 |
CAT Tracks for July 24, 2010
DAMNED IF YOU DO |
Teachers...
If you thought that buckling down and raising test scores would bring relief from the political and media onslaught, well, forgetaboutit!
You can't win...
According to the New York Times editorial below, New York teachers raised the 3rd- through 8th-Grade math test proficiency scores from 66% to and "astonishing" 86%.
Was the Times "ecstatic"? Was it bragging? Hell, no...the Times was outraged!
My first quibble is the Times' use of the word "astonishing" for an 86% success rate. In the opening paragraph of its editorial, the Times praises No Child Left Behind...the law that started the madness by requiring 100% proficiency by 2014. If 100% was NOT "astonishing", then how can you object to going from 66% to 86% in three years? Seems like "reasonable" progress to me. In fact, seems I heard somewhere where it took an increase of 7% per year to be considered a "significant gain". Last time I did math, 7% + 7% + 7% = 21%. New York scores went up 20%. (Hmmm...surprised that the Times didn't take the teachers to task for under-performing by 1%.)
Another quibble...according to the Times, the New York Department of Education allowed the math test to become "utterly predictable".
THAT touches on one of my pet peeves about the whole "reform movement", the movement that started in Illinois circa 1985.
The magical mystery tour...
Illinois (as well as other states) make state testing "TOP SECRET".
Since the beginning, states have provided fuzzy educational standards that a rocket scientist could not decipher. Think I'm making that up? If you have been keeping abreast with the teacher-bashing media, that was much of the argument for the latest reform obsession - the adoption of the Common Core State Standards...for which a state can receive points toward Duncan Dollars in RttT. (Hell, Massachusetts has been in the news this week for "dummying-down". The Massachusetts state standards have been widely recognized as "the nation's best". Well, they discarded them, adopting the new (arguably inferior) "national standards"...so as to improve their chances at Duncan Dollars. Now, that's "educational progress"! How do I know? Because Arne the Duncan was quoted as being "ecstatic"...)
Teachers are left in the dark as to what skills will be tested on the annual inquisition. Yet they are expected to ready their students for becoming "proficient". Teachers must resort to crystal balls or a swami for guidance. Okay, I lied...you can actually purchase - legally - test guides (published by the companies that prepare the state tests) which give sample test questions.
But...
Teachers who do that will get criticized for "teaching to the test".
Well, hell, wouldn't you if your evaluation and job depended upon what your students did on that test?
Plus...just what's wrong with teaching to the test?
Assuming that the teachers are NOT given the actual problems used on the test - and that ain't happenin'...see "TOP SECRET" above - what is wrong with teaching the skills to be tested? If the state thinks that a 5th-Grade student should be able to add "round decimals", then what is wrong with teachers spending time in the classroom to teach said skill - e.g. 5.3748, rounded to the nearest hundredth, is 5.37?
I mean...to keep teachers "honest", should the state put stuff on the test that they don't tell the teacher about? Let the teachers try that on the days that they aren't "teaching to the test" for the state. (Hmmm...that was probably a dumb thing to say. Those days probably don't exist anymore in states/districts where "pay for performance" is king!)
Anyway...
How much flack do you think the local classroom teacher would catch from students, parents, and administrators if he/she gave a "regular" run-of-the-mill unit test that included questions over material that was not taught during the unit...that was NOT ASSIGNED during the unit? The teacher would be toast during the parent-teacher conference! "How can you hold my child responsible for material you did not teach?"
Yet, the state does it every year...proudly! Conveniently, the parents don't get mad at the state...they get mad at the obviously incompetent teachers who didn't "teach" their children.
Off with their heads!
I could go on, but, it's four o-clock in the morning. According to my computer thermometer, the temperature has finally dipped below 80! Time to change the batteries in my flashlight...and go pull weeds!
From the New York Times...
Honest Tests
Congress did the right thing with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 when it required states to document student performance in yearly tests in exchange for federal aid. Parents and policy makers need to know how well their schools are doing. And any serious discussion of reforms needs accurate data and rigorous comparisons with other schools’ performance. Most states immediately undermined the effort by employing weak tests and setting passing scores too low.
David Steiner, the state education commissioner in New York who took office a year ago, dealt head-on with the issue this week, admitting what many New Yorkers suspected: that the annual math and English tests were too easy. “The word ‘proficient’ should tell you something,” he said, “and right now that is not the case on our state tests.” The Board of Regents, which oversees education, rightly voted at the same meeting to raise the passing scores and to make the tests more rigorous.
The problem in New York seems not to have involved deliberate deception. Rather, the state education department, which oversees the tests in cooperation with a panel of experts, allowed the math exam in particular to become utterly predictable, focused on the same, narrow subset of abilities from year to year.
This made it too easy for teachers to teach for the exam. And scores soared accordingly. Last year, for example, an astonishing 86 percent of third through eighth graders statewide were found to be proficient in math, compared with 66 percent three years earlier.
Researchers recently compared New York State’s tests to the federally sponsored National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is periodically given to a sample of students in designated grades. The researchers found the state’s test was not just weaker than the national one, but that it was becoming even more so over time.
Some school officials are angry about Mr. Steiner’s decision to raise the passing scores on state tests and to make them tougher. The next batch of scores, due to be released soon, are likely to be less impressive.
New York’s parents don’t need cooked results and happy talk press releases. They need an honest appraisal of whether the schools are preparing their children to succeed in a highly competitive world.
