Are Children Learning

Could Indiana junk ISTEP for a national test?

PHOTO: Shannan Muskopf via Flickr

Indiana lawmakers and educators Wednesday praised the idea of replacing ISTEP with a national “off-the-shelf” test in the Senate Education Committee.

Senate Bill 566, authored by Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, and Sen. Ryan Mishler, R-Bremen, would halt an effort to create a new ISTEP, instead directing the state to use a national test beginning in the 2016-17 school year. It also would eliminate high school end-of-course exams, starting in 2015-16, and the state’s third-grade reading test, IREAD. Under the bill, the state’s new testing program would be called BEST — benchmarking excellence student testing.

Kenley said the idea to scrap an effort underway at the Indiana Department of Education to forge a contract for a testing company to create a new generation of state tests raised cost concerns when state Superintendent Glenda Ritz presented her budget to the State Budget Committee in December. The proposal said writing new state tests could cost roughly $65 million — about $30 million more than it has in recent years.

“Do we have to give so many tests and does it have to cost this much?” Kenley said. “And instead of having one special test, the Indiana test, can’t we take some off-the-rack test and just give it to everybody, and wouldn’t it cost less money?”

The department is awaiting testing company proposals to make Indiana’s new 2015-16 tests. The rewrite of the tests is intended to more strongly connect the exams to the state’s new more rigorous academic standards. ISTEP is a currently created by California-based CTB/McGraw-Hill.

Indiana had been on a plan to adopt Common Core standards, which were shared by 45 other states, and use a exam created by some of those states designed to determine if students had learned the content covered by Common Core as Indiana’s state test.

But after a backlash against Common Core, viewed by some critics as giving too much control over the state’s education system to policymakers outside of Indiana, the state backed out of both the standards and the idea of sharing a test with other states.

Gov. Mike Pence ordered Indiana to withdraw from the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, which was crafting the shared test. Then last year, a Republican-led effort, supported by Kenley, voided Indiana’s adopton of Common Core standards, leading to a fast-tracked creation and adoption of new academic standards that went into effect last summer.

But on Wednesday, Kenley said he favors using a national test now, perhaps even one originally designed for Common Core. Everyone needs to use some common sense in this situation, he said.

“We’re trying to streamline the testing systems, and we’re trying to reduce the time of testing,” Kenley said. “If you have the testing program that works the way you want it to, then you should be willing to go back and have your standards fit what you think is an appropriate test.”

Mishler said one option Indiana would have is a test by the Northwest Evaluation Association that many schools already use to gather information about student progress in preparation for ISTEP. It could be modified slightly and could replace ISTEP, end-of-course exams and IREAD all in one, depending on whether the test is given to grades 3-8 or 3-10, Kenley said.

John Barnes, a spokesman for Ritz and the education department, backed the bill.

“It could very well be that we could adapt already existing tests,” Barnes said. “The big issue has been that since the legislation that was passed here said we needed to come up with an Indiana-specific, Indiana-designed to test to meet our Indiana-specific standards, that became our challenge. The idea here might very well be to adopt something that is more off-the-shelf and come up with a way to make that work for us.”

The bill is scheduled to go before the committee for a vote next week.

Detroit Story Booth

Why one woman thinks special education reform can’t happen in isolation

PHOTO: Colin Maloney
Sharon Kelso, student advocate from Detroit

When Sharon Kelso’s kids and grandkids were still in school, they’d come home and hear the same question from her almost every day: “How was your day in school?” One day, a little over a decade ago, Kelso’s grandson gave a troubling answer. He felt violated when security guards at his school conducted a mass search of students’ personal belongings.

Kelso, a Cass Tech grad, felt compelled to act. Eventually, she became the plaintiff in two cases which outlawed unreasonable mass searches of students in Detroit’s main district.

Fast forward to August, when her three great-nephews lost both their mother and father in the space of a week and Kelso became their guardian. Today, she asks them the same question she has asked two generations of Detroit students: “How was your day in school?”

The answers she receives still deeply inform her advocacy work.

Watch the full video here:

– Colin Maloney

First Person

Why the phrase ‘with fidelity’ is an affront to good teaching

PHOTO: Alan Petersime

“With fidelity” are some of the most damaging words in education.

Districts spend a ton of money paying people to pick out massively expensive, packaged curriculums, as if every one of a thousand classrooms needs the exact same things. Then officials say, over and over again, that they must be implemented “with fidelity.” What they mean is that teachers better not do anything that would serve their students’ specific needs.

When that curriculum does nothing to increase student achievement, it is not blamed. The district person who found it and purchased it is never blamed. Nope. They say, “Well, the teachers must not have been implementing it with fidelity.”

It keeps happening because admitting that schools are messy and students are human and teaching is both creative and artistic would also mean you have to trust teachers and let them have some power. Also, there are some really crappy teachers out there, and programs for everyone are often meant to push that worst-case-scenario line a little higher.

And if everyone’s doing just what they’re supposed to, we’ll get such good, clean numbers, and isn’t that worth a few thousand more dollars?

I was talking with a friend recently, a teacher at an urban school on the East Coast. He had been called to task by his principal for splitting his kids into groups to offer differentiated math instruction based on students’ needs. “But,” the principal said, “did the pacing guide say to differentiate? You need to trust the system.”

I understand the desire to find out if a curriculum “works.” But I don’t trust anyone who can say “trust the system” without vomiting. Not when the system is so much worse than anything teachers would put together.

Last year, my old district implemented Reading Plus, an online reading program that forces students to read at a pace determined by their scores. The trainers promised, literally promised us, that there wasn’t a single reading selection anywhere in the program that could be considered offensive to anyone. God knows I never learned anything from a book that made me feel uncomfortable!

Oh, and students were supposed to use this program — forced-paced reading of benign material followed by multiple-choice questions and more forced-pace reading — for 90 minutes a week. We heard a lot about fidelity when the program did almost nothing for students (and, I believe quite strongly, did far worse than encouraging independent reading of high-interest books for 90 minutes a week would have done).

At the end of that year, I was handed copies of next year’s great adventure in fidelity. I’m not in that district any longer, but the whole district was all switching over to SpringBoard, another curriculum, in language arts classes. On came the emails about implementing with fidelity and getting everyone on the same page. We were promised flexibility, you know, so long as we also stuck to the pacing guide of the workbook.

I gave it a look, I did, because only idiots turn down potential tools. But man, it seemed custom-built to keep thinking — especially any creative, critical thought from either students or teachers — to a bare minimum.

I just got an email from two students from last year. They said hi, told me they missed creative writing class, and said they hated SpringBoard, the “evil twin of Reading Plus.”

That district ran out of money and had to cut teachers (including me) at the end of the year. But if they hadn’t, I don’t think I would have lasted long if forced to teach from a pacing guide. I’m a good teacher. Good teachers love to be challenged and supported. They take feedback well, but man do we hate mandates for stuff we know isn’t best for the kids in our room.

Because, from inside a classroom full of dynamic, chaotic brilliance;

from a classroom where that kid just shared that thing that broke all of our hearts;

from a classroom where that other kid figured out that idea they’ve been working on for weeks;

from that classroom where that other kid, who doesn’t know enough of the language, hides how hard he works to keep up and still misses things;

and from that classroom where one kid isn’t sure if they trust you yet, and that other kid trusts you too much, too easily, because their bar had been set too low after years of teachers that didn’t care enough;

from inside that classroom, it’s impossible to trust that anyone else has a better idea than I do about what my students need to do for our next 50 minutes.

Tom Rademacher is a teacher living in Minneapolis who was named Minnesota’s Teacher of the Year in 2014. His book, “It Won’t Be Easy: An Exceedingly Honest (and Slightly Unprofessional) Love Letter to Teaching,” was published in April. He can be found on Twitter @mrtomrad and writes on misterrad.tumblr.com, where this post first appeared.