental engagement.  

Remember, program goals and services are still mandated.  Parents’ rights have not changed.  The one thing the DOE is saying that advocates and savvy parents have always said for years is to develop meaningful IEPs. Agree on the goals; without meaningful goals, you can't plan for the most appropriate services and programs.  Then work with the school to decide what programs and services they can deliver to ensure your child makes adequate progress and meets those goals.  Don't agree if you are not confident or in full agreement that they will implement the services and/or program.  Take one year at a time, it is reasonable to think that that your child who is in full time ICT in 4th grade may not need a full time ICT program in middle school. 

Ultimately, schools that are successful in educating students with disabilities inclusively have a culture that supports it: a culture of high expectations for all students, hard work and problem-solving in a supportive environment for staff and open communication with all parents.  -- Jaye Bea Smalley

video of Pearson protest today!

Lindsey Christ of NY1 did a great story on today's protest at Pearson, the largest education conglomerate in the world and the author of our sadly flawed state tests. Please also see my post in NYT/Schoolbook on the Lessons of Pineapplegate. -- Leonie Haimson

Deception by NYSED about the state field tests?

There's lots of controversy about next month's NY state field tests, and due to be given next month in all public schools statewide, in certain grades and subjects.

Most parents still do not know about these exams, but those who do are fighting back and some are planning to have their children boycott them.  See the resolution in support of a boycott, passed by CEC 20, and articles in GothamSchools, WSJ, NYT SchoolBook.

To the right is a copy of a memo (click to enlarge) recently sent to high schools by Candace Shyer, head of the NY State Education's Office of State Assessment, which says:

“Students should not be informed of the connection between these fields tests and State assessments.  The field tests should be described as brief test of achievement in the subject.”

The potential impact of mandatory Kindergarten triggers the need for an accelerated capital plan

Speaker Quinn’s push for mandatory Kindergarten in NYC, now being considered in the NY State Legislature,  is likely to send thousands of new children into a schools system that is already struggling with Kindergarten waiting lists, overcrowding, and increased class sizes.

Our analysis here and below suggests what the impact may be, and proposes that the city speed up the capital plan to ensure that there is  space added in our elementary schools at the same time.

Kindergarten Proposal Briefing City Council 5.24.12

CEC 20 resolution supporting boycott of the field tests!

The Community Education Council in District 20 in Brooklyn called a special meeting and unanimously passed a resolution in support of the boycott of the field tests.  Here are articles about this growing movement: GothamSchools, WSJ, SchoolBook. Bravo!

Resolution:  In Support of Parents Boycott of Stand-Alone Field Tests

WHEREAS, our children have just spent six days in April taking New York State standardized tests in English and Math, which was nearly double the time compared to last year, and

Whereas, this April's exams included up to 30% field test questions, which were embedded to try out for future tests and do not count in children's scores; however, they make the tests substantially longer, so that most children spent up to nine hours testing and children with IEPs up to eighteen hours testing over the six day period, and

Whereas, Pearson Publishing and NYSED [NY State Education Department] have not asked parents' permission to utilize our children as research subjects for Pearson's financial benefit as a for-profit company, and

Whereas, eighth grade students will be preparing for Regents exams in June and will be losing valuable instructional time to stand-alone field tests. 

Therefore, be it resolved, that Community Education Council District 20 finds it unacceptable that even more valuable classroom time be allocated to the administering of test questions and

Further resolved, that Community Education Council District 20 supports the parents' boycott of the field tests, as there are no negative consequences for our schools or our children if they do not take these stand-alone tests.                          

                   

Passed Unanimously on May 23, 2012

Change the Stakes demands full disclosure of testing program, including field tests in June

Unbeknownst to most parents, the state is imposing yet another round of standardized testing in June. You can check to see what grade your child's elementary or middle school is field testing here.  High schools are also field testing the Regents; more more information here and here.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                     Contact: changethestakes@gmail.com                                                               

May 21, 2012                                                                         

                                                

CTS Demands Full Disclosure of School Testing Program

Calls Pearson’s June Field Tests a Waste of Time and Money

 New York City – Change the Stakes, a coalition of parents and educators in New York City, announces its opposition to the latest round of standardized testing, the stand-alone field tests that are scheduled to be given in June.  Over a thousand (1,029) public elementary and middle schools in the city are scheduled to participate in this additional statewide testing.  Last week, science field testing took place in 116 other New York City schools.

The price tag for this extra developmental testing is conservatively estimated to be $3 million. It comes on top of the six days (540 minutes) of regularly scheduled English Language Arts (ELA) and math exams administered just last month, when the items being field tested were embedded within the state-mandated tests.  This doubled the amount of time needed to complete the exams.

The New York State Education Department (SED) and test publisher, NCS Pearson, Inc., have not provided advance notice to the public about the June field tests nor sufficiently explained why they are necessary. Moreover, testing experts regard stand-alone testing as a dubious practice at best, and virtually useless when conducted so very late in the school year.

“June is a terrible time of year to test children—be it operational or field testing,” asserts Fred Smith, a test specialist formerly with the city Department of Education (DOE). “The expectation that children will be motivated to perform at their best near the end of the year doesn’t even rise to the level of wishful thinking,” stated Mr. Smith.  He also points out that stand-alone field testing by SED was discredited for yielding misleading data on which to develop new tests. “In 2009, SED’s test advisers acknowledged this approach was problematic because students who took the exams knew they were experimental.”

SED’s elementary and intermediate school field tests will be administered between June 5th and 15th.  Most schools will test only one grade between 3rd through 8th; however, 259 (23%) of the schools are being asked to give the experimental exams on two grade levels.  (Change the Stakes is providing user-friendly information about all field test school and grade assignments broken down by borough at changethestakes.org. Parents can visit the website to find out what tests are due to be given this June in their children’s schools.)

The primary purpose of the June stand-alone testing period is to allow Pearson, the State’s education testing contractor, to perform research for operational exams it will then sell to the SED.  The State is on record as stating participation in field testing is “not mandatory,” yet schools and parents in New York City have been kept in the dark and not advised that they have a choice about whether or not their children should participate.

“Our kids are being used as guinea pigs for the financial benefit of Pearson, to the detriment of their own educational experience,” said Deyanira Ruiz, who has a daughter in a grade that has been selected for field testing.  “They’ve already lost untold hours to test prep and the April math and literacy exams, reducing the amount of time devoted to art, physical education, social studies, and languages,” she added. 

Some teachers are questioning the use of valuable class time for field testing. Lauren Cohen, a teacher in Manhattan, is fed up. “Far too many of us teach in schools that already face enormous pressure to dedicate an excessive amount of classroom time to test preparation between September and April.  My school received a notice, on Pearson letterhead, informing us that we must also give an ELA field test to 3rd graders in June,” she said.  “Field tests supply no useful information to teachers or educational benefits to children. My students are burnt out on testing, and this meaningless drudgery will take away valuable learning time,” stated Ms. Cohen. 

Fueling a rebellion among parents against the upcoming field tests is the disclosure to date of roughly 30 errors, along with some questionable content, on the tests administered in April. The state forbids the disclosure of test items, further undermining parent confidence in the exams themselves. Diana Zavala, parent of a 3rd grader in Manhattan, contends, “Transparency and accountability should also apply to the corporations making the tests. If we are to believe these tests are worthwhile and that the company is making ‘better tests,’ we should be able to examine them.” She added, “but what we really want is more teaching, less testing, and assessment that is more connected to the actual learning that takes place in the classroom.”

Change the Stakes is Calling for the Following Regarding June Field Testing:

        

1. The DOE should immediately disclose specific information about the stand-alone field tests, explaining their nature and purpose and notifying parents of children in the 1,029 field test schools about the dates the tests are scheduled to be given.
2. Pearson and the SED should address the claim by independent testing experts that the timing and format of these tests make it unlikely they will generate reliable data needed to develop valid operational exams.

3. SED and DOE should allow parents and entire schools to opt out of participating and only administer field tests to students in schools/grades for whom explicit parental consent has been granted.  The need to obtain authorization to test their children from parents or guardians should extend to all testing when the main objective is to support research and development for commercial testing products.
4. Non-participating students in schools and grades undergoing testing should have a meaningful educational alternative activity during the testing period.

To schedule interviews with parents or teachers, please contact Andrea Mata @ changethestakes@gmail.com. Testing expert Fred Smith can be reached at fjstats@aol.com

###

Change the Stakes, a committee of the Grassroots Education Movement, was formed to expose the damaging effects of high-stakes standardized tests. We are a group of parents and teachers working to build and unite opposition to high stakes testing in New York City. Our membership includes a group of parents who refused to have their children tested during the regular State exam period in April 2012.  We believe high-stakes testing must be replaced by more educationally-sound and balanced forms of student, teacher, and school assessment. 

See our online petition demanding that New York State develop a non-punitive process by which parents concerned about the impacts of high-stakes testing on student learning can opt their children out of standardized tests.

Change the Stakes collaborates with other groups working to challenge high-stakes testing in New York, including Parent Voices NY and Time Out From Testing.