High Stakes Testing

A National Resolution on High Stakes Testing is circulating now and I encourage you to sign it.

This resolution is modeled on the resolution passed by more than 360 Texas school boards as of April 23, 2012. It was written by Advancement Project; Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; FairTest; Forum for Education and Democracy;MecklenburgACTS; Deborah Meier; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.;National Education Association; New York Performance Standards Consortium; Tracy Novick; Parents Across America; Parents United for Responsible Education - Chicago;Diane Ravitch; Race to Nowhere; Time Out From Testing; and United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.

Here is the link to sign the petition.

NCLB versus Finding Your Passion

Check out this moving lecture by Yong Zhao, a Michigan State University professor, who argues for giving kids room to innovate by following their passions: A 21st Century Education.

I found this on Sara Bennett's website: Stop Homework.

Also mentioned on Stop Homework is this article by the same lecturer about Race to the Top and our obsession with data.

Check it out!

Is Race to the Top a Race to Nowhere?

No Child Left Behind sounded like a good idea when it was first introduced. Yet, in its implementation, it seemed to do more harm than good with its unintended consequences and didn’t help President Bush’s reputation any. Now, I’m concerned that Race to the Top is just NCLB with a new name.

I took this portion of a letter from the CA Race to the Top website:

“On November 18, President Obama and U. S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced eligibility and selection criteria for states to compete for $4.35 billion in Race to the Top funding, the single largest pool of discretionary funding for education reform in U.S. history…We are proud to stand with President Obama, Secretary Duncan and Leaders throughout California in calling for reforms that will strengthen our education system and help ensure our students are prepared to succeed in school and beyond…That is why we are competing for the Race to the Top funds – so that we can put more money into our classrooms and give our students the chance to fulfill their dreams.” -Arnold Schwarzenegger

Sounds good, huh? But what IS Race to the Top?

RTTT includes 4 areas of reform:

1. refining current academic standards,

2. providing new support for teachers and principals to improve their effectiveness,

3. enhancing local data systems and coordinating them with California's, and

4. dramatically turning around the lowest-achieving schools.

Looking deeper into the RTTT website I tried to get more information on each of these four issues. This wasn’t easy because most of the information was about the funding and the requirements for applying for RTTT. And, I couldn’t find a definition for “LEA” so I’m assuming it is “Local Education Authority” but I may be wrong. Here’s what I did find on these four issues (after considerable searching):

1. “Are we going to revise California’s standards?

The standards that California currently has are generally recognized as world class high standards. The State of California, along with 47 other states, has agreed to participate in the consortia of states looking at a common core of standards. The legislature is currently considering having California adopt the common core with some additional standards to ensure California retains its rigor. If the Legislature calls for their adoption, we will pursue adoption and implementation over a reasonable timeframe.”

Well, this doesn’t sound very different from what we already have as far as state standards is concerned. And the language is very vague. I’m not convinced the standards will change, and if they do, how will they be better? So then I think, well, maybe the focus of RTTT will be on the teachers…

2. “Who is going to define an ‘effective teacher?’

Ultimately the LEA (Local Education Authority?) will create the definition of an effective teacher. The State will create the new growth model that measures student growth from one year to the next; this measure must be incorporated into the LEA’s definition of an effective teacher. However, LEAs may also include other measures as they develop their definition of an effective teacher.

Will there be a ‘pay-for–performance’ component to the State’s plan for great teachers and leaders?
 According to federal guidelines, participating LEAs must implement some form of compensation that is tied to the measured effectiveness of their teachers and leaders; the LEA will ultimately need to determine how to design their local system to meet this requirement.”

I’m not convinced that the State can accurately measure a student’s growth and the language is unclear about what the definition of an effective teacher is. It is also undecided at this point how the LEA will measure teacher effectiveness as it applies to compensation.

3. I couldn’t find anything in this website about how RTTT would enhance the local data systems and coordinate them with California’s current data systems.

4. “If the state is mandated to intervene in the bottom 5 percent of low-performing schools, what happens if an LEA that has these schools does not participate in Race to the Top?

The LEA would still be responsible for implementing one of the four federally-prescribed intervention strategies as part of our federal School Improvement Grant (SIG), but would not be responsible for the other areas of Race to the Top.”

None of the information I found on the website about the lowest achieving schools convinced me that RTTT would dramatically turn around these schools. In fact, it just sounds like more of the same type of federal funding currently in place for low achieving schools.

Much of the information about RTTT involved the funding. Here’s an example of a funding FAQ:

“How much could a participating LEA expect to receive if California wins Race to the Top?
 While we understand one of the main questions that LEAs may ask asks about the estimated amount of an LEA’s Race to the Top award, it is very difficult for us to provide an accurate assessment of the amounts for any individual LEA. We do know that if California wins this grant, the State could receive between $350 and $700 million. In addition, we know that at least 50 percent of this money must be distributed to participating LEAs based on the Title I formula. However, because we do not know the total size of the final grant, nor the number of LEAs and schools joining the effort, we cannot estimate an amount for participating LEAs. 


What will an LEA’s reporting requirements be for Race to the Top?
 While there is flexibility in how an LEA spends its Race to the Top funding, we want to be very clear that LEAs will be held accountable for documenting implementation and progress toward benchmarks. We have not yet developed the specific reporting requirements that will be asked of LEAs; when we have more information on this we will share this with you. The reporting required for Race to the Top will be supported by the funding LEAs receive.”

Race to the Top sounds like more time and money spent on paperwork than on engaging students in learning. I don’t always want to be a skeptic, so if there is anything positive about RTTT, please someone, share it with me.

Reaction to Obama's Speech

This editorial was taken from A.E.R.O (Alternative Education Resource Organization) Education Revolution e newsletter: http://www.educationrevolution.org/

Editorial in Newsday by Jerry Mintz (reaction to Obama's school speech)

To the Editor:
The message from President Obama as published in today’s Newsday is both ironic and self contradictory. He starts out by saying that every student has something they are good at and that they have a responsibility to pursue that. This sounds like he understands the learner-centered approach that innovative educators have found to work in a very powerful way. It implies that he understands that children are natural learners.

But then he immediately segues into the opposite paradigm, one that assumes that children are naturally lazy and need to be forced to learn. He refers to homework and doing what the teacher says to do and what HE expects.

He can’t have it both ways. But I already discovered the problem earlier this year at the Education Writers Association Conference when I asked newly appointed Education Secretary, Arnie Duncan, if the Obama administration would get rid of No Child Left Behind. I told him that alternative educators feel that it completely interferes with a learner-centered approach. After hemming and hawing he finally said, in an almost stream of consciousness, “Well, the name “No Child Left Behind” has become pretty toxic. We’ll probably change the name!”

It was a devastating admission but was not covered, that I know of, by any of the hundreds of reporters in the room. One reporter from the Boston Globe did congratulate me on getting him to admit his planned subterfuge.

And they DID, in fact, change the name but keep NCLB. What is it about the “Race to the Top” initiative that encourages students to follow their own dreams and develop their special talents? Nothing! It is not encouraging of an individualized, personalized approach. It encourages standardization and “teach to the test.”

If President Obama and his administration really believe that students should pursue and develop what they are good at, they would end NCLB and RTTT and find ways to give students and their schools and teachers the resources they need to truly follow their interests, their talents and their dreams.

Evaluating Teachers with Tests

I came across this in the Reader’s Forum section of the Contra Costa Times newspaper this weekend. I completely agree with the writer and have been thinking recently how much more meaningful education would be if ALL students were given the opportunity to have IEPs (individual education plans). If we did this, the focus would shift from standardization to personalization.

Times is wrong about using tests to evaluate teachers

By Jim Wright

Guest commentary, Contra Costa Times

Posted: 09/05/2009

Your recent editorial, "Allow use of test scores to evaluate teachers" (Aug. 16), cries out for an immediate and critical response.

Granted, there are certainly at least a few teachers out there who should not be teaching. Using a similar line of reasoning, however, I might argue that the evaluations and/or salaries of newspaper editorial writers should be statistically correlated with the number of readers whose opinions are somehow influenced by reading those editorials.

The real question is whether or not state standardized test scores would be an accurate, fair, reasonable, or even useful criterion to measure teacher effectiveness in the classroom.

A basic principle in any investigation holds that the more precisely we attempt to measure something, the less certain we can be of the accuracy of our results. For example: is an electron a wave or a particle? (The answers: Yes/No/Either/Neither/Both/Impossible to Determine with Existing Technology.)

Can we really be sure that we are testing a student's understanding when it comes to any question of reasonable complexity or depth?

Can we accurately "quantify" any student's understanding with a contrived, standardized, multiple-choice examination? Is this really the best way to motivate students to learn to appreciate and solve complex, difficult, and multifaceted problems?

Mathematical Chaos Theory holds that small variations in initial conditions can lead to widely discrepant outcomes. Much as it would be nice to think that our students all think about problems in some generic, standardized fashion, the truth is that they are all uniquely gifted individuals with their own "chaotic" stories to work out and tell for themselves.

We disrespect students if we do not offer them a way to be themselves and accomplish positive outcomes in the classroom on their own terms.

Eight years of No Child Left Behind has given us the current, untenable situation in which many children are being left behind daily in any meaningful educational context. Similarly, many publicly funded school districts will sooner-or-later be left behind, funding-wise.

Enough is enough. It's time to pull the curtains on "objectifying" educational outcomes. Instead, we should be focusing on personalizing and maximizing positive outcomes for each individual student.

That's a much more difficult task, but in the long run, a much more appropriate outcome, for everyone.

Wright is a resident of El Cerrito.