When Gov. Rick Scott began his transition to Tallahassee, everyone wondered what sort of government experts this private sector leader would seek out for guidance. I doubt any of his choices got as much attention as Michelle Rhee, the controversial education reformer who had made significant waves in Washington, D.C., and become a bit of a darling for conservatives in the education arena.
Since Scott just pushed Education Commissioner Eric Smith out of Tally, this connection is especially important to consider.
But anyone who thinks Rhee needs to play a leadership role in Florida's education system better pay close attention to what is happening in D.C right now where an erasure scandal threatens to undermine every bit of success there. Read the entire USA Today article. You will understand why "holding teachers accountable" makes for much better bumper sticker debate than public policy. And you will understand why Rick Scott cannot turn to Rhee right now if anything positive is to happen with Florida's school system.
From USA Today:
---
In 2007-08, six classrooms out of the eight taking tests at Noyes were flagged by McGraw-Hill because of high wrong-to-right erasure rates. The pattern was repeated in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years, when 80% of Noyes classrooms were flagged by McGraw-Hill.
On the 2009 reading test, for example, seventh-graders in one Noyes classroom averaged 12.7 wrong-to-right erasures per student on answer sheets; the average for seventh-graders in all D.C. schools on that test was less than 1. The odds are better for winning the Powerball grand prize than having that many erasures by chance, according to statisticians consulted by USA TODAY.
"This is an abnormal pattern," says Thomas Haladyna, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University who has studied testing for 20 years.
---
Basically, there is strong evidence indicating someone at the "most improved" schools in D.C. benefiting because somebody was scrubbing bad answers off tests and replacing them with correct ones. This shows why standardized testing is not only a bad single measure for grading scales, but an extremely corruptible one as well. One must truly wonder why a newspaper investigation is what has prompted more investigation.
After Rhee initially bristled at the investigation, calling it work by the "enemies of school reform," she has gotten behind a criminal investigation.
I would be surprised if we learned Rhee had any direct involvement in the erasures, but make no mistake, without "reforms" which valued test scores above all else and which punished teachers for the performance of students on said tests, there would be no incentive for cheating on these tests. This is a direct result of the right's idea of reform.
If Scott decides right now to put Rhee, or a Rhee surrogate, in charge of Florida's statewide education system, and to follow further in D.C.'s footsteps, it will mean only further national embarrassment for a much-maligned school system and an administration which is already becoming a national joke.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jake, if there was cheating on the part of teachers or administrators, what makes you think those people wouldn't have cheated on any other measure of their performance? Sure, if you're not being evaluated at all, you don't have any incentive to cheat, but I don't think anybody takes the stance that we shouldn't evaluate teachers in any way. The state board of education makes a list of things that they expect their students to learn, and pays teachers to teach that information. Why shouldn't they be rewarded for how well they do that?
ReplyDeleteYou might be right that standardized testing is easily corruptible, but statistical techniques like the ones described in the article catch that corruption, and the process is improved. And neither you nor the article make any argument at all that standardized testing is a bad single measure, apart from its corruptibility, although there are lots to choose from.
Tom, this post doesn't make the argument that standardized testing is a bad single measure because that is not the intention of the article. I can point out about a thousand reasons why that is the case if need be, starting with corruptibility but moving to problems with teaching to a test, failing to teach analytical skills for open-ended scenarios, dealing with certain test biases, etc., etc. But the point of this post is that Rhee would not be a good choice for Education Secretary or any role in our education system right now.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether these teachers would have cheated the system another way, that is exactly the point. The Rhee system actually rewarded these teachers, and they were held up by conservative education reformers as models for what good educators should emulate. In reality, these are exactly the bad teachers people want to get rid of, but the methods that were used to measure success allowed these individuals to excel.
Let me stress I do not think Rhee was directly responsible for the cheating, but she created the system where the cheating occurred, then shined a light on the cheaters and called them a great success story. That is the problem here.
Jeeze, Blogspot sucks. Destroyed another one of my long comments. Allow me to attempt to recreate it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that standardized testing is a poor single measure of teacher performance. I was calling your attention to the fact that you said the article was evidence of this, when in fact, it doesn't address that at all.
Note that standardized testing was not being used as a single measure of performance in DC - teachers were also observed in the classroom by administrators and outside professionals five times a year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072303093_2.html
I suspect we agree that standardized testing can be an effective measure of performance, but it's often limited by the conventional multiple choice format that rewards test-prep skills (although there are certainly real-world application for some of those skills).
As for the erasure scandal, if in fact there was any wrongdoing, what would you have Rhee, or any other manager, do? You reward the people who have excelled relative to the standards you've set, and you shine a light on them, because to the best of your knowledge, they ARE the people you want your employees to emulate. If you later find out that those people did not perform as well as they appeared because they cheated to improve their apparent performance, then you punish them. It's the same in journalism. The NY Times fired Jayson Blair when they discovered he'd been plagiarizing and fabricating stories. Janet Cooke wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning article about a kid addicted to heroine; when it was revealed that the story was fabricated, the committee retracted the award, and she resigned from the Washington Post. As the Times said regarding Blair, every organization trusts its employees to uphold certain principles. I'm not sure how the fact that Rhee's system could be cheated means it's fundamentally flawed, and as long as it's improved to combat the cheating, I'm not sure why you're attacking it on that front. (I'm not sure that it remains in place now that she's no longer in charge there.)
Testing, 1, 2. Jake, Blogspot has eaten my reply twice now.
ReplyDeleteOk, seems to be working. The highlights:
ReplyDeleteJake, I agree with you that standardized testing (particularly the usual, multiple choice format) is not a good single evaluation of a teacher. I was just pointing out that you said of the article, "This shows why standardized testing is not only a bad single measure for grading scales ...." The article didn't have anything to do with that.
By the way, Michelle Rhee apparently agrees with us. Under her leadership, DC did not rely solely on standardized test scores, but had administrators and outside experts conduct in-classroom evaluations of each teacher, five times per year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072303093_2.html
I do think that a well-designed standardized test can be a valuable tool in teacher evaluation. As for teaching to the test, I really don't have a problem with it. A school board lays out a set of standards they want taught, hire teachers to teach them, and then test the kids to see if they learned them. If you have a well-designed test, then what's the problem with teaching to it? If the complaint is that "teaching to the test" leaves out information, then broaden the test (and the standards, if necessary). If the complaint is that it results in superficial knowledge, then narrow the focus and test for understanding of connections in the material. It can certainly be done poorly, particularly when the focus is on test-taking techniques rather than the material (although some of those techniques certainly have more real-world application than knowing what year Columbus sailed the ocean blue).
Regarding the erasure scandal, assuming there was wrongdoing, what would you have Rhee, or any other manager, do? If you have an employee who excels in comparison to the standards you've set out, you do in fact hold them up as examples to be emulated. If you later find out that the reason they were so good was that they cheated to improve their apparent performance, then you punish them. The same thing happens everywhere - journalism, for example. The NY Times fired Jayson Blair after he was found to have plagiarized and fabricated stories. Janet Cooke got a Pulitzer for an article she wrote which was revealed to be fabricated; the committee took the prize back and she was forced to resign from the Washington Post. This is what we do. As the Times said in the Blair case, you trust that your employees will meet certain standards of professionalism. As long as the system Rhee implemented takes measures to combat cheating (and I'm not sure the system remains in place now that she's no longer the chancellor), I really don't think that attacking on this front is valid. As you said, despite initial bristling, she's gotten behind a criminal investigation.
Ok, seems to be working. The highlights:
ReplyDeleteJake, I agree with you that standardized testing (particularly the usual, multiple choice format) is not a good single evaluation of a teacher. I was just pointing out that you said of the article, "This shows why standardized testing is not only a bad single measure for grading scales ...." The article didn't have anything to do with that.
By the way, Michelle Rhee apparently agrees with us. Under her leadership, DC did not rely solely on standardized test scores, but had administrators and outside experts conduct in-classroom evaluations of each teacher, five times per year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072303093_2.html
I do think that a well-designed standardized test can be a valuable tool in teacher evaluation. As for teaching to the test, I really don't have a problem with it. A school board lays out a set of standards they want taught, hire teachers to teach them, and then test the kids to see if they learned them. If you have a well-designed test, then what's the problem with teaching to it? If the complaint is that "teaching to the test" leaves out information, then broaden the test (and the standards, if necessary). If the complaint is that it results in superficial knowledge, then narrow the focus and test for understanding of connections in the material. It can certainly be done poorly, particularly when the focus is on test-taking techniques rather than the material (although some of those techniques certainly have more real-world application than knowing what year Columbus sailed the ocean blue).
Regarding the erasure scandal, assuming there was wrongdoing, what would you have Rhee, or any other manager, do? If you have an employee who excels in comparison to the standards you've set out, you do in fact hold them up as examples to be emulated. If you later find out that the reason they were so good was that they cheated to improve their apparent performance, then you punish them. The same thing happens everywhere - journalism, for example. The NY Times fired Jayson Blair after he was found to have plagiarized and fabricated stories. Janet Cooke got a Pulitzer for an article she wrote which was revealed to be fabricated; the committee took the prize back and she was forced to resign from the Washington Post. This is what we do. As the Times said in the Blair case, you trust that your employees will meet certain standards of professionalism. As long as the system Rhee implemented takes measures to combat cheating (and I'm not sure the system remains in place now that she's no longer the chancellor), I really don't think that attacking on this front is valid. As you said, despite initial bristling, she's gotten behind a criminal investigation.
I think it took this time. I'll paste it on your FB just to be sure.
ReplyDeleteIt's a excellent system, in that it makes identifying corruption clear and unambiguous.
ReplyDeleteThese are not the children, these are adults.
If they are that morally bankrupt, lacking self-control, then they should not be in ANY role of responsibility at ANY level involving the teaching and administration of teachers and children.
Jake said,"but make no mistake, without "reforms" which valued test scores above all else and which punished teachers for the performance of students on said tests, there would be no incentive for cheating on these tests".
It's statements like this that earn libs/progs the rep of wanting to remove life's pain and consequences for personal actions. It's not a matured,well formed, workable, or logical view of humanity. It infantilizes adults,removing personal responsibility.
Those that think this way feel compassionate; however, they are enablers. Thus, our youth see no need to control themselves,no need to chose to act moral responsible, and to ridicule others that do.
It's a excellent system, in that it makes identifying corruption clear and unambiguous.
ReplyDeleteThese are not the children, these are adults.
If they are that morally bankrupt, lacking self-control, then they should not be in ANY role of responsibility at ANY level involving the teaching and administration of teachers and children.
Jake said,"but make no mistake, without "reforms" which valued test scores above all else and which punished teachers for the performance of students on said tests, there would be no incentive for cheating on these tests".
It's statements like this that earn libs/progs the rep of wanting to remove life's pain and consequences for personal actions. It's not a matured,well formed, workable, or logical view of humanity. It infantilizes adults,removing personal responsibility.
Those that think this way feel compassionate; however, they are enablers. Thus, our youth see no need to control themselves,no need to chose to act moral responsible, and to ridicule others that do.
Hey Guys. Sorry I have been slow to respond. Crazy times at my day job.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the points being made here, but do think it is being ignored that Rhee's system in DC not only failed to catch the erasures but held up the teachers as examples of good teaching. That is the problem. The testing in this case protected bad teachers.
I wish I had made that case more clear in the original post. Now forgive me, I must become absorbed once again in my paying job:(