Sunday, February 27, 2011
Massachusetts school board wants to boot federal regulations
Massachusetts experiences "buyer's remorse" with CCSSI.
Guest column Focus on quality of teachers to improve Arkansas education
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
February 21, 2011
Guest column Focus on quality of teachers to improve Arkansas education
By SANDRA STOTSKY SPECIAL TO THE DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
LITTLE ROCK — As reported by the Center for American Progress, urban students tend to be taught by academically less able teachers than are their suburban peers. According to this report, academically stronger teachers tend to choose to teach in non-urban schools or move there from urban schools to continue teaching. The use of academically weak licensure tests, in effect, discriminates against urban and rural students, who depend far more than do other students on the academic quality of their teachers for fostering their academic growth. As the National Council on Teacher Quality just noted, Arkansas needs to require a strong and independent licensure test of the foundations of reading instruction for prospective teachers in K-8 in order to begin to move its reading scores higher at all grade levels.
According to the 2011 “Quality Counts” report, published by Education Week, Arkansas came in 6th in its annual ranking of states’ public education policies, environment and performance. That’s the good news. But, according to the latest “State Teacher Policy Yearbook,” released by the National Council on Teacher Quality on January 27, Arkansas received a grade of C- on “delivering well-prepared teachers” to its schools. Among the policy areas that Arkansas needs to address in order to advance teacher quality and student achievement, according to the report, is to require a “stand-alone licensure test” of the fundamentals of beginning reading instruction to ensure that prospective early childhood and elementary teachers know how to teach reading effectively when they begin their teaching careers. The report also notes that Arkansas has set its passing score for the required PRAXIS elementary content test so low that “it is questionable whether this assessment is indeed provid
ing any assurance of content knowledge.” In fact, Arkansas has one of the lowest passing scores in the country for this test.
The U.S. Department of Education is clearly not satisfied with the overall quality of this country’s teaching force. Yet, its 500-point system for judging Race to the Top applications gave far more weight to state plans for upgrading those who are already in the classroom than for recruiting, preparing or licensing the kind of teachers the USDE wants to see in the classroom.
This enormous hole is surprising because it ignores what we have learned from high quality research-that the chief characteristic of an effective teacher is knowledge of the subject being taught. There is no body of evidence for any other characteristic of an “effective” teacher, although educational researchers have long tried to find one. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel duly noted that finding in its 2006 final report.
This hole is also surprising because it is common knowledge that this country draws most of its teachers from the bottom two-thirds of our college population. High-achieving countries like South Korea, Finland and Singapore draw those they train as teachers very selectively from an application pool consisting of theirmost academically able college students-the top third. In contrast, only 23 percent of American teachers come from the top third.
The USDE (perhaps deliberately) missed the opportunity to call attention to the quality controls in place in other countries that ensure the academic competence of those who are allowed to become teachers. It is reasonable to infer that these quality controls also drastically reduce the need for massive amounts of remedial professional development-a distinctly American phenomenon. No other country would spend what we lavish on professional development, especially when most of it is for remedial purposes and there is so little evidence of its effectiveness in raising student achievement.
This is precisely what Massachusetts sought to avoid by means of its teacher tests. Because of the requirement in its 1993 Education ReformAct that prospective teachers pass a subject area test for licensure (as well as a skills test), the state developed the strongest subject tests it could over a decade ago. These tests have been a significant factor in raising student achievement in the state, especially minority group achievement, because they have helped to assure an academically stronger teaching corps in its urban and rural schools, as well as in its suburban schools.
Yes, more academically rigorous licensure tests for teachers do create issues that need to be dealt with. Many undergraduates and graduates admitted into Massachusetts teacher preparation programs fail the strong subject tests the state developed. What we don’t know is whether the state’s preparation programs have given aspiring teachers enough support, required enough academic coursework, or simply admitted too many weak students as tuition-paying bodies in orderto maintain or expand the number of education faculty positions the legislature funds. Contrary to what critics charge, the tests are not the problem. They serve their intended purpose-to safeguard the public interest in ensuring academically competent teachers for all children.
For Arkansas to see increases in student reading achievement, the state should require prospective early childhood and elementary teachers to pass an independent licensure test of reading fundamentals, set passing scores much higher on the current tests it requires, and set higher admissions requirements for early childhood and elementary teacher preparation programs.
Sandra Stotsky is Professor of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas and former Senior Associate Commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education.
February 21, 2011
Guest column Focus on quality of teachers to improve Arkansas education
By SANDRA STOTSKY SPECIAL TO THE DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
LITTLE ROCK — As reported by the Center for American Progress, urban students tend to be taught by academically less able teachers than are their suburban peers. According to this report, academically stronger teachers tend to choose to teach in non-urban schools or move there from urban schools to continue teaching. The use of academically weak licensure tests, in effect, discriminates against urban and rural students, who depend far more than do other students on the academic quality of their teachers for fostering their academic growth. As the National Council on Teacher Quality just noted, Arkansas needs to require a strong and independent licensure test of the foundations of reading instruction for prospective teachers in K-8 in order to begin to move its reading scores higher at all grade levels.
According to the 2011 “Quality Counts” report, published by Education Week, Arkansas came in 6th in its annual ranking of states’ public education policies, environment and performance. That’s the good news. But, according to the latest “State Teacher Policy Yearbook,” released by the National Council on Teacher Quality on January 27, Arkansas received a grade of C- on “delivering well-prepared teachers” to its schools. Among the policy areas that Arkansas needs to address in order to advance teacher quality and student achievement, according to the report, is to require a “stand-alone licensure test” of the fundamentals of beginning reading instruction to ensure that prospective early childhood and elementary teachers know how to teach reading effectively when they begin their teaching careers. The report also notes that Arkansas has set its passing score for the required PRAXIS elementary content test so low that “it is questionable whether this assessment is indeed provid
ing any assurance of content knowledge.” In fact, Arkansas has one of the lowest passing scores in the country for this test.
The U.S. Department of Education is clearly not satisfied with the overall quality of this country’s teaching force. Yet, its 500-point system for judging Race to the Top applications gave far more weight to state plans for upgrading those who are already in the classroom than for recruiting, preparing or licensing the kind of teachers the USDE wants to see in the classroom.
This enormous hole is surprising because it ignores what we have learned from high quality research-that the chief characteristic of an effective teacher is knowledge of the subject being taught. There is no body of evidence for any other characteristic of an “effective” teacher, although educational researchers have long tried to find one. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel duly noted that finding in its 2006 final report.
This hole is also surprising because it is common knowledge that this country draws most of its teachers from the bottom two-thirds of our college population. High-achieving countries like South Korea, Finland and Singapore draw those they train as teachers very selectively from an application pool consisting of theirmost academically able college students-the top third. In contrast, only 23 percent of American teachers come from the top third.
The USDE (perhaps deliberately) missed the opportunity to call attention to the quality controls in place in other countries that ensure the academic competence of those who are allowed to become teachers. It is reasonable to infer that these quality controls also drastically reduce the need for massive amounts of remedial professional development-a distinctly American phenomenon. No other country would spend what we lavish on professional development, especially when most of it is for remedial purposes and there is so little evidence of its effectiveness in raising student achievement.
This is precisely what Massachusetts sought to avoid by means of its teacher tests. Because of the requirement in its 1993 Education ReformAct that prospective teachers pass a subject area test for licensure (as well as a skills test), the state developed the strongest subject tests it could over a decade ago. These tests have been a significant factor in raising student achievement in the state, especially minority group achievement, because they have helped to assure an academically stronger teaching corps in its urban and rural schools, as well as in its suburban schools.
Yes, more academically rigorous licensure tests for teachers do create issues that need to be dealt with. Many undergraduates and graduates admitted into Massachusetts teacher preparation programs fail the strong subject tests the state developed. What we don’t know is whether the state’s preparation programs have given aspiring teachers enough support, required enough academic coursework, or simply admitted too many weak students as tuition-paying bodies in orderto maintain or expand the number of education faculty positions the legislature funds. Contrary to what critics charge, the tests are not the problem. They serve their intended purpose-to safeguard the public interest in ensuring academically competent teachers for all children.
For Arkansas to see increases in student reading achievement, the state should require prospective early childhood and elementary teachers to pass an independent licensure test of reading fundamentals, set passing scores much higher on the current tests it requires, and set higher admissions requirements for early childhood and elementary teacher preparation programs.
Sandra Stotsky is Professor of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas and former Senior Associate Commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education.
Points to Consider regarding Common Core State Standards
By adopting these Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Maine risks reducing our local school boards to clerical duties only. Parents will no longer be able to go to their local school board with curriculum concerns. National Standards will lead to National Testing which leads to a National Curriculum. This will remove the “Public” from “Public education.”The CCSS are vague enough to allow the testing companies to control the curriculum.
Our state standards do need improvement. They received a “C” grade by the Thomas B Fordham Foundation. A close study our National Assessment of Educational (NAEP) testing data is concerning. Our largest demographic, ranks us as follows in mathematics:
4th Grade – 37th
8th Grade – 38th
Massachusetts is #1, regardless of Demographic.
Do we really need the CCSS for education reform in Maine? Local school boards and the state are free to improve upon our current state standards, without signing onto National Standards. Why not adopt another state’s “A” rated Thomas B Fordham standards and use an inexpensive national norm referenced test like the IOWA test?
The bottom line is that the CCSS math standards are better than our current standards, but they are not world class. (Example: You would think kids need to know the standard algorithm for addition and subtraction by 3rd grade, but the Common Core says 4th. Multiplication and division are at 6th grade.) Has everyone voting on these standards actually read them?
Dr. Sandra Stotsky and Prof. James Milgram were both on the validation committee for the Common Core State Standards. Both refused to sign off on them, but their comments go unremarked in the committee’s official report. Why not invite them to testify before voting on the CCSS for Maine?
It will soon be too late to put on the brakes in Maine. Few discussions have focused on the Common Core State Standards in Maine. Even worse, no discussions have focused on the National Testing. What about the costly and extensive databases mandated under this federal plan? All teachers and students from pre-K forward must be assessed, tracked, and reported on, but does anyone know if there are sufficient safeguards for their privacy rights?
Maine finished 33rd in our Race to the Top (RttT) application (283.4 out of 500). Washington State finished just above Maine (290.6 points). There were only 36 applicants. Washington is a lead state in the consortium awarded a $160 million grant to develop a student assessment system aligned with the common core academic standards. Dan Hupp of Maine DoE is part of this consortium. Why we should trust these assessments will be good when those overseeing them finished at the bottom in the RttT?
Is Washington picking those at the bottom of the RttT to do the assessments so that they can also get federal $$?
Maine didn’t win any “Race to the Top” federal funds. Why risk committing to a national test? Why not simply adopt our own version of the Common Core State Standards and cut the Federal Government?
President Obama has recently proposed tying in the common core standards adoption to Title 1 funding, which is subject to Congress approval or disapproval. This would make the adoption of the Common Core State Standards “mandated as a condition for receiving federal education program funds.” This is very concerning.
Will student testing data be attached to student’s Social Security numbers? What guarantees are there that this data won’t be share with colleges and future employers?
Will the CCSS “suggested readings” be tested on the “National Test”? If so, are they actually “mandatory reading?”
Have you researched those writing the “National Tests?”
What exactly does it mean to be “college-ready” in mathematics and English Language Arts?
What will the long-term cost of the transition to national standards be to the State of Maine?
Where will parents go if they have concerns with the curriculum?
By signing onto the Math and ELA Common Core Standards and testing, are we committing to the Science and History Common Core State Standards?
Can students “opt-out” of nationalized testing
Saturday, February 26, 2011
New York's school testing con
New York's school testing con
By SUSAN EDELMAN
Last Updated: 1:36 PM, February 20, 2011
Posted: 10:22 PM, February 19, 2011
In a stunningly short time, from 2006 to 2009, New York schools celebrated what was presented as a tremendous turnaround. The number of city students passing statewide math tests in the third through eighth grades surged from 58% to 82%. At the same time, the Big Apple graduation rate rose from 49% to an all-time high of 63% last year.
The figures were miraculous.
They were also, for the most part, a lie.
While the scores have risen, real achievement has lagged. Behind the curtain, an erosion of standards has led to a generation of New Yorkers who have been handed high school diplomas but can’t handle the rigors of college or careers.
A new state report finds just 23% of city grads leave high school ready to succeed in college or the work world. About 75% who enrolled at CUNY community colleges flunked the entrance exam, and must take one or more remedial classes in math, reading and writing.
How did the state testing system, meant to closely gauge how well students and their schools were doing, create such a grand illusion?
Insiders and critics interviewed by The Post largely blame Richard Mills, the state’s education commissioner for 14 years until he resigned in 2009.
The standardized tests approved by Mills and his team measured a limited number of skills and repeated similar questions year after year. At the same time, Mills instructed the company hired to administer the tests, CTB/McGraw-Hill, to gradually lower “cut scores,” the minimal points kids needed to pass or demonstrate proficiency.
In 2006, for example, sixth-graders taking the English language arts test had to answer 16 of 39 questions correctly, or 41%, to achieve Level 2, which is below proficient but enough to advance to the next grade. But by 2009, the sixth-graders needed just 7 of 39 points — a paltry 18%.
“We were clearly misrepresenting student achievement,” said Betty Rosa, a former Bronx superintendent on the state Board of Regents, which oversees education statewide. “We were not giving the public the truth.”
When Mills was appointed commissioner in 1995 by the Board of Regents, New York had two types of high school diplomas — one more challenging and prestigious.
Students could strive for a “Regents diploma,” which required more demanding courses and passing eight Regents high school exams, a path that typically led to a four-year college. Or they could simply pass the “State competency tests,” and settle for a “local diploma” from their school district.
A year on the job, Mills prodded the board to vote for tougher rules requiring all public high-school students to pass Regents exams to graduate. To ease fears of higher failure and dropout rates, the rules were phased in slowly starting in 2000, to give schools time to meet the higher expectations. The passing score was set first at 55 for a “local diploma,” and 65 for a “Regents diploma.”
Next year, all graduating seniors who entered the ninth grade in 2008, except some special-education kids, will be the first class that must earn a 65 or higher on five required Regents exams. Everyone who graduates will get a Regents diploma.
The pressure increased at lower grades as well. The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, passed by President George W. Bush, mandated states to measure student achievement annually in every grade from three through eight starting in 2006.
The state has awarded $48.2 million in contracts to CTB/McGraw-Hill to devise the math and reading test. The city Department of Education gave the same California-based company an $80 million contract to develop practice tests.
The company’s psychometricians, or measurement scientists, determined the difficulty of questions and converted raw test scores to a scale. A panel of experts appointed by Mills recommended cutoff points for students to reach each of four levels: 1. Not meeting standards 2. Partially meeting standards, 3. Proficient and 4. Advanced.
But Mills set the bar — and how high or low would control the results.
“Ultimately, it’s the commissioner’s decision,” said state Education Department spokesman Tom Dunn.
While leading the public to believe students were making great strides, Mills’ team was quietly reducing the number and percentage of points needed to pass or demonstrate proficiency each year.
Third-graders taking the math exam in 2006, for instance, had to score 17 out of 38 points, or 45%, to make a passing Level 2. In 2009, they needed just 11 points out of 39, or 28%. In 2006, they needed to correctly answer 64.4% of questions to score a proficient Level 3. By 2009, that had dropped to 53.8%.
Teachers found themselves “teaching to the test” by using old exams as practice, because many questions were strikingly similar to those asked the year before.
“The kids knew what to expect, and they naturally did better,” a third-grade teacher from Brooklyn said of the 2009 tests. “I had kids that truly had no business passing, despite my best efforts. I was shocked when they passed. It was really a disservice.”
Skepticism mounted. Fred Smith, a former testing analyst for city schools, independently studied the “p-value,” or difficulty level of the test questions. Mills and other officials argued that the questions had become more difficult, thus justifying the lower cutoff scores. Smith found the items getting easier each year.
“It confirmed what principals and teachers believed — that the state had dumbed down the tests,” he said.
Then came even more spectacular, and suspicious, 2009 results. “Why are we celebrating these scores as a miracle, when there is no miracle?” Rosa said she asked.
Another insider said Big Apple officials were urged not to “exaggerate” the results. But Mayor Bloomberg hailed the increase in 2009 as an “enormous victory.” At the time, he had a lot riding on the scores — he was seeking a third term and pushing for legislation to extend mayoral control of the schools.
City officials “got very angry,” the insider said, when Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch publicly downplayed the results, citing “troubling gaps” between the stellar state scores and lackluster outcomes on national exams.
Mills has maintained the scoring was backed by his panel of experts. But Rosa and other members of the Board of Regents say he kept them in the dark.
“I basically asked, ‘Who sets the cut scores? How is this determined?’ ” said Rosa, who joined the board in 2008. “There was no real explanation. I never got a straight answer.”
Mills and his testing chief, David Abrams, had rebuffed requests in 2008 to investigate the inflation. Faced with a lack of confidence, Mills was “encouraged” to leave in June 2009, insiders said. He declined to comment last week, saying, “I have nothing to add.”
Many city students soon discovered their Big Apple diploma was little more than a piece of paper.
Jasmine Gary, 18, a graduate of Port Richmond HS on Staten Island, was surprised when she scored a 70 on the Regents math exam.
“I don’t know how I passed, because I failed a lot of math classes,” she said.
She applied to CUNY but bombed on the entrance exam. Now she’s required to take a no-credit, $75 remedial class at Borough of Manhattan Community College, but is catching up. “I learn more here,” she said.
Rossie and Angely Torres, 18-year-old twins from The Bronx, earned 76 and 75 respectively on the math Regents at Philip Randolph HS in Harlem. They, too, take remedial classes at BMCC.
“In high school it was just people talking and the teacher would just give us an assignment. It was just to graduate. But here, people work hard and the teacher is more serious,” Rossie said.
Former Chancellor Joel Klein, who left office several months ago to join News Corp, which owns The Post, declined to be interviewed. But he defended his eight-year record via e-mail sent by a city DOE spokesman.
“We’ve long called for higher standards and . . . we still made real gains,” Klein said.
For instance, city fourth-graders have boosted their scores on national reading tests since 2003, though eighth-grade scores have remained flat.
And NYC has outpaced the state’s other big cities, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers, the DOE says. In 2002, New York City’s fourth-grade math results were 27% lower than the statewide average, while the other four cities showed a 31% gap. In 2008, New York City was just 8% behind the rest of the state, while the “big four” were 25% behind.
But the more spectacular results have vanished.
The Board of Regents commissioned a study, led by Harvard professor Daniel Koretz, which concluded in 2009 that the statewide grades three-eight tests had become too easy. Mills’ successor, David Steiner, recruited for his experience in teacher development as dean of Hunter College of Education, was charged with making the 2010 tests more comprehensive and less predictable. He also hoisted the cutoff points, requiring students to do more to pass.
Scores plunged. Just 54% of all city students in grades three-eight showed proficiency in math tests last year, compared with 82% in 2009. Reading proficiency citywide fell from 69% to a dismal 42%.
Even so, the tougher tests continued the practice of giving “partial credit” for wrong answers — or no answer at all — if they kids showed some understanding of the concept or did one step right.
On the fourth-grade test, for instance, a kid who answered that a 2-foot-long skateboard is 48 inches got half-credit for adding 24 and 24 instead of the correct 12 plus 12. “They were giving credit for blatantly wrong things,” said a teacher hired to score the tests.
A state report released this month delivered a new blow. It found that most kids who earn less than 75 on the state Regents English test or 80 on the math exam — 65 is passing for both — must take remedial classes before starting college.
That 65 score is misleading as well. It’s based on an adjustable scale — and the state has whittled down the points needed to pass. Back in 2003, students had to get 61.2% of math questions right for a 65 score, the minimum required for a Regents diploma, and 50.5% of questions right for a 55 score, enough for a “local diploma.” Today, students need just 30 points out of a maximum 87 — or 34.5% — to get a 65 score.
“When Johnny or Jenny comes home with a 65 or 70, their parents might think they’ve mastered about two-thirds of the material. In fact, it’s slightly more than a third,” said Steve Koss, a retired city math teacher who has railed against the bloated test scores. “Sadly, most parents don’t understand how the scoring works. If they knew the truth, many would be outraged at what amounts to a fraud perpetrated against them by state and local education officials.”
This month, the state launched a shorter English Regents exam, cutting it from two days to one, six hours to three, and four essays to one. Instead of three other essays, kids have to write two “well-developed paragraphs.”
Shael Polakow-Suransky, the city’s chief academic officer under Chancellor Cathie Black, thinks the slimmed-down version is a step backwards.
“If the goal is to get students college-ready, we need them to do a lot more writing, not less writing,” he said.
The state, meanwhile, said it is now studying ways to revamp the Regents and toughen standards again. Tisch called awarding diplomas with lax standards “social promotion at its worst.”
“You shouldn’t be a graduate in this state if high school hasn’t prepared you for higher education or a career,” she said. “If you’re not prepared, you’re locked into a life with no choices.”
Susan Edelman covers education for The Post. Kathianne Boniello contributed to this report.
How to Avoid Dumbing High Schools Down in Re-authorizing ESEA
An article from Dr. Stotsky, member of the team creating the excellent standards that made Massachusetts students among the highest achieving in the world.
Student scores remain stable Fall 2010 standardized test scores revealed
Article addresses proficiency gap between NECAP and NEAP test results.
Consolidation of Schools and Districts What the Research Says and What it Means
A good read for anyone interested in economy of scale and quality of education.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Common Core - The real scoop
Here’s the scoop, in most states, the CCSSI were pushed through because of the promise of grant $ (via RtTT). In some states, only the state superintendent or the Board could make the decision to approve the CCSSI. In Massachusetts, the governor stacked the deck in his favor. He appoints to the Board. Before the vote, Gov Patrick didn’t reappoint those who planned to vote AGAINST the CCSSI, so he actually controlled the vote. NH & WA state are trying to pass a bill to mandate that the legislature vote on the CCSSI (not the Board). A local school board in Massachusetts got three state reps to draft a bill for Massachusetts to pull out of the CCSSI.
Check out this blog from Washington State:
Bottom line from this blog:
The people for the CCSS want to nationalize our education system. They want to give away the rights of the citizens of Washington to affect the education of our children and give it to a very small group of unelected people in Washington DC. This small group of people (CCSSI) was formed and financed by Bill Gates and then put under the auspices of the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Counsel of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The governors and the state superintendents really have very little input to this group. Any state only has one vote to make any changes or to resist what they are doing. While a state could back out of the association, once we start down the CCSS road it would cost hundreds of millions to reverse course. This is even worse than federal control because these people are insulated from any public vote.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
RSU1 Public Meeting
NOTICE
The RSU #1 Board of Directors
will hold a
PUBLIC MEETING
to have a dialogue with members of the community on qualities that the board should seek in a new Superintendent.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
at 6:30 PM
in the Bath Middle School
Cafeteria
----------
Sent via RSU1 Infinite Campus eMail Messenger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)