Was HB7069 Just Another VAM Scam?

When parents complain about over-testing, local school board members often advise them to write to their legislators. When similar concerns are brought to the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE), parents are told “these are local decisions.” Which is it?

In April 2015, following a year where parents had loudly expressed their displeasure with the explosion of testing in public schools and the new Florida State Assessment (FSA) had a disastrous roll out, HB 7069, “An act relating to education accountability” was signed into law and immediately went into effect.

HB 7069 promised to (among other things):

  • reduce “state and local assessment requirements, including those commonly associated with progress monitoring.”
  • “eliminate prescriptive remediation and progress monitoring requirements for low-performing students and provide for targeted instructional support in reading in K-3 students.”
  • grant “districts greater flexibility in measuring student performance in courses not associated with statewide, standardized assessments and in evaluating instructional personnel and school administrators”

With such lofty aspirations, why haven’t we seen a reduction in progress monitoring, remediation and testing, in general, in the classrooms?

Reduction of Progress Monitoring:

Much of the overall testing in the classroom comes in the form of “progress monitoring”: assessments designed to quantify a child’s progress, often used to predict performance on upcoming state testing. I like to call these “the test that tests whether you’re ready to take the test.” Prior to HB7069, progress monitoring was required to assess reading skills of all K-3 students. Additionally, after third grade, progress monitoring was required for any student scoring a level 1 or 2 on a state assessment. In many districts, ALL students were progress monitored, regardless of FCAT/FSA score AND K-3 students were often progress monitored in Math in addition to the required progress monitoring in reading.

The use of standardized testing in K-3 students is problematic to begin with, ignoring developmental differences amongst our youngest learners and focusing the classroom on structured academic learning rather than more effective and developmentally appropriate play based learning. In general, standardized tests are considered invalid and unreliable for children under 8 (read more here, here and here).

Section 2 of HB7069 (Section 1002.20, F.S.) deleted the requirement that each elementary school regularly assess the reading ability of each K-3 student. This was good news and could have eliminated almost ALL of the standardized testing in K-3. Districts were still required to monitor students who were not meeting the performance requirements, but surely qualified teachers could have identified those children in need of intervention.

Sadly, our “littles” continue to be tested and retested in ways that are not developmentally appropriate and, more than likely, are harmful. Where are the districts that took the opportunity HB7069 offered and eliminated standardized progress monitoring in their K-3 classrooms? My own county (Monroe) continues to progress monitor all K-3 students in Reading and Math, using computer based standardized testing. (read more about the inappropriateness and unreliability of computer based testing in small children here).

Instead of requiring progress monitoring for all students (section 1008.25.20, F.S), districts were given three options for monitoring students who were “not meeting the school district or state requirements for satisfactory performance” or did not score a level 3 on a state standardized assessment. Any such student must be covered by one of the following plans:

  • A federally required student plan such as an individual education plan (IEP);
  • A schoolwide system of progress monitoring for all students, except a student who scores Level 4 or above in the specific subject area statewide assessment may be exempted from participation by the principal; or
  • An individual progress monitoring plan.

Districts could have chosen to individualize the progress monitoring plan, dramatically decreasing the amount of standardized testing for many students. Sadly, many (if not all) districts have chosen plan “B”: monitor ALL students in Math and Reading, whether they need it, or not.

Eliminate Prescriptive Remediation / Intensive Reading:

Prior to HB 7069, the state required that any student scoring a 1 or 2 on state assessments must be enrolled in remedial courses.  This led to the uncomfortable situation of students being enrolled in both Advanced Placement English Literature and Intensive Reading, at the same time.  The mandated remedial courses, also, meant many struggling students lost their electives to remediation.

Sections 3 and 4 of HB 7069 (Section 1003.4156, F.S. and 1003.4282, F.S.) eliminated the requirement for middle and high school students scoring Level 1 or 2 on state testing to automatically be enrolled in a remedial course. The decision to provide remedial courses is now supposed to be a local decision.

Section 9 of HB 7069 (section 1008.25, F.S.) discussed the use of “support” as opposed to remediation: “each student who does not achieve a Level 3 (satisfactory) or above on a statewide, standardized assessment must be evaluated to determine the nature of the student’s difficulty, the areas of academic need, and strategies for providing academic support to improve the student’s performance.”

So, mandatory remediation is no longer required and placement in remedial courses is now a district decision. Still, in many districts, students continue to be placed in remedial courses primarily, and sometimes entirely, based on test scores. My county, chose to use progress monitoring data to identify students in need of remediation, even, in some cases, where the teacher did not, or would not, recommend that child for such interventions. Why not return these decisions to the classroom teacher, who would surely be better at determining “the nature of the student’s difficulty, the areas of academic need, and strategies for providing academic support to improve the student’s performance” than a test score?

Flexibility in District created final exams:

Perhaps, the biggest outcry over testing during the 2014-15 school year was the unfunded state mandate that required districts to create common final exams for all grades and all subjects, including Kindergarten art class and 1st grade PE, with test results to be used, in part, to evaluate teachers. The requirement for district finals in all grades and all subjects was a requirement of SB736. Called the “Student Success Act,” SB736 also mandated the use of test scores in teacher evaluations (more about VAM below) and was passed in 2011, as a prerequisite to obtaining Race To The Top funding.     SB736 was the first bill Governor Scott signed after taking office.

Section 7 of HB 7069  (Section 1008.22 F.S.) eliminated SB 736’s requirement for “all grades, all subject” district created final exams. This should have allowed districts to return to teacher created final exams in most situations. Sadly, many districts are continuing to use and develop new district final exams in non-state tested subjects. District created midterms are not uncommon and some districts have created common 9 week assessments.

Why, when given the opportunity, didn’t districts choose to move towards other methods of measuring student performance? The initial mandate allowed for performance or portfolio assessments, but districts still seem to be moving toward multiple choice, common midterms and finals for many of their middle and high school courses. Why not use teacher created exams, performance assessments or portfolios? When teachers create the assessment, children are tested on what has been taught. When districts create the assessment, teachers must teach what will be tested and the results become as much of an assessment of the teacher as the student.

Why Is there Still So Much Testing?

HB7069 appears to have returned the responsibility of progress monitoring, remediation and final exams to the districts. School Boards were given the opportunity to dramatically decrease the amount of testing in their districts. They could choose to eliminate standardized testing in K-3. They could choose to individualize progress monitoring for their struggling students and eliminate it for the rest. They could choose individual teacher created final exams.

Or could they?

Screen Shot 2016-06-15 at 7.48.04 AM

Near the end of their FOIL presentation on HB 7069, the FLDOE described their “opportunity”: “To reclaim the powerful potential of VAM to support leaders in making data-driven decisions that support student learning and educator growth.” VAM (or Value Added Model) is a formula designed to evaluate teachers based on student test scores. Rarely are teacher created assessments or decisions included in “data-driven decisions.”

The use of VAM in teacher evaluations is one of education reformer’s favorite ideas, despite the fact that the method has been discredited by multiple studies (here, here, and here) and, frankly, defies common sense. Steven Klees, professor University of Maryland, wrote:

“The bottom line is that regardless of technical sophistication, the use of VAM is never [and, perhaps never will be] ‘accurate, reliable, and valid’ and will never yield ‘rigorously supported inferences” as expected and desired.”

In this 3 minute video, Stanford Professor Emeritus, Edward Haertel, further explains the flaws of using Value-Added Models for teacher assessment.

Teachers harmed by their VAM scores are beginning to sue. In May, a judge in New York found in favor of fourth-grade teacher Sheri G. Lederman, calling the state’s use of VAM in her evaluation “arbitrary” and “capricious.” Similar cases are popping up across the country.

Why continue to use such a controversial and discredited method of teacher evaluation? Who benefits? The answer may be as simple as following the money.

The design and implementation of VAM in Florida Public schools was contracted to American Institutes for Research or AIR (the same company that later won the bid to create the new FSA). The initial contract of almost $4M and millions more for annual “maintenance”  fees per this long term contract.

I was, personally, surprised to discover that the “VAM formula” had annual maintenance fees. Floridians are spending massive amounts of tax payer money, annually, on a flawed formula that has essentially been discredited and has been declared arbitrary and capricious in a court of law. The FLDOE should expect to pay even more tax dollars defending against the VAM lawsuits that are sure to come. Paying vendors excessive amounts tax dollars on unproven, or disproven, education policies in the name of “Accountability”? Sounds like education “reform” at work…

The AIR representative for the coordination of VAM contract, which led to the development of Florida’s Value Added Model, was Christy Hovanetz, who served as Contract Manager. Prior to working for AIR, Ms. Hovanetz served as the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of the FLDOE. Ms. Hovanetz now works as a Senior Policy Fellow at Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE). Not surprisingly, the FEE’s Florida affiliate, Foundation for Florida’s Future (FFF) applauded the initial implementation of VAM, stating “This model will transform Florida’s historic law into a powerful tool to raise the quality of public education and establish the Sunshine State as a national model for teacher quality.”

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Jeb Bush and his Foundations have had unprecedented influence on Florida education policy, apparently without regards to costs. The state’s continued allegiance to VAM is a perfect example of that influence. One often wonders why Florida would continue to promote questionable policies and fund flawed practices, essentially ignoring the research data to the contrary and often defying even common sense (I’m looking at you, and your “Best and Brightest” bill, Erik Fresen). You don’t have to look too far to understand that the policy makers have been more interested in keeping Jeb, and perhaps his investor friends, happy than doing what was right for the public school children in Florida. Senator Gaetz said as much to Politico reporter, Jessica Bakeman:

Reflecting on the bill’s fate during the session that ended in March, Gaetz, a term-limited Niceville Republican, said House Republicans resisted changes because of their loyalty to Bush. But he argued they were wrong to assume Bush would oppose his plan.

  To read the full article, click here.

Who benefits from VAM? Test developers, like AIR, (and their investors) who profit from the formula’s use as well as the tests needed to provide the data, and education reformers, like former Gov. Bush, who can use the data to further the narrative that public schools are failing and teachers are to blame. With Gov. Bush back in charge of the FEE, parents will have an even more difficult time being heard.

So, herein lies the problem: If the purpose of progress monitoring, remediation and common finals is to collect data for VAM and other data-driven decisions, and the FLDOE wanted to use this opportunity to “reclaim” VAM’s potential, then HB7069 was a sham. Legislators, bombarded with concerns about over testing, were convinced to vote for a bill that merely shifted the blame for over testing from the state to the districts and maintained the data collection requirements needed to sustain the use of VAM. HB7069 made it possible for Tallahassee to say “we have given control back to the districts” while districts understand the truth behind that illusion.  State mandates continue to force districts to comply with data-driven accountability mandates, leaving little room for true local control. Under constant threats of decreased funding, districts focus all their efforts on maintaining compliance.

To be fair, HB7069 did eliminate the 11th grade FSA ELA, before it was ever administered, and the mandatory administration of the PERT assessment, previously given in 11th grade. It also placed a limit on state and district testing at 5%, or a ridiculously high 45 hours per year (yet no system was set up to monitor that and few, if any, districts had to reduce testing to get in under the bar). The bill also reduced the use of test scores in teacher’s evaluation from 50% to 33%. These components may be admirable, but they do little to lessen the real impact of high stakes testing on our kids.

In the end, parents complained about excessive testing and Tallahassee responded by shifting the blame to the districts; which is ironic when the bill was titled “An act relating to education accountability.” Who is accountable for the over-testing problems in Florida’s public schools? If you ask Tallahassee, who created the policies, the answer appears to be “not me.”

Parents are tired of laws that promise change but don’t deliver. Ignoring research data and continuing to pay millions for failed programs like VAM is not true accountability. Blaming others for the consequences of your own policies, by passing sham laws like HB7069, makes a mockery of the word “accountability.” Enough is enough. We are AGAIN asking for a full review of the accountability system in Florida.

And this time we suggest listening to someone besides just Jeb!

COMPETENCY BASED EDUCATION: Destroying Public Schools One Profitable Data Point at a Time

5876304_xxl

This is the planned statement I presented to the Monroe County School Board, my local district board, on Tuesday, January 26, 2015. In it, I called the alarm regarding Competency Based Education (CBE), data mining and the planned destruction of public school as we know it. Please read it, study the attached links and additional reading, and share the information.  We hope it will inspire parents and educators to speak out against efforts to destroy public schools while profiting off our children.

We believe Florida’s accountabaloney system is deeply entangled in this move to CBE.  Schools and teachers must be labeled as failing, otherwise there is no political will to completely overhaul them. Years of underfunding public schools has hastened their demise.  Voucher programs highlight the concocted need for students to flee failing schools while nothing is done towards funding needed public school improvements. State mandated remediation programs have brought CBE and data mining into our classrooms.

It must be stopped.

Mr. Chairman, Board Members, Mr. Superintendent,

Almost 2 years ago, I first spoke to this board about concerns regarding standardized testing. At that time I quoted State Representative Keith Perry who, during a House Education committee meeting had described the current state of education as a period of “Creative Destruction” in which only by destroying our schools will we emerge in the future with something better. He called this “the American Way.”  At last fall’s Excellence in Education Summit, Miami Representative Erik Fresen publicly repeated the need to completely destroy public schools (at 54:45).

“Policy is what matters… The most courageous policy of all, which is: take the entire system that exists right now and disrupt it completely. That will require policy changes.”

Today, I am here to, once again, sound the alarm and to inform you that the complete destruction of our public schools is closer than you think. It goes by the name of Competency Based Education and it has already infiltrated Monroe County Public Schools.  Multiple bills are currently being pushed through the Florida legislature this session allowing the unbridled expansion of the policies Mr. Fresen needs to “take down the entire system.”

I will try to outline what is happening:

In this modern computer era, digital personal data is gold, currently being traded like currency. You know when you search for something on Amazon and Google and then you start seeing ads related to that search in your feed? That is the result of data mining.

In a video I have linked, the CEO of Knewton explains how Education is today’s most data mined industry. He explains “the name of the game is data per user.” From Amazon or Netflix they get 1 data point per user per day. Google and Facebook 10 data points per user per day. In education, Knewton gets 5-10 million actionable data points per student per day! Apparently, every sentence of every passage in digital content has a data tag and they can tell how interested a child is in a certain topic, how difficult it was, etc., etc. Ten million data points a day! This data grab is a gold mine to companies that want to market and design products. For venture capitalists, Education is the new hot commodity.

This is probably why last year’s FSA had a reading passage straight out of American Girl… Not only is this, clearly, product placement advertising on our state mandated test, which should be questioned, but, by using a data tagged American Girl passage, data can be collected to see just what parts of the story is most interesting to boys and girls and marketing strategies can be developed.

This is also why, though paper and pencil tests would dramatically reduce testing time, there is an insistence on computer based testing. On a computer based test, more data than just marked answers can and is being collected and shared.

This also explains why state approved remedial reading and math programs have essentially all been computer based.  State tests can be created, and cut scores manipulated, in order to fail large numbers of students and state law can mandate each failing student participate in a digital remediation program, ensuring a steady stream of data points to third party participants.

Keep in mind that student test scores are digitally linked to personal identification data, including student address, IEP, free lunch status, health records, and discipline records and god knows what else. What if your “permanent record” went viral? Last November, a U.S. Congressional committee criticized the USDOE, exposing how vulnerable its information systems are to security threats. I encourage you to watch the proceeding. Currently, federal student data is NOT secure.

Monroe County already participates in the sharing of student data through associations with Certi-port, Achieve 3000, iReady, iStation, and more. These are vendors that are known to collect and distribute student data. Can they guarantee our student’s privacy is protected? Who are they sharing the data with? Do we know? We do not.

Last week, the Senate Education Committee voted favorably on SB1714. This bill allows for Competency Based Education pilot programs, funded by massive grants from the Gates Foundation, in Lake and Pinellas County and at P.K. Yonge. An amendment was added allowing Commissioner Stewart to expand the program to other counties. They are expanding the program before they have any data on its effectiveness. By 2022 every single school in Lake County will be converted to CBE.

In Florida, to my knowledge, There has never been a legislative workshop devoted to even discussing what CBE involves. CBE is a data driven education system that follows a set of prescribed standards and requires demonstration of “competency” before advancement. It has embedded testing within the curriculum that collects hidden streams of data via unknown algorithms. Stealth, continuous data–collected by vendors, can be shared with third parties–parental consent not needed.

The goal is to digitalize education so data can be collected and, remember, data is gold.

According to Edweek, researchers are busy developing computerized tutoring systems that gather information on students’ facial expressions, heart rate, posture, pupil dilation, and more. Those data are then analyzed for signs of student engagement, boredom, or confusion, leading a computer avatar to respond with encouragement, empathy, or maybe a helpful hint.” Creepy…

The measurement of social and emotional competencies, like grit, perseverance and tenacity, is a stated goal of the USDOE . Measurement of these non-cognitive competencies is already embedded into education programs.

Monroe has spent millions of dollars increasing our technology capabilities under mandates from the state. Initially we were concerned that all these computers were used for little more than testing and test prep. The mandates may, actually, have been in preparation for CBE.

The good news is that, with CBE, end of course exams and the FSA will become obsolete. When data on student progress can be collected every minute of every day, the “BIG” test is no longer necessary.

The bad news… teachers won’t be necessary, either. Current pilot programs include teachers as facilitators but soon taxpayers will wonder why we need to pay a professional to monitor students engaged in primarily an online education and a move will be made to hire a less expensive substitute. By then high quality teachers, stripped of all professional decision making, will have already left the profession in droves.

Why even have brick and mortar buildings for an education that mostly takes place on line?

Why even call it education anymore when it is really the harvesting of student data?

Consider this the alarm.

In  hindsight, it becomes clear that this was the goal all along. We have been allowing our children to participate in this huge data gathering scheme which has the ultimate goal of destroying public school as we know it.  Students need face to face interactions with humans. No computer algorithm can allow and encourage the creative mind. America has prospered because of creativity and ingenuity. We must fight to keep that in our schools. We need to stop participating in the system designed to destroy our schools. This is not about accountability and it is certainly not about what is best “for the kids.” What is best for the kids is that everyone stands up and says “our children are not data points for you to profit from.”

Competency Based Education is NOT the answer for the type of quality public education I want my children to have. It IS the complete destruction of public schools that Representatives Fresen and Perry have envisioned. Do not expect prestigious private schools to institute it. CBE is designed for “other people’s children” and it has already infiltrated our schools. And it will make a few people ultra rich.

SB 1714 allows for CBE expansion without any evidence it even works.

It is the start of a Brave New World and we need to keep it out of Monroe County until and unless long term data from these pilot studies demonstrates its effectiveness.

In the meantime, I ask that you protect our children from the data grab. Achieve 3000, iReady, iStation, and other CBE data mining programs are already being used throughout Monroe. There should be significant discussions regarding whether their risks outweigh their benefits.

The alarm has been sounded. Please heed this warning.

Thank you.

 

ADDENDUM:

While asking for input in writing these remarks, these two remarks were particularly worthy of repeating in full:

From an Electrical Engineer by training, Information Security Professional by career choice and Software Engineer, having developed many commercial applications. He has first hand experienced developing applications for education – and has witnessed the “lure of data data data”:

Your definition of CBE is far too generous and idealistic. Let me just say that CBE and CBT crap has been around for a very, very long time.. The essence of it really comes down to nothing more than one long series of IF THEN ELSE statements preprogrammed to provide the illusion that your advancing or retracting.

In other words this is just a three letter word that represents a profession (teaching) being codified into a linear progression of computer steps.

There is far too much faith that this will somehow magically create a more learned student than what a dedicated human being can. CBE and CBT are all about removing the need for professional teachers — fast forward 20 years…

If we let them use our kids to perfect this technology: teachers will look and act more like electronic librarians or proctors. All the courses and supporting standards will have been written I eve, debugged (at the cost of your children’s education) and shrink wrapped into a tidy downloadable virtual machine. Going to school will look a whole lot more like Startreck the search for Spock when Spock was brought back as a boy and forced to relearn a lifetime of knowledge downloaded into computer based CBT and CBE.

This stuff will make a lot if people very very rich, but until it’s fully functional we will loose generations of children to poor education through this grand technological dissection of the educational process. Computer Programmers are quite prone to being godlike – in commanding and getting their own way – after all they are creating their own alternate reality through their profession. That is CBE and CBT – a codified alternate reality that we won’t know if it’s good or bad until we put a classroom if kids through it !

From Peggy Robertson (www.pegwithpen.com)

People truly are not getting what is happening because mainstream media is keeping this very very quiet. Look at Colorado. One of the advanced states. Consequentially, CBE “advanced” states will also be the fastest to move towards alt. certified/fake teachers who stick around for a couple years. Because…… when you have 150 kids on computers and the computer creates the curriculum and the computer assesses students daily and plans for the next day’s instruction, well, golly, it seems there’s no need for a teacher in that picture. All that is needed is facilitators and a teacher here and there when it’s necessary to round up the kids for a computer lesson that the COMPUTER decides a human might actually need to teach. Don’t believe me? Check out Teach to One Math. Check out Carpe Diem. Check out Hickenlooper’s executive order for badges and Relay’s current foothold in Colorado. Check out my blogs that discuss this at http://www.pegwithpen.com. Check out the ESSA which GIVES FUNDING TO MAKE ALL THIS HAPPEN. And they will sell it as inquiry project/performance based that allows children to move and advance at their own pace – and let me tell you what it will really be…..mundane, skill,drill instruction that is tied to standards that will have many many data tags that will be used to track and manage children and make changes within the curriculum based on the shifts and demands within the market – NOT based on needs of children. If they want to, they can tell the public that suddenly we need a flood of pharmacists (for example), they can direct students into this profession via online classes, flood the market, therefore knock down salaries and benefit the corporate regime. Don’t think for a second that this was ever about the common good. Peggy

 

ADDITIONAL READING:

The first four are “must reads” but really you should read it all, and more. They are talking about profiting off the total destruction of public school.:

http://nancyebailey.com/2016/01/23/cbe-online-is-neither-personalized-nor-higher-order-thinking/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/11/12/the-astonishing-amount-of-data-being-collected-about-your-children/

http://missourieducationwatchdog.com/the-business-of-badging-and-predicting-childrens-futures/

http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2016/01/personalized-learning

http://emilytalmage.com She documents CBE which is being instituted in Maine Schools

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/01/07/new-student-database-slammed-by-privacy-experts/

In top performing nations, teachers – not students- use technology. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/22/study-students-who-use-computers-often-in-school-have-lower-test-scores

https://epic.org/2016/01/epic-warns-education-departmen.html

http://kcur.org/post/missouri-auditor-finds-student-social-security-information-risk#stream/0

http://missourieducationwatchdog.com/data-breaches-and-ostriches/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/internet-companies-confusing-consumers-profit

https://www.facebook.com/notes/alison-hawver-mcdowell/a-troubling-scenario-cbehigher-edindustrystudent-debttechinternet-providers/415669021959739?hc_location=ufi

http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/02/20/how-to-foster-grit-tenacity-and-perseverance-an-educators-guide/

Are Monroe County’s Chromebooks protected?

“Google’s Chromebooks as used in schools also come with “Chrome Sync” enabled by default, a feature that sends the student users’ entire browsing trail to Google, linking the data collected to the students’ accounts which often include their names and dates of birth. Google notes that the tracking behavior can be turned off by the student or even at a district level. But as shipped, students’ Chromebooks are configured to send every student’s entire browsing history back to Google, in near real time. That’s true even despite Google’s signature on the “Student Privacy Pledge” which includes a commitment to “not collect student personal information beyond that needed for authorized educational/school purposes, or as authorized by the parent/student.”

This is important: Google becomes school official if Chrome books used in classroom, meaning that FERPA rules do not apply. http://www.local15tv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Google-Becomes-a-39-School-Official-39-if-Chromebooks-Used-in-Classrooms-248827.shtml#.VqLG8sdYfSc

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/30/google-a-school-official-this-regulatory-quirk-can-leave-parents-in-the-dark/

 

Guess what? It’s Even Dumber Than We Thought

On Monday, 12/21/16, the Florida Education Association (FEA) filed formal complaints  criticizing Florida’s Best and Brightest teacher scholarship program (read about it here or here ; learn more about the bonus program in our last blog “Worst and Dumbest, the Sequel“). As we have already noted, we applaud all efforts to challenge “the worst bill of the year.”  We will continue to encourage the Florida Education Association teacher’s union to pursue further legal action.

The FEA’s claims are outlined here, claiming, among other things “Because no percentile data is available from ACT or SAT for teachers who took these tests before 1972, such teachers are disqualified from receiving the bonus.” Today we discovered that, for Florida natives, it isn’t just a matter of no percentile data but, possibly, of no data at all… 

We discovered this: Did you know that prior to 1973, Florida universities used Florida’s 12th grade test for college admission?  The SAT was not used, or needed, for admission to Florida Universities until 1973.

It appears, despite Mr. Fresen’s claims, sitting for the SAT may not be as universal as he believed; certainly a bonus should not be based on an exam that was not required or even accepted at our state institutions when our most experienced teachers matriculated. Why should experienced teachers be required to sit for an exam that our own state did not require when they were in high school?

IMG_3152

Those 1972 Florida high school graduates would be about 60 years old now… We wonder how many went into teaching and are still teaching today? Those teachers should be challenging this law. A clearer case of age discrimination could not be imagined. We encourage the FEA to actively seek out such teachers.

Could it get any dumber? Only if our legislature makes this program permanent (as proposed in this sessions HB 7043 and SB 978). We strongly encourage “no” votes on these bills.

We agree with the 12/18/15 Tampa Bay Times Editorial:

“Attracting and retaining the most qualified and effective teachers is a tremendous challenge as professions with higher pay and often better working conditions beckon top students. Providing incentives to remain in the classroom is a worthy idea, but the Legislature has fumbled this effort from the start. Lawmakers shouldn’t have shoehorned the money for this program into the state’s budget without adequately vetting the idea. Had they allowed for discussion of the proposal, they might have reached the logical conclusion that using old high school-era test scores is no way to measure current ability.”

Spending $44 million on this program this year was a mistake… making the “the Worst and Dumbest Idea Ever” permanent would be complete and utter accountabaloney.