by ken mitchell | Dec 19, 2014 | Ken Mitchell's Archives
Today is my last day as a public school educator. During the past thirty-seven years I have had the joy of working with many wonderful students, educators, and parents in some great school districts. I am quite fortunate to have spent the last phase of my career as the superintendent of South Orangetown. This is a special place and one that values and cherishes its children and the schools that guide and nurture them.
I have great optimism for the work of the educators in our district as they prepare students for a very complex future. They have demonstrated an understanding that the best learning does not come from the lesson that is about preparing students for an assessment.
They understand that learning is complex, as every learner is unique coming to the lesson with different strengths, backgrounds, perspectives, interests, talents, and cognitive styles. Great teachers adapt to these. Great systems help teachers by providing them with the learning opportunities and the tools to accommodate such learners. South Orangetown has made such a commitment.
Public education is at a crossroads. Bureaucrats, technocrats,and misinformed political leaders from all levels of the government have generalized the learning needs of our most impoverished students to that of all school populations. This is a huge mistake with negative implications for our children and for society if it is allowed to continue.
Our schools need to be places where children are encouraged to create, to learn through projects, experiences, field trips, the arts, clubs, athletics, games, collaboration, debate, and so much more. Too many schools are responding to a narrowly-focused effort to raise test scores for the purpose of ‘accountability’.
It is those systems with weak internal accountability systems – mostly under-resourced or poorly led – that turn to external incentives or penalties to change the behaviors of the teachers or the students. In spite of substantive evidence that learning behaviors cannot be transformed in a lasting way with such approaches, there are efforts to “incentivize” or punish those involved in the work of learning. Such a practice, in spite of what some want to believe, is counterproductive and a wasteful expense to taxpayers.
Yet too many systems have reacted with blind compliance to the narrow vision of schools that our state and federal education officials are offering. Why is it that communities with excellent schools have resisted these changes?
Part of my work in the past few years has been with superintendents from school districts in Westchester and Long Island to push back on policies that are being handed down by those who have demonstrated a lack of a capacity to understand that the act of learning is complex and messy. True learning outcomes are broader than any that can be defined by blunt assessments.
Last evening was my final BOE meeting during which I had the pleasure of meeting with elementary, middle, and high school students and watching a student-generated and student-led presentation on what it means to learn in a 21st century environment. There was no better way to end my career in South Orangetown than to hear from and be with our wonderful students.
Parents send their children to school with the hope and optimism about how learning will help maximize their human potential. The parents I meet consistently show a faith in the work and dedication of their children’s public school educators. Such reliance has been the bedrock of our public education system. And in spite of the myths that exist about public education’s failures, there is evidence beyond that of test scores that proves the success and rich value of the American public education system.
As I shared at last week’s National Honor Society meeting, the U.S. has had the strongest economy in the world for last century. America’s prosperity comes from its creativity which is fostered in its schools. America leads the world in patents for innovation – no country is even close to us. We have had the highest number of Nobel prize winners, including those in the sciences. Americans publish more scientific papers and hold more degrees in science and technology per million than any other nation. We have done all of this in spite of unfavorable test scores in elementary school and since the early fifties when such data were being tracked.
Every one of us needs to be on guard and resist efforts from corporate reformers, uninformed politicians, and inexperienced education bureaucrats. We have heard our governor refer to his reliance on experts – whether the topic is about fracking, gambling or education. The problem is that he is relying on the wrong education ‘experts’. They are taking us down a dangerous path.
I encourage you to continue to be a community that asks questions about best practice. Continue to be vigilant about the reforms being imposed upon an effective public education system. Make your voice heard to your school district leaders and state legislators.
I wish all of you well on your journeys and thank you for supporting our students. South Orangetown is a caring community with a school system that reflects its commitment to its future – the children.
Thank you.
by ken mitchell | Nov 6, 2014 | Ken Mitchell's Archives
The elections are over. The political phone and mail solicitations have stopped. But the debate over public education regarding such topics as the Common Core, teacher evaluation, testing, and international comparisons is likely to continue with such questions as …
Is Common Core an educational ‘silver bullet’ or are the standards unnecessary, developmentally inappropriate, and potentially harmful to many students?
o Will the return on investment pay off more for students or for educational vendors and entrepreneurs?
How effective is New York State’s new teacher evaluation system?
o Why are many school administrators questioning its value rather than embracing it as a helpful tool?
o Why are researchers questioning its ability to assess the work of teachers?
o What is its actual value in comparison to its costs?
What are the most accurate methods to measure student learning?
o Why has there been such an increase in mandated testing?
o How effective are such tests?
o Will the return on investment pay off more for students or for educational vendors and entrepreneurs?
o What are the negative effects of too much testing on students?
What should people know about the performance of U.S. schools in comparison to other nations?
In the next several weeks New York’s elected officials will head back to Albany to discuss these and related questions. They will write or vote on bills. Some will be guided by political ideals rather than supporting evidence. Others will understand some of the facts, having read research or consulted with experts, and make informed decisions. A few, unfortunately, even though they have the objective and fact-based information, will consult polls and make decisions based on opinion, not what is best for students.
That’s where you come in. With November comes American Education Week. How should we ‘celebrate’? Typically, we note this at our school board meetings and recognize our elected school board members who volunteer an extraordinary amount of time supporting the work of educators.
This is also a good time to consider getting involved and becoming better informed. These actions help ensure that public schools remain ‘public’ not corporate institutions. In good times and bad times, community-based school systems have provided a common experience, safe haven, and port of possibilities for America’s children. There are certainly debates about funding inequities and the intrusion of state and federal mandates on local school districts; yet in the end, contrary to misinformation, evidence reveals that America’s public schools have performed exceedingly well.
When critics argue that there is an economic case for reforming public schools, they disregard the history of American education. Since the 1840’s public schools have been the blame for many of society’s ills and America’s ability to ‘compete’. Ironically, the United States economy, over almost the last century – dubbed the ‘American Century’ – has led the world in almost every major economic growth category.
How can it be that in a nation that has led the world in innovation as measured by patents, Nobel prizes in science and math, scientific and technical papers, gross domestic product (GDP), and the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), the economy is being hampered by a “failing” public school system? Such a paradox is rarely questioned by Americans.
What other national economy would any U.S. political leader want in place of ours? Yet, many are seeking to replace the public education system that has helped to contribute to American prosperity with untested reforms that shift control from local communities to larger state and federal bureaucracies that partner with for profit vendors. These vendors, in turn, market not only publishing materials, tests, and training but school privatization via public tax dollars that subsidize those making the profits and others benefiting from their investments.
With several weeks before moving to a new position in which I will research, write, and teach about education, I have a few final opportunities to keep our community informed. I am providing links to four pieces related to the aforementioned topics. The first addresses the argument that schools are failing; the second is about the influence of private corporations on public schools; the third is a book review that examines false claims about international comparisons and the dangers that these present to not only our schools but our society; and the last is a piece on the science behind the Common Core.
I invite you to celebrate American Education Week by gaining new perspective and examining evidence to keep you informed about public education. And in the spirit of Election Day, this will also help you to keep an eye on our newly elected officials to make sure that they are legislating with their minds and research, not poll results.
Click on title for the full article:
“A Nation at Risk?” (April 2013)
Produced by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, this is a short piece that provides a synopsis and current analysis of the 1983 policy paper that triggered many of the reforms.
“The Plot Against Public Education” (October 2014)
Who are the corporate players influencing the reform movement? What are their agendas and why? How will this affect public education?
“The Myth of Chinese Super Schools” (November 2014)
A former under-secretary of education in the first Bush administration reviews a book by Yong Zhao, his third on the topic, that examines fallacies of international comparisons with a specific focus on China.
“The Science of the Common Core: Experts Weigh in on its Developmental Appropriateness” (October 2014)
A Forbes magazine reporter interviews experts to examine some arguments about the Common Core.
by ken mitchell | Sep 12, 2014 | Ken Mitchell's Archives
Measuring Success
As we begin the year, the debate about the role of assessment in education continues. In the past, I have shared concerns about the extent to which testing has overtaken schools in New York and beyond. While responsible assessment is necessary to diagnose learner needs and progress, there is a limit as to how much will actually provide a return on such a costly investment in time and preparation. Many believe that New York’s testing system, as required by state and federal laws, even with recent modifications, is harmful to the academic and emotional well-being of students.
A year ago, I shared the following questions about this debate:
- How can we provide a learning experience that builds human capacity versus one that simply measures it?
- How do we ensure that teachers remain caretakers of both children and the content of their lessons rather than spend unnecessary time as test technicians and data managers?
- How do we ensure that we spend our precious resources on providing rich and varied learning experiences rather than building costly assessment systems?
- Are we more likely to foster a lifelong passion for learning within a high-stakes testing culture or one that asks students to solve real-world problems, experience learning as play, and engage in creative and critical thinking in pursuit of an idea or interest?
Responding to Pressure
There has been strong advocacy to ensure that assessment is appropriate. Parents and staff have shared concerns with legislators and state education officials and demanded evidence for the reforms that abuse assessment and disregard research that describes effective methods for measuring learning. Under pressure from such advocates, state and federal education officials have begun to ‘shift’ their positions on the matter of assessment and how, in its current forms, it might not be effective in determining teacher quality or the needs of students.
In late August, Arne Duncan, the U.S. Secretary of Education, proclaimed that testing is “sucking the oxygen out of the room in a lot of schools.” A similar concern was raised by New York’s Department of Education when officials advised districts to “reduce” the amount of unnecessary testing. Ironically, it is New York’s education reform agenda that has served as the exemplar for the Race to the Top plan coming out of Washington, and the regulations that require, in spite of rhetoric implying the contrary, expanded testing.
For those not familiar with educator and parental concerns about how both the No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top education policies and laws have led to an explosion of testing based on a flawed notion of accountability, such proclamations seem judicious. However, adjustments by state and federal education officials reflect a political reaction to public backlash against an agenda that has made the United States the world’s leader in testing.
Advocacy Opposed to Misuse of Testing
In November of 2012, school boards and superintendents from Rockland, Westchester, Dutchess and Putnam counties gathered in Tarrytown to hear Monty Neill from the Center for Fair and Open Testing deliver a presentation on the topic: “How Standardized Testing Damages Education and What We Can Do About It”.
Following New York’s acceptance of the federal Race to the Top grant funding, accompanied by evidenced claims that the grant monies would be insufficient for implementing the changes, school leaders were concerned that the amount of increased testing required under the law would have a negative impact on the quality of education in the region. In addition to their communiqués to state officials, boards and superintendents engaged national experts for guidance and educated parents about the issues. (Visit The Center for Fair and Open Testing website at http://www.fairtest.org/k-12/fact%20sheets).
How Effective are Our State and Federal Assessment Systems?
Assessment should be less about ‘accountability’ and grading and more about diagnosing learning assets and weaknesses. Since the No Child Left Behind law, the national and state standardized testing design has been structured in a manner that generalizes without determining the nuances of learner needs, abides by a schedule that does not provide on-time information about the learner, and provides little return on investment over that which is generated by teachers in classrooms and school districts with their own diagnostic assessment tools.
Across the nation, there has been concern about the nature of the reforms and how they have influenced the creation of an expansive and monolithic private testing industry with no quality control. Following criticism about the lack of scientific evidence behind the tests being used to assess student knowledge of Common Core, the U.S. Department of Education is in the process of developing guidance for ensuring that such tests are valid and reliable. The Race to the Top grant application requires states to align their assessments with the new standards and to prove that they actually assess that which is being tested. Yet, until recently the federal government had not considered issuing guidance on how to provide evidence that the tests actually work. (See http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/08/06/37peer-review.h33.html)
What are Officials Doing about the Issue?
Every day we hear about boards, superintendents, commissioners, and political leaders battling over Common Core and related testing. In late August, Vermont’s State Board of Education adopted a set of resolutions about responsible testing:
Resolution on Assessment and Accountability: Vermont State Board of Education
WHEREAS, our nation and Vermont's future well-being relies on a high-quality public education system that prepares all students for college, careers, citizenship and lifelong learning, and strengthens the nation’s and the state’s social and economic well-being; and
WHEREAS, our nation's school systems have been spending growing amounts of time, money and energy on high-stakes standardized testing, in which student performance on standardized tests is used to make major decisions affecting individual students, educators and schools; and
WHEREAS, the overreliance on high-stakes standardized testing in state and federal accountability systems is undermining educational quality and equity in the nation’s public schools by hampering educators' efforts to focus on the broad range of learning experiences that promote the innovation, creativity, problem solving, collaboration, communication, critical thinking and deep subject-matter knowledge that will allow students to thrive in a democracy and an increasingly global society and economy; and
WHEREAS, it is widely recognized that standardized testing is an inadequate and often unreliable measure of both student learning and educator effectiveness; and
WHEREAS, a compelling body of national research shows the over-emphasis on standardized testing has caused considerable collateral damage in areas such as narrowing the curriculum, teaching to the test, reducing love of learning, pushing students out of school, and undermining school climate; and
WHEREAS, high-stakes standardized testing has negative effects for students from all backgrounds, and especially for low-income students, English language learners, children of color, and those with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the culture and structure of the systems in which students learn must change in order to foster engaging school experiences that promote joy in learning, depth of thought and breadth of knowledge for students; therefore be it
RESOLVED that the Vermont State Board of Education requests that the Secretary of Education reexamine public school accountability systems in this state, and develop a system based on multiple forms of assessment which has at its center qualitative assessments, does not require extensive standardized testing, more accurately reflects the broad range of student learning, decreases the role of compliance monitoring, and is used to support students and improve schools; and
RESOLVED, that the Vermont State Board of Education calls on the United States Congress and Administration to accordingly amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (currently known as the “No Child Left Behind Act") to reduce the testing mandates, promote multiple forms of evidence of student learning and school quality, eschew the use of student test scores in evaluating educators, and allow flexibility that reflects the unique circumstances of all states; and
RESOLVED that the Vermont State Board of Education calls on other state and national organizations to act in concert with these goals to improve and broaden educational goals, provide adequate resources, and ensure a high quality education for all children of the state and the nation.
What Can We Do?
Vermont’s board calls on “other state and national organizations” to get involved. Their resolutions are thoughtful and measured. They reflect the common sense by local decision-makers upon whom a community’s children and parents depend. They reject the politically- motivated and corporately-designed reforms that rely too much upon untested testing.
New York’s school reform is in a shambles. Educators struggle to maintain the integrity of learning while boxed in by unrealistic mandates and regulations imposed upon their classrooms by those distant from the classroom. While there has been a retreat signified via legislated delays in implementation, real change needs to be structural. Voices like those of the state school board in Vermont are calling for meaningful and sensible reforms to counter wrongheaded policies.
Every student, teacher, parent, and community member has a voice. Perhaps it is time that the leaders of New York State’s education system start listening to those with the experience, knowledge, and personal investment in the lives of the children in our schools.
Speak up, stay informed, and let your legislators know what you think. Political influence does not have to begin and end with donations to candidates. Instead it can be used to ensure that decisions in our schools are made in the best interests of our students.
by ken mitchell | Aug 1, 2014 | Ken Mitchell's Archives
We are being inundated with news items about the Common Core (CC) controversy raging across the nation. A year ago a Gallup Poll reported that only two-thirds of Americans and just over half of public school parents had heard of the Common Core. Things have changed.
In less than a year there has been a rise in public awareness about the standards. According to an April Gallup Poll (here), only 37% of public school parents have never heard of them or have no opinion about them. Of the remaining parents, 35% are in favor but 28% are opposed. With rhetoric coming from both sides of the debate and all corners of the political arena, how can the average citizen draw conclusions based on objective information? Arguments on both sides appear compelling.
CC supporters warn of dire economic outcomes if our students do not score as well as students in other nations on international tests, but CC skeptics argue that our students have never done well on the tests and that the results mean less in real economic outcomes than proponents purport.
Who can argue with CC supporters who want students to be “career and college ready”? Yet, CC skeptics argue that an overemphasis on narrow standards and related tests is counterproductive to preparing students and staying economically competitive as a nation. Their position is that such preparation comes from a comprehensive education that fosters creativity and independent thinking that allows students to adapt to new learning and future unknowns.
CC supporters herald the standards for their rigor and how they seem to compare against those used by nations with higher test scores. Who wouldn’t want standards that are challenging and internationally-benchmarked? But, CC skeptics question the work that was done to set the standards, the research behind them, their level of appropriateness for all learners, and whether they will provide the return on investment – in both economic and political capital. Are they worth the fuss?
Last weekend, there were two local articles about the CC. On Sunday, The New York Times (here) ran a piece entitled, “(New Math) – (New Teaching) = Failure,” by Elizabeth Green. Expecting to read more details about the design and development of the CC, and the debate over the lack of research behind the new standards, I was disappointed. On the other hand, I found the reporter’s examination of math instruction somewhat interesting in how she described effective pedagogical approaches such as teaching conceptual understanding through a problem-based approach with authentic tasks. She also discussed how professional learning activities in other countries foster lesson study, professional collaboration, and peer observation. Good, but …
A reader without any context of what actually happens in schools might infer that it is the Common Core that has led to this kind of teaching and professional learning that has been so lacking. Again, I was disappointed. None of this is new and the CC standards were not the catalyst. In my many years of experience as principal, assistant superintendent, and superintendent, I have observed precisely the kinds of teaching and professional learning described in the article. I cringed at Green’s sweeping generalizations.
On the same day, Gary Stern, the education writer for the Journal News, wrote an article about the development of the cut points established for the 2014 Common Core-based assessments (here). The article, “Common Core: Who’s on Track for College and Who is Not,” explored how scores are established, by whom, and how they factor in age, special needs, and other variables.
Reporter Stern tracked down educators who served on the rating committee and summarized some of their questions and opinions about the process. Here are a few highlights:
"How does the state determine the crucial break between a 2, which means that a student is not quite proficient in, say, fifth-grade math, and a 3, which signifies that he or she is on track for college?
"The process of setting a scoring "scale" and cut scores for an annual test, based on all-important, predetermined goals, is an entirely different animal that is not easily described. In fact, the panelists met to set the 1-4 cut scores after students took the first new tests in spring 2013 and the raw data was in.
"It's like you're jumping over a hurdle that's 2 feet high, but after you jump they say it was 3 feet and you missed," said Cary Grimm, another panelist who is math chairman for the Longwood school district on Long Island.
"Jane Arnold, an English professor at SUNY Adirondack, said the Pearson people provided confusing data that didn't seem to apply to grades 3-5, her group's focus. "Then they gave us a chance to change our minds," she wrote in a statement. "In other words, we all knew that most of the student scores would be substandard….." "We worked within the paradigm Pearson gave us," she said. "It's not like we could go, 'This is what we think third-graders should know,' or, 'This will completely stress out our third-graders.' Many of us had concerns about the pedagogy behind all of this, but we did reach a consensus about the cut scores."
"Eva Demyen, superintendent of the Deer Park district on Long Island, said she still doesn't grasp how the state determined that two-thirds of students were not proficient in English and math. "How they got the 33 percent (passing) was beyond us," she wrote. "It just seemed very strange to me … and I'm a mathematician!"
"Another panelist, Karen DeMoss, a professor of education at Wagner College on Staten Island, said she is increasingly convinced that standardized testing is "scarring" students and not promoting achievement.
Sources for SOCSD Community Members
As I read both pieces I began to think about how our parents, students, and community members might be interpreting the CC. So, I decided that over the next few weeks, I will organize and post a few links to articles, blogs, or websites that should help our community gain a better understanding about the Common Core, the promises, the concerns, and controversy. While I will try to present views from both sides, please forgive me if I editorialize along the way. (I will state up front that I am a skeptic about school reformers who have spent little time working with students or teachers and have even greater skepticism for those making money or political hay from reform initiatives.)
Books, articles, and blogs on the CC are published daily. The nation’s education vendors are busily readying materials and stamping them “Common Core Ready!” Training and tutorial services solicitations arrive by the bushel. A day does not go by when I have not received dozens of ads hawking whatever it is that will make our students Common Core-ready. It is certainly a money-maker for many.
Earlier this summer I read UnCommon Core: Where the Authors of the Standards Go Wrong About Instruction and How You Can Get It Right(here is a review from someone who likes the CC). The big themes were: What’s to like about the CC; what to worry about; and what the standards leave out. Having read other texts about the Common Core, I found the work an attempt to correct the misguided pedagogy that has indeed accompanied the standards, in spite of the denials of Common Core advocates.
One reviewer declared: “Talk about overdue! This book is an urgently needed corrective to the oversights, overreaches, and idiosyncratic weirdness of the Common Core Standards and what their authors say about how they should be taught. These authors aren’t standards-bashing; they stipulate that the Common Core has ‘the capacity to provide a real opportunity for progressive change.’ . . . Thank goodness three of our best teacher-thinkers have come forward to speak truth to Zombie literacy.” (Harvey "Smokey" Daniels, Coauthor of The Best-Kept Teaching Secret)
The book provides guidance on effective instruction of the CC, along with a strong critique of their development and the strategies recommended by their creators. And while CC supporters claim that the standards do not prescribe instruction, they are indeed being rolled out with guidance that includes “scripts” to make them “teacher-proof”. Imagine if our physicians relied on scripts provided by pharmaceutical or medical supply companies!
If you want to read something that tracks the political controversy around the Common Core, go to Mercedes Schneider’s blog (here) or author, Diane Ravitch, a former U. S. Department of Education Assistant Secretary of Education to President H.W. Bush, who regularly blogs(here) on events related to school reform, including the Common Core.
For those wanting to avoid the politics of the debate, a recent piece from the journal, Reflector, published by Vanderbilt’s Peabody College, one of the nation’s top schools of education, presents an objective overview of the CC with the piece: “Hardcore: What Happens Now?”(here) The article provides a brief history of the development of the CC and breaks down the arguments from both sides. It is a concise work leaving you with both answers and new questions.
All of these should keep you busy. In the meantime and over the next few weeks, I will provide more links that will provide insights around the following questions:
- What is the controversy about testing? How much is enough assessment?
- How bad are U.S. students doing on international tests? What are some facts about student performance on international assessments? What does it matter?
by ken mitchell | Jun 13, 2014 | Ken Mitchell's Archives
As the 2013-14 school year comes to an end, the South Orangetown school board is in the process of conducting a search for a new superintendent who will be expected to begin in January of 2015. A priority of district administrators, staff, and the Board is to align SOCSD’s strategic approach for setting and implementing goals to improve student learning with the transition to a change in leadership.
As stated in the past, our organizational philosophy is about seeking continuous improvement. Such work is grounded in research, guided by “theories of action” that are coupled with specific and measurable actions, and “informed” by data – all types of data. We certainly do not wait for test results from the state that arrive well after the school year has ended to make decisions about what our students know and are able to do. The monitoring of student learning is embedded in the work of our teachers and schools. We seek authentic assessment data.
In addition, we look at other types of data and how they are integrated with each other: demographics, the effectiveness of practice and procedures, evidence of student learning, and perceptions.
Analyzing and Sharing Perception Data
Perception data are collected through surveys every couple of years. Teachers, support staff, secondary students, and parents have opportunities to respond to a set of questions that have been developed by a research organization with expertise in school survey data. These data serve as snapshots that do not “drive” decision-making but certainly assist in the process of informing it and inspiring deeper inquiry.
Data are reviewed by teams of teachers and administrators to assess progress, identify strengths upon which we can build, and uncover gaps. We then use the findings towards our efforts for continuous improvement. The work is aligned across the district.
Data Analysis & School Improvement Planning
Such analysis happens at a summer retreat when teachers and administrators from across the district work together to review goals. The results are then presented to the school faculties in the fall and used as part of a blueprint for improvement. Principals, teachers, and students make a series of presentations about the identified goals and actions during the fall Board of Education meetings. This is a process that we have been following for the last several years and one that has enabled us to maintain not only a continuity of planning and improvement but a forum to share our work with the community.
Part of this sharing includes posting survey results. Principals have or will be sharing the most recent survey results (2014) with parent groups, such as the PTA, students, and others. The survey information will be posted on each school’s website. You can learn more about the results, goals, and plans at BOE meetings in the fall.
Transition
Given the impending change in central leadership, it was recommended that this summer we explore ways to assist the board of education and a newly-hired superintendent with the transition. How might we use the summer’s analysis to share what we have been doing to enhance student learning?
For example –
· How are we preparing students for the new Common Core curriculum without compromising the instructional integrity of our comprehensive and diverse program?
· How have we analyzed student performance data to improve student learning without making test scores the focus of teaching and learning?
· What are the gaps that we have identified and how do we plan to address them considering the aforesaid concerns?
· In what ways are we being innovative and teaching innovation?
The Board is dedicated to finding a leader for the district who will bring new ideas, fresh insights, and an understanding of what our children will need for the future. It is hoped that the work that we do this summer and fall will ensure that the values and excellence that have been established over many years will be conveyed through a well-conceived and strategic transition plan.
by ken mitchell | May 29, 2014 | Ken Mitchell's Archives
In addition to local and state assessments mandated through New York State’s program for implementing the federal Race to the Top initiative, schools are randomly selected to administer “field tests” to students in subjects and grade levels specified by the State Education Department. The State Education Department has informed South Orangetown that we are to administer ELA field tests before June 11, 2014, to students in grades 3, 4, and 6.
The results will not be used to assess students, teachers, or schools. They are of no benefit to our curriculum nor are they used by teachers to modify instruction to meet the needs of their students. The purpose of the field test is simply to assist contractors and testing vendors with test item development, which should not be the responsibility of students and teachers.
Our educational priority, as I indicated in a letter to state officials, is to maximize instructional time, not diminish it by abetting what we have criticized as just one of the fundamental flaws with New York’s reform agenda: There is too much testing with some of it contrived in order to meet accountability requirements to make the state eligible to receive Race to the Top grant money. Therefore, South Orangetown will not subject students to yet another assessment.
Yes, we need to assess student learning, but that is something that skillful teachers do every day in their classrooms and strategic schools and districts embed in their formalized and structured inquiry about a student’s acquisition of skills and knowledge. Effective educators and systems do not wait until the end of the summer for New York test results to ascertain what our students know and are able to do.
In previous blogs I have described some of the fundamental pedagogical flaws inherent in New York’s education reforms, the waste of money, and the poor implementation. But today I am simply sharing that should you hear about “field testing” in New York, be assured that at least for these assessments, our students will be learning rather than taking yet another test.
