Archive for Standards+Testing

Sucked Into Value-Addled Teacher Evaluations

It’s been a month since my last post and I have just about had it with all the flap over our new contract, specifically “value-added”  test scores of students being used in the evaluation of teachers.

Using “value-added” to evaluate teachers is actually, in my view, value-addled evaluation of teachers:  it is senseless to hold teachers alone accountable for students achievement when so many other factors impinge upon student test scores. Supposedly, using value-added data wizardry, student test scores can objectively determine the “value” of what a teacher contributes to each student’s achievement in one school year . Assessment experts say the method is highly unreliable, but that hasn’t deterred policymakers in NYC, Chicago, or many other places, from jumping on the value-added teacher evaluation school bus.

I’ve twisted the term value-added teacher evaluation into value-addled because every teacher does not have equal students, classes, and resources yet tests scores are viewed as objective, empirical, and quantitative: tests scores are numerical data determined by standardized tests scores so this in turn makes them “objective”.  However, test scores are not completely objective data therefore not more reliable in value-added teacher evaluation, instead they are actually inconclusive factors used to determine a teacher’s worth.

Below I will use four major problems with value-added teacher evaluation outlined by the mathematician John Ewing, in his Washington Post article de-bunking value-added teacher evaluation, to validate why value-added teacher evaluation is truly value-addled teacher evaluation.

1. Influences.  Value-added teacher evaluations are actually value-addled because, as mentioned above, test scores are not truly objective.  In reality, test scores are influenced by many factors other than time spent with one teacher over the course of a single school year.  Test scores are impacted by numerous factors:  parental support, level of achievement coming into the classroom, attitudes of peers and previous teachers. It is impossible to determine the sole influence of one teacher during one year among all these influential variables.

2. Polls.  The poll-like nature of 1 – 3 standardized tests per school year reduces value-added to value-addled due to the reductive nature of polls:  a sample of student achievement covers a minute fraction of material from the much larger domain of curriculum covered over the course of a school year.  Student tests scores do not represent how much has been learned on material covered in a school year, and, unless numerous tests are used throughout the year, tests begin to resemble polls – they can be misleading.

3. Intangibles. Value-added is also value-addled due to endless intangibles which impact test scores such as:  attitude, engagement, self-motivation, and individual ability to learn independently.  The impact of such uncontrollable intangibles on student test scores rise exponentially when students do not have parental support and live in poverty.  Furthermore, these intangibles were up-front biases of standardized tests readily acknowledged by the “father of modern standardized testing”  (See Ewing article cited above for citation on the reserach.)

4. Inflation.  Value-addled is a better term for value-added teacher evaluations becasue test scores can increase without student knowledge increasing.  According to Ewing, this has been well documented, but is largely ignored by many in the education “establishment”.  How is this possible?  As every teacher is well aware,  teaching to the test – narrowing the curriculum to only what will be tested – can have a profound effect on test scores.  In fact, evidence shows that tunnel-vision teaching for tests can dramatically increase tests scores yet decrease student learning:  standardized test scores on on limited curricular materials are not the same as student achievement.

For further debunking of teacher-addled evaluation, I encourage you to go to the Washington Post piece cited above which I liberally made use of in the four points above.  Ewing makes it clear value-added is just another falsity used to undermine public school teachers, thus public education, in a mindless race to hold only teachers accountable for student achievement, when actually, in the real world outside of politics, there are also other major factors impacting student achievement.

 

Where’s the RESPECT? CPS Places Additional Swords of Testing Above Teacher’s Heads

wpid-134366864-2012-02-21-11-45.jpg

Has Brizzard, or anyone at CPS, heard of the new federal initiative titled RESPECT touted by Arne Duncan in a town hall meeting and then on the Daily Show last week?  (RESPECT is acronym for Recognizing Educational Success, Professional Excellence and Collaborative Teaching) Read more

State of Our Educational Union

wpid-images-2012-01-25-09-46.jpeg

One aspect about teachers and educaation from Obama’s State of the Union stood out last night:

“Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. (Applause.)

And in return, grant schools flexibility: to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn. That’s a bargain worth making. (Applause.)”

My immediate response was: How do you plan to determine which teachers are to be rewarded? Do you plan to continue using test scores as with flawed NCLB and the equally flawed Race to the Top? If so, how do you expect teachers to do anything but teach to the test? After all, as it now stands, when teachers, and principals, are “rewarded” based upon test scores there has been a steady rise in scripted curriculum and “data driven” instruction, which is just another word for teaching to the test.

When I heard the above, quoted from the union address last night, I was absolutely livid because I feel betrayed by Obama and his buddy Arnie due to the testing based, union busting Race to the Top fraud, which has only served to reinforce the worst of NCLB, or as I call it ETLB, Every Teacher Left Behind.

I’ve worked at a school on probation for the past four years and I’ve watched student after student and teacher after teacher leave my school due to draconian expectations solely based upon making AYP. Teaching is more than training students to jump through test bubble hoops using rigid, fidelity to the curriculum.

The only reason I was able to watch Obama last night and really listen to what he had to say was due to medical leave: after working 12 – 15 hours per day, seven days per week since the end of August – yes, before the summer ended – we teachers do work during the summer yet all hours are put in off the clock – I ended up with serious complications stemming from a an ongoing health challenge.

The Road Ahead: Recommend Changes to NCLB

wpid-136314707-2012-01-13-10-514.jpg

After only two days of bogging in response to the predominantly negative NCLB word cloud, shown previously, I feel the need to take a break and do something empowering. Following you will find solidly supported recommendations about changes for NCLB from Fair Test. Take them and use them to help make a difference by contacting policy makers with the link at the end of this blog. NCLB is damaging our educational system and it’s laws need to be addressed – be a part of that and make your views known.

Changes to NCLB are recommended d by many organizations. However, I think the following, recommended by Fair Test: The National Center for Fair & Open Testing, are the most realistic and practical.

What to say when you call your senator about NCLB
When you call your Senator to ask him to help overhaul NCLB, here are five suggested talking points, which you can deliver in 2-3 minutes:
Introduce yourself, say what city or town you are from, and tell the person you want to convey a message about No Child Left Behind.
If this Senator is on the HELP Committee say, something like: “I understand that NCLB will be ‘marked up’ and voted on in Committee this week. I am very concerned about the damage caused by NCLB and want Senator [name] to vote to make major positive changes. The Harkin-Enzi reauthorization bill, however, does not improve on NCLB.” Then use the list below.
If this Senator is not on the HELP Committee, say something like: “I understand that the HELP committee will ‘mark up’ and vote on a new NCLB in a couple of weeks. I am very concerned about the damage caused by NCLB and want Senator [name] to call the committee leaders and ask them to make major positive changes.” Then you can use these talking points:

  1. Do not require any additional standardized testing; there is already far too much. The Harkin-Enzi bill will force states to administer tens of millions of new tests, mostly to use to judge teachers and principals.   (Support your argument with examples of over-testing and test misuse at schools in your community.)
 
  2. Do not require the use of student test scores to evaluate educators. The Harkin-Enzi bill does requires this, but the Alexander-Isakson bill does not.  Reliance on exam results, with all their inaccuracies and fluctuations, will result in many wrong decisions: Research shows teachers classified “best” based on one year’s results may be “worst” the very next year.
 
  3. Fund states to upgrade the quality of teacher-designed assessments. This is the best way to refocus classrooms on critical thinking and problem solving, rather than memorizing factoids and filling in multiple-choice bubbles.
 
  4. Hold states accountable for determining the cause of low scores at particular schools and designing/monitoring customized plans to enhance performance.  No more one-size-fits-none, top-down policies that have failed to improve educational quality or equity in the NCLB era. The Harkin-Enzi bill requires schools to use one of several models or “strategic improvements.” These should be dropped.
 
  5. Please read and use the recommendations of the Forum on Educational Accountability, which you can see at www.edaccountability.org.  

To contact your Senators to recommend changes to NCLB through this site:
http://fairtest.org/contacting-your-senators-recommend-changes-nclb

To read the complete publication see:

www.fairtest.org

wpid-nclb-word-cloud-c1-2012-01-13-10-511.jpg

NCLB is a Failure

wpid-PastedGraphic1-2012-01-9-10-55.tiff

Following are points, with citations, outlining why NCLB is a failure:

- The convergence of testing, sanctions and inadequate funding means too many children will continue to get a second-class education. A false accountability system based on testing and punishing will never bring about success for all children.

http://fairtest.org/sites/default/files/exec%20summary%20-%20final%20color.pdf

– NCLB groups generally successful schools with dropout factories that don’t teach the majority of their students much of anything. If a generally successful school has only 5% of is students underachieving on standardized tests, the school will be put on probation for not making Anual Yearly Progress (ATP) as defined by the NCLB law.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2104311,00.html#ixzz1jNMdL6q0

My personal experience of NCLB’s failure is its impact upon my classroom practice: in the ten years since NCLB became law I have seen best practice in classrooms be reduced to teaching to the test. Testing and assessment have taken precedence over actually teaching with teachers becoming slaves to accountability paperwork. This is especially true at schools on probation because of the NCLB requirement for unobtainable “Annual Yearly Progress” which is nearly impossible to meet (see above for details in this regard).

What failures of NCLB have you experienced?

NCLB is Flawed

wpid-PastedGraphic-2012-01-8-09-286.tiff

Based on evidence collected from two years of classroom experience around the nation, FairTest documented a series of basic flaws in NCLB, such as:

- The law falsely assumes that boosting test scores should be the primary goal of schools, an approach that has not improved education when implemented by individual states;


- Widespread school “failure” is an inevitable outcome of NCLB’s one-size-fits-all design because of rigid “adequate yearly progress” provisions, which set unrealistic goals for academic gains, punish diversity, and ignore measurement error;


- NCLB’s school transfer policy undermines ongoing reform programs and disrupts the lives of students and teachers. Heavier sanctions required for schools that do not boost test scores have previously been shown to be counter-productive;

- The requirement that limited English proficient students score “proficient” on English exams is self-contradictory, as is the provision that most children with special needs demonstrate competency in the same manner as other students;

- Education is being damaged as students are coached to pass tests rather than taught a rich curriculum that will help prepare them for life in the 21st Century.

Being a classroom teacher who was fortunate enough to begin teaching four years before NCLB became law, I experienced teaching before the law was enacted.

Pre-NCLB there was much more freedom to develop lessons to meet the needs of all students, now cookie-cutter lesson plans are demanded that scientifically researched results. Pre-NCLB teaching was FUN thus learning was fun because specific ways to teach were not mandated to meet pre-determined test scores, Post-NCLB fidelity to the curriculum has trumped meeting the needs of students because students must be taught exactly what the tests required by NCLB assess.

It has pained me to use a set curriculum with pre-determined weekly tests. Previously all I ever needed to teach were exceptional fiction and nonfiction books, writing and drawing materials, and I only used worksheets for developing math drills. Every classroom or group of students I taught made extensive literacy and math gains and I never second-guessed my classroom practice because my students made significant gain in my classroom.

My students have continued to make significant gains since NCLB became law yet I have been constantly at odds with the administration at our school, which is still on probation. My admin have felt they need to emphasis fidelity to the scientifically researched curriculum prescribed at the district level as a result of NCLB law. In addition, there are specific criteria laid out by the NCLB for schools on probation and administrators must ‘follow the letter of the law’ determined by testing, which seems more important than actually teaching.

Of course this is all my opinion, yet teachers where I have taught the last four years all feel the same way. Moral is incredibly low as we near the spring season of high stakes standardized testing: fear of not measuring up to the impossible Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) of NCLB looms over all of us. Failure for our school could mean closure and if our school is closed we all loose our jobs – EVEN THOUGH OUR TESTS SCORES ARE HIGHER THAN MOST SCHOOLS IN OUR CITY! This is due to the way NCLB calculates AYP of schools and this aspect of NCLB will be addressed in a future blog.

Teaching as Team Effort: Parents as Players

If teaching was a team sport, the team supporting the education of each would student consist: the student, his or her parents, school administrators, local school board member, the state board of education, and all national player including politicians. So why is it the national burden for education falling solely upon the shoulders of classroom teachers when actually teachers are part of a team effort? Perhaps everyone on the ‘team’ needs ‘professional development’ not just teachers?

wpid-2577870781_89aa4de435-2011-11-19-09-251.jpg

Professional development of teachers now trumps students attending school and there rarely mention about the impact of parents upon test scores. Day after day public school students across this district have missed school due to the professional development of teachers and has meant students didn’t have school AGAIN yesterday! This month has been a checkerboard combo of missed school days due to holidays, in combination with non-school days where-by teachers are schooled in a plethora of duties, most of which have nothing to do with actually teaching students in front of them. One thing teachers need more than anything is more time with students and all the ‘developing’ of the teaching profession runs counter-productive interference towards this goal.

You might ask, “How can all these days off for students be deemed productive?”

Well, usually, professional development is predominantly filled with endless tasks of accountability required by the government, in cohort with local school district mandates with a focus on testing. For three hours yesterday teachers at my school analyzed test scores from the newly minted Common Core State Standards (CCSS) only to discover the test scores reflected what teachers at our school already know about our students because we mark their papers and work with them everyday. Lets get real, these test are for accountability purposes and the only ones being held accountable are teachers.

Professional development could be about becoming a better teacher and further developing skills to reach students.. However, no matter what teachers are told, above all, their endless professional development has been mandated in order to hold them individually accountable for student test scores. The laser-like focus on testing, required by the NCLB law, is blame in disguise as accountability with teachers being held solely accountable for student achievement on test scores. Yes, I will take some responsibility for low student test scores. However, what about the parents? At one time I heard a speech by Prsident Obama holding parents accountable yet rarely do journalists write about anyone but teachers.

wpid-3935328988_e7716411d2-2011-11-19-09-251.jpg

However, to my surprise and delight, Thomas L. Friedman recently wrote an informed piece in the NY Times addressing this conundrum titled How About Better Parents?‎ In this piece Friedman outlined how recent studies indicate parents who are more involved in their children’s education can have significant impact on student achievement.

One study cited by Friedman outlined the Program for International Assessment exams conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (O.C.D.E.). The PISA conducted a team study of 5,000 parents, across a wide spectrum of socioeconomic levels, about how they had raised their children and then compared these practices with PISA test scores.

In early November, the PISA team published three main findings discovered i their study about parenting practices among the highest scoring students who took the PISA exams: “on average, the score point difference in reading that is associated with parental involvement is largest when parents read a book with their child, when they talk about things they have done during the day, and when they tell stories to their children.” Significantly, the score point difference was smallest when parental involvement simply took the form of playing with their children.

The findings of the PISA team where reinforced by the study “Back to School: How parent involvement affects student achievement” conducted by the National School Boards Association’s Center for Public Education and written up in a recent issue of The American School Board Journal by Patti Barth, the center’s director as cited by Friedman:

“Parent involvement can take many forms, but only a few of them relate to higher student performance. Of those that work, parental actions that support children’s learning at home are most likely to have an impact on academic achievement at school.
“Monitoring homework; making sure children get to school; rewarding their efforts and talking up the idea of going to college. These parent actions are linked to better attendance, grades, test scores, and preparation for college,” Barth wrote. “The study found that getting parents involved with their children’s learning at home is a more powerful driver of achievement than parents attending P.T.A. and school board meetings, volunteering in classrooms, participating in fund-raising, and showing up at back-to-school nights.”

Friedman has now become part of my team to improve student achievement because he addressed the fact few journalists have addressed: parental impact upon education is significant and teachers should not be held solely accountable for test scores. Parents have always been invaluable ‘team players’ in the complex, collaborative, contact ‘sport ‘ of educating their children in my classroom. In fact, all of my most successful students had parents at home working in tandem with me in the classroom to educate their children.

Parents are student’s first teachers: from the time they are born they learn from their parents and it is parents who provide the foundation for teachers who educate their children. From my view, privileged children are those who have better parents, parents who value education and who support their children’s learning from an early age.

Why I hate spelling tests – they exist in the gutter of Bloom’s Taxonomy

Today I walked out of a voluntary meeting where our principal was lecturing us on our unacceptable performance during an unexpected walk-through of our school by a new, non-elected, mayoral appointee of our city board of education: a draconian woman who stalked into my classroom on her walk-through with her shoulders hunched like a linebacker and her face frozen into a snarl. She marched into my classroom, took one look at what I was doing – a heinous spelling test I have cringed at giving since teaching at my current school – and then marched right back out with an even bigger grimace than when she tromped in.

wpid-462868700_189edb686b-2011-09-29-15-531.jpg

Now, let me make one thing clear from the beginning: I DESPISE SPELLING TESTS! In fact, I have never given a spelling test any of my students in my entire career until working at my current school. Yes, I taught about word patterns, but never gave a traditional spelling test until my 13 year of teaching.

The sole reason I was forced to administer them? I was told to give spelling tests weekly because it was part of the designated basal reading curriculum. A curriculum, by the way, that has been deemed the only reason our test scores have risen by our assistant principal who, replying to my inquiry about why our school’s reading scores rose a whopping 14 %, adamantly stated “Our tests scores have risen because to due diligence – fidelity to the curriculum.” By they way, fidelity to the curriculum has included weekly spelling tests for the past three years at every grade level, or so I assumed a I have never taught fifth and sixth grade using the curriculum before.

The principal held up my classroom as an example of what not to do: the school board harridan’s visit to my classroom was held up to be exactly what the board member said she didn’t want to see in our classrooms. Hating spelling tests as I do – this made me see red! After all, the only reason I have given spelling tests is because I, and every other teacher, have been told give them! And did I mention I HATE giving spelling tests?

Anyway, when I brought up the fact teachers have been required to give spelling tests as part of the mandatory curriculum, the principal ignored me and acted as if I hadn’t said anything and went on to give a brief lecture as to why spelling tests SHOULDN’T be given – AND THIS IS THE SAME RATIONALE I USED TO JUSTIFY NOT GIVING SPELLING TESTS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS – BUT TO NO AVAIL! Succinctly, she expounded upon the fact students can receive 100% on a spelling test and then chronically misspell words while writing, another thing I have said to justify not giving them, to no avail.

This is exactly the type of situation that makes me feel like Alice in Wonderland as an educator because, like Alice I am pointing out gross inconsistencies in administrative directives and I am completely dismissed – just like the Queen of Hearts saying “Off with their heads!” In the book, no matter what Alice says to justify heads not being cut off she is ignored. In fact, when the assistant principal asked who told me to give spelling tests I simply replied “You” to which she quickly shoot back “I never told you to give spelling tests! Your aren’t teaching first grade anymore, you’re teaching middle school!”

This is when it became apparent I had to leave the room because if I hadn’t walked out I could have said something in anger I would have regretted such as “Well, taking spelling tests has been a part of my lesson plans for a month now and no one has mentioned this. Did you even read my lesson plans? Did you ever tell me ever NOT to give spelling tests? Why have you approved my lesson plans containing spelling tests since school began this year? I’LL TELL YOU WHY – BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER READ MY LESSON PLANS – YOU’VE ONLY GLANCED AT THEM TO SEE HOW THICK THEY WERE! “ But of course, I left the room fuming, demoralized and mortified an administrator had used me as an example of what not to do. After all I’ve taught first grade the past three years and have never taught middle school language arts before. Could I have a little guidance here?

Now, you might wonder what the big deal is about spelling tests and why I just can’t let this go. For me, the big deal is the difference between higher order thinking and lower level thinking based upon a little hierarchy of knowledge called Bloom’s Taxonomy. To simplify things, following you will find a diagram of Bloom’s Taxonomy. As you can see, “Remembering” is at the bottom of Bloom’s Taxonomy because it is the lowest level form of knowledge and remembering is exactly what a spelling test relies upon because a spelling test creates nothing new. Unlike the crowning glory at the top of Bloom’s Taxonomy – creating -spelling tests are mere rote memory and do not require students to take information and create something new with it – which is the true test of a student understanding what they have learned.

wpid-blooms_revised_taxomony-2011-09-29-15-531.jpg

And this my friends is exactly why I hate giving spelling tests and why I have NEVER, EVER administered them to any of my previous students before working at my current school and why I have spent this entire blog ranting on about being called out for giving a spelling test when I don’t even want to giving them in the first place. Luckily, now I WILL NEVER HAVE TO GIVE A SPELLING TEST AGAIN! At least not while the current school board member who visited my class today has her way…