A teacher sent the following comment in reference to the requirement that all Common Core testing must be done online. Schools will lay off teachers and cut programs and services to pay for technology for testing:
“My campus has 1200 students and 32 computers in the lab. You do the math. We have to buy HUNDREDS of new computers, so that our primary-aged kids can take a test in the spring. Our district has frozen our salaries, cut staff, and cut our benefits…because our funding was also cut by our state…but we still have to come up with the $10 million that these computers will cost our district.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Just think how well Microsoft and Apple will do in the 22nd century by plopping a computer in front of kids where a human being once was…
Reblogged this on kathyirwin1.
Minnesota governor addressed excessive testing in state of the state speech.
Obviously he’s a status quo defender and his critique is completely unfounded and ill-informed.
You-all won’t agree with everything he said about education, but he’s agreeing with you on this:
“The excessive amounts of time and rote learning required by today’s excessive school testing are counter-productive. They stifle teachers’ abilities to not only impart information, but also to show kids how to use it. How to apply their knowledge to solve new problems in new areas. And to enjoy doing so.
This approach does not require abandoning testing, as a measure of each student’s progress. It does require more efficient, more effective testing. A growing number of elementary schools in Minnesota are applying “one-minute, read-out-loud” tests, which can determine reading levels in just that one minute. Such tests can be repeated throughout the school year, as often as necessary, to measure students’ progress and adjust learning strategies accordingly.
Compare that approach to the high-stakes, anxiety-provoking testing, which is now imposed on children in third grade – or even younger. Many children come to school terrified on test days; then go home demoralized. What purpose does it serve to send a third-grader home believing she has failed life, because she may have performed poorly on a test? ”
http://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/pressreleasedetail.jsp?id=102-128360&utm_content=buffer3ed8b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
It is not just for testing. The entire movement is to go to “personalized learning” through one-to-one devices. Imagine how 55+ million devices and ongoing maintenance, internet and online apps will impact the bottom line. Goodbye childhood, goodbye to socializing, hello to zombat children:(
This is the schooling of the future – personalized, one-to-one learning.
“It uses a learning algorithm to match students with activities that best suit them, based on a diagnostic assessment of their performance at the end of the previous school day.
Each student receives a daily customized “playlist” that might include teacher-led instruction, online modules, small group work, or one-on-one tutoring delivered live or online. ”
Click to access nextgenlearning.pdf
Machine-scoring tests:
“One benefit of computerized scoring is you can get scores back sooner and it drives down costs,” explained Laura McGiffert Slover, chief executive officer of PARCC Inc., a non-profit that stands for Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. It is coordinating the development of new assessments for 14 states* plus the District of Columbia.”
Not more accurate or better, but cheaper and faster. Let’s just be clear on the goals here.
“For example, The New York Times reported in 2012 that MIT professor Les Perelman tested an ETS (Education Testing Service) computer grader and found that it gave lower marks to a well-argued essay than a longer essay with nonsensical sentences. Pearson, which will be administering the PARCC tests, refused to allow Prof. Perelman to test its software-grading
system.”
http://hechingerreport.org/content/new-common-core-exams-will-test-whether-robo-grader-accurate-human_15312/
I think public ed advocates should take a bow. Opposition to excessive standardized testing has now broken thru to general media, and you were there first 🙂
http://wuis.org/post/testing-season-opens-schools-some-ask-how-much-too-much
If you think it is just a one time expenditure also, realize that content/device providers (like Amplify) are really interested in recurring revenue streams with yearly content licensing/device maintenance costs on a per student basis (I’ve heard deals between $75-$100 per student per year). Unlike textbooks, which once you buy you have for as long as you want to us it, digital content/tools are likely to be prices on usage basis–pay annually or your stuff/access evaporates. A great business model for them! For those that believe people are the heart of teaching and learning, not so great.
Also, people get locked into a provider. Switching becomes very, very difficult. Not good.
Exactly – you will be obligated to pay by the seat, per year, and will not have the option to stretch your materials an extra year or two or three to save money (or wait for the next big change); if they make a change that you don’t like, you’re stuck with that.
It affects professional development costs as well – if they change the curriculum out from under you, you need to find time and money for more teacher training… and the textbook people will be more than happy to supply that for you, for a fee of course.
Interesting comment as I am now adding another dimension to the use of computers for testing… the “ed reformy folk” can use this as a strategy to weed out even more teachers and implement Gate’s vision of one teacher on line directing students in a large room on their individual computers while a babysitter walks the aisles! Putting the tests on line basically mandates an enormous increase in computers in schools when money is already tight. Is it not hideous that cash-strapped school budgets will be letting roofs stay leaky, class sizes getting even bigger and teachers getting fired just to pay for more and more technology! This will only perpetuate school district draining funds for tech firms for continual updating and repair of tech equipment etc…
Might anyone have said the same thing about libraries in an earlier age?
No.
simple: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ + more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The state of Delaware purchased and distributed 10,000 new computers to be used exclusively for testing.
I think I may have been the only person to question this.
So the cost of the computers is one thing, but it is not a one time expenditure.
First, most classrooms aren’t wired to allow all the computers to be plugged in, so most places are using laptops and charging the batteries. It’s typical you’d have to replace batteries annually when you use them this way, at $100 or so a pop. (Most classroom desks aren’t big enough for a laptop either.)
These devices won’t last as long as a textbook – even business users usually think on a 2-3 year cycle, and the kids will probably be harder on equipment.
Then, you need technical staff to maintain and troubleshoot. A business organization with 100 full time users would usually have two or three full time employees for this purpose. In our case we might say 100 devices, if kids are time-sharing them or not on their computers all day every day. But still, that means even a small school should have one or two full time technology workers to ensure the devices are running smoothly all the time and that no class time is lost due to network problems, software problems, hardware issues, glitches, etc. And that’s an ongoing cost forever.
Finally – rollouts are complicated. It’s worth learning from private industry here – there are multitudes of examples of companies with thousands of devices locked in a closet because of the extreme difficulty in getting them configured and out to employees. Kids’ classroom time is actually far more fleeting and more valuable than an employee’s time.