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?

More on Christie's Executive Order, AchieveNJ & PARCC

Keeping this short and sweet because Ani McHugh (aka. TeacherBiz) and Jersey Jazzman both wrote excellent analyses of all that transpired in the life of A3081/S2541. 

Let's cut to the chase. Here's what the weights in educator evaluations will look like next year: 

In addition, any educators who were rated ineffective or partially effective in the '13-'14 school year can have their evaluation reviewed. (more on this below)

I spent a lot of time reading various opinions on this deal. Some people are not happy. They think NJEA sold out. They think the association didn't do enough to stop the testing and protect children. But Ani's response is on point:

Many people (parents, students, educators) in the state are frustrated and angry that students will still have to take PARCC exams in the 2014-2015 school year–but it’s important to understand that a delay of PARCC implementation was never part of A3081/S2154. Even if it were, though, students would still have to take whatever tests would replace the PARCC–be they Smarter Balanced assessments or revised NJASK/HSPA tests that would have had to be rewritten to align with the Common Core.

In short, the PARCC is just one form of Common Core testing–the one New Jersey chose to use–and as long as New Jersey is a Common Core state that’s receiving federal funds under Race to the Top, our students will have to be tested in accordance with the federal mandates that accompany these initiatives.  If we weren’t subjecting students to PARCC testing, we’d be subjecting them to something very similar–and no doubt equally flawed, equally expensive, and probably equally invasive of their rights to privacy.

Folks, no matter what you think NJEA did or didn't do, all our children—my own child included—still have to take the tests, unless we as parents decide to opt them out. 

I and dozens of other educators from around the state testified at every NJEA State Board of Ed Lobby Day this past school year about the need to slow down the implementation of high stakes consequences for high stakes tests because educators were tearing their hair out trying to keep up with everything that was thrown at us and our students. Thousands of letters were sent to board members. None of us (that I can recall) ever asked the board to completely eliminate the standardized testing because they can't. 

So, the fact that standardized tests will only count for 10% of evaluations next year is huge, because if educators aren't stressed and overwhelmed, their students won't be either, and that is a win-win for parents and schools. Is it perfect? No way. There are still major flaws with AchieveNJ which Duke points out below. But the fact that educators who were rated ineffective or partially effective will be able to challenge those decisions is important because as anyone who sat through those Board of Ed meeting knows, there have been some real horror stories about botched observations coming out of school districts all across the state. All year, our message to the State Board of Ed has been, "Slow down and get it right." We got the first part; now it's up to Christie and the task force to get the second part right. 

The writing was on the wall with this one: although the bill had overwhelming bipartisan support, Christie would never, ever sign it because in his world, 'bipartisanship' only works if it can increase his political viability in places like Iowa. The executive order allows him to still pull the strings. 

As Duke points out:

There was, of course, no chance of Christie ever signing that bill into law. So we can debate the effectiveness of NJEA's strategy on this -- but here's what's not debatable:

Christie's executive order is all the evidence anyone needs that AchieveNJ -- the state's teacher evaluation system -- is built on a foundation of sand.

In the spring of 2013, then-Former Acting Commissioner Chris Cerf and the state BOE decided, on a "feeling," to arbitrarily change the percentage of a teacher's evaluation based on test scores to 30 percent from 35 percent. There was no research basis for this whatsoever, but no matter: it's our "feelings," after all, that really count...

Now, I guess the governor "feels" 10 percent is good for this coming year, but 20 percent will be good afterward. Why? Because he says so, that's why!

As for what happens after 2016? Who knows? One thing is certain: Christie will be gone. Then maybe, just maybe we can elect someone who won't make education policy decisions like this:

10 minute sketch-kinda sums it up. Depressing.