Sunday, March 12, 2017

Letters to Betsy

That's Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

The first letter is from the head of the NEA, Lily Eskelsen GarcĂ­a.  Key points (bold mine):
I must ask you to give us the substantive answers that I did not hear you give to the senators at your hearing on issues critical to our students:
  1. Do you agree that all schools receiving public dollars must be held to the same accountability and transparency standards?
  2. Will you agree not to privatize funding for Special Education or Title I?
  3. Will you stand with educators and protect our most vulnerable students from discrimination, including LGBT students, immigrant students, students of color, girls and English language learners?
  4. Will you focus, as educators are focused, on the civil rights of all children, regardless of their zip code, by challenging the inequities so many face in equal access to programs, services and support?
For us, there is a wrong answer to these questions. Privatizing and profiting from public education has not moved us toward equity, equal access, non-discrimination, and opportunity for all students. NEA members will never waver in our determination to create a system that works for ALL children. Educators, students, and parents deserve to know that the U.S. Secretary of Education will do the same.
The next letter is from Kristina L. Taylor, Intervention Specialist; Team Leader and James N. Gamble Montessori High School 2015 Educator of the Year.  Gamble High is in Cincinnati. 
Politicians and the media have had a field day “exposing,” and attempting to address, what has been described as an educational crisis in America. I, too, believe that we are facing a crisis; however, unlike many in the school reform movement, I do not think that teachers and schools are at the root of this crisis. Rather I think it is the very reform efforts themselves – known generally as the “school accountability movement” — that has caused this concern.

I do not blame the Common Core State Standards. Many people conflate the Common Core State Standards with school accountability measures, but, to be clear, while there are some overlaps between these issues, the CCSS are not to blame in isolation for the challenges we are facing in education today.

The standards are not the problem. The problem is the methodology being used to monitor them.
She then names key issues around this "crisis"in public education:

Comparing U.S. students to students in other nations
Whenever we compare educational outcomes, we must be careful to monitor for external factors – for example, when comparing data internationally, we must take into account that the United States educates and assesses all students until the age of 18; whereas some other countries place students in various forms of tracked models and do not include all of these groups in their testing.
Additionally, the United States has a very high child poverty rate. The 2012 UNICEF report listed The United States’ child poverty rate as 34th out of 35 “economically advanced” countries, with only Romania scoring lower.[2] 

For example, when the oft-cited data from the Program for International Assessment (PISA) is disaggregated based on economic status, we can see a trend that clearly indicates that the problem is poverty, rather than instruction. 

Couple this with the 2013 data that indicates that a majority (51%) of public school students live in poverty in this country, and we see the true depth of the actual crisis of poverty, and its impact on education.[4]

Schools with the lowest rates of student achievement are typically those with the highest number of disadvantaged students and the fewest available resources. The problem runs deeper than just funding, however. Children living in poverty often have a specialized set of social-emotional and academic needs. Schools with high percentages of economically disadvantaged students cannot be treated in the same manner as more affluent schools.

Education is neither a business nor is it a factory. We do not start with identical raw materials, and act upon them in a systematic way to produce an identical product. In the same vein, we cannot judge instructional efficacy in a single manner, with a single measure, and expect to get a consistent result. Teaching is a service industry, and we work with human capital. There are myriad factors at play that influence what appropriate expectations are for any given student, but poverty is likely the most impactful of these factors.
"A Moving Target"
In Ohio, there have been so many moving pieces at play that it is impossible to get a statistically valid measure. Over the course of the past three years, schools, teachers, and students have had their performance assessed using a different measurement tool each year.

During those same years, Ohio increased the number of grades and subjects areas tested.

In addition to these changes, the identified percentage of correct responses for proficiency on each test has changed each year, and the percentage of students scoring proficient in order to schools to be considered successful in achieving Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) has also increased each year.

So, the standards have changed, the tests have changed, the acceptable percent of correct responses has changed, the required percentage of students achieving proficiency has changed.

Tell me again why we think this is an accurate and reliable system for measuring student achievement?
An Unavoidable Outcome
In 2013, the American Federation of Teachers reported that in heavily tested grades, up to fifty hours a year was spent on testing and up to 110 hours a year devoted to test preparation. Schools with high percentages of disadvantaged students bear the greatest weight for this, as they tend to have the greatest required gains in testing outcomes. The Center for American Progress notes that students in urban high schools spend up to 266% more time taking standardized tests than students in suburban schools.[8]

And this is the fundamental problem with school accountability measures. They have caused the American public school system to become overly focused on a single measurement of success, and that measure is most punitive to populations that are already struggling.

Standardized test data is one measure of academic achievement, and as such it is valuable, but it is nothing more than a single data point. However, this data point has become so important that it is driving every other aspect of the educational train.

The most critical solution to this is to untie student, teacher, and school accountability measures from testing outcomes, or to combine these scores with a variety of other measures of success. In addition, we need to dramatically reduce the time spent on testing by requiring tests in fewer grades, or not administering tests every year. No high-performing nation in the world tests all students annually.[11]

Politics, not education, got us into this mess, and it is politics that must get us out of it.

We must not go further down this rabbit hole. The future of our educational system, and the future of our children, is at stake. No one who has not worked in the sector of public education should be making decisions about our school system without careful consideration of the insights of those who will be directly impacted by those decisions.

I hope that you will consider the issues raised here, and most importantly, that you will listen to the voices of the teachers and parents who are trying so desperately to be heard.


Anonymous said...

The idea that the CCSS are not a problem is incorrect.
#1 The Standards for Mathematical Practice are a problem.
#2 The Geometry Standards are a problem.
#3 The inappropriate standards for primary age children are a problem.
#4 The ELA standards huge move toward informational text (often to the exclusion of fiction) is a problem.
The one size fits all nature of CCSS implementation is a problem.

The methods used to force CCSS into 46 states centered on bribery and extortion. Isn't that a problem?

-- Dan Dempsey

Anonymous said...

I do not think that teachers and schools are at the root of this crisis. Rather I think it is the very reform efforts themselves – known generally as the “school accountability movement” — that has caused this concern.

I would add to this... the resultant churning of bogus ideas coming from Schools of Education and US Government funding of "New and Innovative" programs and ideas.

In the publish or perish atmosphere so prevalent in various sections of higher ed and publishing, nonsense proliferates.

There is a paucity of valid research into effective instructional practices and that seems by design. Nonsense is often praised and presented as wonderful.

No need to look further than "Whole Language" as well as the funding of most reform math materials that enriched the Universities, for evidence of malfeasance.

SPS curriculum direction from above could use improvement especially when effective classroom teachers are often told to get on board with the unproven new.

Are Readers and Writers workshop programs giving students needed instruction?

-- Dan Dempsey

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile let us examine the $3 billion plus dumped into 4 turnaround models to improve "Failing" schools.

Check out "The Journal" on
Short-Term Impact of $3 Billion School Improvement Grants: Zilch; Long-Term Impact: TBD

Clearly "following the leader" is not much of a recipe for improvement. Unfortunately in the higher ranks of school administration "follow the leader" is the name of the game. It is a well-proven CYA strategy.

There is apparently no accountability for poor administrative decision-making.

-- Dan Dempsey