One of the selling points for the Common Core was that it would turn to great literature and drop the pablum formulaic passages of the past.
This teacher says the tests were the same old, same old:
“Seems strange that so much of the “authentic literature” on the tests seems to come from children’s magazines. Many of the stories, while decently written, don’t seem that different from passages written specifically for tests. Especially in 5th – 8th, where is the great literature?”
Other teachers said they recognized passages from Pearson textbooks, giving an advantage to those who bought the full Pearaon package.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Good questions here. Why aren’t the testing companies using the text complexity guidelines in CC ELA Appendix A? On the other hand, in this highly-charged political atmosphere, parents are complaining about any reading passage that they feel goes against their family values, even as part of a test item on opposing views. Maybe they feel the politically safe choice these days is pablum. Seems to be a testing issue, though, and not a CC issue. I hope that non-consortium states will lead the way in developing assessments with authentic literature, humane interface, smart implementation.
“I hope that non-consortium states will lead the way in developing assessments with authentic literature, humane interface, smart implementation.”
I hopy you don’t hold your breathing for that. Twon’t ever happen.
Steve, the same folks are making all these assessments, and they are the same ones who made the state assessments before them.
We need to dump the whole idea of doing summative standardized testing.
Grades given by high-school teachers are much better predictors of college success than are SAT scores, even though the SAT is one of the most thoroughly-vetted standardized tests in the the history of such tests.
On the mark. Again.
Given Pearson’s move to “efficacy” measures, there is no surprise to see their text passages used in exams. Watch them crank out future white papers “proving” efficacy of their texts. Easier when you own the tests and the texts. Do you really think they will leave “efficacy” to chance when their whole companies fiscal future is tied to result? It is Pearson’s version of “teaching to the test.”
“Other teachers said they recognized passages from Pearson textbooks, giving an advantage to those who bought the full Pearson package.”
Boy, that makes me angry. Now we know the reason teachers aren’t allowed to look at the tests. That is just the most utterly insupportable absurdity from a pedagogical standpoint. But from a commercial trade-secret one, suddenly it all comes clear…. Not sure why that hadn’t occurred to me before.
The testing companies ARE following those guidelines. LONG, LONG LISTS OF GUIDELINES that authentic literature doesn’t meet. Guidelines for days.
The guidelines for passage selection typically run pages and pages in length. These include Lexile level but also lots and lots of guidelines for social content, or appropriateness. And, importantly, the selections have to contain material that is covered by the bullet lists of standards at the grade level and so provide occasion for questions on those standards.
In the end, the guidelines are so restrictive that ALMOST NOTHING REAL CAN MEET THEM ALL. That’s why, for the most part, testing companies cook the passages from scratch. A writer can produce a passage that meets all those guidelines more easily than an editor can find a real-world passage that does.
If the passage must be real-world, then a place to look is in children’s magazines, where the passages have already been leveled and vetted.
So, that’s what happens.
All this is symptomatic of a more general problem: The writing and reading done by students on these tests is completely UNREAL. Just as you will not find a five-paragraph theme in Harpers or Vogue or Slate,
NO REAL READER OR WRITER DOES ANYTHING LIKE WHAT IS CALLED FOR ON THESE TESTS WHEN DOING REAL READING AND REAL WRITING.
And therefore, the tests are not tests of real reading and real writing.
The tests are completely inauthentic, artificial, and disconnected from the realities of reading and writing.
And for that reason alone they should be abolished.
They distort, dramatically, the teaching of reading and writing, which become teaching kids to do that unreal thing that is called for by the tests.
But Education Deformers don’t know enough about the DETAILS of what they are calling for to understand any of that.
They are completely cluesless about how the tests they are requiring are warping and making a travesty of teaching of reading and writing.
This is very true. One of the things that’s happening is the development of rigid formats and mnemonics to help kids write what the tests call for, and that’s what we’re teaching the kids about writing now.
It’s so obscene. Before NCLB, we were making great strides in writing education in this country. Wonderful curricula were being developed.
Now, it’s teach to the test. It’s just criminal.
Again, the people pushing this crap–the Jeb Bushes and Arne Duncans, the old men sitting around tables at Achieve, for example–haven’t a clue what damage they are doing.
“Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Well, in Ohio, we have never been allowed to glance at the tests, so we have no idea what passages or questions are on any test until some of the questions are released the following year. So I am surprised that anyone knows what is on the test.
Literature tests need to cover the literature curriculum, not abstract skills.
Testing of writing needs to involve REAL WRITING, following real writing processes, not the bizarre “test answer writing” done in artificial testing situations.
These standardized tests are not, therefore, legitimate. They are not VALID measures.
They test the wrong stuff, and they test that stuff in bizarre, inaccurate ways.
The whole thing is a scam.
Lol, WHEN WILL AUTHOR’S FINALLY WRITE AUTHENTIC LITERATURE ACCORDING TO THE CC RUBRIC!?!?
I agree with everybody here. The latest bit of lunacy was last month when I had to prepare my Sophomores to take the new PARCC/TCAP Writing Assessment. Nobody was sure what it was really called, but it is on the TnCore Website (Tennessee). There are anchor papers galore to help us ignorant teachers teach it. Students were expected to write an Analytical Summary of a non-fiction article. The anchor papers summarized/critiqued a 7 paragraph essay, The anchor papers with high scores were 5-7 paragraphs. That is not a summary in any sense of the word. I had to warp my students minds around this new definition of “summary.” Then, the instructions to the students stated that (paraphrasing here), “In the article, the author develops several central ideas, . . .”Really? In 7 paragraphs- several central ideas? This is bad writing. Best of all, the article had a random paragraph thrown in at the end that didn’t even relate to the previous paragraphs. My Honors kids caught on immediately. The article was on “Coralbots.” I’m sure the author is a good writer, but by the time her article was adapted for the test, it was no longer good.
After writing the Analytical Summary online (some kids can’t type), students had to read another article and determine which one made the better argument for saving coral reefs. I must add that some of my students didn’t know what coral reefs are.
Why am I, an English teacher, being asked to help students decide between 2 methods of saving coral reefs??? Coralbots or Steel Cages? I don’t know! I’m not a marine biologist!
See letter to Pres. Obama from Maya Angelou, Judy Blume and many other authors regarding standardized tests: http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell/angelou-hits-obama-school-testing-overuse
________________________________