Anonymous wrote:so if there is no more PARCC from 2019, where does that leave the kids in HS that took Algebra I in 9th grade from 2016 and are required to pass parcc to graduate?

Anonymous wrote:PARCC has a terrible and well documented cultural bias.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Reading part of PARCC is BS. It isn't testing content because content varies from district to district. It tests reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is mostly based on background knowledge of the topic. So if the passage is about something the student is familiar with, he/she will test higher. If the passage is unfamiliar, the score will be lower. So children with parents who have higher educational levels tend to do better on these tests because of their background knowledge that they may have learned outside of school. If the content was standardized and the test actually tested that content, it would make more sense. Look at some of the public release samples to get an idea how the test jumps from one random passage to another. There might be one non-fiction passage on sea turtles and one narrative about summer camp. If you haven't studied sea turtles, chances are poor kids will do worse on this section. They might not even know what the world "sea" means. Kids from higher SES backgrounds might have read about sea turtles from books in the library, might have gone to aquariums, might have gone on a trip to the ocean. My son knows about them from camp. The students I teach in my Title One school don't go to camp. The don't go to the library. They don't do anything over the summer. So the test is a random bunch of passages testing reading comprehension and not content. So teachers at my school get blasted for low test scores when the reason most students know about these passages is from outside of school.

I thought PARCC was supposed to measure the kinds of things the PISA test measures (conceptual understanding and critical thinking).
I suppose I would also imagine that the children you describe who don't read or "do anything" over the summer are unlikely to be very successful in any test.
I wonder if it would be possible to send donated books home with children over the summer or offer free summer art classes etc.
It does make you think that there is only so much any school system or school admin or individual teacher can accomplish without parental involvement

We bend over backwards to provide enrichment at my school. Free summer camps that have a field trip each week (nature centers, museums, etc). Once a month food pantry. Weekly fresh fruit for the students and a weekly low cost vegetable program for parents (and teachers if there is anything left over). We have a group that comes in once a month to read books to our pre-k and KG students. They read a few books and then let each child pick a book for free to keep at home. So over 2 years, students are getting nearly 20 free books. They also donate books once or twice a year to the entire school. Our school library is open once a week in the summer so kids can borrow books. The pre-k and KG students take a field trip to the neighborhood library and get library cards there. We also give out free books at Family Reading Night each fall. There are at least 2 Saturday programs where students will be picked up at our school and bused to a museum, etc for an enrichment program (drama or art). We have after school clubs that are either free or no more than $10. My son's private school doesn't even offer these things. But you can lead a horse to water.... It's always the same people involved in these enrichment activities and they are the students who do well in school. Why? What's the difference? Their family or some adult in their lives who make sure they do their homework and participate in some incredible activities that are mostly free. Sadly, the accident of birth usually supersedes what any school can do.

Anonymous wrote:I am an educator and I think it is sad to lose PARCC. Now that middle class kids are struggling, we move the struggle and lower the bar. Sad. Really sad. The kids would have met and exceeded the bar if given the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not use a national test like the Iowa Test or similiar? I grew up in Baltimore County and we took it every year starting in 3rd grade or so. My son takes it in Catholic school. The school uses the scores to allocate resources. I like seeing how my kid compares to others nationally.

+1

But MCPS will not do this.

Unfortunately, if systems pull out, they are "punished."

Eleven states and Washington D.C. were awarded grants through the Race to the Top program. New York State received $700 million. If standardized testing wasn’t a part of teacher evaluation, New York would not have gotten that money.

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/17/the-high-stakes-of-standardized-tests/
The High Stakes of Standardized Tests

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not use a national test like the Iowa Test or similiar? I grew up in Baltimore County and we took it every year starting in 3rd grade or so. My son takes it in Catholic school. The school uses the scores to allocate resources. I like seeing how my kid compares to others nationally.

+1

But MCPS will not do this.

Eleven states and Washington D.C. were awarded grants through the Race to the Top program. New York State received $700 million. If standardized testing wasn’t a part of teacher evaluation, New York would not have gotten that money.

Anonymous wrote:This is long but summarizes the state of snake oil test sales and includes discussion of ELA on PARCC: http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2018/09/still-pushing-parcc.html

Includes this comment re Maryland:

I live in MD. We have CC and PARCC. Our Governor doesn't like PARCC because the parents are unhappy, so we will be dumping PARCC for a computer adaptive test that aligns better to our curriculum and takes less time. New Meridian will likely be the vendor.....guess who owns PARCC?.....New Meridian. Rebranding is all that we will get. The Governor knows it and he thinks we're all too stupid to figure this out.

The PARCC consortium has chosen a new nonprofit to manage the business of maintaining and administering its test: New Meridian Corp., a brand-new organization led by people from various strands of the assessment world.

. . .

PARCC leaders told Education Week that the agreement with New Meridian reflects two years of discussions with states to reshape itself to respond best to their needs. New Mexico Secretary of Education Hanna Skandera, who chairs PARCC's governing board, called the agreement with New Meridian "a culminating moment" of PARCC's transition to an organizational model that prioritizes flexibility, educator input, state leadership, and quality test design.

Anonymous wrote:The Reading part of PARCC is BS. It isn't testing content because content varies from district to district. It tests reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is mostly based on background knowledge of the topic. So if the passage is about something the student is familiar with, he/she will test higher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Reading part of PARCC is BS. It isn't testing content because content varies from district to district. It tests reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is mostly based on background knowledge of the topic. So if the passage is about something the student is familiar with, he/she will test higher. If the passage is unfamiliar, the score will be lower. So children with parents who have higher educational levels tend to do better on these tests because of their background knowledge that they may have learned outside of school. If the content was standardized and the test actually tested that content, it would make more sense. Look at some of the public release samples to get an idea how the test jumps from one random passage to another. There might be one non-fiction passage on sea turtles and one narrative about summer camp. If you haven't studied sea turtles, chances are poor kids will do worse on this section. They might not even know what the world "sea" means. Kids from higher SES backgrounds might have read about sea turtles from books in the library, might have gone to aquariums, might have gone on a trip to the ocean. My son knows about them from camp. The students I teach in my Title One school don't go to camp. The don't go to the library. They don't do anything over the summer. So the test is a random bunch of passages testing reading comprehension and not content. So teachers at my school get blasted for low test scores when the reason most students know about these passages is from outside of school.

I thought PARCC was supposed to measure the kinds of things the PISA test measures (conceptual understanding and critical thinking).
I suppose I would also imagine that the children you describe who don't read or "do anything" over the summer are unlikely to be very successful in any test.
I wonder if it would be possible to send donated books home with children over the summer or offer free summer art classes etc.
It does make you think that there is only so much any school system or school admin or individual teacher can accomplish without parental involvement

We bend over backwards to provide enrichment at my school. Free summer camps that have a field trip each week (nature centers, museums, etc). Once a month food pantry. Weekly fresh fruit for the students and a weekly low cost vegetable program for parents (and teachers if there is anything left over). We have a group that comes in once a month to read books to our pre-k and KG students. They read a few books and then let each child pick a book for free to keep at home. So over 2 years, students are getting nearly 20 free books. They also donate books once or twice a year to the entire school. Our school library is open once a week in the summer so kids can borrow books. The pre-k and KG students take a field trip to the neighborhood library and get library cards there. We also give out free books at Family Reading Night each fall. There are at least 2 Saturday programs where students will be picked up at our school and bused to a museum, etc for an enrichment program (drama or art). We have after school clubs that are either free or no more than $10. My son's private school doesn't even offer these things. But you can lead a horse to water.... It's always the same people involved in these enrichment activities and they are the students who do well in school. Why? What's the difference? Their family or some adult in their lives who make sure they do their homework and participate in some incredible activities that are mostly free. Sadly, the accident of birth usually supersedes what any school can do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Reading part of PARCC is BS. It isn't testing content because content varies from district to district. It tests reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is mostly based on background knowledge of the topic. So if the passage is about something the student is familiar with, he/she will test higher. If the passage is unfamiliar, the score will be lower. So children with parents who have higher educational levels tend to do better on these tests because of their background knowledge that they may have learned outside of school. If the content was standardized and the test actually tested that content, it would make more sense. Look at some of the public release samples to get an idea how the test jumps from one random passage to another. There might be one non-fiction passage on sea turtles and one narrative about summer camp. If you haven't studied sea turtles, chances are poor kids will do worse on this section. They might not even know what the world "sea" means. Kids from higher SES backgrounds might have read about sea turtles from books in the library, might have gone to aquariums, might have gone on a trip to the ocean. My son knows about them from camp. The students I teach in my Title One school don't go to camp. The don't go to the library. They don't do anything over the summer. So the test is a random bunch of passages testing reading comprehension and not content. So teachers at my school get blasted for low test scores when the reason most students know about these passages is from outside of school.

I thought PARCC was supposed to measure the kinds of things the PISA test measures (conceptual understanding and critical thinking).
I suppose I would also imagine that the children you describe who don't read or "do anything" over the summer are unlikely to be very successful in any test.
I wonder if it would be possible to send donated books home with children over the summer or offer free summer art classes etc.
It does make you think that there is only so much any school system or school admin or individual teacher can accomplish without parental involvement

Anonymous wrote:The Reading part of PARCC is BS. It isn't testing content because content varies from district to district. It tests reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is mostly based on background knowledge of the topic. So if the passage is about something the student is familiar with, he/she will test higher. If the passage is unfamiliar, the score will be lower. So children with parents who have higher educational levels tend to do better on these tests because of their background knowledge that they may have learned outside of school. If the content was standardized and the test actually tested that content, it would make more sense. Look at some of the public release samples to get an idea how the test jumps from one random passage to another. There might be one non-fiction passage on sea turtles and one narrative about summer camp. If you haven't studied sea turtles, chances are poor kids will do worse on this section. They might not even know what the world "sea" means. Kids from higher SES backgrounds might have read about sea turtles from books in the library, might have gone to aquariums, might have gone on a trip to the ocean. My son knows about them from camp. The students I teach in my Title One school don't go to camp. The don't go to the library. They don't do anything over the summer. So the test is a random bunch of passages testing reading comprehension and not content. So teachers at my school get blasted for low test scores when the reason most students know about these passages is from outside of school.

Writing is a prime example of how these tests have failed. The "evidence-based writing" questions are a grotesque parody of actual writing; these questions start with the assumption that everyone would respond to the prompt with the exact same paragraph, and instead of doing actual writing, requires students to select from among pre-written sentences, or to choose which piece of "evidence" they are supposed to use. These writing tests require huge amounts of test prep, because they don't reflect anything that actual writers in the real world do-- they just reflect what test manufacturers are able to do (at low cost and maximum standardization) to pretend to test writing