Politico,com reports that the states are working to reduce testing. Do you believe it? Color me skeptical. As long S NCLB and Arne’s waivers threaten school closings and teacher evaluations based on test scores, how can any state cut down on testing?
STATES CONSIDER CUTTING TESTING: The Council of Chief State School Officers sent states a survey earlier this year and recently revealed [http://politico.pro/1NxwAQH] one of their findings: At least 39 states are working to reduce unnecessary testing in various ways. That might include establishing a task force, surveying existing tests, gathering feedback from educators and more. Last October, CCSSO and the Council of the Great City Schools announced an effort to review testing across states and districts.
– Which states aren’t among the 39? According to CCSSO’s survey results: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Texas. But doesn’t mean they’re doing nothing – CCSSO stresses that some additional states have taken action since the survey was administered earlier this year. For example, North Dakota Superintendent Kirsten Baesler launched a task force to review the state’s testing options after glitches with the state’s Smarter Balanced vendor, Measured Progress, interrupted exams this spring. Some states took action prior to the survey and some may not have responded to the survey.
– Speaking of testing, a group of Florida state lawmakers wants Republican Gov. Rick Scott to dump this year’s testing results on the Florida Standards Assessment. Tampa Bay Times: http://bit.ly/1JxPjxF.
– And the California high school exit exam may be suspended immediately. EdSource: http://bit.ly/1JyxqPb.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The related question (and it applies to opting out) is what happens in schools and districts if we cut back on or even drop testing?
There are an awful lot people, resources, even culture invested in the testing. There are a significant number of teachers who have known nothing else.
So as much as I, we, want the testing to go away, we can’t overlook how hard it is to change what’s entrenched.
It makes us … reformers. In a good way.
The states may cut back but districts fearful of poor test performance will still test the hell out of our students. Our district tested kids at the beginning and at the end of each semester. The tests were four hours and created by district officials. Parents are not allowed to see the test or the test results. Some of us peeked and found that they were unfair. They often do not mirror what is being taught in the classroom. Not only do we have the state to contend with but we also have district officials who do not consult with teachers before writing assessment exams. The wells have been poisoned. Big Government is proving to be toxic.
Diane, I’m with you. You have the facts to be skeptical. Your words ring true: “Color me skeptical. As long as NCLB and Arne’s waivers threaten school closings and teacher evaluations based on test scores, how can any state cut down on testing?”
What is the shortest test a state can give, and still receive fed funding? If there is such a thing as teach to the test, then the object of the game is to minimally test to the funding.
Interesting…”Test to the funding” instead of teach to the test.
Reducing testing doesn’t make a difference. They just take less time for the test while educators still have to teach to the test. I suspect we support reduced testing because we aren’t courageous enough to take back our profession. Just water down the same old same old
Let’s also not forget that many superintendents and principals have staked their value on test scores. They may have brought some of it on, but they created the idea that they could show their worth – and test scores, especially to ex-coaches are, well, scores.
I’ve argued for a while that the testing regime was actually laid on some pretty fertile, will ground. But then they got what they asked for …
Agreed. If you can find a good superintendent, they will understand. If you van’t, the testing police can’t be in your classroom all the time. Screw the test and teach to the kids. It’s our moral obligation
New Jersey loves standardized testing. Hespe waxes poetic over it.
“Last October, CCSSO and the Council of the Great City Schools announced an effort to review testing across states and districts.”
That review, including a survey, is not the whole story. Preferred anecdotes from the this survey are present in a new document, from the same groups, 2015, intended to shape the activities of states relative to testing through a follow-up document addressed to states. In other words, skepticism about anything from these folks is warranted. Here is why.
“Working together, the Council of Chief State School Officers and the Council of the Great City Schools jointly released Commitments on High-Quality Assessments, a series of established principles to guide state leaders and district leaders in making sure every assessment administered is high-quality, coherent, and meaningful to students, parents and teachers.”
Sounds sensible. But why are the Council of Chief State School Officers and the Council of the Great City Schools talking about “established principles” for “high quality assessments? ” Whose “established principles” are to be the guide for state and district leaders? Why this sudden interest in “high quality” assessments?
If you look beyond the survey last October, and the press release for “ Comprehensive Statewide Assessment Systems: A Framework for the Role of the State Education Agency in Improving Quality and Reducing Burden ” you will also find that these groups have not departed from the testing regime. They have, however, outsourced to others the task of promulgating as if “established” some principles and quality-control measures for assessments.
The “established principles” come from Kristopher J. Kaase, The Institute for Evidence-based Reform, LLC a clever name for a for-profit practice founded in 2010, and also marketer of consulting services and products such as the “Academic and Behavioral Interventions Set – Book, Motivaider, & CD” for about $95.
The website for this “Institute” implies that “best practices” are known and that the problem at hand is to help administrators and educators “develop their capacity to consistently implement best practices.”
Here we go again. Questionable assumptions about assessments only being a matter of “implementation.” Sound familiar?
Why pay attention to Kris Kaase? The CCSSO says that Kris Kaase “served as CCSSO’s primary consultant for the development of this resource.” p. 23. The resource is not exactly that. It is a framework that is intended to tell state officials, what they should do about testing while seeming to offer tips on soliciting others’ best judgment.
This document is really about saving the testing regime, especially tests attached to the Common Core and “college and career readiness.” Major clues: Others credited with producing this document. They are:
Beth Cocuzza, Math Director, Student Achievement Partners,
Katie Keown, Literacy Assessment Specialist, Student Achievement Partners
Laura Hansen, Senior Literacy Assessment Specialist, Student Achievement Partners.
Note also that these three specialists are for math and literacy only, not a full spectrum of subjects, issues and opportunities for evaluation. Moreover, Student Achievement Partners does not have a credible history of independence and great judgment. It was founded by David Coleman, Susan Pimentel and Jason Zimba, lead writers of the Common Core State Standards. Educators have every reason to be skeptical about any recommendations from Student Achievement Partners,
Also given credit are Cory Curl, Senior Fellow, Assessment & Accountability, Achieve, Inc.
and Jacob Mishook, Associate Director of Assessment and Accountability, Achieve, Inc.
Recall that Achieve, Inc. is the organization operated with funds from major corporations and corporate foundations since 1996. Achieve helped devise and market the Common Core and was in charge of getting PARCC tests for the Common Core launched with federal funds.
Rounding out the experts is devising this “framework” for states is: Scott Palmer, Managing Partner, Education Counsel LLC, a long-time Washington insider (Clinton on ESEA, Obama’s Race to the Top and waivers) and whose website says:
Mr. Palmer’s focus is on education policy change and preventive law — helping states, school districts, higher education institutions, foundations, associations, and corporations advance fundamental change in education systems, policies, and practices that can dramatically improve student achievement and close achievement gaps. This includes:
Establishment of birth-to-five early learning systems to enhance access to a continuum of high-quality services and ensure that all students enter school ready to learn;
Promotion of policies and practices in K-12 education that can transform teaching and learning and enhance equity to ensure that all students graduate college and career ready;
And so on.
It is time to call out the CCSSO, Student Achievement Partners, and Achieve as the key purveyors of policies that have failed miserably tooffer educators sound advice for the last fifteen years. There is no reason to think they are letting go of the testing regime just “helping” along some rethinking about it. They are not.
Here is the opening spiel for a document “Comprehensive Statewide Assessment Systems: A Framework for the Role of the State Education Agency in Improving Quality and Reducing Burden.”
“States across the country have been moving to more rigorous learning standards aimed at ensuring all students are prepared for college and careers. Our expectations for students are higher than ever before and our understanding of what they need to know and be able to do has evolved to meet the demand of today’s economic realities.” p.5.
The report is filled with the same tired rhetoric to support the college and career and standards and same tired assumptions about testing. It is set forth by groups who have no real authority at all to tell states what they should be doing, not even about retinking the policies they have put in place on assessments– ther term of art for tests.
Click to access Comprehensive%20Statewide%20Assessment%20Systems%20-%20A%20Framework%20Final%206-24.pdf
All the “key action steps” as listed in the summary for the Comprehensive Statewide Assessment Systems document should have been accomplished prior to any mandated statewide testing systems being established. In New Mexico, absolutely none of the steps were implemented by Secretary of Education Skandera. NOT ONE!!!! Skandera happens to be on the Board of Directors for CCSSO. So if anyone thinks Educators in New Mexico believe any of this stuff (keep it clean) in the document then they need to think again. Skandera does not even believe what is written on the pages of the CCSSO document. She demonstrated that fact the first day on the job.
If people really believe New Mexico is reducing the amount of testing then they should take a closer look at what is really going on. Secretary of Education Skandera is NOT backing down on testing. Remember she has very, very close ties with Ex-Florida Governor Jeb Bush and she, and NM Governor Martinez, are not about to do anything to upset Jeb Bush. It is noted that NM is one of the 10 states that have not dropped PARCC. NM will undoubtedly be the last state to drop PARCC. Skandera is so linked to Pearson and Bush it is ridiculous and she does not dare to encourage NM to get out of the PARCC business. As long as PARCC is here in NM the amount of test students have to endure will continue. Bet on. Skandera does not really care what the end result for the students and teachers are as long as she can keep Jeb Bush and Pearson happy.
Very interesting. I teach in TN and I do not see any less testing. It seems like every time we turned around we were administering another test. We had to give CFAs, benchmark tests (required by the county), and TCAP (state test). That doesn’t include the assessments that were given 3 times a year to assess what students qualified or tested out of intervention services. I personally would LOVE to see a reduction in testing. There has got to be a better way to monitor, assess, and collect data then test, test, test.
North Carolina has a task force to limit testing. Their proposal? To have students tested three times during the year and then eliminate the End of Grade test with another, lower stakes end of year test. Less testing?
The games will be played unless we offer the viable alternative. If we are silent, we have no one to blame but ourselves
But if these kind of decisions are being made in secret (or semi-secret) , being silent or communicating with others really isn’t an option.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.