Re: Smoke Blowing Techniques of Teacher Unions

[Rick Parkany <rparkany@BORG.COM>]

Oh! Quit blowin' smoke, Dr. Leo...

...Funny, there were a number of correspondents this list and on EVALTALK who
know exactly what I'm talking about concerning this creed, you devil, you! Ha!.
You've got your hands so mired in this mess, it's no wonder all you see about you
is addulation or diatribe. But

I've reposted my posting to that AEA list that underlies my last for your
edification (see below).

I ask you again: When will the unions (BOTH labor & management) stop coluding
with Management over the euphemistic book-keeping techniques you employ, calling
15 out of 180 days spent on *accountability and oversight* *Instructional Days*?

There is much talk each year when school districts come hat-in-hand to the voters
w/their budgets for approval. In Utica, the budget was defeated twice. Political
hacks on the school board think this only has to do w/taxes. Most of the people
whom I speak say that they simply don't trust the B***ards.

Book-keeping irregularities such as that I'm discussing now are going to be
highlighted all over this state--THEN you can talk to Lewis Carrol, or anyone
else 'til yer blue in the face for all I care. Your time and that of your minions
is at hand, Dr. Leo! I'm waiting to see if you can stand up to the ordeal
awaiting you and those others you meet behind closed doors, wallowing in 75% of
disctict budgets (almost 100% of discernable costs), treating them like your own
slush funds while professional standards and *best practice* succumb to
simeon-based pecking orders and *past practice*...    ;-} rap.

REPOSTING for the sake of present argumentation...

Re: Public Release of Data and Benchmarks
Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:00:22 -0400
From: Rick Parkany <rparkany@BORG.COM>
>>>Reply-To: American Evaluation Association Discussion List
EVALTALK@BAMA.UA.EDU>
Organization: Prometheus Educational Services
EVALTALK@BAMA.UA.EDU
References: 1

Let me try something out here, dennis, as an alumnus of your quite fine school--I
offer, in the spirit of brotherly love, I offer a *gedankenexperiment* (which
ones aren't) in the domain of policy studies for your kind consideration and that
of this list...

What IF we were NOT to shitcan the whole psycho-parametric standardized testing
protocol and measurement impetus in K-12 public education (I'm talkin' CATs,
SATs, ETCs, not properly indicated diagnostic instruments) that is/has been at
the root of Standards Based Education in one form or another, formalized or not,
for the past half-century or so (at least since the 8-year study...) in these
USofA--NOT shitcan it, but rather, run it according to *best practice* citing
Joint Standards, American Statistical Association standards, etc. THAT would mean
we would be moderating a sampling of only a fraction of the student population we
currently *measure*. Right? This is your domain of specialty, so I defer, for
now...

First, estimate the direct cost of the current, unethical, 100% sampling regimen
for all our schools at all grade levels. Subtract from that amount the estimated
cost of running such instrumentation on a minimally indicated statistically valid
sampling, taking into account legitimate curricular (program) evaluation needs at
all levels.

Now, let's run a REAL analysis of a typical NYS 4th grade classroom concerning
instructional expenses resulting from these monitoring regimens to get at what I
will call the *hidden, indirect* costs of such measurement as is currently
practiced. I'm talking about the fact that NONE of these *tests* is or can be
used for *instructional* purposes--their sole rationale is monitoring/management
of programs (curricula). As you may be aware, feedback that is older than 2 weeks
is absolutely worthless pedagocially--AND as the test publishers attempt to
control their costs by controlling the curricula and proprietize each and every
normed item, teachers are legally prevented from using or disclosing such under
penalty of intellectual copyright protective legislation as is currently
happening to Substance editor, Geo. Schmidt, suspended teacher in ChiTown,
subject to a $1.2M lawsuit JUST for so disclosing post-test items used. My 4th
grade daughter has spent all of 15 instructional days in one sort of standardized
testing experience or another--and this does NOT include the
mandated (by district headquarters & super.) Stalinist-era Soviet-style test-prep
scripts handed down to them to be signed and verified this year to ensure STP
conditions for ALL our kidZ. This represents 8.33 % of instructional time lost to
management and oversight functions.

Of course, no school district in the country *currently* accounts like this for
their costs. I intend to see that change. Currently, budgets in NYS have 3
supra-categories: Operations/Support; Capital Costs; Instruction. We need to
transfer this 8.3% of instructional costs (such are usually 75% of a given budget
=> 6.25% charge to management for indirect monitoring costs) to
support/management. IF this is done, the additional savings JUST by following
sound ethical and statistical practice in using normed tests will amount to from
3 - 6.25% of a district budget, particularly in states neck deep in such
protocols--in addition to the costs saved by correctly administering the direct
experience of a moderated sampling of  a district's census. For Utica, NY, this
would be a savings of from $1.1M to $4.75M/YEAR

The savings JUST IN INDIRECT COSTS will be in the hundreds of millions to
billions of dollars per year and will result in a decimation of the standardized
testing industry behind these SBEs TO BOOT (god save us in this evaluation
industry if THAT were to happen...)! Now, go back and add in the direct, misspent
costs of our current unethicalsystem of testing...

NEXT:: THROW THIS  found   MONEY TO THE POOR DISTRICTS!!!!    Let the rich and
poor receive a semblance of equal educational opportunities, indeed, the very
rationale for establishing school boards as taxing authorities in the first
place!! NO our public schools are not funded to provide the BEST education we can
find to the MOST we can (I smell a meritocratic foundation, here, No?)! they are
established to provide equal educational opportunities for ALL (I dream of an
egalitarian foundation, here! Yes.)

If we can all get a handle on what I intend, we can possibly thank the
standardized testing services and a half century of corrupted science for
inadvertently establishing a slush fund of such major proportions that I hazzard
to guess (a hazzard, indeed!) is large enough to refund every resource deficient
building in this land w/i 5 years and to do so w/money left over to pay teachers
a professional salary, to boot!

Don't hide behind glibness on this one, dennis--come clean EVALTALK. One or two
past presidents of AEA have carped about how important standards and even
certification are to our science. Any more of this acquiesense in matters such as
these by commission OR omission, and I'd say such efforts were quite seditious,
indeed, to the objectives they claim to support...   ;-} rap.

dennis roberts wrote:

> if american education really wanted to engender massive improvements in the
> achievement and success rates of kids more at the lower end of spectrum ...
> that is if this were THE SINGLE most important objective ... then, what it
> should do is to reallocate almost all the resources (teachers, equipment,
> materials, money, time) to working with these kids ... to the exclusion of
> kids who are at the other end ... who for some reason ... have figured out
> how to grow and learn at rapid rates ... almost INDEPENDENT OF the system
>
> but, we are eclectic in our aspirations ... thus, while there are small
> instances where refocusing instructional efforts have proven to be very
> successful, and i applaud these ... i see that this type of shifting of our
> educational intentions will never happen UNLESS we, as a nation, make a
> national commitment to do so AT THE EXPENSE (very unfortunately) of others
> NOT struggling in our compensatory educational system
>
> IMHO of course ...
>
> At 12:37 AM 6/22/00 -0400, Angela Garcia-Sims wrote:
> >In a message dated 6/20/00 6:34:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dmr@PSU.EDU
> >writes:
> >
> ><< stating an expectation for student performance is not equivalent to having
> >  students achieve that level ...
> >   >>
> >No, but if we don't start with the goal, with the belief that reaching that
> >goal is critical, then far fewer people, certainly teachers and
> >administrators (who must content with never-ending demands for their time and
> >attention) will be less likely to deviate from the status quo, the belief
> >that "the poor will always be with us."
> >
> >Thanks to the Improving America's Schools Act, K-12 educators across country
> >must now examine whether they are willing to accept the hypothesis that many
> >more disenfranchised learners can succeed than every before.  If they do
> >that, they will have to admit that the problem wasn't the learners but their
> >own competence, practice, and determination.
> >
> >The emerging research on American schools that exceed expectation is making
> >it harder for educators who honestly examine the data to continue to blame
> >the victim and continue to accept and perpetuate discrimination.
> >
> >I'm not saying we'll eliminate individual differences or that the
> >disenfranchised don't have to surmount far greater challenges than the
> >"haves."  That's obvious, however, ample research is being published about
> >what works with kids who formerly were turned off and pushed out of school,
> >to the loss of all society.  That research confronts us with the need to
> >change.  While many may still follow the old time religion, new scrutiny and
> >sanctions may change more who previously have remained complacent with the
> >failure of large groups of children.
> >
> >My experience with teachers, especially teachers of young kids, give me hope.
> >  Change may be slow but it's faster than making oil.
> >
> >Angela
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------
> >EVALTALK - American Evaluation Association (AEA) Discussion List. See also
> >    the website:  http://www.eval.org
> >To unsubscribe from EVALTALK, send e-mail to listserv@bama.ua.edu
> >    with only the following in the body: UNSUBSCRIBE EVALTALK
> >To get a summary of commands, send e-mail to listserv@bama.ua.edu
> >    with only the following in the body: GET COMMAND SUMMARY
> >To use the archives, go to this web site:
> >http://bama.ua.edu/archives/evaltalk.html
> >For other problems, contact the list owner at kbolland@sw.ua.edu
>
> Dennis Roberts, EdPsy, Penn State University
> 208 Cedar Bldg., University Park PA 16802
> Email: dmr@psu.edu, AC 814-863-2401, FAX 814-863-1002
> WWW: http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm
> FRAMES: http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drframe.htm
>
--
"Dein Wachstum sei feste und lache vor Lust!
Deines Herzens Trefflichkeit / hat dir selbst das Feld bereit',
auf dem du bluehen musst." Peasant, Richard A. Parkany: SUNY@Albany
Prometheus Educational Services - http://www.borg.com/~rparkany/
Upper Hudson & Mohawk Valleys; New York State, USA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.