Guest Post: A Parent Reviews Her Child's M-STEP Results, and Learns...

A guest post by Naomi Zikmund-Fisher about the M-STEP results, and what they mean.

Last week, we finally received my children’s scores from the M-STEP test they took last spring. My son, a fourth grader at the time (now 5th) and my daughter, a high school Junior (now senior) both took the test. For more on that decision, you can read here.

In the interest of maintaining some of their privacy, I’m not going to share how my kids did on the test. More to the point, it probably doesn’t matter how they did on the test, as their performance on this first round appears to be being largely discarded.

As a former teacher and administrator, I probably know more about how to read a score report than most parents. Theoretically, I should be able to get all there is to get out of these scores. So, here’s what I learned from looking at my children’s score reports:

1. Last spring, my children were doing about as well in their academic progress as their teachers said they were. There were no real surprises. You could have looked at their report cards and gotten the same information that M-STEP gives you.

2. That information is wildly out of date. They took this test in a window from March to May. I got the scores in January. Whatever new information may have been useful in the scores is no longer pertinent.

3. The science and social studies tests measure curriculum alignment more than anything else. They are broken out by different smaller subjects (e.g. physical science, life science or economics, geography). You can see that in this sample of a child’s 4th grade science scores.

Sample M-Step information provided to parents, in this case for the science test.

When they say a child is proficient, what does that mean?

My children did best in areas that they had studied recently and worst in those from previous years. In other words, this test measured what classes they were taking, not anything about my children or about whether their teachers were teaching well.

4. The target area for “proficient” is, in some cases, shockingly small. Scores are reported graphically (among other ways) on a continuum of four ranges. Proficient is the second to the top and is the smallest area, sometimes by quite a bit.

But shouldn’t “just fine” be a fairly broad range of kids? When did we stop recognizing that “normal” isn’t a single point, it’s a spectrum?

Sample of information provided to parents. Note that the grey "margin of error" overlaps both the "partially proficient" and advanced categories, meaning that a child who scores in the yellow/gray overlap as "partially proficient" might actually be "proficient" on another day. Note also that the green ball of "proficient" is a much smaller area than the bars for not proficient, partially proficient, or advanced.

This picture shows the score graphic for the same student whose subject scores were above. This child is supposedly proficient in 4th grade science [the score is right in the middle of the green bubble]. As you can see, this is quite a feat, since the “Proficient” range is about 5.5% of the total.

What’s more, while it’s great that the score report acknowledges a “margin of error” around the score, that margin is substantially larger than the target itself. This means that three kids who score as “partially proficient,” “proficient,” and “advanced” might all know exactly the same amount of science. We sing the praises of one (and the wonderful teacher who taught her) while wringing our hands about another (and the mediocre educator she had) when there is truly no difference at all.

In the end, what I realize once again is that this data is designed to measure districts and schools much more than to give us any useful information about individual children. Even without the huge delay in score reporting, the amount of useful information, that you can’t find more easily somewhere else, about a single child is minimal.

It’s reasonable to say that the measure of a school or a district is how well its children are prepared for the next phase of life. The problem is, we’re substituting this test for the real answer to that question. We’re asking our kids to take hours upon hours of tests – time they could spend actually learning something – in service of measuring their school system.

If we already know how they’re going to do on the tests, then we already know what the answer we’re going to get will be. And if we don’t already know how they’re going to do on the tests, it’s either a really bad test or a school so out of touch with students that it should be obvious in multiple other ways.

I can say unequivocally, however, as an educator and as a parent, that the M-STEP given last spring was just plain a waste of my children’s time.

Guest Post! Helen Keller and Education for People Who Are Blind: Ann Arbor Library Exhibit

I was on my way into the main branch of the Ann Arbor District Library for this school board meeting when I noticed that there was an interesting exhibit.

Hall Braille Writer. Picture by Patti Smith.

The Exhibit & My Interest in Helen Keller

Called Child in a Strange Country: Helen Keller and the History of Education for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired, the exhibit is up through Wednesday, June 25th (coincidentally, the next school board meeting), in both the lobby and on the third floor of the library. So yes--that means you can see the exhibit before you go into the school board meeting! Convenient, huh?

Most people don't know that I have had a special interest in Helen Keller ever since Skyline High School did The Miracle Worker as its very first play, when everybody in the school was a ninth grader. My daughter played the role of Annie Sullivan, and as a result, I learned a lot about Helen Keller.

Guest Blogger Reviews the Exhibit--With Pictures, Too!

"Wait," I thought--"I know somebody who teaches children with visual impairments, and she's a blogger. I wonder if she would review this for me? And she did, and she took pictures, too! 

About the guest blogger: Patti Smith is a special education teacher of the visually impaired and learning disabled. She lives in Ann Arbor with her fiance and their two cats. She also blogs at teacherpatti.com.

Thank you, Patti! And I hope the rest of you enjoy the review and pictures, and then are motivated to go see the exhibit.

One of the things that I do in my job as a special education teacher is to try to show people what it is like to have a disability. Of course, a ten-minute demonstration in no way compares to a lifelong condition, but it’s often an eye-opening experience for the participant.

Moon Type. Picture by Patti Smith.

Because I work with students who are visually impaired (and some who are deaf-blind), I am often asked about Helen Keller. Most people have seen the movie and remember the “water, Helen, water” scene at the end. What many people don’t know is that Helen lived a very full life—meeting with presidents, becoming an advocate for women’s rights, having deep and fulfilling relationships, and traveling around the world. Perhaps most importantly, she taught the world that students with disabilities can be taught and can go on to do great things.

Currently, the Ann Arbor District Library has an exhibit on Ms. Keller. On loan from the American Printing House for the Blind, the exhibit features a brief history on Helen’s life as well as a larger display of the educational tools that are used to teach students who are blind and visually impaired.

A Braille slate writer. Picture by Patti Smith.

The exhibit features everything from the earliest tactile books to the latest Braille writers. The original tactile books were raised letters embossed on paper. In the early 1800s, Boston Line Type was developed by Samuel Gridley Howe. This system used angular Roman letters and did not capitalize its words. Around the same time the Lucas Type was developed, using a raised system of straight lines, curved lines, and dots that was based on shorthand. William Moon developed a system that reduced words to their simplest forms and read from left to right on one line, right to left on the next. These codes, while useful for reading, all shared the same problem—there was no simple way to write using any of them.

A tactile modern puzzle map of the U.S. from 2001.
Picture by Patti Smith.

The raised dot code known as the Braille Code eventually became the standard system for people who are blind. One could both read and write using the six dot code. This code includes all letters of the alphabet, numbers, scientific notation and math (the Nemeth Code), and almost 200 short form words and contractions.

Seeing this exhibit reminded me of how far we have comes in terms of special education. In Helen’s day, most students with disabilities were not educated. Today, we have students who are deaf-blind sitting in classrooms alongside their peers and learning the appropriate curriculum. It’s cliché to say “you’ve come a long way, baby," but if the shoe fits….

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

June 2014: Infographics, Podcasts, and Partners--Maybe?

June Experiments

Last June, you might recall,
I joined a post-a-day "blogathon."

I had the goals of challenging myself to see if I could do it, and also seeing if it would increase my readership. It did both. I also learned some interesting blogging tricks and ideas, and I met some bloggers internationally. (I had guest posts from Singapore and Japan!)

But--it was exhausting. I do, after all, have a full-time job and kids.

So this year I am going to give myself a slightly different challenge, because--really--the reason that I started this blog had more to do with me than with schools.

Quick recap:
I was intrigued by blogging, but didn't fully understand it.
I felt the best way to learn about blogging was to learn by doing.
I searched for a topic and landed on local schools because
a) I already knew a fair amount about them and about education in general, and
b) I felt I wouldn't run out of things to say.

But--there are some blogging techniques I have not learned yet, and since this blog is supposed to be educational for me as well as for you, during June I am going to try to:

a) create at least two infographics, and 
b) record two podcasts or videos and post them.

Maybe I'll do more, but I'm hoping this will keep things fresh and fun--and by posting this, I'm hoping to keep myself accountable. [If you are good at this stuff, let me know because I may need to ask you some questions!]

I know that you are wondering--how can I cheer Ruth on?

Well. . . comments are nice.

Also--if anyone is interested in guest posting or coming on as a regular contributor, please let me know.

If you are a regular reader, you know that I have made this offer before, but I'll just point out that:

a. My youngest child is in high school. I could really use more information about the elementary and middle schools, and I also see that my time on this blog will have a natural end. . . you may be a few years behind me.

b. I don't have any kids utilizing special education services. I never have, in fact, so everything I learn about that system is from friends. . . but maybe you do have direct experience.

c. I do have teaching certification and an education background. But I am not teaching in any local school--public, private, or charter. But maybe you are.

d. I live in Ann Arbor and my kids have attended the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Let me tell you, the Ypsilanti, Dexter, Saline, Whitmore Lake, Manchester, Chelsea, Milan and Lincoln schools are crying out for more attention. And that's without even mentioning the need for coverage of charters! I'd love more out-county coverage.

e. History. Are you a history buff? There are lots of interesting stories in the education files at the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti libraries, as well as in the local history society files. Would you like to shine a light on some of these stories?



Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

Guest Post Interview: School in Singapore

You might remember that I'm participating in the 2013 Blogathon (a post a day in June). There are certain "theme" days and today's suggested theme is a Guest Post Swap with another blogger who is doing the blogathon. In my case, I found Dominique Goh, who lives in Singapore and is a primary school teacher, to be my guest poster. (I am her guest poster as well!) Dominique blogs at dominiquegoh.com. I decided to do a short Question and Answer interview with Dominique, and here it is. 



1. You teach primary school in Singapore. What grades/ages does that cover? How large are your class sizes? Do you have one group of students and teach all subjects to them, or do you teach a particular subject and students rotate? Does school go year-round?

I cover from grade 1-6 (or as they call it here Primary 1 to 6), the kids are from 7 -12 years old. At present the classes are 30 per class for the lower levels however from  Primary 3 onwards there is streaming and the top end classes may pack up to 40 students in the class with varying number of students in the other classes. We teach by subjects and the students are the ones that rotate and go from class to class. I teach English, Maths,Science and Music. It depends on which subject combination is given to you at the start of the year as in certain years I did have physical education and art classes to teach also. 

School goes all year round with breaks as follows: 1 week in March, 4 weeks in June, 1 week in September and 6 weeks in Nov/Dec. The start of the school year is in January and it ends in November.

2. I think the main languages in Singapore are Chinese, English, and Malay. At what age to children start learning languages in Singapore--how many languages, how often--are they expected to reach fluency in their non-native languages? (Anything interesting about language learning would be great!)


Most kids start to learn language from birth. They are expected to learn a minimum of two languages as it is compulsory here. English and your mother tongue. For us as we are Chinese we learn both English and Mandarin at school.  Both are treated as 1st languages here and for my own family we introduce the kids to more then a few languages from birth as we use English, Mandarin and Cantonese at home.
My aim is to raise a multilingual toddler/kid so I have been introducing them to other languages like Japanese and Korean. I intend to introduce them to French when they are older and they too get to hear and learn basic Malay as many elders around us speak Malay.  
I believe that it is important to have the kids introduce to the different languages as early as possible as they will be the least resistant to learning something new. Exposure is the key to getting them interested in languages.

3. Singapore is a small, urban island. Do children in Singapore access nature/natural environments? If so, how? Are they taught environmental education? 


Yes we live on an island but there are many pockets of greenery around as the place has been landscaped by the urban architects... there are many parks and even nature/jungle areas still around on the island.  In fact in the area where I am living in there is a bike trail that cuts throughs a greenery corridor and even to the wetland areas.  The school schedules trips to various parks or even the offshore islands around Singapore to see the different  plants/animals in their natural habitat.  We do have a great focus on being environmentally friendly with Earth Day celebration in school. 

4. I think the educational system in Singapore is pretty different from the U.S., and more centralized. How do people become teachers? What kind of training do they get? Compared to other jobs, are teachers paid fairly well, medium, or poorly? Is it a well-respected job? 

To be an educator in Singapore you first have to apply for the job with the Ministry of Education. Upon passing the selection test you have to undertake a Post Grad Diploma in Education from National Institute of Education before you are qualified to teach. Upon passing out you are bonded for 3 years and posted to a school to teach. Teachers are paid fairly well however unless you assume higher leadership positions it would be hard for your pay to be equal to those in the corporate sector. It is not as well-respected as before due to the degrading of society and its moral values however it is a relatively safe occupation as in guns and other weapons etc. are not allowed for civilians on this island and so there is no chance of massive shoot outs/killings in school. 
Hope that I have answered your questions.

Here is my bio.
Dominique Goh, Singaporean elementary school teacher, professional blogger and mom of three. Catch her on her blog as she shares about her experiences with her kids, education, cooking and baking. The photos are by Dominique Goh.

State Board of Ed Roadshow Gives (A Lot of) Food for Thought

As I noted the other day, I was unable to be at the recent forum at Pioneer High School with the State Board of Education. Luckily, my friend Julie Roth was able to go, and she consented to write a blog post. Thanks Julie!

Initial thoughts on the State Board of Education Forum meeting, by a non-teacher, non-educator, non-union Parent Stakeholder:

I am a bit sad that I feel I must first mention my non-teacher status to somehow ensure my credibility to have an opinion that is not automatically suspect or dismissed as self-interest.  Be that as it may…..

I am grateful to the state BOE, the hosting Washtenaw Alliance for Education, and all the many state legislators, superintendents, teachers, school board members, parents, students and others who PACKED the “little theater” at Pioneer High School.   There is certainly plenty of community interest in the future of our public schools.  No apathy here!

As a parent, I haven’t spent much time thinking about the Michigan State Board of Education.  I never really knew who or what they were.  Never directed any of my concerns to them, instead sending comments to my legislators, local school board members, and governor.  But now that I know a bit more about their role, that will certainly change.

Two of the four panelists were state BOE members:  President John Austin (D-Ann Arbor), and member Eileen Weiser (R-Ann Arbor).  The other two were Prof. David Arsen (MSU expert on school finance) and Peter Ruddell (Lansing attorney and primary author of the Oxford Foundation Report).   The meeting started with comments from each of the panelists regarding the report (formally called the Public Education Finance Act) and the proposals for changing our education system that are included in the bill going through the House.  David Arsen authored a strong critique of the report here, and it is definitely worth reading. 

The visions for the future of Michigan’s public education system were all over the map.  What I gathered is that the bill currently being discussed would do several things, including “un-bundling” the funding that the state provides to the school for each student.  If the student took 3 classes at Pioneer, 2 online classes provided from an online “school,” a class at a local charter, and one at a community college, then the funding for that student would be split between all those places.  How a student would actually do all of this is not clear.  I seemed to get the impression that most if not all classes taken outside a student’s primary school would be taken by distance, or online.  In addition, all these “schools” (I put this in quotes, because it seems anything now could be called a “school”) could have money taken away from them depending on how the kids did on standardized tests.

Austin and Arsen brought up a number of concerns.  If funding were scattered around all over the place, then what exactly would that do to our comprehensive community schools that provide so much more than the math and reading that are on the assessments?  What about sports, arts, science labs, community building, after school clubs?  What would be our schools’ ability to continue to provide these things that are not tested as “core” subjects, but are an integral part of our kids’ education?  Arsen talked a good deal about our disastrous funding nose-dive, and he has a great, very clear graph of what has happened to school funding over the past decade in the document I linked above.  He also cited research that showed a direct correlation between funding / resources and student achievement. 

Weiser acknowledged that studies show only 10% of students learn well in an online environment.  She then talked about the idea of “blended learning” which involves face-to-face instructors PLUS online instruction.  But this made no sense to me, because the online learning being discussed here (taking classes at lots of different places) could never be with instructors physically present, because students can’t get from one district to another and another all day.  So here we are, talking about “innovation” that would be a bad idea for 90% of our kids? 

Another concept that Arsen discussed was the fact that the current system of charters and other “alternatives” incentivizes these schools to attract those students who will do best on standardized tests.  That is, the students with high socioeconomic levels, involved parents, no learning disorders, no IEPs, no disabilities…..  you get the picture.  Since the standardized tests are so high-stakes, and funding is tied to so-called “achievement” (defined, as far as I can tell, as doing well on tests), then schools profit from culling from the herd.  And when successfully done, this leaves those kids with greater needs and fewer resources in schools that have increasingly fewer funds (as more kids leave), creating a horrible, inequitable death-spiral of sorts.  You really should read his critique – it covers these things much more thoroughly than I can.

I was concerned about Weiser’s inability to follow her own arguments to conclusion.  She would conflate some idea about “community center” schools where kids all go and get what they need, including online courses, activities, physical instruction, etc….  open longer hours and more days…..  With talk about splitting up funding to all these other entities, so how exactly is that school supposed to provide all this rich activity?

I was also concerned about Ruddells’ comments.  He skirted difficult questions from the audience – those for which he had no good answers, arguably because his position on these issues seems to come from a place of running some sort of business model of schools.  The problem with this is fundamental, in my opinion…..  The bottom line of business is profit.  The bottom line of schools is learning.  They are not, and will never be, the same thing.  His answers were brief, at times dismissive, and he used humor to deflect.  But I’m not laughing.

It’s worth noting that this entire piece of legislation was written by lawyers.  Lawyers!  With no input whatsoever from actual educators.  How telling! 

Christine Stead

After the initial comments by the panelists, the audience was given about 45 minutes for questions.  I’d estimate Christine Stead, the AAPS Board of Education member charged with manning the microphone, was able to get to something like 10% of those who had questions.  The energy in the room was palpable, with moments of spontaneous applause, and at other times anger and frustration.    The questions ranged from the EAA to preschool funding, and I can’t recall all of them here.

I was unable to ask my questions in person.  So since I have been given this blog as an outlet, I will leave you with them, unanswered:

Q:  If the sole primary measure of “outcomes” in all these non-bundled online learning experiences and charter “schools” and other school-like entities (including the public schools) is the scores on the standardized tests, then what is to prevent the logical trajectory of our educational system becoming one big Kaplan Test Prep class?  Kaplan is allegedly really good at making good test-takers.  Why don’t we all just send our kids there, and call it an education?

Q:  Part of the success of community based public schools is due to active, engaged, invested parents.  No, not all of them are so engaged, but the ones that are benefit ALL the kids, via Boosters and PTOs and fundraising and helping in classrooms and helping with after school clubs and all the zillions of ways that we engage in our schools.  If our kids are scattered all over the place, what happens to that investment?  Where do we focus our energies?  Or, in the currently favored business-speak – we are free labor!  Don’t dismiss the importance of that so readily.

Q:  Standardized tests are touted as a great way to evaluate kids.  But really, they are being used to evaluate teachers.  And sample sizes are TOO SMALL and NOT randomized.  Anyone with any understanding of statistics knows that this renders them useless in evaluating individual teachers.  In addition, I have talked to teachers, parents, principals and union members who all agree with me on this:  Everyone knows who the problem teachers are.  Just ASK.  Ask the parents, the other teachers, the principal, and the kids.  And when 3 of the 4 groups agree there is a problem, then intervene.  STOP using standardized tests to dismantle our education system in the name of teacher evaluation.

Q:  Final Question.  At what point, exactly, do we acknowledge that we are, quite simply, unable to provide adequate education NOT due to horrible teachers or horrible schools, but due to inadequate funding as well as all the issues that come with poverty and lack of privilege?  We CANNOT deliver a fabulous, innovative, engaging, project-based education to every student with ever-increasing class sizes, decreased classroom aides, reduction in arts and enrichment, and ever-increasing focus on teaching to the never-ending tests.   We need to change our priorities.  ALL our students deserve what the kids of our legislators get in their private schools.  And when they get it, believe it or not, it’s good for ALL of us.

This whole thing just feels like a big, convoluted, thinly-veiled scheme designed to take yet more funding away from the public schools, in the ultimate effort to dismantle public education, one step at a time.