E Wayne Ross

Read Paul Michael Goldenberg’s open letter in support of David Wasserman—the Wisconsin teacher who refused to give the Wisconsin state exam—at the Rational Mathematics Education Blog.

On December 12 from 6:00-6:30pm CST, tune in to Michael Baker’s “Room 101” radio (KZUM 89.3FM in Lincoln, Nebraska) when David Wasserman will be his guest.

People not in the Lincoln, Nebraska, listening area may listen online.

The New York Times

November 4, 2007
Op-Ed Contributors
No Exit
By MONTY NEILL and LISA GUISBOND

Cambridge, Mass.

THE Connecticut State Board of Education is considering some form of exit exams as a graduation requirement from high school. The board is likely to make its recommendations to the Legislature by the end of the year.

Connecticut should think twice before going down this road. Evidence shows “high stakes” tests like exit exams that determine whether a student can graduate, are the wrong prescription for what ails public education.

The ills of many public schools are undeniable. Like other states, Connecticut has vast disparities in educational access, quality and outcomes. The record demonstrates, however, that exit exams are a false solution for these problems. Graduation tests that deny diplomas are simply another way to punish the victims of inadequately financed education. The victims are disproportionately low-income and minority students, some of them learning-disabled or immigrants for whom English is not the first language.

Proponents of graduation tests ignore the real consequences. Like snake-oil salesmen, they promise miracle cures. In reality, the harmful side effects of exit exams include a curriculum narrowed to a few subjects, teaching reduced to little more than test preparation, increased dropout rates and demoralized students.

Exit exam promoters promise narrowed achievement gaps and overall score increases. But that has not happened. While the number of states with graduation tests has steadily risen over the last two decades, results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the benchmark federal test that is administered every year, show no narrowing of the achievement gap among racial groups at the high school level. Nor have average reading scores increased.

A major reason for the lack of progress is that high-stakes testing, whether state-mandated graduation exams or the federal No Child Left Behind law, flies in the face of real learning. Untested subjects are ignored, while tested topics turn into test-coaching programs. Test prep is like holding a match to a thermostat and believing the room will get warmer: scores may rise on that test, but learning does not.

What’s more, high-stakes testing reduces the high school graduation rate. Texas introduced exit exams in 1992. Fifteen years later, a record 40,200 students in the class of 2007 were denied diplomas based on the state tests. National independent research confirms a link between graduation tests and higher dropout rates.

In 2006, Boston’s annual dropout rate rose sharply to 9.9 percent from 7.7 percent. At the same time, the city suffered a wave of youth violence. Boston City Council members, who solicited the views of local young people on why violence was rising, reported “frustration and boredom with the endless drilling and practice” for the state comprehensive assessment exams, which students in grades 3 through 10 are required to take.

Unable to produce evidence of real success, exit exam supporters say we’re not doing these students any favors if we just give them a diploma. But what is gained if students have nothing to show after playing by the rules and passing required courses for 12 years of schooling? Students without diplomas earn much less money, are less likely to maintain stable families and are far more likely to end up in prison. Denying a diploma based on a test score does neither student nor society any favors.

If exit exams really enhance equity and school quality, why are Southern states — the first to adopt graduation tests — still mired at the bottom by any measure of educational performance? Why, in short, should Connecticut follow the failed practices of Mississippi and Alabama?

The truth is that race and class performance gaps reflect more on what happens outside the classroom than inside. A recent analysis of high school test scores in Connecticut found socioeconomic factors alone account for about 85 percent of the variation in test scores in four subjects. Connecticut can do better than putting accountability on the backs of its children while failing to address the underlying economic and social inequalities.

The choice is not between imposing graduation tests and doing nothing to improve education. Solving the problem of unequal schools and inadequate outcomes requires many actions, from ensuring financial equity for the Bridgeports and Hartfords to better K-12 programs to having expectations of a well-rounded education for all children.

Connecticut must reorder its priorities and pursue public policies that address the foundations of children’s academic success: health care, nutrition and living wages for working parents, along with high-quality teachers, a strong curriculum and well-financed schools.

Monty Neill is the co-executive director and Lisa Guisbond is the testing reform analyst at the National Center for Fair and Open Testing.

SFU dean defends ‘no test’ teacher; He says the educator was protecting her students from ‘psychological and educational vandalism’

The Vancouver Sun
Tue 30 Oct 2007
Page: B7
Section: Westcoast News
Byline: Janet Steffenhagen
Source: Vancouver Sun

The dean of education at Simon Fraser University says a teacher who defied her employer by refusing to deliver a mandatory reading test to her Grade 3 students should serve as an inspiration and role model for all teachers.

In a speech to SFU graduates this month, Paul Shaker praised Kathryn Sihota, a Vancouver Island teacher, for engaging in civil disobedience to protect her students from “psychological and educational vandalism,” despite knowing that she risked discipline and public disapproval for her actions.

“You should remember that you entered the profession at the moment when this courageous teacher was taking her principled stand,” Shaker told graduates in a fall convocation speech now posted on SFU’s website. “Let her character, conviction and willingness to act be an inspiration to you.”

Although his comments landed in the midst of a province-wide debate about the value of standardized tests, Shaker said in an interview he was making a point about the need for professionals to take non-violent action in defence of their principles and he was not passing judgment on the tests.

But he admitted he is particularly sensitive to the debate about standardized tests because before moving to Canada he spent many years as an educator in the U.S., where he said students have been damaged through rampant abuse of high-stakes testing.

“I like to think that won’t happen in Canada,” he said, “but I don’t think that we can be complacent.”

B.C. Education Minister Shirley Bond said it was irresponsible of Shaker to encourage teachers to engage in civil disobedience rather than working cooperatively with others on issues of mutual interest.

“It’s unfortunate when political agendas become part of a graduation speech to teachers in the province,” Bond added.

But the B.C. Teachers’ Federation, which supported Sihota in her fight with the Sooke board, cheered Shaker’s stance.

“It’s so heartening to see someone outside of teaching and someone with the stature of Paul Shaker … making those comments, especially to student teachers,” union vice-president Susan Lambert said in an interview.

A longtime teacher and union leader, Sihota said she decided not to administer the District Assessment of Reading test to her students at Millstream elementary after seeing a nervous child break down in tears.

She said the test was not worth that amount of stress.

As a result of that decision, Sihota was called before the Sooke board of education last month and given a letter of discipline for insubordination, which her union has grieved.

Shaker, when asked by The Sun if he agrees the tests are damaging to students, insisted he wasn’t taking a position on the tests. “That judgment would have to be made in the context of the teacher in the classroom,” he said.

But in his speech to almost 300 new teachers, Shaker said they have a professional obligation “to protect our students, not only from bullets or brutality, as we have seen teachers regularly do, but also from psychological and educational vandalism against their spirits. And this is what Kathryn Sihota has sought to do.”

Penny Tees, head of the B.C. School Trustees’ Association, declined to discuss Sihota’s actions but said she doesn’t accept the contention that tests damage students’ spirits. She noted that even B.C.’s representative for children and youth, Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafond, has defended the tests.

“If every teacher had the right to eliminate the pieces of the curriculum that they personally don’t agree with and don’t want to teach, then we would have a very, very hard time managing a public school curriculum,” said Tees.

Shaker said he does not have a problem with the most controversial standardized test in B.C. — the Foundation Skills Assessment — but is highly critical of the way it is used to rank schools.

The New York Times: A Plan to Use Cellphones to Reward Good Grades

Free cellphone airtime could be a reward for high-performing students if the city adopts the newest idea from the Education Department’s chief equality officer.

In New York City public schools, cellphones are considered contraband. But free cellphone airtime could be a reward for high-performing students if the city adopts the newest idea from the Education Department’s chief equality officer.

That official, Roland G. Fryer, a Harvard economist who is leading the city’s program to pay cash to some students who do well on standardized tests, told an undergraduate economics class at Harvard last month that his next proposal would include a plan to give cellphones to students, and reward free minutes to those who do well — an idea that is at odds with one of the city’s most contentious school policies, the ban on students having cellphones in school. The ban has been attacked by parents and politicians, who call it a draconian policy that endangers students. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who would have to approve Dr. Fryer’s proposal, has repeatedly refused to budge on the ban despite the outcries.

After the City Council overrode the mayor’s veto of legislation to allow children to carry their phones to school, City Hall officials emphatically pointed out that nothing would change and that cellphones would still be banned inside schools.

Dr. Fryer’s comments were described by several people who were present at the Harvard lecture on Oct. 10, part of his course titled “Race in America.” They did not want to be identified because, they said, Dr. Fryer had chastised his class for communicating with reporters about the lecture.

Most of Dr. Fryer’s work has been closely guarded by the Education Department, where officials have repeatedly said that it is still in the “developing stages.”

Dr. Fryer did not return telephone calls and e-mail messages seeking comment.

“This is one of several student-motivation proposals that the department is considering,” said David Cantor, a spokesman for the city Education Department. He said that “this is a proposal that neither the mayor nor the chancellor has signed off on.”

The proposal is in line with the larger incentive program that Dr. Fryer is running, as well as with programs offering bonuses to teachers and principals based on student performance.

Last month, the city embraced a plan by a private foundation to reward students who pass Advanced Placement tests with thousands of dollars.

Under the newest proposal, the cellphones would be donated at virtually no cost to the city and students would be unable to make calls during school hours, Dr. Fryer said, according to people who attended the lecture. The free phones would have a fixed number of minutes of air time. Students who excel would be rewarded with additional minutes, Dr. Fryer told the class, the people said.

If officials approve, the first batch of free phones, flip-style models donated by Motorola, would be delivered to several hundred students this month, Dr. Fryer told the class. He said that the program, if approved, would eventually attempt to include one million students in city schools.

Dr. Fryer also told the class that celebrities, including the hip-hop artist Jay-Z, might be asked to record ring tones.

Chuck Kaiser, a spokesman for Motorola, said in an e-mail message that the company is “aware of the concept,” but that it would be premature to comment on it because “the project is under consideration and no commitments have yet been made.”

In June, when Dr. Fryer was first brought in as a close adviser to the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, he said he would be looking at ways to “rebrand academic success,” and would consider a marketing campaign aimed at children in the public schools, particularly black, Latino and low-income students. But Dr. Fryer has been tight-lipped publicly about the details.

During a speech at the Schomburg Center in Harlem on Tuesday — his first public appearance in New York this year — Dr. Fryer alluded to some frustrations with dealing with the education politics of the city, saying that he was often asked by top officials, “What is the union going to think of this?”

To that, Dr. Fryer said, he responds, “This is a personal mission between me and the 10-year-olds in Harlem.”

While Dr. Fryer’s incentive program has been criticized by some educators who say that it undercuts the idea that learning should be for its own sake, he faced a largely receptive audience on Tuesday and has been welcomed by several leading black leaders in the city.

“We need to support Dr. Fryer in his efforts because, without any reservation, he is going to do in the 21st century for education what W. E .B. DuBois did in the 20th century,” said the Rev. C. Vernon Mason, who runs a youth development program and spoke at Tuesday’s event.

When one principal asked Dr. Fryer what he planned to do to change a culture in which students’ success is mocked, he responded that he understood the urgency of the problem.

“We are talking about a movement where we get kids to succeed. We’re not talking about a slogan campaign,” he said. Then he added, “All I can say is stay tuned.”
Next Article in New York Region (6 of 16) »