THE MANY MYTHS OF THE VALUE OF STATE TESTING
By Noah Blumenthal
As our district prepares to discuss school testing, I’d like to share a few questions. Let me preface this by saying I am a proponent of district wide opt out. Only by not allowing any student to take the test can we stop teachers and administrators from worrying that their evaluations will hinge on test performance. With that in mind, here are my questions (and my answers):
How many days of education do we lose to this test?
The district spends 6 days taking ELA and Math tests in grades 3-8. Teachers miss an additional 4-5 days grading the tests. And classes spend countless time on practice tests and preparation, both in class and for homework.
We just cut our arts and music program in the name of this curriculum. How much science and social studies have we cut? How many enriching field trips and group projects have been cut? How much quality education do we have to lose in the name of this test?
What is better at measuring student learning and achievement - the state test or our teachers?
One argument in favor of testing is that it helps us see how our kids are doing. This is false. The state test helps us see how well our kids are prepared for a very limited test. Except in cases where you have a truly horrible teacher, I have yet to find anyone who believes that teachers who spend an entire year with our kids are less able to evaluate students than the
test.
On the flip side, the district brought in no fewer than 2 speakers in 2013 to explain how state testing reduces critical thinking and love of learning, how countries that emphasize standardized testing raise kids who are less effective as adults in business, entrepreneurism, and creative output, and how testing has arguably dangerous effects on kids’ stress levels and
psychological wellbeing.
If the district is bringing in these people and believes in this, why do we continue on a path of preparing for these tests?
What is better at measuring teacher skills and capabilities - the state test or our administrators?
Some say the tests help us know if a teacher is any good. No it
doesn’t. The test tells you how well a teacher teaches to the test. The only way we can believe we need the test for this purpose is if we also believe that all of our principals and department heads are incompetent. They are not.
We have amazing people working for this district. They are talented and dedicated. These administrators know which teachers are stars, and they know which ones are not. And yes we have a few who are not, though thankfully not many. The state test doesn’t help us in this. And it does nothing to help
develop poor performers nor get them out the door.
What is better at measuring school quality and achievement - the state test or our superintendent and board ofeducation?
Five years ago North Shore test results were below our self proclaimed comparison districts: Jericho, Syosset, Roslyn, etc. The parents voiced concern and even outrage. Something had to be done.
For the past five years our district has taught to the test. Our test
scores are now at the top. We proved we can beat any other district out there at any game we choose to play.
Why on Earth would we choose to play the state test game?
We have great schools. We don’t need a test to tell us that.
What is the money impact of the test?
The best I could detect from my research is that the legal
ramifications are 20% of Title 1 funding being diverted to busing and tutoring. That seems to kick in after 3 straight years of failure. And it seems to not be enforced.
On the flip side we would immediately save tens of thousands of dollars currently being spent on substitute teachers to support testing as well as covering for teachers that are out of school grading tests, not to mention the money we spend on test prep materials, sold to us by the very companies lobbying
for these tests in Albany.
What other consequences are there of opting out?
It has been said that the state can remove a board for bad test
performance. I’ve heard mixed reviews on the reality of this. Removal of a board is a power the state holds to address issues in the most horribly failing districts.
If it is possible for the state to try to turn this power on a
successful district like ours, that seems like a worthy battle for us to wage for a significantly improved education for our kids. I, for one, would be happy to join the protest should any such action be attempted.
So, what should we do?
There are many types of intelligence: verbal, math, emotional, foreign language, artistic, musical, analytical. Our schools are not assembly lines. The goal is not to stamp out identical products. Our children are unique and should be taught as such. They should be exposed to diverse learning based on their individual interests and needs. They should be allowed and encouraged to
flourish where their unique talents show themselves.
I have yet to meet any teacher or administrator, not a single one, who thinks state testing is good for kids, teachers, or schools, and I’ve spoken with many. How often do you see 100 percent agreement on anything? 100 percent!
Let’s listen to these experts who all agree. Let’s choose for our
district to opt out.
If you agree with what I have said, please attend this Thursday’s Board ofEducation meeting, and raise your hand and/or your voice in favor of opting out.
As our district prepares to discuss school testing, I’d like to share a few questions. Let me preface this by saying I am a proponent of district wide opt out. Only by not allowing any student to take the test can we stop teachers and administrators from worrying that their evaluations will hinge on test performance. With that in mind, here are my questions (and my answers):
How many days of education do we lose to this test?
The district spends 6 days taking ELA and Math tests in grades 3-8. Teachers miss an additional 4-5 days grading the tests. And classes spend countless time on practice tests and preparation, both in class and for homework.
We just cut our arts and music program in the name of this curriculum. How much science and social studies have we cut? How many enriching field trips and group projects have been cut? How much quality education do we have to lose in the name of this test?
What is better at measuring student learning and achievement - the state test or our teachers?
One argument in favor of testing is that it helps us see how our kids are doing. This is false. The state test helps us see how well our kids are prepared for a very limited test. Except in cases where you have a truly horrible teacher, I have yet to find anyone who believes that teachers who spend an entire year with our kids are less able to evaluate students than the
test.
On the flip side, the district brought in no fewer than 2 speakers in 2013 to explain how state testing reduces critical thinking and love of learning, how countries that emphasize standardized testing raise kids who are less effective as adults in business, entrepreneurism, and creative output, and how testing has arguably dangerous effects on kids’ stress levels and
psychological wellbeing.
If the district is bringing in these people and believes in this, why do we continue on a path of preparing for these tests?
What is better at measuring teacher skills and capabilities - the state test or our administrators?
Some say the tests help us know if a teacher is any good. No it
doesn’t. The test tells you how well a teacher teaches to the test. The only way we can believe we need the test for this purpose is if we also believe that all of our principals and department heads are incompetent. They are not.
We have amazing people working for this district. They are talented and dedicated. These administrators know which teachers are stars, and they know which ones are not. And yes we have a few who are not, though thankfully not many. The state test doesn’t help us in this. And it does nothing to help
develop poor performers nor get them out the door.
What is better at measuring school quality and achievement - the state test or our superintendent and board of
Five years ago North Shore test results were below our self proclaimed comparison districts: Jericho, Syosset, Roslyn, etc. The parents voiced concern and even outrage. Something had to be done.
For the past five years our district has taught to the test. Our test
scores are now at the top. We proved we can beat any other district out there at any game we choose to play.
Why on Earth would we choose to play the state test game?
We have great schools. We don’t need a test to tell us that.
What is the money impact of the test?
The best I could detect from my research is that the legal
ramifications are 20% of Title 1 funding being diverted to busing and tutoring. That seems to kick in after 3 straight years of failure. And it seems to not be enforced.
On the flip side we would immediately save tens of thousands of dollars currently being spent on substitute teachers to support testing as well as covering for teachers that are out of school grading tests, not to mention the money we spend on test prep materials, sold to us by the very companies lobbying
for these tests in Albany.
What other consequences are there of opting out?
It has been said that the state can remove a board for bad test
performance. I’ve heard mixed reviews on the reality of this. Removal of a board is a power the state holds to address issues in the most horribly failing districts.
If it is possible for the state to try to turn this power on a
successful district like ours, that seems like a worthy battle for us to wage for a significantly improved education for our kids. I, for one, would be happy to join the protest should any such action be attempted.
So, what should we do?
There are many types of intelligence: verbal, math, emotional, foreign language, artistic, musical, analytical. Our schools are not assembly lines. The goal is not to stamp out identical products. Our children are unique and should be taught as such. They should be exposed to diverse learning based on their individual interests and needs. They should be allowed and encouraged to
flourish where their unique talents show themselves.
I have yet to meet any teacher or administrator, not a single one, who thinks state testing is good for kids, teachers, or schools, and I’ve spoken with many. How often do you see 100 percent agreement on anything? 100 percent!
Let’s listen to these experts who all agree. Let’s choose for our
district to opt out.
If you agree with what I have said, please attend this Thursday’s Board of
TESTING RESOLUTION A GOOD FIRST STEP BUT MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE AT DISTRICT LEVEL
August 31, 2013 -- The North Shore School Board was right to take up a resolution at its July 1st meeting calling on State officials to reform New York’s “top-down,” “one-size fits all” high stakes standardized testing approach to education. And from the discussion at that meeting, it seems that all the Trustees and the Superintendent are on board. This resolution, together with the recent formation of the North Shore Parents Action Committee (NSPAC), and actions taken across the state by other parent groups, school districts, and teachers, will hopefully force a change in the state’s testing policies and the new teacher rating system that ties evaluations to student performance on state assessments.
Unfortunately Albany moves slowly, and these actions will not provide immediate relief from the high stakes testing culture that has developed in this district and others. Yes –the tests and APPR are bad. Neither accurately or fairly evaluates students or teachers – especially when students are being prepped for the test. What is more harmful than the testing itself, however, is how districts have responded to it. No state law or regulation mandates that a district spend nearly $100,000 on Common Core and test prep materials; no state law or regulation requires a district to replace meaningful instruction with a seven hour standardized test dress rehearsal; or to assign test prep questions for homework for weeks or months on end; or to engage in hours of test prep in the classroom; or to use state tests for placement in programs; or to drastically reduce the amount of social studies and science instruction in the regular course of study.
Resisting the temptation to forgo meaningful instruction in favor of test preparation is difficult. Under the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR), 20% of a teacher’s evaluation is based on how well students do on the state tests; and regardless of how well a teacher does on the 80% of the rating that is based on district measures, if the state determines he or she is “ineffective” on the state assessment portion, the teacher automatically receives an ineffective rating overall. Two consecutive years of ineffective ratings, and the District can then pursue 3020A (termination) proceedings against a teacher. But this a choice that is offered to districts – not a mandate, and Dr. Melnick has stated that he would not support the termination of a teacher who has received high marks from the district.
And yes, there is also political pressure on districts as they must demonstrate to the community that they’re doing a good job. Unfortunately, in our busy lives we all too often want complex issues simplified and reduced to a single number, and that is exactly what the state has done with its assessment system for both students and teachers. And districts across the state have bought into this oversimplification as they use bar graph after bar graph to show that they are keeping up with or passing neighboring districts in the percentages of students getting 3’s and 4’s. Districts must have the courage to overcome this pressure and educate the community in how quality education ought to be evaluated.
There now appears to be consensus in many districts that the state tests cause more harm than good, and much of this harm results from how school districts have reacted to them rather than from the tests themselves. While we should no doubt push the state to change its policies with
grassroots and District efforts, let us also focus on what we actually have direct control over – what takes place within our classrooms and our schools. Let’s take meaningful, substantive steps to minimize the impact of the tests on our students. End the dress rehearsals; end the purchase of test prep materials and use those funds for another purpose; cut down on the in-class and out-of-class test prep; include more social studies and science in the elementary school curriculum; and assure parents that the state test scores are not used for placement in any course or level of study. That would be meaningful reform that could be in place on September 3rd. T. Madden
Unfortunately Albany moves slowly, and these actions will not provide immediate relief from the high stakes testing culture that has developed in this district and others. Yes –the tests and APPR are bad. Neither accurately or fairly evaluates students or teachers – especially when students are being prepped for the test. What is more harmful than the testing itself, however, is how districts have responded to it. No state law or regulation mandates that a district spend nearly $100,000 on Common Core and test prep materials; no state law or regulation requires a district to replace meaningful instruction with a seven hour standardized test dress rehearsal; or to assign test prep questions for homework for weeks or months on end; or to engage in hours of test prep in the classroom; or to use state tests for placement in programs; or to drastically reduce the amount of social studies and science instruction in the regular course of study.
Resisting the temptation to forgo meaningful instruction in favor of test preparation is difficult. Under the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR), 20% of a teacher’s evaluation is based on how well students do on the state tests; and regardless of how well a teacher does on the 80% of the rating that is based on district measures, if the state determines he or she is “ineffective” on the state assessment portion, the teacher automatically receives an ineffective rating overall. Two consecutive years of ineffective ratings, and the District can then pursue 3020A (termination) proceedings against a teacher. But this a choice that is offered to districts – not a mandate, and Dr. Melnick has stated that he would not support the termination of a teacher who has received high marks from the district.
And yes, there is also political pressure on districts as they must demonstrate to the community that they’re doing a good job. Unfortunately, in our busy lives we all too often want complex issues simplified and reduced to a single number, and that is exactly what the state has done with its assessment system for both students and teachers. And districts across the state have bought into this oversimplification as they use bar graph after bar graph to show that they are keeping up with or passing neighboring districts in the percentages of students getting 3’s and 4’s. Districts must have the courage to overcome this pressure and educate the community in how quality education ought to be evaluated.
There now appears to be consensus in many districts that the state tests cause more harm than good, and much of this harm results from how school districts have reacted to them rather than from the tests themselves. While we should no doubt push the state to change its policies with
grassroots and District efforts, let us also focus on what we actually have direct control over – what takes place within our classrooms and our schools. Let’s take meaningful, substantive steps to minimize the impact of the tests on our students. End the dress rehearsals; end the purchase of test prep materials and use those funds for another purpose; cut down on the in-class and out-of-class test prep; include more social studies and science in the elementary school curriculum; and assure parents that the state test scores are not used for placement in any course or level of study. That would be meaningful reform that could be in place on September 3rd. T. Madden
POWER PLANT COMMUNITIES DESERVE BETTER THAN WHAT'S BEING OFFERED
July 30, 2013 -- If you’ve been reading Newsday over the past few months, you would quickly realize that that news outlet has little sympathy for the North Shore community or the other power plant communities -Northport, Port Jefferson, and Island Park - that are likely to see enormous tax hikes in the near future. No fewer than four recently published editorials have made the argument that for decades taxpayers in these communities have lived off the backs of other Long Islanders as high utility rates have subsidized a lower tax burden for those who live in the shadows of smokestacks.
The Newsday Editorial Board writes, “Communities that do not benefit from the high taxes on the old plants are victimized by high rates. . . . The victimized ratepayers need to demand action in Albany” (Newsday, May 24, 2013). In reference to the deal worked out reducing LIPA’s tax obligation to districts by 60-65%, Newsday, writes, “that sounds steep, particularly to homeowners who would have to pick up the slack with higher taxes. But in fact, the offer is generous” (Newsday, June 21, 2013). In its most recent piece, the Newsday Editorial Board writes, “LIPA ratepayers have subsidized the smaller tax bills of residents living near plants with jacked-up rates for all. The deal offered by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo lays out a 10-year step-down of the taxes
on four plants to a still-generous 40 percent of the current, bloated total” (Newsday, July 22). Newsday’s editorial board and Governor Cuomo both have encouraged local governments and their taxpayers in these communities to take this "fair" deal, that would cause school taxes to skyrocket.
Newsday’s and the Governor’s position - that power plant communities have not paid their fair share - fails to recognize the sacrifices that these communities have made for the benefit of all Long Islanders. For more than half a century these communities have powered the Island’s rapid economic growth. And over these decades they have tolerated in their backyards the enormous brick buildings, towering concrete smokestacks, expansive steel power-line stanchions, and the environmental harm and health risks that such plants pose, with the understanding that the utility
compensate those communities for the negative externalities that result from the power plants’ presence. LIPA has made the argument, and Newsday has fully swallowed it, that the utility pays
approximately 90% more in property taxes than it ought to, and therefore a reduction of 60% is generous (Newsday editorials, June 18 and June 21). Their numbers not only likely underestimate the value of power plant properties, but also fail to take into consideration the costs to the
surrounding communities - the lowering of property values of neighboring homes, the contamination of air, land and water, the discouragement to development of surrounding land for commercial, residential or recreational purposes, and as a result the inability to develop a more sustainable and solid tax base.
During the transition from LILCO to LIPA, the utility recognized this reality when in its 1997 Power Supply Agreement it stated that it would not challenge assessments on its power plants so long as those assessments did not rise disproportionately compared to other properties. Richard Kessel, chairman of LIPA at the time embraced this principle in a letter to the Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association in which he wrote, “Let me also guarantee you that LIPA will immediately drop all tax certiorari cases against all municipalities and school districts on all of its properties immediately following the takeover. Furthermore, LILCO will drop all of its remaining tax suits at the same time and neither LIPA nor LILCO will initiate any further tax certiorari cases on any of their respective properties at any time in the future unless a municipality abusively increases its assessment rate. Traditional increases in local taxes and assessments along with any
capital improvements will not represent a change in this promise. By the way, this language is specifically spelled out in the definitive agreements between LIPA/LILCO.” Suffolk County Supreme Court Judge Elizabeth Emerson cited this agreement and Kessel’s letter in her recent decision upholding the Northport School District’s and Town of Huntington’s right to sue the utility for breach of contract.
The Newsday Editorial Board also assumes that a cut in taxes for LIPA will lead to lower energy rates for all of its customers. That happening is about as likely as a cut in electric rates for Newsday or Cablevision leading to a reduction in prices for their customers. And even if a rate cut were implemented, it would be insignificant for the vast majority of residential rate payers,
while all Long Islanders, even those living outside of power plant school districts, would see increases in their county taxes, and many in their town taxes.
Newsday’s recent editorial campaign is divisive – it pits the majority of Long Islanders against four Long Island communities, making the argument that these communities have partially caused everyone’s high utility rates, and that they have been freeloading. That is wrong. Take a drive
up Ocean Avenue in Northport, or down Shore Drive in Glenwood Landing; a walk along James Street in Northport, or Ram’s Hill in Glenwood Landing; or a swim at Huntington’s Crab Meadow beach, or at Oyster Bay’s Tappen beach. The reminders are there – they are a dominant presence – four 50 story smokestacks casting their shadows over Northport, or eight somewhat smaller ones
blighting the potentially spectacular waterfront of Glenwood Landing. These communities have not been getting a free ride – they have paid dearly for having power plants in their midst. The deal that LIPA and the state are offering is a lousy one and both Newsday's Editorial Board and the Governor ought to recognize that. - T. Madden
BACK TO HOME
BACK TO "POWER PLANS"
The Newsday Editorial Board writes, “Communities that do not benefit from the high taxes on the old plants are victimized by high rates. . . . The victimized ratepayers need to demand action in Albany” (Newsday, May 24, 2013). In reference to the deal worked out reducing LIPA’s tax obligation to districts by 60-65%, Newsday, writes, “that sounds steep, particularly to homeowners who would have to pick up the slack with higher taxes. But in fact, the offer is generous” (Newsday, June 21, 2013). In its most recent piece, the Newsday Editorial Board writes, “LIPA ratepayers have subsidized the smaller tax bills of residents living near plants with jacked-up rates for all. The deal offered by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo lays out a 10-year step-down of the taxes
on four plants to a still-generous 40 percent of the current, bloated total” (Newsday, July 22). Newsday’s editorial board and Governor Cuomo both have encouraged local governments and their taxpayers in these communities to take this "fair" deal, that would cause school taxes to skyrocket.
Newsday’s and the Governor’s position - that power plant communities have not paid their fair share - fails to recognize the sacrifices that these communities have made for the benefit of all Long Islanders. For more than half a century these communities have powered the Island’s rapid economic growth. And over these decades they have tolerated in their backyards the enormous brick buildings, towering concrete smokestacks, expansive steel power-line stanchions, and the environmental harm and health risks that such plants pose, with the understanding that the utility
compensate those communities for the negative externalities that result from the power plants’ presence. LIPA has made the argument, and Newsday has fully swallowed it, that the utility pays
approximately 90% more in property taxes than it ought to, and therefore a reduction of 60% is generous (Newsday editorials, June 18 and June 21). Their numbers not only likely underestimate the value of power plant properties, but also fail to take into consideration the costs to the
surrounding communities - the lowering of property values of neighboring homes, the contamination of air, land and water, the discouragement to development of surrounding land for commercial, residential or recreational purposes, and as a result the inability to develop a more sustainable and solid tax base.
During the transition from LILCO to LIPA, the utility recognized this reality when in its 1997 Power Supply Agreement it stated that it would not challenge assessments on its power plants so long as those assessments did not rise disproportionately compared to other properties. Richard Kessel, chairman of LIPA at the time embraced this principle in a letter to the Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association in which he wrote, “Let me also guarantee you that LIPA will immediately drop all tax certiorari cases against all municipalities and school districts on all of its properties immediately following the takeover. Furthermore, LILCO will drop all of its remaining tax suits at the same time and neither LIPA nor LILCO will initiate any further tax certiorari cases on any of their respective properties at any time in the future unless a municipality abusively increases its assessment rate. Traditional increases in local taxes and assessments along with any
capital improvements will not represent a change in this promise. By the way, this language is specifically spelled out in the definitive agreements between LIPA/LILCO.” Suffolk County Supreme Court Judge Elizabeth Emerson cited this agreement and Kessel’s letter in her recent decision upholding the Northport School District’s and Town of Huntington’s right to sue the utility for breach of contract.
The Newsday Editorial Board also assumes that a cut in taxes for LIPA will lead to lower energy rates for all of its customers. That happening is about as likely as a cut in electric rates for Newsday or Cablevision leading to a reduction in prices for their customers. And even if a rate cut were implemented, it would be insignificant for the vast majority of residential rate payers,
while all Long Islanders, even those living outside of power plant school districts, would see increases in their county taxes, and many in their town taxes.
Newsday’s recent editorial campaign is divisive – it pits the majority of Long Islanders against four Long Island communities, making the argument that these communities have partially caused everyone’s high utility rates, and that they have been freeloading. That is wrong. Take a drive
up Ocean Avenue in Northport, or down Shore Drive in Glenwood Landing; a walk along James Street in Northport, or Ram’s Hill in Glenwood Landing; or a swim at Huntington’s Crab Meadow beach, or at Oyster Bay’s Tappen beach. The reminders are there – they are a dominant presence – four 50 story smokestacks casting their shadows over Northport, or eight somewhat smaller ones
blighting the potentially spectacular waterfront of Glenwood Landing. These communities have not been getting a free ride – they have paid dearly for having power plants in their midst. The deal that LIPA and the state are offering is a lousy one and both Newsday's Editorial Board and the Governor ought to recognize that. - T. Madden
BACK TO HOME
BACK TO "POWER PLANS"
