How Many of Our Third Graders Will Flunk this Year? Will Someone You Love Fail?

Yes, Oklahoma has a third-grade flunk law, along with several other ALEC states. Our politicians are very proud of it. Educators are appalled and horrified. We understand NO ONE should have his or her future dependent on one test, one day in April. But, Jeb Bush wants it and Janet Barresi is happy to oblige.

While the law was being debated in the OK House of Representatives, a colleague and I exchanged letters with its author, Representative Sally Kern. She got distracted by another of her foot-in-mouth episodes after one response and didn't write again, but we all knew the bill would become law despite our concerns.

I now share our letter, and Rep. Kern's response in the hopes of bringing this issue to the front of everyone's mind. I'm leaving all the different fonts to help the reader move from one to another letter.

This year, third graders WILL fail. They will be held back despite what their parents, their teachers, their administrators, know is the right thing for them. They WILL fail. And the first child who is labeled as a failure will be OUR failure. Our complacency will create chaos in the schools.

If you are a parent of a third grader, the grandparent, the aunt or uncle...if you are a neighbor of a third grader...if you attend church with parents of third graders, you must act. Contact your Legislators and howl. Long, loud. Our children need you.

Michale Gentry's and my letter to Representative Sally Kern:

Dear Rep. Kern:

When you were writing your third-grade promotion bill, how many professional educators did you consult? Reading specialists? Special education experts? Child-development experts?  In other words, how many teachers did you talk to? Judging from two educators’ concerns, we don’t think you asked any teachers or education experts.  If you had asked, we would have agreed with your very sincere wishes for all students to be successful. But we could have pointed out the serious flaws of your bill, and we could have helped make it realistic, based on what we know about children, their learning, and best practices in teaching young readers.

 Have you studied other states’ success rates with retaining third graders – other states, besides Florida?  Have you researched the long-term outcomes of retaining students? Education experts almost unanimously agree retention leads to behavior problems, achievement difficulties, and higher drop-out rates. Few students who have short-term gains sustain those gains over time. Dr. Linda Darling Hammond, a nationally-known teacher-educator cited the research recently when asked about this bill. Dr. Barresi quoted a recent study by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Double Jeopardy, in supporting your bill. Unfortunately she was inaccurate in her belief that poor reading at third grade caused poverty. A close reading of the study shows that poverty is more likely to lead to poor reading, not, as she said, poor reading skills leading to poverty.

You yourself said that about 12% of our third graders are not reading at grade level. We cannot help but wonder about the amount of time and man-hours invested at the Legislature for these 12% of third graders. Oklahoma currently has over 20% of our children living in poverty. If we believe the link between poverty and low achievement, then elementary teachers and students in our state are performing heroically.  Many are overachieving right now, without this bill. We cannot help but wonder what you could accomplish if you spent time addressing the root causes of poverty in our state, helping these children and their parents who suffer poor nutrition, poor health, homelessness. What if you worked to solve poverty in our state, instead of threatening third graders with being retained?  

You tell us there will be no extra costs in this bill – that forcing children to spend an additional year in school will not cost us more. How can that be? How can thirteen years of education cost the same as twelve? Are you sure this law will be funded? This year, funds for RSA have not been delivered to school districts as promised? Last year schools did not receive the funds until February.  At this point in the year, the funds are band-aids...not part of a comprehensive plan.  Additionally, the requirement to keep portfolios with all work for all students falling behind in reading will cost us storage and materials costs as well as staff hours. Schools must provide parents with timely feedback about student progress. This means any portfolio materials would have to be photocopied, giving a copy to the parents, and a copy for the school’s portfolio, adding more costs. Finally, the alternative assessments you suggest will surely cost us money. This bill WILL become another unfunded mandate.

Do you really think you can mandate higher reading scores by threatening retention, adding or changing the structure of the already existing paperwork (Individual Reading Plans), assessments and portfolios, while ignoring the true needs of students, families and teachers? 

Students need support from home and school; parents need information and access to the school and community resources; and teachers need professional development to hone their literacy instruction skills.  Perhaps most overlooked by those outside education, educators need time to collaborate, plan and evaluate meaningful student learning and then plan further instruction from that data.  High quality instruction does not happen by accident; it happens when teachers know students well and when teachers have proper supports to allow the data to drive the instruction.  Look at the models in the high-achieving countries.  Teachers in these countries are treated as professionals and are given time to study their work and make the gains with students that are very much within reach with proper support.  Students and teachers need the support of strong library media specialists and school leaders who will work to inspire a love of reading...not just for a test...but for life.  All of these components are critical to increasing literacy skills which will lead to greater learning and higher achievement.

On the floor of the house, you repeatedly assured your colleagues that this bill would save money, because there would be fewer special education students. On what evidence do you base that assertion? We believe it is flawed in two ways. Special education funding comes from the federal government, as part of the IDEA federal law. What kind of savings do you envision for Oklahoma? And our second concern is your belief that learning disabilities or intellectual disabilities can be “prevented” with an extra year in school. In fact, retaining a child whose learning disabilities factored into his or her reading difficulties could be considered malpractice. The least restrictive environment for a child with learning disabilities is not with younger students.

Another deep concern is the practicality of promoting children mid-year. What is your plan to deal with the academic and social fallout that will come from mid-year promotion?  Have you considered what will happen to those students when they are promoted and have missed a semester of math, language, science, social studies?  These students will continue to take standardized tests, based on cumulative knowledge, some of which could be missed as students repeat a semester of third grade, and then move into second semester of fourth grade. There will be social implications of moving children from class to class in the middle of the year, including issues of materials, space, and social dynamics.  If students are proficient in other subject areas why not increase services for literacy instruction instead of holding them back from their peers?  Why not expand the Individual Reading Plans that are already in place for these students, with the promised funding, to hire reading tutors, to purchase materials for targeted instruction and to provide high quality professional development?

You told your fellow lawmakers there would be an "alternative assessment" available to retest students for this mid-year promotion. Is it available now? Will someone have to write, validate, field-test it before we give it to our students? Will we have to buy it, lose more instruction time to administer it, pay to have it scored and returned to us?  Will this be consistent across the state or will there be loopholes for certain students?  These are vital questions that must be answered before we move forward. Every child in this state and his or her parents deserves these answers.  Will they be consistent from student to students and school to school?  How exactly will our current system of placing students on an IRP, Individual Reading Plan change?  Will it be enhanced and further supported or simply be a new testing and filing system? 

Either of the signers of this letter would have been happy to sit down with you and tell what will and won't work in the classroom, what we've already accomplished, what others (Texas, for example) have attempted and are abandoning. We would have told you the idea of a portfolio with 'everything' a student produces from kindergarten to the end of third grade is impossible to assemble and store...and doing that for four of five students in a class would be overwhelming, including the time and materials to photocopy all the papers.

We could tell you we already have a system in place where students are placed on an IRP if they are not proficient on the state assessment at the beginning of the year in grades 1-3 and this information travels with them in their cumulative folder.  The teachers meet with parents and sign off on a plan for the year.  Students remain on the plan until they are proficient or until they go to 4th grade.  Does this system need to be improved?  Absolutely!  The initial intent of the Reading Sufficiency Act was that it would continue through eighth grade--each year picking up another year--to be a comprehensive support system.   How will student's reading improve if we are changing paperwork but not addressing the root causes and issues associated with our greatest achievement gaps?  

Please, come spend some time in our schools before you concoct any more magic potions that will ultimately leave scars in the academic and social lives of our students for years to come.  Ask us. We want to be part of the solutions.  We are deeply committed to our students; we are invested in their success. We have experience, knowledge, and a deep understanding of learning...and achievement.  None of us can solve these complicated issues alone.  True reform involves listening, respect and both top-down and bottom-up initiatives. There are thousands of highly professional educators in our state who have the expertise to craft a real solution at little or no cost to the state. There are Master Teachers, National Board Certified Teachers, Teachers of the Year and finalists. There are Staff Development Committee members around the state who need to be part of this discussion. Parents need to be part of this discussion, as well as students. This bill is deeply flawed because you chose not to include those of us closest to the work. Every day, we attend to the issues of our shared literacy concerns.  Please allow us the opportunity to be part of this conversation. Let us show you that educators in Oklahoma are a valuable part of the equation. The solutions we can create together will reap rewards for our students and the future of the great state we have all chosen as home.

Michale Gentry

Madison Elementary

Norman, OK

National Board Certified Teacher

Claudia Swisher

Norman North High School

Norman, OK

National Board Certified Teacher

 And her response to us:

Claudia,

Thank you for your email regarding the third grade retention bill.  I appreciate you taking the time to express your concerns.

Yes, I did talk with some elementary school teachers about the bill as well as look at what Florida has done.  I also looked at what Massachusetts has done.  I even talked with parents who wished their child had been retained and some who said they want their child held back.

There are numerous studies showing that social promotion is harmful to children and making sure they can read is the best thing you can do for them.  You state that “education experts almost unanimously agree retention leads to behavior problems, etc.  There are just as many experts who disagree.  ”I was a teacher in high school for close to 20 years and was always amazed at how many twelfth graders I would have that could not read well at all.  These were the ones who had discipline problems, could care less about school, and were totally unengaged with anything to do with education.  What kind of education have they received sitting in class all those years and not being able to learn?

Concerning the mid year promotion, no student can be promoted past October 31.  Yes, they will have to take a test and it is already in place.  No funds will need to be expended for purchasing new tests.  Regarding an extra year in school, that will be a lot less expensive than a few years in prison.  Statistics show that over half of the male prison population cannot read at a fifth grade level.

This program will be phased in beginning with next year’s first graders.  That will give teachers three years to provide extra reading instruction to those students found as having a deficiency in reading.  Given this intensive reading instruction, there should be fewer students who will need to be retained.  Your argument about portfolios seems to be just an excuse to oppose the bill. Doing something on a day by day basis is always easier than looking at the whole task all at once. 

Obviously, we will never agree on this issue.  I appreciate the time and effort you give your students.  Teachers touch the future as few others do. 

Again, thank you for your email.  I hope you’ll pass mine along to your colleague who also wrote me.

God bless,

Sally Kern

Mine to her: 

Dear Rep. Kern

Thank you for responding quickly and personally to our note. I would have appreciated a more thorough response, but I know you’re busy, and we can begin a dialogue at least.

I was interested by your characterization of parents you talked with: “parents who wished their child had been retained and some who said they want their child held back.” So, parents felt that was the correct thing for their children and didn’t do it? I’m aghast. They knew their child needed an extra year, and they didn’t do it? I have taught every grade level in public education and I have sat in meetings where teachers and parents had these hard conversations. Never has a parent’s wish been ignored. Parents are the final word, or at least they are until your law passes. Then, the decision will be out of their hands for good. But until that happens, I must wonder about the motivation of parents who do not make the correct decision for their own children.

I find it ironic that you feel you’re supporting those parents by taking the rights of other parents away from them. Your bill will make it impossible for parents and teachers together to make the right decision for each child. Now, all children who struggle with reading, for whatever reason, will be forced to bow to the will of the state Legislature who will never set eyes on the children, or know the ramifications of their action.

I guess we could trade expert opinions forever, but I stand firmly with the National Association of School Psychologists and the University of Chicago’s Consortium on School Research in their findings that this political move may be harmful to children. A quick google search finds Oklahoma is firmly on the bandwagon of other Republican state governments beating up on teachers and blaming students for their difficulties. That does not make this bill right for children; it just makes it politically popular – at the moment. I would be interested in reading the studies you’re basing your work on.

You decried the students in your twelfth grade classes for their ‘unengaged’ attitudes. I, too, have taught seniors: English 4. And I must say, if my students were disengaged, then I wasn’t doing my job. If I knew a student needed materials at a different level, or a different method of lesson delivery, it was my moral obligation to make sure I engineered my classroom so that every student could learn. Will they all learn, even in the best of classrooms? No. Not until their basic needs for health and security and food are met. Not until their lives are free from other distractions. But it is my moral obligation to give students the opportunity to succeed. My experience and training give me the tools to see every student in my class and find the right way to teach each one. Discipline problems? Not if I’m doing my job. If I am, I’m anticipating problems and planning ways to avoid them. I do not blame my students for my lack of professionalism, for choosing not to do the hard work of teaching.

So, mid-year promotion will be at the first nine weeks? My concerns remain. And what about the child who’s strong in math and science whose development in reading lags? Will that child’s other skills stagnate while he or she spends more time in third grade?

I find your remark about an extra year of school costing less than being in prison highly offensive. Are you saying children are destined to prison if they’re not retained in third grade? What about addressing, as you chose not to in our first letter, the underlying factors of incarceration and poor performance in school? What about the elephant in the room? What about poverty? Sub-par health care? What about children who take home back packs of food every Friday, but don’t eat because they’re making sure their younger brothers and sisters have food over the weekend? Yes, many people who are imprisoned have low reading levels. Many are mentally retarded. Do you have the figures that show these prisoners come from strong middle-class backgrounds, or is poverty the underlying factor, as it is with poor reading? Your remark is not worthy of a political discussion.

You say this program will be phased in over three years, giving ‘teachers three years to provide extra reading instruction.’ Do you honestly believe early-childhood teachers are twiddling their thumbs now, doing nothing? Are you aware of the interventions in place at this time? Are you aware of the Reading Sufficiency Act that has tracked children who are lagging behind, giving them all kinds of extra attention? Are you also aware of the fact that the Legislature has not funded RSA for this year at all? We are already giving students ‘intensive reading instruction,’ and in many ways we’re winning the fight for literacy: over 20% of Oklahoma’s children live in poverty, and only 12% are not proficient readers at the end of third grade. Are we satisfied with that? Of course not, but we understand child development and we know students do not progress equally in all aspects of their education. 

One of my students from years ago struggled in reading as a third grader, a fourth grader, and a fifth grader. We promoted him, with supports from our reading lab and a fantastic library, because we knew developmentally it was the right thing to do. This decision was made by the people who knew him best – his parents, his teachers, and his administrator. Right now, that young man is a junior high social studies teacher, and a National Board Certified Teacher.

I shared your letter with my colleagues and they raised other concerns:  will students be retained multiple times? Will we have 12-year-old third graders under this plan? Are we ready for the intimidation of other students by such students? What about the alternative assessments? You did not address this here except to say a test is ‘already in place.’ Do you know about Stephen Krashen’s research pointing to strong school libraries as a significant factor in student performance? But HB3029 last session froze library funding for years.  You’ve weakened a program that could be helping every public school student in our state. One colleague wondered about the first grader who could pass the third grade reading proficiency…would he or she be promoted to fourth grade?

We teachers have repeatedly reminded policymakers that we have expertise, we have experience, and we have a huge stake in the success of our students. We deserve to be included in policy decisions. We deserve to help form the policies we live with, the policies we are charged with carrying out.

This discussion goes deeper than ‘we will never agree on this issue.’ We all have the same goal: we want every child in Oklahoma to be a successful student, every year of his or her school career. There is common ground. We want to find that common ground. Do you?

Respectfully,

Claudia Swisher

MAKING THE GRADES -- A short book review

Recently an article about a young man who went to work grading the open-ended test questions on standardized tests has reminded me of a book I read three years ago, a book and author cited in the article.

I know we're to believe that these free-response, open-ended responses are supposed to be the way of the future. "Explain your answer" has always been part of a teacher's arsenal of strategies, and these types of questions SHOULD be a good thing.

But what if they are graded by temp workers, with or without a college degree, with or without any experience reading and evaluating work? What if third graders will be flunked for poor performance on these standardized tests? What if teachers will be evaluated on these scores? What if high school students will be denied a diploma? This is the reality of our world in the classroom. So, it behooves us to look carefully at the way these test items are graded.

Read the article, and read my review of MAKING THE GRADES,  by Todd Farley, a much longer treatment of the horrors of grading standardized tests, and then I dare you to take them seriously.

Remember, this book has been out there since 2009. Continuing to ignore these warnings is folly

""I don't believe the results of standardized testing because most of the major players in the industry are for-profit enterprises that -- even if they do have the word EDUCATION in their names -- are pretty clearly in the business as much to make big bucks as to make good tests." 

I liked a lot of Farley's book because I have such a connection to the setting -- Iowa City! I passed the big standardized testing center several times a week, and never really thought much about what went on inside the complex. 

Well! What went on is scoring student responses for state testing...He shows us with humor and with venom how easy it is to manipulate data, reliability, even scores. He shows how human error and stupidity (not the tested students, but the scorers!!) can affect students' scores and teachers' evaluations. 

If you have any earthly thoughts that those essays and open-ended test questions, scored by rubrics, are fair...read on! Farley skewers the industry to the bone. His characterizations of his fellow scorers made me laugh, and want to cry.

 One woman couldn't read English, but she was scoring student responses. One man came to work hungover every day, but he scored student responses.

Farley's last line? "Do what you want, American, but at least you have been warned.""

Superintendent Barresi's letter to Moore Teachers with Teacher Comments

**DISCLAIMER** This piece has been read and revised and edited with the eyes of my friends...I'm sure Superintendent Barresi has even MORE friends than I who would have helped her with her letter. I am grateful for the sharp eyes of friends.

**UPDATE** A fellow teacher, formerly an attorney, found the statute Superintendent Barresi quotes in her letter below. To quote my friend, Christie Paradise, "Here is the statute she references. I don't see anything preventing her from getting supplemental funding for this year. Next year's allocation isn't effective until August 1st. Whatever they gave them would have to come from this year's budget. However, if the SDE can afford to pay Koch Communications to manage a FB page, I assume they have money to allocate. I also don't see anything preventing them from getting a supplemental allocation from the legislature. All in all, in my very non-expert, non-researched opinion, I would think there are ways to accomplish this if they wanted to. Notice that she never mentions the fact that she said she doesn't think they really need the funding."

I am (was) an English teacher. Words matter to me. Clear communications matter to me. Respect for the audience matters to me. I was trained early on in my career to carefully proofread any note or letter that would go to parents or colleagues. I was trained to get a second pair of eyes to double check. NOT doing that can easily lead to a loss of credibility in the eyes of my audience. I try here and other places to read, reread what I've written. I expect the same from colleagues and other professionals. 

That's why I was surprised and deeply disappointed by the forwarded letter I read from Superintendent Janet Barresi to the teachers of Moore, OK. 

Moore lost two schools, seven babies in those schools, and a teacher who took refuge in a convenience store. Those losses are real and devastating. I had taught a graduate course for a local university in one of the schools, Plaza Towers Elementary, and remember our happy times within those walls, now gone forever.

Superintendent Barresi insinuated herself in the district meeting, attending the meeting at a local church in blue jeans, arriving late, walking directly to the front and sitting with the district leaders. Her appearance made few friends among these grieving educators. She took the microphone and promised to move heaven and earth for Moore Schools. She invited the leaders to think big, to ask for what they wanted.

She insisted she'd postpone due dates for district reports, even after being told by Moore officials that the reports were ready to be sent to the OSDE, and they did not need a postponement. The reports were sent early.

There was one request...funding. Money to carry the district through until appropriations arrived...by law in August, in practice more like September. That one request was summarily refused, citing 'state law' but not quoting state law. Funny how NOW she's bound by state law. She's played fast and loose with the law before this pronouncement.

Pushback on social media and reports in mainstream media have prompted this self-serving, poorly written, even more poorly revised and edited, letter to all the teachers of Moore, OK...

I have read it and here offer my concerns with the writing, not the substance, of the piece. Superintendent Barresi has, at her disposal, a spokesperson in charge of public relations, and she has recently hired Koch Communications to run social media, and presumably, her re-election campaign. One would hope she availed herself of these resources, but judging by the writing here, I can only think she did not.

Read how many times she used the word "I", how many times she took credit for learning something, talking to someone, directing her staff to do something.

Editing your communications before you send them is a sign of respect for the audience. It is dignifying others, helping them to quickly and accurately understand your message and your intent.

When words are used incorrectly, editing is overlooked, entire sentences are repeated, I wonder how much the author really cared about the audience. This was an important message that went out to hundreds of professionals. Whatever the intent was, it has angered and offended these professionals. It's angered and offended me FOR them.

A word about the formatting...underlined text is related to my remarks in parentheses, in red. I don't ever use a red pen with my students, because they're learning the trade...Professionals, I hold to higher standards.

What might be the underlying motive of the piece, I am not sure -- to inform, or as I suspect, to convince. There are times within the text that I editorialize, but as this piece is my model, I gave myself license.

"Dear Moore Public Schools,

As you know, we’ve passed the one-month mark since the May 20 tornado ravished (Um – ravish is what a pirate does to a princess. Ravage is what a tornado does to Moore, OK) Moore and southeast (Or SW?)  Oklahoma City. I know that you have been working hard, focusing on recovering, rebuilding or helping others to do so. It is important for me to communicate directly with you (Why? No reason is given. I wonder if the teachers in Moore felt it important to hear from Superintendent Barresi.) to let you know Moore Public Schools is and has constantly been in my heart and prayers as well as those of the entire staff at the State Department of Education. I also want to update you on what the SDE has done to help your district and what plans are ahead to help further.As you know, we’ve passed the one month mark since the May 20 tornado ravished Moore and southeast Oklahoma City. I hope this letter finds you well as many of you are recovering, rebuilding or helping others to do so. It is important for me to communicate directly with you to let you know Moore Public Schools is still in my heart and prayers as well as those of the entire staff at the State Department of Education. I also want to update you on what the SDE has done to help your district and what plans are ahead to help further (Repeat…cut and paste problem…no spacing after last sentence).

Just days after the tragedy, the State Board of Education (Did the Moore Schools ASK you to do this? Did they need you to do this?) unanimously voted to waive the remainder of the district’s instructional days as well as end-of-year deadlines for state required reports. This was done to help the administration focus on recovery in the aftermath of the tornado. (I have heard the district already had the reports completed and turned in early…why take credit for something the district distinctly did not request? Why hide the fact the district didn't want this extension? This seems to dilute the point.) In the days that followed, I announced that our teacher certification department would waive the usual fees for duplicate certified personnel certificates for any teachers or support staff who lost their certificates in the tornado or the storms that followed. I’m pleased to say that some teachers have already taken advantage of this offer. If you are in need of a new certificate, please call 521-3337. The fee is waived until May 2014.

(New paragraph…space needed)I want to address reports claiming (Loaded language. Diction matters…’claims’?) I refused to release the district’s state aid a month early (That  is not a claim – that is a fact. The superintendent has been on TV telling us she wouldn't release funds) so the district would be able to cover up-front costs for recovery before the start of the new school year. I want you to know that I am personally committed to helping Moore Public Schools in any way I can, but it is simply not possible for me to grant this request. It is against state law (Title 62. Public Finance, Chapter 1, Section 34.46) (Aha! New information. This is the first time specific statute has been referenced. We’ll be checking this) for the State Department of Education to release money to school districts before August and those funds must be distributed on an 11-month basis. I regret that I was not able to grant this request ( What was done instead? I hear the Superintendent promised to do anything…whom did the OSDE consult? I know Legislators have not been asked to look into creative solutions. I’ve asked) made by your incoming Superintendent Robert Romines, but I have to abide by the law.

After being met with that red tape, I looked aggressively for other options. One option included using the Emergency Cash Management System that has been set up to help schools with cash flow problems (What a slap in the face to a solvent, careful district…a district that has been a good steward…That CANNOT be the only solution. This is an insult to a grieving school community). Private lending companies extend these loans and they come with fees and interest as is associated with any loan. Neither I nor the state has the ability to waive these fees and interest. Your administration did not want to incur the extra cost that comes with these loans so they declined this offer. I fully support and understand that decision.

(Again…new paragraph needed…spacing, please) Continuing on our pursuit, I reached out to the director of the state’s Office of Emergency Management (So, the only reason Mr. Ashwood knew about the problem is because the OSDE contacted him? Sounds like OSDE is trying to take credit here. WHY isn’t he contacting Dr. Romines? That's DR. Romines, NOT Mr. Romines, as mentioned below. Why isn’t the state of Oklahoma reaching out to this district?) , Albert Ashwood, to inquire about what could be done to help your school district. He assured me he would work to take care of every affected school district that had any needs arising from the tornadoes or storms. I encouraged Mr. Romines to contact the Mr. Ashwood.

The Commissioners of the Land Office, of which I am a member, provides monthly distributions to school districts. I found out today ( Shouldn’t this news be shared FIRST with the leaders of the district? Tone suggests credit is due, even though the Superintendent learned of the news, didn’t participate in any decision) that Moore Public Schools will be receiving $518,810 this month. That is almost $400,000 more than you received last year in the month of June.

As we move closer to the first day of school, I continue to work with my staff at the SDE to make sure the new school year starts well. (Awkward…again, must correct Dr. Romine's title. He has a PhD. it must be honored, as we would honor a DDS) Mr. Romines has asked me to send a letter to all district superintendents asking them to cooperate, not just with Moore Public Schools, but all school districts that have families requesting emergency student transfers for their children. This is so their children may attend school at their home schools while their families rebuild. I will be sending this message out later this week. It is very important for students whose families have had to move out of their home district while rebuilding to attend school with their friends and teachers in the fall so they can all support each other during what maywill (may well??) be a difficult year.

(New paragraph…spacing problem -- again) When I spoke  with you at the district meeting held shortly after the tornado, I promised to help meet the classroom needs of those who lost so much to the tornado so they would have what they need as teachers, administrators and support personnel on the first day of school., and (punctuation) I stand by that promise. Many caring and generous individuals, businesses and organizations have donated school supplies to you already, but I know there may be additional needs. I have directed my staff (Again, seems to be more taking credit) to create a process where school staff can send a “wish list” to the SDE for what they need. We’ll post those needs on our website for the public to review and make donations. The SDE staff will deliver those supplies before the start of school. You will be hearing more about this project we call “Project Meet the Need” (Oh, goody! It’s a project with a name. That makes it all better.) in the near future.

Lastly, I wanted to share with you my goals for Moore Public Schools as they relate to you:The district should not be forced to spend General Fund (Classroom) dollars on response to the tornado and storms,

My intent is for teachers to have what they need for the classroom to begin the school year, andFor the 2013-14 school year to begin in the most positive way possible. (Fragment)
(New paragraph. Needs spacing) Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address you directly  (Speaking for myself, I find it mystifying that this letter was sent. Shouldn’t communications come through the district office?). Please know that you can always contact me by phone at (405) 521-3301 or email at janet.barresi@sde.ok.gov. It is an honor to serve as your state superintendent. (Confusing. Lacks parallelism -- this section of goals is not clear)."

---

My Letter to Bill Gates -- details to follow

Dear Bill Gates:

You and I took very different paths to where we are now. You chose to drop out of college (I hear that hasn’t hurt your success any); I chose to follow my father and grandfather into teaching (bachelor’s degree, Reading Specialist, hours past my masters, National Board Certification, renewed until 2020). I have earned awards from my peers and from the state of Oklahoma. I have had the honor of teaching thousands of young people. I have had a very successful career, also. but even though I’m the career educator, YOU’RE the one affecting policies that directly affect the way I do my job.

Without any research, you dabble and try this idea and that. What do you use for credibility? Your bankbook.

Using extensive educational research on how students learn and how to help them learn more, I invented an English elective, Reading for Pleasure. Don’t, as other critics do, assume this is a blow-off class. It’s grounded in educational research on reading and writing. It affects lives. It raises test scores, it inspires students to read long after they’ve left high school. It creates life-long readers and role models for children.  All in one semester. Because I know how to teach, how to respond, how to do my job. What have I used as credibility? Two education degrees, National Board Certification, and 39 years of experience -- all of which you discount as important for my job.

Because of you and your reform ideas, states around the country, including my own, have moved toward more high stakes testing, high stakes for students and for teachers. We have had to cut back on electives that we KNOW help students become productive adults, so we can put them in classes that will raise our school’s state grade. We have been forced to turn students into tools – widgets -- for our own survival.

My class, ten years of documented success, will dwindle to nothing so students can take more AP classes…because AP enrollment raises OUR school grade. My class, ten years of documented success will die as my former school focuses more and more on test scores, school scores, in a desperate attempt to game the new system and the system after that. No longer is school a place for students to discover who they are, and what they love. Now, because of your reform ideas, school is a constant pursuit of test scores. The joy and love and passion is draining out of every classroom. I hold you and your money partially responsible.

Your ‘reforms’ have killed my class. Common Core will hammer the last nail into the coffin of true student-centered learning and teaching. No longer will students be allowed, as they were in my class, to choose what to read, to read for their own reasons, to write reflectively (David Coleman, also with no teaching experience, has decided Readers Response, a time-honored tool for helping students reflect about what they’ve read, is of no value), to become part of a reading community for the first time in their lives. No longer will student discover they ARE good readers, they CAN comprehend. They DO have good ideas.

So, you, the non-educator, have deeply affected me, the educator and all my students. You have helped destroy a class that truly allowed and demanded students find their passions, their gifts, their way in the world.

I would never assume I knew how to do your job. I understand there are intricacies and procedures that are vital to your success.

I would never dream of coming into your workplace, elbow you out of the way, and take over. But you and your money and your success have done just that in MY job.

You have helped destroy my legacy.

A 'Close Reading' of HB-1035 -- Why I Support It!

Close reading...we hear a lot about that in the Common Core Standards written by David Coleman. We've seen examples of his interpretation of the strategy. If this is, indeed, something we value in education, teachers should practice close reading in their own professional life. As always, we teach better when we have had experience in the work.

There is no better opportunity to practice close reading -- re-reading passages, analyzing on the word and phrase level, reflecting on meaning, the development of ideas -- than to read a legislative bill. I confess I'm a novice, having only spent the last few years really digging into the rules of reading a bill. But I appreciate going to the source and finding my own interpretation instead of relying on someone else's reading.

When I shot off my letter about standardized, high-stakes testing, I received a speedy reply from Dennis Casey, Vice Chair of the House Education Committee, a Republican. He suggested I look at his bill on testing, and gave me his cell phone number to call so we could visit. I was, frankly, stunned by this open response, having spent the past few years soundly ignored by every policymaker in the state.

In our subsequent conversation, I was stunned to learn his own party leadership is actively opposing this bill. HB-1035 has three major opponents: Superintendent Barresi, Governor Fallin, and the Daily Oklahoman. Enough for me to love it even before I read!  It enjoys strong support from both houses: 94-7 in support in the House, and 42-3 in the Senate. That kind of bipartisan support is rare in our state on education issues.

Representative Casey described the mean-spirited editorial that denigrated his experiences as an educator and Coach of the Year as evidence of his lowering standards ( Have spent 30 minutes searching online for the editorial, and I can't find it. Any help you can give me is appreciated!). As an educator, I was offended...not for the first time.

Let's never forget one of the editorial writers at the DOK is married to Dr. Barresi's former Chief-of-Staff. I'm sure they still visit.

So, my lesson on close reading. Check to see who the authors are, and if there seems to be bi-partisan support. There are two forms of the bill, and the "Engrossed Senate Amendment to Engrossed House" has co-authors from both parties: Casey and Ed Cannaday, a Democrat and former educator, as is Casey, have both signed on. So did Senator Ford, Republican Chair of the Education Committee.

I'll be honest and tell you I do not understand the technical language sometimes, and if I were truly close-reading, I would stop my reading to define every word. And since they're legislative terms, I'd be wrong since I wouldn't have the right reference materials.

On to my reading...I've learned if print has been crossed out, those are changes that will be thrown out of the new legislation. If sections are underlined, those are the new provisions...the new action to be taken.

Most of the bill seems to be the original high-stakes legislation, setting up Criterion Reference Testing (CRT) for elementary and middle school students, and End of Instruction, EOI testing for high school students. No underlining, no striking out of language.

The additions, though, are fascinating, and they're the reason I support This legislation that passed with overwhelming votes.

Changes to the original bill begin on page 12.

Right now high school students must pass English 2 (with a writing and objective component), Algebra 1, and take Algebra 2, Geometry, English 3 (also two components-- writing and objective), US History, and Biology 1. They must pass two additional tests in order to graduate. At a conservative two-hour estimate per test (two tests for English 2 and 3),  that's nearly 20 hours of standardized, high-stakes testing during students' career.

Diplomas are now withheld to students who passed all their classes, earned all their credits to graduation, have been accepted into an institution of higher education, but have not passed the required four tests. The State Board did just that last summer, and it will happen again this year.

Under SB-1035, students will have multiple pathways -- none of them easy, none of them a 'gimme' -- to showing test (I will not say 'objective') proficiency in these subjects. If a student does not pass the EOI, he or she may take the ACT, the SAT, a CLEP test and score one point higher than proficient, and use this evidence to 'pass'. Advanced Placement testing can also be used, as can International Baccalaureate exams. All of these tests are challenging, nationally-accepted exams. I believe they also carry considerable financial costs. the devil's in the details, but I see this as a positive step toward graduation for all our students.

I LOVE this statement: "The State Board of Education shall not limit the ability of a student to demonstrate mastery of academic content to any one approved alternate exam." In other words, this legislation gives kids options to show mastery, and the SDE can't veto their attempts.

The other provision my students and I heartily support is the language that will exempt students from taking additional EOIs once they've passed their four. English 2, Algebra 1 are required, and must be passed, and curiously, Biology 1 is a required test...but once they've passed four, they may opt out of any other testing. I overheard a senior telling about being pulled out of class to take an EOI that is completely meaningless to her, since she'd already passed her four. I've watched students completely blow off that seventh test, out of frustration and anger at a system that requires them to take tests that no university accepts as evidence of competence, that have absolutely no importance to them. But there is language that will allow students to choose to take more tests. And I know some kids who would do that if given the choice. Most would opt to stay in class and learn.

Education 'reformers', including our state leadership, strongly support multiple pathways to teacher certification. A teacher who moved to Oklahoma with current, out-of-state certification must take the same tests (enriching Pearson in the process) as the Frito-Lay driver looking for a career change in the waiting room with her. Take a test and you're a teacher.

Why should we afford multiple-pathways to teacher certification, and deny the same consideration, the same respect, to our students?

I also understand this is not a perfect analogy...alternative certification rests firmly on ONE standardized, high -stakes test. HB-1035 expands that to several other difficult assessments.

This bill does NOT dumb-down graduation requirements; it does NOT lower standards. Does the DOK editorial writer truly believe our state EOIs are harder to pass than the ACT, or an AP exam? From letters in response, it sounds like the editorial writer cherry-picked his or her data.

This bill does respect our students as learners and says clearly, 'we're here to help you succeed and we have some options for you to pursue.'

NOW, what I'd rather have is a bill that does away with all these tests, but that ain't gonna happen in this political climate. We'll have to watch more testing debacles like last week, more kids fail, more horror stories. Then, maybe we'll get the bill I really want.

In the meantime, HB-1035, after a close reading, is, I believe, the best option we have to date. Please contact Governor Fallin and tell her you want her to sign this when it crosses her desk.

Representative Casey and I have continued to talk, and he told me this: "I agree that many items need to be address.  I was hoping to address that students who scored well on explore, plan, ACT, etc did not need to again show mastery on another battery of test.  This could motivate student to do well.  It would also allow less testing and put a focus on students who need it most." 

And: "I also have no doubt in my mind that some students after passing the first 4 do not always put their best effort in the remaining 3 EOI.  I sure would hate that my evaluation would weigh to heavily on a child who did not try on a test.I look forward to the interim where the Senate and House will do a study in order to take a good look at the procedure now in place."

We need to keep reaching out to our legislators; we may find others who are willing to talk and have an honest dialogue.

QUIET by Susan Cain -- a Book for Us All

Fascinating! Susan Cain's Quiet is a book that we all should read. Some of us will nod in recognition. Others will gain an important insight into the hearts of those we love

All these years I've thought I am an ex-introvert. Come to find out, I've just learned to pretend to be extroverted in situations that really matter to me. When I feel passionately about what I'm doing, I'll willingly step out of my comfort zone and act like an extrovert. But, afterwards, I hurry back home to sit in my chair, with a book...that is where I recharge for the next foray into the loud world.

Makes sense. Makes a lot of sense.

I appreciated the balance of narrative and research. Cain hit the right chord time and again. The stories connected me, and then the discussion of the research behind the stories solidified it.

Our world, especially European, especially American, has as a foundation the belief that extroverts are superior, better able to make decisions, more sure of themselves, even perhaps smarter....and we have gone down some unfortunate paths believing that...Cain shows how Group Think, that led us into the latest financial disaster, is not the best way to make decisions. Only the loud people participate, and quieter members, IF they speak at all, are likely marginalized. And then, there's that overweening confidence that some extroverts display in competitive situations -- that drives prices up, and makes ventures more risky.

As much as I enjoyed those discussions, I perked up the most when she talked about schools and children and teachers. Again, most schools, with their crowded classrooms, emphasis on group work and free-wheeling class discussions, favor extroverts. I was that kid who, during discussions, would NEVER speak up, but I knew who was right and who was wrong. When this is the default classroom style, we ignore the needs and gifts of up to a third of our students. I know...I was one of them.

As I look through Cain's lens, I realize I have been drawn to reading because of my active internal life...I don't feel lonely reading; I feel energized. I plan my class for Quiets...I apologize to my kids who want more interaction, less predictability, more moving around. I do build in some interaction for that reason. But mine is a class that is designed to find that quiet, and to become comfortable there. Some of my more extroverted students squirm from the first to the last day, but they try. And they read great books. My quiet students find comfort. They often tell me how peaceful they feel in my class. I'm glad to know now I'm doing a service for all students in providing this space quite unlike other high school classes.

Cain gives teachers and parents advice on how to nurture and encourage quiet kids. She tells horror stories about extroverted parents who tried to 'fix' their introverted children instead of celebrating them. We all need to read this, no matter what our style.

When I shared this in class, many of my quiet students perked up and were very interested...They need to know they don't have to change to 'fit into' an extroverted world. They need to find their passion which will inspire them to be assertive and honor their need for...quiet

High Stakes Testing Must Go

My letter to the Education Committees and Superintendent Barresi, who is outraged...just outraged. So are we.

It's not Pearson; it's not McGraw Hill. It's the high-stakes testing culture. It's not our kids; it's not our teachers. It's the culture -- and I hold you responsible for the culture of high-states testing.

We have been putting more and more emphasis on standardized tests, stretching their purpose out of recognition. Standardized tests are designed to be a snapshot in time -- one piece of assessment information about our students. That's all. But now third graders will soon be flunked on the basis of tests, teachers will be evaluated, schools graded. Already we are denying high school diplomas...all on tests that were not designed for these purposes.

To believe that standardized tests are objective is to believe in the Tooth Fairy. Human judgement frames the questions, chooses the distractors, writes the 'correct' answer. Human judgement chooses the passages and the prompts. Human judgement then scores open-ended questions and sets 'cut' scores. There is nothing remotely objective about standardized tests. 

To believe that spending millions of the state's money in contracts with out-of-state testing companies, no matter who they are, is a wise use of limited funds is naive and mistaken. With tax cuts being pushed by our leaders, there will be less and less money for schools...but can I expect the testing budget to be cut?

To believe we can cynically throw the blame and our outrage on these companies denies our culpability. Who contracted with these companies? Who passed the laws to abuse standardized tests for their own purposes? Who worships at the foot of the almighty test? Before you blame the corporations who can't deliver on your test-culture mission, look in the mirror.

Then, come to a school where students sat at their computers, ready to take tests. Apprehensive, yes, but confident and ready. Come to a school and watch the computers lock and freeze. Watch kids sit, as some did, for hours, waiting for their screens to come back. Come and tell these kids they won't graduate because of the test score...tell them they'll spend another year in third grade.

Outraged? Yes I am; but my outrage is focused on policymakers who cynically colluded with for-profit corporations to twist and subvert the purpose of assessment, to funnel millions of dollars out of our state, to force accountability on everyone but themselves. 

Continuing to abuse the purpose of standardized tests will bring more outrage -- outrage you can't deflect. 

Let's start some accountability at the top. 

What will you answer to children and their parents and teachers who are living this nightmare of your making?

Hoping for an uneventful day of more testing tomorrow...