Activist parents and educators who belong to SaveOurSchoolsNJ helpfully assembled a dozen reasons to refuse the Common Core PARCC test.
1. PARCC is poorly designed & confusing
“For many of the sample released questions, there is, arguably, no answer among the answer choices that is correct or more than one answer that is correct, or the question simply is not, arguably, actually answerable as written.”
Why?
“The tests consist largely of objective-format items (multiple-choice and EBSR). These item types are most appropriate for testing very low-level skills (e.g., recall of factual detail). However, on these tests, such item formats are pressed into a kind of service for which they are, generally, not appropriate. They are used to test “higher-order thinking.” The test questions therefore tend to be tricky and convoluted. The test makers insist on answer choices all being “reasonable.” So, the questions are supposed to deal with higher-order thinking, and the wrong answers are all supposed to be plausible, so the test questions end up being extraordinarily complex and confusing and tricky, all because the “experts” who designed these tests didn’t understand the most basic stuff about creating assessments–that objective question formats are generally not great for testing higher-order thinking, for example.” i
2. PARCC’s online testing format is very problematic, particularly for younger students
“In the early grades, the tests end up being as much a test of keyboarding skills as of attainment in [English Language Arts or Math]. The online testing format is entirely inappropriate for most third graders.” i
3. PARCC is diagnostically & instructionally useless
“Many kinds of assessment—diagnostic assessment, formative assessment, performative assessment, some classroom summative assessment—has instructional value. They can be used to inform instruction and/or are themselves instructive.
The results of [the PARCC] tests are not broken down in any way that is of diagnostic or instructional use.
Teachers and students cannot even see the tests to find out what students got wrong on them and why. So the tests are of no diagnostic or instructional value. None. None whatsoever.” i
4. Taking and preparing for PARCC & other high-stakes standardized tests is replacing learning
Administrators at many schools “report that they spend as much as a third of the school year preparing students to take these tests. That time includes the actual time spent taking the tests, the time spent taking pretests and benchmark tests and other practice tests, the time spent on test prep materials, the time spent doing exercises and activities in textbooks and online materials that have been modeled on the test questions in order to prepare kids to answer questions of those kinds, and the time spent on reporting, data analysis, data chats, proctoring, and other test housekeeping.” i
5. PARCC will further distort curricula and teaching
“The tests drive how and what people teach, and they drive much of what is created by curriculum developers…Those distortions are grave. In U.S. curriculum development today, the tail is wagging the dog.” i
6. PARCC & other high-stakes standardized tests undermine students’ creativity and desire to learn
The research on motivation and creativity is very clear: externally imposed punishment and reward systems, like those associated with high-stakes standardized testing, suppress our intrinsic motivation, dramatically undermining creativity and love of learning.
High-stakes standardized tests also suppress motivation and creativity because the endless test preparation narrows the curriculum and creates a boring learning environment, filled with anxiety and fear.
7. PARCC & other high-stakes standardized tests have an enormous financial cost
“In 2010-11, the US spent $1.7 billion on state standardized testing alone.” With the Common Core State Standards tests, this cost increases substantially.
The PARCC contract by itself is worth over a billion dollars to the Pearson [Corporation] in the first three years, and you have to add the cost of [the Smarter Balanced Common Core Assessment] and the other state tests (another billion and a half?), to that.
No one has accurately estimated the cost of the computer upgrades that will be necessary for online testing of every child, but those costs probably run to 50 or 60 billion.
This is money that could be spent on stuff that matters—on making sure that poor kids have eye exams and warm clothes and food in their bellies, on making sure that libraries are open and that schools have nurses on duty to keep kids from dying. How many dead kids is all this testing worth, given that it is, again, of no instructional value?
IF THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NOT OBVIOUS TO YOU, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR A SCHOOL OR AN EDUCATIONAL POLICY-MAKING DESK.” i
8. PARCC is completely experimental. It has not been validated as accurate & yet it will be used to evaluate students, schools and teachers
“Standardized test development practice requires that the testing instrument be validated. Such validation requires that the test maker show that the test correlates strongly with other accepted measures of what is being tested, both generally and specifically (that is, with regard to specific materials and/or skills being tested).
No such validation was done for [PARCC and Smarter Balanced common core] tests…So, the tests fail to meet a minimal standard for a high-stakes standardized assessment—that they have been independently validated.” i
9. PARCC & other high-stakes standardized tests are abusive to our children
Reports of students throwing up during high-stakes standardized tests or inflicting harm to themselves as a result of test stress are already common.
PARCC is an intentionally much more difficult test that will increase students’ anxiety and feelings of inadequacy.
PARCC is extra-frustrating to our children because it is entirely on-line, creating additional test-taking challenges not related to the test content.
The combination of the more brutal PARCC tests and the more stressful on-line PARCC testing experience will result in more of our children feeling abused, anxious and afraid.
10. PARCC will worsen the achievement and gender gaps
“Both the achievement and gender gaps in educational performance are largely due to motivational issues, and these tests and the curricula and pedagogical strategies tied to them are extremely demotivating. They create new expectations and new hurdles that will widen existing gaps, not close them.”
PARCC and other Common Core exams “drive more regimentation and standardization of curricula, which will further turn off kids already turned off by school, causing more to tune out and drop out.” i
11. High-stakes standardized tests fail to improve educational outcomes
“We have had more than a decade, now, of standards-and-testing-based accountability under [No Child Left Behind]. We have seen only miniscule increases in outcomes, and those are well within the margin of error of the calculations. Simply from the Hawthorne Effect, we should have seen SOME improvement!!! And that suggests that the testing has actually DECREASED OUTCOMES, which is consistent with what we know about the demotivational effects of extrinsic punishment and reward systems. It’s the height of stupidity to look at a clearly failed approach and to say, ‘Gee, we should do a lot more of them.’” i
12. PARCC and Smarter Balanced Common Core aligned tests are designed to brand the majority of our children as failures
The Smarter Balanced test consortium announced in November that it would use very high cut scores for the test, which would result in more than half of all students labeled as failures.
In third grade, for example, only 38% of students taking the Smarter Balanced test are expected to achieve a proficient score in English and only 39% in math. ii
As numerous testing experts have pointed out, a “cut score” is “NOT an objective measure. It is a judgment call, a matter of group opinion, shaped by assumptions, and it can be manipulated to make scores appear higher or lower, depending on what” those in control want. iii
The PARCC test will set its cut scores next summer, but it is very likely to follow the same pattern, creating a false narrative of failure and causing great harm to our children and our public schools.
i Source: https://dianeravitch.net/…/bob-shepherd-why-parcc-testing-i…/
ii Source: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/11/17/13sbac.h34.html
iii Source: https://dianeravitch.net/…/how-pearsons-common-core-tests-a…/
Diane Ravitch's blog 
In Colorado the results of PARCC will be made public in early 2016, a year after the test.
I cross posted the link to the article itself, with this comment using embedded links from this blog.
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/The-12-Reasons-We-Oppose-t-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Accountability_Distortion_Education_Reason-150305-87.html#comment536008
AND LOOK AT THE BLACKMAIL
Chicago: Feds Threaten to Cut $1.4 Billion Unless CPS Gives Common Core Tests
“Forget about all those stories you read that said the U.S. Department of Education had/has nothing to do with promoting the Common Core standards. Forget that it is a “state-led” initiative, that the standards were “written by the governors,” and that this just bubbled up from below while ED watched from the sidelines. Months ago, Chicago Superintendent Barbara Byrd-Bennett said that the district was not ready, the students were not ready, the teachers were not ready. She said she would give the tests to 10% of the students, no more. But then the hammer fell, and the hammer is in Washington, D.C. The orders from ED (the Education Department): give the tests or Illinois will lose $1.4 billion in federal money
and if you know someone who thinks that TESTS’give the answer to everything….
The Differences Between Medical Tests and Standardized Tests and send them to watch thisMichael Elliott is an excellent film-maker whose children attend public schools in New York City. He understands the fight against high-stakes testing. Here is a short video he created to tell the story about how parents feel about PARCC.
Submitted on Thursday, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:28:22 PM
Reblogged this on and commented:
Thank you Diane Ravitch for making this clear. Refuse and resist.
QUESTION – Can SBAC be substituted for PARCC for all the 12 reasons???
Yes, but make it easy on yourself and read my comment below as it applies to all educational standards and standardized testing. dAnd then read Wilson’s work.
Duane you make great sense, but how can a group of teachers at any school prevail though when many fear for their jobs if they resist implementation?
John F Kennedy
October 14, 1960 University of Michigan:
This university…this is the longest short speech I’ve ever made…therefore, I’ll finish it! Let me say in conclusion, this University is not maintained by its alumni, or by the state, merely to help its graduates have an economic advantage in the life struggle. There is certainly a greater purpose, and I’m sure you recognize it.
Ironically, JFK’s namesake, the Harvard Kennedy School, places interns in the high rent districts, at the Heritage Foundation and Democrats for Education Reform.
In the cheap cyberspace of Democrats for Public Education, there’s no desk for a Kennedy School intern.
Here is another thought to add.. the entire school year is held hostage to testing to the point that children in non-tested grades are continually and adversely effected. Cannot ignore this connection to the PARCC test!! Teachers and specialists are taken away to assist with pre tests, benchmark tests and finally THE OFFICIAL HIGH STAKES tests. Rooms become testing centers and non-tested grades shuffle around this. Many rooms usually dedicated to specials activities are used for testing because there are so many differing sub-groups of students being tested. Even internet-based education resources are censored during the testing period thus effecting non-testing grades. And… a career teacher in almost every school is now nearly a full-time testing coordinator … could not this teacher’s skills be better used in a classroom teaching students (smaller class size would be a lot more beneficial). Think of all the supplies for the benefit of students (aka music instruments, art supplies, books for the classroom etc…) that are waylaid to pay for everything involved with PARCC and Smart Balance. I do feel that the list provided in this article is very thorough but PARCC and Smart Balance do not exist in a vacuum and these tests destroy education for non tested grades as well. And I am not evening mentioning how curriculum is designed to prepare non tested grades for the eventuality of students being in testing grades. Wish there would be a national REFUSAL to take these tests for the benefit of our nation’s students.
Número Uno:
PARCC (Communist CRAP spelled backwards) suffers all the inherent flaws/errors in epistemology and ontology as proven by Noel Wilson in his never refuted nor rebutted 1997 treatise “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 word 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.
By Duane E. Swacker
“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. ”
I think that’s a much bigger risk with Common Core testing, particularly if lots of states adopt a 1 thru 5 scoring system on kids as young as 3rd grade.
I think it turns into the equivalent of an SAT or ACT score, which will be so hard for little kids to overcome. I just don’t think they’re capable of this “this is just one FACTOR” analysis, particularly because the adults have defined this as “this one test determines if you’re College and Career Ready. It’ll be close to a national ranking system for individual (and very young) kids. That could have a huge downside. I think there will be lots and lots of parents who buy that interpretation of the Common Core score, because that’s how it’s presented.
I read a mock-up of Achieve’s vision of a Common Core score report that goes to parents. It’s a 1-5 score.
Achieve used an 11th grade fictional student, but are we really planning on telling 3rd graders they’re a “!” or a “2” on College and Career Readiness? Is that wise? What will that mean to them? I don’t think we know. Are they too young to enter this ACT/SAT-like score race? I think so.
It’s amusing how the former Obama Administration flacks in the ed reform “movement” have re-discovered public schools during this brief Common Core testing window.
All of a sudden public schools are the focus of attention, and we’re all doing a GREEAT! job. I don’t know how our failing public schools went from dysfunctional nightmares to super-de-duper overnight. The Common Core must really be miraculous.
By next week it’ll be back to public school-bashing, all the time. The next time our kids will be mentioned in ed reform “movement” circles is when the scores come out, next November. Will our schools be worthy of support, do you think? Will they make the cut?
https://twitter.com/pcunningham57
“rediscovered public schools”
Cyber entity, Democrats for Public Education, posted 5 times since October. The latest was Jan. 12.
After 4+ months, they have generated 4 donations (with a goal of 25).
If the site is accurate, there are more board members than there are donations.
It doesn’t even reach the level of paper tiger. It’s an embarrassment. And, its silence is deafening.
That list works pretty well for SBAC too.
So have the people who put together this piece started a lawsuit against the test’s administration? This is the only way to get the attention of state officials
Or knowing the judges in their state do they believe the suit would lose? I guess judges could be as uninformed as anyone else and also may need to curry favor with the large donating publishing companies.
Anyone have thoughts about Smarter Balance? I teach in Michigan and our school piloted the new online test last spring. It was a disaster with computers locking kids out of the test, unexplainably freezing midway through a test, etc. My high school son even told me some of the test answers for certain questions could be found in previous questions. Yet, we are going to do the same thing again this spring!
Reblogged this on Teaching Works and commented:
There is so very much I could (and eventually will) say regarding the current ABSURD testing obsession, but for now, I will leave you with this spot-on piece written by Diane Ravitch.
While I agree that PARCC is flawed, I don’t believe teaching our children to opt out is the answer. I administered it today to 6th and 7th graders – the ELA portion – and we had very few issues (and they were quickly and easily resolved) and more than 75% finished with at least 30 min to spare. Even the kids with accommodations were fine with the timeframe and questions. I even heard one 7th grader exclaim “why did I waste 4 weeks worrying about that? It was so easy!” He worried because we, as teachers and parents, caused him to worry instead of just encouraging him to do his best. For more info please check out my recent blog post: http://fabulousclassroom.com/2015/03/parcc-testing-is-our-ranting-hurting-kids-even-more/
Missing the point of this entire fight. Teachers and students are basically under attack with this product. One state did not outfit w nrw techno when it rolled out and it was chaos. Chrome books crash and students are asked to re-take. I’m not teaching my daughter to shy away from anything. She’s phenominal in school. I’m a teacher w the inside scoop who wants to help other kids. Please don’t mislead people in this very important movement. We know it’s bizarrre, privitized, creepy, so let’s just keep tests if they assess anything or inform what teachers are trying to do and not dupe parents — our only allies (who are brainwashed currently) — into believing that this particular, billion-dollar bomb is, in some way, in line with educating. Parents think it’s rigorous, robust (two, business buzzwords). We are turning-out postal, disenchanted, marginal citizens and lining pockets of the already-filthy rich. Segregation at its finest. Do these governor’s children attend public school. Yeah, I don’t think so. Most refusals are not giving our own children a pampered existence. It’s the opposite. We’re taking the high road, however unpopular. There’s a big picture here that state boards don’t want parents to see.
Marcy, you’re right about the worrying. But students being done early and saying it was easy does not equal good scores. How DID they score? Oh…we won’t know until the fall…when they’re in a different classroom.
NJ tries to scare us with consequences of not passing. Is there a way to get semantical and stress that non-participation is not failing as it would have to be taken in order to fail and you can’t force someone to take it, etc. For example, parents are above government in the welfare of children so, since it’s brutal, cruel, unusual, biased, unreliable, etc., there must be other criteria for graduation?