Earlier today, we saw a leaked memo in which Pearson defended the tale of the Hare and the Pineapple. It was field-tested, the spokesman said. It was psychometrically sound. It was just a splendid test item, and the corporation couldn’t understand what all the fuss was about. (http://ideas.time.com/2012/05/04/pineapplegate-exclusive-memo-detailing-the-hare-and-the-pineapple-passage/)
There is an adage: When you are in a hole, stop digging.
Well, Pearson, keep digging. It gets better and better.
Fred Smith, who is a testing expert who worked at the old New York City Board of Education, often comments on testing issues in the press and on the New York City parent blog. Today, he wrote the following at the New York City parent listserv:
“Not only that, folks:
This justification from Pearson comes two days after Commissioner John King canned the pineapple. It shows that the Pineapple and the Harewas nationally-normed ten years ago — when the Stanford 10 was standardized.
SED contracted for Pearson to supply 20-25 nationally-normed items per grade per subject (120 to 150 items for ELA and for math). How many of these were developed in 2002? In the testing industry, norms grow stale over time and tests are re-normed to stay up-to-date with achievement levels in the current test population. In short, old norms (based on performance exhibited by 3rd through 8th grade reference groups from ten years ago) are unacceptable. It appears that Pearson resorted to old data in its item bank in order to cut costs.
We also learn from the memo that the Pineapple item was field tested by Pearson in New York State in 2011. [Under the contract, Pearson did stand-alone field testing in 2011 in order to develop the operational 2012 exams given three weeks ago.] This was done despite warnings that stand-alone field testing is prone to being unreliable, because students are not always well-motivated to take such field tests. That was the very reason given for embedding field test items on the April exams,
The fact that the Pineapple item stats gathered from the 2011 field test match up nicely with the stats from data generated by a decade-old national standardization sample has little relevance to the case that Pearson is trying to advance here– that items such as this “have been developed to support valid and reliable interpretations of scores for their intended uses.”
Plain and simple–this is a CYA memo from the publisher who apparently acted to increase its profit margin.
~Fred Smith“
And Lisa Donlan, a Manhattan parent activist, wrote as follows:
“A perfect object lesson in why psychometric pseudo science (and justifying babble) should not replace real live human qualified and trained TEACHERS and teacher-generated assessments.
Why trust this flawed model with evaluating the teaching and learning of our kids, teachers, schools and districts?
And why cut our school budgets to the bone so we can afford these outrageous for-profit vendors, when we (under) pay teachers and administrators to assess effective teaching and learning every day?
This is a sham, a scam and all about the ADULTS, not the kids!
Lisa“
Pineapplegate is the gift that keeps on giving, and Pearson just won’t let go. Keep digging.
Diane
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This blog of yours is fantastic. Hope the well doesn’t run dry any time soon.
I hold a Master of Arts degree in Reading and taught every level of Reading- K through Community College, but surely they are not saying the passage about the hare and the pineapple is an 8th grade Reading test. A rough guess,from my experience of checking reading levels over the years, would put this passage at around 3rd to 4th grade level. I agree the test questions were inadequate and confusing.
You can have a great assessment of worthy learning without it being nationally normed and you also can have a nationally normed test item without it being an assessment of worthy learning. Reading test passages well does not create a literate citizenry. In fact, the last decade of test prep curricula has created an environment where kids may not even savor reading a full book because they are too busy practicing pineapple passages. Our children deserve learning that matters. Thanks for sharing.
Lisa asks, “And why cut our school budgets to the bone so we can afford these outrageous for-profit vendors, when we (under) pay teachers and administrators to assess effective teaching and learning every day?” I certainly don’t have the answer, but Missouri is joining the bandwagon. Top 10 by 20? —heaven help!
~~~~
11/28/2012
The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has issued the following news release:
Vendors Selected to Create New State Educator Certification Assessment System
The state Office of Administration announced the vendors who will assist in the development of a Missouri educator certification assessment system. Educational Testing Service and Evaluation Systems (NCS Pearson) were selected after thorough evaluation from a pool of proposals submitted in response to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s request for proposals (RFPs).
“We look forward to partnering with Educational Testing Service and Evaluation Systems (NCS Pearson) on the new state assessment tools,” said Karla Eslinger, assistant commissioner for the Office of Educator Quality at the Department. “The timing for the development of the assessments provides a great opportunity to align these tools with our new Missouri educator standards. The purpose of these tools is to ensure that our new teachers have the content knowledge and ability to provide quality instruction for success in the classroom, and ultimately for the success of Missouri’s students.”
The creation of the new assessment system was prompted by the new standards for educator preparation programs in Missouri, which were approved by the State Board of Education at its November meeting Tuesday. The Missouri Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) outline the standards educator preparation programs must follow and the requirements students seeking their educator certificate must meet in order to become certified.
“The new assessment tools will capture meaningful data, which will not only measure each candidate’s mastery of required competencies, but also provide valuable information for all preparation programs,” added Eslinger.
The educator assessment RFP opened in September with an October 5 deadline. An evaluation committee, identified through the Office of Administration, then reviewed the proposals and selected the best candidates for final approval. A committee of representatives from educator preparation programs, k-12 education systems, as well as other key members of the education community, will be identified by the Department with the intent to begin working on the development of the new assessment tools in January 2013. Once completed, the new assessment tools will replace or update current exams used to certify educators in Missouri.
The certification assessment addresses one of the Department’s goals within the Top 10 by 20 initiative to prepare, develop and support effective educators. Top 10 by 20 is the Department’s plan to launch Missouri into the top 10 performing states in education by the year 2020.