Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When you get rid of standardized tests, how do you then make the business case for extra funding, resources, grants or foundation funding for one particular school that is struggling, versus any other school, since you no longer have any quantitative, consistent measure or baseline for objectively comparing school outcomes? Just going by demographics won't cut it.

You do it the way it was done before. Use Iowa tests or NAEP tests. Use Stanford tests if you like those. Lots of places do those anyway. There are plenty of broader achievement tests out there. Don't use tests that are tied to high stakes for the school and teachers (because those cause the warped unintended consequences that are detrimental overall). You can also use disciplinary records and drop out rates. You can use attendance rates. You can use FARM rates. You can use a combination of all of the above. Those kinds of things should also help get funding for social workers, psychologists, counselors, etc.

You can use all of those in combination with demographics (demographics are pretty strong indicators BTW).

It's no big secret which schools are struggling. Never was.

yes, this!

No need for Common Core crap when their are REAL achievement tests out there.

UGH. COMMON CORE IS NOT A TEST. This has been made clear a hundred times!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When you get rid of standardized tests, how do you then make the business case for extra funding, resources, grants or foundation funding for one particular school that is struggling, versus any other school, since you no longer have any quantitative, consistent measure or baseline for objectively comparing school outcomes? Just going by demographics won't cut it.

You do it the way it was done before. Use Iowa tests or NAEP tests. Use Stanford tests if you like those. Lots of places do those anyway. There are plenty of broader achievement tests out there. Don't use tests that are tied to high stakes for the school and teachers (because those cause the warped unintended consequences that are detrimental overall). You can also use disciplinary records and drop out rates. You can use attendance rates. You can use FARM rates. You can use a combination of all of the above. Those kinds of things should also help get funding for social workers, psychologists, counselors, etc.

You can use all of those in combination with demographics (demographics are pretty strong indicators BTW).

It's no big secret which schools are struggling. Never was.

yes, this!

No need for Common Core crap when their are REAL achievement tests out there.

Anonymous wrote:

When you get rid of standardized tests, how do you then make the business case for extra funding, resources, grants or foundation funding for one particular school that is struggling, versus any other school, since you no longer have any quantitative, consistent measure or baseline for objectively comparing school outcomes? Just going by demographics won't cut it.

You do it the way it was done before. Use Iowa tests or NAEP tests. Use Stanford tests if you like those. Lots of places do those anyway. There are plenty of broader achievement tests out there. Don't use tests that are tied to high stakes for the school and teachers (because those cause the warped unintended consequences that are detrimental overall). You can also use disciplinary records and drop out rates. You can use attendance rates. You can use FARM rates. You can use a combination of all of the above. Those kinds of things should also help get funding for social workers, psychologists, counselors, etc.

You can use all of those in combination with demographics (demographics are pretty strong indicators BTW).

It's no big secret which schools are struggling. Never was.

The consortia were formed because of the economies of scale of developing tests jointly. Again, it's far cheaper and vastly more cost effective than having each state develop its own test independently.

Anonymous wrote:

When you get rid of standardized tests, how do you then make the business case for extra funding, resources, grants or foundation funding for one particular school that is struggling, versus any other school, since you no longer have any quantitative, consistent measure or baseline for objectively comparing school outcomes? Just going by demographics won't cut it.

You do it the way it was done before. Use Iowa tests or NAEP tests. Use Stanford tests if you like those. Lots of places do those anyway. There are plenty of broader achievement tests out there. Don't use tests that are tied to high stakes for the school and teachers (because those cause the warped unintended consequences that are detrimental overall). You can also use disciplinary records and drop out rates. You can use attendance rates. You can use FARM rates. You can use a combination of all of the above. Those kinds of things should also help get funding for social workers, psychologists, counselors, etc.

You can use all of those in combination with demographics (demographics are pretty strong indicators BTW).

It's no big secret which schools are struggling. Never was.

You can also use disciplinary records and drop out rates. You can use attendance rates. You can use FARM rates. You can use a combination of all of the above. Those kinds of things should also help get funding for social workers, psychologists, counselors, etc.

You can use all of those in combination with demographics (demographics are pretty strong indicators BTW).

It's no big secret which schools are struggling. Never was.

Nice theory. Don't think it has actually worked that way.

The consortia were formed because of the economies of scale of developing tests jointly. Again, it's far cheaper and vastly more cost effective than having each state develop its own test independently.

When you get rid of standardized tests, how do you then make the business case for extra funding, resources, grants or foundation funding for one particular school that is struggling, versus any other school, since you no longer have any quantitative, consistent measure or baseline for objectively comparing school outcomes? Just going by demographics won't cut it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which STATES developed. And, as is demonstrated by the very fact that there are DIFFERENT TESTS depending on which state you are in, i.e. PARCC vs. Smarter Balanced.

So again, stop with the "feds feds feds, waaah" nonsense.

Doesn't change the fact that the Race to the Top funds came from the feds. And, that the feds pretty much said that the money only went to CC states. Facts are facts. The states did not develop the tests. They were developed by a consortium with grants from feds and Gates. They were developed to be used to meet the NCLB and CC requirements.

Uh, yeah, states that were doing standards work got funding, because states that weren't interested in changing their standards didn't NEED extra money for standards.

And the CONSORTIUM you refer to that developed the tests INCLUDED the states.

Again, you really don't understand the process. States are having to use these consortiums to get the tests written because of money and time constraints. Even states like Michigan, which dropped out of Smarter Balanced, is having to use most of the Smarter Balance questions.


And half the states have kicked PARCC to the curb. Must be one shitty test!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which STATES developed. And, as is demonstrated by the very fact that there are DIFFERENT TESTS depending on which state you are in, i.e. PARCC vs. Smarter Balanced.

So again, stop with the "feds feds feds, waaah" nonsense.

Doesn't change the fact that the Race to the Top funds came from the feds. And, that the feds pretty much said that the money only went to CC states. Facts are facts. The states did not develop the tests. They were developed by a consortium with grants from feds and Gates. They were developed to be used to meet the NCLB and CC requirements.

Uh, yeah, states that were doing standards work got funding, because states that weren't interested in changing their standards didn't NEED extra money for standards.

And the CONSORTIUM you refer to that developed the tests INCLUDED the states.

Anonymous wrote:

Which STATES developed. And, as is demonstrated by the very fact that there are DIFFERENT TESTS depending on which state you are in, i.e. PARCC vs. Smarter Balanced.

So again, stop with the "feds feds feds, waaah" nonsense.

Doesn't change the fact that the Race to the Top funds came from the feds. And, that the feds pretty much said that the money only went to CC states. Facts are facts. The states did not develop the tests. They were developed by a consortium with grants from feds and Gates. They were developed to be used to meet the NCLB and CC requirements.

Anonymous wrote:

The solution is to have standards (of course) as we always have, but to stop the mandated federal testing. Instead of the testing that is pointed toward the standards in such specific and narrow ways, have testing that is broader and can be used to get the funding that is needed as well. This is possible. And we need fewer, simpler, and shorter tests. These tests are really not helping teachers to be better teachers (even in the wonderful schools that have great CC and testing implementation).

First, you need to remove the testing requirement from NCLB. The part about testing for federal funding is part of NCLB--and that is the problem. Also, part of the problem is that to get federal funding the standards must be at least as "rigorous" as Common Core--this is from the feds. You've got to eliminate the whole thing. And the "wonderful schools with great CC and testing implementation: are just schools with students who are already high achievers.

Which STATES developed. And, as is demonstrated by the very fact that there are DIFFERENT TESTS depending on which state you are in, i.e. PARCC vs. Smarter Balanced.

So again, stop with the "feds feds feds, waaah" nonsense.