PARCC is going away

[Anonymous]

All this money wasted on bad decisions. Most states never adopted PARCC in the first place. Maryland spent millions on it, and now it will spend millions on a new test. We need better education professionals representing us in Annapolis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PARCC tests were better than the previous state-written assessments. And now here we are, back to new and different state-written assessments.

You didn't read or understand the article. The state is not writing the test--they are looking for vendors to write the test or propose already existing tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this money wasted on bad decisions. Most states never adopted PARCC in the first place. Maryland spent millions on it, and now it will spend millions on a new test. We need better education professionals representing us in Annapolis.

It was originally 24 states. That's 2 states short of "most", but it's still a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PARCC tests were better than the previous state-written assessments. And now here we are, back to new and different state-written assessments.

You didn't read or understand the article. The state is not writing the test--they are looking for vendors to write the test or propose already existing tests.

Ah. So, we're replacing one vendor-written test with another vendor-written test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PARCC tests were better than the previous state-written assessments. And now here we are, back to new and different state-written assessments.

You didn't read or understand the article. The state is not writing the test--they are looking for vendors to write the test or propose already existing tests.

Ah. So, we're replacing one vendor-written test with another vendor-written test.

Either way doesn't matter to me. PARCC needed to go as it was based on the belief that everyone should and could go to college, NCLB bullshit. If you read the documentation for PARCC, "career" ready is just another way of saying "college"--careers, not jobs. As the article states, I agree with educators that believe the new test should be adaptive and test grade-level material. It should be able to assess if a child is below, at, or above grade level and quickly get that information to teachers/schools so that the information is useful.

[Anonymous]

Why do we need a new test? Can't MAP tests function well enough for assessments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PARCC tests were better than the previous state-written assessments. And now here we are, back to new and different state-written assessments.

You didn't read or understand the article. The state is not writing the test--they are looking for vendors to write the test or propose already existing tests.

Ah. So, we're replacing one vendor-written test with another vendor-written test.

Either way doesn't matter to me. PARCC needed to go as it was based on the belief that everyone should and could go to college, NCLB bullshit. If you read the documentation for PARCC, "career" ready is just another way of saying "college"--careers, not jobs. As the article states, I agree with educators that believe the new test should be adaptive and test grade-level material. It should be able to assess if a child is below, at, or above grade level and quickly get that information to teachers/schools so that the information is useful.

That is factually incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PARCC tests were better than the previous state-written assessments. And now here we are, back to new and different state-written assessments.

You didn't read or understand the article. The state is not writing the test--they are looking for vendors to write the test or propose already existing tests.

Ah. So, we're replacing one vendor-written test with another vendor-written test.

Either way doesn't matter to me. PARCC needed to go as it was based on the belief that everyone should and could go to college, NCLB bullshit. If you read the documentation for PARCC, "career" ready is just another way of saying "college"--careers, not jobs. As the article states, I agree with educators that believe the new test should be adaptive and test grade-level material. It should be able to assess if a child is below, at, or above grade level and quickly get that information to teachers/schools so that the information is useful.

That is factually incorrect.

Please cite evidence to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PARCC tests were better than the previous state-written assessments. And now here we are, back to new and different state-written assessments.

You didn't read or understand the article. The state is not writing the test--they are looking for vendors to write the test or propose already existing tests.

Ah. So, we're replacing one vendor-written test with another vendor-written test.

Either way doesn't matter to me. PARCC needed to go as it was based on the belief that everyone should and could go to college, NCLB bullshit. If you read the documentation for PARCC, "career" ready is just another way of saying "college"--careers, not jobs. As the article states, I agree with educators that believe the new test should be adaptive and test grade-level material. It should be able to assess if a child is below, at, or above grade level and quickly get that information to teachers/schools so that the information is useful.

That is factually incorrect.

Please cite evidence to the contrary.

Eh. Please cite evidence to support your assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PARCC tests were better than the previous state-written assessments. And now here we are, back to new and different state-written assessments.

You didn't read or understand the article. The state is not writing the test--they are looking for vendors to write the test or propose already existing tests.

Ah. So, we're replacing one vendor-written test with another vendor-written test.

Either way doesn't matter to me. PARCC needed to go as it was based on the belief that everyone should and could go to college, NCLB bullshit. If you read the documentation for PARCC, "career" ready is just another way of saying "college"--careers, not jobs. As the article states, I agree with educators that believe the new test should be adaptive and test grade-level material. It should be able to assess if a child is below, at, or above grade level and quickly get that information to teachers/schools so that the information is useful.

That is factually incorrect.

Please cite evidence to the contrary.

Eh. Please cite evidence to support your assertion.

Here you go:

https://www.educationnext.org/the-politics-of-common-core-assessments-parcc-smarter-balanced/

https://parcc-assessment.org/content/uploads/2017/11/PARCCCCRDPolicyandPLDsFINAL.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this money wasted on bad decisions. Most states never adopted PARCC in the first place. Maryland spent millions on it, and now it will spend millions on a new test. We need better education professionals representing us in Annapolis.

It was originally 24 states. That's 2 states short of "most", but it's still a lot.

This article says it was only a dozen states that adopted PARCC. That's hardly "most." And anyway, for the last few years, the number was dropping until Maryland was one of only 3 states last year.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2018/09/maryland_will_drop_the_parcc_c.html

Maryland officials will drop the PARCC exam after the 2018-19 school year, reducing the number of states administering the full exam after that year to just two: New Mexico and New Jersey, plus the District of Columbia.

The state education department confirmed the news, which was first reported by The Baltimore Sun. State board members have discussed moving away from PARCC in the last six months, a Maryland education department spokesman said, and have already put out an RFP seeking a new test vendor.

PARCC was one of the original tests created to assess students' grasp of the Common Core State Standards, the shared expectations in use in more than a dozen states, including Maryland; it is also comparatively more difficult than many of the other tests that emerged in the last decade, including other common-core tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PARCC tests were better than the previous state-written assessments. And now here we are, back to new and different state-written assessments.

BS, the only issue with the state assessments was they didn't provide national comparisons. PARCC was ill conceived and slapped together on all levels.

Did you have anything to do with the previous MSAs? They were terrible.

They were straightforward, and throwing the baby out with the bath water has achieved nothing.

What baby, what bathwater? The curriculum changed, so the tests had to change. Now the curriculum isn't changing (the state isn't un-adopting the Common Core State Standards), but the tests are changing anyway.

This is the comparison that was presented to parents when PARCC rolled out: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/burtonsvillees/news/Attachment%20A%20Key%20Facts.pdf
Look at the two math questions. There's nothing about the new curriculum that makes the MSA question irrelevant. And although we were told the PARCC question is clearly deeper and richer, it's not. The only thing it requires is more reading comprehension. If you actually look at the math involved, there's no grand concept, it's busy work. Any thought put into the solution is wasted, just get do the plugging and be done. The MSA question actually tests what the concept of remainder means in a real world scenario, maybe that's old hat, but it's not nothing.

Now of course this is making too much of a single comparison, but this is *the* sample question the PARCC people decide to release to sell their test. School systems across the country flashed this same question up to wow parents. No need for a postmortem, PARCC's dead, we were sold a bill of goods.

Wow. I think the PARCC question is deeper and richer and more likely to be what you see in the real world. You have to set up the question first, then solve it. That said, I'm not sure whether my 4th grader could figure it out. He could definitely figure out the MSA question though. He can do the computation, but he can have trouble figuring out what the computation is supposed to be. We are working on that.

Really, in the real world would you'd bring six empty vehicles on a field trip? And, what's wrong with asking a simple question of someone who's just learning a concept? Is there something about doing everything at once that's superior? Math is a tool for isolating concepts. The PARCC question is so hyper it's hard to tell there's not really much going on.

Even before the math, there's just too much going on--text, tables, pictures, a question that demands three responses. Why does the bus look like a van? Don't forth graders worry that one of the seats in the five passenger car is the driver? Hmm, the answers work out the same whether or not you eliminate a driver from the seat count. So the test writer thought this might be a point of confusion and they decided not to state it more clearly? Again, that just penalizes the student who notices the ambiguity and hunts for clarification or takes time to check that drivers don't make a difference.

Don't sell your son (or yourself short), this was just garbage designed to distract. Good riddance.

[Anonymous]

I believe that adopting PARCC was required in order for states to receive additional federal funding. Not sure what the exact numbers were/are, but this has been my understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Really, in the real world would you'd bring six empty vehicles on a field trip? And, what's wrong with asking a simple question of someone who's just learning a concept? Is there something about doing everything at once that's superior? Math is a tool for isolating concepts. The PARCC question is so hyper it's hard to tell there's not really much going on.

Even before the math, there's just too much going on--text, tables, pictures, a question that demands three responses. Why does the bus look like a van? Don't forth graders worry that one of the seats in the five passenger car is the driver? Hmm, the answers work out the same whether or not you eliminate a driver from the seat count. So the test writer thought this might be a point of confusion and they decided not to state it more clearly? Again, that just penalizes the student who notices the ambiguity and hunts for clarification or takes time to check that drivers don't make a difference.

Don't sell your son (or yourself short), this was just garbage designed to distract. Good riddance.

In the real world, I have never (among other things) used trigonometric identities, calculus, or linear algebra. I don't think that's the standard we should be using.

It's fine to ask simple questions for someone just learning the concept. That doesn't make the more complex question inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here you go:

https://www.educationnext.org/the-politics-of-common-core-assessments-parcc-smarter-balanced/

https://parcc-assessment.org/content/uploads/2017/11/PARCCCCRDPolicyandPLDsFINAL.pdf

A student who is determined to be College- and Career-Ready through performance on the PARCC high school
assessments is one who has demonstrated the academic knowledge, skills, and practices in ELA/literacy or
mathematics necessary to enter directly into and succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing courses in those content
areas in programs leading to a credential or degree1
from two- and four-year public2
institutions of higher
education.

That's "everyone should graduate from high school with the skills to enter and succeed in a two-year or four-year post-high-school program", not "everyone should and could go to college". What's more, I think that everyone should graduate from high school with the skills to enter and succeed in a two-year or four-year post-high-school program. There's not much you can do in this economy with nothing but a high school degree. When students graduate from high school without the skills to enter and succeed not ready for a two-year community college program or an apprenticeship in a technical and vocational trade - we've failed them.