BY DEB ESCOBAR, 20 Feb 2019
In January, Commissioner Elia of the NYS Education Department published the list of schools identified as in need of improvement under the ESSA Accountability standards. Elia identified 106 school districts as Target Districts, 245 schools as in need of Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI), and 125 schools labeled as Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI). NYSED also identified 26 new schools to be placed in receivership. The problem is, that the criteria for determining these schools as “failing” schools, is based largely on the NYS Grade 3-8 standardized tests. In spite of Elia’s assistance that “multiple measures of evaluation” were used, four of the five indicators for elementary and middle schools were based on state test scores. Opt-outs, instead of being waived, were figured in the weighted calculations as “zeros.” This obviously put schools with large opt-out numbers at risk for being targeted as a low-performing school. This is a departure from scoring methods used in past years.
Elia states that the “ESSA plan is designed to improve equity in student outcomes by identifying the schools and districts that need additional support.” Define “in need of support” as a targeted means to discourage parents from opting their children out of a practice of testing that has been deemed unsound in a recent study out of SUNY New Paltz’ Benjamin Center. Researchers Fred Smith and Robin Jacobowitz stated that “testing instruments that put children in a virtual stupor cannot be defended as sound testing practice, nor as a way to raise standards or serve as a foundation for high-stakes decisions and statistical models to evaluate teachers, rate principals, or close schools.” After years of education reforms that relied heavily on flawed testing instruments, with little if any practical benefit to students, we now see the state doubling down on their mistakes, with only token changes to the system itself.
In addition, NYSED has yet to fix the troublesome proficiency benchmarks, which were originally calibrated to college tests. They are therefore not a valid indicator of student ability or performance. For example, in 2016 only 24% of eighth-grade students were scored proficient on the math exam, yet the following year 74% of that same cohort passed the Algebra 1 Regents. Parents who are involved in the education of their child, and who are well-read on the issue of testing, have made a parental decision to opt their children out until the parameters for testing are fairer to all children. It boggles the mind that after years of troublesome data, Elia finds 3-8 test results sound enough to target schools for intervention.
Many of the districts on NYSED’s accountability list are excellent schools, with high graduation rates. (Graduation rates are only considered as an indicator of success for high schools.) A recent op-ed by parents Tish Doggett and Kaliris Salas-Ramirez (24 Jan 2019, NY Daily News) speaks about two schools who are now targeted by the state, in spite of excellent reputations and being deemed in “good standing, high performing, and high impact,” by the NYC Department of Education. All of these excellent schools, now deemed in the “bottom 5%” of state schools, will now have to receive intervention from the state, and they will be given funding to improve. This is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money, as well as being demoralizing to communities that are achieving success in spite of high poverty rates and other problems.
An appeal process exists for the accountability designation, but apparently many such appeals fall on deaf ears, as schools are denied with no explanation. We deserve better than a political gambit designed solely to break the back of the opt-out movement. If Elia wishes parents to buy into testing, she should fix the testing and the benchmarks, not strongarm school districts.
Please contact your state legislators, as well as the Board of Regents (your local Regent as well as Chancellor Rosa). This travesty cannot stand. We need a solution that will not harm the standing of schools in their communities, or do further harm to the self-confidence of teachers and students. It is way past time we fix this testing problem and stop punishing schools and students unfairly.
See below for Board of Regents contact information as well as brief, bulleted talking points:
Chancellor Rosa: Regent.Rosa@nysed.gov
Vice Chancellor Brown: Regent.Brown@nysed.gov
Regent Finn, 3rd Judicial District consisting of Albany, Columbia, Greene, Rensselaer, Schoharie, Sullivan and Ulster Counties: Regent.Finn@nysed.gov
Regent Ouderkirk, 4th Judicial District consisting of Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery, Saratoga, Schenectady, St. Lawrence, Warren, and Washington Counties: Regent.Ouderkirk@nysed.gov
Talking points:
- Excellent schools are finding themselves on NYSED’s ESSA Accountability list for failing schools.
- Four of five indicators for judging accountability for elementary and middle schools are using standardized test results, leaving the results skewed for districts with high opt-out rates.
- NYSED and the Board of Regents have agreed that parents have a right to opt out from 3-8 standardized tests, but NYSED now seems to be punishing districts where a high number of parents are concerned enough to do so.
- Schools that have been targeted for intervention appealed, only to be denied with no explanation.
- The money that is appropriated for schools who are erroneously targeted and not actually failing, could be better used to address funding inequity or help schools with high poverty rates.