The latest horror story around testing is that of a principal in New York City who committed suicide by jumping in front of a subway train. The back story is that she was distraught over having falsified some test scores of her third grade students.
Last April the Common Core exams were given at the 49-year old Harlem principal's school. Many third graders did not finish on time. The principal concerned because she had promised parents that the kids would do well fudged answers on the tests of numerous students who could not finish the test on time. Then she confided that sin to someone other than her clergy. The person to whom she confided the violation filed a complaint with the Board of Education. An investigation by the Board substantiated the allegation made by the complainant. The investigation into the complaint was reported in the New York Post, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and picked up by the Associated Press. REALLY!!!
Surely this is such an important issue that these highly respected news media needed to cover this terrible discretion. Tongue firmly planted in cheek here. The same day the complaint was made the principal threw herself into the path of an oncoming subway train. The death was ruled a suicide by the city medical examiner. The superintendent has sent letters to all 3rd grade parents saying that the exams had been tossed due to the investigation. "The integrity of the assessment was compromised due to actions outside your child's control" the letter read in part. Evidently the level of anxiety among some educators in the city caused some educators to walk out and refuse to participate in the administration of the testing.
Prior to this situation, the principal had posted on her college profile that this was a chance for her to build the school of her dreams. Her husband has said she got great joy and pleasure from her students.
What are we doing??? It is not clear if this woman had other mental health issues. What is clear from parental reaction to her death is that she was well loved by parents and students. How large a factor was this testing event in her suicide, not clear. But it certainly had some part in pushing her to this awful action. People these are artificial assessments of a child's future success. In 10 years they will be meaningless to everyone. They may not even exist in 10 years. We are giving them a level of importance that they do not deserve. We know they stir anxiety in kids and staff, make some kids ill, push other kids to lower self-esteem, and now have played a role in someone's death. Enough- let's get rid of the things.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Better Late Than Never-Maybe Not
No Child Left Behind expired seven years ago. It has continued to be enforced although major exceptions and allowances by the Feds have pretty much chipped away at its most offensive aspects.
Finally the Congress has decided to address the issue. But since this is our current Congress, its first issue was to address image over substance. No Child Left Behind has a terrible branding problem. There have been lots of jokes from the beginning. No Child With A Behind to reflect the huge testing requirements. No Teacher With A Behind to acknowledge the adequate yearly progress expectations for all kids but especially for several sub-groups such as children at risk, minority groups, children with disabilities and those who speak English as a second language. One of the first bits of foolishness to go was the promise that all students would be on grade level by 2014. I for one was waiting to celebrate the miracle that never came.
The Senate and the House have approached the branding issue separately. The Senate has the Every Child Achieves Act (SB1177). The House is working on HR 5, Student Success Act. Both bills
leave in the heavy testing obligations. We still think testing equals accountability. However there is considerable flexibility on the kind of test. There are also few to no consequences from the Feds for bad testing results.
The Senate bill does require federal monitoring and reporting by states, the House bill not so much. Most important to the President is that neither bill identifies the sub groups for special monitoring. An amendment in the Senate that would have done that has failed.
What is really interesting is that while 37 civil rights and education organizations supported the amendment, the National Education Association, essentially the teachers union, did not support the amendment. Exposing yet again the myth that the Association values the education of children when it clearly is all about protecting the backs and benefits of teachers.
The President has said he could support the Senate Bill but not the House version.
And to add to the stew, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the requirement in many states that all teachers must pay a union service fee if they choose not to be a member. A victory by the plaintiffs would seriously weaken the NEA, but that is a blog for another day.
The fight to re-establish a national education bill is far from over and far from resolution.
Yet come this fall teachers and kids will go back to school and continue to muddle through, some on grade level, some below and others above. Makes you wonder why we are spending all that money on Congress.
Finally the Congress has decided to address the issue. But since this is our current Congress, its first issue was to address image over substance. No Child Left Behind has a terrible branding problem. There have been lots of jokes from the beginning. No Child With A Behind to reflect the huge testing requirements. No Teacher With A Behind to acknowledge the adequate yearly progress expectations for all kids but especially for several sub-groups such as children at risk, minority groups, children with disabilities and those who speak English as a second language. One of the first bits of foolishness to go was the promise that all students would be on grade level by 2014. I for one was waiting to celebrate the miracle that never came.
The Senate and the House have approached the branding issue separately. The Senate has the Every Child Achieves Act (SB1177). The House is working on HR 5, Student Success Act. Both bills
leave in the heavy testing obligations. We still think testing equals accountability. However there is considerable flexibility on the kind of test. There are also few to no consequences from the Feds for bad testing results.
The Senate bill does require federal monitoring and reporting by states, the House bill not so much. Most important to the President is that neither bill identifies the sub groups for special monitoring. An amendment in the Senate that would have done that has failed.
What is really interesting is that while 37 civil rights and education organizations supported the amendment, the National Education Association, essentially the teachers union, did not support the amendment. Exposing yet again the myth that the Association values the education of children when it clearly is all about protecting the backs and benefits of teachers.
The President has said he could support the Senate Bill but not the House version.
And to add to the stew, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the requirement in many states that all teachers must pay a union service fee if they choose not to be a member. A victory by the plaintiffs would seriously weaken the NEA, but that is a blog for another day.
The fight to re-establish a national education bill is far from over and far from resolution.
Yet come this fall teachers and kids will go back to school and continue to muddle through, some on grade level, some below and others above. Makes you wonder why we are spending all that money on Congress.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Cowboy Bob is Watching
Texas has decided to allow cameras in self-contained classrooms for children with special needs. Any parent,student or teacher can request the cameras be installed. The bigger question is why only in self-contained rooms. Let's face it a child with special needs is much more likely to be abused in a general education classroom where plain kids an frequently see a ready target. The other issue is why assume that special education teachers in self-contained classrooms are more likely to abuse kids than are special education teachers who are co-teaching with general education teachers.
There is also the issue of the privacy of the rest of the students in the classroom. Suppose I request a camera in my child's classroom because I am concerned that my child is being bullied. How does that camera only watch my child and the child that I believe is bullying my child. Now all the other students no longer have the privacy of their classroom.
Teachers should have the expectation of privacy too.
Perhaps we are carrying this voyeurism too far. The next thing you know students and teachers may be spending so much time videoing each other with cell phones there will be little time to learn. It is about time we had some level of trust in the people who are in our classrooms because there aren't enough cameras or time in the day to watch all that video
Texas has always been a state with its sights firmly set to the rear. Looks like they are at it again.
There is also the issue of the privacy of the rest of the students in the classroom. Suppose I request a camera in my child's classroom because I am concerned that my child is being bullied. How does that camera only watch my child and the child that I believe is bullying my child. Now all the other students no longer have the privacy of their classroom.
Teachers should have the expectation of privacy too.
Perhaps we are carrying this voyeurism too far. The next thing you know students and teachers may be spending so much time videoing each other with cell phones there will be little time to learn. It is about time we had some level of trust in the people who are in our classrooms because there aren't enough cameras or time in the day to watch all that video
Texas has always been a state with its sights firmly set to the rear. Looks like they are at it again.
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Is that death knell for a union near you?
The Supreme Court has served notice that it will take up a case that threatens the ability of government employee unions to have dues checkoffs for everyone. In many states, including California, all teachers must either belong to the union or pay a service fee that is equal to full dues minus the amount spent by the union for political activity. Teachers have no choice, it is either full membership or the service fee. A group of teachers from California are challenging this rule. Their position is that all union activities are political in some manner; and therefore, they should not have support political activity they do not approve of. The union's position is that all teachers benefit from the rewards it negotiates; so all teachers should pay to support it. Teachers say their First Amendment rights are being violated.
Thirty-eight years ago the Court ruled that unions can require non-members to pay for collective bargaining costs so long as the fees don't go toward political activities and the unions are the lawful negotiating arm of the government workers.
Court watchers think next year could be the session when this decision is changed. The Court is more conservative now and there is less national support for unions.
From my perspective, I would be delighted to see unions weakened. If they lose the dues checkoff and service fees, many teachers may choose not to join. Many join now because the service fees are almost as much as the full dues. In my view there was a time when education unions served a real purpose. Initially they functioned more like professional organizations and were a value to the profession. Now they are clearly operating like a blue collar union. The positions taken by the unions are almost always for the health and welfare of the teachers. If they were a professional organization, their concerns would also include the children they serve. But they don't.
Wonderful teachers need to be paid well. Average teachers need to be paid a decent wage and lousy teachers should be paid not at all. That can't happen with the unions in charge. All teachers, the good, the bad and the ugly- get paid the same salary if they have the same experience and education. Good teachers work very hard and they deserve merit pay for that hard work. Unions support mediocrity and our kids deserve a lot better than that.
Thirty-eight years ago the Court ruled that unions can require non-members to pay for collective bargaining costs so long as the fees don't go toward political activities and the unions are the lawful negotiating arm of the government workers.
Court watchers think next year could be the session when this decision is changed. The Court is more conservative now and there is less national support for unions.
From my perspective, I would be delighted to see unions weakened. If they lose the dues checkoff and service fees, many teachers may choose not to join. Many join now because the service fees are almost as much as the full dues. In my view there was a time when education unions served a real purpose. Initially they functioned more like professional organizations and were a value to the profession. Now they are clearly operating like a blue collar union. The positions taken by the unions are almost always for the health and welfare of the teachers. If they were a professional organization, their concerns would also include the children they serve. But they don't.
Wonderful teachers need to be paid well. Average teachers need to be paid a decent wage and lousy teachers should be paid not at all. That can't happen with the unions in charge. All teachers, the good, the bad and the ugly- get paid the same salary if they have the same experience and education. Good teachers work very hard and they deserve merit pay for that hard work. Unions support mediocrity and our kids deserve a lot better than that.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Old School Makes More Sense
Whatever is old, could be new again. In the days before we got the notion that all God's children had identical skill sets, we recognized that different children had differing talents. Such a odd notion! In those days school systems offered several types of high school diplomas. There was a strictly academic diploma for those students who were going on to college and a career that required a college education. Those kids took foreign language courses, advanced math classes and English classes that taught writing for college research papers. Literature classes emphasized the skills needed for literary analysis. Then there was a program called commercial classes. Unfortunately too many girls were channeled into these classes where they learned to basically perform secretarial skills for office work. Girls (and the students were almost entirely girls) learned to type, take shorthand from dictation and write basic business letters. Some of those skills seem quaint today but they led to employability. Finally, there was a vocational high school diploma for students whose skill set was mechanical. Those kids might take auto repair, woodshop, or metal working. Again they could expect to go right from high school to a good job.
In today's system, everyone is going to college and everyone will need to be in a college trained career. That is like thinking everyone needs to learn to be an engineer to build bridges but we give little thought to who will be repairing the cars to drive over those bridges. We seem to think cows need to learn to climb trees and monkeys need to learn to give milk. Why can't we respect the individual skills of our children and teach them how to enrich those skills. Our economy does not need everyone to be college educated. Blasphemy I know. Our economy is complex and we need people with the skills to repair the equipment that others may design or manufacture.
Was the old system perfect? Not by a long shot. It was assumed that girls would not go to college. They would work in offices as assistants to men until they married, had kids and left the workforce or didn't get married and would live out their work lives being assistants to men. It was also assumed that lower socio-economic kids would go into the trades and upper-middle class and upper class socio-economic kids would go to college. There were enough students breaking through those assumptions to create a central tendency of upward mobility.
Today's system sets way too many kids up for failure. Sure we can push everyone into a college program. And when they drop out for lack of interest or skill, what are they prepared to do? We are requiring far too many students to take courses that are only useful if they go on to more advanced academic work. We have students struggling with algebra 2. We have a significant minority of our citizenry who have not a clue how a democratic government functions. Is this really what we want?
We can do better by all the children in the system. We can recognize and RESPECT individual skill sets. Could we for once look at the curriculum our children need and not the testing schedule our national ego needs.
In today's system, everyone is going to college and everyone will need to be in a college trained career. That is like thinking everyone needs to learn to be an engineer to build bridges but we give little thought to who will be repairing the cars to drive over those bridges. We seem to think cows need to learn to climb trees and monkeys need to learn to give milk. Why can't we respect the individual skills of our children and teach them how to enrich those skills. Our economy does not need everyone to be college educated. Blasphemy I know. Our economy is complex and we need people with the skills to repair the equipment that others may design or manufacture.
Was the old system perfect? Not by a long shot. It was assumed that girls would not go to college. They would work in offices as assistants to men until they married, had kids and left the workforce or didn't get married and would live out their work lives being assistants to men. It was also assumed that lower socio-economic kids would go into the trades and upper-middle class and upper class socio-economic kids would go to college. There were enough students breaking through those assumptions to create a central tendency of upward mobility.
Today's system sets way too many kids up for failure. Sure we can push everyone into a college program. And when they drop out for lack of interest or skill, what are they prepared to do? We are requiring far too many students to take courses that are only useful if they go on to more advanced academic work. We have students struggling with algebra 2. We have a significant minority of our citizenry who have not a clue how a democratic government functions. Is this really what we want?
We can do better by all the children in the system. We can recognize and RESPECT individual skill sets. Could we for once look at the curriculum our children need and not the testing schedule our national ego needs.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Got a diploma, now the trouble starts
There is great news coming out of Washington DC these days. The number of students with special needs graduating in four years is at an all-time high at 62% of the class of 2013- from a low of 23% in Mississippi to a high of 80% in Arkansas. Problem is, got my diploma, but what happens now.
For many high school graduates with disabilities the answer is far less than satisfying.
The federal law IDEA that requires an education at public expense for those students with disabilities, also requires that the kids be provided with a transition program to launch them into the real world.
Awakening is for many of these graduates the launch pad is sending them flying over a cliff.
Many transition programs are the equivalent of dragging one chicken leg through multiple pots of water and calling it chicken soup. Few schools have identifiable transition specialists that carry individual caseloads. Instead, these professionals hold general family meetings and distribute information. Once the student graduates there is no one to do the hand holding to walk families through the new bureaucratic maze. Families are given informational brochures about the adult services that are available in their communities. What they learn very quickly is that these are services for which the graduate is eligible but not at all entitled. This situation is very unlike the pre-21 special education services to which the students were entitled in school. In the adult services world there are few rights; and programs look a lot like a Dickens' movie, "more porridge please".
Schools need to focus on a students realistic strengths. People with disabilities make up 12 percent of the student population; yet they represent 25% of people in their age bracket who get in trouble with the law. What can the person with disabilities actually do? Can he stand on his feet for eight hours? Can she handle a rapid fire environment? And PLEASE can we ditch the totally unrealistic aspirations of being in a rock band, being a star athlete and other dreams that don't even come true for typical kids. Most teachers do not even know what can be available for students. They are concentrating on improving test score and have not a clue what is needed for work place scores. Kids are taught to follow the rules, let the grown ups work it out. Mom and dad are not going to be on the college campus, in the interview office, or at the job site. A grad can wave that diploma at a college prof or future employer all he or she wants, but it won't get the job done. Now the trouble starts.
For many high school graduates with disabilities the answer is far less than satisfying.
The federal law IDEA that requires an education at public expense for those students with disabilities, also requires that the kids be provided with a transition program to launch them into the real world.
Awakening is for many of these graduates the launch pad is sending them flying over a cliff.
Many transition programs are the equivalent of dragging one chicken leg through multiple pots of water and calling it chicken soup. Few schools have identifiable transition specialists that carry individual caseloads. Instead, these professionals hold general family meetings and distribute information. Once the student graduates there is no one to do the hand holding to walk families through the new bureaucratic maze. Families are given informational brochures about the adult services that are available in their communities. What they learn very quickly is that these are services for which the graduate is eligible but not at all entitled. This situation is very unlike the pre-21 special education services to which the students were entitled in school. In the adult services world there are few rights; and programs look a lot like a Dickens' movie, "more porridge please".
Schools need to focus on a students realistic strengths. People with disabilities make up 12 percent of the student population; yet they represent 25% of people in their age bracket who get in trouble with the law. What can the person with disabilities actually do? Can he stand on his feet for eight hours? Can she handle a rapid fire environment? And PLEASE can we ditch the totally unrealistic aspirations of being in a rock band, being a star athlete and other dreams that don't even come true for typical kids. Most teachers do not even know what can be available for students. They are concentrating on improving test score and have not a clue what is needed for work place scores. Kids are taught to follow the rules, let the grown ups work it out. Mom and dad are not going to be on the college campus, in the interview office, or at the job site. A grad can wave that diploma at a college prof or future employer all he or she wants, but it won't get the job done. Now the trouble starts.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Failure is in style
We are in a place where failure is glorified. Why is that? Is is because the mandated testing has created so many failures that we don't want kids to feel quite so bad so we try to give the impression that failure is somehow ok. Well the fact is, failure is not good and should not be glorified.
Failure is when the system breaks down and there needs to be a complete re-start. Failure is not when there is a misstep along the learning curve and a student simply needs to be retaught that step in the process. Failure is not even coming close. It is totally missing the target.
Teams that fail to win are not lauded for trying hard. Marriages that end in divorce are not celebrated at anniversary parties. Wars in the middle east are the result of failed peace talks; people are dead as a result. These are no small things.
Over 50 years ago, Benjamin Bloom developed several taxonomies of learning. These taxonomies can be used as benchmarks in the development of formative learning assessments. The taxonomies are sequential learning indicators that measure the process of learning. There is no memorization. When students make mistakes on this ladder to learning, teachers can adjust teaching and move on again to climb the ladder. If used correctly there are no failures, just readjustments in the teaching learning process.
Failure, on the other hand, requires a total reboot. Firstly, the individual needs to take stock and personal responsibility. The question of "why did I fail?" needs to be asked. Unfortunately, we are living in an age when personal responsibility is seldom the first reason identified for failure. The coach didn't like me so that is why I did not make the team. The teacher was not any good and that is why I didn't learn enough. The test didn't test what I thought it would.
Where is the personal assessment and responsibility in all this? I didn't study enough. I didn't practice enough. I didn't go after class and ask the teacher to explain what I didn't understand.
In attributing the reasons for personal failure, it is important to distinguish between those that are within my power to fix and those that are not. If I am short, I probably won't be a great basketball star. If I have limited musical ability, music is probably not a good career choice for me. BUT there are lots of other areas where if I do accept responsibility and agree with myself to do the work I need to do, then I can change the outcomes.
Failure should not be glorified by saying it is good enough because you tried. While it is true that Edison had thousands of failures before he hit the right inventions, it is also true that had he not finally had success he would not even be a footnote to history.
Failure is when the system breaks down and there needs to be a complete re-start. Failure is not when there is a misstep along the learning curve and a student simply needs to be retaught that step in the process. Failure is not even coming close. It is totally missing the target.
Teams that fail to win are not lauded for trying hard. Marriages that end in divorce are not celebrated at anniversary parties. Wars in the middle east are the result of failed peace talks; people are dead as a result. These are no small things.
Over 50 years ago, Benjamin Bloom developed several taxonomies of learning. These taxonomies can be used as benchmarks in the development of formative learning assessments. The taxonomies are sequential learning indicators that measure the process of learning. There is no memorization. When students make mistakes on this ladder to learning, teachers can adjust teaching and move on again to climb the ladder. If used correctly there are no failures, just readjustments in the teaching learning process.
Failure, on the other hand, requires a total reboot. Firstly, the individual needs to take stock and personal responsibility. The question of "why did I fail?" needs to be asked. Unfortunately, we are living in an age when personal responsibility is seldom the first reason identified for failure. The coach didn't like me so that is why I did not make the team. The teacher was not any good and that is why I didn't learn enough. The test didn't test what I thought it would.
Where is the personal assessment and responsibility in all this? I didn't study enough. I didn't practice enough. I didn't go after class and ask the teacher to explain what I didn't understand.
In attributing the reasons for personal failure, it is important to distinguish between those that are within my power to fix and those that are not. If I am short, I probably won't be a great basketball star. If I have limited musical ability, music is probably not a good career choice for me. BUT there are lots of other areas where if I do accept responsibility and agree with myself to do the work I need to do, then I can change the outcomes.
Failure should not be glorified by saying it is good enough because you tried. While it is true that Edison had thousands of failures before he hit the right inventions, it is also true that had he not finally had success he would not even be a footnote to history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)