These days, no debate can move forward without hearing what Peter Greene thinks. A teacher in Pennsylvania, he has established himself as one of the most astute observers of education issues in the nation today through his writings.
Peter Greene here expresses his profound frustration with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s review of “next generation assessments.”
He begins by noting that none of those associated with the study are neutral participants. TBF has received millions of dollars to promote and advocate for the Common Core. Greene questions whether the researchers are objective, given their past connection to reform projects. [I, on the other hand, do not question the researchers’ independence, but I agree with Peter that they are enmeshed in reform assumptions that should be subjects of debate.]
Greene quotes Polikoff:
“A key hope of these new tests is that they will overcome the weaknesses of the previous generation of state tests. Among these weaknesses were poor alignment with the standards they were designed to represent and low overall levels of cognitive demand (i.e., most items requiring simple recall or procedures, rather than deeper skills such as demonstrating understanding). There was widespread belief that these features of NCLB-era state tests sent teachers conflicting messages about what to teach, undermining the standards and leading to undesired instructional responses.”
Or consider this blurb from the Fordham website:
“Evaluating the Content and Quality of Next Generation Assessments examines previously unreleased items from three multi-state tests (ACT Aspire, PARCC, and Smarter Balanced) and one best-in-class state assessment, Massachusetts’ state exam (MCAS), to answer policymakers’ most pressing questions: Do these tests reflect strong content? Are they rigorous? What are their strengths and areas for improvement? No one has ever gotten under the hood of these tests and published an objective third-party review of their content, quality, and rigor. Until now.”
Peter questions the assumptions on which the study is built:
So, two main questions– are the new tests well-aligned to the Core, and do they serve as a clear “unambiguous” driver of curriculum and instruction?
We start from the very beginning with a host of unexamined assumptions. The notion that Polikoff and Doorey or the Fordham Institute are in any way an objective third parties seems absurd, but it’s not possible to objectively consider the questions because that would require us to unobjectively accept the premise that national or higher standards have anything to do with educational achievement, that the Core standards are in any way connected to college and career success, that a standardized test can measure any of the important parts of an education, and that having a Big Standardized Test drive instruction and curriculum is a good idea for any reason at all. These assumptions are at best highly debatable topics and at worst unsupportable baloney, but they are all accepted as givens before this study even begins.
Again, I am willing to grant that Polikoff and Doorey are objective, and that Fordham is not paying respects to its principal outside funder, the Gates Foundation. But note that the researchers and Fordham are enmeshed in the assumption that higher standards and more rigorous tests improve test scores and education. Since I don’t think that is accurate, I question the foundations of the report, not its findings. In my view, tests should not drive instruction, and tests don’t improve educational achievement. Curriculum and instruction should drive tests. Instruction drives education. The quality of one’s living conditions has more to do with test scores than the tests.
But back to Peter Greene:
The study was built around three questions:
Do the assessments place strong emphasis on the most important content for college and career readiness(CCR), as called for by the Common Core State Standards and other CCR standards? (Content)
Do they require all students to demonstrate the range of thinking skills, including higher-order skills, called for by those standards? (Depth)
What are the overall strengths and weaknesses of each assessment relative to the examined criteria forELA/Literacy and mathematics? (Overall Strengths and Weaknesses)
The first question assumes that Common Core (and its generic replacements) actually includes anything that truly prepares students for college and career. The second question assumes that such standards include calls for higher-order thinking skills. And the third assumes that the examined criteria are a legitimate measures of how weak or strong literacy and math instruction might be.
So we’re on shaky ground already. Do things get better?
Well, the methodology involves using the CCSSO “Criteria for Procuring and Evaluating High-Quality Assessments.” So, here’s what we’re doing. We’ve got a new ruler from the emperor, and we want to make sure that it really measures twelve inches, a foot. We need something to check it against, some reference. So the emperor says, “Here, check it against this.” And he hands us a ruler.
So who was selected for this objective study of the tests, and how were they selected.
We began by soliciting reviewer recommendations from each participating testing program and other sources, including content and assessment experts, individuals with experience in prior alignment studies, and several national and state organizations.
That’s right. They asked for reviewer recommendations from the test manufacturers. They picked up the phone and said, “Hey, do you anybody who would be good to use on a study of whether or not your product is any good?”
I nominate Peter Greene to serve as the next U.S. Secretary of Education. Imagine that: classroom experience and a built-in junk-science detector.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“So the emperor says, “Here, check it against this.” And he hands us a ruler.”
It is more like – he hands us a bent stick!
What about tests that measure the affective domain, or the moral domain? Imagine giving GW Carver one of todays standardized tests in 3rd grade; he would’ve failed, done miserably and would’ve been “predicted” to be a struggling student. Why, because he never had an enriching early childhood, growing up in poverty and oppression. Yet, later in life as opportunities arose and GW aspired to become a scientist, his true ability, capacity and potential was revealed, because the traits of his affective and moral domains came forth (ie. diligence, frugality, perseverance, charity, etc.).
GW Carver would’ve been labeled as a “potential failure” by many of our current, or even antiquated, standards, because one’s success in life is often more affected by their personal views of self-efficacy and affective-diligence, rather than the facts they can memorize and spit-out on a multiple-choice test.
I can hear GW Carver and Booker T Washington singing the hymn “We shall overcome, your false measures and invalid predictors of worth, value and success”.
The U.S. financial sector would do well on tests, devised by tech and test corporations, which gives reason to eliminate the tests. The financial sector drags down GDP, by an estimated 2%.
Tests would have to include content with immoral and unethical judgment, for the self-anointed reformers to score well.
The “reformers” live in a “reformer bubble.” They review and post items that confirm that their approach is the “right” way. Their “research” consists of opinions and perspectives of paid Hessians from the army of “reform.” They want to undermine the work of professional teachers and scholars from accredited colleges of education. Because they are bankrolled by billionaires, they can disseminate their fake findings from their fake “experts.” Because their goals are economic rather than educational, their fake views and perspectives should be dismissed as inaccurate and frivolous by serious people that have the best interests of our young people at heart. That they have bought their way into acceptance from policymakers is pitiful, and it highlights how morally bankrupt the people in power are.
I believe that this is true. Your reference to a “fake” expert reminds me of a comment made by a financial critic who recently suggested that as a nation we are now in thrall to the “expert industrial complex.”
Perhaps there is someone out there with a more nuanced understanding of how children learn (I know there is!) who can answer this question. In this great push to test higher order thinking skills, are these skills being tested in an age appropriate manner? Does not being able to articulate in a clear, concise manner, why a particular solution makes sense mean that a student does not understand a concept even though they show the ability to apply it? I am thinking of all the skills we develop as human beings without being able to analyze them verbally. It would seem that even standardized test makers have realized some sort of dichotomy when they provide both verbal and performance based scores.
HOTS such as analysis, evaluation, judgment, logical reasoning, critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity all share some common threads. One: HOTS cannot be taught directly. Two: there is rarely ever just one right answer, solution, judgment, etc. Three: HOTS cannot be tested for (see number two).
Of all the bogus claims of the CC test reform movement, the use of ELA as a conduit for HOTS instruction is the most preposterous. Using math as a platform for HOTS has produced an approach to computation and arithmetic that is so convoluted that it subverts the very subject being tested.
HOTS – great sound bite, but about as reasonable a claim as cold fusion in a jar.
“In my view, tests should not drive instruction, and tests don’t improve educational achievement. Curriculum and instruction should drive tests. Instruction drives education.”
I assume you probably mean “standardized, high-stakes tests” when you say “tests.” But the problem isn’t testing (I prefer the broader term “assessment”) per se but a lack of understanding among all stakeholders of how it can and should be used. A standardized test is not automatically “poorly designed” just because it is happens to be standardized. Curriculum SHOULD begin from standards (desired results) and assessments (determining acceptable evidence of understanding), rather than from what teachers think they should cover or what activities they want to do. This is Backwards Design 101. Assessment–specifically, true formative assessment–should inform instruction, allowing teachers to give frequent feedback and make adjustments if students are not progressing. Research even shows that frequent testing while students are learning the material is beneficial. (See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/researchers-find-that-frequent-tests-can-boost-learning/ for instance.) Part of the problem is that, in practice, secondary and post-secondary teachers often treat assessments like quizzes or tests as mechanisms for generating scores to enter into gradebooks and go through the curriculum (covering novel or textbook chapters, for instance) regardless of how students perform.
I believe in assessments, but it’s important to understand that a lot of what teachers do cannot be assessed. Seeds are planted that sometimes take years or decades to germinate. There are no tests to detect these seeds.
I second the motion! All in favor say Aye. Opposed? None.
By acclamation: Peter Greene – a man with a sense of humor and a master of figurative language – Secretary of Education