The Ever Changing Cut Score

Tags

education, parents, testing

New York State constantly changes the score needed to pass on ELA and Math tests.  Only AFTER the tests are graded, a score needed to pass is established. All questions go through extensive field-testing before the tests go live.  The question remains why this practice is needed?  Perhaps it might have something to do with matching the NYSED Commissioner’s failure rate prediction given 4 months before the test was administered…

From 2006 to 2013 the score needed to pass went on a wild ride.  One year, a 63% was needed to pass.  In another year, students had to score 87% in order to pass.

In 2013, the score needed to pass the NYS ELA dropped to a record low 63%.  While we are not able to see the actual test, we were informed about the make-up of the test.  The 3^rd grade practice set contained items that proved to be on readability levels above 8^th grade:  http://www.engageny.org/sites/default/files/resource/attachments/ela-grade-3-sample-questions.pdf

The 3^rd grade ELA also contained some of the same exact questions/passages as the 4^th and 5^th grade test.  NYSED called the items “calibration items”.  They were affectionately known as “dummy items” by everyone else: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-tests-dummy-questions-opt-out-policies-stress-parents-article-1.1318781

 What will the scores need to be in order to pass the 2014 ELA and Math tests?  That can only be answered by a few select members of the NYSED and will be done AFTER the test is graded.  They have already guaranteed scores will go up next year.    

 No matter what they decide, we know that our children are more than predetermined test scores. 

 

Join Lace to the Top

On FB:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/lacetothetop/

On Twitter:  @lacetothetop

 

 

   

Advertisement

Where are all the parents?

Tags

Children, education, Elementary school, Parent

A facebook post by fellow Green Lacer, Donna Rossi, got me thinking. She shared her observation that posts that she makes about education go unnoticed by her friends, but a picture of her dog will get 20 likes in a minute. I have also made this observation, and have shared Donna’s frustration. I have been troubled by the apathy of my friends. I have even said to myself, “They are just like some of my students! They don’t care about anything!” Then I realized something. They are just like some of my students. One thing that I have learned from years in the classroom is that many times, students that appear not to care are actually interested, but ill equipped to participate. It is easier to say “I don’t care,” or nothing at all, than to say, “I don’t understand this.” This is especially true when the rest of the class appears knowledgeable and is fully engaged in a lively discussion. Some of our parent friends must feel the same way.

Sometimes we interpret the “silence” about posts to indicate apathy, but perhaps we need to be more sensitive to the differing experiences among parents, much like we do for our students. I loved everything about elementary school. I loved the adventure of learning and I was motivated by the energy and support of my teachers to continue to try and take risks. As these risks led to more success, I became a fearless learner that craved a challenge. I want the same experience for my children. The thought of that being taken from them led me to this movement. Had my experience in elementary school been different, my perception of the threat facing my children would probably be different.

Just as important as the perception of the learning experience is the perception of the players involved. The only interaction I ever had with the principal as a student was to get an award. The only reason I was sent to the office was to do my teacher a favor. I didn’t even know where detention was. As a teacher, I know many administrators and feel very comfortable sharing my opinions with them. My experience as a student, my college degree and my experience as a teacher give me confidence that I will be heard and respected, even if they disagree with what I am saying. Not everyone sees teachers and administrators the way that I do. To some, they are still the intimidating tyrants of their childhood and conversations with them promise to be tense. They may be afraid that they will not be heard or respected. They may fear that their own performance in school will diminish the validity of their concerns for their children. They may even doubt their concerns themselves.

We need all parents to join us in the fight to protect our kids, which means we need to empower all parents. If what works with students that have “shut down” applies to adults, which I’m sure it does, then we need to give them the background and support necessary to make them feel safe and welcome in the conversation. We need to address their reluctance to become involved and remind them that children have no better advocates than their own parents. We then need to smile, give them a pair of green laces, and welcome them to the ranks of proud and determined parents that have had enough and will take no more.

Testimony to the Senate Standing Committee on Education Public Hearing

Tags

education, parents, teaching, tests

Testimony to the Senate Standing Committee on Education Public Hearing

The Regents Reform Agenda:  “Assessing” Our Progress

Donald James, Ed. D.

September 17, 2013

During the last two (2) decades, terms such as increased standards, teacher accountability, education reform effort, unified curriculum, no child left behind, “highly‑qualified teachers,” research-based curriculum, increased teacher certification criteria and annual professional performance review have been coined, used and overused in an effort to “improve student achievement.”  It is clear from the plethora of current terms around educational reform that the focus is centered on teachers.

As an educator, I have spent my entire professional life in education starting my teaching career in inner city Philadelphia and New York City.  Subsequently, I served as an administrator and Superintendent in upstate New York, in New York City, and on Long Island.  I have spent the last 10 years serving as a Community Superintendent in New York City and a District Superintendent on Long Island, the last three of which I have been the Superintendent of a moderate wealth, high‑performing district.  I share this with you as I think these experiences offer a unique perspective.  The primary focus of my work has been, and continues to be, working with teachers to determine what students should know, be able to do, and be able to use beyond the situational classroom. This work has included curriculum alignment both horizontal and vertical.  Once aligned, common proficiencies are determined; they are recorded and used to inform the development of common assessments and scoring rubrics.  Simultaneously, teachers are engaged in professional development related to shifting classroom practices to support increased student achievement.  In addition, common benchmark assessments have been identified and administered at regular intervals as a way of checking student growth as the program is developed.

It appears that the implementation of the Common Core Learning Standards carries with it, at a very broad level, a reasonable alignment philosophy.  In addition, they demonstrate higher levels of rigor that will likely result in increased student achievement in some districts, if implemented in a thoughtful, student-centered manner.  However, for me, the issues at hand are not the Common Core Learning Standards or their value; clearly these standards were developed with a level of thought and expertise that resulted in some very valuable components.  Rather, the primary issues and concern include the loss of local control, the over emphasis on standardized tests, and the ill-conceived manner in which said tests are administered and the results utilized.

There is little argument that there are struggling schools; schools that need to be redesigned with appropriate supports.  However, there is also no argument that the vast majority of public schools in New York are providing a very solid academic program with many going above and beyond any requirement set forth by Federal and State governing bodies; schools that are supporting student achievement at the highest levels; schools where nearly every student goes to college – whether public or private; schools producing students that are not required to take remedial‑level courses when they get to college.  I would argue that the new New York State assessment protocols actually hinder the ability of these schools to continue to provide such an education – in essence, the focus on standardized assessments which force a narrow, prescribed view of the Common Core, is actually “dumbing-down” these schools.

Before I continue, I want to emphasize that I am not here to criticize or blame and I can state emphatically that I, my teachers and administrators, my community, and my fellow superintendents support rigorous programming and high levels of accountability for all students and staff.  What we struggle with are altered and not yet complete, mandated structures intended to force curricular changes that are then funneled through very narrowly constructed, assessments.

Regarding these change efforts, whether in successful schools or schools that are struggling, Peter Senge, renowned organizational theorist from MIT, says, “The practice of shared vision involves the skills of unearthing shared ‘pictures of the future’ that foster genuine commitment and enrollment rather than compliance.  In mastering this discipline, leaders learn the counter-productiveness of trying to dictate a vision, no matter how heartfelt.”

As we consider the imposition of outside mandates such as the Common Core Grades three to eight state assessments and related changes to our program, a program we value, I offer the following:  The State Education Department, Board of Regents, and other entities (corporate and political) invested in measuring student growth and achievement via standardized assessments related to the Common Core reform effort, may actually produce lost opportunity; opportunity to provide a well-rounded educational program that supports student success; success in areas that will support our goals and the goals of individual students in high school and whatever they choose to do after they leave high school and, in many cases on Long Island and in my home district, Commack, that typically means going to college.  I would argue, and have proven with real data, that Commack has been more than adequately preparing students for college (see Attachment A) and/or career opportunities for decades with significant increases in that regard over the last several years (see Attachment B).  Our record speaks for itself.  It is clear; our program, and the program of many districts statewide, prepares all students for high levels of achievement; so why the forced change?  If schools can demonstrate through real data that their students are prepared for college and career; if they can demonstrate that they are continually monitoring student growth and making instructional adjustments; if they can demonstrate that their academic program goes above that provided by the State, why superimpose such a dramatic change?  These questions are not meant to be rhetorical.

Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin indicated that research shows a significant shift away from the accepted norms and models of “preservice” or “inservice” training and more toward “the hard work of developing concrete exemplars of the policies and practices that model “top-down support for bottom-up reform” (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995, p. 2).  In Commack, like many other districts across the state, our top down support of bottom up reform allows for the following:

• Teachers and administrators continuously working to determine what we want students to know, be able to do, and truly understand;
• Teachers and administrators regularly reviewing and aligning their curriculum;
• Teachers and administrators engaging in professional‑learning opportunities as they work with all students toward success;
• Teachers and administrators monitoring student academic growth regularly;
• Teachers and administrators adjusting their curriculum and teaching methods to meet the needs of students; and
• Teachers and administrators helping produce some of the most successful students in the country year in and year out (see Attachment B).

So, why the forced change?  Why the insistence that we abandon structures and methods locally determined for those developed by others who are unfamiliar with the strengths of our students and staff?  Why force additional assessments on students?  Why force the expense related with what the data proves are unnecessary changes?

More importantly, I would argue that by altering educational programs to meet the demands of assessments that have been rushed, that have an altered “cut score,” that have no research-based evidence that they better measure a child’s readiness, at least none that has been produced to date, is a very professionally dangerous thing to do.  Should we, in our rush to raise test scores, eliminate parts of our programs that support the exit outcomes our students need to gain acceptance into the college of their choice or career path they desire, we are doing them a disservice.  Should we abandon the arts, social emotional, physical fitness, and other types of programs not measurable on a standardized test, we risk creating generations of “test takers” as opposed to thinkers and innovators.

As mentioned earlier, this last round of assessments was fraught with significant shortcomings.  I offer the following as examples:

The spring 2013 New York State mathematics and ELA assessments:

• Were developed prior to the final publication of the related curriculum;
• Were administered prior to the first full year of curricular implementation;
• Were unseen by teachers;
• Were developed and, subsequently administered, in different forms in different schools and in some cases in different forms in the same school;
• Included field test questions that did not count toward the final score;
  • Depending on the version of the assessment, the field test question(s) may have been at the beginning of the test, in others at the end – keeping in mind these are timed tests.
  • Were very time intensive for young children; and
  • They claim to measure a child’s college and career readiness – However, to date, no evidence to support this claim is available.

Some of these issues will be addressed in the second year of administration.  However, much damage has been done to our students and potentially to our programs, should we choose to veer from the course, a course that was locally determined, a course that works.

Other very real concerns arise when we consider that there will be changes to Regents exams.  Should those changes result in the same, or similar, decrease in passing rates as the Grades three (3) to eight (8) assessments, students may fail these exams through no fault of their own or the school.  In a New York State Education Department News and Notes message to the field in August 2013, it was indicated that, regarding the passing rates for 2013 Grades three (3) to eight (8) assessments, “…the change in proficiency rates does not mean teachers are teaching less or that students are learning less than last year.”  If this same precept is adopted when making changes to Regents exams, students who will score at significant levels on Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) and American College Testing (ACT) exams, may actually “fail” Regents exams.

Over the last year or so, several of my colleagues and I have met with the representatives from the State Education Department, the Lieutenant Governor, Senators Marecellino and Flanagan, have attended meetings with the Commissioner, and I am testifying before you today regarding the rushed implementation of the Common Core and particularly the related assessment protocols to share our concerns with this “reform” effort.  At this time, I don’t want to editorialize more than I already have.  However, I would argue that these efforts to standardize instruction and instructional programs, no matter the strengths and challenges of a system, are ill conceived.  Darling Hammond and others have indicated, “New course mandates, curriculum guidelines, tests, or texts cannot produce greater student learning and understanding without investments in opportunities that give teachers access to knowledge about the nature of learning, development, and performance in different domains” (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin 1995, p. 2) both the child’s and their own.

Before I finalized my comments for today, I took significant time to reflect and asked myself, “What if I’m wrong?  What if my assertions are incorrect?  Right now I feel right – clearly my statements about standardized assessments indicate that I think I am RIGHT.  Given the stakes, the learning opportunities of our students, the APPR scores of our teachers and principals, the use of very limited resources and more, I felt a duty to assure I was at least on the right track.  In that regard, I continue to live in a state of inquiry; before making changes, it is imperative that I gather additional information through theoretical and empirical research as well as active conversations with people in the field, people actually engaged in educating students, practitioners who are bright, thoughtful and honest.  There was, and is, no doubt that inquiry is called for when suggesting changes to our programs, changes that will have an impact on the lives of our students.  I believe it is our professional obligation that prior to making changes that affect student learning opportunities, we do the necessary homework to assure, at least to the best of our ability, success.

• We should not force change on schools that are successful, actively reflective, learning organizations – we should identify schools that need change and act accordingly;
• We should not force schools to adopt assessment protocols that have not been fully vetted and shared with the field and most certainly not before the associated curriculum is fully developed, released, and implemented; and
• We should not force young children to sit for the abundance of assessments set forth in New York year in and year out in the name of measuring the progress toward college and career readiness – to do so demonstrates a lack of understanding about the developmental abilities of students and the learning process. 
  • Student learning is best understood when employing strategies that have been developed whereby teachers are provided categories in specific content areas and descriptions of variations in students’ thinking about the subject matter.  In this manner teachers are able to have discussions not only about the subject matter, but also the “‘theoretical’ knowledge of the characteristics and development of children’s thinking and ‘particular’ knowledge of problems” (Berne & Wilson, 1998, p. 181).
• I believe, and research supports, the use of the right assessments for the right reasons;
  • “Schools must achieve a better balance between activities that incorporate ideas of distributed cognition and those that stress only individual competence” (Borko & Putnam, 2000, p. 5).
• I believe, and research supports, the active use of formative, diverse assessments to understand student abilities throughout their career;
• I believe, and research supports, giving teachers continuous feedback in a non‑punitive, non-prescriptive manner where everyone understands that improvement is ongoing, is the most effective way to assess teaching and learning.
  • Cognitive psychologists agree that “the essence of knowledge is structure.”  Knowledge is not a ‘basket of facts’” (R. Anderson, 1984, p. 5 from Borko and Putnam in New Paradigms, p. 36).  Shulman et al, indicate that teachers draw on seven domains of knowledge when planning and carrying out instructional programs: general pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of students, knowledge of subject matter, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of other content, knowledge of the curriculum, and knowledge of educational aims (Borko and Putnam, 1995, p. 36). Virtually all cognitive psychologists share a fundamental assumption that an individual’s knowledge structures and mental representations of the world play a central role in perceiving, thinking and acting (Putnam, Lampert & Peterson, 1990).  Teachers’ thinking is directly influenced by their knowledge.  Their thinking, in turn, determines their actions in the classroom.  Thus, to understand teaching, we must study teachers’ knowledge systems; their thoughts, judgments, and decisions; the relationships between teachers’ knowledge system and their cognitions; and how these cognitions are translated into action.  Similarly, to help teachers change their practice, we must help them to expand and elaborate their knowledge systems (Borko and Putnam, 1995).

In closing, I believe we stand at the precipice of doing significant damage to our schools if we allow the continued, unfettered implementation of narrowly developed and focused standardized assessments that do not support our mission to provide a well-rounded education so that every child can develop the skills and acquire the knowledge necessary to be successful in whatever they choose to do after high school.  Thank you for your time and attention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQFySwpH8pY&feature=youtu.be

The Abacus, Sexton, and Test

What do the abacus, the sexton, and high-stakes tests have in common? Each is an antiquated way to measure. The first two are no longer used in classrooms. The last inhibits instruction and bores students. Testing in the elementary grades should be replaced with assessments that measure the real intelligences of students and inspire them to discover their talents, skills and likes.

Bad tests have been around for a long time. Below is an eighth grade test from 1885. It tests students’ knowledge of grammar, arithmetic, US history, orthography, and geography. Students in 2013 do not have the attention span of students in 1885. They cannot recall details from history like students in 1885. They cannot recite The Preamble to The Constitution like students in 1885. They cannot identify all the republics of Europe on a map like the students in 1885. Unlike this test, our students have changed.

The phrase “multi-task” did not exist in 1885. Students completed focused tasks, and their tests measured how well they could recall information from those tasks. Their distractions were books. Students in 1885 could use an abacus, knew a sexton wasn’t something dirty, and their tests measured their ability to regurgitate information. School was comparatively simple.

How students completed homework throughout the years can be used to show how their ability to muti-task has evolved. In the 1800s, students (who went to school), were required by their parents to complete their homework by candle light. Skip to the 1950 and 1960s when students completed their homework at desks by electric lamp. Parents scolded children if they read comic books while doing homework. Students from the 70s and 80s did homework in their living room watching television or listening to music. The students from the 2000s added instant messaging and email to their list of homework distractions. More recently, texting, blogging, tweeting, and Instagram-ing were added to the task list. Thus, the modern students’ ability to “multi-task” evolved.

The latest evolution is students today can “multi-project.” They can simultaneously complete complex newspaper layouts in InDesign, tutor peers in calculus and AP Biology, complete AP Chemistry questions, while discussing philosophy, and listening to pop music. They can do more at one time than can be reasonably expected to be written in one sentence. A child from 1900 may have the answer to “What are the nine rules for the use of capital letters,” memorized, but today’s student could create a PowerPoint, Prezi, music video, or even a webpage on the nine rules of capitalization. Older generations marvel at their grandchildren’s ability to work TV remotes, computers, tablets, and phones, yet kids are learning how to fill in a bubble for a scantron test in kindergarten.

Forget academic intelligence for a moment. Change the essay topic from the practical use of grammar to the impact of race in America or women’s right to vote and compare essays to see which group looks more intelligent.

Opportunities for high-quality teaching and learning without tests is possible. It is just not profitable. Students do not have to bubble, click, circle, underline, connect, or check answers to demonstrate what they know. Multiple choice, short-answer, true/false, or fill in the blank questions are not the only test forms that exist. Great teachers do more than give on-demand assessments. Mastery learning, portfolio and webfolio assessments as well as project based learning are each student-centered forms of assessment. Students should seek personal benefit, not a teacher’s validation.
There are better tools for accountants today than the abacus. There are better tools for sailors than sextons. There are better ways for students to learn than tests, but there is no better way for a test maker to profit.
High-stakes tests in the elementary levels are a detriment to student growth. Invest in providing students relevant inputs, not in manufacturing contrived outputs that are meaningless to students and their teachers. Then perhaps students could leave school prepared for the complex world they are expected to enter.

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters. (Google)
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications. (Google)
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph. (Google)
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run. (Google)
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7-10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts. per bu, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $.20 per inch?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?
10.Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, and 1865?
Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic orthography, etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret ‘u’.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final ‘e’. Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: Card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences, Cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10.Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of N.A.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fermandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10.Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the earth.

Question Everything!!!

Tags

education, parents, testing

I’m happy that Chris Christie lost his cool with that teacher. Not happy for her, but I think it was an easy way for us to realize, “Wow! What an inappropriate, volatile response!”

I think many of us feel a little scared to ask questions in our schools because we too, are afraid of the responses our superiors are giving or might give. If something doesn’t make sense, let’s ask questions and accept answers that are based on reasoning and intellect- not scare tactics of Singapore performing better than us in math…. OMG the Singaporeans (a population of about 500,000 students- NONE of their special education students are tested AND all students are tracked from the age of 7, into homogeneous groups so they are learning with students who have similar abilities) are going to remain ahead of us in scores! Gasp.

I hear other teachers who even speak of us being “ahead,” or others getting “ahead.” In the end, is it about doing what’s best for kids or is it about pushing an agenda and saying the word “rigor” a lot? If people lose their cool when you’re asking questions, maybe that means you’re asking good questions;)

 

Great questions and answers can be found at Lace to the Top.

On FB:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/362783697181185/

Twitter:  @lacetothetop

In end, they all get caught…

Tags

education, parents, teachers

Besides breaking the law, the biggest mistake most criminals make isn’t getting caught- it’s being too greedy.  We read the papers and watch the news.  The 4^th bank robbery was one too many.

 The same is true for education.  For years, policies have destroyed education in low wealth areas.  Policy makers robbed the funding of public schools and put up for- profit charters at will.  Like all criminals, they were not satisfied with their “take” and decided to swing for the fences.  They labeled 70% of kids as failures and reduced teachers to script readers- all in the name of profit.  Policy makers and corporations couldn’t look beyond their own greed to realize that what they were doing was rotten.

 Education is not broken.  Our children are more than test scores and our teachers are more than script readers.  The criminals that have touted high-stakes testing will be sent packing.  The gig is up! 

Lace to the Top

On Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/362783697181185/

Follow on Twitter @lacetothetop

 

 

The Brave Little Loafer

Tags

children's story, High-stakes tests

There once was a little loafer who lived on the bottom shelf of a children’s shoe store. The little loafer loved to listen to the stories of the other little shoes. They ignored the loafer because his laces were green. All the other little shoes wore red, orange, yellow, blue, violet, and pink. They thought the loafer looked funny because no one wears green laces with brown loafers.

The little running shoes bragged about pedaling bikes and pushing skateboards. The little sandals dreamed of walking along the beach. The tiny boots imagined digging and building. The small slippers pictured enjoying a warm, cozy fire. The diminutive dress shoes described dancing at weddings and fancy birthday parties.

Although the little loafer loved to listen to stories, he never shared his own. He didn’t know what he could do or who he would be when he left the store, but he knew in his sole, he was special.

One morning, the store manager told the shoes great news. A new test was created to make better shoes. It was a running test. The test was made to help the shoes get faster. To prepare for the test, all shoes needed new laces. The new laces had to be black.

“I can’t wait for the running test,” a pink trainer said. “I love to run!”

“I can’t wait to get brand-new laces!” yelled a sandal.

“I will look great in in black laces,” said a shiny dress shoe.

The owner smiled at the shelves filled with shoes. “Yes. You all should be excited. We are going to make you into great shoes.”

But not all the shoes were excited.

“Why do we have to run?” the loafer asked meekly.

“Good question, shoe,” said the manager. “Shoes run at different speeds. This is unfair, isn’t it? Don’t you think everyone should be fast?”

“Umm… yes?” replied the loafer.

“That’s correct. Everyone should run fast. No one wants to be slow. You will be a faster runner with the new tests.”

“OK, but, I don’t want to change my laces,” said the loafer. “Green is my favorite color.”

“That is normal, shoe. You see, some very smart people, called Big Shoes found you little shoes are not ready for life outside of the store. After spending hours thinking super hard about the problems they saw, they decided the best way to make better footwear, was to start making better tests. The tests you will take will make you grow incrementally. So, we got you brand new laces to keep you focused on the tests.”

“I like digging outside,” a work boot interrupted. “Is there a digging test?”

“I bet you’re an incredible digger,” said the manager. “But don’t you want to go to college? College will teach you all about the world and give you opportunities that you would not be exposed to without these new tests.”

The work boot was confused. “I guess,” he said.

“You see shoes, we have to get you ready for when you grow up.”

“I thought I was supposed to do kid stuff?” the loafer replied.

“That’s not what very smart Big Shoes from the factory think is best for you,” the manager said. “So, we need to make sure our store has everyone ready for these tests so we don’t get in trouble. No one wants to get in trouble, right?”

“Nooo!” the kids yelled in unison. All except the loafer.

“Great! Our school day is going to be a little different to make sure we do our very best on the very important test. First, we will only exercise three times a week for 15 minutes each day. Some days we will not have recess and lunch will now be 15 minutes. We need to get you ready for later on, so we have made later on, now. This is just like being a Big Shoe!”

“Oh. But I want to be a loafer. I want to be comfortable and warm and happy.”

The manager walked over to the loafer. “Your running score was among the lowest in the store. Only the flipflops, clogs, and pumps scored lower,” the manager said as he tried to comfort the little loafer with one of his grey laces.

“I ran as fast as I could,” the loafer said. “I guess I am a bad shoe? I don’t want to be in the store anymore.”

“No, no, no! Of course you’re a good shoe. That’s why we’re here; to help you become a better shoe. To support you and make you the best you, you can be. That’s why you have to take more tests.”

“I don’t see why you’re complaining,” the pink shoe interrupted. “The manager is just trying to help you. Stop getting your laces twisted and just take the tests like all the rest of us.”

“Like, yeah,” said the dress shoe. “Stop making excuses. We all have to take the tests.”

“Settle down, shoes,” the manager commanded. “This is important.” The manager turned to the little loafer. “How can we help you if you don’t take the tests? You need to be part of the race.”

Tears began to well in the little loafer’s eyes. “But I don’t want to race. I don’t want to be big. I don’t want to go to an office. I want to be a kid!”

“If you don’t take the race test, then people will think we are a bad store,” the manager replied. “Do you like our store?”

“I love it. The store is my home.”

“That’s wonderful! We want to show everyone how great our store is. The way big shoes do that, is with something called data. The tests will give us data and everyone will see just how much you little shoes love the store!”

“Who are the big shoes?” the little loafer asked.

“They are the ones who are trying to make stores better.”

“Did they make the tests?”

“Why, yes they did.”

“But the tests make me feel bad and I still don’t know why I have to take them. That doesn’t sound like better.”

The owner paused and thought for a moment and looked around at the little shoes that waited for his answer. “Sometimes we are given things that we don’t like. What I do when that happens, is I just take it and try to make the best of it. It’s what being a grown-up is all about.”

“But I am not a grown up. And I already know my store is awesome and I don’t care what the big shoes think.” The little loafer’s tears came pouring down. “I don’t want to be in the store anymore!”

“You’ll be ok, I…” But the manager didn’t have the words. He knew the brave little loafer was hurting and that the pain was caused by the test.

The brave little loafer was shocked. “But the big shoes will say our store is bad!” He cried. “It’s just me. Let me go and let everyone else take the tests.”

The work boot stepped forward. “No. It’s me too little loafer. I am scared of the test too.”

“Me too,” said the flip flop.

“And me,” added the shiny dress shoe. And soon, the entire store shared that the new tests that were supposed to make things better, were actually making them worse. They did not want to change their laces to black. They did not want to change for a test.

The manager, sensing how much the test was hurting the little shoes, did something amazing. He went to the storage room and came back out different. His once grey laces were now a bright neon green. “When the Big Shoes come in,” he said, “they will know that this is our store. People have always loved our shoes. No running test can measure how comfortable, durable, or more importantly, how brave a little shoe can be. I am going to wear green laces to remind me why I became a manger in the first place. Thank you brave little loafer.”

The experience taught everyone just how great their store was and how silly it was to judge themselves on a number created by big shoes that didn’t even know them.

From that day on, the brave little loafer, as all his friends called him, was warm and comfortable, and happy. And the store which never had a problem, became a place where no shoes were judged by a number or forced to be something other than what they are.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/362783697181185/

@lacetothetop