NY Times has found the culprit in the NYS Test Fraud scandal:

[Smarmie Doofus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/opinion/24sat4.html


*TEACHERS* !

I'm not sure , but I'll bet it's mostly unionized, mostly top$ scale, older, expensive teachers.... as opposed to low-cost newbies.

Oy.

No ... I don't expect them to admit error or to acknowledge that they ( i.e. the Times editorial board) have been spectacularly WRONG on this issue from the get-go and that we ( teacher-unionists and reform-reformers ) have been screaming about these very tests since their inception ( 10 plus years ago).

>>>>>>>The problem in New York seems not to have involved deliberate deception. Rather, the state education department, which oversees the tests in cooperation with a panel of experts, allowed the math exam in particular to become utterly predictable, focused on the same, narrow subset of abilities from year to year.

This made it too easy for teachers to teach for the exam. >>>>


But I'd hoped they'd leave out the circular logic . Or at least be less blatant in employing it.

Here's today's editorial. Probably about as close as we'll ever get to a mea culpa from the "old gray lady."














EDITORIAL
Honest Tests
Published: July 23, 2010


Congress did the right thing with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 when it required states to document student performance in yearly tests in exchange for federal aid. Parents and policy makers need to know how well their schools are doing. And any serious discussion of reforms needs accurate data and rigorous comparisons with other schools’ performance. Most states immediately undermined the effort by employing weak tests and setting passing scores too low.



David Steiner, the state education commissioner in New York who took office a year ago, dealt head-on with the issue this week, admitting what many New Yorkers suspected: that the annual math and English tests were too easy. “The word ‘proficient’ should tell you something,” he said, “and right now that is not the case on our state tests.” The Board of Regents, which oversees education, rightly voted at the same meeting to raise the passing scores and to make the tests more rigorous.

The problem in New York seems not to have involved deliberate deception. Rather, the state education department, which oversees the tests in cooperation with a panel of experts, allowed the math exam in particular to become utterly predictable, focused on the same, narrow subset of abilities from year to year.

This made it too easy for teachers to teach for the exam. And scores soared accordingly. Last year, for example, an astonishing 86 percent of third through eighth graders statewide were found to be proficient in math, compared with 66 percent three years earlier.

Researchers recently compared New York State’s tests to the federally sponsored National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is periodically given to a sample of students in designated grades. The researchers found the state’s test was not just weaker than the national one, but that it was becoming even more so over time.

Some school officials are angry about Mr. Steiner’s decision to raise the passing scores on state tests and to make them tougher. The next batch of scores, due to be released soon, are likely to be less impressive.

New York’s parents don’t need cooked results and happy talk press releases. They need an honest appraisal of whether the schools are preparing their children to succeed in a highly competitive world.

A version of this editorial appeared in print on July 24, 2010, on page A16 of the New York edition.
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
REPRINTS
Times Reader 2.0: Daily delivery of The Times - straight to your computer. Subscribe for just $4.62 a week.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. I think this is happening in lots of states

Here we have what they call bubble kids. Basically, if they improve their test scores by a certain amount, they help their schools make AYP. Their scores are still not at the mandated level though.

It's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

[frazzled]

2. You are entirely misstating what the editorial says

It's not about fraud, it's not about teachers, and it's not about newbies. It's about the ways the state designed and scored the exams (making them too easy and predictable to be meaningful, and passing with too low a score).

Accuracy and honesty are the first requirements in any serious discussion about education.

Fail.

[Fumesucker]

3. "This made it too easy for teachers to teach for the exam."

From where I sit this looks a lot like blaming teachers for teaching to the exam.

[Hannah Bell]

4. yep.

[frazzled]

5. No, it puts the blame squarely on the test designers

I don't think you'd get a very good grade on reading comprehension here.

[Fumesucker]

7. But the problem is teachers teaching to the test..

Not the test itself.

Even if the test were made more difficult the teachers would still teach to the test, under NCLB and now RTTT they would have no choice but to do that if they wish to keep their job.

[LWolf]

6. Which, in many parts of the country, is EXACTLY

what teachers have been ordered to do.

And then...if students test too well, it's not because they learned, or because teachers followed orders and focused on the test.

It's because...teachers taught to the test!

Schools STILL fail, and it's STILL the teachers' fault!!

[YvonneCa]

9. EXACTLY. I'm no longer working because...

I didn't 'teach to the test' as I was supposed to. Only is wasn't *ordered* directly...it was expected. Those who continued to provide a complete curriculum (according to state standards) were vilified and shunned...and ultimately told they weren't 'effective.'

THAT's how it works under NCLB...and now under Secretary Duncan.

[LWolf]

10. I'm more than sick of, and about it. More than angry.

I'm so sorry you are no longer working. :(

[YvonneCa]

12. Thank you for your kindness. I was lucky...

...because I was able to retire when the stress made me sick. I worry for my colleagues who can't do that. They are facing the same stress, but without good options. That's criminal.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. The Fail is by those who have refused to listen to the teachers

who have been complaining about high stakes testing since it began.

That's the big idea in the OP.

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. I'm thinking you mean "mischaracterizing"; not "misstating."

Since I didn't state anything that wasn't true... or actually "in evidence".. in the OP.

But I have to plead not guilty to that also. Since it wasn't my intention to "characterize" the editorial as a whole. ( Nor my claim, for that matter.)


Perhaps you're new to this issue. Here's the context: the NYTimes has a looooonnnnggg history of hostility to the NY teachers' union... dating back to Shanker ( the 1960s) and perhaps before.

My post has a bit of fun with the Times' inability to say *anything* positive about unionized teachers in New York. Even when we are absolutely vindicated... as we have been in the bogus test score scam... the Times editorialists can't resist the temptation to give the truth an ugly, gratuitous anti-teacher twist.

The editorial says other things as well. But in fact, it DOES say that the poor test "design" made it "easier" for teachers to teach to the test. ( Ahh... that's the way we unionized teachers like it: EASY.)

Yes?

[txlibdem]

13. The state of NY made the test too easy, therefore meaningless

Students will work only as high as your expectations of them. We all need to be on the same page, parents and teachers, as to the expectations for educational achievement. Students are not lazy but they will work harder when you let them know that the expectations are higher than if they know that expectations are quite low (and they are smart enough to figure it out if you don't actually say it).

We need a national educational standard, national curriculum standards, national tests.