So Which Version of the Testing Story is True?

A few years back and three Chancellors of Education ago-- then Chancellor Gerard Robinson made an allegation on his blog that infuriated many board members around the state.  In this statement made by Robinson--he deflected statewide criticism he was receiving from education stakeholders regarding the out-of-control testing mandates coming down from Tallahassee.  He simply blamed local districts.  It wasn't us, it's them, they did it!

 It reminds me of a scene from the 1979 film "The Warriors" captured at minute 1:42 of this clip.

(Wrong guys got blamed due to a false statement being repeated over and over and over loudly and often by someone in a  position of  credibility)

At that time in  July 2012, I brought the issue to the board meeting and was reassured that it was the state, not us, that was mandating the massive number of tests.

Fast forward to last Tuesday and the big education summit in Tallahassee, and this time I heard with my own ears directly from the highest education official in the state  that it is local districts, not the state DOE or Tallahassee mandates, that are driving the massive number of tests administered yearly at the district level?

So who is it?

This issue was discussed by one of my counterparts on the board, and recently in speaking to a peer in a central Florida county, they are asking the same questions and are receiving murky, misleading, or flat-out inaccurate answers.

Looks like it's time to once again bring this issue to the board's workshop to pin down who it is, exactly, that is mandating the ridiculous number of tests that we are administering locally.

We're all for a rational, reasonable level of standardized testing for accountability--but what we are doing statewide now is ridiculous and it is burning out teachers and students and robbing classrooms of learning time.

Tough Decisions Ahead at Some Schools....

Two years ago the board voted to add an additional hour to several struggling elementary schools for the purpose of intensive reading instruction. I voted for this, with a bit of skepticism. Last year, with mixed data and the first year of new FCAT scoring that made progress difficult to measure, I again decided to vote to support the additional hour of reading at several inner-city elementary schools. I did so with "great trepidation"--I was even quoted in the newspaper saying this.

In the last two years at these schools, we have focused resources, outside organizations, volunteers, and specialists and subject area coaches on the task of improving reading scores. We have brought in outside groups to some schools in an effort to improve (Studer Education at Montclair, UWF at Weis) and we have asked our teachers to work longer hours (even though many were not happy with this, and left these schools to work at non-extended day schools). We experienced attrition of staff at all these schools. We instituted a mandatory 1st-grade retention policy for those that did not pass the FCAT in grade one.

We have worked and worked, and teachers have given so much effort in these schools that it is heartbreaking to see the results of the third grade FCAT reading scores that were released today. Today we see that ---through NO FAULT of the staffs, teachers, behavior coaches, volunteers, or any other

Congratulations are in Order!

Congratulations are in order for Bellview and Longleaf Elementary Schools! Bellview scored in the top ten out of all district schools in 3rd Grade FCAT Reading and Math, and Bellview also scored in the top five for 4th grade FCAT writing! Given the fact that this is a title one school with a very small PTA, limited parental involvement, and numerous challenging characteristics, I think these achievements are excellent; principal Hollie Wilkins, her staff, students, and parents should all be extremely proud! Right down the road at Longleaf Elementary, that school scored #1 in the district in FCAT writing for 4th grade--an incredible achievement! Longleaf also scored the highest year-over-year improvement in 4th grade FCAT writing-improving 20 points over last year! Longleaf, like Bellview, is a title one school with numerous challenges;

NEA and FEA Lose Big Court Battle, Districts Win!

Rejected!
In a huge ruling out of the United States District Court in Gainesville today, the powerful statewide teacher's union, FEA, and their home office national union, NEA, were defeated; The issue was the use of student test scores in teacher evaluations.

Any and all rational humans know that basing a teacher's entire evaluation on student test scores is stupid and an inaccurate measurement of teacher effectiveness.  However, having year over year student learning gains factored into and made a part of the evaluation makes sense--- and it is the law under Florida's student success act.

The unions tried to sue our district (and several others) over this, however a coalition of school board attorneys successfully argued that following state mandates does not make us guilty of violating teachers' rights.

from the Judge's ruling:

"This case, however, is not about the fairness of the evaluation system. The standard of review is not whether the evaluation policies are good or bad, wise or unwise; but whether the evaluation policies are rational within the meaning of the law. The legal standard for invalidating legislative acts on substantive due process and equal protection grounds looks only to whether there is a conceivable rational basis to support them. For reasons that have been explained, the State Defendants could
rationally conclude that the evaluation policies further the state’s legitimate interest in increasing student learning growth. The same can be said of the District Defendants. Although they have not contested Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and have not moved for summary judgment in their own right, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the same reasons that summary judgment is granted for the State Defendants.

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED: 

1.                 The State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 84, is GRANTED.

2.                 Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 86, is DENIED.

3.                 The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of all Defendants against Plaintiffs on Counts One, Two, Six, and Seven, which have been dismissed, see ECF No. 111; and on Counts Three, Four, Five, Eight, Nine, and Ten, on which summary judgment has been granted. 

4.                 This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim in Count Eleven.

         SO ORDERED on May 6, 2014. "