Tag Archives: assessment

Is Pearson’s Scanning of Students’ Social Media Spying or Smart Security?

This month the Washington Post reported that testing giant Pearson has been monitoring students’ social media accounts, looking for evidence of test security violations on the PARCC assessment. The story broke in New Jersey; but given Pearson’s “yep, we did it” response, it’s probably reasonable to expect that it’s happening elsewhere. Cue outrage from parents, politicians, and the AFT.

Frankly, the only thing about this that is surprising is that it’s surprising to anyone.

If you have a presence on the Internet, you are being monitored. This is not black helicopter stuff. It’s just reality. The fact of the matter is that social media is, well, social. Is a person or an employer or a testing company who looks at something you actively put in public space spying on you?

Sure, it seems kind of creepy that old man Pearson is lurking on kids’ Twitter accounts and Facebook pages. But I didn’t read any evidence that they did anything other than monitor information that’s already public. The company has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of its product. Lots of districts are using it. It’s an important and consequential test for kids and schools. And they aren’t all administering it simultaneously, creating an opportunity for malfeasance. States invested a lot of resources in these assessments, and that investment must be protected. It’s part of what they paid for.

This story strikes me as a red herring on two fronts. First, the anti-testing crowd is using inflammatory words like “spying” to gin up support for their side. Second, it’s getting conflated with real concerns about the security of student data. With multi-million dollar companies like Target settling class action law suits for giant data breaches, the ability of government entities collecting massive amounts of data to protect it  is a serious issue that warrants serious debate.

Instead of demonizing Pearson or testing in general, it strikes me that there are two legitimate takeaways here. For one, students who were posting about testing items shouldn’t have been. So someone should talk to them about that. Plus, it’s a great opportunity to talk to students about the complete and utter lack of privacy the Internet affords. There is evidence that kids are dangerously naive on this front.

Are Pearson’s actions here wrong? I don’t think so. Are they discomforting? Yes. The fact that it involves kids makes it seem worse; and the fact that Pearson’s practices got singled out makes it seem egregious. But they aren’t substantively different from the practices of countless other companies (and schools, colleges, etc.) that scan all of our Internet activities every day, regardless of how old we are.

Innovation, Technology, and Rural Schools

According to Washington elites, rural schools’ greatest challenge is finding and keeping teachers. Ask the inside-the-beltway crowd for a solution, and, considering all the buzz over blended learning and innovation, they’ll probably shout, “technology!”

One small problem: Rural superintendent don’t consider teacher recruitment and retention among their biggest challenges…and mixing rural schooling and technology is more complicated than you might think.

Hmmm.

Thank goodness for “Technology and Rural Education,” by Bryan C. Hassel and Stephanie Dean of Public Impact, the latest paper from Bellwether’s rural-education project, ROCI.

school_tech_tools

Image from Northfield Community Primary and Elementary School

The report begins as you might expect, arguing that technology holds great promise for rural schooling. “It can give students access to great teachers…enable them to tap into resources they would never find in a school’s media center…help them personalize their learning…open doors to forge networks with other students across the world.”

But unlike many tech-focused reports, it also recognizes the special characteristics of rural schools, especially as they relate to educators.
Continue reading

What’s Behind Door #3? The Giant Local Testing Loophole in Alexander’s ESEA Proposal

There’s been no shortage of column inches devoted to testing and the “choose your own adventure” approach in Sen. Lamar Alexander’s draft to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And annual testing will likely dominate the discussion at the first Senate hearing on reauthorization today, even though many (including key witnesses, like Brookings’ Marty West) have already shown why backing away from annual testing is a horrible plan.

But annual testing is only half the story. That’s because Alexander’s bill doesn’t just offer two statewide testing options for policymakers to fight about. It also offers a separate testing option for districts on top of the state choices. And although education wonks are up-in-arms over the merits of door #1 vs. door #2 for states, most have, unfortunately, ignored the giant local testing loophole that is behind door #3.

Through it, districts could opt-out of statewide testing and use their own tests instead, regardless of whether Congress chooses door #1 or door #2. But the real kicker is that this loophole isn’t actually new at all. Alexander’s draft bill just makes it far easier for districts to take advantage of–and abuse–existing flexibility. 

Districts would only need state approval that their local assessments meet the same federal requirements with which state tests comply. And given the increasing number of districts pushing back on state testing, door #3 would be an irresistible option for many, even as it undermines the comparability of data between schools for evaluation and accountability; states’ abilities to provide technical assistance, support, and professional development to districts; and state investments in new assessment systems aligned to college- and career-ready standards.

Continue reading

Let’s Talk about Tests: Four Questions to Ask

If you follow education news, politics, and social media, it’s clear that testing is having a moment. I was surprised it wasn’t listed alongside Taylor Swift as a nominee for Time magazine’s 2014 Person of the Year. Everyone–policymakers, unions, state leaders, local administrators, teachers, parents, you name it–seems to agree that the amount of testing and its role in America’s schools and classrooms merit reconsideration. But the momentum of this “over-testing” meme has overshadowed the fact that testing policy is complicated. And when the field talks about “over-testing,” it’s often not talking about the same kinds of tests or the same set of issues.

To help clarify and elevate our over-testing conversation (because it’s here to stay), here are four questions to ask, with considerations to weigh, when deciding whether testing is indeed out of control–and evaluating the possible options to change it. Continue reading

5 Reasons Getting Rid of Annual Testing is a Dumb Idea

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Rep. John Kline (R-MN), the incoming leaders of the Senate and House education committees, both say they are open to an ESEA rewrite that kills the requirement for states to test students annually. Or as I called it, the peel off the party wings approach to reauthorization. This bipartisan coalition bonds over their hatred of statewide annual testing, but not much else. And any bill they produce would be, in essence, a giant finger to the policies of Arne Duncan and Barack Obama–and Margaret Spellings and George W. Bush before them.

Like Mike Petrilli in this Flypaper post, I hope Alexander’s and Kline’s annual testing one-eighty is all just a bluff to try and get Democrats to give in on requiring states to develop teacher evaluations. And I hope they come to their senses and reveal a more centrist reauthorization proposal–with annual statewide testing, and data reporting, and school accountability requirements with teeth.

Because getting rid of annual testing is a dumb idea. I acknowledge (readily) that there are very real problems with today’s tests, accountability systems, teacher evaluations, NCLB waivers, and so on. And these problems are often most acute for those most affected by them–students, families, and teachers, rather than the policymakers that wrote the law and are now responsible for updating it.

But this particular reaction–ending statewide, comparable, annual testing–is an overreaction that creates more problems than it solves. It feeds into the false narrative that testing is only able to punish, rather than inform, support, and motivate. It makes it okay that we haven’t invested nearly enough in building educator capacity to support the students that tests identify as struggling, including significant commitments to overhauling both professional development and teacher preparation. It shies away from, rather than confronts, the hard truths that tests reveal about our education system–the disparate outcomes, and disparate expectations of what students from different backgrounds, ethnicities, and socio-economic conditions can learn.

Still, given the public beating standardized tests have taken over the last decade, and the negative narrative around testing that’s solidified as a result, it remains exceedingly important for those of us that still believe in annual, statewide standardized testing to articulate–again, and again, and again–why it matters. So if the problems above weren’t sufficient to sway you, here are the top five things we lose by giving up on annual testing:

Continue reading