As you may recall, the U.S. Department of Education funded two testing groups to write tests aligned with the Common Core standards. One is the Partnership for Readiness for Colleges and Careers (PARCC), and the other is the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). Since the Department is legally prohibited from attempting to control or influence curriculum or instruction, this grant (for $360 million) may actually be illegal, but no one has gone to court to challenge it. Meanwhile, both PARCC and SBAC agreed to adopt the same cut scores (passing marks), aligned with the rigorous achievement levels of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). This was a fateful and unwise decision. Catherine Gewertz pointed out in Education Week that most students were likely to fail, given the alignment with NAEP:
The two common-assessment consortia are taking early steps to align the “college readiness” achievement levels on their tests with the rigorous proficiency standard of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a move that is expected to set many states up for a steep drop in scores.
After all, fewer than four in 10 children reached the “proficient” level on the 2013 NAEP in reading and math.
Thus, it is reasonable to expect that most children will “fail” both PARCC and SBAC and will continue to “fail” them for many years into the future. If these scores count for graduation, most students will never graduate. What will we do with them?
This reader, a teacher, says that PARCC has received lots of scrutiny, but SBAC has not. Any reader want to chime in?
For months, I have been disheartened that there has been so much media attention devoted to PARCC but not to SBAC. Don’t get me wrong: I welcome the focus on the nefarious funding-sources and profiteers of PARCC and I love, love, love the large scale civil disobedience we have seen by kids, parents, teachers and even, in some brave cases, by principals and superintendents, in places like New Mexico, New Jersey and New York. But we are not seeing the same level of journalistic interest in and investigation of the Smarter Balanced tests being suffered here in Oregon and elsewhere. Why not?
My hunch is that it has to do with HOW BLOODY DIFFICULT IT IS TO FIND ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE SBAC FROM ANY SOURCE OTHER THAN SBAC ITSELF. Seriously, I recommend you do a google search and experience for yourself the Orwellian scrubbing of the Internet by the Consortium.
I am not a journalist and I can say tonight: I have never been more saddened by that fact. If I *were* professionally trained, I would have the expertise to spend the next month getting to the bottom of this clearly corrupt enterprise: any organization that spends this much energy obscuring every last detail about its origins, governance, finances and practices cannot be entirely above board.
But, using my admittedly amateurish journalistic skills, here is what I have found and, if I WERE a journalist (and not a full time teacher), here are some leads I would pursue:
1. Since SBAC’s Race to the Top grant ran out, it has been housed at UCLA’s education school. (http://www.smarterbalanced.org/news/states-move-forward-smarter-balanced/) This move also seems to coincide with the end of publicly available quarterly reports, which list SBAC’s subcontracts. The most recent report I could find was from June of 2013. There you will see contracts with Educational Testing Service, AIR, Amplify, McGraw-Hill, Pearson and many more. (http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Quarterly-Report-June-2013.pdf)
2. In its new home at UCLA, SBAC is collaborating with something called the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST) and guess what? It is funded by some of the very same organizations that are getting contracts with SBAC (ETS, for example), as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (http://www.cse.ucla.edu/about/agencies.php)
3. From what I can find, UCLA’s education school is also enmeshed in the charter school movement. In fact, UCLA offers a certificate on Charter School Finance Policy and Administration! (https://www.uclaextension.edu/pages/ProgramDetails.aspx?reg=CF586) If I were even remotely cynical, I might ask myself who stands to benefit the most from a new standardized test for which it is projected that 60-70% of kids will fail? Might it be charter schools that can swoop in and offer “alternatives” to “failing” schools, where “failing” is measured by standardized tests?
4. Who the heck wrote the SBAC? Looks to me like ETS and McGraw Hill, which received (at least) a combined $82.6 million from the Consortium (that’s us!) for “test-item development” and other services. (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/01/06contract.h34.html)
SOMEBODY has got to connect all these dots and show that the SBAC, just like the PARCC, is a giveaway to profiteers, was NOT crafted by educators with the best interests of students in mind, and is another step toward taking the “public” out of public education.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I think it would be wise to zero in on this issue even more. The more we raise questions about it the and the more press it gets , the more likely that it will be addressed in the courts. It is clearly a shady dealing.
Does anyone know who would have standing in order to challenge the SBAC grant in court? My Congressional person is a dufus and wouldn’t be of any help.
Sorry this will be a tad long but you asked:
From: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/12/20/judge-blocks-missouri-paying-smarter-balanced-dues
Missouri Coalition Against Common Core (MCACC) founders Gretchen Logue and Anne Gassel have teamed up with national standards opponent Fred Sauer to sue Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon and the state for paying dues to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). A Cole County circuit court judge issued a temporary restraining order on November 25 preventing Missouri from paying membership fees to SBAC.
Missouri is a governing member of SBAC, which writes tests aligned with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Public records show the state owes almost $4.3 million to the consortium for the 2014-15 fiscal year.
Gassel argues the SBAC is an illegal interstate compact. The Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids states from entering into contracts without congressional approval. “The state should not be paying dues to an illegal entity,” Gassel said.
Membership dues are calculated by multiplying a projected number of tested students with a selected assessment package, which for Missouri costs $10.10 per student. According to Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) Communications Coordinator Sarah Potter, membership fees pay for “access to the formative, interim, and summative operation assessment resources, and ongoing item development and technical reporting.”
DESE Chief of Staff Robin Coffman signed a Memorandum of Understanding on September 5 further binding Missouri to the consortium. By signing the agreement, member states committed to SBAC’s acting fiscal agent, Regents of the University of California (UC). Membership in the consortium automatically renews on an annual basis after the contract’s initial three-year term, effective July 2014.
Replacing Common Core Standards
Despite Missouri’s current SBAC membership, the state legislature passed a law in May that, through the work of legislator and education department appointed groups, will allow the state to replace Common Core standards by 2016. In the meantime, the state education department will move forward with its plan to administer CCSS curriculum and tests.
MCACC argues Common Core standards are “untried and unproven” and would not ultimately improve education while boosting the profits of corporations and nonprofit organizations involved in the system. Gassel says Missouri will not be completely rid of Common Core until the state is able to leave SBAC.
In order to exit SBAC, a state must submit a written explanation of statutory and policy reasons for membership termination. Gassel says two-thirds of the consortium’s member states must then vote to approve a state’s exit, as remaining states must absorb membership costs. Gassel says if the judge rules in MCACC’s favor, SBAC will be forced to terminate Missouri’s membership, as the Memorandum of Understanding cites a member state’s failure to appropriate funds to annual membership fees as a cause for termination.
Other Attempts to Leave SBAC
Missouri is not the only state to move away from CCSS while remaining connected to the standards through SBAC. In August, Iowa attempted to the leave the consortium.
In a joint letter, Gov. Terry Branstad and Iowa Department of Education Director Brad Buck cited the Iowa Assessment Taskforce, which was created by the Iowa Legislature to replace the national standards, as a reason for not further committing to SBAC.
“Iowa’s goal is to have a state assessment that is the right fit for Iowa,” the statement said. Iowa is currently listed as an affiliated member on the SBAC website.
A blogger from Stop Common Core NC wrote in response to the Missouri judge’s restraining order, “Upon legislation reviewing and replacing Common Core in North Carolina being passed, our state should have pulled out of this consortium. Why haven’t we pulled out? Do citizens need to sue in North Carolina too?”
North Carolina has established a commission to replace Common Core, but the state, like Missouri, is a governing member of SBAC, which requires participation in decision-making processes.
Missouri DESE’s Potter said of DESE’s level of involvement, “We participate in all meetings, both web-based and in-person. . . . Missouri educators served as item writers, item reviewers, and as achievement-level-setting online and in-person panelists.”
Although it’s unclear whether the lawsuit will allow Missouri to leave the SBAC, Gassel says she’s hopeful other states will follow their lead.
Brittany Wagner (brittany.wagner@showmeinstitute.org) is an education policy research assistant at the Show-Me Institute.
Duane, thank you for posting this. It clarifies things in NC a little more (although what was the date when this was written and published). According to the map linked in this post, NC is already out of SBAC and were only affiliates to begin with.
http://stopcommoncorenc.org/when-did-north-carolina-drop-from-governing-to-affiliate-member-of-sbac/
Per Oregon Department of Education material, Oregin higher education was also deeply involved. However, I asked for specific (who, what role, did they have veto power) and clearly Oregon higher Ed didn’t know. And my guess is they aren’t really involved in any significant way – how could they be given how poorly funded they are.
This UCLA connection makes sense, then. And Oregon seems to be taking whatever the UCLA brain trust throws out (oh, I mean “develops”). 🙂
I’m not an expert on this but I do recall some shady dealing with a group of Oregon professors and the NCLB/Reading First program which tells me that there are relationships between Oregon and the DOE still, since the bureaucrats and functionaries are still in place from those days.
These unholy alliances between higher ed and the USDOE are fascinating to me, in a macabre way, as the DOE moves to destroy higher ed the way they’ve undertaken the destruction of public K-12 education.
I surmise that the higher ed honchos and admins think that they will survive the cultural revolution somehow by working hand in hand with their should-be enemies. They have, after all, profited greatly since the inception of NCLB and RTTT.
Charter schools in Michigan are almost entirely supported thru public higher ed institutions. There’s the “school” entity and then the management company that completely runs the school, so that’s the purely legalistic distinction that muddies the water and gives them some cover.
It’s one of the things no one wants to mention. It’s funny because when the Ohio charter law was written it allowed colleges and universities to “sponsor” which involves taking a cut of every public school dollar. They didn’t do it. I wonder sometimes what the difference there was.
I’m thinking about past historical events and purges. Even mob analogies. It seems that collaborators and turncoats don’t fare well. Perhaps they may have better luck.
I swapped email with the spokesperson for Oregon Higher Ed. She refused to answer the questions and, instead, sent me links to the SBAC generic website. Truth is, I don’t think Higher Ed has much clue other than they are merely executing orders…and in a bureaucracy one should never work too hard to understand why you’re doing what you’re doing. 🙂
Chris, can you explain the shady dealings between Oregon professors and NCLB/Reading First Program?
The Oregon professors were involved in writing requirements for Reading First. Their textbooks were just right for adoption
Susan Ohanian reported on it back in 2006:
Part 1
http://www.susanohanian.org/show_research.php?id=94
Part 2
http://www.susanohanian.org/show_research.php?id=129
Ther is much more documentation on Susan’s website if you search for Reading First and University of Oregon. She and the late Gerald Bracey were all over the conflicts of interest and the scandals back then.
“And Oregon seems to be taking whatever the UCLA brain trust throws out (oh, I mean “up”).”
Corrected your last statement, Doug.
Unfortunately, WA State had a fairly big role in it as well. Joe Willhoft, who used to work for our dept of ed (OSPI) changed jobs to work head SBAC. http://www.smarterbalanced.org/news/smarter-balanced-names-willhoft-as-executive-director/
It appears we get the same run-around when we ask questions about SBAC as the Oregon people are getting. When all of this was coming down the pipes and OSPI did their little show-and-tell CCSS & SBAC in various spots throughout the state, it was pretty clear this going to happen regardless of any outcry. Now we just get ridiculous propaganda from ReadyWA and OSPI about all the reasons the SBAC is better than our old state-written MSP. Ironically, the 3 week turnaround for scores that they promised us has yet to materialize. Some scores are back, but most are not. Now they say they’ll all be back by September, and that we misunderstood the timeline. Whatever.
SBAC is not a good test. There were 8th grade reading level passages on the 4th grade test. The 3rd grade test was way too difficult and way too long. These are 9 year olds! The math had screwy question wording and tools that didn’t work. Don’t let me get started on the technical issues and how worthless the tech support from both OSPI and AIR was. We don’t have scores for some kids because of errors on THEIR end, yet they want us to code those errors so it reflects poorly on us, not them. I hope way more parents opt their kids out next year.
Amplify is the “educational wing” of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.
“It’s one thing for all but a few states to agree on one shared set of academic standards. It’s quite another for them to agree on when students are “college ready” and to set that test score at a dauntingly high place. Yet that’s what two state assessment groups are doing.”
So is there really one set of cut scores for the Common Core tests in all states? At most two sets that are slightly different, depending on whether the state went with PARCC or SBAC?
I’m relieved a few states didn’t go along, because they’ll keep the CC promoters honest. When there’s an effort to attribute every gain to the Common Core (which is already well underway) we’ll have states that will probably report gains without the Common Core.
It doesn’t make any difference for those states that kept CC but dropped PARCC or SBAC. The tests are just as bad, maybe even longer, and have the same incredibly high failure rates. No one has ever said how Utah’s scores were cut. It wouldn’t surprise me if they used NAEP as well, but no one knows for sure.
Ah, but you don’t have the PARCC suite of tools to ensure PARCC swallows every public school in the country whole!
PARCC is a “system” and if they want to do well on the PARCC tests, schools will purchase the system, I’m sure, especially if it’s either “do well on the PARCC tests or face sanctions”.
Click to access Parcc-Summer-flier-6-9-2015.pdf
I’m not sure about the “longer” part. Measurement Inc (FL, TN) testing appears to be shorter.
True, but we also have NO idea what any of the questions on the test look like. Utah has NEVER published any test questions or sample items. It’s a total guessing game.
One of our local newspapers allow 300 words in letters to the editor. I am still working on this letter, it is over the 300 words and needs revisions but am offering it if anyone else is interested in writing something similar.
Educational failures, public school vs. corporate controlled media.
Educators: Truths best found by scholarly, in depth research. Corporate media? Example: Climate change; 97% of world’s best scientific mind proclaim it human induced, major catastrophe. Media; fracking, Keystone, carbon producing pollution etc.
Media; political horse racing promoted, politicians statement unvalidated.
Media promotions minus adequate fact finding: Iraq war; trillions tax payer money lost, untold death count, national credibility decimated: unexamined bank problems; bank failures, depression: Gulf of Tonkin‘ Viet Nam war exploded.
Media coverage of fundamentally critical problems? Constitutional freedom guarantees drastically diminish. Middle class disappearing, upper 1% siphons national largess. Perpetual war promoted, diplomacy questioned. Plutocracy supplants democracy. Peoples interests succumb, CEOs expand.
Profound chutzpa exemplified.
Public schools denigrated, even castigated. Are our best schools successes compared with other nation‘s? Are public schools failures linked to societal problems becoming whipping boys for political failures? Are media promoted corporate schools over all produced better, less results? Are taxpayers paying more for less favorable results ? Are corporate schools profound failures reported regularly?
Democratic processes or autocracy? Corporations as suppliers of “truths”, providing test materials, grading them, grading schools, teachers by students assimilating and regurgitating their facts or with scholarly, best understandings by humankind’s best minds and by people on the firing line?
Has there ever been a time in our nation’s history when public schools did not innovate, search for better ways of teaching? Have politicians always been prescient? Sputnik, we must emulate the great Russian schools. Etc.
Are test results themselves necessarily indicators of success? Are tests which virtually anyone can pass, can fail possible? Are academic achievement and education synonymous? Are honesty, integrity etc equally valid educative goals? Does inordinate testing promote, hinder these goals?
Are children humanoids prepared for CEO exploitation or human beings, to be educated to their highest potential, nurtured for a democracy?
Whose education has proven the greatest failure?
Where in Indiana? I visit my parents in Hobart a fair amount and read the NWI Times, at least as far as I can stomach it. I wouldn’t bother submitting a letter to them, as they seem to pride themselves on hateful, willfully ignorant letters. When my parents lived in Indianapolis, the Star wasn’t much better.
Corporate contracts and teacher participation are not exclusive. Teachers were involved in item development, item review, development of the digital library, and both the online and in person steps in the achievement level setting process. All of these activities, however, were coordinated under vendor contracts and ETS, Mc-Graw-Hill, Amplify, etc. would not seek out that business if if wasn’t profitable.
The “something called CRESST” is a research center (think tank) that has been in existence for almost 50 years. CRESST has historically received a lot of federal and foundation funding, but is not a new organization custom made to advance Common Core, corrupt apple pie recipes everywhere, and otherwise destroy the American Way. It does have a long standing for experience in educational measurement, which is a controversial topic for some. Is it really surprising that a multi-state standardized testing project is partnering with one of the pre-eminent measurement centers?
The involvement of active teachers and researchers in Smarter Balanced doesn’t mean that SBAC is on the side of the angels. It’s a complex project where there is not a simple intent and cognitive capture can always happen with participating professionals. But it’s not a nefarious covert operation either.
I might give your post creedence but for the smarmy, dismissive, and holier-than-thou taste it leaves on the palate.
History is replete with collaborators, both good and evil, and your declarations don’t convince or prove much of anything.
How do we know it’s “not a nefarious, covert operation”? Just because you say so?
Would that be along the lines of other corporate and consortium not-quite-truths that permeate the reformist landscape?
Sorry, but you’ll have to do much better than that to convince any thinking educator.
You are right. That was smarmy and righteous. Thank you for calling me out on that. I hope this is a better tone.
I know that educators were involved because our district had one teacher serve as an item reviewer for ELA items and we had another teacher selected for the in person panel in Dallas for achievement level setting. Same for the online achievement level setting process.
When I look at the SBAC governance and work group rosters for the Wisconsin representatives, I know many of the Wisconsin representatives on the list to some degree (we are not a big state and my district is close to Madison). They are mostly DPI and one university person who I know believe in public education and don’t have an agenda to destroy it. Those who I know have school aged children send them to public schools.
Now, is there an inner core to the SBAC enterprise that is covert and nefarious? Anything is possible, but I have not seen it and I can’t dismiss what I know.
I tend to react to conspiracy theories. Conspiracies happen, but they are rare and are black box explanation. I think many conspiracy allegations are about pluralistic processes that are not as transparent or as inclusive as they should be. So I tend to push back against conspiracy theories and I get dismissive about that sometimes. As you note, this is not a persuasive approach.
The other thing that triggered a reaction is that I am fairly sure that our host knows the CRESST leadership, people like Eva Baker and Robert Linn. So to see a post that implied that CRESST is this shadowy unknown group struck me as curious. This blog is a treasure and Diane presents an amazing number of thought provoking posts. And she is sometimes careful to frame a post in a way to promote discussion and debate. So, I understand why she may have chosen not to add any context about CRESST, but it prompted me to react.
I can’t undo the earlier post, but I hope this provides more information about where I am coming from, agree or disagree.
I appreciate your gracious update. Forgive me if, however, I remain skeptical. Not because I’m a conspiracy theorist but because I am a pragmatist and a student of history.
Susan Ohanian uncovered a great many conspiracies way back in the 1980s and 1990s that proved, through diligent and carefully documented research, that there is, indeed, a plot against public schooling between businesses, banks, and the wealthy elites.
Many good and trustworthy teachers have been used as pawns to provide cover and legitimacy to nefarious operations throughout the years I have been following this war on public education and teachers and their unions.
Some have been paid off, some were duped, some were true believers who later changed their minds, like Diane.
I do not see evil people lurking behind every reform but I also don’t place blinders on my eyes regarding the earnest and pious public spin of the reformists.
I’ve read the documents Susan provided from the IMF, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and so many other national and international groups who have been working for decades under the theories of Milton Friedman to end public education and turn it over to the market forces they so fervently believe in. Chile and Sweden are just 2 examples of their work coming to fruition (and failing badly, I might add).
The connection between the neo-liberals, neo-conservatives, Friedman’s theories of economics and education, and the Common Core ‘State’ Standards is irrefutable and obvious. The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium is an offshoot of these reformsters and their plans so I do not trust it nor what it produces.
I would also like to see the other non-PARCC or SBAC states and have someone look into THEIR testing. AIR does Utah’s test, and is in the process of doing Florida’s. I’ve been given to believe that AIR is the only “approved” company to do CC tests that are not PARCC or SBAC. Why?
I don’t think they are. ACT’s Aspire assessment is CCSS aligned, although that feature is highlighted less than when Aspire was first introduced.
I could have easily been mistaken. Utah’s state education office and assessment people are so closed-mouth about these tests that they may as well be the Illuminati. The idiot media just takes the statements at face value that 70% of Utah’s children are “not proficient.” No one ever thinks to even ask what “proficient” even means.
AIR’s response for the SBAC when there are problems on a Mac or a Chromebook: “Use a Windows machine. We can’t replicate the error. It works fine for us.”
AiIR’s response when there are problems on a Windows machine: “Use a Chromebook. We can’t replicate the error. It works fine for us.”
Sounds familiar.
Measurement Inc is the vendor in TN. I am led to believe they run some part of the testing in FL also. There may be some cross pollination of test banks behind the scenes too, as frequently they must get questions from top textbook authors and there are only so many. Harcourt authors sell to the Measurement Inc test bank, I am told.
I am getting one step closer to finding answers on all their contracts, along with American Institutes for Research who is their testing vendor in many states. I submitted a FOIA in my state for contracts and emails, but this happened, which I just broke the news on today, as our State Senate gets ready to vote on a parent opt-out bill: https://exceptionaldelaware.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/delaware-doj-finds-numerous-foia-violations-with-doe-in-request-for-standardized-testing-contracts/
At least NC has this going for us—that we were only affiliated and not now (I don’t think).
Some states face their public education asphyxiation from the left, some from the right, and some from both. I’m glad that NC is at least, right now, mostly seeing it come from lawmakers and not something like SBAC (although that is damning with faint praise).
I always figured Fox (or maybe NPR) was behind “Smarter Balanced”
oops, that’s “Fair and Balanced.”
never mind.
Who comes up with these dumb names?
And dumb tests, for that matter.
I guess maybe the same guy came up with both?
Here is a list of documents from Connecticut, including UCLA/CRESST documents, AIR documents, list of those who have “access” to the data, SBAC documents, etc.
This is a huge area that should be focused on. This is key for every state fighting student data privacy issues, and the related data gathering and pseudo-analysis, false research and invalic conclusions will hinge on all of this:
http://connecticutunites.weebly.com/references-and-resources.html
This teacher has a lot of savvy and a good nose for research. I think there is a lot more but the information in this post is an excellent start. I suggest doing some more key word searches. I just tried “SBAC contracts” and got a lot of hits. It takes time, but some of the contracts went to agencies that also did sub-contracts, such as WestEd. So you can do SBAC + WestEd
There is also a search engine called waybackmachine.org/ that can do some retrieval of documents that have been scrubbed. It is an Internet archive and good reminder that scrubbing is not that easy. Mercedes Schneider has used this tool.
I have not yet tried it but there is a lot of effort to re-write history, especially that connected with the Grand Experiment by CEOs to Standardize American Education.
The original USDE grants for the tests can also be found. Here are references for those initial grants. Links are still working
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2010, September). The partnership for assessment of readiness for college and careers (PARCC) application for the race to the top comprehensive assessment systems competition. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/parcc/pdf/apprtcasc.pdf
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2010, December 23). Proposal for supplemental race to the top assessment award. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/parccsupplementalproposal12-23achievefinal.pdf
SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2010, June 23). Race to the top assessment program application for new grants, comprehensive assessment systems CFDA Number: 84.395B. http://www.k12.wa.us/SMARTER/RTTTApplication.aspx (This link turns up a lot of interesting stuff. To see the grant application you may have to search USDE website and put in the CDF number.
SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2011, January 6). Supplemental funding budget narrative submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. p. 31. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/sbac-supplemental-budget-narrative_final.pdf
Note the dates on the grants. The grants were in the works before the CCSS were published in June 2010, and the consortiums were also scrambling like mad to gain states to list in their proposals. This was a time-driven rush that prevented good thinking, not much thinking at all. Amateur hour with your money and mine.
The rush to push the tests into existence was so great that the two groups had to go back for supplementary funding, hence the second grant. The second grants were for “curriculum” for the CCSS sufficient to make the test development go forward: $15 million to each of the testing groups. Those test-oriented curriculum materials have never seen the light of day. They also represent the clearest path for charging USDE with illegal conduct. Here is what PARCC promised USDE when applying for the supplementary funding for curriculum work.
That request included an uncertain “could” and firm “will” approach to producing model courses and ancillary materials by the end of 2011. Has anyone seen these work products?
“Each model unit could include components such as: instructional materials; formative activities that would give teachers information they need about student understanding relative to the CCSS and PARCC assessments; professional development materials for educators; and tools to inform conversations between principals and teachers, teachers and students, and teachers and parents about the results of the through course assessments. The units developed by PARCC will serve as powerful models for others to develop similar tools for other standards or grades, and will help states and districts evaluate the quality and alignment of similar tools in the market (PARCC, 2010, December, p. 4).”
So, where are those promised work products? That is another unanswered question in the Grand Experiment–fiasco from the get-go.
I’m a multiple fellow of the UCLA Writing Project, and the Lit Project, so when CRESST teamed up with my inner city school after WASC suggested that we broaden our successful internal “academies” to include all students, I was skeptical but not unduly alarmed. I should have been. Their plan finished by destroying the programs in place, such as Humanitas, giving us instead a group of what I called “Tee Shirt Academies,” programs in name only. If CRESST is involved with SBAC, I’m concerned.
SBAC has spent a lot of money on PR, which might explain why they don’t have as much negative press as PARCC does. Of course they’ve buried the PR contracts in larger contracts, probably to hide what they are doing.
Click to access SBACRFP21StandardSettingFINAL3-103013.pdf
“The Communication Plan will provide a road map for adoption and widespread acceptance of
common performance standards, and will include a multi-mode plan to identify and deliver
compelling messages on the Common Core State Standards, the Smarter Balanced Assessment
System, the standard setting design, and the performance standards to key Smarter Balanced
constituents. The Contractor shall be responsible for identifying key messages and audiences and
for creating and implementing the Communication Plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the Smarter Balanced Executive Committee prior to implementation.
The Communication Plan shall include development of compelling messages on the performance
standards to present to K12 and higher education decision makers (e.g. Chief State School
Officers and State Higher Education Executive Officers) in advance of a state vote to approve the
performance standards, as well as development of public-facing materials to assist states in
communicating with key grasstop (e.g. state board of education members, media, legislators,
business and higher education leaders) and grassroot (e.g. teachers, parents) constituents about
the performance standards.”
Interesting topic because I started digging into this issue about a month ago, and it is very difficult to find a lot of info.
I did find the Memorandum Of Understanding between CA, OR, and NV with UCLA that had the pricing options. $6.50, $9.55, or $10.10 per student. I then started digging though the California Gates Foundation grant database beginning in May 2009. Best I can tell Bill Gates is the one that decided on the UC system.
First grant was was to UCLA for $576,191 in May 2009 – “to develop a conceptual platform for college readiness “.
Second donation to UC Berkley for $5,901,503 in September 2009 – “to produce and field test high quality mathematics formative assessments”.
Third round was back to UCLA for $4,342,988 in November 2009 – “to support formative assessment data collection, task analyses, and implementation”.
Fourth round back to UC Berkley for $2,999,730 in November 2009 – “to support development and adaptation of science and literacy/writing formative assessment tasks”
Still digging through 948 California Grants in the database, but this covers the Math, ELA, and Science SBAC testing.
SBAC is the darling of Linda Darling-Hammond. They are partners with the behavior research organization AIR (American Institutes of Research) AIR is supported by the UN and George Soros Open Society Foundation/Institute and AIR has also (the last time I added it up) received $113 million from Gates. AIR/SBAC so evil together. They rely heavily on evaluating behaviors, values and attitudes in an effort to change our children’s value system. They are the worst of the two Consortia.
I DO NOT appreciate my comments being changed by the owner of this site. Linda Darling-Hammond is a RADICAL and anyone with half a brain can see that just by listening to her. I know Ms. Ravitch is a good friend of hers but that does not change the truth. Going in an deleting words from a persons comment makes me question Ms. Ravitch’s integrity.
brackenkaren,
Linda Darling-Hammond is NOT a radical. She is a respected scholar of education who has served as president of the American Educational Research Association and many other organizations. She has repeatedly been recognized by her peers as one of the leading thinkers in American education. Yes, she is a personal friend. I don’t agree with her about everything, as she does not agree with me about everything, but so what? I respect her, and I do not appreciate the name-calling on my blog. Do it again and I will permanently block you.
I have been asking about the coercion question since I learned about the test in my constitutional law course 2 years ago. I have never gotten a satisfactory answer. Why has no one challenged RTTT etc in court as coercive?
RTTT should have been challenged in court as illegal because federal law prohibits ANY federal control or effort to direct or influence curriculum or instruction. Federal support for CCSS plus direct subsidy of CC testing does what is explicitly prohibited
Reblogged this on Creative Delaware and commented:
Interesting questions about SBAC.