"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How will they make things much, much worse?

No provisions for under achievers.

Can you cite some specific language from NCLB or from Common Core that prohibits schools from offering supports for underachievers, for special needs students, et cetera?

[Anonymous]

There are actually a lot of things that the government could do to reduce income inequality and to reduce the effects of income inequality.


Please list the top three things the government should do.


1. Increase the bargaining power of workers.
2. Raise taxes on the capital wealth of rich people.
3. Stop treating money as speech.

#1 is not a federal issue; it's a state issue.

#2 is definitely something the feds can do, but it will only matter if the money generated is used in effective ways.

#3 is too vague for any level of government to deal with directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think that it would make sense to say, "Well, you are in fourth grade, but you are only reading at the first-grade level, and so you will take the first-grade test."? (Especially since there isn't a first-grade test. The purpose of the tests is to determine whether the students in the school meet the standards. If you are in fourth grade, but reading at the first-grade level, then you don't meet the standards.

Okay. So you have a group of autistic 4th graders. They are all reading at the first-grade level and all have to take the 4th grade CC standardized test (because it is mandated) even though you know it is way above them and that they will fail. You put the test in front of them. The kids all feel totally humiliated and demoralized. Some cry. The teacher feels the whole 4 or 5 or 10 hours of testing has been worse than a total waste of time. It has undermined all the time she has spent trying to keep these kids emotionally well and teaching them at their level.

What has been gained here? The feds now know that there are kids in that school who are below grade level. So what? The locals already knew and that's why they should be in charge.

Do you think that it would make sense to say, "Well, you are in fourth grade, but you are only reading at the first-grade level, and so you will take the first-grade test."?

Well, is CC going to hold kids back from the next grade? If they don't, maybe they should take the first grade test. And if there isn't one, maybe they should not be taking the test at all.

Yes. And this is why teachers will scramble to teach them inappropriate 4th grade material, even if it is fruitless and damaging to the kids. It is also why we are starting to see a mass exodus from teaching.

[Anonymous]

4th grade reading instruction is what is appropriate for a 4th grade classroom. That some of the students are only reading at a 1st grade level in 4th grade doesn't make 4th grade reading instruction "inappropriate"

And again, there's nothing in Common Core that says schools can't give the kids who are reading several grade levels behind additional reading labs and supports to bring them up to an appropriate reading level. If schools aren't doing that, then it's by their own choosing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are actually a lot of things that the government could do to reduce income inequality and to reduce the effects of income inequality.


Please list the top three things the government should do.


1. Increase the bargaining power of workers.
2. Raise taxes on the capital wealth of rich people.
3. Stop treating money as speech.

#1 is not a federal issue; it's a state issue.

#2 is definitely something the feds can do, but it will only matter if the money generated is used in effective ways.

#3 is too vague for any level of government to deal with directly.

Have you heard of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the National Labor Relations Act? They are both federal laws. In any case, state government is government. Also, have you heard of the Supreme Court case called Citizens United vs. FEC? and of the McCain-Feingold Act?

[Anonymous]

]The proof is in the standards themselves,[/b] t[/b]here is no language in the standard prohibiting anything additional from being done. If it's a "known fact" then you should be able to provide evidence of this by citing the specific part of the standard that supports your position.

The issue is really the high stakes nature of the tests and how that influences the behavior of administrators. If you take out the punitive sanctions and the high level of publicity surrounding the tests, you can change the behavior so that teachers are actually encouraged to teach below the standards if necessary (and if it's necessary, it's what you really have to do or kids will be left even further behind). Teachers want to teach individual students. They don't want to be hamstrung by a system that rewards the "whatever it takes to pass tests" type of behaviors. This has been a real effect of the NCLB law and you don't just wipe that out by introducing CC standards (it's still there and new standards are just making it all worse). People are angry because they were hopeful that someone, somewhere would understand what is happening. Also, give money for hiring teachers to remediate. When you do that, you send a powerful signal that starting where kids are is important. It would be so much better if schools were judged on way more than just test scores. But we have all these lists of schools that are put in order using testing scores. It puts pressure on the administrators and teachers no matter what is in the standards.

The reason people like their local schools is because they understand their local schools. They now don't understand why their local schools can't act in ways that make sense for their local students. It is making people feel worse about their kids' education. The answer is to hire good teachers and empower local communities to get involved in the schools.

One idea is to hire retired people to go out to tutor kids. This would give retirees some needed money and also help communities be more connected. Or hire recent college graduates who are having a hard time finding jobs (there are plenty of them out there). Get people involved at the ground level. Get off the "data train" and on the "people train". People are MUCH more interesting and valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think that it would make sense to say, "Well, you are in fourth grade, but you are only reading at the first-grade level, and so you will take the first-grade test."? (Especially since there isn't a first-grade test. The purpose of the tests is to determine whether the students in the school meet the standards. If you are in fourth grade, but reading at the first-grade level, then you don't meet the standards.

Okay. So you have a group of autistic 4th graders. They are all reading at the first-grade level and all have to take the 4th grade CC standardized test (because it is mandated) even though you know it is way above them and that they will fail. You put the test in front of them. The kids all feel totally humiliated and demoralized. Some cry. The teacher feels the whole 4 or 5 or 10 hours of testing has been worse than a total waste of time. It has undermined all the time she has spent trying to keep these kids emotionally well and teaching them at their level.

What has been gained here? The feds now know that there are kids in that school who are below grade level. So what? The locals already knew and that's why they should be in charge.

Do you think that it would make sense to say, "Well, you are in fourth grade, but you are only reading at the first-grade level, and so you will take the first-grade test."?

Well, is CC going to hold kids back from the next grade? If they don't, maybe they should take the first grade test. And if there isn't one, maybe they should not be taking the test at all.

Yes. And this is why teachers will scramble to teach them inappropriate 4th grade material, even if it is fruitless and damaging to the kids. It is also why we are starting to see a mass exodus from teaching.

I don't understand this. Are fourth-grade students who are not at the fourth-grade level more likely to meet the fourth-grade standards if you teach them fourth-grade material that is inappropriate for them, or if you teach them material that is appropriate for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

]The proof is in the standards themselves,[/b] t[/b]here is no language in the standard prohibiting anything additional from being done. If it's a "known fact" then you should be able to provide evidence of this by citing the specific part of the standard that supports your position.

The issue is really the high stakes nature of the tests and how that influences the behavior of administrators. If you take out the punitive sanctions and the high level of publicity surrounding the tests, you can change the behavior so that teachers are actually encouraged to teach below the standards if necessary (and if it's necessary, it's what you really have to do or kids will be left even further behind). Teachers want to teach individual students. They don't want to be hamstrung by a system that rewards the "whatever it takes to pass tests" type of behaviors. This has been a real effect of the NCLB law and you don't just wipe that out by introducing CC standards (it's still there and new standards are just making it all worse). People are angry because they were hopeful that someone, somewhere would understand what is happening. Also, give money for hiring teachers to remediate. When you do that, you send a powerful signal that starting where kids are is important. It would be so much better if schools were judged on way more than just test scores. But we have all these lists of schools that are put in order using testing scores. It puts pressure on the administrators and teachers no matter what is in the standards.

The reason people like their local schools is because they understand their local schools. They now don't understand why their local schools can't act in ways that make sense for their local students. It is making people feel worse about their kids' education. The answer is to hire good teachers and empower local communities to get involved in the schools.

One idea is to hire retired people to go out to tutor kids. This would give retirees some needed money and also help communities be more connected. Or hire recent college graduates who are having a hard time finding jobs (there are plenty of them out there). Get people involved at the ground level. Get off the "data train" and on the "people train". People are MUCH more interesting and valuable.

You didn't address what you claimed was a "known fact" of supposed rigidity and inflexibility by citing some specific language that prohibits it.

[Anonymous]

4th grade reading instruction is what is appropriate for a 4th grade classroom. That some of the students are only reading at a 1st grade level in 4th grade doesn't make 4th grade reading instruction "inappropriate"

Yes it does. Would you give your first grader instruction that is appropriate for a 4th grader?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay. So you have a group of autistic 4th graders. They are all reading at the first-grade level and all have to take the 4th grade CC standardized test (because it is mandated) even though you know it is way above them and that they will fail. You put the test in front of them. The kids all feel totally humiliated and demoralized. Some cry. The teacher feels the whole 4 or 5 or 10 hours of testing has been worse than a total waste of time. It has undermined all the time she has spent trying to keep these kids emotionally well and teaching them at their level.

What has been gained here? The feds now know that there are kids in that school who are below grade level. So what? The locals already knew and that's why they should be in charge.

The locals didn't already know. The teachers may already have known. But there were no data available to the public -- including the local public.

I also find it hard to believe that 4 or 5 or 10 hours of testing that students find difficult will undo a whole year of appropriate teaching, but ok.

[Anonymous]

^ Tutoring programs and other things are not prohibited by NCLB or Common Core. There are lots of things that can be done to solve the problems. But instead the focus seems to be to instead lower the bar by getting rid of standards, and getting rid of accountability, which doesn't solve any problems, it doesn't help the student who's reading at a grade level several years behind his peers - instead, it just sweeps it all under the rug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

4th grade reading instruction is what is appropriate for a 4th grade classroom. That some of the students are only reading at a 1st grade level in 4th grade doesn't make 4th grade reading instruction "inappropriate"

Yes it does. Would you give your first grader instruction that is appropriate for a 4th grader?

Fourth-grade reading instruction may not be appropriate for an individual student, but it is what is appropriate for a fourth-grade classroom -- by definition. If an individual student is not ready for fourth-grade reading instruction, then the student is working below grade level -- again by definition.

And no, the Common Core standards do not say, anywhere, that schools must provide fourth-grade instruction, and only fourth-grade instruction, to all fourth-grade students, regardless of the level the students are working at.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand this. Are fourth-grade students who are not at the fourth-grade level more likely to meet the fourth-grade standards if you teach them fourth-grade material that is inappropriate for them, or if you teach them material that is appropriate for them?

You have to accept the fact that they might not meet fourth grade standards in one year (because moving that many levels with someone who is SN in one year is pretty much unheard of---if you could do that they wouldn't be SN).

You should teach them using material that is appropriate for them and try to improve their level, whether that means they will pass the "test" or not. In a perfect world, you would not be giving them a test that is inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

4th grade reading instruction is what is appropriate for a 4th grade classroom. That some of the students are only reading at a 1st grade level in 4th grade doesn't make 4th grade reading instruction "inappropriate"

Yes it does. Would you give your first grader instruction that is appropriate for a 4th grader?

But you aren't talking about a first grader, you're talking about a fourth grader who is only performing at a first grade level. Evidently your solution is to just keep teaching them at a first grade level and let all the rest of the stuff they are supposed to be learning slide, and the following year he's a 5th grader performing at a 1st grade level? That's no doubt a big part of what created the problem in the first place.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand this. Are fourth-grade students who are not at the fourth-grade level more likely to meet the fourth-grade standards if you teach them fourth-grade material that is inappropriate for them, or if you teach them material that is appropriate for them?

If you teach someone way over their head, they won't learn anything. They will shut down and go away (or become a behavior problem so that they can get away).

Have you ever taught?