"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests

[Anonymous]

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/01/new_common_core_tests_-_coming.html

Today's presentation and the samples from the spring all point to students having to think about questions and readings more deeply. Questions will often have multiple parts, each digging a level further.


Also, testing time is pushing 10 hours:

• They will be longer -- as many as nine hours per elementary school grade instead of five hours now. That increase sparked many complaints of schools facing a "test mania" and prompted a state review of testing time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this line of argument that we should withdraw from taking the tests because they're too hard for our dumb and/or poorly taught students to be astonishing.

Tests are SUPPOSED to be hard.

No, Tests like these are supposed to measure what kids know. They should be a mix of challenging and easier questions. And teachers, parents and students should have access to the test questions and results -- exactly what kids missed. But there is none of that. There is a vague 1, 2, 3, 4 grade, with no specifics on where are student is weak.


But we get it. You are all about punishment and grit, not what students learn or how they fare in life.

You have a really bizarre and extreme way of thinking, pp. What is wrong with you? Are you actually a parent? I hope not.

These tests DO (or will) measure what the kids know. If the kids do poorly on them, there's something wrong -- either with the test or with the kids -- but it doesn't mean we should boycott the test for fear of finding out. That has nothing to do with "punishment."

I am a parent. My child has a learning disability. So he will be forced to sit in front of a computer for 8 hours, trying to answer questions 5 grades about his current reading level. Common Core demands this.

So you bet I'm extreme.

You also lack empathy or the ability to think forward. What will we do when 70 percent of kids fail these tests? In many states, the tests are needed for graduation or to move forward a grade. Meanwhile, they don't tell you anything about how a child is actually learning.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and the PARCC testing times are now 11 hours.


http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2014/09/common-core_assessment_group_revises_testing_time.html

The PARCC testing consortium has announced that schools will need to schedule about 10 hours of testing time this spring for elementary school students, and nearly 11 hours or more for middle and high school students.

Released Thursday, the new time projections are higher than the estimates that PARCC issued in March of 2013: eight to 10 hours of testing. But that's because the earlier figures reflected something different: the amount of time "typical" students would need to complete the English/language arts and mathematics tests.

The new numbers, informed by data from last spring's field test of 1 million ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am a parent. My child has a learning disability. So he will be forced to sit in front of a computer for 8 hours, trying to answer questions 5 grades about his current reading level. Common Core demands this.

So you bet I'm extreme.

You also lack empathy or the ability to think forward. What will we do when 70 percent of kids fail these tests? In many states, the tests are needed for graduation or to move forward a grade. Meanwhile, they don't tell you anything about how a child is actually learning.

The Common Core standards do not demand that he sit in front of a computer for 8 hours. The testing requirement is in the No Child Left Behind Act, and the requirements about accommodations come from the US Department of Education.

Also, I don't understand in what way the tests don't tell you anything about the child's learning. If the child can't pass the grade-level test, then the child is not at grade level -- right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am a parent. My child has a learning disability. So he will be forced to sit in front of a computer for 8 hours, trying to answer questions 5 grades about his current reading level. Common Core demands this.

So you bet I'm extreme.

You also lack empathy or the ability to think forward. What will we do when 70 percent of kids fail these tests? In many states, the tests are needed for graduation or to move forward a grade. Meanwhile, they don't tell you anything about how a child is actually learning.

The Common Core standards do not demand that he sit in front of a computer for 8 hours. The testing requirement is in the No Child Left Behind Act, and the requirements about accommodations come from the US Department of Education.

Also, I don't understand in what way the tests don't tell you anything about the child's learning. If the child can't pass the grade-level test, then the child is not at grade level -- right?

The tests cherry-pick certain standards and over emphasize them. So you will never know exactly which standard your child is weak in to be able to target that area. Instead, a child will drown trying to improve on every standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/01/new_common_core_tests_-_coming.html

Today's presentation and the samples from the spring all point to students having to think about questions and readings more deeply. Questions will often have multiple parts, each digging a level further.


Also, testing time is pushing 10 hours:

• They will be longer -- as many as nine hours per elementary school grade instead of five hours now. That increase sparked many complaints of schools facing a "test mania" and prompted a state review of testing time.

I don't understand your point. Is it bad to have multiple-part questions? Is it bad to have to think about questions and readings more deeply?

Also, there are a minimum of 1,080 hours in a school year, assuming 180 school days per year and 6 hours per school day. The tests will use a maximum of 9 hours, or 0.8%.

And in case you want to respond, "But what about the time spent preparing for the test?!" -- first please show that there is a relationship between the allotted time for the test and the amount of time spent on test preparation.

[Anonymous]

If 70% of kids fail (which, btw, is a wild prediction not unlike saying all the computers would fail on Jan. 1, 2000), then clearly there's something systemic going on. Like I said, either the kids aren't being taught properly or there's a fatal flaw in the test. But you can't make that determination based on a hypothetical that 70% will fail; it actually has to happen.

As for as the learning disability goes -- I get that's a problem. However, I also think there are accommodations made for other standardized tests (i.e. SAT) that can probably be adapted in this case. But simply saying that "my kid is learning disabled, ergo no testing allowed!" is foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Common Core standards do not demand that he sit in front of a computer for 8 hours. The testing requirement is in the No Child Left Behind Act, and the requirements about accommodations come from the US Department of Education.

Also, I don't understand in what way the tests don't tell you anything about the child's learning. If the child can't pass the grade-level test, then the child is not at grade level -- right?

The tests cherry-pick certain standards and over emphasize them. So you will never know exactly which standard your child is weak in to be able to target that area. Instead, a child will drown trying to improve on every standard.

Which standards do the tests cherry-pick and overemphasize, and how do you know this?

Also, the tests are not designed to characterize your child's strengths and weaknesses. They are designed to demonstrate whether or not the children in that grade in that school, as a group, are meeting the grade-level standards -- because that's the purpose of the tests, according to the federal law that requires them.

[Anonymous]

How often do you use the information on the written drivers' test vs your behind the wheel practice? Like which way to turn the wheels when parking on a hill. Do you remember that? Like prepping for a CC test.

[Anonymous]

cont. My point is that there is a difference between what you cram for on a test and drill for, and the actual use of that information. This standardized testing is a prime example. It only measures child's ability to pass the test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:cont. My point is that there is a difference between what you cram for on a test and drill for, and the actual use of that information. This standardized testing is a prime example. It only measures child's ability to pass the test.

Yes, standardized testing measures the child's ability to pass the test. In other words, standardized testing alone does not guarantee that the child truly understands the information. However, the probability is high that if the child does not pass the test, the child does not truly understand the information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How often do you use the information on the written drivers' test vs your behind the wheel practice? Like which way to turn the wheels when parking on a hill. Do you remember that? Like prepping for a CC test.

People would be better, safer drivers if they used that information more often. So I don't think that's a good analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Common Core standards do not demand that he sit in front of a computer for 8 hours. The testing requirement is in the No Child Left Behind Act, and the requirements about accommodations come from the US Department of Education.

Also, I don't understand in what way the tests don't tell you anything about the child's learning. If the child can't pass the grade-level test, then the child is not at grade level -- right?

The tests cherry-pick certain standards and over emphasize them. So you will never know exactly which standard your child is weak in to be able to target that area. Instead, a child will drown trying to improve on every standard.

Which standards do the tests cherry-pick and overemphasize, and how do you know this?

Also, the tests are not designed to characterize your child's strengths and weaknesses. They are designed to demonstrate whether or not the children in that grade in that school, as a group, are meeting the grade-level standards -- because that's the purpose of the tests, according to the federal law that requires them.

A dissection of Common Core math test questions leaves educator ‘appalled’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/11/30/a-dissection-of-common-core-math-test-questions-leaves-educator-appalled/

Using the sample of released items in the New York Common Core tests, I recently spent some time looking over the eighth-grade math results and items to see what was to be learned – and I came away appalled at what I found.

Readers will recall that the whole point of the standards is that they be embedded in complex problems that require both content and practice standards. But what were the hardest questions on the 8th grade test? Picayune, isolated, and needlessly complex calculations of numbers using scientific notation. And in one case, an item is patently invalid in its convoluted use of the English language to set up the prompt, as we shall see.

As I have long written, there is a sorry record in mass testing of sacrificing validity for reliability. This test seems like a prime example. Score what is easy to score, regardless of the intent of the Common Core Standards. There are 28 eighth-grade math standards. Why do such arguably less important standards have at least five items related to them? (Who decided which standards were most important? Who decided to test the standards in complete isolation from one another simply because that is psychometrically cleaner?)

[Anonymous]

However, the probability is high that if the child does not pass the test, the child does not truly understand the information.

You are assuming two things:
1. That the test correctly tests the standards taught.
2. That the standards taught are appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

However, the probability is high that if the child does not pass the test, the child does not truly understand the information.

You are assuming two things:
1. That the test correctly tests the standards taught.
2. That the standards taught are appropriate.

No.

1. If the child does not pass the test, then the child does not truly understand the information the child needs to understand in order to pass the test. That is true regardless of what has or has not been taught.
2. The appropriateness of the standards is a different question entirely.

Also, it's not possible to teach standards. Teaching is curriculum.