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 Pt.3: What Public Testimony?

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, I dissected the report issued by the Study Commission on the Use of Student Assessments in New Jersey. In Parts 3 and 4 (coming tomorrow), education activist Sue Altman reports on the public testimony that was not only downplayed in the final report in terms of numbers of persons who testified, but completely ignored in the commission's recommendations.

Here's Sue's report:

On three separate dates in early 2015, in three locations in New Jersey, over 200 individuals testified on the issue of high stakes testing in New Jersey as part of the Study Commission on the Use of Student Assessments in New Jersey.  It took a full year for the report to be published to the public; in fact, while the original document was dated November 30, 2015, the document was not released to the public until January 11, 2016.  This was the same day as a Board of Education meeting at which I spoke on this very issue:

​.  

So, who testified?

The Department held testimony at three locations, and also provided an opportunity for people to submit testimony via email.

Submitted Written Testimony	118
Jersey City	26
Jackson	42
Blackwood	23
TOTAL:	209

(The State report states there were 100.)

Jerseyans from all walks of life took part in this democractic exercise, and that in itself is inspirational.  There were people who identified themselves as parents, teachers, businesspeople, concerned citizens, students, representatives from other groups, and more.  (Note: some people double-affiliated, such as "I am a parent of two girls and a business owner.")  

What did the testimonies say?  

The testimonies were OVERWHELMINGLY anti-PARCC, anti-testing.  I coded each testimony as "Overall supportive of PARCC/high-stakes testing," "Overall negative on PARCC/high-stakes testing," and "Mixed."

Of the 209 testimonies, THREE were "pro-testing," THREE were "mixed" and 204 were "negative."

Let me repeat that.  97.1% of people who drove to all corners of NJ in the midst of a polar vortex were NEGATIVE AGAINST HIGH-STAKES TESTING and PARCC.   

I can't think of anything else in the whole universe that 97.1% of New Jerseyans would agree on, except maybe that the world is better with Bruce Springsteen in it, the Shore is fun in the summer, or that traffic sucks.  I mean, really, challenge yourself to think of something less controversial.  For those of us who are visual learners, I kid you not

​:​

And yet, when they published the report, the State barely acknowledged this outcry.  They only admitted to three themes from the testimonies (time spent testing, accountability concerns and technical difficulties).  But, these are not the biggest concerns raised, and are a bit of a strawman. (Strawmen?) Of course the time spent testing is a concern, but the concerns are not limited to the actual time, and are much deeper than that. And, accountability concerns, especially the ones mentioned in the report (teachers being evaluated on material they don't even teach) is a no-brainer. I'm embarrassed for them that they admitted to learning about this only through public testimony. Mentioning

​

technical difficulties— well, that was a bit of a humblebrag given that Hespe has already said there were fewer than they expected.  The other ideas in these testimonies, the stuff that parents and citizens actually witness in their day-to-day lives with their own children,

​the stuff that ​

would be incredibly useful if someone were actually interested in learning about the effect PARCC is having on children and families—was ignored.

The state even went out of their way to claim, "In this report, the Study Commission seeks to clearly demonstrate it has listened to and considered the comments and has responded and provided clarification, as appropriate. The Study Commission acknowledges the concerns that have been voiced about the issue of overtesting in the State’s public schools and its impact on instruction."

And yet, what makes this so difficult to swallow is that the recommendations issued do NOTHING to remedy this concern at all, and in fact have made it much, much worse. So ok, you "demonstrated" you "listened to" the comments, but you sure did not demonstrate you cared about democracy or public opinion. Has there ever been a more clear-cut case of tokenism?

So listen up NJ: The state never wanted to hear your opinions, they just wanted to say they held a commission, they "listened," so they could publish this report. It was a foregone conclusion all along; we were all duped.

But I still think the testimonies are worthwhile. In my next post I'll publish the themes from the testimonies, and bit about why it all really

​ ​

matters.  

Study Commission Report Pt. 2: Big Brother and The Brainwashing of NJ

Stanley Tucci in The Devil Wears Prada

Part 1 of this as-yet-to-be-determined-part series on the final report of the Study Commission on the Use of Student Assessments in New Jersey focused on the Commission's members, who the DOE should partner with going forward, how the DOE should crush the Opt-Out movement with 'reformy' propaganda funded by 'reformy' billionaires (aka. "the business community and philanthropic organizations"), and all that professional development.

This post will focus on the recommendations for the amount of testing and graduation requirements, modifications for Special Education and English Language Learner students, data (because data is king!), and perhaps my favorite: "Using PARCC Data as a College and/or Business Placement Tool".

And finally, if you see an (*) at the beginning of a paragraph, it's a reminder to reference the video I posted in Part 1 in which former NJDOE Assistant Commissioner Bari Ehrlichson admits that the PARCC is not diagnostic. 

As stated in Part 1, unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is mine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Assessment Tools, including PARCC

PARCC is wonderful! PARCC is fabulous! PARCC is here to stay! Yaaaay! But the commission also recognized that there is too much testing going on, so they recommend districts do a testing inventory.

*The commission goes on to list five rather lengthy descriptions of what constitutes a good assessment tool (pgs 11 & 12 in the report). The only one PARCC even remotely fulfills is the one requiring the tests be electronic. But PARCC is here to stay! But how to convince parents to let their kids take the test? Get your local BOEs to do your dirty work:

Recommendation 27

The Study Commission recommends that the NJDOE, in cooperation with State education associations and advocacy groups, identify a range of best practices that may be adopted by district boards of education when considering how to work with parents and communities to ensure all eligible students complete the Statewide assessments. The Study Commission recommends that the NJDOE communicate to school districts that both State and federal law require students to participate in the Statewide assessment programs, as appropriate. The consequences for schools and school districts for student non-participation in the Statewide assessment program, as required by federal law, should also be disseminated to school districts.

*The gold standard for standardized testing is the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress). Given to randomly selected students throughout the country, it's the best statistical snapshot of what all US students know over time. And right now, thanks to NCLB, RTTT and tests like PARCC, US students are stagnating. Other states have woken up to that fact. Even though the consortium is down to less than half the states it began with, PARCC is here to stay! Why? Maybe because Gov. Christie gave Pearson a sweetheart tax break to stay in NJ?

The only good news is that at least until the class of 2020, it won't be the only requirement for high school graduation. And my guess is that the Opt-Out movement will only continue to grow despite whatever ad campaigns the DOE will run against us.

Teacher Evaluations

I'm going to let Russ Walsh comment on this one. Russ is a nationally-recognized reading expert who also analyzed the report. NJ should be honored to have him as a Professor at Ryder University and he should have been included in this commission. (Keep dreaming, Marie.) 

In the area of teacher accountability and standardized tests, the Commission finds that "the positive and encouraging results of the educator evaluation system thus far, indicate that the system is working." The Study Commission dismisses educator concerns about using test scores for teacher evaluation by saying that much of the concern should be mitigated by the fact that the vast majority of teachers in the first year of the evaluation design were rated as "effective" or "highly effective" and that the ratings were pretty much the same whether student growth scores were used or not. 

Once again the Study Commission thinks the biggest problem is a failure to communicate well. If only the NJDOE could get all the good news out about teacher evaluation, people would be embracing it. The Commission calls for professional learning efforts and greater transparency about how teacher evaluations are calculated. They further recommend that the NJDOE "encourage" school districts to use the information for teacher improvement, "particularly of novice and struggling teachers." 

The Study Commission might have spent some time looking at all the evidence that shows how the use of standardized test scores in any proportion as a part of a teacher's evaluation is simply unsupportable. They might have read the work of Audrey Amrein- Beardsley (Vamboozled andRethinking Value Added Models in Education) or looked at the white paper from the American Statistical Association calling into question any significant use of standardized tests as a measure of teacher effectiveness. They might have then said that these measures should be removed entirely from formal teacher evaluation, but that is not the message the Governor wanted to hear.

Special Education Populations

Again, Russ Walsh sums it up best:

The Study Commission clearly heard the concerns of parents and teachers of students with special needs and ELL students. They recognize that these students need special accommodations when it comes to standardized testing. They make six recommendations in this area that boil down to acknowledging there is an issue, suggesting the NJDOE do something about it in collaboration with school districts and calling on the NJDOE to talk to the federal Department of Education who insists all these special populations take these tests, to see if more flexibility can be provided in testing these special populations. 

These recommendations lack specificity, but the acknowledgment of the issue in the face of stupid federal rules is welcome. It is truly cruel and unusual punishment to insist that all students, no matter what their learning disabilities take these tests.

Use of Data to Improve Teaching and Learning

*The the phrase "high-quality assessments" is used several times throughout this report. It's laughable because PARCC is anything but, and yet, it's being used to determine the future of students and the fate of education professionals. Imagine if you will, oncologists being indoctrinated into using french fries to fight cancer. There is testing and data and professional development all geared toward brainwashing them into thinking it will work because that's what the federal government wants because McDonalds will turn a hefty profit from from it all—despite the fact that it will never, ever work, and may in fact, do more harm! This is what we are up against.

Recommendation 38

The Study Commission recommends that school districts engage in a consistent and rigorous review of PARCC and other available student performance data as part of their routine continuous improvement efforts regarding curriculum and instruction.

Yes, it's gotta be 'rigorous' because this test is killing education. 

Recommendation 39

The Study Commission recommends that the NJDOE encourage school districts to use the PARCC data, as they continue to be validated and better understood, as only one of several tools to improve teaching and learning. The Study Commission further recommends that the NJDOE, in cooperation with State education associations and advocacy groups, provide professional learning to educational practitioners, primarily principals and teachers, about how to analyze and use assessment data in program and curriculum planning.

"One of several tools", but the only one that really matters to the DOE.  

Recommendation 40

Insofar as teachers’ familiarity with and understanding of PARCC data are critical elements for their acceptance and use as a learning tool, the Study Commission recommends that NJDOE continue to communicate a consistent message about the lessons learned as a result of the PARCC implementation in spring 2015. The Study Commission further recommends that the NJDOE continue to encourage school districts to embed within their strategic plans the use of student assessment data as an important tool for school improvement.

Doesn't matter if it doesn't work, we just have to brainwash teachers into accepting that it does. 

PARCC Data as a Graduation Assessment

This from Save Our Schools NJ:

Governor Christie's Testing Commission is recommending that, starting with the class of 2020, all students be required to take every PARCC test for which they are eligible in order to qualify to graduate. This includes three years of PARCC testing in high school, which is three times what is required by federal law. 

Students in the Class of 2020 would be able to use other tests or the portfolio process to meet their actual graduation testing requirement, but only if they also took (but not necessarily passed) every PARCC test for which they are eligible, starting with those administered in 2017. 

Students in the Classes of 2021 and beyond would also have to take every PARCC test for which they are eligible (starting in 2017) and would also have to pass the Algebra I and the 10th grade English Language Arts PARCC tests in order to graduate.

PARCC Data as a College and/or Business Placement Tool

This is perhaps the most disturbing part of this report. I'll let the recommendations speak for themselves:

Recommendation 48 

The Study Commission recommends that the NJDOE encourage IHEs (Institutions of Higher Learning) throughout the State to use PARCC assessment scores for identifying course placement and enrollment in dual-credit programs. The Study Commission further recommends that IHEs work with the NJDOE and the PARCC consortium to share data on student progress in college courses to assess the validity of the PARCC assessment and to assist in the development of future tests.

Recommendation 49 

The Study Commission recognizes that most New Jersey employers require entry-level job applicants to pass company-required tests in English and mathematics that assess their abilities to understand vocabulary and grammatical rules and to solve basic math problems. The Study Commission further recognizes that many employers could also benefit from knowing applicants’ abilities to solve more complex problems that demand higher-level critical thinking skills. Finally, the Study Commission believes the business community would be well served to learn more about how PARCC assessment data can be used to better gauge the capacity of applicants to do the job or for growth within the company. Accordingly, the Study Commission recommends that the NJDOE convene an informational session with stakeholders in New Jersey’s business community to review PARCC assessment item content and help them to gain greater insight into how PARCC assessment results can be useful to them, within the context of their respective hiring needs, employment policies, and human resources guidelines.

And there you have it. Big Brother is alive and well and living in NJ. Not only will all your child's education 'data' be tracked from K-12, it will now potentially be made available to colleges and—God forbid—potential employers. 

Next up: education activist Sue Altman reports on all the largely-ignored public testimony.