Pearson, again...

Today's Albany Times Union has two columns on the first page of the Perspectives section: "A failing grade for tests" by Michelle Adalian and an editorial entitled "The test of Common Core". Both about, essentially, the same topic.

Ms. Adalian is a 4th grade teacher in New York State. You should be aware that buried in the grade 3 through 8 tests in New York is the statement Developed and published under contract with the New York State Education Department by Pearson. 

I wrote about Pearson earlier (see here). My opinion has not changed. Pearson has a vested interest in getting states to go full bore into a "common core". As long as it is a shared curriculum, they stand to profit.

The TU editorial includes this:

The latest tests in question are for aspiring K-12 teachers, who must pass them to qualify for a teaching certificate. Teaching students started taking these tests back in September. Six months later, many are frustrated to still be waiting to find out whether they passed — because the state hasn't figured out what the passing score should be.

The reader should be aware that Pearson Education Inc. creates the teacher tests. In its own words

The New York State Teacher Certification Examinations™ (NYSTCE®) address New York Education Law and Commissioner’s Regulations, which require prospective New York State educators to pass designated tests as a requirement for receiving state certification.

The public should take the time to learn about Pearson's role, and checking out their web "sales pitch" can help. Their push on teacher licensure is here. Getting a sense of their grab into assessments in general, check this out.

Bob Schaeffer is quoted as saying (see here) "In a capitalist society, if there’s a market, somebody will figure out how to serve it. But the corporations reinforce the stupidity of the bad policies of politicians."

Ms. Adalian says in her column "I encourage the powers that be to walk in our shoes."

I would hope and expect that politicians at all levels take the time to learn a lot about the actual schools with which they are playing. When they think they know enough, go and learn more.This hope is largely due to the fact that the only change that can be made in Schaeffer's statement is the removal of "stupidity of the bad".

Pearson has too much power and it was given to them blindly.

Disclaimer: there is greatr merit to the idea of a common core curriculum in this country. But it should be managed much much much much much much much better.

Pearson: Friend or Foe?

As the country slowly realizes that the big issue with the Common Core is not the core itself but the testing aspect of school accountability, I feel it is my duty to help keep the debate focused.

As a preface to my comments, let me point out the existence of Pearson PLC, specifically its "North America" page, (see here) which as of today says

We are the largest provider of educational assessment services in the U.S. We mark large-scale school examinations for the U.S. federal government and more than 25 American states, scoring billions of multiple-choice tests and more than 111 million essays every year.

Uniform national standards do make it easier for such a company to offer products to a greater number of states. These states, deciding that there may be no need to invent their own wheel, may then see Pearson as a cost-effective option. Pearson (or any other such company) has no real interest in what those standards are, but a large interest in their adoption by as many states as possible. The sooner states were in lockstep, the better for Pearson.

The real push behind all the testing is the program known as Race to the Top. This program states, on its own web site,

Authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the Race to the Top Assessment Program provides funding to consortia of States to develop assessments that are valid, support and inform instruction, provide accurate information about what students know and can do, and measure student achievement against standards designed to ensure that all students gain the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in college and the workplace. These assessments are intended to play a critical role in educational systems; provide administrators, educators, parents, and students with the data and information needed to continuously improve teaching and learning; and help meet the President's goal of restoring, by 2020, the nation's position as the world leader in college graduates.

Note the phrase "consortia of states". The burden starts with states working together. Who benefits from that criterion alone? Does it really and truly matter to an 8th grade teacher whether the curricula standards they need to address have national, state, county, or district origins?  Does it matter to the students?  Does it presume that any state addressing the issue alone will be less successful?

Pearson says on their web site

Race to the Top is a federal competitive grant program designed to reward states and districts that have made innovative education reforms.

So does that contradict the stated goal of Race to the Top? Is the funding for "consortia of states" or is it a reward to states and districts?

In addition, Pearson has a link to a Race to the Top handbook for grants which states that the purpose of a grant is to:

Reward Local Education Agencies (LEAs) who have the leadership and vision to implement the strategies, structures and systems of support to move to personalized, student-focused approaches to teaching and learning that will use collaborative, data-based strategies and 21st century tools to deliver instruction and supports tailored to the needs and goals of each student, with the goal of enabling all students to graduate college- and career-ready.

 What is a Local Education Agency?  Do you know? Look it up!

Pearson's handbook goes to the assert that  "Eligible applicants include only individual LEAs and consortia of LEAs." Further, it says

1. Minimum of 2000 participating students. Consortiums can serve fewer than 2,000 students, if the consortium has at least 10 LEAs and at least 75% of the students served by each LEA are participating students.
2. At least 40% of participating students must be from low-income families.

So its natural push is to deal with larger groups. Due to the first restriction my district would not have been allowed to apply by itself. The second item would rule out many school districts.


The handbook also points to this address for more info: www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/index.html . Check that page out. Of course, the deadline for these grants was last October, so the page MIGHT have changed, but it seems to have very little to do with Race to the Top.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the parent of Race to the Top, stipulates

The overall goals of the ARRA are to stimulate the economy in the short term and invest in education and other essential public services to ensure the long-term economic health of our nation.

So the original motive is economics-based, which easily leads to the idea that the most crucial measures of the success of education is the "economic health of the nation." Is it really?

Back to the Race to the Top quote above: if we are to restore the US as the world leader in college graduates by 2020, we are focusing attention on students graduating from high school by 2016, which means those entering kindergarten by 2003. How does all the testing of grades K-8 in 2014 even come into play?

Late last year a group of New York state principals drafted a letter (see it here) regarding Common Core and testing in which they said "Since 2010, the amount of time spent on average taking the 3-8 ELA and Math tests has increased by a whopping 128%! The increase has been particularly hard on our younger students, with third graders seeing an increase of 163%". Who made big bucks on these tests?

During my time on a Strategic Planning Committee in the district where I taught, the recognition was made that we had to look at the system not K-12, but rather 12-K. We had to start with graduating standards and design in reverse, so that each level would seamlessly flow into the next. We were aware that the program had to remain in flux, since as students cohorts were progressing through the system, they would be different from the cohort before, and (hopefully) more successful.

I know that serious implementation of any curricular change arrives with its assessment piece, so I understand fully why the K-8 world is boiling, especially in my home state.  What I do not understand is what the K-8 world has to do with the 2020 goal. The K-8 years are extremely important, but who really gains by the mad rush into K-8 testing? Could it be Pearson?

Common Core is not about testing

The  Common Core standards are all about  Math and English. They are not about testing.

Rex Smith of the Albany Times Union says in this morning's paper

People are blaming Common Core for a cluster of pressures in the schools, including excessive standardized testing and a revised scoring system that has shown student performance to be lower than previously thought. But a lot of the folks attacking the Common Core, I’m convinced, haven’t actually looked at the standards, or talked with education experts about them. Until we have heard more from a thoughtful review by educators, the calls to abandon the reform are premature. 

 Common Core does not prescribe tests, or modules, or most of the things that people are complaining about. In New York, all those things called modules are not from the Common Core. They are designed by the New York State Education Department. The EngageNY web site states

 

The optional curricular materials on EngageNY are designed to be adopted or adapted. Educators will find both PDF and Word versions available for their use. Some lessons provide detailed instructions or recommendations but it is important to note that the lessons are not scripts and rather they should be viewed as vignettes so that the reader can imagine how the class could look.

I added in the red to emphasize that even NY does not believe it knows "the way" to do things.

I also know that there are districts that have mandates that their teachers follow the modules. Those districts are naive, misled, misleading, and dangerous. Common Core is none of those.

 

I also find it misleading for Governor Andrew Cuomo to select Todd Hathaway, for one, as a member of his new committee. After all, Common Core is about math and English, and Hathaway is a high school history (social studies) teacher. The least he could have done would be to include a math teacher and an English teacher.