contact@protectyourchildsfuture 414-861-7200 2014 Interview with Dr. Gary Thompson, Child Psychologist and Speaker Oct. 5 Dr. Gary Thompson, who will be speaking at the Protect Your Child’s Future Rally on October 5, 2014, at Kennedy Middle School in Germantown, Wis., on the topic of test anxiety, is a clinically and educationally trained doctor of psychology. He has previously used his expertise assisting parents navigate the complex public/private school maze of Individual Education Plans (IEP) and 504 accommodation meetings. He has represented over 500 children in various school settings in 25 different school districts in multiple states. Dr. Thompson received both his Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) and Master’s Degree (MS) from Phillips Graduate Institute in Los Angeles, California, and completed his award-winning doctoral training internship and residency requirements at A Better Way Child & Family Services located in Berkeley, California. In addition to his extensive clinical experience, Dr. Thompson also received two years of pediatric neuropsychological assessment training from the Drake Institute of Behavioral Medicine based in Irvine, CA. Dr. Thompson is also a certified civil litigation paralegal with 10 years of litigation experience in a wide variety of legal settings. Dr. Thompson now exclusively devotes his time consulting with parents about education options and interventions for gifted and special education children, and is currently homeschooling his own special needs four-year-old daughter. His wife, Dr. Frances Thompson, is a licensed clinical psychologist and current CEO of Early Life Child Psychology & Education Center. They are the parents of four children ranging from the ages of 3-25. Q: Dr. Thompson, why do you feel so strongly that the common core standardized tests will hurt children? A: Regardless of one’s stand on high stakes testing, most can agree that psychological/achievement testing is occurring at unprecedented level. In the private sector, our child psychologists make a living via the gathering and interpretation of data from multiple sources. The assumption is that the more data there is to analyze and interpret, the more informed decisions will be when it comes to choosing what practices should be implemented into public school systems, or as part of a clinical treatment plan or education evaluation. It is the inaccurate and unethical interpretations of this data that is fueling the chaos, damage and despair at the ground levels of public schools in the nation. Public school policymakers’ orgy-like thirst for the gathering of data (fueled by millions of dollars invested by private corporations) has resulted in little to no focus on how this data is being utilized on the ground level. “Ground level” is defined as our kids. Public schools have replaced the intimate art form of assessment with a dangerous over reliance on numbers. The arrogance of assuming that science has advanced to the point where we think that standardized testing of any nature can capture the complex essence of a child’s cognitive, emotional, academic, developmental, and cultural qualities, forms the basis of the scientific half-truth that Common Core testing can measure “career and college readiness.” Moreover, simply put, we have never utilized the experimental concept of computer adaptive testing on a mass level in the history of our nation. As with all experiments, we simply have no ideal what Common Core tests will measure, or how traditionally low-performing, vulnerable groups will be affected by this experiment. It seems every local school district website in the nation affirms emphatically that this test is basically the end all, be all, “Holy Grail” savior for the next generation of diverse learners in America. Making this bold claim of test efficacy to parents and ground level teachers without documented validity data is unprecedented. Psychology has a long and storied 150-year history documenting the many abuses that have happened to people when organizations or practitioners play fast and loose with ethical guidelines associated with testing. My presentation is a wake-up call to the education community regarding the importance of following best practice ethics, and the consequences to children when such are ignored. Q: You say the tests will be especially bad for kids with ADHD, autism, learning differences—or who are African American or Latino. Why will those groups be so strongly hurt by the tests? A: There has been a long and storied history in education psychology circles regarding the tendency to assess African-American and Latino children against the standards of Euro-Americans (Campbell, 1996; Sternberg, 2004). This ethnocentric tendency has lead to inaccurate and invalid interpretations of cognitive and achievement test results as well as the cognitive/achievement competencies in ethnic minority children and teens (Campbell, 1996; Sternberg, 2004). The vast majority of peer reviewed research into cognitive/achievement testing of African American and Latino children has been devoted towards alleged or perceived test bias of the instruments used to measure the constructs of achievement/intelligence, or the extent of tests’ predictive abilities in regards to academic functioning (Brody, 1997; Buss, 1996; Castenell, 1998; Fabio, 2005; Francis, 2005; Kim, 2003). To my knowledge, no test designer has yet to solve this issue. If it is the claim that PARCC, SBAC and the U.S. Department of Education have solved the puzzle related to test bias and validity for these populations of children, then it truly is a time to celebrate one of the most impressive discoveries in assessment in the history of mankind. When test developers publish these results, and their findings meet peer-reviewed standards of our profession, then I will cancel any further speaking engagements on this subject. However, given the high stakes involved regarding the results on Common Core tests, simply taking the word of local education officials simply does not suffice. In addition, peer-reviewed research is replete with examples and double-blind studies of how learning disabilities and diagnosed mental health issues along the range of depression, anxiety, and trauma can dramatically alter the validity of testing results under any setting. If it is the claim of education officials that they have also solved this puzzle, I look forward with anticipation of their publication and peer-reviewed statistical assurances that these issues have been properly accounted for. Q: Overuse of standardized tests in Wisconsin is a function of No Child Left Behind rules and Common Core. Many are questioning the value of these tests. What do parents not know about standardized tests and what value they have for their children? A: What parents are not being told is that ALL tests have limitations in regards to certain children, which may dramatically affect the validity of the numbers/results coming from these tests, and that life-altering decisions for their children may be made based on results with questionable validity. Parents are also being told that “accommodations” are in place for these vulnerable “special education children” to ensure that testing results are accurate indicators of their child’s performance, yet there are absolutely no studies to confirm policymakers’ claims. There is no documentation to support these claims because literally, we are building the airplane (Common Core tests) while it is in the air. We are experimenting on our nation’s children, without the informed consent of parents, and are letting policymakers make life-altering decisions for children based on dubious and dangerously unethical claims of Common Core test efficacy. Simply put again, we can’t make claims of efficacy about an experimental test that has never been administered in this mass manner in the history of American public schools. My concerns are not based on personal opinion or political affiliations, but are firmly grounded on the following ethical rules set forth by the American Psychological Association’s “Ethical Principles of Psychologist & Code of Conduct”: APA Code 2.02 Competence & Appropriate Use of Assessments & Interventions: “Psychologists who develop, administer, score, interpret, or use psychological assessment techniques, interviews, tests or instruments do so in a manner and for the purposes that are appropriate in light of research on, or evidence of the usefulness and proper of the techniques.” SBAC, PARCC, AIR and State Offices of Education nationwide have an ethical obligation to provide parents (and ground-level teachers whose job performance will be measured by this test) with documented assurances from unbiased psychometric experts of the private test developers’ claims of test efficacy: in other words, independent confirmation that the test can accurately measure what authorities claim that is measured by Common Core tests prior to using the test results for any type of high stakes, evaluative purposes. Private practitioners are held to this very same standard by licensing board all over the country. Violations of these codes of ethical in the private sector can result in loss of licensure, civil liability, and potential criminal penalties. APA Code 2.02 (b) Competence & Appropriate Use of Assessments & Interventions: “Psychologists refrain from misuse of assessment techniques, interventions results and interpretations and take reasonable steps to prevent others from misusing the information these techniques provide.” Q: I know you’re concerned about the kinds of psychological tests tied to Common Core that are being used because they violate privacy. What should parents know about the damage that can be done by asking psychological questions on standardized tests that are not administered by experts in psychological testing? A: All public school districts have properly trained experts at their disposal to administer and interpret multiple methods of psychometric tools within their scope of training. These include cognitive, neuropsychological, behavioral/emotional, and achievement tests that are also used by private pediatric psychologists. I support the use of any and all valid and appropriate use of available psychological tools that have shown documented evidence of their ability to provide parents (and ground-level teachers) with statistically accurate, and culturally valid information on where their children stand in these areas. The information and data garnered from these various methods of testing must guide teaching and interventions that will best assist children in reaching goals outlined via the Common Core standards. Ethics and best practices dictate that these assessment activities be performed and interpreted by trained and licensed school employees who have documented training in these areas as outlined by clinical psychology and/or school psychology boards of professional practice. (Generally, the average ground-level teacher, school counselor, or special education teacher does not meet this criterion.) Regardless of the intent and scope of these tests, and regardless of who is chosen to administer them, all of the above must be done with full and complete informed consent of the parents prior to their children’s participation in testing activities. Informed consent consists of the following: 1. Informing parents of the types of tests that their children will be asked to participate in. This includes full disclosure of any and all actual, or potential psychological constructs that will be, or could be measured by their child’s participation in testing activities. 2. Informing parents that computer adaptive testing is still in its “infancy stage” of development as such pertains to its intended use in high-stakes achievement testing. 3. Informing parents of, and obtaining written consent from legal guardians, for their children to participate in experimental “trials” and “pilot tests” being conducted by private entities. 4. Informing parents and ground-level teachers administering Common Core computer adaptive pilot tests of the potential emotional issues that some children may encounter during these trials (e.g., anxiety, depression, sensory processing adverse reactions, excessive frustration levels, etc.) and that the potential for harm exist with certain children who exhibit characteristics of, or whom have been diagnosed with emotional disorders or learning disabilities as such have been outlined in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition). The above concerns and requests are not based on personal opinion, or political affiliations, but are also grounded in best practice and ethical guidelines provided by the APA, guidelines that were formed to prevent harm and from individual practitioners, private test development companies, and public school entities from taking undue advantage of vulnerable parents: “Perhaps the most apparent way in which the new code supports a client’s right to self-determination is found in four ethical standards with “informed consent” in their title: Standard 3.10, “Informed Consent”; Standard 8.02, “Informed Consent to Research”; Standard 9.03, “Informed Consent in Assessments”; and Standard 10.01, “Informed Consent to Therapy.” Obtaining informed consent respects a client’s right to self-determination by informing the client about central aspects of the relationship and obtaining from the client consent to proceed. Through the process of becoming informed, the client receives information on which to base a considered decision; through the process of obtaining consent, the psychologist ensures that the decision to proceed belongs to the client and is not the product of coercion.” (APA Ethics Rounds apa.org/monitor/jun04/ethics.aspx). Informed consent is one of the most sacred tenets in the field of psychology and psychological measurement, second only to the profession’s commitment to “do no harm.” We have a 150-year history outlining the tragic and permanent consequences when our profession has chosen to not implement and strictly follow these ethical guidelines. Utilizing a private psychological research company to design, implement, and interpret common core tests does not excuse them, or the state offices of education who hire them, from employing these basic and potentially life-saving ethical practices. Q: Do you think that Common Core State Standards will help close the “achievement gap”? What are your thoughts on that? A. The U.S. Department of Education, SBACC, PARCC, the private test designer American Institute of Research, or any state education office in the country has not provided any independent or peer-reviewed research that would indicate that the experimental testing being implemented in public schools would assist in reducing the 60-year achievement gap between non-special education Caucasian students and minority and special education students. The same goes for Common Core Standards that are currently in place nationwide. Opinions, propaganda, or non-peer-reviewed “studies” done by nonprofit research with direct or indirect monetary ties to the U.S. Department of Education, state offices of education, or private investors regarding the standards’ ability to reduce this gap should be viewed with the utmost scientific skepticism. Those who have been designated as “poor performers” in the past via results of previously utilized No Child Left Behind standards and assessments were given the same promises of success in 2001 by the Bush administration. I cannot name one individual employed by a public school system anywhere in the country who can state with a straight face that the promises outlined by No Child Left Behind were effective in reducing this alleged achievement gap. This time around, with the stakes raised even higher for teachers and students, political propaganda and claims of “increased rigor” and “career and college readiness” are emanating from both political parties, private entrepreneurs, and state education officials to parents around the country. As a parent responsible for the welfare and guidance of my children, I for one will demand appropriate, industry-standard documentation prior to subjecting another one of my children to the grand experiment that Common Core is for forcing on us. Q: Any final thoughts? A: As a child, I would often ask my father, when he walked into the door after a long day, how his “work” had gone. As a practicing medical doctor, he feigned indignation by replying, “I don’t ‘work,’ boy. I practice.” I learned from my father that the practice of medicine is messy, and that a one-size-fits-all approach to such results in carnage. The practice of medicine comes from the ethical use of the proper diagnostic tools, years of supervised and licensed experience, common sense, and most of all, humility. The human body, mind, and spirit are immensely complex in scope and nature. Via action and example, my father taught me that the first and most important component to great clinical care is not being delusional with the thought that we have all the answers when it comes to working with complex humans. When using data to make informed decisions in education or psychology, it is imperative to paint the most possible detailed and accurate achievement, cognitive, developmental and emotional picture of a child using as much (relevant) information, skill and expertise that a professional or public school can summon. The Common Core testing that is about to thrust itself into almost every school in the nation threatens to paint a stick-figure portrait of millions of vulnerable U.S. public school children, when what is needed are Picassos of our public school children to inform ground-level teachers on how to best instruct children, regardless of what “rigorous” standards are ultimately implemented by the federal government…err…state-level education agencies! It is not my role as local clinical community scientist to infer motivations of various political parties, billionaire benefactors, or state governments as may apply to the many unanswered questions and disputes surrounding the implementation of Common Core State Standards and the testing aspects of it. Law and ethics dictate our responsibility to inform, as well as educate, the general public about best ethical practices, regardless of who may be performing similar acts in differing capacities in the public school setting. However, I do believe that given the size, scope, and commitment toward Common Core by educators, we simply cannot afford to have a “oops” moment. Lives are at stake here, and as such, parents must be provided with serious answers, as opposed to the current flow of lies of omission that are flowing from public relations centers from the U.S. Department of Education and state offices of education nationwide. Parents are, and must always be, the resident experts on their own children. Gary Thompson, PsyD Clinical Psychology Early Life Child Psychology & Education Center Testing Anxiety and how Common Core is affecting kids will be the topic of Dr. Gary Thompson’s address at the Protect Your Child’s Future Rally. Want to hear more from Dr. Gary Thompson? He’ll be speaking on Test Anxiety on October 5, 2014. Register NOW for the Protect Your Child’s Future rally! Tweet with us: @ProtctYourChild or visit us on Facebook/ProtectYourChildsFuture tag : achievement gap common core, achievement gap special education, child psychologist, Common Core, common core tests, Dr. Gary Thompson, PsyD, testing anxiety by : Nancy comment : Off About the AuthorNancy Peske is an author, developmental editor, and writer as well as a parent. Social Share About We are parents and grandparents concerned about our childrens education and future. Our cause is bipartisan. Its about the kids. Protect Your Childs Future exists to educate the public so parents can make informed decisions for the 2014-2015 school year. Recent PostsDr. Stotsky Reveals the Process Behind the Writing and Adoption of Common Core StandardsBreaking News! Stop Common Core T-shirts Available!Interview with Kirsten Lombard, Publisher and Editor of Common Ground on Common CoreInterview with Dr. Gary Thompson. Ceresta Smith, NBCT English Teacher United Teachers of Dade Designated Building Stewart
Posted on: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:59:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015