STAR tests may end for youngest
Senate bill would end exam for 2nd graders
Reading about SB 740, State Senator Loni Hancock’s (D-Oakland) bill to eliminate second grade STAR testing, took me back to my daughter’s initiation into standardized testing. She puked. “She almost made it out the classroom door,” her second-grade teacher told me with a laugh. Since she didn’t have a fever and nothing happened that night, I brought her back to school the next day. Her classmates applauded when she walked in. Was it stress? Perhaps. She’s in college now and says she still dislikes tests.
Hancock shares that aversion. She’s tried twice to pass similar legislation. Both bills died. SB 740 has made it to the Senate floor, where it will be voted on today. (See update below) “The second-grade test is something that has been of concern to her for a long time because of the recommendation of numerous groups that to do an assessment of second graders is not reliable,” said Rebecca Baumann, a legislative aide to the senator.
No high stakes for young children
The National PTA has taken the position that “Standardized multiple-choice tests and school readiness tests should never be used with preschool and early elementary children for any purpose.” The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) developed guidelines urging discretion in testing children 8 and under:
The use of formal standardized testing and norm referenced assessments of young children is limited to situations in which such measures are appropriate and potentially beneficial, such as identifying potential disabilities.
In place of the STAR exam, Hancock’s bill requires the State Department of Education to provide school districts with information on assessments in mathematics and English language arts that classroom teachers can use for purely diagnostic purposes – something that most teachers already do as a matter of course.
Baumann says diagnostic tests are more practical because they can be given several times during a school year to provide teachers with immediate feedback on how each student is doing. STAR test results aren’t released until the school year is over. Plus, diagnostic tests don’t take up as much class time. “It takes six to eight days to administer the [STAR] test,” says Baumann. “The amount of time taken away from instruction at the second grade level is substantial.”
740 is a blunt instrument
Despite its difficult past, the current bill has few opponents on record. The staff analysis lists only EdVoice, a nonprofit organization working for school reform in California. But it’s a vociferous critic. President and CEO Bill Lucia calls it “a blunt instrument approach to taking the second grade out of the API (Academic Performance Index).” Lucia isn’t against having a policy discussion of whether the second-grade test should be included in the API, but says that’s a whole different discussion.
His foremost concern is that waiting until third grade is too late to learn whether students are working below grade level. “We know the consequence of that can be extremely costly,” said Lucia, citing statistics that show a grim path, with students below grade level by the end of third grade being four times more likely to drop out of school, and dropouts being eight times more likely to wind up in prison.
The State Department of Education hasn’t yet taken a position on 740, but State Superintendent Tom Torlakson “is supportive of the concept,” said Erin Gabel, his director for legislative affairs. In fact the Department sponsored a bill by Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) that, initially, also eliminated second-grade testing. But Brownley removed that provision from AB 250 in order to get it out of the appropriations committee. The bill passed the Assembly yesterday and is now headed for the Senate.
The main thrust of 250 is to make sure the state is prepared for the Common Core assessments that are set to begin in 2014-15. California has put all curriculum framework, professional development, and instructional materials adoption on hold while waiting for the Common Core standards, but Gabel says that’s poor planning. “It’s imperative that we provide direction and support for classroom instruction. We’re on a tight timeline here.”
Conflicting opinions on NCLB and second grade
EdVoice’s Lucia also argues that Title III of No Child Left Behind requires all English language learners in kindergarten through 12th grade to be tested every year to assess their progress. He says California stands to lose millions in federal funding if second graders are exempt from the STAR test. But Gabel says that’s not so. If it were true, then the state would already be out of compliance because it doesn’t administer the tests in kindergarten and first grade. She said the state has been using the California English Language Development Test (CELDT), which assesses English proficiency, without any pushback from the federal government.
In fact, California is one of just a handful of states that has second graders take the exam. NCLB only requires standardized testing to begin in third grade, so the two panels developing tests for the Common Core standards are also starting with third grade. But just because it’s not mandated, says Lucia, doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile. Without second grade scores, he says, we’ll be losing “data to make better informed decisions on what’s working for kids.”
Update: Turns out that SB 740 passed the Senate last night on a vote of 21 to 13, and was sent to the Assembly
Thank you for reporting on this! (And thanks for unmasking EdVoice, in case anyone had been duped into thinking this reformy operation was supportive of schools and students.)
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Yes, standardized tests can be stressful, as your recollection of your daughter’s experience probably indicates. But appropriately administered and with supportive positive context for young kids, tests do not have to be overly stressful. My own experience with four kids taking standardized tests at an early age counters any generalization that tests are always stressful for young students. I would agree, however, that most kids (younger and older) dislike tests. Gee, I didn’t like tests myself when I was a kid. Tests are the spinich of education — not popular but in the larger picture when appropriately consumed tests yield good information for both kids and the adults responsible for educating all students.
Contrary to the claims in SB 740 (Hancock), our STAR grade 2 tests are both developmentally appropriate and have state-of-the art reliability characteristics. STAR grade 2 tests are more reliable than the diagnostic tests that SB 740 proposes be used instead of STAR. The diagnostic tests proposed by SB 740 should be part and parcel of any good instructional system, and already exist in most California LEAs and schools. But a mix of locally determined diagnostic tests will not generate statewide data, nor can their data be used for accountability purposes.
The PTA position paper cited opposes any federal mandated standardized testing or any policies that would lead to comparative data among states, LEAs, or schools. The position quoted regarding use of standardized tests in early grades does not define any age or grade level. The NAEYC guidelines cited do not call for eliminating standardized tests for young children, but rather that use be “limited to situations in which such measures are appropriate and potentially beneficial.” STAR grade 2 tests are not only appropriate but also extremely beneficial. Learning to read in the primary grades is arguably the most important thing we expect from our K-12 education system. Kids who don’t learn to read in the early grades cannot read to learn in later grades. Eliminating grade 2 STAR removes an early indicator of learning to read, as well as an early measure of California’s instructional systems designed to help our early grade kids learn to read.
The policy debate raised by SB 740 is not fundamentally an early childhood issue. Rather it is a debate over whether to have accountability based in large part on standardized test scores, with anti-testing anti-accountability forces masking their views by citing early childhood issues. For those in favor of accountability, STAR grade 2 tests have provided valid and reliable information for the past dozen years and there is no reason this valuable information source should not be continued.
Finally, with respect to potential cost savings (also cited by supporters of SB 740), I would suggest folks look at the high school grades and eliminate redundant unneeded test administrations for much greater cost savigs than would be generated by eliminating STAR grade 2. Estabilishing a CAHSEE Early Qualification Program [using STAR grade 8 and 9 scores, where appropriate, to meet the CAHSEE high school graduation requirement and thus eliminate the need for CAHSEE grade 10 test administration to roughly 40 percent of our 10th graders] and using STAR end-of-course tests for federal accountability purposes would save us at least 3 times greater dollars, and reduce student testing time by roughly 2 million student hours at grade 10.
Doug McRae, Retired Test Publisher, Monterey
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Just a disclaimer that both my kids like taking tests, do well on them and would be delighted with a class that consisted of nothing but plenty of tests, so personal stress to my own loved ones is not my issue. (Though I was helping with a 1st-grade test once when a boy was sitting under the table crying because he couldn’t read yet.)
I’m anti-high-stakes but not anti-testing to a reasonable degree.
But I disagree that there has been any benefit at all from the Grade 2 STAR testing, which was implemented between my older child’s Grade 2 year and my younger child’s Grade 2 (I guess that must be a dozen years). Their teachers were well aware of where they were in reading skills. The 20-1 class sizes so disdained by corporate education reformers helped ensure that.
Caroline Grannan, non-retired urban-public-school mom, San Francisco
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Hooray to and for Hancock and Brownley in attempting to exhibit–and promote–common sense in testing. There are many valid and reliable instruments for determining reading progress in the early grades (See the work of Brian Cambourne and Marie Clay, for example.). STAR, of course, feeds into California’s Affluent Parent Index, uh, excuse me, Academic Performance Index/API scores. I can applaud the retired test publisher’s recommendation regarding money to be saved by utilizing STAR grade 8 and 9 scores to help determine wise(r) administration of the CAHSEE grade 10 administration. Much of this, of course, will become a moot point once the Common Core Standards and subsequent, necessitated curricular changes are invoked, a la NCLB revisions themselves. Still, at this point, anything that can help our youthful school charges to keep down their cookies during assessments–not to mention the rest of us–is to be appreciated.
Bill Younglove
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
This is ridiculous. First and 2nd graders don’t get tested? If you are going to eliminate tests for 2nd graders because it is too stressful, why stop at STAR – why not forbid any testing whatever? How is the STAR test any different than the many, many tests kids have taken from their teachers by then except that the STAR test doesn’t count for the kids? I feel sorry for the 2nd grader that threw up but honestly that happens from all sorts of things to virtually every kid at some time or other.
As long as we’re getting personal, one of my sons got a test his second week in 1st grade to place him in the slow, medium, or fast math classroom. Talk about high stakes testing – tracking in the first month of school! He was placed in the slow group, I made a fuss and had him re-tested and he placed in the fast group. I learned how correct my mother (a teacher) was – you want the school to know your name; whether it is “HelLOO Mr. G., How nice to SEE you again!” or “What is it THIS time Mr. G.?” doesn’t matter because your kid will get lost if no one is looking out for him – which is what NCLB does.
NCLB groups the kids (disaggregates) to note which group is not getting educated. Educators hate the tests that do this because they only feel comfortable educating kids that don’t take any effort. They are like the banks – happy to lend money if you can prove you don’t need it.
Has no one noted the irony in this ongoing complaint about evaluating schools based on tests? That’s what teachers do all the time – evaluate others based on tests – but tests that they make up. In their spare time they evaluate parents (’they didn’t even make it to the open house – and where were they at the last bake sale?’), societies (”eliminate poverty, and racism or we can’t teach!”), and anyone else they can blame for the inadequacies of the existing system.
Ravitch has chimed in yet again in the NYT claiming it is all the fault of US society for having poor people which Finland is evidently wise enough to do without. The PISA rankings show Germany, England, Japan and Korea with high PISA scores as well and I can assure you they have not eliminated poverty but strangely we never hear about them. Ravitch’s NYT op-ed is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/opinion/01ravitch.html?scp=1&sq=Waiting%20for%20a%20School%20Miracle&st=Search
This whole thing is a smokescreen to eliminate any STAR testing at all (”Oh the Stress! The Stress – those poor little dears can’t take it any more!!”) so the education establishment can go back to educating the easy ones and ignoring the hard ones – and avoiding any accountability whatever while asking for ever more money.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
This is yet another of Hancock’s wrong-headed ideas. Identifying poor readers in grade 2 by STAR is the last chance to catch them in grade 3, before it is too late. For them, starting testing only at grade 3 is akin closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
Caroline Grannan may continue to believe that every teacher in the state is aware of her student’s reading skills. She can also continue to believe that all the teachers are excellent, and that all the parents who question them are misguided paranoids. Unfortunately, believing doesn’t make it so.
Ed Voice is correct in opposing this misguided idea, that was opposed in the past by both democrat and republican governors. The grade 2 STAR test has done more to saving poor readers in California over the last decade than Loni Hancock with her hare-brained legislative antics over that period.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Interesting article and ensuing comments, particularly from a retired test publisher (how much have testing companies profited since NCLB?). Stress in testing most obviously is a result of the context to which it is applied. I do not believe the question is whether or not to test, certainly good assessment drives instructional practices, but the question must be around this notion of accountability. We should be accountable to whom? Legislators who have either not been in a public school classroom in decades or never at all except for perhaps a few token visits? Without a doubt we must ensure that public funds are appropriately utilized but who in their right mind believes that this single assessment given once a year provides an accurate picture of a quality educational program or a better picture of on-going local educational assessments?
Ms. Grannan accurately suggests that an effective teacher with an appropriate class load will most definitely know students’ proficiency levels and instructional needs. To suggest that the second grade STAR assessment provides a more accurate diagnostic measure of a student’s ability is ludicrous. The STAR Assessment and No Child Left Behind has had limited benefits, most of which could have been attained through better (and less expensive) means. The greatest benefits have been the profits for testing companies. Meanwhile, the negative ramifications of this accountability movement have been numerous. Students’ needs come second to the schools’ need to attain a number (API/AYP), the focus on immediate improvement of that number has negated any attempt at true systemic reform, history, science, the arts, and physical education have been set on the back burner, increases in API and AYP have not translated to better college readiness, and hard-working educators (yes, there are many out there) have continued to be bashed around by politicians and the media alike based on a single measure – standardized testing.
If STAR has provided valid and reliable information for the past dozen years, I only ask information for what and for whom, and at what cost? Effective training of state coordinated compliance review officials, WASC accreditors, and school administrators, working in concert with local communities, would provide much better accountability than a standardized test. Site administrators oversee significantly more employees than most businesses and have greater responsibility answering to employees, students, parents, and district officials all the while responsible for enacting school programs and maintaining a safe campus. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to evaluate effective teaching practices and assess appropriate grade level standards, but it takes Superman to efficiently monitor all that happens on a school site in any given day, week, month, or year. We are using a single assessment to condemn a structural and societal problem that it wasn’t meant to assess without giving credit to the teachers, classified employees, principals and volunteers that put there heart and soul into what they do everyday with the young people of your nation.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Why do people keep calling these tests “high stakes”? How many educators in our public school systems experience any real accountability related to these tests? The teachers who are being laid off are losing their jobs because of a combination of inadequate funding and low seniority, not test results. Schools that are closed due to budget problems are often — though not always — the lowest-performing schools. But if declining enrollment and budgets are forcing school closures, why blame the STAR tests for that? In those cases, some school(s) somewhere in the district will close, no matter what.
Admittedly, the churn in district superintendents can be exacerbated by public bruhahas around test scores, but they are political creatures who always seem to find a new gig. Other than the highly visible supes, how many district staff, principals, or teachers actually lose their jobs due to poor test scores? I don’t mean losing one position to be rehired for another, as the revolving door works in so many districts, including my own. I mean actually leaving a district. How many schools going through one of the four supposed “school improvement” options here in CA actually have a significant change in staff? I’m not suggesting that there ought to be such staff changes — just asking whether it actually happens very often, as a percentage of troubled schools. In other words, does all of the wailing around “high-stakes” testing reflect real consequences, accountability-wise? Or is it just more of the hysterics that have also exaggerated all of the instructional time and “critical thinking skills” that are supposedly sacrificed for these once-a-year STAR tests? I am not advocating that we use these tests to make big, systemic changes. Standardized test results can certainly be misused Maybe they are more useful as formative assessments to identify struggling students, as suggested above. But the deep antipathy to the STAR, and all of the hypebole against standardized testing in general, suggests an aversion to any kind of non-subjective evaluation. And that seems like a hopelessly unrealistic position for an educator to take.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Mr. Olney asks: “What hath testing wrought?” One answer is the NAEP scores here which show dramatic improvements in test scores for 9 yo Blacks and Hispanics once NCLB passed:
http://nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2008/ltt0005.asp?subtab_id=Tab_1&tab_id=tab1#chart
They had been improving for a while with integration then for over 10 years stabilized – then from 1999 to 2008 they dramatically shot up. The impact lessens as you get to older kids but that may be because they went through the lower grades before NCLB set a fire under principals’ seat. There is much left to do and a national curriculum would help but you don’t need to be a statistician to see the bump in 9 yo math from NCLB. Correlation is not causation so this can never be fully proven but for these groups it would be folly to give up a likely contributing factor.
Just to be clear – I think teachers are by and large doing the best they can. Admin? Maybe they need a little stick. The problem is no one has ever focused on actual performance before with consequences for not meeting goals. No consequences – no results.
Benchmarking (a mini-version of the STAR every 6 weeks or so) seems to be a common thread among BTO public schools – in other words constant reminders to the teacher of where they should be seems to do wonders. Getting the results of your efforts after everyone has gone home for the Summer is obviously not so helpful. So simple pacing makes a heck of a difference. Hard working teachers isn’t the answer if they just keep doing the wrong thing only harder.
As for the incessant theme of sacrificing arts and science in the lower grades it comes across to me as “K-5: math, reading, art, science – choose two.” If that is the case I’ll choose math and reading. If you can’t teach K-5 reading and math without sacrificing other things then save those other things for later. I personally think you can teach other things along with math and reading but seems like a lot educators don’t agree.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Jim wrote: “In other words, does all of the wailing around “high-stakes” testing reflect real consequences, accountability-wise?” You cite the four “turn-around” consequences, but there are many, many steps that come before that, and yes, the stakes ARE high — for kids.
Let’s take a central coast middle school for example. Year 4 of program improvement; 56% ELL, 72% socio-economically disadvantaged students, 15% SpEd, 40% come from non-district feeder schools. This middle school has just three years to address the needs and deficiencies of the students that arrive on their doorsteps. There’s a dynamite principal and a collegial staff working creatively, all focused on the data — and the kids. And yet. The threats of PI are very real to this team: they MUST bring every kid, in every subgroup, regardless of where they start, up to proficiency in English and Math in the short time they have.
With deep regret and knowing there are better ways to teach kids, the below-proficient kids are doubled up in English and Math (some both). In a 6-period day, the reality is that these kids lose electives. No art, no music, no shop. For the kids doubled up in both, they lose science. To their credit, the school team integrates art, cooking, and science into core courses as best they can. Community groups provide after school arts enrichment. But because those stakes are so damn high, these kids are channeled into a narrow Math-Math-English-English drill-drill program because they MUST hit that proficiency benchmark.
What happens if they don’t make the grade? Then a very good principal, an at-will employee, will be terminated. You seem to believe it’s an empty threat. I’m just a parent and I have to tell you, it is a very real prospect here. As are the other options.
These are educators who know there is a better way. They look at the data, they know every kid by name, they believe every child can get there and that every child deserves an enriched and engaging school experience.
Maybe you define “high stakes” differently. All I know is that these are high stakes for our kids.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
KSC, I can well imagine the situation you describe, and I’m not trying to defend the system (believe me, as a parent, I have a very hard time doing that). My question though, in your scenario, is this: do the bad consequences actually happen? There has been a lot of angst since this whole system was enacted 10 years ago. And there has been quite a bit of attention paid to the schools on improvement programs. But I don’t see many people getting the axe, here or elsewhere. A study by the Thomas Fordham Institute released last Dec. that looked at 2,000 “failing schools” in 10 states over 5 years found that only 11% of the traditional “failing” schools (and 19% of the charters) were closed during that time. And very few were “reorganized”, either. An almost insignificant number of those schools (0-2% in each state) actually showed significant improvement. They cite many understandable reasons for what they call the “immortal” schools, but in the end, it’s hard to square all of the scary scenarios with what actually happens. An elementary school in a district near me was in program improvement for several years, and finally faced the “four options’. You know what happened? The school and district told the county and state that they simply didn’t have the money, time, or people to execute any of the improvement options. They just said “no”. One administrator even referred to school improvement as an “unfunded mandate”. They got a one year waiver, as I recall from the news coverage, and then nothing happened after that — probably because no one knew what to do.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
In response to Michael: “The problem is no one has ever focused on actual performance before with consequences for not meeting goals. No consequences – no results.”
Really? I was on a site council-like group pre-NCLB. We poured over benchmarks and assessments, set goals for every grade level and the school overall. Most important, we kept longitudinal data for students to see how interventions worked and to carefully keep watch over the trajectory for each child.
The consequences were our own values, pride and satisfaction in our work as a community of parents, educators and administrators. That was enough for us! And it was borne out in the results.
Post NCLB, the longitudinal data system was mothballed for CalPADs. NCLB requirements for subgroups meant that our disabled students didn’t hit the proficiency mark, ditto some of our newly arrived ELL students. The focus over time shifted away from how to grow “these kids, this year” to whatever it takes to stay out of program improvement. Great.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Michael G. is using a pre-NCLB jump to try to make it look like increases in achievement occurred post-NCLB.
In grade 4 reading, the score for 1998 is 215, drops to 213 in ‘00, big jump to 219 in 2002. So the big leap is from ‘00-02, pre-NCLB.
In ‘03, it drops a point to 218 and is now 221, six years later. So you could say there was a significant 3-point increase over six years, but that is not amazing. The amazing gain occurred from ‘00 to ‘02, when the score jumped by 6 points in two years.
You don’t get to borrow the pre-NCLB increase and attribute it to NCLB, Michael G.
In grade 8 reading, the scores have been flat. In 1998, it was 263. In 2009, it was 264. Nothing to write home about throughout the period, as the NCLB cohort moves up from 4th to 8th.
In mathematics, the big gains occurred pre-NCLB.
Fourth grade:
1996: 224
2000: 226
2003: 235 (all pre-NCLB)
2005: 238
2007: 240
2009: 240
So, in fourth grade math, a pre-NCLB gain of 9 points in three years, a post NCLB gain of 5 points in six years.
Obviously, the gains were much larger and faster before NCLB.
8th grade:
1996: 270
2000: 273
2003: 278
2005: 279
2007: 281
2009: 283
So, in eighth grade, pre-NCLB gains of 5 points in the three years from 2000-2003; a post-NCLB gain of 5 points in six years (2003-2009)
Using the time period from 1999-2009 allows Michael G. to pick up the pre-NCLB years of 2000-2003 and add them to the NCLB total. However, that’s not valid.
Since Bush signed NCLB into law on Jan 8, 2002, there is no way that scores from 2000-2003 were affected by NCLB.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I read through the above posting, trying to understand the viewpoint that put so much value on one test; one not necessary to know if a student is performing at grade level, any teacher can tell you that. The answer came with the signature reflecting a professional and probably fiscal investment in standardized test publication. Now it makes sense!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline Grannan is not referring to the charts I mentioned. I was pointing out that BLACKS and HISPANICS have shown remarkable gains since NCLB. I don’t know which data she is looking at – it appears to be the aggregate data – which is the whole point of NCLB – to DIS-aggregate the data to see which groups are not showing progress. Perhaps she can show links to her data as I did?
Here is my link AGAIN:
http://nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2008/ltt0005.asp?subtab_id=Tab_1&tab_id=tab1#chart
For 9 year-olds, Hispanics hold steady from 1990 (214) to 1999 (213) and then show gains from 213 (1999) to 234 (2008), Blacks go from 211 (1999) to 224 (2008).
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
My sense of the tests is that good scores are generally good news – it’s hard to get a really good score without some good learning of some kind happening. You don’t know if the kids, the teachers, or the parents are driving it, but you can feel pretty comfortable that kids scoring in the top two groups are getting enough reading and math that they can drive their own learning eventually.
However, bad scores are harder to understand. Sometimes they show a lack of ability and skill – but not always. Some people are just terrible at multiple choice trick-the-reader tests, but they can still read and they can manipulate numbers. Some kids do not have the language skills to catch all the sleight-of-hand in a question, and it’s possible that even a student who can manipulate equations at a high level has difficulty with the language required to decode the mathematics test. Sometimes they show a student who is lazy, or angry, or who doesn’t care (both in general and for that specific exam). Sometimes they show students who are not being instructed; sometimes they show kids who are in dire personal situations.
Samples of the STAR test are available online. I highly recommend to anyone interested that they sit down and take a few, and imagine taking that exam as yourself in that grade, or as an english language learner. (It would be an interesting exercise to translate them into spanish and administer them to adults.)
As for the second grade, if they cause anxiety, in some ways that’s a reason to leave them in – get the kids used to the idea of taking them, that they’re not a big deal. But, honestly, when we’re cutting days out of the school year, it’s not my first priority for use of instructional time.
I’ll agree that bad scores always deserve investigation. Where I won’t agree is that they deserve a one-size-fits all (or even four-sizes-fit-all) remediation.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I have the info on docs from a research source, Michael G., and will try to copy the charts since I can’t copy/paste them here. I have white and African-American data but not Latino (so far).
Here’s the researcher’s summary:
on the Main NAEP, prior to the introduction of NCLB in 2003, black 4th grade NAEP scores increased on the average of 4.3 scale points per year. Then, from 2003 to 2009, black 4th grade NAEP scores increased on the average of 1.03 scale points per year.
On the Long Term Trend NAEP the first post NCLB assessment was in 2004. From 1999 to 2004, black 4th grade NAEP scores increased on the average of 2.59 scale points per year. Then, from 2004 to 2009, black 4th grade NAEP scores increased on the average of 0.68 scale points per year.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Starting with 1999 is unclear on the concept if you’re trying to show improvement due to NCLB — because the big gains were 1999-2004, before NCLB had any impact on scores.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I am not sure I understand what the big battle is all about. Accountability did not start in California with NCLB — our serious accountability started with the adoption of the standards in 1997, the emergency textbook adoption (and AB2519 funding) in 1999, and the STAR test in 1999. For California, NCLB was mostly business as usual. Certainly for its first 4-5 years until 2005-2006.
So however one reads it, accountability had significant and positive results for California — whether by Caroline Grannan’s accounting, or by Michael G’s one. NCLB added more disaggregation for California, but even that started already earlier.
But I thought the topic was the elimination of grade 2 assessment. It is widely accepted that students who don’t read by grade 3 have little chance of ever catching up. Assessing the whole cohort at grade 2 is our best chance to catch those kids in grade 3, while we can still help them. If one thinks that all classroom teachers already do a good job identifying and taking care of such kids anyway, one needs to ask oneself why then we have any non readers left around?
In my judgment one of the major reasons for California success with improving reading, as visible also on the NAEP scores (and in the face of the massive change in demographics during this period, from about 35% Latino student to over 50%) is this early identification by STAR in grade 2. Loni Hancock’s ill-advised pandering to teacher unions will just harm our most at-risk student population.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Ze’ev’s reasoning confuses testing with teaching:
“If one thinks that all classroom teachers already do a good job identifying and taking care of such kids anyway, one needs to ask oneself why then we have any non readers left around?”
I would respond: If one thinks that mandating standardized testing for second-graders is the key, why do we have any non-readers left around, since the high school graduating class of 2010 and all those coming after it were given standardized tests in second grade?
I would say that the answer to both questions is that there aren’t foolproof ways to teach every struggling student to read. But where’s the evidence that second-grade teachers prior to 1999 were unaware of which kids were struggling with reading, and that they needed a Scantron-scored bubble-in test to give them that information?
Once again, these fads are promoted by people who never go into a classroom and have no contact with real-life kids.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Also in the late ’90s, California schools had a lot more resources to work with, with class size reduction as the largest piece. The idea that 2nd grade STAR testing was more important than reducing K-3 classes from 28 to 20 students does not seem reasonable.
What I see today is that we’ve scrapped class size reduction, we’ve cut 5 days from the school year (and perhaps more next year), we’ve eliminated reading specialists and school librarians… but the one thing that is sacrosanct is the time and money for the STAR exam. In other words, our spending priorities say it’s more important to measure whether the kids read or not than it is to actually teach kids to read.
If you want to know whether the kids in a school can read or not, the best way would be to assign a reading specialist to go to the school and sit and read with each child, and chart the current reading level. And it shouldn’t happen at the end of the 2nd grade year, but perhaps at the end of first grade and/or beginning of second. Reading ability is best evaluated by reading with the child, not with filling in a bubble test.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
This is ridiculous. First and 2nd graders don’t get tested
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Yes, and now, one further step toward the end of early child anxiety and waste! The Hancock Bill 740 just passed the Assembly Education Committee with some great teacher testimony, now moving toward the full Assembly vote. This is so long overdue.
Organizations like EdVoice, The American Federation For Children, and Rhee’s, Student’s First, have lowered the standard for educating our youth by de-meaning students and teachers. These organizations, started by the highest payed administrators, who have lied on resumes and failed at their own duties while on the public dole, make a hollow call, howling, “It’s broken!”, offering little that is effective or kid-friendly to fix it, while bashing teachers and unions, and promoting punishment, a la technology, for all in the form of more testing (or assessments as they like to call them), data uploads to overpriced highways, sick patient model evaluation systems for professional teachers ( like Rounds), and the inequality of systems like, Teacher Incentive Pay. These are the ideas of ‘the haves but know not’ to further privatization and vouchers, where Spellings and Bush failed. Oh, how they failed.
Ending the STAR Testing for 2nd Graders will make everyone healthier and smarter in the future.
Thanks for the piece on this most important educational improvement.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Requiring every student in California to take a standardized test every single year from grades 2 through 11 is a supreme waste of money and time. Children who score in the “proficient” range should only have to take the STAR test every other year, and children who score in the “advanced” range every 3rd year.
Growing up, we did the California Achievement Test every other year starting in 3rd and that provided sufficient information for teachers and administrators.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity