I think you are full of crap. Your comments about federal government spoke for themselves.

None of what you are saying is mutually exclusive to PARCC or Common Core.

Again, you IDENTIFY AND DIAGNOSE the issues. If kids are not performing well due to home issues, then social supports need to be bolstered. If kids are coming in to the system behind, you identify that and get them remedial supports and work to get them up to speed over the course of more than one year. If kids are below basic, you say "YES, they are BELOW BASIC and HERE IS WHY and HERE IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO ABOUT IT."

Instead you seem to just want to whine and complain but then ultimately do nothing but pass the buck.

Anonymous wrote:

This issue is about reality vs. la la land. Some of us live in reality and some are in la la land. Teachers live the reality every single day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You forgot to add, "BENGHAAAAZIIIII!" to the end of that


Ah.....once again, you prove why you are for Common Core. It is because more and more Republicans are against it. You miss the fact that more and more Democrats are against it.



You missed the fact that I was responding to something that was as much a Tea Party style rant about federal government as it was about Common Core. That's what constantly muddies the message of the Common Core critics.

I am the person who wrote the "rant" as you put it (which I don't consider a rant). I am about as liberal as they come. I don't know much about Benghazi (didn't follow that at all). However, I am pro choice, agnostic, pro gun control, pro early childhood education, pro free lunch, pro college for everyone, and just about pro every other liberal cause you can think of. I think it's very funny that you think I'm a Tea party person!!! You need to get outside of Washington DC for a while. You've been on Capitol Hill way too long.

You have no idea that that this testing is not a partisan issue that is "owned" by the left or right or middle. It's really about those who use common sense and logic and have experience with educating kids and those who don't. You are trying to make it into something else.

Anonymous wrote:

The fact that things are different from one school to the next demonstrates the local disparities.

This is probably the most out of touch comment I have read on this thread.

All schools are not the same. All kids are not the same. What works in one school may not work in another. If you have any experience with schools beyond your own, you would know that.

What you do with the kids who don't meet minimum standards is get them the help to get caught up, or identify a learning disability if one exists and find a way to help them as best as possible, same as always. Nobody ever said to just "push" and pretend that kid doesn't have a problem.


Of course you do this. However, there are many reasons that kids can be behind besides learning disabilities. First, did you now that some young kids who are behind do not qualify for LD services because they are just borderline "slow"? They do not qualify until they are in a higher grade and further "behind".

And, what about the third grade teacher with a child on first grade level? The child is on that level for lots of reasons that may not be a learning disability. Could be home issues, behavior issues, truancy issues, health issues, language issues. And, that child can make progress and improve--but two years of progress in one year? With some, but certainly not all. And, it is not a factor of poor K and 1 teachers. That may be a factor, but it is rare.

Do you know that some kids start K without knowing the alphabet? First, you have to teach them to distinguish and understand the "same and different". When they have not ever worked with letters, it may be hard for them to distinguish between an "M" and an "N". That comes first. Teaching the sounds that go with those letters is key--but first they have to be able to distinguish them. Teaching sounds is another challenge. Some of these kids have never listened to rhyming words and that is a first step. Yet, CC expects all those kids to read by the end of the year. And, consider, these kids come from homes that may not be as supportive as we would all like.

Teaching is a building process- it is based on building on fundamentals. Fundamentals which need to be constantly reinforced. It is not a matter of "today we teach the sounds of 'M'...tomorrow we move on to 'n'......it doesn't work that way.



How many years have you taught in the schools?

Anonymous wrote:

What you do with the kids who don't meet minimum standards is get them the help to get caught up, or identify a learning disability if one exists and find a way to help them as best as possible, same as always. Nobody ever said to just "push" and pretend that kid doesn't have a problem.

Of course you do this. However, there are many reasons that kids can be behind besides learning disabilities. First, did you now that some young kids who are behind do not qualify for LD services because they are just borderline "slow"? They do not qualify until they are in a higher grade and further "behind".

And, what about the third grade teacher with a child on first grade level? The child is on that level for lots of reasons that may not be a learning disability. Could be home issues, behavior issues, truancy issues, health issues, language issues. And, that child can make progress and improve--but two years of progress in one year? With some, but certainly not all. And, it is not a factor of poor K and 1 teachers. That may be a factor, but it is rare.

Do you know that some kids start K without knowing the alphabet? First, you have to teach them to distinguish and understand the "same and different". When they have not ever worked with letters, it may be hard for them to distinguish between an "M" and an "N". That comes first. Teaching the sounds that go with those letters is key--but first they have to be able to distinguish them. Teaching sounds is another challenge. Some of these kids have never listened to rhyming words and that is a first step. Yet, CC expects all those kids to read by the end of the year. And, consider, these kids come from homes that may not be as supportive as we would all like.

Teaching is a building process- it is based on building on fundamentals. Fundamentals which need to be constantly reinforced. It is not a matter of "today we teach the sounds of 'M'...tomorrow we move on to 'n'......it doesn't work that way.



How many years have you taught in the schools?

The fact that things are different from one school to the next demonstrates the local disparities.

Anonymous wrote:

The argument about "local problem" is a fail. Most of can't up and switch our kids over to a charter school. You seem to think of NCLB and CC as an ideal. Why you think it's ideal is beyond my understanding. But it seems to working in your school. That's a local success (at least for your family who view it that way, who knows if everyone at your school agrees). Can you not take notice that many many people in many many schools have a problem with NCLB and CC and PARCC? Maybe it is the implementation (I say for the sake of argument--I think these things are fundamentally flawed), but enough people are noting problems to suggest that the ideal doesn't work if it is this hard to implement and so many kids and teachers are negatively affected.

+1 million You need to look outside of the specific school where your child is. It is not representative of the whole world.

Anonymous wrote:

There's a difference between releasing test feedback and releasing test questions. The questions come in discrete, distinct categories which map to specific standards.

Yes, and, believe it or not, some of those questions in "discrete, distinct categories which map to specific standards" may be poorly written and part of the problem.

That is why tests need to be carefully piloted for validity and reliability before they are used for the purpose intended. I have not seen the data on the pilot programs--or if there were pilot programs.

I worked in adult training and the piloting program for tests was extensive. If all the people miss a question, it has to be considered that the question may be poorly written. The people in charge need to go back and find out why so many may miss the question. It may not be a factor of poor instruction. Did PARCC do this with their tests?

Of course, since the standards did not go through a vetting process, we do not know if it could be a problem of an inappropriate standard.

Were the questions tested for reliability?

And, all this money spent on PARCC, and they cannot afford to write new test questions? Something wrong with this picture, too. They should certainly be able to have multiple versions of the tests.

Spring 2013 Item Development Research

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF version
Spring 2013 Item Development Research

PARCC’s Item Development Research includes three studies. Nearly 2,500 students from six PARCC states (Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York) participated in the studies. A summary of research results will be available in Summer 2013.

Rubric Choice Study

The purpose of this study is to empirically compare the functioning of two rubrics that could be used to score Prose Constructed Response tasks - a condensed rubric and an expanded rubric.
Student-Task Interaction Studies

Part I:

The purpose of this study is to investigate students’ interaction with the assessment tasks and instructions, such as whether students perform on the tasks as intended given the instructions. PARCC will use information collected to help inform its ongoing item development.
Part II:

The purpose of this study is to further investigate students’ interaction with assessment tasks and instructions through face-to-face cognitive labs to inform iterative test development process. The cognitive interviews will especially focus on students’ interactions with various functionalities and tools available (e.g., drag and drop, hot spot, etc.).
Accessibility Studies

There are three accessibility studies conducted under this phase of research:
Accessibility for English Learners
Accessibility for Students with Disabilities
Accessibility of Student Response Mode for Grade 3 (e.g. computer-based and paper-based responses)
The purpose of these studies is to investigate potential issues with the items and tasks specific to accessibility and accommodations. In particular:
Investigate how technology-enhanced items and tasks function for English Learners
Investigate how technology-enhanced items and tasks function for Students with Disabilities
Investigate the accessibility for grade 3 students responding on the computer
Summer 2013 Item Tryout Studies

PARCC’s Summer Item Tryout includes four studies to be conducted throughout June, July, and August 2013 across five PARCC states (Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey) as well as the District of Columbia. A summary of results from these studies will be available in early Fall 2013.

Quality of Type II and III Tasks in Mathematics Study

The goal of this study is to examine PARCC’s Type II and Type III tasks, which test reasoning and modeling skills.
The study will consist of one-to-one interviews with students using cognitive lab protocols. Students will be asked to “think aloud” about their reasoning and/or modeling as they solve the Type II and Type III items. The cognitive labs will be conducted during the last three weeks of July 2013.
The labs will be conducted in Maryland and New Jersey with 10 students per item.
Use of Narrative Writing Prompts in Assessing Reading Comprehension Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the Narrative Writing Prompts on the PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy Assessments yield enough information to score for reading in addition to writing. The data for the study will be collected through computer-based administration from mid-June to mid-July, 2013.
Approximately 3,000 students from the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey participated in this study.
Use of Evidence-Based Selected Response Items in Assessing Reading Comprehension Study

The purpose is to investigate Evidence-Based Selected Response items on the PARCC English Language Arts/Literacy Assessments can be scored with partial-credit scoring models developed by PARCC.
The data for this study was collected concurrently with the Use of Narrative Writing Prompts in Assessing Reading Comprehension Study in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.
Tablet Cognitive Lab Study

This study will focus on a range of item interactions and how they function on 10-inch tablets. The study is the first stage of a longer effort to establish a comparability and fairness strategy for students taking the PARCC assessments on paper, desktops/laptops, and tablets.
Approximately 72 students from Arkansas and Colorado will participate in this study.

The argument about "local problem" is a fail. Most of can't up and switch our kids over to a charter school. You seem to think of NCLB and CC as an ideal. Why you think it's ideal is beyond my understanding. But it seems to working in your school. That's a local success (at least for your family who view it that way, who knows if everyone at your school agrees). Can you not take notice that many many people in many many schools have a problem with NCLB and CC and PARCC? Maybe it is the implementation (I say for the sake of argument--I think these things are fundamentally flawed), but enough people are noting problems to suggest that the ideal doesn't work if it is this hard to implement and so many kids and teachers are negatively affected.

you know that some kids start K without knowing the alphabet? First, you have to teach them to distinguish and understand the "same and different". When they have not ever worked with letters, it may be hard for them to distinguish between an "M" and an "N".

Anonymous wrote:
You forgot to add, "BENGHAAAAZIIIII!" to the end of that


Ah.....once again, you prove why you are for Common Core. It is because more and more Republicans are against it. You miss the fact that more and more Democrats are against it.



You missed the fact that I was responding to something that was as much a Tea Party style rant about federal government as it was about Common Core. That's what constantly muddies the message of the Common Core critics.

Anonymous wrote:

You forgot to add, "BENGHAAAAZIIIII!" to the end of that

Ah.....once again, you prove why you are for Common Core. It is because more and more Republicans are against it. You miss the fact that more and more Democrats are against it.