Dear
Commissioner Elia:
I begin this
letter with greetings for a healthy and prosperous New Year. Traditionally, the New Year is significant in
that most of us take the time, during this symbolic period, to reflect on past
experiences and contemplate potential opportunities. In the spirit of the New Year, I am writing
this letter to request that as the State’s highest educational official you take
the opportunity, in this new year, to address an issue that to this point you
have ignored and seemingly dismissed as inconsequential. Please note that I am not acting in my
capacity as a sitting member of the Buffalo Board of Education but per my
individual responsibility as a grandparent and educational stakeholder.
Last month,
the Governor’s Common Core Task Force, of which you were a member, released its
final report and recommendations for addressing the flawed implementation of
the CCSS. As the Task Force Chair put it,
“numerous mistakes were made” in the process related to the roll out of the standards,
aligned curriculum and assessments. Richard
Parsons noted that a core element of the Task Force’s work was predicated on
the Governor’s charge that this effort “engage parents, teachers, students, and
others to hear from them what is, and is not, working.” Further, the Chair stressed that throughout
the work of the Task Force, its goals were to conduct a comprehensive review
and analysis of the CCSS; seek input from diverse stakeholders; and implement
recommendations “in an open and transparent manner”. Accordingly, the final
report details the “exhaustive outreach” and review of “the Common Core
Standards, curriculum, and tests to untangle the problems and develop a series
of recommendations.”
It’s also noteworthy
that soon after the release of the Report the Board of Regents voted to accept
the recommendations. Of course, as SED Commissioner and Task Force member you
already have an intimate knowledge of a report you helped shape. So, I’ll get
to the heart of the matter and the reason for this letter. The Task Force report has a number of
failings that have been pointed out by others.
However, I am especially interested in the interpretation of and the
implementation of the recommendations regarding high stakes tests.
The Task
Force’s final report contains 21 recommendations. A number of these are specific to the standardized
tests that have been used to determine student achievement and school and
school district accountability. In all,
12 of these recommendations focus on issues with these assessments, such as the
“one size fits all” practice of subjecting all students, regardless of
cognitive or English language ability, to the same tests; the lack of
transparency and stakeholder involvement in the development of these tests; the
problem of teaching to the test leading to an over-emphasis on test-prep; lack
of parent and student engagement and feedback re these tests; the inordinate
amount of time devoted to standardized testing.
The final
recommendation, Number 21, however speaks most forcefully to the question of
the validity of the Common Core aligned tests and the Task Force’s
determination that a “moratorium” should be placed on their use. This recommendation states: “Until the new
system is fully phased in, the results from assessments aligned to the current
Common Core Standards, as well as the updated standards, shall only be advisory and not be used to evaluate
the performance of individual teachers or students.”
As a result
of this Recommendation, as well as the others, many stakeholders have questions
about how the Task Force’s conclusions impact the schools that are now in
Receivership status. These schools are
predominantly in urban districts attended by disproportionate numbers of
students in the groups referenced in the Task Force recommendations. Beyond test scores, factors
that compound the designation of “persistently struggling” and “struggling”
schools are inherent in the composition of their student population, e.g. high
poverty, students with disabilities and students who are English Language
Learners. Buffalo has 25 schools
designated as “persistently struggling” or “struggling”. The latter were designated as a result of
being identified since 2012-13 as Priority Schools. Coincidentally, this was the first year of
the Common Core aligned ELA and Math tests.
To provide perspective as to why the demographics of the receivership
schools are relevant, the following statistics describe the percentage of each
population group in Buffalo’s five “persistently struggling” schools,
euphemistically dubbed the “high 5” by our Superintendent Receiver.
% of Students with Disabilities – 11.9%, 20.9%, 17.5%, 25% and .5%
% of English Language Learners - 40.5%, 14%, 31.6%, 7.4% and 7.2%
Compared to District wide demographics for these indicators, in a total
enrollment of 34,000 students, 20% are Students with Disabilities and 14% are
English Language Learners. Clearly, the
State has data on sub-group performance on the standardized state tests to
inform review, analysis and decisions regarding the impact of these tests on
student and school accountability in the Receivership schools. In fact, under Receivership a number of the required criteria by which “demonstrable
improvement” will be identified or confirmed are dependent on various
indicators based on the standardized tests; e.g. student achievement on
ELA/Math exams for specific sub groups. How will that work, given the “moratorium”?
Not unlike
the task given to the Common Core Task Force there needs to an open,
transparent and inclusive study, review and analysis of the use of high stakes
Common Core aligned assessments and Receivership. And yes, I do understand there is the matter
of the Education Transformation Act of 2015.
This law has given you the authority to impose receivership. However, given the haste with which policy and
procedure has been developed that
authority also comes with the opportunity for State Ed to implement another
flawed, poorly devised program that hurts rather than helps children.
A December
30th Buffalo News article summarized the concerns outlined in the
foregoing in this statement; “those same tests, however, were a
major factor in determining which schools were placed in receivership.” The article also noted, however that the
Commissioner has been “dismissive” of this issue. Commissioner, I am asking that you not
dismiss this question as a non-issue. Your retort that the Federal government
still requires the state to assess students annually does not answer the
question of the use of invalid assessments as the basis of major decisions
impacting students currently.
It is
imperative to clarify the “confusing” and contradictory message sent by the
Common Core Task force and confirmed by the Board of Regents regarding the
impact of high stakes tests results on students (individually and
collectively). At this time it appears
that urban students and schools will still be held accountable as a result of
these assessments, while other students will be held “harmless”. This
disparate treatment is unacceptable and certainly a concern I think the
Department would want to dispel.
I look
forward to hearing from you.
Yours truly,
Barbara A. Seals Nevergold
Barbara A.
Seals Nevergold, PhD
No comments:
Post a Comment