NJ DOE tells school districts to get parents to toe the line! - REVISED AGAIN

Bring it. This genie is way out of the bottle, and I think the politicians are about to learn exactly how pissed off the parents are. 

Which politicians, exactly?  Did we elect Hespe?  Or more importantly Duncan?  Personally I'd prefer the funding of my child's education not be jeopardized by a minority of parents out on their own crusade.  Particularly those too naive to think this wasn't a possibility from day one.

We elected the politicians who appointed Hespe and Duncan. No one seriously still believes tests have no value for anyone other than the companies selling them and the anti-public-school advocates pushing them. They've lost; they just don't seem to realize it yet. 

Now the people appointed by the politicians we elected are threatening to pull funding from schools because they don't like the fact that parents have wised up to what's going on and aren't going to stand for it any longer? They're creating an angry voting bloc that's going to go single-issue on their asses, because people are starting to realize that few things are as important as the quality of their childrens' education. 

kenboy said:

Now the people appointed by the politicians we elected are threatening to pull funding from schools because they don't like the fact that parents have wised up to what's going on and aren't going to stand for it any longer? They're creating an angry voting bloc that's going to go single-issue on their asses, because people are starting to realize that few things are as important as the quality of their childrens' education. 

 And the billion-dollar question:

How is "the quality of their childrens' education" to be defined... and assessed?

Ah, THAT billion dollar question.  Answer: we have no clue, just that tests aren't it.  And corporations are bad.  Or something.

Anyhoo, my point still stands:  Arne or Hespe pulls funding.  Parents (that whopping percent OF the 4.9% in NJ that pulled kids, AND who are short-sighted single-issue voters, AND who can bear the thought of potentially crossing party lines to vote for a candidate more strongly opposed to testing) will surely go all out to vote out Christie and Obama this November.  Oh, wait, no... not them.  Those few running in 2015 that get up and support this publicly.  Oh, wait... few running for a seat will.  Never mind.  And meanwhile funding potentially disappears, and the anti-testing crowd spins it as not of their direct doing (how DARE they use our children as pawns in their game!-- wait for it and laugh at the irony), but to say this is what happens when tests rule education, blah blah blah.

sprout said:

 And the billion-dollar question:

How is "the quality of their childrens' education" to be defined... and assessed?

 Testing. Now the $1,000,000,000.02 question: How often, in what form and with what repercussions?

Right. Exactly.  That's why I am in favor of kids taking parcc.  I want to help discuss the question of what, when, and how, and now that we have been through some of it I have a better idea of where I think that it can be improved.   Had we opted out I would be no better informed than I was before.  Every test can be improved. 

DaveSchmidt said:

sprout said:

 And the billion-dollar question:

How is "the quality of their childrens' education" to be defined... and assessed?

 Testing. Now the $1,000,000,000.02 question: How often, in what form and with what repercussions?

davidfrazer said:

xavier67 said:

NJ DOE takes the offensive against growing Opt-Out movement in the state against PARCC testing. http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/11/03/administration-moves-to-make-sure-all-seats-filled-for-parcc-tests/

DOE Commissioner David Hespe urges "all chief school administrators to review the district’s discipline and attendance policies to ensure that they address situations that may arise during days that statewide assessments, such as PARCC, are being administered."

READ: "If any parents in your district fail to produce their children for PARCC in the spring, be sure to discipline them back in line."

High-stakes indeed.

And people wonder why schools spend so much time teaching to the test.

 Funny.

When I was in NYC High School, we spent the whole year learning to the test. We were constantly reminded of things that would be on the test. The last two weeks of the year were dedicated to review for the test. The NYS Regents exam.

The time teaching for tests never bothered the teachers or so-called educators then. They thought the tests were just fine, an assessment of the student.

Now, that there are tests which not only assess students, but also may be used to assess schools and teachers, an issue is found by our educators. They suddenly find the time spent teaching for tests issue.

BG9 said:

davidfrazer said:

xavier67 said:

NJ DOE takes the offensive against growing Opt-Out movement in the state against PARCC testing. http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/11/03/administration-moves-to-make-sure-all-seats-filled-for-parcc-tests/

DOE Commissioner David Hespe urges "all chief school administrators to review the district’s discipline and attendance policies to ensure that they address situations that may arise during days that statewide assessments, such as PARCC, are being administered."

READ: "If any parents in your district fail to produce their children for PARCC in the spring, be sure to discipline them back in line."

High-stakes indeed.

And people wonder why schools spend so much time teaching to the test.

 Funny.

When I was in NYC High School, we spent the whole year learning to the test. We were constantly reminded of things that would be on the test. The last two weeks of the year were dedicated to review for the test. The NYS Regents exam.

The time teaching for tests never bothered the teachers or so-called educators then. They thought the tests were just fine, an assessment of the student.

Now, that there are tests which not only assess students, but also may be used to assess schools and teachers, an issue is found by our educators. They suddenly find the time spent teaching for tests issue.

'Back in the day' the NYS regents exams were not typical of most states.  I remember reading about them when I was a high schooler with thoughts along the lines of 'Boy am I glad I don't live there!'

sac said:

'Back in the day' the NYS regents exams were not typical of most states.  I remember reading about them when I was a high schooler with thoughts along the lines of 'Boy am I glad I don't live there!'

 So? That wasn't the point I was making.

.... well, after god knows how much typing, my attempt to insert a link ended up apparently erasing everything that came after. So much for my neatly formatted opening in another tab link to this first grade teacher's account: 

http://dianeravitch.net/2015/04/23/first-grade-teacher-how-common-core-tests-affect-my-students/

and so much for the rest of what I wrote, which boils down to this: 

* That account isn't unusual, and reflects what I hear from the kindergarten and first grade teachers I personally know, respect, and love; the ones who've taught my kids, who have been teaching for 20+ years, and who know what they're talking about.

 * Teachers evaluate students; principals evaluate teachers; other data like standardized tests, AP classes offered, drop out rates, college acceptance rates, etc. may help demonstrate that by the numbers, Millburn schools are better than SOMA schools, which are better than x, which is better than y, which is better than Camden. Except I'm certain you could find parents in each of those towns who would convincingly (and likely correctly) argue that their child is getting just as good of an education as a kid from the next town up the list. 

* Standardized tests, whether Iowa or HSPT or HSPA or NJ-ASK or PARCC, do a really good job of reflecting the socioeconomic status of the children taking those tests. If we use standardized tests of students to rate teachers -- something for which there's little statistical support -- https://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf -- we're going to consistently see teachers in lower income areas have lower scores. Whatever incentive may already exist for good teachers to work in those areas will quickly evaporate.  

* PARCC isn't the problem; it's one more symptom, like NLCB, of the politician-aided corporate takeover of public schools. This isn't a good thing.

* I'm a pretty progressive guy, and yet my strong support for teachers and public education puts me on the same side of the Common Core debate as a lot of really conservative people, who want local control of their schools the same way we do. The overall statewide number of test refusers may not be large -- though there are some of us who vehemently oppose PARCC but who have NOT refused the test, myself included -- what's important is the concentration of the refusals and the opposition. When it's over 50% in some places, you can bet assembly members are going to pay attention. See Nia Gill's letter to Hespe. Yes, I'm well aware Christie and Obama won't face other elections; that wasn't my point. My point was that this movement is growing, and the politicians who respond to it affirmatively are going to find themselves drawing some bipartisan support. 

Read Diane Ravitch's blog, http://dianeravitch.net/. Click the "about," see who she is, what she thought, and why she's come so far around to the other side. I can't say I ever saw testing as much more than a waste of everybody's time, but it never seemed like something that MATTERED this much, either -- but it really does now. 

Not surprisingly a letter from a state senator from Montclair decrying a potential loss of funding.   Could have seen THAT coming from light years away.

I know, those pesky parents in Montclair (a generally well-regarded district, too, before we started trying to fix what wasn't broken), trying to stop the corporate takeover of their curriculum. How dare they! 

kenboy said:

 * Teachers evaluate students; principals evaluate teachers; other data like standardized tests, AP classes offered, drop out rates, college acceptance rates, etc. may help demonstrate that by the numbers, Millburn schools are better than SOMA schools, which are better than x, which is better than y, which is better than Camden. Except I'm certain you could find parents in each of those towns who would convincingly (and likely correctly) argue that their child is getting just as good of an education as a kid from the next town up the list. 

 Actually, what I found very interesting when looking at the NJ ASK results was that when assessment scores were disaggregated by race, SOMSD White students performed as well or better than Millburn White students, and SOMSD Black student performed as well or better than Millburn Black students (in the few grades where Millburn had 10 or more Black students in the district). It was actually possible to examine some of these assumptions that you are making, and demonstrate when and where they were incorrect. The results could be used to explore where strengths and weaknesses may exist in both districts.

 * Standardized tests, whether Iowa or HSPT or HSPA or NJ-ASK or PARCC, do a really good job of reflecting the socioeconomic status of the children taking those tests. If we use standardized tests of students to rate teachers -- something for which there's little statistical support -- https://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf -- we're going to consistently see teachers in lower income areas have lower scores. Whatever incentive may already exist for good teachers to work in those areas will quickly evaporate.  

True overall. But when differences *within* similar socioeconomic-status (or other demographics) districts are clear, things can get interesting. I have seen test scores used as an indicator to find things being done amazingly well, and also as an indicator of harmful policies that were being implemented in large districts.

As stated in that linked policy brief: "Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions". 

I've stated before that I think the current 10% of a teacher's evaluation is appropriate (not that I have any say in the matter), as it is enough to be an indicator, and yet, even if a teacher got the lowest possible score (1 out of 4), it doesn't tend to change teacher's final effectiveness rating very much because the teacher evaluation calculations in NJ have an extremely wide range for a teacher to be rated 'Effective' ("3"). The fact that more opportunities for improvement are at the system-level doesn't say to me "get rid of the test", but instead says that the results could be better used to inform system improvements. 

kenboy said:

I know, those pesky parents in Montclair (a generally well-regarded district, too, before we started trying to fix what wasn't broken), trying to stop the corporate takeover of their curriculum. How dare they! 

They're welcome to tilt at nasty corporate windmills all they'd like.  Beats fiscal reality any day of the week when there's a righteous cause to wave flags for instead, I suppose.  If I were in their shoes, besides panicking, I'd be looking for ways to make up an $11m shortfall for 2015-16 (surprise!) and the inevitable, tangible impact that it will directly have on their kids' education in the immediate term, rather than focusing on a) a test that will have far less of an educational impact than the budget will and b) potentially contributing to ways to make the shortfall bigger, of all things.  But that's just me and my crazy priorities.  Those pesky parents must clearly know what they're doing over there.  Big picture and all that.  

sprout said:

 Actually, what I found very interesting when looking at the NJ ASK results was that when assessment scores were disaggregated by race, SOMSD White students performed as well or better than Millburn White students, and SOMSD Black student performed as well or better than Millburn Black students (in the few grades where Millburn had 10 or more Black students in the district). It was actually possible to examine some of these assumptions that you are making, and demonstrate when and where they were incorrect. The results could be used to explore where strengths and weaknesses may exist in both districts.

This has been true for some time, but many people still choose Millburn/Short Hills over Maplewood/South Orange due to the belief that it is a "better" district (and therefore will be better for their children) according to rankings that are primarily driven by those test scores, of which the MSH district's overall average scores are unquestionably higher.  Perhaps M/SH IS better for their child(ren), but not for reasons demonstrated by test scores.

How things change quickly. While there was zero chance that districts who don't meet 95% PARCC participation rate will be penalized financially, it's now official:

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/15/11/09/candidate-christie-s-signing-of-school-testing-bills-continues-shift-in-views/

It's a boon for parents' rights, and schools may now encourage certain students not to take the assessments. But this is going to make it difficult to monitor achievement gaps (by economic status, race, special education status, etc.).

The lack of accountability in the Bronx public school I attended in the 1970's allowed the school to get away with not even attempting to educate some of their lower performing and/or not perfectly behaving students. It will be interesting to see if some alternatives are developed, or if we go back to this former lack of accountability -- which may primarily disadvantage the students who don't have parents able to advocate for them.

Seems like a distinct and logical possibility, if not a probability.  Last thing any parent of low-performing students wants is a BOE in control of their own numbers, or at least their own excuses.  Standardised testing has its flaws of course, but if we're heading toward an elimination of PARCC altogether, or at least a diminution of results to such an extent that conclusions cannot be positively drawn from them (tremendous wasted funds being sunk costs), good luck for those who need the hammer.

PARCC will never be worth a damn. That does not mean that useful tests can not be developed. They can. But PARCC is total rubbish foisted on us solely for the benefit of one of the most evil organizations arount - Pearson. So if it is headed to its demise then good bye to bad rubbish.

Why is PARCC more "rubbish" than NJ ASK?

It is more intrusive and its questions are frequently absurd. It is designed solely to sell Pearson's crap text books and consulting services.

bramzzoinks said:

It is more intrusive and its questions are frequently absurd. It is designed solely to sell Pearson's crap text books and consulting services.

Are you Diane Ravitch in real life?      

bramzzoinks said:

It is more intrusive and its questions are frequently absurd. It is designed solely to sell Pearson's crap text books and consulting services.

Isn't that just good capitalistic behavior?

They can try. The potential customers (government) should not have bit.

While I don't doubt the motivation of Pearson to profit from PARCC, there were so many thousands of test questions developed for PARCC that the work was subcontracted across many testing and education product companies, and a university:

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/07/31/37act.h31.html

Contractors and Subcontractors
The two prime contractors, ETS and Pearson, won contracts totaling $23 million to design the first 18,000 items in the consortium’s test bank.

SUBCONTRACTOR TEAMS  ETS:
• Measured Progress
• CTB McGraw-Hill
• College Board
• Carnegie Mellon University
• MetaMetrics
• Clark Aldrich Designs  

Pearson:
• ACT (Pearson chose ACT to review test items.)
• CAE
• Knowbility
• SRI

I've seen absurd questions on many different tests. Even our old NJ ASK had a substantial error between two years of their ELA testing that made scores go haywire in some middle school grades. And although this NJ ASK error substantially impacted student results and teacher evaluations, the news was fairly quiet about it. 

I don't think PARCC is that different from previous standardized tests, other than that it's online, and some question formats are new because of the options available with computer technology. But mostly, I think we're just looking at it more closely and critically because it's new.

Pearson paid people $11 an hour to grade sections of PARCC. That is certainly a great way to get quality results.