States hired qualified consultants with experience in test development and states oversaw the work with their own expert panels, states are still the ones with ultimate responsibility.

And this is a big part of the problem. They hired "qualified consultants with experience in test development" to develop the standards. Some important people got left behind.

And there is a poster on here who is obsessed with testing. The poster keeps repeating that "nobody said the tests would do this or that or solve this or that." "It's not the testing."

This poster wants to discuss the tests in isolation. That is impossible. The tests are surrounded by a whole culture that was created---now who created that and how much of it they created is debatable. But, the culture exists and most people would agree that it has not been positive.

Getting rid of testing won't magically make that money appear. Look, pp, you are trying WAY too hard to tie everything to testing and frankly a.) you are full of crap and b.) annoyingly obnoxious, obtuse and pedantic as hell. If someone's cat got stuck up a tree you would blame testing. If you ran out the door and forgot your keys, you would blame testing. That's sure how it seems anyways... one track mind with a serious obsession.

Thanks. That's a compliment. When I believe in something, I don't give up, especially if it's important.

And there is a poster on here who is obsessed with testing. The poster keeps repeating that "nobody said the tests would do this or that or solve this or that." "It's not the testing."

Then what ARE the tests good for? If they are not a solution and they only identify problems (that we already know about), what's the point?

I'm sorry if you find me annoying, obtuse, obnoxious, etc., but I work with "failing" kids every day and I am going to advocate for them no matter how annoying and obnoxious I may seem. This is my job. It means a lot to me.

Calling me "full of crap" is a very good rhetorical device. It's probably on the CC test for 8th grade. When all else fails, attack the messenger.

You are exactly right. The testing has not changed what is going on in the schools at all. It has made no difference.

Actually, it has made a big difference. It has made things worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ EXACTLY. Testing isn't the problem, and nor are the standards. It's what school districts do with the test results, and how they remediate the problems that is the issue.

You get the test results 6 months later and a child gets a 1, 2, 3, 4. No details on where a child needs specific help. The tests are garbage. In many grades you won't even have the same teachers. ... How will the tests advance any child.

We get a lot of our test results within a few weeks -- DRA results fairly immediately. SRI results within a few weeks. We KNOW which children aren't reading on grade level. We have lists and list of kids who are On or above grade level and below grade level. In our school we know that 20% of our students are scoring below grade level on numerous tests of reading in 4th, 5th and 6th grade.

But aside from having "small group" reading mini lessons we really aren't doing much to remediate the specific problem the children are having. It takes TIME and MONEY to properly remediate and those are things we do not have. These kids need one one on tutoring to get up to speed quickly and we don't do that.

And yes, it is the school district that is telling us we need to expose the children to all the higher order thinking skills of the grade level curriculum and I am not saying we don't need to do that. If all we do is remediate at the 1st and 2nd grade level the children will never catch up to the 4th and 5th grade level. But we can't just remediate at the 4th and 5th grade level without going back and teaching the basic, foundational reading skills that this children just never mastered. They need BOTH which will take extra time and extra instruction which we aren't giving these students.

Honestly sometimes I want to invent an assessment technique called "DSS Plus" : "Data by Sitting with the Students (Plus asking them questions)"

Are your fourth grade students failing their reading and writing and math assessments? SIT DOWN WITH THEM and watch them take the test. Have them read the test questions aloud to you and notice which words they stumble over because they can't sound them out. Have them read the math test out loud and watch them add and subtract 3 digit numbers. YOU WILL BE SURPRISED at the fact that many kids can't perform multistep operations because they don't know how to perform single step computations correctly. They are hopelessly confused and they ned to go back to basics, yes even back to a 1st grade level in 4th grade, because they are lacking in basic skills. They need DIRECT INSTRUCTION in BASIC SKILLS and lots of drill and repetition before they will be successful at all this higher order stuff.

Anonymous wrote:PARCC is punitive. Rather than offer assistance to schools that are low-performing and identifying ways to improve equity, we punish teachers and students for factors beyond their control.

I told my children that if they ever entertained education as a major, I'd pull their college funds from them.

That's not a testing problem, it's a school district problem.

Anonymous wrote:

There's no reason that NCLB testing couldn't provide back more detailed individual diagnostics, other than that state ed officials didn't pursue it. Though, isn't this the first year for PARCC/Smarter Balanced, etc? Likewise there's nothing preventing schools from doing the kinds of individualized observations and interventions with students other than that schools are unwilling to make that investment. Blaming testing or getting rid of testing doesn't change any of that.

However, the testing is costing billions of dollars that could be spent on the observations and interventions. There is no money for those things in many places, yet the tests are mandated by law. There is no choice but to spend the money on the testing. This is what is preventing schools from doing the observations and interventions with students. It's not the schools that are unwilling to spend the money; it is the taxpayers who are unwilling to have their taxes increased. This is a zero sum game.

Getting rid of testing won't magically make that money appear. Look, pp, you are trying WAY too hard to tie everything to testing and frankly a.) you are full of crap and b.) annoyingly obnoxious, obtuse and pedantic as hell. If someone's cat got stuck up a tree you would blame testing. If you ran out the door and forgot your keys, you would blame testing. That's sure how it seems anyways... one track mind with a serious obsession.

You can't fatten a pig by weighing it.

PARCC is punitive. Rather than offer assistance to schools that are low-performing and identifying ways to improve equity, we punish teachers and students for factors beyond their control.

I told my children that if they ever entertained education as a major, I'd pull their college funds from them.

You are exactly right. The testing has not changed what is going on in the schools at all. It has made no difference.

The same schools that were doing well before the testing are doing well now (and are wasting time taking the tests and paying for them, but they can better withstand that fly buzzing around them). The schools that were not doing well before are doing even worse now because the tests have not created the right teaching emphasis. The schools in the middle are probably suffering to some degree. It has created some jobs at testing companies, scoring the tests, and creating spreadsheets and reports. That could be good for the economy, but it may have been better to put the money into roads and bridges.

Likewise there's nothing preventing schools from doing the kinds of individualized observations and interventions with students other than that schools are unwilling to make that investment. Blaming testing or getting rid of testing doesn't change any of that.

You are exactly right. The testing has not changed what is going on in the schools at all. It has made no difference.

There's no reason that NCLB testing couldn't provide back more detailed individual diagnostics, other than that state ed officials didn't pursue it. Though, isn't this the first year for PARCC/Smarter Balanced, etc? Likewise there's nothing preventing schools from doing the kinds of individualized observations and interventions with students other than that schools are unwilling to make that investment. Blaming testing or getting rid of testing doesn't change any of that.

However, the testing is costing billions of dollars that could be spent on the observations and interventions. There is no money for those things in many places, yet the tests are mandated by law. There is no choice but to spend the money on the testing. This is what is preventing schools from doing the observations and interventions with students. It's not the schools that are unwilling to spend the money; it is the taxpayers who are unwilling to have their taxes increased. This is a zero sum game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
^ EXACTLY. Testing isn't the problem, and nor are the standards. It's what school districts do with the test results, and how they remediate the problems that is the issue.


You get the test results 6 months later and a child gets a 1, 2, 3, 4. No details on where a child needs specific help. The tests are garbage. In many grades you won't even have the same teachers. ... How will the tests advance any child.

If a school needs standardized tests once a year to figure out how to teach the kids, there are huge problems in that school. And it appears that the tests don't help with the teaching end of things anyway.

I believe that most (and let's really hope all) schools do not need those tests to tell them what they already know. Just by sitting with a kid for about 30 minutes and having them work on some tasks (so that you can see how they attack their work), you will get a whole lot of information on how to teach the student. You will gain more as you observe. The tests are inconsequential and pretty much a waste of money. Having an experienced teacher and having more adults present to give the student individualized instruction is what will make a difference. If there is no money or structure to provide those interventions, the student is screwed. The student may already be screwed if there are drugs and alcohol use in the home. I have seen that---kids with fetal alchohol syndrome and crack babies---these kids are behind from day one. We need to focus on the kids, one at a time. Mass testing and measurement of groups takes the focus away from each child. No Child Left Behind=No Teacher Left.

There's no reason that NCLB testing couldn't provide back more detailed individual diagnostics, other than that state ed officials didn't pursue it. Though, isn't this the first year for PARCC/Smarter Balanced, etc? Likewise there's nothing preventing schools from doing the kinds of individualized observations and interventions with students other than that schools are unwilling to make that investment. Blaming testing or getting rid of testing doesn't change any of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

^ The states are who developed the test.

Publishing companies did them--just like they wrote the standards.

And around, and around, and around....

States hired qualified consultants with experience in test development and states oversaw the work with their own expert panels, states are still the ones with ultimate responsibility.

Anonymous wrote:
^ EXACTLY. Testing isn't the problem, and nor are the standards. It's what school districts do with the test results, and how they remediate the problems that is the issue.


You get the test results 6 months later and a child gets a 1, 2, 3, 4. No details on where a child needs specific help. The tests are garbage. In many grades you won't even have the same teachers. ... How will the tests advance any child.

If a school needs standardized tests once a year to figure out how to teach the kids, there are huge problems in that school. And it appears that the tests don't help with the teaching end of things anyway.

I believe that most (and let's really hope all) schools do not need those tests to tell them what they already know. Just by sitting with a kid for about 30 minutes and having them work on some tasks (so that you can see how they attack their work), you will get a whole lot of information on how to teach the student. You will gain more as you observe. The tests are inconsequential and pretty much a waste of money. Having an experienced teacher and having more adults present to give the student individualized instruction is what will make a difference. If there is no money or structure to provide those interventions, the student is screwed. The student may already be screwed if there are drugs and alcohol use in the home. I have seen that---kids with fetal alchohol syndrome and crack babies---these kids are behind from day one. We need to focus on the kids, one at a time. Mass testing and measurement of groups takes the focus away from each child. No Child Left Behind=No Teacher Left.