Michigan's Got Pesky, Wasteful Standardized Testing--You Can Opt Out

The Bird is Back--it's Spring!
Photo by Ruth Kraut

If it's Spring--and I really think it is, because the Bird has emerged from under her snow blanket--then you know that it is also, in the schools, TESTING TIME.

This is true at many ages, but most especially in grades 3-8 and grade 11. For grades 3-8 there is still the NWEA MAP test (for the third time this year), and also there is the M-STEP, the MEAP replacement (but really it's like the MEAP on steroids). For the 11th grade there is the M-STEP, but there has already been the ACT and the Work Keys. And I think I might be forgetting another standardized test. [I've written about the NWEA a lot. If you do a blog search you will find numerous posts. so I'm not putting in any links here.]

And here's where I tell you: 

I am fully in support of you, as a parent, deciding to Opt Out your children from these tests. [Look for sample Opt Out letters this week.]

And/Or

I am fully in support of you, as a parent, telling the schools that you REFUSE to let your student participate in practice testing for these tests. [Practice testing definitely takes up even more time than the actual testing, distracting from the core mission of the schools!]

And/Or

I am fully in support of you, as a teacher, telling the schools that you REFUSE to do any practice testing. [Gutsy]

And/Or

I am fully in support of you, as a teacher, telling the schools that you REFUSE to administer these tests. [Really gutsy; maybe dangerous if you want to keep teaching.]

I drew this as my "logo." (I'm happy to share it with others in
the Opt Out Movement.) I view the
Opt Out Movement as a Wave. Drawn by Ruth Kraut.

And here's where YOU say, "Well, that's easy for you to say. But you don't actually have any children in any of those grades." And that's true. I currently have a 10th grader and an exchange student who is a 12th grader attending Ann Arbor schools. I don't have any 3-8th graders, or any 11th graders.

So you might think that they are unaffected by all this testing. NOT SO.

Already this year, when the 11th graders were taking the ACT and Work Keys, the students in my house were sleeping in--because there was no school for 9th, 10th, or 12th graders, for 1-1/2 days that week. [And really--those half-days are useless, so it was more like losing 2 days of school.] And they didn't have school, so that somebody else could take a meaningless test. [Whatever you think about the ACT, I have no idea what the point, purpose, or use of WorkKeys is. But I'm pretty sure it's not helping those 11th graders with Reading, Writing, or 'Rithmetic. Or History, Science, Art or Health.]

Why Now?

Well, the M-STEP is a made up test. We were supposed to use the Smarter Balanced test, but our legislators got cold feet about its relationship to Common Core.

The M-STEP test has not been validated [tested in advance to see if it makes any sense in a statistical way], and based on the sample questions I've seen [see the link in the "quote" below] the clear answer is that NO, they don't make any sense. Plus it will be replaced next year by a different test. So there won't even be any comparison data.

Take a look at some sample M-STEP questions here: The MSTEP testing window is quicky approaching. Have you looked at the test? If not you can see the samples here https://wbte.drcedirect.com/MI/portals/mi/ott1 (Username is math#samp for math and ela#samp for English language arts, with # being replaced by the grade level you want (so math6samp for 6th grade math). The password is test1234.

So they have designated the M-STEP this year as a "pilot" year. It's not going to be used to count for anything as far as school participation goes, or as far as teacher evaluations go. It's ONLY going to be used to waste our children's time, and to divert our children from much more important (and interesting) activities.

Teachers I have talked to are terrified by the M-STEP. They are terrified about the idea that these tests will be used to judge them. They are terrified that students won't do well on them (probably true, when you see the questions you realize they are completely developmentally inappropriate).

But wait...there's more! There are, to my knowledge, very few protections as to how your child's data will be used. In other states, the testing agencies are surveilling social media (twitter, and more) to see if kids "give out" information about the tests.

Administrators are caught between a rock and a hard place. They are mandated to give these tests, but if they tell you that they can't "let you" opt your child out, just remind them that this is not their decision. You are the parent, and you decide what is best for your child. That is your right.

Tomorrow or the next day I will post some sample Opt Out letters.

In the meantime, here's why this is important. When we allow the tests to be given, we lose all the things that we hold dear in education.

The combination of the M-STEP and the NWEA MAP test means less time for everyone else in the computer labs, and fewer field trips. Fewer math problems. Fewer science experiments. Fewer books in free reading time. You get the idea. You don't have to allow it.

I encourage you to opt out, and to tell the district why. 

If you are thinking, "I agree with you, and yet I don't want to be disruptive, and I'm not comfortable going all the way," I should tell you that there is a third way, but it involves really engaging with your learner about why this testing is so disruptive. And it involves your student agreeing with you [not a guarantee, with peer pressure!].

Tell the school that your child may take the final test but is not to participate in any--any--any practice testing options.

Meanwhile, tell your child...

Tell your child that you don't care about this test. And mean it. 
Talk to your child about why this test is different from the math test the teacher will give next week, the one that you do care about.

Tell your child that you don't care if they answer "a" to every multiple choice question, and type gibberish in the box where they "write" an essay. 
Explain why that is different from the two page paper that you do care about--the one where they have to write about the cultures of Spain or Cameroon for the 8th grade Global Cultures curriculum.

Tell your child that you don't care if the only thing they do is put their name on the test. Tell your child that taking this test is this is the least important thing that they will do all year.

This "softer" opt out option might sound easier, but I think it might be more difficult. It's hard to sit in a test and not really do it--we've been trained to try our best, and that's what all of the "encouragement" will be. Plus if you are sitting there, there won't be anything else to do. And not-doing-anything boredom is different from doing-anything-boredom. Opt out, and maybe you get to do some math or read a book.

The other thing we all have to do--and this requires training ourselves, and it is hard--is IGNORE the test results. Don't validate them by discussing them. Ignore them.

I used to think that the testing wasn't really so harmful. I was wrong. It's part and parcel of a profit-making machine that has as its core mission the destruction of our beautiful public schools.

So in my mind, I envision the wave of opting out as part of a broader social movement to save our schools. Whatever you do in opposition, is worthwhile.

I'll close with a favorite quote of a favorite author, Audre Lorde: 

When I dare to be powerful - to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid.

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

First Step: Ann Arbor Open Is Allowed to Abandon the NWEA MAP Test

Ann Arbor Open parents got this letter today from Kit Flynn, Ann Arbor Open's principal:

Dear parents, 

AAPS Superintendent Dr. Swift, (in consultation with LeeAnn Dickinson-Kelly, Dawn Linden and me), has decided to forego any further administration of the NWEA MAP Test for Ann Arbor Open School. There is agreement that this particular measure is not the best fit for our program.

The balloons were not part of the letter
Kit Flynn sent out. They reflect my feelings.
I took the picture from this free clip art site:
http://www.clipartbest.com/celebration-pictures-free-clip-art

The teachers at Ann Arbor Open are committed to preparing all of our students for any required assessments that are mandated by the district and the state. Quality instruction includes quality assessment as part of the learning process. Our goal is to inform students and parents on areas where students show growth or may need further support, and to inform teachers on the instructional needs of specific students. We believe that authentic learning of needed skills will result in student growth, and want to use assessments that we believe will contribute to their success.
The district assessment committee's charge is to examine current assessment practices, understand state requirements, clarify core values and bring forward proposals to inform and advise an amended Assessment Plan for 2014-15. They will begin meeting soon.
While the district assessment task force begins their work, we will also be considering how to best measure our students' growth. Ann Arbor Open staff will spend time reviewing possible assessments and methods for monitoring progress for our students, especially students who need additional support or are below grade level in key curricular areas.
The staff members of Ann Arbor Open are feeling very grateful today - grateful to our supportive parent community, and grateful to the leadership of Ann Arbor Public Schools for acknowledging our program's unique needs.

Sincerely,

Kit Flynn

I hope this is the beginning of a trend. I think this decision means that right now the only Ann Arbor middle school giving the MAP test is Scarlett Middle School. However, all of the other elementary schools are still giving the test.

Also, the long-awaited Assessment Task Force is going to start meeting next week.So, in general--toast this small success, but recognize it for the baby step that it is, and let's keep working  toward more authentic assessment, and less testing.

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

Top Ann Arbor Schools Musings Posts of 2013

Starting with the most popular post from 2013, and working my way down the list...

1. Who is the Broad Foundation and Why Do We in Ann Arbor Care? (May 6, 2013)

In which I explain the association between then-superintendent Pat Green and the Broad Foundation.

2. The (financial) costs of (NWEA) testing in Ann Arbor (Sept. 22, 2013)

In which I discuss the hard costs, and soft costs, of NWEA testing--to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Plus there are a lot of great links to other information about the NWEA test.

3. Principal Principles, Perspectives, and Publicity (Nov. 24, 2013)

Sulura Jackson at Skyline High School graduation.
Photo from a2schools.org.

Why did Cindy Leaman leave Pioneer High School for the new Ann Arbor Virtual Academy? Did Sulura Jackson, former principal of Skyline High School, plagiarize?

4. Superintendent Background Research: Richard Faidley (July 9, 2013)

I think this was the first profile I did for superintendent background research during the recent hiring of the AAPS Superintendent. Richard Faidley didn't make it to the next round.

5. State Board of Ed Roadshow Gives (A Lot of) Food for Thought (March 12, 2013)

Julie Roth wrote an excellent guest column for me using the perspective of a "non-teacher, non-educator, non-union Parent Stakeholder."

6. Ypsilanti Community Schools: Meditations on Employment (June 10, 2013)

Willow Run Flyers logo (old)

Ypsilanti High School Phoenix logo (old)

In 2013, we said goodbye to Ypsilanti and Willow Run school districts, and hello to the consolidated Ypsilanti Community Schools. The Ypsilanti and Willow Run consolidation of schools led to the loss of some staff positions, the loss of some staff compensation, and the loss of both the Ypsilanti and Willow Run teachers' unions. Plus I tell a fun family story.


7. AAPS Superintendent Pat Green Resigns. What Do You Think Of That? (April 11, 2013)

When AAPS Superintendent Pat Green resigned, I did a survey. The links to the results are in this post.

8. Finalist for Superintendent Background Research: Brian Osborne (July 9, 2013)

Brian Osborne was offered the AAPS Superintendent position. He didn't take it, and we got runner-up Jeanice Swift. So far, she appears to have embraced the position.

9. Funny Common Core Video Raises Serious Questions (June 8, 2013)

I like this video so much (and I need some pictures in this post) that I'm putting it right in here!



10. Are You Following the NWEA MAP Controversy In Seattle? (Feb. 6, 2013)

In Seattle, teachers refused to administer the NWEA MAP test. Read more recent updates at the Scrap the Map web site.




Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

NWEA Testing Cancelled for January: A Positive Sign?

Ann Arbor school parents with students in the affected schools (all of the elementary schools, plus Ann Arbor Open and Scarlett) got this email the other day:

Dear AAPS Parents and Staff:

The NWEA MAP assessment was carefully selected for the purpose of evaluating student progress and has been utilized in the district for the past two school years. We believe in the power of quality assessment data to inform teacher practice to meet the individual instructional needs of our students. Unfortunately, we have encountered technical difficulties with NWEA assessments this fall and as a result, will be implementing mid-year changes in our 2013-2014 district testing protocol. As we implemented the NWEA MAP web-based testing system this fall, many students experienced technical difficulties in accessing the tests, delays between questions, and system outages. Over recent weeks, District representatives have been working diligently with NWEA to address these technical concerns and to determine the validity of the fall assessment data. As a result, the Fall NWEA MAP student progress reports will not accompany report cards during this fall assessment cycle. Despite our best efforts, NWEA has been unable to ensure that these technical issues can be resolved prior to the scheduled winter assessment. In light of the technical difficulties, we have decided to suspend winter 2014 testing. You can expect to hear more in the coming months as we monitor this situation and use this time to coordinate opportunities for teachers, parents and administrators to look more deeply into our current Ann Arbor Public Schools assessment practices. We will work together with a forward focus on the opportunities coming to us with the next generation of assessments and how we may leverage these opportunities to improve teaching and learning for all our students. We will remain in touch with you over the coming months to provide updates as we move toward the time for end-of-year assessments. Sincerely, Jeanice K. Swift Superintendent of Schools Ann Arbor Public Schools

Just a few notes:

A quick observation about the technical difficulties. When we started using the NWEA MAP test, there were major technical difficulties, and the district was told it was because of our "old" computers. From my point of view the customer service was also terrible because the district was told that the students' test scores couldn't be suppressed at the end of the tests.
Then the technology bond passed, and now Ann Arbor's computers are no longer too old, but there are still "technical difficulties," poor customer service, etc. It's also a little bit confusing because several other districts in the county use the NWEA MAP test, and I think a lot of them haven't had the same kinds of problems. Why is that?
What does it say, also, for the future of computerized testing in general? The test that is supposed to replace the MEAP next year is a computerized test.

Cancelling the January testing is good news, in that it means more time for teachers to teach, and it also means the computer labs won't be tied up for weeks. It was a smart move by Jeanice Swift, since the district was already anticipating the testing being a failure because of the technical problems. It  doesn't mean anything (yet) for future rounds of the test.

"We believe in the power of quality assessment." Yes, so do I!  Let's find the right tools for quality assessment. (We may not need to look far.)

I hope this comes to pass: We will "use this time to coordinate opportunities for teachers, parents and administrators to look more deeply into our current Ann Arbor Public Schools assessment practices."

And here's the thing--if you appreciate the cancelling of this round of tests (or if you don't); if you think these tests are not useful (or if you think they are); if you have other ideas for assessments. . . send Jeanice Swift a note and let her know what you are thinking!

Testing, Testing, Testing: Tale #1

1. About cartooning

I admit, I love my little cartoon, The Parable of the Hammer. But I would hate to be as obscure as Bezonki (although I wouldn't mind drawing/painting as well as Alvey Jones). My husband thought the moral of the story of my cartoon, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" was obvious. And he sort of understood the references to testing being overused. But, he said, it wasn't obvious why you couldn't use a test like the NWEA MAP test--that was built for assessing individual students--to also assess teachers. Why shouldn't teachers be assessed by their students' improvement?  And this is, in fact, such a common misunderstanding of testing that I thought maybe I should address it again. [For this explanation, assume that the MAP test does a good job of assessing students, ok? A hammer, after all, does a good job pounding in nails.]

And I started thinking about this (again) because in an mlive.com article school board member Andy Thomas said that "NWEA testing that the district has engaged in will help show if there are advantages or disadvantages to a combined class." 

So in fact Andy Thomas got stuck in the same type of thinking that my husband was stuck in--that if a test can assess individual students, it can assess something else. In my husband's case, he was thinking it could assess the teacher; in Andy's case, he was thinking that it could assess types of classrooms. 

But it can't. Here's why. Students are not randomly assigned to classrooms. If a principal thinks a teacher is competent, (s)he might get--or volunteer to take--students who are perceived as more difficult.

In addition, students are not randomly assigned to schools. [Andy was talking about comparing Ann Arbor Open to other schools, and that is obviously not random since Ann Arbor Open is a magnet school.] But even if we look only at neighborhood schools, it is pretty clear that neighborhoods like Burns Park and the area near King School are in general wealthier than the area near Pittsfield or Mitchell schools.

And last, but not least, sample size is important and in general the sample sizes are too small and not at all random. Read the Northwest Evaluation Association's own memo on the subject.

So we can debate whether we should be using the NWEA MAP test to evaluate individual student progress [and you know that I'm a NO voice for that] but let's try to use the right tools for the right jobs. 

Evaluation of the NWEA MAP Test (in Ann Arbor)

Back in March of 2012 (around 18 months ago) my friend Julie and I went to the AAPS school board meeting to talk about our concerns about the NWEA MAP test. In 2011-2012, the MAP test was first used in the Ann Arbor schools, at the K-5 level throughout the district, and only for grades 6-8 at Ann Arbor Open and at Scarlett Middle School.

Before I get into talking about evaluation, it's worth noting that the Ann Arbor Chronicle has writeups of the initial discussions at the school board meetings in 2011, and you can find them here:

March 2011 Performance Committee discussions, as reported to the board

April 2011 Performance Committee discussions, as reported to the board

May 17th, 2011 report on board discussions (first briefing)

May 30th, 2011 report on board discussions (second briefing)

[Side note: Boy do I miss those Chronicle reports on the school board!]

By the time I realized what was going on in the school testing world, it was nearly a year after the school board had voted on getting the NWEA MAP test. And I felt that we had been sold a bill of goods. That's why Julie and I went and shared our concerns with the school board (links are on "Julie" and "I").

One of the main requests that I made was to have the use of the NWEA MAP test evaluated. I wrote:

5.     Since this is a pilot, do a rigorous evaluation of MAP’s usefulness. Evaluate whether the MAP test is working for everyone else. And do that by surveying principals, administrators, teachers, parents and students—anonymously—so that they can share their true opinions.

Shortly after that I met with Alesia Flye, Dawn Linden, and a woman from the technology department whose name I've forgotten. It's worth noting that none of them were at the Ann Arbor Public Schools when the decision was made to use the NWEA. I didn't keep good notes of the meeting, but I did leave with the impression that they would be evaluating the use of the MAP test.

Also around this same time, I met with several school board trustees at a technology bond meeting. I told them, I don't like the NWEA MAP test, I don't want my money going for technology that will support it. I was told by Deb Mexicotte (and again I didn't write this down) that she thought the MAP test would be around for at least 3 years, but it would be evaluated.

Meanwhile, my friend Angela also complained, and had a meeting with curricular staff.
In June of 2012, she had the following email exchange with Dawn Linden:

Angie to Dawn, 6/5/2012:

Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with Pam and I today.  I had no idea we would talk for so long, and still feel like there was still more to say.  I appreciate hearing your take on the NWEA tool.
On the drive home, however, one part of our conversation gave me pause.  You said that a parent and teacher feedback survey is in the works, as this is a pilot program.  You also mentioned that the NWEA is NOT going away.  What is the puprose of the survey, then?

Dawn to Angie, 6/5/2012:

Thank you, Angie.  I appreciated the meeting and welcome further discussion, too.  We've been seeking information from teachers and principals informally throughout the process.  That feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.  We do plan to share a brief survey with parents seeking information about parent understanding of the tool and its uses as well as how we can improve reports. I hope that helps to answer your question and please don't hesitate to call. (Emphasis added.)

Angie to Dawn, 6/8/2012:

So even though this test is in its pilot year, the district has all ready decided that implementation of it will continue as is. And this has happened before any feedback has fbeen collected from the test-givers, test-takers, tax payers, teachers, or AAPS families that are all supposed to benefit from it?

Dawn then offered to meet with Angie again.

This came from an October 2012 AAPS student achievement report. Does it add to
your insight as to how students are doing? Yup, that's what I thought too. Found at:
http://annarborchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/101012studentachreport.pdf

Understand, too, that as an Ann Arbor Open parent, I was and am extremely aggravated that Ann Arbor Open and Scarlett were (and still are) the only middle schools getting tested. If it's such a great test, shouldn't everyone else get a chance to take it? And if it's not such a great test, why should we suffer? Shouldn't that be evaluated?

But I'm patient. (No, not really. But I do believe that good evaluations take time. And so I waited.)

Meanwhile. . . the only change that the district made (that we could see) was that kindergartners didn't have to take the test until the winter. Instead, they got to take "practice" tests. (Are you aggravated yet?)

So in April 2013, Heather sent a FOIA to the district. Yup, that Heather. Here is what she sent, and what she got.

1. Any plan for evaluation of the NWEA MAP in the Ann Arbor schools, in final form
or if not finalized in draft form, with the date when the plan was developed. 

a. Currently there is not a formal written evaluation plan. 

2. Any discussion via email of plans for evaluating the NWEA MAP (for example,
between and among the Superintendent, her cabinet, other administrators (AAAA
group), the school board, and/or the technology department. 

a. No emails exist on this topic.

Now, we have a situation where there is no formal written evaluation, in draft or final form, and that is disappointing. But if no emails exist on this topic, then that is--in my opinion--inexcusable--because it means there is really no intent to evaluate, no discussion of the topic even. 

The school district is using a test that has evaluation in its name, to evaluate students--but we're not evaluating if it does a good job at that. The district is using a test that has evaluation in its name, to evaluate teachers--even though the organization that developed the test says it shouldn't be used that way. The district is using a test that takes a tremendous amount of staff time and technology time to use and administer, but we don't account for that time and effort to see if it is worth it. The district is using a test at two middle schools, and not evaluating whether it is worth extending or cancelling. We haven't been able to improve the reporting to parents in any way that would be meaningful. We have been told that the test would be evaluated, but it hasn't been. 

And that's why--if anyone asks me if they should opt their kids out of the NWEA MAP test--I do not discourage them at all.

So--that's the bad news.
The good news? There is a new superintendent in town, and maybe she is open to new ideas. It's worth a try. Let her know how you feel. There are a whole lot of community meetings coming up in the next two months!

The (financial) costs of (NWEA) testing in Ann Arbor

Because I no longer have a child in K-8 grade, I missed the start of the NWEA MAP testing period. I only heard it had begun when I heard through the grapevine about a technology problem in the testing at Ann Arbor Open during the first week of the testing period.

You might recall that my friends and I have raised a lot of questions about the NWEA MAP testing over the past couple of years. You can read more about our concerns in some back posts:

Testing the Year Away: Julie's Comments

Testing the Year Away: Ruth's Comments

Ann Arbor: Stop Overtesting Our Kids! (the petition was submitted; the facebook group is still alive and well if you want to join us)

Real Life NWEA Experiences, Part I

Kindergarten Blues

Are You Following the NWEA MAP Controversy in Seattle?

Standardized Testing Season: Did You Want to Opt Out?

In any case--because of those concerns, we decided to FOIA some materials  from the Ann Arbor Public Schools around costs and evaluation. This post is only about costs.

Obviously, there are costs involved with testing--both direct and indirect. What are they? We asked "invoices, bills, or contracts" for 2011, 2012, and 2013, for the NWEA MAP test  (and no others, even though there are several others).

For 2011-2012, the bill was $96,401.50 (including $3,700 for an on-site administrative workshop)

For the 2012-2013 year, the bill was $77,701.50.

And on May 6, 2013, while we were still discussing the budget, AAPS got a bill from NWEA for $94,024 for the 2013-2014 year.

Picture of the 2013 NWEA MAP test invoice

[Here, by the way, is the "Master Subscription Agreement" if you are interested in knowing what AAPS has agreed to in the NWEA license agreement.]

In other words, over the past three years, we have spent more than a quarter of a million dollars ($268,127 if you are counting) on purchasing the licensing for the NWEA MAP test.

Now obviously, software doesn't install and manage itself; teachers don't learn to use the test by themselves. In fact, it turned out that our technology wasn't even adequate to properly run the test, and so the rationale for computer upgrades (and the cost) should appropriately be--at least partially--attributed to the use of the NWEA MAP test.

In a separate FOIA (one that was more focused on evaluation--coming next) we asked for information about some of the staff costs, and were told:

3. The amount of staff time from the curriculum and technology departments that has
been devoted to addressing implementation and deployment of the NWEA/MAP over
the past two years (fiscal 2011-2013) 

a. This information is difficult to isolate given that NWEA MAP training has occurred in conjunction with other topics surrounding the use of data to differentiate instruction. There is no separate document that provides this information. 

4. The number of inservices given (total number of hours, along with dates) to teachers
and administrators, the number of hours spent on these inservices and the number of
teacher/administrators trained for the purposes of implementing the NWEA MAP
test. These inservice hours could, for example, relate to how to administer the MAP
test, how to understand MAP test results, and how to use that information to inform
teaching. 

a. This information is difficult to isolate given the NWEA MAP training has occurred in conjunction with other topics surrounding the use of data to differentiate instruction. There is no separate record of NWEA MAP inservices or professional development.

Which means that I don't actually know the costs. But I am going to take some educated guesses as to the amount of staff time spent on the NWEA. These are rough estimates.

In Year 1, I am going to estimate that every K-5 teacher and all of the 6-8 teachers at Scarlett and Ann Arbor Open, spent at least 4 hours on inservices (trainings) related to the NWEA. With approximately 20 teachers at each school, and 20 elementary schools (so 400 teachers, PLUS another 40 middle school teachers), we get 440 x 4=1760 hours x $50/hour=$88,000.

Half of those teachers spent at least 5 hours preparing for and proctoring the MAP test (and yes, it was supposedly much less time than that, but I don't think it turned out that way). 220 x 5=1100 hours x $50/hour=$55,000.

In Year 1, I am going to estimate that at least one technology person spent hundreds of hours on dealing with technology issues around the MAP test (there were many), and that between the various curriculum staff, they also spent several hundred hours on the MAP test, troubleshooting, training teachers, etc. So if between them, they spent 750 hours on the MAP test (and I think that is low), that would be 750 x $50/hour=$37,500.

And then, of course, the technology we had was not adequate, and one of the rationales for the tech bond was that we needed to upgrade our computers for the MAP test. And that was really a lot of money.

I will mention, but not count the costs of, the additional sheets of paper that we parents got with (completely useless and unintelligible) test results--three times/year. But if there were 8,000 students involved, and therefore 8,000 pieces of paper each time, that is 24,000 sheets of paper (8,000 x 3) and the ink related to printing them.

I know, you are thinking, "But Ruth, we would be paying those teachers, tech people, curriculum staff anyway." Sure, that's true. "And we needed better computers anyway." OK, that might be true as well.

But those teachers, tech people, curriculum staff could be spending their time on other things if not for the MAP tests, so I think we have to ask if that time-money (over $180,000/year) was well-spent. Was that time-money well-spent?

Was that hard cash well-spent? Or could we find a different way to spend a quarter-million dollars a year? This is not just a thought experiment. It's a serious question. I know there are people who believe this is an important task. But let's admit that when we "estimate" the cost of the MAP test, it is not just the $75,000-$100,000/year. It's a lot more.

Standardized Testing Season: Did You Want to Opt Out?

It's standardized testing season and I have a whole lot to say about that (very little time, though!). But my friend Heather shared her "I am opting my child out of standardized testing" letter, and since you might want a sample letter, here it is. She says you can share it.

Dear _________ Public Schools, 

Last school year our family “opted out” or withdrew our child from some of the standardized assessments imposed on children across the state. Our decision to “opt out” in no way reflected on the teachers, administration, or school board. This was not an easy decision for us, but we feel that we had no other choice. We simply see these tests as harmful, expensive, and a waste of time and valuable resources.
This year we will continue our effort to eliminate unnecessary and harmful assessments in our public schools. Our child will not participate in any assessments other than those solely for the use of the individual classroom teacher. 

We refuse to allow any data to be used for purposes other than the individual teacher’s own formative or cumulative assessment. Any assessment whose data is used to determine school ranking, teacher effectiveness, state or federal longitudinal studies or any other purpose other than for the individual classroom teacher’s own use to improve his or her instruction will not be presented to our children. To be clear, our child will not participate in the following: 

• Any state assessments. 

• Any so-called “benchmark” exams whether they are teacher-designed or not, since these exams are imposed by entities other than the individual teacher. 

• Any surveys, or “field tests” given by corporate or government entities or testing companies  

• Any “standardized” test. 

We will be encouraging other parents to stand up against the testing fad and, more importantly, the corporate and government takeover of our schools. We believe in and trust our highly qualified and dedicated teachers and administrators. We believe that our child’s education should be trusted in the hands of those who are most experienced and who personally know the needs and individual requirements of each child. 

Teachers already know how to determine those needs and requirements without mandated standardized testing. Our schools will not suffer when these tests are finally gone. They will flourish.__________Public Schools should have a unified policy in place to address children who will be opting out of assessments. 

Thank you.

Five Pieces to Read Over Spring Break

It's spring break, and I thought I would give you a few things to read!

1. Local superintendent (well, sort of local) Rod Rock from Clarkston got featured in Diane Ravitch's blog for an awesome letter he wrote to his staff. It starts out, 

I know that I write often to you and I hope that you will tolerate one more rambling (at least until the next one). Also, I may have said this already to you, so I apologize if this is a repeat.
When my daughter, Haley, who is now a freshman at MSU, was in third grade, she stood one evening in our tiny, outdated kitchen, leaning against the wall next to the refrigerator and cried. When we asked her what was the matter, she said that she was certain she wouldn’t do very well on the MEAP test the next day and that she didn’t want to let anyone down.
At that moment, I said to her that no test will ever define her. I said that she is Haley Rock and that she is talented in many ways. No matter how she performs on any test at any point in her life, I stated, she will always be Haley Rock and possess many talents. No test, person, or relationship, I reiterated, will ever define who she is or what she is capable of becoming... 

And it gets better from there. Read the whole thing here.  And as Diane Ravitch says, "Don't you wish there were more like him?"

2. Seattle Schools Superintendent Jose Banda has said that he will not discipline the teachers who worked to oppose the MAP testing. 

Seattle schools supt. Jose Banda has backed off on his promise to discipline teachers who boycotted the MAP test and has additionally agreed to scale back the use of the MPA with students. The teachers at Seattle's Garfield High School had boycotted the administration of the MPA, saying it was a waste of money and "child abuse."
In a message to all school staff, Banda stated that the "community" had had a discussion. By changing around those staff who were required to administer the test and using some other doubletalk, Banda was able to continue supporting the MAP. But buried down in his memo a recounting of an unprecedented amount of teacher resistance and parent boycott. "We did see a higher than usual number of high school students and families who opted out of taking the test," Banda wrote. "Districtwide, a total of 459 parents and 133 students opted-out. Of these opt-outs, 265 parents (58% of total) were from two district high schools (Garfield and Ingraham), and 129 students (97% of total) were from one high school (Garfield)..."

Read the rest at substancenews.net.

What is particularly interesting to me about this is that the parents and students were opting out of the test. Ann Arbor parents have been asking for the right to opt out of the NWEA MAP test, which is in no way state mandated. For a few more days you can still sign the "Stop Overtesting" petition.

3. Title IX blog has a post about transgender students at women's college. There is some very important information buried in there: 

I am, however, concerned about the role Title IX has played in public debate generally about single-sex colleges and transgender students.  Here in Northampton, our local paper ran a story this week in which the President of Mount Holyoke College, a women's college in neighboring Amherst, said that admitting someone who is not legally female would remove women's colleges from the Title IX exception for single sex colleges:  “We’re constrained by the law,” Pasquerella said. “If someone is not legally female, we can’t admit them and keep our federal funding.”This is not correct, for two reason.  First, Title IX does not contain an exception for single-sex colleges...

Another reason why it's wrong to suggest that Title IX prevents Smith or Mount Holyoke from considering transgender students from admissions is that the statute does not incorporate a legal definition of sex.  Therefore, even if the statute did require Smith to "traditionally and continually" admit women, the law does not prevent Smith from considering transgender women to be women.  In fact, the law in other, analogous contexts may be bending toward a definition of sex that would require such inclusion.  

Read the full post here.

4. Cheating around high stakes testing in Atlanta made the New York Times this week. If you haven't already read this article, I recommend you take the time. And then ask yourself, what would make teachers and superintendents cheat like this? Oh, wait, I gave you a clue. . . high stakes. . . we need to keep saying NO to high stakes testing. 

5. Last, but not least, there is a terrific list from Nancy Flanagan of "Ten Things Legislators Should Know and Do When Making Education Policy." There is a lot of good advice there--and not just for legislators, actually, but for parents, teachers, and taxpayers as well. 

She starts out,

A couple of days ago, I had coffee with Betsy Coffia, who ran last November--unsuccessfully--for a seat representing the 104th district in the Michigan House of Representatives. Coffia and I had never met, although we have several mutual friends. We found each other on-line, in a Facebook argument over Detroit Public Schools' Emergency Manager. She liked what I had to say, and suggested we meet.
It was a great conversation. Coffia plans to run again, and asked lots of questions: What did I think about cyber-schools? Charter chains? The value of early childhood programs? Well-known education non-profits in Michigan? Although she worked for a time in a Head Start program, she admitted there were lots of theories and ideas in education policy she found murky.
Then she said this: Wouldn't it be great if there were a guide for legislators to making useful education policy? So here it is:

Read the rest here.

Are You Following the NWEA MAP Controversy In Seattle?

Over in Seattle, ALL of the teachers at Garfield High School have agreed to boycott the NWEA MAP test. They have the backing of the PTSA, and it appears most of the parents and students are backing them up. A couple of other Seattle schools have joined them.

You can follow what is going on there in a few ways:

Facebook: Solidarity With Garfield High School Testing Boycott

A web site devoted to the controversy:  scrapthemap.wordpress.com

Apparently the district administration is trying to implement the testing schedule, but not very successfully. Most students are not going along with it. According to this Diane Ravitch post,

Wednesday, Feb. 6^th, 2013 is the National Day of Action to support Garfield High School and the other MAP test boycotters who are facing possible 10 Day Suspensions without pay for refusing to force students to take an unfair, counterproductive and bad standardized test.

[Editor's Note: That's today! Links from Diane Ravitch are below.]

Information about the Day of Action can be found here: http://scrapthemap.wordpress. com/2013/02/02/national-day- of-action-to-support-seattle- map-test-boycott/
Share the Facebook Day of Action page here by going here: https://www.facebook.com/ events/366568146775772/
Sign the Support the Seattle Teachers Petition here:
https://www.change.org/petitions/seattle-public-schools-support-seattle-teachers-refusing-to-administer-the-map
Call, email, and write to Seattle Public Schools Superintendent José L. Banda to let him know that you support the boycott:

Superintendent José L. Banda  superintendent@seattleschools.org

 Meanwhile, I was very taken by this photo, posted on Facebook:

I got that photo from the Facebook group called Change the Stakes, which reported:

Here's what happened at Garfield today: Admins came into classrooms and tried to pull students out to take the MAP test in the library. Students stared straight ahead, and wouldn't budge.

In a library with about 60 computers stations set up for the MAP, there were single digit numbers of students sitting at computers. Of those, many sat at the computers and refused to press even a single button.

Meanwhile, I will remind you that you can help change the stakes here as well.
1. Sign the Ann Arbor STOP petition: Stop Overtesting Our Children!
2. Join our Facebook group, Ann Arbor STOP.

 

Kindergarten Blues

A parent I know whose child goes to one of our southeast Ann Arbor Public Schools says that her daughter, who is in kindergarten, gets a packet full of worksheets every week for homework. She, as a parent, finds it takes her quite a bit of time at least twice a week to work with her daughter on these worksheets.

Another friend, hearing about this, is thinking seriously about sending her daughter to Rudolf Steiner. The Rudolf Steiner school follows a Waldorf, play-based curriculum and actually does not believe in teaching young children to read, but rather believes it is important developmentally to wait. In the Waldorf world, they are more interested in developing "critical thinking and innovation, open-mindedness and compassion."

Hearing this, I feel very sad. My oldest son experienced a very play-based curriculum in kindergarten and first grade. One of my favorite memories from that year was when a group of children decided to design a city. When I arrived at the end of the day they had not gotten very far, but they had figured out where they would put the church, the synagogue, and the mosque. [That, perhaps, is what happens when there are Christian, Jewish, and Muslim kids in the class.]

Seven years later, I noticed that there was a big difference in the kindergarten and first grade experience for my youngest son. The class was much more structured and there was much less time for open play. Unfortunately, it appears that in the years since my youngest son finished kindergarten that trend has greatly accelerated.

Where does this trend come from? Friend #2, above, says to me (completely unsolicited--I don't even think she knew I was involved with Ann Arbor STOP: Stop Overtesting Our Pupils), "is all this testing really necessary?"

And the answer, of course, is no. There is no reason to use the NWEA MAP test on kindergartners or first graders, something that we have been doing in the Ann Arbor Public Schools without a good reason for doing so, and apparently without an evaluation plan (at least, none that has been made public).  Its use exacerbates a trend toward "test prep" worksheets.



There is no reason that we shouldn't be teaching reading or math, social studies or science using a play- and project-based curriculum with early elementary students. If they are going to give kindergartners homework (which, to me, is questionable in any case), can't they at least be fun projects?

Real Life NWEA MAP Experiences, Part I

An acquaintance emailed me about her experience with her son taking the NWEA MAP test. I have only edited it to keep it anonymous. I appreciate that she took the time to write up this story.

My son is a dead-average reader. He's in second grade, and every single report card has had him right at the reading level that is the benchmark for that report period. If the goal is level I, he's at I -- not J, not H. 

[Editor's Note: This is how the Ann Arbor schools report on young readers on the report cards. . . as a Level A, B, C, etc. reader.]

When he entered 1st grade, he took the MAP test and scored in the 40th percentile. Fine. At the end of 1st grade, he scored in the 54th percentile. While the test wasn't sharing new information, it was confirming what we already knew. (His math scores, by the way, are quite high, but again, that's not info from the test, that's the test confirming life.)

So, we get his first report card in November (And whose brilliant idea is it to test kids in September and tell parents how they did in November? Is it some kind of secret?) 

[Editor's Note: Not only that, but the NWEA MAP reporting to parents is entirely useless. If the whole "strength" of the MAP test is in its detailed information, that does not come through in the reporting, which provides no detail at all.]

His reading percentile was 6. This was surprising -- not at all in line with what we were seeing in real life, and not at all aligned with his report card, which continued to show him reading right at grade level. So I took a closer look.

Not only was his score (not percentile, but the actual score) quite low for his grade (and remember, one of the "great" things about MAP is that the scale stays the same year to year, so you should be able to see growth from year to year), but it was lower than it was at the beginning of 1st grade. According to this test, he had lost reading ability in the last year -- and actually a significant amount.

OK, so I know, his teacher knows, the principal knows that that's bad data. I don't know what happened the day he took the test, but his score didn't reflect what he could do. 

But consider that his teacher and the school will still be judged by a score that is obviously wrong. His last year's teacher will still have a kid from whom she allegedly removed the ability to read. On the flip side, his teacher this year will look like a miracle worker, because next time he takes the test he'll probably score in the average range -- what growth!!

And this is one of the big problems with using test scores to measure kids, teachers or schools. 

There's no opportunity to do a reality check.

It reminds me of once when I brought my son to the doctor and they measured him and said he had shrunk by about an inch. I could not convince the PA to remeasure him, that that could not be right. The data is never wrong. It must be me. Or him. Even when the facts and common sense disagree.

[Editor's Note: How about sending the entire Board of Education your concerns or a story about the NWEA MAP test? Email them at: boe@aaps.k12.mi.us. Alternatively, sign our petition.]

Ann Arbor: Stop Overtesting Our Kids!

Ann Arbor: There's a new group in town. 

This is a group dedicated to reducing the amount of standardized testing and "assessments" that are going on throughout the year.
This is a group that believes there is a better way to spend the school day than testing, testing, testing.
This is a group that is organizing parents, teachers, students and taxpayers to oppose the amount of testing going on.
I'm a proud member of this group,  

Ann Arbor STOP: Stop overTesting Our Pupils!

 

We'll be organizing; sharing strategies for opting out of tests; addressing research; and working to convince the school board and school administration to change their testing programs.

And no, we didn't plan it this way, but it's a telling coincidence that the night that we unveiled our new petition and facebook page was also the night before the MEAPs started in Ann Arbor.

If you live in the Ann Arbor school district, and you agree with us that there is too much testing in the school district, taking away valuable time from instruction, then consider doing the following:

1. Sign our petition, Please Stop Overtesting Our Kids!

Here is how the petition begins:

Dear Ann Arbor Board of Education, and the AAPS,
We, the undersigned, object to the over-use of standardized testing and assessments in the Ann Arbor Public Schools.The ever-increasing focus on standardized testing is hurting our kids and diminishing their education.Standardized testing has been shown to reflect one thing quite successfully: socioeconomic status. We do not feel that repeated measuring of socioeconomic status is a good use of classroom time. We feel there are too many tests, with too much overlap, cutting dramatically into classroom time that should be used for learning...

You will find the petition here:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/745/249/873/please-stop-over-testing-our-kids/

2. Join the facebook group, Ann Arbor: Stop Overtesting!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/annarborstopovertesting/ 

 

There you will find some sample opt-out letters and lots of discussion.

Do we think we'll change things overnight? No. It may take some time. Don't be discouraged--we're in it for the long haul. 

Here's a little inspiration: 

Step By Step

Step by step the longest march can be won, can be won
Many stones can form an arch, singly none, singly none
And by union what we will can be accomplished still
Drops of water turn a mill, singly none, singly none.

--From the preamble to the constitution
     of the United Mineworkers of America