Dane County School Board Consortium - Ahead of the Curve

Last spring the Dane County School Board Consortium (DCSBC) met with Dan Rossmiller, Director of Legislative Services from the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) to begin our discussion on what issues the consortium could focus on for the school year. This brainstorming session led to the Waunakee Community School District's Board of Education to craft a formal advocacy letter to improve testing in our state.

Waunakee sent that letter to their state and national representatives to specifically address the issue of improved testing to meet No Child Left Behind. Currently, school districts administer the state mandated WKCE. Additional districts in the consortium are in the process of adopting a similar letter and sending it to their representatives.

It turns out however, that this past week, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction issued a press release announcing a new task force to work on this very issue. "Wisconsin needs a comprehensive assessment system that provides educators and parents with timely and relevant information that helps them make instructional decisions to improve student achievement,” said State Superintendent Elizabeth Burmaster [while] announcing members of a statewide Next Generation Assessment Task Force.

Representatives from business, commerce, and education will make recommendations to the state superintendent on the components of an assessment system that are essential to increase student achievement. The NGA Task Force will meet in Madison next week on the 8th of October.

One recommendation I would give the task force is to invest in new testing technologies. School districts and educators need continuous feedback mechanisms, according to a recent article in Forbes magazine. Schools should "...return to the more individualized approach..." which has been recommended by many education experts.

You can see the letter that the DCSBC is encouraging area school districts to send to their representatives. Thank you to Peggy Hill-Breunig and the Waunakee Community School District Board of Education for sharing this letter.

Dear State Leaders,

We are writing to share with you our concerns about the WKCE, or Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination - the assessment test Wisconsin currently requires all public school students take in order to comply with No Child Left Behind. We join our district’s professional educators, the Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance, and a growing number of school districts around the state in asking that the State of Wisconsin not renew its current testing contract without addressing key issues that currently make the WKCE a costly distraction to the goals we are trying to achieve in our classrooms today.

Before summarizing these issues, we want you to know we believe in holding our schools accountable for the work they do. We support the use of student assessments that provide teachers (and parents) relevant, timely and actionable information, and that guide instruction in ways that lead to individual student growth and achievement. (Note: We support proposed H.R. 3979, the Assessment Accuracy and Improvement Act, which will allow states to use adaptive assessments that include items outside of grade level for state assessments required under the No Child Left Behind Act.) We recognize the need to be held accountable to the state and federal government for student achievement. However, we believe we should be held even more accountable to our parents and taxpayers. It is a difficult decision when we are forced to approve the use of scarce resources (money and instructional time) for something we know is substandard.

Issue 1: WKCE test results lack the utility which other forms of assessment provide.

Fact: Last November, students in our district took the 2007-2008 WKCE tests. Results from those tests were released to us in late May, 2008. In November 2008, a different group of students will be tested for 2008-09 and their results will be compared to last year’s group to determine AYP (adequate yearly progress) for that subject and grade.

Concerns: The inability to provide timely feedback leaves little or no time for educators and parents to use what information they do receive to address student performance before the end of the school year. Targeted recommendations for the group of students who took the test are not possible. In addition, due to structure and design, tests like this fail to provide an accurate and complete picture of student growth and information educators and administrators can use to improve achievement. (Note: Some currently available adaptive forms of assessment measure student growth over time and can provide quick feedback using technology. Many districts administer this type of test twice a year to measure how students perform at the beginning and then at the end of the school year.)

Issue 2: The true cost to districts for the WKCE is high.

Concerns: In addition to any fees paid, administering standardized tests takes time away from instruction as well as other student support services (i.e. guidance). Each district might differ in how they handle the requirements of preparing for the test, administering the test, and then reporting results of the test to appropriate stakeholders. Whether they choose to utilize internal resources exclusively, or hire outside resources to help (substitute teachers, temporary clerical services, etc.) the work needs to be done and it all takes time and money. Although this could be said for any standardized paper and pencil test which all students take at the same time, the cost is greater for WKCE because (1) students and parents see the test as irrelevant, and (2) teachers and administrators cannot use the information which is eventually provided. As board members, we interpret this as having to waste precious district resources because the State is unwilling to seriously consider alternatives which may be more effective for everyone in the long run.

Issue 3: The WKCE is not as effectively aligned with the requirements of workforce readiness and higher education as other forms of assessment which are currently being used by our neighboring states.

Fact: There is research that supports this statement. The WKCE does not align as well with 21st Century Skills (a DPI initiative) as do other forms of assessment. Regarding potential alternatives, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota are among the states that have implemented statewide tests in partnership with ACT, which all students take, satisfying No Child Left Behind requirements and yielding unexpected results for students who might not have considered furthering their education beyond high school.


In closing, this is not the first time education professionals and associations from around the state have raised issues about the WKCE with our state leaders. There is, however, growing concern that the current 10-year contract may be under consideration for renewal without conducting a serious review of alternatives. As elected school board representatives, we could not let that happen without voicing our concerns with elected state representatives like you. We appreciate your leadership and support as we work to improve student achievement for all of our students.

Distance Learning, MMSD, MTI, MOU

Distance learning, virtual learning or online learning is a relatively innovative way of instructing our students and perhaps, transforming education. Recently the Board of Education discussed where we are on the long path to fully utilizing technology in our district...

Unfortunately, it was not the result of a strategic planning initiative, but was a precipitate of a bargaining agreement with labor that eventually resulted in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Madison Teachers, Incorporated (MTI).

I did not vote for the memorandum of understanding that the administration brought forward to us. However, I recognize the good work that our new superintendent, Dan Nerad, put into this MOU with MTI. Both sides negotiated toward the center line and found a somewhat workable solution. It's a fine point that most people may not understand nor care to read about in the paper. But getting this done helped both parties to walk away from the inevitablility of litigating far into the future if we had not worked together. It's difficult to decide where to start when it comes to the demands of a large, urban school district such as ours; but I trust our superintendent can lead us in the right direction.

If you haven’t been following this current board decision, take a look at the recent excerpt from Solidarity, the MTI newsletter, as union leadership interpreted the decision:

“The agreement provides that for both local and distance virtual education Madison teachers will be in control of the education; that the work will be part of the teacher’s class size and teaching load; and enable additive compensation for a teacher who volunteers to work with or correspond with virtual school students after the teachers’ contractual work day.”

Ideally, the main premise for the use of technology should be to extend the learning experience and/or individualize the learning environment for our students. Think - engagement, learning.

In sum total, our practices should be in alignment with our policies. Of concern to me in agreeing to an MOU at this time is that we have unfinished policy changes regarding educational options. One area of concern is whether to grant credit for online courses such as those offered by online providers who are not MTI employees.

This MOU may tie us to a status quo of only using MTI (bargaining unit teachers) for many years to come for any online learning. This is specifically due to the precedent set by our Collective Bargaining Agreement from the ‘70s which speaks to only MTI members providing instruction in the district. I can’t help but remind myself that this was an agreement written before the advent of online teaching technology; it’s an outdated model of where we need to go as a district for the sake of the kids.

There’s a similar take on this from a leader in the field of innovation & technology in an Education Week (June 4, 2008) commentary titled, How 'Disruptive Innovation' Will Change the Way We Learn by Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn, & Curtis W. Johnson.

If the goal is to educate every student to the highest potential, schools need to move away from this monolithic classroom model and toward a student-centric model with a modular design that enables mass customization.

Computer-based learning is emerging as a disruptive force and a promising opportunity to make this shift. The proper use of technology as a platform for learning offers a chance to modularize the system and thereby customize learning.

But if this is the case, how does one explain the minimal impact computers have had in the classroom? The United States has spent more than $60 billion equipping schools with computers over the last two decades, but as countless studies and any routine observation reveal, they have not transformed the classroom, nor has their use boosted learning as measured by test scores.

That schools have gotten so little back from their investment comes as no surprise. Schools have done what virtually every organization does when implementing an innovation: Its natural instinct is to cram the innovation into its existing operating model to sustain what it already does. This is perfectly predictable, perfectly logical—and perfectly wrong.

For myself I see this agreement as something we may have to do for the short term - like the cod liver oil of systems management. But we should never take our eyes off the prize when it comes to educating kids. I hope we can have further discussions on this important topic with a focus on the long term.

For more on Clayton M. Christensen's writing, go to:
Education Week: Online Education Cast as ‘Disruptive Innovation’

For a nice example of an informed discussion on Online Teaching and Learning go here for a recent online forum held by Education Week.