Gerri K. Singer, an educator in Illinois, performed a Lexile analysis of four major standardized tests. The Lexile rating measures the difficulty of the language.

She analyzed sample questions from PARCC, SAT, SBA, and ACT.

Categories Standardized Testing

25 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

retired teacher says:

October 1, 2015 at 10:46 am

This is what you get when a bunch of elitist amateurs create a test designed to fail most students. It is a developmentally inappropriate test using archaic language with inconsistent readability levels that may allow some affluent students with a wide range of experiences to pass. Although most students will be frustrated since the content is beyond the scope of their experiential and lexile base. This test is a waste of time as it tells us nothing useful about the reading levels of the students because the content is out of sync with grade level expectations. As Stephen Krashen says,”Harder is not necessarily better.” Opt Out!!! Refuse the nonsense!

LikeLike

Reply
- retired teacher says:
  
  October 1, 2015 at 10:49 am
  
  Sorry: pass, although
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
- H.A. Hurley says:
  
  October 1, 2015 at 11:07 am
  
  The CorpProfiteers’ mission is not to improve the education of our children! Their MISSION is ONLY to privatize, make $M – $Z on charters, technology, toxic testing and exploiting children FOREVER.
  They are making progress, if only RealTeachers & suburban moms would bud-out, they would have reached their goal as soon as W/Obama/Duncan/Gates/Waltons/Broad & Co. set up shop.
  Why even bother with Lexile Scores?
  Why not just publish PARCC tests and others in the most obscure foreign languages and fail kids immediately. Fail their teachers on the spot and plug in America’s priviledged 22 year olds for a couple of years while living at home and paying off outrageous student loans? Come on, have a heart!
  They had it all worked out until WE figured out their motives and messed it all up. Now, they have to constantly change, spin and reinvent their paths. Why drag this out?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - retired teacher says:
    
    October 1, 2015 at 11:29 am
    
    The goals of the tests are political, not educational. Since they have no authentic value, why should students be subjected to them and why should schools waste valuable academic time on them?
    
    LikeLike
NYC public school parent says:

October 1, 2015 at 10:52 am

I’d probably do poorly in all those exams because I followed the link and I admit to being thoroughly confused. Is the conclusion that the PARCC tests were more difficult than the SAT and ACT?

LikeLike

Reply
- retired teacher says:
  
  October 1, 2015 at 11:02 am
  
  This is the case on certain selections.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Susan Lee Schwartz says:

October 1, 2015 at 10:54 am

Also, at the site was this gem

WATCH: New Key and Peele Skit Imagines a World Where We Glorify Teachers Like We Do Athletes

which I put up at oped with this comment (which has embedded links not working there)

When people talk about the important people in their lives they alway mention teachers, yet the assault on the profession has victimized the very people who lifted our citizens into their lives. All this while the public watched sports and spectacles.

The irony is great, but the results, the ending of the profession so that the voice of educators would be lost, has enabled the privatization of our institution of PUBLIC EDUCATION.

Go to the Diane Ravitch blog and get the daily feed, to see the ongoing and quick destruction. and put or corruption or privatization or ‘charter school fraud’, IN THE SEARCH FIELD and get the truth about the end of the INSTITUTION of public education in America, and with it goes the road to opportunity that once raised our poorest people, and our immigrants to a place in the American dream.

The reality is that an ignorant public cannot participate in a democracy which depends on shared knowledge, as E.D. Hirsh says.

LikeLike

Reply
Duane Swacker says:

October 1, 2015 at 11:02 am

While the Lexile critique is a fine challenge to these tests, the fact remains that from the start (fundamentally conceptually, i.e., epistemologically and ontologically) the tests are COMPLETELY INVALID. Noel Wilson has proven so in his never refuted nor rebutted 1997 treatise on educational standards and standardized testing “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700

Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine.

1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.

2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).

3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.

4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”

In other words all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.

5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.

6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.

7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”

In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?

My answer is NO!!!!!

One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:

“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”

In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.

LikeLike

Reply
Dienne says:

October 1, 2015 at 11:17 am

I’ve heard that some schools try to prevent kids from reading books that are too “hard” (or too “easy”) based solely on the lexile level, regardless how interested the kid might be in reading the book. Then we’re going to turn around and give them tests with reading that they are intentionally not interested in at a lexile level well above their level. What could possibly go wrong?

LikeLike

Reply
- retired teacher says:
  
  October 1, 2015 at 11:39 am
  
  Reading teachers strive to find students’ instructional level. This is the most teachable level since students will find most of the content comprehensible, but they will still have to stretch to attain a high level of comprehension. That’s the sweet spot where the teacher can help students hone skills and strategies. The frustration level is so named because students lose understanding, and as a result, they learn very little from the experience. Teachers sometimes introduce students more difficult texts as part of a shared reading experience, not independent reading.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Steve K says:

October 1, 2015 at 11:30 am

This is the game people. Make the tests harder AND make the proficient cutscore higher and get the desired “honest” results.

I asked parents at Open House if they supported my proposed policy: I will make all tests incredibly difficult. I will make the “passing” score 85%. I asked who was in favor of that. No hands were raised. The parents looked at me and tried to figure out if it was a joke. I was unable to remain expressionless.

They breathed sighs of relief.

LikeLike

Reply
- dianeravitch says:
  
  October 1, 2015 at 11:36 am
  
  Steve K,
  
  This is exactly what is happening with the CC tests. The tests are written above grade level. The cut scores (passing marks) are equivalent to 85%, more or less, probably more. Most kids will fail. The SBAC and PARCC have said so when they aligned the tests with NAEP proficient, which is not average or grade level but a high passing score.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
- NYS Teacher says:
  
  October 1, 2015 at 12:11 pm
  
  No need to be facetious. All teachers should adopt the Common Core test writing philosophy.
  
  In order to be rigorous all classroom tests should include:
  
  1) Readability @ +2-3 grade levels
  2) Archaic vocabulary (see on-line Victorian English translator)
  2) Syntax = convoluted/confusing (See on-line Palin translator)
  3) Subjective answer choices in objective format
  4) Abstract content above cognitive developmental levels
  
  And when your gung-ho, Kommon Kore Kool-Aid drinking administrator complains that you are failing too many children,
  just let them know that they aren’t as smart as you think.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - retired teacher says:
    
    October 1, 2015 at 1:50 pm
    
    Well stated and clever, NYS Teacher!
    
    LikeLike
KrazyTA says:

October 1, 2015 at 11:31 am

retired teacher: you are going to give “elitist amateurs” a bad name if you keep this up!

😏

Label then sort then stack rank. Test to punish. Measure to fail. That’s the rheephorm program for OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN.

For THEIR OWN CHILDREN there’s Lakeside School and Delbarton School and U of Chicago Lab Schools and Sidwell Friends and Harpeth Hall and such.

From the upper school director of Lakeside School, 9-21-2015:

[start]

One of the great benefits of my job is that I get to sit in on lots of classes. This past week, I watched students in an advanced anatomy and physiology class discuss the fundamentals of bipedalism. Transcendentalism was the topic of the week in an American literature class I witnessed. And students in a ninth grade history class focused on the Silk Road, discussing the impact of trade on different cultures.

As I observed these classes – one filled with mostly seniors, one entirely made of juniors, and one of freshmen – I was struck by the fact that our teachers are masters at pitching their instruction to the developmental needs of the students in their rooms, both in terms of the content they teach as well as the skills. While the content of these courses is always intriguing to me, I find myself lately focusing on how students develop the skills they need to become successful students.

In fact, in our ninth grade courses, those skills are featured as heavily as the content. As I sat in on that ninth grade history class last week, even as students were learning about the Silk Road, the teacher provided direct instruction on note-taking and then collected the students’ reading notes from the night before to ensure that those skills were developing appropriately.

In the more advanced classes, I noticed students using those very skills that had been taught their freshman year. In anatomy and physiology, the student sitting in front of me opened his laptop and there on the screen were his reading notes from the night before. Just as students were asked to do in that ninth grade history class, he had outlined the article he had read, and even posited a few questions, each of which he raised during the class discussion.

While the content of our courses are incredibly compelling, the skills are equally so. By developing the skills necessary to be good students, our kids learn to take responsibility for their own learning.

[end]

Link: http://www.lakesideschool.org/podium/default.aspx?t=204&sdb=1&nid=993649&bl=/default.asp

Yes, I noticed that too: all that touchy-feely blather about the teachers being “masters at pitching their instruction to the developmental needs of the students in their rooms” but—

NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY word about the über importance of test prep and narrowing the curriculum so that the “right” stuff is emphasized to the increasing exclusion of everything else.

What in the world was Bill Gates thinking when he enrolled his children in this educational equivalent of a House of Horrors?!?!?

😎

LikeLike

Reply
Part of the Problem says:

October 1, 2015 at 12:09 pm

Keeping his and the other parents’ special snowflakes from “those kids,” KTA. What else?

LikeLike

Reply
- KrazyTA says:
  
  October 1, 2015 at 9:56 pm
  
  You’re right. The leading rheephormsters and their chief enforcers and enablers wouldn’t want their own “precious snowflakes” from actually going through rheephorm hazing rituals in order to develop rigor and grit, now would they?
  
  No, it’s enriched learning and teaching, complete with the performing and fine arts, and athletics of all types and age & skill levels, and clubs galore, and education abroad programs and summer camps, and the list goes on and on…
  
  Rigor and grit are only for those that will have to learn to survive on little more than, well, rigor and grit…
  
  Or maybe it’s just the predictable results of a business plan that masquerades as an education model.
  
  Hmmmm…
  
  😎
  
  P.S. Exaggerate, I do? [Yoda. STAR WARS. Google, please, shills and trolls.]
  
  Let’s see, this blog, 3-23-2014, “Common Core for Commoners, Not My School!”—
  
  [start posting]
  
  This is an unintentionally hilarious story about Common Core in Tennessee. Dr. Candace McQueen has been dean of Lipscomb College’s school of education and also the state’s’s chief cheerleader for Common Core. However, she was named headmistress of private Lipscomb Academy, and guess what? She will not have the school adopt the Common Core! Go figure.
  
  end posting]
  
  Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2014/03/23/common-core-for-commoners-not-my-school/
  
  Gag me with a spoon!
  
  😏
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
7th grade teacher in a Texas title 1 public school says:

October 1, 2015 at 1:12 pm

I truly believe that the only way they can “toughen” up a test is by using vocabulary that is several (if not five or six) grade levels above the student.

Social studies content is not that hard to explain, even to 12 year olds.

Why not give a test in plain English. We make lawyers talk that way, don’t we?

LikeLike

Reply
Sheila Resseger says:

October 1, 2015 at 2:17 pm

If I am reading this correctly (still honing my close reading skills), this eye-opening post reinforces a point that I have tried to make but haven’t seen others make as yet. Students may be reading at grade level (whatever that means), which is their instructional level. The classroom texts are understood with teacher guidance and peer interaction. Texts that students are required to read during standardized assessments should be at their INDEPENDENT reading level, which by definition is below their instructional reading level. How can they possibly analyze text that is more difficult than their grade level, and therefore much above their independent reading level? Didn’t the geniuses who made up these tests understand this basic point? Oh, nevermind …

LikeLike

Reply
- retired teacher says:
  
  October 1, 2015 at 2:53 pm
  
  If the goal of assessment is to learn something useful about students, then the reading level should be comfortable for the majority of students. Even then, only through item analysis can we see if the students mastered locating information, drawing conclusions, analysis of text, application of information and other comprehension skills. By the way, teachers can find out this information more efficiently and cheaply without a standardized test. When a test is on the frustration level, all we learn is that the test was over the students’ head, ie. comprehension was lost for most, and there is no specific informed to be gleaned. Since PARCC and the other CCSS tests are political rather than educational, they are worthless.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - retired teacher says:
    
    October 1, 2015 at 4:30 pm
    
    Sorry: specific information
    
    LikeLike
- NY Teacher says:
  
  October 1, 2015 at 4:47 pm
  
  “Didn’t the geniuses who made up these tests understand this basic point?”
  
  They understand it all too well.
  
  There are only so many ways to produce super-failure rates.
  One way to guarantee 70% failure is to construct test items far beyond the average ability level of the test taker.
  
  Throw in some tricky and confusing word play; mix with opinion questions which require children be able to be mind readers (author intent), and garnish with cut scores that mirror NEAP pass rates and voila! . . . Super failure!
  
  They understand all too well.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - retired teacher says:
    
    October 1, 2015 at 7:31 pm
    
    Then, take these pitiful scores, and using magic mathematical obfuscation, decide which teachers live to teach another day! This is logical conclusion of the absurdity. Thank God I retired from NY before it lost its mind.
    
    LikeLike
rbeckley58 says:

October 1, 2015 at 4:37 pm

Let’s not forget that the CC profiteers, like Pearson, persuaded the Lexile company to raise its standards and re-label the difficulty level of reading passages. That makes CC tests seem one grade “easier” than they actually are.

LikeLike

Reply
relationship says:

December 29, 2016 at 4:13 pm

Having read this I believed it was very informative.
I appreciate you taking the time and energy to put
this short article together. I once again find
myself personally spending way too much time both reading and commenting.
But so what, it was still worthwhile!

LikeLike

Reply