By Tom

Let’s say you go out and buy a fish tank. An aquarium. You bring it home and get it all set up with gravel on the bottom, an air pump with a filter, some plastic plants and a lighted cover. You add the water and let it sit overnight, just like they told you, and then you go back to the pet store to buy some fish.

The guy at the store helps you select compatible species and explains the importance of regularly testing the water. “It has to be the right ph,” he says, “or the fish will get sick and die.” He sells you a test kit, along with some chemicals that you can use to make adjustments.

You know nothing about ph, except for the fact that it has to be just right, which for your particular fish is just slightly acidic: around 6.8.

You take seriously your role as steward of these creatures. They depend on you for survival. Besides that, they were expensive. So you diligently check the ph every three days and make adjustments as needed.

How would you go about this task? Would you employ “tricks” that you think might yield a perfect 6.8? Would you go on line to find out which part of the tank is most likely to perfect, and then use only that place to draw your test water? Would you test the tank just before the fish eat? Or just after, trying to find the time when the water was best?

Would you go so far as to buy a bottle of water that had a ph of 6.8 and use that for all your tests?

I’m guessing you wouldn’t do any of these things, and that you consider gaming your tests in an attempt to get a favorable result counter-productive. The whole point of testing the water is to see whether it’s safe for the fish or if it needs to be adjusted. You’re supposed to use the test results to that end. The results, in and of themselves matter only to the extent that they’re used to ensure that the water in the tank is healthy.

So what are we doing this spring, with standardized testing in full swing? Back in the day, tests were used as a systemic and individual check-point. We wanted accurate information so that we could see which programs, which schools and which students need to be looked at more closely. Objectivity was important. There was no “test-prep industry.” We were asked to test our class under normal conditions. We told them to skip the answers they didn’t know and do their best.

We tested our students in much the same way as any normal person would test the water in a fish tank.

Those days are well behind us. Most of you, like me, have received emails from your district administration, explaining ways in which you can enhance your students’ performance. You’ve had grade level meetings in which you’ve rearranged the math scope and sequence so that the kids get the tested stuff in a timely manner. You’ve received a few boxes of granola bars, donated by the PTA, earmarked for the “test-day nutrition break.” (If food is supposed to enhance performance, where were those snacks when the students were supposed to be learning?) Some of you have gone so far as to bring in gum, capitalizing on the myth that chewing gum increases concentration.

All of this stuff is perfectly harmless. It might be distracting, maybe a little unnecessary, but certainly not unethical.

But then there’s this. It appears that some of the schools in Washington D.C. flat-out cheated. It appears that someone went through student tests, erasing wrong answers and filing them in correctly. Coincidentally, at least one of these schools was the shining star in Michelle Rhee’s school reform campaign. In fact, the principal at that school received $10,000 because of those high test scores. The teachers got $8,000. And some of those people obviously cheated.

It’s easy for me to say I wouldn’t do it. So I’ll say it: I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t taint the results of a set of standardized tests even for $8,000. But you know something? $8,000 is a lot of money. Even for an over-paid public employee. And even though I wouldn’t do it (and you wouldn’t either, right?) it’s clear that someone would.

When we decided to focus on test results instead of education, we started ourselves down this path. This was bound to happen.

Tests are supposed to be used in the process of teaching. They were never supposed to be the product of teaching.

Some of us have forgotten that.

Some of us have never even known it.

I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but the cynic in me wants to wave this in the faces of the policymakers who think that more testing is going to fix all our ills. My worry: pressure for high stakes means that those with low morals find avenues to prevail and ruin it for us all…when a score matters more than learning, people will do whatever it takes to get the score.

In Washington, D.C., numerous schools, including at least one Blue Ribbon school and others touted as "models" of turnaround are being investigated in the media because of test scores which not only increased at a faster rate than other similar schools, but because their standardized tests also revealed more wrong-to-right answer changes on the bubble tests (who knew they tracked that? Well, they do, by scanning not only the right answers but also the smudges left by erased wrong answers).

I want to believe what one teacher says: that students are encouraged to review and revise answers during the course of the test, which would explain the wrong-to-right answer erasures. 

But, we live in a world of heavy threats and high stakes. Many schools in question were squarely in the center of governmental crosshairs and a hair's breadth away from reorganization. It doesn't take much, especially in the current public climate which sees only bad teachers potentially willing to care about teaching tests and not students, to assume the worst.

Even if every teacher acted with supreme ethics–which I really want to believe–this is just a sign of the damned-if-you do and damned-if-you-don't nature of the game: get those test scores up or else, but get them up too quickly and you'll be in a new set of crosshairs.

By Kristin

Dear Jim,

Your report wandered a bit, and I'm not sure where you got that fabulous "the same number went from here to there as there to here!" detail – the footnote didn't say.

If this paper had been written in my class, I probably would have conferenced with you, asked you to clarify, and encouraged you to work through a few more drafts.  It's clear that you don't think the National Board bonus has done what it set out to do, and isn't worth any more money (shame on so many teachers for going after it, anyhow!), but your paper doesn't prove that to me.

Continue reading →

By Tom

I agree with Mark. The study on Washington State's National Board incentive program by the Center on Reinventing Public Education is flawed and ill-timed. I have only a couple things to add:

First of all, transferring to a challenging school in the current educational climate isn't much fun. I work in a school with a fairly high poverty rate, but not high enough for me to earn the addition $5,000. If I were to move to the next school over, however, I'd get the five grand. So why don't I? As I described in a recent post, working in a high-poverty school means almost complete focus on raising achievement scores. It means teaching math, reading and little else. And not because that's what those students need, but because that's what those students will be tested on.

If the test was on health and art, they'd be learning health and art all day.

Frankly, teaching a balanced, logical curriculum is worth $5,000 a year to me. Especially when you consider the fact that NCLB and its increasingly harsh penalties on underperforming schools and the people who work there means I'd probably be transferring to a different school before too long.

Furthermore, the CRPE study makes much of the fact that many of the new NBCTs in high-needs schools are "home-grown," as opposed to new transfers. They see this as a bad thing. I attended the original summit meeting in which the whole idea of high-needs stipend was proposed. I clearly remember the assembly concluding that the best way to increase NBCTs in high-poverty schools would be for the current teachers to successfully complete the process. That's because becoming board certified is as much a professional development process as it is an assessment. And it's also because the true experts at working with high-needs students are the teachers who work with high-needs students. Supporting them in their pursuit of National Board certification made perfect sense.

It still does.

There are two huge lessons I learned from developing my portfolio for National Board Certification.

First was a lesson about teaching: Every minute of every class period I teach, and every task I ask my students to do must be intentional, aimed squarely at a valid and worthwhile learning goal. Those goals are not arbitrary either: they are developed from assessing my students' needs, dispositions and prior learning.

Second was a lesson about writing: To fully communicate the value of any message I seek to transmit, I have to be clear, consistent, and convincing.

A recent paper from the Center for Reinventing Public Education (based at the University of Washington) has taken a stand that is critical of National Board Certification, and in particular the past practice in the state of Washington of providing a yearly stipend to accomplished educators who have achieved National Board Certification. I hesitate to question this paper's intention, as that would open a can of political worms. What I do question, though, is based on the second lesson my National Board experience taught me: to make a point, I need to be clear, consistent, and convincing. To me, the CRPE report failed in this regard, and is therefore pushing the limits of outright misinformation. 

In particular, as other state education leaders have pointed out, the assertions offered by this report feature incomplete, inconsistent, or unclear data. As a result, if taken on face value, the conclusions drawn in this paper are misleading. The incomplete data means that the conclusions are not fully or convincingly valid. Unfortunately, this is an instance where data is being misused and misconstrued. In particular, this data seems to attempt to undermine a far more comprehensive and complete examination of National Board Certification in the state of Washington previously completed (in 2010) by the State Board of Education.

According to my reading of a recent Washington Education Association press release in response to the CRPE report, regarding the data offered by SBoE and the CRPE: one study is clear, consistent, and convincing… and the other isn't.

This forum here at SFS has a track record of level-headed, well-informed and respectful discourse: like no other time in history, level-headed, respectful and well-informed discourse is what we need right now. I worry that the CRPE paper, if taken as truth, will serve to muddy the waters of this discourse and set back some tremendous progress which actually has happened as part of our state's efforts to improve the quality of the teaching that our schools provide.

The CRPE study simply lacks clarity and consistency, and ought not to be convincing since it fails to effectively offer a comprehensive picture.

by Guest Blogger Sarah

I am in Finland from January 31 through May 30 on a Fulbright Distinguished Awards in Teaching grant. This grant is for k-12 teachers who are interested in doing research abroad. The program is running in 11 countries around the world this year.  My research is about school libraries and information literacy instruction.  I am living in Helsinki, but trying to visit schools around the country as much as I can.  Inevitably, the conversations I am having with teachers lead us to the question everyone is asking…what is their secret?

It is interesting to be here amidst all the talk in the US (and everywhere, I suppose) about the fabulous Finnish school system. At the school I was at this week, there were visitors from:
Germany, France, England AND Japan. And then me. In Helsinki, and especially in the teacher training schools, they are used to people, from everywhere, coming and going all of the time.  I have seen the 2 main schools I have visited, the teacher training schools, featured on many news clips about the “Finnish Phenomenon.”

So, what makes their education system work so well?

Continue reading →

I say no.

Too often in public education, decisions are made with the standard "what's best for the kids" tagline, when the reality is usually that what is eventually decided upon is chosen because of cost effectiveness and ease of administration.

And, as any ineffective teacher will tell you, it is simply easiest to demand the same thing from everyone rather than to differentiate based on individual needs. Hence, the blanket-approach of standardized testing and the data-driven sameness movement. (No, data is not inherently evil… but data can certainly be used improperly.) To me, when an entity such as the USDE is charged with something of such broad scope, it is no surprise that the result is a one-size-fits-all solution which ultimately fits no one well.

I think a good step in reforming public education is to do something you'll rarely hear a liberal like me suggesting we do: decrease government involvement. Specifically, if we need to make budget cuts at the federal level, cut the United States Department of Education and turn absolute power over to the states.

We know that the things which matter most in education are those which are closest to the student: the teachers who provide instruction, paraeducators who provide support, custodians who keep the buildings safe and clean, just to name a few of the front-line workers. Unless someone can explain to me what vital service is provided to my students by Arne Duncan and USDE bureaucrats, I think that it is simply logical that this is where outright cuts ought to take place.

But I am open to being educated about the Department of Education, so please, share your answer to that title question.

It's been a long, long time since I've contributed to this forum. It's been a very, very busy year – overwhelmingly so. Ironically, I was reading Tom's Wednesday post about how often we consider making policy based on what's best for our kids today, and "walla" (as my students write – because they don't know it's actually a French word spelled "voila"), I saw the persuasive prompt for the 10th-grade HSPE. It turns out they also write prompts without considering what's best for our kids.

I teach English 10th-graders at a low-income, high-needs school, so we have spent a considerable amount time preparing for this test. As you all know, one of the keys to getting kids involved in their own education is making it relevant to them. Thus, I was absolutely appalled at the prompt the kids were given to write about. It was relevant to… well… my husband who works in the security field. Included in the prompt was a new type of technology with an appellation of ambiguous language, including the word "tag."

First of all, a persuasive prompt on a high-stakes test should be about an issue with which students are familiar. The purpose is to give them a topic with which to show their skill. One sitting is not enough time to think about an issue for the first time and be able to develop convincing and persuasive arguments – particularly if a large number of our students have no idea what the topic is in the first place. The word “tag” is already ambiguous, as the kids might understand it in the context of price “tags,” name "tags," dog “tags,” graffiti “tags,” clothing brand “tags.”  

With the high number of ELL students and students living in poverty at my school, there were many students who were completely confounded in how to approach this prompt. While some of our more creative students were able to “make up” enough details to complete their essays, others were completely and utterly discouraged when this unrealistic prompt was coupled with the enormous pressure they were already experiencing because of the high stakes this test represents. I saw despair on many faces.

My heart broke for one student who has been coming in regularly to work with me after school. He was determined to pass this test, and he knew that writing was not his strongest suit, so he asked for and received tutoring. Normally a gregarious one, when he came into class he could barely stand up straight. Shoulders slumped, head down, when I asked him if he was okay, he couldn't make eye contact with me or respond. I kept him after class, hoping to give him some encouragement, but all he could say was, "I just couldn't do it. I didn't even know how to start so I didn't finish."

For many of our third-world immigrants, the concept of a new technology is so foreign that they have a difficult time imagining it – much less constructing compelling arguments one way or another. Plainly and simply, this prompt is culturally insensitive to just about everyone.

It was a difficult day in a difficult year. My students and I have worked very hard to prepare for this test, and it is incredibly difficult to see their hope and high spirits shot down.

Did anyone else share this experience? In a middle-class venue, did the prompt work?

By Tom

We were having a “conversation” one day during a faculty meeting. It was during one of those Teacher Learning Days that happen before the school year starts. We had just been given the specialist schedule, which, for those of you who don’t teach elementary, is the schedule that tells you when your kids go to PE, music or the library. In other words, it tells you when you get your daily, 30-minute planning time.

The fourth grade teachers were upset. “We always get our planning time in the morning! Why should the fourth graders always get the bad schedule! That’s just not fair!”

I’m not normally one to enter into a vigorous debate between various groups of middle-aged women, but sometimes I can’t help myself. 

“Actually, that is the only fair way to do it,” I said. “Think about it: if one grade level has to have a bad schedule – and apparently it does – then the fairest way to do it is to give the same grade level the bad schedule every single year. That way, every kid gets it only once. But if you move it around every year, then you practically guarantee that some kids will get it more than once and some kids will never have it.”

“Of course,” I continued, “that’s only if we’re looking at this situation in terms of what’s best for the kids. If we’re talking about what’s best for teachers, then that’s a different conversation.”

I’d like to say that my razor-sharp logic won the day, but I can’t. My comments weren’t appreciated, least of all from the fourth grade team, who only glared at me with their collective stink-eye. And as I recall, it was my grade level that ended up with the crappy schedule that year.

But seriously, how often do we really regard policy decisions from the perspective of the educational stakeholders who hold the largest stakes? How often do we look at the long-term benefits for the greatest number of students when we decide policy?

Continue reading →