It has been several months since I have posted to my blog. It is not because I haven’t wanted to, but because the educational reforms wrought by a binding arbitration between the New York City Department of Education and the United Federation of Teachers have made my job this year one of endless preparation, paperwork, and drudgery. In my last year of teaching, I have worked harder than those Hebrew slaves that built the cities of ancient Egypt. To finish my career as an effective teacher, I have to do well on 22 Danielson rubric points, which include 8 artifacts that will justify the generation of enough paper to cause the death of, at least, one hundred trees.
But this is not the purpose of my little article. Its purpose is to describe a demeaning test security system wrought by Pearson to safeguard and protect their profits. Last week, I started testing children for New York City’s gifted and talented program. I have been doing this activity for many years. Originally individual districts tested students for their local gifted programs, but eventually the testing became a citywide endeavor. Originally, children four to seven were tested using the OLSAT along with another test that measured academic readiness. However, due to criticism that very few minority and ELL students got into the program, last year, the test was changed to just using components of the original OLSAT along with a nonverbal section. This year, the test was changed once again—in my view—to make it even easier.
However, our friends, or should I say enemies at Pearson, do not like adverse publicity and embarrassment whenever test flaws are revealed. Pearson just hated when newspapers revealed that common core test questions had to be thrown out, a passage about a talking pineapple was incomprehensible, that a fourth grade passage was also used on a third grade assesment, and that the illustrations for many passages contained marketing logos that were paid for by the highest corporate bidder. Therefore, they decided on a solution to solve these problems. Instead of creating a valid and reliable assessment that would be subject to reviews and study by psychometricians at the university level, they would increase test security.
Originally, in the good old days, test security was in place to prevent students from getting a hold of a test in order to cheat. It is for this reason that tests were shrink-wrapped and placed in the Principal’s safe until the day of the test. However, today, when a Pearson test, such as the Common Core ELA and Math assessments come in at least 75 boxes, that safe at the bottom of the Principal’s small storage closet does not work too well any longer. Now we had the problem of having many, many tests in several supposedly secure rooms, but once the assessment started, copies ended up all over a building. Anything could happen. A page could be scanned into a readability program causing the discovery that a third grade passage was on an eighth grade Lexile reading level or that a passage described the nutritional benefits of a Whopper.
Therefore, Pearson concluded that the only way to prevent such errant discoveries was to collect any electronic device that could copy the test and prevent anyone from even talking about the assessment. As a result, when I was trained at my testing site this year, I was told that if I was alone with the assessment or even the assessment’s directions for administration booklet within a classroom and had an electronic device capable of reproducing the assessment, the supervisor had the right to immediately fire me. See, I planned to bring my Ipad to do some lesson planning and a little wifi reading between students, so I now thought all was lost. However, there was a solution at hand. All proctors would sit in the hall, on small classroom desks, with their electronic device. while the classroom door was locked with the tests inside. There would be a school aid sitting on a chair at the top of the hall, watching that we would not enter the classroom to perform any misdeed with our electronic toys. Another school aid would come with kids, unlock our door, and we would proceed to assess the student with our smart phones, Kindles and Ipads sitting quietly in the hall.
What I described is nothing compared to the DOE’s Assessment Manual for 2013-2014. The DOE mandated that every teacher be trained in this manual before December 20, 2013. Not only would teachers be forbidden to even talk to each other about the tests, but also the name of every proctor would have to be sent to Pearson. The manual lists at least 50 forbidden actions that a teacher cannot do when testing, and if discovered, the teacher would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I guess even the slightest malfeasance would mean death by hanging, not just for the possible culprit, but for every teacher within earshot.
And to do away with any other controversy, Pearson says on the state’s website that whatever you thought was controversial in the past is no longer controversial. They are now doing everything on purpose. Pearson has stated that they will use the same passage on tests at different grade levels (but with different questions). In addition, they will use passages found within their textbooks, but again with different questions. And finally, they will use controversial pieces of text that will make certain students upset and agitated. But, according to them, students have to develop a stiff upper lip and take it like a man (or woman).
All this, of course, is for the sake of profit. Let us prosecute and even jail any teacher who dares to analyze a test using psychometric research techniques. What are a few careers, when billions of dollars in the hands of a few is at stake? At least J.D. Rockefeller used to give children dimes. Pearson, on the other hand, gives our precious youth, anxiety disorder—and is definitely proud doing so.
Interesting, during another time, the old New York City Board of Education had an office that used to review and critique different assessments from different publishers. I know this for a fact because I used to be one of the reviewers. We used to research tests using Buros’ Mental Measurements Handbook and the ERIC database to tell prospective buyers an assessment’s strengths, weaknesses, reliability and validity. In this way, we helped schools and clinicians make wise and informed decisions about different diagnostic instruments. All wiped away by the likes of Bloomberg and Klein so that their friends in the testing business could get sweetheart contracts and monopoly control. The result is now the creation of a looking glass world in which the perpetrators make billions while those who question anything run the risk of criminal prosecution. Let us hope for better days ahead.