Why do some parents dislike the SOLs so very much?

[Anonymous]

What teachers fear more than anything is accountability (which is what teachers' unions were beginning to protect them from). So, spare me. I remember what brought this all on in the first place. It wasn't pretty.

What teachers fear more than anything is accountability based on shoddy and crude measurements that don't take many factors into consideration. You should be worried about that as well. But since things were so bad before, I guess we have a crisis and some good teachers can be sacrificed on the altar of mediocrity.

These "tests" should NEVER be used as high stakes instruments for either a teacher or a student. They are far from perfect for every individual and every circumstance. There are too many variables and using them creates mediocrity.

[Anonymous]

What teachers fear more than anything is accountability (which is what teachers' unions were beginning to protect them from). So, spare me. I remember what brought this all on in the first place. It wasn't pretty.

I can guarantee you that these tests are not going to attract "better" teachers to the profession. The way to do that is to respect teachers for their knowledge and education. The opposite is happening. Things are getting worse. The tests have been going on for 15 years now and education has not improved. Scores have not gone up.

[Anonymous]

1. We know that high-stakes testing transforms curriculum into test prep that undermines any test validity.
2. We are witnessing how high-stakes testing and the penalties for poor performance create a nation of cheaters not learners or producers.
3. We know that high-stakes testing actually generates anxiety that undermines student performance and learning.
Allison White, co-founder of Port Washington Advocates for Public Education, is part of the parent uprising against high-stakes testing on Long island, New York. According to White, "They're not teaching kids. It's not just the time for the testing. It's weeks and months they spend prepping for the tests. I don't see any educational purpose for the individual kid." White said. "If these tests are so important and the only way to measure whatever people pushing them claim they measure," White wants to know "why don't we require them in private schools?" She accuses the federal government of using the promise of federal dollars to "bribe states to adopt the Common Core." White is also critical of the testing companies, especially Pearson. "Essentially, they're a monopoly. They make the tests, the test prep materials, the remedial materials you need if you fail the test. If more kids fail the test, you can convince the school to buy more remedial materials."

Charlotte Danielson, a noted academic and author who is a strong supporter of Common Core, was one of the early educators to express concern about the validity of the high-stakes testing regime. According to Danielson, "I'm concerned that we may be headed for a train wreck there. The test items I've seen that have been released so far are extremely challenging. If I had to take a test that was entirely comprised of items like that, I'm not sure that I would pass it--and I've got a bunch of degrees. So I do worry that in some schools we'll have 80 percent or some large number of students failing. That's what I mean by train wreck." That was in March 2013, two years before the opt-out movement really took off.

According to Common Core claims that it is based on the idea that "students should be able to think critically rather than just memorize material for tests. But according to a report on Business Insider, "Common Core and the tests tied to those standards might prevent students from achieving that goal. Those rigorous tests could discourage teachers from being creative and force them to teach to the test" because teachers are being evaluated based on mandated improvement in student test scores, what is also known as a Value-Added Model. The report quotes Michael Benezra, a legislative director for the Massachusetts Senate, who told Business Insider "The reliance on testing pigeonholes the teachers to teach only to the test . . . "I think it's kind of counterintuitive to students getting the big picture because they're required to test so much. In order to perform well on the test, you have to memorize things. ... You can say we're trying to get them to think more critically and read closely ... but at the end, the students take a test, they don't write a long essay where they're forced to think deeply about the issue."

Whether you call it Valued-Added (VAM), Accountability, or Assessment, testing is not about learning. It is about sorting kids out, punishing teachers, schools, and communities, and denying deeper social inequality and injustice.

Even people and groups generally supportive of Common Core are questioning the validity of the high-stakes testing, especially its use to evaluate teacher performance. The American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the National Academy of Education released a report co-written by prominent educational researchers including former Obama educational advisor Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University.

According to the report's executive summary, a Value-Added Model "assumes that student learning is measured well by a given test, is influenced by the teacher alone, and is independent of other aspects of the classroom context. Because these assumptions are problematic, researchers have documented problems with value-added models as measures of teachers' effectiveness." But the report concludes that Value-Added Models for measuring Teacher Effectiveness using student performance on high-stakes standardized assessments are "highly unstable, teacher evaluations "are significantly affected by differences in the students who are assigned to them, Value-Added ratings based on student performance on high-stakes standardized tests "cannot disentangle the many influences on student progress."

Translating from education jargon into plain English, this means their research findings show that high-stakes standardized tests are not valid for evaluating teachers or students.

The pretense that we can measure everything using sophisticate algorithms that no one can explain, that the profit motive or punishment are the only or best way to motivate human behavior, or that when people fail or are left behind it is because of their own weaknesses, are perverting American culture and transforming this country into a nation of high-anxiety cheaters always searching for an edge.

It is easy to put the blame for cheating on teachers and administrators, as they did in Atlanta. But cheating on high-stakes tests in the United States is endemic and systemic. The school reform "Texas Miracle" that helped propel George Bush to the presidency was based on falsified data. According to a Government Accountability Office report evidence of organized institutional cheating was confirmed for at least one standardized test in 33 states in the school years 2010-11 and 2011-2012 alone. Thirty-two of the states decided to cancel, invalidate, or nullify test scores because of the suspected cheating. It is as if the tests are designed to turn us all into cheats.

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/the-fallacy-behind-highst_b_7441676.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What teachers fear more than anything is accountability (which is what teachers' unions were beginning to protect them from). So, spare me. I remember what brought this all on in the first place. It wasn't pretty.

I can guarantee you that these tests are not going to attract "better" teachers to the profession. The way to do that is to respect teachers for their knowledge and education. The opposite is happening. Things are getting worse. The tests have been going on for 15 years now and education has not improved. Scores have not gone up.

Agree the tests are not going to attract better teachers. That said, if there was more respect for teachers which many are working to help become reality, do you think that these tests are helpful to be able to compare students across a variety of schools? Do you think they are helpful for showing parents and teachers where students, teachers, and curriculum are weak and need additional help or emphasis? Do you really not have enough time to give a "special cake" lesson throughout the year when these tests are given over a short time frame? Since they measure the understanding of the standards guide, what in particular do you dislike about them? Do you dislike the standards too? Seems they would go hand in hand. If you have a school that has many needs in terms of ESL and IEP's, what are you missing teaching that you think these kids should get instead of the basics to pass these SOL's? If the kids are behind, they're behind and need additional help in the basics, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

1. We know that high-stakes testing transforms curriculum into test prep that undermines any test validity.
2. We are witnessing how high-stakes testing and the penalties for poor performance create a nation of cheaters not learners or producers.
3. We know that high-stakes testing actually generates anxiety that undermines student performance and learning.
Allison White, co-founder of Port Washington Advocates for Public Education, is part of the parent uprising against high-stakes testing on Long island, New York. According to White, "They're not teaching kids. It's not just the time for the testing. It's weeks and months they spend prepping for the tests. I don't see any educational purpose for the individual kid." White said. "If these tests are so important and the only way to measure whatever people pushing them claim they measure," White wants to know "why don't we require them in private schools?" She accuses the federal government of using the promise of federal dollars to "bribe states to adopt the Common Core." White is also critical of the testing companies, especially Pearson. "Essentially, they're a monopoly. They make the tests, the test prep materials, the remedial materials you need if you fail the test. If more kids fail the test, you can convince the school to buy more remedial materials."

Charlotte Danielson, a noted academic and author who is a strong supporter of Common Core, was one of the early educators to express concern about the validity of the high-stakes testing regime. According to Danielson, "I'm concerned that we may be headed for a train wreck there. The test items I've seen that have been released so far are extremely challenging. If I had to take a test that was entirely comprised of items like that, I'm not sure that I would pass it--and I've got a bunch of degrees. So I do worry that in some schools we'll have 80 percent or some large number of students failing. That's what I mean by train wreck." That was in March 2013, two years before the opt-out movement really took off.

According to Common Core claims that it is based on the idea that "students should be able to think critically rather than just memorize material for tests. But according to a report on Business Insider, "Common Core and the tests tied to those standards might prevent students from achieving that goal. Those rigorous tests could discourage teachers from being creative and force them to teach to the test" because teachers are being evaluated based on mandated improvement in student test scores, what is also known as a Value-Added Model. The report quotes Michael Benezra, a legislative director for the Massachusetts Senate, who told Business Insider "The reliance on testing pigeonholes the teachers to teach only to the test . . . "I think it's kind of counterintuitive to students getting the big picture because they're required to test so much. In order to perform well on the test, you have to memorize things. ... You can say we're trying to get them to think more critically and read closely ... but at the end, the students take a test, they don't write a long essay where they're forced to think deeply about the issue."

Whether you call it Valued-Added (VAM), Accountability, or Assessment, testing is not about learning. It is about sorting kids out, punishing teachers, schools, and communities, and denying deeper social inequality and injustice.

Even people and groups generally supportive of Common Core are questioning the validity of the high-stakes testing, especially its use to evaluate teacher performance. The American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the National Academy of Education released a report co-written by prominent educational researchers including former Obama educational advisor Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University.

According to the report's executive summary, a Value-Added Model "assumes that student learning is measured well by a given test, is influenced by the teacher alone, and is independent of other aspects of the classroom context. Because these assumptions are problematic, researchers have documented problems with value-added models as measures of teachers' effectiveness." But the report concludes that Value-Added Models for measuring Teacher Effectiveness using student performance on high-stakes standardized assessments are "highly unstable, teacher evaluations "are significantly affected by differences in the students who are assigned to them, Value-Added ratings based on student performance on high-stakes standardized tests "cannot disentangle the many influences on student progress."

Translating from education jargon into plain English, this means their research findings show that high-stakes standardized tests are not valid for evaluating teachers or students.

The pretense that we can measure everything using sophisticate algorithms that no one can explain, that the profit motive or punishment are the only or best way to motivate human behavior, or that when people fail or are left behind it is because of their own weaknesses, are perverting American culture and transforming this country into a nation of high-anxiety cheaters always searching for an edge.

It is easy to put the blame for cheating on teachers and administrators, as they did in Atlanta. But cheating on high-stakes tests in the United States is endemic and systemic. The school reform "Texas Miracle" that helped propel George Bush to the presidency was based on falsified data. According to a Government Accountability Office report evidence of organized institutional cheating was confirmed for at least one standardized test in 33 states in the school years 2010-11 and 2011-2012 alone. Thirty-two of the states decided to cancel, invalidate, or nullify test scores because of the suspected cheating. It is as if the tests are designed to turn us all into cheats.

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/the-fallacy-behind-highst_b_7441676.html

Just so we're clear, SOL's are not common core tests. And I don't think they have a sophisticate algorithm or a Value-Added Model " that assumes that student learning is measured well by a given test, is influenced by the teacher alone, and is independent of other aspects of the classroom context. It's a test to see if people have some basic knowledge of the at grade standards. Nothing else. In order to fail, you have to really not have a good knowledge of those standards and if you fail, my understanding is that the school gives you more help. Also think it's funny that this article is criticizing the fact that there are no essays and this is the very test in 5th grade that was taken out.

[Anonymous]

Agree the tests are not going to attract better teachers. That said, if there was more respect for teachers which many are working to help become reality, do you think that these tests are helpful to be able to compare students across a variety of schools? They can do that, but how does that help students to improve? Do you think they are helpful for showing parents and teachers where students, teachers, and curriculum are weak and need additional help or emphasis? No Do you really not have enough time to give a "special cake" lesson throughout the year when these tests are given over a short time frame?They are not given over a short time frame Since they measure the understanding of the standards guide, what in particular do you dislike about them?Lots of things to dislike about them---starting with how they narrow the curriculum and how they take time away from other important types of learning such as art, music, PE, etc. Do you dislike the standards too? No, standards are fine. We have always had standards Seems they would go hand in hand.No, standards can be tested locally. A national or state level test is not needed. If you have a school that has many needs in terms of ESL and IEP's, what are you missing teaching that you think these kids should get instead of the basics to pass these SOL's?I don't understand the question. Are you trying to say that the SOLs are "the basics"? If the kids are behind, they're behind and need additional help in the basics, right?

Well, if you're talking about ESL students, "the basics" might mean learning English before they can take an SOL that requires understanding complex grammatical structures or academic language in English. Is this what you mean by "basics"?[b]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you all feel about VA getting rid of the writing test in 5th grade. Now there isn't a writing test till 8th grade? Your child won't have an actual writing test for 9 years of schooling.

I'm more concerned about the fact that they teach very little writing in ES, at least at my kids' school. There is so much focus on accelerating math that I think they forget about the other stuff.

+1
The grammar/language arts in DC's 5th grade class is non-existent. No spelling tests either. I'm supplementing as much as possible at home, but it's really pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And in your analogy of the baker, we should have more SOL tests for diversity of learning, not less.


No. You should give the baker a list of things he should be able to bake and let him figure it out. The teachers know how to teach. We don't need to have high stakes testing.

Exactly. The idea of having more tests is ridiculous. You will only get the prescribed cakes even with more tests. Meanwhile, a great teacher has an idea for a lemon strawberry cake, but that cake is not on the list. That could be a very popular and interesting cake, but it will not be baked. Ever.

Yes. Our 5th graders are having Medieval Day next month, yet have never once studied the Medieval Age. They're not being tested on it, so why teach it? It's incredibly sad to me that the students know nothing about this time period unless they're motivated readers and enjoy reading about it on their own, outside of school. The curriculum is so lazy and lacking. We would move to private if we could afford to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Agree the tests are not going to attract better teachers. That said, if there was more respect for teachers which many are working to help become reality, do you think that these tests are helpful to be able to compare students across a variety of schools? They can do that, but how does that help students to improve? Do you think they are helpful for showing parents and teachers where students, teachers, and curriculum are weak and need additional help or emphasis? No Do you really not have enough time to give a "special cake" lesson throughout the year when these tests are given over a short time frame?They are not given over a short time frame Since they measure the understanding of the standards guide, what in particular do you dislike about them?Lots of things to dislike about them---starting with how they narrow the curriculum and how they take time away from other important types of learning such as art, music, PE, etc. Do you dislike the standards too? No, standards are fine. We have always had standards Seems they would go hand in hand.No, standards can be tested locally. A national or state level test is not needed. If you have a school that has many needs in terms of ESL and IEP's, what are you missing teaching that you think these kids should get instead of the basics to pass these SOL's?I don't understand the question. Are you trying to say that the SOLs are "the basics"? If the kids are behind, they're behind and need additional help in the basics, right?

Well, if you're talking about ESL students, "the basics" might mean learning English before they can take an SOL that requires understanding complex grammatical structures or academic language in English. Is this what you mean by "basics"?[b]

I don't make the rules. Thank No Child Left Behind for making sure all children meet a certain level of mastery. I believe they have accommodations when taking the tests. Either way, the school's job is to get all students including poor ones to a minimal level of competence. These are the schools that are spending so much time on the SOLs that you seem to be complaining about. The high SES schools don't spend a lot of time on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And in your analogy of the baker, we should have more SOL tests for diversity of learning, not less.


No. You should give the baker a list of things he should be able to bake and let him figure it out. The teachers know how to teach. We don't need to have high stakes testing.

Exactly. The idea of having more tests is ridiculous. You will only get the prescribed cakes even with more tests. Meanwhile, a great teacher has an idea for a lemon strawberry cake, but that cake is not on the list. That could be a very popular and interesting cake, but it will not be baked. Ever.

Yes. Our 5th graders are having Medieval Day next month, yet have never once studied the Medieval Age. They're not being tested on it, so why teach it? It's incredibly sad to me that the students know nothing about this time period unless they're motivated readers and enjoy reading about it on their own, outside of school. The curriculum is so lazy and lacking. We would move to private if we could afford to.

It is taught at the end of 5th grade in social studies although you'd think they'd be reading books about it earlier in language arts. Are you advocating for or against SOLs? Seems like you're advocating for removing the area of study because it isn't being tested.
http://fcps.edu/is/socialstudies/elementary/index.shtml#fifth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you all feel about VA getting rid of the writing test in 5th grade. Now there isn't a writing test till 8th grade? Your child won't have an actual writing test for 9 years of schooling.

I'm more concerned about the fact that they teach very little writing in ES, at least at my kids' school. There is so much focus on accelerating math that I think they forget about the other stuff.

+1
The grammar/language arts in DC's 5th grade class is non-existent. No spelling tests either. I'm supplementing as much as possible at home, but it's really pathetic.

Do you think the removal of the writing SOL has helped or hurt the language arts program in 5th grade?

[Anonymous]

All in all, the years the kids take 4 SOLs, they lose at least 5-6 weeks of instructional time.

In grades K-8, it looks like there are only 2 years where kids take 4 SOL's. 5th and 8th grade.

[Anonymous]

Actually, in the real world, most parents don't mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And in your analogy of the baker, we should have more SOL tests for diversity of learning, not less.


No. You should give the baker a list of things he should be able to bake and let him figure it out. The teachers know how to teach. We don't need to have high stakes testing.

Exactly. The idea of having more tests is ridiculous. You will only get the prescribed cakes even with more tests. Meanwhile, a great teacher has an idea for a lemon strawberry cake, but that cake is not on the list. That could be a very popular and interesting cake, but it will not be baked. Ever.

Yes. Our 5th graders are having Medieval Day next month, yet have never once studied the Medieval Age. They're not being tested on it, so why teach it? It's incredibly sad to me that the students know nothing about this time period unless they're motivated readers and enjoy reading about it on their own, outside of school. The curriculum is so lazy and lacking. We would move to private if we could afford to.

It is taught at the end of 5th grade in social studies although you'd think they'd be reading books about it earlier in language arts. Are you advocating for or against SOLs? Seems like you're advocating for removing the area of study because it isn't being tested.
http://fcps.edu/is/socialstudies/elementary/index.shtml#fifth

I think the "they're not being tested on it, so why teach it" was sarcasm. I don't think pp was advocating removing the area of study because it's not being tested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And in your analogy of the baker, we should have more SOL tests for diversity of learning, not less.


No. You should give the baker a list of things he should be able to bake and let him figure it out. The teachers know how to teach. We don't need to have high stakes testing.

Exactly. The idea of having more tests is ridiculous. You will only get the prescribed cakes even with more tests. Meanwhile, a great teacher has an idea for a lemon strawberry cake, but that cake is not on the list. That could be a very popular and interesting cake, but it will not be baked. Ever.

Yes. Our 5th graders are having Medieval Day next month, yet have never once studied the Medieval Age. They're not being tested on it, so why teach it? It's incredibly sad to me that the students know nothing about this time period unless they're motivated readers and enjoy reading about it on their own, outside of school. The curriculum is so lazy and lacking. We would move to private if we could afford to.

It is taught at the end of 5th grade in social studies although you'd think they'd be reading books about it earlier in language arts. Are you advocating for or against SOLs? Seems like you're advocating for removing the area of study because it isn't being tested.
http://fcps.edu/is/socialstudies/elementary/index.shtml#fifth

I think the "they're not being tested on it, so why teach it" was sarcasm. I don't think pp was advocating removing the area of study because it's not being tested.

The point was that they teach what will be on a test. According to this PP, this area of study is not on the test, so it isn't taught till the end of the year. Point being, that a test is needed to get teachers to teach a topic.