Cost of SBAC testing in Connecticut is unconscionable, unnecessary (by John Bestor)

1 Comment

Connecticut educator and education advocate, John Bestor, has written another powerful commentary piece, this time dealing with the utter waste of scarce taxpayer funds on the unfair, inappropriate and discriminatory Common Core Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium SBAC testing scheme that is designed to fail a vast number of our state’s children.

With Governor Malloy implementing unprecedented cuts to vital state services, including public education, Malloy and the legislature should have started out by eliminating the funding for the SBAC testing scheme…long before the attacked the programs that are really helping Connecticut’s children, parents, teachers and public schools.

Published in the CTMirror and entitled, Cost of SBAC testing in Connecticut is unconscionable, unnecessary, Bestor writes;

Education activists have been speaking out and pushing back against the misguided Common Core State Standards and the flawed Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) statewide test protocol for several years now, as they have become more aware of the billionaire-driven, media-complicit, and politically-entrenched “corporate education reform” agenda.

Although the computer-adaptive Smarter Balanced Assessment remains unproven and developmentally-inappropriate, proponents of the controversial test have been unable to demonstrate that SBAC is a psychometrically valid or reliable measure of student academic progress, let alone college- and career-readiness.  Nor have they convincingly countered claims that SBAC is unfair and discriminatory to students who are required to suffer through hours of supposedly “rigorous” and often incomprehensible test questions.

Despite a charge from the Connecticut Legislature’s Education Committee to evaluate the efficacy of SBAC, the Mastery Examination Task Force has failed to address the fundamental psychometric criticisms associated with SBAC which have been convincingly presented by Dr. Mary Byrne in her testimony in the Missouri lawsuit against SBAC.

The Task Force has also failed to consider the findings of over 100 California researchers who called “for a moratorium on high-stakes testing broadly, and in particular, on the use of scientifically discredited assessment instruments (like the current SBAC, PARCC, and Pearson instruments).”   Is there any chance that the Task Force would review the College Board executive’s whistle-blower commentary on the unprofessional and fraudulent development of the newly-redesigned SAT?

Although these findings resonate with education activists and an increasing number of parents across the nation, they have fallen on deaf ears with leadership in our state, even while many other states have dropped their membership with the consortium or removed tying results to high stakes until such findings are substantiated.  Perhaps, an understanding of the exorbitant costs associated with the controversial SBAC and Statewide SAT will gain the public’s attention.

Gov. Dannel Malloy and former Education Commissioner
Stefan Pryor signed the NCLB waiver agreement that coerced and committed the CSDE to (at the time) unidentified costs associated with the “next generation” SBAC assessment in order to escape unrealistic NCLB expectations.  The SBAC membership contract is renewed annually for $2.7 million a year (now estimated $2.3 million with 11th-graders out assuming CSDE was able to recover the costs for not testing juniors).

In addition, $13.5 million is paid to AIR (American Institutes of Research) to administer the SBAC test.  Another $15.3 million has been allocated to AIR (over 4 years, including this year’s pilot) to cover CMT/CAPT Science Test administration.  An adjustment was necessary to the original SBAC agreement when the CSDE switched to the unproven, newly-redesigned Statewide SAT for 11th graders which resulted in a $4.4 million three-year contract with the College Board.  Under the current state testing protocol, these expenditures will be recurring and likely to increase in future contract renewals.  These estimates do not include the untold expense associated with the substantial costs to districts for implementation, teacher time for test preparation, and student time lost to meaningful instruction.

During the recent government budget crisis and with future budgets likely to be just-as or even-more difficult, this CSDE/CSBE cost is both unconscionable and unaffordable.

Bottom line: this is an unnecessary expense as the Mastery Examination Task Force can re-design the course of statewide assessments.

Task Force members need to look afresh at the federal testing mandate required by the recently passed Every Student Succeeds Act.  This re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in late 2015 empowers each state to determine its own assessment practice as long as the state meets its federal obligation by measuring Reading and Math student achievement annually in grades 3 – 8, 11 and Science achievement three times during that same grade span.

No longer are we required to give one extensive summative test each year, when the requirement can be met by using interim assessments that are already given in schools and combining those with more authentic forms of assessment that are far more meaningful to students.

Rather than expend millions of dollars in massive giveaways to the greedy test industry and their lobbying business partners in the charter-school movement, there is no doubt that this assessment expectation could be accomplished more simply and more cost effectively.

Education activists and the parents who have courageously opted their children out of the unproven SBAC understand the tangled web of deceit with which the proponents of “corporate education reform” are remaking, some say destroying, American public education.

You can read and comment on his piece at: http://ctviewpoints.org/2016/06/29/cost-of-sbac-testing-in-connecticut-is-unconscionable-unnecessary/

 

A Clarion Call for Action – Superintendent Scarice speaks out for students, parents, teachers and Connecticut

1 Comment

Madison, Connecticut Superintendent of Schools Thomas Scarice has been named a public education champion by Diane Ravitch, the nation’s leading education advocate.  His willingness to stand up and speak out on behalf of students, parents, teachers and public schools has earned him accolades and praise from the Washington Post to the Wait, What Blog and from many others.

In his latest piece, which first appeared in the CT Mirror, Thomas Scarice lays down the gauntlet saying, An education revolution beckons. In Connecticut, who will lead?.

Superintendent Scarice writes;

Recently I had the opportunity to testify before the Education Committee of the Connecticut Legislature.  I commented that education policy in our state sadly resembles the phenomenon of the “Macarena.”

Play along for a moment.  Let your mind drift back 20 years or so to any random wedding.  When the “Rent a DJ” wanted to get the dance floor moving you could hear the drumbeat and the lyrics, “Dale a tu cuerpo alegria Macarena.” Suddenly, the house was jumping, hips were swaying, hands were clapping, and everyone from your 5-year-old nephew to your great aunt were doing the Macarena.

Now fast forward to present day.  The same stale “Rent a DJ” reaches back and tries to conjure up some dance magic.  You hear that familiar drumbeat.  But, instead of filling up the dance floor, all that is left are two embarrassing guys, hips swaying and hands clapping, all alone on the floor, while family and friends shuffle uncomfortably in their seats trying not to make eye contact.

Sadly, this metaphor is an illustration of education policy in Connecticut.  We are the state left on the dance floor with tired policies, while other states are running away.  We are overdue for a bold statewide vision that matches the uncertain and ever-changing world our students will enter when they graduate.  But who will lead?

Codified by state law, and enforced by a bureaucracy utterly consumed by compliance, tens of thousands of educators across the state are suffocating, desperate to be exhumed.  Consequently, this suffocation is stifling the young, inquisitive minds of children from all backgrounds and colors.

Have we seen the types of educational changes we want for our kids in the past 10-15 years, particularly as the world endures revolutionary changes?  If not, why continue the same ineffectual practices?  Can Connecticut jump to the forefront and lead in innovation, or do we stand on the dance floor with the two embarrassing guys clapping and swaying?

As we careen through rapid global changes that have profound implications for the worlds of work, citizenship, and lifelong learning, it is safe to assume that the traditional promise of “go to school, get good grades, go to a good college, get a good job” no longer applies.  If you are clinging to that promise, you are probably still searching for your music at Tower Records.

The world continues to decentralize its economy, and the flow of information, at an unprecedented rate.  The “sharing economy” rewards innovators and diversity of thought.  Yet, Connecticut clings to a command-and-control educational approach destined to homogenize children.

Either directly through prescriptive laws, such as ones that mandate precisely how local boards of education must evaluate their employees, or indirectly through schemes and mechanisms that place high stakes on invalid and unreliable tests such as the SBAC, we rank and sort kids, schools, and teachers based on test scores. Our 8-year-old students take more state tests than what is required to pass the bar exam to become a lawyer.  All the while we are missing the point.

We are educating our children for the wrong era.

So, how is this era different?  The list is endless.

Our kids must be able to think analytically through incomparable volumes of information, to imagine, to work effectively with others, to find their voice in a sea of noise, to tell a compelling story, and to ask incisive questions to name just a few.  Getting better at taking tests, answering mind-numbing “text-dependent questions” by finding facts in non-fiction texts, and limiting opportunities for original thought will only serve to further divorce important authentic learning from schooling.

Sudden, almost instantaneous changes are reshaping our democracy and the global economy.  Will Uber, with a valuation about to surpass the levels of GM, DuPont, and Time Warner, evolve beyond online transportation and be the standard business model that will employ the next generation of professionals?  Might patients someday demand the attentive droid instead of the human doctor for time sensitive procedures, such as keyhole kidney surgery?  What about entry level or service jobs?  iPhone manufacturer, Foxconn, has already replaced 60,000 workers with robots, and Royal Caribbean’s luxury cruise line now uses a robotic bar, Shakr Makr, developed at MIT, to serve customers.

What does the automated car mean for the insurance industry?  What about the “sharing economy”?  Airbnb is now the biggest hotel chain in the world.  What happens if the startup company, Otto, with engineers from Google, Apple and Tesla, perfects technology that enables fleets of robotic self-driving trucks?  Have you noticed that a multi-billion dollar industry has been reduced to a red tin box of DVDs outside of gas stations in the matter of a few years?   Couple all of these rapid transformations with an increasingly polarized interpersonal climate across the nation and an imposing landscape emerges for this and future generations.

And our response in Connecticut?  We cling to a flawed test (i.e. the SBAC), conflating measures with goals, while other states, and organizations in private industry leave the dance floor and run in the opposite direction.

Over half of the states that initially adopted the SBAC have dropped it, and the remaining states inevitably will in due time, including Connecticut, but by then how many more students will have been harmed?

Oklahoma and Hawaii have removed the coupling of student test scores from the evaluations of individual teachers.  Massachusetts is the next state to follow suit, interestingly enough, led by a coalition of superintendents and teachers.  A recent New York court decision invalidated the use of student test scores in teacher evaluations due to the arbitrary and capricious nature of the process.

Even outside of education, private industry behemoths such as, Morgan Stanley, Microsoft, Google, and Accenture have eliminated the use of numerical ratings for employees, an immovable piece of the Connecticut evaluation scheme.  And finally, there’s New Hampshire, which has aggressively pursued a statewide assessment model that put teachers in the position of creating tasks where students apply their learning in real world situations, rather than flawed standardized tests.

Could Connecticut innovate on the same level?  Of course.  Will we?  Listen closely…”Dale a tu cuerpo alegria Macarena.

In Connecticut we will commission a “study” of the practice of assessing teachers’ performance on student test scores even though the actual makers of the test, and mountains of literature, warn against the practice.  We’ll grade schools and districts on a 1-5 rating scale, although that practice failed miserably across the nation.  We will count on the SBAC to predict career readiness… quite a miraculous endeavor given that the World Economic Forum recently predicted that 65 percent of the jobs our children will occupy do not even exist yet.

We will base 80 percent of elementary and middle school performance on a singular, flawed test, thus distorting the perception of schools.  We’ll place the SAT at the center of high school accountability with more than half of a school’s performance rating based on SAT scores, while a growing number of colleges and universities recognize that the SAT fails to properly predict college success and move to drop the testing requirement.

Worse yet, we apply the greatest pressure to districts with the greatest challenges, plagued with economic disadvantages and generational poverty.    Can you hear it?  “Dale a tu cuerpo alegria Macarena.”

And how do we justify such practices?  Perhaps most offensive of all, we equate the need for high stakes testing , and command-and-control policies, with the obligation to ensure the protection of the civil rights for our most at-risk children without any conversation about the funding, or even more necessary, accountability for those holding others accountable.

The obsession with dehumanizing students and equating them with data points has muted any discussion about inputs into the system (e.g. funding, class size, innovative curricular and professional development).  One need to go no farther than a short drive down the turnpike to civil rights expert, Dr. Yohuru Williams of Fairfield University, who has demonstrated with thunderous authority, through the actual words and sayings of Dr. Martin Luther King, that the leader of the U.S. civil rights movement would have never stood beside those who seek to privatize and monetize public education, nor would he have supported the high stakes testing obsession that has crippled the promise of public education, dehumanized children, and driven countless educators out of the profession.

If that is not enough, perhaps civil rights icon James Meredith’s most recent comments criticizing these same intellectually and morally bankrupt practices will finally put this myth to bed.

And yet, in Connecticut, we remain on the dance floor.  Our dance partners are dwindling, running in the opposite direction.  An education revolution beckons.  One that engages, imagines, inspires, and personalizes.

Soon, it will just be us and the two embarrassing guys.  Who will lead?

To read and comment on Thomas Scarice’s commentary piece go to the CTMirror at: http://ctviewpoints.org/2016/06/09/an-education-revolution-beckons-in-connecticut-who-will-lead/

 

NEWS FLASH – Common Core PARCC tests gets an “F” for Failure

1 Comment

Despite the rhetoric, promises and hundreds of millions of dollars in scarce public funds, a stunning assessment of the data reveals that the Common Core PARCC test DOES NOT successful predict college success.

The utter failure of the PARCC test reiterates that the same may be true for those states that have adopted the Common Coe SBAC testing scheme.

Here is the news;

The Common Core PARCC tests gets an “F” for Failure (By Wendy Lecker and Jonathan Pelto)

The entire premise behind the Common Core and the related Common Core PARCC and SBAC testing programs was that it would provide a clear cut assessment of whether children were “college and career ready.”

In the most significant academic study to date, the answer appears to be that the PARCC version the massive and expensive test is that it is an utter failure.

William Mathis, Managing Director of the National Education Policy Center and member of the Vermont State Board of Education, has just published an astonishing piece in the Washington Post. (Alice in PARCCland: Does ‘validity study’ really prove the Common Core test is valid? In it, Mathis demonstrates that the PARCC test, one of two national common core tests (the other being the SBAC), cannot predict college readiness; and that a study commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Education demonstrated the PARCC’s lack of validity.

This revelation is huge and needs to be repeated. PARCC, the common core standardized test sold as predicting college-readiness, cannot predict college readiness. The foundation upon which the Common Core and its standardized tests were imposed on this nation has just been revealed to be an artifice.

As Mathis wrote, the Massachusetts study found the following: the correlations between PARCC ELA tests and freshman GPA ranges from 0.13-0.26, and for PARCC Math tests, the range is between 0.37 and 0.40. Mathis explains that the correlation coefficients “run from zero (no relationship) to 1.0 (perfect relationship). How much one measure predicts another is the square of the correlation coefficient. For instance, taking the highest coefficient (0.40), and squaring it gives us .16. “

This means the variance in PARCC test scores, at their best, predicts only 16% of the variance in first year college GPA.  SIXTEEN PERCENT!  And that was the most highly correlated aspect of PARCC.  PARCC’s ELA tests have a correlation coefficient of 0.17, which squared is .02. This number means that the variance in PARCC ELA scores can predict only 2% of the variance in freshman GPA!

Dr. Mathis notes that the PARCC test-takers in this study were college freshman, not high school students. As he observes, the correlations for high school students taking the test would no doubt be even lower. (Dr. Mathis’ entire piece is a must-read. Alice in PARCCland: Does ‘validity study’ really prove the Common Core test is valid?)

Dr. Mathis is not an anti-testing advocate. He was Deputy Assistant Commissioner for the state of New Jersey, Director of its Educational Assessment program, a design consultant for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and for six states.   As managing director for NEPC, Dr. Mathis produces and reviews research on a wide variety of educational policy issues. Previously, he was Vermont Superintendent of the Year and a National Superintendent of the Year finalist before being appointed to the state board of education. He brings expertise to the topic.

As Mathis points out, these invalid tests have human costs:

“With such low predictability, you have huge numbers of false positives and false negatives. When connected to consequences, these misses have a human price. This goes further than being a validity question. It misleads young adults, wastes resources and misjudges schools.  It’s not just a technical issue, it is a moral question. Until proven to be valid for the intended purpose, using these tests in a high stakes context should not be done.”

PARCC is used in  New Jersey, Maryland and other states, not Connecticut. So why write about this here, where we use the SBAC?

The SBAC has yet to be subjected to a similar validity study.  This raises several questions.  First and most important, why has the SBAC not be subjected to a similar study? Why are our children being told to take an unvalidated test?

Second, do we have any doubt that the correlations between SBAC and freshman college GPA will be similarly low?  No- it is more than likely that the SBAC is also a poor predictor of college readiness.

How do we know this? The authors of the PARCC study shrugged off the almost non-existent correlation between PARCC and college GPA by saying the literature shows that most standardized tests have low predictive validity.

This also bears repeating: it is common knowledge that most standardized tests cannot predict academic performance in college.  Why , then, is our nation spending billions developing and administering new tests, replacing curricula, buying technology, text books and test materials, retraining teachers and administrators, and misleading the public by claiming that these changes will assure us that we are preparing our children for college?

And where is the accountability of these test makers, who have been raking in billions, knowing all the while that their “product” would never deliver what they promised, because they knew ahead of time that the tests would not be able to predict college-readiness?

When then-Secretary Arne Duncan was pushing the Common Core State Standards and their tests on the American public, he maligned our public schools by declaring: “For far too long,” our school systems lied to kids, to families, and to communities. They said the kids were all right — that they were on track to being successful — when in reality they were not even close.” He proclaimed that with Common Core and the accompanying standardized tests, “Finally, we are holding ourselves accountable to giving our children a true college and career-ready education.”

Mr. Duncan made this accusation even though there was a mountain of evidence proving that the best predictor of college success, before the Common Core, was an American high school GPA.  In other words, high schools were already preparing kids for college quite well.

With the revelations in this PARCC study and the admissions of its authors, we know now that it was Mr. Duncan and his administration who were lying to parents, educators, children and taxpayers. Politicians shoved the Common Core down the throat of public schools with the false claim that this regime would improve education.  They forced teachers and schools to be judged and punished based on these tests.  They told millions of children they were academically unfit based on these tests. And now we have proof positive that these standardized tests are just as weak as their predecessors, and cannot in any way measure whether our children are “college-ready.”

The time is now for policymakers to stop wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, and thousands of school hours, on a useless standardized testing scheme;   and to instead invest our scarce public dollars in programs that actually ensure that public schools are have the capacity to support and prepare students to have more fulfilling and successful lives.

BREAKING NEWS – Common Core PARCC tests gets an “F” for Failure

2 Comments

Stunning assessment of the data reveals Common Core test not a successful predictor of college success.

What does this mean for Connecticut and other SBAC states?

Common Core PARCC tests gets an “F” for Failure – By Wendy Lecker and Jonathan Pelto

The entire premise behind the Common Core and the related Common Core PARCC and SBAC testing programs was that it would provide a clear cut assessment of whether children were “college and career ready.”

In the most significant academic study to date, the answer appears to be that the PARCC version the massive and expensive test is that it is an utter failure.

William Mathis, Managing Director of the National Education Policy Center and member of the Vermont State Board of Education, has just published an astonishing piece in the Washington Post. (Alice in PARCCland: Does ‘validity study’ really prove the Common Core test is valid? In it, Mathis demonstrates that the PARCC test, one of two national common core tests (the other being the SBAC), cannot predict college readiness; and that a study commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Education demonstrated the PARCC’s lack of validity.

This revelation is huge and needs to be repeated. PARCC, the common core standardized test sold as predicting college-readiness, cannot predict college readiness. The foundation upon which the Common Core and its standardized tests were imposed on this nation has just been revealed to be an artifice.

As Mathis wrote, the Massachusetts study found the following: the correlations between PARCC ELA tests and freshman GPA ranges from 0.13-0.26, and for PARCC Math tests, the range is between 0.37 and 0.40. Mathis explains that the correlation coefficients “run from zero (no relationship) to 1.0 (perfect relationship). How much one measure predicts another is the square of the correlation coefficient. For instance, taking the highest coefficient (0.40), and squaring it gives us .16. “

This means the variance in PARCC test scores, at their best, predicts only 16% of the variance in first year college GPA.  SIXTEEN PERCENT!  And that was the most highly correlated aspect of PARCC.  PARCC’s ELA tests have a correlation coefficient of 0.17, which squared is .02. This number means that the variance in PARCC ELA scores can predict only 2% of the variance in freshman GPA!

Dr. Mathis notes that the PARCC test-takers in this study were college freshman, not high school students. As he observes, the correlations for high school students taking the test would no doubt be even lower. (Dr. Mathis’ entire piece is a must-read. Alice in PARCCland: Does ‘validity study’ really prove the Common Core test is valid?)

Dr. Mathis is not an anti-testing advocate. He was Deputy Assistant Commissioner for the state of New Jersey, Director of its Educational Assessment program, a design consultant for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and for six states.   As managing director for NEPC, Dr. Mathis produces and reviews research on a wide variety of educational policy issues. Previously, he was Vermont Superintendent of the Year and a National Superintendent of the Year finalist before being appointed to the state board of education. He brings expertise to the topic.

As Mathis points out, these invalid tests have human costs:

“With such low predictability, you have huge numbers of false positives and false negatives. When connected to consequences, these misses have a human price. This goes further than being a validity question. It misleads young adults, wastes resources and misjudges schools.  It’s not just a technical issue, it is a moral question. Until proven to be valid for the intended purpose, using these tests in a high stakes context should not be done.”

PARCC is used in  New Jersey, Maryland and other states, not Connecticut. So why write about this here, where we use the SBAC?

The SBAC has yet to be subjected to a similar validity study.  This raises several questions.  First and most important, why has the SBAC not be subjected to a similar study? Why are our children being told to take an unvalidated test?

Second, do we have any doubt that the correlations between SBAC and freshman college GPA will be similarly low?  No- it is more than likely that the SBAC is also a poor predictor of college readiness.

How do we know this? The authors of the PARCC study shrugged off the almost non-existent correlation between PARCC and college GPA by saying the literature shows that most standardized tests have low predictive validity.

This also bears repeating: it is common knowledge that most standardized tests cannot predict academic performance in college.  Why , then, is our nation spending billions developing and administering new tests, replacing curricula, buying technology, text books and test materials, retraining teachers and administrators, and misleading the public by claiming that these changes will assure us that we are preparing our children for college?

And where is the accountability of these test makers, who have been raking in billions, knowing all the while that their “product” would never deliver what they promised, because they knew ahead of time that the tests would not be able to predict college-readiness?

When then-Secretary Arne Duncan was pushing the Common Core State Standards and their tests on the American public, he maligned our public schools by declaring: “For far too long,” our school systems lied to kids, to families, and to communities. They said the kids were all right — that they were on track to being successful — when in reality they were not even close.” He proclaimed that with Common Core and the accompanying standardized tests, “Finally, we are holding ourselves accountable to giving our children a true college and career-ready education.”

Mr. Duncan made this accusation even though there was a mountain of evidence proving that the best predictor of college success, before the Common Core, was an American high school GPA.  In other words, high schools were already preparing kids for college quite well.

With the revelations in this PARCC study and the admissions of its authors, we know now that it was Mr. Duncan and his administration who were lying to parents, educators, children and taxpayers. Politicians shoved the Common Core down the throat of public schools with the false claim that this regime would improve education.  They forced teachers and schools to be judged and punished based on these tests.  They told millions of children they were academically unfit based on these tests. And now we have proof positive that these standardized tests are just as weak as their predecessors, and cannot in any way measure whether our children are “college-ready.”

The time is now for policymakers to stop wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, and thousands of school hours, on a useless standardized testing scheme;   and to instead invest our scarce public dollars in programs that actually ensure that public schools are have the capacity to support and prepare students to have more fulfilling and successful lives.

Matthew Valenti’s Year 2 Letter to Connecticut Teachers

2 Comments

These are dark time for our students, parents, teachers and public schools, as well as our entire country.

Connecticut continues to  historically underfund its school funding formula.  The crisis is now being exacerbated by Governor Malloy and the Democratic legislature’s decision to implement the deepest education budget cuts in state history.

At the same time, the legislature completed its 2016 session without addressing the fundamental problems associated with the unfair, inappropriate and discriminatory Common Core SBAC testing scheme, nor did it step forward and require that the Malloy administration develop a teacher evaluation system that is not reliant on the scores of this failed and disastrous testing program.

People should be outraged and should be demanding that elected officials be held accountable for their actions.

In this guest commentary piece, Connecticut educator Matthew Valenti puts into words what many are thinking.

Valenti is not only a retired school teacher and champion on behalf of public education, he is one of the most outspoken advocates for teachers and the teaching profession.

Exactly one year ago, Matt Valenti wrote an open letter to Connecticut teachers that first appeared here in Wait, What.  It was entitled, An Open Letter To Every Teacher in the State of Connecticut (By Matthew Valenti).  Now, a year later, Matt returns to reflect on the state of the state when it comes to Connecticut’s teachers and public education.

Matt Valenti writes;

Last year, I wrote an open letter to all teachers in Connecticut and what a sad day it was for them.  http://jonathanpelto.com/2015/05/21/an-open-letter-to-every-teacher-in-the-state-of-connecticut-by-matthew-valenti/.  My letter dealt with the ineffectiveness of the newly elected second term Connecticut Education Association officers and how they ever could have been re-elected after their second term endorsement for a governor who slaps public school teachers around at every turn.  After reading my letter a year later, I thought it interesting to reflect on this past year’s events in our state on the teacher front.

After 40.5 years as a public school teacher, I retired in 2014.  This past school year, I taught a .4 position in a public school.  I was evaluated in April.  The evaluation system in Connecticut stinks!  As a veteran teacher, I could see no validity to the process.  It doesn’t help teachers or education.  Even the principal admitted to me that the new evaluation harms great teachers.  And I talked to teachers…..they are ready to leave.  So I ask all of you, how has CEA made our profession better for teachers or students this past year?  Just look at the recent post by Jonathan Pelto in Wait What about how the legislators treated teachers, students, and parents by reading what Jonathan wrote a few days ago  http://jonathanpelto.com/2016/05/20/ct-legislators-support-students-parents-teachers-malloy-common-core-testing-mania/
The majority of these were the endorsed candidates of CEA.

And where does public school funding stand?  Massive cuts from the state budget again!  What about testing?  Increased testing!  What about charter schools?  More support for charter schools and Common Core.  So, what exactly did our second term CEA leaders accomplish this past year?  You decide.  But I’m sure they have been effective with golf tournaments, teddy bears, and dinner meetings at Aqua Turf, or whatever “restaurant de jour” they chose to meet at this year!

Years ago, I signed up to be a lifelong member of CEA and NEA Retired because it was a one time payment and far less expensive than being billed the rest of my life.  So, I’m wondering what I get for my dues?  Threats of cutting my measly monthly 220 dollar health benefits I earned, threats of pension loss due to the outrageous behavior of the CEA endorsed legislators, a pension I paid into for 40.5 years?

When I took the.4 position, I was notified that my CEA and NEA retired status would be suspended and I would have to start paying half dues since I was considered active.  I railed against that!  CEA blocked me from making comments on their Facebook page, because they don’t want teachers to know the truth, and I have to pay dues?  And, did you ever look at their Facebook page?  Stories about planting flowers, lesson ideas for Memorial Day, 5 new books for children to read…..this is a union?  I want my dues to protect teachers from corrupt legislators, not hide in fear from a bully governor and report fluff on their social media page!

My suggestion for this election season is to see who CEA endorses, and vote the other way.

No one can think that voting for the CEA endorsed candidates will improve the state.  Look at the “progress” from the last election.

Best;

Matthew P. Valenti
Semi-Retired Teacher and Union President

Did your CT legislators support students, parents and teachers or Malloy and the Common Core testing mania?

Comments Off on Did your CT legislators support students, parents and teachers or Malloy and the Common Core testing mania?

Earlier this month, the Connecticut General Assembly adjourned without even voting on one of the most important pieces of legislation being considered.  It was called Senate Bill 380 – AN ACT CONCERNING THE EXCLUSION OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE RESULTS ON THE MASTERY EXAMINATION FROM TEACHER EVALUATIONS.

Opposed by Governor Dannel Malloy, charter school advocates and the corporate education reform industry, the bill would have required the state to fix its flawed teacher evaluation law and reduce the state’s obsession with Malloy’s massive standardized testing scheme.

Instead of keeping the unfair, inappropriate and discriminatory Common Core Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) as part of the state’s flawed teacher evaluation program, the proposed law would have required Connecticut to adopt a system that is based on the real factors that determine whether a teacher is successfully doing their job in the classroom.

But Malloy and his allies, including the two major charter school lobby groups, ConnCAN and CCER, demanded that legislators defeat the bill and keep the existing shameful system in place.

Doing Malloy’s bidding, rather than what was right for Connecticut’s children, parents, teachers and public schools, the Democratic leaders of the Connecticut State Senate and Connecticut House of Representatives refused to even bring this important bill up for a vote, thereby killing the legislation.

Malloy and the corporate lobby group’s reach was even evident when the bill was voted on by the Education Committee.

A handful of legislators actually sided with Malloy and the big money charter school lobbyists to VOTE AGAINST the own constituents!

Legislators voting against Connecticut’s students, teachers and public schools included Democratic State Representatives;

Juan Candelaria (New Haven),

Jeff Curry (East Hartford, Manchester, South Windsor),
Henry Genga (East Hartford),
Doug McCrory (Bloomfield),
Brandon McGee (Windsor)
Patricia Miller (Stamford) and
Jason Roja (East Hartford, Manchester)

There were few recorded votes this year that provided citizens with such a stark contrast between right and wrong.

Given the opportunity to ensure that Connecticut reduced Malloy’s fixation with the Common Core testing scam and that it adopted a fair and appropriate teacher evaluation system, these legislators picked Malloy and the charter school industry over their constituents.

Remember this issue when voting in November 2016

The following chart indicates how legislators on the Education Committee voted and who co-sponsored this important piece of legislation.

What is missing is an explanation from Democratic legislators as to why they allowed their leadership to prevent the bill from even coming up for a vote.

Connecticut citizens deserved much better!

 

STATE SENATOR District  Party  Education Committee Co-Sponsor Status
Bartolomeo, Danté S13 D VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Boucher, Toni S26 R VOTED YES  
Bye, Beth S05 D VOTED YES  
Cassano, Steve S04 D    
Chapin, Clark J. S30 R    
Coleman, Eric D. S02 D   CO-SPONSOR
Crisco, Joseph J. S17 D    
Doyle, Paul R. S09 D    
Duff, Bob S25 D    
Fasano, Leonard A. S34 R   CO-SPONSOR
Flexer, Mae S29 D   CO-SPONSOR
Fonfara, John W. S01 D    
Formica, Paul M. S20 R    
Frantz, L. Scott S36 R    
Gerratana, Terry B. S06 D   CO-SPONSOR
Gomes, Edwin A. S23 D   CO-SPONSOR
Guglielmo, Anthony S35 R   CO-SPONSOR
Hartley, Joan V. S15 D    
Hwang, Tony S28 R    
Kane, Robert J. S32 R    
Kelly, Kevin C. S21 R    
Kennedy, Ted S12 D    
Kissel, John A. S07 R    
Larson, Timothy D. S03 D    
Leone, Carlo S27 D    
Linares, Art S33 R VOTED NO  
Looney, Martin M. S11 D    
Markley, Joe S16 R    
Martin, Henri S31 R    
Maynard, Andrew M. S18 D    
McLachlan, Michael A. S24 R    
Moore, Marilyn S22 D   CO-SPONSOR
Osten, Catherine A. S19 D    
Slossberg, Gayle S. S14 D VOTED YES  
Winfield, Gary A. S10 D VOTED YES  
Witkos, Kevin D. S08 R   CO-SPONSOR

 

 

STATE REPRESENTATIVE District  Party  Education Committee Co-sponsor Status
Abercrombie, Catherine F. 83 D   CO-SPONSOR
Ackert, Tim 8 R VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Adams, Terry B. 146 D   CO-SPONSOR
Adinolfi, Al 103 R    
Alberts, Mike 50 R    
Albis, James 99 D   CO-SPONSOR
Alexander, David 58 D   CO-SPONSOR
Altobello, Emil 82 D    
Aman, William 14 R    
Arce, Angel 4 D    
Arconti, David 109 D   CO-SPONSOR
Aresimowicz, Joe 30 D    
Baker, Andre F. 124 D VOTED YES  
Baram, David A. 15 D   CO-SPONSOR
Becker, Brian 19 D    
Belsito, Sam 53 R VOTED YES  
Berger, Jeffrey J. 73 D    
Berthel, Eric C. 68 R VOTED NO CO-SPONSOR
Betts, Whit 78 R    
Bocchino, Mike 150 R   CO-SPONSOR
Bolinsky, Mitch 106 R VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Boukus, Elizabeth A. 22 D    
Brycki, Paul 45 D    
Buck-Taylor, Cecilia 67 R    
Bumgardner, Aundré 41 R VOTED YES  
Butler, Larry B. 72 D   CO-SPONSOR
Byron, Gary 27 R    
Camillo, Fred 151 R   CO-SPONSOR
Candelaria, Juan R. 95 D VOTED NO  
Candelora, Vincent J. 86 R    
Carney, Devin R. 23 R   CO-SPONSOR
Carpino, Christie M. 32 R    
Carter, Dan 2 R VOTED YES  
Case, Jay M. 63 R    
Conroy, Theresa W. 105 D   CO-SPONSOR
Cook, Michelle L. 65 D    
Currey, Jeff 11 D VOTED NO  
D’Agostino, Michael 91 D VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
D’Amelio, Anthony J. 71 R    
Dargan, Stephen D. 115 D    
Davis, Christopher 57 R    
Demicco, Mike 21 D    
Devlin, Laura 134 R    
Dillon, Patricia A. 92 D    
Dubitsky, Doug 47 R    
Esposito, Louis P. 116 D    
Ferraro, Charles J. 117 R    
Fleischmann, Andrew 18 D VOTED YES  
Floren, Livvy R. 149 R    
Fox, Daniel J. 148 D    
France, Mike 42 R    
Frey, John H. 111 R   CO-SPONSOR
Fritz, Mary G. 90 D    
Genga, Henry J. 10 D VOTED NO  
Gentile, Linda M. 104 D    
Giegler, Janice R. 138 R    
Godfrey, Bob 110 D   CO-SPONSOR
Gonzalez, Minnie 3 D    
Gresko, Joseph P. 121 D   CO-SPONSOR
Guerrera, Antonio 29 D    
Haddad, Gregory 54 D   CO-SPONSOR
Hampton, John K. 16 D   CO-SPONSOR
Harding, Stephen G. 107 R    
Hennessy, John “Jack” F. 127 D   CO-SPONSOR
Hewett, Ernest 39 D   CO-SPONSOR
Hoydick, Laura R. 120 R    
Janowski, Claire L. 56 D   CO-SPONSOR
Johnson, Susan M. 49 D VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Jutila, Ed 37 D    
Kiner, David W. 59 D   CO-SPONSOR
Klarides, Themis 114 R    
Kokoruda, Noreen S. 101 R VOTED YES  
Kupchick, Brenda L. 132 R    
Labriola, David K. 131 R    
Lavielle, Gail 143 R VOTED YES  
LeGeyt, Timothy B. 17 R VOTED YES  
Lemar, Roland J. 96 D VOTED YES  
Lesser, Matthew 100 D   CO-SPONSOR
Lopes, Rick 24 D   CO-SPONSOR
Luxenberg, Kelly J.S. 12 D    
MacLachlan, Jesse 35 R    
McCarthy Vahey, Cristin 133 D VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
McCarty, Kathleen M. 38 R VOTED NO  
McCrory, Douglas 7 D VOTED NO  
McGee, Brandon L. 5 D VOTED NO  
McGorty, Ben 122 R    
Megna, Robert W. 97 D   CO-SPONSOR
Miller, Patricia Billie 145 D VOTED NO  
Miller, Philip J. 36 D    
Miner, Craig A. 66 R   CO-SPONSOR
Morin, Russell A. 28 D   CO-SPONSOR
Morris, Bruce V. 140 D    
Mulligan, Gayle J. 55 R VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Mushinsky, Mary M. 85 D    
Nicastro, Frank N. 79 D    
Noujaim, Selim G. 74 R   CO-SPONSOR
O’Dea, Tom 125 R    
O’Neill, Arthur J. 69 R    
Orange, Linda A. 48 D   CO-SPONSOR
Pavalock, Cara Christine 77 R    
Perillo, Jason 113 R    
Perone, Chris 137 D    
Piscopo, John E. 76 R    
Porter, Robyn A. 94 D    
Randall, Christine 44 D   CO-SPONSOR
Rebimbas, Rosa C. 70 R    
Reed, Lonnie 102 D    
Reyes, Geraldo C. 75 D    
Riley, Emmett D. 46 D   CO-SPONSOR
Ritter, Matthew 1 D    
Rojas, Jason 9 D VOTED NO  
Rosario, Christopher 128 D    
Rose, Kim 118 D   CO-SPONSOR
Rovero, Daniel S. 51 D    
Rutigliano, David 123 R    
Ryan, Kevin 139 D    
Sampson, Robert C. 80 R    
Sanchez, Robert 25 D VOTED YES  
Santiago, Ezequiel 130 D    
Santiago, Hilda E. 84 D   CO-SPONSOR
Sayers, Peggy 60 D    
Scanlon, Sean 98 D    
Scott, John F. 40 R    
Serra, Joseph C. 33 D    
Shaban, John T. 135 R    
Sharkey, J. Brendan 88 D    
Simanski, Bill 62 R    
Simmons, Caroline 144 D    
Smith, Richard A. 108 R    
Sredzinski, J.P. 112 R    
Srinivasan, Prasad 31 R    
Stafstrom, Steven 129 D    
Stallworth, Charlie L. 126 D    
Staneski, Pam 119 R VOTED YES CO-SPONSOR
Steinberg, Jonathan 136 D    
Tercyak, Peter A. 26 D   CO-SPONSOR
Tong, William 147 D    
Tweedie, Mark 13 R   CO-SPONSOR
Urban, Diana S. 43 D   CO-SPONSOR
Vail, Kurt 52 R    
Vargas, Edwin 6 D   CO-SPONSOR
Verrengia, Joe 20 D   CO-SPONSOR
Walker, Toni E. 93 D   CO-SPONSOR
Willis, Roberta B. 64 D   CO-SPONSOR
Wilms, Fred 142 R    
Wood, Terrie 141 R    
Yaccarino, Dave W. 87 R   CO-SPONSOR
Zawistowski, Tami 61 R    
Ziobron, Melissa H. 34 R    
Zoni, David 81 D   CO-SPONSOR
Zupkus, Lezlye 89 R  

A lesson about Garbage In, Garbage Out and turning classrooms into testing factories

Comments Off on A lesson about Garbage In, Garbage Out and turning classrooms into testing factories

Fellow columnist and public education advocate Sarah Darer Littman left Governor Dannel Malloy, the corporate education reform industry and their obsession with standardized testing no room to hide in her latest MUST READ article in CT Newsjunkie entitled, Garbage In, Garbage Out: A Reminder for PEAC and the State Board of Education

Using the adage that “Garbage In, Garbage Out,” or “GIGO” as it is known, leads to useless or even dangerous outcomes, Littman highlights a series of recent examples that reveal the very real and serious ramifications that result from the corporate greed and testing mania that is being pushed by Malloy and other “education reform” allies.

While the corporations win and the politicians collect big campaign donations, our children, teachers and public schools lose … along with the taxpayers whose scarce resources get diverted from educating children to pumping up profits for the testing companies.

In one example she explains;

Justice Roger D. McDonough of the N.Y. Supreme Court’s 3rd District provided a reminder of this on Tuesday when he ruled in the case of Sheri G. Lederman that the N.Y. Education Department’s growth score and rating of her as “ineffective” for the 2013-14 school year was “arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.”

Lederman is a fourth-grade teacher in Great Neck, Long Island. Great Neck’s Superintendent of Schools at the time she filed the lawsuit, Thomas Dolan, described her as a “highly regarded as an educator” with “a flawless record,” whose students consistently scored above the state average on standardized math and English tests. In 2012-13, more than two-thirds of her students scored as proficient or advanced. Yet in 2013-14, despite a similar percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standards, Lederman was rated “ineffective” as a teacher.

The problem with the testing program in New York parallels the problem in Connecticut.

Despite the massive expenditure of public dollars, including more than $20 million a year in Connecticut state funds, the SBAC test and its sister version which is called the PARCC test, fail to adequately measure student achievement and have no appropriate role in the teacher evaluation process.

But the truth is irrelevant when it comes to Malloy, his Commissioner of Education, his political appointees on the State Board of Education or, for that matter, the members of the Connecticut General Assembly.

For them, the perceived value of looking “tough” on teachers and schools is more important than the reality of doing what it takes to actually ensure that every child gets the quality education they need and deserve.

As Sarah Darer Littman explains,

Four years ago, in a meeting with the CTNewsJunkie editorial board, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy made the outrageous, nonsensical claim that teachers leaving the profession had nothing to do with such punitive policies, and when provided with research to the contrary his reply was silence and a determination to stay his clearly detrimental course.

And there is more, much more.

Sarah Darer Littman’s Garbage In, Garbage Out: A Reminder for PEAC and the State Board of Education is an extremely powerful piece.

Go read it at: http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/op-ed_garbage_in_garbage_out_a_reminder_for_peac_and_the_state_board_of_ed/

Legislature FAILS to decouple SBAC test results from Malloy’s unfair teacher evaluation system

4 Comments

Governor Dannel Malloy, Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman and corporate education reformers will be crowing this morning on their successful campaign to defeat Senate Bill 380, legislation that would have forced the Malloy administration to stop using the unfair, inappropriate and discriminatory Common Core SBAC test results as part of Connecticut’s flawed Teacher Evaluation Program.

Given the opportunity to do the right thing and stand with Connecticut’s students, parents, teachers and public schools by deemphasizing the destructive SBAC testing scam and ensuring that Connecticut’s public school teachers are evaluated using a system that actually measures their effectiveness, Connecticut’s legislators – once again – turned their backs and walked away.

For those who support public education and believe in creating better, healthier and more productive learning environments … The November Election can’t come soon enough.

The Common Core SBAC Test is a poor measure for kids and teachers alike

Comments Off on The Common Core SBAC Test is a poor measure for kids and teachers alike

Mia Dimbo is a Connecticut educator and public school advocate.  As a teacher in the Bridgeport, Connecticut Public School System, Ms. Dimbo works in an environment in which many of her students face the significant challenges associated with poverty, a lack of proficiency in the English Language and unmet special education needs.

In this powerful commentary piece she explains why the simplistic “test and punish” strategies espoused by the corporate education reformers are failing to have a positive impact on students, parents, teachers and public schools in Connecticut and across the nation.

The 2016 Session of the Connecticut General Assembly is coming to a close today, but Connecticut’s state legislators still have time to approve legislation reducing Connecticut’s overemphasis on standardized testing, legislation that would require Dannel Malloy and his administration to set aside their disastrous teacher evaluation program and develop one tha tis not dependent on the unfair, inappropriate and discriminatory Common Core SBAC testing scheme.

If any elected official is uncertain how to proceed on this important issue they should read Mia Dimbo’s, Test a poor measure for kids and teachers alike.  The courageous teacher writes;

When I sit at dinner with my family, I often think about my students. I have been a teacher in Bridgeport for many years and have seen the disparities between my own son, who lives in a suburban home and attends a suburban school, and the challenges my students face in a high-poverty, urban community.

I know my students have the potential to succeed. I also know that my students go home praying that no bullets will pass through their windows, and hoping they will have food to eat. I understand that it is often a world of “haves and have nots.” So I work hard to provide the education and knowledge they will need to grow and achieve. My students deserve an academic experience that lifts them up and helps them overcome the obstacles they face.

Respecting the potential and humanity of each student should be at the heart of our public school education system. Far too often, however, students in high-poverty schools must confront not only the challenges in their community, but also the burden of an impersonal, standardized testing scheme that too often results in the wrong priorities and fails to identify and address their needs.

My students deserve assessments that are free from bias and are designed to benefit them — not testing corporations. That’s why the idea of linking the state mastery exam, the Smarter Balanced or SBAC test to teacher evaluation is wrong for both teachers and students. The State Department of Education admits that SBAC “is not meant as a diagnostic measure to directly inform a teacher’s classroom instruction on a daily or weekly basis.” It in no way helps inform the instruction of my students.

A mastery exam is supposed to measure knowledge in a uniform and fair manner, and not discriminate against students on the basis of income or whether they have desktops, laptops and computer tablets at home. It is especially punishing and developmentally inappropriate for special-education students, English language learners, students below grade level, and younger students, as they must stare into a computer screen for many hours and become discouraged and frustrated with a test that does not accommodate their needs. For some, it is a crushing experience.

This is an important civil rights issue. I recently joined several of my urban teacher colleagues, who are members of the Connecticut Education Association’s Ethnic Minority Affairs Commission, and met with representatives of the Connecticut African-American Affairs Commission and state lawmakers who are members of the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus.

We explained the harmful effects of SBAC on all students, but especially on students in low-income districts like ours. We discussed the research that shows how the awkward, computerized format of the SBAC test creates a significant technology gap for students in high-poverty schools.

We talked about the unintended consequence of linking this unfair and biased test to a teacher’s evaluation, especially for urban teachers. There are much better, more accurate tools to measure the effectiveness of teachers. Urban districts like mine are often training grounds for talented, beginning educators who leave urban schools for jobs in the suburbs, where resources and learning conditions are more conductive to school success.

My colleagues and I told the legislators that the state requirement linking the invalid SBAC test and teacher evaluations is a disincentive to committed educators who want to stay in city schools. We urged them to focus their energies on enabling our cities to retain these educators, and develop innovations for cities seeking to attract and retain high-quality teachers, especially minority teachers.

Teachers know what matters most: providing engaging instruction and promoting skills that lead to lifelong learning such as collaboration, communication, critical thinking and creativity. These skills are not measured well or at all by standardized tests. Connecticut should join the majority of states that have already rejected the SBAC test, and refuse to undermine the integrity of teacher evaluations. Senate Bill 380, currently before the state legislature would do just that.

Eliminating SBAC from teacher evaluation will increase reliability and validity. Evaluations currently include the review of multiple measures of student performance, growth and development, including tests that are designed specifically to measure the progress of classroom learning. I assess my students using classroom-based projects, assignments and tests that give me immediate feedback so that I can target my instruction to help them achieve at the highest levels. I want to be evaluated based on the growth of my students during the course of the school year, in the subjects and skills that I teach.

As a teacher, I have chosen to dedicate my life to helping my students achieve within and outside of the classroom. There is nothing more important than the education of our children, and we owe it to our students to assess that education in a manner that is honest, valid and fair.

It’s what we should all want. Legislators must reach this same conclusion for the sake of our children and our future.

This commentary piece first appeared in the CT Post on May 2, 2016.  You can read and comment on Mia Dimbo’s article at: http://m.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Test-a-poor-measure-for-kids-and-teachers-alike-7388492.php

Connecticut Legislators – Now is the time to act on the inappropriate SBAC testing program!

4 Comments

Anne Manusky is a Connecticut parent, education advocate and trained academic researcher.  In this commentary piece she lays out why the Common Core Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBAC) testing system fails to provide accurate and useable information about student performance, why it should not be used as part of an effective teacher evaluation system and why Connecticut’s elected officials should defund the SBAC testing madness and use those funds to help address Connecticut’s budget crisis.

Anne Manusky writes;

As a parent and former psychological research assistant, I have had great concerns with education reform:  Common Core implementation and their reportedly ‘innovative’ tests – CT’s choice, the Smarter Balanced Assessments.

The concerns have become real, and as our elected officials review and make legislative decisions, a critical element must be reviewed: credibility of the state test, statutorily the “state Mastery test”, as well as the questionable Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium’s interstate compact.

Currently there are two CT General Assembly bills which consider the Smarter Balanced Assessments the state “Mastery Test” (requirement of state statute):

SB 380 ‘An Act Concerning the Exclusion of Student Performance Results on the Mastery Examination on Teacher Evaluations – https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB380

And,

HB 5555 ‘ An Act Concerning the Minimum Budget Requirement and Prohibiting the Inclusion of Participation Rates for the State Wide Mastery Examination in the Calculation of a School District’s Accountability Index Score – https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB5555

The Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) has no psychometric analyses providing the validity and reliability of the assessment; no independent verification of this assessment exists.

These analyses are necessary to determine credibility of this test.

An FOIA request was recently submitted to the CT State Department of Education for

1) Any and all materials providing validity and reliability of the Smarter Balanced Assessments; and 2) the “deep psychometric study” the State claims to have completed.

Commissioner Wentzel made a point to provide that the Smarter Balanced testing was being reduced due to a said “deep psychometric study”.  Top state officials lop off almost two hours off the ‘Smarter Balanced’ test. Hartford Courant   http://www.courant.com/education/hc-state-officials-cutback-smarter-balanced-test-20160225-story.html.

Materials provided from the State Department of Education to substantiate these questions did not provide validation or of further psychometric testing to determine a “deep psychometric study” had been conducted.

On the other hand, 100 education researchers from California provide “The assessments have been carefully examined by independent examiners of the test content who concluded that they lack validity, reliability, and fairness, and should not be administered, much less be considered a basis for high-stakes decision making.”  Common Core State Standards Assessments in California: Concerns and Recommendations, CARE-ED, Feb 2016,  (See http://media.wix.com/ugd/1e0c79_2718a7f68da642a09e9244d50c727e40.pdf)

Testing which has no credible basis should not be used to assess children in California, or anywhere else for that matter. It then becomes even more of an issue that these tests were believed to be suitable for assessing children, it has no credibility in use for the evaluation of classroom teachers.

Unfortunately, Commissioner Wentzel even acknowledges in her CGA HB 5555 Testimony:

“…Without reliable measurements….. it would be difficult to “measure improvement and growth among our students from one year to the next.”

Why wouldn’t the State Department of  Education’s highest officer and/or staff review the validity, reliability and construct validity of what is being considered the “state Mastery test”?

How much time have CT’s children wasted on taking this “test”?

At this time, the state of CT is under a 3-year SBAC compact. This compact was found in the state of Missouri to be an unlawful interstate compact, never was approved by Congress. .https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/26/judge-rules-missouris-membership-in-common-core-testing-group-is-illegal/

The current fiscal issues for the testing include the Smarter Balanced Consortium Membership fee is $8,080,331 for 3 years, as well as fees for the American Institutes of Research (AIR – which gives the Smarter Balanced) – $13,555,173 for 3 years.

These are serious issues which need to be addressed by our Connecticut Legislature.

Defund the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium compact, cut the unproven, invalid Smarter Balanced testing saving the CT taxpayers over 7 million in one year alone.

Also, an investigation into the State Department of Education as well as the State Board of Education’s decisions to use this “test” without review of basic statistical significance should be completed.

Anne Manusky is absolutely correct.  As Connecticut’s elected officials grapple with Connecticut’s ongoing budget crisis, they can make a significant and positive difference for Connecticut’s students, parents, teachers, public schools and taxpayers by passing Senate Bill 380 and requiring that the Malloy administration stop using the unfair, inappropriate and discriminatory SBAC test as part of the state’s mandated teacher evaluation program.

In addition, as Anne Manusky points out, the Connecticut legislature should stop funding the failed SBAC testing program and use those funds to preserve some of the vital services that Connecticut’s most vulnerable citizens need and deserve.

If Connecticut’s state senators and state representatives are committed to doing the right thing for Connecticut, they should start by reading this commentary piece and acting on its recommendations.

Older Entries