Richard Phelps, a testing expert, believes in the value of standardized testing but he does not like the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s report on “next generation assessments.” To put it mildly. He calls it “pretend research.”
Phelps long ago wrote a report for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, defending standardized testing. But in this case, he excoriates the TBF study. To begin with, he points out the TBF has received millions of dollars from the Gates Foundation to promote the Common Core standards, so he questions its objectivity as a funder of research.
Here are his main objections:
This latest Fordham Institute Common Core apologia is not so much research as a caricature of it.
Instead of referencing a wide range of relevant research, Fordham references only friends from inside their echo chamber and others paid by the Common Core’s wealthy benefactors. But, they imply that they have covered a relevant and adequately wide range of sources.
Instead of evaluating tests according to the industry standard Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, or any of dozens of other freely-available and well-vetted test evaluation standards, guidelines, or protocols used around the world by testing experts, they employ “a brand new methodology” specifically developed for Common Core, for the owners of the Common Core, and paid for by Common Core’s funders.
Instead of suggesting as fact only that which has been rigorously evaluated and accepted as fact by skeptics, the authors continue the practice of Common Core salespeople of attributing benefits to their tests for which no evidence exists
Instead of addressing any of the many sincere, profound critiques of their work, as confident and responsible researchers would do, the Fordham authors tell their critics to go away—“If you don’t care for the standards…you should probably ignore this study”.
Instead of writing in neutral language as real researchers do, the authors adopt the practice of coloring their language as so many Common Core salespeople do, attaching nice-sounding adjectives and adverbs to what serves their interest, and bad-sounding words to what does not.
This is his starting point. He then goes on to document his strong objections to this study. He especially objects to the claims made on behalf of Common Core testing, for example, that the CC tests are so strong that test prep will become unnecessary. But, Phelps objects, there is no evidence for such claims:
The authors continue the Common Core sales tendency of attributing benefits to their tests for which no evidence exists. For example, the Fordham report claims that SBAC and PARCC will:
“make traditional ‘test prep’ ineffective” (p. 8)
“allow students of all abilities, including both at-risk and high-achieving youngsters, to demonstrate what they know and can do” (p. 8)
produce “test scores that more accurately predict students’ readiness for entry-level coursework or training” (p. 11)
“reliably measure the essential skills and knowledge needed … to achieve college and career readiness by the end of high school” (p. 11)
“…accurately measure student progress toward college and career readiness; and provide valid data to inform teaching and learning.” (p. 3)
eliminate the problem of “students … forced to waste time and money on remedial coursework.” (p. 73)
help “educators [who] need and deserve good tests that honor their hard work and give useful feedback, which enables them to improve their craft and boost their students’ success.” (p. 73)
The Fordham Institute has not a shred of evidence to support any of these grandiose claims. They share more in common with carnival fortune telling than empirical research. Granted, most of the statements refer to future outcomes, which cannot be known with certainty. But, that just affirms how irresponsible it is to make such claims absent any evidence.
Furthermore, in most cases, past experience would suggest just the opposite of what Fordham asserts. Test prep is more, not less, likely to be effective with SBAC and PARCC tests because the test item formats are complex (or, convoluted), introducing more “construct irrelevant variance”—that is, students will get lower scores for not managing to figure out formats or computer operations issues, even if they know the subject matter of the test. Disadvantaged and at-risk students tend to be the most disadvantaged by complex formatting and new technology.
What do you think? Is Phelps fair? Share your experience.
Diane Ravitch's blog 