Tag Archives: Andy Spears

Posted on by

Seriously?

Will TNReady testing resume this year? For some students, maybe not.

The President of Measurement, Inc. said yesterday that there was no guarantee his company would make the testing window.

The Memphis Daily News reports:

The president of a North Carolina-based testing company said Monday that he can’t guarantee all students in Tennessee will receive the test on time.

Measurement Inc. president and CEO Henry “Hank” Scherich said his company is working furiously to get the new TNReady materials to students.

“I wish I could promise them,” Scherich said. He added they were doing everything humanly possible to get the tests to the students on time.

All of the students have at least some of the testing materials, he said, but the company has found itself scrambling to print and ship 5 million test booklets for Tennessee.

This follows last week’s  that a Friday deadline would be missed.

That event caused some lawmakers to call for this year’s testing to be cancelled. The Department of Education has still not agreed to that solution.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

 

Posted on by

Not Our Fault

Measurement, Inc., the state’s vendor for the TNReady tests is saying it’s not their fault that for the third time in a row, the company has failed to deliver a testing product.

The failure has lawmakers and other critics calling for the test to be stopped and for Measurement, Inc. to be fired.

The Department of Education said:

“We share our districts’ frustration that we do not know specific delivery timelines due to [Measurement Inc’s] failure to provide shipping projections and find this lack of information extremely unsatisfactory,” spokesperson Ashley Ball said in a statement.

But the company’s president responded:

“You just can’t take the test off line and put it on a printing press,” President Henry Sherich said by phone Friday. “We’re not failing to deliver. We are delivering as fast as possible.”

Sherich revealed his company is only working with one printer as other printers they work with are booked. This after a delay in delivering Phase I of the tests in March.

Sherich didn’t offer an apology or express concern for the students, parents, and teachers who have suffered as a result of this delay.

While the Department of Education has said it will be flexible with districts as they respond to this new delay, they have not yet said they plan to fire Measurement, Inc.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

Posted on by

Lamberth: Stop the Test

In response to the latest failure to deliver TNReady, State Representative William Lamberth issued the following statement via his Facebook page:

I have lost faith in Measurement Inc. and I believe it is time to cancel the test for this year and start over. Local school districts who have received the material should have the option of going forward with testing or not at their discretion. I agree that we need a TN specific test that is designed to evaluate how well TN children are learning certain subjects. That test should be designed by TN teachers and TN administrators to be easily implemented and should reflect what is actually being relayed in our classrooms. TN contracted with this company to accomplish this task and they have failed miserably in delivering a computerized version and now can’t even ship the paper version on time. It is time to start over. Measurement Inc. has failed TN teachers and TN students and should not get one red cent of our money. That’s just my opinion.

While the Department of Education has said it will grant districts flexibility in modifying testing schedules, they have not yet said they will cancel the tests or the contract with Measurement, Inc.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

Posted on by

A Modification

As we reported yesterday, Phase II of TNReady is not so ready. In fact, Grace Tatter reports that the problem is statewide, impacting grades 3-8.

Tatter cites an email from the Department of Education indicating the state is not sure when the Phase II tests will be delivered to districts.

The email also says:

“…Districts may modify their testing schedules as needed, without any prior approval or notice to the (state),”

The thing is, some districts have already been trying to modify their schedules by not giving the test at all. The idea of refusing to administer Phase II surfaced in Murfreesboro in late March and early April. The state responded by issuing a vague threat regarding withholding BEP funds.

Tullahoma City Schools on Monday approved a resolution unanimously calling on the state to cancel testing for the remainder of this year.

All of this was before the realization that Phase II tests would not make it to Tennessee districts on time. Now, though, the Department of Education’s own words suggest that districts may modify as they see fit without consulting the state. One possible modification would be to not administer the test at all. Another would be to schedule it for a time in June when students aren’t in school. Districts could say they offered the test, but no one showed up to take it.

The state has also made a big fuss about what happens to students/districts if students simply refuse to take the test. Trouble is, the state’s memo is based on some pretty fuzzy reasoning.

As this piece was being written, the Department of Education announced it will not ask districts to reschedule tests beyond the current testing window, which expires on May 10th. That means if materials are not received in time for administration by that date, districts don’t have to administer the tests. The Department also indicated it would provide additional flexibility to districts.

From Jason Gonzales:

The Tennessee Department of Education announced to districts Friday it won’t reschedule the TNReady testing window again this year and for those districts that don’t receive tests on time, will provide flexibility.

“We will not ask districts to reschedule again beyond what has been communicated to date, and we will not extend the testing window beyond May 10,” according to a statement sent to districts Friday.

So, what’s next? Will the state cancel the contract with testing vendor Measurement, Inc.? Will Commissioner McQueen assume responsibility for the failed transition to a new test?

Only time will tell, and there’s not much time left.

 

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Posted on by

Still Not F*&#ing Ready

TNReady Phase II is supposed to be starting, except it won’t. It seems that shipping delays will prevent at least eight school districts from starting the planned administration of Phase II next week.

In Sumner County, emails have gone out confirming the delay and a new planned start date of May 2nd.

Officials in seven other districts have confirmed they have yet to receive the testing materials.

This comes after a disastrous first day of TNReady testing back in February and subsequent shipping delays of Phase 1 paper materials.

It also comes after the Murfreesboro City School Board discussed refusing to administer Phase II and the Tullahoma City Schools considered a resolution calling on the state to stop any further testing this year.

From the start, the transition to TNReady has been bungled. While Commissioner McQueen continues to make excuses, blame the vendor, and promise a better outcome next time, students in Tennessee schools face disrupted schedules and loss of learning time.

Instead of issuing threats to districts, perhaps the Department of Education should have been developing solutions or simply responding to the frustrations of students, parents, and teachers across the state. Maybe stopping after Phase I would have allowed for a true course correction.

In any case, we’re still not TNReady.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Posted on by

Phasing Out

As Tennessee schools prepare to administer Phase II of the TNReady tests in late April and early May, parents are petitioning the General Assembly to stop the second phase altogether.

Grace Tatter reports:

Nearly 2,000 parents have signed a petition asking Gov. Bill Haslam and other state leaders to nix the entire second part of Tennessee’s new standardized assessment for students grades 3-11.

The change.org petition, which was started last week, garnered 1,000 signatures in its first three days from parents across the state.

The petition was started by Tullahoma parent and School Board member Jessica Fogarty.

While the Department of Education indicates it has no plans to suspend TNReady testing for this year, the Tullahoma School Board is set to vote on a resolution asking for just that at a meeting on Monday, April 18th.

Here’s a draft of that resolution:

A RESOLUTION OF THE TULLAHOMA CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION

TO SUPPORT A DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF TCAP ASSESSMENTS AT THE 3-8 GRADE LEVELS UNTIL SUCH A TIME THAT THE ASSESSMENTS AT EACH GRADE LEVEL NOT EXCEED A TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS AS ENUMERATED BY THE GIVEN GRADE

WHEREAS, the Tullahoma City Board of Education is the local governmental body responsible for providing a public education to the students and families of Tullahoma City, Tennessee; and

WHEREAS, the State of Tennessee through the work of the Tennessee General Assembly, the Tennessee Department of Education, the Tennessee Board of Education, and local boards of education, has established nationally recognized standards and measures for accountability in public education; and

WHEREAS, the Tennessee Department of Education is currently working to implement a replacement to the former Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (“TCAP”) for the 2015-2016 school year; and

WHEREAS, these new assessments are called TNReady for the areas of English/language arts and math, 3 – 8 and TCAP Social Studies Achievement and U.S. History End of Course exams; and

WHEREAS, this school year is the first year that the new assessments will be administered and as such, the new assessments are more appropriate tools for establishing baseline performance than they are for evaluating or comparing performance; and

WHEREAS, because of the testing transition within TCAP including TNReady and other issues, the Tennessee Department of Education has already acknowledged that, for the 2015-2016 school year, public school systems in Tennessee will likely not be able to integrate the test results into each student’s final grades; and

WHEREAS, the Senate Education Committee of the Tennessee General Assembly has scheduled a hearing to address issues and concerns associated with the delivered assessment product provided by Measurement, Incorporated; and

WHEREAS, experts in education administration, child development, and child psychology endorse standardized testing as a limited measure of progress and effectiveness in the important task of learning; and

WHEREAS, current TCAP-TNReady mandated assessments in grade 3 exceed 11.23 hours per student, or more than the ACT Test at 2.95 hours,the SAT Test at 3.00 hours, the Graduate Records Examinations (GRE) at 3.75 hours, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) at 2.83 hours or the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) at 6.25 hours; and

WHEREAS, current TCAP-TNReady mandated assessments in grades four and five (4, 5) exceed 11.08 hours per student, or more than the ACT Test at 2.95 hours,the SAT Test at 3.00 hours, the Graduate Records Examinations (GRE) at 3.75 hours, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) at 2.83 hours or the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) at 6.25 hours; and

WHEREAS, current TCAP-TNReady mandated assessments in grades six, seven, and eight (6, 7, 8) exceed 11.83 hours per student, or more than the ACT Test at 2.95 hours,the SAT Test at 3.00 hours, the Graduate Records Examinations (GRE) at 3.75 hours, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) at 2.83 hours or the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) at 6.25 hours;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED

The Tullahoma City Board of Education implores the Tennessee General Assembly and the Tennessee Department of Education to direct school districts to delay administrations of the TNReady suite of assessments until such a time that the assessments are of a reasonable amount of time for student completion of the assessment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,

The Tullahoma City Board of Education implores the Tennessee General Assembly and the Tennessee Department of Education to direct psychometricians, contractors, and developers to construct assessments designed to inform instructional practice and to provide accountability that would not require for administration a period of time in hours greater in aggregate than the specific grade level of the said child.

 

 

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

Posted on by

BEP. BEP 2.0. BEP 1.5?

Following a lawsuit filed by rural schools in Tennessee dubbed Small Schools, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled the state’s funding of public schools was unconstitutional. They ordered the General Assembly to come up with a more equitable way to distribute education funding. The result was the Basic Education Plan (BEP) which both equalized state funding to schools and injected $1 billion into the state’s schools over six years.

While Rep. Bill Dunn says that money didn’t improve schools, a generation of students in rural schools who experienced expanded educational opportunities likely disagree.

Subsequent lawsuits (Small Schools II and III) resulted in additional changes, including a salary equity fund for rural districts.

Then, in 2007, with bipartisan support, Governor Phil Bredesen secured passage of BEP 2.0 and began with an injection of more than $200 million in new dollars to schools.

2008 brought the Great Recession and prevented further investment in BEP 2.0, but the state’s BEP Review Committee has consistently recommended full funding of the newer formula, which would provide more funds to nearly all districts while leveling the playing field for those educating more “at-risk” students.

Enter Governor Bill Haslam. He appointed his own BEP Task Force independent of the statutorily mandated BEP Review Committee. At the time, I speculated this was because he didn’t like the Review Committee’s recommendations and its insistence that the state was at least $500 million behind where it should be in education funding.

Now, he’s proposing a “BEP Enhancement Act.” This so-called enhancement is sailing through the General Assembly. It is seen as the most likely vehicle to get money to rural districts and in a year when education funds are increasing, why sweat the details?

As I’ve written before, a few districts lose significantly in the move because it eliminates the Cost Differential Factor (CDF).

It also freezes BEP 2.o. Gone are the dreams of full funding of this formula. The law makes permanent the 70% state funding of BEP-generated teaching positions and funds teacher salaries at a rate well below the state average salary.

Back in 2014, I wrote about the broken BEP and the need to improve it and noted:

First, nearly every district in the state hires more teachers than the BEP formula generates. This is because students don’t arrive in neatly packaged groups of 20 or 25, and because districts choose to enhance their curriculum with AP courses, foreign language, physical education, and other programs. This add-ons are not fully contemplated by the BEP.

Next, the state sets the instructional component for teacher salary at $40,447. The average salary actually paid to Tennessee teachers is $50,355.  That’s slightly below the Southeastern average and lower than six of the eight states bordering Tennessee. In short, an average salary any lower would not even approach competitiveness with our neighbors.

But, this gets to the reason why salary disparity is growing among districts. The state funds 70% of the BEP instructional component. That means the state sends districts $28,333.90 per BEP-generated teacher. But districts pay an average of $50,355 per teacher they employ. That’s a $22,000 disparity. In other words, instead of paying 70% of a district’s basic instructional costs, the state is paying 56%.

Even with the upward adjustment of state money for teacher salaries, the state won’t be anywhere close to funding 70% of the actual cost of Tennessee teachers. Don’t even think about reaching the 75% goal imagined by BEP 2.0.

Nashville School Board Member Will Pinkston, who worked for Governor Phil Bredesen during the development of BEP 2.0 had this to say of Haslam’s proposed changes:

“With this proposed ‘BEP 1.5,’ Gov. Haslam is taking a huge step backward when it comes to public education funding. In 2007, Gov. Bredesen and the General Assembly made a significant commitment to K-12 schools by proposing and approving a new formula that now is universally recognized for its equitable approach to distributing public education dollars. At the time, Gov. Bredesen cautioned that new revenue generated by a tripling in the tobacco tax would be only a ‘downpayment’ toward fully funding the new formula. Then the Great Recession happened, and then a political transition occurred in the governor’s office. Those of us who care about education funding were hopeful that Gov. Haslam would continue the Bredesen legacy of investing significant new dollars in public education as the economy turned around. Instead, he’s given only lip service to education funding and has, at best, just shifted dollars around to give the appearance of increased funding. The reality is: The legislature, by its own admission, has acknowledged that public education in Tennessee is getting short-shrifted by the state to the tune of at least $500 million. And that means the real number is likely closer to $1 billion or more. By proposing a halt in the implementation of BEP 2.0, the governor is essentially proposing a massive funding cut. If he claims to truly understand the plight of public education funding, he should abandon BEP 1.5 and recommit to fully funding BEP 2.0. To do anything less would be breaking the state’s promise.”

That’s a pretty strong critique. But it’s not difficult to see why education advocates should have concern about the long-term impacts of Haslam’s BEP 1.5 effort.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Posted on by

CANCELLED!

While school boards in Tennessee discuss not delivering TNReady Phase II and the state’s Department of Education says doing so would cost districts their BEP money, the Commissioner of Education in Alaska has scrapped new computer-based tests this year.

The Washington Post reports:

Alaska officials have canceled the state’s computer-based standardized testing for the year, citing repeated technical problems that were interrupting students’ exams, throwing schools into chaos and threatening the validity of results.

“I don’t believe under the circumstances that the assessment we were administering was a valid assessment,” Susan McCauley, interim commissioner of the state education department, said in an interview Tuesday. “Validity relies on a standardized assessment condition, and things were anything but standardized in Alaska last week.”

If this sounds familiar, it should. Tennessee’s new tests got off to a rocky start in February and the backup plan, pencil and paper testing, faced a bumpy rollout as well.

Instead of cancelling this year’s tests or at least moving forward without administering Phase II, Tennessee is plowing ahead. And, despite serious questions regarding data validity, the results could still count for some teacher evaluations and for school and district accountability.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Posted on by

Ready to Refuse

As Tennessee schools prepare for Phase II of TNReady, the Department of Education has sent districts a memo outlining how they should handle students who refuse or attempt to “opt-out” of the test.

The general gist, according to reporting by Grace Tatter, is that you can’t opt-out or refuse. She reports:

District leaders received a memo last week instructing schools to “address student absences on testing days in the same manner as they would address a student’s failure to participate in any other mandatory activity at school (e.g. final exams) by applying the district’s or school’s attendance policies.”

The memo specifically notes:

 “State and federal law also requires student participation in state assessments. In fact, these statutes specifically reference the expectation that all students enrolled in public schools in Tennessee will complete annual assessments.”

That’s not entirely true.

Federal law, even with the newly passed Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), requires states to administer annual assessments in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school.

But there’s a difference in requiring a state to administer and requiring a student to complete an assessment. Federal law requires administration of the test, but does not compel students to complete the exams.

Then, there is state law. The memo lacks specific references to Tennessee statute, but there are a few sections that relate to testing.

TCA 49-1-6 includes references to performance assessment and the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS). This portion of state law says that annual assessments will be administered in grades 3-8 and then outlines the secondary school testing schedule. Here again, the law notes tests will be administered, but contains no compulsory language for students.

Then there’s TCA 49-6-60 dealing with proficiency testing. This section specifically details testing to be administered in grades 8, 10, and 11 as a strategy to promote college readiness. As these three tests are required for graduation, they are essentially mandated. Students who don’t take them won’t complete the graduation requirements.

What’s missing? Language that compels a student to take the test or requires a district to compel students to take the test. The memo says that “state and federal” statutes specifically reference the expectation that students will complete the assessment. True, TVAAS and other accountability measures are made valid by significant student participation in state tests. But, that alone doesn’t make them compulsory. Unless it’s one of the three proficiency tests specifically referenced in the graduation requirements section, there’s no language directly compelling students to participate in annual assessments.

It’s worth noting that while the Department of Education has said there would be penalties if districts refused to administer the TNReady tests, the memo says districts are not authorized to allow “opting-out” or test refusal. What it doesn’t say is what impact allowing opt-out would have on the district. If a district offers the test, and students refuse, then what?

Stay tuned as Phase II starts later this month.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

 

Posted on by

A Little Less Ready

Grace Tatter reports on proposed reductions to the total testing time for TNReady:

After weeks of hard conversations prompted by the rocky debut of Tennessee’s new assessment, Education Commissioner Candice McQueen said Monday that the state will reduce the number of hours that students spend taking TNReady in its second year.

Beginning in 2016-17, the State Department of Education plans to scrap TNReady Part I in math and streamline the English portion of Part I, she said. Department officials will determine how many hours of testing the changes will save students in the coming weeks.

On average, third-graders this year will have spent 11.2 hours taking TNReady end-of-course tests; seventh-graders, 11.7 hours; and high school students, 12.3 hours.

The announcement comes amid concerns expressed by parents and district leaders and at least one district inquiring about the possibility of not administering TNReady Phase II this year.

Tullahoma’s Dan Lawson said:

“Outside of RTI-squared and TNReady, we don’t have time to do anything,” Lawson said. “We’re trying to have class on occasion.”

For more on education politics and policy in the volunteer state, follow @TNEdReport