Hocus Pocus History of High Stakes Tests

Did you hear the one about “Voo Doo Economics?” President Ronald Reagan said that his “Supply Side Economics” would cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce the deficit!?!?

If a 22nd century historian were to uncover Reagan’s claim, and yet discover that all of the physical and digital records of the 1980s and several subsequent decades had been lost, it might be hard to prove that Reaganism didn’t raise the deficit.

Perhaps the same agnosticism could apply to claims that No Child Left Behind boosted student performance as measured by the reliable NAEP tests – except for one reason. NAEP records are readily obtainable by a quick Google search.

NAEP data may not prove what I believe to be the best summary of the evidence – that NCLB and subsequent NCLB-type testing caused more harm than good for students. But, NAEP metrics do prove the intellectual dishonesty of the true believers who claim that high stakes testing has improved so-called “student performance.”

In fact, NAEP scores were increasing before NCLB and their growth slowed after NCLB testing took effect.  The American Institutes of Research’s Mark Schneider, known by the conservative Fordham Institute as the “Statstud,” is just one scholar who documented this pattern, concluding “pre-NCLB gains were greater than the post-NCLB gains.”

Curiously, Schneider was also one of the true believers who first pushed the silly claim that NCLB deserves credit for test score gains that occurred before the law was enacted. Illogically, reformers claim test score increases from 1999 to the winter of 2002 were the result of a law that was enacted in the winter of 2002. The actual passage of NCLB high stakes testing was the tail of a “meteor” that was dubbed “consequential accountability.” And that brings us to the latest convoluted spin trying to deny that test-driven reform has failed. The most recent example is Tom Loveless’s“Measuring Effects of the Common Core.”

At least Loveless’s  approach to the pre-NCLB effects of NCLB is much more modest. He claims that it is “unlikely” that accountability efforts and increased reform-related spending did not “influence” pre-NCLB NAEP scores. Even so, Loveless offers no credible reason to believe that increases in 1999 test results should be attributed to stakes attached to tests that were imposed three years later.

So, what evidence does Loveless offer for his conclusion that NCLB might deserve credit for the test scores that preceded it? He cites Derek Neal and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach who reported that “’with the passage of NCLB lurking on the horizon,’ Illinois placed hundreds of schools on a watch list and declared that future state testing would be high stakes.”

Neal and Schanzenbach were studying Chicago schools, however, and they concluded the opposite.  They report that “ISAT performance played a small role in the CPS rules for school accountability over this time (1999 to 2001).”  Neal and Schanzenbach explain that “in one year, the ISAT went from a relatively low-stakes state assessment to a decidedly high stakes exam.” But, “in the springs of 1999, 2000, and 2001, CPS took the ISAT with the expectation that the results would not have significant direct consequences in terms of the state accountability system.”

By the way, Neal’s and Schanzenbach’s title of “Left Behind by Design,” is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Schneider’s and Loveless’ spin in favor of No Child Left Behind.

Poll: Voters support charter school reforms ensuring transparency and accountability

A recent national poll is giving lawmakers new incentive to push for charter schools that are more transparent and accountable to students, parents, and the taxpayers who invest in them.

The poll shows overwhelming public support for measures addressing fraud, mismanagement, and poor student performance linked to charter schools. Improving teacher training and qualifications, preventing fraud, serving high-needs children, and making sure that traditional public schools are not hurt by charter schools also received strong support from those surveyed.

The survey, which involved 1,000 registered voters, was released by In the Public Interest (ITPI) and the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD). CPD also released a recent report alleging that tens of millions of dollars have been lost to charter schools nationwide due to fraud and mismanagement.

“$100 million in taxpayer dollars have been wasted and over 100-thousand children attend charter schools that are failing to meet the needs of children,” said Kyle Serrette, director of education at CPD. “It’s time for lawmakers to add stronger oversight provisions before more money is lost and more children are enrolled in failing charter schools.”

Some of the poll’s other key findings include the following:

• 62 percent of voters want to hold constant or reduce the number charters in their area;
• 63 percent rate the quality of education at public schools in their neighborhood as excellent or good;
• 68 percent hold a favorable view of public school teachers; and
• When it comes to problems facing K-12 education, school choice ranks last.

Overwhelming majorities, some as high as 89 percent, also indicated support for proposals contained in the Charter School Accountability Agenda being pushed by ITPI and CPD. The Charter School Accountability Agenda contains the groups’ solutions for making sure that charter schools fulfill their original purpose—to serve as incubators for new and innovative ways of teaching and learning that could later be adopted by traditional public schools. The proposals are based on standards outlined in the Annenberg Institute’s report for improving charter schools.

Charter school growth has increased exponentially in recent years but critics charge that lawmakers have done very little in developing standards to ensure that these schools give all students a quality education and are accountable to the communities they serve. Currently, more than 2 million students attend the nation’s more than 6,000 charter schools, which make up 6.3 percent of all taxpayer-funded K-12 schools.

First year of PARCC testing was no picnic for Ohio schools

As Ohio schools transition to new, tougher state tests, this is bound to be a trying year, experts say.

Scheduling struggles, glitches on the online tests and other issues are going to come up in the first year, said Chad Aldeman, associate partner at Bellwether Education Partners, a nonprofit research and advisory group based in Washington.

“It should be better as time passes and it starts to become more routine,” he said.

But the tests could be axed before that happens.

Public outcry over excessive testing has prompted state lawmakers to propose scaling back on state tests, based in part on the recommendations of state school Superintendent Richard Ross, and allowing districts to choose alternative assessments. Meanwhile, an Ohio Senate advisory committee has begun work to determine whether the PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) tests in English/language arts and AIR (American Institute for Research) tests in science and social studies are right for Ohio.

Among their findings so far: Many educators have denounced the implementation of the new tests and the time earmarked for them.

According to a recent survey that KnowledgeWorks helped organize for the advisory group, about 80 percent of more than 16,500 Ohio superintendents, principals and teachers “disagree” or “ strongly disagree” that the time spent to administer the new assessments was appropriate, and roughly 77 percent “disagree” or “strongly disagree” that the implementation of the new tests went well.

(Read more that the Dispatch)

Heights considers charter school legislation

The Licking Heights Board of Education is considering legislation school officials hope will spur state legislators to hold charter schools more accountable.

The legislation appeared on the agenda for the board’s March 24 special meeting, but the board did not take action on it. Instead, members asked the district’s administration to tweak it prior to the upcoming April 21 regular meeting.

Heights Treasurer Nick Roberts said the legislation is driven by the fact “there’s limited accountability and transparency to (charter) schools now.”

Roberts provided the board with a chart showing the perceived difference between state public school funding and state charter school funding.

Heights currently receives $1,694 in base state aid per pupil, according to the chart. It receives $2,556 in overall state funding per pupil.

By contrast, the state average for charter school base state aid is $5,800 per pupil. The overall state funding average is $7,607 per pupil, according to the chart.

(Read more at the Newark Advocate)

Ohio’s Teacher Evaluation System: An Ever-Changing Hodgepodge Of Legislation

One thing appears certain for next school year — the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) will once again undergo changes. With the second year of the statewide implementation of the system not even finished, the Ohio General Assembly is already working to change the rules for year three. While teachers and principals are still acclimating to the changes adopted last summer, they can all expect to arrive back in August to a process that will look different. The only question at this point is how different?

Multiple pieces of legislation making their way through the Ohio House and Senate contain provisions that seek to change rules and components of how and when teachers throughout the state are evaluated. While the elected legislators will simply call this a matter of “tweaking” the system, every little change ultimately has far-reaching effects for everyone.

Ever since 2011, with Senate Bill 5, the Ohio General Assembly has been promoting the concept of merit pay for teachers based on the state’s evaluation system. Since then, based on a strong push be the state to adopt merit-based compensation components, some school districts and teacher unions across the state have already entered into contracts that include varied stipulations based on a teachers’ OTES rating. Every time the legislators tinker with the metrics that lead to a final rating, these agreements undergo fundamental changes that alter the results and undermine the locally negotiated contract process.

Instead of being a single, comprehensive, well-thought-out and tested system, OTES is simply a mishmash of various pieces and patches with numerous conflicting and gap-filled components that even the Ohio Department of Education cannot accurately interpret nor help schools implement with confidence.

(Read more at Plunderbund)

Would You Let An Unlicensed Doctor Operate On You?

We highlighted some dangerous deregulation policies in SB3, a bill recently passed by the Ohio Senate. One of those policies would allow high performing districts to employ unlicensed "teachers". Dr. Renee Middleton, Dean of the Patton College of Education, Ohio University issued this warning:

Americans in the twenty-first century accept without question the assumption that doctors must be licensed to practice medicine. But that, of course, has not always been the case, especially in the United States. In the early 1880s, West Virginia became the first state to enact and effectively implement a genuinely restrictive medical license law.

Education and Medicine are at their best when qualified practitioners meet and exceed state standards. That is why standards are so important. When some is “licensed to practice,” it lets the public know that the individual has met a “minimal” standard of practice. While students can fluctuate in their ability, teachers and standards are a constant – or at least they should be. A high bar must be set for those who wish to be “licensed for practice.” Ohio has stood on that belief for over a century.

Unfortunately, Senate Republicans are attempting to redefine minimal or acceptable “standards of practice.” Sen. Cliff Hite (R-Findlay) and Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina) are attempting to pass SB3, a bill that deregulates education and the need for a “license to practice.” SB3 would allow for “high-performing school districts” to be exempt from hiring teachers with licenses and credentials currently required throughout the state. Based on data involving arbitrary graduation rates and random performance indicators, roughly 20 percent of school districts in Ohio would qualify as high-performing, with another 50 districts reportedly close to exempt status.

Hite and Faber fail to realize that knowledge of a subject – or even expertise in a subject – does not in and of itself qualify someone to teach. Teaching has a pedagogical science behind it.

If the state does not allow unlicensed drivers on our roads, why would it want to allow unlicensed teachers in our classrooms? Would you, as a parent, send your child to an unlicensed doctor simply because that doctor works at a hospital that is considered high-performing? No, you would not. Teaching is not surgery, but it is brain science, and not everyone is trained or skilled to do it.

If “high-performing” school districts hire non-licensed teachers, they will not be high-performing for very long. In fact, if a district slips below the “high-performing” threshold, its exemptions would be taken away – meaning non-licensed teachers would be teaching in underperforming schools. There simply cannot be sustained excellence without a commitment to professionally licensed teachers.

Through most of the nineteenth century, anyone could call themselves a doctor and could practice medicine on whatever basis they wished. An 1889 U.S. Supreme Court case, Dent v. West Virginia, effectively transformed medical practice from an unregulated occupation to a legally recognized profession.

Teaching is a profession! Federal legislation requires colleges of education to be accredited based on a nationally based set of standards. Ohio requires teachers to be “licensed to practice.” Why? Because teaching is a profession. SB3 would take us back to the 1800s and allow anyone to teach. Do we really want to go there? Studying how individuals learn helps teacher candidates’ transition from sitting in a classroom to standing in front of one. It teaches them how to relate material to students and positively influence student-learning outcomes and academic achievement. It allows them to hit the ground running in a way in which those without the background, training, experience, and pedagogical skills simply cannot do.

Just as we have standards for our students, we must have standards for the profession of teaching. Hiring a non-licensed professional to teach a class may seem innocuous, but it would set a dangerous precedent. Hiring someone without established prerequisites allows for a subjective, “good enough” mindset that will only hurt our state and our students in the long run.

I strongly encourage our state representatives to vote no on SB3, and I strongly encourage you to call your legislator and tell him or her that teaching is a profession and that our children deserve to be taught by professionals.

Respectfully,

Renée A. Middleton, Ph.D., Dean
The Gladys W. & David H. Patton College of Education
Ohio University