assessment

The New PDK Survey Is Here, The New PDK Survey Is Here

Eduflack accountability, assessment, CCSS, Obama, polls, school boards

In the immortal words of Steve Martin from the movie, The Jerk, “The new phone books are here! The new phone books are here!” Only instead of talking the latest white and yellow pages, where the inclusion of our name shows we are somebody, we are talking about this year’s PDK/Gallup Poll, which validates all we’ve been thinking, hearing, and saying these past 12 months on the shifts in public education.

What do this year’s results tell us? A quick sampling:

  • Overall, only slightly more than a quarter surveyed (27%) give President Obama a grade of “A” or “B” for his performance in support of public schools. That’s down nearly 15 points from three years ago.
  • We have more fait in our local school systems. Half gave their local schools an “A” or a “B.” But when asked about our nation’s schools as a whole, only 17% give similar grades to ‘Merica.
  • As we hear more about the “federal role” in education, the public is starting to absorb it. More than half (56%) said their local school board should have the greatest influence on what is being taught (a big surprise to this former school board chairman who found that the vast majority wanted the school board out of such decisions, and to just focus on the basics like funding). Only 15% though the federal government should have the most influence (and we would ask who actually thinks the feds have much influence at all, let alone the most, on what happens in our local schools.)
  • More than half (54%) do not think standardized tests are helpful to teachers (though I am guessing they are talking about high-stakes, summative tests, and not the formative or interim assessments that even teachers say they want).
  • On the controversial issue of Common Core State Standards, 81% of those surveyed have heard of CCSS, up from about two-thirds last year. And six in 10 say they oppose CCSS. The biggest reason? Standards limit the flexibility of teachers ot teach what they think is best (not the testing issue we hear so much about).
  • And in those further depressing stats, only 30% were familiar with PISA. Only half believe that American students perform below the level of other students around the globe.

What do we take away from all of this? To be kind, we don’t know what we don’t know. Public school performance and President Obama’s education positions have been relatively unchanged in recent years, yet we see huge swings in what we think of both of those today. At a time when most school board meetings go unattended and few can even name who sits on their local board of ed, we now place the greatest trust (and presumed power) in the hands of those unsung officials. We lack an understanding of assessment literacy, and are now equating everything we’ve heard about “high-stakes testing” to anything that bears the name “test.”

And let’s not forget that, while we may have these positions, they still aren’t strong enough for us to act on them. Education policy remains one of those issues that we are all concerned with, until it is time to head into the voting places. We may believe our nation’s schools are headed into the crapper, but we still elect the same federal, state, and local policymakers to oversee those schools. And while we may be concerned about teachers not being able to teach what they think is best under CCSS, other surveys show we are enthusiastic in taking away their tenure and job protections, the very things that may allow them the power to actually do what they think is best in the classroom.

Yet the PDK poll is an important measure for understanding the populace’s temperature on these issues. While we are unlikely to act on them, we are seeing a steady shift that shows we are more cynical when it comes to public education in the United States. We are lest trusting. We remain fairly uninformed. And we seem content in carrying on as is.

Sigh …

 

Seeking Assessments That Matter

Eduflack accountability, assessment, CCSS, high-stakes testing, Students, teachers
To paraphrase from the classic movie Major League, “in case you haven’t noticed, and judging by the chatter and recent urban legends you haven’t, student assessments have managed to have positive impact here and there, and are threatening to be seen as a positive part of the teaching and learning process.”
Sure, student tests aren’t the Cleveland Indians finally making it to the playoffs, but we have long seen the same negative feelings and concerns attached to testing as we did for the Indians before “Wild Thing” Vaughn pitched them out of the cellar.
The improving public perceptions of testing is best seen in a new research survey conducted by Grunwald Associates on behalf of the Northwest Evaluation Association. In Make Assessment Matter: Students and Educators Want Tests That Support Learning, NWEA surveyed more than 2,000 students and educators on their perceptions of assessment. Interestingly, this seems to be the first significant study that actually asked students what they think about the tests they are taking.
There are some great write-ups of the full survey, including this piece at Education Week by Catherine Gewertz and this article at Huffington Post by Rebecca Klein.
Some of the results may surprise you. Among the highlights:
  • 81 percent of students think student test scores reflect how well teachers teach
  • 95 percent of students agree that tests are “very” or “somewhat” important for helping them and their teachers know if they are making progress in their learning during the year
  • 80 percent of students say they have not heard of new state accountability tests, despite all of the CCSS hype we hear about
  • 81 percent of students think student test scores reflect how well teachers teach
  • 64 percent of African-American students, 65 percent of Asian-American students, and 61 percent of Hispanic students believe state accountability tests are very important to their futures, compared to just 47 percent of white students
  • 78 percent of students think taking tests on computers has a positive impact on their engagement during tests, with 95 percent of district administrators and 76 percent of teachers agreeing that adaptive technology-based tests are “extremely” or “very” valuable for engaging students in learning
  • 55 percent of teachers report they never took a course in assessment literacy in their teacher prep programs
  • 96 percent of teachers who say they use assessment results do so to improve teaching and learning in the classroom
So what does it all mean? We see that students and teachers both value testing, as long as it is the right type of test. We see that, while they might not be able to define it, educators find real value in interim assessments and see them very differently than the “high-stakes” summative tests that seem to dominate the headlines. And we clearly see that much work needs to be done to build better understanding of the types of tests, why they are used, and how the data is applied. Or more simply put, we like tests if they are relevant and student learning focused.
Based on its research, NWEA offered up five recommendations for policymakers, administrators, educators, and all those involved in the learning process to consider, including:
  1. Engage with students in policy development process, especially when making testing mandates at the state, district, and classroom levels
  2. Realign assessment priorities in support of teaching and learning
  3. Establish formal learning opportunities on assessment for every teacher, principal, and building administrator
  4. Improve student learning by making educator collaboration a priority in every school district
  5. Prioritize technology readiness in every district, focusing on infrastructure and addressing glitches
It is important to note that most of these reccs do not cost us big bucks, unlike the typical policy reccs we see in education. All are focused on ensuring we spend our resources wisely and are focusing our assessment efforts on student learning, not solely on accountability.
Specifically, we should all be doing the stadium wave for number four. As testing isn’t going anywhere, it is of value to all those in the teaching and learning process to be more assessment literate, to better understand the portfolio of tests available to them, to distinguish the good from the mediocre from the useless, and to ensure that results are put to use and put to use quickly.
As we know in today’s education space, perception is the new truth. Whether we agree or not with these findings, these are the perceptions of students, teachers, and district administrators from across the nation. The scientifically valid sample gives us a clear understanding of how folks are thinking about testing. And it provides us an important building block as we shift to ensure tests have meaning and utility.
Sure, testing is not going to win the triple crown every school year. But this data makes clear that good tests are positioned to have real impact come the end of the school season. 
(Full disclosure: Eduflack has worked with the folks at both Northwest Evaluation Association and Grunwald Associates.)

If Not VAM, Then What?

Eduflack accountability, AFT, assessment, NEA, teachers

Yesterday, Libby Nelson and the good folks over at Politico Education reported a new American Federation of Teachers campaign, flying under the banner of “VAM is a sham.”  The target is the latest generation of educator evaluation models intended to increase accountability and ensure that every child has an effective teacher leading the classroom.

According to Politico, the impetus for such an effort was that AFT President Randi Weingarten, after negotiating and agreeing to a number of teacher evaluation systems that depend on value-added measures, or VAM, “found the process corrosive: The VAM score was just a number that didn’t show teachers their strengths or weaknesses or suggest ways to improve.  Weingarten said the final straw was the news that the contractor calculating VAM scores for D.C. teachers made a typo in the algorithm, resulting in 44 teachers receiving incorrect scores — including one who was unjustly fired for poor performance.”
Of course, supporting VAM only to later oppose it shouldn’t come as any big surprise.  Last spring, Governing magazine wrote about how an NEA-led lawsuit against Florida teacher evals was going to spread nationwide.  In New Mexico, the AFT has already filed suit against a system that isn’t even fully up and running.  In Boston, a district with nearly 5,000 teachers, the AFT recently filed suit to block BPS from taking action against the 30 lowest performing teachers, according to the evaluation system in place.
At the heart of opposition to VAM is including student performance — or test scores — in a teacher evaluation.  While no teacher evaluation system relies 100 percent on test scores, it is indeed a factor in every such evaluation.  After all, if an educator’s job is to teach, isn’t one of the measures of effectiveness whether the student has actually learned what has been taught?
Yes, we can argue about the fairness of one single summative test in a teacher evaluation.  But that can be navigated through the adoption of formative and interim measures into the process.  Simply saying that the outcomes have no place in the evaluation process just doesn’t make sense.
But Eduflack will set all that aside for a moment.  If we believe that “VAM is a sham” (a line actually used by Diane Ravitch last year), what should replace VAM when it comes to accountability and educator evaluation?  How do we truly measure if a teacher is effective or not without looking, in part, to student performance?
On its website, the AFT offers up a number of “standards” that should be included in the process.  Standards for a common vision of teaching.  Standards for professional context.  Standards for systems of support.  But these all seem to be about the inputs that go into instruction.  That’s fine and good.  But what about the outcomes?
When Eduflack was on the front lines of the education reform battles in Connecticut, the unions were strong opponents to any changes to the evaluation system or to increased accountability.  Ultimately, all sides agreed to test scores being 40 percent of the evaluation.  
Interestingly, one of the strongest arguments against the new model was that teachers were opposed to principal evaluation in the process.  They felt such observations were subjective and allowed administrators to play favorites.  It got so heated that one legislator actually suggested forgoing scores and supervisor evaluations to bring in teacher SWAT teams from other states who would know good teaching when they saw it.  Fortunately, such an approach went nowhere.  But are we now saying that test scores and supervisor evals are both off the table?
As we now see VAM in place in states like Illinois and Florida, Colorado and Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Mexico, what is the better mousetrap?  If AFT, NEA, and others don’t want a VAM reliant on a summative test score, then how do we effectively evaluate educators (and I mean both teachers and principals) by both the inputs they bring and the outcomes they achieve?
Sure, one has a right (and many feel an obligation) to stand up and oppose VAM.  But without a viable alternative, what are we saying?  Effective teaching can’t be quantitatively measured?  Good teaching doesn’t necessarily translate to student learning and mastery?  Or that we just don’t want to know the answer?
 

“A Day of Action”

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, AFT, assessment, charter schools, NEA, Parents, reform, teachers

Yesterday, educators across the country participated in “A Day of Action,” a series of events across the country that, according to Valerie Strauss at The Washington Post, “sponsors hope will draw national attention to the problems of corporate-influenced school reform and to build a national movement to change the public education conversation and to increase funding for schools.”

We can set aside the fact that organizers were hoping to accomplish an incredible number of goals from a series of public demonstrations.  And we will forget what Eduflack has written here previously, that too many people are fighting a false battle against the “privatization” of our public schools, when no one is actually looking to flip public schools private.
And I’m even willing to save for another day the important discussion on school funding.  Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to look at our funding models for our public schools, ensuring that all schools are equitably funded.  But we also must look at how we are spending those dollars, and admit that our priorities are off when some of our lowest-performing schools are also those with some of the highest per-pupil expenditures in the nation.
Instead, today Eduflack turns your attention to the guiding “principles” behind “A Day of Action.”  Organizers are absolutely right in needing a call to action, a basis that all participants can latch on to and believe in.  So for this week’s festivities, seven principles were offered in an effort to “reclaim the promise of public education.”
They include:
* Public schools are public institutions.
* Our voices matter.
* Strong public schools create strong communities.
* Assessments should be used to improve instruction.
* Quality teaching must be delivered by committed, respected and supported educators.
* Schools must be welcoming and respectful places for all.
* Our schools must be fully funded for success and equity.
All noble goals.  All well meaning.  And all principles that EVERYONE should be able to get behind.  I recognize the importance of trying to win over hearts and minds.  But these same principles (maybe with an edit to the final one) are principles that any education reformer worth his or her salt could get behind.  
Just think of the following:
* Public schools, including our public charter schools, are public institutions.
* Our voices (not just those of the unions or veteran educators) matter.
* Strong public schools create strong communities.  Just ask those whose lives and neighborhoods have been transformed by an institution like Democracy Prep.
* Assessments should be used to improve instruction, with test scores utilized to ensure our schools, our teachers, and our students are achieving. 
* Quality teaching must be delivered by committed, respected and supported educators. It isn’t what ed school you attended or that you received the proper pedagogy in your prep, it is about what you do in the classroom.
* Schools must be welcoming and respectful places for all.  That includes parents and community members who seek improvement or choice.
* Our schools must be fully funded for success and equity.  That begins by ensuring all public schools, including charters, in the same city are spending the same per pupil.
There is no question we are in need of a day, a week, a month, a year of action to improve our public schools.  And while I still maintain that sides agree on far more than they disagree when it comes to school improvement, can’t we have a real, respectful conversation about the areas of disagreement instead of trying to “own” some basic platitudes on which we all should agree?

Some CCSS Civility?

Eduflack accountability, AFT, assessment, BAM, CCSS

Just about everywhere, it seems discussions on the Common Core State Standards (particularly their implementation and assessment) are fairly nasty.  No, CCSS isn’t going anywhere (despite the wishes of some).  But instead of focusing on the implementation and how we do a better job, it seems to be all about fights and absolutes and final lines in the sand.

This week, the folks at BAM Radio Network are launching a new regular program, #CommonCore Radio. The intent is to have a civil discussion about CCSS implementation, while ensuring that both sides of the debate are included and heard.
Dear ol’ Eduflack is hosting the program, along with educator Darren Burris.  The first segment is now officially available and can be found on the BAM site.  We start the series speaking with Professor Nancy Carlsson-Paige and AFT President Randi Weingarten.  The topic?  CCSS impact on early childhood education (meaning kindergarten, first and second grades).
Weingarten and Carlsson-Paige recently penned a piece voicing opposition to CCSS assessment in the early grades.  As you can imagine, Eduflack had a bit of a different take, believing that if the issue is with the tests, rather than a moratorium, let’s just build better tests.  I also voice some concern about reopening CCSS to “adjust” how it addresses the early grades, fearing that doing so just opens the door for others to push for changes and to delay, delay, delay.
Give it a listen.  And if you have any thoughts for a future segment, shoot ’em my way.
Happy listening!

The Blame Game Continues

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, assessment, PR, reform

Too often, we look for easy answers and quick fixes to our problems.  And if we can’t find those answers, we look to quickly blame someone else for the problem.  We do this because change is hard, and it often requires admitting that the world is not one of lollipops and rainbows.

We see this on a daily basis in public education.  Even in the face of recent NAEP scores and high school dropout rates, many say our schools have never been stronger than they are today.  When confronted with questions about dropout factories and college remediation rates, the response is usually to blame poverty.  If only those kids weren’t poor, all would be well in the world.
Of course, one can point to true exemplars of excellence and improvement in low-income communities across the country.  Yes, poverty is a contributing factor.  A significant one.  But it is an obstacle that needs to be overcome, not a reason for inaction.
So it is disappointing when one sees the media buy into the blame game and offer an view that is so simplistic it is often nonsensical.  That is the case of a recent piece published by In These Times, an online pub with the tagline “With Liberty and Justice For All …”
A recent piece by David Sirota, Teachers Were Never the Problem: Poverty still lies at the root of the “U.S. education crisis,” the author advocates all of the urban legends floating around, and does so with vague claims of “the research shows.”
Want some examples?  Try these on for size:
“we know that American public school students from wealthy districts generate some of the best test scores in the world. This proves that the education system’s problems are not universal–the crisis is isolated primarily in the parts of the system that operate in high poverty areas.” 

“we know that many of the high-performing public schools in America’s wealthy locales are unionized. We also know that one of the best school systems in the world—Finland’s—is fully unionized. These facts prove that teachers’ unions are not the root cause of the education problem, either.”

“All of this leads to an obvious conclusion: If America was serious about fixing the troubled parts of its education system, then we would be having a fundamentally different conversation.  

We wouldn’t be talking about budget austerity—we would be talking about raising public revenues to fund special tutoring, child care, basic health programs and other so-called wrap-around services at low-income schools.”

Get the point?  No, the problems in accountability and student performance and college/career readiness are not isolated in high-poverty areas.  That thinking is part of the problem.  It makes achievement an us-versus-them scenario, one where far too many people think this is just an issue of black and brown kids living in crime-ridden cities.  Instead, the problem is everywhere, even in white suburbs.
Anyone serious about improving our schools is not saying the unions are the root cause of the problem.  Instead, the argument is that unions often stand in the way of reforms and proposed improvements, choosing to protect the system as it is.  And yes, most of our highest performing schools are unionized.  But most of our lowest performing schools, particularly those in those urban centers focused on in point one, are also unionized.
And the obvious conclusion?  Most would agree that we need to focus on how to fund tutoring and interventions and health and wrap arounds.  Yes, all are important to overall learning environment and the community as a whole.  But austerity is also an issue.  We have never spent more per pupil on public education than we do today.  And some of our lowest-performing schools reside in communities with some of the highest per-pupil expenditures in the nation.  This shouldn’t be just an either or.  Instead, we should be looking at ways to expand how we support our kids, but do so by making sure that our education dollars are well spent and are having the impact on students and student learning that we all seek.
It isn’t enough to just say “social science research over the last few decades has shown” to make a general point about a topic where there is plenty of high-quality research to prove the opposite side.  And it certainly isn’t enough to offer up crass generalizations just to knock them down with questionable “social science research.”
I’m growing tired of this soapbox, folks.  We need to engage in more responsible dialogues about our public schools and where we need to take them.  Let’s stop playing to the lowest common denominator and have some real conversations where we all give a little to get further.  Please?

The New NAEP Scores Are Here! The New NAEP Scores Are Here!

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, assessment, NAEP

Yes, it is that time of year again.  This morning, EdSec Arne Duncan officially released the reading and math scores for “The Nation’s Report Card.”  The results?  Recent trends continue.  Overall scores continue to tick up.  Reading scores for fourth graders continue to frustrate.

The good folks over at Education Writers Association are aggregating coverage on NAEP over at Ed Media Commons.  Check out EWA’s initial analysis, along with its roundup of coverage here. 
What does it all mean?  The highlights and analysis and opining will continue to pour in during the coming days.  But a few immediate points come to mind:
* The overall rise in student performance over the past 20 years signals that efforts to focus on accountability, student achievement, and teacher quality are having real, positive impact.  Sure, we aren’t seeing huge jumps in scores, but the trends are clear.  We are improving.
* We are largely seeing improvement across the board.  Unfortunately, that means we aren’t getting closer to closing the achievement gaps.  While African-American and Hispanic/Latino scores are getting better, so are the scores of white students.  On the whole, it is terrific to see all students learn and improve.  But we still have to figure out how we address the shortcomings historically disadvantaged students have faced in the classroom.
* Fourth grade reading scores continue to trouble.  These scores were flat.  We are now six or so years from when we pulled the plug on Reading First.  Like it or not, our investment in scientifically based reading instruction had impact.  We saw it in previous fourth grade scores, and we are seeing it in older kids who benefitted from the emphasis on SBRR.  Now we are fourth graders who aren’t benefitting from what is proven effective, and it can be seen.
* We need to spend more time and effort focusing on proficiency, and not just the gains themselves (yes, ironic based on the first three bullets here).  True, it is great seeing the steady rise in overall scores.  But we spent far too little time focusing on the reality that only 42 percent of our fourth graders are proficient in math, and an even lower 35 percent are proficient in reading.  And despite what some want to believe, we don’t make it up in the later grades.  Only 36 percent of eighth graders are proficient in both core subjects.
In a nation that has set a collective goal to have every child college and career ready by 2020, nearly two thirds of our eighth graders aren’t yet doing eighth-grade level reading and math.  That is a reality that affects everyone, regardless of race, family income, or zip code.  And it is a reality that demands far more attention than it receives.

Are You There God, It’s Me Eduflack?

Eduflack accountability, arts, assessment, reading

The latest volley has been launched in the ongoing battle against the evils of testing.  Today, the folks over at No Test, sorry, meant Fair Test, released a letter they coordinated from more than 100 children’s book authors to EdSec Arne Duncan, attacking increased testing, computer adaptive testing, teacher evaluation measures, and “the narrowing of curriculum” for eliminating students’ love of reading and literature.

The full letter can be found here.   Hat tip to Stephanie Simon over at Politico PRO Education for spotlighting the letter this morning.
Lots of signatories on the list.  Some names folks know, many that they don’t.  Eduflack’s personal fave is Judy Blume.  I’ll admit, as a kid, she was one of my favorite authors.  I read everything she wrote.  I even triggered the town librarian call my mom one afternoon because she thought it was inappropriate for a young boy to be reading “Are You There God, It’s Me Margaret?” My mother, the high school English teacher, ignored the advice of the librarian, and I read the book many times over.
Eduflack can appreciate the concerns these authors and illustrators have.  And I might even be willing to concede that a child’s love for reading and literature has declined in recent years.  But is it because of testing, or is it because of multimedia?  Do we blame the bubble sheet, or do we blame the multitude of options now competing for a young learner’s attention?
Honestly, I’m getting a little tired of testing being blamed for all that is perceived wrong in our country.  Too many people far too often are throwing everything and anything they can in their Quixotic approach to rid our world of testing.  We ignore that testing has been a part of our public schools for as long as we’ve had public schools.  We overlook that testing data can play a meaningful role in improving both teaching and learning.  We avoid the true debate, a discussion about ensuring the value of testing and the use and application of high-quality assessments.
Instead, we rail against the system, throwing the red meat on “high-stakes testing,” “testing and reading schemes,” and “testing overuse and abuse.”  We talk in media releases, instead of engaging in dialogues.  And we turn to scare tactics and the negative, instead of exploring common ground and the positive.
We need to stop our Blubber, clear our Tiger Eyes, and Forever commit to a better way to talk about schools, school improvement, and testing.  Otherwise, there will be no more Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing because more than a third of our fourth graders still won’t be reading at grade level.  If we really want Sally J. Freedman to star as herself, can’t we shift from this vitriol to a more meaningful community engagement?
Or perhaps I should just let a few Superfudges fly, and accept this is just as it is.  Then Again, Maybe I Won’t …
 

Is the Bell Tolling for CCSS?

Eduflack accountability, assessment, CCSS, high-stakes testing

“Is this the beginning of the end for our caped crusader?”

Yesterday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott ordered the State of Florida to withdraw from Common Core State Standards assessments and its financial relationship with PARCC.  For those who have been watching Florida, this should be no surprise.  Scott is concerned with his upcoming re-election.  He is reading the tea leaves, particularly with Republicans, that CCSS are unpopular (just look at the growing number of anti-CCSS state groups on Facebook).  So for a governor with poor poll numbers, it seems natural that he would take a move that would shore up anti-federal intrusion Republicans who comforting anti-high-stakes teaching Democrats and independents.
So no, we shouldn’t be shocked that Florida’s governor wants out of CCSS testing.  But in the online tsunami following his decree, one important piece was overlooked.  He didn’t call for Florida to pull out of CCSS itself (yet).  Scott has just folded the state’s cards in the assessment game.
The more troubling development seems to be happening west of the Sunshine State in Louisiana.  In the Pelican State, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is starting to raise concerns with the CCSS themselves.  Using phrases like “federalized curriculum,” Jindal is taking issue with the very standards he helped champion in the early days.  Now we have Jindal talking about the need for “Louisiana, not Washington, DC, standards.”
While it makes for some nice red-meat rhetoric, Jindal knows better.  These aren’t DC standards.  These are national standards, developed in large part by the states themselves, to raise the bar for all kids and help make them all college and career ready, at least in English and math.  And if Jindal really wants Louisiana standards, he better look back to the downright pathetic standards the state had just a decade ago, where the goal seemed to be providing all Louisiana students access to a mediocre public education, if they were lucky.
We’ve now reached the point where we are playing some dangerous political games with classroom learning.  Scott and Jindal may be scoring points on the campaign trail (or on Jindal’s hopeful road to the White House), but they are both being disingenuous about the issues.  Higher standards are important for our more transient student population, and are necessary if we expect all students to graduate from high school college and career ready.  And like it or not, we do need assessments that actually measure student progress against those higher standards.
Both of these politicians have their own reasons for doing what they are doing and saying what they are saying. But let’s not read too much into these announcements.  No states are required to sign onto CCSS, and Louisiana wouldn’t be the only state not to participate (just ask friends in Texas, Minnesota, or Virginia.)  And of the 40-some states that are part of CCSS, they aren’t required to be part of the CCSS assessments.  The two consortia are there to help reduce costs on testing by creating a common test that states could then enhance to meet their own needs.  If a state like Florida wants to spend significantly more to keep its own test, that is its right.
No, this isn’t the beginning of the end of CCSS.  While many “sky is falling” folks will see this as such (particularly those who have distain for CCSS in the first place), this is just the latest bump in the road.  Let’s actually get the aligned curriculum in the classroom, let’s give teachers content-based PD, and let’s get the tests up and running before we condemn CCSS to its untimely demise.

Parent Survey (or Statistics are Dangerous)

Eduflack Achievement gap, assessment, CCSS, charter schools, High School, high-stakes testing, Parents, polls, vouchers

We began the week reflecting on an AP poll on parent sentiments about public education.  As we roll into hump day, we now have the 2013 edition of the Gallup/PDK poll of “what Americans said about the public schools.“

This year’s Gallup/PDK highlights:
* As we’ve heard for decades, most Americans give the public schools a “C” grade, but give their own schools an “A” or “B”
* 62 percent of parents have never heard of Common Core State Standards
* 36 percent believe increased testing has hurt school performance, 22 percent say it has helped, and 41 percent said it makes no diff at all
* 58 percent oppose using standardized test scores in teacher evals, up from 47 percent in last year’s survey
* 52 percent said teachers have a right to strike (yes, that really is a question PDK asked)
* 88 percent say their child is safe when they are in school
* 66 percent favor educating children whose parents are in the United States illegally
* Only 29 percent favor sending kids to private schools at public school expense
Overall, the survey results aren’t that big a surprise.  They seem to jive with what PDK reports annually in this survey, and they aren’t too big a deviation from what AP released earlier in the week.
What’s disappointing is how PDK decided to present this year.  One would think that a semi-intelligent human being could take a look at polling toplines and understand that when only 22 percent say high stakes testing helps school performance, the majority doesn’t believe it to be so.  Unfortunately, PDK dumbed it down a step further, putting out a “highlights” document that makes sweeping statements without providing any statistical backup,  While one can track down the supports, it is definitely a dangerous document in the hands of the wrong folks.
Some of these self-proclaimed “highlights include:
  • Common Core – “Most Americans don’t know about the Common Core and those who do don’t understand it.”
  • Standardized Tests – “The significant increase in testing in the past decade has either hurt or made no difference in improving schools.”
  • Charter Schools – “Charter schools probably offer a better education than traditional schools.”
  • Online Learning – “High school students should be able to earn college credits via the Internet while attending high school.”
  • Biggest Problem – “Lack of financial support continues to be the biggest problem facing public schools.”
Let’s just take the last item.  Per-pupil public school funding is at its highest rates ever in the history of United States public education.  Do we honestly believe that is the biggest problem facing the schools?  More so than the obscene achievement gap?  More so than a third of all fourth graders unable to read on grade level?  More so than our inability to address the needs of a growing ELL population in our classrooms?  More so than ensuring that good teachers remain in the classroom and get the support and respect they need?
They again, sometimes poll results are just poll results.  But looking at the latest PDK release, Eduflack is left with two thoughts.
“A little information is a dangerous thing.” Albert Einstein
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Mark Twain