Marginalized taking the DC BAS

Only two days after Labor Day and the high stakes testing frenzy is in full swing across DC Public Schools. At my school students started the first day of the DC BAS today. It is not as long as DC CAS and is supposed to serve as a baseline to track student progress for the April tests.

Without getting into all of the politics of standardized testing, I thought I would share my experience today to offer an inside perspective.

I was responsible for administering the DC BAS to David*, a fifth grade special education student. When I was assigned David, I was told that he may not take long to test because he is so low academically and would probably just randomly bubble in answers.

David was very cooperative and respectful the entire time. We both opened our test booklets and I read the sample question. David got it wrong. “No worries,” I said trying to prevent him from getting too frustrated. “All we want you to do is try your best. It is okay if you don’t understand a question or do not know the answer, just guess.”

With the new NCLB regulations we can no longer read questions or passages to special education students. We are only allowed to read aloud the directions for the reading and writing sections. David’s facial expression went from pleasant to a combination of confusion and fear when I told him he would be responsible for reading the passages and questions. “I can’t read,” he exclaimed in exasperation. Unfortunately, he was not exaggerating.

In the end, without reading a single word he bubbled in all of the answers and did not write anything for the writing passages except for his name at the top of the page. I spent the next hour and a half talking with him about his summer and how school was going thus far. We also did some play therapy with puppets.

The testing not only served no purpose for David, it was also a humiliating and alienating experience. The reality is that there were thousands of Davids today in schools across DC suffering in silence or acting out to cope with feelings of inadequacy. They just don’t fit in with the NCLB standardized testing equation. It is heartbreaking to witness.

* David is not the student's real name

PROGRESS? IT DEPENDS HOW YOU MEASURE IT!

By Guy Brandenburg, retired DCPS math teacher

Question: Can the statisticians in the group check the following claim, made in the intro to the PBS segment on DCPS progress under chancellor Rhee?

“…almost half of elementary students are now on grade level, according to the city’s year-end DC-CAS test. That may not sound like much, but when Rhee took over, only 29% were on grade level in math.”

Answer: Well... sort of. But one could also make the much more unfavorable claim about Rhee's record: In reading, DCPS students are ALMOST, but not quite, back up to the levels they scored at in 2005!!!! In math, under the current leadership, they are still about 6 percentage points behind!

See for yourself. Here are the percentages of students on the elementary school level scoring ‘advanced’ or ‘proficient’ in reading + math over the past 7 years, from the DCPS- OSSE – NCLB website. (Use the buttons at top right hand side of the website.) I rounded to the nearest whole percent, and the testing company involved did change at one point, from Harcourt/Pearson to some other firm. (Guess when!)

Year Reading Math

2003 44% 54%

2004 46% 56%

2005 51% 58%

2006 37% 27%

2007 38% 30%

2008 45% 41%

2009 48% 48%

However, there is a problem with equating the SAT-9 or DC-CAS category 'proficient' with the concept of 'being on grade level'. I will try to explain.

By one widely-used definition, 'being on grade level' means scoring at or about the 50th percentile on some nationally-normed [or perhaps internationally-normed] test of whatever kids of that grade level are supposed to be learning. If Johnny is at the '50th percentile', that does not mean he got exactly half the questions right. It merely means that about half the kids on that grade level scored worse than Johnny did, and roughly half scored better than Johnny. (For simplicity, I am leaving out all the other kids who got the exact same score as Johnny.)

So (you are wondering), what's the problem? Isn't the DC-CAS a nationally-normed test? In a word, NO. It ain't. As far as I know, almost none of the questions were tried out on students in any other jurisdiction. Instead, DCPS or OSSE contracted with some company that makes tests, gave them the learning 'standards' ('objectives' if you haven't kept up with the jargon) and asked them to write a test. I am pretty sure that some DCPS teachers were asked to review the questions, or even to write some of them. I spent an afternoon a couple of years ago, with other teachers, helping to weed out questions that we thought were no good, but I no longer remember if that was for the DC-CAS or the DC-BAS. Confusing, huh? The DC-BAS was/is a series of practice tests supposedly designed to help kids prepare for the real thing - the DC-CAS. B versus C.

So, the DC-CAS and the SAT-9* are both 'criterion-referenced' tests rather than 'norm-referenced'. Let me illustrate the difference by looking at a hypothetical, impoverished, corrupt, 3rd world country where the typical child – let’s call her Rubina - has illiterate parents who can only afford the school fees for about half their children (typically the boys), and then, only for a few months a year, and for a few years only. After that, the children need to go to work doing whatever. Rubina, being a girl, doesn’t get sent to school at all.

A norm-referenced test of all of the 11-year-old kids in that country might show that if Rubina knows the local alphabet, can write her own name and a few other words, and add whole numbers that have no more than 2 digits, then she is about on par with the median kid of her age. So, half of the other kids in the country know and can do less than Rubina, but the other half of thev11-year olds know and can do more than her. In some cases, other students in her country know a great deal more indeed, attending schools on a par with any in the world.

A criterion-referenced test, on the other hand, might even consist of very similar questions [though probably a lot fewer of the extremely basic ones that might be on the previous one], or it might not. The big difference would be the scoring: some appointed committee or individual would decide in advance what they think 11-year-old children should know and be able to do. They would then designate the lowest scores as, perhaps, 'failing', or 'moron' [the term was actually invented here in the USA by Henry Goddard, one of the 'fathers' of testing psychology] or 'below basic' or whatever; and the top scores as 'superior', 'honors', 'gifted and talented' or 'advanced' or whatever. In our hypothetical 3rd world country, perhaps only a few percent of the cohort of 11-year-olds would do well enough to be considered ‘on grade level’. Little Rubina doesn’t stand much of a chance of passing.

Sound familiar?

And perhaps a great hue and cry would arise in said country to replace all the no-good teachers in said country with 2-year Peace Corps volunteers or similar missionary types from wealthier countries overseas. Also to get rid of the failing public schools, to privatize everything dealing with social services, and so on. Not to improve society as a whole, heavens, no! It's the TEACHER, that's all! Oh, yes, by all means, let's pay the teachers for test results.

Whoops. I forgot! Actually, they already have that pay-for-performance system in a number of 3rd world countries: the government doesn't pay teachers a living wage, so only the kids whose parents have enough money to pay their child's teacher for private tutoring, actually pass the tests. I have heard that ALL of those who pay, pass, one way or another. Hmmm....

Again, does that sound familiar?

So, does 'proficient' and/or 'advanced' mean the same as 'being on grade level'?

That depends on how you define the terms, doesn’t it? And it also depends on who’s writing the tests, and how they score them. I think that I have had to administer tests from at least 4 different companies during my 31 or so years in DCPS. You can define things so that Rhee is doing great, or just the opposite.

And speaking of Rhee and test scores, does anybody actually recall seeing the raw data showing that she actually performed that miracle when she taught in Baltimore? Last I heard, they all got 'lost'. Read the Daily Howler and search the archives for several fascinating articles about Frau Rhee.

Guy Brandenburg, Washington, DC

My home page on astronomy, mathematics, education:

http://home.earthlink.net/~gfbranden/GFB_Home_Page.html

or else http://tinyurl.com/r6fh2

=============================

"Education isn't rocket science. It's much, much harder."

(Author unknown)

* There are those who claim the SAT-9 was actually norm-referenced.

REGULAR DCPS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS OUT-PERFORM THEIR CHARTER SCHOOL COUNTERPARTS -- Situation Almost Exactly Reversed at the Secondary Level

By: Guy Brandenburg, retired DCPS mathematics teacher

The results from last year’s DC-CAS flatly contradict the media-spread ‘wisdom’ that public charter schools always do better than regular urban public schools.

In fact, regular DC public elementary schools out-performed the charter schools on the 2009 DC-CAS in 11 out of 14 categories. Strangely, at the secondary level, the results were almost exactly the opposite: in 12 out of 14 categories, the secondary charter school students scored higher.

These results come from a mathematically simple, but tedious, calculation of the averages of the percentages of students in the various subgroups who were deemed 'proficient' based on their scores on last spring's version of the DC-CAS (Comprehensive Assessment System) exam, which is taken by all DC public and charter school students in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 under the No Child Left Behind act, or NCLB. The computations were done by this writer by cutting and pasting the data into several Excel spreadsheets, separating the regular and charter schools, and taking averages of the averages provided for each group given in the data on-line.

On the elementary level, the regular public school students outscored the charter school students in the following eleven categories:

• In both math and reading, the entire schools in question (about 48% versus 38% in math, and 48% to 45% in reading);
• In both math and reading, among the economically disadvantaged (meaning, those eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches), by about 43% to 37% for math, and 43% to 42% in reading;
• In reading only, among the educationally disabled (also known as special education students) by a score of 32% to 26%;
• In both math and reading among LEP-NEP students (that is, students with limited or no proficiency in the English language), by scores of 55% to 48% in math, and 47% to 43% in reading;
• In both math and reading among black students, by scores of 46% to 37% in math, and 47% to 45% in reading; and
• In both math and reading among white students, by scores of 93% to 85% in math, and 92% to 91% in reading.

The only three categories where elementary charter school students did better were these:

• In math only, among special education students, by a score of 29% to 28%; and
• In both math and reading among Hispanic students, by scores of 56% to 53% in math, and 49% to 47% in reading.

On the secondary level, the situation was almost exactly reversed.

Students in the public charter schools did better than those in the regular public schools in the following twelve sub-categories:

• In both math and reading for the entire schools in question (46% to 41% in math, and 49% to 42% in reading);
• In both math and reading among those eligible for free or reduced-price lunches (45% to 40% in math, and 47% to 39% in reading);
• In both math and reading among the special education students (32% to 14% in math, and 21% to 16% in reading);
• In both math and reading among students just now learning English (43% to 40% in math, and 37% to 31% in reading);
• In both math and reading among African-Americans (46% to 38% in math, and 49% to 41% in reading); and
• In both math and English among students of Latino or Hispanic origin (54% to 50% in math, and 47% to 44% in reading).

Curiously, the only two sub-groups in which students did better in the regular secondary schools were both math and reading among white students, by scores of 92.9% to 92.7% in math, and 95.1% to 93.8% in reading.

The raw data can be found at http://www.nclb.osse.dc.gov/ and by then clicking on the various buttons on that page.

It should be noted that the rules determining whether a school is considered to be secondary or elementary, or whether a group of students are to be counted at all, are not exactly straightforward. A school is considered to be elementary if it contains either a 3^rd or a 5^th grade. And, if it goes above the 6^th grade and still has a 3^rd grade, then it remains an elementary school. For it to be considered secondary, a school needs to contain one or more grades above the 6^th grade, but no 3^rd grade. If sub-group of students has fewer than 25 students, it is not counted – but there are exceptions for students with limited or no proficiency in English. And, yes, some students might be counted in several different groups. For example, a student whose family is poor enough to qualify for free or reduced lunch, with a Spanish surname, and who has a diagnosed learning disability because of hearing loss, might be counted in as many as eight subgroups or as few as none, depending on whether the subgroups have enough students in them or not. Remember, there is both math and reading, and there some extremely small schools in the list who appear to have not enough students for any sub-groups ay all. (Got that?)

All of the percentages given indicate the portion of the students in each group or subgroup who scored at the “advanced” or “proficient” level on the various tests. Keep in mind that one subgroup at one school might have only 25 students, whereas a different subgroup at the same school might have many hundreds.

The summary tables I computed are as follows. If you would like to see the five pages of Excel spreadsheets I made using the OSSE data, send me an email.

Public Charter schools: Elementary
Math	Reading	CATEGORY
37.95%	44.71%	Whole School
36.62%	41.93%	Economically Disadvantaged [F-RL]
28.98%	26.35%	Disabled [a.k.a. special education]
47.76%	42.70%	LEP/NEP {English as a second language]
37.28%	44.53%	Black students
84.84%	91.31%	White students
55.75%	48.86%	Hispanic students

Regular Elementary schools [DCPS]
Math	Reading	CATEGORY
48.34%	48.84%	Whole School
42.97%	43.25%	Economically Disadvantaged [F-RL]
28.14%	31.63%	Disabled [a.k.a. special education]
55.28%	47.26%	LEP/NEP {English as a second language]
45.55%	46.91%	Black students
92.60%	92.46%	White students
53.23%	46.56%	Hispanic students

Public Charter schools Secondary
Math	Reading	CATEGORY
46.26%	48.75%	Whole School
44.66%	46.97%	Economically Disadvantaged [F-RL]
31.62%	21.06%	Disabled [a.k.a. special education]
43.04%	36.09%	LEP/NEP {English as a second language]
45.65%	48.53%	Black students
92.71%	93.75%	White students
53.85%	47.88%	Hispanic students

Regular Secondary Schools [DCPS]
Math	Reading	CATEGORY
40.63%	41.98%	Whole School
39.75%	38.87%	Economically Disadvantaged [F-RL]
13.81%	15.68%	Disabled [a.k.a. special education]
39.60%	31.04%	LEP/NEP {English as a second language]
38.37%	40.71%	Black students
92.90%	95.10%	White students
49.99%	44.43%	Hispanic students

-end-

"Value Added" Test Score Method Probed

An article in this week's Education Week (July 15) points to controversy over whether "value added" assessment of teacher effectiveness might be built on "shaky assumptions." The "Value Added" method is based on judgements as to whether individual teachers are getting greater, lesser or on par student test score gains compared with those historically predicted for their students. While significantly better than the current method of comparing the scores of this year's students with last year's different students to judge schools or teachers, serious questions remain as to whether the value added method is ready for high stakes use. Researcher Jesse Rothstein, who authored the study that was the subject of the Ed Week article, and testing expert Dan Koretz who authored the recent book Measuring Up, don't think so.

Meanwhile, it looks like the long awaited new teacher evaluation system in DCPS, developed by special assistants to the chancellor Jason Kamras and Michael Moody, relies on a "value added" assessment of individual teacher's students DC CAS scores for 55% of a teacher's professional evaluation. Stay tuned for a fair amount of controversy as this gets rolled out. DCPS isn't just planning to use this method to justify a bonus or as the basis of a pilot study as in other school districts experimenting with value added -- eg. Prince Georges County, Denver, NYC. DCPS is going right to full implementation of this untested method for as much of the teacher workforce as they have value added scores.

Testing Tactics Fuel DC CAS Gains

In a surprisingly candid article in the Washington Post today, even the Rhee administration admits that they used strategies to target and test prep students on the cusp to bump the percentage of students deemed "proficient" under NCLB. In the piece, Kerry Sylvia calls it "less about serving children and more about making the adults who run the school system look good." Teachers and Parents for Real Education Reform was incorrectly identified as a group that opposes some of Michelle Rhee's reforms. We don't oppose them. We just want them to be done right.

What's Green Dot Got To Do With It ??

In an article by Bill Turque in yesterday's Washington Post it turns out that Chancellor Rhee is actively exploring with education iconoclast Steve Barr offering Green Dot an opportunity to run schools in DC. The question to ask is what expertise, if any, does Green Dot bring to the equation? Steve Barr instigated a masterful political movement of parents and then teachers in LA through Green Dot to wrest control of 17 schools from LAUSD and UTLA. He and his people never claimed to know anything about running schools.

I met the newly elected president of the Green Dot teachers union at the most recent Teacher Union Reform Network meeting in June and she seemed smart, genuine, well meaning, and honest in acknowledging that she is totally inexperienced. Even if you begin with the assumption that the schools in LA needed new management and that Green Dot fit the bill, the question remains, what do they bring to the table for DC? Green Dot is just now trying to figure out how teachers in their schools should be evaluated. They have little or no experience in this arena. Green Dot is trying to gin up a professional development program for their teachers, from scratch. To their credit, they acknowledge that they have little experience in either of these arenas, or in running schools. Is this a case of the blind leading the blind? Doesn't running schools take more than blind enthusiasm? Education, after all, does have a knowledge base. Its as if decision makers in DCPS are pretending that there is no experience among long time educators, professional developers, school leadership in other districts or nationally -- no state of the art out there that could be drawn upon. Are the ones who get hired just the ones who's stories get the best press in national magazines? ...the blind leading the blind?

The Reform that's Needed

After reading the previous post, I realized that my January 15th blog entry was my last one. I knew it had been a while, but hadn't realized just how long I've been silent. While there has been plenty to write about, I've allowed the oppressive conditions of working within DCPS to get the better of me this school year. After 9 years in DCPS, I was really feeling discouraged and began questioning if it was time to leave the system.

I kept asking myself why the dysfunctional workings of DCPS got to me like they did this year.

Why? Well, I think a large part had to do with the continuing charade that, despite some recent cracks, still has convinced many that DCPS reform is moving in the right direction. I can't tell you how discouraging it is to witness on a daily basis systemic problems that continue to be ignored while so much time and money are being spent in areas that might make DCPS look good in the short term, but will probably not lead to long term and systemic improvement.

The Saturday Scholars program is a case in point. I'm sure it helped improve our test scores—but who is this really helping? The rhetoric that we have to stop serving “adult interests” doesn't match the reality of adults targeting certain students to make our test scores go up. While I have no doubt that it helped the students “on the cusp of proficiency”, what about the thousands of children who were not targeted because they are several grade levels behind in reading and math and have little if any chance without serious intervention of scoring proficient on the DC-CAS? Where is their Saturday Scholars program?

My criticism is meant not to condemn, but to expose the reality so that we can begin to fundamentally correct what is broken. I don't claim to have all of the answers, but I realize that now is not the time to be silent if we want to make real education reform a reality in DCPS.

My next topic--truancy.

"Saturday Scholars" Program Ripped in Ed Week

In this week's Ed Week Commentary, Columbia University researcher Jennifer Jennings slams Chancellor Michelle Rhee for engaging in practices that make the adults look good but leave the neediest children behind. Echoing Teachers and Parents for Real Education Reform blogger Kerry Sylvia's post from January, Jennings describes how NCLB causes school districts across the country to do what makes the stats come out right, rather than what's good for kids.

Is technology all that?

I had the opportunity to visit the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics annual conference in Washington DC. Unfortunately, few DCPS mathematics teachers were able to attend because of DCCAS testing. I went after school on Thursday evening and Saturday until 12:00 just before the conference ended.
I was struck by the number of exhibits that relied on expensive technology. Texas Instruments, Key Curriculum Press-to name but a few-all have fabulous calculators and software that can be used for teaching.
The exhibits both excited and depressed me. I have a single computer-though access to a computer lab- and a white (not Smart) board that is nearly impossible to clean due to its mottled surface.
I have TI84 calculators-excellent tools-though they do not all feed into a central system. If they did, and I had a Smart Board, I could see all my studnets' work on my screen as demonstarted at the Texas Instruments' booth. I need also point out that I began the year with 25 TI84's and am down to nine.
Are my students at a disadvantage? Am I remiss for not pursuing grants to allow me to purchase these resources? How essential are these tools for teaching math? How technologically behind are DC Public Schools when compared to other schools around the nation?
I think we can assume that in wealthier school districts many of these tools are available. I also know that some, though few, DC schools have Smart Boards.
Suffice it to say that many of the teachers I spoke with referred to their Smart Boards casually-as if they had always had them. I assume they were purchased by the school district and the teachers were trained to use them. I do not assume that the teachers themselves raised their own money through technological grants, though some may have.
Not all the latest, and presumably expensive, gadgets are worth buying, but some are. The DCPS central office should ascertain those that are, buy them for the teachers, and train them to effectively use them.

How to Reform a Teacher Salary Schedule...

A new national study by Ed Sector demonstrates that not all teacher salary schedules are created equal. By studying how experience and credentials are valued differently in different school sytems policy makers and unions can tweak their existing single salary schedule to have a powerful impact without opting for risky and unproven pay for performance schemes. This study should make for interesting reading in the light of the current negotiations between the union and district in DCPS.
Read the study summary here

Juking the Stats

As an Algebra and Geometry support teacher at The Duke Ellington School of the Arts, I am concerned about the influence that national tests have on my, and other teachers', teaching.

David Simon, who is responsible for my all time favorite TV series, "The Wire", was on Bill Moyers last night.

He referred to our national zeal for test taking as "juking the stats", a quote that comes from an episode where teachers in a Baltimore inner city school are told that they must teach strictly from the test for the few months prior to giving Baltimore's version of the DCCAS.

The cop turned teacher from the series is familiar with his city's police force (and incumbent mayors) needing positive statistics and draws an analogy between the school's superintendent needing better test scores and the police chief needing better crime stats.

Simon adds that this need for positive statistics has made real police work nearly impossible, a theme that ran through "The Wire".

Real teaching is also inhibited when teachers are asked to abandon the literature they love or mathematical investigations that involve time and the building of things for mass produced DCCAS test taking practice materials.

A newly minted graduate of Howard University called me recently. She is working as a long-term sub at a DCPS Public elementary school.

She was overwhelmed and jittery. Her 4th graders were badly behaved and could not focus on the materials she had been given to use for the three hour Language Arts block.

"What curriculum are you using?" I asked.

"Test taking skill stuff. You know, read a short passage and pick out the main idea. Or, underline the verb in the following ten sentences. Materials like that. We have been ordered to use them."

"For three hours a day? What about history and science?"

"We have been asked to not teach history and science for the time being because they are not subjects on the test."

“Who's your principal?”

“He is new,” she answered. “Hand picked by Michelle Rhee.”

The friend that called me studied theater at Howard University. She knows how to get kids excited about language, movement, the spoken and written works. She has her favorite stories and plays.

But no, like the Baltimore Police Force, in the name of juking the stats, she has abandoned her instincts and dutifully followed her principal's orders.

How sad is that.

Scandal At Three Ed Reform Organizations

In an unusual piece of investigative journalism by Juan Gonzales, reporter at the New York Daily News, a long-standing kickback scheme was uncovered involving Al Sharpton, leader of the Education Equality project of which Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein are key members, and a Connecticut hedge fund. Also implicated are Education Reform Now, Democrats for Education Reform, and Sharpton's organization, the National Action Network. The Sharpton payoff raises issues about the recent and growing trend of increased business influence on education policy advocacy. (click underlined words above for the link)

Dan Brown makes a great point...

In his recent column on the Huffington Post, DC Charter School teacher, Dan Brown describes here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-brown/hey-nicholas-kristof-and_b_178124.html#comments the fallacy in Chancellor Rhee's argument, not just about the number of "bad" teachers in DCPS, but more importantly about where good teachers come from. This is the point that Teachers and Parents for Real Education Reform has been trying to make for six months -- good school systems nurture good teaching. Good teachers are made by good systems. They don't come from the sky by sprinkling pixy dust. Good piece, Dan.

What's Wrong With Accountability By The Numbers?

Education researcher Richard Rothstein makes a powerful argument that the current accountability system under No Child Left Behind makes all the mistakes that have been proven wrong in the private sector. He argues for a very different kind of accountability system in this month's AFT Magazine (click here). Its a must read for everyone in public education today.

Union Bashing Won't Reform Our Schools

In a thoughtful Commentary in EdWeek today, CUNY Professor Jennifer Goldstein argues that union bashing and union protectionism are keeping us from the important work of collaborating on improving the quality of teaching and learning. Goldstein Commentary pdf version here