Bill Cala: High-stakes testing is failing

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20100711/OPINION02/7110322/1039/High-stakes-testing-is-failing

As New York state geared up for the first administration of the fourth-grade English Language Arts tests in 1998, along with a group of national researchers, I warned that ubiquitous implementation of high-stakes standardized tests would result in a watered-down curriculum and a lack of attention to social studies, science, music and the arts.

Additionally, we could expect a significant increase in dropouts (especially among the poor and children of color) and a massive disenfranchisement of English Language Learners and special education students.



There was not then nor today one study that demonstrates that standardized tests measure anything other than a student's potential score on the next standardized test.


Throwing all caution and common sense to the wind, policymakers ignored all evidence and adopted standardized tests for grades 3 through 8, and in New York five Regents exams became the gatekeeper to a high school diploma.



None of the tests given in New York is vetted by validity studies. In other words, there is no proof whatsoever that the tests assess what children learn in the classroom.
As we fast-forward to 2010, what do we have to show for more than a decade-long obsession with tests?

In New York, English Language Learners went from the highest diploma-earning sub-group to the lowest. Less than 20 percent of special education students earn a Regents diploma while IEP diplomas (certificates of completion, not a high school diploma) skyrocketed. GED diplomas have dramatically increased (a recent study shows that GED graduates earn no more than dropouts).
Graduation rates have not increased in over a decade, and less than one-third of African-American and Latino males earn a New York state diploma.

Charter schools are burgeoning, siphoning money and resources from regular public schools. This phenomenon has become a national directive (the federal Race to the Top educational reform initiative) under the Obama administration that is not supported by research. In a national study of charter schools (CREDO, Stanford University 2009) 83 percent of charter schools performed no better or worse than their regular public counterparts. Race to the Top has states adopting laws to lift charter caps and tie teacher evaluation to standardized test scores. The reward for lifting the charter cap and merit pay is the possibility of up to $700 million for state coffers ($122 per child in New York). Given the lack of evidence to support the efficacy of merit pay and the proliferation of charters, the requirements needed to win federal funds are tantamount to extortion.


The keystone of this entire movement is the use of flawed standardized tests. Performance-based instruction and assessment is well-documented on the national, state and local level with a 40-year track record of success yet ignored on a wholesale basis (http://performanceassessment.org). The time is long overdue for policymakers to pay attention to the research and provide an educational framework that inspires and motivates children rather than beat them with the club of unsound practices.



Cala, a former Rochester schools interim superintendent, is co-founder, Joining Hearts and Hands (www.joiningheartsandhands.org), which supports educational needs of African children.

Sol Stern Calls for End of Cash Bonuses Based on Test Scores to Reduce Layoffs

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0517ss.html

Sol Stern

A Modest Budget Proposal

Kill the city’s counterproductive bonus scheme for teachers and principals.

17 May 2010

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and United Federation of Teachers president Michael Mulgrew claim to be seeking ways to minimize the number of teachers—now expected to be close to 6,000—laid off for the next school year. Assuming that Bloomberg and Mulgrew are serious, I have a modest proposal for them to consider. They should agree to suspend the education department’s program of cash bonuses for teachers and principals based largely on improvements in students’ test scores. I estimate that the $37 million spent last year on three separate bonus schemes could be used next year to cover the salaries and benefits of 600 first- and second-year teachers, or about 10 percent of the total number of projected layoffs.

Even at the best of times, rewarding educators with payments for raising students’ scores on standardized tests can produce damaging side effects in the classroom. Testing experts like Harvard’s Daniel Koretz warn that such cash incentives create pressure on teachers to devote an inordinate amount of time and effort to teaching test-taking skills and lead to a narrowing of the curriculum. The payments are also incentives for outright cheating by adults working in the schools. “When test scores become the goal of the teaching process,” said the great American social scientist Donald Campbell, “they both lose their value as indicators of educational status and distort the educational process in undesirable ways.”

Test corruption has become even more of a problem in New York of late. The state’s top two education officials, Board of Regents chancellor Merryl Tisch and education department commissioner David Steiner, recently concluded that the annual math and English tests for grades three through eight had become unreliable measures of children’s real academic achievement. They are trying to restructure the state’s assessments and recently ordered a study by Koretz to measure the extent of score inflation on the tests given in the past several years.

That development in Albany argues strongly for a moratorium on the city’s bonus program—at least until some confidence is restored in the annual state tests on which the payments are largely based. Moreover, continuing this costly program during the city’s dire budget crisis would be irresponsible. The most troubling aspect of the program on the financial side is the bonuses of up to $25,000 handed out to principals whose schools have shown improvement on the corrupted state tests and who will soon retire. Not only does this waste precious education dollars during one school year; the city is also obligated, because the bonuses are fully pensionable, to continue paying for that one-year improvement in test scores for the next 20 to 30 years. The Bloomberg administration claims that it is trying to rein in the city’s out-of-control pension costs—yet under the bonus system, inflated test scores lead to inflated pensions.

You might think it would be a no-brainer for the Department of Education, the principals’ union, and the teachers’ union to shelve the bonus payments for at least the next school year. Unfortunately, that’s not what the three parties are considering, as I discovered after asking each of them for a response to my moratorium proposal.

Joel Klein, New York City’s schools chancellor, told me that he didn’t think the program’s costs would be as high next year because “we expect state tests to be more difficult in the future.” But he also insisted that “the projected cost of the bonuses to teachers at schools that help students achieve at high levels is a smart investment.” Principals’ union leader Ernest Logan echoed that sentiment: “There’s no constructive reason to turn back the clock. Performance differentials and bonuses are at the forefront of every education reformer’s agenda today.” And Michael Mulgrew’s press secretary, Richard Riley, told me that while former UFT president Randi Weingarten had proposed in 2008 that the DOE drop the bonus program, Mulgrew “hasn’t made a statement yet” about it. Mulgrew’s equivocation is particularly puzzling, since he has now said publicly that the city’s test scores are not to be believed.

Logan accurately describes the city’s bonus program as being “at the forefront” of the education-reform agenda. Unfortunately, the program also shows some of the flaws in that reform agenda. In New York City, the mere idea of school reform seems to be trumping common sense in determining the best practices in schools and classrooms.

Sol Stern is a contributing editor of City Journal and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Experts: Test focus driving education wrong way, not preparing college-bound NYC students

NYC Parent Steve Koss writes:

In her article in yesterday's NY Daily News, Meredith Kolodner wrote that, "In 2002, a student could pass the math Regents exam by getting about 61% of the questions right. This year, that number dropped to 42%." Actually, and sadly, that number of 42% is correct but also doesn't tell the whole story. In comparing to June 2002, she used the Math A exam where a 61% raw score (52 out of 85 possible points) gave you a 65 scaled score and compared that to January 2009's final Math A exam where a 42% (just 35 out of 84 possible raw score points) "earned" (more like gifted) you a 65.

The rest of the story, so to speak, is that the Integrated Algebra exam that has replaced Math A has lowered the bar even further, something that hardly seemed possible without being called out for academic malpractice. Be that as it may, that's what has happened, so that in June and August of 2009, the aspiring 9th Grade student needs score only 30 out of 87 raw score points (just 34.5%) to be given (yes, given, not earned) a 65.

I am quoted in the Daily News story (see full text below), but here's part of what I wrote to Ms. Kolodner by email (I'm in China right now) when she was preparing her story (she used part of the first sentence in her story):

My own view of the Regents exams (at least those in my field - Math) is that they have been so simplified and the raw (cut) score for passing has been so reduced that the exams are now virtually meaningless as measures of mathematical knowledge or preparedness. I would argue that a student who is granted a converted score of 65 on Integrated Algebra (having managed to earn 30 raw score points out of 87, or just 34.5% of the points available) is in no way, shape, or form prepared for the next level of high school mathematics and is, in fact, very likely to experience failure in his or her math course work and Regents exams throughout the rest of his/her high school career. NY State is now graduating students with an assertion that they have achieved some base level of mathematical competency (passing the Integrated Algebra Regents is their only math diploma requirement) based on an exam in which sheer, blind guessing on 30 multiple choice questions will, on average, get you halfway (15 points) to a passing score. A student who knows the correct answers to just 10 multiple choice questions can blind-guess the remaining 20 and, on average, will pass. This leaves out any consideration of the remainder of the exam (extended answer questions) as well as educated guessing (where the most obviously wrong answer(s) can be eliminated and the correct answer guessed from the reduced set of options, increasing the odds of guessing correctly).

This is hardly the type of foundation you would want to build for students' future math work in high school or for any sort of college preparation. As a result, we end up with a benign, almost paternalistic form of academic fraud in which students are told that they have "passed math" and have an acceptable level of competency for whatever lies before them. Far worse, their parents, most of whom are not aware of how the Regents exams are structured, graded, o r scaled, are consequently led to believe that their children have demonstrated that level of proficiency on a NYS-administered exam, so it must be legitimate. How many parents would react with shock or dismay if they wre told the truth, that Johnny or Janie's Integrated Math Regents exam score of 65% this last June was in reality a 34% (30 out of 87), or that his or her 70% was actually a 40% (35 out of 87)? Do anyone believe those parents would be relaxed about their chidren's education, believing they were being well-prepared for college or adulthood? What scaled scoring has done has been to rob parents of their understanding of their children's true educational achievement levels, and you see next to nothing done by NYS, NYC, or individual schools to educate their parent communities otherwise. You might call it a case of the emperor's new clothes, but in this instance, those clothes (lack thereof) are being worn by our own children who are actually parading forward unclothed.

Steve Koss


DAILY NEW STORY BELOW:

Experts: Test focus driving education wrong way, not preparing college-bound NYC students

By Meredith Kolodner

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2009/09/09/2009-09-09_reading_writing__worry_experts_test_focus_is_driving_ed_wrong_way.html#ixzz0QhofjRSi

Some of the state-mandated Regents tests have been dumbed down in the past eight years, experts say, and many students' SAT scores leave them unprepared for college.

"Unless you were in an AP [Advanced Placement] course or an honors class, they didn't prepare you for college," said Rianna Moustapha, 18, who graduated from Leon M. Goldstein High School in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, last year.

Moustapha, a sophomore at Brooklyn College, said she was taught only to pass the Regents.

Teachers complain the tests have become less comprehensive and rigorous.

"We could be doing a lot better," said Saul Cohen, a former Queens College president, who heads the state Regents committee charged with looking at state standards.

"The complaints we get from higher ed people over and over [are that] most youngsters are not well-prepared for college - unless, of course, they've taken APs or international baccalaureates."

In 2002, a student could pass the math Regents exam by getting about 61% of the questions right. This year, that number dropped to 42%.

"The exams are now virtually meaningless as measures of mathematical knowledge or preparedness," said Steve Koss, a former New York City math teacher who is completing a study of state math exams.

"The Regents have committed to doing whatever it takes to meet the President's standard for college readiness," said state Education Department spokesman Tom Dunn.

"This will include a thorough review of the learning standards, the core curricula and the state assessments."

The national average on each section of the SAT tests has hovered at about 500 - of a perfect 800 points - for several years.

Last year, only 10% of city schools averaged above 500 in math and 7% did so in reading and writing.

At the same time, more than half of city schools' average SAT scores were below 400. A score of 200 is awarded just for showing up.

The city Education Department points to increases among those scoring higher than 600 on the SATs and the drop in the percentage of students entering the City University of New York system who must take remedial classes - 51% last year, down from 59% in 2002 - as evidence of achievement.

"The data suggests that more kids are graduating," spokesman Andrew Jacob said. "But a higher percentage are ready for college-level work."

Nonetheless, of the 56% of city students who graduate from high school, many report trouble at college.

"It's like we had to memorize, but not learn," said Jordan Woodward, 19, a Brooklyn College sophomore who graduated last year from Bedford Academy with an advanced Regents diploma and an A-minus average.

"It kind of hit me in October of my first semester when I was getting my exams back, and the grades weren't very good.

"In high school, I didn't really have to study," said Woodward, who grew up in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. "I've gotten a lot of help from my academic adviser, and I'm doing better. It's a work in progress."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2009/09/09/2009-09-09_reading_writing__worry_experts_test_focus_is_driving_ed_wrong_way.html#ixzz0QhosUdS9

__._,_.___

Chanting teachers welcome vote to boycott primary tests

Chanting teachers welcome vote to boycott primary tests

Union to ballot members on action to halt SATs for seven and 11-year-olds

By Richard Garner, Education Editor

Sunday, 12 April 2009


SATs harm children's education, claim teachers

Teachers' leaders last night backed a boycott of National Curriculum tests for 1.2 million primary schoolchildren. Delegates at the National Union of Teachers' annual conference in Cardiff voted unanimously in favour of industrial action aimed at next year's English, maths and science tests for seven- and 11-year-olds.

There were cheers, chants of "no more SATs" and a standing ovation for speakers as the motion was passed after an emotional 25-minute debate. Delegates wore T-shirts proclaiming "No Useless Tests".

The move puts the union on a collision course with ministers, who have warned that any refusal to deliver the tests would be illegal.

The 190,000-strong NUT, which will ballot members on the boycott, claims the tests are harming children's education as they spent many months being coached for them – with subjects such as history, geography and art sidelined by schools anxious to do well in the tests and gain a high league-table ranking.

Hazel Danson, a primary teacher from Kirklees who chairs the union's education committee,` described the tests as "educationally barren". "It would be reckless and irresponsible if we allowed the situation in primary schools to remain," she added "I want to teach children. I don't want to damage them."

Max Hyde, a Warwickshire member, added: "At best they are detrimental and damage the curriculum and at worst, particularly for our most vulnerable children, they are perilously close to a form of child abuse."

There were cries of "shame" when delegates were told that Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Education, had described the NUT's action as "irresponsible". Sara Tomlinson, from Lambeth, south London, said: "It is Mr Balls who is irresponsible."

Last night's vote will be followed by a similar vote at the annual conference of the National Association of Head Teachers next month. If that is carried, it will be the first ballot that the association – the only organisation representing primary school heads – has held on industrial action.

Martin Reed, the NUT president, said yesterday: "Think of the prize when we win. It will restore magic moments to the primary classroom as everyday events, not as rarities." He added: "The Government – whichever government it is in 2010 – will have to understand one obvious fact: there will be no National Curriculum testing forced on our schools: not in 2010 nor in any year after that."

The boycott will mean teachers will refuse to do any preparatory work for the tests or invigilate. Christine Blower, the NUT's acting general secretary, said there would be no disruption in schools. Children would do other work – and enjoy a broader curriculum, she said. She stressed that the union was prepared to negotiate an alternative to the tests before embarking on the ballot.

Immediately after the vote a spokeswoman for Mr Balls's department urged NUT members to vote against the boycott. Government lawyers had advised headteachers that refusing to administer the tests would be unlawful because it was part of their contractual duty. School governors have also warned that headteachers could face disciplinary action.

Mr Balls has set up a group to review testing following last summer's fiasco, when SATs results were delayed. It is expected to report next month. He is understood to favour a system whereby pupils sit the tests when they are ready – rather than all on the same days in May. Tests for seven-year-olds are internally marked and the results are not published.

SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENDS TEACHERS OF CHILDREN WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES FOR HONORING PARENTAL REFUSALS OF STATE TESTING

Dear Members and Friends of PEN,

The following press release was emailed last night to all of PEN's media contacts. So far, KOMO radio carried the story, and I was interviewed by The Seattle Times. (Their story should run tomorrow or the day after). Please consider making a contribution to PEN, today, so that the organization can continue representing children by empowering their parents and teachers.

PEN is able to speak with complete freedom-- perhaps the only organization in Washington State able and willing to do so-- against atrocities such as the one detailed below, because we are not funded by school districts or other government entities or special interest grants. We count on the financial support of individuals and small businesses to pay for websites, copies, postage, buttons, ink, transportation, phones, and any needed professional services. Your contribution of any amount helps us drop everything and act when we are contacted by individuals in need of our assistance.

http://www.mothersagainstwasl.org/member.html
Parent Empowerment Network
PO Box 494
Spanaway, WA 98387

Thank you,
Juanita


Date: March 3, 2009



PRESS RELEASE- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENDS TEACHERS OF CHILDREN WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES FOR HONORING PARENTAL REFUSALS OF STATE TESTING



Contacts: Juanita Doyon, Director, Parent Empowerment Network- 253-973-1593

Contact information for two teachers and three parents was provided to media contacts.



Two Seattle School District teachers have been suspended for ten days without pay for following legal requests from parents that their children not be tested using the Washington Alternative Assessment System (WAAS).



“This is not another Carl Chew case where the teachers refused to test their students,” said Juanita Doyon, Director of Parent Empowerment Network (PEN). “These teachers were simply honoring parental requests, which were given verbally and later followed up in writing.”



Juli Griffith and Lenora Stahl, teachers in a self-contained, elementary, special education classroom, expressed their concerns that the WAAS portfolio system is not appropriate for their students, in November 2008, first in an email to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and then in a letter to the Seattle School District administrators. They asked that the District work with them to develop an appropriate assessment for their students who have severe disabilities and are medically fragile.



The WAAS portfolio measures students’ abilities to meet grade-level academic standards and does not measure progress for students with severe physical and cognitive disabilities who work each day to learn basic life skills such as hanging up coats, holding a spoon, attending to activities, and responding appropriately in social situations.



“I am the voice that my students do not have and I have to stand up for them. My main concern is what will happen if I refuse to administer this test to my students,” wrote Ms. Stahl to Judy Kraft, Alternative Assessment Specialist at OSPI.



No response was received from the District. An email response was received from Ms. Kraft.



Refusal on the part of the teachers became unnecessary, when parents of the six students who were to be tested told the teachers that they did not want their children tested using the WAAS system. Teachers honored the parental requests and did not begin the near year-long WAAS process. In January 2009, the teachers were informed that they were out of compliance with state and district policy, by Seattle School District administration. District administration contended parents were required to put refusal of state testing in writing. Parents subsequently wrote refusal letters to the school. After undergoing two District disciplinary hearings each, despite the fact that the District had received refusal letters from parents of all students involved, Ms. Griffith and Ms. Stahl received letters (see attached) on March 2, 2009, stating that they were suspended without pay for 10 days, beginning March 4, 2009. Ms. Griffith and Ms. Stahl have filed appeals of the suspensions with the District.



State testing policy provides that parents or students may refuse to take part in state testing. In a letter addressed by PEN to Seattle District Superintendent Marie Goodloe-Johnson, February 20, 2009 (see addendum 1, below), wording was included from the OSPI 2009 Assessment Coordinator’s Handbook, “…agency policy adopted has been that students may refuse to participate or their parents may refuse to have their children tested…The policy further requires the school to request that the refusal on the part of either the student or parent be put into writing by the parent and kept on file at the school or district office…If any parent is unwilling to put the refusal in writing, the school should document that the request was made but the parent would not put the refusal in writing.”



Through Public Disclosure, PEN requested documents from the Seattle School District containing policies regarding parental refusal of testing and requirements for teacher, parents, and administrators. On March 2, 2009, PEN received an email from Joy A. Stevens, Sr. Legal Assistant/Public Records Officer for the District, stating, “…I have begun the process of locating and gathering the documents you have requested. I anticipate being able to give you a response on or before March 30, 2009.”



Parents involved are extremely upset that Ms. Griffith and Ms. Stahl are being punished for decisions made by parents and that the teachers who know the needs of their children will not be in the special education classroom for the next two weeks. “This will be a total waste of time for my son. He will learn nothing during these two weeks,” said parent Rachel McKean.



Special requirements for the appropriate care and teaching of the students in question will make it highly unlikely that the District will be able to provide appropriate substitute teachers, particularly under constraints of a two day notice.



Teachers and parents plan to file separate complaints with the Office of Civil Rights. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination or retaliation against individuals who advocate on behalf of persons with disabilities (see addendum 2, below). “In the next two weeks, PEN will assist parents and teachers in taking appropriate legal action against the Seattle School District and, possibly, the OSPI,” stated Juanita Doyon.





Parent Empowerment Network is a statewide, nonprofit organization. The mission of PEN is to provide education and peer training to parents, teachers, and community members at-large, in developing strategies to promote sound policy for quality public schools.





Addendum 1



Parent Empowerment Network

PO Box 494

Spanaway, WA 98387



February 20, 2009



Superintendent Maria L. Goodloe-Johnson

Seattle Public Schools
PO Box 34165
Seattle, WA 98124-1165



Dear Dr. Goodloe-Johnson:



Parent Empowerment Network (PEN) has been informed by parents and teachers that the Seattle School District is failing to honor the right of parents to refuse to allow their children to take part in the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) and/or Washington Alternative Assessment System (WAAS).



The right of parents to opt their children out of the state assessment system has been well-established. State policy is affirmed in the official WASL Coordinator’s Manual, 2009, which states:



Federal and state laws require public schools to administer assessments to students enrolled in the specified grades and subjects, the assumption apparently being that participation on the part of the student or approval on the part of the parent would not be an issue. Because it is not specifically addressed in the legislation, agency policy adopted has been that students may refuse to participate or their parents may refuse to have their children tested. The policy further requires the school to request that the refusal on the part of either the student or parent be put into writing by the parent and kept on file at the school or district office. It is also recommended that the parent be requested to include the reason for not wanting the child tested. If any parent is unwilling to put the refusal in writing, the school should document that the request was made but the parent would not put the refusal in writing.



PEN’s understanding of the situation in question is as follows:



· Parents of six students in special education classes at Green Lake Elementary School informed their children’s teachers that their children were not to take part in the WAAS Portfolio Assessment during the 2008-2009 school year.



· Teachers honored the decision and the rights of the parents and did not begin the WAAS data collection process.



· School and District administrators questioned teachers regarding their failure to begin collection of WAAS-required data for opted out students.



· School and District administrators were informed by teachers that the teachers were acting on the verbal requests of parents that their children not be assessed using the WAAS.



· School and District administrators instructed teachers to incorporate current curriculum into WAAS assessment for students, thus disregarding verbal parental refusals.



· Teachers continued to honor parental refusals of WAAS.



· School and District administrators informed teachers that written requests were needed from parents in order for students to be excused from WAAS.



· School and/or District administrators did not contact parents, but instead placed responsibility for obtaining written refusal from parents solely upon teachers.



· Parents provided written refusal of assessments to school administrator.



· Seattle School District has formally informed teachers that a hearing is scheduled to determine whether or not teachers should be suspended for two weeks without pay for failing to administer the WAAS to students whose parents had verbally notified teachers that their children were not to take part in the WAAS Portfolio.



· Seattle School District alleges that teachers refused to follow written directives of their building principal to administer the WAAS.



· Teachers maintain they acted in good faith and simply honored the verbal requests made to them by parents and, upon instruction from the District, requested written refusals from parents.



· At no time did teachers act on principle based on merits/demerits of the WAAS and its appropriateness for severely disabled, medically fragile students; teachers acted on their principles in following the legal requests of parents.



The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction document, “How Students in Special Education Participate in State Testing,” provides the following policy for determining “how a student participates in the state assessment system.”



“The IEP team, which includes a student’s parents or guardians, decides which testing tool to use based on the students’ needs in each content area.”



Parents involved in the current opt out situation were acting not only in their role as guardians of their children but also as members of the students’ Individual Education Plan teams. They decided to remove their students from the assessment process because they believe that no part of the current Washington assessment system is appropriate for their children with special needs/disabilities.



As with parents of students in regular education classes who make decisions regarding their students and the WASL, parents of children with special needs/disabilities do not always agree with state and federal assessment suggestions or requirements for their students. All parents/guardians of students in Washington State Public Schools have the same right to opt their children out of the state assessment system.



Clearly, parents and their children with disabilities have rights that often go beyond those freely offered in the public school setting. In fact, the U.S. Department of Education letter to Washington State, approving the Washington Assessment System, as required by the No Child Left Behind Act, states that “approval of Washington's standards and assessment system under the ESEA is not a determination that the system complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.”



As an organization, PEN recommends that parents opt out their children from state testing, whether children are to be subjected to WASL or WAAS. We do so because we believe that Washington’s current assessment system fails to uphold the civil rights of students and fails to uphold the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Despite their right to reject the Washington assessment system for their children, parents are often coerced or even harassed by school officials until parents ultimately give in and allow the school to assess their students. In the current case, teachers simply accepted and honored the parents’ decision.



In May 2008, a Seattle School District teacher refused to administer the WASL to his 6th grade class. The action taken by Seattle School District in the case of this teacher’s refusal was to suspend the teacher for eight days without pay. The Seattle School District seems to be equating the case of Green Lake Elementary teachers complying with state policy by honoring parental refusals to the 2008 case of a teacher refusing to administer the WASL. In doing so, the Seattle School District is drawing a parallel where none exists.



In 2008, teacher Carl Chew refused to administer WASL as a matter of principle.. In 2009, teachers at Green Lake Elementary are following state policy and honoring parental refusals.



State policy requires only verbal refusal on the part of the parent or student, leaving it to “the school” to request written documentation from the parent or otherwise document refusal in writing, if the parent chooses not to comply with a request for a written refusal. Unless the Seattle School District has developed and provided a policy requiring that teachers request a written refusal from parents, PEN contends that the school building administrator or assessment coordinator holds responsibility for requesting and obtaining, or otherwise generating, written documentation of parental/student refusal of state assessments.



Regardless of school district policy, simple failure by school personnel to obtain written refusal from the parents does not warrant suspension without pay or any other penalty or record of wrongdoing in the personnel file. In the very suggestion that a two week suspension is warranted, the Seattle School District threatens the rights of the severely disabled and medically fragile students who are in the care of these teachers by potentially removing any hope of provision for a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for a period of two weeks, without due cause.



Further, PEN contends that the Seattle School District has breached parental rights and assessment protocol by directing teachers to assess students against the will and direction of parents. Because of the serious nature of this situation and the possible breach of state and federal regulations and protocols by the Seattle School District, PEN suggests that an investigation by the Puget Sound Education Service District may be in order.



Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. A hard copy of this letter will follow through US Mail service. Please see attached Public Disclosure Request.



Sincerely,



Juanita Doyon, Director

Parent Empowerment Network



cc Randy Dorn, Rob McKenna, Mary Lindquist, Doug Gill, Jeannette Bliss, Gloria Mitchell, Cheryl Grinager, Joan Bell, Alan Sutliff, Mary Bass, Sherry Carr, Cheryl Chow, Michael DeBell, Peter Maier, Harium Martin-Morris, Steve Sundquist, Jeffry Finer





February 20, 2009



Superintendent Maria L. Goodloe-Johnson

Seattle Public Schools
PO Box 34165
Seattle, WA 98124-1165





Under Public Disclosure, Parent Empowerment Network requests that the Seattle School District provide:



1. Copies of all District policies regarding parental refusal of state assessments, including all policies relating to parents, teachers, building administrators, and district administrators.



2. Copies of all documents, memos, and emails regarding the dissemination of refusal policies and requirements to administrators, schools, teachers, and parents.



Thank you.



Juanita Doyon, Director

Parent Empowerment Network

253-973-1593





Addendum 2



From the Americans with Disabilities Act

Sec.36.206 Retaliation or coercion.

(a) No private or public entity shall discriminate against any individual because that individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this part, or because that individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Act or this part.

(b) No private or public entity shall coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by the Act or this part.

(c) Illustrations of conduct prohibited by this section include, but are not limited to:

(1) Coercing an individual to deny or limit the benefits, services, or advantages to which he or she is entitled under the Act or this part;

(2) Threatening, intimidating, or interfering with an individual with a disability who is seeking to obtain or use the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a public accommodation;

(3) Intimidating or threatening any person because that person is assisting or encouraging an individual or group entitled to claim the rights granted or protected by the Act or this part to exercise those rights; or

(4) Retaliating against any person because that person has participated in any investigation or action to enforce the Act or this part.

B.C. teachers vote to boycott standardized tests unless changes are made

By Janet Steffenhagen
December 11, 2008

B.C. teachers signalled Thursday they're ready for a showdown with the Liberal government over annual standardized tests in reading, writing and math.

A solid majority of B.C. Teachers' Federation members voted this week in favour of a controversial plan for a province-wide boycott of the tests - known as the Foundation Skills Assessment and delivered in Grades 4 and 7 - unless the government agrees to stop testing every student and introduces random sampling instead.

"It's clear that teachers are ready to take a strong stance," BCTF president Irene Lanzinger said in an interview as her union announced that 85 per cent of teachers who voted were in favour of the boycott plan. Slightly more than half of the 41,000 members cast ballots.

Education Minister Shirley Bond also took a tough position, calling the decision "irresponsible" and saying she is prepared to consider concerns about the test itself, but has no intention of reverting to random sampling at a time when parents are seeking more information - not less - about their children's learning.

"I find it, frankly, quite unbelievable that we're looking at ultimatums instead of concentrating on every single child's achievement in this province," she said in an interview. "It's extremely disappointing."

Conducting the FSA tests is part of a teacher's job, Bond said, but she refused to comment on what she might do if BCTF members throughout the province refuse to take participate in the 2009 tests in February.

Lanzinger said teachers may be employees, but they are also professionals. "We are not going to do something that's bad for students and bad for public education."

Bond suggested the real driver is politics, given that the BCTF would like to see the Liberal government defeated in the May election. The FSA has been around for more than a decade and it was the former NDP government that changed it from a random-sample test to one that includes every student, except for small numbers excused under strict rules.

"The BCTF has made it clear that they are going to fight this government in the next election," the minister said. "This is not an acceptable way to do that."

The union has criticized the FSA for many years, saying it is too blunt an instrument to measure the achievement of an individual student or school but it can provide a picture of how well Grade 4 and 7 students are learning overall. For that, only a random-sample test is needed.

But the criticism has become more intense in recent years since the Fraser Institute began using the FSA results to rank schools. School rankings are loathed by teachers, principals, superintendents and trustees, but parents have mixed views.

NDP education critic Norm Macdonald, a former principal, refused to state his position on the tests, but said it's incumbent on the minister to meet with BCTF leaders to find a solution.
Both sides say they're willing to meet, but also noted they did so in recent weeks and weren't able to reach a solution.

The FSA results are important to parents, first nations leaders and everyone who wants to see improved achievement in B.C., Bond said, adding: "At the end of the day, this is about teachers doing their job."

Ken Thornicroft, an employment relations professor at the University of Victoria, agreed, saying a refusal to administer government tests amounts to insubordination and is grounds for discipline.

He noted a Sooke teacher who refused to deliver a test was given a letter of discipline for insubordination last year. The union filed a grievance but the issue has not yet been resolved.
"Ultimately, decisions around curriculum and so forth are for the minister of education," Thornicroft said. If there is no discipline for teachers who refuse to deliver tests, the government will have surrendered its managerial rights, he added.

The BCTF has proven to be a tough opponent, even in the face of potential penalties. In 2005, it staged an illegal strike that lasted 10 days and won a surprising level of public support.

The union is again asking members to take action that is highly likely to be illegal, and the outcome will depend on how much support it has from its membership, Thornicroft said, adding that the vote gives the union "a pretty strong mandate."

Now that it has its members' approval, the union plans to begin a public relations campaign to win parent backing.

jsteffenhagen@vancouversun.com
http://www.vancouversun.comteachers+vote+boycott+standardized+tests+unless+changes+made/1063369/story.html

UFT/DOE Agreement on Teachers Evaluation Based on Test Scores

Letter from Weingarten to District Reps

Dear District Reps,

These have been a dizzying few days – the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the divided Congressional response to a bailout, and now the mayor making his decision to try to overturn term limits in the context of this crisis. The mayor will announce tomorrow that he will seek a third term by changing the law on term limits through legislation in the City Council. As the voters have spoken on term limits twice, some of us believe – even those like me who oppose term limits – that any attempt to undo the voice of the people should go back to the electorate in a special election, not to the Council. We have a resolution coming before the next Executive Board precisely on this point. Obviously, because of the ramifications of all this, we are watching carefully and have been in touch with elected officials, civic and educational groups and other labor unions about this.

This makes the other news I wanted to report that much more important. Right before the Rosh Hashanah holiday started, and as the school system was about to release the data it had collected on how kids in particular classes had done on standardized tests, Joel Klein and I reached an agreement that once and for all closes the door on using student test score data to evaluate teacher performance.

You may recall that last year we told you about the DOE’s pilot program to assess individual teachers’ contributions to their students’ achievement growth, controlling for such factors as the children’s poverty, special ed and ELL status, attendance, prior scores as well as class and school conditions. At that time we acted quickly to prevent the use of such data in making tenure determinations and received assurances that the initial reports were not to be used for evaluation purposes. In the meantime, we had a very public dispute with the city about all this last spring in Albany, which ended with the state Legislature agreeing that while teachers are responsible for using data to inform instruction, tenure could not be based on standardized test scores.


The DOE is now planning to release the same kind of data it piloted last year to all math and English Language Arts teachers in grades 4 to 8. The teacher data reports will be issued in November. The reports will be based on last year's New York State math and ELA exams and, if applicable, test score data from the two prior testing years.

In our agreement, which is spelled out in a joint letter appearing in this week’s Principals’ Weekly that is being issued this evening (reprinted below), the DOE makes it clear to principals that the results of these analyses must not be used for evaluation purposes. Instead, they should be used to help teachers strengthen their instruction and to help the school plan instructional and professional development strategies. In addition, the data is available only to the principal and the individual teacher, unless that teacher decides to share it.

Like many other types of data and other professional tools, this information can be a powerful instructional tool if teachers have the access, understanding and time to use it properly to assess and address their own strengths and weaknesses. But used improperly, it can be seen as a tool of intimidation and punishment. The chancellor and I issued the joint statement in order to ensure the most productive and positive use of these reports.

Although the teacher is the most important factor in student learning, there are many other influencing variables that are outside the teachers’ control, many of which cannot be precisely measured. That’s why we have opposed the use of student test score data sorted by individual teachers for high-stakes decisions such as tenure, evaluation or pay.

The commitments expressed in this joint letter should reassure members that the data will not be used against them. However, we must at the same time be prepared to respond to any violations of this understanding. Chapter leaders who believe that the letter or spirit of the agreement is not being followed should alert their district reps immediately.

In addition, the DOE and the union will be providing training for all our members who receive these reports on how to read, understand and use them to boost their students’ progress in the future.

Please share this news with your chapter leaders.

Sincerely,
Randi

* * *

The joint letter from Weingarten and Klein:

Dear Colleagues,

The work of a teacher is not only about teaching; it’s also about learning. As teachers, you know that this learning process isn’t just something that happens in the first week or year on the job. It’s a career-long effort to perfect your craft—to help more students understand, achieve, and progress.

This learning happens in many ways: when you share ideas with other teachers, when you observe your colleagues’ classes, when you participate in professional development sessions or reflect, on your own, about what you’re doing well and what you could do to improve. While information from sharing and observing is critically important, educators have told us that they want as much information as possible about what’s working and not working in their classrooms. How is your work affecting particular students? For the purposes of learning and growing, how do you compare to other teachers? What are your biggest strengths and successes that you could share with your colleagues? What could you learn from your colleagues that could help you fine tune your skills?

We are writing to let you know that this fall, the Department of Education is giving ELA and math teachers in grades 4-8 and their principals a new tool to help teachers learn about their own strengths and opportunities for development. We all appreciate that there is a broad array of factors, many outside of an educator’s direct control, that influence student learning. At the same time, many of you have told us how useful it would be to better understand how your efforts are influencing student progress. This new tool is designed to help you understand just that. The reports will be provided to all 4-8 grade math and English Language Arts teachers and their principals. They will give teachers access to very useful information, including:

* Whether the data suggest that you had a greater influence on the learning of some groups of students than on others. For example, how have special education students and English language learners fared in your classroom?
* How are you doing with students in the bottom of the class or the top of the class?
* What are other English and math teachers in similar circumstances doing successfully and what could you learn from them? What are your biggest successes that you could share with your colleagues—whether they’re other teachers in your school or teachers through the City?

The reports are based on your students’ performance on last year’s New York State math and ELA exams. If applicable, you will also see information for the two prior testing years. The reports isolate individual teachers’ effect on student learning by controlling for more than 35 different factors outside of a teacher’s control, including class size, students’ prior test scores, and the percentage of students with disabilities and living in poverty in each class. Even with these statistical controls, reports like these can never perfectly represent an individual teacher’s contribution to student learning.

We wish to be clear on one point: the Teacher Data Reports are not to be used for evaluation purposes. That is, they won’t be used in tenure determinations or the annual rating process. Administrators will be specifically directed accordingly. These reports, instead, are designed to help you pinpoint your own strengths and weaknesses, and empower you, working with your principal and colleagues, to devise strategies to improve. The data reports will add to the other sources of information—like periodic assessments, examination of student class and homework, and school inquiry teams—that you can use to develop as professionals. These reports will also help your school community plan collaboratively for professional development and make other instructional decisions.

It may be useful to understand the Teacher Data Reports in the context of two values that are central to the collective work of the Department of Education and the United Federation of Teachers over the past two years: empowerment and collaboration.

We deeply believe that our students have the best opportunity for success when the school, not the school system, is the central point of focus. That is why the school system has shifted more than $350 million from the bureaucracy to schools and classrooms, and that is why schools have been given substantially more power over professional development, scheduling, budget, and even support. This notion of “empowerment” is premised on the view that we need to give educators—the people closest to students with the best knowledge of what it will take to succeed—the decision-making power and tools necessary to determine how to help students succeed. The Teacher Data Reports are very much in that spirit, empowering teachers and schools with even more information that can be the foundation for improved strategies for student success.

Collaboration is an essential ingredient to school success. Over and over again, we have learned what is already intuitively obvious: when teachers work collaboratively with each other and when administrators value and support a collaborative environment, the probability of success rises. Simply put, students benefit when educators work together to assess what they’re doing well and what they need to improve. When educators use this information in a collaborative way to address school shortfalls and build on strengths, they improve their schools and improve results for students. Successful collaboration is at the heart of a well-functioning Inquiry Team, which empowers teachers to work together to solve problems and help children make academic progress. These new Teacher Data Reports will, in many cases, create additional opportunities for collaboration around instructional improvement, by giving teachers and principals additional information that will help them make more informed decisions for their schools and their students.

In the next few weeks, we’re asking schools to verify the student and classroom information in the reports. When the reports become available later this fall, the DOE and UFT will work together to provide you with information, training, resources, and support so you understand the information fully and can begin to put it to use. In the meantime, we encourage you to visit the Teacher Portal [link to Teacher Portal] to learn more and to view a draft of a sample report.

Sincerely,
Joel I. Klein and Randi Weingarten

October 2, 2008

Teachers to Be Measured Based on Students’ Standardized Test Scores

By JENNIFER MEDINA

New York City is beginning to measure the performance of thousands of elementary and middle school teachers based on how much their students improve on annual state math and reading tests.

To avoid a contentious fight with the teachers’ union, the New York City Department of Education has agreed not to make public the reports — which described teachers as average, below average or above average with various types of students — nor let them influence formal job evaluations, pay and promotions.

Rather, according to a memo to principals from Chancellor Joel I. Klein and Randi Weingarten, the president of the United Federation of Teachers, sent on Wednesday night, the reports are designed to be guides for the teachers themselves to better understand their achievements and shortcomings.

“They won’t be used in tenure determinations or the annual rating process,” the memo said. “Many of you have told us how useful it would be to better understand how your efforts are influencing student progress.”

Still, even without formal consequences for teachers, the plan is likely to anger teachers and parents who are already critical of the increasing emphasis on standardized test scores as a substitute for judging school quality. It follows the city’s much-debated issuance of report cards labeling individual schools A through F largely on the basis of student improvement on state exams.

The State Legislature this spring prohibited the use of student test scores in teacher tenure decisions. The new measurement system — called “teacher data reports” — is an expansion of a pilot program that the city began in January involving about 2,500 teachers at 140 schools. The pilot program was so controversial that several participating principals did not tell teachers they were being monitored.

Christopher Cerf, the deputy chancellor overseeing the program, said it was important to get teachers “comfortable with the data, in a positive, affirming way.”

“The information in here is a really, really important way to foster change and improvement,” he said. “We don’t want people to be threatened by this.”

In introducing the pilot program, Mr. Cerf said it would be a “powerful step forward” to have the teacher measurements made public, arguing, “If you know as a parent what’s the deal, I think that whole aspect will change behavior.” But this week, he said that for now the reports will be treated as personnel records not subject to public-records laws.

Principals interviewing prospective teachers from other schools would be permitted to ask candidates for their reports, but the candidates would not have to provide them.

Ms. Weingarten said that the assurance that there would not be a public airing of individual teachers’ information made her more comfortable with the idea of the reports, which she said could help teachers identify their strengths and weaknesses.

“This can be used to inform instruction and advance it,” she said in an interview. “If this is something that becomes a ranking facility, opinions will be very, very different. That door has now been closed.”

Still, Ms. Weingarten said the reports answer only “a very narrow question” of how a particular teacher’s students do on tests. She and others have long argued that there are many other criteria on which teachers should be evaluated.

The new reports are part of a broader bid by the city to improve the ways teachers are recruited, trained and measured. Last year, the Education Department began a push to get rid of subpar teachers before they earned tenure, forming a team of lawyers and consultants to help principals amass enough information to oust those who are deemed deficient and do not show signs of improvement.

There have been similar efforts across the country, as politicians and academic experts say that teachers are the most important element in improving student performance and closing the gap in achievement between white and minority students. School systems in Texas and Tennessee, for example, have used student performance and improvement as a tool to evaluate teachers.

New York City plans to generate reports for roughly 18,000 teachers — every math and English teacher in fourth through eighth grades.

Amy McIntosh, the Education Department’s chief talent officer, who helped develop the system, said that her team would continue to explore ways to monitor the effectiveness of the city’s nearly 60,000 other public school teachers, but that for now the state tests were the only data on which to reliably base evaluations of them.

The teacher data report balances the progress students make on state tests and their absences with factors that include whether they receive special-education services or qualify for free lunch, as well as the size, race and gender breakdown of the teacher’s class.

Using a complicated statistical formula, the report computes a “predicted gain” for each teacher’s class, then compares it to the students’ actual improvements on the test. The result is a snapshot analysis of how much the teacher contributed to student growth.

The reports classify each teacher as average, above average or below average in effectiveness with different categories of students, like those who score in the top third or the lowest third on the test, and those still learning English or enrolled in special-education programs. It also contains separate measurements on effectiveness in teaching boys and girls, though it does not distinguish performance by students’ race or income level. Teachers will also be given a percentile ranking indicating how their performance compares to those who teach similar students and to a citywide pool.

“When we have talked to teachers about this, there is real insight about the students,” Ms. McIntosh said. “They will say, ‘I didn’t realize I was teaching to the bottom,’ or, ‘I am really great with boys, and less so with girls.’ ”

Last year’s pilot program also attempted to measure how well a principal’s perception of teachers aligned with the student test score data. According to the Education Department, about 69 percent of the teachers whom principals rated “exceptional” were in the top half on the reports. And 73 percent of those whom principals called “fair, poor or very poor” were in the bottom half.

Frank Cimino, the principal of Public School 193 in Brooklyn, which participated in the pilot program, said he was still uncertain about how useful the reports were.

“I would like to make a comparison to see what it shows this year to what it showed last year,” he said. “I don’t think anything can replace getting into the classroom.”

Marjorie Stamberg Comments:

Now the District Reps are being asked to tell us that the joint Klein-Weingarten letter linking teacher performance to student test scores is some kind of victory for teachers! Weingarten insists it won't be used to deny tenure or for annual teaching rating. Not going to be used punitively?! This has about as much credibility as Treasury Secretary Paulson's assurances up until two weeks ago that the economy was fine. Can I interest you in a bridge that's up for sale?

The union should "just say no" to the whole idea of linking test scores to teacher performance. Instead, they buy ito it, with a caveat on how it supposedly "won't be used." But it's just plain WRONG, by all measures of pedagogy as well as basic union principles.

First off, what this will be used for is for teacher bashing--in the New York Post, Daily News, Times, and the rest of the mainstream media who for years have blamed teachers for the failures of a public education system run by people who are dead set opposed to public education.

The fact that Randi has a joint letter with Joel Klein on something like this speaks volumes about the union's failure to combat head-on the assault on public education and on teachers and students by these educational counter-reformers. This whole exercise is based on this battery of endless standardized tests which has grievously distorted public education, leading to the wholesale eliminatin of music and arts programs to slashing social studies, science and in a number of cases eliminating sports programs and recess.

The joint letter makes much of how providing the information about the performance of each student on standarized tests will suposedly help the teachers to improve his or her educational technique by knowning more about their students' progress or lack thereof. The fact of the matter is, the information on a student-by-student basis, on different area studies (ELA, math, etc) is already available to schools and teachers on ATS.

The only thing this program will do is provide a listing of such scores that will convey no new educational information and can only be used for "evaluating a teacher." The joint letter claims that this will not be used for determining tenure or annual ratings. This is a transparent fiction--the principle will sit there with this information staring them in the face and ignore it?

Furthermore, there's a long history of using what are intended as diagnostic tests for purposes of "evaluation and exclusion." At the City University, the old WAT test was supposed to be used to determine which areas an incoming student needed remedial help. But then in the late 1990s, the Giuliani regime through it's agent Herman Bedillo turned this into a prerequisite for graduation and was used to exclude students from graduating.

Here we have Unity Caucus once again greasing the skids for Bloomberg/Klein's union busting!

--Marjorie

Students pass state test, but at what cost to their education?

http://www.cleveland.com/brett/blog/index.ssf/2008/07/students_pass_state_test_but_a.html

by Regina Brett
Tuesday July 22, 2008, 3:10 PM

Regina BrettThe school report cards came out in June.

Rocky River Middle School passed the 2008 Ohio Achievement Tests, earned an Excellent rating from the state and met the requirements for Annual Yearly Progress.

For all of those accomplishments, Principal David Root has only one thing to say to the students, staff and citizens of Rocky River:

He's sorry.

Root wants to issue an apology. He sent it to me typed out in two pages, single spaced.

He's sorry that he spent thousands of tax dollars on test materials, practice tests, postage and costs for test administration.

Sorry that his teachers spent less time teaching American history because most of the social studies test questions are about foreign countries.

Sorry that he didn't suspend a student for assaulting another because that student would have missed valuable test days.

Sorry he didn't strictly enforce attendance because all absences count against the school on the State Report Card.

He's sorry for pulling children away from art, music and gym, classes they love, so they could take test-taking strategies.

Sorry that he has to give a test where he can't clarify any questions, make any comments to help in understanding or share the results so students can actually learn from their mistakes.

Sorry that he kept students in school who became sick during the test because if they couldn't finish the test due to illness, the student automatically fails it.

Sorry that the integrity of his teachers is publicly tied to one test.

He apologized for losing eight days of instruction due to testing activities.

For making decisions on assemblies, field trips and musical performances based on how that time away from reading, math, social studies and writing will impact state test results.

For arranging for some students to be labeled "at risk" in front of their peers and put in small groups so the school would have a better chance of passing tests.

For making his focus as a principal no longer helping his staff teach students but helping them teach test indicators.

Root isn't anti-tests. He's all for tests that measure progress and help set teaching goals. But in his eyes, state achievement tests are designed for the media to show how schools rank against each other.

He's been a principal for 24 years, half of them at Rocky River Middle School, the rest in Hudson, Alliance and Zanesville. He loves working with 6th, 7th and 8th graders.

"I have a strong compassion for the puberty stricken," he joked.

His students, who are 11, 12, 13 and 14, worry that teachers they love will be let go based on how well they perform.

One asked him, "If I don't do well, will you fire my teacher?"

He cringed when he heard one say, "I really want to do well, but I'm not that smart."

He wants students to learn how to think, not take tests.

"We don't teach kids anymore," he said. "We teach test-taking skills. We all teach to the test. I long for the days when we used to teach kids."
Unless we get back to those days, principals and teachers all over Ohio will continue to spend your tax dollars to help students become the best test takers they can be.

Paul Moore on the FCAT

Apologies to the reader but this e-mail recounts a rather lengthy
exchange of messages between myself and a representative of Gov.
Charlie Crist and Florida Commissioner of Education Eric J. Smith.
That representative is Dr. Cornelia S. Orr, Assistant Deputy
Commissioner Accountability, Research and Measurement, Office of
Assessment, Florida Department of Education. Quite an imposing title
indeed. If there is corresponding wisdom and compassion you can be the
judge.

It all starts with this message on May 21, 2008.

The day of the 2008 release of the third-grader'

s Florida
Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) scores is a good time to step
back and take stock of what has simply come to be known as the test in
the Sunshine State.

Looking back, the FCAT appeared in the public schools for the first
time in the final year of Governor Lawton Chiles' term in office. But
Jeb Bush is married to the FCAT in the minds of most Floridians. And
he seems to embrace that idea. Bush often cites the test as the
cornerstone of his legacy as the self-proclaimed "education governor"
and he did raise the FCAT stakes to point that it now hangs over the
state's public school landscape like a dense fog.

The now former Governor Jeb Bush is the scion of a dynastic American
family of incomparable political power and great wealth. The Bush
family boasts two President's of the United States! The family enjoys
a huge fortune based on its dealings across the financial spectrum
from the Rockefellers to the Saudi royal family. There can be no
argument, an extremely powerful man made the FCAT his baby and guided
the State of Florida to this system of public school accountability.

For those unfamiliar with the FCAT, it makes children accountable for
tested reading skills when they reach the age of eight or 9-years-old.
If a child fails to meet the test standards-that child is severely
punished. The child is publicly humiliated! The child is forced to
repeat the third grade while classmates move ahead to the forth grade.
The architects of the FCAT believe that holding these children up to
shame and ridicule will become an incentive to master the tested
reading skills and there is little doubt the approach does increase
the pressure on the little ones. There are widespread reports of
children becoming physically sick on test days-throwing up on the
test, urinating on themselves.

Several years now of administering the test indicate that children
living in poverty feel the lion's share of the FCAT 's punitive force.
Because a disproportionate number of poor children are
African-American and Hispanic and recent immigrants, something the
educational bureaucracy calls "the achievement gap" is now all the
rage. However, those bureaucrats are adamant that poverty will not be
used as an excuse. The children must be punished, they must be held
accountable! It is worth noting here that Florida's white children
living in poverty, in rural Jefferson County for instance, do not fare
well with the FCAT either.

For a while, a couple of years ago, South Florida had a precious
little FCAT success story named Sherdavia Jenkins. She came from the
heart of Miami-Dade's Liberty City and gave the test a whoppin' worthy
of Muhammad Ali in his prime. Ali was someone, by the way, who would
have had great difficulty with the FCAT as a child but he did
ultimately lecture at Harvard University several times as a grown man
and recorded some success in life. Anyway, Sherdavia earned the best
FCAT score at Lillie C. Evans Elementary. The justifiable pride
Sherdavia must have felt lasted just a few weeks before the violence
endemic in her depressed neighborhood claimed her life. She was shot
and killed outside her home.

The whole tragedy raises certain questions. Who was ready to step up
and be accountable for the all too brief life and violent death of the
FCAT whiz? Should Sherdavia have packed up and gotten out of Liberty
City? Maybe, but it's hard out there for a nine-year-old on your own.
FCAT supporters often mention the importance of parental
accountability. And we may have to settle for blaming Sherdavia's
mother and father for allowing her onto the front porch to play with
her dolls. Because not one of Florida's most powerful and influential
public figures even acknowledged that Sherdavia Jenkins' death was a
problem that needed their attention.

Although the level of public school funding and graduation rates in
Florida rest at or near the bottom of the national barrel, another
layer of FCAT accountability lands on youngsters if they survive into
and through high school. This year 26,997 high school seniors who
dutifully completed their coursework, did their community service, and
fought off all the negative influences toward dropping out will be
punished for the sake of FCAT skills. At their upcoming graduation
ceremonies, some of these students will pretend to their classmates to
be receiving a diploma. But they will walk across that stage to be
lashed by their FCAT masters and handed a worthless piece of paper.

At the conclusion of the movie Spiderman, Peter Parker comes to terms
with his superhero status and he remembers his uncle saying, "With
great power, comes great responsibility." The creators and the
administrators of the FCAT live by another rule. For them it seems to
come down to, "With great power, comes great impunity." Under the FCAT
regimen, all the accountability is heaped on the shoulders of children
living in deprivation and adults living in comfort accept none.

Jeb Bush had the means to keep his own children in private schools and
he always did. The private schools are a haven from incessant testing
because parents like Jeb and Columba Bush want their children truly
educated and prepared for the future. Yet Gov. Bush, as a matter of
public policy, always held that the FCAT was good for the public
schools. And to prove it Bush used his power to retain tens of
thousands of children in the third grade, he withheld high school
diplomas from thousands more, he used the test to stigmatize the
schools that serve children living in poverty as failing schools.

But while he was governor, Jeb Bush never ever held himself
accountable for anything. In 2002, the state's short-term investment
and pension funds lost $334 million as Enron collapsed, three times
the loss of any other fund in the nation. Jeb Bush invested Florida in
Edison charter schools when the stock was valued at $37 and got out
when it was worth 14 cents. Another $500 million of the public's money
was lost to enable his other corporate adventures.

Former Gov. Bush still doesn't believe in accountability except for
public school children. It has been reported that after leaving office
Bush got a new job with Lehman Brothers. The Wall Street investment
banking firm paid him over $400,000 to take a seat on their board of
directors. Shortly thereafter, Florida's Local Government Investment
Pool and the Florida Retirement System purchased $842 million in bad
investments from Lehman Brothers.

At ceremonies as Rep. Marco Rubio was ascending to Speaker of the
Florida House of Representatives, Jeb Bush gave Rubio a sword. The
gift was a sign that Rubio was pledged to defend the Bush legacy,
including the FCAT. And Speaker Rubio has been faithful to his
mentor's charge, seeing to it that the burdens of accountability
remain squarely and exclusively on children and off powerful men like
him. A recent news report has Speaker Rubio's Miami-Dade home
inexplicably increasing in value a month after he bought it. Another
story describes a home equity loan to Rubio from a bank run by
politically connected allies. Then Rubio was accused of slipping
language into legislation that allowed Max Alvarez, who describes
Rubio as "like a son", to keep a multi-million dollar turnpike fuel
contract.

Even with Marco Rubio presiding in the House, the Florida Legislature
did make changes to the FCAT. Sadly these changes turned out to be
among the most cravenly self-serving "FCAT reforms" imaginable. This
powerful governing body left untouched all the FCAT punishments for
children after gutting public school funding by $2.3 billion. They
went on to reduce the weight given to FCAT test scores when grading
the schools, likely raising grades that have reflected badly on
Legislators and the Florida Department of Education. It has all
become almost impossible to fathom.

Paul A. Moore

That essay was mailed to Gov. Crist and induced this reply from Dr.
Orr on May 30, 2008.

Dear Mr. Moore:

Thank you for writing to Governor Charlie Crist to again express your
concerns about the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test® (FCAT). The
Governor received your message, and I have been asked to respond on
behalf of Education Commissioner Eric J. Smith, Ed.D.

We regret that our responses to your previous messages expressing
disapproval of the FCAT have not provided resolution to your concerns.
Great effort was made to address your concerns in the e-mail messages
sent to you on July 28, 2006, March 16, 2007, and October 23, 2007.
In spite of the information provided to you, you presently contend
that the Grade 3 FCAT is a tool by which children are "severely
punished," "publicly humiliated," "forced to repeat the third grade,"
and subjected to "shame and ridicule." Because we have previously
provided you with the rationale behind the Grade Three Student
Progression Plan, there is little else that can be said to change your
perceptions of this assessment.

However, I would like to reiterate the introductory paragraph of the
Grade 3 document which states: "If a child does not read adequately
at the third grade level, research has shown that this child has
little chance of succeeding academically in subsequent grades. That
is why every effort is made to address reading deficiencies in a
timely manner. Reading deficiencies, regardless of the cause, must be
addressed before a student can be expected to move on to the more
difficult work of the higher grades."

We appreciate your accounting of the political leadership, events, and
practices of the state and your interest in their consequences,
resolutions, and repercussions. While your view of the FCAT may
remain constant, we hope that the recently released document attached
to this message will increase your awareness of and clarify the
changes made to the state's assessment program by the 2008 Florida
Legislature. Thank you for the feedback you have provided.

Sincerely,

Cornelia S. Orr, Ph.D.

On June 10, 2008 I will say that Dr. Orr's message saddened me because
it makes clear how terribly insulated academics and bureaucrats are
from their victims. The ideologues behind the FCAT are separated
socially and economically by a gaping chasm from the children they are
destroying. They ease their consciences in this matter by referring to
selective and supportive "research" as Dr. Orr has done. But there can
be no excuse for holding a nine-year-old accountable and making
punitive measures toward them official state policy. No research ever
done supports that!

The Time magazine article of Sunday June 8, 2008 titled "No Child Left
Behind: Doomed to Fail" is offered to support the utter absurdity and
counter-productivity of the approach to educating children by rules
set up in the FCAT system and No Child Left Behind regimen. Please
Gov. Crist, Commissioner Smith, and Dr. Orr, for the good of Florida's
children and for your own salvations read it closely, take it to
heart, and help make it new educational policy in this state.

No Child Left Behind: Doomed to Fail?
By Claudia Wallis

There was always something slightly insane about No Child Left Behind
(NCLB), the ambitious education law often described as the Bush
Administration's signature domestic achievement. For one thing, in the
view of many educators, the law's 2014 goal - which calls for all
public school students in grades 4 through 8 to be achieving on grade
level in reading and math - is something no educational system
anywhere on earth has ever accomplished. Even more unrealistic: every
kid (except for 3% with serious handicaps or other issues) is supposed
to be achieving on grade level every year, climbing in lockstep up an
ever more challenging ladder. This flies in the face of all sorts of
research showing that children start off in different places
academically and grow at different rates.

Add to the mix the fact that much of the promised funding failed to
materialize and many early critics insisted that No Child Left Behind
was nothing more than a cynical plan to destroy American faith in
public education and open the way to vouchers and school choice.

Now a former official in Bush's Education department is giving at
least some support to that notion. Susan Neuman, a professor of
education at the University Michigan who served as Assistant Secretary
for Elementary and Secondary Education during George W. Bush's first
term, was and still is a fervent believer in the goals of NCLB. And
she says the President and then Secretary of Education Rod Paige were
too. But there were others in the department, according to Neuman, who
saw NCLB as a Trojan horse for the choice agenda - a way to expose the
failure of public education and "blow it up a bit," she says. "There
were a number of people pushing hard for market forces and
privatization."

Tensions between NCLB believers and the blow-up-the-schools group were
one reason the Bush Department of Education felt like "a pressure
cooker," says Neuman, who left the Administration in early 2003.
Another reason was political pressure to take the hardest possible
line on school accountability in order to avoid looking lax - like the
Clinton Administration. Thus, when Neuman and others argued that many
schools would fail to reach the NCLB goals and needed more flexibility
while making improvements, they were ignored. "We had this no-waiver
policy," says Neuman. "The feeling was that the prior administration
had given waivers willy-nilly."

It was only in Bush's second term that the hard line began to succumb
to reality. Margaret Spellings, who replaced Paige as Secretary of
Education in 2005, gradually opened the door to a more flexible and
realistic approach to school accountability. Instead of demanding
lockstep, grade-level achievement, schools in some states could meet
the NCLB goals by demonstrating adequate student growth. (In this
"growth model" approach, a student who was three years behind in
reading and ended the year only one year behind would not be viewed as
a failure.) "Going to the growth models is the right way to go," says
Neuman. "I wish it had come earlier. It didn't because we were trying
to be tough."

Neuman also regrets the Administration's use of humiliation and shame
as a lever for school reform. Failure to meet NCLB's inflexible goals
meant schools would be publicly labeled as failures. Neuman now sees
this as a mistake: "Vilifying teachers and saying we are going to
shame them was not the right approach."

The combination of inflexibility and public humiliation for those not
meeting federal goals ignited so much frustration among educators that
NCLB now appears to be an irreparably damaged brand. "The problems
lingered long enough and there's so much anger that it may not be
fixable," says Neuman. While the American Federation of Teachers was
once on board with the NCLB goals, she notes, the union has turned
against it. "Teachers hate NCLB because they feel like they've been
picked on."

Is there a way out of the mess? Neuman still supports school
accountability and the much-maligned annual tests mandated by the law.
But she now believes that the nation has to look beyond the
schoolroom, if it wishes to leave no child behind.

Along with 59 other top educators, policymakers and health
officials--including three former surgeon generals, she's put her name
to a nonpartisan document to be released on Tuesday by the Economic
Policy Institute, a Washington think tank. Titled "A Broader, Bolder
Approach to Education," <http://www.boldapproach.org/> it lays out an
expansive vision for leveling the playing field for low-income kids,
one that looks toward new policies on child health and support for
parents and communities. The document states that much of the
achievement gap between rich and poor "is rooted in what occurs
outside of formal schooling," and therefore calls on policymakers to
"rethink their assumptions" about what it will take to close that gap.
Neuman says that money she's seen wasted on current programs,
including much of the massive Title 1 spending should be reallocated
according to this broader approach. "Pinning all our hopes on schools
will never change the odds for kids.