It’s a little bit primal. This test makes me angry in a way that makes me want to locate and hold up a giant mirror in front of the naked emperor. The NYS board of regents by way of these test tells kids they’re not good enough, and their teachers should be fired, over a test that tests all that is not important. I am spending 2 weeks preparing them for calculator procedures, nonstandard notation, and awkward wording. I don’t believe the politicians understand that this garbage is not important. I don’t believe they even know what is on there. If its so important for life/college/career success, any adult should have no problem passing it easily. Any adult won’t because its not an indicator of such, it’s a mean spirited mind fuck of a test. Hold me accountable all damn day for teaching kids what is important. This test does not accomplish that. It is the opposite of that.

I think the idea is to put the politicians into the same position they put our students: High stakes tests that have a huge amount of random noise in their scoring.

Ignoring this challenge makes it easy for politicians to ignore exactly how inaccurate these tests are, and therefore continue supporting the status quo.

Unless, Dan, your argument is that current standardized tests are the epitome of evaluating student knowledge. In which case I’m surprised that your tests don’t mimic them more.

As I read the comments above, it seems to boil down to the perspectives of “if the tests are so important to politicians and pundits, they should be able to pass them too” vs. that of “we don’t want to offend, but wish to engage in thoughtful dialogue about why these tests are bad or meaningless or whatever”. These points of view are orthogonal, not in opposition. They both are attempting to make the same point: that standardized testing, in its current form and as it is currently being used, is inappropriate, unjustified by research, and flat wrong for a myriad of reasons. It’s just that one of the approaches is all hellfire and brimstone, and the other is hoping for reasonable dialogue with the other side.

And here’s the crux of the matter, as I see it. The “politicos, take the tests” side won’t convince anyone about the value of mathematics and mathematics education, as Jennifer says – when the politicians and pundits fail, it’ll just make math ed look bad, not the politicians and pundits. But, the “let’s break bread with those who wish to break us” side won’t convince anyone either – negotiation is not an option. If anyone really believes that the people who are pushing this new testing regime are doing so because they think our students will be better educated mathematically as a result, they’re kidding themselves. The agenda of that group is entirely different. In this regard, I believe Diane Ravitch has it exactly correct, and I will suggest that everyone go off and read her blog forthwith.

There must be a different way to make the case that there are real, serious, fundamental issues going on with public education, and particularly mathematics education – and it can neither be to humiliate politicians nor can it be to attempt to negotiate with those in power, for there can be no negotiation with a group that fundamentally does not recognize the value in what you do. The fetish that our policymakers currently have about standardized testing will only change when those with the real power – the voters – decide that the situation is unacceptable. We must make our case for why what we do is under threat, why that is bad (seems obvious, right? except it really isn’t), and what we teachers are doing to improve mathematics education, directly to the voters – the parents, retirees, young people, everyone. It’s not policymakers whose minds we need to change; it’s the public’s.

Let me be clear. I don’t think any politician or NYSED appointee or Pearson lobbyist will take this test. I also don’t think there is any hope that the people currently in power will act in the best interests of our kids unless voters understand the reality of the situation and demand it. You don’t think that a sincere effort has been made by teachers all over the state FOR YEARS to work through channels and communicate our professional opinion? I don’t seriously expect them to take the tests. I want Joe Parent and Jane Voter to wonder why they refuse to.

I can see the merits of take the test given your comments – however, I cannot get past the “publish the scores” part.

I agree with Diane completely regarding purpose. For decades (or since at least 1999 when the latest version of the Testing Standards was published) “purpose” has been the driving force behind the validity of assessments. That said, how can we expect a group of non-educators to understand that the nuances of purpose if they’ve already gone blindly ahead and misused the tests despite all the professional experts cries not to?

I also agree – it’s not going to happen. Not until we have a Secretary of Education who is better versed in the nuances. It would be a great thing for American education if Linda Darling-Hammond were named to replace Duncan.

I agree that giving a test to show the test is inconsequential has consequences. But what if we gave a meaningful test, one that focuses on analytical and reasoning skills? Science Friday recently took up the issue . What skills from our discipline would we expect leaders to understand and apply -estimation, number sense, logic, regression – in order to do their jobs effectively, especially as those jobs affect ours?

Would the results of that test send politicians running to their nearest algebra tutor? Would conversation that goes into creating a fair, consequential assessment carry over and raise the level of the exams we currently administer?

Sorry Kate I don’t see how this line of thinking will help anything. The way I see it is that there’s an endless amount of educational problems to be pissed about. You can seriously be furious until you die because the system is insane. But… the real life skill that you’re missing here in the noise is the opportunity to teach the students to have poise and some fortitude to get through unfair obstacles. If you teach them to get pissed off every time something unfair happens to them, then they are going to be in trouble in life way more than any math equation can help.

If politicians took the standardized test would in not prove Ravitch’s point that it (tests) “should be used only for the purpose for which they were designed.”–And the purpose of assessment is to inform instruction.

Diane’s point is all about the absurdity and misuse of standardized tests for accountability purposes (i.e. ranking schools, teachers, etc.) with one goal being to eventually privatize education. I see Ravitch’s comment as a way to inform the uninformed of the impending disaster that lies ahead–education will no longer be a collaborative endeavor but a competitive environment where the division between the haves and havenots will grow wider.

Now I get the point. This, here, has become a debate on whether the politicians can pass the test, rather than the absurdity of the test itself.

Is there any way to refocus the national debate on that? Or will it always be side tracked to something else?

Dan I think you’re missing the tactical point. Kate is explaining it very well in the comments so I don’t think I have much to add.

My personal target would be NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg, and I have a hunch that he would actually ace the regents, if he bothered to sit for them. The point is not to humiliate politicians.

As Kate says, I think the odds are very low that major decisionmakers are actually going to take the tests. If by some miracle they do, and they also all do poorly, one possible conclusion people might draw would be that the tests are irrelevant to a successful life. The further conclusion that math is irrelevant to a successful life is not a natural consequence. The step from [the tests are irrelevant] to [math is irrelevant] can and should be interrogated.

But all of this is a sidelight. The real story, to me anyway, is what Kate said about the mirror and the naked emperor. The US department of education, and many states and school districts (following suit), are piling more and more weight on a system of standardized tests that absolutely sucks. The linchpin of the entire “accountability structure” is these tests that do not and cannot measure anything that matters. I want the decisionmakers to know that firsthand; if they refuse to, I want them to have to answer for that. That is all.

Dan – I think the reason for publishing their scores is so that an honest conversation can take place. When Colorado first started state testing our then-Governor took one section of the math test, emerged and said “I think I did pretty well.” Yeah, all my students say the same thing. If taking the test is going to be worthwhile at all – and I’m not sure it is – it has to be public and transparent.

And there are public servants who are willing to take the test. I think the point is not to embarrass them (although certainly there’s a little bit of that lurking), but for them to be able to have an informed conversation about the tests and how well they measure what our students have learned, what they should learn, and whether they should be the ultimate determiner of whether we have successfully educated those students.

Yes, it would be great to have them come in and spend lots of time in our schools and have these deep discussions, but I think it’s much more likely – and consistent with the testing/accountability thinking – to have them take the tests and experience exactly what we are asking our students to do. And then ask them to multiply that by multiple tests each year and then duplicate that over ten or so years.

As a teacher, I try to do just about everything I ask my students to do (write a blog post, write an “About Me”, take an Algebra exam, watch a video, submit a couple of homework problems on the Moodle, etc.). No, it’s not the same for me as it is for them, but it at least keeps me one step closer to remembering what it’s like to be them, and just a little bit more likely to figure out if I’ve assigned something that perhaps wasn’t so great.

I think the hope is that if politicians (and other leaders – school board members, business leaders, school administrators, and teachers themselves) take the tests, they will be more likely to have a discussion about what we’re actually doing to/for our kids, and less likely to rely on ideological arguments.

(Sorry, my cut-and-paste lost last paragraph.)

I really don’t care to know if so-and-so take took the test or if their scores got posted because I’m afraid it doesn’t change anything. Their hesitation to do so speaks volumes already. I care to know that the recipients of these scores value the kids beyond these numbers.

Politicians vote on legislation they have not read all the time – they couldn’t read it all if they wanted to & they recognize that they lack expertice on many issues.

Politicians also often find themselves being evaluated by voters who simply don’t understand the issues or the realities involved in passing legislation. They are evaluated (voted in or out) based on fringe issues that have little to do with the overall well fair of their constituents. They are not unlike us, teachers, in some ways.

My disgust is more directed at school and district administrators that rarely offer any resistance to the data and testing mania we are experiencing. They brag when the scores go up, make excuses when they go down, and never a peep about how we might be placing too much importance on them.

@Kate, I don’t expect superintendents and principals to put their heads on the chopping block by refusing to acknowlege test results. Just make an effort to reduce the public and the school boards focus on the scores instead of exacerbating the problem by spot lighting the scores.

As an aside, thanks for sharing your ideas on your blog – I really like the style of your lessons.

I strongly suspect that the “let’s break bread with these folks” approach will not work, and I do worry about the alternate “make them take the test” approach will not accomplish our goals – the general public will recognize vaguely that a politician’s ability to be effective is not going to be measured well by a standardized test intended for high school students. The one advantage will come if the politician’s refuse to take the tests.

Can we brainstorm some alternatives to these two approaches? What are some ways in which we can highlight the horrible, wrong ways these tests are being used? Can we take the collective energy of the people who read Dan’s blog and come up with some viable strategies to oppose the use of these tests?

Sitting on the fence isn’t an option anymore in my opinion.

Dan:

The linchpin of the entire “accountability structure” is these tests that do not and cannot measure anything that matters.

Let’s put that on our list of assumptions that ought to be interrogated.

Actually it’s a considered opinion, not an assumption, but I take your point. For the present conversation, let’s strike the “and cannot.” I think the “do not” is pretty uncontroversial among educators, at least in my state.

Dan:

To what end are we demanding they post their scores?

What I want them to know firsthand is not only the test but (maybe even more importantly) what the accountability pressure feels like.

@Jason Dyer: do you really think a lot of state reps, assemblymen, and senators were high-achieving students? That they’re really good at doing critical reading and know grammar, spelling, sentence structure, punctuation, etc., well?

I honestly don’t think it would be hard to find federal folks who wouldn’t do terribly well either. Given the number of people in the House of Representatives and some of the idiocy that comes out of their mouths on a regular basis, I’m confident that there are quite a few who would embarrass themselves if they had to take any part of one of these high-stakes tests that are supposed to measure general readiness for college. I’d have paid a lot to have had George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan take the SAT or ACT.

Even in the US Senate, there are some folks I suspect are not very bright, though it’s clearly a more select body and only has 100 members. Nearly all US Senators are lawyers, I suspect, and so I’d expect a somewhat better than average verbal facility. Still, I worked on Wall Street as a proofreader with two very prestigious firms, and I know for certain that some pretty high-powered attorneys aren’t great at some of the things the ACT and SAT try to test in their “English” sections.

Regardless, I think the exercise would be well-worth the risk. Of course some politicians would do well. It would be silly to suggest that none or few would. But again, let’s start at the state level and work up to the US Senate. I believe the results would be provocative.

Great Debate by all. Here’s my two cents. The politicians are worried about money, period. They don’t care that there are 300 math standards for 8th graders to learn; plus the other 1000 they had to master before 8th grade, nor do they really care about how we teach them. They are interested in results.

Whether they take the exams or not, it doesn’t matter. So what if a 50 year old politician can pass an Algebra 2 exam, most people couldn’t pass it 3 years after taking it. What matters is that we are getting our students to be better at mathematics.

We that being said, at some point we need to put our data together and develop a math K-12curriculum based on Dan’s ideas, and other sources.

I am highly skeptical of the majority of the data that I see on individual student achievement and teacher effectiveness, regardless of the source. As much as I would like them to be, my own grades are really not all that accurate of a reflection of what my students know and understand.

> the general public will recognize vaguely that a politician’s ability to be effective is not going to be measured well by a standardized test intended for high school students. The one advantage will come if the politician’s refuse to take the tests.

Then we can get into a discussion of why they (politiciians AND voters) don’t need to know what they want all the kids to know, and the value of the test, and the value of the curriculum, and why it is why it’s not the teachers but the standards that fail the kids. Why they’re so hypocritical. Get the kids to ask their parents and adult relatives and politicians to take the test. This should be a national movement.

Expecting them to sit down and listen to our concerns is naivety to the extreme. These people want to privatize the entire education sector with all these tests, and charter schools, and private school vouchers, and virtual classrooms, and Khan’s Academeys and Revolution K-12s and StudentFirsts. Unless we agree to unilateral disarm (disunionize and everything else) they’re not going to stop.