How did the PARCC go for your child today?

FilmCarp said:
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.

Individually smart, reasonable people can produce collective insanity.

Or hysteria.

With regard to the increased focus on testing culminating in the PARCC, it isn't so much hysteria as a case of the patient growing tired of being poked, prodded, tested and examined and the doctor not listening when the patient says enough.

PARCC is like an overweight person buying an enormously expensive scale in hopes of learning something they don't already know.

Our district is not using the results for any placement next year. Anyone who wanted to have their child opt out could. But please don't generalize your opinion to all people. And I don't believe anyone's opinion on the value of testing, or lack of it, is swayed by the constant complaining of a handful of constant complainers who harp on this.

chalmers said:
Our district is not using the results for any placement next year. Anyone who wanted to have their child opt out could. But please don't generalize your opinion to all people. And I don't believe anyone's opinion on the value of testing, or lack of it, is swayed by the constant complaining of a handful of constant complainers who harp on this.

Agreed that nobody on MOL will be swayed by a handful of constant complainers.

But us complainers have swayed the lawmakers in Trenton, who recently have been bending over backwards in trying to mitigate the effects and the reach of PARCC. Definitely worth complaining down there.

Note to self: Steer clear of threads with complainers obsessed with PARCC. Interestingly, I volunteered in an elementary classroom one afternoon after the PARCC was given. Number of complaints from the kids: Zero.

ice said:
Let's see now... as a highschooler, might I have opted out of taking a long boring test when it didn't count for anything and when I know a large portion of parents and teachers don't like the test?......Hmmm... I'm surprised the high school opt opt out rate wasn't 80%.

Does it show up as an opt out when the student doesn't complete sections or just clicks buttons?

And as far as complaining goes, while I have been in favor of this test, part of the reason was that I was willing to see how it went for everyone. I'm glad they are making some changes. I also think that since my family went through the process we are in a better position to suggest changes than those who chose not to participate at all.

I seem to have lost the plot. What is the PARCC going to tell us that we don't already know and how is this information going to be used to make public education better?

Based on my experiences, the biggest challenge is to engage students and inspire them to do their best. This can be quite a challenge, especially during those years when teenagers view most adults as being clueless and not funny.

tjohn said:
I seem to have lost the plot. What is the PARCC going to tell us that we don't already know and how is this information going to be used to make public education better?

For example:

--Hopefully {whatever the standardized test is} will inform the district or a school when it makes an academic (or disciplinary-as our disproportionate suspension rates likely impact academic outcomes as well) programming or policy decision that improves something the district currently is not very good at.

--Assist the school/district in prioritizing attention/funding to areas it is relatively worse in than other similar schools/districts.

--Collaborating with other schools/districts that demonstrate strengths in these areas.

Etc.

The next big waste of time and money is the end of year Biology test administered by the state of NJ DOE. This the 5th or 6th year of the testing which, at least in the original intention of NJ DOE, was to resemble in form and purpose the Regents Exams in New York State. Well, it is still being "piloted" and does not count (a) towards graduation, (b) as an evaluation of the teachers, (c) an evaluation of the school or district. No grade is assessed for the student, does not count for the course and does not yet count for graduation. It is disruptive of school educational time and costs the state (i.e., us) money.

On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week the high school schedule is period 5 -- starting at regular time of 11AM, then periods 6, 7, 3 (Tuesday) or 4 (Wednesday) and 9. Freshmen enter for the test at 8:15 and everyone else for period 5 at 11AM.

The educational schedule this spring has been completely shattered at great expense to the students. PARCC is a national initiative and perhaps it may mean something someday, who knows. But this end of year Biology test is a complete waste of time. After this many years it no longer needs to be "piloted" -- either count it or drop it. Wish some bold reporter would ask the Governor why he is wasting tax dollars on tests that do not count.

The goal was to have end of year Bio, Chem, Physics and probably a bunch of EOY tests in courses like Algebra, Geometry and so on. At the rate the NJ DOE is moving this one, single test the full suite of EOY tests will not be implemented for at least 20 years, perhaps 30. Five or six years to pilot a test? And our understanding is that NO PROGRESS has been made on any of the other possible EOY tests -- I hope we are wrong on that.

This is an example of sheer and complete incompetence and the only benefit is to the test makers but no advantage to the students, faculty and taxpayers. What a miserable outrage. And the Governor wants to be President. Really?

sprout said:

tjohn said:
I seem to have lost the plot. What is the PARCC going to tell us that we don't already know and how is this information going to be used to make public education better?

For example:
--Hopefully {whatever the standardized test is} will inform the district or a school when it makes an academic (or disciplinary-as our disproportionate suspension rates likely impact academic outcomes as well) programming or policy decision that improves something the district currently is not very good at.
--Assist the school/district in prioritizing attention/funding to areas it is relatively worse in than other similar schools/districts.
--Collaborating with other schools/districts that demonstrate strengths in these areas.
Etc.

Can you explain exactly how PARCC would these three things above?

Jude said:
The next big waste of time and money is the end of year Biology test administered by the state of NJ DOE. This the 5th or 6th year of the testing which, at least in the original intention of NJ DOE, was to resemble in form and purpose the Regents Exams in New York State. Well, it is still being "piloted" and does not count (a) towards graduation, (b) as an evaluation of the teachers, (c) an evaluation of the school or district. No grade is assessed for the student, does not count for the course and does not yet count for graduation. It is disruptive of school educational time and costs the state (i.e., us) money.
On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week the high school schedule is period 5 -- starting at regular time of 11AM, then periods 6, 7, 3 (Tuesday) or 4 (Wednesday) and 9. Freshmen enter for the test at 8:15 and everyone else for period 5 at 11AM.
The educational schedule this spring has been completely shattered at great expense to the students. PARCC is a national initiative and perhaps it may mean something someday, who knows. But this end of year Biology test is a complete waste of time. After this many years it no longer needs to be "piloted" -- either count it or drop it. Wish some bold reporter would ask the Governor why he is wasting tax dollars on tests that do not count.
The goal was to have end of year Bio, Chem, Physics and probably a bunch of EOY tests in courses like Algebra, Geometry and so on. At the rate the NJ DOE is moving this one, single test the full suite of EOY tests will not be implemented for at least 20 years, perhaps 30. Five or six years to pilot a test? And our understanding is that NO PROGRESS has been made on any of the other possible EOY tests -- I hope we are wrong on that.
This is an example of sheer and complete incompetence and the only benefit is to the test makers but no advantage to the students, faculty and taxpayers. What a miserable outrage. And the Governor wants to be President. Really?

That is utterly ridiculous. What a waste of time and money.

sprout said:

tjohn said:
I seem to have lost the plot. What is the PARCC going to tell us that we don't already know and how is this information going to be used to make public education better?

For example:
--Hopefully {whatever the standardized test is} will inform the district or a school when it makes an academic (or disciplinary-as our disproportionate suspension rates likely impact academic outcomes as well) programming or policy decision that improves something the district currently is not very good at.
--Assist the school/district in prioritizing attention/funding to areas it is relatively worse in than other similar schools/districts.
--Collaborating with other schools/districts that demonstrate strengths in these areas.
Etc.

I don't disagree with the theory. But in practice, I don't think the PARCC can do these things. There are too many variables to consider such as variability in the student body from year to year and the inability of public education to sustain a focus on much of anything for the extended period of time required to see if changes are having an impact.

xavier67 said:

sprout said:

tjohn said:
I seem to have lost the plot. What is the PARCC going to tell us that we don't already know and how is this information going to be used to make public education better?

For example:
--Hopefully {whatever the standardized test is} will inform the district or a school when it makes an academic (or disciplinary-as our disproportionate suspension rates likely impact academic outcomes as well) programming or policy decision that improves something the district currently is not very good at.
--Assist the school/district in prioritizing attention/funding to areas it is relatively worse in than other similar schools/districts.
--Collaborating with other schools/districts that demonstrate strengths in these areas.
Etc.

Can you explain exactly how PARCC would these three things above

Back in 2010 I started a discussion based on data (which, unfortunately are no longer formatted into a table in the new MOL) that could demonstrate how such explorations could begin. The next step would be the districts collaborating to try to better understand if what they are seeing in the data is related to their programming or policies -- or not. (You may just want to read pg. 1. On pg. 2, the trolls arrive).

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/51206-2009-update-SO-MPLWD-still-mostly-outperformed-by-Piscataway-Black-student-subgroup-NCLB-?page=1