PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them

[Anonymous]

This article was written in 2003 (soon after NCLB was enacted). It points to research that shows that standardized testing does not impact learning much, if at all.

High-stakes testing has not produced improvements in educational outcomes, even as measured by results on other tests. High school graduation tests started proliferating in the early 1980s, along with much-expanded state testing programs. By the late 1990s, high stakes for schools had become common. Over this time, research shows that
States that did not have high-stakes graduation exams were more likely to improve average scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) than were states that did have such exams (Neill & Gaylor, 2001). At the same time, NAEP score gaps between low- and high-income students did not narrow (Barton, 2002).
States without graduation tests were more likely than states with such exams to show improvement or to improve at a faster rate on a variety of tests, including the NAEP, the SAT, and the ACT (Amrein & Berliner, 2002).
Data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study indicated that high-stakes testing was not associated with improved scores but was associated with higher dropout rates (Jacob, 2001).
These reports and many others show that the focus on tests has not produced the promised results. Claims of improvement typically rest on inflated scores on state exams. Texas, the model for the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act, provides a good example. As Texas Assessment of Academic Skills scores rose dramatically, the state's NAEP reading results did not change significantly. At the same time, the racial score gap in Texas widened (Neill & Gaylor, 2001). Meanwhile, the test-driven approach in Texas led to a much higher dropout rate, particularly for Latinos and African Americans (Haney, 2000, 2001).[/quote

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb03/vol60/num05/The-Dangers-of-Testing.aspx

[Anonymous]

Apologists for Pearson and CC? One could flip that silly question on its head and ask why are anti-CCers shilling for the Koch brothers?

And don't they realize that there are also actual, real people with genuine problems and frustrations with the anti-CC agenda?

That Koch brothers comment is a red herring. You claim that the anti Common Core people are all right wing nuts--yet there are plenty of people on here who have given good arguments against Common core. I have yet to see any reasons to support it. Why do you have problems with the people who are pointing out the issues with Common Core. You have yet to substantiate your support of it. What is it going to accomplish? How is it going to make things better? It sounds to me like your support of it is purely political. Ironic, since Jeb Bush is one of its biggest supporters.

[Anonymous]

If high-stakes tests have not led to improvement by now, will they ever? Two important factors suggest that even if they could in theory, they won't in practice.
Socioeconomic effects. Low-income and African American and Latino students enter school substantially less prepared to do academic work than their middle-income (never mind wealthy) or white or Asian peers (Lee & Burkam, 2002). In addition, the first group attends schools that are far less prepared, in terms of teachers and physical resources, to teach them. Rothstein (2002) points out the vast disparities in housing, health care, and other supports available to children. Those who start with less get less, and as a result they either fail to catch up or fall even further behind. Without major social investments in both classroom and out-of-school supports for low-income children, it is absurd to believe that more tests will enable schools to overcome the gaps in academic learning.
Several reports over the past few years have purported to show that large numbers of schools serving low-income students have succeeded in overcoming the effects of poverty. More careful studies, however, have shown these claims to be at best wildly inflated and often completely misleading (Krashen, 2002). Simply demanding higher scores, even with rewards and sanctions attached, will not do the job.
Teaching to the test. Any exam can only sample the curriculum that students should learn. For test results to be valid measures of real learning, students must have been taught a full curriculum. If instruction narrows to focus on the limited sample covered by the test, scores become inflated and misleading. This largely explains the difference between results on state-specific tests and those on such neutral measures as the NAEP.
Many supporters of test-driven “reform” argue that it will at least guarantee that teachers teach the basics (which the test will supposedly cover), and will thereby initiate a positive reform process. Unfortunately, test-driven schooling often fails to provide even the basics. For example, some reading teachers teach students to “read” by looking over the answer options to questions attached to short reading passages and then searching the passage to find a clue for selecting the answer. Others drill phonics, but never get to comprehension. As a result, independent evaluators find that the students cannot explain what they have just read—meaning they actually cannot read (McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001).

More from the above article.

Unfortunately it is often in the lowest scoring schools that test-driven teaching goes on. Why? Because those students are so far behind that there is desperation to do anything to make the scores higher. The staff in those schools know that there is no chance of passing if authentic teaching is used. Their only chance is to game the test. Those very students who are supposed to be "helped" by the NCLB rules are the ones truly left behind. The tests are a bother and a waste of money for schools where most students are ahead anyway.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately it is often in the lowest scoring schools that test-driven teaching goes on. Why? Because those students are so far behind that there is desperation to do anything to make the scores higher. The staff in those schools know that there is no chance of passing if authentic teaching is used. Their only chance is to game the test. Those very students who are supposed to be "helped" by the NCLB rules are the ones truly left behind. The tests are a bother and a waste of money for schools where most students are ahead anyway.

Or, school systems game it by putting in magnet programs or AAP centers in poor performing schools. That brings the school scores up --but does not help underperforming students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While you may not be apologists for this Pearson, CC, and NCLB, you *sound* like you are apologists (not apologizing--different word). No evidence is needed except to see with one's own eyes how children are being treated and how learning time is being wasted. I believe many of us are parents, not necessarily teachers, though some are teachers. I am ultimately responsible for my child's education, not the school. So that's why I am a card carrying liberal who is against PARCC, CC, and NCLB.

Here's my evidence and what I see with my own eyes:

I happen to be a liberal parent who has seen with my own eyes how the process works for my kid (who just took the PARCC this week) and I have *NO* problems with it. My kid's school spent ZERO prep on it, other than part of a study hall session going over test process and format, and my kid spent a few hours earlier this week doing the English PARCC, and then a few hours on the Math PARCC yesterday, and that was it. There was only one question that he thought was confusing on the Math test because of terminology differences but he was able to work it out. My kid thought the test was a piece of cake. As for his coursework, his Math and English textbooks are *NOT* from Pearson but integrate CC content just fine, and his teachers likewise do just fine with it. No, they *DON'T* spend an inordinate amount of time over-explaining things and no, they *DON'T* waste any time, and no, they *DON'T* divert away from anything to focus specifically on CC - in fact they pack quite a bit of very solid content in, it's in many ways better content than what I had as a student growing up.

That is my own, actual experience, and what I see with my own eyes, and nothing you can ever say will *ever* change that. If your experience is different from mine, then it's purely a function of how your school is doing things and the poor choices that they are making, and the fact that my experience is different from yours PROVES that. And that is why I am solidly convinced that your assessment and diagnosis is just plain wrong - because my own experience shows otherwise, whereas you do not have that same experience and perspective that I do, for you to be able to make that assessment more robustly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Unfortunately it is often in the lowest scoring schools that test-driven teaching goes on. Why? Because those students are so far behind that there is desperation to do anything to make the scores higher. The staff in those schools know that there is no chance of passing if authentic teaching is used. Their only chance is to game the test. Those very students who are supposed to be "helped" by the NCLB rules are the ones truly left behind. The tests are a bother and a waste of money for schools where most students are ahead anyway.

Or, school systems game it by putting in magnet programs or AAP centers in poor performing schools. That brings the school scores up --but does not help underperforming students.

By slicing and dicing their student demographic to peel off high achievers to magnets or AAP centers, they could provide tailored supports - but they are choosing not to. That's not a function of NCLB, that's pure local politics in action.

[Anonymous]

I happen to be a liberal parent who has seen with my own eyes how the process works for my kid (who just took the PARCC this week) and I have *NO* problems with it. My kid's school spent ZERO prep on it, other than part of a study hall session going over test process and format, and my kid spent a few hours earlier this week doing the English PARCC, and then a few hours on the Math PARCC yesterday, and that was it. There was only one question that he thought was confusing on the Math test because of terminology differences but he was able to work it out. My kid thought the test was a piece of cake. As for his coursework, his Math and English textbooks are *NOT* from Pearson but integrate CC content just fine, and his teachers likewise do just fine with it. No, they *DON'T* spend an inordinate amount of time over-explaining things and no, they *DON'T* waste any time, and no, they *DON'T* divert away from anything to focus specifically on CC - in fact they pack quite a bit of very solid content in, it's in many ways better content than what I had as a student growing up.

That is my own, actual experience, and what I see with my own eyes, and nothing you can ever say will *ever* change that. If your experience is different from mine, then it's purely a function of how your school is doing things and the poor choices that they are making, and the fact that my experience is different from yours PROVES that. And that is why I am solidly convinced that your assessment and diagnosis is just plain wrong - because my own experience shows otherwise, whereas you do not have that same experience and perspective that I do, for you to be able to make that assessment more robustly.

Interesting lead to your experience.

I find this very interesting--especially since you demand that everyone else give evidence. You do understand that your experience is purely anecdotal? And, I suspect that your son is in a school that does not have to worry about passing the tests.

[Anonymous]

Many supporters of test-driven “reform” argue that it will at least guarantee that teachers teach the basics (which the test will supposedly cover), and will thereby initiate a positive reform process.

This is where I have a philosophical difference. The rationale is that teachers will not teach "at least the basics" unless they are held accountable to a punitive system. This assumes that a person will not do what is right unless they are threatened. I don't believe this. I believe that people will do their best when they are supported and trusted. I believe that teachers want to treat their students this way as well. Teachers are professionals and they deserve this respect. Teachers respect their students and wish to treat them in positive and trusting ways as well.


It is an oxymoron to say that you want to "help" and initiate a "positive process" by threatening punitive sanctions for a lack of success (that even more ironically is mostly not in the control of the teacher).

[Anonymous]

whereas you do not have that same experience and perspective that I do, for you to be able to make that assessment more robustly.

LOL! So, one school that likely has all above average students does not spend a lot of time on getting ready for the tests, this means that Common Core is good? Like those kids wouldn't have done well anyway? Where is your comparison?

[Anonymous]

I happen to be a liberal parent who has seen with my own eyes how the process works for my kid (who just took the PARCC this week) and I have *NO* problems with it. My kid's school spent ZERO prep on it, other than part of a study hall session going over test process and format, and my kid spent a few hours earlier this week doing the English PARCC, and then a few hours on the Math PARCC yesterday, and that was it. There was only one question that he thought was confusing on the Math test because of terminology differences but he was able to work it out. My kid thought the test was a piece of cake. As for his coursework, his Math and English textbooks are *NOT* from Pearson but integrate CC content just fine, and his teachers likewise do just fine with it. No, they *DON'T* spend an inordinate amount of time over-explaining things and no, they *DON'T* waste any time, and no, they *DON'T* divert away from anything to focus specifically on CC - in fact they pack quite a bit of very solid content in, it's in many ways better content than what I had as a student growing up.

That is my own, actual experience, and what I see with my own eyes, and nothing you can ever say will *ever* change that. If your experience is different from mine, then it's purely a function of how your school is doing things and the poor choices that they are making, and the fact that my experience is different from yours PROVES that. And that is why I am solidly convinced that your assessment and diagnosis is just plain wrong - because my own experience shows otherwise, whereas you do not have that same experience and perspective that I do, for you to be able to make that assessment more robustly.


You are not as liberal as you think you are. You are definitely not a social liberal. Wow. Keep living life in your own mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Apologists for Pearson and CC? One could flip that silly question on its head and ask why are anti-CCers shilling for the Koch brothers?

And don't they realize that there are also actual, real people with genuine problems and frustrations with the anti-CC agenda?

That Koch brothers comment is a red herring. You claim that the anti Common Core people are all right wing nuts--yet there are plenty of people on here who have given good arguments against Common core. I have yet to see any reasons to support it. Why do you have problems with the people who are pointing out the issues with Common Core. You have yet to substantiate your support of it. What is it going to accomplish? How is it going to make things better? It sounds to me like your support of it is purely political. Ironic, since Jeb Bush is one of its biggest supporters.

It's not a red herring at all. The Koch Brothers pumped millions of dollars into their front organizations like the Heartland Institute to come up with a set of talking points, which have been echoed and repeated all over this thread over and over again - despite not having any actual data or evidence to support them. Red herrings? Throwing Jeb Bush out there is a red herring, because he's a moderate, not a hardline conservative like the Koch's and their Tea Party agenda.

What does it accomplish? It creates consistent frameworks for content and curriculum, it enables portability and interoperability of curriculum and content for teachers, students, and content providers, it establishes baselines and assessments for comparative and longitudinal analysis, and it has certainly renewed a lot of dialogue around what education should be and what our expectations should be - it does quite a few things, none of which are by any stretch a "waste." Meanwhile, where is the evidence that getting rid of standards and testing will accomplish anything, let alone improve things? 100+ pages have already shown there isn't any evidence that it will, unless all you are looking at is cost and you really don't care about education.

[Anonymous]

^Forgot to end the quotes after the word "robustly".

You are not as liberal as you think you are. You are definitely not a social liberal. Wow. Keep living life in your own mind.

[Anonymous]

What does it accomplish? It creates consistent frameworks for content and curriculum, it enables portability and interoperability of curriculum and content for teachers, students, and content providers, it establishes baselines and assessments for comparative and longitudinal analysis,

Oh, I see. It assumes that the same means good because we are all the same. And it lets the feds compare us all based on the sameness of all of us. Over time as well.

[Anonymous]

It creates consistent frameworks for content and curriculum,

Shouldn't content and curriculum be dynamic? Shouldn't we celebrate diversity of schools? Shouldn't we diversify based on our strengths?

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, where is the evidence that getting rid of standards and testing will accomplish anything, let alone improve things? 100+ pages have already shown there isn't any evidence that it will, unless all you are looking at is cost and you really don't care about education.

I posted the article with the research. Apparently you didn't read it. Here it is again:

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb03/vol60/num05/The-Dangers-of-Testing.aspx