MO Legislators - Here's The Follow Up You Need to Ask

The following email was sent to all Missouri legislators from DESE. Will any of them ask the follow up questions that need to be asked?


Dear Legislator,

You may have heard about Missouri’s state assessments for English language arts and literacy and mathematics changing in 2014-15 to reflect school districts moving to the Common Core State Standards. We wanted to tell you more about these assessments, and how they will help schools better assess program effectiveness and improve student achievement.

The new assessments are computer-based meaning the computer adjusts the difficulty of questions throughout the assessment in response to student performance. For example, a student who answers a question correctly will receive a more challenging item, while an incorrect answer generates an easier question. By adapting to the student as the assessment is taking place, these assessments present an individually tailored set of questions to each student and can quickly identify which skills students have mastered. This approach represents a significant improvement over traditional paper-and-pencil assessments used in many states today, providing more accurate scores for all students across the full range of the achievement continuum.

Better information for teachers: Optional computer adaptive interim assessments will provide a more detailed picture of where students excel or need additional support, helping teachers to differentiate instruction. The interim assessments will be reported on the same scale as the summative assessment, and schools will have the flexibility to assess small elements of content or the full breadth of the Common Core State Standards at locally-determined times throughout the year. 

More efficient and more secure: Computer adaptive tests are typically shorter than paper-and-pencil assessments because fewer questions are required to accurately determine each student’s achievement level. The assessments draw from a large bank of questions, and since students receive different questions based on their responses, test items are more secure and can be used for a longer period of time. 

More accurate: Computer adaptive tests offer teachers and schools a more accurate way to evaluate student achievement, readiness for college and careers, and to measure growth over time.

Computerized assessments allow teachers, principals, and parents to receive results in weeks, not months. Faster results mean that teachers can use the information from optional interim assessments throughout the school year to differentiate instruction and better meet the unique needs of their students.

If you want to experience the new assessments for yourself, try the practice test here: http://sbac.portal.airast.org/practice-test/

Thank You.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Communications | 573.751.34

The questions that need to be asked in response to this email.

Dear DESE,

1. Better information for teachers? This statement is true only if the district decides to use these "optional" formative assessments. Nothing is free, so what can districts expect to pay for these "optional" assessments?  Currently, teachers provide their own formative assessments and districts are investing in curricula that include formative assessments. Where is the need/justification for additional testing?

2. More efficient and more secure? How does having more questions in the databank make those questions more secure? If you are claiming they are secure from cheating by teachers viewing the questions in advance, please provide evidence that this is a widespread systematic problem in Missouri that warrants the investment in this expensive mode of testing. What is the benefit to the student, taxpayer or teacher of "secure" questions?

To be able to claim that a question accurately assesses a student's achievement against a standard requires a significant amount of data on that particular question.  In an adaptive model, the sheer volume of questions means that any single question will have less students responding to it generating data. How then can you state that these tests, which have yet to be given, will be efficient and accurate measures of student achievement? Where is the data? This looks like an attempt to use an emotionally charged word, "secure," to describe something that has no real value.

3. More accurate?  More accurate than what? Where is the study that shows computers are better than other methods? Are we expected to take your word for it?

4. Faster results promised - Granted, the turn around time on student scores may be a little faster than scantron, but we give the summative assessment in April when the end of the school year is mere weeks away. There are months between when the kids take these tests and the next school year so speed of reporting is not really an issue. That data is only useful (marginally so) to the teacher who has those kids the following year since there is a retention loss in those intervening months and a totally new curricula and set of standards. Even if results were quick, the teacher would only have a few weeks to alter her teaching plan to affect the kids taking the test this school year. This is not terribly helpful.  The only way this speed is useful is if the schools uses the "optional" tests you refer to, but again we must ask at what cost? Most teachers grade their formative assessments in a matter of hours to days already. Please demonstrate the savings.

DESE has a tendency to promote new programs, touting their benefits without ever accounting for their costs. Many of these programs start with federal seed money, but the expectation is that the state will take up the lifetime cost of running the program. The SBAConsortium that you have gotten us into appears to be exactly the same. The U.S. Dept. of Education is supplying 100% of the funding now, but that funding will run out in September 2014. You have yet to tell the legislature how much our state's continued participation in the consortia is going to cost us. Your email does not list any of the costs for these assessments, formative or summative, and you do not indicate who is expected to pay for them. We cannot afford education "at any cost" here in Missouri. We need you to lay out the costs and identify the responsible parties for these "wonderful" assessments so we can determine if we can afford them.

Thank you. Missouri Legislator

Public Private Partnership in Nationalized Education. Local Control is Non-Existent.

From ed.gov and Education Department Launches 2013 Investing in Innovation Competition:

The U.S. Department of Education announced the start of the $150 million 2013 Investing in Innovation (i3) grant competition today with the release of the program's invitation for pre-applications for the i3 "Development" grant category and the notice of final priorities for the i3 program overall. Today's announcement incorporates several improvements the Department has made to the grant competition in its efforts to support school districts and nonprofit organizations in partnership with schools to pursue innovative ideas that increase student success.


The Development category, which funds grantees with promising but relatively untested ideas, has been the most popular of the three grant categories throughout the previous three i3 competitions.

In addition, this year the Department has modified the competition to assist grantees in building meaningful private-sector support. The i3 competition requires all grantees to secure private-sector matching funds; i3 Development grantees must secure a private-sector match comprising 15 percent of their budget. Each highest-rated applicant, as identified by the Department following peer review of the full applications, must submit evidence of 50 percent of the required private-sector match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant by the end of the year. The i3 grantees must then provide evidence of the remaining 50 percent of the required private-sector match no later than six months after the project start date.

This is currently how education is delivered and developed.  Your local state/district's decisions are dictated by the federal tier.  The Federal Government is giving out grants for untested ideas (think Common Core State Standards) to provide outcomes the USDOEd requires.  The priorities for this new grant are taken from Race to the Top.  Even if your state didn't win RTTT grant money, your state/district still has a chance to implement these goals/objectives in your state via more Federal grant money:

• Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals;
•  Improving Low-Performing Schools;
•  Improving Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education;
•  Improving Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities;
•  Improving Academic Outcomes for English Learners (ELs);
•  Improving Parent and Family Engagement;
•  Effective Use of Technology;
•  Serving Rural Communities

The interesting difference between the original RTTT grant and this grant is the requirement of private-sector matching funds.  The Federal government is setting educational direction/development and requiring private sector funding to implement programs within the Federal government's blueprint.

This is similar to the development of Common Core STATE standards.  The Federal government gave stimulus funding to the NGA and CCSSO (two private trade organizations) to set standards within the parameters of USDOE requirements.  The standards must be common for data retrieval and updates to state longitudinal data systems.  Is it any surprise FERPA regulations were revised by the US Department of Education to allow the free exchange of information between states?

Did you believe the standards were really state led?  Would the US Department of Education grant federal dollars for programs that didn't meet the USDOE's requirements or work against the stated desire of the USDOE? 

The sustainability of the USDOE's educational agenda must have a buy in from the private sector which may not be concerned with WHAT educational services it is providing.  WHAT is taught is irrelevant to the private sector.  It has been told what needs to be delivered and private firms are happy to take the federal dollars to do so.  It's the perfect plan for How to Sustain a Nationalized Educational System. Turn it Over to 501(c)(3) Groups for Outsourcing:

Twenty million students are expected to take the SBAC assessments on-line. There needs to be technical and professional support for this system going forward. Both SBAC and PARCC were funded with seed money from TARP. This money will run out September 30, 2014. Any remaining unused funds will revert to the US Treasury. Both consortia must now figure out how to make the assessments sustainable by finding other funding sources.

The first RFP for a consultant to take on this work received zero bids because SBAC had grossly underestimated the effort needed to do the work. They are now looking to identify areas of commonality with the other assessment consortia, PARCC, and see if the two groups can share a consultant on those common points. It is not a stretch to see that these two groups are probably going to have to combine in the future in order to remain sustainable. Then we will truly have national standards.

The plan is to go to private foundations to fund Phase 2. 

 

Another Teacher Questions Common Core Spin

An experienced teacher cuts through the phrases bantered around by the CCSS proponents and asks questions on the viability of the initiative to deliver the educational promises it proclaims.  From smartblogs.com and Mark Barnes in Can education reform and the common core coexist?:

My stance on legitimate education reform is clear: testing, standardization and accountability inhibit learning and should be abolished, and teachers should be inspired to create vibrant, chaotic, collaborative, technology-rich classrooms that encourage a thirst for learning. Although I preach incessantly that teachers must not allow standards and testing to impinge upon creativity, I still wonder how progressive education and the common core can coexist.

I am part of my district’s Common Core Transition Team, which means I’m working with others to develop curriculum based on the new standards. We are told that the common core provides an opportunity to teach students how to think critically. Rigorous nonfiction texts will be used so that deep reading can be accomplished and thoughtful summations can be written. This may sound exciting to someone who hasn’t read the standards and who is mesmerized by the spin doctoring. Once the rhetoric stops, though, even the most casual observer will understand that words and phrases like “rigorous” and “deep reading” are euphemisms for “boring” and “guided reading,” neither of which lends itself to education reform.

So, prior to returning to my creations, which are driven by my own personal and professional standards rather than those mandated by the government, I contemplate this overwhelming issue. If educators are stuck with the common core and will eventually be evaluated on how well students perform on the tests that accompany it, how is a progressive, student-centered learning environment to survive? Will teachers be willing to extend their own professional development and hard work beyond what is provided by Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College (PARCC), which governs the CCSS and the assessments? Will students be relegated to months of rigor, deep reading and test preparation, in lieu of collaboration, project-based learning and independent reading?

Read more here.

Then read Mark Garrison's written testimony on CCSS from a politically structured perspective:

While the federal Department of Education is in violation of the law, the CCSSI
represents something worse than a “federal power grab.” In fact, the illegal power of
the federal government has been used to remove public power over education at the
local, state and federal level and place it in the hands of four private (501c3)
publically unaccountable corporations, who have strong connections to test publishers
and the big private philanthropies secretly driving education reform. They are: the
National Governors Association (NGA), the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO), and the two assessment apparatuses, the Partnership for Readiness for
College and Career (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).
Most telling is that the Common Core State Standards, standards that now govern
curriculum, instruction and assessment across the country, are jointly “owned” by the
NGA Center for Best Practices and the CCSSO! Both federal and state legislatures,
not to mention local school boards, are complete removed from having a say. 

Maybe the first question asked should be why was CCSS allowed to be adopted by circumventing the legislative process?  Instead of worrying if CCSS and education can coexist, shouldn't we be worried that we now have a nationalized educational system that doesn't respond to local concerns?

If the teachers feel left out of the process of delivering education, imagine how the taxpayers feel of having to pay for a system in which they have no decision making.  All the system wants is their children and their money but not their ideas/plans on the educational delivery/content for their children.

Illinois Superintendent Denies Parental Right to Opt Student Out of Common Core

from:  http://www.areweawareyet.com/29241/illinois-parents-denied-request-that-their-daughter-be-placed-in-classroom-not-using-common-core-standards/

Where does your school stand on this issue?  Do you have any parental/taxpayer rights in your local school district?  Apparently the goal of SBAC or PARCC of the implementation of CCSS (without a single vote of taxpayers/parents) supersedes taxpayer/parental requests.

Let's start a list.  Darcy Benway, Superintendent of O'Fallon Township High School is our first superintendent on record supporting a nationalized educational system and denying a true personalized education for a child.  That child MUST follow a common educational path and his/her information will be data mined.  That child is having to partake in an unfunded and unpiloted educational experience.

What shall we call our list of superintendents not protecting children, but rather, the bureaucrats and education reformers determined to nationalize education for the sake of data and profit?

Could eScholar Data Mining on "Bobby" be Considered Stalking?

Should stalking awareness include the information gathered on your child and disseminated without parental knowledge and/or consent?

Common Core and the revision of FERPA by the US Department of Education allows intensive data mining and sharing of student information to various federal agencies and private firms selected the the USDOEd.  The company eScholar is one education reform company eager and ready to data mine information on students.  From wsj.com and Education Data Companies Chosen, 08.13.2012:

New York state education officials Monday said they selected four companies to build a broad education database that will host students' test scores, curriculum materials and education apps, paid for by up to $50 million in federal Race to the Top funds.

The state Education Department said that by fall 2013, school districts will be able to use one of the data systems created by either ConnectEDU, eScholar or Pearson PLC and its subsidiary Schoolnet.

The systems are supposed to store student test scores, student demographic information, curriculum materials, lesson plans and other items that teachers or parents can access. Companies will get paid, in part, based on how many school districts select their data system.

It's financially lucrative for data mining companies to compile student data and advantageous for them to have start up funding provided by taxpayer money. eScholar has produced a video about "Bobby", a hypothetical student the company is tracking.  From the eScholar website:

"Have you met Bobby yet?"

Meet Bobby, the newest member of the eScholar myTrack team. We think that educators have a lot of students like Bobby, students who have things that they want to do, but aren’t always sure how to get there. Check out the video to see how Bobby and his team of supporters use myTrack to help him reach his goals. What do you think? Do you have any students like Bobby?  

eScholar is a company that received federal stimulus dollars to track your child without your knowledge or permission.  Could such behavior and practice be considered not just data mining but stalking?

From the Judicial Education Center's definition of stalking:

"Stalking" is the term commonly used to refer to a pattern of behavior directed towards an individual by another that results in the person to whom the behavior is directed fearing for themselves and/or others. The behaviors can involve overtly criminal behavior or seemingly non-criminal, innocent behavior or both. Stalking can escalate and ultimately result in actual physical harm to its intended subject.

In contrast to many other criminal offenses, stalking involves repeated victimization of the targeted individual. Stalking, therefore, is a series of acts or a course of conduct and never a single incident. Another contrast between other criminal offenses and stalking is the attention placed on the impact of the actions on the victim in stalking situations.

Here are two examples of stalking from the article:

...The series of events or acts that comprise stalking can involve a mix of criminal acts and acts which, when viewed in isolation, could be seen as perhaps being innocent or non-threatening. Generally, stalking can include:

• Monitoring the victim's internet history and/or computer usage  
• Disseminating personal information about the victim to others 

Should the tracking of student academic and non-academic information and sharing it with federal agencies and private organizations without parental/student knowledge/permission be allowed?  How is the difference in the dissemination of personal information about "Bobby" to others and monitoring "Bobby's" computer usage via the relaxation of FERPA any different than the definition of how stalkers operate?

Here's an example of what eScholar will gather on "Bobby" and why:

Enabling P-20 Data Warehousing

Today, a consensus has emerged amongst educators at all levels that there is a need to create an LDS that provides a comprehensive view of education from early childhood through postsecondary and beyond (P-20). This capability is essential to maximizing the effectiveness of our efforts to encourage every student to achieve his or her greatest potential. A key element of this LDS is a comprehensive data warehouse that supports the data requirements of the P-20 world. With the introduction of CDW-PS, which integrates with our eScholar Uniq-ID® products supporting unique identification and ID management of individuals from early childhood through postsecondary, eScholar now has a complete solution for a P-20 data warehouse. The data model for the CDW-PS product is specifically designed to integrate with the eScholar Complete Data Warehouse® for PK-12 product to create a comprehensive LDS of over 3,000 data elements encompassing student and teacher academic history from pre-K through higher education. This powerful combination enables SEAs to answer key P-20 questions through one software product solution. 

The goal of data mining children from eScholar sure sounds noble, innocent and non-threatening.   The video celebrates the collaboration of teachers, principals and supporters helping "Bobby" to set his goals.  It's sold to districts and parents to ensure the student responds well to structured assessments and behaviors determined to be acceptable to the government's rubrics.

eScholar is a company funded by government money to gather over 3000 data points on your child and teachers so your child doesn't get "off track".  Since when did the government start tracking human behavior and making the determination of what is "off track" and what is a child's "greatest potential"?  Isn't that up to the child and his/her parents?

Can anyone answer this question?  How can eScholar offer a "personalized track" for "Bobby" when "Bobby" is stuck in a "common" educational system?

Watch the CEO's speech at the White House on his view of data and why he believes it is important to track individual data on each student.  Again, it sounds noble, innocent and non-threatening.  A student's future is dependent on the data.  At 9:25 he mentions how  Common Core ties this all together.  A student must determine if his/her goals are  successfully tied into a common skill set.  

What do you think would happen and what could go wrong if "Bobby's" strongest skills and talents did not align with the Common Core skill set prescribed by SBAC or PARCC?

A Third Consortia Emerging in Common Core State (sic) Standards

Another private organization jumps into the public/private partnership to take over public school educational delivery/education:

From Reuters.com:

New ACT Assessment System to be Named ACT Aspire^(TM)
 System Will Better Connect Assessment to Teaching and Learning

IOWA CITY, Iowa-ACT, Inc., the nonprofit leader in college and career readiness assessment, today announced new details about its upcoming "next generation" assessment system. The new program, which will span elementary grades through high school, will be called ACT Aspire.

Development of ACT Aspire was initially announced in July and is ongoing. The goal of the system will be to provide educators, parents and students with the insights they need to help students get and stay on track for college and career readiness starting early in their academic careers by better connecting assessment, teaching and learning.

"We have drawn on our decades of experience and data to create a breakthrough assessment system designed to help students stay on target to reach their full potential throughout their educational journey," said Jon Erickson, ACT's president of education.  "ACT Aspire is the first digital, longitudinal assessment system that will provide the actionable information students, parents and educators need to measure and improve student performance from early elementary to high school."

"ACT Aspire is the first product that will embody ACT's new vision and strategic direction," said Jon Whitmore, ACT's chief executive officer. "As students today require more effective tools to compete, ACT is the organization that is best positioned to guide students to achieve success from kindergarten through career."

ACT is an independent, nonprofit organization with a 53-year history of generating data-driven assessments and research. Headquartered in Iowa City, Iowa, and with offices throughout the world, ACT is trusted for its continual development of next-generation assessments that determine college and career readiness and provide the most advanced measure of workplace skills. To learn more about ACT, go to www.act.org.

Contact:
Ed Colby, ACT Public Relations
319.337.1147; ed.colby@act.org

Read more here.

It's just another consortia joining SBAC and PARCC.  The wealth needs to be spread around.  It won't mean a thing for educational improvement.  It's just another money making venture.  Will your state be moving to ACT?

Why Does Your School District Have to Take Orders from a Private Trade Organization?

The Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is "offering guidance" to school districts toward the implementation of Common Core standards. 

Question:  Why is a private organization telling local school districts how they must direct their educational delivery and what requirements they must meet?  

From edweek.com:

One of the two consortia designing tests for the Common Core State Standards recently released new guidance on the minimum technology standards states will need to meet to give those tests, beginning in 2014-15.

The Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, says the guidance is meant to provide direction to states and districts on the extent to which current technology meets testing standards, or whether upgrades will be required.

The document offers both "minimum specifications," which would satisfy the consortium's tech guidelines at least through 2014-15, and "recommended" ones, which would be expected to meet the group's standards through the 2018-19 school year.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia has released its "assistance" to local districts:

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium Guide

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium has released an updated guide to technology requirements and recommendations for member states planning to implement the common-core assessment system the consortium is developing for the 2014-15 school year.

Under the framework, most schools should be able to implement the assessments, the organization says.

1. Move away from Windows XP (which is used by more than half of schools today) to Windows 7. Windows 8 might be acceptable, but further testing is needed. However, the assessments will work with Windows XP.

2. Upgrade computers to at least 1 gigabyte of internal memory. Most schools have already implemented this recommendation (63 percent, to be exact).

3. Ensure that all screens being used for the assessments have a visual display of no less than 9.5 inches, with at least a 1024 x 768 resolution. About 88 percent of schools have already met this recommendation. The assessments could work with an 8-inch screen, but 9.5 inches is the recommended width, the document says.

4. Student testing sites must operate on secure browsers. While data reports from the assessments can be accessed through Google Chrome, Safari on iOS, Firefox, and Internet Explorer 8, the organization will identify secure browsers each year that will be required for the actual test-taking. Those browsers will prevent students from being able to access anything except the exam.

5. The assessment requires about 5 to 10 kilobytes per second of bandwidth per student. The amount of bandwidth needed will depend on the specific assessments, some of which include animations, recorded audio, and other technology-enhanced items. Schools should estimate about 1 megabyte per second for every 100 students taking the assessment.

Again, the questions must be asked:  Why is a private organization telling local school districts how they must direct their educational delivery and what requirements they must meet?   Where is the local control in these directives?  What is exactly the role of school boards in this matter  and the fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer?  

The districts cannot choose whether or not to abide by these "suggestions".  Look at the directives for the districts from SBAC: 

• they must operate on secure browsers
• the assessment requires a certain amount of bandwith
• move away from the operating system (which half the districts operate) to Windows 7
• upgrade computer memory
• replace screens that are too small.

What is not listed in the technology requirements and "recommendations" is how districts are to pay for these updates/mandates in this revenue strapped economy.  How's that for local control?

A reader at Edweek had some of the same concerns:

Common Core is just another push by big business to suck public funds from our school system. There are so many urban poor and rural areas that would never have funds, nor means to have the computer access/internet platforms available to take the publishing industrial complex's "tests" in the time frame suggested. Many schools don't have full-time teachers (or properly credentialed teachers in the case of many Charter schools that are allowed less oversight under the ridiculous law). How can a student be ready for a test if teachers aren't available? How are students with moderate to severe disabilities considered in the plan?
While larger districts like LAUSD have the means to create plans and provide training, many smaller, underfunded school districts don't have enough computers for staff. Access to functioning computers for all students is a pipe dream mandate in the current hostile funding environment teachers and regular public schools face.
School Districts across the nation have had budgets cut to the bone in the last 6-8 years already and in the last 3-4 we've seen excessive layoffs and firings just to keep things from falling into ruin.
Now these cash-strapped districts are given yet, another unfunded mandate to utilize another "reform" program AND do the testing online without being provided funding for equipment or training. As there are fewer staff available - it creates a bigger burden on those already performing two, three and even four full time jobs due to the deep cuts.
I'm absolutely sick of federal education dictates being given by business and legislators who refuse to listen to academics, child development specialists and parents. We know what our children need to learn. And it isn't more interference by outside business organizations that see our education funding as the next big poaching frontier.
We need trained teachers. We need nurses and librarians. We need safe neighborhoods with accessible health clinics, child care and a community that is able to send a child to school healthy, well-fed and ready to learn.
Until our legislators start addressing the needs of parents and families, these plans will just frustrate and disappoint us.

  

How Much Will Common Core Cost Missouri School Districts?

The question on how much CCSS will cost school districts might just be the $64,000 question. In all reality, the bill will probably be in the $350 Million range (at the least) as districts have to comply with infrastructure, assessment, training and curricula mandates.

This is not new information on cost nor is it set in stone.  In fact, the bill to school districts will become much higher if the science and social studies standards (now being crafted) are adopted.  Don't forget the Art Common Core standards that may be imposed on districts as well!  The idea of creativity in the art room would go against the idea of common educational delivery and product.

Reality is setting in for some folks, however, and it is coming as quite a shock.  California (in the same consortia as Missouri) is more upfront on state/district costs than Missouri DESE has been.  Since we are in the same boat as California in terms of mandates, you can receive a foretaste of the reform to come in this article from edsource.org, Uncertainties and unknowns beneath the gloss of Common Core:

Listening to the people at the State Department of Education who are charged with California’s transition to the new Common Core K-12 learning standards, as I did (twice) earlier this month, you’d have to conclude that it’s all going pretty well.


Everything’s on schedule, local districts are moving ahead to “varying degrees” to get ready, teachers are champing at the bit to be liberated from the chains of rote learning and fill-in-the-bubble multiple-choice tests, and there’ll be materials to support the new focus on analytical skills, critical thinking, problem solving and essay writing.

By spring 2015, the state officials say, the kids will be ready – many of them anyway – for the “Smarter Balanced” computer-based test assessments that will measure how well they’re doing. (Yes, Virginia, “smarter balanced” is a test, not a shoe or a brand of margarine.) Anyway, they say, local districts will have a lot of flexibility on when to get on board. 

If all the foregoing resonates with a bit of skepticism, it’s meant to.

For state Department of Education officials, from Superintendent Tom Torlakson down, optimism is part of the job description. But California, one of some forty states that have signed up for Common Core, faces an enormous task not only because of the apparent magnitude of the change, but because its education system, and the state Department of Education itself, are so badly strapped in so many ways.

In the past few years we’ve laid off thousands of teachers; our average classes are among the largest in the nation; we have the fewest counselors and librarians per pupil; our per-pupil spending is near the bottom, even after Gov. Jerry Brown’s much-ballyhooed tax hike. And now we will take on this change as well.

The other day Torlakson estimated that it will cost $1 billion for California to make the change, and that, too, may turn out to be optimistic. So far most districts have been left dangling with little help other than the information – and there’s a fair amount of that – they can glean from the Department’s websites.

Even the optimism at the top – all of it from good people with good intentions – has some weasel wording. What does it mean that districts are getting ready to “varying degrees”? How many teachers are eager to change?

And a lot is left unsaid. The state may adopt texts and other classroom materials for Common Core, but the locals will have to buy them out of already strapped budgets. (emphasis added)

Missouri is not that different than California in that mandates will be coming to your school district that were never voted on by voters nor the Legislature. If "optimism is part of the job description" for Missouri Commissioner Chris Nicastro as it is for California Superintendent Tom Torkalson, she's doing a darn good job.  However, it is time for reality and truth to prevail and the tough questions must be answered in terms of cost and loss of local control.  The "weasel wording" is becoming suspect and the hard truth on the financial impact must be shared with the very taxpayers who are mandated to fund these standards.

The taxpayers and legislators require more documented evidence than DESE's statement that "CCSS won't cost Missouri any money" and regurgitated ed reform talking points.  Missouri has adopted standards/assessments that are unproven, untested and unfunded.  Legislative approval was never granted for this process and the Legislature was not informed of the additional cost needed for these mandates.  DESE needs to tell taxpayers and legislators how much they will cost the state (and local districts) and how they will restore local control.

We're waiting, Commissioner Nicastro.

  

Whose Side are you on in the Common Core Standards War?

The Common Core Wars are heating up.  Today we will write about one battle brewing over at Diane Ravitch's site.  Ms. Ravitch published a small posting entitled In Defense of the Common Core Standards:

Roz Linder is tired of reading uninformed rants against the Common Core standards. She says most of the comments come from people who have never read them.

She says that it would be a worthy exercise to read the Common Core standards as informational text before making unfounded claims about what they recommend.

You can find them here. Please read them.

Most of the readers who took the time to read Ms. Linder's blog were clearly unimpressed with her defense of the standards and her writing skills.  From Don’t Throw out Baby Macbeth: Common Core says think bigger, better, and beyond the book:

This is the official blog of Dr. Rozlyn Linder, an academic, Language Arts Specialist, former elementary, high schojournalism teacher, and all-around rabble rouser. Interested in with how we equip students to compete in an global community that grows increasingly flatter every millisecond, this blog is about exploring the practical application of digital communication pedagogy and Common Core standards.Situated at the intersection of cultural, racial, social, and digital literacy, this blog is all about fostering and supporting the recognition that we don’t teach in your grandad’s America, and being happy about that. Let's stop telling students what to think or belive, but prepare students to think critically and often. Knowledge. Get some.  (MEW note: printed directly from the site, typos intact).

Dr. Linder writes:

Throw in the opportunity to read informational text about his plays, to explore themes and central idea, to stop being told what to think and just be given the tools to think. We have those tools nicely packaged…Common Core.

With stories emerging every day about teachers lamenting having to use them and questioning their effectiveness, I wondered why Dr. Linder (a former teacher according to her biography) supports them.  It looks as if she has become a capitalist offering her services to district so teachers/administrators can learn implementation techniques.  From her website:

Ready to bring professional learning to your city, school, or district? Email us at scheduleme@rozlinder.com for a customized quote or info@rozlinder.com for more information or questions.

 


I didn't see any of Ravitch's readers writing about this possible conflict of interest in her positive reviews of CCSS.  I applaud Dr. Linder for her enthusiastic support of the standards and that she can now be paid for helping districts to implement them.  The readers took her to task for her views on Common Core in the comment section.  An interesting comment came from a now famous ex-teacher in the education reform circles:

Kris Nielsen

December 19, 2012 at 12:46 am

Read them and was named a “specialist” at one of my schools. Here’s my take…freshly pressed: http://mgmfocus.com/2012/12/18/this-is-how-democracy-ends-an-apology/

Mr. Nielsen was the teacher who garnered much attention from his resignation letter sent to his North Carolina school district.  He entitled it "I Quit" and he spelled out the reasons which included his inability to teach students utilizing Common Core standards.  He speaks to Dr. Linder's praise of Common Core standards with his experience as a teacher and former CCSS facilitator. He DID read the standards.  He was "for the standards before he was against them" and he explains how he came to the realization that CSSS is misguided in This is How Democracy Ends--An Apology:



*****************************************************************************

Almost a year ago, I offered my time to the middle school at which I was employed to give a two-night presentation that promised to ease parents’ concerns about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Connected Mathematics Program (CMP).  I was given kudos by my boss, my coworkers, and many of those parents.  We talked about the future, the upcoming tests by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), and we even did some hands-on math demonstrations.  It was a good time for me, and I hope those parents can say the same.  My message was simple: trust us–we got this!

Some of them were still skeptical, and they should be praised for that skepticism.

First, I want to offer you my apologies.  It wasn’t long after my presentation that I had a crushing realization that the entire thing (minus the hands-on stuff) was completely misguided.  I felt like a flip-flopper, but I’ve always valued the truth more than feeling good.  So, I’m here to clear the air.  The truth hurts and it should start scaring the hell out of you, because your children are your most precious gift and you will do anything to protect them.

The whole reason I was part of the team that put those presentations together was to ease your worry about the changes that were coming.  I’m here to retract everything I said.  You should be worried.  Very worried!

I was wrong.  The Common Core State Standards is a sham, the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium is an instrument of devastation, and it’s all run by the process you see in the following Venn diagram (don’t you love Venn diagrams?):

(MEW note: For better diagram clarity, visit Nielsen's website).

Before I start sounding too nutty, let me get down to the reality.  You’ll see that I’m not exaggerating.

America has long been known–despite our problems–as the country of freedom, innovation, and wealth. 

There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is our democratic and free public education system. Prior to NCLB in 2002 and Race to the Top eight years later, standardization was limited to SAT and ACT tests, NAEP and PISA tests, and graduation exams for Advanced Placement courses.  We valued music, art, drama, languages and the humanities just as much as valued science, math, and English (for the most part).  We believed in the well-rounded education.

Now, the Common Core State Standards has one goal: to create common people.  The accompanying standardized tests have one purpose: to create standardized people.  Why?  Because the movers and the shakers have a vested interest in it.  It’s about money and it’s about making sure all that money stays in one place.

It’s been happening for a few years already.  StudentsFirst, ALEC, the Walton and Broad and Gates Foundations, and other lobbying groups have created a false crisis in American education.  They want you to believe that America is in sad educational shape so that they can play the hero.  However, what they’ve begun is a snowball effect of legislation that devastates public education, teachers, and an already underfunded school system so that they can replace the public system, the unions, and the government employees with private systems that promise to pay less, bust unions, and remove benefits and pensions.
Teach For America is a prime example of a way to steal government funding, place it in the hands of private corporations, and remove that pesky career (tenure) teacher problem.  It’s worked like a dream–the average TFA teacher stays in the classroom for about 2-3 years.  Only a few remain for 5 or more years.  So, the new American teacher is a mass-produced, temporary worker in an ongoing assembly line.  Cheaper?  Usually.  And they don’t complain about pay, pensions, or benefits, since this is just a step in their career ladders.

Which means that students don’t have highly-qualified and seasoned teachers leading their learning anymore.  Even worse that that, TFA teachers are prepared and trained with test data as the be-all-to-end-all of priorities.  These teachers only know effectiveness by the scores their students receive on standardized tests.

Cooperation? Collaboration? Creativity? Communication? Critical thinking?  Life skills?  Only if there’s time (which there isn’t) and don’t expect it to be integrated or cohesive.  That’s not what the training is for.  Our students are now part of a larger plan–to prepare them for the “college and career readiness” laid out by the “job creators” on Wall Street–the ones that want your kids to understand that a job is what they’re trained for and that they are lucky to have, so stop whining about your pensions and benefits.  And forget about belonging to one of those pesky unions–we will have outlawed them completely by then.

But more importantly, all of the skills linked above lead our students to be profound, critical, and meaningful participants in a modern democracy.  Some would argue that our days as a free country for the people and by the people are limited, and running out fast.  If we continue to support the path that our nation’s educational system is on, we will speed up the end of our democracy.  When students are forced to learn for the sake of a score and are denied the opportunity to think and reason and question and appreciate the world in which they live, they are all the more easy to control and deny basic rights.

It’s already happening.  I despise watching people discuss and debate issues in this country these days.  No one knows how to do it.

America did not become what it is today because of common people.  We celebrate our diversity, exceptionality, and bravery at the same time that we are attempting to bury those traits.  The world is following our educational models of the past few decades at the same time that we are turning our backs on those successful models.  We are digging a grave for our democratic process at a time when we should be paying extra special attention to keeping it healthy.

Our next generation of learners can save us and keep us strong through their diversity, ingenuity, creativity, friendliness, cooperation, and forward thinking.  And their dreams.  The Common Core State Standards, standardized tests, and privatized teacher corps are stifling those dreams.  Our democracy will ultimately be the victim.

***************************************************************************

In the Common Core Wars, I think I'll join Mr. Nielsen's army.  Skepticism about unproven/untested theories being taught to students while others cash in on questionable practices should be forefront in these battles.

How Valuable/Viable Are SBAC's Recent Testing Decisions?

Clueless on the true purpose of education and testing.  SBAC at work?

An educator recently sent me an email reacting to a recent Ed Week article about Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia's test development quandaries.  She has given me permission to reprint her remarks and the highlighted statements are from the Ed Week article.

************************************************************************ 

Attached is an article from Ed Week (Testing Group Scales Back Performance Items) that describes the controversy test developers are having in designing items and format for Common Core Assessment.

A group that is developing tests for half the states in the nation has dramatically reduced the length of its assessment in a bid to balance the desire for a more meaningful and useful exam with concerns about the amount of time spent on testing.

...Its end-of-year, summative tests will measure results for accountability, and those can shape what schools and districts do long term... 

Note the discussion about end of year testing. In assessment circles, we refer to end of year tests as autopsies. There's nothing a teacher can do to respond to the end of year data by changing instruction because there is no opportunity to "make amends" if the instruction wasn't appropriate for students since the last assessment cycle. End of year school district assessments are autopsies, and are virtually useless to classroom teachers. In addition, the more scores are averaged, the less information teachers have about individual student needs or specific areas of need a particular student may have.

“I’m not convinced that the end-of-year summative assessment used for accountability could be imagined to be extremely instructionally useful,” Mr. Willhoft said. It’s the interim and formative pieces of its system, he said, that have the potential to affect day-to-day instruction in profound ways.

The plan is to have thousands of test items and tasks in an online “bank” teachers can draw from to custom-design interim tests on specific standards. Also available will be a bank of “formative” tools and strategies to help them judge and monitor students’ learning as they go along, Mr. Willhoft said. That three-pronged approach—summative, interim, formative—makes up the “balanced” suite of tests many have sought, he said.

Formative assessments are referred to as wellness checkups; and, the best formative assessments are given by the classroom teacher during instruction to get a picture of student understanding in real time. Classroom formative assessments cost the school districts and state nothing. Classroom teachers can immediately adjust instruction in response to what the data are telling her or him. I'm not completely against some forms of standardized tests by districts or states IF they can articulate what they are using the data to accomplish, and prove the test was actually designed to achieve the purpose they describe.
  
(MEW note: Others involved in the SBAC's process have the same concerns):

The evolution of the Smarter Balanced assessment showcases a persistent tension at the heart of the purpose of student testing, some experts say.

 “Is it about getting data for instruction? Or is it about measuring the results of instruction? In a nutshell, that’s what this is all about,” said Douglas J. McRae, a retired test designer who helped shape California’s assessment system. “You cannot adequately serve both purposes with one test.”

Frankly, I've never met a bureaucrat who could articulate with valid evidence what they were doing or why.

************************************************************************
For more information on SBAC read here and here.  These links detail the apparent chaos and possible demise of the consortia. 

Teacher Says "I QUIT": The (Un) or Intended Consequences of Common Core?

One more bullet point: Ask school administration how much Common Core mandates had to do with the resignation. Explain that to a small child: a "one sized fits all" education is good enough for her.

Parents, when you go to conferences, take a copy of a teacher's (Kris Nielsen) letter below and ask your child's teacher and administrators their thoughts on what this teacher has written.  Ask:

• how common core has affected their teaching and district autonomy
• how a top down centralized "one size fits all" program actually "fits" all the students they teach
• if they agree with this statement: "The silence of our professional organizations plus complicity of the unions has made Common Core a done deal." —Susan Ohanian (and maybe write an email to your state NEA and ask its statement about Ohanian's comment)
• your principal if he/she can provide a school/district that educates to its mission statement and what that mission directed education looks like with the common core standard model in place 

I would wager to guess most mission statements are similar to my district, Kirkwood School District in Missouri:

The mission of Kirkwood R-7 schools, a personalized educational network rich in tradition and energized by future possibilities, is to create environments characterized by a passion for learning, purposeful discovery and expectations of excellence in order to guarantee that each learner achieves personal goals, academic success, and becomes a leader in society.

Personal goals have to be secondary to common goals now as Kirkwood School District and the majority of public school (and charters) are now under common core standards.  That "passion for learning" is increasingly being overtaken by a passion for testing.  Missouri schools are under the same standards/assessment mandates as North Carolina schools where this teacher taught.  Find the mission statement of your district and send them our way.  It would be interesting to compile a list of mission statements and figure out how districts will accomplish them with top down mandates.

The letter below should be shared with your teacher/administrator/superintendent.   You can follow the teacher at his twitter handle, @klnielsen74.

 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Dear North Carolina Public Schools: I Quit

October 26, 2012 7 Comments
 

Thanks to all of my friends who have already published this on their sites.  Let’s get our schools back!

To All it May Concern:
I’m doing something I thought I would never do—something that will make me a statistic and a caricature of the times.  Some will support me, some will shake their heads and smirk condescendingly—and others will try to convince me that I’m part of the problem.  All I know is that I’ve hit a wall, and in order to preserve my sanity, my health, my family, and the forward movement of our lives, I have no other choice.

Before I go too much into my choice, I must say that I have the advantages and disadvantages of differentiated experience under my belt.  I have seen the other side, where the grass was greener, and I unknowingly jumped the fence to where the foliage is either so tangled and dense that I can’t make sense of it, or the grass is wilted and dying (with no true custodian of its health).  Are you lost?  I’m talking about public K-12 education in North Carolina.  I’m talking about my history as a successful teacher and leader in two states before moving here out of desperation.

In New Mexico, I led a team of underpaid teachers who were passionate about their jobs and who did amazing things.  We were happy because our students were well-behaved, our community was supportive, and our jobs afforded us the luxuries of time, respect, and visionary leadership.  Our district was huge, but we got things done because we were a team.  I moved to Oregon because I was offered a fantastic job with a higher salary, a great math program, and superior benefits for my family.  Again, I was given the autonomy I dreamed of, and I used it to find new and risky ways to introduce technology into the math curriculum.  My peers looked forward to learning from me, the community gave me a lot of money to get my projects off the ground, and my students were amazing.

Then, the bottom fell out.  I don’t know who to blame for the budget crisis in Oregon, but I know it decimated the educational coffers.  I lost my job only due to my lack of seniority.  I was devastated.  My students and their parents were angry and sad.  I told myself I would hang in there, find a temporary job, and wait for the recall.  Neither the temporary job nor the recall happened.  I tried very hard to keep my family in Oregon—applying for jobs in every district, college, private school, and even Toys R Us.  Nothing happened after over 300 applications and 2 interviews.

The Internet told me that the West Coast was not hiring teachers anymore, but the East Coast was the go-to place.  Charlotte, North Carolina couldn’t keep up with the demand (why did this city need over 300 teachers?)!  I applied with three schools, got three phone interviews, and was even hired over the phone.  My very supportive and adventurous family and I packed quickly and moved across the country, just so I could keep teaching.

I had come from two very successful and fun teaching jobs to a new state where everything was different.  During my orientation at CMS, I noticed immediately that these people weren’t happy to see us; they were much more interested in making sure we knew their rules.  It was a one-hour lecture about what happens when teachers mess up.  I had a bad feeling about teaching here from the start; but, we were here and we had to make the best of it.

Union County seemed to be the answer to all of my problems.  The rumors and the press made it sound like UCPS was the place to be progressive, risky, and happy.  So I transferred from CMS to UCPS.  They made me feel more welcome, but it was still a mistake to come here.

Let me cut to the chase: I quit.  I am resigning my position as a teacher in the state of North Carolina—permanently.  I am quitting without notice (taking advantage of the “at will” employment policies of this state).  I am quitting without remorse and without second thoughts.  I quit. I quit. I quit!

Why?

Because…

I refuse to be led by a top-down hierarchy that is completely detached from the classrooms for which it is supposed to be responsible.

I will not spend another day under the expectations that I prepare every student for the increasing numbers of meaningless and expensive tests.

I refuse to be an unpaid administrator of field tests that take advantage of children for the sake of profit.

I will not spend another day wishing I had some time to plan my fantastic lessons because administration comes up with new and inventive ways to steal that time, under the guise of PLC meetings or whatever.  I’ve seen successful PLC development.  It doesn’t look like this.

I will not spend another day wondering what menial, administrative task I will hear that I forgot to do next.  I’m far enough behind in my own work.

I will not spend another day wondering how I can have classes that are full inclusion, and where 50% of my students have IEPs, yet I’m given no support.

I will not spend another day in a district where my coworkers are both on autopilot and in survival mode.  Misery loves company, but I will not be that company.

I refuse to subject students to every ridiculous standardized test that the state and/or district thinks is important.  I refuse to have my higher-level and deep thinking lessons disrupted by meaningless assessments (like the EXPLORE test) that do little more than increase stress among children and teachers, and attempt to guide young adolescents into narrow choices.

I totally object and refuse to have my performance as an educator rely on “Standard 6.”  It is unfair, biased, and does not reflect anything about the teaching practices of proven educators.

I refuse to hear again that it’s more important that I serve as a test administrator than a leader of my peers.
I refuse to watch my students being treated like prisoners.  There are other ways.  It’s a shame that we don’t have the vision to seek out those alternatives.

I refuse to watch my coworkers being treated like untrustworthy slackers through the overbearing policies of this state, although they are the hardest working and most overloaded people I know.

I refuse to watch my family struggle financially as I work in a job to which I have invested 6 long years of my life in preparation.  I have a graduate degree and a track record of strong success, yet I’m paid less than many two-year degree holders.  And forget benefits—they are effectively nonexistent for teachers in North Carolina.

I refuse to watch my district’s leadership tell us about the bad news and horrific changes coming towards us, then watch them shrug incompetently, and then tell us to work harder.

I refuse to listen to our highly regarded superintendent telling us that the charter school movement is at our doorstep (with a soon-to-be-elected governor in full support) and tell us not to worry about it, because we are applying for a grant from Race to the Top.  There is no consistency here; there is no leadership here.

I refuse to watch my students slouch under the weight of a system that expects them to perform well on EOG tests, which do not measure their abilities other than memorization and application and therefore do not measure their readiness for the next grade level—much less life, career, or college.

I’m tired of watching my students produce amazing things, which show their true understanding of 21^st century skills, only to see their looks of disappointment when they don’t meet the arbitrary expectations of low-level state and district tests that do not assess their skills.

I refuse to hear any more about how important it is to differentiate our instruction as we prepare our kids for tests that are anything but differentiated.  This negates our hard work and makes us look bad.

I am tired of hearing about the miracles my peers are expected to perform, and watching the districts do next to nothing to support or develop them.  I haven’t seen real professional development in either district since I got here.  The development sessions I have seen are sloppy, shallow, and have no real means of evaluation or accountability.

I’m tired of my increasing and troublesome physical symptoms that come from all this frustration, stress, and sadness.

Finally, I’m tired of watching parents being tricked into believing that their children are being prepared for the complex world ahead, especially since their children’s teachers are being cowed into meeting expectations and standards that are not conducive to their children’s futures.

I’m truly angry that parents put so much stress, fear, and anticipation into their kids’ heads in preparation for the EOG tests and the new MSLs—neither of which are consequential to their future needs—in addition to the all of the other testing that happens almost weekly.  As a parent of a high school student in Union County, I’m dismayed at the education that my child receives as her teachers frantically frontload trivial information in preparation for more tests.  My toddler will not attend a North Carolina public school.  I will do whatever it takes to keep that from happening.

I quit because I’m tired being part of the problem.  It’s killing me and it’s not doing anyone else any good.  I will now take my place among the rest of the American educators, parents, citizens, and children who are dedicated to getting our schools–and our future–back.

Farewell.