Archive for September, 2009

NYS Commission of Education

Saturday, September 12th, 2009

This last summer the NYS Board of Regents appointed a new Commission of Education, Dr. David Milton Steiner. Below is a quote from Dr. Steiner in re to the topic of my Sept. 9 blog.

New York has consistently led the nation in raising academic standards, and it may well be time to do it again,” Steiner said.

He also targeted the state’s 92% average passing rate on a teacher certification test, which state schools chancellor Merryl Tisch highlighted in a recent Daily News op/ed. “Now, we have extraordinary teachers in New York, don’t misunderstand me,” he said. “Nevertheless, it seems to me that a gateway certification test that has that high a pass rate should give us pause, and we need to take a look at that.”

Sounds like more of “same old, same old”.

Of course Dr. Steiner comes with impeccable credentials.

First he was, primarily, raised in Great Britain where he went to private school excepting for one year when he attended PS41 in NYC. Therefore he never had to put up with bullies trying to steal his lunch money or unruly classmates that required his teachers’ attention thus taking away from classroom instruction time. (Unless, of course it was Hogworth’s in which case he will need all the magic he can muster.) He then graduated with his BA and MA in philosophy, politics and economics from Balliol College at Oxford University and finished up by getting his PHD in political science from Harvard University. All of which certainly qualified him for absolutely nothing but further work in academia and allowed him the credentials to apply for grants. Additionally, like all academics, he published a few books to survive in the hallowed halls.

Then from 1999 to 2004 Dr. Steiner was a professor at Boston University’s School of Education where he taught in the Department of Administration, Training and Policy Studies and the Department of Curriculum and Teaching. I wonder how many of his students were forced to take his courses in order to graduate, how closely he had to hew to curriculum set forth by an outside agency, how long he spent creating lesson plans, writing and correcting tests, and explaining his grading to parents? He then moved to Hunter College where his main concern seems to have been in teaching prospective teachers to teach. I assume these were not any of the 8% that failed the teacher certification test.

(This latter position seems to have been one of the strong points in gaining him the Commissioner’s job since Steiner developed a curriculum at Hunter from 2005 to 2008 that supposedly improved teacher training. Inasmuch as it takes at least 5 years for a new teacher to “prove out” I would be interested to see if this methodology actually holds up and how many of those trained by it are, in fact, good teachers. Since education innovation takes time to work or not, only time will tell whether this experiment is a real breakthrough or just another of those failed novelties dreamed up in the Ivory Tower of academia. Likewise, this “experiment” was, like most of done in the field of education, hardly scientific in that there were no control groups or blind testing.)

My main point is this: Steiner is just one of a long line of educational administrators who are in charge of NYS education and have never spent an iota of time in the classroom. Or, if they have, have been either unhappy in their role of teacher or dismissed from their position. As such they and their ilk have absolutely no idea what is it like to teach. Nor do they realize the problems that teachers have to overcome; from poor parental support, apathy on the part of students, and asinine administrative directives just to being to impart knowledge to their students. Until those in charge of education realize that they need input from teachers in the field, the system will flounder and only succeed in spite of the people at the top, not because of them.

Education and Testing

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Ok, school’s started so enough with golf and lawn mowing, time for more important stuff like rounding up all the urchins and getting them wedged back into school soon enough so they can be taught for the Regents’ test. For those of you that need information on NYS Regents exams, see my latest book Minimum Competency where I give an extensive history of these exams. (If you don’t have the book, buy one at IUniverse.com, Amazon.com, BarnesandNobel.com, eBay or have your friendly local bookstore order one for you.) At any rate, I was one of those teachers that happened to have liked the idea of these state-wide exams, depending on how they were used.

First they keep teachers and schools on task and up to minimum levels. A teacher has to teach the curriculum not concentrate on one area where he or she feels most comfortable with. An English teach can’t teach just Shakespeare, for example, ignoring literature. Or a history teacher just concentrate on wars because they kept their students interested but has to create interest in the causes and effects. A math teacher can’t emphasize algebra and leave out trigonometry because they feel out of depth with it. A teacher has to be able to get across every aspect of their level or go back to school to become competent in it. Likewise, testing results are a good indication as to where a particular student falls in relation to others in the state. This allows schools of higher learning as well as employees to know what level of knowledge these students have achieved no matter where they learned it. At the same time it allows teachers at the next level to know that the students coming to them have reached a certain plateau in their knowledge—although, admittedly they forgot most of it over the intervening summer—so they have a starting point for the next level. Finally, it gives the students a feeling of confidence just knowing they not only have reached a certain level but are on a par with their peers at that level.

There is a bad side as well. Primarily this comes from reading into the test results things that are not there. For one thing, poor scores are not necessarily indicative of poor teaching or poor learning. Not all students learn at the same rate any more than all of them grow and mature alike. To say that once a student completed a single year in, say algebra at age 14, doesn’t mean they learned everything in that course. Maybe the child needed more time, a different teaching method or outside incentive. A failure in one or the other of these exams may simply mean there needed to be more and/or alternative teaching. Noneducators (by these I mean anyone outside the classroom either administrators, state ed department functionaries, or parents) tend to jump to the wrong conclusion when looking at test scores and blame them on either teachers or students when there can be outside influences to poor scores. These influences include, but are not limited to: a bad test, the testing of material outside the acceptable content of the curricula, the wrong students (or teacher) being expect to learn (or teach) that subject at that point in time.

Even more of a problem is the thinking by those in the Ivory Tower of the Educational Department that not everyone should be able to pass a particular test. But if these tests are designed correctly then all of the students should be able to achieve whatever is considered the minimum score. In other words, if a test is fair then all the students should pass it. While, granted, all don’t, if they or at least a substantial number of them do, then so be it. The problem is that this isn’t the case. Some in the upper echelons of education has recently decided that because the state’s schools are showing marked improvement on the elementary Language Arts, Math and Science exams that these exams are becoming too easy. Maybe it’s time they decide what it is they want; educated students or lower marks. Obviously if, in the beginning, a standard was set then it should remain. Unfortunately too, many people in Albany have too much time to sit around and think of ways to make themselves important at the expense of those in the trenches.

Regents’ Exams or standardized tests are great if they are used correctly. Unfortunately, what is failed to be recognized is that these tests are being taken by many square pegged children who cannot and should not, be fitted into a nice round hole. While it is fairly easy to test to see if every Buick rolling off the assembly line will start, there is not sure way to be sure that every algebra student can graph a straight line. Also, while starting a Buick may be important to its function, graphing a straight line may not be to that child. What should be done are for someone—preferably teachers with classroom experience in the field working with those outside the educational system—to decide what is needed and what the minimum standards should be. Then design a curriculum around these standards and work up testing that, while checking for perfection in the topic, will allow all those who meet these standards to “pass”. Once this test is tweaked so these standards are met, leave it alone and allow children and teachers to move passed them at the student’s rate, even if it means taking more (or less) time than noneducators think it should. That will make testing meaningful.