Teaching

This struck me as a clever gadget for teaching what large numbers represent.

That's fucking genius.

Yep.

Very nice!

I'm confused, how does Pearson make any money on that?

Who is Pearson?

Pearson Publishing sells the textbooks, the other curriculum materials, and the assessments used for the Common Core. They own a fair number of lawmakers as well.

Ah so, the evil empire sucking the life blood from primary education. Dat splain it. :borg:

Griff;927924 wrote:

Pearson Publishing sells the textbooks, the other curriculum materials,
and the assessments used for the Common Core.
They own a fair number of lawmakers as well.

I'm going only on the links provided, but the first one ends with:

Pearson, it turns out, was the only bidder for the PARCC job.

Likewise, $30 k spent for "lobbying" at the national level seems a pittance,
and the $ amounts given over a 14-year period to political campaigns is spread over
several people and geographic regions... and political parties,
both Dem and GOP, between 1989 and 2014.

That all seems hardly enough to have someone stop other companies from bidding,
or to claim ownership of lawmakers, doesn't it ?

WTF? Your link shows $138k donations and $5.1 million lobbying.

Ooops, you are right, but...

I was looking at the contributions to campaign finance, and Griff's link re "owning" lawmakers.

But given the range of lobbying issues listed down lower on my link's page,
I think I still stand by my comment/question with respect to the topic of "education, and the Common Core Standards.
That is, the company's lobbying was widely distributed over many areas, not just education.

In any case, I would actually like to know what the career-teacher Dwellars say about CC Standards.
On the surface, it seems to me that teachers would welcome a set
of standards across the country, and not see them as a threat of some sort.

But then what do I know ?

The thing about CC is that at the level I taught it was not developmentally appropriate. In the state that I taught in, NYS, the assessments are tied in to teacher pay and retention. At the state level, the assessments are used to punish poorly performing schools, which I read as low income schools, by reducing state funding. There are many threads here but in a corrupt state like NY it ties into huge contracts for curriculum and testing along with privatization of poorly performing public schools. This in a state which had a good curriculum and was about to adopt its own higher standard curriculum but got swept up in the Federal plan. I'm not married to the Unions on this a lot of the funding difficulty comes from the gold plated retirements of current retirees and those who are about to retire. The teachers behind them are largely screwed though, which is leading to a reduction of satisfaction and more retention problems. The "modules" which teachers are encouraged to use do not allow for flexible teaching styles where you pursue the interests of the students to enable learning. The teachers are expected to become automatons, which may be fine considering the quality of teacher they'll be left with.

My current position is outside the education system looking in. I work to improve the behaviors of a caseload of kids mostly on the spectrum by teaching parents how to support their children's needs. Some of these kids are very intelligent. What I see is that these children's needs are not being met in schools. Children who tend to carry a lot of anxiety don't generally fair well with long hours of testing. I had a girl on my caseload flee and hide during the ELA testing. I see increased anxiety and parents trying to decide if opting out will prevent their child from graduating and going to college. 7% of students with IEPs passed the CC math for 3-5 grades. Too many threads to write about right now, but there are a ton of issues. The main one for me is this, "Are the civil rights of children with special needs being violated?"

Griff, I really appreciate your response about Common Core standards and testing.
I hope this can be a beginning to a more in depth discussion...

...the assessments are tied in to teacher pay and retention. At the state level,
the assessments are used to punish poorly performing schools,
which I read as low income schools, by reducing state funding. ...

First, let me say I think I understand these thoughts and
agree that both ideas above are inappropriate on their face.
Teacher pay and retention are management issues, not education issues;
and reducing state funding for poor performance smacks of
"...beatings will continue until morale improves..."

In my own career, I have worked with staffs of educated and professional people,
and have seen first hand how threatening even a discussion of testing can,
and does, lead to issues of job security, etc.
But I'd like to set those issues aside for now as labor/management issues.

I have to go out of town today, but will come back to this thread tomorrow...

Griff;927917 wrote:

I'm confused, how does Pearson make any money on that?

FTmotherfuckingW!

The Australian tests.


See, now that's all wrong. Any kid that doesn't measure up by third grade should be pruned to keep them from slowing the good children. Send them to the outback to herd sheep, or to the mines providing China with the minerals to satiate walmart. :p:

Griff;927983 wrote:

The thing about CC is that at the level I taught it was not developmentally appropriate. <snip>
I see increased anxiety and parents trying to decide if opting out will prevent their child from graduating and going to college.
...
The main one for me is this, "Are the civil rights of children with special needs being violated?"

Griff, I don't think I'm in major disagreement with you,
but there does seem to be a lot of "anxiety" over CC.
Change of any sort is a magnificent generator of anxiety,
so I feel it takes support and leadership from the teachers
for any improvement (aka "change") in the system.

Let me first ask you to expand on two of your remarks in the OP...

a) 7% of students with IEPs passed the CC math for 3-5 grades.
...
b) Are the civil rights of children with special needs being violated?

Aren't students with IEP's generally those students many laymen would refer
to as "Developmentally Disabled" or "Special Ed" or other such terms de jour.
If so, is it the number (7%) that concerns you, i.e., the expectation that
this number should be higher / lower / or is completely irrelevant ?

And, how do you feel the children's civil rights are being violated by having "national standards",
or is it the testing that is the problem, or is it the use/misuse of any such number as in (a) above ?

Yes, children with IEPs are receiving special education services. The point is they are still required to take these tests, even though only 7% may be expected to pass them, and failing the test (or to a lesser degree, fighting to be allowed to opt out of it) leads to very real consequences for both the students and their teachers.

Standardized testing is not the only way, but it is currently the default way to have national standards. But the testing itself very much gets in the way of actual learning, and then when the children aren't doing well the justification is that we need stricter standards, and more frequent testing. All of which is designed and sold to the state by corporations, not actual teachers.

Carol Burris and Diane Ravich were both supporters of improved national standards but withdrew support due to the way CC was implemented and doubts about age appropriateness.


a) I'm not sure what an acceptable percentage would be only that 7% seems really low. Children with IEPs vary drastically in capacity. A child could have an IEP and appear anywhere on the IQ Bell Curve but may have limitations in areas physical or intellectual that make standardized testing invalid for assessing anything but taking tests. Ravitch discusses cut scores on her blog.

b) Standards are not a violation of civil rights. Hours of mandatory testing, which in the end doesn't lead to a real diploma could very well be a rights violation. Education in the US is mandatory, the Common Core's standardized assessments are intended in the long run to be mandatory, but what if those tests don't actually measure a students knowledge of the material? If a child is capable of high school and college (or tech school) work but incapable of earning a high school diploma because they can't get through the bubble test filter wouldn't forcing that child to sit through those exams be a rights violation? By law American children with disabilities are guaranteed a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance, including federal funds. Section 504 provides that: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . .”1

Another area of inquiry could be, "What is the purpose of education?"

We got a letter sent home with our son last week asking for us to consent to having him take the state standardized tests a second time if his scores are unsatisfactory. (He hasn't taken the test a first time yet.) The form explained that this pre-approval would allow a swifter response time and enable him to retake the test as soon as the scores come back instead of waiting to get our permission and retaking the test a day or two later.

At his age, passing the test is not required for the student to be promoted to the next grade level. So while his test results will be interesting, they mean nothing to us.

Generally speaking, we think there are too many tests, and too much class time focused on preparation for the test, so the last thing we are going to do is sign some form so he can retake the damn thing when he hasn't even taken it a first time.

enable him to retake the test as soon as the scores come back

WTF

Why don't the teachers just walk around the class and look over everyone's shoulder, and say things like "Miniglatt, you chose B on number 7, do you feel good about that answer? Are there other choices you might pick?"

Undertoad;928232 wrote:

WTF

Why don't the teachers just walk around the class and look over everyone's shoulder, and say things like "Miniglatt, you chose B on number 7, do you feel good about that answer? Are there other choices you might pick?"

Perhaps you're being flip/ironic/sarcastic/funny/etc and I just don't get it. But if you're being earnest, here's one answer to your question. Because retaking the test isn't cheating, unlike your suggestion, and that kind of cheating has consequences.

Jail Terms Handed To Most Atlanta Teachers Convicted In Cheating Scandal

Clodfobble;928176 wrote:

Yes, children with IEPs are receiving special education services. The point is they are still required to take these tests, even though only 7% may be expected to pass them, and failing the test (or to a lesser degree, fighting to be allowed to opt out of it) leads to very real consequences for both the students and their teachers.

Standardized testing is not the only way, but it is currently the default way to have national standards. But the testing itself very much gets in the way of actual learning, and then when the children aren't doing well the justification is that we need stricter standards, and more frequent testing. All of which is designed and sold to the state by corporations, not actual teachers.

wss

Griff, I haven't drifted away. I've been reading your links and the links of your links and...

I'd like to quote various things I've read, but it's become a maze or haze of this and that.

In reading the websites of Common Core, and the procedures they say they have followed,
and who they used as sources, and how they went about "standardizing",
and how they went about setting "cutoff levels" of the proposed assessments,
I am having a very hard time equating all of that with the furor and anxieties this process has generated.

My first assumption is that some state, some school districts, some schools,
and (yes) some teachers are not doing all they should be doing for their students,
and therefore some sort of nation-wide standards probably are needed.
If someone disagrees with that notion, to me the burden of justification lies with them, not Common Core.

I understand the "anxieties" over the testing of NCLB, and can believe it went too far.
But given that recommendations and testing of other programs (NAEB) seem
to have been accepted by the profession and teachers,
I don't see the justification of denigrating the participants who participated
in generating CCSS or the subsequent assessments.

To me, most of the negative blogs and comments I read would fall
in the arena of politics and almost a low level of fear-mongering.
And so far in my reading, what seems ironic is that there is so little change involved in CCSS.

Obviously, children with IEP's are, almost by definition, not expected to perform as well on CC assessments,
but I see no reason for teachers to use this as a fear for their jobs.

I ended up with a web site that described the process Oregon is following to implement the CC standards.

Here is the link to that 51 page pdf

It's much the same as followed by the national process.
That is, teachers from many different school districts gathered to compare
CC standards with Oregon's current state standards, to prioritize them,
and to develop ways for individual teachers at all grade levels to review the elements of CC,
and decide how their own teaching methods achieve those outcomes.

All in all, I'm not seeing the reason for all the politics and anxieties that are whirling around this effort.

V, my point was, what is measured when there's this "sudden do-over" encouraged to happen just minutes after the first test?

Sign here and your kid gets a mulligan.

Is it because some kids just blow the first one entirely, because they're not up for this huge big testing and get all anxious? Or they use the wrong number pad and lose ten points? Or they have to pee and just keep hitting "A-B-A-B" until the software lets them go?

Geez Griff, you have to look at the big picture, the good of the nation, we can't be bothered by little things... like children. :rolleyes:

Undertoad;928316 wrote:

V, my point was, what is measured when there's this "sudden do-over" encouraged to happen just minutes after the first test?

Sign here and your kid gets a mulligan.

Is it because some kids just blow the first one entirely, because they're not up for this huge big testing and get all anxious? Or they use the wrong number pad and lose ten points? Or they have to pee and just keep hitting "A-B-A-B" until the software lets them go?

Whs

Clodfobble;928176 wrote:

<snip>
Standardized testing is not the only way, but it is currently the default way to have national standards.
But the testing itself very much gets in the way of actual learning,
and then when the children aren't doing well the justification is
that we need stricter standards, and more frequent testing.
All of which is designed and sold to the state by corporations, not actual teachers.

Sorry Clod, but you may have made it sound as if non-standized testing
could be better than standardized testing. I doubt that is what you mean.
Or do you feel there is an alternative to tests and/or grading students ?
I know I'm liberal, but that sounds a bit progressive, even for me.

I fail to see the argument that tests (necessarily ?) interfers with actual learning.
Of course there will be always be testing of some sort,
just as there will be grades on report cards because
parents want some indication of how their kids are doing in school.
Likewise, citizens want to know how their well their school system
is doing as compared with others in the city/state/nation.

And even more importantly, if students are graduating high school and
are not actually prepared for "college or career" in terms of being able
to understand and communicate at the expected levels, then they are missing
their basic right to an education.

And, while I certainly want to limit the power and monopolies of corporations,
I think it is quite misleading to say "actual teachers" are not involved.
From all I've read on CC, it looks to me as though "actual teachers"
are involved at all levels, and that CC goes out of it's way to assure
that teachers are not being told how or what to teach.

I am not trying to be an advocate of Common Core, but it appears more and more
that a great deal of politics is unnecessarily entering the national discussion about it.

Lamplighter;928331 wrote:

I fail to see the argument that tests (necessarily ?) interfers with actual learning.

Trust me, there are only so many hours in a day, only so many school days in a year. Every single class has to be shut down for the duration of every test, and they become longer and more onerous the older the children are.

Every child has to complete the test, which means any off ill have to be supervised separately, taking a Teaching Assistant out of her role.

Nothing else can be done during these times, not marking, hearing readers, lesson planning. Everyone is required and needs to be vigilant.
And in fact if there are any staff absences (teachers genuinely do get ill too!) it messes up the whole school in terms of cover.

I'm not able to suggest anything more positive, just wanted to put my two pennies worth in from the school side. All the staff hated the tests as much as the children. And some children used to have crying fits from the pressure.

Undertoad;928316 wrote:

Sign here and your kid gets a mulligan.

Is it because some kids just blow the first one entirely, because they're not up for this huge big testing and get all anxious? Or they use the wrong number pad and lose ten points? Or they have to pee and just keep hitting "A-B-A-B" until the software lets them go?

According to the Virginia department of education press release on this:

“The elementary and middle school SOLs are not high-stakes tests for students but the board wants to be responsive to students who want a second chance to demonstrate proficiency before the end of the school year,” Board of Education President Christian N. Braunlich said. “At the same time, after hearing stories of student anxiety over SOL testing, we want to ensure that we don’t add any further to student stress.”

In addition to failing by a narrow margin or having an extenuating circumstance, a student must have passed the associated subject or course to be eligible for an expedited retake.

There is, at the heart of this issue an inherent tension between two fundamental truths of education.

The first is that children learn in different ways and at different speeds; they develop at different paces,both physically and mentally and that development is often not uniform in one child let alone across a cohort - it is perfectly normal for a child to have an understanding of English that sits comfortably in the expected range for their age, whilst having a lower or higher understanding of mathematics, or vice versa. This is further complicated by the attempt to set several very distinct skills together - we teach reading and writing almost simultaneously, when they are fundamentally different skills.

In tension with that is the need for any state to ensure parity of educational opportunity. Quality control is an essential component of delivering on the promise of education for all children. It is not acceptable that a child schooled in one town gets a lesser education than a child in the neighbouring town. Nor is it acceptable for adult carers or educators to stunt children's development and future opportunities by withholding important elements of education to which they have a right.

I think both the US and the UK have the balance wrong right now. Measurability is over-emphasised to an alarming degree in education policy.

Well said, Sundae and Dana ... your comments stitch together the empirical with the theoretical.

I'm quite proud of Oregon in many ways, but here is another "real world test" of how well Oregon schools are doing.
This has been a public secret for some time, and parents and students are frustrated at their costs, both in $ and time.

Certainly, not all students are expected or need to go on to college,
but for those that do, I doubt Oregon education is far removed from other US states.

75% of Oregon high school grads who go straight to community college must take remedial classes
OregonLive.com-May 7, 2015

A huge new study that followed 100,000 Oregon high school graduates to community college
finds that 75 percent have to take non-credit remedial classes when they get there.

Poor academic readiness, not students' race or income, explained why they
had to take high school- or middle school-level classes when they got to community college,
according to the study, done for the national Institute of Education Sciences by Portland-based researcher Michelle Hodara.
<snip>
The lesson gleaned from her study, Hodara said, is that high schools can and should
do a better job of preparing students academically for college.

The single best predictor of which students could start right into college-level work at community college
was whether they had been taught the skills needed to pass Oregon's state reading and math tests, the study found.

But here, by coincidence one week later, is one response of the Oregon legislature...
[in Oregon "Smarter Balance" = "Common Core"]

Oregon Senate Passes Crucial Testing Law, HB 2680
Salem-News.com - 5/12/15

Bill establishes educator work group to take on assessments
The following statement can be attributed to Oregon Education Association President Hanna Vaandering:

[QUOTE]Today the Oregon Senate took one of the most important steps
in moving us down a new path toward a better system of assessment.

"By passing HB2680 the legislature validated our role as educators in the assessment process,
allowing us to learn from the Smarter Balanced test and evaluate
&#8212;in an objective way&#8212;whether or not it&#8217;s a valid measure of student learning.
"This is part of our professional practice as educators, and we take it seriously
because we believe the purpose of assessments are to guide instruction and improve student success.
<snip>

[/QUOTE]

Lamplighter wrote:

Sorry Clod, but you may have made it sound as if non-standized testing could be better than standardized testing. I doubt that is what you mean. Or do you feel there is an alternative to tests and/or grading students ? I know I'm liberal, but that sounds a bit progressive, even for me.

My kids' report cards don't have grades on them. What they mark is whether the child is proficient in a specific skill--not just "math," but multiplication vs. division, etc. They have to take the state tests by law, but they ignore them as much as they can; it's just a thing they do one day then they go right back to their own curriculum.* And they tell prospective families at application information meetings, "if standardized test scores at the elementary level are important to you, do not come here, because our lower elementary students do not perform as well. However, by the time our students are at the high school level, they are far, far outperforming their peers, because the only thing their peers ever learned was how to take a test."

The single best predictor of which students could start right into college-level work at community college was whether they had been taught the skills needed to pass Oregon's state reading and math tests, the study found.

And yet, by definition those students had passed those tests, or they could not have graduated. So they took they test, they passed the test, and yet they didn't have the skills. It's almost as if they were taught how to take a test, rather than the underlying skills they were supposed to be learning.

Teachers in public schools spend literally weeks on "test-taking skills:" how to narrow down multiple choice answers and make a more likely guess, how to go through and pick out the easiest ones first so you don't waste your limited time on a hard problem... I agree that the students need the skills. What I'm saying is the test does not accurately determine whether they have the skills, and in fact prevents them from having as many skills as they could have.


*The International Baccalaureate curriculum, which is not just a charter school thing, it is available and used by many public schools across the country, and is wildly successful pretty much everywhere it is implemented.

Clod, My use of &#8220;grades&#8221; wasn&#8217;t intended to mean only &#8220;A,B,C,D,F&#8221;.
Many public schools also have &#8220;report / grade cards&#8221; similar to your description.

As I have seen on this IB web site, their descriptions are multiplex - a mix of different implementations,
from an "IBschool&#8221; meaning an entire school, to a particular/separate class, to several different &#8220;opt out / opt in&#8221; situations.
On one hand IB seems similar to Advanced Placement (except also being available for K-12 / ages 5-16).
Also there are IB programs for non-college bound students.

So I have no idea in which form of IB your children are enrolled,
but IB does seem to have good reputations for well designed educational programs.
And I am happy for you that you have the resources to make such choices for your children.

But IB, like other non-public education centers, do make additional $ and other demands.
I read one news article that Utah had been spending $300k a year on IB programs.

To wit, IB says:

Depending on how the program is financed in your district,
students may need to pay for their own tests.
For example, students might be asked to pay a one-time fee of $145
plus $100 for each IB high school exam they take.
Pursuing an IB diploma often costs hundreds of dollars.

IB is not a magic bullet. Like any program, its success hinges on the general school atmosphere
and the quality of teachers, students, and facilities, so be sure to look at the whole package.
&#8230;
Also, IB can be time-consuming.
Children who struggle in school or have serious extracurricular commitments,
such as playing a varsity sport or singing in a competitive choir,
may not have the requisite time or energy for IB.<snip>

And if these higher costs are absorbed within a public school system -
i.e., in order to benefit specific students - then remaining resources for other students are diminished.

It&#8217;s like a private trash or a delivery company saying they can do a better job
by taking over trash-pick up or mail services, but only to pre-selected addresses

I simply believe that overall, &#8220;public education systems&#8221; work better in this country
than succumbing to &#8220; support the cream of the crop and leave the rest to fend for themselves&#8221;

I better sit out until Clod clears this up.

While you're waiting grab some Styrofoam cups and magic markers, fuck Pearson. ;)

Lamplighter wrote:

And I am happy for you that you have the resources to make such choices for your children.

Charter schools are free to students. You do have to pay for the certification tests as a 12th grader in order to actually receive transfer credits for college, but 1.) the curriculum is still worthwhile even if the child doesn't intend to go to college, because it teaches topics in a completely different way, and 2.) there are tons of scholarships available to cover the cost of the tests for any who can't afford it. The certification at the end is the least important part of the program.

Lamplighter wrote:

But IB, like other non-public education centers, do make additional $ and other demands.
I read one news article that Utah had been spending $300k a year on IB programs.

All curricula--including whatever textbooks and programs the public schools currently choose to use that meet common core guidelines--cost money. It's possible that IB is still more expensive, I don't know, but paying IB means not paying, say, Pearson. It's also worth noting that $300K across an entire state's education budget is next-to-nothing. That's equivalent to 7 teachers' salaries in a state that employs almost 26,000 teachers. (And before you say it, no, I'm not suggesting that they should fire teachers to pay for it. I'm just saying $300,000 sounds like a lot but in reality is very little.)

As you said, the quality of the program depends on the implementation, but that's true of any curriculum. And while it's true that there are some schools who only partially implement the IB program and allow students to opt in or out, I have never heard of a school hand-selecting students to benefit from the program--each child can decide for themselves whether to participate, assuming the school isn't exclusively IB to begin with. It's really not about the tests or college credit, it's about what happens for the 12 years leading up to it. I also disagree with their assertion that children who struggle in school may not be up for it. My son was struggling, and does better with IB because of how it is structured differently.

I agree that you can't support only the cream of the crop and leave the rest to fend for themselves. But you also can't teach to the lowest common denominator and leave everyone else bored out of their minds, which is what the standardized testing forces teachers to do.

Clodfobble;928373 wrote:

My kids' report cards don't have grades on them. What they mark is whether the child is proficient in a specific skill--not just "math," but multiplication vs. division, etc. They have to take the state tests by law, but they ignore them as much as they can; it's just a thing they do one day then they go right back to their own curriculum.* And they tell prospective families at application information meetings, "if standardized test scores at the elementary level are important to you, do not come here, because our lower elementary students do not perform as well. However, by the time our students are at the high school level, they are far, far outperforming their peers, because the only thing their peers ever learned was how to take a test."

This was our K-8 school too. last one about to graduate 8th grade. My two highschoolers have 3.9+ GPAs so it seems like no standardized testing and no grades to compare between students until high school hasn't harmed them.

The focus on each report was skills acquired, skills needing work and individual improvement between assessments

[YOUTUBE]J6lyURyVz7k[/YOUTUBE]

Ha! I was going to throw that up. He actually gets it.

Griff;928414 wrote:

I better sit out until Clod clears this up.

If I have overstated or said something inappropriate, I do apologize and need and want to be set straight.

I have been reading as much as I could about CC standards, and am truly surprised at all the furor.
So far, many links, discussions, and the majority of website discussions have been about the horrors
of CC testing, evil corporations (Pearson), absence of “actual teachers” from the CC process, etc.

One exception is an argument that CC standards are inappropriate to students with IEP’s.
My first reaction was, Yes, that’s probably true.
But then in my reading, I found some links designed to assist
Special Ed teachers understand and implement CC.

A major assertion on these sites seems to be that there is no need for there to be a conflict
… that all legal standards for IEP remain in place ...
specifically including that students have access to all education curricula,
and the opportunity to learn the same skills and concepts,
at an appropriate level for each individual by incorporating
“specially designed support and accommodations”.

And, while access to grade level standards must remain available,
CC does not prevent students from working at other levels
based on individual assessments... that is, the IEP.

Here is such a link from Washington State (67-page pdf)

Lamplighter wrote:

I have been reading as much as I could about CC standards, and am truly surprised at all the furor.

It's exactly like John Oliver said, it all sounds like a good idea on paper. It's the implementation and unintended consequences that have turned out so awfully. It's not about what Common Core hoped to do. It's about what Common Core has actually done, in reality.

glatt;928225 wrote:

We got a letter sent home with our son last week asking for us to consent....the last thing we are going to do is sign some form so he can retake the damn thing when he hasn't even taken it a first time.

I asked my son yesterday if he got any flack from his teacher for not turning in the form, and he said that he didn't, and that there were a bunch of other kids who also didn't turn in the form.

So this morning I got an email from the school. To "dear parent." They haven't received my form and would like it as soon as possible.

Should your child be eligible to participate in a retake of his/her math, science and/or reading SOL, we want to be able to act quickly to provide him/her the appropriate remediation so that he/she can be successful on the retake. In order to do so, we must have your consent for your child to participate in the retest.

They don't explain what "appropriate remediation" looks like.

Lamplighter;928455 wrote:

I have been reading as much as I could about CC standards, and am truly surprised at all the furor.
So far, many links, discussions, and the majority of website discussions have been about the horrors
of CC testing, evil corporations (Pearson), absence of “actual teachers” from the CC process, etc.

One exception is an argument that CC standards are inappropriate to students with IEP’s.
My first reaction was, Yes, that’s probably true.
But then in my reading, I found some links designed to assist
Special Ed teachers understand and implement CC.

A major assertion on these sites seems to be that there is no need for there to be a conflict
… that all legal standards for IEP remain in place ...
specifically including that students have access to all education curricula,
and the opportunity to learn the same skills and concepts,
at an appropriate level for each individual by incorporating
“specially designed support and accommodations”.

And, while access to grade level standards must remain available,
CC does not prevent students from working at other levels
based on individual assessments... that is, the IEP.

Here is such a link from Washington State (67-page pdf)

It does look fine from a distance. Let's look closer.

I have a kid, carrying an ASD label on my caseload, whose behavior, memory problems, and anxiety put him in that 93% of children with IEPs who will fail the assessments. He was doing okay at school in the weeks before the tests having mostly "green days". Then along came the two weeks of testing. For two weeks on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday he had a two hour blocks of testing. This is a child who would never pass these tests. He could have had extra time as an accommodation. So he sits for 2 hours a day for 6 days while the test reinforces the idea that he does not know a goddamn thing. If a parent locked a kid in a room for 2 hours a day while telling him that he's stupid and Child Protective could prove it they'd remove him from the home. He actually bit himself during the testing period. That was a behavior not seen in many months. He's had mostly "red days" in the month since the testing period but was doing better when I saw him this week.

...For two weeks on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday he had a two hour blocks of testing.
This is a child who would never pass these tests. He could have had extra time as an accommodation.
So he sits for 2 hours a day for 6 days while the test reinforces the idea that he does not know a goddamn thing....

That really does sound like a miserable situation.

I don't have any understanding what is ASD, or what makes for a "green" day in this child's life.
But I'm fairly certain the intentions of CC were not to have such a negative impact on any child.

I don't know what the legal limits are for IEP's
I don't know what the limits are regarding CC testing
I know I don't know what I'm talking about !

But assuming this was my child, John, and for whatever reason, as his parent,
I believed that CC standards were important for my son,
I might try the following arguments...

John may never "pass" the CC tests, but as an "assessment" it might help me
and/or his teachers to understand better what are John's potentials and his current capabilities,
compared with other kids with ASD here and in other schools.

Can't John's IEP be written to allow other accomodations
to give him the support he needs while he is taking the test
... not just more time sitting and being miserable ...

Maybe one of his friends could be with him.
Maybe one of his teachers could be with him.
Maybe one of the ESD staff could be with him.
Maybe the questions could be read to him.
Maybe the questions could be interpreted to him.
Maybe his answers could be written down for him.
Maybe the assessment session could be broken into shorter segments.

I know....I don't know what I'm talking about.

What I am trying to do is ask if the IEP is a strong enough tool
to give John access to the benefits of the CC standards
in a way that may be unique, but necessary for him, to yield a valid assessment.

That is, his "test score" may not be "passing", but it's only a number.
But if it's a valid number across schools and states, then resources
might be better used or created to have a better outcome for John.

Lamplighter wrote:

But I'm fairly certain the intentions of CC were not to have such a negative impact on any child.

Of course not. Common Core is not evil, it's just a failure. Intentions are irrelevant.

Lamplighter wrote:

Maybe one of his friends could be with him.
Maybe one of his teachers could be with him.
Maybe one of the ESD staff could be with him.
Maybe the questions could be read to him.
Maybe the questions could be interpreted to him.
Maybe his answers could be written down for him.
Maybe the assessment session could be broken into shorter segments.

Generally speaking, all of these are illegal under current testing guidelines. The whole point of "standards" is they apply to everyone, and that is why they don't work. The teachers don't need a new way to know the kids' strengths, they are the ones in the classroom who already know everything there is to know about these kids. It is the state who is demanding to see a fish ride a bicycle, and the teachers are the ones trying to get the state to understand it's a fish.

What's more, if a school has too many kids taking modified versions of the tests, they get first scrutinized and then possibly penalized. The point of all standardized testing is not to evaluate the students, it is to evaluate the schools.

Lamplighter wrote:

What I am trying to do is ask if the IEP is a strong enough tool

Short answer, no. But the weaknesses of the IEP process are a whole other issue.

Lamplighter;928530 wrote:

I don't have any understanding what is ASD, or what makes for a "green" day in this child's life.

Sorry, Autism Spectrum Disorder and his teacher's color code short hand for how his day went.

That is, his "test score" may not be "passing", but it's only a number.
But if it's a valid number across schools and states, then resources
might be better used or created to have a better outcome for John.

Like Clod said his teacher, assuming competence, is using both formative and summative assessments in the classroom. Distributing resources is a whole other tar baby but not one validating child abuse.

New York State is under a court order to address the spending gap on students between poor and rich districts. They are ignoring the court order. If you dig around in the numbers it becomes apparent that poor rural and urban districts, which are the only places where New York's system is failing, are under-funded. New York uses mostly property taxes to fund schools but they also have formulas for construction etc... to send extra money to districts that often ends up going to richer districts. You have limited resources in the areas where education is generally less valued. That in my mind is the real problem.

" It's not about what Common Core hoped to do. It's about what Common Core has actually done, in reality. "
"Common Core is not evil, it's just a failure. Intentions are irrelevant."

Clod says:

Of course not. Common Core is not evil, it's just a failure.

Classic says:

" It's not about what Common Core hoped to do.
It's about what Common Core has actually done, in reality. "
"Common Core is not evil, it's just a failure. Intentions are irrelevant."

I'm quite surprised at the emphatic statements being made.
On one hand, the links that Griff posted took me to people who were saying
CC had not been tested. One blogger said she did not have the time to wait
around to see the results. etc., etc., etc.

Please post some links to support the testing /results that have convinced you that "It's just a failure."

My daughter is a teacher. She has many friends, some who are also teachers. I have read, seen & heard much about CC.
Link that.

Lamplighter;929110 wrote:

I'm quite surprised at the emphatic statements being made.
On one hand, the links that Griff posted took me to people who were saying
CC had not been tested. One blogger said she did not have the time to wait
around to see the results. etc., etc., etc.

Please post some links to support the testing /results that have convinced you that "It's just a failure."

Did you watch the John Oliver video? There was plenty of factual evidence contained within. Our international ranking has gone steadily downward not just since CC but since standardized testing in general. Meanwhile, the poverty gap in scoring within our country has widened, which is the opposite of what these programs were supposed to do (i.e., support the bottom learners who weren't receiving the same education as their rich-school peers.)

More firsthand evidence of the bureaucratic stupidity:

Texas was so pissed off about Common Core--because it came from a Democratic president, basically--that the Texas legislature actually banned it in 2013, and commissioned the design of a different program. So as of this year we use the TEKS standards, which is no better, it's just another fucking acronym for the same stupid problem.

Meanwhile, Minifob had to take the STAAR standardized test last month, still required for all 3rd graders by the state. (He will also continue to take versions of this test in 4th, 5th, and 6th grade, then the testing from 7th-12th becomes different but still the same.) But the new TEKS guidelines have not yet decided what a passing score is. So now we all know how many questions our kids got right, but no one has any idea if they actually passed. In an email from the principal today:

We will receive an updated report sometime this fall that will indicate what decision has been made regarding the passing standards and which students have passed/failed.

They can't even decide what the results of their own arbitrary tests mean.

Given the potential damage overtesting or inappropriate testing can do, it is very worrying. The high levels of stress that even young children are experiencing as an integral part of the learning process is deeply unhelpful.

One of the recurring themes in education policy over here - and I suspect over there - is the way that good practice and sensible strategy ideas get transformed through political and economic agendas. What ends up in the classroom is what is left after its been through the meat grinder.