Governor Chris Christie made a big deal of pretending to get rid of Common Core, but he tenaciously stayed with PARCC, the federal test of the Common Core standards. Now the state board of education has voted to make PARCC a high school graduation test, starting in 2021.
This is insane.
To begin with, no standardized test should be a high school graduation test. They are normed on a bell curve, which guarantees a high failure rate. The children who do not receive a diploma will disproportionately consist of children of poverty (most of whom are African-American and Hispanic), children with disabilities, and English language learners.
Next, it is clear that the PARCC test produces high failure rates. Most students in New Jersey failed it last year. Only about 25% passed the algebra and geometry tests; only 40% of high school students passed the 11th grade ELA tests.
http://www.nj.com/education/2016/08/new_jersey_parcc_results_2016_released.html
What plans has the state made for the tens of thousands of students who will not get a high school diploma?
Please, ACLU and Education Law Center: Sue New Jersey to stop this travesty, this injustice towards children.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Yes, Diane, this is truly insane. Particularly since the alternative the Board is offering, a portfolio assessment for those who fail to pass the test after taking it several times, is very viable as the assessment for all students. The Board ignored the pleas of parents, local school boards and teachers in making this stupid decision. Here is my take: http://russonreading.blogspot.com/2016/08/nj-school-board-punish-children-for.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re getting better and better, Diane!! No usage of what those tests supposedly “measure”.
Now if I can just get you to quit using the “F” word in talking about student outcomes.
No, I don’t mean f#@k but FAIL! Why do we insist on telling kids that they fail at something? Hint: It has to do with our “grading” scale. When will we quit using the antiquated and nefarious malpractice that is grading students???
LikeLike
“When will we quit using the antiquated and nefarious malpractice that is grading students???”
Wilson:
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).
“I see” said the blind man to the deaf man, as they fell over the
edge of the cliff…
It seems the “importance” of the “score” is tied to “what” the test is
called .
A “standardized” test score is bunk.
Good thing the tests one must pass for a degree, or certification, are the “real deal”, eh?
LikeLike
NoBrick,
Real deal for those profiting from them.
“It seems the “importance” of the “score” is tied to “what” the test is
called .”
Exactly!
What you have quoted is my summary of Wilson’s thoughts/ideas. Although I had Noel review/critique my whole post, his work is far better than my summary. I tried to make sure when I used his words that the sentences are quotated and explicitly stated that it is Wilson’s words. If I missed a quote please let me know and I will correct it (although I don’t think I have).
LikeLike
The insanity of using completely invalid standardized test scores for anything at all is mind boggling. Since the beginning of the usage of standardized tests many have criticized and condemned them for the travesty that they are. Since 1998 when Noel Wilson definitively showed that all the onto-epistemological errors and falsehoods involved in the standards and testing regime render any results “vain and Illusory”, in other words completely invalid. To understand why using the results of standardized testing for anything is logically bankrupt read and comprehend his never refuted nor rebutted “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 words 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.
LikeLike
Thanks for this, again, Duane–can never be repeated enough!
As such, I’m repeating the posting of this link to the GREAT letter 6 superintendents wrote to IL State Supt. of Ed Tony Smith, after it was determined that the PARCC would NO longer be given in IL high schools!
http://www.winnetkacurrent.com/letters-editor/letter-editor-superintendents-thank-state-parcc-decision
No adminimals here, Duane! (Also–to Linda–this is, I believe, a direct result of one person to one person creating a larger buzz–an opt-out parent we retired teachers had been working with made a school board video available, where “standardized” testing/opting out was discussed. This info. was given to another retired teacher in a neighboring suburb, who then passed it on to one of those superintendents who’d signed the letter & had previously brought the issues up to her school board.
Spread the word, indeed–“think globally & act locally,” & it WILL happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“No adminimals here, Duane!”
While almost all of the administrators I’ve known are generally nice, somewhat intelligent, hard working, etc. . . what makes me categorize them as adminimals (and the same for GAGA teachers) is that although they don’t believe in the testing nonsense hardly any have done the right and ethical thing by refusing to cooperate in educational malpractices that are completely invalid and harm many students. Until these “administrators” actually do something to prevent this child abuse, they remain “adminimals” in my mind who are self interested in preserving their jobs and status in the education realm. In accepting and instituting these malpractices, they place personal interest above justice. And if they believe in the malpractices we have another problem to begin with.
Take care, rbmtk! I leave you with this thought:
“Should we therefore forgo our self-interest? Of course not. But it [self-interest] must be subordinate to justice, not the other way around. . . . To take advantage of a child’s naivete. . . in order to extract from them something [test scores, personal information] that is contrary to their interests, or intentions, without their knowledge [or consent of parents] or through coercion [state mandated testing], is always and everywhere unjust even if in some places and under certain circumstances it is not illegal. . . . Justice is superior to and more valuable than well-being or efficiency; it cannot be sacrificed to them, not even for the happiness of the greatest number [quoting Rawls]. To what could justice legitimately be sacrificed, since without justice there would be no legitimacy or illegitimacy? And in the name of what, since without justice even humanity, happiness and love could have no absolute value?. . . Without justice, values would be nothing more than (self) interests or motives; they would cease to be values or would become values without worth.”—Comte-Sponville [my additions]
LikeLike
I believe that NJ will have some major law suits to deal with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have been following this since the once great state of MD is now forcing this on our students. I am not a lawyer and can’t even think how I would find all this information in our state charter. The mom writing the article was a teacher, but is now an attorney. I can’t wait to see what comes of this and how it can help in the sate of MD….especially now that Andy Smarick has been appointed President of the school board. I am really disappointed in Gov. Hogan for his stance on public education in our state.
LikeLike
Lisa,
Make sure Hogan does not get re-elected. Start now.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, I like a lot of what Gov Hogan has done since Martin O’Malley is gone. MO’M is who got us into this mess! Those waiting to plan a take over in the next Gov election cycle are no better when it comes to their views on education. Everyone wants to keep the BS test and their alliance to Pearson (and all the other reformey things!)
LikeLike
And we just got rid of the California High School Exit Exam. Those outnumbered California Republicans who wanted to see everyone (not white) unable to get a decent paying job sure were upset. Maybe Jerry Brown has a friend or relative who could take the reigns for New Jersey’s _________ governor. (I really don’t know what adjectives to use to describe Christie at this point, with all the twisted turns of his Trumped up “personality” and “career”.)
LikeLike
Very funny LCT!
LikeLike
The Repuican intent of NCLB, hinding behind the language of accountability was always to undermine public education to pave the way for $ to flow to private education and profit. This is just more of the same. http://Www.arthurcamins.com
LikeLiked by 1 person
I deal not with intents, but actions and on NCLB there were plenty of Dems who voted for it. Overall both houses together the count was 575 for to 53 against. My guess would be that quite a few of those 53 against were probably Republicans who were against “federal overreach”.
LikeLike
I was at the SBOE meeting for this vote. It was absurd in its quiet passing. Edie Fulton was the only person to speak (in dissent) and she chose to abstain, rather than vote no. We have spent an incredible amount of time fighting this. NJSBOE and NJDOE have absolutely no interest in listening to parents, students, teachers, the public in general. I’ve written 2 posts about it. I am furious that we have to wait for the next governor to get rid of this. Such a waste of resources.
http://elfasd.blogspot.com/2016/08/nj-state-board-of-ed-fails-again.html
http://elfasd.blogspot.com/2016/08/nj-state-board-of-ed-ignores-public.html
LikeLike
The parents and student advocates of Newark, Paterson, Trenton, Jersey City, Camden and others better consider a strong class action suit against what are very biased exams – or take to the streets in protest. Statewide failure rates on PARRC were near 60%. The urban schools failure rates are significantly higher; the searches I made (link below) showed algebra I failure rates at 90% – 95+% in may of these districts. Never forget the NJBOE has ZERO evidence that these tests can promote or predict “college and career readiness”. The PARRC testing regime has been abandoned by 18 states – NJ is only one of 6 remaining states that continues to drink the Kool Aid. One good note, this doesn’t take effect until 2021 – hopefully PARRC will be long gone by then.
http://www.nj.com/education/2016/02/parcc_2015_test_results_see_how_your_nj_school_sco.html
LikeLike
NJ State Board Ed President Mark Biedron cofounded The Willow School. Its teaching approach is the antithesis of standardized testing. Per Julie Borst’s blog, he voted Yes. I can’t fathom why Dr Dorothy Strickland voted Yes. She was highly respected when she was at Teacher’s College.
LikeLike
Met a dedicated woman from Texas at my Restorative Practices training who had just been hired as the Principal of a small Middle school filled with 15-17 year olds (still there) who hadn’t passed the benchmark test given as an indicator of whether they could pass the Texas State Test REQUIRED to GRADUATE from High School.
Public Ed is full of policies and high stakes testing that widen gaps in our student populations and perpetuate systems of inequality that keep some from ever succeeding.
And now with social media, it is becoming more apparent to a wider audience that things can’t continue the way they are. Schools are not battlegrounds, kids are not the enemy, and we are not the problem.
But…
There are things we can do. And there’s never been a better chance for real long term, systematic, sustainable reform to happen. Changes that will affect EVERY child, not just some. With Leadership, funding, and media transforming, we’ve got to get our voices heard.
Looking at our own unconscious biases, using
Restorative Practices, adopting curriculum that reflects all our student populations and makes diversity a norm, collaboration and outreach, ending the school-to-prison line are all within reach.
We are the ones at the forefront of it all, we know what’s best, and we know what we need to help our kids right now.
Get informed, stay involved, stay united.
LikeLike