|
REMARKS FROM ALBERTO CARVALHO, SUPERINTENDENT FOR STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 Nearly seven months ago over a million students across the state of Florida sat before a computer monitor to take the much anticipated, highly debated, Florida Standards Assessment. They had been prepared by their teachers and were confident in their ability to demonstrate how much they had learned last school year. We all know what transpired during those weeks of testing – students getting kicked off, blank screens, a cyber-attack, daily district wide cancellation of tests midstream, well…you know the details. Since then, much has been written about this less than perfect rollout – a validity study with over 130 pages of charts, data, and recommendations, countless newspaper articles and opinion papers, and 45,000 letters to state entities; all in an attempt to reason with anyone who will listen about the unreasonableness of those who are unyielding in their reluctance to admit that perhaps, superintendents, principals, teachers, parents, and students may have been right. That the pace at which computer-based testing has been rolled out statewide has been too aggressive, that the $220M test that was so quickly put together, with items from Utah after PARCC was discarded, was not ready for primetime, and that an inaugural test of ANY kind would be unable to determine appropriate school grades since learning gains would not be able to be calculated in year one. Yet, the department continues to state that it is “on track” and is resolute in its intent to assign scores to children and consequently, grades to schools for last year. This position, in light of the numerous recommendations from the Alpine study, is unconscionable. The Florida Association of District School Superintendents urges you, as does the Commissioner, to read the entire report; not just the cliff notes. In it, you will find pages and pages of recommendations. School leaders, teachers, students, and the public deserve to know what the timeline is to address the recommendations in the report. Until such time as we do, moving forward is adding questions and doubts to an already fragile accountability system. We will be leaving a summary of the recommendations from the study with you today. Please read them. And, please demand answers to these important questions. The state insists that everything is as it should be. That we have nothing to worry about. I remind you that that was also its position prior to the problematic administration of the FSA. Scores that are published to students and their families nine months after an assessment can hardly be considered “on track.” We should all ask ourselves what is the purpose and benefit of assigning school grades this late. Is it to inform and improve instruction? Is it to better assign students to more appropriate supports? No, nine months after its administration, and minimally five months after the school year began, it’s a bit late for that. Some say that there is nothing that can be done to halt the runaway freight train that is a late school grade rollout. To that I say, best to get it right than to simply get it done. There is too much at stake; not the least of which is the believability of the accountability system itself. Staunch advocates of school grades will argue that to not issue school grades for last year will destroy school reform in Florida. I submit to you that the issuance of school grades this late is posthumous at best and does not inform school reform in any way. In fact, it might impair it – severely. The FLDOE School Accountability Program has been dealt several blows in the past couple of years. Sadly, it has lost a lot of the credibility it once had with the public. What used to be a simpler and well-balanced calculation of proficiency and growth has been bastardized over the years, and in our zeal to repair it, it is now scheduled to be half of its fundamental, original self. Issuing grades with only 50 percent of the traditional criteria – performance alone - excluding learning gains – is irresponsible and sends the wrong message to students, teachers and the community at-large. We are in the business of learning. I think we all can agree that students come to our school house doors on a wide spectrum of ability – this spectrum is contingent on a number of factors that are beyond the control of educators – poverty, English language proficiency, learning disability, etc. We are charged with growing students’ intellects despite their place on the starting line. To judge anyone without taking into consideration how far students moved in one year’s time is irresponsible and potentially misleads communities on the true teaching effectiveness. If Florida wants to remain a leader in school reform and accountability, it should heed the warning of superintendents throughout the state and it should refrain from issuing school grades for last year and focus its efforts on setting appropriate cut scores for this baseline year in order to determine and include adequate learning gains in 2015-16. To not do so, will certainly compromise our accountability program. Statistical manipulations that attempt to generate a desired narrative devoid of appropriate logic or data are inappropriate and undermine reasonable and respectful accountability. The department continues to refute the fact that it intends to use the FSA as a sole determinant in decisions, such as the prevention of advancement to the next grade, graduation eligibility, or placement into a remedial course. What it cannot refute is the fact that the test WILL BE THE SOLE DETERMINANT in school grading decisions – especially for our elementary, K8 and middle schools. Isn’t the sum of the parts equal to the whole? Rolling up scores, which the validity study unquestionably refers to as “suspect,” will only serve to create a suspect school grading formula. And we know we have been on the receiving line of that debate for far too long. Furthermore, fearing that I may not have another opportunity to address you as a board prior to the roll out of school grades, I must warn you of two important statutory caveats that, in my opinion, will impact school grades immensely. One has to do with learning gains - of course, once they are available and factored in. In the past, students who scored a Level 3, 4, or 5 on the FCAT two consecutive years in a row earned credit for learning gains. Statutory language no longer permits that. Now think about it….a third grader earns a 3 – proficient – in grade 3 standards, a year later, he/she earns a 3 again – in grade 4 standards. Did that student not demonstrate a year’s worth of growth? Better said, did that student not GAIN learning? Well, current statute says no. Secondly, current state law states that the FLDOE may adjust the percentage threshold needed to set school grades– but only upwards. How can we commit to minimum thresholds for school grades this year, without being able to factor in student learning gains which in most schools will constitute 50 percent of the points earned? How will the FLDOE ensure that the scale being set will not result in unreasonable grade distributions once the learning gains are added to the formula in 15-16? I urge this wise and fair Board to consider pressing the pause button on the issuance of school grades until all of the Alpine/EdCount recommendations have been addressed and until we all have a level of confidence in the FSA, the manner in which it is administered, its resulting scores, and the cut scores determined for proficiency. I will remind you that for a school year that will be half way over and three months prior to students sitting for the 2016 FSA– moving forward with school grades is not in line with prudence or legitimate accountability. Thank you for your time and your service to the children of our state and to those who teach them.
# # # 15-DGD/052
|
