How did the PARCC go for your child today?

ctrzaska said:

You're right. School districts should do whatever they want to, however they want to, without any interference or penalty from the state.

Though given Montclair's huge problems as it is, they don't seem to need any help in screwing themselves over on the financial front. May as well add this to the list.

A piece in NPR about the opt-out movement in New York.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/04/20/400396254/anti-test-opt-out-movement-makes-a-wave-in-new-york-state?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150420

With the second half of PARCC completed, the district now says that 16% of its students ended up opting out. After the initial round of testing in March, the district had touted the low 2% opt-out rate. I wonder how we got to 16%. 

http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/parcc-opt-outs-hit-40-columbia-high-school/ 

From the article you posted, it's pretty clear how it got that high: because of the high school student opt-out rate.

If you're asking how come the district didn't mention this sooner, here's my guess: The number of HS students who didn't want to take the test was high, but there were no 'opt out letters' beforehand for the district to track this. I believe that if the HS students don't answer some minimum # of questions on the test (even if they log into the tests site), it is not considered an attempt. Thus, it's an opt-out.

As you can see from the article you linked, for elementary and middle school, the opt-out rate ranges between 1%-7% by school. I'm guessing these were more likely to be associated with opt-out letters from parents, and tracked earlier.

Proponents of expanded testing need to take a step back and think about what they are doing. Right now, teachers hate the tests, kids hate the tests and there is no incentive to take the test seriously. Do you think there might be some dysfunctional behavior?

As education has moved into the political arena, the clear victims are the students. You can be sure that politicians and test proponents don't really about the kids except maybe their own. Politicians care about reducing complex problems to simplistic numbers they can use to befuddle voters. Or they care about using the tests as a club with which to beat their favorite bogeyman - teachers.

tjohn said:
Proponents of expanded testing ...

What is "expanded" testing?

PARCC. Consumes more resources than any previous testing.

True - definitely an administration time suck from what I can tell. I don't know if it's a 'first year' thing, or if that's forever.

But the time students spend actually testing doesn't seem much different from NJ ASK (from what I can tell with my own child... and from some comparison sheet I saw with the time spent on the test itself).

If I were to guess, I think next year we'll see some combining of testing days. (Either students taking 2 sections in one day, or multiple grade levels testing the same day). My kid said they took the 4th grade PARCC on the chrome books in their classroom -- so there doesn't seem to be a 'computer room' constraint that forces such a large number of calendared testing days.

I suppose I am a proponent of having some standardized measure by which to compare student learning in different classrooms and schools. Preferably it's a standardized measure that measures something useful for understanding something else - and that link is helpful in some way.

That said --- I don't have an opinion on the PARCC yet. We won't know if it will be helpful in understanding something else until that link is found. If the same thing could be understood in a simpler standardized way, then I would be a proponent of that simpler way.

I am disappointed by that rate of opt out at the high school level, but I can understand it. The Parcc test is supposed to check how we are doing with the common core, and since the common core is relatively new here it is the younger kids who we should be assessing as the years go by.

I am glad my child took the tests, since they don't count as much now. It let us see what works and what doesn't, and while I still want to see the results I already have drawn some conclusions. First, this pass was a good idea if only to iron out the administrative glitches and let the kids know what the test is like. Second, we do need to find a way to have it take up fewer days of school, either by doubling up sections or some other means.

My son has told me that he will be less nervous next year, now that he has a better idea what to expect. Since testing is here to stay I think it is good that he took it.

I am all for constant improvements in the quality, content, and administration of the tests. Opting out doesn't help with any of that.

I think the numbers reported in the Village Green article are actually low. The table says that 2 MMS 8th graders refused testing--I know of at least 4, and I don't know that many people.

sprout said:
If I were to guess, I think next year we'll see some combining of testing days. (Either students taking 2 sections in one day, or multiple grade levels testing the same day).

Middle school did have 2 sections of the same subject each day. In my opinion, this was a bit much. Almost 3 hours of testing in a day. HIgh school also had 2 sections a day, one for each subject.

frances said:
I think the numbers reported in the Village Green article are actually low. The table says that 2 MMS 8th graders refused testing--I know of at least 4, and I don't know that many people.

It's also true for Clinton. I know of at least eight 3rd grade families who opted out but the district says there were only 6. The district, once again, is spinning things. And these are people who supposedly work for us.

Interesting. These percentages will all be publicly reported with the assessment summaries next year, so it makes no sense at all to try to pretend things are better than they are. It also makes no sense to report the numbers before the numbers are all in, as it will only look worse later -- leaving the district looking foolish.

... But, since the district already lost a half-million on a useless SPED report because of lack of data collection, I suppose this data mix-up would just be small potatoes. Unless the district loses more than that from the opt-out rate.

Looks like a decision was made yesterday to shorten the testing time, and reduce it to one testing window instead of two.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/states-vote-to-shorten-common-core-aligned-tests-known-as-parcc/2015/05/21/0e6807b6-ffc2-11e4-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html

That's good.

Wow, that's some real rocket science there. Do they really expect substantive changes in results between March and May?

No. The test was divided into two parts. I really wish people would make some effort to understand this issue before they blast everything about it. Not everyone involved in creating this test is a moron. There is room for intelligent disagreement, but a little research goes a long way.