Press "Enter" to skip to content

Standardized Tests Perverting Texas Education; HB 1234 Promises Same for SD

Troy Jones gives the best defense he can of Governor Daugaard's destructive education reform proposals. Jones conveniently leaves out a major component of the much-reviled House Bill 1234: increased standardized testing. The Governor has said he wants our kids to spend more time taking standardized tests. With HB 1234 making major teacher evaluation and pay decisions contingent on test scores, you can expect every child in every grade, kindergarten through grade 12, to spend a lot of time filling in bubbles.

How's that working in Texas?

While there's universal agreement that accountability is a good thing, the negative consequences of Texas' testing plan far outweigh any documented benefits for students.

Standardized tests were originally intended as diagnostic tools to identify areas where students need remediation, not as punitive weapons. Now school closures, hiring and firing decisions and graduation are directly linked to test scores. As a result, more and more time is spent preparing for and administering tests - time that otherwise would be spent teaching curriculum. Some Houston Independent School District teachers estimate that they must spend at least one-third of their class time on tests [Amy Grimes, "All That Testing Is Perverting Public Education," Houston Chronicle, 2012.04.06].

Not that the big test corporations mind...

Another facet of the problem is money spent on creating, printing, distributing, scoring and analyzing tests and test-prep materials. With Texas' public schools facing a budget cut of more than $4 billion this year, this diversion of resources is unconscionable. Test publishers are reaping huge profits from education reform initiatives - half a billion dollars in Pearson's current five-year contract with the state. Meanwhile, fewer and fewer schools have librarians, school nurses and other so-called "frills" and class sizes grow ever larger [Grimes, 2012.04.06].

Kids wasting more time, teachers getting less time to really teach, test companies getting more of our money... if that's what you want, then by all means, leave HB 1234 on the books.

If that's not what you want, well, grab a petition, and let's have a vote!

21 Comments

  1. David Newquist 2012.04.11

    Customarily, teachers are evaluated on the three components of their professional work: teaching, scholarship, and service. Notice that the criteria used in determining who is a top performer, teaching and scholarship are notably absent.

    The idea of top performers in the minds of many are taken from a business model which can evaluate only hamburger flippers and trained seals. The creatures learn do what you want and you reward them by throwing them a Big Mac or a dead fish. Just why would anyone with aspirations of being an actual person want to go into teaching under those standards?

  2. Steve Sibson 2012.04.11

    Finally Cory has found the problem. It is not merit pay, it is the standards that the merit pay is based on.

  3. Troy Jones 2012.04.11

    Have you guys even read the bill?

    I listed the criteria right from the bill.

    Please show me where there is to be more standardized testing?

    Secondly, and most important, the bill's silence on the teaching scholarship is intentional: LOCAL CONTROL (which should be within the existing skills of the administration and school board) as prescribed in the following:

    Â (9)Â Â Â Â Other additional criteria as determined by the school board.
    Â Â Â Â

  4. Steve Sibson 2012.04.11

    "Please show me where there is to be more standardized testing?"

    Troy, have you listened to Daugaard. The plan is to establish a 3 times a year testing program opver the next three years whith Common Core as one of the standards that the tests will be based on. You won't find "insurance exchange" in the statutes neither, but the Director of Insurance has rule making authority to implement Obamacare regardless of what the SCOTUS says. Wake up Troy, the SDGOP leadership is implementing/implemented Obama's policies. And Romney will not be much of a change.

  5. Troy Jones 2012.04.11

    The criteria is permissive (note use of the word "may"). The local school board can set and weight whatever criteria best for that school.

    Regarding exchanges, they are a great means to break monopolies or oligopolies. I am shocked Steve you keep advocating their protection.

  6. Steve Sibson 2012.04.11

    Yes "may" if you want the money. Old tired trick Troy.

    Exchanges are a monopolies as it is controlled by the government. Same as above, if you want the money, do things our way. That is not free market Troy.

  7. LK 2012.04.11

    Troy,

    I believe that you are quoting from Section 23 which begins "A participating teacher shall be full-time and receive a distinguished rating, as
    referenced in section 38 of this Act, on the teacher's most recent evaluation to be eligible for a top teacher reward."

    Section 38 states "Fifty percent of the evaluation of a teacher shall be based on quantitative measures of student growth, based on a single year or multiple years of data. This quantitative data shall be based on reports of student performance on state validated assessments established pursuant to § 13-3-55."

    First, I don't see the leeway that you claim when section 38 says "shall be based" Second, 13-3-55 mandates that SDDOE write assessments. I can't find the email attachment that indicated that SDDOE was going to have additional tests to ensure fair teacher evaluation, but I have seen it.

    Further, Section 38 continues "Fifty percent of the evaluation of a teacher shall be based on qualitative, observable, evidence-based characteristics of good teaching and classroom practices as further defined in the model evaluation instrument referenced in section 40 of this Act."

    Section 40 sets up the committee that writes the regs, but I don't see a guarantee of local control. The school board may be able to add criteria but they don't get to change those mandated by SDDOE

  8. Troy Jones 2012.04.11

    Good catch LK. Thanks.

    So 50% of the criteria is from quantitative measures and 50% from qualitative measures.

    But, my point still applies.

    1) Doesn't mandate MORE testing as CH asserts.
    2) Local districts control the qualitative measures within reason.
    3) teaching (quantitative and qualitative) are criteria notwithstanding Newquists comment. All that is not included is scholarship expressly but it may be by the locals if they think it relevant.

  9. LK 2012.04.11

    1. Like I said, I can't find the attachment but "more testing" is not something Cory or I dreamed up. I certainly hate nightmares.

    2. SDDOE has mandated that the Charlotte Danielson model be part of the qualitative evaluation process. Local boards have no control over that.

    3. I think Newquist, you, and I agree that teachers should know their material. The 9 criteria in section 23, however, are ominously silent on the matter. I have not read everything that Danielson has written, but her evaluation tools also seem to devalue knowledge of subject matter.

  10. Troy Jones 2012.04.11

    Keep in mind the bill changes during the legislative process was significant.

    Even if you are right the state can mandate the qualitative criteria and Danielson is as you perceive, this can be reformed over time. Evolving bonus plans are best as issues change/arise.

  11. Stace Nelson 2012.04.11

    When in the world have you ever heard Republicans clammering that more government is a good thing? You don't! Matter of fact, when it comes to education, Republicans were so dead set against more government control and involvement in education that it used to be a national party platform plank to get rid of the Dept of Education! You know, actual Reagan Republicans?

    1234 is NOT local control as meant by the SDGOP platform which cites parental choice and local control in the same sentence in regards to education. This bill puts more control in Pierre away from the superintendents, the school boards, and the parents that are supposed to be running our schools. DC is too far away to control our schools, but the government can do it in Pierre?

  12. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.04.11

    Troy, the bill changes were not significant. Most of Daugaard's original text is still in the bill, just rearranged in sections and renumbered.

    The testing is there. The evaluations depend on testing. Every teacher must be evaluated by the state model (no opt-out). Every teacher must thus have standardized test data. Right now, we do the big D-Step (happening this week at Spearfish HS) once a year with grades 3-8 and with grade 11. To evaluate every teacher, we must expand tests to every grade, K-12. And if you click my third link in my first paragraph in the original post, you'll see my previous discussion of what Governor Daugaard said in his 2012 State of the State Address: he wants kids in every grade to take standardized tests three times a year.

    The opt-out option you tout, Troy, is only for the $5000 merit pay plank, not for the statewide teacher evaluation model and the testing it will require.

  13. Donald Pay 2012.04.11

    Troy,

    South Dakota has had about two generations of various Republican top-down programs aimed at broad education reform. If South Dakota's education system is in such a bad state that it needs another top-down program like HB 1234 to improve it, is the time now appropriate to point out which political party's approach to education (both funding and policy) has failed?

    I think what's going on with HB 1234 is we are getting to the point where people are starting to connect the dots. If South Dakota schools are really deteriorating, the only thing that really could acount for that are the poorly thought out, top-down attempts at school "reform" and school de-funding that have been foisted on South Dakota by Republican administrations over 30 years.

  14. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.04.11

    Donald, do you think a hard-fought referendum campaign will help connect those dots?

  15. Steve Sibson 2012.04.12

    "Keep in mind the bill changes during the legislative process was significant."

    BS

  16. Steve Sibson 2012.04.12

    And Troy, this is straight out of Obama's education playbook. Yesterday I got a letter from Tim Rave asking for money so that we can defeat Obama. What a laugh I had, untill I realized there are Kool Aid drinkers out there who will actually send money.

  17. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.04.12

    Obama is irrelevant to both HB 1234 and Tim Rave's fundraising. We can fight HB 1234 on policy specifics and beat it in public opinion without silly associations with some Daugaard-Obama conspiracy.

    Meanwhile, the SDGOP will have no role in defeating Barack Obama. Money spent in South Dakota will have no effect on the final Electoral College tally.

  18. Steve Sibson 2012.04.12

    "some Daugaard-Obama conspiracy"

    Cory, the National Governors Association is where the marching order are coming from.

    "SDGOP will have no role in defeating Barack Obama."

    Tell Tim Rave, he is the one using Obama to raise money. Likely the money will instead be used to support SDGOP candidates who suppor Obamas policies like:

    1) Federal stimulus money
    2) ObamaCare/RomneyCare/RoundsCare
    3) RTTT, Common Core Standards, and teacher Merit Pay
    4) Green energy (Note the NGA letter you posted signed by Daugaard promoting wind energy targeted tax cuts)

  19. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.04.12

    Steve, if you can find voters who care whether HB 1234 came from NGA, ALEC, or the Masons, then knock yourself out with that conversation. But I will not be troubling my petition signers with any of that rhetoric. I don't need to. The bill falls on its own policy specifics. Keep it simple!

  20. Steve Sibson 2012.04.12

    "The bill falls on its own policy specifics."

    The discussion in not about policy, it is about money. Such is the case when your state is number 2 in corruption risk. Remember both political parties opposed Initiated Measure 10. The NEA funded the SD Chamber of Commerce to oppose it. Funny that the Chamber supports HB1234, isn't it?

Comments are closed.