PARCC is going away

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
PARCC is completely experimental. It has not been validated as accurate & yet it will be used to evaluate students, schools and teachers.

Standardized test development practice requires that the testing instrument be validated. Such validation requires that the test maker show that the test correlates strongly with other accepted measures of what is being tested, both generally and specifically (that is, with regard to specific materials and/or skills being tested).

In short, PARCC results have no proven correlation to anything. The scores are worthless.

Did you copy and paste this from the 2014-2015 school year? It's the 2018-2019 school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

one of the most important parts of being good at math - abstract thinking - is knowing what to ignore and what to focus on, something you seem to be struggling with.

Ah, so it would be an even better test if the fire alarms were required to go off during testing? We'd find out which 4th graders can do math in a war zone. Or do we just want to test math and deal with distractibility another day? No, a poorly worded question is not just simulating real world conditions. One of the principles of common core is "attention to precision". The language here is imprecise. I don't care how eloquently the PARCC folk can quote CCSS, their work product demonstrates they're nothing but hacks. The contortions you go through to defend them marks you as the same. This test is gone. The people who wrote it are pounding the pavement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

one of the most important parts of being good at math - abstract thinking - is knowing what to ignore and what to focus on, something you seem to be struggling with.

Ah, so it would be an even better test if the fire alarms were required to go off during testing? We'd find out which 4th graders can do math in a war zone. Or do we just want to test math and deal with distractibility another day? No, a poorly worded question is not just simulating real world conditions. One of the principles of common core is "attention to precision". The language here is imprecise. I don't care how eloquently the PARCC folk can quote CCSS, their work product demonstrates they're nothing but hacks. The contortions you go through to defend them marks you as the same. This test is gone. The people who wrote it are pounding the pavement.

the question is not poorly worded, it's just that you don't know how to solve a fifth(?) grade problem, it appears. the only math that is relevant for everyday life (a dumbest possible criticism that you keep repeating as somehow devastating) is dealing with money, clock and measures. all that is trivial and should have been mastered by grade 3 at the latest. but elementary school. lmath is much more than that - it's a building block for math proficiency which is a foundation for many fields and career (not that you know anything about it). according to you trigonometry or differential equations should not be taught because nobody needs them when they go out to eat.

the language is very precise, it's just that you are bad at math, don't feel like solving the problem (and yes, sometimes, not all too infrequently, math problem require you do find multiple solutions by going through all possible combination. not necessary fun but a necessary skill). yet here you are pronouncing on what needs to be tested. i don't care who wrote the test and what they are doing now pfff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

the question is not poorly worded, it's just that you don't know how to solve a fifth(?) grade problem, it appears. the only math that is relevant for everyday life (a dumbest possible criticism that you keep repeating as somehow devastating) is dealing with money, clock and measures. all that is trivial and should have been mastered by grade 3 at the latest. but elementary school. lmath is much more than that - it's a building block for math proficiency which is a foundation for many fields and career (not that you know anything about it). according to you trigonometry or differential equations should not be taught because nobody needs them when they go out to eat.

the language is very precise, it's just that you are bad at math, don't feel like solving the problem (and yes, sometimes, not all too infrequently, math problem require you do find multiple solutions by going through all possible combination. not necessary fun but a necessary skill). yet here you are pronouncing on what needs to be tested. i don't care who wrote the test and what they are doing now pfff

While I generally like the intent of PARCC (and the type of questions), the wording of this particular question is definitely ambiguous as stated by the earlier poster. If you think it is not, you might want to talk to kids who really enjoy creative problem solving or solving puzzles in general. Seats does not equal passengers. And at fourth/fifth grade levels, it does not matter if the answer a kid arrives at will still be same - what matters is the unnecessary confusion and waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Starting next year we’ll have a new test. They claim it’ll be shorter and require less time away from regular instruction. There was also a reference to the over-emphasis on test subjects, so maybe we’ll see more foreign language, art, history, etc? Fingers crossed!

https://www.google.com/amp/www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-parcc-replacement-test-20180905-story,amp.html

Took 10 years. Same poor feedback since Year 1, from county, teachers and nationally.
Maryland hung in there to be one of the last PARCC users, that's for sure. Hope they enjoyed their Pearson's vacations, dinners and outings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

one of the most important parts of being good at math - abstract thinking - is knowing what to ignore and what to focus on, something you seem to be struggling with.

Ah, so it would be an even better test if the fire alarms were required to go off during testing? We'd find out which 4th graders can do math in a war zone. Or do we just want to test math and deal with distractibility another day? No, a poorly worded question is not just simulating real world conditions. One of the principles of common core is "attention to precision". The language here is imprecise. I don't care how eloquently the PARCC folk can quote CCSS, their work product demonstrates they're nothing but hacks. The contortions you go through to defend them marks you as the same. This test is gone. The people who wrote it are pounding the pavement.

the question is not poorly worded, it's just that you don't know how to solve a fifth(?) grade problem, it appears. the only math that is relevant for everyday life (a dumbest possible criticism that you keep repeating as somehow devastating) is dealing with money, clock and measures. all that is trivial and should have been mastered by grade 3 at the latest. but elementary school. lmath is much more than that - it's a building block for math proficiency which is a foundation for many fields and career (not that you know anything about it). according to you trigonometry or differential equations should not be taught because nobody needs them when they go out to eat.

the language is very precise, it's just that you are bad at math, don't feel like solving the problem (and yes, sometimes, not all too infrequently, math problem require you do find multiple solutions by going through all possible combination. not necessary fun but a necessary skill). yet here you are pronouncing on what needs to be tested. i don't care who wrote the test and what they are doing now pfff

The question is poorly worded because it uses the term passenger without making clear whether a driver counts as a passenger (yet it goes out of the way to say teachers are included in class totals). Instead it's been set up such the answer (A,B,E) will be the same either way it's calculated. And, in the real world, there are no such guarantees and this would be a point that requires clarification. A conscientious student taking the test should either re-read expecting to find the definition, or begin the more restrictive calculation (drivers take up a seat) and hope this doesn't mean extra work. So, the first step to solving this problem is figure out what the test maker actually intended to ask. (This is an important skill, as bad tests are a fact of life, but that does not mean we shouldn't fix bad tests when we find them.) Beyond that the problem is busy work, as it's just calculate six totals and rank them. There's no insight that makes it quicker, but, true that is real life. What isn't real life is choosing three of five distinct possibilities, in the real world the interest would be some sort of optimization and sufficient but excessive solutions, like 2 vans and 11 cars, wouldn't be wanted if that's six too many cars.

But really what are you talking about, you haven't engaged in the problem in any way to demonstrate this fine math required, yet you suggest I'm lazy and stupid. I haven't said anything about money and time being the only appropriate topics of study. I use trig on a daily basis and have never not anti diff eq. Whatever, keep propping up a failed test, that's smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

one of the most important parts of being good at math - abstract thinking - is knowing what to ignore and what to focus on, something you seem to be struggling with.

Ah, so it would be an even better test if the fire alarms were required to go off during testing? We'd find out which 4th graders can do math in a war zone. Or do we just want to test math and deal with distractibility another day? No, a poorly worded question is not just simulating real world conditions. One of the principles of common core is "attention to precision". The language here is imprecise. I don't care how eloquently the PARCC folk can quote CCSS, their work product demonstrates they're nothing but hacks. The contortions you go through to defend them marks you as the same. This test is gone. The people who wrote it are pounding the pavement.

the question is not poorly worded, it's just that you don't know how to solve a fifth(?) grade problem, it appears. the only math that is relevant for everyday life (a dumbest possible criticism that you keep repeating as somehow devastating) is dealing with money, clock and measures. all that is trivial and should have been mastered by grade 3 at the latest. but elementary school. lmath is much more than that - it's a building block for math proficiency which is a foundation for many fields and career (not that you know anything about it). according to you trigonometry or differential equations should not be taught because nobody needs them when they go out to eat.

the language is very precise, it's just that you are bad at math, don't feel like solving the problem (and yes, sometimes, not all too infrequently, math problem require you do find multiple solutions by going through all possible combination. not necessary fun but a necessary skill). yet here you are pronouncing on what needs to be tested. i don't care who wrote the test and what they are doing now pfff

The question is poorly worded because it uses the term passenger without making clear whether a driver counts as a passenger (yet it goes out of the way to say teachers are included in class totals). Instead it's been set up such the answer (A,B,E) will be the same either way it's calculated. And, in the real world, there are no such guarantees and this would be a point that requires clarification. A conscientious student taking the test should either re-read expecting to find the definition, or begin the more restrictive calculation (drivers take up a seat) and hope this doesn't mean extra work. So, the first step to solving this problem is figure out what the test maker actually intended to ask. (This is an important skill, as bad tests are a fact of life, but that does not mean we shouldn't fix bad tests when we find them.) Beyond that the problem is busy work, as it's just calculate six totals and rank them. There's no insight that makes it quicker, but, true that is real life. What isn't real life is choosing three of five distinct possibilities, in the real world the interest would be some sort of optimization and sufficient but excessive solutions, like 2 vans and 11 cars, wouldn't be wanted if that's six too many cars.

But really what are you talking about, you haven't engaged in the problem in any way to demonstrate this fine math required, yet you suggest I'm lazy and stupid. I haven't said anything about money and time being the only appropriate topics of study. I use trig on a daily basis and have never not anti diff eq. Whatever, keep propping up a failed test, that's smart.

you are stupid because you keep prattling about real life like the goal math is to help you navigate supermarket. the math needed for real life is rudimentary.

not all math problems have elegant solutions, not all of the depend on clever insight, not all of them require optimizations (what?). this is a problem where there is no unique solution... there are plenty of problems like that and it tests for the ability to find those multiple solutions. except in other countries this starts in first grade, not fourth or fifth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

one of the most important parts of being good at math - abstract thinking - is knowing what to ignore and what to focus on, something you seem to be struggling with.

Ah, so it would be an even better test if the fire alarms were required to go off during testing? We'd find out which 4th graders can do math in a war zone. Or do we just want to test math and deal with distractibility another day? No, a poorly worded question is not just simulating real world conditions. One of the principles of common core is "attention to precision". The language here is imprecise. I don't care how eloquently the PARCC folk can quote CCSS, their work product demonstrates they're nothing but hacks. The contortions you go through to defend them marks you as the same. This test is gone. The people who wrote it are pounding the pavement.

the question is not poorly worded, it's just that you don't know how to solve a fifth(?) grade problem, it appears. the only math that is relevant for everyday life (a dumbest possible criticism that you keep repeating as somehow devastating) is dealing with money, clock and measures. all that is trivial and should have been mastered by grade 3 at the latest. but elementary school. lmath is much more than that - it's a building block for math proficiency which is a foundation for many fields and career (not that you know anything about it). according to you trigonometry or differential equations should not be taught because nobody needs them when they go out to eat.

the language is very precise, it's just that you are bad at math, don't feel like solving the problem (and yes, sometimes, not all too infrequently, math problem require you do find multiple solutions by going through all possible combination. not necessary fun but a necessary skill). yet here you are pronouncing on what needs to be tested. i don't care who wrote the test and what they are doing now pfff

The question is poorly worded because it uses the term passenger without making clear whether a driver counts as a passenger (yet it goes out of the way to say teachers are included in class totals). Instead it's been set up such the answer (A,B,E) will be the same either way it's calculated. And, in the real world, there are no such guarantees and this would be a point that requires clarification. A conscientious student taking the test should either re-read expecting to find the definition, or begin the more restrictive calculation (drivers take up a seat) and hope this doesn't mean extra work. So, the first step to solving this problem is figure out what the test maker actually intended to ask. (This is an important skill, as bad tests are a fact of life, but that does not mean we shouldn't fix bad tests when we find them.) Beyond that the problem is busy work, as it's just calculate six totals and rank them. There's no insight that makes it quicker, but, true that is real life. What isn't real life is choosing three of five distinct possibilities, in the real world the interest would be some sort of optimization and sufficient but excessive solutions, like 2 vans and 11 cars, wouldn't be wanted if that's six too many cars.

But really what are you talking about, you haven't engaged in the problem in any way to demonstrate this fine math required, yet you suggest I'm lazy and stupid. I haven't said anything about money and time being the only appropriate topics of study. I use trig on a daily basis and have never not anti diff eq. Whatever, keep propping up a failed test, that's smart.

you are stupid because you keep prattling about real life like the goal math is to help you navigate supermarket. the math needed for real life is rudimentary.

not all math problems have elegant solutions, not all of the depend on clever insight, not all of them require optimizations (what?). this is a problem where there is no unique solution... there are plenty of problems like that and it tests for the ability to find those multiple solutions. except in other countries this starts in first grade, not fourth or fifth.

Nope, I only spoke of real world, because someone I responded to used that to praise the PARCC question, "wow, ...more likely to be what you see in the real world". (Guess that wasn't you, since that response was clearly worded and short on ad hominem attacks?!?) By arguing the question, is not real world, I'm not actually saying one way or another what I think of real world math and I'm certainly not saying that the only measure of a question is how real-world it is. I'm simply starting by arguing with the premise that this question is real world. Math training is an excellent way to avoid those sorts of fallacies. Just like math training teaches people to demand definitions. These are real world skills--don't hire a van if you don't understand what the passenger count means, don't come out fighting if you misunderstand who you're talking to. Boring math questions are just fine. This particular question requires nothing that isn't as rudimentary as comparison shopping a grocery bill--adding and multiply, done in triplicate, with a bunch of reading comprehension. So I don't get your affection for it, it's quantity over quality, sit-on-your-butt math. If you think that makes it a better question, fine. I don't, and I think releasing this as a sample question is deeply cynical--the assumption was no one could be bothered to read it, much less discuss it, just dig the bells and whistles.

[Anonymous]

Whether you think PARCC is a great test or a bad test, there is no reason to dismiss the scores for this year just because its going away.

There are some posters on other threads that quickly want to dismiss the poor scores from their schools. Even if the questions are difficult and confusing, they would be equally difficult and confusing for all students. Some schools are doing perfectly fine on PARCC. It seems that some posters just want a test that is easy enough that all their students pass and doesn't reveal how much better schools are doing in comparison to their school. I don't think a test exists that will make the lower performing schools ever look good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

one of the most important parts of being good at math - abstract thinking - is knowing what to ignore and what to focus on, something you seem to be struggling with.

Ah, so it would be an even better test if the fire alarms were required to go off during testing? We'd find out which 4th graders can do math in a war zone. Or do we just want to test math and deal with distractibility another day? No, a poorly worded question is not just simulating real world conditions. One of the principles of common core is "attention to precision". The language here is imprecise. I don't care how eloquently the PARCC folk can quote CCSS, their work product demonstrates they're nothing but hacks. The contortions you go through to defend them marks you as the same. This test is gone. The people who wrote it are pounding the pavement.

the question is not poorly worded, it's just that you don't know how to solve a fifth(?) grade problem, it appears. the only math that is relevant for everyday life (a dumbest possible criticism that you keep repeating as somehow devastating) is dealing with money, clock and measures. all that is trivial and should have been mastered by grade 3 at the latest. but elementary school. lmath is much more than that - it's a building block for math proficiency which is a foundation for many fields and career (not that you know anything about it). according to you trigonometry or differential equations should not be taught because nobody needs them when they go out to eat.

the language is very precise, it's just that you are bad at math, don't feel like solving the problem (and yes, sometimes, not all too infrequently, math problem require you do find multiple solutions by going through all possible combination. not necessary fun but a necessary skill). yet here you are pronouncing on what needs to be tested. i don't care who wrote the test and what they are doing now pfff

The question is poorly worded because it uses the term passenger without making clear whether a driver counts as a passenger (yet it goes out of the way to say teachers are included in class totals). Instead it's been set up such the answer (A,B,E) will be the same either way it's calculated. And, in the real world, there are no such guarantees and this would be a point that requires clarification. A conscientious student taking the test should either re-read expecting to find the definition, or begin the more restrictive calculation (drivers take up a seat) and hope this doesn't mean extra work. So, the first step to solving this problem is figure out what the test maker actually intended to ask. (This is an important skill, as bad tests are a fact of life, but that does not mean we shouldn't fix bad tests when we find them.) Beyond that the problem is busy work, as it's just calculate six totals and rank them. There's no insight that makes it quicker, but, true that is real life. What isn't real life is choosing three of five distinct possibilities, in the real world the interest would be some sort of optimization and sufficient but excessive solutions, like 2 vans and 11 cars, wouldn't be wanted if that's six too many cars.

But really what are you talking about, you haven't engaged in the problem in any way to demonstrate this fine math required, yet you suggest I'm lazy and stupid. I haven't said anything about money and time being the only appropriate topics of study. I use trig on a daily basis and have never not anti diff eq. Whatever, keep propping up a failed test, that's smart.

you are stupid because you keep prattling about real life like the goal math is to help you navigate supermarket. the math needed for real life is rudimentary.

not all math problems have elegant solutions, not all of the depend on clever insight, not all of them require optimizations (what?). this is a problem where there is no unique solution... there are plenty of problems like that and it tests for the ability to find those multiple solutions. except in other countries this starts in first grade, not fourth or fifth.

Nope, I only spoke of real world, because someone I responded to used that to praise the PARCC question, "wow, ...more likely to be what you see in the real world". (Guess that wasn't you, since that response was clearly worded and short on ad hominem attacks?!?) By arguing the question, is not real world, I'm not actually saying one way or another what I think of real world math and I'm certainly not saying that the only measure of a question is how real-world it is. I'm simply starting by arguing with the premise that this question is real world. Math training is an excellent way to avoid those sorts of fallacies. Just like math training teaches people to demand definitions. These are real world skills--don't hire a van if you don't understand what the passenger count means, don't come out fighting if you misunderstand who you're talking to. Boring math questions are just fine. This particular question requires nothing that isn't as rudimentary as comparison shopping a grocery bill--adding and multiply, done in triplicate, with a bunch of reading comprehension. So I don't get your affection for it, it's quantity over quality, sit-on-your-butt math. If you think that makes it a better question, fine. I don't, and I think releasing this as a sample question is deeply cynical--the assumption was no one could be bothered to read it, much less discuss it, just dig the bells and whistles.

i only joined this discussion today.

this question is better and more difficult than the one it was compared to. somebody (i think it was you) kept insisting that this was not the case. it is.

that said, i am not a big fan of brute force problems - one of the problems with math curriculums are in the US is way too much emphasis on calculations and repetitive drills. however this question is not predominantly "sit on the butt" question - it's different than having three or five independent questions employing the same total number of calculations. the difference is in realizing that there are in fact multiple solutions to the same problem. now, it's not like this is some great question - in my home country kids are solving harder problems than this in their first grade.

[Anonymous]

This is long but summarizes the state of snake oil test sales and includes discussion of ELA on PARCC: http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2018/09/still-pushing-parcc.html

Includes this comment re Maryland:

I live in MD. We have CC and PARCC. Our Governor doesn't like PARCC because the parents are unhappy, so we will be dumping PARCC for a computer adaptive test that aligns better to our curriculum and takes less time. New Meridian will likely be the vendor.....guess who owns PARCC?.....New Meridian. Rebranding is all that we will get. The Governor knows it and he thinks we're all too stupid to figure this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whether you think PARCC is a great test or a bad test, there is no reason to dismiss the scores for this year just because its going away.

There are some posters on other threads that quickly want to dismiss the poor scores from their schools. Even if the questions are difficult and confusing, they would be equally difficult and confusing for all students. Some schools are doing perfectly fine on PARCC. It seems that some posters just want a test that is easy enough that all their students pass and doesn't reveal how much better schools are doing in comparison to their school. I don't think a test exists that will make the lower performing schools ever look good.

There is every reason to dismiss the scores. This test has been shown to be little more than a scam.

[Anonymous]

The Reading part of PARCC is BS. It isn't testing content because content varies from district to district. It tests reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is mostly based on background knowledge of the topic. So if the passage is about something the student is familiar with, he/she will test higher. If the passage is unfamiliar, the score will be lower. So children with parents who have higher educational levels tend to do better on these tests because of their background knowledge that they may have learned outside of school. If the content was standardized and the test actually tested that content, it would make more sense. Look at some of the public release samples to get an idea how the test jumps from one random passage to another. There might be one non-fiction passage on sea turtles and one narrative about summer camp. If you haven't studied sea turtles, chances are poor kids will do worse on this section. They might not even know what the world "sea" means. Kids from higher SES backgrounds might have read about sea turtles from books in the library, might have gone to aquariums, might have gone on a trip to the ocean. My son knows about them from camp. The students I teach in my Title One school don't go to camp. The don't go to the library. They don't do anything over the summer. So the test is a random bunch of passages testing reading comprehension and not content. So teachers at my school get blasted for low test scores when the reason most students know about these passages is from outside of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is long but summarizes the state of snake oil test sales and includes discussion of ELA on PARCC: http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2018/09/still-pushing-parcc.html

Includes this comment re Maryland:

I live in MD. We have CC and PARCC. Our Governor doesn't like PARCC because the parents are unhappy, so we will be dumping PARCC for a computer adaptive test that aligns better to our curriculum and takes less time. New Meridian will likely be the vendor.....guess who owns PARCC?.....New Meridian. Rebranding is all that we will get. The Governor knows it and he thinks we're all too stupid to figure this out.

Interesting. But we don’t even have a curriculum to replace 2.0 yet so hard to tell what test aligns best with the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Reading part of PARCC is BS. It isn't testing content because content varies from district to district. It tests reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is mostly based on background knowledge of the topic. So if the passage is about something the student is familiar with, he/she will test higher. If the passage is unfamiliar, the score will be lower. So children with parents who have higher educational levels tend to do better on these tests because of their background knowledge that they may have learned outside of school. If the content was standardized and the test actually tested that content, it would make more sense. Look at some of the public release samples to get an idea how the test jumps from one random passage to another. There might be one non-fiction passage on sea turtles and one narrative about summer camp. If you haven't studied sea turtles, chances are poor kids will do worse on this section. They might not even know what the world "sea" means. Kids from higher SES backgrounds might have read about sea turtles from books in the library, might have gone to aquariums, might have gone on a trip to the ocean. My son knows about them from camp. The students I teach in my Title One school don't go to camp. The don't go to the library. They don't do anything over the summer. So the test is a random bunch of passages testing reading comprehension and not content. So teachers at my school get blasted for low test scores when the reason most students know about these passages is from outside of school.

I thought PARCC was supposed to measure the kinds of things the PISA test measures (conceptual understanding and critical thinking).
I suppose I would also imagine that the children you describe who don't read or "do anything" over the summer are unlikely to be very successful in any test.
I wonder if it would be possible to send donated books home with children over the summer or offer free summer art classes etc.
It does make you think that there is only so much any school system or school admin or individual teacher can accomplish without parental involvement