New Blog Tells it Right: the Education Reformers are Humpty Dumpty Reformers

A zesty new blog, WagTheDog, with a catchy name, vigornotrigor in the URL, has a good article critique today's teacher evaluation systems, along with the thinking that drives these kinds of "reforms."

Here is the essential beginning:

EFFECTIVE teachers are continually learning and DEVELOPING

Posted on June 28, 2015

The dictionary says developing means to grow, advance, and mature. In NY State a  teacher rated developing is not considered to be effective and a teacher improvement plan (TIP) must be implemented the following school year.

On any given day a teachers interactions with students can range from INEFFECTIVE to HIGHLY EFFECTIVE and ideally all teachers are continually learning and DEVELOPING.
Using a single standardized test score along with three to five classroom observations over the course of a 180-day school year is clearly an unreliable and INEFFECTIVE way to measure student learning and teacher quality.
Americans have been “sold” the Common Core by leaders who have carefully crafted and regulated the words, language, and narrative of the education reform movement. As Humpty Dumpty declared…

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’

~ Lewis Carroll, “Through The Looking-Glass”

Humpty Dumpty leaders with their penchant for doublethink rely on a litany of terms and  “educationese” to justify and sell their reforms to trusting parents using reinvented and redefined terms and phrases such as grit, rigor, college and career ready, data driven, personalized learning, flipped, 21st century skills, transformational, close reading, dive in, student learning outcomes, domain, unpack, complexity, human capital  leaving  parents and teachers confused and wondering why don’t reformers just…

Humpty Dumpty reformers claim the Common Core will ensure career readiness yet the standards do not call for additional trade/vocational pathways and job shadowing, apprenticeships, internships, job mentoring, work-based learning are nowhere to be found in the standards.
Humpty Dumpty reformers like Arne Duncan maintain that there is too much emphasis on testing and test prep…

“But the larger issue is, testing should never be the main focus of our schools…Yet in too many places, testing itself has become a distraction from the work it is meant to support…I believe testing issues today are sucking the oxygen out of the room in a lot of schools..”

While David Coleman, the chief architect of the Common Core Standards declares in a 2011 Keynote Speech that the standards are designed to be measured by tests and teachers are expected to teach to them…

“… these standards are worthy of nothing if the assessments built on them are not worthy of teaching to, period…
There is no force strong enough on this earth to prevent that. There is no amount of hand-waving, there‟s no amount of saying, “They teach to the standards, not the test; we don‟t do that here.” Whatever. The truth is – and if I misrepresent you, you are welcome to take the mic back. But the truth is teachers do.
Tests exert an enormous effect on instructional practice, direct and indirect, and its hence our obligation to make tests that are worthy of that kind of attention.”

Humpty Dumpty reformers claim to support the Common Core with its single track college prep mandate for all students “ensure that all students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career, and life, regardless of where they live.” while making inconsistent and contradictory statements like…

The Common Core will – by design – make some courses more difficult for many students, and for marginal students that may be enough to nudge them out of school altogether.

The Common Core Will Not Double the Dropout Rate ~ Paul Bruno

What if encouraging students to take a shot at the college track—despite very long odds of crossing its finish line—does them more harm than good? What if our own hyper-credentialed life experiences and ideologies are blinding us to alternative pathways to the middle class?…

“Kid, I’m Sorry, but You’re Just Not College Material” Is exactly what we should be telling a lot of high school students. ~ Michael Petrilli
Humpty Dumpty reformers say education reform and standardized testing is a civil rights issue while threatening to punish civil disobedient children and parents who opt out of standardized tests and placing gag orders on students and teachers to restrict and prevent them from discussing the poorly designed and written tests.

“Students in grades 3-8 are required by New York State to take standardized tests annually. No students should be required, however, to take tests that subject them to hidden advertising.
Clearly the trademarked products mentioned throughout the exam had no relevance to the stated goals of testing students’ reading comprehension and analytical skills. Surely Pearson can afford to edit standardized tests and remove all mention of trademarked products.”

Eighth grader: What bothered me most about the Common Core test, Isaiah Schrader 5/8/13
In the Humpty Dumpty world of the Common Core, “level the playing field” means providing accommodations for learning disabled students during classroom instruction and assessment AND denying those same accommodations during standardized testing at the end of the school year.
Humpty Dumpty reformers like Arne Duncan justify testing learning disabled students at their grade level without accommodations rather than their instructional level, by relying on sensational and unsubstantiated claims…

“The Obama administration said Tuesday that the vast majority of the 6.5 million students with disabilities in U.S. schools today are not receiving a quality education, and that it will hold states accountable for demonstrating that those students are making progress…
Under the new guidelines, Duncan says he’ll require proof that these kids aren’t just being served but are actually making academic progress.
“We know that when students with disabilities are held to high expectations and have access to a robust curriculum, they excel,” Duncan said.
These are students with a range of disabilities, from ADHD and dyslexia to developmental, emotional and behavioral disorders. During his conference call with reporters, Duncan was joined by Kevin Huffman, Tennessee’s education commissioner.
Huffman challenged the prevailing view that most special education students lag behind because of their disabilities. He said most lag behind because they’re not expected to succeed if they’re given more demanding schoolwork and because they’re seldom tested.”

Claudio Sanchez, “A ‘Major Shift’ In Oversight Of Special Education” 6/24/14 
Humpty Dumpty reformers claim the lack of academic progress and poor performance of learning disabled students on grade level standardized tests without accommodations is proof these students are receiving a substandard education and they are not being tested enough.
In contrast, The National Center for Learning Disabilities has reported on the lifelong challenges faced by learning disabled students and that individual academic progress may be incremental and inconsistent depending on the accommodations and services provided to the student, and the specific nature and severity of the disability.

“In an ideal world, students who struggle are able to overcome their challenges and grow to become adults who enjoy personal satisfaction, high self-esteem, self-sufficiency, and productive relationships within their families and in the general community. If only this was the case…
No matter how many times it’s been said, it needs to be repeated again and again: learning disabilities do not go away, and LD is a problem with lifelong implications.
Addressing features of LD during the early years can indeed help to circumvent and minimize struggles later in life, but we know that problems with listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, math and sometimes social skills can persist, even after years of special education instruction and support.”

While I fully support holding all students to the same high academic standards, I do not believe it is fair to deny learning disabled students testing accommodations that enable them to equally “access” the readings and questions on the test so they can fully demonstrate their knowledge and critical thinking skills.

Humpty Dumpty reformers convince parents that students must close read in order to be ready for college and careers while the National Institute for Literacy Equipped For the Future (EFF) program has determined that Reading With Understanding is a more appropriate skill because..

“The Common Core focuses on academic (and to some extent, vocational) purposes for all, while EFF contextualizes skills within a fuller range of adult family-related, work-related, and civic purposes at all levels…
Another key area of difference is in what the “standard” attempts to describe. Each EFF content standard describes a transferable skill process that can be applied to a wide variety of adult purposes and tasks…
In contrast, the Common Core documents target discrete skills and sub-skills which, like other sets of K-12 standards, may lead teachers to focus only on each sub-skill and not also provide learning activities which help students apply and transfer their skills outside of the immediate learning situation…”

Humpty Dumpty reformers claim in one breath that the Common Core-aligned PARCC assessments determine whether students are “on track” for college and careers while admitting in another breath that the tests are not a comprehensive or reliable means of measuring college and career readiness
Humpty Dumpty reformers promote and sell Personalized Learning as a way to catch up delayed and disabled students via technology and digital tools that deliver and pace course materials according to individual academic needs and abilities.

“Many fans of education technology believe that specialized technology is the most effective way to deliver “differentiated” instruction that is “individualized,” or “personalized” to a large number of learners, with diverse backgrounds and learning styles…
Personalized learning means instruction is paced to learning needs, tailored to learning preferences, and tailored to the specific interests of different learners.
In an environment that is fully personalized, the learning objectives and content as well as the method and pace may all vary (so personalization encompasses differentiation and individualization).”

While Humpty Dumpty reformers convince parents that more screen time is actually a good thing for young children who are still developing critical social and emotional skills, ed tech leaders send their children to schools that shun technology.

“The chief technology officer of eBay sends his children to a nine-classroom school here. So do employees of Silicon Valley giants like Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard.
But the school’s chief teaching tools are anything but high-tech: pens and paper, knitting needles and, occasionally, mud. Not a computer to be found. No screens at all. They are not allowed in the classroom, and the school even frowns on their use at home.
Schools nationwide have rushed to supply their classrooms with computers, and many policy makers say it is foolish to do otherwise. But the contrarian point of view can be found at the epicenter of the tech economy, where some parents and educators have a message: computers and schools don’t mix.”

“A Silicon Valley School That Doesn’t Compute” Matt Richtel, NY Times, October 2011

Click here to read the rest of the blog posting.

Meet MaryEllen Elia -- Another Meryll Tisch Kindred Spirit in Albany, as new NYS Education Commissioner

Here we go again?

For the recent years in New York State we were subjected to John King, recipient of a speedy Ed.D. degree, along with Merryl Tisch, THE grand doyenne of high stakes tests and the Common Core. King gave the whiny face to the hard sell of the Common Core across New York State. The problem was that he was totally tone-deaf to the people's (students, parents, teachers) pain over the Common Core States Standards Initiative, particularly evident in the 2013 to 2014 academic year.

Now we get MaryEllen Elia from Florida, fired just months ago from Hillsborough, Florida district (which includes Tampa), in a 4-3 vote, as their schools superintendent. Chancellor Tisch dismissed the flap (To her credit she has more classroom and schools leadership experience than King had.)

[Update: Tampa Tribune, September 19, 2013, on how she got an F.]

Yet, she got a unanimous nod from the New York State Board of Regents, from the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor. As with NYC principals, you can fall on your face, and rise to the top. But for teachers? Once you slip, never forgiven.

The controversy with Elia? This piece today in the Diane Ravitch blog gives important clues, and her points of controversy put her very well in sync with NYSED chancellor Tisch (pro-high stakes tests, pro-Common Core, pro-test-based evaluations of teachers, pro-merit pay of teachers --see this profile by the Washington Post's Valerie Strauss):

Parent activists are wary of Elia because of her past support for high-stakes testing. To win their confidence, she must clarify her views about testing, about the Opt Out movement, about detaching test scores from teacher evaluations, about merit pay, and about Common Core.

And for the anxiety factor: the New York teachers unions are rumored to like her. But who exactly is that (UFT? also NYSUT?) and why do they like her? Ravitch says that Elia was in the rightist Gov. Rick Scott's transition team.

Tisch's puppet? Fall woman for Cuomo?

"I'm Your Puppet":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liKhLNY5GYI

Statistical Assoc. Cautions the Use of VAM on Teachers

Just as we expected: a statistics organization has seen the light about the logic about basing teacher evaluations on student test scores. As the statistical organization noted, there are significant factors beyond the school's or the teacher's control that impact on students' academic performance. Teachers should not be held accountable for factors that are beyond their control. It is great that at least statisticians have seen the light. Now if only journalists and policy makers could exercise the same critical judgment on the issue.
BREAKING NEWS: American Statistical Association Issues Caution on Use of VAM by dianeravitch

The central feature of the Obama administration's $5 billion "Race to the Top" program was sharply deconstructed and refuted last week by the American Statistical Association, one of the nation's leading scholarly organizations. Spurred on by the administration's combination of federal cash and mandates, most states are now using student test scores to rank and evaluate teachers. This method of evaluating teachers by test scores is called value-added measurement, or VAM. Teachers' compensation, their tenure, bonuses, and other rewards and sanctions are tied directly to the rise or fall of their student test scores, which the Obama administration considers a good measure of teacher quality.

Secretary Arne Duncan believes so strongly in VAM that he has threatened to punish Washington state for refusing to adopt this method of evaluating teachers and principals. In New York, a state court fined New York City $150 million for failing to agree on a VAM plan.

The ASA issued a short but stinging statement that strongly warned against the misuse of VAM. The organization neither condemns nor promotes the use of VAM, but its warnings about the limitations of this methodology clearly demonstrate that the Obama administration has committed the nation's public schools to a policy fraught with error. ASA warns that VAMs are "complex statistical models" that require "high-level statistical expertise" and awareness of their "assumptions and possible limitations," especially when they are used for high-stakes purposes as is now common. Few, if any, state education departments have the statistical expertise to use VAM models appropriately. In some states, like Florida, teachers have been rated based on the scores of students they never taught.

The ASA points out that VAMs are based on standardized tests and "do not directly measure potential teacher contributions toward other student outcomes." They typically measure correlation, not causation. That means that the rise or fall of student test scores attributed to the teacher might actually be caused by other factors outside the classroom, not under the teacher's control. The VAM rating of teachers is so unstable that it may change if the same students are given a different test.

The ASA's most damning indictment of the policy promoted so vigorously by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is:

"Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions. Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality." The ASA points out: "This is not saying that teachers have little effect on students, but that variation among teachers accounts for a small part of the variation in scores. The majority of the variation in test scores is attributable to factors outside of the teacher’s control such as student and family background, poverty, curriculum, and unmeasured influences."

As many education researchers have explained--including a joint statement by the American Educational Research Association and the National Academy of Education-- the VAM ratings of those who teach children with disabilities and English language learners will be low, because these children have greater learning challenges than their peers, as will the ratings of those who teach gifted students, because the latter group has already reached a ceiling. Those two groups, like the ASA agreed that test scores are affected by many factors besides the teacher, not only the family, but the school's leadership, its resources, class size, curriculum, as well as the student's motivation, attendance, and health. Yet the Obama administration and most of our states are holding teachers alone accountable for student test scores.

The ASA warns that the current heavy reliance on VAMs for high-stakes testing and their simplistic interpretation may have negative effects on the quality of education. There will surely be unintended consequences, such as a diminishment in the number of people willing to become teachers in an environment where "quality" is so crudely measured. There will assuredly be more teaching to the test.. With the Obama administration's demand for VAM, "more classroom time might be spent on test preparation and on specific content from the test at the exclusion of content that may lead to better long-term learning gains or motivation for students. Certain schools may be hard to staff if there is a perception that it is harder for teachers to achieve good VAM scores when working in them. Over-reliance on VAM scores may foster a competitive environment, discouraging collaboration and efforts to improve the educational system as a whole."

For five years, the Obama administration has been warned by scholars and researchers that its demand for value-added assessment is having harmful effects on teachers and students, on the morale of teachers, on the recruitment of new teachers, and on the quality of education, which has been reduced to nothing more than standardized testing. Secretary Duncan has brushed aside all objections and pushed full steam ahead with his disastrous policies, like Captain Ahab in pursuit of the great white whale, heedless to all warnings.

Based on the complementary statements of our nation's most eminent scholarly associations, any teacher who is wrongfully terminated by Duncan's favorite but deeply flawed methodology should sue for wrongful termination. What is not so clear is how the nation can protect our children and our public schools from this administration's obsessive reliance on standardized tests to rank and rate students, teachers, principals, and schools.

dianeravitch | April 12, 2014 at 11:00 am | Categories: Duncan, Arne, Race to the Top, Standardized Testing, Teacher Evaluations, Teachers and Teaching | URL: http://wp.me/p2odLa-7FR

From Teachers College Record: Tough Issue on Flaws in VAM and Other Accountability Measures

Diane Ravitch's blog gave the link to this important issue from the Teachers College Record:

Volume 116, Number 1, 2014

Featured Articles

Introduction to High-Stakes Teacher Evaluation: High Cost—Big Losses

by Alyson Lavigne, Thomas Good & Ronald Marx

What Do We Know About How Teachers Influence Student Performance on Standardized Tests: And Why Do We Know so Little About Other Student Outcomes?

by Thomas Good

In this article, the author describes the history of classroom research and notes that, despite potential for present day application, many of those who currently develop observational systems for evaluating teachers appear to be unaware of this literature. The author describes what we know about effective teaching, the limits of using this information, and the need for identifying new important outcomes of schooling that can be used in teacher evaluation.

Teacher Effects, Value-Added Models, and Accountability

by Spyros Konstantopoulos

This paper reviews the literature on teacher effects and focuses on value-added measures and their use in evaluating teachers. Suggestions about the use of value-added measures and about the future of teacher effects research are provided.

Putting Growth and Value-Added Models on the Map: A National Overview

by Clarin Collins & Audrey Amrein-Beardsley

In this study, the researchers surveyed all 50 states and the District of Columbia to provide an inclusive national growth and value-added model overview.

State and Local Efforts To Investigate the Validity and Reliability of Scores From Teacher Evaluation Systems

by Corinne Herlihy, Ezra Karger, Cynthia Pollard, Heather Hill, Matthew Kraft, Megan Williams & Sarah Howard

This paper explores how state education officials and their district and local partners plan to implement and evaluate their teacher evaluation systems, focusing in particular on states’ efforts to investigate the reliability and validity of scores emerging from the observational component of these systems.

Exogenous Variables and Value-Added Assessments: A Fatal Flaw

by David Berliner

Teacher assessment using value-added models of teacher efficacy suffer from a fatal flaw, namely, that a myriad of exogenous (unaccounted for) variables affect student test score growth and result in unstable estimates of teacher competency from class to class and year to year.

Exploring the Intended and Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Teacher Evaluation on Schools, Teachers, and Students

by Alyson Lavigne

This article discusses the intended and unintended consequences of high-stakes teacher evaluation. The potential for high-stakes teacher evaluation to meet the intended outcome of a better teacher workforce and improved student achievement is assessed, and the costs of doing so.

Caught in a Vise: The Challenges Facing Teacher Preparation in an Era of Accountability

by Rick Ginsberg & Neal Kingston

This study examines accountability in teacher education in an era of testing. It compares how multiple professions evaluate program outcomes and identifies concerns with overemphasis on value-added models as the basis for assessing the impact of teacher preparation program graduates. Suggestions are offered for possible alternative paths.

Reforming Again: Now Teachers

by Ronald Marx

This article discusses the papers in the special issue of Teachers College Record addressing broad themes of reliability and validity that raise cautions regarding the usefulness of recent approaches to high-stakes evaluation of educators. Implications are drawn for the long-term health of the teacher labor market.

Foreword

by Diane Ravitch

Foreword to the special issue on High-Stakes Teacher Evaluation.

Tests and transparency issues

*Education Commercialization Complex parallel to permanent war economy
*UFT failure to broadly attack, on principle, the test-regime
We see that this permanent war against teachers economy, just as the military has had "black budget items," items that were kept secret, "for the good of the people," we have Common Core questions that are kept secret-- NY's State Education Department is only selectively disclosing some questions. Since the government cannot use the national security excuse, what excuse could they use? -Corporate private security or copyright. Baloney.

The real reason is that publicization of the tricky questions, hello, will expose what illogical, inappropriate questions the Common Cores brings into English and math, as At the Chalk Face reports in "New York ELA day 2 disaster #FAIL #Pearson #NYSED." The blog site reports several substantive issues with the Common Core questions. This is the negative consequence of privatization of test publishing functions by the international corporate giant, Pearson PLC, away from what historically had been a public function under the aegis of the New York State Education Department.

However, from the organization that we would expect to hear much criticism, the United Federation of Teachers, whose members were in touch with the tests, we have heard limited anecdotes of trouble, mixed with praise for the Common Core, as indicated in this April op-ed column in the Daily News by the UFT president, Michael Mulgrew. The leader mentioned the lack of a curriculum, the fact that test prep is not teaching and that teachers are over-burdened with paperwork. The union should issue a broad, comprehensive critique of the way that tests are hijacking the purpose of education, are vulgarizing the learning experience and are degrading teachers. Contrast this limited critique with the multiple details from the Chalk Face blog a week earlier.

This is reflection, once again, of the detachment of the union leadership from rank and file (regular non-officials) teachers on the ground. Contrast the union's alternating complicity or silence with this regime with the on-going critique launched by the union's MORE caucus, on their website and in person, for example at the union's delegate assembly. (The union's pretenses at critiquing the evaluation system are ephemeral window dressings.) Otherwise, we would have heard fire and this depth of detail from Mulgrew, and probably less enthusiasm for the Common Core.

Diane Ravitch mentions in "What is the Goal of Common Core testing?" that Rick Hess predicts that Common Core anxiety, prompting some parents "to demand “reforms” and an escape from their neighborhood schools." As she says, reformers will gloat over failing scores (no doubt to continue the failing schools line).

UFT's Casey, Moment of VAM Realization Before Duncanism's Onset

 *Leo Casey, pre-the education Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of our time
Truly, the education field is stuffed with blind loyalty to one program of action or one line of thought, then with no acknowledgement of previously professed commitment, a lurch in another direction.
Witness in New York City, the developmental lesson was, king, then it was the workshop model. (And never mind that God Lucy Calkins said it was for elementary grades in English, it was transposed with dogmatic force to the secondary level in other disciplines.) And now, have you noticed that the mini-lesson is entirely discarded? It is supposed to be subsumed within the body of the motivation.
No matter, administrators told us that blue is now fuschia, and we followed in line; and this cycle repeats with nary an instance of critical thinking.

Leo Casey, vintage 2008, fights the good fight versus VAM Let us take a step back to the heady days of 2008. The United Federation of Teachers was for Hilary Clinton, who then openly professed criticism of No Child Left Behind and promised to take action. Alas, this was all before Barack Obama nudged her out of the way, beat I-can-see-Russia and her partner, Russert's Meet the Press BFF; Obama, who less than a half-year into the presidency, launched Race to the Top and the rest is history.

Just as the CPUSA had wild switches and swings in its line, especially in the mid-20th Century, the brook-no-public-dissent Unity caucus of the UFT (see for example here and here) has had its wild swings in its line on data and its use.
In 2008, before activists and terrified teachers had nightmares about VAM, APPR and IPCs --before we knew or even cared, then [Unity] UFT VP, Leo Casey had the right line on VAM. (See here and here if you still need some clarification on these terms and their significance for your career.) Could you imagine, that the Bush II years would be the golden years by comparison? The person that knew or talked about that sort of wonky stuff back in the mid-2000s was the dull nudge at school; now everyone with any concern for their careers knows. Why, I'd bet that many teachers' own children would realize that such terms are enough to make their parents grind their teeth.

Note the UFT's Casey's admittedly wise words on January 21, 2008, "Tweed's 'Value-Added' Project: Ideology Trumps Education." Back then this Unity chieftain of the UFT was on the right track with his words on VAM, not yet erased from the record, on the UFT's EdWize blog, bolded emphasis, mine:

The DoE’s “value added” project is a fundamentally flawed exercise which can not possibly deliver what it promises. It is being pursued, with the full knowledge of its flaws, because technocratic ideology trumps sound educational practice at Tweed. Moving forward with such a flawed project is extraordinarily irresponsible because “value added” — the idea that one should measure how much academic progress students have made, rather than just their absolute academic standing — holds promise as an useful tool in the repertoire of schools and educators. But the way in which it is being recklessly pursued by Tweed will cast discredit on the entire enterprise.

The DoE has no contractual or legal authority to use test score data in the evaluation of teachers, and the UFT will oppose it with all the means at our disposal. This is a line in the sand for the UFT.

Furthermore, note that Casey terms this reasoning as intellectually dishonest.

To understand just how intellectually dishonest this exercise is, consider the following. This pilot project is based on student scores on the annual New York State ELA and Math standardized exams, grades 4 through 8. [The initial year of testing, grade 3, provides a baseline, leaving only grades 4 through 8 -- the years in which the exam is given on an annual basis -- for the measurement of progress.] This means that the pilot can only be applied to the teachers of grades 4 and 5 in an elementary school, and to ELA and Math teachers of grades 6 through 8 in a middle school, a small fraction of all teachers. More importantly, since the ELA and Math exams are given in January, the students will have had at least two different teachers in the interval between exams — one in the spring term of one school year and the other in the fall term of the next school year. Even assuming that the exams are an accurate and complete measure of student learning — and there is ample evidence that they are not — a student’s progress from one exam to the next is thus dependent upon at least two teachers. In some instances, a student would have another two teachers for Academic Intervention Services in the 37.5 minute tutoring, and a fifth teacher if he attended a summer program. How could one possibly isolate an individual teacher’s contribution to a student’s progress using this method?

2013 UFT, about-face, applauding the same VAM principles
So now, we have the UFT reversing itself from Casey's 2008 line in the sand declarations.  A la the 1939-1941 CP period that included the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, we have the UFT making a grand about-face, now claiming that metrics are fair, a just reform over past practices. Akin to intellectually dishonest, can we say that the UFT is politically disingenous? The UFT in 2013 is repeatedly praising the new Advance (APPR) teacher evaluation system in principle, only adding the comment that the system has a few issues that need tweaking. President Barack Obama's and ED Secretary Arne Duncan's 2009 Race to the Top with its emphasis on test-linked evaluations paved the way for the changes New York is enduring. The UFT under Michael Mulgrew, in 2010 enthusiastically endorsed New York State's RTTT application, establishing these evaluation requirements in New York State, which provided the legal authority which Casey challenged, read here and here. 2013's Mulgrew deems the evaluation system, "clear in its intent to support the work teachers do inside the classroom." Where's Casey today? --safely insulated from NYC, assisting president Randi Weingarten in the American Federation of Teachers.

Come to MORE's next general meeting, 10/10/13

Nevertheless, the overall Unity line is that the state-imposed evaluation system is a wonderful improvement, including its reliance on the Danielson Frameworks (which assume that all kids will be attentive, intellectually precocious and cooperative), its central incorporation of value added modeling use of standardized test scores (the very kind of quantitative analysis that Casey faulted as the objectionable line in the sand that the UFT would fight with every means at its disposal), which mean that even the stellar teacher acing the qualitative Danielson sections could fail overall if the high-stakes test scores were inadequate, "40%=100%"-- along with the Student Learning Objectives, or SLOs, (in New York City, Measures of Student Learning, MOSL). The last point takes test-score ranking one step further on the absurdity scale, for example, in some schools, measuring physical education teachers on students' performance on tests in the science department. Such farcical, non-sequitor accountability measures stoked teacher outrage and a federal lawsuit in purple state Florida. Read, "Teachers in Florida sue state claiming job evaluation system is unfair." This Washington Post article begins, "Teachers in Florida filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday, claiming the state’s new teacher evaluation system is unfair because it partly rates their job performance on test scores of students they don’t know and subjects they don’t teach." 

This is the institutional madness that has hijacked the city's educational policies. This is what the UFT's MORE caucus will be protesting this Wednesday, October 9 at the union's headquarters at 52 Broadway, Manhattan, on the occasion of the Delegates Assembly ("DA"). (Rector, 1, R; Wall, 4, 5; Broad, J, Z trains)

Tisch Blames Adults for Kids' Test Stress - Some Common Core Test Double-think, Meeting WNYC's Lehrer, 8/15

*UPDATE: Toxic endorsement alert: Tisch in video interviwe discusses why Bill Thompson has the best temperament to lead New York City - scroll to end

Listen: audio link to Merryl Tisch's appearance on Brian Lehrer's show on WNYC radio
     TRANSCRIPT OF DR. TISCH FOLLOWS THIS INTRO

While conscientious educators support standards, critical thinking, the development of thoughtful reading and writing skills, a growing number of educators are expressing concern over how David Coleman's Common Core is achieving this and how the tests are being used against students and teachers.
Click the link to access the audio file of Lehrer's interview with NYS Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch, on the Common Core State Standards and the tests, aired on August 15, 2013. After his introduction, he expresses his appreciation for Tisch's mother-in-law, "Billie and all she's done for WNYC." Yet, Lehrer's questions reflect a measure of independence and address some of the controversy around the new standards.
[For more on the Common Core, read my critique, "The Common Core and Gates' Education Commercialization Complex," of its Gates Foundation origins, the secretive, undemocratic manner in which it was created by non-governmental bodies and how it has serious pedagogical flaws for teaching English and teaching social studies.
For more on Dr. Tisch, Chairwoman of Thompson for Mayor, see "Who Is Destroying Public Education in New York State?" Under her leadership, the Board of Regents appointed Commissioner John King, who imposed the teacher evaluation system on New York City. At least she has Ed.D. degree, compared to the state-installed Camden, N.J. superintendent.]

NYS Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch, with her appointee, NYSED Commissioner John King, at the historic 8/7/13 NYS Common Core-based test score announcement. Note her straight face, despite the context of being close to people ensconced in the Education Commercialization Complex.

[Tisch begins after Lehrer begins with a statement on the very low scores on the elementary and middle school New York State tests, in New York City, less than a third proficient, Yonkers 16 percent, 6 percent in Hempstead.]
Well obviously, this is a very stressful time in schools, school districts and believe me, all of us who are interested in education in teachers, principals, students, parents understand the stress.
I would want to underline the fact that it would be a mistake to interpret the decline in test scores as a decline in student learning or quite frankly, very importantly, a decline in educator performance.

The results of these assessments I think will give educators, parents policy makers and the public a more realistic picture of where students are in this pathway to becoming college and career-ready, to be well-prepared for a world that really awaits them as they graduate from high school.
We're at a moment of transition. I believe we are at the beginning of a generational change to make sure the students in the United States and for our particular region, New York State, are prepared to be competitive in the 21st century economy.

[Lehrer spoke to the implementation of the tests before the curriculum was fully implemented.]
The preparation across the state has been uneven. Two and a half years ago, New York State announced that we were shifting to the Common Core. In some districts there has been a magnificent amount of capacity building around professional development to teach to the Common Core, other districts not so much.
I would like to remind your listeners that New York State spends over a billion dollars a year, over a billion dollars a year, towards profession development. It is going to be our ability to target those dollars to make sure that every teacher in every school district gets the preparation that is required in order to teach to this higher new standard.

As for curriculum, for Common Core, Commissioner John King, with whom the Board of Regents works, Commissioner King often says you cannot deliver Common Core curriculum in a box, that's not what this is. This is about being able to teaching students to read challenging texts, We're going to support teaching them to support their arguments with evidence drawn from the text, to write from sources, to achieve deep conceptual understanding. For all of those parents listening out there would say one thing: for years we have been hearing intently to people saying that so much classroom time is wasted on drill and kill, in other words, just teaching kids something that they can spin back in a standardized test. This is a move away from that. If this movement is successful and I hope it will be, we will be moving away from classrooms that drill students just for the purpose of regurgitation.

[Lehrer asked whether the tests were "based on that deeper standard of comprehension and that ability to think . . ."]
It's been uneven, I go to schools across the state. I went to a school, very high needs school, very large comprehensive high school, with a lot of immigrant students, students from varying backgrounds and I sat through a professional development hour with teachers, where they were producing curriculum in line with Common Core. It was fantastic to see. I'm not going to name the school.
I went back and I checked in with the principal of the school. I said I know you're getting all these kids from middle school coming into your high school. Tell me what you're seeing. He said from the middle schools I'm seeing a lot of preparation on Common Core. Unfortunately from surrounding middle schools, very little.
It is been the unevenness of the preparation that we are seeing that is contributing to the plummeting of the scores.
I would say every time a new test is given, scores go down. There's no question about that. It's a format, it's a new way of doing things.
I would say with targeted professional development, with educators, parents and students getting used to the formatting, the new requirements, you're going to see a steady rise.

I would say one thing to your listeners, I would urge you all to look at what happened in Massachusetts, undertook this hard work 15, 17 years ago, where they decided Massachusetts was going to lead the pack in terms of high standards. It was a very painful few years, very like what we're going through in New York. Massachusetts emerged as the gold standard in terms of achievement across economic spectrum, across ethnic spectrum for the country. We have something to learn from, we've seen this play out before. But I would urge every to understand that this decline should not be interpreted as a decline in student learning or in educator performance.

{Ed.: Rather, see this testimony of Sandra Stotsky, the Senior Associate Commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education, from 1999 to 2003, a major designer of the education standards to which Tisch referred. She was involved at the validation stage of the Common Core, but she refused to sign the validation statement for it. In her testimony to the Michigan State Legislature she made a point to say that she is not a libertarian or opposed to the idea of national standards per se.}

I would urge everyone that the decline does not mean a decline in student learning or educator performance.
[A caller mentioned the three days in a row of 90 minute tests in English, then a week of the same in math. Students were unable to finish the test. His own third grade son was getting sick just from the tests. Some of his students were unable to finish the test, weeping, students that had scored 4, the highest level, in previous years.]
It stresses me beyond anything you can imagine that children felt so upset with the testing.
I would say first of all, the highlighting of the testing, in terms what's been going on in the press, in terms of what parents are reading in their local newspapers, that added to the stress. I would say teachers were well aware that this was the first year in New York State where student test scores were going to be used as a barometer for teacher performance.
I think that all of those factors, coupled with the new format of the test and the new requirements of the test have added to an unusually stressful situation. Anyone who that thinks that we are out there to stress children, I would say, then you don't know us. I would say one more thing, in New York State 80 percent of the youngsters graduate from high schools, when they go on to two year colleges, they need to be remediated in math and English. That means they are paying the are paying college tuition for high school credit. What happens is, when you look at the completion rates, after six years in a two year college, the graduation rates hover between 22 and 24 percent. Which means our young adults are not prepared to do college level work where they leave our high schools and are leaving these programs in huge amount of debt. I would say the urgency is clear in the numbers.

[The caller interjected about his students' low scores, and his own son getting sick.]
I would say, that [the low test scores] is a challenge for the adults. Students will perceive a message from us. If we set this out as a new baseline, as a place where we all feel need to go, in order to not only ensure the future of our state, for the future of our country, their future, in order to be able to educated to participate in the greatest democracy in the world and not to be left out. If adults are going to pass their stress along to students, I would urge them not to.
As I said, this was an unusual perfect storm of events. I am expecting as this first wave of data comes across our desks, I'm expecting that the level of the rhetoric will change to an intense focus on professional development around curriculum development and instruction.

[A teacher favored the Core but commented on the professional development as focusing on test scores and convergent thinking.]
You know, I would remind your listeners, Brian, that we took a lot of this into account as we designed the system. We went to the federal government. We said that New York State was going to be probably the first state, with the exception of Kentucky, to move to the new Common Core assessments. And the one thing we don't want to do is identify our schools, our teachers or our students as failing. Our waiver requirement to the federal government we sought and got permission not to identify any schools or school districts as failing, based on this new set of tests. We're kind of holding schools and school districts harmless [sic]. Additionally, one of the things that we did, knowing that teacher evaluation was going to kick in across New York State, with the exception of New York City, we created the algorithm about teacher evaluation, where we said, based on this new test, we would effectively have the same number of teachers performing in each of the categories, the bottom category to the top category, and ultimately, that is what we did create.

We worked closely with the teachers' union in the design of evaluation. We worked very closely with the state, with the legislature, very closely with the governor's office. In New York State there is a law. The law says that state tests are going to align with Common Core standards, that there will be an evaluation system based on student performance, but we were very clear, very clear in New York State that we were not going to overly count student test scores to evaluate teachers.

[Lehrer then paraphrased Dr. Diane Ravitch's contention that the tests "reflect the the National Assessment of Education Proficiency, NAEP, standards, which really measure if the student is doing work that will get them an A, proficiency equals an A. So, when we say 70 percent of the students in New York City tested not proficient on the new state test so 70 percent failed the test, Diane Ravitch says, that's misleading . . . Does she have a point?"]
You know I always-- I never comment on what Diane says, she's obviously a great scholar and very thoughtful, we just have a divergent opinion here. I would say, however, that over the years, Diane has changed her mind about testing, first she was for testing, then she was against it. I would also remind everyone that she did sit on the NAEP board and so she is very knowledgeable about the use of testing, et cetera, et cetera [sic]. I don't discount discount anything Diane says but I would say to your listeners one thing, New York State is committed to educating every student, no matter where they live, no matter what their socio-economic background is, to a standard, and that standard is to align them with the possibility that when they graduate from high school and have a high school diploma in New York State they actually have a choice: do they want to pursue a career or do they want to pursue higher education. Right now, across this great country and this great state, many youngsters and we can visualize where those youngsters live, graduate high school with no choice at all. Now we can sit back and be complacent about that or we can have really tough conversations about it.

[Lehrer asked about the passing grades of 3 or a 4, about whether they measure A level work or did that measure merely grade level work.]
In my opinion, it measures grade level work.
I would say that this new push to Common Core will change the paradigm of testing. For a decade testing has been driving instruction and curriculum...this obsession with "drill and kill" has been driving what kids are exposed to in the classroom and how classroom time is used. If we start to focus on critical thinking and the development of critical thinking, I believe that instruction and curriculum and best practice will drive the test. That is a paradigm shift, and that is why we are taking this on.
[Lehrer asked whether a better test can co-exist with not teaching to the test.]
Tisch: absolutely.
[Lehrer: "Let's hope it works out that way. NYS Board of Regents chancellor Dr. Merryl Tisch thank you for coming on and answering our questions."]

* * *
TISCH ECHOED A NYSED OFFICIAL'S LINE THAT PARENTS ARE TO BLAME FOR PASSING TEST STRESS ONTO THEIR CHILDREN
See "6 Insulting Things NYSED Keeps Repeating" at Stop Common Core NY's News page.
[See also, the other Stop Common Core in New York State page.]
Tisch's criticism that parents are to blame for passing their stress onto their children is an echo of the line that the NYSED Associate Commissioner is pushing, as Stop Common Core NY reports:

Ken Wagner, Associate Commissioner of NYSED, told the New York Times that he was worried that the concerns of parents were rubbing off on their children, causing kids to suffer anxiety about the state tests. He’s then quoted as saying, "My heart goes out to any kid that’s suffering stress or anxiety, but we have to think very strategically about the messages that students are getting from the adults they are around."
Two major problems with this: (1) the parent concern was a direct result of kids’ anxieties and fears, not the other way around; and (2) who gets to make the “strategy” regarding what messages kids get to hear from their concerned parents? If there’s one thing that’s getting very tiring around here, it’s listening to state officials trying to tell parents how to parent. It’s especially tiring because the parental “advice” they’re offering has nothing to do with kids–it has only to do with not making their corporate buddies mad.

Of Tisch, Stop Common Core NY wrote of her cold response to reports of children getting sick from the tests:

Merryl Tisch, who is also not technically part of NYSED, is the Chancellor of the Board of NY Regents. She was seen in a recent Wall Street Journal piece responding to reports from principals, teachers, students, and parents of kids breaking down crying during and after tests, vomiting during tests, and not wanting the leave the bathroom–all due to the anxieties and stress of the overwhelming English-Language Arts testing during the last three days. Her response was that she visited several schools and only saw one kid crying. The Wall Street Journal then goes on: But she called it a “healthy problem.” It would be worse, she said, if tests were described as unfair or poorly done. Last year, for example, the state had to toss out questions related to a passage that was widely ridiculed for being confusing. “I would be so bold as to say they were better than most people expected them to be,” she said.
So, it’s healthy for our kids to suffer this way, according to the obviously out-of-touch and basically stone-hearted Tisch. And we’re going to go ahead and join the growing camp of people with test design experience who suggest that this year’s tests are not just poorly done and unfair (which we can only assume from the stories we’ve heard, since we can’t see the tests for at least another year). They are a flat-out disaster. They are, as Chris Cerrone has written, a #fail–with a hashtag!

Likewise, it is evident that the Common Core curriculum and test prep are stressing out the children and then the parents in this story from the Staten Island Advance, "Culture of testing takes a toll on Staten Island pupils and their families," and this is further evident in this video:


Teachers and parents alienated by the tests might interested in the issue of the tests and profiteering would find Alyssa Figueroa's "8 Things You Should Know About Corporations Like Pearson that Make Huge Profits from Standardized Tests" enlightening reading.
The privatizers love to rant about how the parents are not involved or are not protesting in the cities. Well, when you have state education executives lecturing down to parents as you see above from Wagner and Tisch, when you take away elected school boards, when you have puppet Panel for Educational Policy and when you have sham local democracies in the Community Education Councils (CECs) you weaken the political culture for parent engagement.
* * *
Some WNYC listener comment gems; note the doublethink (the simultaneous acceptance of two contradictory beliefs as correct) that JHC notes (10:38 AM):

A listener commented:

Brian thank you for this segment. There is so much to say...I don't know where to start!

First, I find it ironic that Tisch cites Massachusetts as the "gold standard". Brian did you know before this segment that Mass actually rejected the Common Core curriculum as inadequate and will not be participating? Did you know that NYS adopted the Common Core BEFORE it was released...basically buying a product sight-unseen?

OF COURSE, all children should graduate from HS "college or career" ready. However, there is nothing to indicate that extensive standardized testing, administered year after year, does anything to enhance student learning. So, my first question would be...why do we need to test so frequently? Why not just test at benchmark years? Could it be because Pearson stands to make so much money from this increased testing? Who in NYS is going to benefit from Pearson donations...we've got to follow the money!

Brian we need to follow the money on the Common Core and it's mandatory testing component. There are just 2 or 3 corporations who are going to be selling these products to us, at whopping profits. THAT is the real story here...we are about to privatize education, removing all local control and even national control...handing the reigns of our educational system to Pearson, inBloom and PARCC. THAT is the story!

Another listener commented:

I was disturbed by Chancellor Tisch's responses to the teacher who spoke about the impact testing was having on his students. Either she was patronizing him or she really didn't understand his point at all. . .She speculates that over time has everyone will become accustomed to the tests and every one will feel more comfortable with them. This is absurd and shows her obvious lack of concern for the sensibilities of our teachers and the children and their families.
Testing has it's place but there are many other, less stress inducing ways to do evaluations and assessments. Testing is just less time consuming and more cost effective over time and more profitable for the companies that produce them and whose Boards of Directors have the ear of the Chancellor.

Another listener commented on the cut scores and how parents will only learn of their children's test scores on August 26: 

I also want to hear about the "cut scores." Were they determined (4 being highest, 1 the lowest) after scores around the state came in? Is the "proficient" rating equal to the NAEP's "proficient" rating, which experts say is equivalent to an "A"? Parents deserve much more transparency from the State Education Department. It is disgraceful that we find out our children's individual scores starting August 26. Our schools pay out of their own budgets to implement the testing program, which is equivalent to a mass experiment across the state. Parents across NY state, via CECs, school boards, and other means, are coming together to ask questions about the New York state regimen, and we are entitled to more answers. For residents and parents who are interested, please go to changethestakes.com

dba from nyc

Since these scores will ultimately be tied to teacher evaluation with Danielson, then most teachers would have been judged ineffective on the testing component of the evaluation. So let's say we get a pass this year. What will happen next year when test scores -- I am certain -- will not increase? Will all of these students' teachers be fired when they get 2 consecutive ineffectives as required by the evaluation? And why didn't the students of all of Bloomberg's new schools, with young energetic teachers who replaced the old "deadwoods" who were pushed out when schools were closed, perform better throughout all these years he's controlled the schools? The main problem underlying this "reform" movement is that these "reformers", including King and Tisch have no classroom teaching experience and wouldn't last 5 minutes in a typical high needs school.

Aug. 15 2013 11:20 AM

Rocco P. Hill from NYC

Brian thanks for holding her to that Diane Ravitch question. It is absurd that, as the Chancellor of the NYS Board of Regents, Tisch "will never comment on anything that Diane says!"

 . . .

Three questions that I wish were asked:
1. Why are some states pulling out of CCSS?
2. What happens to NYS when RttT money runs out?
3. Is it true that parents are split down the middle on the entire premise of the testing associated with Common Core?

Aug. 15 2013 11:03 AM

Matt

As a college teacher, I absolutely disagree with Tisch that tests will help make my students more ready for plenty of reasons.

But, even more fundamentally than that, doesn't she just SOUND like a total phony speaking a party line?

Aug. 15 2013 10:48 AM

Jennifer from Westchester

Has Ms. Tisch read over the NY State workbook materials herself? They are frought w/errors an questionable answers. These kids are not being taught the humanities anymore-very poor history, politics, social studies, arts etc....and a bunch of math and grammar drills. I think the regents are in bed w/the testing companies and their very lucrative constant changing of the curriculum and the materials the schools keep having to buy or else funds will be cut. Ms. Tisch-the kids are suffering from your politics. You are insensitive.

Aug. 15 2013 10:45 AM

Bob from Huntington

This is not a "higher standard," as your guest maintains, this is a different standard that comports with the desires of industry leaders and their political allies to create a population of workers more attuned to their needs. So kiss
social studies and history good bye. We don't need a population of disgruntled workers capable of discerning where the political and economic developments of the last 40 years have placed them--less well off than their parents and grandparents.

A recently retired teacher writes here about the deficiencies of students educated entirely under Bush and Obama education policies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/09/a-warning-to-college-profs-from-a-high-school-teacher/

Aug. 15 2013 10:39 AM

JHC from NYC

In the last 5 minutes, Dr. Tisch has said "The drop in test scores should not be read as a drop in educator performance." Also, "This is the first year these tests are being used to gauge educator performance." (Paraphrases, but accurate ones.) Which is correct?

Aug. 15 2013 10:38 AM

TISCH EDUCATION AUTHORITY OVER NYC, BY VIRTUE OF NYS AUTHORITY
Tisch has tried to separate herself from the issue of whether she has authority over New York City schools. But Peter DeWitt, writing in Education Week, and noting her role leading Bill Thompson's mayoral campaign, stressed that her statewide authority sets the parameters for what happens in New York City schools.

"Run" the city's school system is such an ugly word. It's easier to control all the schools in New York State by setting policy that will force them to comply. With increased accountability and mandates that control every move that schools make, as Chancellor she certainly does run schools.

TOXIC ENDORSEMENT ALERT:
Regents Chancellor Tisch explains why Thompson has the best temperament to lead New York City. She makes it clear that implementation of "roll-out" of the Common Core is the paramount objective of teachers and schools. "The reason to test to the Common Core is because the Common Core is being rolled out." What circulatory logic!from City & State site. Yes, we need to practice close reading, but we also need to employ logic in expository writing. Whoops! That might lead us to personal narrative, which de facto national commissioner of education David Coleman says is a no-no.: