Monday, May 16, 2016

General Assembly Educational Group

https://commoncorediva.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/do-you-know-this-ga/

Do You Know This GA?

Sure, we Anti CCSS/Fed Ed Warriors know there are General Assemblies of all kinds. We have them in our communities, our legislatures, and even global ones. But, did you know there is a CCSS Machine ‘General Assembly’ group?

How I Found Them:

As an avid researcher, it is easy to find one group when investigating another group. Add in an educational topic, and the groups appear to be not only tied at the hip, but plentiful.
My latest ‘connect the dots’ findings come from when I was looking into WhiteBoard Advisors and found General Assembly, a Global Educational Group.

In case you missed my Weekend News, my third point in the publication was to point you to the WhiteBoard Advisors and their May 2016 Education Insiders Report. I noticed in several instances on the W/A (as they refer to themselves) website, General Assembly was brought up. Thinking it meant that the W/A had a General Assembly (GA), I tried to find out who serves on it. However, what I found instead was the linkage between the two separate groups. All in the name of education reform, to boot! While there will be plenty to share about W/A in the near future, I will be using the rest of my Monday Musings to look at the General Assembly Educational Group.

The General Assembly:

galogo The website: https://generalassemb.ly/
The Co-Founders: Matt Brimer and Jake Schwartz

Their message: “General Assembly (GA) is a global educational company on a mission to empower a global community to pursue work they love. Focusing on the most relevant and in-demand skills across data, design, business and technology, GA is confronting a skills gap through best-in-class instruction and providing access to opportunities. GA works with students online and in person across 15 campuses in 4 continents. GA also works with companies as partners in course development and graduate placement as well as helps companies stay competitive in today’s digital landscape. Additionally, GA’s focus on affordable and accessible education combined with our education-to-employment approach is helping to create a diverse talent pipeline.”

Warriors, do you see the CCSS Machine agenda? I do!

GA’s tie to the WhiteBoard Advisors is the Sr. Vice President and Co-Director of Research for W/A, David DeSchryver. See below:

daviddes

To see the rest of DeSchryver’s bio: http://www.whiteboardadvisors.com/david-deschryver

To access the Beyond Bootcamps Report: General_Assembly_Beyond_Bootcamps_Policy_Report

What in the Report is of note?
1) Former Governor for NC, Bev Purdue (also a Senior Advisor for W/A) wrote the Forward in the Report. Bev Purdue, is a ‘card carrying member’ of the CCSS Machine. (*Note: her company DigiLearn is proof.)
2) The Report is from 2015.
3) It gives a ‘Top Ten’ list of policy making considerations to boost state and local economies via skill based education.
4) Both authors (DeSchryver and Kelly) are tied to other CCSS Machine member organizations. Kelly is tied to the Gates Foundation funded Education Week; DeSchryver has been in the thick of education reform since the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) days.
5) The Report falsely carries the notion of the ‘skills gap’ (*Note: I have shared documented evidence with you in the past that the skills gap is narrative of panic the CCSS Machine is using to further their involvement of workforce based, P3 (public private partnership) driven education.)
6) Cities are giving grants to GA to come and operate there. An example is New York City and can be seen on page 6. (A related NYC article: http://www.businessinsider.com/hustle-con-presentations-on-startups-from-nerdwallet-teespring-general-assembly-thirdlove-2015-4)
7) The Report details how GA is helping transform America’s economy.
8) GA is working with an official from the U.S. Dept. of Ed to help accelerate learning.
9) The Report details how all this will be regulated in various States. Usually either the Workforce Training or the Higher Education Committees.
10) Employers are expected to not only be clear about their workforce needs, but to help in the credentialing process for education.
Lastly, of the Top Ten priorities for state and local policy makers? Outcomes! Not true education, but outcomes of our students…of all ages!

What organizations have invested in GA? In 2014, the following:
“GSV Capital, Rethink Education, Maveron, and Western Technology Investment also participated, and GA’s funding now totals $49.3 million.” See: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/07/general-assembly-raises-35m-led-by-new-investor-ivp-to-add-more-tech-courses-new-campuses/

In 2015, more investors jumped on the GA Bandwagon: “Our new investors are Advance Publications and Wellington Capital Management LLP” See: http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/30/general-assembly-raises-70-million-closing-in-on-25000-alumni-worldwide/

More Nebulous Connections:

From the list above, you may (or may not) see any further CCSS Machine connections. However, there are a couple which really stand out to me, GSV Capital and Rethink Education. In a short sentence, GSV is tied to the CCSS Machine through investments.
Rethink Education is tied back to W/A (WhiteBoard Advisors) via Ben Wallerstein, one of the co-founders. That said, let’s see what else I can point you to about each of THESE CCSS Machine member organizations.

GSV Capital: I first exposed this group by in 2014. See my article:
https://commoncorediva.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/from-the-files-tuesday-down-in-the-valley/
In this article, I showed you the ‘GSV’ in GSV Capital stands for Global Silicon Valley. The Capital’s goal? Re-imagining education…we are talking well-known heavy hitting big name CCSS Machine members are involved; we’re looking at least $4 trillion dollars in the global education market, Warriors! We are also looking at how this group wants to eliminate school boards in the process. To see where in the list of priorities THIS bombshell is, be sure to enlarge the picture when you read the above article.

Okay, that was 2014, what about GSV Capital has changed? From their Blog titled A2Apple,
“While there was plenty of competition for “mindshare”, last week we co-hosted the seventh annual ASU GSV Summit in San Diego, a gathering of leaders from across the global innovation economy with the mission of accelerating exponential ideas in education and talent. We welcomed over 3,500 entrepreneurs, educators, business leaders, policymakers, and investors, as well as 350 game-changing presenting companies.” (*Note: ASU is short for AZ State University, another well known CCSS Machine member.) See the screen shot below from the Blog.

GSVGates Yes, Warriors, we knew Gates would be involved somehow. To read the rest of the article where both the excerpt and the picture are from: http://www.a2apple.com/change-your-mind/ (*Note: be sure to scroll down and see the pictures of the other speakers. Among them are Ted Mitchell, of the U.S. Dept. of Ed. and Dr. Condoleezza Rice of the Jeb Bush-backed FEE (Foundation for Excellence in Education. Be sure to look at the rhetoric and the research sources.)

By visiting the GSV Capital’s Strategy webpage, be sure you read the Making Private Public section to see where education comes into play. See:
http://gsvcap.com/about/strategy-purpose/

Rethink Education:
The website for this education venture investment firm: http://rteducation.com/
Tying them back to the W/A group is WhiteBoard Advisor co-founder, Jake Schwartz.(*Note: he can be found among the Rethink Education Portfolio Investors.)

Also among the Rethink Education folks, is Tom Segal, one of the co-founders. He is regularly featured on EdSurge (another CCSS Machine member). Tom also posts blog entries on the Rethink Education website. His entry about the beginning of Rethink is worth noting. Why? Both co-founders have a long history of ties to CCSS Machine connected entities, like Head Start and CUNY (NY). I have tied both of these back to the Machine in previous articles. As far as EdSurge’s ties: One of the Board members represents GSV Capital!
To see the beginning of Rethink Education: http://rteducation.com/where-we-came-from/
To see the GSV Capital Board member: http://about.edsurge.com/board/ (*Note: When you read Matt Hanson’s bio, be sure to see where it mentions he is also tied to GA, as in the General Assembly Global Education group!)

To read a related article about Rethink Education and how it is a great new thing for education to be incentivized by private groups: https://www.edsurge.com/news/incentivizing-innovation-in-education-or-a-role-for-for-profits-in-education

Closing:
Warriors, do you see the nebulous ties above? It is insane how these groups are so closely in-bred. Not only are we having to fight the federal and state levels of government over Common Core and all that goes with it, but we have a plethora of private groups strangling our voices! Our governments and our schools should NOT have ANY private investors except the parents! By this, I am not talking investing money, but parents investing with their hearts because they are simply trying to do the best for their students. ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act), WIOA (Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act), and the HEA (Higher Education Act) mock us. The P3s mock us. The CCSS Machine not only mocks us, but is doing its best to silence us!

Be sure to note that I will continue to delve into this subject and report what I uncover. I will also be exposing more about WhiteBoard Advisors soon.

Sent from my iPhone

Saturday, May 14, 2016

How Finland broke every rule — and created a top school system

http://hechingerreport.org/how-finland-broke-every-rule-and-created-a-top-school-system/

How Finland broke every rule — and created a top school system

Jussi Hieveta’s fourth-grade class at the University of Eastern Finland’s Normaalikoulu teacher training school in Joensuu, Finland.

Spend five minutes in Jussi Hietava’s fourth-grade math class in remote, rural Finland, and you may learn all you need to know about education reform – if you want results, try doing the opposite of what American “education reformers” think we should do in classrooms.

Instead of control, competition, stress, standardized testing, screen-based schools and loosened teacher qualifications, try warmth, collaboration, and highly professionalized, teacher-led encouragement and assessment.

At the University of Eastern Finland’s Normaalikoulu teacher training school in Joensuu, Finland, you can see Hietava’s students enjoying the cutting-edge concept of “personalized learning.”

But this is not a tale of classroom computers. While the school has the latest technology, there isn’t a tablet or smartphone in sight, just a smart board and a teacher’s desktop.

Screens can only deliver simulations of personalized learning, this is the real thing, pushed to the absolute limit.

This is the story of the quiet, daily, flesh-and-blood miracles that are achieved by Hietava and teachers the world over, in countless face-to-face and over-the-shoulder interactions with schoolchildren.

Often, Hietava does two things simultaneously: both mentoring young student teachers and teaching his fourth grade class.

Hieteva sets the classroom atmosphere. Children are allowed to slouch, wiggle and giggle from time to time if they want to, since that’s what children are biologically engineered to do, in Finland, America, Asia and everywhere else.

This is a flagship in the “ultimate charter school network” – Finland’s public schools.

Here, as in any other Finnish school, teachers are not strait-jacketed by bureaucrats, scripts or excessive regulations, but have the freedom to innovate and experiment as teams of trusted professionals.

Here, in contrast to the atmosphere in American public schools, Hietava and his colleagues are encouraged to constantly experiment with new approaches to improve learning.

Hietava’s latest innovations are with pilot-testing “self-assessments,” where his students write daily narratives on their learning and progress; and with “peer assessments,” a striking concept where children are carefully guided to offer positive feedback and constructive suggestions to each other.

The 37 year-old Hietava, a school dad and Finnish champion golfer in his spare time, has trained scores of teachers, Unlike in America, where thousands of teacher positions in inner cities are filled by candidates with five or six weeks of summer training, no teacher in Finland is allowed to lead a primary school class without a master’s degree in education, with specialization in research and classroom practice, from one of this small nation’s eleven elite graduate schools of education.

As a boy, Hietava dreamed of becoming a fighter pilot, but he grew so tall that he couldn’t safely eject from an aircraft without injuring his legs. So he entered an even more respected profession, teaching, which is the most admired job in Finland next to medical doctors.

I am “embedded” at this university as a Fulbright Scholar and university lecturer, as a classroom observer, and as the father of a second grader who attends this school.

How did I wind up here in Europe’s biggest national forest, on the edge of the Western world in Joensuu, Finland, the last, farthest-east sizable town in the EU before you hit the guard towers of the Russian border?

In 2012, while helping civil rights hero James Meredith write his memoir “A Mission From God,” we interviewed a panel of America’s greatest education experts and asked them for their ideas on improving America’s public schools.

One of the experts, the famed Professor Howard Gardner of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, told us, “Learn from Finland, which has the most effective schools and which does just about the opposite of what we are doing in the United States. You can read about what Finland has accomplished in ‘Finnish Lessons’ by Pasi Sahlberg.”

I read the book and met with Sahlberg, a former Finnish math teacher who is now also at Harvard’s education school as Visiting Professor.

After speaking with him I decided I had to give my own now-eight-year old child a public school experience in what seemed to be the most child-centered, most evidence-based, and most effective primary school system in the world.

Now, after watching Jussi Hietava and other Finnish educators in action for five months, I have come to realize that Finland’s historic achievements in delivering educational excellence and equity to its children are the result of a national love of childhood, a profound respect for teachers as trusted professionals, and a deep understanding of how children learn best.

Children at this and other Finnish public schools are given not only basic subject instruction in math, language and science, but learning-through-play-based preschools and kindergartens, training in second languages, arts, crafts, music, physical education, ethics, and, amazingly, as many as four outdoor free-play breaks per day, each lasting 15 minutes between classes, no matter how cold or wet the weather is. Educators and parents here believe that these breaks are a powerful engine of learning that improves almost all the “metrics” that matter most for children in school – executive function, concentration and cognitive focus, behavior, well-being, attendance, physical health, and yes, test scores, too.

The homework load for children in Finland varies by teacher, but is lighter overall than most other developed countries. This insight is supported by research, which has found little academic benefit in childhood for any more than brief sessions of homework until around high school.

There are some who argue that since Finland has less socio-economic diversity than, for example, the United States, there’s little to learn here. But Finland’s success is not a “Nordic thing,” since Finland significantly out-achieves its “cultural control group” countries like Norway and Sweden on international benchmarks. And Finland’s size, immigration and income levels are roughly similar to those of a number of American states, where the bulk of education policy is implemented.

There are also those who would argue that this kind of approach wouldn’t work in America’s inner city schools, which instead need “no excuses,” boot-camp drilling-and-discipline, relentless standardized test prep, Stakhanovian workloads and stress-and-fear-based “rigor.”

But what if the opposite is true?

What if many of Finland’s educational practices are not cultural quirks or non-replicable national idiosyncrasies — but are instead bare-minimum global best practices that all our children urgently need, especially those children in high-poverty schools?

Finland has, like any other nation, a unique culture. But it has identified, often by studying historical educational research and practices that originated in the United States, many fundamental childhood education insights that can inspire, and be tested and adapted by, any other nation.

As Pasi Sahlberg has pointed out, “If you come to Finland, you’ll see how great American schools could be.”

Finland’s education system is hardly perfect, and its schools and society are entering a period of huge budget and social pressures. Reading levels among children have dropped off. Some advanced learners feel bored in school. Finland has launched an expensive, high-risk national push toward universal digitalization and tabletization of childhood education that has little basis in evidence and flies in the face of a recent major OECD study that found very little academic benefit for school children from most classroom technology.

But as a parent or prospective parent, I have spent time in many of the most prestigious private schools in New York City and toured many of the city’s public school classrooms, in the largest public school system in the world. And I am convinced that the primary school education my child is getting in the Normaalikoulu in Joensuu is on a par with, or far surpasses, that available at any other school I’ve seen.

I have a suggestion for every philanthropist, parent, educator and policymaker in the world who wants to improve children’s education.

Start by coming to Finland. Spend some time sitting in the back of Jussi Hietava’s classroom, or any other Finnish classroom.

If you look closely and open your mind, you may see the School of Tomorrow.

William Doyle is a 2015-2016 Fulbright Scholar and New York Times bestselling author from New York City on the faculty of the University of Eastern Finland, and father of an eight year old who attends a Finnish public school.

Sent from my iPhone

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

A list of 180+ ranked schools that don’t require ACT or SAT scores for admissions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/27/a-list-of-180-ranked-schools-that-dont-require-act-or-sat-scores-for-admissions/

A list of 180+ ranked schools that don’t require ACT or SAT scores for admissions

Apple CEO Tim Cook speaks to graduates during George Washington University’s commencement exercises on the National Mall, Sunday, May 17, 2015 in Washington. The university awarded Cook with an honorary doctorate of public service. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

George Washington University in Washington, D.C., is the newest major school to drop its requirement that most freshman applicants must submit SAT or ACT test scores for admissions purposes, according to this story by my Post colleague Nick Anderson, joining a list of more than 850 accredited, bachelor-degree granting schools (out of about 3,000 in the United States).

Of that group, some schools don’t require any students to submit scores, others exempt those students with specific GPA and class rank statistics, and still others require the test scores for the purposes of class placement or other non-admissions reasons.

[George Washington University applicants no longer need to take admissions tests]

Here is a list of 181 leading colleges and universities that have changed their requirements on submitting ACT and SAT college admissions test scores. The number next to the schools refers to their rank on the U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Guide (2015 Edition)

This list was compiled and is maintained by the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, known as FairTest, a non-profit that works to prevent misuse and abuse of standardized tests. Its Web site has a lot of information on the SAT and ACT as well as on standardized testing in general. FairTest Public Education Director Bob Schaeffer said that growing number of test-optional schools “recognizes that no test—not the SAT, old or new, nor the ACT – is needed for high-quality admissions.”

And here is an analysis of the schools by Anderson.

National Liberal Arts College

5. Bowdoin College (ME)
7. Middlebury College (VT) “Test Flexible”
15. Colby College (ME) “Test Flexible”
15. Hamilton College (NY) “Test Flexible”
15. Wesleyan University (CT)
19. Bates College (ME)
19. Smith College (MA)
27. Bryn Mawr (PA)
27. Colorado College (CO) “Test Flexible”
34. College of the Holy Cross (MA)
35. Pitzer College (CA)
37. Dickinson College (PA)
37. Franklin and Marshall College (PA)
41. Mount Holyoke College (MA)
41. Union College (NY)
45. Bard College (NY)
45. Connecticut College (CT)
45. Sewanee — The University of the South (TN)
45. Trinity College (CT) “Test Flexible”
50. Gettysburg College (PA)
51. Denison University (OH)
51. Furman University (SC)
56. St. John’s College (MD)
56. St. Lawrence University (NY)
59. Lawrence University (WI)
59. Sarah Lawrence College (NY)
61. Beloit College (WI)
61. Hobart and William Smith Colleges (NY)
64. Gustavus Adolphus (MN)
64. Kalamazoo College (MI).
64. Muhlenberg College (PA)
69. Wheaton College (MA)
73. Agnes Scott College (GA)
73. Earlham College (IN)
77. Lewis and Clark (OR)
81. Allegheny College (PA)
81. Knox College (IL)
81. Transylvania University (KY)
81. University of Puget Sound (WA)
89. Bennington College (VT)
89. St. John’s College (NM)
96. Washington & Jefferson College (PA)
99. College of the Atlantic (ME)
99. Drew University (NJ)
99. Ohio Wesleyan (OH)
99. St. Michael’s College (VT)
105. Augustana College (IL)
105. Goucher College (MD)
105. Juniata College (PA)
105. Stonehill College (MA)
105. Washington College (MD)
113. Siena College (NY)
116 Susquehanna University (PA)
120. Lake Forest College (IL)
120. St. Anselm College (NH)
124. Presbyterian College (SC)
129. McDaniel College (MD)
139. Wittenberg University (OH)
155. Illinois College (IL)
155. William Jewell College (MO)
159. Lycoming College (PA)
165. Hartwick College (NY)
165. Warren Wilson College (NC)
172. Guilford College (NC)
177. Albright College (PA)

National Universities

Answer Sheet newsletter

Education questions and answers, in your inbox weekly.

27. Wake Forest University (NC)
32. New York University (NY) “Test Flexible”
33. University of Rochester (NY) “Test Flexible”
35. Brandeis University (MA)
53. Univ. of Texas – Austin (TX) “Top 8%”
54. George Washington University
68. Texas A & M (TX) “Top 10%”
68. Worcester Polytechnic Institute (MA)
71. American University (DC)
76. Clark University (MA)
116. Duquesne University (PA)
121. DePaul University (IL)
121. Temple University (PA)
121. University of Arizona (AZ)
129. Arizona State University (AZ)
135. Hofstra University (NY)
135. New School (NY)
138. George Mason University (VA)
142. Kansas State University (KS)
145. Univ. of Texas – Dallas (TX) “Top 15%”
149. University of Mississippi (MS)
156. Virginia Commonwealth University (VA)
194. University of Nevada – Reno (NV

Regional Universities – North
2. Providence College (RI)
3. College of New Jersey (NJ)
3. Fairfield University (CT)
3. Loyola University (MD)
7. University of Scranton (PA)
9. Ithaca College (NY)
11. Bryant University (RI)
11. Marist College (NY)
11. Saint Joseph’s University (PA)
19. Le Moyne College (NY)
19. Rowan University (NJ)
28. Wagner College (NY)
31. Assumption College (MA)
31. Hood College (MD)
31. Nazareth College (NY)
38. Sacred Heart University (CT)
41. College of Saint Rose (NY)
41. King’s College (PA)
41. Roger Williams University (RI)
50. Montclair State University (NJ)
50. Salve Regina University (RI)
56. Chatham University (PA)
56. Mercyhurst University (PA)
60. Emmanuel College (MA)
65. Johnson and Wales University (RI)
65. Salisbury University (MD)
83. Manhattanville College (NY)
87. SUNY Potsdam (NY)
87. The Sage Colleges (NY)
103. Eastern Connecticut State University (CT)
103. Plymouth State University (NH)
120. Utica College (NY)
125. Keuka College (NY)
135. Cabrini College (PA)

Regional Universities — South
2. Rollins College (FL)
6. Stetson University (FL)
13. University of Mary Washingotn (VA)
17. Christopher Newport University (VA)
18. Hampton University (VA)
34. Radford University (VA)
65. St. Leo University (FL)
65. St. Thomas University (FL)

Regional Universities – Midwest
3. Drake University (IA)
14. Baldwin-Wallace College (OH)
48. University of Wisconsin –Whitewater (WI)
80. Northwest Missouri State University (MO)
80. Robert Morris University (IL)
84. Wayne State College (NE)

Regional Universities – West
9. Whitworth University (WA)
35. California State Univ. – Chico (CA)
38. San Jose State University (CA)
40. California State Univ. – Fullerton (CA)
43. Sonoma State University (CA)
46. California State Univ. – Fresno (CA)
55. California State Univ. – Stanislaus (CA)
58. California State Univ. – Sacramento (CA)
58. Humboldt State University (CA)
58. San Francisco State University (CA)
58. Walla Walla University (WA)
66. California State Univ. – San Bernadino (CA)
68. California State Univ. – Monterey Bay (CA)
68. California State Univ. – Northridge (CA)
68. University of Alaska – Anchorage (AK)
68. Weber State University (UT)
75. California State Univ. – Channel Islands (CA)
80. California State Univ. – Bakersfield (CA)
80. Hawaii Pacific University (HI)
84. California State Univ. – Los Angeles (CA)
84. California State Univ. – San Marcos (CA)
84. Western Oregon University (OR)

Regional Colleges – North
4. Elizabethtown College (PA)
6. Lebanon Valley College (PA)
7. University of Scranton (PA)
9. Merrimack College (MA)
12. Bard College at Simon’s Rock (MA)
17. Wilson College (PA)
18. University of Maine – Farmington (ME)
24. Cazenovia College (NY)
26. Dean College (MA)
28. Pennsylvania College of Technology (PA)
31. Unity College (ME)
33. SUNY College of Technology – Delhi (NY)
37. University of Maine – Fort Kent (ME)
40. Nichols College (MA)
46. University of Maine – Presque Isle (ME)
46. Washington Adventist University (MD)

Regional Colleges – South
16. Catawba College (NC)
37. Belmont Abbey College (NC)
40. Keiser University (FL)
54. Lees-McRae College (NC)
64. Indian River State College (FL)
70. Everglades University (FL)

Regional Colleges – Midwest
47. Olivet College (MI)
64. Dunwoody College of Technology (MN)

Regional Colleges — West
6. Oklahoma Wesleyan University (OK)
25. St. Gregory’s University (OK)

Sent from my iPhone

How ‘twisted’ early childhood education has become — from a child development expert

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/11/24/how-twisted-early-childhood-education-has-become-from-a-child-development-expert/

How ‘twisted’ early childhood education has become — from a child development expert

(Reuters)

Nancy Carlsson-Paige is an early childhood development expert who has been at the forefront of the debate on how best to educate — and not educate — the youngest students. She is a professor emerita of education at Lesley University in Cambridge, Ma., where she taught teachers for more than 30 years and was a founder of the university’s Center for Peaceable Schools. She is also a founding member of a nonprofit called Defending the Early Years, which commissions research about early childhood education and advocates for sane policies for young children.

Carlsson-Paige is author of “Taking Back Childhood.” The mother of two artist sons, Matt and Kyle Damon, she is also the recipient of numerous awards, including the Legacy Award from the Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps for work over several decades on behalf of children and families. She was just given the Deborah Meier award by the nonprofit National Center for Fair and Open Testing.

In her speech accepting the award (named after the renowned educator Deborah Meier), Carlsson-Paige describes what has happened in the world of early childhood education in the current era of high-stakes testing, saying, “Never in my wildest dreams could I have foreseen the situation we find ourselves in today.” Here’s the speech, which I am publishing with permission:

Thank you FairTest for this Deborah Meier Hero in Education Award. FairTest does such great advocacy and education around fair and just testing practices. This award carries the name of one of my heroes in education, Deborah Meier—she’s a force for justice and democracy in education. I hope that every time this award is given, it will allow us to once again pay tribute to Deb. Also, I feel privileged to be accepting this honor alongside Lani Guinier.
When I was invited to be here tonight, I thought about the many people who work for justice and equity in education who could also be standing here. So I am thinking of all of them now and I accept this award on their behalf — all the educators dedicated to children and what’s fair and best for them.
It’s wonderful to see all of you here — so many family and friends, comrades in this struggle to reclaim excellent public education for all – not just some – of our children.
I have loved my life’s work – teaching teachers about how young children think, how they learn, how they develop socially, emotionally, morally. I’ve been fascinated with the theories and science of my field and seeing it expressed in the actions and the play of children.
So never in my wildest dreams could I have foreseen the situation we find ourselves in today.
Where education policies that do not reflect what we know about how young children learn could be mandated and followed. We have decades of research in child development and neuroscience that tell us that young children learn actively — they have to move, use their senses, get their hands on things, interact with other kids and teachers, create, invent. But in this twisted time, young children starting public pre-K at the age of 4 are expected to learn through “rigorous instruction.”
And never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that we would have to defend children’s right to play.
Play is the primary engine of human growth; it’s universal – as much as walking and talking. Play is the way children build ideas and how they make sense of their experience and feel safe. Just look at all the math concepts at work in the intricate buildings of kindergartners. Or watch a 4-year-old put on a cape and pretend to be a superhero after witnessing some scary event.
But play is disappearing from classrooms. Even though we know play is learning for young kids, we are seeing it shoved aside to make room for academic instruction and “rigor.”
I could not have foreseen in my wildest dreams that we would have to fight for classrooms for young kids that are developmentally appropriate. Instead of active, hands-on learning, children now sit in chairs for far too much time getting drilled on letters and numbers. Stress levels are up among young kids. Parents and teachers tell me: children worry that they don’t know the right answers; they have nightmares, they pull out their eyelashes, they cry because they don’t want to go to school. Some people call this child abuse and I can’t disagree.
I could not have foreseen in my wildest dreams that we would be up against pressure to test and assess young kids throughout the year often in great excess — often administering multiple tests to children in kindergarten and even pre-K. Now, when young children start school, they often spend their first days not getting to know their classroom and making friends. They spend their first days getting tested. Here are words from one mother as this school year began:
“My daughter’s first day of kindergarten — her very first introduction to elementary school — consisted almost entirely of assessment. She was due at school at 9:30, and I picked her up at 11:45. In between, she was assessed by five different teachers, each a stranger, asking her to perform some task.
“By the time I picked her up, she did not want to talk about what she had done in school, but she did say that she did not want to go back. She did not know the teachers’ names. She did not make any friends. Later that afternoon, as she played with her animals in her room, I overheard her drilling them on their numbers and letters.”
The most important competencies in young children can’t be tested—we all know this. Naming letters and numbers is superficial and almost irrelevant in relation to the capacities we want to help children develop: self-regulation, problem solving ability, social and emotional competence, imagination, initiative, curiosity, original thinking — these capacities make or break success in school and life and they can’t be reduced to numbers.
Yet these days, all the money and resources, the time dedicated to professional development, they go to tooling teachers up to use the required assessments. Somehow the data gleaned from these tests is supposed to be more valid than a teacher’s own ability to observe children and understand their skills in the context of their whole development in the classroom.
The first time I saw for myself what was becoming of many of the nation’s early childhood classrooms was when I visited a program in a low-income community in north Miami. Most of the children were on free- and reduced-price lunch.
There were 10 classrooms – kindergarten and pre-K. The program’s funding depended on test scores, so — no surprise — teachers taught to the test. Kids who got low scores, I was told, got extra drills in reading and math and didn’t get to go to art. They used a computer program to teach 4- and 5-year-olds how to “bubble.” One teacher complained to me that some children go outside the lines.
In one of the kindergartens I visited, the walls were barren and so was the whole room. The teacher was testing one little boy at a computer at the side of the room. There was no classroom aide. The other children were sitting at tables copying words from the chalk board. The words were: “No talking. Sit in your seat. Hands to Yourself.”
The teacher kept shouting at them from her testing corner: Be quiet! No talking!
Most of the children looked scared or disengaged, and one little boy was sitting alone. He was quietly crying. I will never forget how these children looked or how it felt to watch them, I would say, suffering in this context that was such a profound mismatch with their needs.
It’s in low-income, under-resourced communities like this one where children are most subjected to heavy doses of teacher-led drills and tests. Not like in wealthier suburbs where kids have the opportunity to go to early childhood programs that have play, the arts, and project-based learning. It’s poverty — the elephant in the room — that is the root cause of this disparity.
A few months ago, I was alarmed to read a report from the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights showing that more than 8,000 children from public preschools across the country were suspended at least once in a school year, many more than once. First of all, who suspends a preschooler? Why and for what? The very concept is bizarre and awful. But 8,000? And then to keep reading the report to see that a disproportionate number of those suspended preschoolers were low income, black boys.
There is a connection, I know, between these suspensions and ed reform policies: Children in low-income communities are enduring play deficient classrooms where they get heavy doses of direct teaching and testing. They have to sit still, be quiet in their seats and comply. Many young children can’t do this and none should have to.
I came home from that visit to the classrooms in North Miami in despair. But fortunately, the despair turned quickly to organizing. With other educators we started our nonprofit Defending the Early Years. We have terrific early childhood leaders with us (some are here tonight: Deb Meier, Geralyn McLaughlin, Diane Levin and Ayla Gavins). We speak in a unified voice for young children.
We publish reports, write op eds, make videos and send them out on YouTube, we speak and do interviews every chance we get.
We’ve done it all on a shoestring. It’s almost comical: The Gates Foundation has spent more than $200 million just to promote the Common Core. Our budget at Defending the Early Years is .006 percent of that.
We collaborate with other organizations. FairTest has been so helpful to us. And we also collaborate with –Network for Public Education, United Opt Out, many parent groups, Citizens for Public Schools, Badass Teachers, Busted Pencils Radio, Save Our Schools, Alliance for Childhood and ECE PolicyWorks —There’s a powerful network out there – of educators, parents and students — and we see the difference we are making.
We all share a common vision: Education is a human right and every child deserves one. An excellent, free education where learning is meaningful – with arts, play, engaging projects, and the chance to learn citizenship skills so that children can one day participate — actively and consciously – in this increasingly fragile democracy.

Sent from my iPhone

Friday, January 29, 2016

Public Education 100 Years Ago: Could You Have Passed 8th Grade In 1912?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/public-education-100-year_n_2456991.html

Public Education 100 Years Ago: Could You Have Passed 8th Grade In 1912?

Education

Jan 11, 2013

We've all heard it from our parents and grandparents before: "In MY day…"

But before you head toward the eye-roll, less conspicuous tune-out or the more polite nod-and-smile, the Bullitt County Museum has posted a recent donation: the 1912 eighth grade exit exam for the Kentucky county's schools.

There has been no shortage of claims in recent years that the rigor of American education has declined. Substantial criticism has argued that sweeping efforts -- both national and local -- to make American students more competitive have only made things worse.

So, was school really more challenging back then? Would you have been able to graduate eighth grade 100 years ago? Try your hand at the exam, below, and check your answers at the Bullitt County Museum website to see if you passed.

1912 Eighth Grade Examination for Bullitt County Schools, Ky.

American students are continuously proving to know less in subjects like history. A study released last October by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni and GfK roper saw abysmal results on surveys gauging American history literacy among college graduates. The results seemingly echoed the findings of two viral videos from earlier last year that suggested students do not possess adequate knowledge of U.S. history, politics and current events.

A 2010 study by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed the U.S. history testing scores are "stagnant," with only 9 percent of fourth graders correctly identifying a photograph of Abraham Lincoln and stating two reasons for his importance.

Lee White, executive director of the National History Coalition, says the problem stems from history's place in American curriculum.

"They've narrowed the curriculum to teach to the test. History has been deemphasized," he said. "You can't expect kids to have great scores in history when they're not being taught history."

H/T mental_floss

Sent from my iPhone

Thursday, January 28, 2016

GED Lowers Passing Score, Tens of Thousands More Could Get HS Credentials

http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=25920011&item=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.edweek.org%2Fv1%2Fblog%2F59%2F%3Fuuid%3D56361

GED Lowers Passing Score, Tens of Thousands More Could Get HS Credentials

By guest blogger Catherine Gewertz. Cross-posted from High School & Beyond.

UPDATED The GED Testing Service has decided to lower the pass rate for its high school equivalency exam, a move brought on by its recognition that students who passed the latest, tougher version of it were doing better in college than high school graduates.

The move, first disclosed Wednesday by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, will allow states to lower the passing score on the GED from 150 to 145. The GED Testing Service projected that if all states choose to use the new lower passing score, 100,000 people could pass one or more subjects of the test, and 25,000 could be eligible for a GED credential by passing all four sections.

The company issued a recommendation that states grant retroactive passage to those who failed with the previous score of 150, but each state can make its own decision. States are expected to release details on Jan. 26 about how they'll handle the change.

Current pass rates dropped significantly after Pearson and the American Council on Education, who make the test, released a more difficult version to reflect the Common Core State Standards. Fewer people are taking the GED, too, since the new version made its debut in January 2014. More are taking new, competing equivalency tests, the HiSET and the TASC.

Robert Schaeffer, the public education director for the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, said the GED is an important pathway to opportunity for young adults, and the new version made accessing those opportunities more difficult. Lowering the passing score "is a move in the right direction," he said.

States are taking different approaches to the new passing score. GED Testing Service spokesman CT Turner said that some will start using it right away, others won't use the new score until March, and some might not use it at all. Others will use the lower cut score retroactively, granting passage to those who didn't reach the previous passing score.

Not all states confer diplomas for GED passage, but those that do could decide to confer diplomas retroactively. Georgia is one such state: It will grant diplomas retroactively to students who failed the GED with a cut score of 150, according to the Journal Constitution.

The decision to lower the passing score came from analyzing longitudinal data, Turner said. Tracking student performance into college, the company noticed that in several states, fewer students who passed the GED needed remedial coursework than those who earned high school diplomas.

In Oregon's community colleges, for example, far fewer GED-passers needed remediation in math or language arts than those who earned high school diplomas. The GED Testing Service noted a similar pattern in Rhode Island and in North Dakota, he said.

The GED Testing Service aims to set its passing rate to reflect the achievement of the typical high school graduate, and the data showed that a revision was needed, Turner said.

"We wanted to make sure that the cut score is on par with the average graduating high school senior," Turner said. "That's what policymakers and the public expect from the GED: that it reflects—but isn't ahead of—the curve for high school performance."

He rejected the idea that the company erred when it set the original cut score at 150.

"We did it based on sound research. We had a technical advisory group, we did a norming study. The only difference here is that in the past, we wouldn't have had this information for years and wouldn't have been able to make an adjustment so quickly. Now we have the data to take into account, very quickly, the actual performance of adult learners, what they're doing once they pass, and how they're performing."

Said FairTest's Schaeffer: "If that's not admitting they set the bar too high, then I don't know what is."

The GED exam is unchanged; the only change is that the passing score will be lowered, making it "more inclusive," Turner said.

Along with the lower passing score, the GED Testing Service is introducing another change, too. Instead of just one cutoff point—passing or not passing—it now has three. A score of 145 will connote high school-level skills. A score of 165 will signify college readiness, and come with a recommendation that people who score at that level skip remedial work or placement tests, and enroll in credit-bearing classes. A score of 175 will connote not just college readiness, but college-level skill, and will come with a recommendation that students receive credit for coursework in the subjects in which they received those scores.

Since the GED covers math, language arts, science, and social studies, scores of 175 in each subject could suggest—at colleges that decide to accept it—that students automatically earn three credits in math, three credits in science, three credits in social studies, and one credit in language arts, Turner said.

Ten percent of those who have taken the GED since January 2014 have scored a 175 or higher in one or more subjects, Turner said, so that means "there could be college credit waiting for them."

Jeff Carter, the executive director of the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education, predicted that reaction to the GED's move to lower the passing score will reflect a tension in his field.

"The tricky part for us is that tension," he said. "None of us want to present unnecessary new barriers to adult students, but at the same time, we all think there need to be high standards. Having healthy debate about that is something we need to continually do."

Get Curriculum Matters delivered to your inbox as soon as new posts are published. Sign up here. Also, follow @cgewertz for analysis of news and policy about testing.

Sent from my iPhone