We Work Together, But Test Alone

I am currently enrolled in a combined technology certifications course. Upon completion of a number of certification-targeted classroom instruction hours and after taking multiple practice tests, we, isolated from any and all digital and human resources (even our wallets and purses are not allowed), are subjected to an intense, time-regulated multiple choice test for each certification. To be fair, the tests include a few "simulations" which are little more than drag and drop exercises. The test questions are determined by the certification authority, proctored by an employee of the instructional organization, and administered remotely by Pearson VUE.

Two points:

• technology certification instruction. Think about that for a minute then visualize a standard 1980's classroom configuration. Add a computer on each desk. The instructor's desk is to the right front of the room so as not to block the information being projected from the overhead projector onto the screen at the front of the room. For the most part the instructor projects and reads from the certification authority's text interrupting only to address questions that are thankfully allowed at any point. Students may observe what is being read on the screen at the front of the room or follow along on their personal computers. The text does contain many reinforcing graphical representations. Periodically within the test are computer-based practical exercises that attempt to replicate the real thing using an artificial user interface that in itself requires familiarization. Infrequently (two in a two-month period) a half-day "lab" is conducted. The labs represent limited reality, e.g., setting up a network switch that is not connected to a network. Somehow what we've learned in the past 30 years about pedagogies, instructional technologies, and integrating technology into classrooms and curriculums have bypassed the exulted organizations that control technology certifications and those that instruct toward certification achievement.


• isolated from any and all digital and human resources. The work world is all about sharing, communicating, and collaborating. In a very long and varied career, I have only experienced one job wherein I was unable to correspond with or seek help from others in a timely manner. It was when I was a high school teacher. Not that help wasn't available overtime, just when most needed. Anyway, for the most part, the work world now expects, even demands, teamwork. Recently I read an article that in a sentence capsulized the way work success has evolved. "We all know who invented the light bulb but who invented the iPhone?" Yet we continue to test knowledge in isolation rather than performance within a group. The future lies in developing and administering team performance tests that also measure individual knowledge and collaborative acuity.

Resume Bombs

This blog at Curmugucation (Peter Greene) is aimed at the Common Core in education but as well applies to many fields.

Discovering Educational Content for iPad

This book is available for download with iBooks on your Mac or iOS device.

This guide will help teachers understand what type of content is available in each of the iTunes stores, how to access the stores from a Mac or iPad, and find tips on how to search each store and education curated collections for the type of content they might use in their classrooms.  The Guide walks through 2 sample lesson topics to help showcase the wide range of materials a teacher might use in a lesson, and encourages creative thinking about using content beyond Apps when teaching with iPad.

Six Must-Haves for a Teacher Effectiveness Technology Platform

At EdSurge we find another numbered sure thing. Every day we see hundreds of the X Best...., X Ways to...., X Keys to...., X Must-Haves...., XX Apps That..., X Steps...., and on and on. Many of the recommended apps and applications are probably useful but do you really want to spend hours daily reviewing and testing them? And many, if not most, of the others are platitudinous and, frankly, embarrassing. Just take a look at the "Six Must-Haves for a Teacher Effectiveness Technology Platform."

1. The platform must deliver high-quality professional development resources.

2. It must provide on-demand, 24/7 access.

3. It must provide highly targeted and personalized PD.

4. It must facilitate teacher collaboration.

5. It must offer robust administrative tools.

6. It must be easy to use.

No doubt Ms. and Mr. Administrator have been sitting on their hands eagerly waiting for this sage advice. Now teaching and learning can continue unabated. But wait! Have you fully implemented the Four Keys to Successful School Improvement and the Five Proven Steps to Promote Great Teaching?

More on CCSS & PARCC in Illinois

Originally posted on Diane Ravitch. Where are the unions on this mess? Read a career teacher's open letter to Cindy Kickna, President of IEA. This is what gives unions a bad name. Who do they really represent if not the teachers and students?

Just one paragraph:

Please, if you are going to take our money and purport to represent teachers collectively in Illinois, it is incumbent upon you to educate yourself about the reality of the monumental bamboozle that is corporate reform. I recommend Diane Ravitch’s book Reign of Error for starters, and her blog is a daily format for exposing the damaging effects of the move to privatize and profitize education. Todd Farley’s book Making the Grades is an insider’s expose of Pearson’s shoddy test design process and and standardized test-grading mills.

 

Ten Principles of Proficiency-Based Learning

Originally posted on CompetencyWorks:

The principles were created by the Great Schools Partnership. To fully appreciate term nuances, you might want to follow the links to the GSP "Glossary of Education Reform" website. Philosophically I find little to argue with here but, as always, it's seldom the principles that are in dispute. No, it's the method by which they are implemented. These 10 principles are intended as, "a good resource for states, districts and schools to start the conversation about the new policies and practices that need to be put in place". Great intention, however, our experience has been that the conversation starts and stops at the federal or state level where implementation becomes dictatorial or at best threatening. GSP tries to take a neutral position on the controversial elements of the principles. For example, browse to the Summative assessments link and at the very bottom of the page is the following:

Debate

While there is little disagreement among educators about the need for or utility of summative assessments, debates and disagreements tend to center on issues of fairness and effectiveness, especially when summative assessment results are used for high-stakes purposes. In these cases, educators, experts, reformers, policy makers, and others may debate whether assessments are being designed and used appropriately, or whether high-stakes tests are either beneficial or harmful to the educational process. For more detailed discussions of these issues, see high-stakes test, measurement error, test accommodations, test bias, score inflation,standardized test, and value-added measures.

1. All learning expectations are clearly and consistently communicated to students and families, including long-term expectations (such as graduation requirements and graduation standards), short-term expectations (such as the learning objectives for a specific lesson), and general expectations (such as the performance levels used in the school’s grading and reporting system).


2. Student achievement is evaluated against common learning standards and performance expectations that are consistently applied to all students, regardless of whether they are enrolled in traditional courses, pursuing alternative learning pathways or receiving academic support.


3. All forms of assessment are standards-based and criterion-referenced, and success is defined by the achievement of expected standards, not relative measures of performance or student-to-student comparisons.


4. Formative assessments evaluate learning progress during the instructional process and are not graded; formative-assessment information is used to inform instructional adjustments, practices, and support.


5. Summative assessments evaluate learning achievement and are graded; summative assessment scores record a student’s level of proficiency at a specific point in time.


6. Grades are used to communicate learning progress and achievement to students and families; grades are not used as forms of punishment or control.


7. Academic progress and achievement is monitored and reported separately from work habits, character traits, and behaviors such as attendance and class participation.


8. Students are given multiple opportunities to retake assessments or improve their work when they fail to meet expected standards.


9. Students can demonstrate learning progress and achievement in multiple ways through differentiatedassessments, personalized-learning options, or alternative learning pathways.


10. Students are given opportunities to make important decisions about their learning, which includes contributing to the design of learning experiences and personalized learning pathways.

CCSS to PARCC to FAILURE in Illinois

The Illinois PARCC results were released yesterday and with no surprises. Failure! It's happening in all the PARCC states. I know a little about why but I wanted the perspective of a teacher so I reached out to one for whom I have great respect. She's an insightful Chicago teacher of disadvantaged 8th-grade students who cares. Late last night she responded by email. The story she tells is sad and admittedly angers me as it should anyone who reads this. How could our so-called leaders be so incompetent? Or is it part of a plan to demoralize the students and teachers and in the process destroy traditional public schooling? Or are they just plain stupid? Here is her email. I have removed a partial sentence that contains personal information.

First of all, the students are not accustomed to taking a test on the computer.  There are different tools and if you don't have adequate technology in the building, it is hard to expose the students to all the different tools on the test.  I had to use a computer projected on my whiteboard to show the students how to use the tools.  Now we all know that we learn best by practicing it ourselves.  Students weren't given that opportunity because IL has failed to make sure that EVERY school in the State has the same resources (you know, like a functioning computer lab, for starters).  Students aren't used to typing answers either.  They had to explain in writing their thinking but most students don't have the typing skills.  So some just typed the bare minimum which probably wasn't adequate for PARCC evaluators.

The CCSS are not specific enough.  The writers sure think they are but they are clueless.  For example, I am teaching 8.EE.1 right now, which are the laws of exponents.  I have no idea how in-depth I need to go with that but I do know it is on PARCC.  I could spend two weeks easily on laws of exponents but is it necessary?  I'm not sure.  It is a guessing game as to how deep you need to go.  I read some of the standards and I'm like whaaaatttt?   I have to Google it and get examples that I am hoping adequately address the standard.  I am also relying on other interpretations of the standard and am always left wondering - is this what the writers intended it to mean?  Do they not realize how many teachers there are in this state let alone who teach CCSS and the many interpretations that come with it?  Did the writers not realize that the stupid little example they provide italicized in the CCSS isn't enough and there are so many interpretations of just one standard??????  No one really knows what they want or expect because CCSS is not specific enough.  Kids also misinterpret questions.  I hope PARCC looked at common mistakes and analyzed whether or not the kids misinterpreted the question.  I know there were a couple of questions that students had asked me about and I could see it being a problem.

Students can do the problems if they are exposed to the types of questions that are being asked.  If I were provided resources that showed the many different ways a question could be asked that address the standard, I could expose my students to those questions.  They are children and need to be taught how to tackle questions that require extensive thinking.  They don't come with college degrees and shouldn't be expected to have that level of thinking.  Teachers don't even think of asking questions in some of the ways that they are asked on PARCC.  Give us plenty of samples so we can work with students and help them develop those types of thinking skills.  To just throw these questions at them with the attitude that they should know how to do it if they were taught a standard is unfair and does not work.

CCSS assumes that every child has the foundational skills.  The way the CCSS should have been rolled out is one grade at a time.  Start with Kindergarten.  Make all Kindergarten teachers teach it for a year.  Then the next year do K and 1st.  Then the following year K, 1st, and 2nd and so forth.  To expect my 8th graders last year to have mastered all the vague 8th grade CCSS without the 7 years of foundation was completely unfair to them and a waste of everyone's time.  These standards build on one another.  The creators knew they built in a progression of the math skills from year to year but none of them allowed for that progression to occur in the roll out.

I also don't know what to teach when.  They tested 75% of the CCSS on the first part of the PARCC test given in April.  Okay.  What standards comprised the 75%?  No one was told that and everyone just kind of went with whatever standards they wanted to teach throughout the year.  We were never told these are the standards that should have been taught by the time of PARCC.  So some of the questions my students were tested on hadn't even been taught to them yet because those standards were part of my 25%.

On the reading part, if the students had a question with two parts and they got the first part wrong, they didn't even grade the second part.  So right there, that sets the kids up for failure.

There were no resources available to CPS teachers last year either.  CPS wanted to make sure that math textbooks were aligned to the CCSS and did a review of textbooks to check for alignment.  The Math Department just released approved textbooks that schools could use in June.  I'm glad CPS took that time to really analyze the content of the textbooks but we were left Googling our materials all year.  Many schools were using EngageNY ( engageny.org).  I'm trying to use that this year but it assumes students have a strong foundation.  CCSS doesn't allow time to review skills.  CCSS expects you to just progress to the next standard because all the students mastered all the previous years' standards and for that reason you can just move on and not have to review anything- oh such a perfect setting that is far from reality!  I, as an educated math teacher, have to refresh my memory.  I need a review sometimes, especially with more advanced topics in Algebra.  Math seems more fortunate than Reading.  The Reading teachers have nothing.  They are constantly looking for articles, etc. online.   They are creating everything from scratch.  

Teachers received their degrees in curriculum delivery not curriculum creation.  We should have resources that contain materials that adequately help us teach the standards and provide us with a plethora of questions that help us expose student to those questions.  I was hired to teach not design.  Spending all this time researching the meaning of the standards, researching how in-depth teachers are teaching a skill in a standard, reviewing other interpretations of the standards, hoping that the materials we are using is adequate for the standard, etc. is draining on a teacher.  You never feel satisfied because you are never sure if you have taught everything that was expected to be mastered in the standard.

It would help middle school teachers if there were a requirement that primary and intermediate teachers were required to have endorsements in a subject area.  Many K-5 teachers lack the confidence in math and do not adequately teach it.  So the gap is going to widen even more with CCSS.  Students are going to have an even shakier foundation than pre-CCSS.

Okay.  I'm tired.  I hope it helps.  Excuse any grammatical errors.  I wanted to just get something to you ... and any other free time this weekend requires me to devote it to lesson plans and figuring out the CCSS.

Oh yeah - wait till next year when the data for Science is released.  Those NGSS are complicated and Science teachers have no materials to adequately teach them.  The fun continues!