Hi everyone. I have an op-ed published in the Times today. Here's the link:
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2020518477_danmagillopedxml.html
To clarify a couple points:
-The bottom 5% is not referring to academically struggling students. It refers to the bottom 5% in terms of behavior--a much more significant metric.
A struggling student who works hard will have a better shot at life than a "gifted" student who does no work and causes all kinds of problems. Talent is not the issue, it's what you do with it.
So people who are bothered by the 5% idea should re-consider it in these terms. If you object to the idea that there is a bottom 5%, then I hope you never supported the idea of the 1%. There's very little difference in concept, just a different issue.
-It's hard to fit a lot of information in a 600 word column, so some things I would normally elaborate on have to get left out (hence this blog, where I can go on for pages). But the other main thing I would have said more about is that I agree suspensions should not be overused. The recent stories about first graders getting sent home for making guns with their fingers and their pop tarts is just ludicrous.
Suspensions are also better utilized as in-school, rather than as free time at home, as some people have pointed out. This is absolutely true. If we had the personnel, this is the place where some of that behavior coaching could happen, because they actually have the time for it.
-But the heart of the column is that one or two students simply should not be allowed to jeopardize the educations of the rest of the class, and this point remains true without exception. To say this is not "giving up" on anyone. It's to accept reality. Some students will fail, no matter what we do. See my recent post -- Everyone Must Agree On This First -- for more on this.
Hope this helps.
(By the way, next post will be a comparison of students from North Korea in South Korean schools. What will Michelle Rhee think of this data?)
Monday, March 11, 2013
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Michelle Rhee in Seattle -- A Teacher's Reaction
I attended Michelle Rhee’s book promotion Tuesday, February 19th. What I saw was a passionate leader who can inspire crowds, but who ignores the complexities and contradictions of her own proposals. As we hopefully know well by now, misguided passion can do a lot more harm than good.
Tucked in all the rhetoric and one-liners was this telling line: “Who wouldn’t be in favor of students having 12 outstanding teachers?”
Seems like a good question. Half the crowd applauded.
Me? I’m against it. Twelve teachers gets you through seven grades. I’d like students to get through all twelve. That requires about 42 teachers, not twelve.
Different Worlds
Am I nitpicking? No, because this line reveals the perspective of Rhee, who only taught 2nd and 3rd grade for three years. Can someone with so little experience and little awareness of how different elementary is from middle and high school, have enough expertise to propose 37 ideas she says will fix the education system? (Yes, she claimed to have 37 proposals, all of which she is certain are the right courses of action, and said they would need to be implemented en masse if we want to really improve the system).
For those who wonder how I get 42 instead of 12: Most students have one teacher per year during elementary school. But once they hit middle and high school, they have about six. This varies depending on the school and the district, of course. Why does this matter?
A great elementary teacher has influence on 25 kids for an entire year. In high school, a great teacher influences 150 kids, sometimes for an entire year, sometimes only one semester. But we see each student for just 50 minutes each day. If we have new students at the semester, that 150 can double to 300 different students throughout the year. 300 vs 25. And that’s just one difference between elementary and high school.
So when Rhee wants to “evaluate” teachers based on student test scores, do you see the problem? The singular influence a teacher has in 2nd grade far outweighs the partial influence of a 10th grade math teacher. Furthermore, the 10th grade teacher instructs students who have been influenced by nine other math teachers before them.
Is it right to hold that teacher to the same level of accountability as the 2nd grade teacher whose students are, comparatively speaking, empty vessels?
International Tests? Invalid Comparisons
This all assumes, of course, that we have valid assessments with which to measure teacher effectiveness. We don’t. It is arguable if our tests even assess students with much validity. And again, this is even more problematic at the high school level. The recent MAP test flap brought some attention to this, as we see students doing worse on the same test the second time they take it. How can they do worse? Are their teachers “unlearning” them?
And let’s not forget the near-worthlessness of these international tests Rhee cites as proof we are “falling behind.” I’ve discussed them before. For now, just remember that hardly any students take these tests. They are invalid statistical samples. And, especially in other countries, the students taking them are not coming from the same system as ours. Most countries do not try to educate every student like we do. Most countries are not deluded by the fantasy that every kid can and should go to college. They separate them, much earlier, sometimes as early as fourth grade. They put some kids into college tracks, and others into vocational tracks.
Is this “classist?” Is this fair? That’s not the point. The point is, they aren’t giving these tests to students in the vocational tracks. So, how would our country stack up (again assuming these tests hardly anyone takes are valid, which I don’t) if we only compared our college, honors, and AP kids with those in other countries? At least we’d be comparing Fuji Apples to Golden Delicious, and not the oranges and tomatoes the “reformers” keep squishing.
These are huge discrepancies, and Rhee is completely oblivious to them, as far as I can tell. Half of Rhee’s argument is based on this notion we are “falling behind” other nations. We aren’t! I’ve met people from other countries. They aren’t any smarter than the ones here. They’re just people. Rhee makes it sound like we’re The Walking Dumb, and the Koreans are the Baby Geniuses.
The Real Korea Story: Too Much Achievement
Last year, the South Korean unemployment rate for college graduates doubled. Why? Because they have too many. Not enough high school grads are heading straight to work, and they have more college graduates than there are jobs for them to do. The over-emphasis on college and an over-achieving cultural norm has resulted in students burning themselves out trying to make the top rankings in all these lists, and they still don’t get hired because every other student did the same thing. Meanwhile, perfectly good jobs go unfilled, because all the kids are overqualified.
Is this better that our system, or just bad in a different way?
In 1980, the U.S. saw 49% of its high school graduates attend college. In 2010, it was 68%. (This is from the National Center for Education Statistics).
Isn’t that growth? Isn’t that good? It infuriates me that these “reformers” just consistently refuse to say even one good thing about our education system. That’s nearly 20 percentage points higher! That’s good! How good does it have to be before you’re satisfied, Ms. Rhee?
But all we hear about is what a horrible system we supposedly have. Interestingly, Rhee actually gave one specific goal on Tuesday: She wants us to move from the bottom third of the international rankings to the top third. The funny thing is, that’s probably achievable. The really funny thing is, it wouldn’t mean a darn thing even if it happened, in part because it’s an invalid comparison, as I’ve shown.
Meanwhile, the Korean president has had to encourage young people to “work first, study later,” according to one news article. They had to convince job and career fairs to counsel students to explore options other than college. They’ve increased funding for vocational colleges! The horror!
Back to the Lunacy of High Expectations
Let’s look more deeply at another huge difference between elementary and high school. We’ve already considered the huge difference in the number of students per year, and the ‘huger’ difference in the amount of time the teacher spends with each student. Now, let’s examine the “empty vessel” notion I mentioned earlier in more detail.
If an Algebra teacher gets a student who thinks 2-5 is 3 and does the “fraction freak-out” every time they see 5/9, this kid will have a tough time with Algebra, don’t you think? Yet Rhee’s “reformers” want to evaluate the teacher using the Algebra EOC test. Do you think it’s possible to effectively remediate that student, AND teach them algebra, all in one year (while teaching 149 others)? If so, you have clearly never been a teacher.
Now, Rhee counters this by trotting out the absurd but oft-repeated notion that students rise to whatever expectations we set for them. Baloney. Again, though, I suspect this is much more true in 2nd grade than in 10th.
I have an expectation that my students bring pencils to class. Some of them can’t even meet this. I’m serious. Some of them miss two or three days a week of school. Some of them can’t be quiet for more than five minutes at a time, or stay seated for more than ten. These are (not high) expectations, and students can’t even reach those! And Rhee seems to think that by requiring all students to pass Algebra 2 to graduate, students will magically rise to the level of cosines, tangents, and third order functions, even though some of them can’t multiply 1/3 by 2/7.
Funny thing again, they tried this in a Tennessee school district, and what happened? Lots of kids didn’t graduate, and they had to rescind the Algebra 2 requirement.
Look, at some point these “reformers,” and the public who stands and applauds all their flowery one-liners, need to just accept basic truths: Not all students are the same. Some are better at some subjects; some are better at others. Not everyone can be great at everything. This absurd notion defies all of human history.
Rhee’s other response is that we use poverty and family hardships as “excuses” for why children can’t learn. This is insulting. No one I know says these students can’t learn. But a student who can barely read is not going to magically turn out five page essays. By the time they get to us in high school, they come to us at different levels.
Rhee humorously blamed her daughters’ poor soccer skills on her own DNA. Isn’t that the same kind of “excuse?”
In fact, isn’t it a direct contradiction of the idea that “all kids can learn everything if we just raise the expectations?” So all kids can be math whizzes, but not all kids can be good at soccer? Hmm.
Requiring all freshmen to take Algebra is absurd. They aren’t all ready. That’s not a low expectation. That’s a reality. And, if students really do always rise to our expectations, why don’t we put all freshmen in calculus?
But Rhee doesn’t get this, because she only taught 2nd grade.
37 Ideas Like This?
It calls into question her other ideas. She says we shouldn’t treat all schools the same. I agree. Yet we are forced to adopt uniform curriculum across the district, to “align” with every other teacher according to ever-changing standards. All kids are made to read the same four books in ninth grade. Why? Who says those are the “right” books? What is so bad about the teacher choosing? Like, we know how to do our jobs, and stuff. Most of us.
She says we’re wasting money on bureaucracy, yet we spend hundreds of millions developing, refining, administering, and grading all these standardized tests, and rewriting the standards every three years. How much money is spent on this? The latest figures I’ve heard are around $100 million in Washington. $100 million just on testing, in just one average-sized state.
Think about big states. We’re talking tens of billions across the nation. Is it worth it?
Rhee denies the role of the student and the parent in educational success. Her message is akin to blaming the police for high crime rates (see my satirical post about this). I give Rhee credit for her passion, and for challenging bureaucracy. But we need people who acknowledge the systemic complexities to produce effective change.
Tucked in all the rhetoric and one-liners was this telling line: “Who wouldn’t be in favor of students having 12 outstanding teachers?”
Seems like a good question. Half the crowd applauded.
Me? I’m against it. Twelve teachers gets you through seven grades. I’d like students to get through all twelve. That requires about 42 teachers, not twelve.
Different Worlds
Am I nitpicking? No, because this line reveals the perspective of Rhee, who only taught 2nd and 3rd grade for three years. Can someone with so little experience and little awareness of how different elementary is from middle and high school, have enough expertise to propose 37 ideas she says will fix the education system? (Yes, she claimed to have 37 proposals, all of which she is certain are the right courses of action, and said they would need to be implemented en masse if we want to really improve the system).
For those who wonder how I get 42 instead of 12: Most students have one teacher per year during elementary school. But once they hit middle and high school, they have about six. This varies depending on the school and the district, of course. Why does this matter?
A great elementary teacher has influence on 25 kids for an entire year. In high school, a great teacher influences 150 kids, sometimes for an entire year, sometimes only one semester. But we see each student for just 50 minutes each day. If we have new students at the semester, that 150 can double to 300 different students throughout the year. 300 vs 25. And that’s just one difference between elementary and high school.
So when Rhee wants to “evaluate” teachers based on student test scores, do you see the problem? The singular influence a teacher has in 2nd grade far outweighs the partial influence of a 10th grade math teacher. Furthermore, the 10th grade teacher instructs students who have been influenced by nine other math teachers before them.
Is it right to hold that teacher to the same level of accountability as the 2nd grade teacher whose students are, comparatively speaking, empty vessels?
International Tests? Invalid Comparisons
This all assumes, of course, that we have valid assessments with which to measure teacher effectiveness. We don’t. It is arguable if our tests even assess students with much validity. And again, this is even more problematic at the high school level. The recent MAP test flap brought some attention to this, as we see students doing worse on the same test the second time they take it. How can they do worse? Are their teachers “unlearning” them?
And let’s not forget the near-worthlessness of these international tests Rhee cites as proof we are “falling behind.” I’ve discussed them before. For now, just remember that hardly any students take these tests. They are invalid statistical samples. And, especially in other countries, the students taking them are not coming from the same system as ours. Most countries do not try to educate every student like we do. Most countries are not deluded by the fantasy that every kid can and should go to college. They separate them, much earlier, sometimes as early as fourth grade. They put some kids into college tracks, and others into vocational tracks.
Is this “classist?” Is this fair? That’s not the point. The point is, they aren’t giving these tests to students in the vocational tracks. So, how would our country stack up (again assuming these tests hardly anyone takes are valid, which I don’t) if we only compared our college, honors, and AP kids with those in other countries? At least we’d be comparing Fuji Apples to Golden Delicious, and not the oranges and tomatoes the “reformers” keep squishing.
These are huge discrepancies, and Rhee is completely oblivious to them, as far as I can tell. Half of Rhee’s argument is based on this notion we are “falling behind” other nations. We aren’t! I’ve met people from other countries. They aren’t any smarter than the ones here. They’re just people. Rhee makes it sound like we’re The Walking Dumb, and the Koreans are the Baby Geniuses.
The Real Korea Story: Too Much Achievement
Last year, the South Korean unemployment rate for college graduates doubled. Why? Because they have too many. Not enough high school grads are heading straight to work, and they have more college graduates than there are jobs for them to do. The over-emphasis on college and an over-achieving cultural norm has resulted in students burning themselves out trying to make the top rankings in all these lists, and they still don’t get hired because every other student did the same thing. Meanwhile, perfectly good jobs go unfilled, because all the kids are overqualified.
Is this better that our system, or just bad in a different way?
In 1980, the U.S. saw 49% of its high school graduates attend college. In 2010, it was 68%. (This is from the National Center for Education Statistics).
Isn’t that growth? Isn’t that good? It infuriates me that these “reformers” just consistently refuse to say even one good thing about our education system. That’s nearly 20 percentage points higher! That’s good! How good does it have to be before you’re satisfied, Ms. Rhee?
But all we hear about is what a horrible system we supposedly have. Interestingly, Rhee actually gave one specific goal on Tuesday: She wants us to move from the bottom third of the international rankings to the top third. The funny thing is, that’s probably achievable. The really funny thing is, it wouldn’t mean a darn thing even if it happened, in part because it’s an invalid comparison, as I’ve shown.
Meanwhile, the Korean president has had to encourage young people to “work first, study later,” according to one news article. They had to convince job and career fairs to counsel students to explore options other than college. They’ve increased funding for vocational colleges! The horror!
Back to the Lunacy of High Expectations
Let’s look more deeply at another huge difference between elementary and high school. We’ve already considered the huge difference in the number of students per year, and the ‘huger’ difference in the amount of time the teacher spends with each student. Now, let’s examine the “empty vessel” notion I mentioned earlier in more detail.
If an Algebra teacher gets a student who thinks 2-5 is 3 and does the “fraction freak-out” every time they see 5/9, this kid will have a tough time with Algebra, don’t you think? Yet Rhee’s “reformers” want to evaluate the teacher using the Algebra EOC test. Do you think it’s possible to effectively remediate that student, AND teach them algebra, all in one year (while teaching 149 others)? If so, you have clearly never been a teacher.
Now, Rhee counters this by trotting out the absurd but oft-repeated notion that students rise to whatever expectations we set for them. Baloney. Again, though, I suspect this is much more true in 2nd grade than in 10th.
I have an expectation that my students bring pencils to class. Some of them can’t even meet this. I’m serious. Some of them miss two or three days a week of school. Some of them can’t be quiet for more than five minutes at a time, or stay seated for more than ten. These are (not high) expectations, and students can’t even reach those! And Rhee seems to think that by requiring all students to pass Algebra 2 to graduate, students will magically rise to the level of cosines, tangents, and third order functions, even though some of them can’t multiply 1/3 by 2/7.
Funny thing again, they tried this in a Tennessee school district, and what happened? Lots of kids didn’t graduate, and they had to rescind the Algebra 2 requirement.
Look, at some point these “reformers,” and the public who stands and applauds all their flowery one-liners, need to just accept basic truths: Not all students are the same. Some are better at some subjects; some are better at others. Not everyone can be great at everything. This absurd notion defies all of human history.
Rhee’s other response is that we use poverty and family hardships as “excuses” for why children can’t learn. This is insulting. No one I know says these students can’t learn. But a student who can barely read is not going to magically turn out five page essays. By the time they get to us in high school, they come to us at different levels.
Rhee humorously blamed her daughters’ poor soccer skills on her own DNA. Isn’t that the same kind of “excuse?”
In fact, isn’t it a direct contradiction of the idea that “all kids can learn everything if we just raise the expectations?” So all kids can be math whizzes, but not all kids can be good at soccer? Hmm.
Requiring all freshmen to take Algebra is absurd. They aren’t all ready. That’s not a low expectation. That’s a reality. And, if students really do always rise to our expectations, why don’t we put all freshmen in calculus?
But Rhee doesn’t get this, because she only taught 2nd grade.
37 Ideas Like This?
It calls into question her other ideas. She says we shouldn’t treat all schools the same. I agree. Yet we are forced to adopt uniform curriculum across the district, to “align” with every other teacher according to ever-changing standards. All kids are made to read the same four books in ninth grade. Why? Who says those are the “right” books? What is so bad about the teacher choosing? Like, we know how to do our jobs, and stuff. Most of us.
She says we’re wasting money on bureaucracy, yet we spend hundreds of millions developing, refining, administering, and grading all these standardized tests, and rewriting the standards every three years. How much money is spent on this? The latest figures I’ve heard are around $100 million in Washington. $100 million just on testing, in just one average-sized state.
Think about big states. We’re talking tens of billions across the nation. Is it worth it?
Rhee denies the role of the student and the parent in educational success. Her message is akin to blaming the police for high crime rates (see my satirical post about this). I give Rhee credit for her passion, and for challenging bureaucracy. But we need people who acknowledge the systemic complexities to produce effective change.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Everyone Must Agree on This First
As the school semester winds down, this time of year always brings out the same kinds of reflections for teachers.
1) Why do some kids fail, or underachieve?
2) Why don’t all of them reach their potential?
3) How much of this could I have prevented by doing more or doing better?
When I ask myself these questions, I always seem to end up arriving at the same place. And the place I end up is a place that few in the education “reform” movement seem willing to go.
They need to.
This is a principal stumbling block that inhibits the conversation about education between educators and everyone else. Many of the people in ‘everyone else’ think the answers to the three questions above are:
1) We need better teachers
2) Teachers aren’t good enough
3) All of it
Unlike the “reformers,” I end up at a simple realization: Some students will simply not take advantage of what education offers them, and will not benefit from it no matter how much work we put into it.
I can imagine reformers, meddlers, PeWKoB (People Who Know Better), and perhaps some parents, cringing at the heresy bubbling over in this statement. But their cringing is in ignorance. I am starting to wonder if people who can’t agree with this statement understand human nature.
Human nature is about choice. We get to choose what we will do with our lives, day to day, hour to hour. Even in a society where government imposes strict control, people still choose whether or not to brush their teeth, to floss, and what to eat for breakfast. They still choose which way to go to work or to school.
Hypotheticals aside, the point is that students must choose to do their work. I have examples every year, in every class, that bear this out. They are so numerous they all blend together, and I forget about them by next year.
Exhibit A: Bill
This year, I have a student in my chemistry class. We’ll call him Bill. Bill likes to be in class. He participates verbally, works well in groups, enjoys the idea of learning. Bill generally has a good attitude, though he is addicted to electronic toys (cell phones and iPods), which could lead to his undoing. Bill also catches on fairly well, even to the challenging concepts of chemistry. But Bill is failing. He wasn’t failing in September, or in October. But as time passed, his grade plummeted.
How could a student with several very positive qualities not pass?
1) Why do some kids fail, or underachieve?
2) Why don’t all of them reach their potential?
3) How much of this could I have prevented by doing more or doing better?
When I ask myself these questions, I always seem to end up arriving at the same place. And the place I end up is a place that few in the education “reform” movement seem willing to go.
They need to.
This is a principal stumbling block that inhibits the conversation about education between educators and everyone else. Many of the people in ‘everyone else’ think the answers to the three questions above are:
1) We need better teachers
2) Teachers aren’t good enough
3) All of it
Unlike the “reformers,” I end up at a simple realization: Some students will simply not take advantage of what education offers them, and will not benefit from it no matter how much work we put into it.
I can imagine reformers, meddlers, PeWKoB (People Who Know Better), and perhaps some parents, cringing at the heresy bubbling over in this statement. But their cringing is in ignorance. I am starting to wonder if people who can’t agree with this statement understand human nature.
Human nature is about choice. We get to choose what we will do with our lives, day to day, hour to hour. Even in a society where government imposes strict control, people still choose whether or not to brush their teeth, to floss, and what to eat for breakfast. They still choose which way to go to work or to school.
Hypotheticals aside, the point is that students must choose to do their work. I have examples every year, in every class, that bear this out. They are so numerous they all blend together, and I forget about them by next year.
Exhibit A: Bill
This year, I have a student in my chemistry class. We’ll call him Bill. Bill likes to be in class. He participates verbally, works well in groups, enjoys the idea of learning. Bill generally has a good attitude, though he is addicted to electronic toys (cell phones and iPods), which could lead to his undoing. Bill also catches on fairly well, even to the challenging concepts of chemistry. But Bill is failing. He wasn’t failing in September, or in October. But as time passed, his grade plummeted.
How could a student with several very positive qualities not pass?
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Scrap the MAP - A Principled Protest
I attended the recent protest at the Seattle Public Schools headquarters regarding the MAP test. Garfield High School teachers initiated this protest recently when they banded together and decided not to give the MAP test to their students.
It was a positive, upbeat, and very motivated group of about 150 people, comprised of teachers, parents, retired teachers, administrators, librarians, and even some students. People came from Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue, Marysville, and Snohomish. We got a phone call from the Chicago union. People here are fed up, but not angry. They have intelligent, specific reasons for being here and opposing this and other tests. They are determined to see change, not desperate or panicked.
I spoke to several people there. Most had been teaching for several years, some even for a lifetime. This is not insignificant.
A brand new teacher, just like someone brand new to anything, has no prior experience to base an opinion on. So if they show up in September and are told, “We’re going to take your students away for several days to test them on a subject you don’t teach, and oh, by the way, we’ll do it again in the winter and the spring, so cut out a week of your less important curriculum,” that teacher will just figure this is how things are done here, and deal with it.
An experienced teacher on the other hand, one is already tired of all the other days students are pulled out for testing of various kinds, will see this as another assault on their instruction. So we pull kids out more and more, and then cry out for “teacher accountability,” expecting us to be more effective even with less time for instructing students. Makes sense to me.
Testing History
So, I met several experienced teachers. One lady I spoke to, who is retired, gave me a little history of testing in Seattle. Back in the 40's, students used to take the Stanford Achievement Test (not the same as the SAT). Later, they moved on to the California Achievement Test. After the CAT, it was the ITBS (the Iowa Test for Basic Skills).
Notice how the acronyms get more complicated as the years progress. That’s why I use the term PeWKoB to describe the People Who Know Better–the wealthy and influential people who meddle in education, even though they’ve never worked in the field and know little about it, but have the money to get their names in the paper and their ideas taken seriously. Ideas such as more testing. The PeWKoB includes Bill Gates, Steven Brill, the League of Education Voters, Stand for Children, Michelle Rhee, and many, many other organizations.
Another website I recently discovered calls them the “edushysters,” which I thought was clever.
After the ITBS, it was the WASL, a debacle that lasted over ten years. And finally, with the election of Randy Dorn–one of the few sensible people I’ve seen break into the upper class of education policy–it changed again to the HSPE, which is now partially being replaced by the EOCs for various courses. I call Dorn sensible because he wants to reduce the testing burden. The WASL used to eat up two full weeks of school. His first year, he cut that in half. Now, he wants even fewer EOC tests. I want none. But we’re making progress.
Does Testing Improve Teaching?
But with all this testing, has it made a difference? How is one test better or worse than another? At the end of the day, it’s what happens in the classroom that matters. Have any of these tests significantly changed that for the better in all of the last sixty years?
My teaching has improved a lot in my 12 years. But not because of testing. That hasn’t made a single shred of difference. I’ve gotten better at teaching by teaching, and by reflecting on my practice and how well my students learn based on what I do. I’ve improved because of some effective professional development offered through the district, collaborating with local universities, that I took a few years ago. And I’ve improved by talking with other teachers and working together.
Evaluation doesn’t make a difference. Testing doesn’t make a difference. My salary doesn’t make a difference. The union doesn’t make a difference. None of these things make any difference in the quality of my instruction. I’m not saying they have no purpose (except testing). But they don’t have any impact on my teaching ability.
Real Solutions
I asked another teacher for her ideas on how to improve student learning. She pointed to the absence of counselors at the elementary level in Title 1 schools. These are schools in high poverty areas, and the students there are particularly vulnerable, and in need of extra assistance if we want more of them to succeed. She also pointed to the shoddy new math curriculum, about which much conflict has ensued in Seattle. 5/7 will always be equal to 15/21. Calculators don’t do any favors for 3rd graders. Skills matter.
Another teacher, a physics teacher, said assessment has to be valid and related to the course. There’s a great one called the Force Concept Inventory that tests conceptual physics understanding. I’ve taken it. It’s a very good assessment of real understanding. A similar one I give my students is called the Chemical Concept Inventory. These are far better in every way compared to the goofy stuff forced on us by district and state (and nation? Please no).
Besides being valid assessments, their best attribute is that they’re short! The CCI only takes about thirty minutes, and I know all I need to know about my students’ understanding of chemistry.
If state lawmakers, district leaders, the PeWKoB, and most importantly, the public, would just let us be professionals, and trust us that we know what we’re doing (which most of us do, by the way, to the chagrin of people like Rhee and Brill), maybe we could focus more of our time and energy on what actually matters in schools–learning.
Speakers - Chris McBride and Jesse Hagopian
Several speakers got up and gave short exhortations about why the MAP ought to be scrapped. Garfield’s test coordinator (yes, this is a real position...so much testing is forced on schools that we need an entire position just to coordinate all of them. How much money is that? What if all these people were teaching instead? Less class size? More course offerings? What’s more important? What do we value most?), Chris McBride, expressed this exact sentiment, calling the MAP an “unnecessary expense” and a “drain on resources.”
Indeed, besides the millions of dollars the MAP and all the other tests cost, there’s the position of test coordinator–her own position! But again, most people in her position were teachers before this “promotion.” Eliminate all this waste of personnel and put them back in the classrooms where they will make a real difference.
Jesse Hagopian, who explained the reasoning of teachers at Garfield in a recent op-ed, talked about the “inequality and unfairness” of the MAP, and spoke about the more important values of creativity and critical thinking that education really needs to be about. Try as they have with the WASL and the HSPE, these abilities simply can’t be tested. They are grown in the student as part of a complex process of development. I call it “maturity.” I’m sure there are other words. But these things can’t be tested.
Noam Gundle – Humanity of Students
Noam Gundle, who teaches at Ballard, said one test cannot define a student. This is a critical point to emphasize, because it is a reminder of the humanity of our students. They are not numbers. They are not products coming off an assembly line (though the people who want us to run schools “like businesses” erroneously think so). These tests have the effect of placing great value on a score, and devaluing the other aspects of the individual.
Listen. The top scoring student in the district is not the best student. In fact, the perpetrator in a recent shooting in Seattle was a child prodigy in computers who took college courses at the age of 13, and later earned and electrical engineering degree. He got in a fit of road rage and shot a guy in a nearby car. I’m always fascinated when the “smartest” people in the country end up killing people, or stealing billions of dollars, or running large banks and corporations that ruined the economy while getting off with exorbitant bonuses.
Maybe being “smart,” scoring well, and excelling in academics isn’t necessarily all it’s cracked up to be. Maybe there’s more to life than getting A’s. Maybe education can’t solve all the world’s problems. Maybe we should relax a bit and realize this is just one part of life, and that learning is not about facts only, but about wisdom, truth, moral courage, the ability to think critically and honestly. Test scores are so tiny–infinitesimal really–when compared to what really matters in this life.
I am a teacher. Not a miracle worker. To mock a famous documentary, even Superman can only be in one place at a time. And even he can only help one kid at a time. And even Superman can’t force a kid to learn who doesn’t want to. They have to want him to help them.
PTA President - We Know Who’s Struggling
The president of the Garfield PTA (Parent Teacher Association) then got up and made the excellent point that we already know which kids are struggling. The CEO of the company that sold us the MAP, while our superintendent was on their board (no ethics issue there, right?), recently wrote an op-ed defending his test, saying it helps teachers find out which students are struggling, and in which areas.
Again, this presumes that without tests like this, teachers would be helpless, wandering in the dark, unable to determine how well their students are doing. It is a lack of trust that we know how to do our jobs. In addition, if this were true, how did we possibly manage for the hundred years before the MAP arrived in 2008? What did we do? How did students survive?
It’s totally ridiculous to suggest these tests are the only way to identify struggling students. We already know! Within about a month of the school year, I know which students will need more help. It’s just not that hard to figure out.
More importantly, though–much, much more importantly–I also know which students want my help. But I don’t need some corporate, bureaucratic assessment written by people who’ve never taught to tell me which of my students, who I see every day, are struggling. That’s called “teaching,” and I do it every day. I already know. Stop wasting millions telling us what we already know.
I know my students so well that I can actually predict how well they will do on their finals. Shocking, right? Not really. By the end of the semester, I know who’s who. And, I’m comfortable with the reality that not every student will master everything. I just want them to work hard, and learn the best they can, and leave knowing much more than they did when they got here. For every student who wants my help, this happens. Every single one of them. That’s my job, and I do it.
You may be wondering, what about the students who don’t want your help? Well, what about them? I give it my best. But at some point, you realize it’s pretty hard to help someone who doesn’t want it. As they say, you can lead a horse to water...okay, you’ve heard that. Funny, these famous sayings are famous because....they’re true?
Overall, it was an enjoyable day, and I’m hoping the district thoughtfully considers the reasons behind the protest. I hope they openly and honestly weigh the pros and cons, and think about what we value more–yet another set of data, or more time with our students. A questionable way to evaluate less than 10% of teachers, or more computer lab and library time for all students. A redundant way figure out what we already know about students, or more time for teachers to collaborate and work to improve their instruction?
Why Protest the MAP?
So you may be wondering, with all these other tests, why are teachers seizing on the MAP as the one to protest? Let’s get in to some of the specifics of how it works, and why it doesn’t work in the ways the district wants to use it.
The MAP is a unique sort of test because the questions vary for each student. It’s computerized, and its seeks to establish their current skill level based on the questions they get right and wrong, and it tailors the questions it asks them based on this.
Thus, it’s not really about your score; it’s about progress. Did you do better this time than last time? If so, that’s growth, and you must have learned. For this to be useful, however, students have to be tested frequently. Like, three times a year. And due to the nature of the test, and the fact schools have hundreds of students taking it, the MAP monopolizes the computer lab for weeks at a time, three times per year.
At the protest, the librarian at the Seattle World School said the MAP even takes over their library. Students wanting books or other library services are turned away because of the all-important testing going on. For weeks.
Furthermore, the district wants to use it to evaluate teacher effectiveness, and base their evaluations partly on this. This is problematic for several reasons.
First, only a handful of teachers give this test. In high school, only language arts and math teachers–and only those who teach freshmen and some sophomores–actually give this test. So out a staff with more than sixty teachers, about five of them will be “evaluated” by the MAP. Five out of sixty. How will the district evaluate the other fifty-five? Is it fair to hold these five to a higher standard just because they happen to teach these grades and courses?
Second, the fact that student scores seem to vary widely from test to test, and that in other cases the variations do not exceed the margin of error, suggests these evaluations are based on little more than statistical aberrations, or how the student felt that day. Since the test is not necessarily tied to what classes actually teach, there is no guarantee the results have any correlation whatsoever to teacher effectiveness.
One teacher told me a question she happened to see on a student’s screen (because, as is typical of all these “useful” standardized tests, teachers are never allowed to actually see them) asked how many milliliters were in a soda can. What does this question have to do with anything? This isn’t math. It’s trivia. Who looks at the can? Are students expected to have memorized the conversion between ounces and milliliters? In ninth grade?? Even I don’t know that one, and I know tons of conversions.
Third, how can we say that a student score on a test that does not affect their grade is indicative of the effectiveness of a teacher? Wouldn’t a better indicator be, say, the tests the teacher gives in their own class? Like, if I teach a unit on chemical reactions, and then I give a test about chemical reactions, it makes sense this test might be a reasonable way to determine if my students learned. And stuff.
But with standardized tests–almost all of them, not just the MAP–this simply isn’t the case. It would be like me teaching a unit on chemical reactions, and the standardized test asks students about the rock cycle.
Now some of you may think I’m exaggerating. Consider this:
The Story of the “Biology” EOC
At my high school each of the past few years, we’ve let about thirty sophomores skip biology and take chemistry instead. So, this means they took physical science in ninth grade, chemistry in tenth, and then after that they mostly take AP biology, physics, or AP chemistry, or all three.
But, the state forces everyone to take the same tests. See, testing is all about conforming everyone to be the same, under the guise of “equality,” when really it’s about suppressing individuality and variation in talent and interest. So they force everyone to take a biology End of Course exam. And everyone has to take this exam in tenth grade. No exceptions.
So our thirty chemistry students, who’ve never taken biology in their life, are made to take a biology test. Sound ridiculous? Unfair? Think I’m exhaling in relief they don’t use this test to evaluate me?
Not at all.
Last year, 28 out of 33 of our chemistry sophomores passed the biology EOC. Yes, you read that right. Almost all of them passed a test for a course they’ve never taken.
What does this absurdity tell us?
It tells us, first and foremost, that this is not a biology test. Which brings me back to my point about the rock cycle. If I can teach a year of chemistry, and the students can pass a biology test, then you might as well make this test about anything you want. Clearly, it is not testing anything we actually do in school. How else could they pass it?
Teachers at my school half-jokingly (but only half...) refer to the EOC as a “reading test.” Because really, that’s what it is. Students who can read and have a fair ability to understand charts and tables will pass this test. But it is not a biology test.
In the same way, the MAP is not a math test or a language arts test. It is not tied to the content of the actual courses. Thus, it is not a valid assessment of the effectiveness of the teacher.
The Last Word
The best line of the protest expressed it this way: “You don’t fatten a pig by weighing it.” In other words, you don’t teach a student by testing her. The truth is, you test a student by teaching her. Learning is the test. The desire to learn tests character, desire, ambition, and motivation. The students who do the work and put the effort in have already passed the more important test, because they’ve accomplished something that will affect the rest of their lives.
And this is true no matter what a test score says.
It was a positive, upbeat, and very motivated group of about 150 people, comprised of teachers, parents, retired teachers, administrators, librarians, and even some students. People came from Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue, Marysville, and Snohomish. We got a phone call from the Chicago union. People here are fed up, but not angry. They have intelligent, specific reasons for being here and opposing this and other tests. They are determined to see change, not desperate or panicked.
I spoke to several people there. Most had been teaching for several years, some even for a lifetime. This is not insignificant.
A brand new teacher, just like someone brand new to anything, has no prior experience to base an opinion on. So if they show up in September and are told, “We’re going to take your students away for several days to test them on a subject you don’t teach, and oh, by the way, we’ll do it again in the winter and the spring, so cut out a week of your less important curriculum,” that teacher will just figure this is how things are done here, and deal with it.
An experienced teacher on the other hand, one is already tired of all the other days students are pulled out for testing of various kinds, will see this as another assault on their instruction. So we pull kids out more and more, and then cry out for “teacher accountability,” expecting us to be more effective even with less time for instructing students. Makes sense to me.
Testing History
So, I met several experienced teachers. One lady I spoke to, who is retired, gave me a little history of testing in Seattle. Back in the 40's, students used to take the Stanford Achievement Test (not the same as the SAT). Later, they moved on to the California Achievement Test. After the CAT, it was the ITBS (the Iowa Test for Basic Skills).
Notice how the acronyms get more complicated as the years progress. That’s why I use the term PeWKoB to describe the People Who Know Better–the wealthy and influential people who meddle in education, even though they’ve never worked in the field and know little about it, but have the money to get their names in the paper and their ideas taken seriously. Ideas such as more testing. The PeWKoB includes Bill Gates, Steven Brill, the League of Education Voters, Stand for Children, Michelle Rhee, and many, many other organizations.
Another website I recently discovered calls them the “edushysters,” which I thought was clever.
After the ITBS, it was the WASL, a debacle that lasted over ten years. And finally, with the election of Randy Dorn–one of the few sensible people I’ve seen break into the upper class of education policy–it changed again to the HSPE, which is now partially being replaced by the EOCs for various courses. I call Dorn sensible because he wants to reduce the testing burden. The WASL used to eat up two full weeks of school. His first year, he cut that in half. Now, he wants even fewer EOC tests. I want none. But we’re making progress.
Does Testing Improve Teaching?
But with all this testing, has it made a difference? How is one test better or worse than another? At the end of the day, it’s what happens in the classroom that matters. Have any of these tests significantly changed that for the better in all of the last sixty years?
My teaching has improved a lot in my 12 years. But not because of testing. That hasn’t made a single shred of difference. I’ve gotten better at teaching by teaching, and by reflecting on my practice and how well my students learn based on what I do. I’ve improved because of some effective professional development offered through the district, collaborating with local universities, that I took a few years ago. And I’ve improved by talking with other teachers and working together.
Evaluation doesn’t make a difference. Testing doesn’t make a difference. My salary doesn’t make a difference. The union doesn’t make a difference. None of these things make any difference in the quality of my instruction. I’m not saying they have no purpose (except testing). But they don’t have any impact on my teaching ability.
Real Solutions
I asked another teacher for her ideas on how to improve student learning. She pointed to the absence of counselors at the elementary level in Title 1 schools. These are schools in high poverty areas, and the students there are particularly vulnerable, and in need of extra assistance if we want more of them to succeed. She also pointed to the shoddy new math curriculum, about which much conflict has ensued in Seattle. 5/7 will always be equal to 15/21. Calculators don’t do any favors for 3rd graders. Skills matter.
Another teacher, a physics teacher, said assessment has to be valid and related to the course. There’s a great one called the Force Concept Inventory that tests conceptual physics understanding. I’ve taken it. It’s a very good assessment of real understanding. A similar one I give my students is called the Chemical Concept Inventory. These are far better in every way compared to the goofy stuff forced on us by district and state (and nation? Please no).
Besides being valid assessments, their best attribute is that they’re short! The CCI only takes about thirty minutes, and I know all I need to know about my students’ understanding of chemistry.
If state lawmakers, district leaders, the PeWKoB, and most importantly, the public, would just let us be professionals, and trust us that we know what we’re doing (which most of us do, by the way, to the chagrin of people like Rhee and Brill), maybe we could focus more of our time and energy on what actually matters in schools–learning.
Speakers - Chris McBride and Jesse Hagopian
Several speakers got up and gave short exhortations about why the MAP ought to be scrapped. Garfield’s test coordinator (yes, this is a real position...so much testing is forced on schools that we need an entire position just to coordinate all of them. How much money is that? What if all these people were teaching instead? Less class size? More course offerings? What’s more important? What do we value most?), Chris McBride, expressed this exact sentiment, calling the MAP an “unnecessary expense” and a “drain on resources.”
Indeed, besides the millions of dollars the MAP and all the other tests cost, there’s the position of test coordinator–her own position! But again, most people in her position were teachers before this “promotion.” Eliminate all this waste of personnel and put them back in the classrooms where they will make a real difference.
Jesse Hagopian, who explained the reasoning of teachers at Garfield in a recent op-ed, talked about the “inequality and unfairness” of the MAP, and spoke about the more important values of creativity and critical thinking that education really needs to be about. Try as they have with the WASL and the HSPE, these abilities simply can’t be tested. They are grown in the student as part of a complex process of development. I call it “maturity.” I’m sure there are other words. But these things can’t be tested.
Noam Gundle – Humanity of Students
Noam Gundle, who teaches at Ballard, said one test cannot define a student. This is a critical point to emphasize, because it is a reminder of the humanity of our students. They are not numbers. They are not products coming off an assembly line (though the people who want us to run schools “like businesses” erroneously think so). These tests have the effect of placing great value on a score, and devaluing the other aspects of the individual.
Listen. The top scoring student in the district is not the best student. In fact, the perpetrator in a recent shooting in Seattle was a child prodigy in computers who took college courses at the age of 13, and later earned and electrical engineering degree. He got in a fit of road rage and shot a guy in a nearby car. I’m always fascinated when the “smartest” people in the country end up killing people, or stealing billions of dollars, or running large banks and corporations that ruined the economy while getting off with exorbitant bonuses.
Maybe being “smart,” scoring well, and excelling in academics isn’t necessarily all it’s cracked up to be. Maybe there’s more to life than getting A’s. Maybe education can’t solve all the world’s problems. Maybe we should relax a bit and realize this is just one part of life, and that learning is not about facts only, but about wisdom, truth, moral courage, the ability to think critically and honestly. Test scores are so tiny–infinitesimal really–when compared to what really matters in this life.
I am a teacher. Not a miracle worker. To mock a famous documentary, even Superman can only be in one place at a time. And even he can only help one kid at a time. And even Superman can’t force a kid to learn who doesn’t want to. They have to want him to help them.
PTA President - We Know Who’s Struggling
The president of the Garfield PTA (Parent Teacher Association) then got up and made the excellent point that we already know which kids are struggling. The CEO of the company that sold us the MAP, while our superintendent was on their board (no ethics issue there, right?), recently wrote an op-ed defending his test, saying it helps teachers find out which students are struggling, and in which areas.
Again, this presumes that without tests like this, teachers would be helpless, wandering in the dark, unable to determine how well their students are doing. It is a lack of trust that we know how to do our jobs. In addition, if this were true, how did we possibly manage for the hundred years before the MAP arrived in 2008? What did we do? How did students survive?
It’s totally ridiculous to suggest these tests are the only way to identify struggling students. We already know! Within about a month of the school year, I know which students will need more help. It’s just not that hard to figure out.
More importantly, though–much, much more importantly–I also know which students want my help. But I don’t need some corporate, bureaucratic assessment written by people who’ve never taught to tell me which of my students, who I see every day, are struggling. That’s called “teaching,” and I do it every day. I already know. Stop wasting millions telling us what we already know.
I know my students so well that I can actually predict how well they will do on their finals. Shocking, right? Not really. By the end of the semester, I know who’s who. And, I’m comfortable with the reality that not every student will master everything. I just want them to work hard, and learn the best they can, and leave knowing much more than they did when they got here. For every student who wants my help, this happens. Every single one of them. That’s my job, and I do it.
You may be wondering, what about the students who don’t want your help? Well, what about them? I give it my best. But at some point, you realize it’s pretty hard to help someone who doesn’t want it. As they say, you can lead a horse to water...okay, you’ve heard that. Funny, these famous sayings are famous because....they’re true?
Overall, it was an enjoyable day, and I’m hoping the district thoughtfully considers the reasons behind the protest. I hope they openly and honestly weigh the pros and cons, and think about what we value more–yet another set of data, or more time with our students. A questionable way to evaluate less than 10% of teachers, or more computer lab and library time for all students. A redundant way figure out what we already know about students, or more time for teachers to collaborate and work to improve their instruction?
Why Protest the MAP?
So you may be wondering, with all these other tests, why are teachers seizing on the MAP as the one to protest? Let’s get in to some of the specifics of how it works, and why it doesn’t work in the ways the district wants to use it.
The MAP is a unique sort of test because the questions vary for each student. It’s computerized, and its seeks to establish their current skill level based on the questions they get right and wrong, and it tailors the questions it asks them based on this.
Thus, it’s not really about your score; it’s about progress. Did you do better this time than last time? If so, that’s growth, and you must have learned. For this to be useful, however, students have to be tested frequently. Like, three times a year. And due to the nature of the test, and the fact schools have hundreds of students taking it, the MAP monopolizes the computer lab for weeks at a time, three times per year.
At the protest, the librarian at the Seattle World School said the MAP even takes over their library. Students wanting books or other library services are turned away because of the all-important testing going on. For weeks.
Furthermore, the district wants to use it to evaluate teacher effectiveness, and base their evaluations partly on this. This is problematic for several reasons.
First, only a handful of teachers give this test. In high school, only language arts and math teachers–and only those who teach freshmen and some sophomores–actually give this test. So out a staff with more than sixty teachers, about five of them will be “evaluated” by the MAP. Five out of sixty. How will the district evaluate the other fifty-five? Is it fair to hold these five to a higher standard just because they happen to teach these grades and courses?
Second, the fact that student scores seem to vary widely from test to test, and that in other cases the variations do not exceed the margin of error, suggests these evaluations are based on little more than statistical aberrations, or how the student felt that day. Since the test is not necessarily tied to what classes actually teach, there is no guarantee the results have any correlation whatsoever to teacher effectiveness.
One teacher told me a question she happened to see on a student’s screen (because, as is typical of all these “useful” standardized tests, teachers are never allowed to actually see them) asked how many milliliters were in a soda can. What does this question have to do with anything? This isn’t math. It’s trivia. Who looks at the can? Are students expected to have memorized the conversion between ounces and milliliters? In ninth grade?? Even I don’t know that one, and I know tons of conversions.
Third, how can we say that a student score on a test that does not affect their grade is indicative of the effectiveness of a teacher? Wouldn’t a better indicator be, say, the tests the teacher gives in their own class? Like, if I teach a unit on chemical reactions, and then I give a test about chemical reactions, it makes sense this test might be a reasonable way to determine if my students learned. And stuff.
But with standardized tests–almost all of them, not just the MAP–this simply isn’t the case. It would be like me teaching a unit on chemical reactions, and the standardized test asks students about the rock cycle.
Now some of you may think I’m exaggerating. Consider this:
The Story of the “Biology” EOC
At my high school each of the past few years, we’ve let about thirty sophomores skip biology and take chemistry instead. So, this means they took physical science in ninth grade, chemistry in tenth, and then after that they mostly take AP biology, physics, or AP chemistry, or all three.
But, the state forces everyone to take the same tests. See, testing is all about conforming everyone to be the same, under the guise of “equality,” when really it’s about suppressing individuality and variation in talent and interest. So they force everyone to take a biology End of Course exam. And everyone has to take this exam in tenth grade. No exceptions.
So our thirty chemistry students, who’ve never taken biology in their life, are made to take a biology test. Sound ridiculous? Unfair? Think I’m exhaling in relief they don’t use this test to evaluate me?
Not at all.
Last year, 28 out of 33 of our chemistry sophomores passed the biology EOC. Yes, you read that right. Almost all of them passed a test for a course they’ve never taken.
What does this absurdity tell us?
It tells us, first and foremost, that this is not a biology test. Which brings me back to my point about the rock cycle. If I can teach a year of chemistry, and the students can pass a biology test, then you might as well make this test about anything you want. Clearly, it is not testing anything we actually do in school. How else could they pass it?
Teachers at my school half-jokingly (but only half...) refer to the EOC as a “reading test.” Because really, that’s what it is. Students who can read and have a fair ability to understand charts and tables will pass this test. But it is not a biology test.
In the same way, the MAP is not a math test or a language arts test. It is not tied to the content of the actual courses. Thus, it is not a valid assessment of the effectiveness of the teacher.
The Last Word
The best line of the protest expressed it this way: “You don’t fatten a pig by weighing it.” In other words, you don’t teach a student by testing her. The truth is, you test a student by teaching her. Learning is the test. The desire to learn tests character, desire, ambition, and motivation. The students who do the work and put the effort in have already passed the more important test, because they’ve accomplished something that will affect the rest of their lives.
And this is true no matter what a test score says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)