"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." - Thomas Jefferson 1820

"There is a growing technology of testing that permits us now to do in nanoseconds things that we shouldn't be doing at all." - Dr. Gerald Bracey author of Rotten Apples in Education

Search This Blog

Showing posts with label MSIP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSIP. Show all posts

Friday, September 6, 2013

The Promises of Common Core Like Those For The Health Care Act - Fading Fast

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what" President Obama addressing the annual meeting of the American Medical Association, 2009 WSJ

Now that the Affordable Care Act is being implemented we are beginning to see that what government promises is not always what is delivered. Sweeping reform, no matter how well intentioned, always has unintended consequences, collateral damage and a way of perverting the way we do our work. Just look at the increase in the number of part time jobs and the reduction in full time jobs that the PPACA incentivized. Doctors have stopped taking new Medicaid patients. Some doctors are even dropping out of the medical practice altogether because they feel they will not be able to give their patients the best care under the new guidelines. Health care plans are being discontinued at a dizzying rate. In our state alone we are down to only three providers and rapidly heading towards one because of the way the regulations are being written. The President's promises are quickly dissolving.

We are getting similar promises with common core.
  • They are just a set of standards telling you what skills a child should master by what age.
  • Local districts can still control curriculum. 
  • They do not tell teachers how to teach.
However, just as with the new health care mandates, the associated regulations and weirdness that always happens at the point of implementation are starting to make a mockery of these promises.

"They are just a set of standards."  Well, not really. They come with associated assessments. As a set of standards alone they would be almost useless. The key is accountability and we can only achieve accountability through testing to "make sure" teachers are teaching these standards, so the standards must be paired with assessments. And what's the point of assessing if you don't do something with that information. Back to the accountability table. To make sure the teachers understand the importance of these standards and teaching them we will tie teacher evaluations to the student scores on these assessments. In addition, since almost every district has their Average Yearly Progress (AYP) tied to teacher ratings and student test scores, we have doubled down on the importance and effect of the testing.  Really they're not just a set of standards, they are an element of an incredibly important standardized testing and school accountability system.

"Local districts still control curriculum." They do and they don't.  They are able to choose whatever curriculum they want, so long as it leads to good scores on the assessments. That they have to do, or they risk losing their accreditation. DESE just reported to the House Interim Committee that the Missouri School Improvement Plan (MSIP) has shifted its focus from resource allocation to student outcomes (which is insider speak for test scores.)  Districts will have to choose their curriculum very carefully in light of this switch by DESE.

Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in a post for Ed Week about four questions that need to be asked regarding common core. One of the questions had to do with curriculum choices.
"Three, my AEI colleague Mike McShane has noted that an Amazon search yields more than 30,000 results, many of those claiming to be Common Core-aligned. How schools or systems are supposed to make sense of that is far from clear. Currently, no one can really tell which texts or resources are actually aligned to the Common Core, much less which ones are high-quality. I hosted a small gathering that included several prominent supes earlier this year; off the record, just about all conceded they were unsure how to move on this front. Who's going to help districts sort through all this or decide what constitutes alignment? (By the way, if a national outfit takes the lead, note that we're suddenly looking at a de facto national standard for materials.)"
Every district is in the process of shifting their curriculum in anticipation of the full implementation of common core next school year. That is a challenging proposition since they have not yet seen the assessments that they will be judged on and, as Hess noted, the field of those claiming to align to the standards is vast. Districts control the curriculum until those tests are out and they can see which materials align best to the test. Because such extreme emphasis has been placed on test scores, they will only pick curriculum that leads to higher test scores. It becomes the developers of the tests who ultimately choose the curriculum.

"They do not tell teachers how to teach." This statement in particular is fast being blown out of the water of truth. A teacher in Wyoming spoke of her experience with the new teacher evaluation system by McREL which is just one of a number of prepackage teacher evaluation systems being sold to districts around the country now. Their overarching philosophies are very similar. The products are differentiated by user interface and platform.

Teacher evaluations are tied back to the goals of the common core standards which are to produce students ready to compete in a 21st century global marketplace. This creates new goals for teachers. From McREL:
"Teachers must understand what comprises a 21st century education and how their practice must reflect the demands of the education in order to realize a new vision of teaching. 

1: Teachers Demonstrate Leadership
2: Teachers Establish a Respectful Environment for a diverse population of students
3. Teachers Know the Content They Teach
4.  Teachers Facilitate Learning for Their Students
5. Teachers Reflect on their practice
Teachers are rated as either: Developing, Proficient, Accomplished, or Distinguished
There are detailed explanations of these five goals in McREL's materials. Standard 4 Section f states "Teachers help students work in teams and develop leadership qualities. Teachers teach the importance of cooperation and collaboration. They organize learning teams in order to help students define roles, strengthen social ties, improve communication and collaborative skills, interact with people from different cultures and backgrounds, and develop leadership qualities."

This teacher had been teaching collaborative skills in her classroom for a number of years, but was informed by her principal that if she wanted to receive the top rating on her evaluation she would have to take a professional development course that used a "new" approach to teaching these skills. In other words, in order to keep her job, she was going to have to change they way she taught even if it went against her personal philosophy.

The majority of the teachers simply roll their eyes and just do whatever the administration tells them. They will jump through whatever hoops are put infront of them in order to keep their jobs. They won't speak up because the administrator stepping into their classroom a couple times a year doesn't have time to do an in depth analysis of their teaching and instead is looking to check boxes off on a form. They would prefer to have teachers who just go along to get a long under his or her control.

The promoters of common core who pat us on the head while reciting these promises are beginning to feel the heat from those in the field where the promises are being road tested and falling apart.



Monday, March 28, 2011

DESE Announces Top 10 by 20 Goals and Objectives

The devil is in the details, as they say. Missouri’s DESE has made available its 10x20 Education Reform Plan which is the plan to make Missouri one of the top 10 states in the country in terms of education by the year 2020. The goals listed in the plan have an overall positive sound.

GOAL 1: All Missouri students will graduate college and career ready.

GOAL 2: All Missouri children will enter kindergarten prepared to be successful in school.

GOAL 3: Missouri will prepare, develop, and support effective educators.

GOAL 4: The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will improve departmental efficiency and operational effectiveness.

Let’s look at the specific objectives given for each of these goals in order of least concerning first.

Goal 1 OBJECTIVE 1: The percentage of students:

A. Scoring at or above proficient level on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) will increase by 1 percentage point at each test administration.

B. Scoring at or above proficient level on state assessments will increase each year to exceed 75% of students in all subgroups by 2020.

C. Scoring at or above the mean of the top 10 states on college and career ready assessments (e.g. ACT, SAT, COMPASS, ASVAB, TSA) will increase annually.

These might be the least controversial objectives. They require the average student to score at the proficient level and set higher benchmarks for subgroups (reduced or free lunch, racial or ethnic subgroups, or ESOL)

OBJECTIVE 2: By 2020, all students will qualify for entrance into post secondary education/training.

Is this meant to match Arne Duncan’s goal of 60% of students going on to post secondary education? Qualifying to go into post secondary education/training is one thing. But note this statement in the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) 5. Among the performance standards and indicators which may be used for reporting purposes on the Annual Performance Report is this:

The percent of students who successfully progress from ninth grade through high school graduation within five (5) years, attend post-secondary education and graduate with either an associate’s degree within three (3) years or a bachelor’s degree within six (6) years.

So on the one hand we will be required only to qualify them to be accepted into college. But we will measure the success of our k-12 school districts by whether their graduates COMPLETE college. I have to wonder, at what point does it become the individual’s responsibility to educate themselves? By college age they are responsible for their own credit score and contractual obligations, but apparently it is still their high school who is responsible for whether or not they graduate college? By the way, the comment period on the MSIP(5) opens April 15th and DESE wants to hear from you.

Goal 3

OBJECTIVE 1: By 2020, all candidates completing preparation programs will be highly by a uniform set of performance data points.

OBJECTIVE 2: By 2020, all educators will meet the definition of highly effective.

Can we see the definition of highly effective? How about the set of performance data points?

Goal 4

OBJECTIVE 1: Annually 90% of plan related activities entered into a project management system will meet or exceed their process and progress measures.

OBJECTIVE 2: By 2020, 100% of Missouri’s school districts will use the Missouri Comprehensive Data System to inform major decisions and improve efficiency.

OBJECTIVE 3: By 2020, 70% of targeted audiences will report being adequately informed about the implementation of the Plan.

Sounds like a good objective, but who is the target audience? How will you know they have been adequately informed? Will there be an assessment?

Now we get to the P20 part of the objectives.

Goal 2
OBJECTIVE 1:

A. The percentage of young children (birth to kindergarten entry) who receive developmental and health screenings will increase by 2% annually.

This should be done by the child’s pediatrician. Will DESE now be in the business of providing doctors to those who can’t afford them in order to meet this objective?

B. The number of parent education visits to families with young children will increase by 2% annually.

Until you reach what percentage? 100%? If the percentage is something lower, what criteria will be used to determine who gets visited? What will they be looking for? If DESE has a vision for what a student “prepared to be successful in school” looks like, wouldn’t it be a good first step to send every new parent home from the hospital with the list of all the things their child will be expected, by the state, to know and be able to do in 5 years?

C. The number of parent education visits to high needs families of young children will increase by 2% annually.

The governor had to strip funding from The Parents As Teachers program, but somehow we are going to find funding to pay for parent education visits to an ever increasing pool of high needs families? Sounds great and may be needed, but how are we going to pay for it?

OBJECTIVE 2: The percentage of early childhood programs for Missouri’s infants, toddlers and preschoolers that meet established quality standards will increase by 2% annually.

Perhaps all these questions are simplistic and their answers so obvious that DESE wouldn’t waste their time responding. The answers probably do exist in some very detailed report and what is posted on their site is just an overview but, can we see the details please?

http://dese.mo.gov/top10by20/index.html


Site Meter