10 Things Every Parent Should Know About the PARCC

Photo: Seattle Times

As the PARCC testing window approaches, it is time for New Jersey parents to make the decision whether or not to opt their children out of the test. Technically in New Jersey there is no 'opt out'. Parents can simply refuse to allow their child to take the test, despite what school districts may be telling them to the contrary. 

Last year, State Board of Education President Mark Biedron went on record as saying, "We know we can't force any kid to put their hands on a keyboard" —at least for now. If the DOE gets its way, starting with the class of 2020 (this year's 8th graders), the PARCC will be a requirement for high school graduation. 

But we do know this: State law currently does not require students to sit for the PARCC; it only requires the state to administer it. And with the frequency that the DOE changes the graduation requirements, and the backlash they are getting from parents, chances are the PARCC won't be around too much longer.

However, The State Department of Education is determined to force the test on our children. It has put districts with large numbers of opt outs last year on corrective action plans to increase participation. If this test is the magical cure-all, why are many school districts now coercing, scaring and bullying parents and students into taking the test?

As doctors take the Hippocratic oath to "First do no harm", educators have an obligation to do no harm to students by teaching and assessing based on research-based and peer-reviewed best practice. The PARCC test does not make the cut.

So, in order for you to make a more informed decision about the PARCC, here are ten things every parent should know: 

1. The test is not diagnostic. In order for any test to accomplish this, it must have at least 25 questions per assessed skill. The PARCC does not. Bari Ehrlichson, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of Education, admitted this last year in a panel discussion on the PARCC.

2. The PARCC does not consistently assess grade-level skills. Rider University Professor and reading expert Russ Walsh analyzed some of the sample language arts questions and found many of them to be several grade levels above the tested grade. This is not only unfair to both students and teachers; it is also demoralizing to students. How can anyone be expected to succeed at something when the odds are heavily stacked against them from the start?

3. Research has shown that student designed projects and research are far more effective and meaningful ways for both teachers and students to assess deep learning and understanding. Standardized tests in general are meant to show trends, and as such, PARCC falls far short on the assessment continuum.

4. The American Statistical Association has warned that standardized tests should not be used to assess educator effectiveness because the methods being used are simply not reliable. And with the enormous emphasis now put on data in teaching, teachers should not be evaluated based on a flawed test that provides flawed data.

5. Out of the 24 states originally in the PARCC consortium only seven plus the District of Columbia will be participating in the 2016-2017 testing. This should be a red flag warning to every parent and educator.

6. PARCC is not a reliable predictor of 'college and career readiness'. Recent research shows that high school GPAs are the most reliable predictor of college success. Yet all across this state—and country—related arts classes that help build those GPAs are being scaled back or eliminated to make way for more Common Core study and PARCC prep.    

7. A recently released study published in the School Superintendent Association's Journal of Scholarship and Practice concluded that a higher percentage of the 2009 New Jersey high school core curriculum content standards in English language arts and math prompted higher-order thinking than the 2010 Common Core State Standards for those same subjects and grade levels. We are dumbing down our students. 

8. The amount of testing students will be subjected to starting with the graduating class of 2020 is not only against current law, it’s just plain cruel. Starting with this class, in order to graduate high school, students will have to take and fail the PARCC not once, not twice, but three times before any real assessment of their academic progress can be used. What educator in their right mind thinks this is best practice?

9. There are big problems with scoring. Officials from PARCC have admitted there are discrepancies in scores between students who took paper and pencil tests vs. those who took the test online, with the former group scoring on average higher than the latter. And, despite PARCC's promise of leveling the playing field for all students in all states, the PARCC consortium states have the option to change their cut scores. This is nuts.

10. The fact that in its recently released report, the Study Commission On The Use Of Student Assessments in New Jersey failed to honor and recognize the hundreds of people who testified against this test, and instead recommended a marketing campaign* to crush the Opt-Out movement and brainwash parents and the general public into thinking it will solve all the world’s problems is proof that this test cannot stand on its own merit and should be thrown out.

Contrary to what some may say, the Opt Out movement was not started by the teacher unions, nor was it, as NJ Education Commissioner David Hespe said, a bunch of high school students who just didn't want to take the test. It is a nation-wide, grass-roots movement started by parents who are concerned about the over emphasis on flawed tests and data that falsely measure their child's education, unfairly evaluate teachers and penalize schools.

Last year, in our state's first PARCC testing year, over 100,000 students refused the test. That number is second only to New York State, which had approximately 200,000 students refuse. Unfortunately, these numbers were compiled by individuals doing a lot of research on the DOE's own website because the department either cannot or will not release the actual numbers. 

Every parent must make their own informed decisions regarding the PARCC and what's best for their child. But, unless parents have access to both sides of the issue, that cannot be done. The bottom line is that school districts cannot force students to take the test. They will not lose funding if your child opts out

For more information about the PARCC and your rights as a parent, visit Save Our Schools NJ and NJ Kids And Families. You can also modify my opt out letter to suit your needs.

* See Recommendation 17

Study Commission Report Part 1: Will #ZucksBucks Save PARCC/Crush @NJOptOut?

Part 1 of a 3-part series on the Final Report of The Study Commission On The Use Of Student Assessments In New Jersey

(Part 2; Part 3)

Get ready!!

Stanley Tucci in The Devil Wears Prada

Is the NJDOE taking lessons from the ShamWow guy?

Sham? Wow!

The Study Commission on the Use of Student Assessments in New Jersey has released its final report and its a doozy. So, grab yourself a cup of coffee (or a bottle of Xanax), sit back and prepare to be infomercialed! In addition to the same 'ole testing, data collection, and 'college and career' weirdness, the Commission recommends a heavy dose of professional development for educators, and PR funded by 'reformy' money and aimed at crushing the Opt-Out movement, but wrapped in the guise of 'informing the public' about

the wonderfulness of the PARCC. Like many 'As Seen On TV' products that don't actually deliver what they promise, the DOE has to sell the PARCC the only way it can: convincing parents that we really are those dimwits former US Ed Secretary Arne Duncan called us, and that the PARCC really is magic. And wow, what a sham that is! 

I will attempt to unpack this report in two or three posts, but there's so much CCRAP to wade through that, "I think I'm gonna need a bigger boat." Unless otherwise noted, all bold, underlined and italicized text is mine.

The overarching themes, as I alluded to above, are that 1) the PARCC test is wonderously-fabulous; 2) the State DOE simply did a lousy job marketing it; 3) teachers will buy into it as long as we give them boatloads of indoctrination professional development; 4) parents will buy into it because we will flood their media outlets with propaganda.

Before I begin

I have posted this video clip several times before. You will need to refer back to it as you read through the rest of this series. Anything that refers to it will be marked with an (*). 

This is a panel discussion about PARCC which includes, among others, former Assistant NJDOE Commissioner (and now Chris Cerf underling), Bari Ehrlichson and Seton Hall Professor Dr. Christopher Tienken. 



Tienken:

For a test to be diagnostic, that means truly helpful to a teacher, truly able to tell you where a student is with a specific skill, there needs to be at least 25 items for that specific skill to reach a reliability where you can make a decision about what an individual student knows...  Are there 25 questions per specific skill on the PARCC test so teachers and parents really have an understanding of what kids know at the specific skill level?

Ehrlichson (at aprox. 1:30): 

[T]he PARCC end-of-year/end-of-course assessments — are not intended to be sort of the through-course diagnostic form of assessments, the benchmark assessments, that most of us are used to, that would diagnose and be able to inform instruction in the middle of the year. 

These are in fact summative test scores that have a different purpose than the one that we’re talking about here in terms of diagnosis. 

Tienken:

So they're not diagnostic at the individual level, so it's going to be difficult for teachers to look at these scores, particularly when they get them back in September and October, for kids who are no longer in their class, to get fine-grained information about specific skills or standards or sub-clusters or whatever we want to call them. There's just not enough questions on the test to do that.

All this in addition to Ryder University Professor and Literacy Researcher Russ Walsh's research that found that many of the reading passages in the Language Arts portion of the test are several grade levels above the tested grade. 

So, there's our baseline. PARCC doesn't do what its supporters claim it will, and there is research to prove it. 


And here we go...

The Introduction

This section had my yellow highlighter firing on all cylinders. It started out with the usual blather about how the commission listened to all the testimony given by hundreds of people around the state over the course of several months, "and has responded and provided clarification, as appropriate." So, if they didn't think your concerns were appropriate, they didn't respond. Makes sense. In an upcoming guest post, education activist, Sue Altman, will have more on how well the commission actually listened to public testimony 

Here are a few gems:

[T]he Study Commission does not believe the philosophy of data-informed practice is among the root causes for the criticisms that have been raised in the debate regarding standardized testing and PARCC.

Well, the commission may not 'believe' it, but ask any informed education professional or parent, and they will give you the facts. Data is exactly at the root of this divide. Never before in the history of US public education have educators been forced to collect and analyze so much data. And parents are rightly concerned about who is seeing it all, for what purpose is it being used, and where it will all end up.

*[A]nxiety and fear levels surrounding [PARCC] remain palpable and appear to have formed at least part of the basis for the anti-PARCC television, radio, and print advertisements, which arguably appear to have contributed significantly to the parent opt-out movement in spring 2015. A lack of trust between policymakers and educators and the abundance of misinformation seem only to add to this atmosphere of anxiety and fear. Therefore, many of the recommendations that follow focus on improving the relationships between policymakers and educators and on building educator confidence that the State's educational system appropriately uses assessments to foster learning... the Study Commission believes educators, parents, district board of education members, and other stakeholders must embrace a shared understanding that assessment data can be used effectively to inform and improve teaching. Moreover, the PARCC data must become a critical part of this shared understanding as the data continue to be better understood.  

*Yes, there is a huge lack of trust between the State Department of Education, parents and educators because the DOE is not being honest. Let's get one thing straight: the Opt-Out movement was not started by educators, and it was not started in NJ. It was started by parents in other states and has spread like wild fire across the country. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply not true. This notion that parents are too dumb to realize CCRAP when they see it is the same condescending attitude many in the DOE and the 'reform' community (including certain newspapers) have taken in regards to state takeover communities: you're too dumb to know what's good for you. 

As I reported last month:

The state DOE estimates that 15% of high school juniors, 7% of freshmen, and 4.6% of students in grades 3-8 refused to take the test. But based on anecdotal reporting and comparing '14-'15 enrollment numbers to the actual number of tests completed, NJEA and Save Our Schools NJ put those numbers at around 110,000—the second highest opt-out number in the nation in our first year of testing. New York was number one with 240,000.

*As physicians take the oath to "first do no harm", educators have an obligation to subscribe to research-based best practices and pedagogy. If we don't inform the public about the deeply flawed PARCC test, we are not fulfilling our fiduciary obligation to the children and parents of this state. So yes, the NJEA ran ad campaigns—based on research—to inform parents about what the NJDOE wasn't telling them.  

The Commission:

David C. Hespe Chair Commissioner of Education

Dana Egreczky Senior Vice President, New Jersey Chamber of Commerce

Dr. Lawrence S. Feinsod Executive Director, New Jersey School Boards Association

Catherine M. Lindenbaum Parent Association Representative

Dr. Marcia Lyles Superintendent, Jersey City Public Schools

Nicole Moore Principal, Shamong Township Schools

Matthew Stagliano Educator, Camden County Technical Schools

Dr. Raymond A. Yannuzzi President, Camden County College

Tracie Yostpille Educator, Freehold Township Schools

Of the members, only 2 are public school educators; there are no special educators; there is a Broad-trained superintendent, and a Vice President of the 'reform'-supportive NJ PTA. 

The Professional Development Recommendations

Although the report gushes about there being "teams of educators and parents to conduct a point-by-point review of the Common Core State Standards with the objective of making recommendations for New Jersey-based standards that are even higher than the Common Core State Standards", don't you believe it. For all his pandering to the anti-CCSS Republicans, Gov. Christie is only getting changes to about 200 of the over 1400 standards. And those changes mostly consist of replacing a word or phrase. But that's okay because in the Department of Edutopia, there will be oodles and oodles of brainwashing "sustained professional learning" in every school in the state!

Even if we think the regulations stink, even if we think the standards are inappropriate, even if peer-reviewed research says the same thing, educators must teach to the standards or face disciplinary action. So, NJEA must provide members with appropriate professional development. So do the other organizations involved in public education. In addition to NJEA, the report lists the other partners in this effort:

1. New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association (NJPSA) 
2. New Jersey School Boards Association (NJSBA) 
3. New Jersey Association of School Administrators (NJASA) 
4. Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs)
5. New Jersey Parents and Teachers Association (NJPTA)
6. The business community

The first four make perfect sense. But the last two? As I stated earlier, the National PTA is a 'reform'-supportive organization. They are heavily funded by the Gates Foundation, with $500K alone given to them to support the Common Core. Pearson and Microsoft have been sponsors of some of their national conventions. They gave member email addresses to Pearson so the testing giant could send them 'reform' propaganda. And the uber-'reformy' propaganda film, Waiting for Superman, was shown at their 2011 national convention. See Diane Ravitch's post for more on their efforts to undermine public education 

And of course, as long as public education is being turned into a business model, we simply must have members of the business community on board to show administrators how to 'churn' staff, maximize profit learning and generally train staff how to work longer and harder for less pay and job satisfaction. 

Here's a sampling of the PD recommendations:

Recommendation 3  

The Study Commission recommends that the NJDOE provide school districts with the time, support, professional learning, and communication necessary to accommodate any changes to the standards that might impact the school district’s planning, implementation, and decision making about curriculum, instruction, and/or instructional resources.

It all looks so good on paper, doesn't it? Where and how will all this time magically appear? 

Recommendation 7 

The Study Commission recommends that the NJDOE collaborate with State education associations and advocacy groups to create online cross-disciplinary professional learning initiatives accompanied by sufficient incentives to encourage the State’s educators to expand their professional knowledge and skills and to turn-key their learning for colleagues.

I think we know by now what they mean by "advocacy groups", but what about "incentives"? If we're talking increased compensation for advanced degrees, well then, that makes sense. But after Gov. Christie cut $7 billion from public education funding over the past 7 years, school districts have cut back on tuition reimbursement and additional compensation. So, I'm thinking maybe... Wawa gift cards?

Recommendation 8 

The Study Commission endorses the understanding that every teacher is a literacy teacher and recommends that the NJDOE encourage school districts to devote considerable time and effort to providing sustained professional learning in standards-based instruction for teachers of subjects other than English language arts and mathematics...

Hey all you art, music, computer, and health and PE teachers, guess what? You too get to share in the fun and joy of teaching Language Arts to your students! Yipee! It doesn't matter that the Common Core and PARCC have decimated your programs at every grade level. It doesn't matter that you don't have enough time for PD in your own subject area these days. It doesn't matter that you don't have a degree in Language Arts. You are going to get some 'magical' training so you too can boost those test scores! Because seriously, nothing prepares a child who wants to be a musician when they grow up like massive doses of training in how to read informational text! Duh!

All this PD is wonderful as long as school districts don't look to the state to help pay for it—especially if it's a state-run district. Just ask the folks who work in Newark. They're $300 million in the hole to charter schools for students who transfer—and some that don't.

Shared Vision for a Comprehensive Assessment System 

This section deals with how the DOE is going to sell their product the PARCC. Five of the nine recommendations deal with salesmanship. According to the report, as long as school districts give educators the time and means for PD, everything will be hunky-dory.

Recommendation 9 

A comprehensive assessment system... uses State, formative, interim, and summative assessment tools that are tightly aligned to standards to inform curriculum, instruction, and assessment. A comprehensive assessment system is used to address immediate student needs, inform ongoing instructional changes, guide long-term educational improvement, and provide on-going, timely, and actionable information on what students know, understand, and are able to do in relation to the standards.

* PARCC does not do this and the NJDOE said so. Notice that "State" is listed as the first means of assessment.

* Recommendation 9 also recommends that the impact of PARCC on other assessments be studied. Many high schools are doing away with educator-developed mid-terms and EOCs in favor of the PARCC. It is educational malpractice to replace a legitimate assessment with one that is deeply flawed and doesn't do what it says it does.  

Something good:

Recommendation 10 

[The] NJDOE [should] assist school districts in obtaining the training necessary to establish their own comprehensive vision for school district assessment and how each assessment tool relates to an important learning or strategic objective.

Good, because last year the DOE had no idea what it was doing. Seemingly every week Hespe was releasing new and/or revised information about the PARCC.

Recommendations 11, 12, 14, 16 and 18 deal with "communication". 

Recommendation 11 

[T]he process for communicating the shared vision for assessment include multiple strategies and tools for communication, numerous forums and venues at various times, and multiple methods for assessing the quality and effectiveness of the messages. All events and announcements made throughout the year (e.g., test score releases, testing windows, educator evaluation reports) must be consistent, clearly connected to the shared vision, and coordinated among stakeholder groups at the State and local levels via multiple sources.

Doesn't matter if our message is full of CCRAP. It just matters that it's doing its job of convincing people it isn't. 

Recommendation 12 

[T]he Study Commission recommends that the NJDOE assume a leadership role in ensuring all State education associations and advocacy groups commit to bear a collective responsibility for communicating widely and consistently throughout New Jersey this shared vision for assessment.

*This assumes all stakeholders share the vision. What happens if we don't? No professional education organization should never "commit to bear... responsibility for communicating" a false and/or damaging message about high stakes testing and educational best practice.

Recommendation 14 

The Study Commission recommends that the NJDOE, in cooperation with State educational associations and advocacy groups, develop and launch a proactive communication campaign throughout the State regarding: (a) the State’s role and responsibilities under federal and State laws and regulations with respect to educational standards and the use of student assessments in schools; (b) best practices in assessment of all student populations, including English language learners and students with disabilities and; and (c) what the NJDOE determines to be the most common, frequently occurring, and widespread misunderstandings and inaccuracies about educational standards and the use of student assessments in New Jersey’s public schools.

Recommendation 16

The Study Commission recommends that the NJDOE organize a communication team, comprised of representatives from all stakeholder groups, to pool resources and coordinate and facilitate Statewide communication of the assessment vision. This team is not intended to serve as an advocacy group, but rather as an informational group.

Translation: We got our butts kicked last year by the Opt-Out Movement and educators informing parents about how lousy PARCC is, so we have to turn up the propaganda machine.  

Recommendation 17 

Among the strategies to be used for delivering a widespread and consistent message about the assessment vision, as well as other critical issues in education, the Study Commission recommends the NJDOE (a) employ public access television channels and radio throughout the State to run informational broadcasts about the shared assessment vision; (b) seek the cooperation of the business community and philanthropic organizations to fund and sponsor the development of such informational broadcasts; (c) prepare ready-to-use multimedia informational packets and make them available to district boards of education and educators; and (d) use television and radio outlets and social media to more consistently reach out directly to parents and families about ways in which they can support their children’s learning.

Read it and weep. The NJDOE wants to call in the big guns— corporate 'reform' money—to flood the airwaves and social media with a "widespread and consistent message" propaganda campaign to "reach out directly to parents and families about ways in which they can support their children's learning" crush the Opt-Out movement.

It really is that simple.

And they want to develop "a database of professional email addresses" so they can send their propaganda right to your inbox.

For the past six years, NJ education 'reform' has mainly focused on our state-controlled school districts of poverty and color. This report leaves no doubt that the NJ DOE now has its sights set on suburbia. Wonder who Hespe is 'dialing for dollars' first? Zuckerberg? Gates? Broad? The list is endless.

My upcoming posts will deal with the Commission's recommendations regarding the PARCC and all standardized tests, technology, data, special education and ELL concerns, and finally "Using PARCC Data as a College and/or Business Placement Tool". 

Time to go make another pot of coffee. 

NJ's literacy solution: longer school day for kindergarteners?

My blog has been quiet of late. Due to some health problems, I've had to scale back a bit on my workload. Nothing life-threatening, mind you, just enough for me to reprioritize for a little while. But I'm on the mend, and there's no better day to start back up than New Year's Day.

Courtesy: Upworthy

This week marks the end of the current NJ legislative session. Newly elected officials will soon be sworn in, but there's a bill coming before the Assembly Education Committee next week that has me scratching my head. 

A4779, sponsored by Ams. Reed Gusciora (D-15) and Asw. L. Grace Spencer (D-29) says: 

a. The Commissioner of Education shall declare an educational state of emergency for a school district in which, for at least 75 percent of the schools in the district, 65 percent or more of the students in the school to whom a State assessment was administered have not achieved proficiency in the English language arts/literacy subject area of the State assessment. 

b. Upon declaring an educational state of emergency pursuant to subsection a. of this section, the commissioner is authorized to distribute supplementary State aid to the school district, which shall be in addition to the State aid payable to the district pursuant to P.L.2007, c.260 (C.18A:7F-43 et al.) or any other law. The supplementary State aid shall be used for the specific purpose of establishing a mandatory after school program for students in grades kindergarten through three, the duration of which is two and a half hours from the end of the school day, which is designed to increase student proficiency in English language arts and literacy. The supplementary aid shall also be used for establishing voluntary literacy programs for students in other grades, including after school programs and summer programs. 

c. When an educational state of emergency is declared for a school district, the executive county superintendent of schools shall hold a public meeting of interested stakeholders for the district including, but not limited to, parents, students, teachers, school administrators, community leaders, and business leaders. The purpose of the meeting shall be to discuss community involvement and potential corrective measures to address the district’s low proficiency rate in English language arts and literacy.

d. A school district that establishes programs to increase student proficiency in English language arts and literacy pursuant to subsection b. of this section shall continue to implement the programs for a minimum of three years or for as long as the school district meets the criteria of subsection a. of this section, whichever is longer. (emphasis mine)

I have some real concerns about this bill, but before I get into them, let me be clear: I have no beef with Asm. Gusciora or Asw. Spencer. I don't know anything about the origins of this bill. I don't know Asw. Spencer, but Asm. Gusciora serves part of my county. He supported my assembly run, fiercely advocated for marriage equality, and generally supports causes I agree with. He's also a fellow member of the 'Wrath of Christie' club. My criticism is not aimed at them, but at the Christie administration and the NJDOE, who continue to hold our large, mostly poor/minority/urban school districts hostage, which forces workaround bills such as this one into existence.  

Here are my concerns:

First, I don't know about you, but whenever I read the words "state of emergency" as it pertains to public education, my ed 'reform' radar starts beeping. Newark, Camden, Jersey City and Paterson have all fallen victim to one definition or another of "state of emergency" which has resulted in one scenario: complete or partial state takeover, reduced funding, and the expansion of charter schools. None of which has been proven to help all students achieve.

Second, how do we define a "state of emergency"? If we are basing it solely on a state standardized test, which in this case is the PARCC, then we are making a false assumption. According to former NJ Assistant Education Commissioner Bari Erlichson, the PARCC test is not diagnostic:

Erlichson (at the 1:00 mark): In terms of testing the full breadth and depth of the standards in every grade level, yes, these are going to be tests that in fact are reliable and valid at multiple cluster scores, which is not true today in our NJASK. But there’s absolutely a… the word "diagnostic" here is also very important. As Jean sort of spoke to earlier: these are not intended to be the kind of through-course — what we’re talking about here, the PARCC end-of-year/end-of-course assessments — are not intended to be sort of the through-course diagnostic form of assessments, the benchmark assessments, that most of us are used to, that would diagnose and be able to inform instruction in the middle of the year. 

These are in fact summative test scores that have a different purpose than the one that we’re talking about here in terms of diagnosis. (emphasis mine)

Third, the tests were designed for students to fail. NJ's own reading expert, Ryder University Professor Russ Walsh, examined the PARCC sample questions and found them to be several grade levels above that being tested. And since the Common Core Standards are directly tied to the PARCC, we would be subjecting little children to more and more developmentally inappropriate instruction. Throw in the fact that many high poverty schools also have a higher percentage of English Language Learners than their wealthy and mostly White suburban counterparts, and you have a recipe for a manufactured "state of emergency."

Fourth, extending the day by two and a half hours for 5-7 year olds? Why? In Finland, the top performing education country in the world, first graders attend only a half day of school and get 15 minute breaks between each lesson. As a teacher of full-day kindergarteners, I can tell you firsthand that by about 1:30 pm, most are shot (this holds true for many first graders and some second graders). And when many K's get that tired, they don't slow down. Quite the opposite: they tend to ramp up. They're tired of sitting and paying attention. Their little brains are tired of thinking and concentrating. They need to play. But thanks to the Common Core, they're being pushed to learn more at an earlier age, and that's not a good thing. A 2015 Boston Globe article reported:

In two reports published earlier this year, the Boston-based nonprofit Defending the Early Years took aim at the kindergarten standards in ELA (focused on literacy at this age) and math. The first report singled out the expectation that kindergartners should be able to “read emergent-reader texts with purpose and understanding.” 

Emergent-reader texts include repetitive lines like, “Brown bear. Brown bear. What do you see?” or, “The fat cat sat on a mat.” These are no trouble for some 5-year-old kindergartners and even some 4-year-olds, says Nancy Carlsson-Paige, an emeritus professor of early-childhood education at Lesley University and the report’s lead author. But, Carlsson-Paige adds, many normally developing kids won’t read these books on their own until age 7. “When we require specific skills to be learned by every child at the same time, that misses a basic idea in early childhood education,” she says, “which is that there’s a wide range to learning everything in the early years.” 

Take walking as an example. An average child might learn to walk at 1 year, while some will be walking at 8 months and others might not take their first steps until they’re 15 months. They all end up walking just fine. 

What does earlier reading in kindergarten predict for reading proficiency and academic success in later grades? Not much, according to the report, which cites study findings that by fourth grade, children who were reading at age 4 were not significantly better at reading than their classmates who’d learned to read at age 7. The report also points out that in Finland and Sweden, kids don’t even start formal schooling until they are 7 years old. Yet, Finnish and Swedish teenagers regularly trounce their American counterparts in international tests of reading, math, and science. 

Given the wide developmental variation in young learners and the evidence that early reader advantages fade, the report concludes that a kindergarten literacy standard will simply crush the spirits of the late bloomers, linking school with “feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, and confusion.” (emphasis mine)

Since the bill requires a minimum of 3 years of implementation or "as long as the school district meets the criteria", my guess is that if it's passed, this clause will be forgotten and "3 years" will stretch into a permanently extended school day to compete with the longer school day of many charters.  

Fifth, where will the money come from? Gov. Christie has defunded NJ public education to the tune of $6 billion. Newark charter schools are bleeding the public school system of millions of dollars. It's so bad that Charter Cheerleader/Superintendent Chris Cerf (former NJ Education Commissioner), has ordered administrators to make drastic budget cuts, and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka is pleading with current Education Commissioner David Hespe to halt the expansion of charters to keep the district from drowning...

I'm not suggesting that we leave struggling readers to fend for themselves, but we cannot continue to throw taxpayer dollars at programs that are not research-based and developmentally appropriate. Why not fund the schools according to the law and let the administrators decide where and how the money would best be spent? Ah, but that assumes those who work with students every day know what's best, and we can't have that now, can we?

The Assembly Education Committee is chaired by Asm. Patrick Diegnan who has been a staunch supporter of public education. My hope is that the committee will listen to the voices of those who know what works in public education and revise or kill this bill.

12 questions every parent must ask about the #PARCC

Parents, print this out and bring it with you next time you meet with representatives from the NJ State Board of Education, the NJ DOE, or any administrator anywhere who tries to tell you this test is a magic bullet:


1.  The reading level of some of the language arts test questions has been found to be several grades above the tested grade. How is a child who cannot read at that grade level and can't understand the text or the test questions expected to complete the test?
   
   
   
   
2. What happens when a student—particularly in the younger grades—doesn't have the keyboard skills to successfully navigate the test? How is that fair to the child?
3. If the tests are supposed to be diagnostically useful, how come students and teachers can't see them to see what students got wrong and where they need help?
4. If the tests are supposed to be diagnostically useful, how come the scores won't be made available until the following school year, essentially rendering them meaningless? 
5. Why are the cut scores being determined after the students take the tests?
6. Why aren't you concerned that Pearson is advertising for test scorers at $12/hour on Craig's List? 
7. A high school student's GPA is a more accurate indicator of how well they will do in their first year of college than any standardized test. If the PARCC can 'magically' determine college and career readiness, why don't 4-year colleges require the test for admission instead of the SAT or ACT? 
8. Currently, there are 10 states left in the PARCC consortium. If the test is so fantastic, why have half the states in the original consortium dropped out?
   
   
   
   
9. Bari Erlichson, Chief Performance Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Data, Research, Evaluation and Reporting at the NJDOE admitted in a public forum that "the PARCC end-of-year/end-of-course assessments —are not intended to be the... diagnostic form of assessment... that would diagnose and be able to inform instruction... These are in fact summative test scores that have a different purpose than the one that we're talking about in terms of diagnosis." (emphasis mine) So, why are we being told they are diagnostic? Why are we being told teachers will be able to use the results to help students?
10. How do you justify submitting children to this test when many adults cannot pass the sample tests?
11. Test design expert Bob Shephard has said that "For many of the sample released questions, there is, arguably, no answer among the answer choices that is correct or more than one answer that is correct, or the question simply is not, arguably, actually answerable as written." How do you justify placing a child's education and a teacher's career in the hands of such a flawed instrument?
12. How do you justify the narrowing of the curriculum, the cuts to the related arts, foreign languages, physical education, and other subjects when so much research shows that a well-rounded education is much better preparation for a productive life?