Stephen Krashen, professor of linguistics at the University of Southern California (emeritus), wrote this post to explain how the adoption of the Common Core will change testing in the nation’s schools:
HOW MUCH TESTING?
At first glance, the assessments now being developed to accompany the common core standards do not appear to be much more than we already have, at least in terms of subject-matter covered and grade level. According to the organizations working on developing standards and tests (PARCC and SBEC), as is the case with NCLB there will be summative end-of-the-year tests in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school and these additions: Writing is added as a component of language arts, and voluntary interim testing will be offered through the academic year.
There is reason to suspect there will be a lot more. As Jim Crawford has stated, “With standards come tests; with more standards, more tests” (letter submitted to the New York Times, July 17, 2012). PARCC accepts this, urging the development of an accountability system that covers P-20 (pre-school through college), and “that supports the full implementation of the common standards” (PARCC: On the Road to Implementation: Achieving the Promise of the Common Core Standards, 2010, Achieve, Inc. p. 4).
More Subjects
There are clear signs that the tests will not be limited to language arts and math. US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, in his 2010 presentation “Beyond the Bubble Tests” states that “the study of science, history, foreign languages, civics and the arts” should be considered part of the “vital core” and deserve to be assessed. The Department of Education’s current proposal to reauthorize the ESEA, he announced, would “allow states to include subjects other than math and English language arts in their accountability system … the reauthorization blueprint includes millions for the research, development, and improvement of additional high-quality assessments–which could include science and foreign language tests.“
The secretary pointed out that science is an area that should be tested, but development of science assessments has to wait until science standards are developed. These standards are being constructed now (http://www.nextgenscience.org).
Similar statements are made in the Blueprint for Reform (US Department of Education, 2010).
Test us too!
The professional educational organizations in a variety of subjects (I must emphasize, the professional organizations, not necessarily the teachers) have endorsed the idea of standards and tests in areas other than language arts and math.
Twenty-one educational organizations have asked for “standards, assessments, accountability systems, and public reporting of achievement” for science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, geography, health and physical education.” (http://www.ascd.org/public-policy/well-rounded-education.aspx.) It was clear that they were not only asking for standards but for tests as well: Their request specifically mentions “standards, assessments, and accountability systems.”
More Grade Levels
PARCC is constructing optional interim tests to be made available for grades K-2, but explicitly notes that the goal is K-12, with benchmarks starting at grade 3: “The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is a consortium of states working together to develop a common set of K-12 assessments in English and math anchored in what it takes to be ready for college and careers. These new K-12 assessments will build a pathway to college and career readiness by the end of high school, mark students’ progress toward this goal from 3rd grade up, and provide teachers with timely information to inform instruction and provide student support. “ (http://www.parcconline.org/about-parcc) (Note that as stated above, PARCC eventually expects assessments for P-20.)
Meanwhile, the US Department of Education has announced a Race to the Top grant competition, the “Early Learning Challenge,” to “design and implement an integrated system of high-quality early learning programs and services” for “infants, toddlers, and preschoolers.” (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/index.html).
This means more standards, and of course more testing: “This competition rewards States that will implement high-quality early learning and development standards and comprehensive systems of assessments aligned with these standards. The implementation of these standards and assessments will ensure that early childhood educators have the information they need to understand and support young children’s growth and development across a broad range of domains so that significantly more young children enter kindergarten ready to succeed.” (From: Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge Application for Initial Funding, CFDA Number: 84.412 , section C).
The Early Learning Challenge was termed “Race to the top for tots” by the New Brunswick Patch. I commented on this initiative here: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/07/stephen_krashen_race_to_the_to.html
It also needs to be pointed out that others are eager to test small children: ACT has developed a test to determine if children are ready for kindergarten. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/career-test-for-kindergar_0_n_1644215.html. Diane Ravitch asked if this is “a sign of educational madness.” https://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/04/a-sign-of-educational-madness/.
Pre-tests?
The US Department of Education has announced its support of “value-added testing”, that is, the use of increases in standardized test scores as a measure.
Secretary Duncan supports the use of value-added measures to evaluate teachers, but maintains that they should not be the only factor in evaluating teachers. He also endorsed value-added measures as a means of rating the Schools of Education teachers attended:
“Let’s do what the State of Louisiana is doing — tracking student scores to teachers and teachers back to their colleges of education so we know who is doing a good job of preparing educators –.” (http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-statehouse-convention-center-little-rock-arkansas)
Scathing criticism of the use of value-added measures in this way has not changed the Department of Education’s position (See Note below).
Diane Ravitch (personal communication) has pointed out that value-added measures could very well necessitate the use of pre-tests in the fall. Measuring growth from spring to spring does not take into account the effects of summer – it has been repeatedly documented that children of poverty fall behind during the summer. The loss in reading is due to the lack of access to books (Heyns, B. 1975. Summer Learning and the Effect of School. New York: Academic Press. Kim, J. 2003. “Summer reading and the ethnic achievement gap,” Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 9, no. 2:169-188; Entwisle, D. E., Alexander, K. L. and Olson, Linda Steffel. 1997. Children, Schools and Inequality. Westview Press.)
Of course, pretesting in all subjects would vastly increase the amount of testing done.
SUMMARY
Current plans are to add a writing test, and to add interim testing to what is already required under NCLB.
There is every reason to suspect that we will soon have standardized testing in many different subjects, not just language arts and math.
There is every reason to suspect that standardized tests will be given to very young children, before grade 3, and there may be assessments to cover all of “P-20.”
There is every reason to suspect that there will be pre-tests in the fall.
Even if the new tests will not require more time in administration and preparation than the tests we have now, we may soon have more testing than ever seen on planet Earth.
Note: Teachers’ value-added ratings based on previous years are weak predictors of test scores at the end of a year with new students. A teacher who succeeds in boosting scores with one group will not necessarily succeed with others (Sass, T. 2008. The stability of value-added measures of teacher quality and implications for teacher compensation policy. Washington DC: CALDER. (National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Educational Research.) Kane, T. and Staiger, D. 2009. Estimating Teacher Impacts on Student Achievement: An Experimental Evaluation. NBER Working Paper No. 14607 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14607).
Also, different tests result in different value-added scores for the same teacher (Papay, J. 2010. “Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures.” American Educational Research Journal 47,2.).
In addition, there are ways of pumping up test scores without student learning, including teaching test-taking strategies and making sure weak students don’t take the test. See also: https://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/16/why-vam-is-junk-science/
This is horrifying. I can understand FL wanting to be on the same playing field as, say, English, and wanting to stop things like putting multiple levels in the same period, students being pulled out at random for more math instruction, etc. This is of course not to mention having sometimes 5 different preps while ignorant colleagues say, “well it’s all the same subject, right? So, no big deal?” However, the price to be paid for that standing is the destruction of FL instructor’s autonomy as well as the ability to ever meaningfully teach FL. For a multiple choice test cannot possibly assess a student’s facility with a foreign language. Thus, I am shocked and appalled that ACTFL would endorse this lunacy.
Yes, ACTFL has been pushing for “standards” for quite a while.
“. . . which could include science and foreign language tests.“
Good thing I’ll be retired, hopefully, by the time they attempt to ram World Language tests down my throat. However, if that time comes I won’t give any non-classroom teacher developed assessment so it will be a “battle of letters” back and forth until the administration decides that I will have been insubordinate enough to get rid of me.
Well, at least the Latin teacher professional organizations haven’t endorsed it. Perhaps we’ll keep our autonomy for just a couple more years…
LET THE CHILDREN PLAY!!!!!
There was a time when children went to school for kindergarten to learn how to learn. They worked on hand-eye coordination, figure ground discrimination, and other necessary skills. They also learned to listen in a group and play together. They learned to color inside the lines and to cut a straight line. They learned to organize things. Many of the skills they learned in kindergarten helped them be good students later, most importantly to focus. Unfortunately, many students are moving through the school systems and through life without having learned these valuable skills. Because they didn’t learn these necessary behaviors and listening skills at a young age, they aren’t ready to learn in the middle and upper elementary grades. Because of this, they are singled out, pulled out of their classes or, worse yet, out of recess, to get extra help. Would we be spending all this extra money for intervention programs if they had been allowed to be children- to do what is developmentally appropriate?
What if…
What if these children had been allowed to play and to learn these needed skills in kindergarten, or preschool even?
What if they had been allowed recess time in first and second grade? (And we have a child obesity problem why?) Far too many administrators have outlawed recess at their elementary schools, thinking recess time could be better used to shovel more information into the children’s brains. Really? And what does research say about that?
Whatever happened to developmental appropriateness? Many years ago I was asked to give permission for my son to be pulled out of first grade for speech. My reply was yes, but only if they would be working on sounds that were developmentally appropriate for his age. Some children don’t develop certain speech sound (i.e. the zh sound) until age 8. He was six. They did not pull him out, and I never heard anything about speech class again. He developed all his speech sounds by the following year.
What if…
What if parents, when asked for permission to have their children pulled out of class for intervention, asked if it was developmentally appropriate? When the answer is ‘s/he needs this intervention to pass the test’, what if the parent asked if the test was developmentally appropriate?
Why isn’t it considered child abuse to expect an eight year old to take a 2-1/2 hour test? Or a nine year old? Or a ten year old? Administrators will tell you it isn’t really a 2-1/2 hour test. Most students finish in 1to 1-1/2 hours. Sorry. If they have to sit quietly for 2-1/2 hours, until every one finishes, it’s a 2-1/2 hour test. Who determined this was appropriate for these children?
In Ohio in 1995, they started the 4th grade Proficiency Test. This was considered a ‘practice’ for the 9th grade test. Teachers were told the test had to be 2-1/2 hours in 4th grade, because it was 2-1/2 hours in 9th grade. Really? Following that logic, wouldn’t it make sense that we also give 4th graders their driving temps, so they are ready to drive at age 16?
Ask any good teacher, and s/he can tell you who will and who will not pass the test. So why do we waste all the money and resources to find out something we already know? Teachers are no longer being allowed to make the important decisions they are capable of, and so the children suffer.
And how appropriate are the tests? If an adult reads a test question, and can’t figure out what they want, how can a ten year old?
And so now, as we waste money, time and effort on developing assessments for a set of standards that have never been piloted, if the children, teachers and schools don’t meet the standard, will it be the fault of the children and the teachers, or the fault of those who wrote the standards and the tests? Any intelligent person knows the answer to that assessment question.
“LET THE CHILDREN PLAY!!!!!”
But where do the children play?
by Cat Stevens
Well I think it’s fine, building jumbo planes.
Or taking a ride on a cosmic train.
Switch on summer from a slot machine.
Yes, get what you want to if you want, ’cause you can get anything.
I know we’ve come a long way,
We’re changing day to day,
But tell me, where do the children play?
Well you roll on roads over fresh green grass.
For your lorry loads pumping petrol gas.
And you make them long, and you make them tough.
But they just go on and on, and it seems that you can’t get off.
Oh, I know we’ve come a long way,
We’re changing day to day,
But tell me, where do the children play?
Well you’ve cracked the sky, scrapers fill the air.
But will you keep on building higher
’til there’s no more room up there?
Will you make us laugh, will you make us cry?
Will you tell us when to live, will you tell us when to die?
I know we’ve come a long way,
We’re changing day to day,
But tell me, where do the children play?
All this is not about what’s good or appropriate for kids; if it was, the people making the policies would have listened to the concerns and advice of the real education experts, but their voices have gone ignored. Why?
I’m reading the excellent book by Kirsten Olson, Wounded by School. Here an insightful excerpt. Clearly the new reforms with testing and punishments exponentially worsen what was already happening before NCLB came onto the scene.
“Many theorists suggest that the purpose of schools is to mold and shape individual self-concept so that pupils will accept a particular place in society, and that schools are implicitly designed to reinforce messages about race, class, and gender and life expectations. In other words, a central function of the structure of education in America is preparation for a capitalist society in which some will be winners and many will be losers.
This means school inevitably involves sorting, tracking, and the scaffolding of human expectations, or, in essence, that wounding is necessary. The great school critic John Holt said memorably that schooling was like the meat packing business,designed to grade people like cuts of meat and send them off to the appropriate markets and customers.
Taking another tack, other researchers say that the middle class and upper middle class are highly attached to the institution of school explicitly as a sorting mechanism, as a way of justifying privileges of which middle class members are already the central beneficiaries. These critics suggest that the entire notion of schools as meritocracies actually reifies and reinforces class privilege –making those whom school rewards (those who already have a lot of benefits) feel they deserve the privileges they have.”
The research and analysis here is solid – but it allows the corporations to continue framing the argument. Why should they get to control what goes on in our community schools? They don’t live here. Shoot, most of their money doesn’t even live in the US. As long as we argue their points, they win. There are only three questions to ask: did you know corporations and the federal government are taking over your neighborhood school? Did you give permission? Will you comply? If communities/states stop complying, the whole game is up. “But we need the money….” Nonsense. It’s too expensive. Shell games always are.
We really are living a dystopian novel.
Its still the poverty holding students back. Spending money/time on this is wasteful… it should be used to change poverty.
I like what that 17 year old said, “Accountability is code for punishment.”
http://barrylane.bandcamp.com/track/i-write-the-tests-i-write-the-tests