PARCCing in Moderation: A Discussion

THINK before you speak

Random Image I try to keep in mind during discussions.

My friend Eugene Stern, who is pretty good with Mathematics and stuff, asked me to have a public discussion about some of the issues surrounding the Common Core and PARCC. In our neck of the woods, it feels like there are only two polarizing camps, but since neither one of us felt suited to those discussions, we thought there might be others who’d want to read something hovering closer to the middle. I was reticent, but the nastier the other public discussions became, the more I wanted to put this out there too. So, here you go. I’m cross-posting with Sense Made Here, and the fantastic mathbabe has agreed to cross-post as well. Enjoy.

ES: PARCC testing is beginning in New Jersey this month. There’s been lots of anxiety and confusion in Montclair and elsewhere as parents debate whether to have their kids take the test or opt out. How do you think about it, both as a teacher and as a parent?

KW: My simple answer is that my kids will sit for PARCC. However, and this is where is gets grainy, that doesn’t mean I consider myself a cheerleader for the exam or for the Common Core curriculum in general.

In fact, my initial reaction, a few years ago, was to distance my children from both the Common Core and PARCC. So much so that I wrote to my child’s principal and teacher requesting that no practice tests be administered to him. At that point I had only peripherally heard about the issues and was extending my distaste for No Child Left Behind and, later, Race to the Top. However, despite reading about and discussing the myriad issues, I still believe in change from within and trying the system out to see kinks and wrinkles up-close rather than condemning it full force.


ES: Why did you dislike NCLB and Race to the Top? What was your experience with them as a teacher?

KW: Back when I taught in NYC, there was wiggle room if students and schools didn’t meet standards. Part of my survival as a teacher was to shut my door and do what I wanted. By the time I left the classroom in 2007 we were being asked to post the standards codes for the New York State Regents Exams around our rooms, similar to posting Common Core standards all around. That made no sense to me. Who was this supposed to be for? Not the students – if they’re gazing around the room they’re not looking at CC RL.9-10 next to an essay hanging on a bulletin board. I also found NCLB naïve in its “every child can learn it all” attitude. I mean, yes, sure, any child can learn. But kids aren’t starting out at the same place or with the same support. And anyone who has experience with children who have not had the proper support up through 11th grade knows they’re not going to do well, or even half-way to well, just because they have a kickass teacher that year.

Regarding my initial aversion to Common Core, especially as a high school English Language Arts teacher, the minimal appearance of fiction and poetry was disheartening. We’d already seen the slant in the NYS Regents Exam since the late 90’s.

However, a couple of years ago, a friend asked me to explain the reason The Bluest Eye, with its abuse and rape scenes, was included in Common Core selections, so I took a closer look. Basically, a right-wing blogger had excerpted lines and scenes from the novel to paint it as “smut” and child pornography, thus condemning the entire Common Core curriculum. My response to my friend ended up as “In Defense of The Bluest Eye.”

That’s when I started looking more closely at the Common Core curriculum. Learning about some of the challenges facing public schools around the country, I had to admit that having a required curriculum didn’t seem like a terrible idea. In fact, in a few cases, the Common Core felt less confining than what they’d had before. And you know, even in NYC, there were English departments that rarely taught women or minority writers. Without a strong leader in a department, there’s such a thing as too much autonomy. Just like a unit in a class, a school and a department should have a focus, a balance.

But your expertise is Mathematics, Eugene. What are your thoughts on the Common Core from that perspective?

ES: They’re a mix. There are aspects of the reforms that I agree with, aspects that I strongly disagree with, and then a bunch of stuff in between.

The main thing I agree with is that learning math should be centered on learning concepts rather than procedures. You should still learn procedures, but with a conceptual underpinning, so you understand what you’re doing. That’s not a new idea: it’s been in the air, and frustrating some parents, for 50 years or more. In the 1960’s, they called it New Math.

Back then, the reforms didn’t go so well because the concepts they were trying to teach were too abstract – too much set theory, in a nutshell, at least in the younger grades. So then there was a retrenchment, back to learning procedures. But these things seem to go in cycles, and now we’re trying to teach concepts better again. This time more flexibly, less abstractly, with more examples. At least that’s the hope, and I share that hope.

I also agree with your point about needing some common standards defining what gets taught at each grade level. You don’t want to be super-prescriptive, but you need to ensure some kind of consistency between schools. Otherwise, what happens when a kid switches schools? Math, especially, is such a cumulative subject that you really need to have some big picture consistency in how you teach it.


ES: What I disagree with is the increased emphasis on standardized testing, especially the raised stakes of those tests. I want to see better, more consistent standards and curriculum, but I think that can and should happen without putting this very heavy and punitive assessment mechanism on top of it.

KW: Yes, claiming to want to assess ability (which is a good thing), but then connecting the results to a teacher’s effectiveness in that moment is insincere evaluation. And using a standardized test not created by the teacher with material not covered in class as a hard percentage of a teacher’s evaluation makes little sense. I understand that much of the exam is testing critical thinking, ability to reason and use logic, and so on. It’s not about specific content, and that’s fine. (I really do think that’s fine!) Linking teacher evaluations to it is not.

Students cannot be taught to think critically in six months. As you mentioned about the spiraling back to concepts, those skills need to be revisited again and again in different contexts. And I agree, tests needn’t be the main driver for raising standards and developing curriculum. But they can give a good read on overall strengths and weaknesses. And if PARCC is supposed to be about assessing student strengths and weaknesses, it should be informing adjustments in curriculum.

On a smaller scale, strong teachers and staffs are supposed to work as a team to influence the entire school and district with adjusted curriculum as well. With a wide reach like the Common Core, a worrying issue is that different parts of the USA will have varying needs to meet. Making adjustments for all based on such a wide collection of assessments is counterintuitive. Local districts (and the principals and teachers in them) need to have leeway with applying them to best suit their own students.

Even so, I do like some things about data driven curricula. Teachers and school administrators are some of the most empathetic and caring people there are, but they are still human, and biases exist. Teachers, guidance counselors, administrators can’t help but be affected by personal sympathies and peeves. Having a consistent assessment of skills can be very helpful for those students who sometimes fall through the cracks. Basically, standards: yes. Linking scores to teacher evaluation: no.

ES: Yes, I just don’t get the conventional wisdom that we can only tell that the reforms are working, at both the individual and group level, through standardized test results. It gives us some information, but it’s still just a proxy. A highly imperfect proxy at that, and we need to have lots of others.

I also really like your point that, as you’re rolling out national standards, you need some local assessment to help you see how those national standards are meeting local needs. It’s a safeguard against getting too cookie-cutter.

I think it’s incredibly important that, as you and I talk, we can separate changes we like from changes we don’t. One reason there’s so much noise and confusion now is that everything – standards, curriculum, testing – gets lumped together under “Common Core.” It becomes this giant kitchen sink that’s very hard to talk about in a rational way. Testing especially should be separated out because it’s fundamentally an issue of process, whereas standards and curriculum are really about content.

You take a guy like Cuomo in New York. He’s trying to increase the reliance on standardized tests in teacher evaluations, so that value added models based on test scores count for half of a teacher’s total evaluation. And he says stuff like this: “Everyone will tell you, nationwide, the key to education reform is a teacher evaluation system.” That’s from his State of the State address in January. He doesn’t care about making the content better at all. “Everyone” will tell you! I know for a fact that the people spending all their time figuring out at what grade level kids should start to learn about fractions aren’t going tell you that!

I couldn’t disagree with that guy more, but I’m not going to argue with him based on whether or not I like the problems my kids are getting in math class. I’m going to point out examples, which he should be well aware of by now, of how badly the models work. That’s a totally different discussion, about what we can model accurately and fairly and what we can’t.

So let’s have that discussion. Starting point: if you want to use test scores to evaluate teachers, you need a model because – I think everyone agrees on this – how kids do on a test depends on much more than how good their teacher was. There’s the talent of the kid, what preparation they got outside their teacher’s classroom, whether they got a good night’s sleep the night before, and a good breakfast, and lots of other things. As well as natural randomness: maybe the reading comprehension section was about DNA, and the kid just read a book about DNA last month. So you need a model to break out the impact of the teacher. And the models we have today, even the most state-of-the-art ones, can give you useful aggregate information, but they just don’t work at that level of detail. I’m saying this as a math person, and the American Statistical Association agrees. I’ve written about this here and here and here and here.

Having student test results impact teacher evaluations is my biggest objection to PARCC, by far.

KW: Yep. Can I just cut and paste what you’ve said? However, for me, another distasteful aspect is how technology is tangled up in the PARCC exam.


ES: Let me tell you the saddest thing I’ve heard all week. There’s a guy named Dan Meyer, who writes very interesting things about math education, both in his blog and on Twitter. He put out a tweet about a bunch of kids coming into a classroom and collectively groaning when they saw laptops on every desk. And the reason was that they just instinctively assumed they were either about to take a test or do test prep.

That feels like such a collective failure to me. Look, I work in technology, and I’m still optimistic that it’s going to have a positive impact on math education. You can use computers to do experiments, visualize relationships, reinforce concepts by having kids code them up, you name it. The new standards emphasize data analysis and statistics much more than any earlier standards did, and I think that’s a great thing. But using computers primarily as a testing tool is an enormous missed opportunity. It’s like, here’s the most amazing tool human beings have ever invented, and we’re going to use it primarily as a paperweight. And we’re going to waste class time teaching kids exactly how to use it as a paperweight. That’s just so dispiriting.

KW: That’s something that hardly occurred to me. My main objection to hosting the PARCC exam on computers – and giving preparation homework and assignments that MUST be done on a computer – is the unfairness inherent in accessibility. It’s one more way to widen the achievement gap that we are supposed to be minimizing. I wrote about it from one perspective here.

I’m sure there are some students who test better on a computer, but the playing field has to be evenly designed and aggressively offered. Otherwise, a major part of what the PARCC is testing is how accurately and quickly children use a keyboard. And in the aggregate, the group that will have scores negatively impacted will be children with less access to the technology used on the PARCC. That’s not an assessment we need to test to know. When I took the practice tests, I found some questions quite clear, but others were difficult not for content but in maneuvering to create a fraction or other concept. Part of that can be solved through practice and comfort with the technology, but then we return to what we’re actually testing.

ES: Those are both great points. The last thing you want to do is force kids to write math on a computer, because it’s really hard! Math has lots of specialized notation that’s much easier to write with pencil and paper, and learning how to write math and use that notation is a big part of learning the subject. It’s not easy, and you don’t want to put artificial obstacles in kids’ way. I want kids thinking about fractions and exponents and what they mean, and how to write them in a mathematical expression, but not worrying about how to put a numerator above a denominator or do a superscript or make a font smaller on a computer. Plus, why in the world would you limit what kids can express on a test to what they can input on a keyboard? A test is a proxy already, and this limits what it can capture even more.

I believe in using technology in education, but we’ve got the order totally backwards. Don’t introduce the computer as a device to administer tests, introduce it as a tool to help in the classroom. Use it for demos and experiments and illustrating concepts.

As far as access and fairness go, I think that’s another argument for using the computer as a teaching tool rather than a testing tool. If a school is using computers in class, then at least everyone has access in the classroom setting, which is a start. Now you might branch out from there to assignments that require a computer. But if that’s done right, and those assignments grow in an organic way out of what’s happening in the classroom, and they have clear learning value, then the school and the community are also morally obligated to make sure that everyone has access. If you don’t have a computer at home, and you need to do computer-based homework, then we have to get you computer access, after school hours, or at the library, or what have you. And that might actually level the playing field a bit. Whereas now, many computer exercises feel like they’re primarily there to get kids used to the testing medium. There isn’t the same moral imperative to give everybody access to that.

I really want to hear more about your experience with the PARCC practice tests, though. I’ve seen many social media threads about unclear questions, both in a testing context and more generally with the Common Core. It sounds like you didn’t think it was so bad?

KW: Well, “not so bad” in that I am a 45 year old who was really trying to take the practice exam honestly, but didn’t feel stressed about the results. However, I found the questions with fractions confusing in execution on the computer (I almost gave up), and some of the questions really had to be read more than once. Now, granted, I haven’t been exposed to the language and technique of the exam. That matters a lot. In the SAT, for example, if you don’t know the testing language and format it will adversely affect your performance. This is similar to any format of an exam or task, even putting together an IKEA nightstand.

There are mainly two approaches to preparation, and out of fear of failing, some school districts are doing hardcore test preparation – much like SAT preparation classes – to the detriment of content and skill-based learning. Others are not altering their classroom approaches radically; in fact, some teachers and parents have told me they hardly notice a difference. My unscientific observations point to a separation between the two that is lined in Socio-Economic Status. If districts feel like they are on the edge or have a lot to lose (autonomy, funding, jobs), if makes sense that they would be reactionary in dealing with the PARCC exam. Ironically, schools that treat the PARCC like a high-stakes test are the ones losing the most.

Opting Out

KW: Despite my misgivings, I’m not in favor of “opting out” of the test. I understand the frustration that has prompted the push some districts are experiencing, but there have been some compromises in New Jersey. I was glad to see that the NJ Assembly voted to put off using the PARCC results for student placement and teacher evaluations for three years. And I was relieved, though not thrilled, that the percentage of PARCC results to be used in teacher evaluations was lowered to 10% (and now put off). I still think it should not be a part of teacher evaluations, but 10% is an improvement.

Rather than refusing the exam, I’d prefer to see the PARCC in action and compare honest data to school and teacher-generated assessments in order to improve the assessment overall. I believe an objective state or national model is worth having; relying only on teacher-based assessment has consistency and subjective problems in many areas. And that goes double for areas with deeply disadvantaged students.

ES: Yes, NJ seems to be stepping back from the brink as far as model-driven teacher evaluation goes. I think I feel the same way you do, but if I lived in NY, where Cuomo is trying to bump up the weight of value added models in evaluations to 50%, I might very well be opting out.

Let me illustrate the contrast – NY vs. NJ, more test prep vs. less — with an example. My family is good friends with a family that lived in NYC for many years, and just moved to Montclair a couple months ago. Their older kid is in third grade, which is the grade level where all this testing starts. In their NYC gifted and talented public school, the test was this big, stressful thing, and it was giving the kid all kinds of test anxiety. So the mom was planning to opt out. But when they got to Montclair, the kid’s teacher was much more low key, and telling the kids not to worry. And once it became lower stakes, the kid wanted to take the test! The mom was still ambivalent, but she decided that here was an opportunity for her kid to get used to tests without anxiety, and that was the most important factor for her.

I’m trying to make two points here. One: whether or not you opt out depends on lots of factors, and people’s situations and priorities can be very different. We need to respect that, regardless of which way people end up going. Two: shame on us, as grown ups, for polluting our kids’ education with our anxieties! We need to stop that, and that extends both to the education policies we put in place and how we collectively debate those policies. I guess what I’m saying is: less noise, folks, please.

KW: Does this very long blog post count as noise, Eugene? I wonder how this will be assessed? There are so many other issues – private profits from public education, teacher autonomy in high performing schools, a lack of educational supplies and family support, and so on. But we have to start somewhere with civil and productive discourse, right? So, thank you for having the conversation.

ES: Kristin, I won’t try to predict anyone else’s assessment, but I will keep mine low stakes and say this has been a pleasure!


About That Unique* Weblog

Adjusting to car culture, dealing with leaving a career I loved, and spouting off along the way. #RESIST
This entry was posted in education, Excellent Local People, Parenthood and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to PARCCing in Moderation: A Discussion

  1. Dave Astor says:

    A great conversation!

  2. wendy north says:

    Hooray for intelligent conversations given with respect and thought!

  3. Fantastic post, Kristin. I especially liked the point about not freaking out our kids with our own anxieties.

  4. Really refreshing to read a discussion of the pros, cons and in-betweens that neither demonizes nor cheerleads. Great post.

  5. Pingback: Should You Opt Out of PARCC? | Sense Made Here

  6. Nik Radliff says:

    I read this with an open mind, but it still supported my reasons why I refuse the test for my child. I read both sides looking for a really good reason why he should take it, but I haven’t yet. Also, are you positive it won’t be used against children in class placements? NJASK actually did in Montclair. A good friend said her son’s low test schools placed him in remedial classes. Also my child’s Principal said NJASK certainly could do that if a child scored low. I haven’t asked him if this is the same for PARCC. Do you know the answer to that?

    • Thank you for your comment, Nik. I don’t see this discussion as having two sides. We aren’t trying to convince anyone of a “side” — which is what we feel has lead to some really disappointing behavior in our town. Eugene and I are just sharing our genuine thoughts. You ask: “…are you positive [PARCC] won’t be used against children in class placements?” My answer is that no, I don’t know that it will be used against (or for) children in class placements. I also don’t know that any other method of placement (tracking, teacher recommendations, random lottery) would work for or against students in class placements. None of those is a perfect solution in my opinion.

      What do you suggest?

  7. Nik Radliff says:

    Thank you for your reply. I suggest we as parents find the answers to these question before we let any of our children sit for this test. My genuine feeling is that we all don’t have the full disclosure of what will happen when the test results come back. I guess some people don’t mind their children being used as guinea pigs, but that’s not how I want my child used. Do we have numbers yet of those who have refused the test in Montclair? Last I checked the district wasn’t releasing the numbers. And I have to respectfully disagree with you, there are definitely “sides” when it comes to whether people think the PARCC is good for our children or not. I don’t see the “disappointing behavior” you speak of. I see passionate folks (mostly parents) getting knowledgable about how to handle the changing times in education. Sometimes passion can be viewed as bad behavior by some. Just like some people would have thought that Martin Luther Kings’ passionate behavior was disappointing maybe? When people don’t agree with what is happening, a passionate debate isn’t always a bad thing. Just check out history books. Change came with hardship and struggle for many.

    • Hello Nik,

      Regarding your question about opt out numbers, I’m sure they will come out eventually. I am not really concerned with how many children opted not to take the test. I can understand why others are very interested, and I’m curious, but it’s not something I feel a burning need to know.

      You said, “And I have to respectfully disagree with you, there are definitely “sides” when it comes to whether people think the PARCC is good for our children or not.” I agree. Please re-read the intro to this post and then re-read my response to you. I think you’ve misunderstood what I said.

      I have seen a lot of disappointing behavior on all sides. In fact, I’ve been disgusted by the public behavior over issues of education for a couple of years now. It’s part of why Eugene and I decided to put ourselves out there now. Despite the expected responses. This is not a commentary on any one group or “side” in the debate. It’s what we’ve observed throughout the town.

      Passion is great. I love passion. I don’t think that passion needs to consist of ad hominem attacks, being condescending to our neighbors, or creating controversy where we could try to find consensus. Your comment implies that you believe that I am not passionate about this issue. I am. I care deeply about my children and their education.

      Keep in mind, if you are to commend passionate behavior in yourself, surely you see that you should have respect, if not agreement, for passionate behavior in others.

      As an aside, implying that those who choose not to opt out of PARCC are treating their children as guinea pigs is not a line that invites discussion.

  8. ira shor says:

    All parents happy to have the PARCC experimented on their own children should volunteer their kids for this experiment and give the rest of us the right not to have our children involuntarily subjected to a national testing scheme paid for by Bill Gates(whose own kids attend private schools exempt from such testing)and Pearson(which is taking tens of millions of our school taxes in their profits from PARCC while also spying on our kids’s social media). This conversation above refuses to face the unwholesome commercial politics which brought the unvalidated, untested PARCC to all our classrooms. Ad to that the fact that any results from PARCC tests will not be available to our kids’ current teachers this year but only reported later on too late to be of any use to the teachers currently forced to administer these tests. What educational sense does this very costly and abusive exercise make for teachers and kids? It was developed not by teachers or child development experts and embraced by state legislatures before it was finished just to qualify for the big payoffs dangled by Secy. of Ed. Duncan and Pres. Obama($4bil). Waiting to hear a good reason to support the PARCC for my son.

    • This conversation above does not refuse to do anything. It simply doesn’t address *everything* that can be discussed regarding the topic. I am familiar with the information you have shared, and I’m going to give you the credit for having read our post, so I won’t reiterate what we discussed there.

      Similar to another commenter, in my view, implying that parents who do not choose to opt out of PARCC are allowing their children to be experimented on stymies a conversation. Why should I believe that you would listen to anything I have to say? According to your comment, you see me as someone willing to toss my children to the wolves, so to speak.

      This blog post is a discussion, and I can’t speak for Eugene, but for me it could only develop in this public venue because I felt safe to figure out my perspectives and work through them without fear of being piled on from various sides. We were able to make comments and ask each other questions as we went on without being insulting or condescending or just mean to each other.

      We’re both hoping to see more of that.

  9. carols says:

    Nik Radliff- I specifically asked Dr MacCormack at a meeting about whether the PARCC would be used for placement and was told absolutely not. It’s in a slide in a powerpoint on the BOE website as well. NJASK had been around for a long time and it was used for placement. I believe other factors such as class grades and teacher imput were also considered.

    • Nik Farjani says:

      Carols. Thanks for letting me know what Dr. MacCormack said in regards to that, but I don’t know how much I can trust information like that. At a meeting held by the district on PARCC Gail Clarke informed parents that there would be absolutely no time spent on PARCC test prep, like there had been for NJASK. That was not so for my son’s class. He lost multiple periods of Social Studies for the tech teacher to come teach the students how to use the computer for the test and then his Math teacher handed out math packets that he called “basically printed PARCC”. I am not naïve enough to have thought there would be no prep, but an administrator outright lied to me. That’s why I believe as parents we need to get all the facts before we can make an informed decision regarding the PARCC tests and whether they are good for all of our students or not.

  10. Georgette Gilmore says:

    Nik Radcliff. You say, “I don’t see the “disappointing behavior” you speak of,” right after you judge Kristin and Eugene, as well as other parents who have done their research and decided to let their children take the test, by saying “I guess some people don’t mind their children being used as guinea pigs.”

  11. Georgette Gilmore says:

    Thanks to Kristin and Eugene for sharing a respectful and well-thought out discussion.

  12. Amy Horowitz says:

    I have been very disappointed by the level of vitriol on both sides of the PARCC “conversation” in Montclair. Mr. Shor — I don’t think the writers of this post are suggesting that you don’t have the right to opt out of the test. As for the idea that these writers are refusing to address commercialism in the classroom/PARCC — I think that they’d need at least another blog post to engage in a meaningful analysis of those issues. Ms. Wald? Mr. Stern? Are you up for it? I for one am interested in hearing your perspectives.

    • I’m interested to hear your perspectives, Ms. Horowitz. I’m game. But apparently I will need to refresh my Star Trek viewing prior to planning it out.

    • ira shor says:

      Ms. Horowitz, thank you for your reply. Parents who opted out their kids have had to assert their rights to do so against a Board of Education, a Superintendent, and a PTA which refused to inform us of the right of refusal. Knowledge of how the PARCC took over our kids’ classrooms, how it became state policy, got funded, made, and adopted, what it will or will not count for, was not made available by responsible authorities. Our District kept insisting that PARCC was required and would prepare our kids to become college and career ready–we heard this nonsense from District officials. The Board and Supt. and CO officers promoted PARCC. Even after the Board finally acknowledged parental rights to refuse the test, the Supt. circulated a letter obscuring the issue and justifying her support for the PARCC. Some school principals finally cleared the air by sending transparent, readable messages to parents making clear that our opted-out kids would be treated “humanely.” Had the Board, or Supt., or PTA made this clear from the beginning, the numbers of reassured parents refusing PARCC would have been even higher than the strong turnout we witnessed(a number still kept secret by the Board and Supt.).

  13. Eugene says:

    Well, Kristin did say at the end that there was a lot more to talk about, and the commercial stuff was at the top of the list. I am game. We can call it Ed Reform II: The Wrath of Khan Academy.

    For what it’s worth, I can live with the tone of this thread so far. But I’m also the guy who included an expletive-laden rant about the governors of NY and NJ in an earlier version of our dialogue, before Kristin wisely convinced me to take it out. 🙂

    • Nik Farjani says:

      Thank you Eugene with being able to live with the tone thus far. It seems someone thought I was judging others, and I’m sorry my comment was taken like that. It was not my intention… It was just my views of the PARCC.

  14. Beth says:

    Thank you for posting this Kristin. If in fact the test is not being used to evaluate teachers, affect class placement etc, then what exactly would be the justification for administering it? We refused NJ ASK because of placement and teacher evaluations as well as other reasons and I find that many people feel comfortable saying that this test is so different from that in terms of consequences but the fact remains- computer test or not, using high stakes standardized tests to judge our teachers and our children is not an effective or equitable form of evaluation. I often wonder what it is that parents are seeking to get out of it come October when the results come in- since I’ve never had my kids take these tests I honestly don’t know what the effect is in terms of what I would learn as a parent and what would help inform the teachers. I do know that especially for a child about to leave elementary or middle school that I can’t see how receiving a grade in the fall would help anyone in placement and how it would help inform the new teachers once they are already moving forward with their planning and of course because we don’t truly have differentiated learning I don’t see how knowing limited info from these tests ( below proficient , almost college ready, whatever it may be) would help the kids in any meaningful way. I do know that in NY and other places the low scores have been and will be used to place kids in remedial classes- it happened to my niece who despite being in honors math, bombed the NY test administered a few years back where large numbers of kids in Manhattan also fell “below proficient”. I do know that hours upon hours have been wasted this year in my children’s school ( maybe not yours but the way it’s happened for us is it’s been lots of test prep which might differ from a school with a different SES and previous history of scores- less prep needed in higher ranking, higher SES schools). I know that I won’t have my 9 year olds sit for hours at a computer trying to maneuver the interface and do chicken pecking typing while trying to beat the clock ( SOME have finished before the end time but many in classes and schools where kids are struggling have gone on for over two hours per session this week). For us, the list kind of goes on and on unfortunately. As for tone and judging- I find it’s always the same group of people constantly making refusal parents feel as if they’re doing something wrong by talking about their reasons and the ever growing scandal and drama surrounding PARCC and Pearson. It’s always dissenters who are painted in a bad light because they’re seen as radicals, or perceived to be pushing their ideals on others. I don’t care whether or not your kids test ( and that’s not meant in any way but literally it’s not my business) but I do care about the kids and families who don’t have access to the information to make an informed decision and I care about what’s happening at both the local as well as state and federal level which I urge everyone to start following. I met a woman the other day at a communal table at a restaurant- she started talking to me and a friend and mentioned her kid is testing and is stressed and she had no idea that she even had a choice. It’s eye opening and worth a look to watch the hearings and follow the ins and outs of how this is going down around the state and the few other states in the country who are still administering this particular test.

    • I disagree that it’s “always dissenters painted in a bad light.” In fact, in my circle, it’s the opposite. Also, the vitriol is from small groups on both sides — not from the majority of people who do consider each other neighbors and people, not just walking ideologies. Nowhere in this discussion is there judgment of one choice or the other. If you see that, please point it out.

      I taught remedial high school English Language Arts when I first started in NYC. There was no “official tracking” and no PARCC, but somehow the students ended up there. Again, I won’t reiterate what I’ve already spent a lot of time writing in the post, but I was relieved at the actions of the NJ Assembly. Even so, I have questions about placement in general, but you can re-read what I wrote in the post.

      • Beth Dreifach says:

        Not sure about the remedial HS level for the years you taught but three years ago common core state testing was done in NY leaving many kids pushed to remedial levels without reason- except the test score. If you are a NYC teacher then you already know what I’m talking about.

      • Nik Radliff says:

        Didn’t you say you stopped teaching in 2007? A lot has changed since then. Sadly it’s a whole different world. My sister stopped around that time too and while she was visiting this weekend we discussed the major changes. She left the profession, sadly I believe many of our best will because of these changes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s