Re: Children, Parents, and Teachers Pushed to the Bottom in RTTT

[aburke5054@aol.com]

When states play games with their passing scores to make it look like every child and every school is making adequate progress, it is poor children, minority children, children learning English, and children with disabilities who are hurt the most. This is why the civil rights groups that recently issued proposals that were supposedly so antithetical to federal education policies spoke in support of the importance of standards and that is why they continue to press for real changes to schools. 
 
Art


 

-----Original Message-----i
From: James Horn <ontogenyx@gmail.com>
To: arn-l@interversity.org; epata@interversity.org
Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 5:32 pm
Subject: [arn-l] Children, Parents, and Teachers Pushed to the Bottom in RTTT


> From Tennessee to New York: Welcome Back to School--You Fail! 
> Jim Horn 
> 
> When Tennessee children left school in early June, the majority of > them were proficient in reading and math.  When they return to > school later this month, most of that majority of children will not > be proficient or even close to it.  From Saturday's The Commercial > Appeal: 
> 
> Friday, the State Board of Education passed new "cut" scores for the > state tests, retooled last year to match more rigorous curriculum > and standards the state began adopting in 2007. 
> 
> Based on the new scores, more than 52 percent of third-graders > flunked math in the just-finished school year. 
> 
> And the news gets worse with each grade. In grade six, for instance, > nearly 70 percent flunked math; in grade eight, 75 percent failed. 
> 
> Reading in most grades was slightly better, with the failure rate at > 52 percent for fifth-graders and moving up to 57 percent for eighth-> graders. 
> 
> "I think that everyone in the room fully realized that tough work > lies ahead and that there would ultimately be real consequences for > students, our districts and our state," said Memphian Teresa Sloyan, > a member of the State Board of Education. 
> 
> "For the first time we will know where our children are in terms of > their academic preparedness." 
> 
> In the test taken in the spring of 2009, 91 percent of Tennessee > students scored advanced or proficient. . . . 
> 
> So the new mass failure, thank goodness, doesnât have anything to > do with all the video games or hours of TV watching that filled > studentsâ time this summer.  For the majority of children to become > failures overnight, it took coordination from a set of policy > recommendations by Achieve, Inc. (the education arm of the U. S. > Chamber of Commerceâs Business Roundtable), a lame duck governor, > Phil Bredesen, who sits as Co-Chair of Achieve, Inc., and a > Tennessee State Board of Education willing to toe the line of the > corporate education reformers who now run the U. S. Department of > Education, which paid out $500 million to Tennessee last spring in > the Race to the Top.  In short, it is time for Tennessee school > children, parents, and teachers to suffer the consequences of > Tennesseeâs acceptance of the RTTT money and corporate governance > of schools. 
> 
> This most recent âstandard setting process,â then, that > culminated July 30 with the establishment of new cut scores, or > passing scores, for TCAP will, no doubt, cause much confusion and > not a small amount of anxiety and heartbreak for children and their > parents.  The confusion and misinformation can already be seen in > one of the first editorials on the subject in The Commercial Appeal: 
> 
> Huge drops in scores are predicted as the questions get harder in an > effort to match tests administered to students in the National > Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP]. 
> 
> The truth of the matter is that there are no tougher or harder > questions responsible for the testing sledgehammer that has just > come down.  The failure fever that will set in over the next few > weeks as parents learn of the new âstandard settingâ by the State > comes, in fact, from moving back the goalposts after the ball has > been kicked.  (The same thing happened Friday, by the way, in New > York).  The students who would have split the uprights under the > TCAP rules last Spring when they took the test will now see their > effort fall way short of the goalposts, which have suddenly been > moved as a result of the new cut scores just established while the > ball was still in the air. 
> 
> According to the State Board of Educationâs âindependentâ > expert hired to oversee the âstandard settingâ process, Dr. Wayne > Camara, who, by the way, sits on the Board of Directors for the > Association of Test Publishers, the new cut scores were greatly > influenced by consideration of external data from NAEP and ACT, even > though panelists were instructed NOT to use NAEP or ACT as evidence > in establishing cut scores for the TCAP.  NAEP and ACT were to > inform but not influence.  It is as if a judge were to allow a load > of evidence he knew to be prejudicial ahead of time, while telling > the jury to disregard it in arriving at a verdict. 
> 
> Now if Goldilocks would have found Tennesseeâs former TCAP surely > too soft prior to the most recent âstandard settingâ by the > State, there is no doubt that she would find the new NAEP-influenced > TCAP much too hard.  For the cut scores for NAEP, which have shaped > by the Tennessee juryâs verdict despite the complicit judgeâs > instruction to the contrary, have been failing the Goldilocks test > on the hard side for a long, long time, as leading academics and > psychometricians found in 1991, when they were hired by the > governing board of NAEP (NAGB) to make recommendations about NAEPâs > own âstandard settingâ process. From a 2008 article in The School > Administrator by Gerald Bracey: 
> 
> The governing board hired a team of three well-known evaluators and > psychometricians to evaluate the process â Daniel Stufflebeam of > Western Michigan University, Richard Jaeger of the University of > North Carolina at Greensboro and Michael Scriven of NOVA > Southeastern University. The team delivered its final report on Aug. > 23, 1991. This process does not work, the team averred, saying: > "[T]he technical difficulties are extremely serious â these > standards and the results obtained from them should under no > circumstances be used as a baseline or benchmark â the procedures > used in the exercise should under no circumstances be used as a > model." 
> 
> NAGB, led by Chester E. Finn Jr., summarily fired the team, or at > least tried to. Because the researchers already had delivered the > final report, the contract required payment. 
> 
> The inappropriate use of these levels continues today. The > achievement levels have been rejected by the Government > Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, the > National Academy of Education, the Center for Research in > Evaluation, Student Standards and Testing and the Brookings > Institution, as well as by individual psychometricians. 
> 
> I have repeatedly observed that the NAEP results do not mesh with > those from international comparisons. In the 1995 Trends in > International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, assessment, > American 4th graders finished third among 26 participating nations > in science, but the NAEP science results from the same year stated > that only 31 percent of them were proficient or better. 
> 
> If anyone from Pearson, Inc. or Achieve, Inc., the two outfits now > running education in Tennessee, had bothered to ask either the > scientific or academic community about using NAEP as > inspirationâNOTâ for TCAPâs new cut scores, they would have > been told to steer clear.  Did I mention that Dr. Camara notes in > his report that there were no representatives from higher education > and no college faculty included as part of Tennesseeâs recent > âstandard settingâ process?  Seems that could have been important > input to add to Achieveâs panel, since one primary purpose for the > new cut scores is purportedly to better prepare Tennessee student > for college.   But I digress. 
> 
> Achieve, Inc. and Pearson, Inc. didnât even have to ask a scientist > or a professor. NAEP, in fact, includes its own warning sign to > users at its website: 
> 
> The National Assessment Governing Board, as directed by the NAEP > legislation, has been developing achievement levels for NAEP since > 1990. A broadly representative panel of teachers, education > specialists, and members of the general public help define and > review achievement levels. As provided by law, the achievement > levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted and > used with caution. 
> 
> If you click on the link just above, âused on a trial basis,â you > will get the text described here by Bracey (2005): 
> 
> Even the NAEP reports themselves contain a disclaimer quoting from > the NAS study: "NAEP's current achievement level setting procedures > remain fundamentally flawed. The judgment tasks are difficult and > confusing; raters' judgments of different item types are internally > inconsistent; appropriate validity evidence for the cut scores is > lacking; and the process has produced unreasonable results." 
> 
> Fundamentally flawed? Judgments inconsistent? Validity evidence > lacking? 
> 
> Can you imagine the howls of outrage that would greet ETS or CTB/> McGraw-Hill [or Pearson, who now has the Tennessee contract] if they > dared bring to market an instrument with such basic failures? So why > are we still using the achievement levels? The official story from > the U. S. Department of Education is that "a proven alternative to > the current process has not yet been identified." That was written > in 1998. One would think that a Department as obsessed with applying > "scientifically based research" as the current one would have > screamed in horror at the flawed achievement levels and rushed to > fix them. 
> 
> The truth is, though, neither the Department nor anyone else is > trying to develop a "proven alternative." Indeed, many observers > believe that the NAEP achievement levels, created by the National > Assessment Governing Board under its then-president Chester Finn, > were deliberately set too high in order to sustain the sense of > crisis created by 1983's "A Nation At Risk." There is no rush to > develop new achievement level setting procedures because much > political hay can be made by alleging that American students are > performing poorly. 
> 
> Conspiracy theory, you say.  Bah humbug, etc. Not quite. Again, from > Bracey (2008), who cites a study done by Gary Phillips that examined > how well top-testing students from other countries would do if they > had to sit for the NAEP: 
> 
> Phillips, now at the American Institutes for Research, had asked: > âIf students in other nations sat for NAEP assessments in reading, > mathematics and science, how many of them would be proficient?â 
> 
> Because we have scores for American students on NAEP and TIMSS and > scores for students in other countries on TIMSS, it is possible to > estimate the performance of other nations if their students took > NAEP assessments. 
> 
> How many of the 45 countries in TIMSS have a majority of their > students proficient in reading? Zero, said Phillips. Sweden, the > highest scoring nation, would show about one-third of its students > proficient while the United States had 31 percent. In science, only > two nations would have a majority of their students labeled > proficient or better while six countries would cross that threshold > in mathematics. 
> 
> 
> So why, then, did the U. S. Department of Education and the Gates-> Broad acolytes who run it find such comfort in Tennesseeâs plan to > drastically increase its numbers of failing schools? So much so that > they would cough up $500 million in RTTT funds? 
> 
> Well, think about it.  Whose interests are served in expanding > failure on a grand scale?  Could it be the charter school CEOs of > the CMOs and the EMOs will have years more of school turnaround > opportunities?  Will lower scores benefit the corporate enemies of > the teaching profession like Gates and Broad and the Business > Roundtable, especially since job security and pay in Tennessee, > thanks to the RTTT deal, are now to be determined significantly by > test scores?  Will standardized testing remain the reason we have > schools for another generation of children who, meanwhile, become > less capable of thinking as a result? Will the general public remain > distracted by the continuing "failure" of schools while the > oligarchy continues to ship our jobs and wealth abroad? As Bracey > notes at the end of a 2007 op-ed at WaPo, âA Test Everyone Will > Fail,â 
> 
> If the fear-mongers can scare you sufficiently (how many times have > you heard the phrase "failing schools" in the past five years?), you > might permit them to do to your public schools things you would > otherwise never allow. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Posted By Jim Horn to Schools Matter at 8/01/2010 08:27:00 PM