This post from EdVoices by Seattle parent, Sue Peters, on why she doesn't support MAP.
Via Diane Ravitch's blog:
- Australian teachers chime in.
- I haven't seen the letter but Ingraham teachers have apparently notified the Superintendent of their support for the boycott.
- by the numbers, 38 teachers at Chief Sealth have joined the MAP boycott, 8 support it and 2 abstained.
- op-ed from Garfield student in Crosscut
- I hadn't heard much from elementary teachers but one did write to me and sent along her letter to the Superintendent. There were the usual complaints about time from instruction, library shut-down, missed services and then there was this:
"I had a 2nd grader tell me how much better her score was than her peers. When I asked her how she knew she said she had listened in as the librarian reported them to her peers."
That should NOT be happening and even Michael Tolley admitted at the press conference that the district needed to be giving more guidance to teachers and staff over the MAP. I'd think one of the first things is to NOT announce the scores outloud to students and encourage students to keep them private.
- High school students in Oregon are organizing their own opt-out.
“We need more community based schools and better relationships between students, teachers, parents, and administrators. Schools should not be being evaluated based on student’s standardized test scores, but rather a 360 portfolio evaluation which includes feedback from people who are directly involved with the school. A test score cannot give someone the same insight to a school as a discussion with students, teachers, and parents can.” says Lincoln Senior Alexia Garcia. “The ideal solution would be to eliminate high stakes standardized testing and replace it with a more comprehensive evaluation system developed by the community.”
Meanwhile, the Times just can't stop itself and has yet another editorial on the boycott.
The MAP boycott is puzzling, coming as the district, and presumably
teachers, are hoping voters agree to raise their taxes to provide a
total of $1.2 billion in levies for Seattle schools in the Feb. 12
Well, as Charlie points out, no is isn't bad timing - it's just when the MAP is given. That there is an election is not the teachers fault (and, at the same time, is unlikely to have any effect). And, this is not new. The teachers have been complaining and asking the district to talk about MAP for years.
The Times also either didn't do its homework (very possible) or doesn't want to tell readers this but they complain that the teachers should have said something at a different time (they have) and/or wait for contract negotiations.
Then, they get to it:
All of this may be just union flexing. One union official encouraged
teachers to support the boycott to show district leadership the union is
united and ready to be a powerful force in the upcoming contract
Again, the Times doesn't know/realize that the union is following on this issue, not leading.
They also, falsely, claim this testing started with "one of Seattle's most beloved education figures", John Stanford. I'd like to see their proof but I'm with Charlie; the biggest push for this came from Maria Goodloe-Johnson who came long after Superintendent Stanford.
Using students to advance workplace issues is dishonest.
Really, and what about using the only daily newspaper in the state to advance an agenda without providing full information to the readers? Oh pot, it's the kettle calling.
As we hurtle towards February, it would seem that this will all come to a head at some point.