Standardized

jasper said:

I'd like to see more qualitative oversight by principals and department supervisors than pretending you can objectively measure something as subjective as interpretive reading. When something like the Dufault case can happen in virtually plain sight, you have to wonder who's minding the store. And what about parent/student feedback? While not every teacher is a great fit for every student, I think good teaching is one of those you-know-it-when-you-see-it things more than something you can measure with a yard stick.

You can review info about the current NJ Teacher evaluation system here: http://www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/

In NJ, there are currently 3 observations required of each teacher per year. All teachers must have at least one unannounced and one announced observation; An "announced" observation has a pre-conference whereas an "unannounced" observation does not. All observations have a post-conference. So, each of these observations takes a significant amount of time for the school administrator, between the meeting time, observation time, time needed to record each piece of data, then time needed to determine a final "Teacher Practice" score (for each observation, then across all observations at the end of the year).

For most administrators, this is a huge undertaking time-wise, and when you see this in action, and how many teachers each administrator has to do this for, it becomes apparent how a not-so-great teacher can pull it together for these few observations, and slip through the cracks.

I believe our high school has less than one assistant principal per grade at the high school -- that's a LOT of teachers for each of them to evaluate.

For most teachers these three observations (Teacher Practice) count as 80% of their evaluation.
For the remaining teachers (expected to be less than 20% of all teachers) will have PARCC count as 10% of their score, and this reduces the observation to 70% of their final evaluation.

The remaining 20% of all teacher's evaluation scores is teacher-defined student achievement. Teachers often use their own exams for this.

I totally agree that more of a 360 view, which would include student and/or parent input as part of the Teacher Practice measure would be helpful. It has been demonstrated that even fairly young students can provide good insight into teachers strengths and needs. I know of some studies examining incorporating this. If it can be added to the evaluation process without adding significant time or burden to the administrators, and the teachers don't fight against it, then perhaps we'll see this become more popular.

That said -- I do think that including a standardized exam, which measures what teachers are supposed to teach, should be included at around 10% of the score. It seems very reasonable portion, enough to not be ignored, while not enough to make-or-break an evaluation, and provides an independent piece of information.

In summary: I think the right question is: Does the PARCC do a good job of measuring the standards that teachers are supposed to teach? If not, then improvements need to be made. But I don't think standardized tests should be discarded completely. They can be very informative if they are designed to answer the questions they were intended to answer.

jasper said:

And to point out another hole in the PARCC balloon, I just tried some of the sample math questions for the first time (previously, I only looked at and was appalled by the poor quality of the English questions), and was aghast to realize that students have to write equations and "show their work" in an online form. Math is a pencil and paper discipline.

This is appalling. Just asked my middle schooler whether he had practiced showing his work in math for PARCC and the answer was no. He has had some practice with the scratch pad but doesn't think it's helpful and he missed the one PARCC practice test in math. I've tried to use the scratch pad in Khan Academy and find it pretty hard.

sorangemom said:

My husband grew up in a smaller town in Europe, where he received a far better education than I did in a U.S. metropolis at both public and private schools, and he never took a standardized test, even to go to college. The theory there, and it largely remains the same today, was that everyone should have the right to attend university, and if you go and find you aren't successful, then you quit and do something else. I attended university a year in France, and frankly, no one even took attendance to see if I showed up in the lecture hall. You went, you studied, you passed. You didn't go, you didn't study, you failed. I never tested to get in. I don't know if the European system is better overall, but it does free teachers to teach the subject matter they are trained to teach, as opposed to teaching to the test, which from what I've seen in the last few weeks, is about all that has been done in the elementary and middle schools.

My significant other had a similar experience in a small town (used to be a village) in Europe. But this environment with no standardized testing was tied to a pretty strict and rigid leveling system with very few means of leveling up. What I am having a difficult time reconciling is that the US system for entrance to colleges is pretty dependent on standardized testing. And while teaching in schools is not driven by the SAT, there is a whole industry that feeds off it.

So as to clear up any misunderstanding, for me personally, I do not advocate for doing away with standardized testing all together. I feel like that's true of a lot of people who have the same concerns I do. But right now, with this latest iteration of high-stakes standardized test, it's moved in to the realm of insanity.

Another interesting thing to note (at least for me) is the stranglehold Pearson has on the education "market" here in the U.S.; locally, they are responsible for Powerschool and, of course, PARCC. This is another aspect of the current situation that I find alarming. IMHO, a multi-billion-dollar for-profit company has no business in public education.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/pearson-education-new-york-testing-_b_1850169.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/pearson-education-115026.html

meandtheboys said:

Another interesting thing to note (at least for me) is the stranglehold Pearson has on the education "market" here in the U.S.; locally, they are responsible for Edmodo, Powerschool and, of course, PARCC. This is another aspect of the current situation that I find alarming. IMHO, a multi-billion-dollar for-profit company has no business in public education.

While I'm less familiar with the business aspects, I've seen so many contractors and universities vying for education dollars, that I'm not convinced that there is a monopoly happening by Pierson. Some companies are not-for-profit, others are for profit.

For example, the Smarter-Balanced assessment consortium, which more states belong to than PARCC, had contracted their work to American Institutes for Research (AIR) (a not-for-profit) and Data Recognition Corp (DRC) (I think they are for-profit).

"More than 500 education researchers around the country have signed an open letter to Congress and the Obama administration about how the No Child Left Behind law should be rewritten, saying that they 'strongly urge departing from test-focused reforms that not only have been discredited for high-stakes decisions, but also have shown to widen, not close, gaps and inequities.'”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/14/more-than-500-researchers-sign-nclb-letter-to-congress-stop-test-focused-reforms/

Our local Facebook group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/somsparentsforqualityeducation/requests/?notif_t=group_r2j

@meandtheboys
That letter congress starts with:

Deep-rooted trends of ever-increasing social and educational needs, as well as fewer or stagnant resources, will inevitably lead to larger opportunity gaps and achievement gaps. Testing will document this, but it will do nothing to change it. Instead, the gaps will only close with sustained investment and improvement based on proven strategies that directly increase children’s opportunities to learn."

That is pretty much the original intention of standardized testing -- to 'document' the gaps and needs at schools and districts.

High-stakes uses for student placement are developed in addition. Some are created by districts - basically because they already have the test data, it becomes the hammer that makes everything else look like a nail. The way SOMSD does leveling seems insane to me, and I look forward to them thinking through better options. But if only grades and teacher recommendations are used... the teacher then holds 100% of the power in a student's placement decision. No good.

The amount of weight given to standardized tests for teacher evaluations is developed by the state (I think this is a new requirement from Race to the Top).

For example, I think NJ is sane for assigning a 10% weight to teacher evaluations based on PARCC. However, Washington DC was using the test for about 50% of teacher evaluations -- and firing teachers based on it. There is substantial dysfunction in the DC schools... this high-stakes overuse of the test data is just one piece of it.

Allegedly, the percentage for teacher evaluation is set to increase to 30%. We've been "documenting" gaps for years. Yet in all that time there is no evidence that anything has improved. In fact, there is plenty of documented evidence proving it hasn't? Why continue with something that doesn't work? Based on a test that is flawed?

http://mikkelstoraasli.blogspot.com/2015/02/testifying-on-parcc-in-springfield.html

meandtheboys said:

Allegedly, the percentage for teacher evaluation is set to increase to 30%. We've been "documenting" gaps for years. Yet in all that time there is no evidence that anything has improved. In fact, there is plenty of documented evidence proving it hasn't? Why continue with something that doesn't work? Based on a test that is flawed?

We'll see what happens with the teacher evaluation percentage... but if it can stay 10%, or at least under 20%, it seems reasonable to me.

Test scores have been used in all sorts of research projects to examine if programs are working are not. I'm not sure how they can say there is no evidence things have improved. Test scores have often been used as part of the evidence of effectiveness of new programming.

Sorry, should have been more specific: They've done nothing to improve the achievement gap or "failing" schools. If anything they've been a detriment to failing schools. That, to me, is a pretty big deal.

Again, their purpose wasn't to improve schools. They were simply to document which schools were failing their students. Then states/districts got to decide how they wanted to address these schools that were failing.

The curious thing is that the focus is on teachers and schools when the problems we need to address (e.g. poverty) lie elsewhere.

tjohn said:

The curious thing is that the focus is on teachers and schools when the problems we need to address (e.g. poverty) lie elsewhere.

Part of that is that "effective" teachers have been shown to improve student achievement more than "ineffective" teachers... and this is a current 'big thing'. It is the focus of the new teacher evaluation systems, and the growth in "Professional development" since it's (somewhat) under the control of the schools.

Addressing issues that arise from poverty have been the focus of some charter schools, and although there are methods that seem to improve various outcomes, they tend to be very expensive.

While addressing the causes of poverty outside the school system would likely have the most impact, it's generally outside the US DOE or NJ DOE funding capabilities.

So... the current focus is on teachers.

Basing a teacher's performance and salary on standardized tests given to students is total nonsense. There are many reasons for this, including all the factors that affect student learning which cannot be controlled by the teacher. But the main reason is that the tests are not designed to evaluate teachers. Tests are only valid for what they are designed to evaluate. It says so right on the every standardized test. Using them to evaluate teachers is abusive and unfair political move to discredit and devalue teachers.

jasper said:

However, it did touch on things like the value of seasoned teachers observing and mentoring less experienced teachers in the classroom, which doesn't so much measure as help improve the quality of teaching, a much more important goal in my opinion.

I think in all NJ public schools, novice teachers are assigned to experienced teachers for mentoring. In fact, the novice teacher's salary has a couple thousand dollars taken out of it to pay the experienced teacher for this mentoring.

Unfortunately, the reality is that unless they have the same prep period, the 'mentoring' may be limited to 'let me know if you need any help'. However, if the mentoring teacher has the same prep period, then they don't usually have time to leave their own classroom to observe the other teacher in action in their classroom.

I'm familiar with two coaching models currently being researched to improve this, but both have downsides, such as substantial funding to pay for additional time out of the classroom for the mentor teachers (by paying substitutes for more time-out-of-classroom (which is not great for their own students), or paying to have a teacher become a full-time mentor for all new and experienced teachers in the school (which takes a 'great' teacher out of the classroom, and is not something our district could afford financially)).

This frightening. This is why this issue goes so far beyond just this test.

http://www.thenation.com/article/181762/venture-capitalists-are-poised-disrupt-everything-about-education-market#

jasper said:

If you missed the showing of the film Standardized last night at the South Orange Public Library, which is most of you, since there were only a few of us there, then you have another chance to see it at the Maplewood Memorial Library on Wednesday April 8, at 6:30pm.

Is this still on for tonight? I don't see anything on the library website.

I was wondering the same thing, Esiders. As it happens, I have a conflict and can't make it, but if it's on, I do recommend seeing it. If I find any information, I'll report back.

jasper said:

I was wondering the same thing, Esiders. As it happens, I have a conflict and can't make it, but if it's on, I do recommend seeing it. If I find any information, I'll report back.

Thanks Jasper.
I just called the library - librarian said this is not a library sponsored event which is why it isn't on the website. But she confirmed the Durand Room IS reserved tonight for viewing Standardized. So I will be there.

Here's the flyer that I found posted in the South Orange Maplewood Parents for Quality Education Facebook group: https://www.smore.com/x8krq

Esiders said:

jasper said:

I was wondering the same thing, Esiders. As it happens, I have a conflict and can't make it, but if it's on, I do recommend seeing it. If I find any information, I'll report back.

Thanks Jasper.
I just called the library - librarian said this is not a library sponsored event which is why it isn't on the website. But she confirmed the Durand Room IS reserved tonight for viewing Standardized. So I will be there.

Ditto. (Great minds, etc.: Called the library yesterday when I, too, failed to see it on the website.)

Sorry I won't see you there, Dave. I have my every-other-Wednesday night spring Hebrew class.

We learn and improve our Hebrew by speaking it with each other and reading Hebrew jokes, songs, and other writings brought in by the teacher. Instead of a test, we have a delicious Yemenite (or other middle eastern cuisine) dinner at the teacher's house for the last class, and there are no grades, just learning for the pleasure of it.

We do this for 8 sessions each spring, and my Hebrew knowledge, long rusty since I last learned it in high school, is much improved over these last 8 or so years. Isn't it amazing? And just imagine how much we'd learn if we met for 180 school days each year!

jasper said:

Here's the flyer that I found posted in the South Orange Maplewood Parents for Quality Education Facebook group: https://www.smore.com/x8krq

Thanks...I just posted it on the MMS Family Facebook page.

jasper said:

and there are no grades, just learning for the pleasure of it.

Blasphemy.

(Reminding myself of a college friend's favorite joke, told in English, not Hebrew, that ended with the punch line: "Blasphemy? Sure. Was it a blast for you, too?")

Some jokes don't translate, but it made me look up how to say blasphemy in Hebrew, only the second entry of which I knew before, which is specific to one of the Jewish ways of referring to God, namely, "the Name":

sprout said:

meandtheboys said:

Allegedly, the percentage for teacher evaluation is set to increase to 30%. We've been "documenting" gaps for years. Yet in all that time there is no evidence that anything has improved. In fact, there is plenty of documented evidence proving it hasn't? Why continue with something that doesn't work? Based on a test that is flawed?

We'll see what happens with the teacher evaluation percentage... but if it can stay 10%, or at least under 20%, it seems reasonable to me.

Test scores have been used in all sorts of research projects to examine if programs are working are not. I'm not sure how they can say there is no evidence things have improved. Test scores have often been used as part of the evidence of effectiveness of new programming.

This.

sprout said:

Again, their purpose wasn't to improve schools. They were simply to document which schools were failing their students. Then states/districts got to decide how they wanted to address these schools that were failing.

This.

sprout said:

tjohn said:

The curious thing is that the focus is on teachers and schools when the problems we need to address (e.g. poverty) lie elsewhere

Part of that is that "effective" teachers have been shown to improve student achievement more than "ineffective" teachers... and this is a current 'big thing'. It is the focus of the new teacher evaluation systems, and the growth in "Professional development" since it's (somewhat) under the control of the schools.

Addressing issues that arise from poverty have been the focus of some charter schools, and although there are methods that seem to improve various outcomes, they tend to be very expensive.

While addressing the causes of poverty outside the school system would likely have the most impact, it's generally outside the US DOE or NJ DOE funding capabilities.

So... the current focus is on teachers.

This.

sprout said:

jasper said:

However, it did touch on things like the value of seasoned teachers observing and mentoring less experienced teachers in the classroom, which doesn't so much measure as help improve the quality of teaching, a much more important goal in my opinion.

I think in all NJ public schools, novice teachers are assigned to experienced teachers for mentoring. In fact, the novice teacher's salary has a couple thousand dollars taken out of it to pay the experienced teacher for this mentoring.

Unfortunately, the reality is that unless they have the same prep period, the 'mentoring' may be limited to 'let me know if you need any help'. However, if the mentoring teacher has the same prep period, then they don't usually have time to leave their own classroom to observe the other teacher in action in their classroom.

I'm familiar with two coaching models currently being researched to improve this, but both have downsides, such as substantial funding to pay for additional time out of the classroom for the mentor teachers (by paying substitutes for more time-out-of-classroom (which is not great for their own students), or paying to have a teacher become a full-time mentor for all new and experienced teachers in the school (which takes a 'great' teacher out of the classroom, and is not something our district could afford financially)).

And this.

A few observations based on the documentary and comments from teachers and organizers at last night's screening:

I'm no fan of standardized testing, and demands for school accountability often strike me as overwrought or as pretexts for other agendas. (Even the critics are not immune. For instance, one of the voices calling out flaws in current ways of evaluating schools in "Standardized," Tim Slekar, the dean of an school of education in Wisconsin, isn't above citing measures of school performance in D.C. in his takedown of Michelle Rhee.) That said, the suggested alternatives seem problematic, too -- mainly, as @sprout has noted, in terms of the costs and other resources they require.

A teacher who spoke convincingly last night about the damage being done by testing regimes pointed to pilot programs in New Hampshire in which teachers present a "portfolio" of their work as part of their evaluations. Surely, that could blunt overdependence on test scores. Key findings of a state-backed study of the programs, however, included: "Many evaluators and teachers reported that evaluation took too much time and used too many resources" and "introducing and designing student learning objectives proved more challenging than other features of the new evaluation systems." Also, at least some participants wondered how reproducible their efforts could be on a larger scale.

For evaluations of overall school performance, the only alternative I recall in "Standardized" was presented by Henry Cram, president of the Middle States Association Commission on Elementary and Secondary Schools, who promoted the idea of a certification process akin to college accreditation. Again, I can only imagine the resources and costs that would be required. And while Middle States is a nonprofit, no doubt a nationwide push in this direction would create a need and open the door for additional certifying agencies, a profit opportunity that could give even the likes of Pearson a run for their money.

Finally, a quibble: "Standardized" raises the school closings in Philadelphia as if they were an affront in and of themselves. In fact, too many buildings were severely underenrolled; their operation and upkeep were a drain on already crippling funding, and emotional pleas against losing a community's beloved "home" don't change that. It may be that the number of schools that had to close is disputable, but the real issue is which ones were chosen to be shut down and in which neighborhoods. The movie gets this point across a little better in reference to Chicago (where, I should disclose, my brother-in-law teaches in a public school).

Interesting. Thanks for that.