Geez, talk about experimenting with our children as though they were gerbils. In lieu of this blog's earlier posts discussing the "perversion of testing," how much is being invested in reducing success to a student's outcomes on a test? Sounds like more perversion at our children's expense. I'd like to see the media get a little more critical about these issues.
-Patricia
By Valerie Strauss | Washington Post
February 8, 2012
Apparently it’s not enough for the Obama administration that standardized test scores are now used to evaluate students, schools, teachers and principals. In a new display of its obsession with test scores, the Education Department is embarking on a study to determine which parts of clinical teacher training lead to higher average test scores among the teachers’ students.
This is explained in a notice placed in the Federal Register:
“Teachers who have experienced certain types of clinical practice features and who have completed those features are hypothesized to produce higher average student test scores than teachers who have not done so. Using a randomized controlled trial, students will be randomly assigned to a pair of teachers in the same school and grade level, one of whom will have experienced the type of clinical practice of interest (‘treatment’) while the other will not have experienced the feature (‘control’). Average test scores of the two groups will then be compared.”
The Education Department’s new study takes as fact the notion that standardized test scores tell us something important about how well a teacher does his or her job. They don’t, assessment experts say (over and over), but why let the facts get in the way?
This might seem like officials are about to take the use of test scores to extremes, but, actually, we passed extreme some time ago.
Let’s consider Tennessee as an example. Last fall the state (as did many others) enacted a new way of evaluating teachers that is heavily based on standardized test scores of students. But here’s one of the many problems with a system that relies on test scores: What do you do about teachers in subjects without standardized tests?
One way out of this dilemma is as obvious as it is horrifying: Create standardized tests in every subject. If you think I’m kidding, think again. This is where districts around the country are going with teacher evaluation. See this post by a student in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District, where last year 52 standardized assessments were field tested on students as young as kindergarten. The student asked, “Why do I have to take a standardized test in Yearbook?”Why indeed.
But Tennessee has added a whole new level of creativity to solving this problem.
There aren’t any student test scores — yet — for over half of the state’s teachers, including those who teach kindergarten, first, second and third grades, and art and music. So teachers without a standardized test to call their own are being evaluated by the test scores of other teachers’ students in the school. As Mike Winerip of The New York Times recently wrote, amid a “bewildering” collection of rules on how teachers should be assessed, “math specialists can be evaluated by their school’s English scores, music teachers by the school’s writing scores.”
Really.
Things have gotten so out of hand that even Robert Scott, the Republican education commissioner of Texas who is not exactly the poster child for progressive education, recently called the nation’s testing obsession a “perversion” of a quality education.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan has called for a broad-based curriculum and said he doesn’t want schools becoming obsessed with tests. But his policies can’t lead to any other behavior.
Meanwhile, back to that new Education Department study, interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 27.
Here’s my comment: Please stop wasting our time and money on nonsense.
Showing posts with label NCLB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NCLB. Show all posts
Friday, February 10, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
DISD Says It's Not Sitting on Federal Funds. It's Actually Trying to Keep From Wasting Them
Here's the TEA's response to DISD.
-Patricia
By Robert Wilonsky | Dallas Observer
Tue., Feb. 7 2012
We started this morning by noting Brett Shipp's piece from last night suggesting the Texas Education Agency is threatening to withhold Dallas ISD from close to $80 million in federal funds birthed by No Child Left Behind. The reason, says Commissioner of Education Robert Scott: Only 40 students out of an eligible 29,349 have gotten their after-school tutoring paid for. Which, on the surface, sounds just horrible.
But DISD says today that's far from the whole story. Like, very far. Like, not even half the whole story. More like a couple of chapters from a really long story.
As proof we were sent the January 27 letter interim DISD superintendent Alan King sent to Scott in response to his January 13 warning letter on which Shipp based his account last night. In the letter, which follows, King writes that the reason DISD hasn't spent the money is because while performing its annual audit the district discovered "potential irregularities involving invoices received from several vendors" -- all of whom, incidentally, are tutoring services approved by TEA. Writes King, who later outs the issue as one involving double-billing, "the district took immediate action by reorganizing the department in charge of oversight for the program and hired a forensic team to conduct further investigations into the program."
King writes that district staff and TEA employees chatted about this in October, and that the result was an "action plan" that would resolve the hold-up. In the meantime, DISD continued trying to find out where the irregularities had come from -- inside 3700 Ross or with the contractors TEA had signed off on. Says the letter:
The initial concerns were that district employees were being paid by both the district and vendors for the same work or tutors were being paid by multiple vendors for the same time period. The District's Office of Professional Responsibility conducted a sampling of interviews with several district employees and found no indication of employee misconduct. The District, therefore, concluded that the apparent fraudulent activity was conducted by the vendors and the forensic audit team focused their procedures on these vendors.
Now here's where it gets really interesting ...
Not only is DISD concerned that those tutoring services are double-dipping from federal funds, but the district also doesn't think much of those tutoring services -- all of whom, you'll recall, are on TEA's list of approved vendors. This isn't easy to find. But there is a report, which you'll find here, that breaks down the services providers, which have names like Allegiance Learning Solutions, Cool Kids Learn, Cranium Maximus, Little Genius Private Learning, Orion's Mind and Sheila Williams Lyons: Acknowledge Me Now. According to the district, most of the 11,268 kids who enrolled in the tutoring services used Group Excellence (2,695 students), Apex Academics (1,593) or Tutors with Computers (1,129). And the district "funded SES at $1,490 per student," per the report.
But, says DISD's evaluation, it didn't appear to get much, if anything, for its investment. From Page 80 of the report:
For TAKS math vertical score means, SES eligible non-tutored students outperformed SES tutored students in the sixth grade by an average of 21 points. There was no significant difference between tutored and non-tutored students' vertical math scores in the seventh and eight grades. For TAKS reading, SES eligible non-tutored students outperformed SES tutored students in all three grades by an average of 17 points.
Eleven pages later, after a lot of data-crunching, the district determined:
In a broader sense, SES is a clear non-factor in helping students pass the TAKS that otherwise might not pass. When examining the rates between enrolled and non-enrolled (and tutored and nontutored), SES is not helping students who previously failed the TAKS test to pass this year, and there-in help schools make AYP. This is probably due in part to the fact that the majority of SES participants have previously passed the TAKS test and the fact that many providers are apparently not able to improve student academic performance.
Which brings us back to King's letter, in which he notes that the district's actually requested a waiver from TEA to "repurpose the mandatory set aside for SES services to a more productive initiative." Because, as the report notes, DISD doesn't think SES is very, you know, productive. Writes King:
The District will set aside approximately $10 million to hire teachers at Stage 2 and above AYP campuses in order to lower class sizes. Since all 26 campuses that meet this criterion are "school-wide", allocations will be distributed evenly across the affected campuses. Teachers will be hired according to the specific area of improvement of each campus. The improvement areas are math, reading, attendance and/or graduation rate. This proposal will allow the District to hire approximately 166 teachers or 6.4 additional teachers per campus.
TEA spokesperson DeEtta Culbertson says the agency is "assessing the letter" from King, but since there's an "ongoing investigation, there's not a whole lot we can say." But "the bottom line is," she adds, "we need to make sure the students in Dallas ISD are being properly served."
-Patricia
By Robert Wilonsky | Dallas Observer
Tue., Feb. 7 2012
We started this morning by noting Brett Shipp's piece from last night suggesting the Texas Education Agency is threatening to withhold Dallas ISD from close to $80 million in federal funds birthed by No Child Left Behind. The reason, says Commissioner of Education Robert Scott: Only 40 students out of an eligible 29,349 have gotten their after-school tutoring paid for. Which, on the surface, sounds just horrible.
But DISD says today that's far from the whole story. Like, very far. Like, not even half the whole story. More like a couple of chapters from a really long story.
As proof we were sent the January 27 letter interim DISD superintendent Alan King sent to Scott in response to his January 13 warning letter on which Shipp based his account last night. In the letter, which follows, King writes that the reason DISD hasn't spent the money is because while performing its annual audit the district discovered "potential irregularities involving invoices received from several vendors" -- all of whom, incidentally, are tutoring services approved by TEA. Writes King, who later outs the issue as one involving double-billing, "the district took immediate action by reorganizing the department in charge of oversight for the program and hired a forensic team to conduct further investigations into the program."
King writes that district staff and TEA employees chatted about this in October, and that the result was an "action plan" that would resolve the hold-up. In the meantime, DISD continued trying to find out where the irregularities had come from -- inside 3700 Ross or with the contractors TEA had signed off on. Says the letter:
The initial concerns were that district employees were being paid by both the district and vendors for the same work or tutors were being paid by multiple vendors for the same time period. The District's Office of Professional Responsibility conducted a sampling of interviews with several district employees and found no indication of employee misconduct. The District, therefore, concluded that the apparent fraudulent activity was conducted by the vendors and the forensic audit team focused their procedures on these vendors.
Now here's where it gets really interesting ...
Not only is DISD concerned that those tutoring services are double-dipping from federal funds, but the district also doesn't think much of those tutoring services -- all of whom, you'll recall, are on TEA's list of approved vendors. This isn't easy to find. But there is a report, which you'll find here, that breaks down the services providers, which have names like Allegiance Learning Solutions, Cool Kids Learn, Cranium Maximus, Little Genius Private Learning, Orion's Mind and Sheila Williams Lyons: Acknowledge Me Now. According to the district, most of the 11,268 kids who enrolled in the tutoring services used Group Excellence (2,695 students), Apex Academics (1,593) or Tutors with Computers (1,129). And the district "funded SES at $1,490 per student," per the report.
But, says DISD's evaluation, it didn't appear to get much, if anything, for its investment. From Page 80 of the report:
For TAKS math vertical score means, SES eligible non-tutored students outperformed SES tutored students in the sixth grade by an average of 21 points. There was no significant difference between tutored and non-tutored students' vertical math scores in the seventh and eight grades. For TAKS reading, SES eligible non-tutored students outperformed SES tutored students in all three grades by an average of 17 points.
Eleven pages later, after a lot of data-crunching, the district determined:
In a broader sense, SES is a clear non-factor in helping students pass the TAKS that otherwise might not pass. When examining the rates between enrolled and non-enrolled (and tutored and nontutored), SES is not helping students who previously failed the TAKS test to pass this year, and there-in help schools make AYP. This is probably due in part to the fact that the majority of SES participants have previously passed the TAKS test and the fact that many providers are apparently not able to improve student academic performance.
Which brings us back to King's letter, in which he notes that the district's actually requested a waiver from TEA to "repurpose the mandatory set aside for SES services to a more productive initiative." Because, as the report notes, DISD doesn't think SES is very, you know, productive. Writes King:
The District will set aside approximately $10 million to hire teachers at Stage 2 and above AYP campuses in order to lower class sizes. Since all 26 campuses that meet this criterion are "school-wide", allocations will be distributed evenly across the affected campuses. Teachers will be hired according to the specific area of improvement of each campus. The improvement areas are math, reading, attendance and/or graduation rate. This proposal will allow the District to hire approximately 166 teachers or 6.4 additional teachers per campus.
TEA spokesperson DeEtta Culbertson says the agency is "assessing the letter" from King, but since there's an "ongoing investigation, there's not a whole lot we can say." But "the bottom line is," she adds, "we need to make sure the students in Dallas ISD are being properly served."
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Lost Decade for Educational Progress -- NCLB 10th Anniversary Report
Here's the link to the Full Report
-Patricia
FairTest NationalCenterfor Fair & Open Testing
For further information:
Dr. Monty Neill (617)
477-9792
Bob Schaeffer (239) 395-6773
For use on or after Tuesday afternoon, January 3, 2012
The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law “failed badly both
in terms of its own goals and more broadly,” leading to a decade
of educational stagnation. That is the central conclusion of a major
new report marking NCLB’s tenth anniversary. President George W. Bush
signed the program into law on January 8, 2002.
The report, “NCLB’s Lost Decade for Educational Progress,”
summarizes data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) and dozens of independent studies. It was written by staff of
the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest).
Among the report’s major findings:
- NCLB failed to significantly increase average academic
performance or to significantly narrow achievement gaps, as measured
by NAEP. U.S. students made greater gains before NCLB became law
than after it was implemented.
- NCLB severely damaged educational quality and equity by
narrowing the curriculum in many schools and focusing attention on the
limited skills standardized tests measure. These negative effects fell
most heavily on classrooms serving low-income and minority
children.
- So-called "reforms" to NCLB fail to address many of the
law’s fundamental problems and, in some cases, may intensify them.
Flawed proposals include Obama Administration waivers and the Senate
Education Committee’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
reauthorization bill
“NCLB undermined many promising reform efforts because of its
reliance on one-size-fits-all testing, labeling and sanctioning
schools,” explained FairTest’s Lisa Guisbond, the new report’s lead
author. “A decade’s worth of solid evidence documents the failure of
NCLB and similar high-stakes testing schemes. Successful programs in
the U.S. and other nations demonstrate better ways to improve
schools. Yet, policymakers still cling to the discredited NCLB model.”
“It’snot too late to learn the lessons of the past ten years.
Now is the time to craft a federal law that supports equity and
progress in all public schools,” added FairTest Executive Director,
Dr. Monty Neill. The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA), which
FairTest leads, is promoting a comprehensive plan to overhaul NCLB.
The proposal calls for using multiple measures to assess student and
school performance. It also targets resources to improve teaching and
learning. More than 150 national education, civil rights, disability,
religious, labor and civic groups signed theJoint Organizational
Statement on NCLB, which FEA seeks to implement.
- - 30 - -
- the NCLB 10th Anniversary report is posted at
http://fairtest.org/NCLB-lost-decade-report-home
-Patricia
FairTest NationalCenterfor Fair & Open Testing
For further information:
Dr. Monty Neill (617)
477-9792
Bob Schaeffer (239) 395-6773
For use on or after Tuesday afternoon, January 3, 2012
The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law “failed badly both
in terms of its own goals and more broadly,” leading to a decade
of educational stagnation. That is the central conclusion of a major
new report marking NCLB’s tenth anniversary. President George W. Bush
signed the program into law on January 8, 2002.
The report, “NCLB’s Lost Decade for Educational Progress,”
summarizes data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) and dozens of independent studies. It was written by staff of
the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest).
Among the report’s major findings:
- NCLB failed to significantly increase average academic
performance or to significantly narrow achievement gaps, as measured
by NAEP. U.S. students made greater gains before NCLB became law
than after it was implemented.
- NCLB severely damaged educational quality and equity by
narrowing the curriculum in many schools and focusing attention on the
limited skills standardized tests measure. These negative effects fell
most heavily on classrooms serving low-income and minority
children.
- So-called "reforms" to NCLB fail to address many of the
law’s fundamental problems and, in some cases, may intensify them.
Flawed proposals include Obama Administration waivers and the Senate
Education Committee’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
reauthorization bill
“NCLB undermined many promising reform efforts because of its
reliance on one-size-fits-all testing, labeling and sanctioning
schools,” explained FairTest’s Lisa Guisbond, the new report’s lead
author. “A decade’s worth of solid evidence documents the failure of
NCLB and similar high-stakes testing schemes. Successful programs in
the U.S. and other nations demonstrate better ways to improve
schools. Yet, policymakers still cling to the discredited NCLB model.”
“It’snot too late to learn the lessons of the past ten years.
Now is the time to craft a federal law that supports equity and
progress in all public schools,” added FairTest Executive Director,
Dr. Monty Neill. The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA), which
FairTest leads, is promoting a comprehensive plan to overhaul NCLB.
The proposal calls for using multiple measures to assess student and
school performance. It also targets resources to improve teaching and
learning. More than 150 national education, civil rights, disability,
religious, labor and civic groups signed theJoint Organizational
Statement on NCLB, which FEA seeks to implement.
- - 30 - -
- the NCLB 10th Anniversary report is posted at
http://fairtest.org/NCLB-lost-decade-report-home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)