Reply to Have you all read this editorial about Common Core testing?

Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion

Reply to "Have you all read this editorial about Common Core testing?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
 Where have YOU been? It's all over the NY news. NY and Kentucky took the early PARCC tests. Why do you think they are ready to run the head of education out of the state?

http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-statement-release-new-york-state-assessment-results

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/nyregion/under-new-standards-students-see-sharp-decline-in-test-scores.html

[/quote]

No, Kentucky did not take the early PARCC tests. Kentucky designed their own Common Core tests.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwatch/2013/09/common-core_tests_in_kentucky_year_two_whats_the_trend.html[/quote]

No, Pearson wrote the tests for New York and Kentucky: They are considered "pilots"
(Do you really thing that the states took the time and money to write the tests? They are part of the 'consortium' involved with the two big testing companies."

http://dianeravitch.net/2013/10/23/a-test-writer-comments-on-new-yorks-common-core-tests/
A Test Writer Comments on New York’s Common Core Tests
By dianerav 
This comment was posted yesterday:

I am a former, part time item writer for a private testing company; I wrote for many different state standards under NCLB. I must say that poorly constructed, confusing, or developmentally inappropriate items undermine the validity of standardized scores and subsequent use in teacher evaluation. When standardized tests are properly constructed, such items which might make it to a field test will almost certainly be vetted during what is typically a two year process. M[b]any items on the Pearson math and ELA administered last April here in NY [/b]were written, in my opinion, in an intentionally confusing style using obtuse or arcane vocabulary. The ELA test in particular included confusing item stems and distractors that were not clearly wrong. There were far too many items that turned subjective opinions (most likely; best; author’s intent; etc.) into a “one right, three wrong” format. Many teachers were unsure of the correct answers on a number of vague and fuzzy items.
The math test included many items that were ridiculously convoluted. Although there may be other compelling arguments against VAM teacher evaluations, corrupt test writing, norm referencing (instead of criterion referenced scoring), and manipulating cut scores add up to a rather important set of reasons to invalidate the entire process.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics