Colorado, PARCC Tests, & ACT Aspire

Another recent piece for the Denver Post:

Colorado Should Replace PARCC Test with ACT Aspire

Replace PARCC with ACT Aspire

In Colorado’s rush to judgment in an attempt to Race-to-the-Top, it’s time to put PARCC testing in park.

Following seven other states who adopted Common Core standards, Colorado should immediately withdraw from the PARCC consortium until the state has a chance to publicly review, evaluate, and critique Common Core standards and PARCC. As an alternative, Colorado could put a moratorium on standardized testing, or it could continue with its own test, the CSAP/TCAP. If a test is deemed necessary, and TCAP is considered insufficient, there is a better option.  In place of PARCC testing, Colorado should instead contract with ACT whose new Aspire program is aligned with state standards, as well as college readiness measures, and is available for grades 3 through 11.

One of the primary problems with the PARCC test is the mystery and ambiguity of both the organization and its assessments. PARCC, which stands for the Partnership to Assess Readiness for College and Career, is an un-proven standardized test created by a private consortium that has provided very little information or transparency on what their tests will look like. On the other hand, ACT is a familiar, trusted, and time-honored testing service that has released as many sample items in the past six months as PARCC has released in more than two years. ACT is a known entity with a proven track record, and ACT’s tests actually mean something to parents, students, and, perhaps most importantly, colleges.

From a purely financial standpoint, choosing ACT or even maintaining TCAP is preferable to spending Colorado’s tax money on tests created by a nebulous unproven organization. Currently, PARCC tests are estimated to cost roughly $30 per student, whereas ACT will do it for $20.  And with PARCC, states still don’t really know what they’re paying for. The problem with PARCC is most evident in the scant materials it has released to the public. Having watched numerous presentations on Common Core and PARCC, I’ve seen the same tired and limited sample questions again and again. It’s simply not enough information. And while people are fairly confident about what established tests like ACT tell us, no one knows if PARCC questions or scores mean anything at all. While proponents argue that PARCC offers a more rigorous test of critical thinking and application of knowledge, there is no comparison by which to draw that conclusion.

An important consideration in choosing a testing program is to consider what colleges expect. ACT is a classic benchmark for college readiness. In fact, ACT scores are one of the primary measures Colorado uses to rate schools on college preparation. And colleges actually trust and care what ACT results reveal. No college intends to use PARCC scores for college admission – and our students must still take the state-mandated ACT.  ACT’s Aspire program is specifically scaffolded to prepare students for the ACT, even as the ACT evolves to meet changing needs and expectations of colleges and careers. Regardless, the ACT and its program matter to colleges in a way that PARCC doesn’t.

The organization of Colorado moms, who initiated a bill calling for a timeout on Common Core and PARCC testing, have reasonably questioned the validity of PARCC. For, in a country where roughly 60% of adults had little-to-no understanding of Common Core and PARCC as late as last September, it seems foolish to proceed with implementation before the involved parties fully understand it. Though Senator Michael Johnston has argued that people simply don’t understand the values and benefits of the test, he fails to concede that very misunderstanding necessitates a “time out.” And, as the Denver Post recently reported, the vote by the Colorado State Board of Education to adopt Common Core and contract with PARCC was made by a slim 4-3 margin. That represents a disconcerting “consensus” and demands further discussion and review.

While Common Core proponents confidently claim 45 states have “adopted” the standards, they don’t acknowledge that as many as seventeen have serious misgivings, including discussions of withdrawal. If that’s the case, and states are bailing out of the PARCC test, then Colorado should certainly not accept the role of guinea pig for an unpiloted test with serious transparency issues. While the state claims to be piloting the tests this year for implementation next year, that schedule is simply irresponsible. After a pilot year, the people of Colorado need time to review the tests, the results, and the conclusions drawn from the data.

Opposition to PARCC testing is not about opposing high standards. Many teachers, parents, and students accept the new Colorado Academic Standards and Common Core. The standards are not the primary concern. The problem is a high stakes test by an entity that has no track record, no transparency, and no connection to Colorado. Douglas County School District, which opted out of Common Core, recently passed a resolution opposing state and federal testing. It also requests the right to opt out of mandated testing without penalty. DCSD’s motivation is grounded in opposition to tests that do not meet their needs, arguing PARCC is not an “authentic assessment.” Numerous states agree. Kentucky – the first state to fully implement Common Core – has withdrawn from PARCC, following Massachusetts, Florida, Oklahoma, Utah, Alaska, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Alabama, who are all pursuing alternative tests.

The Colorado State Board of Education will soon need to make a decision about renewing the contract with PARCC. Until we know more about what the full test looks like and what the results actually mean, Colorado should not renew PARCC. 

The State Board of Education will meet on Wednesday to discuss renewing with PARCC.

(Don't) Follow Your Passion

Here is my most recent piece of commentary for the Denver Post:

(Don’t) Follow Your Passion

“Follow your passion? That may be the worst advice I ever got.”

This insight from Mike Rowe of the Discovery Channel’s Dirty Jobs runs counter to every bit of advice teenagers receive from parents, teachers, and counselors.  Yet, it may be the best and certainly most honest guidance they hear. Now that high school seniors have filed their college apps and patiently wait to see which school will make their dreams come true, and high school juniors plan for the ACT and choose classes for senior year, it may be time to reflect on the belief that our jobs should make us happy and that college majors and career decisions should be based on ambiguous and nuanced ideas like passion.

Recently, Mike Rowe has been focused on promoting the value of skilled labor in a world that no longer appreciates it. Currently, there are roughly 3-4 million unfilled jobs in skilled labor, yet students are racking up a trillion dollars of debt for degrees they may not need. And, while there is certainly value in a liberal arts education, many students “follow their passion” to degrees which provide few of the skills they need for a career. Even in colleges the focus on “passion” has shifted. AP reporter Beth Harpaz explains, “While some top-tier schools can still attract students by promising self-discovery and intellectual pursuits, many colleges have changed their emphasis in the years since the recession hit. Instead of "Follow your passion," the mantra has become more like, "We'll help you get a job."

 

Writers and researchers like Daniel Coyle and Cal Newport agree with Rowe’s suspicion about following passion. In his book The Talent Code, Coyle recommends that students work on developing skills and talents rather than pursuing ideas like passion and personal happiness. In the real world, most people aren’t passionate about work or filled with zeal during the daily-ness of their jobs. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Additionally, following passion is a challenge for young people, many whom don’t have a passion, or at least not one easily linked to a career.  Cal Newport concurs in his book So Good They Can’t Ignore You, titled after a quote by actor Steve Martin.  A prominent entertainer and pop culture icon, Martin has written numerous best-selling books, an award winning play, and is considered one of the premier art collectors in American society.  He is also a renowned musician whose prowess with the banjo rivals the best in the business.  Steve Martin is just so good at what he does.  So, when Steve Martin was asked for the secret to success, he responded, “Be so good they can’t ignore you.” That advice – focused on developing skills and talents – is far better advice than pursuing “passion.” 

Incidentally, Newport’s book is subtitled, “Why Skills Trump Passion in the Quest for Work We Love.” As a computer science professor at Georgetown, Cal Newport advises young people to work on simply being good at what they do. And rather than compare themselves to others, they should seek instead to understand themselves and develop individual strengths.  For those wondering what they want to do with their lives, he offers this advice: “Passion is not something you follow. It’s something that will follow you as you put in the hard work to become valuable in the world.”  If people continue to grow and learn and develop talents, they will find their passion and success.

Robin Williams in the movie Dead Poets Society urged students to “Make your lives extraordinary.” And many are doing exactly that. However, beyond that maybe we should advise students to “Make yourself indispensable.” The best way to secure a career is to have talents the world requires. In the first episode of the HBO show Girls, Hannah is fired from her unpaid internship, only to learn her replacement is actually being paid for the job. When she adamantly confronts her boss, he says, “Well, she knows PhotoShop.”  While Hannah may tell herself, “I can learn PhotoShop,” the reality is she didn’t.  Thus, the point is to advise kids to be the kind of person who learns Photo-Shop. Hannah is a classic example of a person waiting for passion to lead her to happiness – and it never happens. Successful people by contrast are the ones who work hard and do what needs to be done to get want they want and need.

Of course, students don’t only go to college to acquire job skills, and society suffers from such a utilitarian approach. As Robin Williams’ character Mr. Keating teaches the young men, “medicine, law, business, engineering – these are all noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love – these are what we stay alive for.” And, woe to the society that promotes only skill-oriented education at the expense of the arts and humanities. That said, the arts and poetry – those things that often fuel our passion – don’t have to be the source of employment. For as contemporary sage Robert Fulghum has said, “The hardest thing for most people to figure out is that it’s really rare to do what you love and get paid for it. It’s almost better not to because you end up hating the thing you’re doing because you have to do it. A lot of people would be artists if they didn’t also have to make a living.”

As a teacher, I followed my passion. And I am fulfilled emotionally by the very thing that pays my bills. A friend of mine majored in finance because she is really good at math, but she is not passionate or fulfilled by her job. In fact, it can be quite annoying and rather mundane. However, it affords her a great life with her family, which is truly her passion. Another friend makes a great living managing operating systems for a multinational firm. He is not a computer geek by any stretch, but when we were in college, computing was simply a skill he acquired, and he followed it to success in the tech revolution. So, one us followed his passion, another followed her skills, and the third just followed the market. That’s the full story that should be told in advising students on college and career choices.

Michael P. Mazenko works at Cherry Creek High School and blogs at a-teachers-view.blogspot.com. Email him at mmazenko@gmail.com

Kentucky the Latest State to Withdraw from PARCC Common Core Testing

Is PARCC a political and educational house of cards that's destined to crumble?

That may be the case for the most controversial education issue of the last two decades as the state of Kentucky - the first state to embrace and implement CommonCore - has officially voted to withdraw from the PARCC testing consortium. Like numerous other states (Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Utah, Kansas, Utah, Alaska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts), leaders in Kentucky are seeking alternative options for testing the newly adopted CommonCore standards, as they acknowledge considerable unease about the testing process. This problem with PARCC has much to do with the simply lack of transparency about the actual tests, and concern about the tests' ability to reveal evidence of their students' achievement. At this point, Kentucky plans to take bids from testing agencies - including PARCC - for the opportunity to administer state tests, and being a PARCC member could represent a conflict of interest. One of the potential bidders for Kentucky's business (and it's a business worth potentially billions in taxpayer funds) will certainly be ACT which has established a testing system to challenge PARCC and the SmartBalanced consortium. ACT's program, called ACT Aspire, is a comprehensive testing service for grades three through eleven. For an excellent comparison of PARCC vs ACT Aspire, consider this analysis from Dr. Steve Cordogan of Township High School 214 in Illinois.

NCAA Is Not a Dictatorship, Despite Players' Union

Sometimes, it's your language choices that end the argument.

Such is the case with the most recent news in the argument that the NCAA should "pay student athletes" because it is profiting from their hard work - at least that's true for football and basketball players. (Clearly, the lacrosse players and swimmers should continue to exist in servitude because they don't pull in huge TV revenue.) In the latest salvo over oppressed student athletes, the Northwestern football team aligned itself with labor leaders in Chicago in calling for a union to represent these "workers." While the proposed union was not simply about "pay-for-play," student-athlete representative - and Northwestern QB - Kain Colter basically lost the argument when he called the NCAA "a dictatorship."

Kain, this metaphor fails on a dramatic scale, and it is an insult to all people who are currently suffering under true oppression. Student athletes - especially football and basketball players at major universities - are living a life of luxury compared to millions of people living under the brutal control of despots and dictators. People who are basically compensated with an opportunity for an expensive education - potentially worth a quarter of a million dollars - while being academically supported beyond the wildest dreams of the average student have no idea what oppression is. And, it is wildly inappropriate to imply so. It is as patently absurd as Prince writing "Slave" on his cheek over a record contract with Warner Bros. that paid him tens of millions of dollars.

Certainly, NCAA rules regarding student-athlete compensation must be altered dramatically. Student athletes are greatly inhibited from earning spending money by the demands on their time. They should be able to get jobs, or perhaps earn a stipend in some way that enables them to "eat when dorms aren't open" or be able to afford the basic amenities and fun of college. However, for most star players, like Colter, who are on full ride scholarships and come from middle class families, the issue of "spending money" shouldn't be an issue when the family has been excused from room, board, and tuition.  Beyond that, student-athletes are not employees and shouldn't be treated as such.

Perhaps, it is time to divest college football and basketball from the colleges themselves. It certainly is time to divest the NCAA from its tax exempt status based on an "educational mission."

Allusions & the Power of Prior Knowledge

Effective readers - and thinkers - use existing knowledge to make sense of new information. This basic reading strategy, which was first introduced to me in Cris Tovani's amazing I Read It But I Don't Get It, is integral to successful learning, even though it comes easier for some than others. Explaining the power of the technique and developing an understanding of how people learn can be as important as the actual content being taught. That is the power of allusion and understanding how writers draw from existing knowledge and familiar stories to create new stories. Jessica Lahey - teacher, writer, blogger - explains the value of allusion in a great piece for The Atlantic this month entitled, "To Read Dickens It Helps to Know French History and the Bible." Jessica speaks specifically of the idea of cultural literacy and understanding how history and the Judeo-Christian ethic are a necessary foundation to making sense of classic literature, notably the early pages of books like A Tale of Two Cities. I concur on the value of such knowledge, for I have the same discussions with my students when we read the first four pages of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird together. Accessing the allusions is key to appreciating the novel on its deepest level. Though these works can be understood and accessed on a more superficial level, that's really like watching a movie of the action - as in the Harry Potter films - as opposed to truly delving in to the thematic magic of the written works. Allusion matters - as does gaining general knowledge - and it is all part of the job of educators (and theme of my blog and class) "Creating People on Whom Nothing is Lost."

Teachers and Facebook

Social media is many things - a connector and a distraction, a tool and a weapon, a benefit and a curse, an insignificant detail and an ingrained component of the social fabric. Regardless of our perception of it and our criticism or defense of it, social media is here to stay. Facebook is the most prominent in our lives currently, and it's the one most likely to stir up trouble. Too many stories of embarrassment, conflicts, and even tragedies cloud the reputation of Facebook, yet billions of users still can't get enough. Teachers are often warned about the inherent dangers of being on Facebook, and it's often a shame that teachers are held to much higher or more restrictive policies regarding personal use. However, the unique situation of interacting daily with young people with their parents' inherent or necessary blind trust leads to a need for teachers to be more judicious in their use of social media. In that regard, it is pretty clear and important advice that teachers should not post any negative or critical comments about their students - or any students at their school - on Facebook. Many use the FB to rant about work - teachers simply should not. It does not matter if names are not used. Posting negative comments about "anonymous" students at a teacher's current workplace is just too close for comfort. They are, after all, children who deserve privacy and care and concern. And that care is trusted to teachers. So, don't rant about students on Facebook. Just .... don't.

Girl Teaches Self to Dance in a Year - And Creates a 100-day Challenge

Persistence. Grit. Determination. Practice.

These are the qualities that are the key to success. Malcolm Gladwell made a big deal about the 10,000 hours of practice necessary to achieve mastery for many skills/talents. And much has been written about how to promote and cultivate these characteristics, especially in children. Of course, it's rare that we can actually see, or have evidence, of the transformation that comes from such consistent practice. That's why the story of the girl who taught herself to dance in one year is so interesting.

Karen X. Cheng's simple challenge to herself - learn to dance in a year - became an inspirational story fueled by a viral video on YouTube. That experiment, viewed by millions, has become something much larger - a challenge to everyone to make changes in their lives by committing 100 days to practice.  Karen's Give It 100 encourages people to practice something - "anything" - for one hundred days and record videos of each day. The whole point is to simply try in a completely shame-free and confident way. So far, thousands have accepted the challenge. And there's no doubt this sort of chain reaction can change lives. For, as Karen notes.

This isn't a story about dancing, though. It's about having a dream and not knowing how to get there — but starting anyway. Maybe you're a musician dreaming of writing an original song. You're an entrepreneur dying to start your first venture. You're an athlete but you just haven't left the chair yet.

When you watch someone perform, you're seeing them at the top of their game. When they score the winning point or sell their company for millions — you're seeing them in their moment of glory. What you don't see is the thousands of hours of preparation. You don't see the self doubt, the lost sleep, the lonely nights spent working. You don't see the moment they started. The moment they were just like you, wondering how they could ever be good.

So, what are you going to do?

What Good Would You Do with $25,000

20th Century Fox studios contacted filmmaker Casey Neistat with an offer to make a movie trailer for the new Ben Stiller film, Secret Life of Walter Mitty.  The studio wanted to launch an ad campaign around the idea of "living your dreams" to inspire people to do something they've never done. Neistat was offered the opportunity to make a video trailer for the movie and this campaign. Instead, Casey responded with a counter offer - they give him the money and he spends the entire budget "helping people in need."  Here's the result:

Sopranos Celebrates Fifteen Years

Could it really be fifteen years ago that we first saw Tony Soprano and Christopher Moltisanti kicking the crap out of a guy with unspeakable violence in that opening episode of HBO's groundbreaking - and rule changing - television drama, The Sopranos.  Alas, it was fifteen years ago this week that David Chase's crime family drama entered our TV-watching consciousness and forever changed the way we think and watch TV. Seriously, would there be a Walter White transforming from a cancer-sufferer and science teacher into meth cook and sinister crime kingpin if we didn't first develop a sympathetic and fascinated ear for the sounds and images of classic anti-hero Tony Soprano bearing his tortured soul to his psychiatrist, Dr. Melfi? Probably not. Or not this soon anyway.

Not only did David Chase change the genre by pushing the limits, but in working with HBO, he changed the rules and structure for how primetime shows are produced, packaged, and delivered.  The shorter seasonal format, where there were far fewer than the standard 22-27 episodes on network television, and the season began whenever the network was ready. This greater freedom allowed for greater creative control of the writers and an overall better production. In fact, the networks have struggled to catch up to the quality of dramas being produced by cable. And the show catapulted into our consciousness the incredible talent of one James Gandolfini, an incredible character actor who's gone too soon.

Recently, as the show's anniversary approached, there was time for the cast to reflect on the greatness of the show. Like many, I'm sure they had long considered the possibility for a Sopranos movie to give us another taste of that world that had so captivated us. But like the abrupt ending of the show, the death of James Gandolfini put an end to that hope. Thus, fans are left to appreciate the body of work that was left, and to reflect on a truly iconic piece of American culture.

Critics Harshly Slam David Brooks' Marijuana Column - But He's Not Entirely Wrong

Since posting his response to the "legalization" of recreational and commercial marijuana in Colorado (and coming soon in Washington) New York Times columnist David Brooks has been widely criticized - even chastised - by other commentators from Slate to more Slate to The Nation to Esquire. However, despite the critics' desire to portray his comments as aloof and misguided, Brooks' basic premise is not wrong, and his criticism of legalized cannabis is being distorted.

Brooks' basic argument - smoking weed is not generally a good thing and shouldn't be promoted or condoned - is a fairly accurate and innocuous statement, and one that is being greatly misinterpreted. For example, people have criticized Brooks for wanting to perpetuate the arrest and incarceration of millions for an arguably minor criminal offense, one that disproportionately affects minorities and the poor. Yet, David Brooks has not endorsed such problematic legal penalties and, in fact, has been on record as opposing such problems in our criminal justice system. Opposing legalization isn't the same as supporting the current legal ramifications for it. And neither Brooks, nor Ruth Marcus, argued for continued criminalization or harsh legal penalties for possession, use, or sales. Certainly, decriminalization of cannabis possession was a necessary change, and such an approach has functioned pretty effectively elsewhere in the world.

Additionally, comparisons between alcohol and marijuana are obtuse and knee-jerk reactions that at best obfuscate the issue and are inherently logically flawed. Arguing that one drug should be legal because another is already legal does not make a lot of sense. Simply put, having one potentially dangerous substance legal does not mean we should have two. If that were the case, proponents should be arguing for legalization of all illicit substances - and no one is doing that. And the comparison is not apt because the substances are not similarly used. Alcohol is not only an established industry and indelible part of the societal fabric, but it can be (and is) enjoyed without the requisite purpose of all other illicit drugs, which is to "get messed up." Certainly, the use and abuse of alcohol can have catastrophic consequences and shouldn't be praised or elevated either. America truly does have a drinking and substance abuse problem. And that is the point made by Brooks and Marcus - substance abuse is a problem.

Ultimately, I don't strongly oppose what Colorado and Washington and Uruguay have done, and I think it will be folded into the fabric of society pretty smoothly in the next decade or so. But there will be a lot of collateral damage that should not be celebrated. In general, doing drugs is simply not a good thing. That was the only point Brooks was making. And his critics have their panties in a bunch simply because they think he's an arrogant, elitist snob. Which is probably more or less true. But it doesn't make him wrong. Critics like to take shots at Brooks' philosophy, and he often makes himself an easy target for criticism as a sort of nerdy, wonkish, elitist. But the attacks on Brooks' marijuana column are off-base.

Science Teacher Challenges Super-Size Me - Loses Weight at McDs

Morgan Spurlock helped set the standard for the new age of documentary filmmaking in the late 1990s when he "nearly killed himself" with a diet based solely on McDonalds' food while documenting the entire experiment in the film Super-Size Me.  While many critics - and the food industry itself - challenged Spurlock's methods and conclusions, science teacher John Cisna took it one step further.



Now, the discussion must shift a bit to the choices we make at the food counter and supermarket.

Mike Rowe - Fewer College Degrees, More Employed Skilled Workers

According to labor statistics, there are currently as many as 3-4 million unfilled jobs in the United States, many of which pay upper middle class salaries … and they don't require a bachelor's degree. In fact, as few as 12% of them require four years of college (and the associated tens of thousands of dollars in debt). Yet, parents and counselors and teachers and principals are still sending millions of students on to four-year colleges with the belief that those degrees are necessary for them to get a job … or get a "good job."  As I've noted many times before:

Mike Rowe disagrees.

Mike Rowe, who gained fame on the Discovery Channel as the host of Dirty Jobs and Deadliest Catch, has spent the past few years developing a PR campaign for "Work." That is, he is promoting skilled labor as the necessary emphasis for our education system. Rowe makes the rounds to as many talk shows and forums as he possibly can, talking about the need for skilled labors. He has many partners in this task, such as Caterpillar who has an invested interested in skilled laborers. And Mike would like to connect young people in search of a future with companies like Caterpillar, where heavy equipment repair mechanics can make a $100,000 a year. So, Mike is promoting many great "schools you've never heard of" like Midwestern Technical Institute, where students can learn about and learn the trades that are currently lacking in the labor market.











So, it's time to stop all the nonsense about how everyone needs to go to college, and start promoting the type of learning that will lead people to careers. And, if you have never seen Mike's TED Talk about his PR Campaign for work, you have to see this. It's one of the smartest segments I've ever heard.