Vision: 2020

3Rs Forum Experiences Curious Turn of Events

Posted by jcpswatch on April 25, 2016
Posted in: Standardized Testing, Vision: 2020. Tagged: , . Leave a Comment

3rs flyer HS smWe have a great list of panelists for this Thursday night’s forum entitled The 3R’s of High-Stakes Testing: Parents’ Rights, Responsibilities and Repercussions. They have the experience and information to answer your questions regarding high-stakes tests, and will empower parents with the information you need to do what is best for your student, as well as recommend actions you can take to encourage district and state leaders to do what is best for all students when it comes to assessments and accountability.

Unfortunately, JCPS has decided NOT to participate in our forum, despite originally agreeing to send three top-level administrators to serve. We are uncertain what new information would have prompted JCPS to suddenly decline our panel after our marketing and communications had already been placed into motion. As of this writing, JCPS has declined to respond to our list of parents’ questions, claiming that a document they forwarded from the state answers many of our questions (which it does not). For purposes of transparency, we wanted to share the conversations following our initial invitation to JCPS to participate in our panel regarding the forum so parents are aware of the dialogue that has taken place, and the district’s unfortunate unwillingness to provide the answers we feel parents are entitled to.

We have forwarded the list of the questions to an attorney at the state, as well. We will share everything we have learned on Thursday night. Join us!

Timeline of Conversations:

On April 14, I received the following email:

Dear Gay,

Thank you for the invitation.

Dr. Dena Dossett, Karen Branham and Dr. Alicia Averett will attend the forum on behalf of JCPS. They will be happy to answer questions during the forum.

I am sorry, but we are not able to provide Stewart Auditorium as a location for the event.

Please let us know at your earliest convenience when a location has been secured, so we can communicate that information to our staff. Also, please advise once you have a final list of panelists.

Sincerely,
Allison

On April 19 at 4:59 PM, I received the following email:

Dear Gay,

Today JCPS received the attached communication from KDE regarding “opting out.” I believe it answers many of your questions, and in light of the guidance it provides, JCPS will not be attending the forum next week.

The KDE guidelines are clear, and you may make copies of this letter to distribute to parents. KDE and the legislature sets the rules and JCPS follows those rules.

I apologize for the change in plans.

Allison

Allison Gardner Martin
Communications Director
JCPS
502-485-3551

On April 19 at 9:52 PM, I responded:

Hi Allison,

I am already familiar with the information in this document. It is not new information. We have done our research and had reviewed this document, along with many others, prior to collecting and sending our list of questions to you.

Although KRS does not allow a student to “opt out,” they can “refuse” the test. Doing so will result in a zero or novice score (there is contradictory information about this, which is why we continue to ask the question). The repercussions of “refusing” the test is what many of our parents’ questions revolve around. In addition, this document only pertains to the state test (KPREP). Our parents have questions about district assessments, test prep, and more. Furthermore, we are aware of an “opt out” letter than has been afforded to some parents, under “rare situations.” Lastly, the new ESSA law changes the game going forward, and affords teachers, administrators and school districts increased flexibility regarding opt out (see attached).congressmen letter

In light of the fact that the document you provided is not new information, we would appreciate if you could review our list of questions again and provide answers to the best of your ability, as well as continue to plan to have representatives on our panel. The marketing has already been purchased, flyers have already been printed and distributed, and parents still have the same questions as before. Nothing has changed since your acceptance of our invitation on Thursday. Declining now would be an affront to all parents and panelists who have expressed an interest and/or made plans to participate in the event.

We continue to look forward to your responses to our FAQs by the 21st, as well as your honoring your commitment to answer parent questions on the 28th.

Thank you,
Gay

On April 20, I received a call from Tom Hudson, Chief Business Officer, asking why I was continuing to promote JCPS’ attendance at our forum. I responded that I had not heard back from Allison, but felt that since nothing had changed since they first accepted our invitation, and the event was now less than a week away, it would be impractical and imprudent to not continue with our marketing that was already set in motion. Creating new graphics and flyers is a considerable drain of resources and expense, and takes time away from other important tasks at hand.  Furthermore, I had every reason to believe that my bringing her attention to the fact that the information she forwarded was “old news” would encourage them to stay on our panel. Tom informed me that they do not support the parents’ rights to opt-out, and therefore would not be participating in our panel.  I sent the below message in a follow-up email to Tom.

[Allison’s] statement that the “attached document” answers many of our questions was false. I had not heard anything else from Allison after sending my reply email, so I was operating under the assumption that my arguments were persuasive enough to continue with the panel (and still believe they are.)

I am disappointed that JCPS has decided to decline our invitation after we have already expended our resources designing and purchasing marketing materials and promoting the event, when nothing has changed from when the invitation was initially accepted. Meanwhile, our parents’ questions still remain unanswered.

Gay

Sick and Tired of the Grind of Testing

Posted by jcpswatch on April 21, 2016
Posted in: Standardized Testing, Vision: 2020. Tagged: , , . Leave a Comment

Dear “Dear JCPS,”3 rs of HS Tests

While I do not work in JCPS, I am a lifelong Louisville resident. I believe in the work you are doing, and think it’s a necessary component of public discourse about our schools. I am a [central office administrator] in a neighboring county.

Many, many of us from the classroom to central offices throughout the state are sick and tired of the grind of testing. While we value data, it is my personal belief that we have gone far overboard with accountability testing, and furthermore tied too many stakes to testing that have no business being associated with the ‘test’.

I think now that an advocacy organization [like Dear JCPS] could … help stop this insane amount of testing we do, and the insane amount of money we are paying educational conglomerates to do it.

Thank you.

Please Complete Our Survey

Posted by jcpswatch on April 15, 2016
Posted in: Standardized Testing, Vision: 2020. Leave a Comment

Dear JCPS believes that the emphasis the state places on standardized test scores has reached detrimental levels, especially with our most vulnerable populations, and undermines success of many other important goals our district has ahead of it.

How do you feel about high-stakes testing? We want to make sure all voices are heard. If you are a parent of a student in JCPS or teach in JCPS please complete this survey.

Thank you.

https://dearjcps.com/high-stakes-t…/level-of-interest-survey/

What Gets Measured, Gets Done

Posted by jcpswatch on April 13, 2016
Posted in: Standardized Testing, Vision: 2020. Leave a Comment

Below are the remarks made by JCTA member Ryan Davis a teacher at Central HS, to the JCPS Board of Education on Tuesday, March 22nd. Ryan has worked diligently at Central HS to organize his colleagues to reduce redundant and unnecessary testing.

My name is Ryan Davis. I’m a teacher at Central High school.ryan

I want to first say that I appreciate the Board calendaring time to continue to work towards its goal of reducing multiple choice testing. To that end, I’m here today to present a petition asking the Board to exercise its authority in assessment to discontinue district practice of Proficiency testing. The petition has been signed by myself and every teacher in my building who is required to give these tests.

Personally, I’m passionate about working toward the district’s already defined goals of deeper learning, personalized learning, and an increased professional capacity of teachers. But, I’ve seen Proficiency testing hinder our ability to progress toward those goals.

So, while the aphorism “What get measured, gets done” is often used to support such testing, if we accept it as true, we must then ask what Proficiency testing as a required measurement is actually getting done in our At the most basic level, this begins by determining what is being measured. Proficiency tests consist primarily of multiple choice questions that engender a low level, rote definition of knowledge and learning.

“What gets measured, gets done”

When the Proficiency tests do the measuring, what gets done is a narrowing and shallowing of expectation and content that moves us further away from a goal of deeper learning.

This is not a problem that can be fixed with better Proficiency tests, because we must also consider the effects of the act of measurement itself. It’s tempting to think of testing as non-invasive procedure. But, Proficiency assessments are more akin to the measuring the volume of an object by placing it in a glass of water and seeing how much is displaced.

“What gets measured, gets done”

Proficiency tests measure in a manner that encourages a shifting of the entire curriculum, often pushing the best parts out. They encourage a predetermined pace and sequence where instructional decisions become predicated NOT on the needs of a student, but on the needs of a test. They move us further from our goal of personalized instruction.

Finally, we must also consider how the results of the measurement are interpreted. As detailed in the petition, the design of these tests inevitably leads to convoluted and invalid results. Nevertheless, the results our often used as the sole judgments of how our students and school are doing. We are asked to make changes or addressed perceived deficits based on the results of these tests.

“What gets measured, gets done”

These measures result in a culture more reliant on a narrow, fallible test, than on a teacher’s professional knowledge of content, pedagogy, and their individual students. They undermine attempts to build a culture based on our professional capacity.

Yet, as teachers, we push back, every day, against the forces of a system where Proficiency testing is the measure that drives what gets done. We push our students and our schools to work beyond the culture this system creates. We bring this petition to you today to ask for relief from these assessments, and to help us to align systems to work concert with our goals of deeper, more personalized learning, and work toward a culture that trusts and utilizes our professional capacity as teachers.

JCTA Encourages teachers at other schools to collect signatures on this petition and have a representative present them at school board meetings.

JCPS’s Invitation to Participate in Panel Regarding High-Stakes Testing

Posted by jcpswatch on April 11, 2016
Posted in: Behavior/Discipline, Standardized Testing, Teacher Shortage, Vision: 2020. Tagged: , . 1 comment

This email was sent to Allison Martin, Director of Communications for JCPS:fish

Greetings Allison,

I hope this message finds you well. I also hope that you are the best person to direct our invitation and questions to, but if not, please let us know.

In addition to several prompts from JCPS BOE members in recent months for JCPS to determine the best ways to reduce the emphasis on high-stakes testing, JCPS’s Vision 2020, Strategy 1.1.4, also commits to “Reduce, revise, and refine assessments: Develop a balanced district and school-level assessment system in collaboration with teachers that is grounded in the broader definition of student learning that: mandates fewer and broader assessments; builds teacher capacity in assessment literacy including the development and use of formative, authentic, project- and performance-based assessments; and reduces reliance on standardized, multiple-choice tests.”

Dear JCPS parents and teachers have become highly cognizant of the opt-out movement that is taking place nationwide. As a result, we have been receiving a large number of questions specific to parents’ rights regarding refusing or opting-out of high-stakes, standardized testing. We want to be sure that the information our members are receiving is accurate. Therefore, Dear JCPS will be hosting a forum on Thursday, April 28 at 6:00 pm to help answer these questions. We are calling the event “The NEW 3 R’s of Public Education: A parent’s guide to the Rights, Responsibilities and Repercussions of refusing high-stakes tests.” Dear JCPS’s position is that the emphasis the state places on standardized test scores has reached detrimental levels, especially with our most vulnerable populations, and undermines success of many other important goals our district has ahead of it. Because parents have every right to advocate for their children, and can be instrumental in leading the change our district needs, we would like to assist in creating an informed and empowered parental base that can help our district reach these important goals as soon as possible.

The event location is still pending, but it will be live-streamed and questions will be taken from the audience as well as from social media. Panel invitees thus far include JCTA, PTA, U of L, NAACP and CLOUT, as well as a teacher and parent panelist. We are hoping we can also count on JCPS to participate in the panel to ensure the most accurate information is provided. Also, if you wish to recommend another group to participate in the panel for a more robust discussion, we are receptive to that as well.

In addition, some questions we have received that we are hoping you might provide district responses to so that we can share them with stakeholders ahead of the event are:

We are familiar with the concept of “refusing” state tests:

  • Is it possible to “opt out”? What is the process? Some parents have shared with us that a process exists, yet others have had this information withheld from them. JCPS should provide clear step-by-step instructions on their website.
  • If we opt out (or refuse), will my child still receive a score? Zero? Novice? Please explain both scenarios, if different.
  • If we know we will be opting out of KPREP, is it possible to also opt our student out of test prep? What will my child do during this time instead?
  • How can test prep even be happening if it is forbidden by statute? (KRS 158.6453)

What are the potential repercussions for opting out or refusing the KPREP (possibly defined as not putting forth a good-faith effort)? I.e.,

  • Are the KPREP scores used to determine entry into a magnet, traditional or other program? Would an opportunity to appeal or provide alternative score be provided?
  • Will my child be left out of “motivational” rewards programs?
  • Could there be any discipline under school or district policies including the code of conduct or behavior?

Parents tell us they are not opposed to testing, just the excessive number of tests that do not guide instruction, and/or are not teacher led.

  • How many tests per year/per grade are there that are not used to guide instruction?
  • Are teachers prohibited from speaking up against which of these tests are unnecessary? Or which test prep they feel is ineffective or unnecessary? Is their input being sought to accomplish the Vision 2020 goal sooner rather than later?
  • How is KPREP used to guide instruction if scores are not received until following school year?

Also:

  • Do you have data on the number of students who have “opted out” or “refused” KPREP previously?
  • How much money does JCPS spend on KPREP testing, materials, software? (Please break it down by category and vendor, as well as any internal expenses.)
  • How many classroom hours are estimated to be spent on test prep (broken down by grade, subject, school)?
  • How do any of these rights change with ESSA, and when will they be implemented in JCPS?
  • What other areas has JCPS identified where they are working to remove/reduce the emphasis placed on test scores, as well as to level the playing field for all schools, so that assessments become more authentic and equitable?

If you could, please confirm JCPS’s participation in our panel no later than this Thursday, April 14, along with the name and title of the person participating. This will allow us time to include the information in our communications. We would also appreciate answers to the FAQs no later than April 21. If you have any questions about these requests, please let me know.

Dear JCPS believes having more educated and empowered stakeholders results in a stronger and more successful public education system.

Thank you for all you do.

Gay Adelmann
Dear JCPS

Stop ECE Proficiency Assessments

Posted by jcpswatch on February 11, 2016
Posted in: Vision: 2020. Leave a Comment

Dear JCPS,

The reality of giving the proficiency assessment to my special education class is that it takes a lot of valuable instructional time away from these students. I teach an LD resource class in the district. It is comprised of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th graders with various learning needs.

Just taking into account my 3rd, 4th and 5th, I hope to give you a glimpse at why these assessments take so long to complete.

  • 3rd takes the MPA and RPA. I have five 3rd graders. Two of them get readers, three of them don’t. The ones that don’t get readers can not be in the same vicinity of the ones that get readers because the test is just as hard if not harder for them, so if they hear me reading it, they’re going to listen, just to try and help their understanding. The student that I’m reading to may not understand or remember how to find the quotient of a maroon triangle, but the student that I’m not reading it to is trying to figure out the m word and the t word. But I digress, in addition to have to test the 3rd grade readers and non readers separately; one of the 3rd graders that I read to also gets a scribe and the two 3rd graders that I read to move at different paces, so I have to test them individually. Don’t forget that almost all of these students get double extended time as an accommodation as well. So for my five 3rd graders that I see for an hour each day taking 2 assessments (MPA and RPA), it will take every bit of the 5 hours that I see them in a week to complete these 10 assessments and provide them with their accommodations. This is 5 hours of specialized instruction that they are NOT receiving, since I cannot help them or explain anything to them at this time.
  • The 4th graders are a bit easier this year as they just receive a quiet area and extended time. But they take the MPA, RPA and SPA and I only see them for 30-45 minutes depending on the student. So again the 2.5 to 3.75 hours that they could receive specialized education that week is spent taking these 6 assessments.
  • The 5th graders, all three receive readers, and one receives a scribe. They all receive extended time, but again, all move at very different paces. I can usually get by with reading to two of them at the same time and then read and scribe to the third at a different time. They take the MPA, RPA, and SSPA. It takes every bit of the hour and a half that I see one, the hour I see another, and the 45 minutes that I see the third each day for a week.

To recap, each time that the district mandates a proficiency assessment,  it takes at least a week away from special education instruction for our students who need it the most. That’s 6 -8 weeks of instruction these students are missing out on. Not to mention that for some of these students struggling through assessment after assessment does nothing but lower their self esteem and confidence. As it would for you as well, if you were still learning how to add and subtract single digit numbers and you were being asked to find the quotient of a maroon triangle.

Sincerely,

A Concerned ECE Teacher

Three Testing Suggestions for Immediate Impact

Posted by jcpswatch on February 10, 2016
Posted in: Vision: 2020. Tagged: , . 1 comment

(This speech was presented to the JCPS Board of Education on 2/9/16. Due to the 3 minute time limit, this speech is a continuation from Buffy Sexton’s speech.)

2016-02-10 17_07_10-GreenshotDear JCPS,

Parents tell us:

My child takes so many tests I don’t even know what they are or why they’re taking them. Am I the only parent confused when they throw these test names out at Parent Teacher conferences??

My little guy missed due to bronchitis and missed 2 tests just for today + has another tomorrow.

I told my kids they were no longer requiring diagnostic tests and their response was, “That is false advertising, we just took two today.”

These quotes from parents and teachers demonstrate three areas where unnecessary high stakes testing could be reduced right away for immediate benefit.

Dear JCPS would like to make the following recommendations:

  • As the teacher quotes conveyed, tests conducted on grades K-2, ECE and ESL populations are the ones we hear most frequently to be age-inappropriate, unfair and cruel. In addition, by deflating self-esteem and promoting a sense of hopelessness, these tests also undermine the potential for future success of testing on these populations down the road. Our first recommendation is to eliminate ALL high stakes tests on grades K-2, ECE and ESL students.
  • Research shows that income is linked to standardized test results, yet low income “gap” students who test poorly are subjected to significantly more standardized tests than high performing students. Our second recommendation is that the district place a limit on the percentage of time students in priority schools can spend on standardized tests (e.g., no more than 5%). There is a similar bill in the Kentucky legislature that would set this limit in place for all students. Our district could proactively implement that strategy in priority schools now.
  • Lastly, parents have a right and responsibility to ensure the tests their children take are beneficial. Yet, as you heard, patents are lost and unsure if their options. We recommend schools proactively send home notifications of upcoming assessments. These notifications should include the amount of time spent preparing for the assessments, costs, and what impact the tests will have toward guiding instruction or qualifying for entrance into future school placement.  Should parents wish to refuse unnecessary tests for their student, a sample high-stakes test refusal letter can be found on our website.

Eliminating unnecessary standardized testing not only offers opportunities to align with the Vision 2020 strategy, but it also offers cost and resource savings for the school and district, frees up class time to focus on learning, enrichment and other valuable educational opportunities, and also restores a love of learning and teaching in the classroom.

Thank you.

Eliminating District Diagnostics Doesn’t Go Far Enough

Posted by jcpswatch on February 10, 2016
Posted in: Vision: 2020. 1 comment

(This speech was presented to the JCPS Board of Education on 2/9/16.)

Dear JCPS,2016-02-10 16_44_52-Greenshot

We are pleased to hear the district has decided to no longer require diagnostic testing. We very much hope that the district will mirror the board’s sentiments. However, it is not nearly enough. Some teachers tell us their school will not be discontinuing these tests. Others say this has been their policy for two years. Some principals and teachers have voiced concern over being reprimanded if they were to discontinue these tests. So we wonder how much of a change this actually is.

On the subject of testing and your Vision 2020 strategic goal, consider these messages from some of our teachers…

From a 1st -5th ECE classroom teacher:

My 3rd graders take the MPA and RPA. I have five 3rd graders. Two of them get readers, three of them don’t. I have to test the 3rd grade readers and non readers separately; one gets a scribe and the other two move at different paces, so I have to test them individually. Don’t forget that almost all of these students get double extended time as an accommodation as well. So for my five 3rd graders that I see for an hour each day taking 2 assessments (MPA and RPA), it will take every bit of the 5 hours that I see them in a week to complete these 10 assessments and provide them with their accommodations. This is 5 hours of specialized instruction that they are NOT receiving, since I cannot help them or explain anything to them at this time.

From an ESL teacher:

How about not wasting the ESL students’ time by not requiring them to take proficiencies or diagnostics until they have acquired enough English to pass their own test – the ACCESS test. Why are ESL students being taught to randomly pick answers (that is the only thing they can do when they don’t speak or read English.) What a waste of time for students and teachers. The fact that they take the KPREP in their 2nd year is ridiculous as well. Do you have any idea how many adult resources are being wasted trying to give them a test, that they don’t understand anyway, in a small group?

From a high school teacher who works with high poverty students:

Testing for seniors who don’t meet the ACT benchmarks as juniors is brutal. They are REQUIRED to complete interventions often getting pulled out of electives to do so. After a round of intervention, the student takes the Compass test in every subject where he/she didn’t meet the ACT benchmark. If they don’t meet the Compass benchmark, another round of intervention is ordered and the Compass test is attempted again. By this time, Compass attempts have been exhausted and the student begins taking the KYOTE test. The cycle of interventions and testing goes on while most never meet the benchmarks. After twelve years of struggling, these kids are simply too far behind to close the gap yet we continue to push to reach a number so our schools can meet their CCR goal. Who pays for all of those Compass tests and how much does each attempt cost? Compass and the Quality Core EOC exams are ACT tests. Somebody is profiting from this cycle of absurdity. Remember, these are our impoverished GAP kids.

(Due to the 3 minute time limit, the remainder of the message can be found in Gay Adelmann’s speech.)

Action Alert! – Act Now to Support and Protect Progress to Narrow JCPS Learning Gaps

Posted by jcpswatch on November 21, 2015
Posted in: Vision: 2020. Leave a Comment

From the #DitchTheGap Coalition:

Recent national NAEP test scores for JCPS students in 4th and 8th grade reading and math showed—with only one exception—that none of the learning gaps among racial/ethnic/socioeconomic gap groups and corresponding, more privileged groups has changed significantly since 2009 (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/districts/). Monday night, November 23, the JCPS will discuss, possibly modify, and then vote on draft 33 of the JCPS five-year plan, VISION 2020. This version isn’t everything we asked for, but it has important first steps toward raising the focus on reducing learning gaps. We need to support all the work done to make these changes in language and protect them from being watered down or removed before the vote!

Contact your Board members today and urge them to support the key “draft 33” sections that clarify, and focus on the priority of, learning gap reduction between groups in JCPS. Then, join us on Monday, Nov 23 at the JCPS Van Hoose Center to push for approval of the VISON 2020 with the gap reduction language. Come to any or all of these three actions, (and bring friends/carpool!):

  • 5 – 6 pm – A presence with signs at the Board’s Vision 2020 Work Session. The public cannot speak at work sessions, but this action is especially important to show we want to stop any last minute changes!!!
  • 6:30 – 7 pm – Support our speakers, goals, and impending success at a Rally in front of Van Hoose.
  • 7 –8:15 pm – Signs/support at Board Meeting (Speakers must sign in before 7pm). Contact Chris Harmer (502) 468-0487 if you are available to speak.

Contact your JCPS Board member, Board Chair David Jones, Board Strategy Group Chair Lisa Willner, Superintendent Hargens, and Director of Strategy Jonathan Lowe. The general JCPS number is (502) 485-3022. For Board members it is (502) 485-3566.

Here are the individual e-mails:

District 1, Diane Porter porterschoolboard@gmail.com

District 2 and Board Chair, David Jones, Jr david.jonesjr@jefferson.kyschools.us

District 3, Stephanie Horne steph.horne@jefferson.kyschools.us

District 4, Chuck Haddaway chuck.haddaway@jefferson.kyschools.us

District 5, Linda Duncan lindadduncan@live.com

District 6, Lisa Willner lgwillner@gmail.com

District 7, Chris Brady jcps.boe7@jefferson.kyschools.us

Superintendent Donna Hargens donna.hargens@jefferson.kyschools.us

Director of Strategy Jonathan Lowe jonathan.lowe@jefferson.kyschools.us

#DitchThe Gap Coalition asks you—and family, friends, and organizations–to thank JCPS Board members and staff for hearing us, and tell them you strongly support the sections with highlighted changes below in the current draft (33) of the JCPS five-year plan, Vision 2020.

 

1) Core Values definition of Equity – All students receive an education that gives them what they need to thrive through differentiated supports focused on removing social factors as a predictor of success.

2) Strategy 1.1.7 Eliminate achievement, learning, and opportunity gaps: Establish the elimination of gaps in educational outcomes for students as a fundamental objective of the district

3) While the Board will not vote on the separate indicators/targets document Monday, we also support specific language there as well as an important starting point in measuring gap reduction:

Learning, Growth, and Development–Indicator 3. Closing the Gap – Meet the KDE annual delivery targets for increasing the percentage of GAP students scoring proficient or distinguished, while significantly closing the distance in performance between non-gap and gap students.