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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's at the primary level where teachers can often make the most impact in terms of getting kids on the right track for foundational language literacy and math skills. So much can and does go wrong in the upper grades when they don't have a sound foundation - they are perpetually struggling if they don't get that strong foundation. But I guess if we don't actually acknowledge that it's important to assess, understand and remediate early on, then we will never solve anything.


Well, gee, thank you for swooping in and saving so many kids from a life of misery. So much goes wrong and nothing goes right unless the federal government holds our feet to the fire. We would never be able to assess, understand, and remediate or do anything without you. Because we don't really teach and we don't give any formative tests and we just sit at our desks playing video games all day. We are totally oblivious to the needs of our students. We, in fact, could care less about them. Just waiting for our big paychecks and for the feds to tell us what to do. In fact, please just take over for us. Because that would make so many people so happy. We know you can do it!!!! Go CC! Go standardized testing!! U rah rah. We will never, ever criticize you if you just step in and do what needs to be done.


It seems the Tea Party whackadoo is back... "Dang that daggum Fedrul gubmint!"

You don't have to be a Tea Party wacko to see that having the feds micromanage schools is not a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's at the primary level where teachers can often make the most impact in terms of getting kids on the right track for foundational language literacy and math skills. So much can and does go wrong in the upper grades when they don't have a sound foundation - they are perpetually struggling if they don't get that strong foundation. But I guess if we don't actually acknowledge that it's important to assess, understand and remediate early on, then we will never solve anything.


Well, gee, thank you for swooping in and saving so many kids from a life of misery. So much goes wrong and nothing goes right unless the federal government holds our feet to the fire. We would never be able to assess, understand, and remediate or do anything without you. Because we don't really teach and we don't give any formative tests and we just sit at our desks playing video games all day. We are totally oblivious to the needs of our students. We, in fact, could care less about them. Just waiting for our big paychecks and for the feds to tell us what to do. In fact, please just take over for us. Because that would make so many people so happy. We know you can do it!!!! Go CC! Go standardized testing!! U rah rah. We will never, ever criticize you if you just step in and do what needs to be done.


It seems the Tea Party whackadoo is back... "Dang that daggum Fedrul gubmint!"

You don't have to be a Tea Party wacko to see that having the feds micromanage schools is not a good idea.

[Anonymous]

One could also apply the same argument to say class grades are demoralizing, that they reduce you to a set of evaluation criteria, they are nothing but numbers and data. So why don't we just abolish all grades, because they are so reductionist. Why don't we just pretend all kids are equal and alike, all performing at the same level, god forbid we should acknowledge any weaknesses or gaps, let alone deal with it.

Grades are continual. They are a weekly, if not daily occurrence for a student. They have several grading periods in the year for summation. The student sees the graded paper or test within a day or two of the assessment. The grade also reflects the assessment of a person who observes the student every day. It is much more important to the parent and to colleges. Student grades are a much better predictor of college success than SAT or ACT scores are.

http://www.thecrimson.com/admissions/article/2014/3/3/GPA-better-predictor-than-SAT/

[Anonymous]

Placement? Come on. Many schools don't even want to do tracking in the first place, DCPS for example doesn't do tracking in favor of in-class differentiation.

DCPS is not everybody. But, then again, as you say, any problems with CC or testing are local. All local.

[Anonymous]

D. Great Teachers and Leaders (138 points)
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(D)(1) Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points)
The extent to which the State has—
(i) Legal, statutory, or regulatory provisions that allow alternative routes to certification (as defined in
this notice) for teachers and principals, particularly routes that allow for providers in addition to institutions
of higher education;
(ii) Alternative routes to certification (as defined in this notice) that are in use; and
(iii) A process for monitoring, evaluating, and identifying areas of teacher and principal shortage and
for preparing teachers and principals to fill these areas of shortage.
Reform Plan Criteria
(D)(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points)
The extent to which the State, in collaboration with its participating LEAs (as defined in this notice),
has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to ensure that participating LEAs (as
defined in this notice)—
(i) Establish clear approaches to measuring student growth (as defined in this notice) and measure it
for each individual student; (5 points)
(ii) Design and implement rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers and
principals that (a) differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categories that take into account data on
student growth (as defined in this notice) as a significant factor, and (b) are designed and developed with
teacher and principal involvement; (15 points)
(iii) Conduct annual evaluations of teachers and principals that include timely and constructive
feedback; as part of such evaluations, provide teachers and principals with data on student growth for their
students, classes, and schools; and (10 points)
(iv) Use these evaluations, at a minimum, to inform decisions regarding— (28 points)
(a) Developing teachers and principals, including by providing relevant coaching, induction support,
and/or professional development;
(b) Compensating, promoting, and retaining teachers and principals, including by providing
opportunities for highly effective teachers and principals (both as defined in this notice) to obtain additional
compensation and be given additional responsibilities;
(c) Whether to grant tenure and/or full certification (where applicable) to teachers and principals
using rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures; and
(d) Removing ineffective tenured and untenured teachers and principals after they have had ample
opportunities to improve, and ensuring that such decisions are made using rigorous standards and
streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures.


Sure seems to leave most of it up to locals.

LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

D. Great Teachers and Leaders (138 points)
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(D)(1) Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points)
The extent to which the State has—
(i) Legal, statutory, or regulatory provisions that allow alternative routes to certification (as defined in
this notice) for teachers and principals, particularly routes that allow for providers in addition to institutions
of higher education;
(ii) Alternative routes to certification (as defined in this notice) that are in use; and
(iii) A process for monitoring, evaluating, and identifying areas of teacher and principal shortage and
for preparing teachers and principals to fill these areas of shortage.
Reform Plan Criteria
(D)(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points)
The extent to which the State, in collaboration with its participating LEAs (as defined in this notice),
has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to ensure that participating LEAs (as
defined in this notice)—
(i) Establish clear approaches to measuring student growth (as defined in this notice) and measure it
for each individual student; (5 points)
(ii) Design and implement rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers and
principals that (a) differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categories that take into account data on
student growth (as defined in this notice) as a significant factor, and (b) are designed and developed with
teacher and principal involvement; (15 points)
(iii) Conduct annual evaluations of teachers and principals that include timely and constructive
feedback; as part of such evaluations, provide teachers and principals with data on student growth for their
students, classes, and schools; and (10 points)
(iv) Use these evaluations, at a minimum, to inform decisions regarding— (28 points)
(a) Developing teachers and principals, including by providing relevant coaching, induction support,
and/or professional development;
(b) Compensating, promoting, and retaining teachers and principals, including by providing
opportunities for highly effective teachers and principals (both as defined in this notice) to obtain additional
compensation and be given additional responsibilities;
(c) Whether to grant tenure and/or full certification (where applicable) to teachers and principals
using rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures; and
(d) Removing ineffective tenured and untenured teachers and principals after they have had ample
opportunities to improve, and ensuring that such decisions are made using rigorous standards and
streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures.


Sure seems to leave most of it up to locals.

LOL.

Show me exactly where the feds are micromanaging teacher evaluations in that language, specifying things like firings. And then get back to me with that LOL, because it isn't in there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Placement? Come on. Many schools don't even want to do tracking in the first place, DCPS for example doesn't do tracking in favor of in-class differentiation.

DCPS is not everybody. But, then again, as you say, any problems with CC or testing are local. All local.

EXACTLY. DCPS is not everybody. They do things differently than Fairfax, who does things differently from Montgomery County, and so on. You are essentially ADMITTING it's local and then turning around trying to PRETEND it's NOT.

Just flat out deliberately and obnoxiously obtuse and intellectually dishonest as one can get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those to lazy to click on the Smarter Balanced Field test links, lets look at the PASSING rate ELA results for 7th grade:

Overall passing: 38.2 percent

Females: 45.1

Males: 31.5


Black: 22. 5

White: 47.6

ELL: 3.9

IEP: 7.3

Economically Disadvantaged: 26.1



Easy to see that this test is going to be a disaster for most kids. And this is the one that "adjusts" to your answers.

Field test. You never heard of cut scores? Do you even know anything at all about test development processes? Sure doesn't seem like you do.

Yes. And they were set artificially high so most kids fail. Every grade level shows that. Furthermore in states that have two or more years of actual testing on Common Core Standards, the results stay the same. Most kids are failures.

Cutoff Scores Set for Common-Core Tests
By Catherine Gewertz

In a move likely to cause political and academic stress in many states, a consortium that is designing assessments for the Common Core State Standards released data Monday projecting that more than half of students will fall short of the marks that connote grade-level skills on its tests of English/language arts and mathematics.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium test has four achievement categories. Students must score at Level 3 or higher to be considered proficient in the skills and knowledge for their grades. According to cut scores approved Friday night by the 22-state consortium, 41 percent of 11th graders ...

[Anonymous]

(ii) Design and implement rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers and
principals that (a) differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categories that take into account data on
student growth (as defined in this notice) as a significant factor, and (b) are designed and developed with
teacher and principal involvement; (15 points)
(iii) Conduct annual evaluations of teachers and principals that include timely and constructive
feedback; as part of such evaluations, provide teachers and principals with data on student growth for their
students, classes, and schools; and (10 points)
(iv) Use these evaluations, at a minimum, to inform decisions regarding— (28 points)
(a) Developing teachers and principals, including by providing relevant coaching, induction support,
and/or professional development;
(b) Compensating, promoting, and retaining teachers and principals, including by providing
opportunities for highly effective teachers and principals (both as defined in this notice) to obtain additional
compensation and be given additional responsibilities;
(c) Whether to grant tenure and/or full certification (where applicable) to teachers and principals
using rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures; and
(d) Removing ineffective tenured and untenured teachers and principals after they have had ample
opportunities to improve, and ensuring that such decisions are made using rigorous standards and
streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures.

So, these tests must be used to fire teachers...........and pay them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those to lazy to click on the Smarter Balanced Field test links, lets look at the PASSING rate ELA results for 7th grade:

Overall passing: 38.2 percent

Females: 45.1

Males: 31.5


Black: 22. 5

White: 47.6

ELL: 3.9

IEP: 7.3

Economically Disadvantaged: 26.1



Easy to see that this test is going to be a disaster for most kids. And this is the one that "adjusts" to your answers.

Field test. You never heard of cut scores? Do you even know anything at all about test development processes? Sure doesn't seem like you do.

Yes. And they were set artificially high so most kids fail. Every grade level shows that. Furthermore in states that have two or more years of actual testing on Common Core Standards, the results stay the same. Most kids are failures.

Cutoff Scores Set for Common-Core Tests
By Catherine Gewertz

In a move likely to cause political and academic stress in many states, a consortium that is designing assessments for the Common Core State Standards released data Monday projecting that more than half of students will fall short of the marks that connote grade-level skills on its tests of English/language arts and mathematics.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium test has four achievement categories. Students must score at Level 3 or higher to be considered proficient in the skills and knowledge for their grades. According to cut scores approved Friday night by the 22-state consortium, 41 percent of 11th graders ...

To suggest that they intentionally want a majority of kids to fail is flat out deranged. You are truly unhinged.

[Anonymous]

The 41% proficient that you are citing was for Smarter Balanced but even so, you need to note and understand that the cut scores were developed by panels which, the majority of were TEACHERS. So it seems that your fellow teachers (if you are indeed actually a teacher, a claim that seems consistently dubious) found the cut scores and learning expectations to be appropriate.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/11/17/13sbac.h34.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those to lazy to click on the Smarter Balanced Field test links, lets look at the PASSING rate ELA results for 7th grade:

Overall passing: 38.2 percent

Females: 45.1

Males: 31.5


Black: 22. 5

White: 47.6

ELL: 3.9

IEP: 7.3

Economically Disadvantaged: 26.1



Easy to see that this test is going to be a disaster for most kids. And this is the one that "adjusts" to your answers.

Field test. You never heard of cut scores? Do you even know anything at all about test development processes? Sure doesn't seem like you do.

Yes. And they were set artificially high so most kids fail. Every grade level shows that. Furthermore in states that have two or more years of actual testing on Common Core Standards, the results stay the same. Most kids are failures.

Cutoff Scores Set for Common-Core Tests
By Catherine Gewertz

In a move likely to cause political and academic stress in many states, a consortium that is designing assessments for the Common Core State Standards released data Monday projecting that more than half of students will fall short of the marks that connote grade-level skills on its tests of English/language arts and mathematics.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium test has four achievement categories. Students must score at Level 3 or higher to be considered proficient in the skills and knowledge for their grades. According to cut scores approved Friday night by the 22-state consortium, 41 percent of 11th graders ...

To suggest that they intentionally want a majority of kids to fail is flat out deranged. You are truly unhinged.

No, I'm logical and realistic. If they wanted the majority to pass, they would follow a bell curve, the norm in testing.

There's no other explanation. It's simple fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those to lazy to click on the Smarter Balanced Field test links, lets look at the PASSING rate ELA results for 7th grade:

Overall passing: 38.2 percent

Females: 45.1

Males: 31.5


Black: 22. 5

White: 47.6

ELL: 3.9

IEP: 7.3

Economically Disadvantaged: 26.1



Easy to see that this test is going to be a disaster for most kids. And this is the one that "adjusts" to your answers.

Field test. You never heard of cut scores? Do you even know anything at all about test development processes? Sure doesn't seem like you do.

Yes. And they were set artificially high so most kids fail. Every grade level shows that. Furthermore in states that have two or more years of actual testing on Common Core Standards, the results stay the same. Most kids are failures.

Cutoff Scores Set for Common-Core Tests
By Catherine Gewertz

In a move likely to cause political and academic stress in many states, a consortium that is designing assessments for the Common Core State Standards released data Monday projecting that more than half of students will fall short of the marks that connote grade-level skills on its tests of English/language arts and mathematics.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium test has four achievement categories. Students must score at Level 3 or higher to be considered proficient in the skills and knowledge for their grades. According to cut scores approved Friday night by the 22-state consortium, 41 percent of 11th graders ...

To suggest that they intentionally want a majority of kids to fail is flat out deranged. You are truly unhinged.

No, I'm logical and realistic. If they wanted the majority to pass, they would follow a bell curve, the norm in testing.

There's no other explanation. It's simple fact.

Well, you can go and ask the TEACHERS that comprised the majority of the cut score panel who felt where they set them was appropriate. According to your logic, it is they who want the kids to fail after all.

[Anonymous]

The scary way Common Core test ‘cut scores’ are selected

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/29/the-scary-way-common-core-test-cut-scores-are-selected/


It's interesting how Kentucky and New York set their cut scores to very different settings. Kids score about the same on NAEP, but what was considered passing on the Common Core tests was quite different in the two states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those to lazy to click on the Smarter Balanced Field test links, lets look at the PASSING rate ELA results for 7th grade:

Overall passing: 38.2 percent

Females: 45.1

Males: 31.5


Black: 22. 5

White: 47.6

ELL: 3.9

IEP: 7.3

Economically Disadvantaged: 26.1



Easy to see that this test is going to be a disaster for most kids. And this is the one that "adjusts" to your answers.

Field test. You never heard of cut scores? Do you even know anything at all about test development processes? Sure doesn't seem like you do.

Yes. And they were set artificially high so most kids fail. Every grade level shows that. Furthermore in states that have two or more years of actual testing on Common Core Standards, the results stay the same. Most kids are failures.

Cutoff Scores Set for Common-Core Tests
By Catherine Gewertz

In a move likely to cause political and academic stress in many states, a consortium that is designing assessments for the Common Core State Standards released data Monday projecting that more than half of students will fall short of the marks that connote grade-level skills on its tests of English/language arts and mathematics.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium test has four achievement categories. Students must score at Level 3 or higher to be considered proficient in the skills and knowledge for their grades. According to cut scores approved Friday night by the 22-state consortium, 41 percent of 11th graders ...

To suggest that they intentionally want a majority of kids to fail is flat out deranged. You are truly unhinged.

No, I'm logical and realistic. If they wanted the majority to pass, they would follow a bell curve, the norm in testing.

There's no other explanation. It's simple fact.

Well, you can go and ask the TEACHERS that comprised the majority of the cut score panel who felt where they set them was appropriate. According to your logic, it is they who want the kids to fail after all.

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/education/2014/07/26/common-core-cut-scores-examined/13219981/

Common Core: Who's on track for college and who is not?

How does the state determine the crucial break between a 2, which means that a student is not quite proficient in, say, fifth-grade math, and a 3, which signifies that he or she is on track for college?

These scoring scales were set last summer by a group of 95 educators that the state gathered at a hotel in Troy for several days. Teachers, administrators and college professors from across New York signed confidentiality agreements and were given the task of setting the cuts between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4 for the new tests. But the scores would be widely questioned and even ridiculed after one-third of New York students were deemed to be on pace.

"A small shift in the cut scores means a dramatic difference in the number of students at different levels," said David Dickerson, an associate professor of mathematics at SUNY Cortland who took part. "It was a contentious process. I think we came up with something that made us all equally unhappy but that we could live with."

...

Some panelists defended the scoring system and some reluctantly accepted the results, while others came away feeling the process was so tightly controlled that the results were inevitable.

But Maria Baldassarre Hopkins, assistant professor of education at Nazareth College in Rochester, said the process was driven by the introduction of outside research about student success.

"I question how much flexibility and freedom the committee really had," she said. "The process was based solely on empirical data, on numbers. ... There are ways to make the numbers do what you want them to do."

Tina Good, coordinator of the Writing Center at Suffolk County Community College, said her group produced the best possible cut scores for ELA tests in grades 3 to 6 — playing by the rules they were given.

"We worked within the paradigm Pearson gave us," she said. "It's not like we could go, 'This is what we think third-graders should know,' or, 'This will completely stress out our third-graders.' Many of us had concerns about the pedagogy behind all of this, but we did reach a consensus about the cut scores."