Begun, the Education Wars Have.
Today’s News Journal Dialogue Delaware section dovetails nicely with the post I wrote on Friday. I’ve been told by multiple people, in and out of the education field, that it has the best headline ever. Sometimes cutting through the bullshit calling bullshit bullshit is the best way to garner attention to an important truth: all standardized testing is bullshit. At least in relation to the stated goal of helping students learn and gauging their learning progress.
Representative Sean Matthews, himself a teacher, has penned a wonderful op-ed in the above Dialogue Delaware section, and he uses more polite language to make the same point.
There are many ways to talk about the role standardized testing plays in our public schools, but there’s one question that we have to answer before we can debate the issue: Do these tests make our students smarter, more capable and more prepared to lead successful lives?
After decades of testing at all levels, with different standards, methods, benchmarks and outcomes, the answer to that question is not what we thought it would be. Overwhelming numbers of scholars, parents, statisticians and legislators are starting to realize, with evidence, that standardized testing and the policies that flow from testing are doing more harm than good.
Over the next three months, students in Delaware’s charter and traditional community schools will be asked to take a standardized test called the Smarter Balanced Assessment. The stated goal of this test is to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses in our educational system.
But that’s not the whole story.
Most standardized tests are designed by for-profit companies that market their materials to states, which are required by federal law to test public school students in return for federal funding. Under this business relationship, the best interests of the testing firm are not aligned with the best interests of students, teachers and schools. Instead, there is great incentive to make students and their educators look like they’re “failing” so that these same firms can offer their own branded “reforms” and “solutions” to states and districts, for a worthy fee.
The emphasis is mine. Finally, an elected state official is about to touch on the hidden truths about education reform. It is all about the funding. The money is used as the carrot to get states to adopt federal programs, programs developed by the for-profit companies. So you get the money, if you comply with the conditions. One of the conditions was performance testing. Performance testing that will reveal that some students in certain areas will fail, which will then lead to more money being provided to these for-profit companies to come up with solutions, with some of those solutions being Priority Schools, and the further privatization of public education, so that, eventually, public education will cease to exist.
Rep. Matthews continues:
Look at the Red Clay and Christina school districts, which both cover larger geographic areas. Their suburban elementary schools “excel” at the tests, while their city schools “struggle.” The teachers in these districts go to the same specialized trainings, use the same high-quality instructional and technology resources, and are overseen by the same district administrators, yet the vastly different outcomes persist.
Unless we choose to believe that the hundreds of teachers who work in city schools care less about their students than their colleagues in the suburbs, we must acknowledge that poverty, not personnel, is creating the divide in these school systems.
Standardized tests widen this divide, labeling poor students and their schools as “failing” without offering a real solution to the underlying problem that causes the division.
It’s easy to label a school “failing” based solely on test scores. It’s easy to create new schools that use enrollment preferences and “counseling out” techniques to weed out at-risk students. But it’s difficult to fix endemic poverty and lagging parental involvement. We need to do the hard work.
The problem is not teachers. They have been targeted by politicians and the for-profit companies who lobby said politicians as scapegoats because they are an easy target, because no parent wants to believe that the problem is them, or the problem is poverty (which politicians do not have an answer for). No, it is much easier to target teachers and to argue that we need to bust their union, that we need to end their tenure, that we need to fire them.
We want our teachers to teach and our students to learn, free from the threat of being branded as failures, losing their jobs or losing their schools. It’s time for a change and that change starts with two things: 1) Parents need to force a conversation by exercising their right to opt their students out of the Smarter Balanced test; and 2) We need to form a team of experienced Delaware teachers and administrators who can help us correct our course and put us on a path towards a workable, Delaware-centric plan for success for all of our students.
Why are we here, really? Because it is easy to accept free money with innocuous sounding testing requirements than it is to tax the wealthy. Yes, that same old Delaware Liberal refrain again. It is familiar, and we repeat it often, because it is true. Governor Markell and the Democratic General Assembly accepted Race to the Top money because it helped balance the budget at the height of the Great Recession. Opting out is a necessary first step to force these politicians like Jack Markell and Earl Jaques, who are supposed to be on our side, to wake up and end the testing. What, is the Federal Government going to sue Delaware for the Race to the Top money? Let them.
Tags: Featured
The big threat is always that we will lose Federal money if not enough students take the test (95%+ in each cell). This is a misleading argument.
The total of Federal funding for DE schools is only about 6.6%. Of that, lots can’t be touched because it includes things like money from the Department of Agriculture for free and reduced lunches, or money for special needs students. What they really mean is that we could (not necessarily “will”) take a hit to Title I funding which is a mainstay to many schools in with high poverty populations. But–and it is a really big BUT–that still only represents about a 1-1.5% funding cut even if the Feds take away ALL the Title I funding. That deficit could easily be made up at the State and local levels by (a) trimming out the bureaucratic support for that funding; and (b) money saved from eliminating large parts of the testing regime. But, in reality, the Feds aren’t going to take away anything but a percentage of that money if they even do that.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with standardized testing or even common standards when they are used for what they’re designed to measure. They’re designed to measure the overall performance of a system, not the individual school or classroom performance of teachers and students. It’s like using an 18-foot tape measure as a substitute for a micrometer.
As indicators of where more effort needs to be placed, they are invaluable, but something like NAEP on an annual basis, or the Iowas, is plenty. As predictors of present or future success they lack both reliability and validity (in the technical sense), which is why they get replaced so often. The corporate interests funding them (who all want to grow up and duplicate the ETS monopoly on the SAT and AP tests) spend more per year on lobbying than Delaware’s (plus Kentucky’s) 3-year Race to the Top grants were worth.
The reality is that our state government has failed to listen for so long that parents are now using the “opt out” strategically, because threatening the money stream to the government and the corporations is virtually the only real “persuasive” power they have left. If you read Earl Jaques’ counter-point to Sean Matthews it amounts to window dressing for nothing else other than the loss of Federal funding.
My advice to parents: Tell your kids to stop following your schools’ social media sites immediately. Why? Because here’s directions to schools on how adult school personnel can creep on underage students social media.
Makes your skin crawl.
pandora
Maybe the answer is that we should all start following such pages where we can find them, and start spamming them with false leads
“Hey kids! The answer to question number 21 on the Math SBAC at the 6th grade level is 94! Got it? 94!”
Imagine them attempting to follow up 100 leads? And what could they do if they found them?
That’s a great idea, Steve! I keep rereading the directions to spy on kids and am getting angrier. A teacher can’t friend a student on FB, but school personnel is being encouraged to creep/troll students’ social media sites? What could go wrong with this plan?
When I look at the SBA long term plan here’s what I see: Buildings that house students sitting in front of a computer with a human behavior monitor trained in tech support. No more teachers, just computers and a human monitor. That way ed reformers get all the education tax dollars – which has always been ed reformers’ plan. None of this has to do with educating children. It’s always been about tapping into those education tax dollars.
Lets bit the bullet, implement a dedicated sales tax, eliminate the property tax, and have a tax dedicated to funding education w/o Fed “assistance.” (letting the ±250,000 weekend out-of-state beach goers help) Give an off setting flat Del tax credit. The “non” state tax payers already get a tax credit via services.
forgot — legislators don’t like taxes they can’t diddle with.
https://youtu.be/8dAujuqCo7s
I know a lot of legislators are worried about the whole Federal funding story. Here is a good take on that issue: https://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/will-the-us-department-of-education-take-your-schools-title-1-funds-if-you-opt-your-student-out-of-the-sbac-short-answer-no/
I would love to see Markell try to cut Title I funding to Wilmington schools. The Urban Leagues would publicly destroy him!
If kids have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if the school monitors them.
The rest of the nation doesn’t give a shit, so start on them early.
Where are the teachers and schools pushing back on them being told to spy on their students.
Amazing…just amazing
DD-The portion of Sean Mathews’ piece that you highlighted is must-reading for anyone concerned about education. The only people profiting from this scheme are the people marketing the tests and the curricula they’ve created specifically for the tests.
This. Is. Utter. Insanity.
BTW, any lingering doubts that Sean Mathews would be a more progressive legislator than Dennis E. Williams have been put to rest. I know that Pandora will never forget Williams’ claim that lots of bills come across his desk, and he doesn’t have time to read ’em all.
El Som I don’t think this is particularly a “progressive” issue. I think this is an issue that cuts across current political boundary lines, and I’d really hope we can keep it that way.
There are a lot of people out there in the opt-out movement and countering corporate ed reform from all sorts of places in the spectrum, and they are meeting each other, working together, and learning not to fear each other.
So based on what I’ve read from most people posting here, including the author, we should be wary of those assessments created by publishing or testing companies….that means the concern should be about: NWEA, MAP, Iowa Basic Skills Test, SAT, ACT, Dibels, and any Pearson/McGraw Hill/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt assessment that accompanies a textbook
but while it’s convenient to paint the Smarter Balanced Assessment as one developed by for profit publishers, the truth is that theSmarter Balanced Assessment items were developed by “Thousands of K-12 educators and hundreds of faculty from state colleges and universities—a much greater number than were involved in developing most prior state tests—worked together from across every state involved in Smarter Balanced to develop the most appropriate test questions for each subject and grade.
Each state involved in Smarter Balanced hasdeducators from K-12 and higher education serve on State Leadership Teams. These teams had a direct hand in developing the test.
More than 1,400 K-12 teachers helped to generate the resources for the Digital Library.”
@MHS–nice try. First let’s cite the source for your quotations:
http://www.businessforcore.org/assessments-faqs/
“Business for Core” which is an arm of the US Chamber of Commerce, hardly either a disinterested or trustworthy news source.
Uh, let’s see, who actually got the contract for developing SBAC–Rupert Murdoch’s Amplify–see http://dianeravitch.net/2013/03/17/rupert-murdoch-wins-contract-to-develop-common-core-tests/
And, curiously enough, the official Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium for Delaware page (maintained by DOE) which should show us who all these higher ed and teacher leaders in our consortium have been … doesn’t list any of the membership.
The reality, contrary to what MHS suggests, is that this is a gigantic sham, built to satisfy corporate profits, and the high jinks with stalking students on social media and demanding that parents and older teens sign releases for biometric IDs for Pearson provides a much better idea about what’s going on.
You want to quote Chamber of Commerce propaganda? Fine, but next time have the guts to cite your source.
And, incidentally, the only page anywhere that purports to give the Delaware leadership for the SBAC is the national page, which lists no teachers, but
Brian Touchette of DOE and Dr. Carol Vukelich of UD
Intriguingly enough, if being a co-chair of the SBAC for Delaware was such a positive thing, you’d actually think it would appear on Carol’s UD biography/professional interests page … but it doesn’t.
http://www.education.udel.edu/carolvukelich/faculty-bio/carol-vukelich-biography/
OK, MHS, if this is a state-led initiative, find me the proud list of the teachers and other educators who worked on it, and explain why their very names seem to have disappeared off the face of the Earth.
And while you’re at it, explain just how Brian–who has been in Delaware less than two years–managed to lead this whole long process?
@MHS–I have to admit, I’m a little surprised at your embracing this so positively. You really do generally respond well-reasoned, and informative or inquisitive. But, it’s okay if we aren’t aligned here, and I’ll explain…..
Terranova, ITBS, NWEA, and a host of others have great product, branding etc.., with some as far back as the 1930s. Sure, they are all from one publisher or another as adopted for publication–but it wasn’t DEPENDENT on soliciting to make a test fly. Iowa wanted a high school test long ago, they contracted a high school test. Nowadays, it’s more the reverse…..I have a test…and it comes with this curriculum….that is based on this vernacular, that is dependent on this learning map, that is present on this software, only available at this website, that your district needs to…and your state needs to agree to an exclusive…….
It’s gotten out of hand with the one-path learning model, that is the secret sauce to a child’s successful future. I just never wanted to see education turn into a pyramid scheme. Or a data warehouse for marketing. It’s a seismic change in educational publishing the last 15 years to remain relevant. I guess I’m just hoping this is a “call to arms” for somebody to please respond to the social contract of these enterprises, as prior industry, because your mercenary side is showing loud and clear. Naive perhaps. But I’m not going resigning so easily. Hope that clarifies my take on the why now?
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Work-Group-Members.pdf
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Work-Group-Governance.pdf
Governance
Smarter Balanced is a state-led consortium with a transparent, consensus-based governance structure. Members include both Governing members and Affiliate members. The Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles oversees all financial procurement on behalf of Smarter Balanced.
Governing members are fully committed to Smarter Balanced and have a vote in policy decisions, while Affiliate members may participate in work groups and provide guidance for the development of the assessment system. Each state appoints K-12 and higher education leads to coordinate with the Consortium. State representatives direct the Executive Committee and participate in five Smarter Balanced work groups. Smarter Balanced works closely with state education chiefs and elected officials to ensure that the assessment system meets the needs of member states.
Governing members
Delaware
Secretary of Education: Mark Murphy
K-12 State Lead: Brian Touchette, Education Associate, Teaching and Learning Branch, Exceptional Children Resources, Delaware Department of Education
Higher Education Lead: Carol Vukelich, Professor, University of Delaware
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bW_yGf4BB1E
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Interpretation-and-Use-of-Scores.pdf
Wow:
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Smarter-Balanced-Benefits.pdf
I don’t have a problem with testing or common standards.
I do have a problem with high stakes testing. I’ve said before, we are using these tests in the wrong way. We use them as punishment, rather than a tool to show teachers where a child is struggling. These tests only succeed in punishing the student and the teacher.
And we are in the process on changing the SAT to reflect common core standards. David Coleman became president of the College Board in 2012, after his work developing the Common Core. Don’t just follow the money, follow the players.
I find all of this very limiting and insular. If there are any problems with SBA, the SAT (beginning in 2016) and ACT, how will we know? These will be the only tests that count. Markell’s gesture about getting rid of tests, other than SBA, doesn’t sound so great when viewed in this light.
FWIW, Brian Touchette has been in Delaware since the late 80’s or early 90’s. I worked with him in an educational setting (he was an excellent classroom teacher, BTW) for at least 5 years.