PARCC and Common Core
Now that the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) tests are over, it's a good time to have a serious discussion about the usefulness of standardized testing. When the National Governors Association first began talking seriously about a national test, few could have envisioned what we have today--a very contentious environment pitting educators and parents against officials and leaders on the state and federal levels. This spring's opt-out movement, and the decision by many states to delay implementing the tests, clearly demonstrates that much work lies ahead for those who have invested a great deal of time and money in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).
When many states adopted the CCSS, which is a set of skills, not a curriculum, and then the PARCC, which is the test that measures those skills, educators across the country were thrilled to see a genuine, bipartisan effort to raise the educational bar. States are free to set any curriculum they wish, using any materials at their disposal. It would allow for academic comparisons not just within states, but between states, so a parent in Nebraska who would traditionally get feedback on how her child compares to other fifth grade Nebraskans, could now compare her child's achievement with other fifth graders throughout the country. This would solve an ongoing problem in education: states having their own tests to determine academic achievement, with wildly different results. Florida, for example, could no longer pretend that a majority of their 5th graders were proficient in reading and math when using their own tests, but far fewer when using a national test.
Another problem that the CCSS solved was getting students college and career ready. With almost 40% of college freshmen needing remediation in math, reading and writing, it's reasonable to ask why such a large number of students are unprepared for college level work. The PARCC tests, especially at the high school level, could give a very clear indication of how ready a student is. Students can then either rethink their decision to go on to higher education, or spend more time and effort in improving their skills to meet the minimum standards. For decades high SAT or ACT scores were the holy grail when it came to college readiness; for the SATs, a minimum 1550 is the college and career readiness benchmark score, according to the College Board, which administers the SAT. Note the phrase "college and career readiness"--the College Board has been in the standards game for a very long time, and while there are numerous challenges one can make about the SAT, one thing is very clear: they are the best at developing standardized tests. In a few years, the PARCC may give college admissions committees one more standardized, national test score to evaluate students, but only after years of collecting data.
Of course, it was inevitable that the CCSS and PARCC would become a political issue. The fear of federal overreach in education has always been a concern among states. Governor Christie, a long-time supporter of the CCSS, just recently stated his intention to replace it with a new set of standards developed by parents and educators in New Jersey, rather than " developed by people near the Potomac." The bottom line is that the stated goals of the tests, as well as what they can measure in student learning, is very valuable, but the tests aren't ready yet for prime time.
So what should be done?
First, the tests themselves should be reevaluated and revised. Tests must show validity and reliability, and one way to check for both is to administer the tests and examine the results over a reasonable period of time. David Coleman, the president of the College Board, was a main architect of the Common Core State Standards, so his expertise is unquestionable. The professionals who are in charge of making up the tests, which always include educators (but should not include parents or politicians), are in the best position to determine what changes need to be made. Once proficiency scores are established, educators, students, and parents will understand the work that needs to be done.
Second, no PARCC test scores should determine whether or not a student advances to the next grade level. There is not a single professional study that suggests there are any benefits in retaining students, so threatening students with being left back is simply a non-starter. This would also put the brakes on the opt-out movement that has gained tremendous momentum.
Third, the PARCC tests were never intended to measure teacher effectiveness. Again, as the political motivations of various elected officials became evident, the opportunity to link test results with teacher performance was too good to pass up. The CCSS and the PARCC were designed to bring rigor and uniformity to the classroom, not evaluate how well a teacher teaches. Witness the strange alliance between teachers unions and Republican governors as proof of just how contentious this point is.
Lastly, let us treat the tests for what they are: another data point for students, parents, teachers, administrators, and college officials. For years elementary school students have taken the California Achievement Test (CAT), and high school students have taken the SAT and ACT; the PARCC can simply add information to a student's academic profile. Rather than eliminating them before they have a chance to demonstrate what they can offer, let's see what the data shows this school year, and wait for the publishers of the tests to tell us what they have learned from their first year.
In 2010, 45 states adopted the Common Core, a remarkable achievement by the National Governors Association. By 2015, only 10 states have implemented either PARCC or Smarter Balanced, another test aligned with the Common Core. The bottom line? Let's keep the standards; they are rigorous and superior to most existing state standards. But let's take some time and do what's right for anyone who has a stake in student achievement, which includes every single one of us.
When many states adopted the CCSS, which is a set of skills, not a curriculum, and then the PARCC, which is the test that measures those skills, educators across the country were thrilled to see a genuine, bipartisan effort to raise the educational bar. States are free to set any curriculum they wish, using any materials at their disposal. It would allow for academic comparisons not just within states, but between states, so a parent in Nebraska who would traditionally get feedback on how her child compares to other fifth grade Nebraskans, could now compare her child's achievement with other fifth graders throughout the country. This would solve an ongoing problem in education: states having their own tests to determine academic achievement, with wildly different results. Florida, for example, could no longer pretend that a majority of their 5th graders were proficient in reading and math when using their own tests, but far fewer when using a national test.
Another problem that the CCSS solved was getting students college and career ready. With almost 40% of college freshmen needing remediation in math, reading and writing, it's reasonable to ask why such a large number of students are unprepared for college level work. The PARCC tests, especially at the high school level, could give a very clear indication of how ready a student is. Students can then either rethink their decision to go on to higher education, or spend more time and effort in improving their skills to meet the minimum standards. For decades high SAT or ACT scores were the holy grail when it came to college readiness; for the SATs, a minimum 1550 is the college and career readiness benchmark score, according to the College Board, which administers the SAT. Note the phrase "college and career readiness"--the College Board has been in the standards game for a very long time, and while there are numerous challenges one can make about the SAT, one thing is very clear: they are the best at developing standardized tests. In a few years, the PARCC may give college admissions committees one more standardized, national test score to evaluate students, but only after years of collecting data.
Of course, it was inevitable that the CCSS and PARCC would become a political issue. The fear of federal overreach in education has always been a concern among states. Governor Christie, a long-time supporter of the CCSS, just recently stated his intention to replace it with a new set of standards developed by parents and educators in New Jersey, rather than " developed by people near the Potomac." The bottom line is that the stated goals of the tests, as well as what they can measure in student learning, is very valuable, but the tests aren't ready yet for prime time.
So what should be done?
First, the tests themselves should be reevaluated and revised. Tests must show validity and reliability, and one way to check for both is to administer the tests and examine the results over a reasonable period of time. David Coleman, the president of the College Board, was a main architect of the Common Core State Standards, so his expertise is unquestionable. The professionals who are in charge of making up the tests, which always include educators (but should not include parents or politicians), are in the best position to determine what changes need to be made. Once proficiency scores are established, educators, students, and parents will understand the work that needs to be done.
Second, no PARCC test scores should determine whether or not a student advances to the next grade level. There is not a single professional study that suggests there are any benefits in retaining students, so threatening students with being left back is simply a non-starter. This would also put the brakes on the opt-out movement that has gained tremendous momentum.
Third, the PARCC tests were never intended to measure teacher effectiveness. Again, as the political motivations of various elected officials became evident, the opportunity to link test results with teacher performance was too good to pass up. The CCSS and the PARCC were designed to bring rigor and uniformity to the classroom, not evaluate how well a teacher teaches. Witness the strange alliance between teachers unions and Republican governors as proof of just how contentious this point is.
Lastly, let us treat the tests for what they are: another data point for students, parents, teachers, administrators, and college officials. For years elementary school students have taken the California Achievement Test (CAT), and high school students have taken the SAT and ACT; the PARCC can simply add information to a student's academic profile. Rather than eliminating them before they have a chance to demonstrate what they can offer, let's see what the data shows this school year, and wait for the publishers of the tests to tell us what they have learned from their first year.
In 2010, 45 states adopted the Common Core, a remarkable achievement by the National Governors Association. By 2015, only 10 states have implemented either PARCC or Smarter Balanced, another test aligned with the Common Core. The bottom line? Let's keep the standards; they are rigorous and superior to most existing state standards. But let's take some time and do what's right for anyone who has a stake in student achievement, which includes every single one of us.
posted by olgapolites at 11:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home