And I REALLY wish people would stop comparing our educational system to those in countries where they DO NOT offer equal educational opportunities to every child.
@"Cardinal Fang" Even though my daughter is in 8th grade, she isn’t taking the 8th grade math test. She will be taking the geometry test because she is taking geometry this year in school. Her school tests you in math based on your math class not your grade.
I wouldn’t be any help in identifying a trig question since the last math class I took was Calculus during my senior year of HS in 1981! 
Haha, EPTR, for someone who did not want to respond, you surely added a number of commentaries.
Fwiw, your responses about other countries and Ravitch indicate a serious lack of objectivity or knowledge of the issues at hand. Do you know much about the inequalities in education abroad, and much about Ravitch conversion to the shill she has become? Are you familiar with her published work that predate her change of heart and became the mouthpiece for just about everyone and everything that has been wrong with the educational system.
It is easy to understand your professional bias, but perhaps should make it less apparent. Spending some time reading about issues with more attention might help.
Book reader, did I comment on the English test?
To be clear, I am not overly impressed with the PARCC test, but there are perfect tests. It is no doubt that the tests might shock a number of students who have not received the adequate instruction over the years.
The real question remains about what our students should know before entering high school. The presence of trigonometry on the geometry test is surprising, but the basic elements that are tested should have been introduced.
We are battling the concept that a number of concepts should be universal in our education system. And that we should be able to identify the gaping holes left by unequal approaches at the state and local level.
Ultimately we owe the next generations to at least try to make the system better, even if it is harder than anticipated.
I believe we are battling the concept that businessmen and legislatures are the best source of information, planning, and execution for large-scale educational curricular design. I believe we are battling the concept that American students are woefully, criminally, and universally under-educated – and that the source of that highly debatable concept is their teachers. I believe we are battling the concept that students are interchangeable widgets, that their effort can be monetized and their creativity and drive harnessed to get a new company off the ground.
Some people believe testing is a fine tuned method to determine equity in educational methods. Some people believe it is a very blunt instrument that is a waste of time most schools no longer have. I find Ravitch’s advocacy against universal standards, universal methods, universal uniformity, universal oversight, universal coerced compliance compelling precisely because she was once on the other side of this electrified fence.
PARCC testing is a stupid, pointless, fruitless waste of time. Many schools don’t have the computers (Bill Gates much?) or bandwidth to make it work. Students have to be taught how to take the test because of the many, many technical issues with the drop-downs, scrolling, and other non-academic issues. It’s an insult to parents and students to ask them to participate in something so clearly meant to turn schools into a factory where inquiry, examination, collaborative learning and individualized instruction cedes the floor to boilerplate instruction enforced by the state. Their children are not even a product, which would be bad enough – their children are just consumers, interchangeable and anonymous.
If edubusiness marketers really thought these tests revealed valuable data their children would be in schools where testing happens. PARCC is nothing less than a barefaced attempt to dismantle public education so it makes somebody money in the process.
Pearson is making billions of dollars and our children are the guinea pigs. The number of states still administering PARCC has decreased dramatically. The school districts have had to spend millions of dollars to upgrade technology for the sole purpose of administering PARCC. It is a flawed and developmentally inappropriate test ( reading levels on the test have been determined to be 2 years above grade level). Prepping for PARCC has taken up valuable instruction time. The results from PARCC won’t even be available until next Fall ( after the students have moved on to the next grade). How are the results going to be of any benefit to teachers? PARCC is a waste of time and has no meaning. There is growing opposition to this test and many parents are opting their children out or refusing for them to take the test. There is too much standardized testing in this nation. Let’s get back to teaching and creativity to foster a love a learning. Parents need to send a message that we have had enough with testing and with PARCC, in particular. Can you tell I am strongly against this test? I have refused the PARCC for my HS junior. Join the various FB groups about PARCC and become an informed parent. There is more here than meets the eye.
If the people in charge of delivering the services have all the answers, why is the “system” what is currently? Or should we assume that all is well, and that the only real crisis is the one manufactured by the “edubusiness?”
Why have solutions that come from “within the ranks” not kept the vultures away? If the commercial proposals are so bad, should it not be easy for the real pros to establish better curricula and formulas?
Is our problem really that tests such as PARCC exist or is it to understand why the students seem to have such problems with performing adequately on the tests?
Again, why is it that a student should know before entering high school in terms of reading and counting? And that does not bring up writing and thinking. Should we not have minimum standards of achievement in basic subjects?
Surprisingly, I do not believe that we ought to have more testing. Just as thermometer does not cure any ills but simply measure the temperature, tests are only as good as their objectives. The diagnostics that come from testing are imperfect but they are essential to establish baselines.
Lastly, I am NO fan of Pearson Education.
Exactly.
Just to clear up a misconception that some may have, the teachers that I know are not opposed to standardized testing as one form of assessment (should not be the sole form of assessment). They (we) are opposed to testing that is untried and inappropriate for the students in terms of development. We are also concerned about a test that sits children in front of a computer or other device and expects them to navigate that device in ways that they are unaccustomed to. This facilitates the need for teachers to take valuable instruction time and use it to instruct students in computer screen navigation. And unless each school is equipped with new, trustworthy, consistent technology, there is the very real fear that the system will crash, some computers will shut down, a cursor will freeze, what have you, in the middle of the testing period.
During our mandatory training session, teachers were asked to log onto the PARCC site so that we could try it out. Most of us couldn’t get past the page “loading” and were told by the facilitator “Don’t worry, that won’t happen on the day of the test.” Really? How can that be guaranteed? If it can happen, it will happen.
And Xiggi, you are clearly smarter than me. You win.
A HS foreign language teacher recently told me that her students were having to take some computerized test that consumed 10 hours of instruction time. That is huge! Students in this particular language at our HS have consistently monopolized the top 10 placements in the state on the national test administered annually. And this is a state where the language in question is more likely to be a heritage language than elsewhere.
Why on earth lose something like 2 weeks of instruction time for yet another test? What is the point?
There is no point. It is absurd. When your assessment model is taking up a disproportionate amount of time away from the actual instruction of the material needed to pass the test, you need a new model.
Solutions that come from within the ranks die on the table. Because solutions from the ranks are considered insubordination, defiance, and proof that teachers won’t just do what educrats tell them to. Commercial solutions were created by politicians funded by businesses, in response to a perceived crisis that teachers have little to no say in dealing with becaue they are busy , you know, teaching.
Students have trouble with performing adequately because the test doesn’t measure what they know. It doesn’t even measure how well they can take a test. It exists to prove educrats right. The test HAS to make enough students fail in order to justify the existence. This is educational policy created by a college dropout , backed by politicians looking for a sound bite. The Curmudgucation guy does a better job delineating all of this.
I’m not aganst benchmarking children, at all. That’s how we evaluate what they need next, and course correct. You can’t manage what you don’t measure. But PARCC is designed to standardize educational methods right down to the words, tests, and assignments regardless of a student’s goals, gifts, learning styles, diagnosis. It’s designed to demonize the teachers, while simultaneously removing any classroom autonomy. And anyone who thinks this approach is going to make substantive gains for target students is naive beyond my ability to persuade.
Greenbutton, I wish i could like your post ten times over. Thank you!
I live and teach in MA. This article is interesting but the last part about our esteemed commissioner is the most interesting. Conflict of interest much?
An extremely respected person once asserted with boundless passion that:
That and lot more of the same author became a solid source for my thesis when I started. By the time, I was formatting my research, I knew I had to quote the same author to dismiss the prior argument.
Anyone who followed the discussions on school reform in this century should easily identify the author. Or anyone who read the last few posts. In a nutshell, one of the biggest handicaps to develop a better system for the future generations is that all arguments are based on extreme views and either black or white. Advocates flip positions and, at times, completely forget what they pushed for with determination. Former friends become toughest critics when their employers change. People migrate from demanding data only to find it nauseating when the numbers are finally collected and compiled.
Build a bookcase and fill it up with the research and books written on school reform in the past twenty years, and you might find it hard to find much consistency in the debates. Little wonder what the next panacea has all the flavor of the “plat du jour!”
This statement is one I can support. The problem lies in creating standards that are achievable and are of value to our students. When that is done, create an assessment tool that is realistic and age appropriate and one that does not eat up inordinate amounts of instruction time to implement. Then we will be onto something. While we’re at it, let’s even the playing field for kids. Because the biggest enemy of education is poverty. When we start recognizing that and try to do something about at the ground level we might have a chance in hell of getting every kid to reach their potential.
Well, it is a sad testament on the education system that solutions that are culled from within the ranks die on the vine.
However, if we could talk for about what students should know and how this can measured, could we not look at what Pearson has created. It is fair to assume that, in a manner similar to ETS, the test writers retained experts from the industry. Do not get me wrong … one just need to look at the AP tests to understand how fallible such an effort can be.
But let’s assume that it worked more or less and that results align with the Common Core or another catchy phrase of the day, are there particular issues that should NOT be tested. When I look at the 8th grade tests for Math and English in this PARCC. I understand that some elements might be out of place, and probably overly challenging at below average schools that have to adopt slower progressions. Yet, I am not sure what would have to eliminated to make it more “passable” test.
What is what TEACHERS would like to see added to an 8th grade test in Math? In English? What is the precise issue that seems to upset students (who walk out of class as in NM) and their parents, and create such consternation among teachers. There must SOMETHING that an 8th grade teacher can define as … measurable.
On a personal note, I do not think that the verbal parts are great – but that is not surprising considering what appears on the ACT and similar tests. I find some parts to be extremely nebulous, do not understand the need to “spot” so many words, and happen to not like the presentation. On the other hand, I do not see much content that should NOT be at the appropriate grade level. It does seem to align itself with what students routinely bring home for … the parents to pull their hair out!
EPTR–also teach in MA. Mitchell Chester is going to make a FORTUNE once he steps down and takes his seat at the helm of PARCC.
If MA was a country, we would have the 2nd or 3rd best schools in the world. The MCAS is a good solid rigorous test. So, of course, we should dump it for PARCC. My irrational paranoia tells me this is just a ruse to yet again, make teachers look bad, and to provide an excuse to weaken our unions. The business community does have an agenda.
MADad, you make a very good point and i agree. The test is designed to fail. The children are being exploited.
Xiggi, have you ever taught children? I’m not asking you in an antagonistic way. I’m just curious if any of your thoughts on the appropriateness of the test come from classroom experience with children.
EPTR, while the answer should be yes, the reality Is the experience should not count for much. It would also not be comparable to the type of activity you’d consider teaching children in a classroom environment for days at the time. I had no responsibility for a curriculum or grading.
I do not consider your question antagonistic, but it might not have the greatest of relevance in terms of having experience with the design of tests or heuristics and the expected impacts on children.
So tests aren’t typically designed with any thought of administering them, or any experience with the actual subjects? Again, not stirring the pot – but why isn’t it relevant?