A-F Grading - Exchanging One Educational Overreach for Another

Moving into 2017 it looks as though our Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) will not attempt to find the "pro-local-control" the Education and Workforce Committee promised of the new ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act - the replacement for No Child Left Behind - in itself a replacement for the reauthorizations of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act by every preceding president).

Governor Fallin says, "Stop whining or you'll get no more education funds."

I simply must say that I seem to be never-endlessly stymied by the course of Republican leadership in Oklahoma today. 

Here is the latest antic by Governor Mary Fallin, covered in an article in the Tulsa World; Gov. Fallin Counters Critics of A-F Grading System For Schools.  The article begins;

Gov. Mary Fallin is warning educators that continuing public criticism of the state's A-F school grading system may affect whether common education gets additional funding next fiscal year.

"It's not helpful to anyone's cause. It seems to be some opponents are absolutely bent on undermining the credibility of the entire system," said Fallin spokesman Alex Weintz. "The fact of the matter is this grading system, regardless of whether or not you believe it should have been put together differently, is the law."

Last week state Superintendent Janet Barresi unveiled her education budget request for fiscal year 2015, in which she is asking for an additional $174.9 million for a total of $2.5 billion. On the same day, the governor's office spoke out on the A-F issue, urging education supporters to get behind the grading system and stop endorsing a report that criticizes it.

I think we should all ask ourselves why our Republican governor is backing the 'reforms' instituted by a Republican State Superintendent who has so little support for re-election at this point - due in large part to her "my way or the highway attitude" I might add - that a Republican challenger has vastly out-paced her in campaign contributions. 

To hear our Governor literally THREATEN, not only educators in Oklahoma, but PARENTS and TAXPAYERS is completely out of bounds. She may be threatening educators in this article - and make no mistake, this is a threat (because who apparently steers legislation through the capitol?) - but she is also threatening parents who are against her education 'reforms' as well. 

As I recounted several weeks ago, State Troopers were called during our peaceful, quiet demonstration against Common Core at the Oklahoma History Center - the middle of three "whistle stops" in the state where Governor Fallin announced her intention to run again for Governor. 

Republican or Democrat makes no difference, this is a clear violation of FIRST AMENDMENT rights to dissent. Why should we re-elect someone who is NOT an educator, yet will back a NON-EDUCATOR Superintendent who has implemented national education reform consistently and to the detriment of the LOCAL CONTROL so prized by so many in our state - and proven to be the best method for decades. 

PLEASE SHARE THIS ARTICLE FAR AND WIDE! Please comment to this article and the Tulsa World and let everyone know - especially if you're a Republican - that you do not approve.   

Our only hope is that our Governor will understand well that TONY BENNETT - A REPUBLICAN - was BEATEN in INDIANA over Common Core and education 'reforms' such as A-F grading. 

We can do the exact same thing here in Oklahoma with our own governor. 

Parents are the ones that know best for their children, not non-educator politicians who institute educational policies that limit our children and who threaten before they listen to their constituencies. 

I urge you to read this EXCELLENT article by Pat McGuigan, "The Good News Is That The Bad News About Kansas Was Wrong."  In it, he SHOWS USING SPECIFICS how the REPUBLICAN party in Oklahoma has fallen down on their job - certainly of fiscal conservatism.  Fortunately, there is an election for many of them looming in 2014.

Parents, now is the time to stand! Make your voices CLEAR - you will not be threatened or silenced!  You will not continue to prop up POOR STATE LEADERSHIP!  

There are a lot of really great Republicans in the House and the Senate, but let's make very clear that we will simply not tolerate those that want to tax and spend their way into oblivion - or those that want to force public school districts to do it their way (a way not tried nor tested, a way that doesn't appear to work, but that makes our children guinea pigs every day!) when they don't even have the training to identify the "right" way if it jumped into their lap and bit them on the thigh! 

 

I love this picture!  Yes, this is then Congresswoman Mary Fallin at the Nation's Capitol holding up a sign during the health care debacle.   Yes, she did listen to the people and RETURN the 45 MILLION federal dollars SHE TOOK to attach Oklahoma further to the purse strings of the feds and healthcare reform, but that ear has apparently gone deaf!

Let's let our governor know NOW that she is clearly on the wrong track and must stop immediately, or face the real possibility of losing a gubernatorial re-election bid.

Thoughts on Grading Schools

This is a guest post by Michael Lewis - Science Teacher

Thoughts on Grading Schools A to F

Michael Lewis BA, MA

Science Teacher

As both a parent and a public school teacher, here are some obervations I have.  

What the “Gov.” says:

1. All students have to attend school basically between ages 5 & 16.

2. All students will take a test each year and the grades on that test will determine how good the school is.

3. Based on items 1 and 2 all schools will be graded A - F, and receive funding based on their grade.

 

Some potential problem(s):

 

All children are created equal, but, not all children grow or learn equally.

All children have potential, but, not the same potential in the same areas.

Some kids have great and giving parents.

Some kids have self-centered parents.

Some kids eat healthy.

Some kids are lucky to eat once a day.

Some kids have internet at home.

Some kids don’t even have books at home.

Some kids are “parents” to their little brothers and sisters.

Some kids are “parents” to their parents.

Some kids are motivated intrinsically.

Some kids are motivated Extrinsically.

Some kids have parents who encourage them.

Some kids have parents who don’t particularly care about them.

Some kids are smarter than others.

Some kids wear glasses.

Some kids need glasses but can’t afford them.

Some kids have all the pencils and paper and notebooks they will need.

Some kids can’t afford school supplies because they live in poverty.  I regularly have students tell me they can't afford a new notebook, so, I grab one out of my file cabinet and give it to them.  As do many Teachers.

Some school Administrators spend money on shiny, trendy crap and NOT on current textbooks and class materials.

Some school Administrators hire Teachers that have SERIOUS personal issues BUT the state Dept. of Education “SAYS” they are qualified, and there is a shortage of Teachers.

Some kids wear nice, trendy clothes.

Some kids haven’t had a bath in a week or two.

Some kids are comfortable.

Some kids are cold because they do not have a coat.

Some kids can read and write well.

Some kids can’t even speak English.

Some kids sleep well at night.

Some kids can’t sleep very well because they hear screaming and gunshots throughout the night.

Some kids have parents and family that spend time with them and encourage them and will hold them accountable.

Some kids are left alone because the parents are too busy working trying to make ends meet, but, would much rather spend time with their kids.

 

At first, it might sound like a great idea: Kids get grades, why not give schools a grade. But, then the question comes up, "Based on what?"

Kids are not machinery. You can't replace them when they break down, or get suspended, or are gone from being sick, or vacation, and miss a weeks worth of notes.  Machines are designed by engineers who know that steel and circuitry can withstand tremendous stress and strain and still function with invariant precision. I have students that get upset because their papers are crooked when they staple them together.

If I have a student on a specific learning plan, I test and grade him differently. HOWEVER, the state dept. of Education uses a STANDARDIZED test for all students in a specific grade. This does not make sense to me. Even the IRS uses different forms for different people in different circumstances.

But, it is those standardized tests that determine the grade they give the school.

 

Many classroom gradings are: 90 - 100 = A 80 - 89 = B etc.

 

If a teacher gives a test of, let's say, 20 questions worth 5pts. each and little Billy Bob gets 18 of them correct, his grade would be: 90pts. Which is an "A". But, two days later the Teacher decides to change letter grades to 93 - 100 = A. parents and students would be a little torqued off.

 

Does anyone like it when politicians pass a law to raise taxes RETROACTIVELY? Nope. Similarly, Teachers and Parents do not like it when the Dept. of Education change the rules and numbers AFTER the tests or evaluations have been graded.

 

Yes, there IS a better system, but, NO it is not the school grade value of A - F.

 

So, go ahead and slap that A, B, C, D, or F on the school building because we all know “THAT” will solve the problem.

Answer to Janet Barresi's Interview With Choice Media and Bob Bowdon

A bit over a week ago Superintendent Janet Barresi was video interviewed by Bob Bowdon of Choice Media.  After viewing the interview, I felt it important to discuss the inconsistencies in her interview.

Dr. Barresi begins by discussing the education reform measures she is directing in Oklahoma:

• Implementation of Oklahoma Academic Standards
• A-F grade card 
• Institution of the end of social promotion – children must be reading by 3^rd grade or be held back   
• Continuation of “high stakes” testing out of high school (ACE)

HIGH STAKES TESTING

Bowdon asks Dr. Barresi about her thoughts on testing since the term “high stakes” testing is usually a negative concept.

Dr. Barresi answers by saying she is against “anything that is about drilling and teaching to the test”.  That is why she is excited about Oklahoma’s new “college and career ready” standards “that we’re setting up” which allow teachers to 

”teach in a way to develop student’s application skills…The test will test the student’s application of the knowledge – problem solving – thinking on their feet if you will and so instead of test asking for a correct answer; name the capitols of all of the 8 northeastern states, it’s going to ask a question also of application; of those, which one presents the largest population – or of those, which one of those 8 capitols has shipping – uh, involved – or which – what is a seaport – is any of them a seaport?  And so and that is that application.  Teachers are going to be teaching more then to that application.  And so now the tests become more informative to teachers so they know how to adjust instruction.  Besides, if you don’t test, how are you going to know how you’re doing?”

First; Dr. Barresi gives a rather long answer but never addresses Bowdon’s question.  In her reply, she tells us first that she is excited about Oklahoma’s new “college and career ready” standards “we’re setting up”.  Oklahoma’s ‘new’ standards are called “Oklahoma Academic Standards”.  Once at the link for these standards, you find the statement under both math and English L/A standards headings, 

“The Oklahoma State Board of Education adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for grades K‐12 in June 2010. Pre‐Kindergarten standards are currently undergoing revision. Transitions began in 2010 and will be completed by school districts prior to the 2014‐2015 school year.”

Please note that if you click on the link found for “Oklahoma Academic Standards” under English, L/A you are led to the CommonCore State Standards for English/LA, Literacy in History/Social Studies,Science and Technical Subjects though Dr. Barresi mentions the “Oklahoma Academic Standards”, as though Oklahoma had written individualized, state level standards.  This is also true for the heading “Oklahoma Academic Standards” under the math heading.  When that link is followed, the URL belongs to a PDF labeled, “Common Core State Standards for Mathematics”.  So, does Oklahoma have its own “Oklahoma Academic Standards”, or the Common Core?

Secondly; Bowdon’s question about “high stakes” testing came after Dr. Barresi used this same term in application to Oklahoma’s ACE requirements.  Instead of discussing the issue of “high stakes” testing in relation to ACE (which has been a very contentious issue in Oklahoma), Dr. Barresi clearly switches gears and begins discussing the Oklahoma’s Common Core State Standards testing.  Her answer buffs the shine on what she believes are more rigorous tests that will allow a better picture of a student’s ability to apply their knowledge to the questions posed.

Thirdly; Barresi – in her explanation – gives Bowdon a description – NOT of an application process, but a memory skill.  One doesn’t ‘apply’ knowledge to a question that simply asks a student to recall – from memory – which northeastern capitol is a seaport.  Additionally, Oklahoma educators think Dr. Barresi has no concept of how Oklahoma’s tests are actually structured.  In fact, they disagree with her assessment of the state’s current assessments pretty much across the board.

Fourthly; Dr. Barresi then states that ‘high stakes’ tests are ‘more’ informative to teachers – allowing them to better adjust instruction.  As a former teacher, I feel a large majority of teachers would relay the notion that several federated state tests a year will provide no more information (and possibly less) regarding the position of a student in their individual learning arc than many individual classroom level formative tests given after each section of material taught.  

Dr. Barresi finally tilts her head sweetly and lilts, “Besides, if you don’t test, how are you going to know how you’re doing?”  Teachers have been testing students inside the walls of their own classrooms since the beginning of classroom instruction.  In recent decades, teachers have dutifully taken 2 weeks or more a year out of classroom instruction time to prepare their students for yearly state examinations.  Testing has been part and parcel of a teacher’s duties since the profession began.  This was a question regarding “high stakes” testing – a different, more intrusive form of testing.  In this case, the ACE testing process can make or break graduation from high school for a student – even those with looming college prospects.  Sadly, teachers will still not be privy to the thoughts explaining Dr. Barresi’s love of “high stakes” testing from this interview.

GETTING OUT OF PARCC

Bowdon tells Dr. Barresi that it seems less expensive to shoulder 1/17^th of the test cost in PARCC than Oklahoma developing their own.  

Barresi explains (eventually) that Oklahoma withdrew from PARCC because of:

• Cost 
• The amount of time students were having to spend on the test
• Federal overreach
• Technology readiness

Essentially Bowdon asks Dr. Barresi how it is less expensive for Oklahoma to develop their own tests.

Barresi responds,

“When you develop a test that’s been in place for decades in Oklahoma that really tests low level questions, it’s very easy and cheap to develop a test like that – when you just ask for answer A,B, C or D.  When you develop a test that has performance items where the student justifies their answer, writes out short answers and…goes…into really showing their understanding, that is a much higher order test – it is much, much more expensive (Bowdon interrupts but Barresi continues) so we knew going to a better test like that that gives better information was gonna cost more.  That’s one of the reasons we participated in this consortium.  Then, after we got in and saw really how the test was being developed in terms of the fine print of the cost of it, we knew then that even with this additional funding – we appreciate that – that really we did not feel responsible for going back to the legislature and asking for another 2 million dollars.  That money needs to be in the classroom.”

First; again Barresi did not answer the question asked.  Dr. Barresi never gives any indication of the differences in cost between ‘state developed’ and PARCC tests – ever.  In fact, after a great deal of searching on the OSDE website, I was unable to come to find any indication of test costs.  So much for accountability.  I saw several articles on the web that discussed PARCC test costs, and though Oklahoma was mentioned in several, none had Oklahoma’s test costs reported.  

Secondly; since Nancy Pelosi uttered her now infamous, “We have to pass it to see what’s in it” statement about the Health Care law, many of us have opened our eyes to the fact that this is apparently Standard Operating Procedure for government at all levels.  Most states, for example, passed school code or state law adopting the Common Core Standards before they were even available to read in their final format in order to increase their chances for getting a Race to the Top grant.  Here, we see Barresi admit she jumped into an association with PARCC before she knew what it would cost her state taxpayers.  Certainly all states joined knowing that the federal government had given PARCC an RTT grant to develop the tests and that no tests had been developed at the time they entered their agreement with PARCC.

Thirdly; Page 206 of Oklahoma’s NCLB waiver provides a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Florida Department of Education as the granted PARCC authority and Oklahoma as a Governing member.  Oklahoma received 90K yearly for being a governing member of PARCC – not only that, but according to the MOU, there is NO reason for Oklahoma to have removed itself from PARCC, because Oklahoma’s position in the consortium provided the ability to make changes at any point in the test development progression – ostensibly, that should include costs.  Why leave then, really?

NCLB AND FEDERAL OVERREACH

Dr. Barresi’s admission that PARCC represented too much federal overreach is a head-scratcher.  She says the OSDE was,

“Just getting a little too much push from USDE.  We applied for the waiver (NCLB) and then it’s like, “Look what you asked for” and so we’re pushing back on that, but we thought it was time then that we separated us from that government interaction.  We’re developing an Oklahoma test.”

She then goes on to say she is not too sure,

“Barack Obama - President Obama had the right to do that (create the NCLB waiver) but also, I was in a state dealing with the reality that we had an entire array of reforms we were trying to implement and I was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole which was No Child Left Behind accountability.  We needed a better accountability system.”

She continues by saying the feds want to meet with her regarding the tests her state is developing on their own and that there is a possibility the feds will pull back on the waiver.

First; would anyone concerned about federal overreach apply for an NCLB waiver knowing what it said when they applied?  I find this to be the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.  I’ve read Oklahoma’s NCLB waiver.  It is very specific in its demands and the state is very specific in its complete submission to those demands. 

Page 31 says, “Oklahoma is committed to full implementation of the CCSS and other college and career ready standards, PARCC and other college and career ready assessments…”  Page 32 of the state’s waiver application gives three possibilities for the state in terms of testing 1. Using PARCC tests  2.  Not using PARCC but working on developing own Common Core tests or, 3.  The state isn’t in PARCC but has already developed and begun to “annually administer statewide aligned, high-quality assessments that measure student growth in reading/language arts and in mathematics in at least grades 3-8…”  The first option was chosen for the waiver.

I would wonder at any possibility of the USDE wanting to meet with Barresi regarding a roll-back of the waiver.  The waiver she signed provided a binding contract between the USDE and the OSDE’s use of PARCC tests.  But then again, who really cares about contracts today anyway?

FYI:  Dr. Barresi has also applied for a RTT Early Learning Challenge grant, several School Improvement Grants, a State Longitudinal Database grant and facilitated statewide 21^st Century Community Learning Center grants.  If you’re not a fan of federal overreach, why keep applying for federal assistance?

Secondly; why say you took an NCLB waiver because the state needed a better accountability system? Oklahoma was already following Jeb Bush down the yellow brick road of the A-F grading system prior to receiving an NCLB waiver.  In fact, the same Jeb Bush that invented the A-F grading system, then got Secretary Duncan to jump on board with using the system as a requirement of an NCLB waiver.  Janet Barresi, as a member of Bush’s Chiefs for Change, is well known for utilizing Jeb Bush’s reforms in Oklahoma on a constant basis – waiver or not.

Thirdly; on page 11 of the NCLB waiver, the OSDE told the USDE they would collaborate with them to evaluate at least one program of 3 required in the waiver to “determine the feasibility and design of the evaluation…[to ensure] the implementation of the chosen program, practice or strategy is consistent with the evaluation design.”  Why do this if you are concerned about federal overreach?  Apparently, as states wishing to apply for a SECOND round of NCLB waivers are finding out, this evaluation – via the collection of data via the state’s own state longitudinal database – is proving to be “mother may I” on steroids.

Frankly, I could go on, but it’s pointless.  Dr. Barresi has done the sort of things described in this rebuttal since she took office three years ago.  In fact, quashing the right of parents to speak at state board meetings, deflecting questions, spinning facts and filibustering are some of her favorite fallbacks.  

Sadly, people in states all across the country will be able to relate to this situation.  Superintendent Barresi is simply another in a long line of educrats in states all over the country - many with little to no education background - hoping to widen their sphere of political influence by riding Jeb Bush’s coattails down the trail of never tried nor proven education ‘reform’ methods which make guinea pigs of our nation’s students every day.

Prepared Remarks to Ok State Board on A-F Grading System

Prepared Remarks
Oklahoma State Department of Education
School Board Meeting
February 28, 2013
Jenni White
President
Restore Oklahoma Public Education
jenni@RestoreOkPublicEducation.com

Board Members and Guests,

I taught in public school nearly 10 years.  I loved teaching.  My classroom was my own little microcosm of the world where I interacted with all sorts of young people in all sorts of stages of intellectual development representing many different layers of society.

I can remember standing in the hall across from my classroom at Independence Charter Middle School - where I taught Science on the same team with my mother, who taught English – leaning against the lockers, watching the kids go by and thinking there really couldn’t be a better job.  I got to interact with kids – which was good AND bad some days; sometimes all in the same class period!   I got to see recognition of a particular concept light up their faces.  I got to re-learn some of the concepts I taught them and see those in a new light.  I loved sharing what I knew with others and making it new to them.

I quit teaching nearly 10 years ago to stay home with our oldest son.  When I left, my responsibilities included; turning in yearly lesson plans, meeting the Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS objectives) for my grade level in science and meeting the needs of parents, students and my building administration to the best of my ability.

I wouldn’t return to teach in the public system today.

The teachers I have known and worked with were all self-starters.  Teachers really have to be.  You can’t possibly handle a room of 7th graders AND teach a lesson if you’re not.   Teaching can’t survive micromanaging.  Ten years ago, we teachers used to grouse about assemblies, because, after turning in a yearly lesson plan you worked all summer to put together, you couldn’t possibly miss a day or even an hour and still have the kids prepared to leave the classroom knowing what they needed to know.  Not just to pass a test – but to be where they needed to be developmentally.  If lesson plans are thrown out of whack by snow days and assemblies, what in the world happens when you add state and federal teaching mandates?

Education ‘reform’ today is killing the teaching profession.  Accountability is all well and good, but teacher accountability should rest with the building principal and finally, the superintendent and school board – not a school grade calculated utilizing factors over which many teachers have no control.  How in the world do you keep a high school student in school?  Chain him or her to a desk?  How many factors can contribute to a child’s poor grade on a test?  How many of those are the responsibility of the teacher?  How can nebulous factors ever be quantifiable?

This A-F grading system is clearly not appropriate.  For all the lip service we give to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) and its level of importance in the lives of American children in the ‘21^st Century’, to think our state can’t understand and/or apply the basic tenet of Scientific Inquiry to a system that will affect every child and every student in public school in Oklahoma, seems completely inconsistent.   Many categories for calculation in this A-F grading system are not replicable.  The first tenet of scientific inquiry is that the system be replicable.  If it is not replicable, it is not valid.  How can you justify grading a school on a system that isn’t valid?  How is it the state’s job to grade a school?  Isn’t that the job of the community which it serves? 

Recently, a letter released from the Department of Education by Dr. David N. Figlio (as released in an Oklahoman editorial) indicated support for the A-F grading system.  Of note, the letter didn’t speak to the validity of Oklahoma’s grading system of which there is dispute, but more to the ‘idea’ of a grading system.  In fact, in an earlier paper, “What’s in a Grade?  School Report Cards and the Housing Market”, Dr. Figlio’s research suggests,

 “school rankings under these systems tend to be quite unstable”.

He goes on to say,

“…school accountability measures such as the Florida system and the new federal system are largely unrelated to the school’s contribution to student performance and are likely measured with considerable noise.”

Accountability in ANY taxpayer funded system  is absolute necessity.  Micromanagement through the employ of non-valid systems of measurement is not.

Let’s step back here a bit.  Instead of following the education ‘reform’ measures of other states and those prescribed by the federal government in order to get a waiver from the already overreaching No Child Left Behind law, find out what works in Oklahoma – what works on local levels in local communities.  If we can’t do that – if we refuse to do that – we will continue to bleed good teachers from the system and micromanage public schools out of existence.