Delaware’s former Governor Jack Markell was infamous for touting the Smarter Balanced Assessment as “the best test Delaware ever made”. His very dangerous creation was a high-stakes test designed to test, label, and punish schools in Delaware with “low-performing” students. But Markell was very used to high-stakes games. In fact, nine months before he became Governor, it could have cost him his life! Continue reading
Delaware Secretary of Education Dr. Susan Bunting informed the State Board of Education yesterday she had lunch with State Senator David Sokola and State Rep. Earl Jaques. As heads of the Senate and House Education Committee, Bunting said it was to discuss upcoming legislation. Could this lead to state takeover of school districts in Delaware? Continue reading
Ed Tech. It is everywhere. Like the Vikings of yesteryear, it is invading every classroom in America. It is pillaging the public education village. For the Vikings, this was their way. It was all they knew. But for the Poverty Pimps, the companies who profit from students with the justification of fixing education for poor kids, it is disturbing on many levels. If this technology is used in moderation and for the sole benefit of increasing the ability for students to learn, that would be one thing. But companies are making billions of dollars off of our kids. Even worse, the privacy of our children’s information is suspect at best. One mom from Pennsylvania, Alison McDowell, has looked into all of this and she has found out a lot about what is going on with this aspect of the Ed Tech Boom.
A Skeptical Parent’s Thoughts on Evaluating Digital Learning Programs
With the school year beginning, questions about digital learning programs and computerized behavior management programs have started to pop up in my feed. Is X program ok? How about Y? Concerned parents are scanning privacy policies and trying to figure it all out. What does this mean for MY child?
As someone who took a symbolic stand and opted her child out of Google Apps for Education last year (and she didn’t seem to come out any the worse for wear for it BTW), I’d like to share my current thinking on this topic. I am not a Luddite, but I am concerned that rather than being taught to use and control technology, many children (especially children in turn-around or transformation schools) are increasingly being put into the position of being used BY technology to further the interests of for-profit cyber instruction and workforce development. I’m sharing my thoughts in the hope of opening up a discussion and to see where other folks are in this brave new world.
For me the bottom line is this: Does the technology under consideration empower students to be the creators of the content? Is the power with THEM?
If the answer is “yes,” then it shouldn’t depend on tracking personalized data to function properly. Sure kids should be able to work on a project, save it, and go back to it, but online monitors shouldn’t be tracking all their data. Students own the work they do. It is their intellectual property. It should remain accessible and editable by them for the purposes of what the child and the teacher are doing in the CLASSROOM-that’s it. Storing student learning with PII (personally identifiable information) in the cloud for some unspecified future purpose concerns me.
Fortunately for our family, the above scenario is the norm at my daughter’s school. Mostly they use GAFE for open-ended word processing and there is a geometry program that allows students to render shapes. But THEY are doing the creating. The work is being done in THEIR brains. They are not consuming pre-determined content and having their micro-data tracked and aggregated.
If the sole purpose of the technology under consideration is to distribute content from an online learning management system based on prior data that a program has gleaned from a student interacting with the program, that is NOT an empowering educational experience.
Others may feel differently, but right now that is my framework for looking at this issue. That, and the fact that technology should not supplant funds for human teachers and there should be age-appropriate screen time limits during the school day.
What we need is more educational sovereignty and less educational surveillance.
In Delaware, personalized learning is pushed heavily by the Rodel Foundation with support from the Delaware business community. Rodel, a non-profit company, has been pimping personalized learning and competency-based education for years. I have extreme issues with the CEO of a non-profit being the highest paid education person in the state, with a reported earning of $343,000 as of 2014. That is a lot more money than the highest paid state employee in education, Brandywine Superintendent Dr. Mark Holodick, who earned $217,000 as of last year. Every state has similar “foundations” doing the same thing.
Delaware teachers are at a crossroads. Do they embrace this technology knowing it could eventually lead to the end of their career as they know it, or do they resist it and fade into obscurity as districts and charter schools feel they aren’t supporting education? The problem is the power structure. The teachers who are embracing this technology are regarded as education heroes in the press. They are considered the “trailblazers” who will lead our children to “college and career readiness”. They get the rewards and the accolades while teachers in high-poverty schools, who work just as hard without proper funding and resources in bloated classrooms, get labeled and shamed over the state assessment scores.
For parents, their rights to protect their child’s personal information have slowly been dismantled through federal regulations involving FERPA. Outside contractors with state and local education agencies have certain allowances which allow them to see personal information. The laws surrounding this are very vague and unclear. On the surface, they look great. But the loopholes embedded in these laws are the true tale. For parents, opt out is no longer about the state assessment. It is also about education technology. But how does a parent opt their child out of entire curriculums that use computers and hand-held devices? It’s not like schools can say “that’s fine, we will give your child a textbook.”
As the world slowly begins to embrace Blockchain technology, modeled after Bitcoin, serious questions are being asked about how this could transform the education landscape. And what it means for our children. Make no mistake, the initiatives and “ideas” are already in play and have been for years. Blockchain is the end of the agendas. It is the Rubicon of the plans that began in the early 1990s. While these “futurists” didn’t foresee the exact mechanism of what is now Blockchain, they knew education would become a master and apprentice society, with earn to learn programs replacing the traditional classroom. Common Core and the high-stakes testing were a means to this end. We are hearing more and more talk about career pathways and early education. The role of corporations in these areas is too large to ignore. We are knee-deep in Education Incorporated, but we are about to be swallowed whole.
Last March, I created a Parent Bill of Rights for Education. It began as a response to the Center for American Progress’ Testing Bill of Rights. I found their platform to be insulting to the students, parents, and teachers of America. Since then, things have changed. I landed in Facebook jail when I posted this to the same groups I show my articles to. With no explanation whatsoever from Facebook. The idea took on a life of its own. But I need your help. Please look at it. Come up with ideas on how to improve it. Let’s make this a real thing and present it to Congress next year. We must be able to exert parental control over what is best for our children before that control is stripped from us forever. To this end, I have created a Parent Bill of Rights for Public Education group. It will be a private group. It will be by invitation only, which some may see as hypocritical on my end given my rants about transparency. But we don’t want the corporations getting their hooks into this. This will be created by parents, for their children. Not for profit or power and gain. This is for our kids. Because we love them better than any company ever will.
Nothing is invincible. Both statements are correct. No one person or power is absolutely invincible. But if you do nothing, then nothing becomes invincible. This is where we are these days, a synchronicity, a play on words. Not just in my home state, but as a country. People seem to be making decisions based on fear more than what is necessary. If I do this, then this will happen. If I speak against this then it may make me look bad or it could cause me problems. You are exactly where they want you. Because even if they aren’t invincible, they know nothing is. They also know if you do nothing, they are that much closer to becoming invincible.
I heard these words this morning driving to work. Nothing is invincible. A guy named Gordon Sumner sang these words along with a couple of his friends back in 1983. Gordon was a teacher back in the day. His words from thirty-three years ago are very prophetic. Because nothing is winning the day in public education. A lot of people talk about something but too many say nothing. But trust me, the enemies of public education have plenty to say. They hold an illusionary power. This is power they have been given. They use fear tactics to silence their oppressors because they know how to do it. They turn words like “rigor”, and “robust”, and “pathways” into their symbols of change. But they experience fear too.
Nothing scared them more than 22% of New York students opting out of the state assessment this year. New York parents are smart. They know that if enough of them opt out it makes the policy makers who love these tests. They know nothing is invincible. We all need to take this cue from the Empire State. Imagine if 22% of Americans said something instead of nothing? Imagine if that number grew to 30%? 50%, or 75%? It would destroy their corporate profit-driven dreams for our children. Politicians would stand up and take notice. The King would fall. For the corporate education reformers, their illusionary invincibility would crumble into dust. They would become nothing.
How many parents in Delaware and the rest of America got their kid’s state assessment results, looked at them, and thought “my kid’s grades don’t reflect this. What the hell are they taking this test for?” I know many who felt it was a waste of paper and ink and disposed of these results. I know some parents are worried about choicing their child to another school if they opt them out of the test. To them I say “Do it anyways,” because if enough of you do it those choice qualifications won’t matter. Those qualifications will become the dust on the reformer’s mirrors when they look at themselves and say “Why”?
Remember, nothing is invincible. If you believe in something, say it. It’s what makes us America. Don’t let fear rule the day. Let your voice and your conscience and your own inherent sense of what is right and what is wrong make the decision, not what others say or what they pressure you into believing. They are liars and will stop at nothing to tear down your child’s own sense of what is right and wrong so they can get their way. Don’t give them that power. Don’t let them try to brainwash our kids into believing their way is the right way.
What if I told you the high-stakes testing American children have been going through is a complete and utter scam? Many would say they already knew that, but would they be able to tell you how they knew this? Probably not. At least not at the levels our state Department of Educations developed with the many testing companies such as American Institutes for Research, Pearson, and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.
The Delaware Department of Education put out a Request for Proposal for our new Social Studies State Assessment. The actual RFP is a treasure trove of testing information. For starters, the Delaware Department of Education is flat-out lying in their RFP. Last year, the Delaware DOE put out their “Delaware School Success Framework”. This is essentially Delaware’s report card for schools. Included in this horrible accountability testing machine are participation rate penalties for schools that go under 95% participation rate on the state assessments. The Delaware DOE and State Board of Education tried passing an updated version of Delaware’s regulation regarding school accountability, but many parents and education organizations balked and successfully blocked the State Board of Education from passing it. As a result, even though the Delaware State Board of Education eventually passed the Delaware School Success Framework, there is no regulatory power behind it. But that didn’t stop the Delaware DOE from making it look like it is perfectly legal in their RFP for the new Social Studies state assessment.
One of the first things the DOE calls for from a potential vendor for this test is understanding of and the ability to put the Rasch Scoring Methodology into the test. What is this Rasch the Delaware DOE has? It is an all-consuming itch to trip up kids and schools and parents. This is part of the underbelly of state testing that no one talks about. The website appropriately titled Rasch-Analysis.com explains the Rasch Scoring Methodology as this:
What is a Rasch Analysis? The Rasch model, where the total score summarizes completely a person’s standing on a variable, arises from a more fundamental requirement: that the comparison of two people is independent of which items may be used within the set of items assessing the same variable. Thus the Rasch model is taken as a criterion for the structure of the responses, rather than a mere statistical description of the responses. For example, the comparison of the performance of two students’ work marked by different graders should be independent of the graders.
In this case it is considered that the researcher is deliberately developing items that are valid for the purpose and that meet the Rasch requirements of invariance of comparisons.
Analyzing data according to the Rasch model, that is, conducting a Rasch analysis, gives a range of details for checking whether or not adding the scores is justified in the data. This is called the test of fit between the data and the model. If the invariance of responses across different groups of people does not hold, then taking the total score to characterize a person is not justified. Of course, data never fit the model perfectly, and it is important to consider the fit of data to the model with respect to the uses to be made of the total scores. If the data do fit the model adequately for the purpose, then the Rasch analysis also linearises the total score, which is bounded by 0 and the maximum score on the items, into measurements. The linearised value is the location of the person on the unidimensional continuum – the value is called a parameter in the model and there can be only one number in a unidimensional framework. This parameter can then be used in analysis of variance and regression more readily than the raw total score which has floor and ceiling effects.
Many assessments in these disciplines involve a well defined group of people responding to a set of items for assessment. Generally, the responses to the items are scored 0, 1 (for two ordered categories); or 0, 1, 2 (for three ordered categories); or 0, 1,2, 3 (for four ordered categories) and so on, to indicate increasing levels of a response on some variable such as health status or academic achievement. These responses are then added across items to give each person a total score. This total score summarise the responses to all the items, and a person with a higher total score than another one is deemed to show more of the variable assessed. Summing the scores of the items to give a single score for a person implies that the items are intended to measure a single variable, often referred to as a unidimensional variable.
The Rasch model is the only item response theory (IRT) model in which the total score across items characterizes a person totally. It is also the simplest of such models having the minimum of parameters for the person (just one), and just one parameter corresponding to each category of an item. This item parameter is generically referred to as a threshold. There is just one in the case of a dichotomous item, two in the case of three ordered categories, and so on.
Now this has a lot of lingo I didn’t quite get. But the important part about understanding the Rasch Methodology of Scoring is that ALL items must be the same. This is NOT what is going on currently. With Smarter Balanced, PARCC and other state assessments, the testing companies have developed what is called a Partial Matrix of Items. What this means is that a portion of the state assessment is the same for everyone. But the remaining portion comes from a bucket of different test items submitted for these tests. In partial matrix testing theory, the similar content shared by all could be anywhere from 20-30% of the items on the test. The rest varies based on what is in the bucket. What this means is this shocking find: students aren’t taking the exact same state assessment. For Smarter Balanced test-takers, the tests aren’t the same. The same for PARCC as well.
The truly frightening part about this is the probabilities with Partial Matrix. If a student is a high achiever, the probability they will get a correct answer is above a probability of .5 on each item’s scale. If they aren’t a high achiever and struggle, the probability drops below .5 on the scale. So these tests are designed so roughly half get it right and half get them wrong. But if kids aren’t taking the same exact test, where all the items after the “common” items change, that throws the whole model into whack. The testing companies know this. Our state DOEs know this. The US DOE knows this. Chances are many corporate education reform companies, politicians, and even some school Superintendents know this. Any testing coordinator in a school district or charter school should know this.
This is also why opt out throws the whole scheme into disarray. If too many “smart kids” opt out, it will change that whole .5 probability. If too many struggling kids opt out, the test scores will be very high. The testing companies love this model because it furthers the whole standardized testing environment which gives them lots of money. With this model, schools fail and schools succeed. It really is based on the socio-economic demographics of any given school. This explains why the 95% participation rate is the desired outcome. With a school of 1000 kids, 950 kids taking the test isn’t going to skew the results too much. But once you get below that level, that .5 probability begins to shift in either direction. None of these testing advocates care if the kids are proficient or not. They already know, for the most part, exactly how it is going to turn out. That’s when the real work and potential manipulation can occur.
In Delaware, students don’t take the Smarter Balanced Assessment at the same time. There is a three month testing window. Some schools begin in the first week of March whereas others may not start until May. How do we know, with 100% certainty, companies like our testing vendor, American Institutes for Research aren’t looking at that data constantly? How do we know they aren’t able to ascertain which questions have a higher or lower probability of being answered correctly once students start taking the test? How do we know the testing gurus at our state DOEs aren’t in constant contact with the testing companies and are able to determine ahead of time which testing items in the “non-common” partial matrix to send to different schools, or even certain grades?
For example, say a state really wants to have a particular school show phenomenal “growth” in proficiency scores from one year to the next. This could be a charter school. While the overall proficiency rate isn’t phenomenal, the growth could be. As a result, more students could be wowed by this school and might be more apt to send their children there. It could flip around another way. Say a state DOE really is just sick of a particular district and wants more charters in that area. The best way to make more charters is to show more failing traditional schools. Even some charters could be expendable. Another one might want to expand their enrollment and has more influence and pull than other ones. With current accountability regulations (and more to come under ESSA), this allows states to continue labeling and shaming certain schools. The reality is these assessments can be molded into any shape a state might want if they are able to interact with the testing vendor and determine which items go to which school. This is a worst-case scenario for an already bad test to begin with.
While state DOEs brag about the computer-adaptability of these tests and how it will “work with the student”, this is the most egregious part of the whole modern-day standardized testing scheme. By having this “adaptability”, it disguises the true intent: different items on the tests for different students. Even if students talk about particular items on the test, the adaptability prevents them from having the same items on the test. It is an ingenious scheme.
For teachers, some could be guided towards certain directions by the state DOEs for where to go with curriculum. Others could be guided in the wrong direction which will ultimately change the results of these assessments. It is the grandest illusion of them all. The state DOEs will say “we have advisory committees. Teachers pick the items for the test.” I’m sure they do. And I’m also sure there are plants on those committees. Ones that wind up working with certain state foundations, state DOEs, or other corporate education reform companies. It sounds so shady, doesn’t it? How much of a soul has to be sold to make more money or climb up the corporate education ladder?
While all of this may have your head reeling, try this on for size: what happens when competency-based education becomes the next “thing”? When digital personalized learning becomes the norm and all these state assessments become broken down into mini-standardized tests? Instead of those 7-10 days when students are hogging up all the bandwidth in the school and teachers most likely lose a lot of hair, the tests will be shorter. They will become end of unit assessments. Teachers won’t even need to worry about administering their own end of unit assessment because Smarter Balanced and PARCC already did all the work! How convenient. Not only did our states reduce testing time, but also teacher’s time and effort. A true cause for celebration. And parents won’t even be able to opt their kids out of these tests because most of them most likely won’t even know their kid is testing and their classroom grades will be based off their digital personalized learning work and their competency-based education high-stakes mini-test. We know Delaware is leaning towards this testing model because Delaware Secretary of Education Dr. Steven Godowsky mentioned this during our last Assessment Inventory Committee meeting back in May.
Meanwhile, back at the state DOE, they are getting all this data. They are getting it from their vendors like American Institutes for Research, or Questar, or Pearson. Other companies want to see it so they can work on a report about how to fix our schools. Our state DOEs actually pay them to do these reports. Through contracts and extensions of contracts. Yes, only the student identifier code goes out. These testing companies really don’t care about who the student is, just what they can extrapolate from the data. But then that information comes back to the state. The state knows who that student identifier belongs to. For example, Student ID # belongs to John Johns at Delaware Elementary School. Based on the information from all that data, they can easily paint a picture of that student. Based on the scores, how long it took them to take the test, how they answered responsive questions… all of this allows them to track. So much so they can determine, based on other algorithms and matrices, exactly what career path John Johns is heading towards. Perhaps we should guide him towards that culinary program. Or maybe Bio-technology pathways. Or maybe poor John Johns won’t ever advance past a welder position. FERPA guidelines allow state DOEs to actually do this.
Want to know who always loses in these testing games? Students with disabilities. They may receive accommodations but they never get the one accommodation they need the most. For regular classroom tests, IEP teams frequently agree on a student not taking every single test question. Maybe 1//2 or 3/4 of the questions. Standardized tests don’t allow for that. The answer is always the same: they will get more time. What they fail to understand is what “more time” means to these students. It means more time focusing on the same task: Taking a test. What are their regular peers doing when these kids are getting “more time”? They are learning. Receiving instruction. Getting ahead. Students with disabilities are, yet again, put in a position where they will become further behind.
We all knew our kids were guinea pigs for these tests. We just didn’t know how much. The time to opt out of these tests, no matter what the circumstances might be, is now. Not later, not tomorrow. Now. Today is your opt out day for your child.
Below is the RFP for Delaware’s Social Studies state assessment. I’ve gone through this and highlighted key wording and troubling aspects which I will write more about tonight or tomorrow. Don’t be fooled by the DOE’s statements of assurance in this. I have no doubt their legal team went through it very carefully. But I’m fairly certain they didn’t expect a citizen to go through it and dissect it like I did…
You have until Monday, August 1st to submit public comment on the proposed regulations and rule-making put out by U.S. Secretary of Education John King on May 29th. After that, no more public comment will be accepted. You need to go to the Federal Register website, which can be found here. Read through the regulations. It is in-depth and monstrous. But the future of the children of America is at stake here. If you have been a big fan of the high-stakes testing anti-parental rights shame and label schools, teachers, and students era of education, then sit at home and watch the future of America crumble before your very eyes. If you want to prevent John King from furthering the bad policies and agendas, first laid out by No Child Left Behind and then magnified a hundred fold under Race To The Top, then please leave public comment.
This was my public comment:
I do not agree with most of these proposed regulations. It is a further attempt to exert federal control over state decisions. Furthermore, many of those in power at the state level have eroded local control to the point of absurdity. It is a parent’s fundamental and constitutional right to opt their child out of the state assessment. Any regulation proposing to punish schools for a parent’s decision is illegal. The ESEA regulations state that all schools must make sure children take the assessment, not that all students MUST participate in the state assessment. That regulation has been perverted over the years to take away parental rights. No state should have to follow regulations formed to serve testing companies and their profits more than the rights of parents, students, teachers, and schools. Education has become a for-profit center at the expense of children and those who truly serve them.
Since the advent of charter schools, the rate of high-stakes associated with testing has increased dramatically. Charter schools have led to more discrimination and segregation of at-risk children while our government has mostly turned a blind eye to these practices while allowing to flourish, multiply, and take away necessary funding from traditional public schools. Too many states have tampered with existing law and regulations so charter schools benefit, whether through artificial n#s leaving out many charter students from accountability rankings, or shifting funding to charter schools without giving those same funds to traditional school districts.
As a result of all of this federal intrusion, students with disabilities have lost. They have lost instruction, time, and accommodations in the name of the almighty state assessment. Common Core IS a curriculum and it has become so embedded into state education structure that getting it out will be a mammoth task. Common Core does not work, will not work, and never has worked.
In states like my own, Delaware, we have a corrupt Governor who has made it his mission to demean teachers and punish schools all in the guise of students becoming “college and career ready”. It is a complete farce and a lie. It is for companies to profit, not students. I will make it my mission in life to overturn every single regulation that this heavily lobbied Department makes under the illusion of “student success” that benefits others over children. I will fight competency-based education through digital personalized learning that sends data out to “research” companies like American Institutes for Research who benefit immensely as the essential creators of the Smarter Balanced Assessment and also serve as the vendor for the very same test in Delaware and others.
We have sold out our children to companies, and these proposed regulations will only further solidify the stranglehold they have on our students, teachers, and schools. Say NO to these regulations and give our children the capability to receive the true education they deserve, not this bastardized corporate version of education. Let’s let students with disabilities get the rights they deserve. Let’s let minority students not be subject to rigor in an attempt to “close the achievement gaps” that were created by corporations with tests designed for the upper-class. Let’s let parents decide (and they already do) if their child should or should not take the state assessment.
How dare this Department try to impose into law, with haste and desperation, the same type of regulatory schemes the Every Student Succeeds Act was supposed to get rid of before the lobbyists twisted the original intent of the law and Congress passed, very quickly I might add, a completely different law in a matter of weeks with little to no room for public comment or oversight. I expect our the United States of America government to immediately halt these regulations and to strip away the power of U.S. Secretary of Education John King so I no longer have to write comments like this in a Federal Register, as well as any future U.S. Secretary of Education.
On a Facebook page called The Unofficial PCA, about Providence Creek Academy, the host put up a post on Monday about a large exodus of teachers from the Kent County charter school. The post disappeared, but a more watered down version of the question showed up Wednesday night on the page. As well, students in Kindergarten to 2nd grade took a standardized test that actually caused some parents to pull their children out of the school. Questions are beginning to mount concerning the “interim” Head of School, Chuck Taylor, who has filled this interim position for a year and nine months.
In terms of the teacher exodus, it was confirmed at PCA’s board meeting on Tuesday that twelve teachers left this year. The average is three to five. But the school insisted this is “in the norm” according to the new Facebook post on The Unofficial PCA.
Are Teachers Leaving PCA?
Notes from 7/26 board meeting.
I hadn’t planned to attend last night’s board meeting. But the day before, I ran into another parent at the store asking if I had heard about the rumors. People had been saying that a large portion of the teachers were leaving PCA out of frustration with Head of School Chuck Taylor and Principal Audrey Erschen. My friend didn’t have much details so I canceled my plans and went to the meeting. I was expecting a huge turnout from parents but there was only one other parent attending (other than the parent board member) and she hadn’t heard the rumors.
I relayed as much of the rumors as I could, without revealing names. This year, there are about 60 on staff and about a dozen teachers left PCA; some to other positions, some for family, and a couple that were dissatisfied. In an average year, 3-5 teachers leave PCA but this year is not too far out of the norm and certainly not as severe as the year in which 21 teachers left. All but two of the teaching positions have been filled. Ms Erschen assured us that they are in no rush to fill the position and are being very selective. She is confident that the two positions will be filled well before school starts.
As far as any issues teachers may have had with Mr Taylor or Ms Erschen, they never were clearly defined. Mr Taylor has been the interim Head of School longer than intended as that the last candidate selected was not able to take the position. Another candidate is being considered and Mr Taylor is planning to go back to retirement in January. On the couple of occasions that I have heard someone complaining about Mr Taylor, it usually stemmed from a misunderstanding. I do not envy Ms Erschen for the balancing act she does every day. She deals with a whole lot of problems and somebody being dissatisfied is inevitable but she always maintains professional composure. Every morning, no matter the weather, they are out in front of the school to greet students and talk with parents. I’ve always found them to be very approachable and the kids (including my daughter) think well of them.
Greater transparency and addressing issues before they become rumors would help to put parents at ease. Board meetings include an “Opportunity to Address the Board” and it is a great opportunity for parents to ask questions and raise concerns. PCA is considering putting the ‘Head of School’ and ‘Principal’ reports in the webpage ‘news’ in addition to already being in the ‘Board Minutes’. They are also considering providing staff bios so that parents know more about the staff.
I intend to follow up with any more details that I come across and certainly welcome any input. Rather than passing along rumors, it’d be helpful to discuss these things in an open format (you can message me if you’d like to remain anonymous). I requested a list of the teachers that left (elsewise, we could always figure it out through the process of elimination). Arguing the validity of an individual complaint may not be as useful as keeping an open eye for trends. PCA isn’t perfect (no school is) and we should all strive to make things better and that depends on parents being involved.
-Director of Curriculum Danielle Moore wants to go back to the classroom and work with kids. She has been replaced by John Epstein who had been working for the Delaware Board of Education.
-‘Special’ classes will no longer be on a six day rotation because the classes were too far apart. So this year, students will have two special classes each trimester with the same amount of time give to each class.
I would not say 12 teachers leaving out of a staff of 60 is “in the norm“. That is 20% of their staff. Charter schools do tend to have higher turnover than traditional public schools. But that is an alarming number, in my opinion. While it isn’t the exodus of 21 teachers that happened at one time, it should be a matter of concern for other teachers and parents. My biggest questions would be how seasoned the departing teachers are. Will their replacements be more experienced or less? That could have a big impact!
In their latest posted board minutes, for their June 21st board meeting, I found several items that were somewhat odd which have my comments under each one.
Mrs. Erschen reviewed the placement of appropriate employees to be included in the Consolidated Grant FY 2016-2017.
What does “appropriate employees mean?
PCA will be the only charter school involved in a new DPAS study.
Which DPAS study is this? The only public DPAS study I have seen is the pilot program which will come out of House Bill 399, which changes Component V for teacher evaluations. Senator David Sokola was really promoting his “pilot program” amendment. Sokola and Chuck Taylor worked together on the charter school audit bill. But what makes this very interesting is House Bill 399 didn’t pass until July 1st. Eleven days after this board meeting on June 21st. So how could PCA have been picked for this program if this is the DPAS program they are talking about? And Markell hasn’t even signed the bill yet. Unless there is some other DPAS program that hasn’t been revealed.
There were some issues with the implementation of the new grading policy for grades K-2. This new policy created some confusion with parents. With help from Mrs. Erschen and Mr. Taylor the concerns were addressed and professional development will be provided to the teachers at the beginning of the school year to ensure that there is consistency among teachers.
What is this new grading policy? How did it create confusion for parents? If professional development is needed so teachers can understand a grading system in the next school year, there is something not right about this. More on this later.
Approval of Employee Bonuses: Lisa Moore made the motion, Chris Craig seconded. All in favor? Motion passed.
PCA consistently gives out “academic excellence” payouts every single month. But are all teachers getting them? The average monthly employee bonus is $466.
And from their May 24th Board minutes:
Head of School Search Committee: One candidate was interviewed. Board of Directors are still narrowing candidate pool for more candidate interviews.
Can someone please tell me why the Interim Head of School, who has been in this “interim” status for 21 months, is on the search committee for this new head of school? How many candidates have interviewed? It looks to me like Chuck Taylor is using his position on this committee to secure continued employment for himself. Because this is how I see it. He left PCA under very vague circumstances in the Spring of 2013. He wound up at Campus Community School where he became their interim Head of School after Trish Hermance resigned in the Summer of 2013. In September of 2013, their board voted unanimously to keep him on as the permanent Head of School. By December, they hired a new Head of School. Chuck joined their board and six months later, he resigned from their board. In October of 2014, Chuck came back to PCA during the Audrey Erschen odd relative/employee shenanigans going on at the school. As the interim Head of School. A few months later, the Tatnall leader who was supposed to become the new Head of School was poisoned in the Caribbean. That was over a year and a half ago. What qualifications does a leader need to become their Head of School? This looks like a lot of stall tactics by Chuck Taylor. I don’t buy him wanting to retire.
For a guy who wants to fade into obscurity, he sure does place himself in very important charter school positions. As well as his “interim” duties at PCA, he also has a slot on the Charter School Accountability Committee (CSAC) at the Delaware DOE and is the President of the board for the Delaware Charter Schools Network. He was present at the Senate Education Committee for legislation surrounding charter school audits. While this may not seem to be a big deal, it is important to know that PCA used the same auditor for their annual audit as Family Foundations Academy for many years. Both PCA and FFA had major investigations from the State Auditor of Accounts that led to findings of severe financial abuse and theft. During FFA’s charter renewal, Taylor served on CSAC. When questions arose among the committee about FFA having a bizarre number of fraternity brothers on their board, Taylor actually defended the FFA board even though it was painfully obvious there was a major conflict of interest at play. During this time, FFA’s leader, Sean Moore, was the Treasurer for the Delaware Charter Schools Network. Moore embezzled over $100,000 from FFA according to the inspection report that came out last December. The State Board of Education placed FFA on probation when it became public about the financial fraud. Moore was terminated by the re-structured board which eventually removed the fraternity brothers.
All K-2 end of year assessments were created and given to the teachers who are working on administering them to the students. After all tests are complete teachers will submit them to so that data can be gathered on the assessments and determine if any changes need to be made for next school year.
PCA created assessments for Kindergarten, 1st Grade, and 2nd year students? Yes, they did. Who created these assessments? And if a child failed these tests, the parents were told the student had to go to summer school for a fee of $350.00. It didn’t seem to matter what their classroom grades were. Six different parents of first graders received a letter the second week of June indicating their child had failed the reading assessment part of this assessment. PCA highly recommended sending these kids to summer school. This is actually a step up for the school, because the original intention was to keep the kids in the same grade if they did poorly on this self-created assessment. At least two parents pulled their children out as a result. Was this the intention? Let’s see: students do bad on an assessment, school tells parents they want the kids to go to summer school for a rather steep fee (told to parents days before this summer school was supposed to start), and parents pull kids out. I see it as a way to get rid of low-scoring assessment takers without regard to their actual capabilities.
For the Smarter Balanced Assessment results, PCA did rather well on their scores compared to the state average. They went from 66% proficiency in English/Language Arts to 74%. In Math, they went from 43% to 55%. Those are huge gains which will cause the Delaware DOE to award the charter school the token “reward school” status next fall. I have to wonder how much of these gains and “growth” are engineered by the school in advance. For the surrounding districts where PCA draws its student base from, the Smyrna School District went from 59% to 66% proficiency in ELA and 45 to 46% in Math. Capital went from 48% to 50% in ELA and 32% to 36% in Math. Campus Community School went from 62% to 60% in ELA and 37% to 40% in Math.
A few years ago, one parent pulled her child out of PCA. Her child, according to the mom, was brilliant. This student had some minor attention deficits, but was able to get straight As at the school. PCA insisted on placing the child into a lower-tiered classroom as a 4th grader. At that time, there were three levels in classrooms: lower, middle, and high. I would have to assume this was due to Response to Intervention (RtI) strategies for lower grade students when they attended those grades. But placement in RtI groups usually isn’t based on actual classroom grades. It is based on how they do on standardized tests. For this child, being placed in a lower-tier was not a good thing. The child did not feel challenged. Many children who are very smart put in this position will tend to act out. As a result, the school started putting the “bad behavior” label on the student. Teachers agreed with the mom that the student should not have been at that level. By the time the school finally put him into the higher level, it was so late in the school year (and after the 2nd wave of DCAS testing) the mother had already decided her child would not attend the school the next year. The mother stated that the new school had none of these issues and her child has thrived ever since.
Last weekend, I posted an article about Newark Charter School and what I see as “social engineering” to drive up their test scores. Many of the most fervent charter school supporters are parents of children who do well on these types of tests. In my opinion, far too many Delaware charters drive their enrollment based on this flawed idea. When you compare PCA’s demographics to surrounding districts and their closest competition with an area charter school, we see startling changes.
PROVIDENCE CREEK ACADEMY
SMYRNA SCHOOL DISTRICT
CAPITAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
CAMPUS COMMUNITY SCHOOL
The students who score the lowest on the state assessment are special education students. This has always been the case. By driving out students with special needs, the overall scores on the Smarter Balanced Assessment will automatically go up. If you have a low population of these students to begin with, which is the case with PCA, it is a guarantee. Many Delaware charter schools that begin with Kindergarten have screenings with potential applicants. These screenings, which are meant to show a school where a student is at, can also serve as a way for schools to look for characteristics which could ultimately lead to perceived lower state assessment scores. I have no doubt this practice takes place at some Delaware charter schools, and I believe PCA does this. To further muddy the waters of this social engineering practice, PCA came up with some type of assessment for students in K-2 (who do not take the state assessment) to see how they may do on Smarter Balanced, and came up with a way to tick parents off enough they would pull their child out of the school. Whether by design or unintentional, this is a discriminatory recipe for disaster. Any school is only as good as the populations it serves. We know this. We know the Smarter Balanced Assessment changes constantly and the cut scores change from year to year. The test is not designed to have a great majority of students showing proficiency.
In a charter school that bases everything on state assessment scores, it can become a pressure cooker for students, parents, and teachers. This drive to perform on a once-a-year test is everything that is wrong about Delaware education. And it is becoming clear that this is the environment at PCA. I have no doubt they have many very positive attributes. I am sure they do a lot of good things for their students and have a very welcoming community. But that is the surface. Underneath is a testing regimen that overshadows everything else. If you are a smart kid, you will do great. If you struggle, in any way, there will be issues. When you look at the school’s Facebook reviews on their page, you see many 5 star designations. Many of these reviews are from teachers and even the Principal, Audrey Erschen. Even board members review this school. When any rating system is purposely stacked toward a certain goal, the perception is deceptive.
While the school appears to be doing better financially, nothing happened with the terminated employee who embezzled large amounts from the school. The Delaware Attorney General’s office has yet to file charges against this perpetrator. But that might change. Earlier in the Spring, state agents were in the school issuing subpoenas for financial records. Will they find anything more than what already came out from the State Auditor of Account’s inspection released earlier this year? Time will tell. Providence Creek Academy is the 7th largest charter school in Delaware out of 27 charter schools. But for their expenditures divided by the number of students, they come in at 26th place. We know they don’t pay their teachers huge amounts as well compared to surrounding districts. So where is all their money going?
These are my biggest concerns with this school, and for perspective parents looking at this Delaware charter school, they should be seen as potential red flags. For those who want to claim I hate charter schools, I don’t. I think some of our charters do a great job. I recognize no school is perfect. But far too many use tactics like this which lead to a type of discrimination, particularly against students with disabilities. That is intolerable. But because our state DOE and Governor base everything on test scores on high-stakes tests driven by corporate education reformers, they look the other way.
To view past articles on Providence Creek Academy on this blog, please go here. To view their board minutes, please go here. The picture of the Providence Creek Academy campus came from a website belonging to Nickle Electrical Properties who renovated the school six years ago.
In 2008, the Delaware State Education Association conducted a debate with the three gubernatorial candidates: Jack Markell, Mike Protack, and John Carney. They filmed the entire event. At the time, Carney was the Lieutenant Governor, Markell was the State Treasurer, and Protack was (and still is) a pilot. Will Carney take the same stances he did in this debate? We all know Markell didn’t. A lot has changed in eight years…
The Academy of Dover is going through the very laborious charter renewal process with the Delaware Department of Education. On April 30th, the DOE gave the school their renewal report and AoD had 16 days to respond. The school had a rough couple years. Between a very damaging state auditor report on their former head of school embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars, low high-stakes testing scores, a very large settlement with a former management company, and compliance issues, they have had their hands full. The former assistant principal now leads the school. A former principal from Town Pointe Elementary School in Capital School District runs the curriculum now. The board has shifted and received training in areas that caused some of the problems. Will it be enough?
This charter renewal comes at an interesting time. The 2014-2015 school year was the first year Smarter Balanced came into play. As such, the scores from that year don’t really count, but the DOE is using the ratings from the Delaware School Success Framework as a substitute for their Academic Framework. Let me say from the start, I feel bad for charter schools in the respect that the state assessment plays such a large part in anything going on with the DOE. AoD has a large population of low-income and minority students who typically fare worse on these tests than other schools.
Other factors that could affect their renewal involve Noel Rodriguez, their local school district, and the scores from the 2015-2016 SBAC. The former Head of School, Noel Rodriguez, will face charges at some point. I know of at least one other Delaware charter where the Attorney General’s office recently issued subpoenas about their own similar issues. Yet another Delaware charter had their board file for insurance claims due to embezzlement at their own school from former leaders. So something is coming which will put the school in the spotlight when Rodriguez faces charges. However, this issue already came up in their 2015 formal review and they were not shut down for it then so the DOE should not put them under the same scrutiny twice.
Capital School District, under the new leadership of Superintendent Dr. Dan Shelton, is looking at their own district with their Strategic Plan. What comes out of that, to improve the district, could affect AoD in the long run in terms of enrollment. But it should have no bearing on their renewal process.
The scores from the recent Smarter Balanced Assessment for the school will not play into their academic framework since it is not a part of the renewal report, but the impression could taint the process. Once again, I will stress my opinion these should not even factor into their charter renewal, but the DOE and I do not agree on this point.
I will admit I have softened my stance on Delaware charter schools a bit. My own experience with them tainted my view a bit. I still don’t agree with some of their very discriminatory practices up in Wilmington and the only one in Sussex County. But I believe they are just as much a victim as traditional school districts are with the DOE in terms of very bad regulations, mandates, and accountability. Academy of Dover and I had a frosty relationship in the past, but that has warmed up a bit in recent months. Many of the complaints against most charter schools are a result of politics and tainted legislation by people in Dover who should really know better. I believe the Delaware Charter Schools Network adds immensely to the perceptions against charters. With that caveat, Academy of Dover has a former State Representative on their board who does carry a bit of clout in Kent County so politics can play a part to help the school.
Many of the issues with Academy of Dover are well-known by the DOE and have come up before in formal reviews. There really aren’t any new complaints which suggests the school has fixed many of the issues since Noel Rodriguez left. No school is perfect, but Academy of Dover seems to have turned a lot around in the past year and a half. Rodriguez controlled the school and left a considerable amount of damage in his wake.
My one concern in the below response from the school is this 11 week Smarter Balanced Boot Camp after school for struggling students. In this era of high-stakes accountability, schools are under the gun for kids to do well on these tests. But they can go overboard with this effort. Calling anything a boot camp with education is a bad idea in my opinion. It suggests a dire need for these kids to do well on these tests regardless of the cost. The sooner we can get schools to stop giving in to this very bad proficiency environment, the better things will be in the long run. It gives the Delaware DOE all the power. But I also don’t run a school with that kind of pressure thrust upon me so it is easy for me to say that.
I know the school had special education issues in the past, but we won’t know until June how they may have improved. That is when the DOE issues their special education compliance annual reports. However, those are usually about three years behind and would reflect the height of the Noel Rodriguez era so that should be taken into consideration as well. Special education is a hot mess in Delaware overall. There seems to be a mass amount of confusion between Response to Intervention and true special education. This is an ongoing issue that will only get worse if we stay in this high-stakes accountability environment.
Dr. Steven Godowsky, the Delaware Secretary of Education will issue his final recommendation to the State Board of Education at their December 15th board meeting where they will vote on Academy of Dover’s charter renewal.
Below is the charter renewal report from the Delaware DOE and Academy of Dover’s response:
This was originally written on another blog. I will just call it Celia’s blog. It was about the PARCC Test, released by the corporate education reform monster Pearson. Pearson made Celia take off some of what she wrote. Now ALL of us are reposting the original material in support of Celia and to give a collective whatever to Pearson. Below is the original.
The PARCC Test: Exposed
The author of this blog posting is a public school teacher who will remain anonymous.
I will not reveal my district or my role due to the intense legal ramifications for exercising my Constitutional First Amendment rights in a public forum. I was compelled to sign a security form that stated I would not be “Revealing or discussing passages or test items with anyone, including students and school staff, through verbal exchange, email, social media, or any other form of communication” as this would be considered a “Security Breach.” In response to this demand, I can only ask—whom are we protecting?
There are layers of not-so-subtle issues that need to be aired as a result of national and state testing policies that are dominating children’s lives in America. As any well prepared educator knows, curriculum planning and teaching requires knowing how you will assess your students and planning backwards from that knowledge. If teachers are unable to examine and discuss the summative assessment for their students, how can they plan their instruction? Yet, that very question assumes that this test is something worth planning for. The fact is that schools that try to plan their curriculum exclusively to prepare students for this test are ignoring the body of educational research that tells us how children learn, and how to create developmentally appropriate activities to engage students in the act of learning. This article will attempt to provide evidence for these claims as a snapshot of what is happening as a result of current policies.
The PARCC test is developmentally inappropriate
In order to discuss the claim that the PARCC test is “developmentally inappropriate,” examine three of the most recent PARCC 4th grade items.
A book leveling system, designed by Fountas and Pinnell, was made “more rigorous” in order to match the Common Core State Standards. These newly updated benchmarks state that 4th Graders should be reading at a Level S by the end of the year in order to be considered reading “on grade level.” [Celia’s note: I do not endorse leveling books or readers, nor do I think it appropriate that all 9 year olds should be reading a Level S book to be thought of as making good progress.]
The PARCC, which is supposedly a test of the Common Core State Standards, appears to have taken liberties with regard to grade level texts. For example, on the Spring 2016 PARCC for 4th Graders, students were expected to read an excerpt from Shark Life: True Stories about Sharks and the Sea by Peter Benchley and Karen Wojtyla. According to Scholastic, this text is at an interest level for Grades 9-12, and at a 7th Grade reading level. The Lexile measure is 1020L, which is most often found in texts that are written for middle school, and according to Scholastic’s own conversion chart would be equivalent to a 6th grade benchmark around W, X, or Y (using the same Fountas and Pinnell scale).
Even by the reform movement’s own standards, according to MetaMetrics’ reference material on Text Complexity Grade Bands and Lexile Bands, the newly CCSS aligned “Stretch” lexile level of 1020 falls in the 6-8 grade range. This begs the question, what is the purpose of standardizing text complexity bands if testing companies do not have to adhere to them? Also, what is the purpose of a standardized test that surpasses agreed-upon lexile levels?
So, right out of the gate, 4th graders are being asked to read and respond to texts that are two grade levels above the recommended benchmark. After they struggle through difficult texts with advanced vocabulary and nuanced sentence structures, they then have to answer multiple choice questions that are, by design, intended to distract students with answers that appear to be correct except for some technicality.
Finally, students must synthesize two or three of these advanced texts and compose an original essay. The ELA portion of the PARCC takes three days, and each day includes a new essay prompt based on multiple texts. These are the prompts from the 2016 Spring PARCC exam for 4th Graders along with my analysis of why these prompts do not reflect the true intention of the Common Core State Standards.
ELA 4th Grade Prompt #1
Refer to the passage from “Emergency on the Mountain” and the poem “Mountains.” Then answer question 7.
- Think about how the structural elements in the passage from “Emergency on the Mountain” differ from the structural elements in the poem “Mountains.”
Write an essay that explains the differences in the structural elements between the passage and the poem. Be sure to include specific examples from both texts to support your response.
The above prompt probably attempts to assess the Common Core standard RL.4.5: “Explain major differences between poems, drama, and prose, and refer to the structural elements of poems (e.g., verse, rhythm, meter) and drama (e.g., casts of characters, settings, descriptions, dialogue, stage directions) when writing or speaking about a text.”
However, the Common Core State Standards for writing do not require students to write essays comparing the text structures of different genres. The Grade 4 CCSS for writing about reading demand that students write about characters, settings, and events in literature, or that they write about how authors support their points in informational texts. Nowhere in the standards are students asked to write comparative essays on the structures of writing. The reading standards ask students to “explain” structural elements, but not in writing. There is a huge developmental leap between explaining something and writing an analytical essay about it. [Celia’s note: The entire enterprise of analyzing text structures in elementary school – a 1940’s and 50’s college English approach called “New Criticism” — is ridiculous for 9 year olds anyway.]
The PARCC does not assess what it attempts to assess
ELA 4th Grade Prompt #2
Refer to the passages from “Great White Shark” and Face the Sharks. Then answer question 20.
Using details and images in the passages from “Great White Sharks” and Face to Face with Sharks, write an essay that describes the characteristics of white sharks.
It would be a stretch to say that this question assesses CCSS W.4.9.B: “Explain how an author uses reasons and evidence to support particular points in a text.”
In fact, this prompt assesses a student’s ability to research a topic across sources and write a research-based essay that synthesizes facts from both articles. Even CCSS W.4.7, “Conduct research projects that build knowledge through investigation of different aspects of a topic,” does not demand that students compile information from different sources to create an essay. The closest the standards come to demanding this sort of work is in the reading standards; CCSS RI.4.9 says: “Integrate information from two texts on the same topic in order to write or speak about the subject knowledgeably.” Fine. One could argue that this PARCC prompt assesses CCSS RI.4.9.
However, the fact that the texts presented for students to “use” for the essay are at a middle school reading level automatically disqualifies this essay prompt from being able to assess what it attempts to assess. (It is like trying to assess children’s math computational skills by embedding them in a word problem with words that the child cannot read.)
ELA 4th Grade Prompt #3
- In “Sadako’s Secret,” the narrator reveals Sadako’s thoughts and feelings while telling the story. The narrator also includes dialogue and actions between Sadako and her family. Using these details, write a story about what happens next year when Sadako tries out for the junior high track team. Include not only Sadako’s actions and feelings but also her family’s reaction and feelings in your story.
Nowhere, and I mean nowhere in the Common Core State Standards is there a demand for students to read a narrative and then use the details from that text to write a new story based on a prompt. That is a new pseudo-genre called “Prose Constructed Response” by the PARCC creators, and it is 100% not aligned to the CCSS. Not to mention, why are 4th Graders being asked to write about trying out for the junior high track team? This demand defies their experiences and asks them to imagine a scenario that is well beyond their scope.
Clearly, these questions are poorly designed assessments of 4th graders CCSS learning. (We are setting aside the disagreements we have with those standards in the first place, and simply assessing the PARCC on its utility for measuring what it was intended to measure.)
Rather than debate the CCSS we instead want to expose the tragic reality of the countless public schools organizing their entire instruction around trying to raise students’ PARCC scores.
Without naming any names, I can tell you that schools are disregarding research-proven methods of literacy learning. The “wisdom” coming “down the pipeline” is that children need to be exposed to more complex texts because that is what PARCC demands of them. So children are being denied independent and guided reading time with texts of high interest and potential access and instead are handed texts that are much too hard (frustration level) all year long without ever being given the chance to grow as readers in their Zone of Proximal Development (pardon my reference to those pesky educational researchers like Vygotsky.)
So not only are students who are reading “on grade level” going to be frustrated by these so-called “complex texts,” but newcomers to the U.S. and English Language Learners and any student reading below the proficiency line will never learn the foundational skills they need, will never know the enjoyment of reading and writing from intrinsic motivation, and will, sadly, be denied the opportunity to become a critical reader and writer of media. Critical literacies are foundational for active participation in a democracy.
We can look carefully at one sample to examine the health of the entire system– such as testing a drop of water to assess the ocean. So too, we can use these three PARCC prompts to glimpse how the high stakes accountability system has deformed teaching and warped learning in many public schools across the United States.
In this sample, the system is pathetically failing a generation of children who deserve better, and when they are adults, they may not have the skills needed to engage as citizens and problem-solvers. So it is up to us, those of us who remember a better way and can imagine a way out, to make the case for stopping standardized tests like PARCC from corrupting the educational opportunities of so many of our children.
American Crime Story: The People Vs. O.J. Simpson concluded on Tuesday night. Based on the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, the show brought the O.J. Simpson saga from 1994-1995 back to life. During this time, Jack Markell was making a name for himself in the business world. The parallels between Johnnie Cochran’s defense of O.J. and Delaware Governor Jack Markell’s defense of high-stakes testing are uncanny.
To be very clear, there is no doubt in my mind O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. DNA evidence proved that conclusively with the blood found in his Bronco and in various areas around the Brentwood Estate. The reason he was found not guilty was because the trial turned into a racial matter instead of a criminal one. Even defense attorney Robert Shapiro admitted to playing the “race card” in the trial. During the show, it became obvious that defense attorney Johnnie Cochran insisted on turning the already explosive murder trial into a black vs. white thing. What didn’t help the defense at all was the very racist views of former Los Angeles detective Mark Furman and questions that arose concerning the bungling or planting of evidence by the Los Angeles Police Department.
For the past twenty years, Delaware has embarked on one standardized test after another. The purpose behind these tests, at least from the viewpoint of education “reformers”, is to close the equity gaps between minorities and their white peers. As parents in Delaware decided to opt their children out of taking these tests, Governor Jack Markell continued to point out this divide. With big money and high-profile names supporting him, Markell sold the “need” for the Smarter Balanced Assessment through a false defense for at-risk students along with intimidating threats by the US Department of Education.
Both Markell and Cochran seemed to think bringing race into a controversial issue was a smart idea to defend something bad. O.J. Simpson, once again in my opinion, brutally killed his ex-wife and her boyfriend. High-stakes standardized tests serve no other purpose than to give faulty data to corporations to further perpetuate the cycle of showing these “gaps” between minorities and their peers.
When things got tough during the O.J. trial, Cochran turned to civil rights groups to show the divide between white and black people. This galvanized the trial into two camps. Most white people felt O.J. was guilty but most African-Americans felt he was either innocent or didn’t care if he did it and felt a verdict of not guilty was warranted based on past injustices against African-Americans. As the show vividly displayed when the verdict of not guilty was read, white people gasped and African-Americans cheered. It didn’t seem to matter what the scientific and forensic evidence in the trial showed. It became a race issue.
When things got tough during the House Bill 50 opt out legislation last year, Markell and his friends at the Rodel Foundation turned to civil rights groups to show the divide between white and black students. The News Journal displayed an ad showing Delaware civil rights groups urging the Delaware General Assembly not to pass HB50. When the bill passed in both houses of the General Assembly, Markell vetoed the bill and sought out public comment from members of Delaware civil rights groups to support the Smarter Balanced Assessment and rail against the opt out movement.
Cochran felt the O.J. trial was symptomatic of the problems African-Americans faced in the USA. He believed far too many African-American faced arrest and imprisonment simply for the color of their skin. He was right, but Cochran refused to believe his client was even possible of the murders. As a result, his fierce advocacy for the true violations of civil rights of African-Americans blinded him to the preponderance of evidence which should have supported a guilty verdict. His job was to defend his client, but the trial became a race issue because of how he conducted himself and he used the mistakes of the L.A. Police to highlight the racial divide. Granted, Mark Furman and his very racist views didn’t help the prosecution, but race became the issue, not the murders of two people.
Many reports have come out about the very faulty state assessments in America. Based on the Common Core standards, these tests are given once a year to students and the thresholds for the scores allow x amount of students to be proficient and the majority to be not proficient. Clear and graphic data has shown these tests are more an indication of socio-economic levels in society than true academic progress. This data, which has produced vast amounts of profit for testing companies and “education research” foundations and non-profits, is abused by those who want to increase the divide between at-risk students and their peers. Politicians like Governor Markell are on the side of these companies, not the students, and especially not African-Americans. Their agendas and testing schemes have disrupted education to such a degree that ordinary parents have chosen to pull their children out of these unnecessary and burdensome tests.
Both Cochran and Markell used the issues of the day to further matters that truly were not about race. Cochran wanted a not guilty verdict for OJ Simpson and Markell wants a guilty verdict for schools with low-income students and high amounts of at-risk students. By bringing race into their arguments, they have not advanced the cause for what they say. They both caused the divide to widen. In the end, OJ Simpson wound up being found guilty in a civil trial against him and is now serving time in prison for kidnapping and theft. In the end, parents are still opting out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment and many in the African-American community are beginning to question if these tests truly are useful.
Over twenty years later, many in the African-American community believe OJ Simpson committed the murders. As OJ sits in a Nevada prison, pending parole next year, the true victims of his actions are the two people whose murderer was never found guilty by a jury. As well, OJ’s children will forever live with the facts and the doubts in their minds about the results of what happened on June 12th, 1994. Johnnie Cochran passed in 1995. He will always be remembered for getting the not guilty verdict for his client, OJ Simpson. Sadly, he won’t be remembered for advancing the true civil rights issues that continue to plague so many in the African-American community.
Meanwhile, as estimates come in of over 300,000 students opted out of the state assessment in New York and an unknown amount here in Delaware, the media is once again torn on the usefulness of these high-stakes tests. Governor Markell has been very quiet on the issue this year, perhaps learning from the mistakes he made last year by reacting to the opt out movement in Delaware. The true victims in this high-stakes education game are the children in 3rd to 8th grade, forced to either take a test that bears no worthwhile results to further their academic progress or be opted out by their parents with some schools fighting the parents tooth and nail over their decision. As well, the parents who are forced to fight schools, the teachers who would much rather instruct students meaningfully instead of wasting all this time over a silly test, and the school administrators who feel the need to fight parents because of threats of funding cuts and false labels against their schools. Standardized testing has done nothing to stop the very dangerous school-to-prison pipeline in Delaware. If anything, it caused an increase as more at-risk students felt like failures based on the results of the very faulty tests and their self-confidence eroded to such a degree that they felt school was not a valid option. Is it any wonder crime and violence increased in Wilmington the same years high-stakes testing increased? Where is that study?
Cochran and Markell, two men of power, twenty years and 2,700 miles apart from each other, both used race to bring the wrong conclusion to bad events. Their actions didn’t make things better. They only made them worse. History will eventually show the truth in both matters. Race should never be used to support bad ideas. Civil rights groups should not defend a man who openly admitted to beating his wife, was accused of killing her and her boyfriend, ran from the police, and then made a mockery of the very same community that defended him. Civil rights groups should not use children in agendas to advance their cause, especially when they are receiving vast amounts of money from the very same foundations and companies that support the high-stakes testing environment that is putting labels on their communities. It is deceptive and doesn’t help the ones they should be advocating for.
The injustices perpetrated against the African-American community are wrong. No man or woman or child should be labeled or judged based on the color of their skin. By showing false divides, we are not helping them, we are harming them.
The New Mexico American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint yesterday with the First Judicial District Court of Santa Fe County. The plaintiffs, five public school teachers and a parent, allege that the New Mexico Public Education Department is violating their First Amendment rights by forbidding them to talk negatively about standardized assessments.
The concerns are serious, touching on one of the most basic functions of government, public education. They include criticisms that government officials have prioritized profit and politics over public education; have fundamentally changed education, as teachers must now devote significant hours to teaching to the tests, not their students’ actual education needs; and have ignored that the tests are often developmentally inappropriate and traumatic for some students with disabilities.
The teachers and the parent work or live in the Santa Fe and Albuquerque Public School districts. Both districts give parents the right to opt their children out of standardized tests, but state law forbids teachers from “disparaging” standardized tests. The teachers and the parent this robs educators of the ability to advocate for students when they have first-hand knowledge of what high-stakes tests do to students. They also allege these tests give school districts false labels in accountability measures.
I could easily see this case, if not won at a state level, advancing even higher. It was only a matter of time before this country saw a case like this. This could have far-reaching implications for opt out across the country. If the plaintiff wins, it could be used as precedent in other cases across America. If they lose, I would certainly hope they would appeal. I truly wouldn’t mind if a case like this wound up in the United States Supreme Court so the decision on parental rights is made once and for all by the highest court in the country.
New Mexico uses the PARCC as their state assessment.
I salute these five teachers and parent for bringing this case forward as well as the ACLU for taking the case. It is about time people stood up for their own rights, student rights, and parent rights. I will be following this case closely going forward! To read the full complaint, please see below:
I wrote this a year ago, but it still applies. If you really want to drive the point home to a school, use this letter. If they still give you grief, stand your ground. Do not give in to what they try to tell you. This is your right!
I have had a few parents ask how this could affect a school choice application. Since the scores of the Smarter Balanced Assessment won’t come out until the summer, and you would have received an answer to your school choice application well before that time, it should not play a factor. Any school denying your child a spot in their school over a parent exercising their Constitutional rights is on very shaky legal ground and you could certainly have just cause if your child was denied admission based on a parent opt out. To be clear though, I am not an attorney, so this is your choice!
Here is the suggested letter to use. I would include the school’s name and address, the date, your child’s name, and your name and address. Make copies!!! You can bring it to a school board meeting (for dates at times for your district, charter or vocational see my article from yesterday), or bring it to the school. I would bring a separate form indicating the school recognizes they have received an opt out letter from you and have them sign it. If a school gives you a letter to sign indicating you are understanding you are not following the law, DO NOT SIGN IT. If they ask for a medical note and there is no medical condition present in your child, DO NOT GET ONE!!!
Please accept this letter as record of my decision to refuse for my child (name) to participate in the Smarter Balanced Assessment at (school) during the 2015-2016 school year. My refusal to participate in the Smarter Balanced Assessment is because I believe standardized high stakes testing take away time from the instructional experiences my child might otherwise receive. I want more teaching and learning, and less testing! The state seems to believe that my child is obligated to participate in testing because the state or the policy makers demand it, when in fact the social contract of public schooling is grounded on the premise that the state and policy makers are obligated to the needs of children. I am aware that there is no “opt out” clause in the state of Delaware. But the state has yet to provide any legal documentation that my child may not exercise his or her right to refuse the tests.
According to the U.S Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, parental rights are broadly protected by Supreme Court decisions (Meyer and Pierce), especially in the area of education. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that parents possess the “fundamental right” to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.” Furthermore, the Court declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State: those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35) The Supreme Court criticized a state legislature for trying to interfere “with the power of parents to control the education of their own.” (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 402.) In Meyer, the Supreme Court held that the right of parents to raise their children free from unreasonable state interferences is one of the unwritten “liberties” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (262 U.S. 399). In recognition of both the right and responsibility of parents to control their children’s education, the Court has stated, “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for the obligations the State can neither supply nor hinder.” (Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158).
I understand that it is state and local policy to require all students to be evaluated for proficiency in various subject areas at each grade level. However, I believe that testing is not synonymous with standardized testing and request that the school and my child’s teacher(s) evaluate his or her progress using alternative (and more meaningful) measures including: project-based assignments, teacher-made tests, portfolios, and performance-based assessments, to be determined at the discretion of the teachers and myself together.
My child is prepared to come to school every day during the testing window with alternative meaningful self-directed learning activities that support the essential curriculum, or is willing to participate in other meaningful activities as determined by the school or his or her teachers during testing times. It is my child’s right as a public school student to receive instruction daily, and if you do not do so, I will file a discrimination report with the district and consult an attorney. I am a taxpayer, and you do not have the authority to bar my child from accessing this public good of which I contribute in the form of tax payment. I will call the police if you attempt to bar my child from entering the building. However, should you prove to me in writing that this last alternative is legally REQUIRED, then I respectfully request to both see that policy as stated IN WRITING so that I may show it to my attorney, and I require WRITTEN documentation that my child and his parents WILL NOT be punished for ‘delinquency’ –and that we are EXEMPT from the usual attendance policies.
If my child is forced to sit in the testing room and stare at the wall for upwards of 70 minutes in total silence without being allowed to leave the test room, nor move nor speak, while refusing to test, or is intimidated in any way, will be seen as tantamount to solitary confinement. If you attempt to force my child to do so, I will report you to the child abuse authorities. If anyone places their hands on my child after he/she has respectfully declined to report to a test site, he/she has been instructed to call the police and file charges.
I do not recognize the authority of the letter the Delaware Department of Education or any school district crafted to have schools give parents when they opt their child out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment as it has no legal bearing.
I have a tremendous respect for my child’s teachers and his school. They do a tremendous job and I wish to continue to send my son to a school where he looks forward to participating every day. My school’s teachers and administrators understand that this action is no way a reflection of my feelings towards them nor is it intended as an attack toward them or the great work that they do every day. My issue is with high stakes standardized testing and the harm it does to children and our public schools. I believe we can work constructively together to ensure that my child will not be negatively affected in any way, and that successful alternatives that are neither punitive nor require further legal complications are indeed possible.
I don’t think anyone intended for science or social studies or art or music to get less attention when No Child Left Behind was adopted. -John King
When asked by New York Rep. Elise Stefanic at last week’s Every Student Succeeds Act hearing what lessons he learned and what mistakes were made during his time as Commissioner of Education of New York State, John King blamed remedial classes and circumvented giving a direct answer to Rep. Stefanic. He refused to take any personal blame for what many in New York see as a very flawed Commissioner. For someone who wants “Educational Excellence”, or in other words, more accountability for “failing schools” based on very flawed high-stakes testing scores, King is unable to be accountable to himself or his own actions. If the Common Core standards were as great as King believes, it would not take this long to implement them. King didn’t even address Rep. Stefanik’s comments about some schools in her district having 80% opt-out rates.
If Hilary wins the election, we are ALL in trouble. Especially those in Delaware who have lived with Governor Jack Markell’s education vision for the past 12 years. Rumor has it Jack would be in the education top spot. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper could very well nab the Vice-President spot. These two are thick as thieves. Why? That is coming shortly. And it’s not how or why you may think.
Markell may have planted a seed at the United States Department of Education. That seed has been blooming for longer than we think. The very idea of Jack Markell as the US Secretary of Education gives me chills. This cannot happen. Those in Delaware who know what happened in the past few years know exactly what I’m talking about. Jack is very involved with not only creating education policy in this country but also in forging legislation that doesn’t play out for years. If you are against Common Core, high-stakes testing, teacher evaluations based on test scores, and corporations raiding public education funds, then you need to pay very careful attention to everything said in the next few months when it comes to Jack Markell. This has been planned for a long time, and Jack thinks everything is set in stone. All the pieces are in place. Or are they?
On Friday, the Delaware Department of Education and Delaware Secretary of Education Dr. Steven Godowsky had a little party at Dover Air Force Base Middle School. What was the occasion? Honoring schools who do good on standardized testing when it comes down to it. I’m sure these schools worked hard and the students did well on these high-stakes tests, but once again, the demographics for a lot of these schools aren’t the same as, say, Warner Elementary School or Bancroft in Wilmington. Sure, they get a lot more money cause they are “priority” schools, but the effect is horrible and tarnishes the school districts they are in. But the DOE just ignores that, as they always do, and throws accolades and parties for the runs “making a difference”… I’m getting so sick of this. It’s getting old real fast… And Newark Charter School? Seriously? Again?
For immediate release
Contact Alison May (302) 735-4006
STATE HONORS REWARD, RECOGNITION SCHOOLS
Thirteen schools from across the state were honored today for their students’ academic achievements.
Secretary of Education Steven Godowsky lauded the 12 winners of the state’s Reward and Recognition School awards during a ceremony at Dover Air Force Base Middle School; a 13th building was named a School of Continued Excellence.
Godowsky recognized the dedication and hard work of the entire school communities, the educators, students, parents and community partners whose collaboration helped the schools succeed.
“This is the kind of progress only achieved through dedicated efforts by many thoughtful educators and school community supporters,” Godowsky said. “It takes the partnership of families, teachers, school and district leaders and community supporters. I congratulate the students for their hard work and perseverance and thank the professional educators and leaders who supported them on their journey to achieve excellence.
“We now have the opportunity to learn from these successes and see how we can replicate this achievement in other schools across our state.”
These Reward and Recognition School awards, which carry an $8,000 prize for each school, were created by legislation passed by the Delaware General Assembly in 2009. The awards are given (a) to schools whose students are performing at an exceptionally high level, particularly those schools with large percentages of students coming from low-income households and (b) to schools that have succeeded in closing the achievement gap for students such as low-income students, students from minority groups and students with disabilities.
For 2015, there were two Reward and 10 Recognition schools that will receive $8,000 each. Funding for the awards comes from the state’s School Improvement funds. Additionally, there is one School of Continued Excellence that was honored as a Recognition School last year and had outstanding performance again this year but is not eligible for a financial award again until 2016.
Godowsky was joined by the 13 principals and eight superintendents of the winning schools, along with students, parents, teachers and other administrators. The winning schools have much discretion in deciding how to spend the money. As in years past, each school will appoint a committee (with administration, teacher, support staff and parent representation) to determine how the award will be used.
Reward Schools are Title I schools (federal classification based on percentage of low income population) are identified for being either highest performing or high progress.
Recognition Schools are chosen for exceptional performance and/or closing the achievement gap. Both Title I and non-Title I schools can qualify. Two of the schools are also Title I Distinguished school awardees. They are Title I schools that met the criteria for Recognition School that had not been Title I Distinguished school awardees in the past two years.
Schools of Continued Excellence are schools that have received state awards during 2014 and continue to qualify for Reward or Recognition School distinction in 2015 are named Schools of Continued Excellence to recognize their sustained accomplishments. They will be eligible for funds again next year if they meet the Reward or Recognition School qualifications.
The 2015 winners are below. Included with each is information provided by its leaders on how their schools achieved.
· Brick Mill Elementary School, Appoquinimink School District, Recognition School: While the school’s success can’t be attributed to a single program or initiative, establishing and maintaining a positive school culture with high expectations has had a profound impact on academic and social outcomes. Each day begins with Morning Meeting, a component of Responsive Classroom. This practice encourages children to express their ideas and take risks. It has fostered improved academic and social skills, communication, empathy, and rapport with peers and teachers. There’s a collective excitement about learning, and improved attitudes about school. The school recognizes and rewards students’ academic and behavioral accomplishments through its Dolphin Pride PBS Program. Teachers engage in ongoing professional development to support utilizing best practices in the classroom and embed Learning Focused Strategies into daily Common Core lessons. The school is successful because its amazing students, staff, parents, and community work as a team.
· Dover Air Force Base Middle School, Caesar Rodney School District, Recognition School: The success of the school is rooted in its excellent parental support and an unparalleled student work ethic. These factors are combined with an outstanding staff that provides research-based, engaging and effective classroom instruction each and every day. In addition, a multi-faceted intervention program is in place that is designed to allow struggling learners to fill in their learning gaps. These interventions not only concentrate on re-teaching critical material, but also focus on pre-teaching high-priority core content that is essential for student understanding. Finally, differentiated instruction period for math and language arts provides students additional support to ensure students reach their maximum potential.
· Howard High School, New Castle County Vocational Technical School District, School of Continued Excellence: In 2010, Howard was named one of the state’s four original Partnership Zone schools due to underperformance in English and math on the state assessment. Since that time, Howard has shown remarkable progress. Howard’s remarkable progress has been made possible through the outstanding work of its very talented staff with the ever-present support of the district office. The dynamic staff has a strong belief in students, high level content and pedagogical knowledge, and a “can-do” spirit that makes anything seem possible in the school and for its students. What is particularly remarkable about Howard’s success and makes the school particularly proud is that the school is succeeding with students who need it most. Howard is considered a high-need school and has many at-risk students. Despite nationwide statistics to the contrary, Howard has been able to reach remarkable achievement levels with a high percentage of minority and economically disadvantaged students.
· Lake Forest North Elementary School, Lake Forest School District, Recognition School: Students’ success is a direct result of the strong commitment of the administration, educational staff, school personnel, parents and the students. Dedicated and seasoned administrators guide and promote the efforts of highly qualified teachers and support staff. Their efforts are reinforced by actively involved custodians and school personnel, as well as a proactive Parent Teacher Organization. The success would not be possible without the school’s hardworking students, many of whom overcome economic and physical adversity, to meet the challenges of today’s changing academic environment. Data-driven instructional practices, aligned to the Common Core and refined through vertical and horizontal alignment, are supported by innovative technology and innovative teaching aides, to provide for the individual needs of every student.
· Lake Forest South Elementary School, Lake Forest School District, Recognition School: Students pledge every day to be on track for success, and it is embedded in the culture of the school. South emphasizes teaching and learning, which demonstrates a climate of positive and professional student-teacher-school relationship as well as social and emotional skills training, civic education, and positive support for learning. Data is studied to address students’ needs to grow the students academically, behaviorally and culturally. Staff is encouraged to build relationships with their students and not only learn how they learn, but learn their culture as well. The PBS program also impacts student achievement. Staff meet and discuss data and identify those students who need interventions as well as those teachers who may need assistance in classroom management strategies. If a student feels safe, he or she will perform better in classes, and with the support of all stakeholders, there is a culture of support.
· Lancashire Elementary School, Brandywine School District, Recognition School: Lancashire has 18 different languages represented from students from around the world. The school acknowledges and celebrates its diversity and credits its achievement to its unique partnership with families and the stake that every staff member has in each child. From families, secretaries, teachers, administrators, custodians, and other staff members, the school community is committed to providing the love, care, and mentoring that all students need to develop the necessary skills to be good citizens. The success with the 2015 test scores is a result of teachers and administrators raising the bar for all students , analyzing student data, differentiating instruction, and providing the necessary interventions and enrichment activities to address our students’ academic needs from kindergarten through fifth grade. The school believes that every student has the ability to learn and also makes an effort to teach students that they are also responsible for their learning.
· Olive B. Loss Elementary School, Appoquinimink School District, Recognition School: Academic excellence in all curricular areas is the goal of Olive B. Loss School. The faculty and staff at Olive B. Loss School work to ensure that all students are successful and reach their full potential. The school incorporates instructional strategies that provide students with a variety of experiences, including interactive and hands on activities. Teachers work cooperatively to plan and assess instruction that provides the foundation for academic rigor. Olive B. Loss School is fortunate to have a very involved and active parent community and appreciates the volunteer hours parents contribute to the school.
· Thurgood Marshall Elementary School, Christina School District, Title I Distinguished School and Recognition School: Marshall has a wonderful community of teachers, parents, and students who work together towards the CORE Values of the school: C= Caring Community, O = Overall Respect, R= Responsibility, and E = Excellent Effort. Marshall utilizes every opportunity during the school day to work with students in small groups to provide intervention. Staff members analyze student data to identify needs that are specific to individual students. During Professional Learning Communities, teams work together to create an instructional pathway for student success in both Reading, Writing, and Social Emotional areas. Marshall has a very diverse population including a 10% population from India and a newly created Visually Impaired Program. The students with visual impairments are mainstreamed into the regular classroom and receive braille instruction and other supports over the course of their day. Marshall has kids at the core of all decision making. The school does what’s best for students and for their success.
· MOT Charter School, Middletown, Reward School: MOT Charter School helps every student reach his or her potential by setting high expectations and fostering a school-wide growth mindset. The school was an early adopter of STEM in middle school and established a student-centered, blended-learning environment in its new high school. Focused on developing the whole child, the instructional program is designed to challenge and engage students in thoughtful inquiry, problem solving, and analysis. Staff continuously analyze a variety of student data to ensure that the program is responsive to student needs and growth. Parents not only support classroom teachers, coach, and chaperone field trips, but they also provide small group instruction, serve on policy committees, and are key participants in the school’s hiring process.
· Newark Charter School, Newark, Title I Distinguished School and Recognition School: The guiding vision is that all children will achieve when they are challenged, supported, respected, and motivated. This is the school’s “North Star.” The school’s gap students have extra obstacles to overcome. When a student struggles, the child is surrounded with a sort of “Academic Swat Team” made up of reading specialists, instructional interventionists, special educators, counselors, Homework Club moderators, teachers, and volunteers who give their time for such activities as “Lunch and Learn” sessions, before-school Math Academy, tutoring or small group pullout instruction. What completes these efforts is involving parents. Students need to know that they have a teacher in school who cares about them like a parent, and a parent at home who understands their role as a teacher. Whether it’s one of the kindergarten children or a high school upperclassman, students know that they are never alone. Finally, all of this creates a special culture where the students, themselves, reach out to one another to see how they can help their peers.
· Southern Delaware School of the Arts, Indian River School District, Recognition School: Students participate in high-level, creative thinking on a daily basis. Students perform, translate music, critique art, analyze feelings and expression, and solve real-world challenges. Through a focus on the Arts, students quickly become motivated to succeed academically. The scores last year are a reflection of the students and staff who all put in hours and hours of hard work centered on experiencing learning. Motivating students to enjoy learning and desire knowledge was an emphasis. Students must touch, feel, and relate to what they are learning. Through careful and hard work, the school has created an environment where students want to succeed and where teachers nurture that desire for personal success through relationship. Many of the teachers volunteer extra time with students and their families anytime it will help a student accomplish their goals.
· Sussex Academy, Georgetown, Reward School: Many years ago, the faculty of Sussex Academy determined that literacy (reading, writing, speaking, listening, and presenting) is the instructional focus for the school. Unwavering attention to this school-wide focus has affected student achievement. For example, last year all teachers taught the same process (CSET) for presenting an “argument.” This instruction occurred across all content areas. School leaders are proud of Sussex Academy’s students for embracing high expectations and its teachers for being amazing educators. The school stays focused on its belief that its students will “Experience, Explore, Excel.”
· Kathleen H. Wilbur Elementary, Colonial School District, Recognition School: A positive school culture for both students and staff is a key factor in making the school a success. Monthly, students participate in “iCommunity” meetings with the principal to help instill strong character traits, such as perseverance and leadership. A strong vision that is centered on the core ideas of rigor, relevance and relationships guides all professional development and building-based decisions. Co-teaching classrooms, with two teachers and a mix of regular and special education students, have been created at each grade level to provide support and expertise to struggling students. A STEM Lab and Makerspace in the library and an innovative exploratory model allow students to participate in weeklong projects in art, music, physical education, technology, and STEM. A building-wide focus on developing a growth mindset has been infused throughout classrooms, cafeterias, and assemblies.
Yes, Achieve Inc. is actually letting people know that certain states are closing their self-created “honesty gap”. What is an honesty gap? Apparently, according to Achieve Inc., it is when you make your state standardized tests too easy and kids do too well on them. Using the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as their benchmark, Achieve Inc. felt too many students did way better than the NAEP in recent years. As a result, the gap between NAEP scores and state assessment scores was too big, which created an “honesty” gap. Now that the “tough new tests” like Smarter Balanced and the PARCC rolled out in many states last year, Achieve Inc. is praising states that are closing this honesty gap. I kid you not.
Of course, their whole evidence of this supposed honesty gap is scores on standardized tests. Let’s not even worry about the actual grades kids are getting in class, if they are getting their projects and homework done, or if they feel like they are succeeding. Let’s just worry about the data, the high-stakes test scores. All this report really does is show how bad the Common Core standardized tests are really doing. Let’s not read into this too much folks! Only a corporate education reform company would judge failure as a success!
I am sure Achieve Inc. is salivating at the thought of brainwashed State Boards of Education saying “we need to fix this! Now that we know how bad our kids are doing, we need to get them back up again!” And Achieve Inc.’s marketing department is going “Hallelujah! Let’s roll out the products!” If it isn’t their marketing department, I’m sure it is one of the 1,000 or so other ed reform companies hoping to make a quick buck before the speculation craze in education goes the way of baseball cards. I have no doubt, in my own state of Delaware, our State Board of Education will talk about this at one of their upcoming meetings. In fact, I found the link to this absurdity through their own Twitter account!
Here’s an honesty gap for you Achieve Inc.: You helped to create Common Core, got a ton of money through Race To The Top grants as a vendor to many states, convinced states of this crucial need for an assessment inventory, and now you are telling them these horrible, waste of time, cash in the trash assessments are what students need? Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket!
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: If John or Jane have to worry about if there is going to be food on the table for dinner tonight, worry about if they will have a roof over their head, or worry about being hit by a stray bullet within their neighborhoods, the self-actualization required to succeed on these tests, or for that matter, school, is made even more difficult for these students. This translates into schools that service large high-need populations facing a difficult climb to reach accountability targets.
I was curious why the Capital School District Board of Education did not pass an official policy on opt-out the way Christina and Red Clay did. They were the first Delaware school board to pass a resolution honoring a parent’s right to opt their child out of high-stakes state assessments way before anyone else did, back in October 2014. The answer to that question is included in the below letter. It was introduced at their January meeting and will be voted on at their meeting next Wednesday, February 17th. This is the best letter I think I’ve ever seen written about opt-out, anywhere! And I have seen some awesome letters! Kudos to Board President Matt Lindell, Vice-President Sean Christiansen, John Martin, Nauleen Perry, and Ralph Taylor for this letter that says more about Delaware education than anything I have seen in a long time! Thank you!
The Network for Public Education released state report cards for their 2016 State Report Card today. Below is Delaware’s grade determination, for which they received a grade of D. Personally, I would have given Delaware a grade of D for rejecting high-stakes testing with the behavior over a parent’s right to opt their child out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment. Delaware scored very poorly on the “resisting privatization” category. While Delaware doesn’t take part in any type of voucher system, the push for “school choice” is huge in the First State. The gap between certain charter schools student demographics and their counterparts in the traditional school districts they reside in is gigantic!