You've already heard the story by now-- Pearson has been found monitoring students on social media in New Jersey, catching them tweeting about the PARCC test, and contacting the state Department of Education so that the DOE can contact the local school district to get the students in trouble.
You can read the story here at the blog of NJ journalist Bob Braun. Well, unless the site is down again. Since posting the story, Braun's site has gone down twice that I know of. Initially it looked like Braun had simply broken the internet, as readers flocked to the report. Late last night Braun took to facebook to report that the site was under attack and that he had taken it down to stop the attack. As I write this (6:17 AM Saturday) the site and the story are up, though loading slowly.
The story was broken by Superintendent Elizabeth Jewett of Watchung Hills Regional High School district in an email to her colleagues. But in contacting Jewett he has learned that she confirmed three instances in which Pearson contacted the NJDOE to turn over miscreant students for the state to track down and punish. [Update: Jewett here authenticates the email that Braun ran.]
Meanwhile, many alert eyes turned up this: Pearson's Tracx, a program that may or may not allow the kind of monitoring we're talking about here.
Several thoughts occur. First, under exactly whose policy are these students to be punished. Does the PARCC involve them taking the same kind of high security secrecy pledge that teachers are required to take, and would such a pledge signed by a minor, anyway?
How does this fit with the ample case law already establishing that, for instance, students can go on line and create websites or fake facebook accounts mocking school administrators? They can mock their schools, but they have to leave important corporations alone?
I'm also wondering, again, how any test that requires this much tight security could not suck. Seriously.
How much of the massive chunk of money paid by NJ went to the line item "keep an eye on students on line?"
Granted, the use of the word "spying" is a bit much-- social media are not exactly secret places where the expectation of privacy is reasonable or enforceable, and spying on someone there is a little like spying on someone in a Wal-mart. But it's still creepy, and it's still one more clear indicator that Pearson's number one concern is Pearson's business interests, not students or schools or anything else. And while this is not exactly spying, the fact that Pearson never said a public word about their special test police cyber-squad, not even to spin it in some useful way, shows just how far above student, school, and state government they envision themselves to be.
Pearson really is Big Brother-- and not just to students, but to their parents, their schools, and their state government. It's time to put some serious pressure on politicians. If they're even able to stand up to Pearson at this point, now is the time for them to show us.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Friday, March 13, 2015
PA: All About the Tests (And Poverty)
In Pennsylvania, we rate schools with the School Performance Profile (SPP). Now a new research report reveals that the SPP is pretty much just a means of converting test scores into a school rating. This has huge implications for all teachers in PA because our teacher evaluations include the SPP for the school at which we teach.
Research for Action, a Philly-based education research group, just released its new brief, "Pennsylvania'a School Performance Profile: Not the Sum of Its Parts." The short version of its findings are pretty stark and not very encouraging--
90% of the SPP is directly based on test results.
90%.
SPP is our answer to the USED waiver requirement for a test-based school-level student achievement report. It replaces the old Adequate Yearly Progress of NCLB days by supposedly considering student growth instead of simple raw scores. It rates schools on a scale of 0-100, with 70 or above considered "passing." In addition to being used to rate schools and teachers, SPP's get trotted out any time someone wants to make a political argument about failing schools.
RFA was particularly interested in looking at the degree to which SPP actually reflects poverty level, and their introduction includes this sentence:
Studies both in the United States and internationally have established a consistent, negative link between poverty and student outcomes on standardized tests, and found that this relationship has become stronger in recent years.
Emphasis mine. But let's move on.
SPP is put together from a variety of calculations performed on test scores. Five of the six-- which account for 90% of the score-- "rely entirely on test scores."
Our analysis finds that this reliance on test scores, despite the partial use of growth measures, results in a school rating system that favors more advantaged schools.
Emphasis theirs.
The brief opens with a consideration of the correlation of SPP to poverty. I suggest you go look at the graph for yourself, but I will tell you that you don't need any statistics background at all to see the clear correlation between poverty and a lower SPP. And as we break down the elements of the SPP, it's easy to see why the correlation is there.
Indicators of Academic Achievement (40%)
Forty percent of the school's SPP comes from a proficiency rating (aka just plain straight on test results) that comes from tested subjects, third grade read, and the SAT/ACT College Ready Benchmark. Whether we're talking third grade reading or high school Keystone exams, "performance declines as poverty increases."*
Out of 2,200 schools sampled, 187 had proficiency ratings higher than 90, and only seven of those had more than 50% economically disadvantaged enrollment. Five of those were Philly magnet schools.
Indicators of Academic Growth aka PVAAS (40%)
PVAAS is our version of a VAM rating, in which we compare actual student performance to the performance of imaginary students in an alternate neutral universe run through a magical formula that corrects for everything in the world except teacher influence. It is junk science.
RFA found that while the correlation with poverty was still there, when it came to PSSAs (our elementary test) it was not quite as strong as the proficiency correlation. For the Keystones, writing and science tests, however, the correlation with poverty is, well, robust. Strong. Undeniable. Among other things, this means that you can blunt the impact of Keystone test results by getting some PSSA test-takers under the same roof. Time to start that 5-9 middle school!!
Closing the Achievement Gap (10%)
This particular measure has a built-in penalty for low-achieving schools (aka high poverty schools-- see above). Basically, you've got six years to close half the proficiency gap between where you are and 100%. If you have 50% proficiency, you've got six years to hit 75%. If you have 60%, you have six years to hit 80%. The lower you are, the more students you must drag over the test score finish line.
That last 10%, incidentally, is items like graduation rate and attendance rate. Pennsylvania also gives you points for the number of students you can convince to buy the products and services of the College Board, including AP stuff and PSAT. So kudos to the College Board people on superior product placement. Remember kids-- give your money to the College Board. It's the law!
Bottom line-- we have schools in PA being judged directly on test performance, and we have data once again clearly showing that the state could save a ton of money by simply issuing school ratings based on the income level of students.
For those who want to complain, "How dare you say those poor kids can't achieve," I'll add this. We aren't measuring whether poor kids can achieve, learn, accomplish great things, or grow up to be exemplary adults-- there is no disputing that they can do all those things. But we aren't measuring that. We are measuring how well they do on a crappy standardized test, and the fact that poverty correlates with results on that crappy test should be a screaming red siren that the crappy test is not measuring what people claim it measures.
*Correction: I had originally include a mistyping here that reversed the meaning of the study.
Research for Action, a Philly-based education research group, just released its new brief, "Pennsylvania'a School Performance Profile: Not the Sum of Its Parts." The short version of its findings are pretty stark and not very encouraging--
90% of the SPP is directly based on test results.
90%.
SPP is our answer to the USED waiver requirement for a test-based school-level student achievement report. It replaces the old Adequate Yearly Progress of NCLB days by supposedly considering student growth instead of simple raw scores. It rates schools on a scale of 0-100, with 70 or above considered "passing." In addition to being used to rate schools and teachers, SPP's get trotted out any time someone wants to make a political argument about failing schools.
RFA was particularly interested in looking at the degree to which SPP actually reflects poverty level, and their introduction includes this sentence:
Studies both in the United States and internationally have established a consistent, negative link between poverty and student outcomes on standardized tests, and found that this relationship has become stronger in recent years.
Emphasis mine. But let's move on.
SPP is put together from a variety of calculations performed on test scores. Five of the six-- which account for 90% of the score-- "rely entirely on test scores."
Our analysis finds that this reliance on test scores, despite the partial use of growth measures, results in a school rating system that favors more advantaged schools.
Emphasis theirs.
The brief opens with a consideration of the correlation of SPP to poverty. I suggest you go look at the graph for yourself, but I will tell you that you don't need any statistics background at all to see the clear correlation between poverty and a lower SPP. And as we break down the elements of the SPP, it's easy to see why the correlation is there.
Indicators of Academic Achievement (40%)
Forty percent of the school's SPP comes from a proficiency rating (aka just plain straight on test results) that comes from tested subjects, third grade read, and the SAT/ACT College Ready Benchmark. Whether we're talking third grade reading or high school Keystone exams, "performance declines as poverty increases."*
Out of 2,200 schools sampled, 187 had proficiency ratings higher than 90, and only seven of those had more than 50% economically disadvantaged enrollment. Five of those were Philly magnet schools.
Indicators of Academic Growth aka PVAAS (40%)
PVAAS is our version of a VAM rating, in which we compare actual student performance to the performance of imaginary students in an alternate neutral universe run through a magical formula that corrects for everything in the world except teacher influence. It is junk science.
RFA found that while the correlation with poverty was still there, when it came to PSSAs (our elementary test) it was not quite as strong as the proficiency correlation. For the Keystones, writing and science tests, however, the correlation with poverty is, well, robust. Strong. Undeniable. Among other things, this means that you can blunt the impact of Keystone test results by getting some PSSA test-takers under the same roof. Time to start that 5-9 middle school!!
Closing the Achievement Gap (10%)
This particular measure has a built-in penalty for low-achieving schools (aka high poverty schools-- see above). Basically, you've got six years to close half the proficiency gap between where you are and 100%. If you have 50% proficiency, you've got six years to hit 75%. If you have 60%, you have six years to hit 80%. The lower you are, the more students you must drag over the test score finish line.
That last 10%, incidentally, is items like graduation rate and attendance rate. Pennsylvania also gives you points for the number of students you can convince to buy the products and services of the College Board, including AP stuff and PSAT. So kudos to the College Board people on superior product placement. Remember kids-- give your money to the College Board. It's the law!
Bottom line-- we have schools in PA being judged directly on test performance, and we have data once again clearly showing that the state could save a ton of money by simply issuing school ratings based on the income level of students.
For those who want to complain, "How dare you say those poor kids can't achieve," I'll add this. We aren't measuring whether poor kids can achieve, learn, accomplish great things, or grow up to be exemplary adults-- there is no disputing that they can do all those things. But we aren't measuring that. We are measuring how well they do on a crappy standardized test, and the fact that poverty correlates with results on that crappy test should be a screaming red siren that the crappy test is not measuring what people claim it measures.
*Correction: I had originally include a mistyping here that reversed the meaning of the study.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Raj Chetty for Dummies
The name Raj Chetty has been coming up a great deal lately, like a bad burrito that resists easy digestion. A great deal has been written about Chetty and his scholarly work, much of it by other scholars in various states of apoplexy.My goal today is not to contribute to that scholarly literature, but to try to translate the mass of writing by various erudite economists, scholars and statisticians into something shorter and simpler than ordinary civilians can understand.
In other words, I'm going to try to come up with a plain answer for the question, "Who is Raj Chetty, what does he say, how much of it is baloney, and why does anybody care?"
Who is Raj Chetty?
Chetty immigrated to the US from New Delhi at age nine. By age 23 he was an associate professor of economics at UC Berkeley, receiving tenure at at age 27. At 30, he returned to his alma mater and became the Bloomberg Professor of Economics at Harvard.
He has since become a bit of a celebrity economist, consulted and quoted by the President and members of Congress. He has won the John Bates Clark Medal; Fortune put him on their list of influential people under forty in business.
Chetty started attracting attention late in 2010 with the pre-announcement of a publication of research that would give a serious shot in the arm to the Valued Added Measurement movement in teacher evaluation. His work has also made special appearances in the State of the Union address and the Vergara trial.
What does Chetty say?
The sexy headline version of Chetty is that a child who has a great kindergarten teacher will make more money as an adult.
The unsexy version isn't much more complicated than that. What Chetty et al (he has a pair of co-authors on the study) say is that a high-VAM teacher can raise tests scores in younger students (say, K-4) and while that effect will disappear around 8th grade, eventually those VAM-exposed children will start making bigger bucks as adults.
Implications? Well, as one of Chetty's co-authors told the New York Times--
“The message is to fire people sooner rather than later,” Professor Friedman said.
Chetty's work has been used to buttress the folks who believe in firing our way to excellence-- just keep collecting VAM scores and ditching the bottom 5% of your staff. Chetty also plays well in court cases like Vergara, where it can be used to create the appearance of concrete damage to students (if Chris has Mrs. McUnvammy for first grade, Chris will be condemned to poverty in adulthood, ergo the state has an obligation to fire Mrs. McUnvammy toot suite). You can read one of the full versions of the paper here.
Who disagrees with Chetty?
Not everybody. In particular, economist Eric Hanushek has tried to join this little cottage industry, and lots of reformy poicy makers love to quote his study.
But the list of Chetty naysayers is certainly not short. Chetty appears to evoke a rather personal reaction from some folks, who characterize him as everything from a self-important twit to a clueless scientist who doesn't understand that he's building bombs that blow up real humans. I've never met the man, and nothing in his writing suggests a particular personality to me. So let's just focus on his work.
Moshe Adler at Columbia University wrote a research response to Chetty's paper for NEPC. This provoked a response from Chetty et al, which provoked yet another response from Adler. You can read the whole conversation here, but I'll warn you right now that you're not going to just scan it over lunch.
Meanwhile, you'll recall that the American Statistical Association came out pretty strongly opposed to VAM, which also put them in the position of being critical-- directly and indirectly-- of Chetty. Chetty et al took it upon themselves to deliver the ASA a lesson in statistical analyses ("I will keep my mouth shut because these people are authorities in areas outside my expertise," is apparently really hard for economists to say) which led to a conversation recounted here.
What do the scholarly and expert critics say?
To begin with, the study has a somewhat checkered publication history, debuting as news blurbs in 2010 and making its way up to publication in a non-peer-reviewed journal, then to republishing as two articles, then in a peer-reviewed journal. That history, along with many criticisms of the study, can be found here at
I wold bet you dollars to donuts that we could perform research that would "prove" that eating a good breakfast when you're six, or having a nice pair of shoes when you're ten, can also be linked to higher-paying jobs in adulthood. As it is, we have "proof" that Nicholas Cage causes death by drowning, and that margarine causes divorce in Maine.
Chetty's work is not going to go away because it's sexy, it's simple, and it supports a whole host of policy ideas that people are already trying to push. But it is proof positive that just because somebody teaches at Harvard and wins awards, that doesn't mean they can't produce "research" that is absolute baloney.
In other words, I'm going to try to come up with a plain answer for the question, "Who is Raj Chetty, what does he say, how much of it is baloney, and why does anybody care?"
Who is Raj Chetty?
Chetty immigrated to the US from New Delhi at age nine. By age 23 he was an associate professor of economics at UC Berkeley, receiving tenure at at age 27. At 30, he returned to his alma mater and became the Bloomberg Professor of Economics at Harvard.
He has since become a bit of a celebrity economist, consulted and quoted by the President and members of Congress. He has won the John Bates Clark Medal; Fortune put him on their list of influential people under forty in business.
Chetty started attracting attention late in 2010 with the pre-announcement of a publication of research that would give a serious shot in the arm to the Valued Added Measurement movement in teacher evaluation. His work has also made special appearances in the State of the Union address and the Vergara trial.
What does Chetty say?
The sexy headline version of Chetty is that a child who has a great kindergarten teacher will make more money as an adult.
The unsexy version isn't much more complicated than that. What Chetty et al (he has a pair of co-authors on the study) say is that a high-VAM teacher can raise tests scores in younger students (say, K-4) and while that effect will disappear around 8th grade, eventually those VAM-exposed children will start making bigger bucks as adults.
Implications? Well, as one of Chetty's co-authors told the New York Times--
“The message is to fire people sooner rather than later,” Professor Friedman said.
Chetty's work has been used to buttress the folks who believe in firing our way to excellence-- just keep collecting VAM scores and ditching the bottom 5% of your staff. Chetty also plays well in court cases like Vergara, where it can be used to create the appearance of concrete damage to students (if Chris has Mrs. McUnvammy for first grade, Chris will be condemned to poverty in adulthood, ergo the state has an obligation to fire Mrs. McUnvammy toot suite). You can read one of the full versions of the paper here.
Who disagrees with Chetty?
Not everybody. In particular, economist Eric Hanushek has tried to join this little cottage industry, and lots of reformy poicy makers love to quote his study.
But the list of Chetty naysayers is certainly not short. Chetty appears to evoke a rather personal reaction from some folks, who characterize him as everything from a self-important twit to a clueless scientist who doesn't understand that he's building bombs that blow up real humans. I've never met the man, and nothing in his writing suggests a particular personality to me. So let's just focus on his work.
Moshe Adler at Columbia University wrote a research response to Chetty's paper for NEPC. This provoked a response from Chetty et al, which provoked yet another response from Adler. You can read the whole conversation here, but I'll warn you right now that you're not going to just scan it over lunch.
Meanwhile, you'll recall that the American Statistical Association came out pretty strongly opposed to VAM, which also put them in the position of being critical-- directly and indirectly-- of Chetty. Chetty et al took it upon themselves to deliver the ASA a lesson in statistical analyses ("I will keep my mouth shut because these people are authorities in areas outside my expertise," is apparently really hard for economists to say) which led to a conversation recounted here.
What do the scholarly and expert critics say?
To begin with, the study has a somewhat checkered publication history, debuting as news blurbs in 2010 and making its way up to publication in a non-peer-reviewed journal, then to republishing as two articles, then in a peer-reviewed journal. That history, along with many criticisms of the study, can be found here at
I wold bet you dollars to donuts that we could perform research that would "prove" that eating a good breakfast when you're six, or having a nice pair of shoes when you're ten, can also be linked to higher-paying jobs in adulthood. As it is, we have "proof" that Nicholas Cage causes death by drowning, and that margarine causes divorce in Maine.
Chetty's work is not going to go away because it's sexy, it's simple, and it supports a whole host of policy ideas that people are already trying to push. But it is proof positive that just because somebody teaches at Harvard and wins awards, that doesn't mean they can't produce "research" that is absolute baloney.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Teaching to the Test Is not Teaching
"Teaching to the test" is an oft-repeated phrase these days. We discuss it a great deal in education because A) we're doing it more than ever and B) everyone knows we're not supposed to.
Testing should follow instruction, both sequentially and conceptually. Anything else is backwards pedagogy, an educational cart before the instructional horse. We begin instructional design by setting our goals for the unit, and then we develop our design by asking, "How can I best teach that, and how will I best determine whether or not the students learned it." This is not the same as setting out to teach students how to pass the test.
Many interpret "teach to the test" as simply drill and kill, with an emphasis on the actual questions that will be on the test, a more complicated version of flat out cheating. But in the era of test-driven accountability and our lousy high-stakes standardized tests, it's not that simple. There are other, more subtle but equally time-wastey means of teaching to a test.
Teaching to the test means instructing students in artificial, inauthentic tasks that they will find nowhere in the world but on a standardized test. The PARCC practice test involves a group of several possible ideas that one might find in the reading selection. The testee must click and drag the correct ideas into a box, and then select, click and drag the correct details from another list into boxes next to the boxes from the first part of the question. A teacher who is depending on those student test scores would be crazy not to do a few units on "How to answer these weird computer questions that you'll have on the PARCC."
Teaching to the test means teaching students how to navigate gotcha questions. Students now need to learn about distractors and the sorts of deliberate wrong answers that tests will throw at them in an attempt to trick them into choosing incorrectly. Never mind close reading the selection-- students need to close read the question and answers in order to discern what traps the test writers have laid.
Teaching to the test means teaching students how to write test-style essay answers. This does not involve doing what is generally considered Good Writing anywhere but in Testland. Test essay writing means recycle the prompt, use big words, and never, ever, get distracted by what you actually think. Test-style writing means figuring out what the test writers want you to say. Then say it.
Teaching to the test means preparing students for one narrow task, like teaching a chocolate lab to fetch. It is not so much teaching as training. It is not the work we signed up for as teachers, but it has become the work we are judged by.
Some make the argument that if we simply teach our students to be awesome, they will be able to transfer that awesomeness directly to the Big Standardized Test. This is like arguing that if we want to teach someone how to get from California to Ohio, a good test for that would be to demand that he shows up at the Meister Road entrance to Willow Park in Lorain without using the internet and riding on horseback while playing "Dixie" on an electronic kazoo.
Teaching to the test is not good pedagogy; good pedagogy is teaching the student and finding a way to let the student show you what she knows.
Originally posted at View for the Cheap Seats
Testing should follow instruction, both sequentially and conceptually. Anything else is backwards pedagogy, an educational cart before the instructional horse. We begin instructional design by setting our goals for the unit, and then we develop our design by asking, "How can I best teach that, and how will I best determine whether or not the students learned it." This is not the same as setting out to teach students how to pass the test.
Many interpret "teach to the test" as simply drill and kill, with an emphasis on the actual questions that will be on the test, a more complicated version of flat out cheating. But in the era of test-driven accountability and our lousy high-stakes standardized tests, it's not that simple. There are other, more subtle but equally time-wastey means of teaching to a test.
Teaching to the test means instructing students in artificial, inauthentic tasks that they will find nowhere in the world but on a standardized test. The PARCC practice test involves a group of several possible ideas that one might find in the reading selection. The testee must click and drag the correct ideas into a box, and then select, click and drag the correct details from another list into boxes next to the boxes from the first part of the question. A teacher who is depending on those student test scores would be crazy not to do a few units on "How to answer these weird computer questions that you'll have on the PARCC."
Teaching to the test means teaching students how to navigate gotcha questions. Students now need to learn about distractors and the sorts of deliberate wrong answers that tests will throw at them in an attempt to trick them into choosing incorrectly. Never mind close reading the selection-- students need to close read the question and answers in order to discern what traps the test writers have laid.
Teaching to the test means teaching students how to write test-style essay answers. This does not involve doing what is generally considered Good Writing anywhere but in Testland. Test essay writing means recycle the prompt, use big words, and never, ever, get distracted by what you actually think. Test-style writing means figuring out what the test writers want you to say. Then say it.
Teaching to the test means preparing students for one narrow task, like teaching a chocolate lab to fetch. It is not so much teaching as training. It is not the work we signed up for as teachers, but it has become the work we are judged by.
Some make the argument that if we simply teach our students to be awesome, they will be able to transfer that awesomeness directly to the Big Standardized Test. This is like arguing that if we want to teach someone how to get from California to Ohio, a good test for that would be to demand that he shows up at the Meister Road entrance to Willow Park in Lorain without using the internet and riding on horseback while playing "Dixie" on an electronic kazoo.
Teaching to the test is not good pedagogy; good pedagogy is teaching the student and finding a way to let the student show you what she knows.
Originally posted at View for the Cheap Seats
Super Slaps School Board Into Submission
Last night was the night for the Ken-Ton School Board and their president Bob Dana to take a stand against the test-and-bully policies of New York State. Faced with an extremely reluctant superintendent, the board blinked.
On Monday, I reported that the Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda School District, located a bit north of Buffalo, NY, was going to consider two resolutions-- one demanding that NY's teacher evaluation system be de-coupled from testing and the other demanding that Governor Cuomo stop holding everyone's money hostage. The "or else" was that the district would stop giving the test and counting it in teacher evaluations. Superintendent Dawn Mirand released a statement expressing her opposition to the move. The statement was pretty clear, but just in case there were any doubts, she reportedly made herself even clearer at last night's board meeting.
Joseph Popiolkowski had the story for this morning's Buffalo News:
"If the district’s state aid, which is currently 32 percent of its budget, or about $50 million, was withheld by the state as punishment, that would result in a 71 percent tax increase, she said. The average home assessed at $100,000 would see a $1,500 tax increase, “or massive layoffs would have to take place,” she [Mirand] said.
On top of that, board members could be removed from office and teachers who refused to administer the test might lose their certification. Furthermore, fire might rain from the sky, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.
Mirand just wants everyone to be aware of the risks.
You can see from coverage by tv station WKBW that the meeting pulled in a double-full house of community people, and that's a double-full house of people who were vocally in favor of standing up to Governor Cuomo. One parent in the newscast compares the action to taking a stand for civil rights.
Ken-Ton is one of the districts in NY that took a financial hit under the Gap Elimination Adjustment, which has oddly enough created budget gaps in many districts-- in Ken-Ton the cost has been about $40 million.
Mirand has only been in place since May of 2014. While she is clearly not one of those heroic warrior superintendents standing up to reformy nonsense, she is an actual educator, who started out as a teacher and has worked her way up in the region. Bob Dana was president when the board hired her, and he expressed enthusiasm for her at the time. She's having one fun first year.
Other board members range from firmly in Dana's corner to slightly apprehensive, and since the resolutions have only been out there for a few days, several would like a chance to finish thinking things through. The board has also invoked that old stand-by of nervous politicians everywhere-- the waiting period to get a more community input.
The resolutions are tabled until the April meeting of the board. In the meantime, you can bet that there will be some spirited conversing in the Ken-Ton school district.
On Monday, I reported that the Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda School District, located a bit north of Buffalo, NY, was going to consider two resolutions-- one demanding that NY's teacher evaluation system be de-coupled from testing and the other demanding that Governor Cuomo stop holding everyone's money hostage. The "or else" was that the district would stop giving the test and counting it in teacher evaluations. Superintendent Dawn Mirand released a statement expressing her opposition to the move. The statement was pretty clear, but just in case there were any doubts, she reportedly made herself even clearer at last night's board meeting.
Joseph Popiolkowski had the story for this morning's Buffalo News:
"If the district’s state aid, which is currently 32 percent of its budget, or about $50 million, was withheld by the state as punishment, that would result in a 71 percent tax increase, she said. The average home assessed at $100,000 would see a $1,500 tax increase, “or massive layoffs would have to take place,” she [Mirand] said.
On top of that, board members could be removed from office and teachers who refused to administer the test might lose their certification. Furthermore, fire might rain from the sky, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.
Mirand just wants everyone to be aware of the risks.
You can see from coverage by tv station WKBW that the meeting pulled in a double-full house of community people, and that's a double-full house of people who were vocally in favor of standing up to Governor Cuomo. One parent in the newscast compares the action to taking a stand for civil rights.
Ken-Ton is one of the districts in NY that took a financial hit under the Gap Elimination Adjustment, which has oddly enough created budget gaps in many districts-- in Ken-Ton the cost has been about $40 million.
Mirand has only been in place since May of 2014. While she is clearly not one of those heroic warrior superintendents standing up to reformy nonsense, she is an actual educator, who started out as a teacher and has worked her way up in the region. Bob Dana was president when the board hired her, and he expressed enthusiasm for her at the time. She's having one fun first year.
Other board members range from firmly in Dana's corner to slightly apprehensive, and since the resolutions have only been out there for a few days, several would like a chance to finish thinking things through. The board has also invoked that old stand-by of nervous politicians everywhere-- the waiting period to get a more community input.
The resolutions are tabled until the April meeting of the board. In the meantime, you can bet that there will be some spirited conversing in the Ken-Ton school district.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
The L Word
Lazy.
I'm not a fan of that word, at all. But I hear students described as lazy by a parent, a teacher, even the students themselves. I've heard it too many times just in the last week.
I see it as a cheap, dismissive shortcut-- not very useful or helpful for dealing with a student problem.
It's not that I don't believe in laziness. I have no doubt that actual lazy people exist. But too often "lazy" is just shorthand for "apparently not willing to spend time and effort on the things I believe they should spend time on." In the course of my career, I have met very few actual lazy students. On the other hand, I have often encountered the following sorts of students.
The stress-averse student. There is a huge amount of stress associated with doing things one sucks at. Adults who are successful and in control of their own lives often forget just how stressful it is to do something, day after day, that one does not do well. It takes a certain kind of strength to get back on a horse when one knows beforehand that the horse is going to kick you in the teeth. And so the stress-averse student finds ways to put off getting on the horse to the point that it seems as if she has forgotten how to even find the stable.
The comfortable student. Nothing stalls the development of a student like comfort. I've lost count of the number of students who started out as performers who performed really well for eighth graders, when they were in eighth grade. Fast forward and in eleventh grade some of those same performers are still putting out great performances-- for an eighth grader. They would rather keep doing what they've always done than try new things, strange things, uncomfortable things.
The beaten-down student. Some students are simply too drained and tromped-on to easily find the energy for school. Home is not a haven, a place to recharge and get ready for a new day. It's a difficult and, in the worst cases, dangerous place. Some students face challenges that don't leave them a lot of focus or stamina for school. Plus, that kind of life can change your priorities. When you're wondering whether or not you're going to eat tonight, it's hard to get all worked up about a quadratic equation or gerund phrases.
The cost-benefits analyzer. For instance, I'm pretty sure I could learn conversational Chinese, but I see a huge cost in terms of time and opportunity cost, and I don't see a very large benefit, so I don't expect I'll ever try to learn conversational Chinese unless some part of that equation changes. Nobody thinks less of me because of that; rational adults make these sorts of cost-benefit decisions all the time. Children are not always good at cost or benefits assessment, but the basic analysis process still works the same.
Now, you could say that these are all just fancy ways to say "lazy." I disagree. I think the difference is critical.
"Lazy" is a character judgment, and irreparable flaw. If a student is "just plain lazy" then that's like saying they're "just plain short" or "just plain left-handed"-- there's nothing I can do about it. "Lazy" gives me the power to dismiss that student, to declare that they are doing poorly because of some innate character flaw far beyond my control.
But if the student is stress-averse, then it's on me to help coach him past his fear of failure, to set him up for success, to find ways to make class less of a kick in the teeth. If the student is comfortable in the same old place, then I can do something about making her uncomfortable enough to want to move forward. If the student is beaten down, then it's my job to help lift him back up. And if the student has done a cost-benefits analysis that is not in my favor, I need to make a better sales pitch about the costs and te benefits.
"Lazy" leads to resentment-- this damn kid is just holding out on me. I've seen that expression on a parent's face in a conference, and I've seen the expression on the child's face as she absorbs the message that she is just defective and shifty and bad.
But understanding the student's failure, reluctance, inactivity, stubbornness, unwillingness to move forward-- it gives me the opportunity to be a partner, to help the child (because after all-- I'm the adult in the room, not my students) figure out how to find his own strength, his own ability, his own success. You do not help people stand up strong by making them small.
Believing in that child's potential does not erase the child's obstacles. Neither does simply expecting that the child will succeed as if there were no challenges in her path. The obstacles that students face aren't excuses to fail, but they aren't imaginary, either. When we deny their ability to succeed, that's wrong. But when we deny the reality of their experience-- obstacles included-- that's wrong, too. Nor do I think that a better understanding of what's holding the student back will suddenly unlock a happy land of unicorns and rainbows. But you have to start with what is true for the student. And you also have to remember that sometimes students do things on their schedule, not ours. The flowers will not bloom sooner because you insist or expect or demand.
Are there actual lazy students? Probably. But usually I find the appearance of laziness is more data about what sort of coaching that student needs to find her success. And a diagnosis of "lazy" is not useful. (Note: a diagnosis of "lacks grit" is equally useless).
Most important of all-- we have to recognize that sometimes what we want simply doesn't line up with what our students want, and then recognize that this is not proof that the child is somehow defective. If we can extend the same respect to them that we give to all other human beings, that can be the beginning of powerful and important things.
I'm not a fan of that word, at all. But I hear students described as lazy by a parent, a teacher, even the students themselves. I've heard it too many times just in the last week.
I see it as a cheap, dismissive shortcut-- not very useful or helpful for dealing with a student problem.
It's not that I don't believe in laziness. I have no doubt that actual lazy people exist. But too often "lazy" is just shorthand for "apparently not willing to spend time and effort on the things I believe they should spend time on." In the course of my career, I have met very few actual lazy students. On the other hand, I have often encountered the following sorts of students.
The stress-averse student. There is a huge amount of stress associated with doing things one sucks at. Adults who are successful and in control of their own lives often forget just how stressful it is to do something, day after day, that one does not do well. It takes a certain kind of strength to get back on a horse when one knows beforehand that the horse is going to kick you in the teeth. And so the stress-averse student finds ways to put off getting on the horse to the point that it seems as if she has forgotten how to even find the stable.
The comfortable student. Nothing stalls the development of a student like comfort. I've lost count of the number of students who started out as performers who performed really well for eighth graders, when they were in eighth grade. Fast forward and in eleventh grade some of those same performers are still putting out great performances-- for an eighth grader. They would rather keep doing what they've always done than try new things, strange things, uncomfortable things.
The beaten-down student. Some students are simply too drained and tromped-on to easily find the energy for school. Home is not a haven, a place to recharge and get ready for a new day. It's a difficult and, in the worst cases, dangerous place. Some students face challenges that don't leave them a lot of focus or stamina for school. Plus, that kind of life can change your priorities. When you're wondering whether or not you're going to eat tonight, it's hard to get all worked up about a quadratic equation or gerund phrases.
The cost-benefits analyzer. For instance, I'm pretty sure I could learn conversational Chinese, but I see a huge cost in terms of time and opportunity cost, and I don't see a very large benefit, so I don't expect I'll ever try to learn conversational Chinese unless some part of that equation changes. Nobody thinks less of me because of that; rational adults make these sorts of cost-benefit decisions all the time. Children are not always good at cost or benefits assessment, but the basic analysis process still works the same.
Now, you could say that these are all just fancy ways to say "lazy." I disagree. I think the difference is critical.
"Lazy" is a character judgment, and irreparable flaw. If a student is "just plain lazy" then that's like saying they're "just plain short" or "just plain left-handed"-- there's nothing I can do about it. "Lazy" gives me the power to dismiss that student, to declare that they are doing poorly because of some innate character flaw far beyond my control.
But if the student is stress-averse, then it's on me to help coach him past his fear of failure, to set him up for success, to find ways to make class less of a kick in the teeth. If the student is comfortable in the same old place, then I can do something about making her uncomfortable enough to want to move forward. If the student is beaten down, then it's my job to help lift him back up. And if the student has done a cost-benefits analysis that is not in my favor, I need to make a better sales pitch about the costs and te benefits.
"Lazy" leads to resentment-- this damn kid is just holding out on me. I've seen that expression on a parent's face in a conference, and I've seen the expression on the child's face as she absorbs the message that she is just defective and shifty and bad.
But understanding the student's failure, reluctance, inactivity, stubbornness, unwillingness to move forward-- it gives me the opportunity to be a partner, to help the child (because after all-- I'm the adult in the room, not my students) figure out how to find his own strength, his own ability, his own success. You do not help people stand up strong by making them small.
Believing in that child's potential does not erase the child's obstacles. Neither does simply expecting that the child will succeed as if there were no challenges in her path. The obstacles that students face aren't excuses to fail, but they aren't imaginary, either. When we deny their ability to succeed, that's wrong. But when we deny the reality of their experience-- obstacles included-- that's wrong, too. Nor do I think that a better understanding of what's holding the student back will suddenly unlock a happy land of unicorns and rainbows. But you have to start with what is true for the student. And you also have to remember that sometimes students do things on their schedule, not ours. The flowers will not bloom sooner because you insist or expect or demand.
Are there actual lazy students? Probably. But usually I find the appearance of laziness is more data about what sort of coaching that student needs to find her success. And a diagnosis of "lazy" is not useful. (Note: a diagnosis of "lacks grit" is equally useless).
Most important of all-- we have to recognize that sometimes what we want simply doesn't line up with what our students want, and then recognize that this is not proof that the child is somehow defective. If we can extend the same respect to them that we give to all other human beings, that can be the beginning of powerful and important things.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Throwdown in Upstate NY*
It appears that some board members of the Kennmore-Town of Tonawanda Union Free School District (generally known as the Ken-Ton district) have had enough.
The district is located north-ish of Buffalo, NY, and serves roughly 75,000 residents. And tomorrow night, board president Bob Dana wants to fire a shot across the state capital's bow.
The story has just been picked up by the Buffalo press in the last hour. In that piece, Dana is plenty clear:
“Enough is enough. He’s slowly bleeding us away,” Dana said of Cuomo on Monday. “I have never been a conspiracy theorist. But every time I look at the things that are getting proposed and where they’re coming from, they’re not fair, they’re not legal, they’re not right.”
He has two resolutions drafted and ready to go.
First, a resolution that protests both the current 20% system and the proposed 50% for counting standardized test results in teacher evaluations, and demands that both be abandoned. The resolution calls for a representative council drawing from many of the states educational professional groups to develop a fair and equitable teacher evaluation system. If those demands aren't met,
The Board of Education of the Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda UFSD will, upon the approval and acceptance of the KTA & KAA, seriously consider eliminating using student test data as part of our teachers and administrators evaluations. Furthermore, it would be expected that the KTA & KAA would be receptive to recalculating the remaining portion of their evaluations to a total 100%.
Second, a resolution that the governor stop holding school funds hostage and comply with the court-ordered return to districts of the money owed them by the state of New York. If the state won't do so, the district will
seriously consider not administering standardized testing in grades 3-8.
In other words, Dana would like to tell Andrew Cuomo to "go get stuffed." I'm paraphrasing.
While some district folks are calling on parents to support the board by submitting opt-out letters, not everybody is feeling feisty. The district's superintendent Dawn Mirand has sent out a statement that basically says, "I feel your pain. Everybody is frustrated and school boards want to watch out for their children and districts, but it would really be better if we didn't go do something crazy that would earn us a serious spanking by the state. I will keep working within the law to do something about the state's mess of dumb regulations, but in the meantime, the law is the law and let's not volunteer to be made an example of. Vote no on this thing." I'm paraphrasing.
The meeting of the five member board is tomorrow (March 10). It looks like it could be quite the adventure. Granted, a resolution to seriously consider possibly doing stuff leaves the board a lot of wiggle room, but if nothing else, it marks the frustration level in the outskirts of Cuomo's domain. Stay tuned. [Update: The account of how this meeting turned out can be found here.]
*All right. I spent five minutes debating the intricacies of New York geographical subdivisions. I had this argument forty years ago in college with residents of what may be either "Western NY, " "Upstate NY," "Buffalo-area-the-rest-of-the-state-is-really-East-of-Us NY" and other variations I have since forgotten. I mean no malice toward anyone who does not care for my geographical designation. I had to locate it somewhere.
The district is located north-ish of Buffalo, NY, and serves roughly 75,000 residents. And tomorrow night, board president Bob Dana wants to fire a shot across the state capital's bow.
The story has just been picked up by the Buffalo press in the last hour. In that piece, Dana is plenty clear:
“Enough is enough. He’s slowly bleeding us away,” Dana said of Cuomo on Monday. “I have never been a conspiracy theorist. But every time I look at the things that are getting proposed and where they’re coming from, they’re not fair, they’re not legal, they’re not right.”
He has two resolutions drafted and ready to go.
First, a resolution that protests both the current 20% system and the proposed 50% for counting standardized test results in teacher evaluations, and demands that both be abandoned. The resolution calls for a representative council drawing from many of the states educational professional groups to develop a fair and equitable teacher evaluation system. If those demands aren't met,
The Board of Education of the Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda UFSD will, upon the approval and acceptance of the KTA & KAA, seriously consider eliminating using student test data as part of our teachers and administrators evaluations. Furthermore, it would be expected that the KTA & KAA would be receptive to recalculating the remaining portion of their evaluations to a total 100%.
Second, a resolution that the governor stop holding school funds hostage and comply with the court-ordered return to districts of the money owed them by the state of New York. If the state won't do so, the district will
seriously consider not administering standardized testing in grades 3-8.
In other words, Dana would like to tell Andrew Cuomo to "go get stuffed." I'm paraphrasing.
While some district folks are calling on parents to support the board by submitting opt-out letters, not everybody is feeling feisty. The district's superintendent Dawn Mirand has sent out a statement that basically says, "I feel your pain. Everybody is frustrated and school boards want to watch out for their children and districts, but it would really be better if we didn't go do something crazy that would earn us a serious spanking by the state. I will keep working within the law to do something about the state's mess of dumb regulations, but in the meantime, the law is the law and let's not volunteer to be made an example of. Vote no on this thing." I'm paraphrasing.
The meeting of the five member board is tomorrow (March 10). It looks like it could be quite the adventure. Granted, a resolution to seriously consider possibly doing stuff leaves the board a lot of wiggle room, but if nothing else, it marks the frustration level in the outskirts of Cuomo's domain. Stay tuned. [Update: The account of how this meeting turned out can be found here.]
*All right. I spent five minutes debating the intricacies of New York geographical subdivisions. I had this argument forty years ago in college with residents of what may be either "Western NY, " "Upstate NY," "Buffalo-area-the-rest-of-the-state-is-really-East-of-Us NY" and other variations I have since forgotten. I mean no malice toward anyone who does not care for my geographical designation. I had to locate it somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)