NJ DOE tells school districts to get parents to toe the line! - REVISED AGAIN
Here is a succinct article about ESSA:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2015/11/30/how-schools-would-be-judged-under-every-student-succeeds-the-new-no-child-left-behind
The biggest problem with these tests now is they are being used for too much besides trying to understand how well students are doing.
bramzzoinks said:
They can try. The potential customers (government) should not have bit.
But that just means that they're good at what they do, right? Wouldn't want to regulate the snake oil salespeople, would you?
Clearly they are excellent snake oil salesmen. But still one need not buy the snake oil.
xavier67 said:
To be clear, I'm NOT against a limited standardized testing as one mean among many to assess different level of achievement among various subgroups. Certainly districts like ours would find the resulting data useful (again, as one measure among many) in informing its curriculum, instructional practices, and larger strategic decisions about abridging the gaps. I don't know many people who would be against that.
But when people like Arne Duncan and similar "reformers" (as well as posters like Sprout) want to build an accountability system around those tests, we have a serious problem.
As you may know, there's a bi-partisan recognition of this problem in Washington. ESSA, the bill that will revise NCLB, is up for a vote soon. Among other things, it maintains the annual testing from 3rd to 8th grade but leaves up to the states and districts as to how the test results will be used as an assessment and accountability tool. It will also be up to the states to decide how to deal with less than 95% participation rate. We obviously know that in NJ it won't affect funding, as per the recently passed bill.
Assuming ESSA will be enacted, the key question for me is how our district will use the PARCC results. For one thing, they should not be used to separate students.
We may be more similar than you believe.
I agree with your first paragraph. I think test scores should be used as one informative indicator, and not as an everything-manager. I just don't know how the test results could provide informative data (i.e., be a good indicator) to inform the district's decisions if there are high opt-out rates... especially if schools/teachers start encouraging parents of certain types of students to opt-out.
I agree the similarities are not that far off. I'd be the last to believe that standardised testing should be the primary basis for accountability, but I do believe it has a place (and not at the head of the list by any means) in assessment. Where I differ is with the belief that opting out serves a more beneficial purpose than a harmful one, particularly if we agree that testing in some form is here for the very long haul. Granted, the numbers and outcry may likely have been a significant contributing factor to Christie's reversal as one example, but I wonder if these victories will ultimately have any impact in the overall war against Pearson, et.al. that some anti-testing folks take to the nth degree. It's that position that I really have a hard time understanding.
When did tests, created by companies who don't know our children nor our district, become the rod that determines what our kids need and how they are learning? Why not just do away with teachers altogether? Evidently, we no longer need them, right? If your child's teacher cannot tell the parent how the child is faring, what he/she is weak on, what needs to be addressed simply by submitted homework, classroom participation and in-house tests, then I don't know who else will.
Once the door opens to allow more class room prep for the test, you are now deleting any extra classroom time for students to ask questions for clarity and understanding of a subject. There is NO TIME for students to be confused. These confusions seep into these standardized tests.
When I was in school, I had one tutor my entire school history. One. Nowadays, our kids have tutors for almost every subject. Not because many of them are learning deficient, but because there's NO TIME GIVEN TO THEM IN CLASS OR AFTER CLASS TO GO OVER WHAT IS CONFUSING TO THEM. How much money do MW/SO parents shell out to Kumon? Private in home tutors? Huntington? Wyzant?
We lose. Test designers and tutoring services win.
i disagree with almost all of your conclusions. The testing is not designed to tell individual teachers what to teach individual students. It can be useful as a tool to see how states or districts compare to others, or how groups within districts are doing. I don't agree that they taught my son to the test last year. The only thing I would say they did was accelerate keyboard classes to help them take the test, a skill they need to learn anyway. Yes, the amount of testing and content can be tweaked, but I think you are overreacting. And the " when I was in school" statements are really useless because everything is different now. Thank goodness for that, because I was regularly slapped with rulers.
FilmCarp said:
i disagree with almost all of your conclusions. The testing is not designed to tell individual teachers what to teach individual students. It can be useful as a tool to see how states or districts compare to others, or how groups within districts are doing. I don't agree that they taught my son to the test last year. The only thing I would say they did was accelerate keyboard classes to help them take the test, a skill they need to learn anyway. Yes, the amount of testing and content can be tweaked, but I think you are overreacting. And the " when I was in school" statements are really useless because everything is different now. Thank goodness for that, because I was regularly slapped with rulers.
that's my point: the testing isn't designed to tell individual teachers which students are having issues in certain areas. My opinion is, then what's the point? So our general concern should be that some of the kids didn't excel at using a keyboard and not the fact that some of these kids were petrified and nervous about not being able to use the keyboard to take the test?
I don't care how my state is doing against another because I don't live in that state. Any state that does better than NJ isn't going to make NJ better. All that will happen is that another software firm will develop another design to study why State X is doing better than NJ. And with our NJ leadership, none of the great educational qualities that make another state succeed will be used for NJ. Well, maybe, but that will take yet another costly study.
Food for thought: per calendar year, my kids get more time off than public school. At first it concerned me until I spoke with a few teachers (public / private) and guidance counselors (public / private). What was pointed out to me is that w/out standardized testing schedules, my kids actually receive more valuable classroom time than they would in public schools. There are no weeks set aside for test prep, roll out and administration. Straight classroom time. And much to your chagrin, just like it was when I was in school.
Maybe for Christmas, I'll buy some stock in the folks who design standardized tests...
wait, your kids aren't in the schools? You're all over those of us who actually are dealing with this and you aren't even in the schools? We are class parents, library parents, pta parents, and you are not even in the building?
Excuse me, but my kids HAVE BEEN IN THE SCHOOL from kindergarten 'til their 8th grade year. I continue to research candidates and vote during BOE elections because I still care about our schools.
I've been a PTA president, a lunch monitor, a library helper and have sat on several boards and committees throughout the years my children were in public school. I hung up my last school committee hat in the Spring of 2015 from a Board I sat on for almost 6 years and continue to be on several mailing lists the keep me informed of what our school's are doing. The endless Presidents' Council Meetings and endless heated and emotional BOE meetings have equipped me quite well to know of what I speak of. So I may not be in the building, but my shadow still lurks in the corners of three really great schools. I have EVERY RIGHT to ask questions and be involved as much as you do.
FilmCarp said:
wait, your kids aren't in the schools? You're all over those of us who actually are dealing with this and you aren't even in the schools? We are class parents, library parents, pta parents, and you are not even in the building?
kibbegirl said:
Excuse me, but my kids HAVE BEEN IN THE SCHOOL from kindergarten 'til their 8th grade year. I continue to research candidates and vote during BOE elections because I still care about our schools.
I've been a PTA president, a lunch monitor, a library helper and have sat on several boards and committees throughout the years my children were in public school. I hung up my last school committee hat in the Spring of 2015 from a Board I sat on for almost 6 years and continue to be on several mailing lists the keep me informed of what our school's are doing. The endless Presidents' Council Meetings and endless heated and emotional BOE meetings have equipped me quite well to know of what I speak of. So I may not be in the building, but my shadow still lurks in the corners of three really great schools. I have EVERY RIGHT to ask questions and be involved as much as you do.
FilmCarp said:
wait, your kids aren't in the schools? You're all over those of us who actually are dealing with this and you aren't even in the schools? We are class parents, library parents, pta parents, and you are not even in the building?
Private schools do not have to educate all comers , including those students most at risk of not receiving a thorough and efficient education - Special Ed, low SES. Standardized tests are important particularly in assessing how a district serves these populations. When a private school uses a test to admit students it is easy to Dismiss the need for these tests.
kibbegirl said:
So I may not be in the building, but my shadow still lurks in the corners of three really great schools. I have EVERY RIGHT to ask questions and be involved as much as you do.
As does anybody in a discussion, regardless of hometown, family status or resume. (Not to diminish your own C.V., which deserves applause. Thank you for your service.)
i apologize. I disagree with you, but I misread your post and thought that you had not used the schools. My mistake.
The battle between participation rates and opt-out rights continues:
Connecticut was notified by U.S. Dept of Ed that they need to increase their test participation rates:
http://ctmirror.org/2015/12/29/state-sets-penalties-for-schools-with-high-exam-opt-out-rates/
State sets penalties for schools with high exam ‘opt-out’ rates
Some excerpts:
School districts where more than 10 percent of students miss required statewide exams for a second consecutive year will lose funding and may have their performance ratings downgraded.
The state Department of Education decided on the penalties after the U.S. Department of Education directed Connecticut and 12 other states to come up with plans to deal with high numbers of students that missed the annual exams last school year.
...
High school students missing the exams were to blame for most of the shortfall. Of the 148 schools where too many students missed the statewide Smarter Balanced Assessment, nearly three-quarters were high schools.
Connecticut lawmakers earlier this year voted to replace the Smarter Balanced Assessment for high school students with the SAT, an exam many students take regardless.
Aimed at removing one of the many tests high school students must take, Wentzell is confident this will fix the problem of so many students skipping the test.
"It is clear that the primary challenge was in Grade 11," Wentzell wrote. "It is anticipated that participation in the state assessment will improve significantly in Grade 11."
Changes to federal education policy signed into law earlier this month by President Barack Obama did not alter the requirement that 95 percent of students participate in testing.
"While we are still digging through the components of the new law, it is clear that the ESSA requires that states administer statewide assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school, and it requires that states build into their accountability systems ways to hold schools and districts that miss the 95 percent participation rate target accountable," a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education wrote in an emailed statement.
The department has informed officials in 13 states so far that too many students missed the exam last spring and the states must come up with plans to ensure every student is tested.
Although it is clear in the new federal education law that goes into effect next October that the U.S. Department of Education can require states to submit a plan to improve test participation, it has not been determined whether the federal government has the power to order changes to the plan.
A spokeswoman for the state education department said her agency is awaiting approval of its plan from the federal agency.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
There is zero chance that PARCC or other standardized tests like will go away in the near future.
To be clear, I'm NOT against a limited standardized testing as one mean among many to assess different level of achievement among various subgroups. Certainly districts like ours would find the resulting data useful (again, as one measure among many) in informing its curriculum, instructional practices, and larger strategic decisions about abridging the gaps. I don't know many people who would be against that.
But when people like Arne Duncan and similar "reformers" (as well as posters like Sprout) want to build an accountability system around those tests, we have a serious problem.
As you may know, there's a bi-partisan recognition of this problem in Washington. ESSA, the bill that will revise NCLB, is up for a vote soon. Among other things, it maintains the annual testing from 3rd to 8th grade but leaves up to the states and districts as to how the test results will be used as an assessment and accountability tool. It will also be up to the states to decide how to deal with less than 95% participation rate. We obviously know that in NJ it won't affect funding, as per the recently passed bill.
Assuming ESSA will be enacted, the key question for me is how our district will use the PARCC results. For one thing, they should not be used to separate students.