Tuesday Cartoon Fun: Testy Edition

Microsoft Sucks Because Of Bill Gates' Love Of 'Stack Ranking'

...

Gates has been advocating for the adoption of a ranking policy for teachers and schools that has been in use at Microsoft for years. Essentially, it assumes that in any team of ten, there would be two that would get great reviews, seven would get mediocre reviews and one would get a poor/terrible review. Are you sensing the inherent issue with these preconceived rankings? The employees at Microsoft can tell you:

Eichenwald’s conversations reveal that a management system known as “stack ranking”—a program that forces every unit to declare a certain percentage of employees as top performers, good performers, average, and poor—effectively crippled Microsoft’s ability to innovate. “Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewed—every one—cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft, something that drove out untold numbers of employees,” Eichenwald writes. “If you were on a team of 10 people, you walked in the first day knowing that, no matter how good everyone was, 2 people were going to get a great review, 7 were going to get mediocre reviews, and 1 was going to get a terrible review,” says a former software developer. “It leads to employees focusing on competing with each other rather than competing with other companies.”

That's right. The very policy being pushed to "fix" education is the exact same one that has damaged Microsoft's ability to innovate and lead.

...
h/t C&L

Mario Nguyen Would Like To "Support The Needs Of Standardized Tests"

I get unsolicited emails pretty frequently. This one takes the cake, though.

Good morning Frustrated Teachers,

My name is Mario Nguyen and I represent Applied Practice, an education company. In a few weeks we will launch our blog, which will cover various topics concerning K-12 academia. Applied Practice is a company, founded by two teachers, whose goal is to support educators in developing curriculum designed to meet the needs of standardized tests.

I noticed that your blog, The Frustrated Teacher, is already very active in this sphere. So, I just wanted to say, “Hello!” and possibly establish a relationship. I appreciate your perspective and the work you’re doing in the education system. We firmly believe that communications channels like yours and ours are the best way to spread new and innovative practices, and we’re committed to helping promote your ideas. I plan to interact with your posts, share them, and follow you on all social media channels. I hope you can do the same for Applied Practice on Facebook and Twitter.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

-- Mario Nguyen

How thoughtful of Mario. I responded to his kind offer:

Mario,

Thanks for your email.

You are the enemy of children and public schools if your goal is to teach people how to "meet the needs of standardized tests." Tests don't have needs; animate things do, like children have needs, and birds have needs, as well a viruses, which have needs. Tests? They don't have needs, nor do paper clips.

I will do all I can to destroy you, legally.

Go away. Shut down. Close up shop.

I am going to publish this email exchange on my blog for all to read.

--TFT

A Concerned Father And 8th Grade Test Prep Classes: Updated Again & Again & Finally Again

A father is concerned for his 8th grade son's new-found worry over high-stakes tests.  Sorry about all the italicized question marks posing as names.

Dear Principal ?????? of ?????? Middle School,

I have a comment and a question or four.  My son, ?son?, brought home a flier that asked him to participate in a test prep class because he scored a 3 in ELA, but it was a low 3.

The class was presented as an opportunity for him to improve his score.  Why would he need to bring up his score?  He scored proficient.  And the test has no bearing on his life.  None whatsoever.  Why would you tell him that his score was low and that he needs a class to improve his score?  And if his score was low in ELA, why isn't he being tutored in ELA as opposed to being tutored on how to take a test?  Who is teaching the class? How many kids are in the class? What is the curriculum of the class?

I am very concerned that he is being used as a way for ?school? to raise its AYP due to fears of PI status.  I want to know the real reason for the class, why my son was asked to participate, and I would like to know if kids who scored Below Basic or Basic are being asked to participate in the test prep class.

The simple act of telling him he should take the class has instilled in him the notion that he is a bad test taker and not the good student he actually is; he is an A student, as you know.  He is active in school leadership and has always performed very well academically.  He is now not sure if he is a good student.

High-stakes tests cause kids to question themselves, all for nothing.  The state tests have no impact on my son, but have a huge impact on the school, unfairly in my opinion.

I am very upset with the decision to offer the class to my son--effectively telling him he needs it--without first consulting his parents. 

I am aware my son can opt out of the state test, as can any child if their parent wants them to.  I am aware that teachers are not allowed to offer this information.  I am free to offer it, and I will encourage all parents of public school students to kindly refuse to take the test.

A await your response.

--?father?, father of ?student?

Okay, there is the email from the concerned father. And now for the Principal's response.

Mr. ????, Thank you for you email. You are correct, ?son? did score in the low Proficient range last spring. The class is being offered to the students who we feel can benefit from working in small groups on test taking strategies and dissecting some of the pre=release questions from the California Department of Education. This is not intended to be a negative experience for our students, we hand select the students that we are extending an invite to for participation. I understand clearly how this has impacted ?son? and will let him know that we did not intend make him feel negative and that the class is totally optional.

?Principal?
Principal, ????? Middle School

Notice not one question was answered, but another offer was made to make the son uncomfortable. And the father's response to the response:

I would prefer you not mention anything to ?son?. I know the class is optional, as does he. But he is now convinced he needs it.

Again, do not mention anything about our correspondence to ?son?.

--?father?

And a bit more from the father because that previous email needed to go out immediately to stave off more unwanted nonsense from the Principal to the son:

The flier said he would be tutored in the area he scored poorly in, ELA. But that is not true? It is pure test prep?

And I still would like to know which kids were invited, and why.

Again, this conversation between you and me (and those cc'd) is not for ?son?.

--?father?

You knew this response was coming from the Principal:

Mr. ?father?, I am sorry, but I already spoke to ?son?. We will support what ever decision is made regarding his participation.

Principal, ????? Middle School

I don't know about you, but this is exactly why the high-stakes tests do nothing of value for kids. Please, opt your kids out of the high-stakes tests!

Update: Some more of the exchange is dribbling in. This from Dad:

I am very upset you would talk to my son before talking to me. I am also concerned that none of my original questions were answered.

Please, answer my previous questions about who was invited to participate (broken down by B, BB, P, or A), who the class actually helps (students or school's AYP), who is teaching it, what the curriculum is, and also please tell me the status of ?school? in terms of Program Improvement.

I am concerned that the class is a response to not making AYP last year and has little to do with helping educate my son but instead is a method to raise the average score of ?school? students on the CST--I hope I am wrong, but as a former teacher I am pretty sure I am right. I really want, and deserve, answers to these questions.

--?father?

And the response from the Principal:

Mr. ?father?, I will be glad to discuss the class with you and the teacher Ms. ?teacher? in person not thru a shared email. I am not at liberty to share with you who was selected or how. If you would like to know how the class is structured and what material will be used, please schedule a time with Ms. ?teacher? to come in and observe the class. It is unfortunate that you do not see the value in what we are doing at ?????, and ????? Class is only one of the many positive experiences that we offer to our students. If you want to set-up an appointment with me, please email your contact information.

Thanks,
Principal, ????? Middle School

There you go. The principal won't answer the questions. Do you know why? She isn't allowed to, because the class is for the school, not the kids, and to admit that would be an admission of malpractice. But that's what high-stakes tests do, they cause educators to commit malpractice, and then lie about it.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

Update II: Response from Dad:

That is an incredibly unsatisfying response, and a bit condescending. I am not asking for the names of students participating, I am asking for their rank only.

When I taught I attended a meeting where the principal told us to focus on Basic students because raising them would help AYP, and focusing on Below Basic students would not help because they were unlikely to make Proficient. I was astounded at the time and said something. She didn't like that. I am now concerned this was not limited to my principal, but is a district directive. Your statements sound very similar to what I heard a few short years ago. I would love to be wrong.

I have told you that the class has caused my son to question himself, yet you claim that I "do not see the value in what [you] are doing at ?????," as if the damage to my son's sense of self was a benefit to him. Please.

I would like a meeting with you and whoever is in charge of the class, its participants, its structure, its intended purpose and knows its history.

Please let me know a time this week.

Update Again: And the final response from the principal:

Mr ?father?, I will arrange for a meeting on Thursday. We will be glad to share with you an overview of the program. You will not be given the other information that you have requested. I am concerned that you have stated that we have harmed your son with our invitation and I must state that ?son? has not been forced to participate, and he indicated to me that he wants to attend. Since you have such strong feelings about the opportunity, we will be glad to resend the invitation. You do not have to agree with how we support and engage our students at ?school?, but it is unfair of you to indicate that we are only focused on a select student population and not engaged in addressing all of our students needs. You did not send your contact information, please email a phone number where you can be reached tomorrow and I will call you with a meeting time to confirm our meeting. This will be my last email, I will contact you tomorrow.

Principal, ???? Middle School

Notice how she phrases that part about the father's feelings about the "opportunity" she has provided. Tell me, is the principal wrong here when she tries to spin the class as an opportunity, or is it actually an opportunity?  And does she mean rescind or resend?  She is concerned that the father stated there was harm done to the son; she is not concerned about the harm, but about the statement.

Also, she has the contact information for the father--it's all over the son's file, as is the mother's information, as all students' files should have.

And what kid, who is concerned about doing well, as this son is, wouldn't want to take the class the teacher says he should take because he fucked up the test so badly last time?  So yeah, I'm not surprised the kid, like most bright, interested, grade-centric kids, wants to take the class.  That's why the parents should be asked first, not the kid.

I would love comments.

Update III: The dad chose not to have a meeting.  He realized it would do nothing except make him mad and possibly put the son in an uncomfortable situation.

But the kid went to the class on Tuesday and Thursday.  I will paraphrase for you what the kid reported back to the father about the 2 sessions.  The kid pretty much confirmed the dad's fears that it was about AYP.  The teacher apparently told the prep class exactly why they were chosen: because they were all low 2s and hi 3s hi 2s and low 3s and could impact the school's AYP.  This was told to the class, explicitly, and the teacher referred to the class as her "special team" of kids who are going to raise the school out of PI status, or keep them from going into PI status.

So, here we have one of the greatest examples of the horrors of high-stakes testing.  Schools now use students as a marketing tool.  I hope the kids are getting paid and not working for free.

Now would be a good time to check out the bartleby project.

Final Update: Yes, this is actually about my son and me.

Stephen Krashen Explains Stuff About Testing, Poverty

Prof. Stephen Krashen 12-08-2011 from Chicago Teachers Union on Vimeo.

NAEP Scores Rising For 20 Years

This chart is from a Mother Jones article. Notice that the scores of our kids have been rising for 20 years, yet the gap persists. Why does the gap persist even though* scores are rising? Because child poverty in America is too high and rising. If you disaggregate* the data you see that the lowest-scoring* kids come from poverty and our highest-scoring* kids come from affluence. It couldn't be clearer, or more ignored by reformers.

*Edited cuz I'm stupid.

A Poem About Me

The poem below was sent to me by a parent of a former student, found during a semi-regular clean-up.

It made me feel good, but it also shows how the test seemed to permeate everything.

This student, who is now on her way to middle school, is an incredible kid. In second grade she wrote this; she did this often, actually, as she put up with everyone around her who just weren't as bright. I think very bright kids like this one find ways to keep themselves busy and engaged in a classroom full of varying abilities.

One thing I made sure to do due for this poet -- a math whiz as well as poet -- was to have a few different choices of math homework for her, and her classmates, to choose from. I had a range of difficulty available, and allowed all my students to walk by the offerings and pick whichever one they wanted. I set it up by telling them there was no pressure to do any particular homework, but if they pick one that was a bit hard for them they would learn more--too hard though and they'll just get mad. I always had one homework sheet with simple addition and subtraction problems, but with multi-digit numbers; adding two 10-digit numbers makes the weaker mathematicians feel like they can do hard work, plus it helps them with place value, the typical sticking point for young kids struggling with simple addition and subtraction.

This allowed all the kids to take some ownership of their learning, and gave everyone the satisfaction of, usually, being able to complete the math homework on their own and therefore each kid knew what they could do and what they needed help on.  I always allowed the kids to look at each others homework and the answer sheet together if they chose. Kids that understand concepts laying on the rug with those that didn't all learning together, with no pressure, was a wonderful site. I could walk around and see everyone being both learner and teacher.

I do miss a classroom. I don't know if I could even do the things I used to do 3 short years ago, given how the reform movement has ruined teacher autonomy. I was corralled back then!

Remember, this poem was probably written in about 3 seconds, I assume. (I also assume Gravity was being explained because it came up in the story I was reading and someone asked a question about it. Knowing me, I stopped reading so we could discuss Gravity, as the gravity of the need to learn about gravity was gratuitous.)

My second grade teacher is funny.
Reading a book to us most afternoons.

Singing we are while he plays his guitar.
Understanding and being right most of the time.
Gravity -- explaining.
Everything on the test, mostly, is what he taught us.
Right! Very, very right!
Making us work very hard.
A very good teacher.
Nice and funny.

Three things I am proud of: she called me funny, she mentioned me playing guitar, and she seemed proud to work hard. I call that success.

End-Of-Year Testing Comes Before End Of Year

From John Merrow:

Solving a Man-Made Problem

One of education’s dirty little secrets is that schools give what they call their ‘end of the year’ tests about six weeks before the end of school. The school year is only 5/6th of the way done, but it’s testing time, and everything stops.

Think about that for a moment, maybe put yourself in the shoes of a teacher or a student. If you’re a kid, the message is clear: the year is over! Time to kick back and relax. However, if you happen to be a conscientious teacher, you have to climb a big hill every morning and afternoon for the next five or six weeks, because you have to try to interest your students in what they know doesn’t matter.

Left unexplored is what’s being tested. Do these tests cover everything that the students are supposed to have learned, or merely 5/6ths of the material? If they cover everything, isn’t that unfair to those who are being judged by the results (students and, increasingly, their teachers)? If they cover just 5/6th of the course content, will that mean that many students will never get past, say, World War II in history?

More at the link.

Testing Boycott Working

Nearly half of schools to boycott SATs as teachers rebel

As many as 300,000 11-year-olds will find their national curriculum tests cancelled this morning.

The estimate of the amount of disruption caused by a boycott of the tests - in maths and English - increased yesterday. Christine Blower, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said that the number of schools backing the boycott ranged from 30 per cent to 75 per cent from local authority to local authority. Overall, about half of the 17,000 schools due to sit the tests are set to abandon them.

Who Is Accountable? All Of Us!

Angela Engel says:

Federal policy makers, the Colorado Department of Education and our legislature are not going to lead our schools into the Promised Land. School accountability takes all of us. It's called civic engagement and it looks like volunteering in our schools, joining the PTA, attending school board meetings, asking questions, and educating ourselves.

You should read the whole thing.

Chicago Public Schools Lie And Cheat

Chicago public schools keep phantom students on their rolls:

Terrence Figures was enrolled as a senior last year at B.E.S.T. High School, formerly known as James H. Bowen High School, but he says he dropped out. That is when he became a "ghost student."

"I was never there," Figures said.

Spring 2009 attendance records for Figures show he was marked as "present" on days that he says he was not in school.

"That was a lie because I was off working," Figures said.

h/t MK

Let's Call It Radical

Submitted to Newsweek but not published
04/03/2010

To the editor

Newsweek describes Pres. Obama's education plan as "centrist" ("More big effing deals," April 5, p. 33). Hardly. It is a radical plan, involving far more testing than we have ever seen in the history of American education.

According to the "Blueprint for Reform," released by the Department of Education in March, the new standards will be enforced with new tests which include "interim" tests in addition to those given at the end of year. No Child Left Behind only required reading and math tests. The Blueprint recommends testing in other subjects as well. The Blueprint also insists we measure growth, which could mean testing in the fall and in the spring, doubling the number of tests.

The most radical aspect of this plan is that there is no research showing that this vast expenditure of time and money will increase learning.

— Stephen Krashen

h/t SO

What Good Are Grades?

Joe Bower, a teacher in Canada,  is trying to shake things up, and I appreciate it. He is trying to show us that educating children is not a contest, it's a duty. And it's our duty to do it right, without making the students miserable and narrow and competitive. Joe want kids to find intrinsic motivation to learn. I agree.

He is against grades.  He is against homework.

Here is his latest:

...

Secondly, the issue here isn't that we are not sorting children well enough. Rather it is that we spend any time at all sorting them in the first place when we could be using our time and effort to help them improve. Ranking and sorting, bickering over grade inflation and rigid criteria and higher standards does nothing to help children become better people. Kohn puts it quite succinctly:

What grades offer is spurious precision, a subjective rating masquerading as an objective assessment.

Thirdly, reducing something as messy as real learning to a symbol, letter or number provides little to no useful information. It simply can't tell a kid what they have done or how they could get better. Studies have shown that grades are a pathetic way to provide students with feedback. Period.

Like so many things in life, we have become distracted. We have been distracted by grades, honor rolls, achievement, winning, losing, test scores, data... and the list goes on and on.

Let's refocus.

Assessment can be simplified into two steps.

1. Gather
2. Share

At first this may sound overly simplistic and rather benign, but here's the catch. You never need to use tests to gather, nor do you need grades to share.

...

Richard Feynman On Jiggling Atoms

I love Richard Feynman. You should watch all the videos in the series (just click the video to go to YouTube). In this video, though the whole thing is fun and shows Feynman's extraordinary ability to make things understandable, it's the last 12 seconds that I want you to listen to. It's about education and testing. And it takes him a couple seconds to sum it up. So pay attention at 6:54.

Yong Zhao On High Stakes Testing (America & China)

I have posted a couple things by Yong Zhao before, and this piece, from his book, is incredible.  Here is just a snippet:

I was not good at math (although later in life I developed computer software on statistics, learned to do computer programming with complicated databases, and designed computer games). I was not particularly good at English, either, considering that I had only two years of English taught by a teacher who himself was only a high school graduate and barely knew English. But to avoid math, I chose to major in English language education, and luckily my scores in Chinese language, history, and geography were high enough for me to be admitted to the newly developed English Language Education major at Sichuan Institute of Foreign Languages in Chongqing, China. If I had been born a year later and had to take the exam in 1983, I am sure I would not have been able to get into college because I would have failed the entrance exam's math portion, on which I scored 3 points out of 100.

h/t JB

Jim Horn Slams Rep. Miller (D-CA)

In response to George Miller's self-touting of protection from abuse of children by teachers, the irrepressible Jim Horn:

And yet Miller is one of the most adamant and enthused supporters of non-stop testing in schools, a practice that has done more damage to children and their abilities to learn and live than all other abuses against them combined. Harold Berlak has been an active supporter for such a protection act for years, going back to 2000 when Paul Wellstone was the only true advocate for children in Congress.

Will you, Congressman Miller, support a resolution similar to the one below that I first posted in 2007?:

I am neither attorney nor legislator, but here are some ideas that need to be included in any state bill that takes a moral stand against the most socially-corrosive education policy in history. Use what you want of it--no charge, no copyright.

Updated March 30, 2007

The Paul Wellstone Memorial Family and Students Testing Protection Act, in Honor of the Experience, Insight, and Courage that Enabled Him to See What His Peers in Congress Could Not—the Ultimately-Disastrous Consequences of High-Stakes Testing*

WHEREAS, high-stakes standardized testing of children constitutes the year-round focus in public schools classrooms; and

WHEREAS, the over-reliance and continued emphasis on high-stakes tests has a corrosive effect on preparing children for citizenship in a representative democracy; and

WHEREAS, many high stakes standardized tests administered to children are neither reliable nor valid; and

WHEREAS, emphasis on testing math and reading has resulted in the de-emphasis and disappearance of other important subjects and learning activities; and

WHEREAS, high-stakes testing of young children is inappropriate and harmful to their emotional and intellectual health; and

WHEREAS, results on a single test have been used to justify retention policies that ignore scientific evidence regarding the harmful effects of such practices, and

WHEREAS, poor, non-English speaking, and special education students bear the brunt of disproportionate failure on standardized tests; and

WHEREAS, the preponderance of high stakes standardized tests has neither closed the achievement gap, nor has it altered the economic and social factors that are responsible for those gaps in achievement; and

WHEREAS, failure to meet unrealistic testing targets undermines public support for their schools, thus opening the door to privatization; and

WHEREAS, the institutional stress of high-stakes testing undermines the supportive and challenging school climate required for children to learn and grow; therefore be it


RESOLVED, that schools will develop and use multiple forms of assessment to make high-stakes decisions regarding students, teachers, and the curriculum; and be it further

RESOLVED, that all standardized tests administered to school children will be psychometrically valid and reliable; and be it further

RESOLVED, that standardized tests will not be used as the sole criterion to make student promotion or retention decisions or as determinants of the curriculum and/or the operations of the public schools; and be it further

RESOLVED, that student scores on standardized tests will be used to help to help teachers address student knowledge gaps; and be it further

RESOLVED, that all testing of children will strictly follow ethical guidelines of the education profession and the professional recommendations of licensed psychologists and pediatricians; and be it further

RESOLVED, that standardized tests will be used to measure individual student gains over time, rather than arbitrary target scores that ignore the disadvantages that accrue from poverty, disability, or language status; and be it further

RESOLVED, that no test results will be used to justify punitive sanctions against individuals or schools; and be it further

RESOLVED, policymakers, classroom teachers, school officials, and parent representatives will constitute the appropriate body of stakeholders to make and to modify testing policies for schools; and be it further

RESOLVED, that school systems will have funded public awareness programs to gather public feedback and to disseminate information on the purpose and limitations of assessment programs.

*Use of Paul Wellstone's name in association with this effort approved by the Wellstone Action Network.

Campbell's Law And High Stakes Testing

Joe Bower is a new blogger. He teaches in Canada. You should read his blog, often.  This is his latest, sans links:

High Stake Testing's Kryptonite

The effects of high-stakes testing should not come as a surprise to us. That some very good teachers feel the pressure to cheat for their students in a kind of Robin Hood act to save their children and their school from undue harm should make sense. With the proper pressure, even very good people can be forced into doing 'bad' things.

A well-known (but not well-known enough) social-science law called Campbell's Law helps to explain why high-stakes testing will NEVER work the way it was intended. David Berliner and Sharon Nichols explain Campbell's Law in their book Collateral Damage: How High Stakes Testing Corrupts America's Schools.

Campbell's law stipulates that "the more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it was intended to monitor. Campbell warned us of the inevitable problems associated with undue eight and emphasis on a single indicator for monitoring complex social phenomena. In effect, he warned us about the high-stakes testing program that is part and parcel of No Child Left Behind.

Campbell's Law should disturb anyone who uses data to make decisions. If the stakeholders responsible for caring through with the day to day doing that the data measures feel like their work is attached to a high stakes indicator, they will work to corrupt the validity and reliability of the measurement.

Berliner and Nichols summarize:

Apparently, you can have (a) higher stakes and less certainty about the validity of assessment or (b) lower stakes and greater certainty about validity. But you are not likely to have both high stakes and high validity. Uncertainty about the meaning of test scores increases as the stakes attached to them become more severe.

The high stakes reward-punishment nature of today's testing regime has contributed to its own demise. Everytime someone places more emphasis on testing, the more likely the results gathered will be comprimised - making the data less valid and any decisions based on that data less reliable.

This is a complicated idea with huge implications for policy makers. We can't afford to ignore this law anymore.

No matter how valid or reliable we think certain data is, if high-stakes reward-punishment consequences are to follow the data, then that data becomes more and more invalid and unreliable.

Schoolhouse To Jailhouse Pipeline

A new study from the Advancement Project showing effects of current education policy.

“The educational opportunities of millions of children across this country are continuously put at risk by zero-tolerance school discipline and high-stakes testing,” said Jim Freeman, director of Advancement Project’s Ending the Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track project. “The devastating end result of these intertwined punitive policies is a ‘school-to-prison pipeline,’ in which huge numbers of students throughout the country are treated as if they are disposable, and are being routinely pushed out of school and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems.”

“Test, Punish, and Push Out” provides an overview of zero-tolerance school discipline and high-stakes testing, how they relate to each other, how laws and policies such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) have made school discipline even more punitive, and the risk faced if these devastating policies are not reformed. The report explores:

• The common origins and ideological roots of zero tolerance and high-stakes testing;
• The current state of zero-tolerance school discipline across the country, including local, state, and national data;
• How high-stakes testing affects students, educators, and schools;
• How zero tolerance and high-stakes testing have become mutually reinforcing, combining to push huge numbers of students out of school; and
• Successful grassroots efforts to eliminate harmful discipline and testing practices.

h/t Jim Horn

Data-Driven Accountability: Oxymoron?

John Thompson on data-driven accountability:

Data-DRIVEN accountability makes sense for enforcing the Voting Rights Act, fighting Medicaid fraud, or a war on other criminal conspiracies. It also makes sense when numbers have been proven to reflect physical reality or numbers are used to make sure that other numbers are accurate. Data-DRIVEN accountability is appropriate for deterring threats to society, but to improve teaching and learning we need data-INFORMED accountability and evidenced-based decision-making. We need accountability devised "with teachers" not done "to teachers."

Read it at the link [emphasis mine].

High-Stakes Testing: Korean Killer

The question you should ask: Is testing to death a good idea?

Korean children excel at testing, but at a price
Lessons for U.S.: Fewer high-stakes exams, more respect for teachers
Sheena Choi

As it has done numerous times in the past, America is once again looking to education for solutions to national social and economic problems. While education is in need of reform, it is worthwhile to pause and reconsider the educational reforms we are engaging in, especially high-stakes tests.

Since the 1980s, the U.S. has been fascinated with the economic miracle of the Newly Industrialized Countries of East Asia. Along with economic growth, these countries score high on international standardized tests. Recent Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study scores find U.S. students “still lag behind” those in East Asian countries. The TIMSS average score is 500, with Koreans scoring the highest at 597, followed by Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan. American students scored 508, lower than the Russian Federation at 512.

I can appreciate Americans wanting to do better, but do they know the price these Asian countries are paying for higher test scores?

Recently, I spent a year as a Fulbright Researcher in Korea and had an opportunity to observe intimately the South Korean education system that has produced the highest TIMSS scores in the world.

Students from the moment they start elementary school begin the race toward high test scores. Students take many supplementary classes after their formal school, returning home past 10 p.m. Once students enter high school, the entire family’s attention is focused on preparing children for college entrance exams.

Students sacrifice childhood and family life. Mothers become managers of their children’s studies; fathers, material providers for that pursuit. Poor families spend as much as one-third of the family income on supplemental studies; richer families spend eight times more than poorer ones on supplemental studies. Elite universities become bastions for upper-middle-class students.

The exam preparations leave scars on students and families. Stress and lack of sleep cause students to be physically and emotionally ill. South Korea reputedly has the highest youth suicide rate among newly industrialized countries.

Students protest their role as exam-taking machines and want to know why they have to work longer hours than adults. Adults lament that schooling is relegated to test preparation instead of preparation for citizenship. The public worries that the shadow educational system of supplementary schools is taking over the formal education system.

South Korea is experiencing an exodus of middle class families who are fed up with the highly stressful educational system. Middle class families are emigrating to the U.S. and other countries and, in some cases, even endure family separation to avoid the system built on “examination hell” for their children’s education.

Korea also experiences the lowest birth rate in the world. Education’s high private costs and the examination stress are primary reasons that young couples are having fewer children.

Americans need to learn from Koreans. We need creative educational reforms, not just more high-stakes testing. We can also learn from the positive side of East Asian countries, which endow educators with respect and provide them the equitable salaries of dignified professionals. Respect and financial reward attract high-caliber students to the teaching profession.

We can learn from Koreans about the unhealthy results of an educational system built on high-stakes tests, as well as the positive consequences of respecting and rewarding teachers. We should be investing in teachers, not in high-stakes tests. The price of high-stakes tests is too high.

Sheena Choi is a professor of education at Indiana University Purdue University-Fort Wayne. She wrote this for The Journal Gazette.

h/t Jim Horn