http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-bank-robbers-secret-to-early-childhood-education
Here’s the link. Let me know what you think!
Here’s a piece that was just posted on Diane Ravitch’s blog. Lots of comments! Hopefully this will move the conversation forward t0 good public policy.
Miriam Kurtzig Freedman, an attorney who represents public schools in education matters, including testing and special education—and is currently working to reform special education—posted this comment. Her website is http://www.schoollawpro.com.
Can we really use student tests to measure teacher effectiveness?
Miriam Kurtzig Freedman, M.A., J.D.
This is the year! Tests related to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are launching across our country. They are designed to measure how well students are learning the CCSS. Meanwhile, some states, with federal encouragement, plan to use them also to measure teacher effectiveness. Is this use valid?
There is no shortage of controversy about educational testing and, unfortunately, this controversy includes the opportunity to file lawsuits. The use of student achievement data to also evaluate teacher effectiveness is certainly controversial. Notably, Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, gave states a year’s reprieve on implementing this practice. Across the country, teacher unions have called it unfair. My concern is far more basic. It’s about validity.
As an attorney who has represented public schools for more than 30 years, I am concerned about this multipurpose use. It may not get us what we need—a valid, reliable, fair, trusted, and transparent accountability system. The tests at issue include the PARCC and SBAC, two multi-state consortia that are funded by the U. S. Department of Education and private funders. They were charged with developing an assessment system aligned to the CCSS by the 2014-15 school year.
At last count, these consortia have 27 states and the District of Columbia signed up— affecting 42% of U.S. students according to Education Week.
The media remind us constantly that our ‘failing’ schools need fixing; that, to do so, we should assess student skills and knowledge to help teachers improve instruction; that we also need to evaluate and rate teachers and weed out poor performers. And we are told that these tests can be multipurposed to do all of the above!
Sounds good? Actually, it sounds too good to be true. Does this multipurpose use to evaluate teacher effectiveness clear a key psychometric hurdle: test validity?
What is test validity?
At its core, it is the basic, bedrock requirement that a test measure what it is designed to measure. Thus, if a test is designed to measure how well 3rd graders decode, we judge the test according to how well it does that. Can students decode? If it is designed to be predictive; say, to measure if students are ‘on track’ or progressing toward college or career-readiness, we judge it accordingly. Either way, we must ask if a test whose purpose is to measure what students learn or whether they are ‘on track’ can also be used to measure something else—such as how well teachers teach?
So what are these tests’ purposes? For answers, let’s review the PARCC and SBAC websites. First PARCC, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers:
PARCC is a group of states working together to develop a set of assessments that measure whether students are on track to be successful in college and their careers. These high quality, computer-based K–12 assessments in Mathematics and English Language Arts/Literacy give teachers, schools, students, and parents better information whether students are on track in their learning and for success after high school, and tools to help teachers customize learning to meet student needs.
PARCC is based on the core belief that assessment should work as a tool for enhancing teaching and learning. Because the assessments are aligned with the new, more rigorous Common Core State Standards, they ensure that every child is on a path to college and career readiness by measuring what students should know at each grade level. They will also provide parents and teachers with timely information to identify students who may be falling behind and need extra help. [Emphasis added]
Second, the SBAC, Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium:
The [SBAC] is a state-led consortium working to develop next-generation assessments that accurately measure student progress toward college- and career-readiness. Smarter Balanced is one of two multistate consortia awarded funding from the U.S. Department of Education in 2010 to develop an assessment system aligned to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)by the 2014-15 school year.
The work of Smarter Balanced is guided by the belief that a high-quality assessment system can provide information and tools for teachers and schools to improve instruction and help students succeed – regardless of disability, language or subgroup.
Smarter Balanced involves experienced educators, researchers, state and local policymakers and community groups working together in a transparent and consensus-driven process. [Emphasis added]
Clearly, these tests’ purpose is to (a) measure student progress on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and college or career readiness, (b) give teachers and parents better information about students, and (c) help improve instruction. No mention is made of gauging teacher effectiveness.
Yet, questions about the validity of using these tests in this multipurpose way seem to be missing from national discussions, even as other validity issues are raised. For example, questions are raised about score validity when tests are administered in different ways (on a computer or with paper and pencil) and at different times of the year.
Also discussed are questions about whether these tests are aligned to the CCSS. The media reports battles among states, unions, and others about how to measure teacher effectiveness through these tests; e.g., through value-added models, student growth percentages, or other approaches. But, questions of basic test validity from the get-go about this multipurpose use of these tests are not part of today’s public discourse.
They should be.
If we continue on this track of creating high stakes for teachers with tests designed for a different purpose, we may well end up with unintended consequences, including distrust of the system, questionable accountability, and lawsuits.
My suggestion? Given the reprieve for states and growing concern among the public about these tests and the CCSS themselves, test consortia and our federal and state governments should take a deep breath and do two things.
First, the consortia should remind the public that the purpose of these tests is to measure student achievement on the new CCSS and career and college readiness, provide better information to teachers and parents, and improve instruction.
Second, the states (with federal approval and encouragement) that intend to use these results also to evaluate teacher effectiveness must inform the public explicitly about how they intend to validate the tests for this new purpose. They need to provide solid proof that their proposed use, which differs from the stated purpose of these tests, is valid, reliable, and fair. The current silence is worrisome, not transparent, and unwise.
This test validity issue needs to be fully aired and resolved satisfactorily before we can begin to tackle the larger issues about the multiple uses of testing. Otherwise, in our litigious land of opportunity, the ensuing battles may be costly and not pretty. Let’s not go there
I just read an excellent piece by Jonathan A. Plucker, “Common Core and America’s High-Achieving Students.” It is on the Thomas B. Fordham Institute website.
For the most part, the piece uses terms appropriately–‘high achievers,’ ‘advanced.’ But, unfortunately, the terms, ‘gifted’ and ‘ high-ability’ also slip into the piece. Those are labels placed on children. Using those labels is not helpful in advancing the important argument of the piece–which is that we need to focus on the needs of advanced students in the roll-out of Common Core.
As I see it, we go off the rails when we group students by ‘ability,’ or ‘giftedness’ as those concepts are fluid and the labels create unnecessary divisions among students. Far better to group students by ‘current performance’ levels or by calling them ‘advanced.’ These terms relate to the academic tasks at hand. They are about the WHAT that is being studied and mastered, not the WHO that the student supposedly has been labeled.
Terms related to current performance levels, skills and knowledge are also fluid and subject to change—which is a good thing. They don’t carry the baggage associated with labeling children as gifted or not.
I just read this piece about needing a New Deal for testing… and add my voice to the conversation.
Using student test results to measure teacher performance is not just ‘starting to damage our schools.’ It is flawed in a far more basic way–it is invalid use of those tests. These tests are designed to measure student performance against the Common Core–and to assess college and career readiness. They are NOT designed to measure teachers. I’m afraid that using them for this invalid purpose (no matter how carefully the statistical model may be) invites litigation and further erodes support for education reform.
Who benefits from these laws–the Common Core related testing, which is supposed to be implemented this spring, and special education. I’m sure you can add many other laws that are presumably about schools and students but have huge unintended (or was it intended?) beneficiaries.
Without getting into the pros and cons of any specific law, we can all agree that it is intended to improve the education for students. Undoubtedly, the stated mission. And surely, many students do benefit, BUT!
In my concerned–and cynical–moments, I see that two other groups benefit hugely!
About the Common Core tests, technology companies are now selling computers to ALL schools for these tests–whether the Partnership for Assessment Readiness for College or Career (PARCC) or Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) or other tests.
About the special education law, that’s been around since 1975, lawyers (yes, like me) and others have created careers (and a huge cottage industry) around that law–with all its reauthorizations and parallel state laws.
Is this what we really want for our schools? Where are the students in these calculations?
The school year is starting, a good time to talk about favorite books and inspirations.
My favorite book about children and education is Mindset—the New Psychology of Success by Carol Dweck, a Stanford psychology professor. She sets out the advantages of a growth mindset, instead of a fixed mindset. A growth mindset is based on effort, working hard, grit, believing that a student can learn, and, according to the book, even believing that a student who works hard can grow his/her brain! A fixed mindset, on the other hand, is based on a label—you are smart. You are pretty. You are not smart. You are lazy. Whatever the label. Students get stuck there and believe their futures are pre-ordained. Even worse, smart kids don’t try new things where they might fail because then the grown ups will see that they are really not smart. How liberating is the growth mindset—for all! Praise children for the effort, not their adult-perceived label. A great mantra for the start of the school year.
Some schools have adopted her approach, including, I believe, the Fieldston School in NY. And see Salman Khan’s Huffington Post, “The Learning Myth: Why I’ll never tell my son he’s smart.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salman-khan/the-learning-myth-why-ill_b_5691681.html
Carol Dweck’s book tells me pretty much everything I need to know about what we are doing wrong. Let’s hope we get it right this year.
What is your favorite book? Who is your favorite inspiration?
It’s been a long while since I blogged…. for loyal readers, I do apologize for my absence.
The great news is that I’ve been hard at work–with much support from friends and colleagues– on an exciting project–writing a new law for special education! It’s current title is Education for All: Reaching High for Generation 2.
Its mascot is the giraffe–who always reaches high!
The project started back in January… at the cafe when I was talking to Dave and his teen-age son about the law. Dave inspired me to just do it. And so I did–with much help on the way–laying out the basic principles for a new law. It’s short and sweet, and….
…almost ready for prime time…. If you would like to learn more and how to get involved, please let me know. Email me at Miriam@schoollawpro.com.
Happy new school year and happy Generation 2 !
If you live long enough, you can see it all—if you’re looking.
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal in the Personal Journal section, ‘Never too Awkward to Ask: Have You Washed Your Hands?’ Apparently only 50% of doctors do—and it’s dangerous to patients that so many don’t. Who knew? I thought they had solved that one…
For me, I’ll have to change my presentations! In speaking of the professionalism of teachers–that we need to honor–I used to say that they are like doctors. We should not ask them ‘little’ things like have you washed your hands–or have you seated students where they will learn best (called ‘preferential seating’). We should assume they are doing what they are supposed to do–. Well, apparently not so fast. Fascinating.
My August 5 Wall Street Journal op-ed–that garnered many comments and letters–is all about getting everyone to the table–regular and special ed folks; teachers and parents and adminstrators; students and citizens. We can’t just be talking to our friends and people who agree with us. We need to talk to others, as well. In my view, we need to expand the national discussion. In your view? Let us know!
I’ll be speaking at 24th CASE Annual Fall Conference in Indianapolis tomorrow on “Fixing Special Education–It’s Time to Reinvent this Broken System.”
If you’d like a copy of the presentation material, please send a comment.
Recent Comments