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 3rd 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.”
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 1/17th 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.
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?
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.
