"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

What's going down:

By any measure, NCLB was a dismal failure in both raising academic performance and narrowing gaps in opportunity and outcomes. But by very publicly measuring the test results against benchmarks no real schools have ever met, NCLB did succeed in creating a narrative of failure that shaped a decade of attempts to “fix” schools while blaming those who work in them. By the time the first decade of NCLB was over, more than half the schools in the nation were on the lists of “failing schools” and the rest were poised to follow.
In reality, NCLB's test scores reflected the inequality that exists all around our schools. The disaggregated scores put the spotlight on longstanding gaps in outcomes and opportunity among student subgroups. But NCLB used these gaps to label schools as failures without providing the resources or support needed to eliminate them.
The tests showed that millions of students were not meeting existing standards. Yet the conclusion drawn by sponsors of the Common Core was that the solution was “more challenging” ones. This conclusion is simply wrong. NCLB proved that the test and punish approach to education reform doesn't work, not that we need a new, tougher version of it. Instead of targeting the inequalities of race, class, and educational opportunity reflected in the test scores, the Common Core project threatens to reproduce the narrative of public school failure that has led to a decade of bad policy in the name of reform.
The engine for this potential disaster, as it was for NCLB, will be the tests, in this case the “next generation” Common Core tests being developed by two federally funded, multi-state consortia at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Although reasonable people, including many thoughtful educators we respect, have found things of value in the Common Core standards, there is no credible defense to be made of the high-stakes uses planned for these new tests.
The same heavy-handed, top-down policies that forced adoption of the standards require use of the Common Core tests to evaluate educators. This inaccurate and unreliable practice will distort the assessments before they're even in place and make Common Core implementation part of the assault on the teaching profession instead of a renewal of it. The costs of the tests, which have multiple pieces throughout the year plus the computer platforms needed to administer and score them, will be enormous and will come at the expense of more important things. The plunging scores will be used as an excuse to close more public schools and open more privatized charters and voucher schools, especially in poor communities of color. If, as proposed, the Common Core's “college and career ready” performance level becomes the standard for high school graduation, it will push more kids out of high school than it will prepare for college.
This is not just cynical speculation. It is a reasonable projection based on the history of the NCLB decade, the dismantling of public education in the nation's urban centers, and the appalling growth of the inequality and concentrated poverty that remains the central problem in public education.

From:

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/27_04/edit274.shtml

[Anonymous]

^ The excerpt makes little sense on many levels as Common Core didn't make standards "more challenging" - Common Core was for the most part based on EXISTING standards. And in some districts, it's actually EASIER than the existing standards were.

And again, as for the "high stakes" - that's a function of how individual districts choose to respond to the results. Yes, some just blindly fire teachers, and that's stupid. But others restructure the way in which they teach and remediate and see good results. Again, NCLB doesn't mandate firing of teachers.

And then, amid all of that confused babble, the excerpt switches to blame "privatization"... *facepalm*

Sure, I get that the authors see privatization as a threat. But, in order for it to be a threat, that would mean that privatization would be offering results that public schools can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The anti-CCer


So, you think there is only one anti-CCer here on this board. Really? And, I guess they are all racists in your mind.


The more you keep posting, the more you keep reinforcing that.

I can see why more states are dropping out of CC if people like you are arguing in favor of it. Easy call to drop out.

Yep, the overwhelming majority of people dropping out are right wing neoconfederates.

That, and a handful of backward union shills who automatically bitch and complain whenever there's change or accountability. Weird bedfellows.

[Anonymous]

Again, NCLB doesn't mandate firing of teachers.

No, but it based the schools evaluations on the testing--which leads to administrator firing, which leads to..........

[Anonymous]

Again, NCLB doesn't mandate firing of teachers.

Race to the Top--a federal program required that teacher evaluations include achievement (testing results). This also leads to firing.

[Anonymous]

I had some *really* crap teachers in HS; some were really great, but there were a few that were horrible. They just didn't teach anything. Unfortunately, I feel like the bad teachers have caused this tying testing to teacher performance scenario. A few bad apples have ruined the entire batch. It's really sad.

[Anonymous]

I had some *really* crap teachers in HS; some were really great, but there were a few that were horrible. They just didn't teach anything. Unfortunately, I feel like the bad teachers have caused this tying testing to teacher performance scenario. A few bad apples have ruined the entire batch. It's really sad.

And, it is quite likely that this will not help get rid of those teachers. For one thing, nobody knows if the tests are valid or reliable. The standards have never been vetted or undergone serious analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And, it is quite likely that this will not help get rid of those teachers. For one thing, nobody knows if the tests are valid or reliable. The standards have never been vetted or undergone serious analysis.

And around, and around, and around...

(I'm still wondering what, specifically, "vetting" the standards would entail, and whether any other standards have been "vetted" like that.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Again, NCLB doesn't mandate firing of teachers.

Race to the Top--a federal program required that teacher evaluations include achievement (testing results). This also leads to firing.

That's how some shortsighted local LEAs CHOOSE to do it. There is no mandate in NCLB or Race To The Top. The decision to fire is ENTIRELY at the local level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And, it is quite likely that this will not help get rid of those teachers. For one thing, nobody knows if the tests are valid or reliable. The standards have never been vetted or undergone serious analysis.

And around, and around, and around...

(I'm still wondering what, specifically, "vetting" the standards would entail, and whether any other standards have been "vetted" like that.)

Sure they were vetted. They were based on existing, vetted state standards that existed prior to CC. And during the compilation process, there were drafts put out for vetting by the teachers unions and others. And then, they were piloted in several areas for additional vetting.

The PP evidently seems to think that simply repeating that old canard of "they weren't vetted" often enough will retroactively change history and make the claim become true.

[Anonymous]

The PP evidently seems to think that simply repeating that old canard of "they weren't vetted" often enough will retroactively change history and make the claim become true.

You still have provided no data. If they were vetted, there would be data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The PP evidently seems to think that simply repeating that old canard of "they weren't vetted" often enough will retroactively change history and make the claim become true.

You still have provided no data. If they were vetted, there would be data.

First please tell me exactly what you mean by "vetted". Otherwise I will provide evidence, and then you will say, "No, that is not evidence," and there's no point to that.

[Anonymous]

First please tell me exactly what you mean by "vetted". Otherwise I will provide evidence, and then you will say, "No, that is not evidence," and there's no point to that.

Schools and systems that piloted the use of the standards would be a start.

Questionnaires, surveys, etc. with responses from teachers.

[Anonymous]

More:

Pilot programs with the tests that are being used.
Results of these test.
Analysis of the reliability and validity of the data.

[Anonymous]

Pilot programs with the tests that are being used.
Results of these test.
Analysis of the reliability and validity of the data.

Anytime a new program is used, this is normal procedure. I have not seen to indicate that this was done.