Catherine Gewertz reports in Education Week that 51% of American students will not be taking either the PARCC or Smarter Balanced (SBAC) tests. These tests were underwritten by a U.S. Department of Education grant of $360 million and were designed to test the Common Core standards. Eighteen states will use the Smarter Balanced tests, while only 10 states and the District of Columbia will use PARCC. About a dozen states that initially agreed to administer the PARCC tests have backed out. The SBAC might lose one of its 18 states, since Governor Scott Walker proposed pulling Wisconsin out of SBAC.
Given these numbers, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which tests samples of students in every state (and D.C.), will continue to be the authoritative national gauge of student test scores. With only 28% of the nation’s students taking the same test (SBAC), the public will not be able to compare student performance from state to state, unless they happen to live in the 18 states giving the SBAC. Why it is valuable to compare the performance of students in different states remains a puzzle; why it was necessary to spend $360 million to do so is even more puzzling, given that the same information is gathered and published by NAEP for all 50 states and D.C.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“These tests were underwritten by a U.S. Department of Education grant of $360 million and were designed to test the Common Core standards.”
I don’t like to use the “F” word in my class but that statement right there is a sure sign of FAILURE. I wish I could spend $360 million and FAIL (without going to jail).
LikeLike
The original plan for tests of the Common Core State Standards was for comparability in the SBAC and PARCC test scores.
Recall that all of the advertising for the Common Core State Standards emphasized that this was “state-led initiative” –pure spin contrived to maintain the pretense of not being a giant step toward a nationalized system of standards, assessments, and curriculum-based instruction.
From the get go, there was evidence that the two consortia were seeking “comparability” in their tests and cut scores–in effect creating form A and form B for a high stakes national test and possibly distracting attention from the value of National Assessment of Educational Progress tests.
Here is the language that helped get the money for test development from USDE..
In applying for funds to USDE in December 2010, PARCC said it would “coordinate with the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium on… artificial intelligence scoring, setting achievement levels, and anchoring high school assessments in the knowledge and skills students need to be prepared for postsecondary education and careers” (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2010, December 23). Proposal for supplemental race to the top assessment award. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/parccsupplementalproposal12-23achievefinal.pdf p. 3).
Similarly, the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) asserted: “SBAC and PARCC are strongly committed to ensuring comparability between their assessments…[including] collaborative standard setting that will facilitate valid comparisons of achievement levels (cut scores) in each consortium’s summative test…” SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2011, January 6). Supplemental funding budget narrative submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. p. 31. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/sbac-supplemental-budget-narrative_final.pdf p. 31).
There has certainly been a drop in the number of states on board for these tests, but if the 2010-2011 “commitments” of the two test-design groups were acted upon, then the cut scores should be comparable.
The last I heard the test developers had no clear idea of how to set the cut scores except by reference to the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests. But the test developers also did not realize they need to have some curriculum materials to develop their tests–so they each applied for and received $15 million for that purpose after the main proposals had been approved by USDE. The scale of the bungling is in proportion to the absence of know-how in education at USDE, with Arne Duncan in charge of the operations.
LikeLike
“the value of National Assessment of Educational Progress tests” is the same as that of any standardized test, fools gold, a falsehood attempting to wear the mantle of truth which has never been woven.
LikeLike
Actually, NAEP has and does provide very useful information, and has helped many researchers question the testing movement. Think about major differences. NAEP is not a “high stakes” test. No student is forced to sit for hours… instead, using well designed stratified random sampling, students are chosen to be tested. None of the schools or students know far ahead of time who is going to be tested. No student takes the entire portion of ANY of the assessments. They only take certain questions. All of the data is then compiled, creating a vast storehouse of researchable data greater (In terms of what we know about characteristics of the students, their families, and their schools. But, and key, there is no personally identifiable data in the data sets.) So there is little to no angst about taking the assessment, there are no consequences for students, schools, or even states and districts taking part, and much useful information emerges. Such information has been very useful in questioning many of the failed policies of “reformers” who are pushing for much more testing. NAEP tells us such things as “Louisiana, which has ranked at or near the bottom in 4th grade reading in the nation (in terms of average scale score) actually achieved parity for every major subgroup by race and household income levels by 2005. That is to say, African-American students in Louisiana whose household incomes qualified them for free meals, scored at the same level as the national average for African-American students across the US whose household incomes qualified them for free meals. In fact, for ever major subgroup, across grade levels and household income levels, Louisiana’s students were at or above the national average. Yet Louisiana’s overall scores were at the bottom. Why? Simpson’s Paradox. Yes, it was NAEP data in particular that led many anti-reformers to challenge the reformer to stop labeling schools as “failing” when they explained how Simpson’s Paradox was playing out in their state scores. Diane Ravitch was heavily involved (not only as a member of the US Department of Education, but also as a member of the Board of Directors) in NAEP, and it was partially through the use of NAEP data that she became convinced of the error of her early positions on testing and accountability. She now uses NAEP to point out that those mis-using NAEP should be held accountable! https://dianeravitch.net/2013/11/08/naep-nonsense-dont-believe-the-hype/
Another benefit of NAEP is the number of variables and combinations of variables we can examine using the NAEP Data sets. It is through some of this data that we can show the failures of many reforms, and illustrate that there has been no overall increase in the academic performance of students in districts using vouchers, vs districts not using vouchers. Think Cleveland, Milwaukee, for example. In addition, it is partly through NAEP data that researchers can challenge VAM and other nefarious “reforms” by pointing out that “out-of-school factors have a much greater impact on student achievement as measured by standardized tests that factors within the school themselves. See http://bit.ly/WhatIf5 for some of the ways that I have used NAEP in challenging reformers.
In short, NAEP can be our teachers greatest source of support. Can it be mis-used, or course, which is why you follow the work of people like Diane Ravitch. Right?
LikeLike
Noel, you hit some good points.
But you may want to duck because you’re probably about to get slammed.
LikeLike
Ptogress, for sure. But we have to be careful what we ask for …. My state ,sc, and I’m sure others will still be using “Common Core” tests, many off the shelf, even cheaper, and of more dubious quality.
It might help bring the house down, but we’re in for some chaotic years.
What are some other states doing?
LikeLike
Doesn’t matter which one states use, THEY’RE ALL COMPLETELY INVALID.
LikeLike
Here in MA we are still using MCAS but we are scheduled to begin PARCC next year.
LikeLike
Not quite. Some systems are using PARCC this year, including Boston.
LikeLike
The MCAS is still the high stakes graduation test – this year.
Yes, some schools are doing PARCC, but it is still in pilot. From what I understand the state board will vote in the fall on whether or not to switch to PARCC.
LikeLike
New York is going into its third year of Pearson paper tests in ELA and math. The ELA tests have been loaded with subjective MC items which completely invalidates the result. This is also the first year that NY requires CC algebra I for 9th graders as a GRADUATION REQUIREMENT in place of the old algebra I Regents (which had a 74% pass rate using a raw pass/fail cut score of 30/85). This is an historic moment in the death throes of Common Core as the minute these bogus tests are used to prevent students from graduating, parental outrage will reach tsunami proportions and the lawyers should finally swoop in.
LikeLike
That CC Algebra test was loaded with Algebra 2 level topics, not one solve a linear equations but several exponentials , quadratics, “complete the square”, and everything was in function notation. It was an extremely difficult test and we had some 10th grade boys in tears. NY state is going to end up with the worst graduation rate in the country.
LikeLike
Yes, the great Empire State is on the cutting edge of stimulated, institutionalized failure. Its heartening to know that Governor Cuomo is “lobbyist for the children”.
I’ve heard that the CC geometry is just as unreasonable as the algebra 1.
LikeLike
The CC English Regents was difficult as well. Anton Chekov and Stephen Hawkings for reading passages. An analysis of a Thoreau passage for the short response “essay.” These tests are not designed as “graduation” level exams, but they are designed to sort and rank. Did any other New Yorkers notice that 79 is the new proficiency level on this test? A student who scores 65-78 is only partially proficient, in other words, not ready for college and career. passing the English and Algebra Regents exams are mandatory for graduation in New York (Special education students who can’t pass these tests now receive a “credential” rather than a diploma). get ready for the onslaught of not college and career ready New Yorkers.
LikeLike
Well, it makes complete sense when you think about it – these are important skills and knowledge that all working adults need to have. I mean, the first thing I look for in a roofer is can he solve quadratic equations. And I’d never hire a plumber who couldn’t understand Hawking. And a large part of my job revolves around interpreting Chekov.
Oh, wait….
LikeLike
In Washington state we are firmly in the SBAC camp with a Superintendent of Public Instruction who supports
testing and linking the scores of the SBAC to teacher evaluations. We are just beginning the push back against the testing and common core, very much in its infancy. The SBAC was piloted in many districts last year and this year it is for real. I just sent home a newsletter that gave a link to SBAC practice tests and invited parents to take a look at what their students will be doing. I am predicting that most parents won’t read it carefully, don’t have the time to research it, don’t read it at all, or trust that we know what we are doing. There might be a few who have questions, I hope. I mentioned OPT OUT in a meeting with admin about the conferences we have to have by the end of the school year with parents of any third grader who scores below basic on the SBAC and it didn’t go over well.
LikeLike
I think that PARCC and/or SBAC are an attempt to replace the NAEP that is run by a department in the DOE and is a government agency by tests generated by the private sector—meaning Pearson probably doesn’t profit from the NAEP but it will profit from the PARCC and/or SBAC.
It’s all part of the Milton Friedman process of privatizing for profit every service the state and federal governments provide. For instance, the privatization of prisons that caused lobbyists who work for the private sector prison industry to lobby for stricter laws and longer sentences leading to the U.S. prison population to grow from a quarter million to more than eight times the number locked up in prison.
The corporate reform movement to replace the public schools with corporate charters and vouchers to private and religious schools is just another part of the agenda to privatize government so corporations will profit.
In fact, privatization of military operations around the world has also been under way for years.
LikeLike
PARCC and SBAC are DEAD in the WATER. The testing disaster that is about to unfold will trigger a parental rebellion that will not be quelled by Arne or his minions.
LikeLike
Arne is a minion—of Bill Gates and the Walton family. Arne’s minions are fleas.
LikeLike
I hope you are right.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike