Massachusetts is switching from its 20-year-old MCAS testing program to PARCC, the federally-funded Common Core test.
Massachusetts is the highest performing state in the nation on NAEP, the federal tests. Why is it making the change?
Some think it is because Massachusetts’ State Commissioner Mitchell Chester is the chair of the PARCC governing board.
“Mitchell Chester, the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary education, said the PARCC exam would help the state reduce the stubborn achievement gaps between rich and poor, white and minority, by giving teachers better information about which kids need extra support.”
So let’s get this right: a harder test will improve the test scores of kids who are poor? A harder test will raise the scores of minority students but not white kids so the gaps will be reduced? Or the scores of poor and minority kids will increase at a faster pace than the scores of rich and white kids?
And one other question: why do teachers need a new test to tell which kids need extra help? Didn’t they learn that with the MCAS? Don’t they know it by seeing the kids in class daily and reviewing their class participation and homework?
None of this makes sense.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Massachusetts is not a new addition to the PARCC testing schedules (posted here but no longer accessible to the general public):
LikeLike
In May/June of 2014 school districts in MA were given a ‘choice’ – either MCAS
or PARCC testing for the upcoming school year. All were advised that this year
would be the final year of MCAS testing.
LikeLike
They backed down, jb2: “In a 6-3 vote Nov. 19, the state board of education approved a two-year transition plan to the PARCC exams. ”
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2013/11/massachusetts_wont_require_all.html
LikeLike
It was not designed to make sense. It was designed to make money off of children by destroying the public school system and IT IS WORKING AS DESIGNED!!!
LikeLike
So true, Charles! The DEFORMS are there to benefit the plutocats and oligarchs who only know how to line their pockets off the backs of the most vulnerable.
POVERTY is he culprit and getting worse. Our political and financial systems make money off the poor.
LikeLike
Exactly….I want to scream every day I hear or read something new about all this. Five years ago, I said something is really up…all this bad spin on teachers, coming out of seemingly nowhere. Well now we all know why. The thing I don’t get it how the rich (and lets face they are the people pulling all these strings) can see that by destroying public education they are going to create an even larger poor class of people who will either leave the country for better opportunities for their children or turn on them. It’s a lose lose situation for everyone rich and poor alike.
LikeLike
Love your comment. What do you think parents can do to pump brakes on this mandatory test?
LikeLike
It isn’t mandatory yet in Massachusetts, La. I’ve asked the MTA for a statement of guidance for teachers when parents decline to have their child participate in the trial run. I encourage (all right: I beg) teachers in AFT affiliated unions to do that, also.
LikeLike
OPT OUT
LikeLike
Actually, my research indicates that the New York version of PARCC greatly increased the achievement gap. I am certain that the Massachusetts version of PARCC will increase the gap between the scores of low income kids versus high income kids. Low income kids are the kids most harmed by PARCC. Here is a quote from my analysis…
“The switch to the “NAEP CCSS Proficiency Standard” instead of the “NAEP Basic At Grade Level” Standard will harm poor students much more than it will harm wealthy students. Using “NAEP Basic” as a passing grade, 73% of 4th Grade students eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch passed the NEAP test and 93% of those not eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch passed the test – a difference of 20%. Using “NAEP Proficient” as a passing grade, only 25% of students eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch would pass the test while 60% of those not eligible for free and reduced lunch would still pass the test – a difference of 35%. Therefore switching to the NEAP CCSS Proficiency standard for a passing score will disproportionally harm low income 4th Grade students.” Here is a link to the complete article: http://weaponsofmassdeception.org/1-drill-and-kill-fake-tests/1-3-how-high-stakes-tests-were-designed-to-fail
LikeLike
Gap, the achievement:
That fictional spread in the supposed measurement of student learning of various supposed subgroupings of the species Homo Sapiens (sometimes referred to as Homo Ignorantus for believing in the achievement gap).
LikeLike
Gap, achievement:
The inability of those that begin a race later in time and therefore, say, 5 miles behind those that are already running to catch up when most runners have about the same general ability to run forward at a reasonable speed.
LikeLike
They need to call it the “socio-economic gap”. Sadly, you would still hear many stating “teachers need to close the socio-economic gap.”
LikeLike
Aside from limited pilots, NY hasn’t yet given the PARCC. They gave a “more rigorous” version of their tests for the past few years, all of which were deemed junk. I’d believe that they’re going “live” with PARCC this spring along with everyone.
LikeLike
I should have been clearer. The New York test, PARCC and SBAC all have one mistake in common – using NAEP “proficient” as the passing standard. It is the misuse of NAEP proficient as a passing standards that increases the so-called achievement gap which is more accurately stated as a poverty of income gap.
LikeLike
Add Utah’s test to that list. As many as 71% of Utah students “failed” this last year’s CC, AIR-written tests, that now we’re selling to at least four states (sorry about that!).
LikeLike
“None of this makes sense.”
But we all know that it DOES make quite a lot of cents.
LikeLike
Thank you for calling attention to this. Mitchell Chester has to go. It is unfair to the students of MA for him to hold dual roles on DESE and as head of PARCC. I have been told that even if the switch over doesn’t happen, MCAS will most likely be re-designed to become more “PARCC-like”. We need more people in MA questioning what is happening here, seems many have become complacent and accept what is being fed to us. Why are we giving so much power to one testing company and why, as national leaders in public ed, aren’t we using research-based assessments for our students instead of more tests? I had a parent say to me that she “isn’t aware of any cons to standardized testing” so we have a lot of work to do here.
Happily, there is some great legislation in the works including a moratorium on tests as grad requirements. A team of superintendents in Western MA put together a powerful statement on what testing like PARCC and MCAS really translates to in terms of mandates, time, and dollars. Unfortunately, when I shared this with the Asst. Super in my district, her reply was that our school is “highly successful” and she is “aware of what is happening in the western part of the state”. Yikes. That is what a competition like Race to the Top has created. I am disgusted by it and speaking out but need more allies here.
LikeLike
You have allies, mamajj. Are you in NEA or AFT?
LikeLike
I live in western MA and am familiar with the declaration you are referring to. While they raised concerns over mandates, testing and costs, they seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room…common core. I know some of the members and they are quick to point out that their gripe is not with common core per se but rather the consequences of common core (other than Ludlow school superintendent, Todd Gazda whose blog I recommend you read). We too, have an excellent school system, arguably one of the best in western MA, and school officials continually tout “we got this!”. There are many active parent groups throughout the state. If you are on Facebook, “like” Common Core Forum. They provide daily updates on what is going on throughout the state as well as nationally. Your town might have an active group that you are not aware of. Common Core Forum just today updated the list of active groups in the state. I am a member of the pioneer valley group and we are very active in spreading opposition to common core. If you give me the name of your town, I can see if there is an active group nearby. I travel around the state to brainstorm and network with others to fight the fight. Good Luck!
Melanie
LikeLike
I’ll see you on Facebook, Melanie. I can’t publish the name of my town here.
LikeLike
Anyone in Medford? I am an outraged parent of a fifth grader as well as a teacher. I am outraged that no one else here is outraged! When I speak with parents about opting out I am told that our kids do well on the tests and that our teachers don’t teach to the tests. So why bother? When I speak to fellow teachers I am told “Well, we need accountability!” They don’t get it. They are all blissfully ignorant about profit-driven reform, etc. When I try to explain they don’t want to hear about it. My child is diagnosed with anxiety and does not want to opt out because she does not like the spotlight. This frustrates me, too! (And you can imagine what testing days are like given her anxiety! She cries during the tests and the proctors say nothing to her!!!) She scored “proficient” in third grade and “advanced” in fourth grade, ??? I KNOW she is not advanced. I asked her teacher and she agrees that my child is average/on grade level according to her classroom assessments. And finally – Mitchell needs to go !
LikeLike
Competition brings out the worst in people. Your Asst. Super perhaps is banking your district having enough students of a higher socio-economic level so that you won’t have the spotlight of “shame” on you compared to poorer districts.
LikeLike
Citizens for Public Schools has bills before the legislature to reduce high stakes testing and its impacts and is looking for co-sponsors for these bills. Massachusetts citizens can help by contacting their state reps. The date has been extended to Monday, Feb 2. See:
http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/how-you-can-support-legislation-for-less-testing-more-learning/
LikeLike
Citizens for Public Schools also has a petition drive called Less Testing, More Teaching:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/less-testing-more-learning.fb47?source=c.fb.ty&r_by=9827886
LikeLike
Makes no sense at all. But that is not surprising, given the current climate surrounding education.
LikeLike
Teachers will transform all their students into high-level achievers by rigorously preparing them for the PARCC exam. Those who refuse to put in the necessary work, or prove to be incapable of delivering satisfactory results have only themselves to blame. After all, almost every teacher (within a given state) is exposed to roughly the same professional conditions, so there can be little room for excuses.
Moreover, teachers are the driving force behind a student’s academic success. You can ask any reputable philosopher or scientist, and they will tell you that the causal link in this case is not just direct, but also very powerful.
LikeLike
Do please tell me that my sarcas-o-meter is malfunctioning?
LikeLike
Yes, it’s malfunctioning. I could actually imagine a random ed reformer saying that though…
LikeLike
Phew – thanks!
LikeLike
They know all the talking points, Diane. I’m surprised we didn’t get the comment that kids moving into Massachusetts need to be at the exact same place at the exact same time (even though CCSS is not a curriculum).
LikeLike
Diane, do you assume the MCAS can do what other similar bubble tests can’t? Mass. is a wealthier state than many, with a long long history of strong very local control by villages and towns. And a long history looking good by academic measures. The MCAS has done for Mass. precisely the kind of narrowing that happens other places, and the ranking of schools, and the “defining” of what’s a “good” school or a “bad” school rank order of tests. Deb
LikeLike
The claim is that the PARCC test will be “giving teachers better information about which kids need extra support.”
This claim is without any evidence, hot air, or so it seems to me. If the test is to have any diagnostic value it must be given for that purpose and early in the school year.
Judging from the schedules in other states, tests are given in mid-March. That is too late for much remediation, assuming that the test results provide decent guidance on that. And that testing threshold is too early to be fair to teachers who are judged by the fantasy metric of “producing a years worth of growth.”
In any case, these tests misrepresent achievement in a full spectrum curriculum and agenda for education that extends beyond college and career readiness and merely academic learning.
The reification of test scores in two subjects as if sufficient for understanding the strengths and weaknesses in public education is really pathetic.
LikeLike
Right, there is no evidence that PARCC or SBAC help us identify deficiencies in our teaching. Suppose my kids bomb the SBAC. How do I help them? Aside from bombarding them with sample test items and tasks, I don’t know –because these “smarter’ tests are so vague. It’s not clear what they’re really measuring, and it’s not clear that what they’re measuring is even teachable. I can remedy gaps in kids’ world history or grammar knowledge; I have no idea how to remedy kids’ fuzzy skills deficiencies.
LikeLike
Thanks, Deb! Just what I was going to post.
LikeLike
My apologies for an off-topic comment, but have you seen the following from Sandra Stotsky:
Dr. Sandra Stotsky has sent this to be shared by all concerned citizens. Her note is below:
I have been challenged to explain how Common Core is built into the re-authorization of ESEA. Very simple.
The bill builds in Common Core in a clever way–by putting the “Plan” for academic content standards in each state in the hands of its DoE. Moreover, not only does it put control of the “Plan” into a state’s department of education, it also excludes development and review of the “Plan” by academic experts at the college level. Very clever language contributed probably by Fordham.
“which peer review teams shall reflect a balanced representation of individuals who—
(I) have practical experience in the classroom, school administration, or State or local government; and
(II) have been a direct employee of a school, local educational agency, or State educational agency…”
People who care about the security and defense of this country should Google Rep. John Kline and Sen. Lamar Alexander in order to send a direct e-mail to them on their websites, and tell them that they don’t want any bill re-authorizing ESEA at all. They want ESEA sunsetted after extensive national public discussion of how to educate low-income children without damaging them further and all of public education K-20 at the same time.
Please pass this on and complain to your representatives.
LikeLike
No, this is not off-topic at all, moosensquirrels. I find myself in agreement with Sandra Stotsky. So strange.
LikeLike
“the security and defense of this country”
Here we go again.
LikeLike
These incestuous linkages throughout the reformista cadres need to be carefully mapped for those of us who are not quite so familiar with them. I know that others, particularly Mercedes Schneider have tried to do that but a nice, fold-out map connecting the dots would really be helpful.
If one exists, and I’m sure it does, please get me the link or cite. Thanks.
LikeLike
No single graphic can do the job of mapping the groups who are shaping K-12 policies in education. The relationships, including interlocking directorates and other varieties of back-scratching, are too complex.
If you can access the following study, you will see one effort to show the interconnections among foundations. The article is in Educational Researcher, 43 (4) 2014, “The Expanding Role of Philanthropy in Education Politics by Saarh Reckhow and Jeffrey W. Snyder. In addition to some diagrams that resemble sociographs, you will find charts that show the growth in foundation spending between 2000 and 2010. During that decade, you will see a dramatic decline in grants to public education and state departments of education along with a dramatic rise in foundation investments in charters and new paths for teacher recruitment and training.
The authors of this study show a “convergence in grants”–multiple funders of the same organizations with millions of dollars. Of interest for 2005 is the major recipient: The Council of Chief State School Officers, at $23.5 million from 4 funders (revving up for the Common Core State Standards).
By 2010, much more money (in adjusted 2010 dollars) was flowing to charters—The Charter School Growth Fund ($46 million, 6 funders), Teach for America (44.5 million, 13 funders) and KIPP ($24 million, 9 funders). Among the main funders of charter schools and school choice advocacy are Gates, Broad, Walton, Dell, Fisher, and Robertson.
The researchers found that the grantee network—mapped by identifying groups receiving at least $2 million from three or more major foundations–had become more dense and complex between 2005 and 2010. These scholars note “the rise of newer foundations, including Broad, Robertson, Dell, and Fisher” as leading the charge for “challenging” the public system of education, also an increase in funding such work at “several universities (Harvard, Stanford, UC Berkley, UCLA).”
This study shows the dramatic increase in only one decade of total giving by foundations to national K-12 educational policy advocacy/research. In adjusted 2010 dollars the growth was from $486 million in 2000 to $843.7 million in 2010.
During the same time, the number of grantees receiving over $1 million dollars increased from 7 to 34. The three largest grantees in 2010 were the Education Trust, Jobs for the Future, and Achieve, Inc.
In 2000, 2005, 2010 (the years included in this study) the top 15 spenders included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, Ford Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Other grant makers in the top 15 for 2010 were the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, The Michael and Susan Dell, Foundation, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Robertson Foundation, Broad Foundation, GE Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, Doris and Daniel Fischer Fund, Communities Foundation of Texas, Inc., and Daniels Fund.
The information in this study came from the 990 tax forms of the foundations. The researchers used UCINET to analyze networks and NetDraw for visual representations.
For an example of the graphic complexity that can be mapped with the aid of software see the “Afghanistan Stability” chart at http://www.comw.org/wordpress/dsr/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/afghanistan-1300.jpg
This is a color coded and heroic effort to show interactions and clusters of influence not unlike those at work in undermining public education.
LikeLike
“During that decade, you will see a dramatic decline in grants to public education and state departments of education along with a dramatic rise in foundation investments in charters and new paths for teacher recruitment and training. ”
I find this nugget most interesting. While working with public school educators and the state bureaucracy supporting public education can be time consuming and messy, somehow taking your toys and starting your own school system and stealing from the one you didn’t like somehow just doesn’t seem very democratic. Ya think? If we won’t play the game the way the rich kids want then they’ll just buy us out!
LikeLike
Diane: I’m in MA and I haven’t heard that we are switching. This is another pilot year for PARCC and I just read somewhere-(I read so much I can’t remember where) that Chester, at some gathering said he thought it looked like PARCC was maybe not going to win this battle. Now I’ll be on the look-out.
LikeLike
The Board of Ed will vote after this spring’s results are back (for both MCAS and PARCC).
LikeLike
There’s some pushback here on Cape Cod, thankfully….
http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20150128/OPINION/150129531/2012/OPINION
LikeLike
Ol’ Chester Molester strikes again!
LikeLike
From the same state that brought you this: http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2014/10/ma-committed-to-chasing-teachers-away.html
“They” are doing all they can to ruin public education and public school teachers. Pay attention to that man behind the curtain, because his aim is your heart. They want to put the rest of us into poverty.
LikeLike
Clouded my vision is. There’s a turf war among the original accountability hucksters (now-dear Sandra Stotsky, MASSInsight, and Pioneer Inst) on the one hand and Mitchell’s Pearson/Gates team. It is bizarre that our new governor has brought back Jim Peyser for his secty of ed, a veteran of both stripes (Pioneer Institute, then New Schools Venture Fund). Neither side is going away, they say.
So he upshot seems to be double testing the poor dazed kids. Some teachers someplace in Massachusetts maybe even got emails like this one yesterday. That’s just a speculation, of course.
“I would like to remind you that this year in addition to local and state mandated assessments (e.g., MCAS, end-of-course exams, and college-board AP exams) our 9th and 11th grade students will take the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) exams. This computer-based assessment will measure student knowledge and skills in Mathematics and English Language Arts/Literacy, while giving our teachers, students, parents, and school reliable information whether our students are on a path towards college and career readiness; PARCC, which is aligned with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), will provides you with tools to help you tailor learning to your individual student needs. In summary, the purpose of PARCC is to measure what each should know at each grade level based on the standards outlined in the CCSS.
Knowing that PARCC test administration requires significant test preparation, technology set up, and faculty training, we are currently preparing training materials to share with you at our principal’s meeting in March. Please be advised that between now and then we will continue to send you additional information and tutoring materials as these become available. In the main time, to help you expand your knowledge base of PARCC, we recommend that you log into http://parcc.pearson.com and https://ma.pearsonaccessnext.com/customer/index.action where you will find important information concerning test preparation (e.g., sample items, tutorials, and practice), technology setup, FAQs, accessibility features and accommodations, etc.).
Note: While PARCC results will not be used for accountability determination purposes until 2018, as a school of high standards and academic expectations, we will do everything in our power to prepare students, teachers, administrators, and parents for this test. Until 2018, MCAS will continue to be the only barometer that will determine our accountability status, including high school graduation. Consequently, concerted efforts must be made to prepare students for MCAS.”
LikeLike
“Some think it is because Massachusetts’ State Commissioner Mitchell Chester is the chair of the PARCC governing board. ”
Naww, that couldn’t have anything to do with it. Could it?
LikeLike
Of course not! The state ethics panel has cleared Mr. Chester of any ethical conflicts.(cough, cough)
LikeLike
Ultimately it comes down to what the state decides for cutoff scores and how one compares MCAS and PARCC scores
LikeLike
The problem is “Some” think it is because Massachusetts’ State Commissioner Mitchell Chester is the chair of the PARCC governing board.
Who are the “some”?
The “some” may think, but what will “some” do.
LikeLike
Well, Jim, they will compromise, and allow Chester to run PARCC as a trial in some districts.
“In a 6-3 vote Nov. 19, the state board of education approved a two-year transition plan to the PARCC exams. The plan, presented by Commissioner of Education Mitchell D. Chester, outlines a phase-in process that would allow the board to wait until the fall of 2015—several months after the first operational PARCC tests are given—to decide whether to embrace the test for Massachusetts’ 3rd through 8th grade students.”
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2013/11/massachusetts_wont_require_all.html
LikeLike
People might be confused about this, because the PARCC Consortium hasn’t updated its website to reflect the change.
http://www.parcconline.org/new-tests-massachusetts-students-horizon-0
The Chair of the PARCC Governing Board, Mitchell Chester, should look into getting a new contractor to run its website, I think.
LikeLike
Education reform: if it’s not broke, fix it til it is…
I left Lawrence for another district, but was there for a few years. Everyone should be paying attention to what’s going on there, because that city is Chester’s and eventually Riley’s (should he become commissioner, which he wants to be) prototype for the state. We had ANET in my school with a “PARCC” like test (whatever that means) and it was exhausting and made no sense whatsoever. Luckily at the time it wasn’t computerized. That’s about all I can say for it.
LikeLike
As someone once told me, taking one’s temperature more times won’t make him well.
LikeLike
Not to mention the fact that my fourth-grader, who has a truly superb teacher in a great school system, has been practicing for the PARCC for the last month. Her teacher is terrific and she could be doing such great work if it weren’t for test prep
LikeLike
No “truly superb” teacher would subject 9 year old children to PACC test prep.
Sorry.
And you can relay this message from me to her:
PARCC tests are test prep proof, All your efforts will not budge the needle. You are wasting time and distorting the meaning of education. You are lying to your students and warping their view of what is truly important. The PARCC test in ELA uses subjective item stems in an MC format. Using PARCC tests to judge children, teachers, or schools is like trying to measure the beauty of a perfect spring day with a broken thermometer.
LikeLike
There have to be some tests, right? And there has to be some way short of empty rhetoric to convince taxpayers to fund schools better.
LikeLike
Floyd, If the PARCC tests are offered in Mass., the scores will plummet as they have everywhere else because the tests have an absurd passing mark. Will that “convince the taxpayers to fund schools better”?
LikeLike
Can’t we just work to make the tests better? We certainly have that within our ability. My fear is if Common Core fails, people outside the system will throw up their hands and it will be a generation before any significant effort to improve schools and the situation here in the South is very dire.
LikeLike
Tests won’t improve schools. Money that could be better spent to lower class size and provide for safe, secure and engaging classrooms is being wasted on testing and purchasing the technology needed to administer them.
LikeLike
Anyway, I am a former teacher I have had to teach to lousy tests that served no purpose. However, the only way taxpayers will fund public schools is if some level of credibility is restored. The only way to do that is more effective testing. I’m not arguing for more testing, just more effective testing. In the best of all worlds, that could even mean less testing.
LikeLike
The NAEP has been around for decades, is national and gives a good view into how districts and schools are doing. It is given once during each grade span to a sampling of students. If funded fully it looks very deeply at how well our education system is doing for all learners, and how they fare after competing K-12. We do NOT need any other tests of any kind.
LikeLike
TCliff, I agree with you. NAEP is given to a sampling of students in grade 4 and 8. NAEP is given in every state and DC. Scores are disaggregated by race, English language proficiency, disability status, gender, and a few other criteria. We do NOT need any other tests of any kind. We can learn everything we need to know in NAEP.
LikeLike
Of course, there was a huge stink over the implementation of MCAS–does anyone remember that? The arguments were the same ones used now to reject the Common Core, no matter what test is used to implement those standards: MCAS is a high stakes, standardized test.
In the senior class in the town I lived in, the year before MCAS became mandatory, the top students in the high school refused to take it. They said they were the last class who could refuse without personal consequences and they felt they had an ethical obligation to stand up and refuse. They were excoriated for “hurting the town,” as their scores weren’t counted. One person even said that children should let adults make these important decisions. The principal threatened to withhold their college recommendations.
I was extremely proud of these young people, some of whom may have already been 18 and eligible to help elect the people who run the country. I hope they have held onto their ethics and are among those posting here and opting out for their children.
LikeLike
I, too, remember the last time the MCAS was given before it was high stakes. At our high school a significant number of students refused the test. The resulting low scores caused the state to reward us with lots of $ for remediation. The following year the test went high stakes and no one refused it. The subsequent increase in scores caused the state to cut our funding! Go figure.
LikeLike
I was teaching high school in Boston when the MCAS was introduced. At first, we were told that it wouldn’t have any impact, but we always referred to it as a zip code test. I remember Boston Magazine started listing the “best” schools in the metropolitan area based on MCAS scores, and then real estate agents began touting certain towns based on the same nonsense.
No impact, indeed.
LikeLike