When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal announced he was withdrawing the state from the PARCC tests, he expressed concern about competitive bidding, among other things. He was not the only one to have this issue.
At the beginning of 2014, Kentucky decided to withdraw from the PARCC testing consortium. PARCC is one of two federally funded testing groups aligned to the Common Core.
Kentucky’s main decision for dropping PARCC was the absence of a competitive bidding process.
Read what the governor wrote. Kentucky state law requires a fair and equitable RFP process, and PARCC is welcome to submit a bid to the competitive process.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I’m wondering about the item three on his list. He writes that Kentucky has limited resources so cannot “monitor and contribute” to this work.
I wonder what it costs states to continue to develop the tests. Not the cost of any one year of testing, not the purchase price, but the development of the tests going forward.
Are states picking up the R and D tab for Pearson forever, thru PARCC? PARCC does the collaboration with state actors (who all have to be paid) and then that collected information/modification goes to Pearson, because it has to or the tests won’t reflect any agreed-upon changes.
Does Pearson own all that work the moment it’s captured by their next iteration of testing, or can another testing company jump in and benefit from the information collected by public school students and developed by publicly-paid education people at the state level?
I hope Pearson doesn’t own it, or they’ll be the sole beneficiary of an entirely publicly-funded research project.
For example, ten years from now, can another testing company say “I need everything you’ve collected from testing students and interviewing teachers and taking their suggestions in X state so we can develop a CC test to compete with Pearson”?
What if a state wanted to develop their own publicly-owned CC test product or use the information for an alternate evaluation/assessment? Do they own the information collected or does PARRC and/or Pearson?
Contract Conundrum: The Massachusetts field-test approach provided a “custom development” argument (initial administration of the PARCC assessments) : Large- scale pilot testing, or beta testing.
Expending state funds for such activities prior to declaring the test operational could certainly be regarded as “Dicey”
According to the National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment: ” that approach raises other issues outside of the procurement process such as funding and operating two assessments during the extended transition, maintaining accountability systems, etc., Also, the ”test drive” approach places much more emphasis on the technical and operational status of the new assessment than it does on an “adoption” decision. In other words, the implication is that we have adopted this custom assessment and will begin to use it when it is ready rather than the view that an adoption decision is deferred until after the assessment is developed. ”
So I would say that any of these procurements in the different states could be “dicey”…. and open to audit as Jindal suggests.
NCIEA provides “An analogy might be accepting delivery of a custom-built house from a general contractor – you will not accept the house and move in until all of your specifications have been met, but there is no question that, barring a catastrophe, you will move into that custom house that you are building at some point in the future.”
It reminds me of the article yesterday of the house built and there was a half-empty breaker box while the house was being electrified throughout with extension cords etc.
But what does the state get out of the deal going forward, other than the obligation to purchase a test from Pearson?
If there’s only one testing contractor involved in developing the test and the (evolved) product then belongs to that contractor then the states whole publicly-funded research investment is going to the benefit of that one contractor.
If modifications to the test in Year Two and thereafter come as a result of student-collected data and teacher input, then that work was wholly publicly-funded and Pearson will benefit.
Pearson should be paying Kentucky, not the other way around.
yes, Chiara that is a major point…. Pearson owns the “stuff”… they have their copyright on the Mass teacher education test. I think a few of the states are now saying they have to put these contracts out to bid whereas Arne Duncan came up with some federal money to get the consortia off the ground states were and are expected to foot the bills and the costs are exorbitant. The law suit by AIR had some of these points in discussion .
Kentucky’s Common Core tests were developed for them by Pearson. They have given them for two years.
Paul Peterson preaches this at the Harvard graduate program as intentionally deforming the governance structures: quote: “Multiple benefits would result from separating most education-reform efforts from the SEA, whether via contracts or wholly independent organizations. External Exempt from cumbersome state procurement procedures, civil-service rules and pay scales, they can more readily attract talent and customize their purchases and outlays.”
By making one state the “lead” in signing up with PEARSON/PARCC for the entire consortium, legal procurement requirements in individual states can be side tracked. I think Jindal has a case he can build here.
The Common Core and PARCC will ruin education as we know it..And, of course, it is all part of the overall plan. My school starts PARCC this next school year. My 2.5 hour paper and pencil test (in only one subject).. will be replaced by three (3) two hour “tasks” in February. (My students will have to sit down at a computer THREE times at 2 hours each in February.) I’m not done yet….In May my students have to sit down at the computer for two (2) hour tests on the computer. My 2.5 hour paper and pencil test is now replaced by 10 hours of testing for only one subject. My students will also do the same amount of testing in three (3) other subjects. My students now will be completing 40 hours of testing on a computer in a given year. Oh, and my students are only 11 and 12 years old. They yearn to go outside and play kickball and basketball at recess. But, they have no recess. They only have 10 extra minutes after they finish lunch to play outside.
I was blessed to teach in the what I now know were the “good ole days” of yesteryear. I dearly miss and mourn for those years. I was able to teach through fun and meaningful learning activities! We had TIME! (: As I go through my files over my almost 30 year career in the same subject and grade level, I don’t begin to get the material taught and covered as what I used to. I have thick files of learning activities that I never get to anymore. The curriculum director at our school has already said that he has no clue how he will get all that testing done for all of our kids. He said there is a 4 week window in February and April/May, so students will be gone at different times in my classroom. It will be a nightmare.
It’s a shame that Pearson has to take away the childhood of our children, so they can earn their millions. I teach children. They are children. They love to run, play, draw, make faces, jump up and down, play tag, tease each other, hide, run around, make jokes, and enjoy being a child. With all of these hours of testing, I will not have time to teach anymore. The test preparation for a 2.5 hour test was bad enough, but this is totally ridiculous. Then, take the time to read over the Common Core and you will laugh to yourself. In Language Arts, they will be teaching adverbs to 3rd graders, with not much more emphasis on it after that. I think they know the Common Core will be the bullet that finally kills all public education in the U.S. The kids will not score well on this silly curriculum, which will be recorded on the teacher’s evaluation . . .and teachers will be let go. Yes, it’s all a part of the sad overall plan. It’s evident that the Common Core was created by people who knew very little about the developmental stages of our children. No one ever mentions Piaget anymore. It’s all so sad. But, Sasha and Alieah don’t have to follow these communist socialist education rules. Do they?
Thanks for giving us the details on the length of the tests in hours and in days premempted, also the time of year, and means of administration, and “testing window.” You did not tell us the subjects you are teaching or the other subjects with the same cycles of testing. Even so, these first-person reports show how idiotic it is for economists and statiticians to speak of “a year’s worth of growth,” as if instructional time, accountability time, and the length of a school year are all the same and standardized across the nation. Nevermind the absurdity, that metric “a year’s worth of growth” in your case and in the case of your students is really about the difference in scores between February tests and those in April/May.
Excellent post. Thanks
I know what you mean about not having time to really teach anymore. As for your comment about teaching Adverbs to 3rd graders….prepositional phrases are part of the CCSS ELA Standards in 1st grade. Sadly, the system in which I each adopted Pearson’s Common Core Scott Frresman Reading Street series. Adverbs along with the prepositional phrases are in the 1st grade workbook. I am luck, thoughy. My principal doesn’t really keep up with my lesson plans and is rarely in my room. I teach what I want for the most part. We are still giving the ITBS in my system. Some of the students I tutor from elsewhere are not as lucky, however. CCSS is so developmentally inappropriate!
This is crazy! No one pays attention to total testing time. Somehow,we need parents to pay attention to this.
Kentucky’s Doc Holliday is a spin doctor. He will put his ‘this is best for Ky because’ spin on anything that is pro common core and assessments. He doesn’t work for our students. He works so that Kentucky will have the highest scores. That is his number one concern. This is our commissioner of education in Kentucky AND president of the Council of Chief State School Officers. Our students are doomed to an educational life of testing.
@Sad Teacher, what you describe happening to your students sounds exactly like what Doc Holliday wants in Kentucky.
Here is his blog, no comments allowed of course. His June 20th entry speaks to PARCC and SBAC. His June 6th entry speaks of the ‘task and test’ assessments we NEED for science.
http://kyedcommissioner.blogspot.com/
Amen, CaptnSassy! Amen!
Does California require such a bidding process?
I don’t know if California requires a bidding process, but most states do. California is in the Smarter Balanced consortium and unlike PARCC there is no master contract for the assessment vendor. Each state in the consortium will use the Smarter Balanced assessment items, performance levels, and assessment blueprint, but each state will need to separately procure a vendor for test administration, scoring, and reporting. The procurement process is at varying stages of completion in Smarter Balanced states.
Are the SBAC tests scheduled for spring 2015? Will they be ready?
Yes, they are scheduled for Spring 2015 and I expect them to be ready. We did not participate in the SBAC field test, but in speaking with colleagues in districts that field tested, the assessment was functional and they did not encounter any major issues.
What is less clear is when the optional SBAC interim assessments and the professional development digital library will be available. They will arrive in the upcoming school year, but I have not seen a firm date yet.
I’m not interested in the comprehensive assessment (IAC) due to time, but if there is a usable block assessment (IAB) that is similar in time to STAR or MAP, I would ask our teachers to evaluate it as a possible universal benchmark assessement for RtI.
New York State has temporarily suspended its commitment to PACC testing, yet did participate in PARCC field testing this spring. Technology infrastructure and bandwidth issues were the stated reasons for the suspensions. The future of PARCC testing in NYS remains in doubt.
I think that many are justifiably concerned about the validity and appropriateness of the new national testing instruments. The experience in New York was certainly a wake-up call. There has been altogether too much heat and not enough light with regard to this issue. Here are my recommendations:
1. The proponents of the testing want accountability. They want mechanisms for ensuring that learning is taking place. This is a reasonable expectation. However, we must make sure that those mechanisms are valid.
2. The summative standardized tests in ELA have validity issues. These derive, I think, for using the wrong tool for the intended job. One doesn’t use a $500 micrometer to hammer a nail. One doesn’t use a yardstick to measure the dimensions for a $30,000-dollar handmade violin. Summative standardized tests can do a superb job of determining whether a student has mastered basic decoding skills. They can do a superb job of measuring purely factual content. For other purposes, they are generally not appropriate tools. It makes sense, if we are going to use such instruments, to use them for the purpose for which they are best suited, and it would be valuable to establish this kind of baseline accountability via such a mechanism: Has the student mastered basic decoding skills? There are excellent tests for this purpose. Such tests would be appropriate as minimum graduation requirements.
3. For measurement of more sophisticated reading ability, we need to be using performance portfolios requiring critical and creative writing, demonstration of mastery of large (but not necessarily identical) bodies of content, and demonstration of ability to communicate sustained thinking. Such tests would be appropriate as requirements for various kinds of certification to be appended to certificate of fulfillment of minimum graduation requirements–graduation with certification in vocational English, technical writing, argumentation and debate, creative writing, general honors academic/critical analysis, etc. One might even offer the new national tests that have been developed as ONE ALTERNATIVE THAT A STUDENT AND HIS OR HER PARENTS OR GUARDIANS CAN CHOOSE AS A MEANS FOR FULFILLING SOME SORT OF HONORS addendum to a standard graduation certificate. So, for example, a student would be able to fulfill the requirements for that general honors academic/critical analysis addendum requirement EITHER via accumulation of a portfolio throughout a high-school career OR a proficient score on one of the new national tests.
Doesn’t that make sense?
Not doing something like what I am proposing here is going to lead us into a nightmare that no one–people on both sides of the “education reform” debate–wants–a repeat of the fiasco in New York. No one would benefit from repeating that on a national level.
And so, a moratorium is not enough. We need to rethink what we are doing here and, I believe, go with an alternative like what I have suggested above.
No one benefits from people taking absolutist, uncompromising positions. I have outlined, above, a compromise position with regard to accountability testing that would enable us all to move forward without a major debacle–the use of summative standardized tests different from the ones that have been developed to measure minimum baseline decoding skills and the development of a variety of portfolio performance testing alternatives to demonstrate a variety of kinds of competence beyond the minimum baseline required for graduation. That there would be various certifications attached to high-school graduation certificates, based on these, would be in keeping with various goals that students, their instructors, their parents and guardians might set for their futures sometime during their high-school careers. It would be in keeping with a recognition that students differ and have differing goals for their futures.
Stop making so much sense; you’re making David, Bill, and Arne look bad.
Thanks. I very much want, NY teacher, to see some positive steps. It grieves me that there is so much rancor and distrust and anger and craziness with regard to these issues. The Gates Foundation just called for a moratorium on high stakes attached to the testing. I think that they recognize that more sensible alternatives need to be worked out.
Has Gates offered sensible alternatives? You are an optimist to a fault sometimes Bob. A nice guy in a dog eat dog business. You know where Bill Gates thinks nice guys will finish. I really appreciate you being the consummate gentleman here.
Being the eternal jaded, pessimist, I think Bill wants a moratorium because the Great Parent Revolt of 2015 is inevitable, unless they back off on the PARCC/SBAC testing. He is counting on slowing the Resistance by slowing their plan. Then hoping for people to move on to other things. Their cash gravy train is about to hit the wall and I think they want to slow it down to avoid the big crash.
The philosopher Geoffrey Klempner writes that “the primary aim of education is to excite [a] sense of wonder about the universe and our place in it.”
This definition of the goal of education is in keeping with my own view that the purpose of an education is to produce intrinsically motivated life-long learners, for someone who is excited by a sense of wonder will seek to satisfy his or her curiosity.
These are the sorts of things that we SAY, and they sound very FINE and NOBLE. But let us imagine that we actually believed these things that we took them seriously, that they became policy.
How would our system differ and what, then, would we test?