Laura H. Chapman, a frequent contributor to the blog, who has been a teacher, arts educator, curriculum designer, now retired, writes the following provocative contribution:

There is a well funded marketing campaign to sustain the Common Core and the associated tests.
One facet of the current campaign is designed to lower public expectations about the success of students on the SBAC and PARCC tests and to say, in effect, that cut scores on these tests will to set to approximate the operational definition of proficiency and the pass on NAEP tests, Only students who score at nearly the highest level on NAEP tests are dubbed proficient. 
There is also a bit of distraction going on, because SBAC has already announced cut scores based on its field trials in 21 states. There is another little known fact: When PARCC and SBAC applied for federal funding, they promised to make their scores comparable.
PARCC will “coordinate with the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium on… artificial intelligence scoring, setting achievement levels, and anchoring high school assessments in the knowledge and skills students need to be prepared for postsecondary education and careers.” 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 p. 3
Similarly, the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) asserts: “SBAC and PARCC are strongly committed to ensuring comparability between their assessments…[including] collaborative standard setting that will facilitate valid comparisons of achievement levels (cut scores) in each consortium’s summative test…” 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 p. 31

Producers of the SBAC tests have their set “cut scores” to report on four levels of performance. Level 1 signals failure. Level 2 indicates “at risk of failure.” Level 3 implies “safe harbor, doing well.” Level 4 means “proficient.” For students in grade 11, only Level 4 indicates readiness for entry-level, credit-bearing courses in college.

Across the grades, in math and ELA, about 11% of students are estimated to score at 4, the highest level and the one that indicates, in the eleventh grade, readiness for entry-level, credit-bearing courses in college. So, that will be very bad news, and it will make news when all of the test scores are gathered in.

The SBAC cut scores in math are estimated to assign 67% of grade 11 students to Level 1 or Level 2, with most (40%) at Level 1. In many states, students who score at Level 1 will also place teachers and administrators at risk of being fired, perhaps with the whole school in line for closure. In addition, many schools will just assign students even more test prep in math, at the risk of harming students’ love for learning and affinities for inquiries that are not driven by tests.

The cut scores for English Language Arts are estimated to place about 59% of students at Level 1 and Level 2, with about 32% at Level 1. Students with these scores are certain to be in the same boat, receiving more test prep. In states like Ohio that guarantee “proficiency” in reading by grade three, 62% of students are likely to fall short, up to 82% if that rule and the meaning of proficiency corresponds to SBAC’s Level 4 definition of “proficiency.”

In any case, the cut score issue is not a trivial matter given the high stakes that federal and state officials have deliberately and foolishly attached to tests, tests that are not “objective” and cut scores that are not “objective” but judgments–and these detached from any concern for the consequences to individual students and all public schools.

Proponents of the Common Core and tests are worried about the political fall-out when the test scores are released in a form that allows stack ratings among all the states that sighed up for the Common Core and have advertised that they have tests aligned with the standards.

They should be worried. Gurus of spin at the American Enterprise Institute suggest how to spin that news. They suggest that the scores should be played down, that news should avoid crisis rhetoric about poor performance. They recommend framing the testing outcomes as just another step on a path “to continuous improvement” in student learning.

That soft “slow-and-steady-as-we-go message” provides cover for policy makers who want to delay high stakes decisions based on these test scores but still use them as a baseline for judging gains in performance for the following year. This delaying tactic may buy time to reset expectations for learning, but it will not stop the obsessive use of test scores and relentless test prep than now dominates life in many schools.

For advocates of the “one size fits all” standards and tests, the comparability in scores from SBAC and PARCC tests means this: Every state that signed up for this grand and nearly maniacal experiment in standardized education will be rated as winners or losers by these supposedly “objective tests.”

The governors and the state education officials who signed adoption papers for this grand experiment in standardized education may be out of office, but current officials will be questioned about the results. Handling the political fall-out will be tricky, especially with an election season heating up, budget problems in many states, and the dueling minds and messages of politicians (notably Republicans, but also Democrats) who support or condemn the Common Core and tests, and many others who have no mindful views other than spin provided to them.

All of the investors in pushing the Common Core–Achieve, the National Governor’s Association the Council of Chief State School Officers, the Gates foundation and buddies along with venture capitalists–want to keep PARCC and SBAC in place, including Common Core “aligned” tests other than those from PARCC and SBAC.

Why? Do not believe the spin about the global economy and needed skills for the 21st century workplace, and all of the other sales pitches.

Test scores with high stakes consequences are the weapon of choice for expanding market-based education. The more students, teachers, and schools fail, the faster the collapse of public education.

As Diane Ravitch and others have said over and over, the cut scores for NAEP “proficiency” are high. NCLB never defined proficiency, Race to the Top did but only in terms of college and career ready specifications, not cut scores or tests.

Achieve has manufactured a “proficiency gap” that looks impressive to a casual viewer, but it is hot air. The proficiency gap is a version of the achievement gap. The kids and the teachers are the problem. The standards and the tests are perfect.

It is important to remember a few key facts about the Opt Out Movement.

Number one: It was created and is led by parents, not by teachers or unions. In New York, where 20% of the students refused the mandated tests, the leader of the state’s teachers’ union did not endorse opt out until a few days before the testing started. The organizations promoting the opt out were grassroots, unfunded, and parent-led.

Number two: The opt out movement did not arise in opposition to the publication or implementation of the Common Core standards. It was only when parents received the results of the first round of Common Core testing that they got angry and got organized to fight the tests. Recall that 70% of the students in the state “failed” the first round of testing. Parents in districts where almost all the children graduate from high school, and where most are admitted to four-year colleges were told to their astonishment that their children were “failing.” The parent rebellion started, and State Commissioner John King could not quell it. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan referred to the protestors as “white suburban moms” who all of a sudden discovered that their child was not as “brilliant” as they thought. What an insult!

Number three: In three administrations of the Common Core tests, a majority of students has continued to “fail.”

*In English language arts 2015, only 31.3% of students reached the “proficiency” level across the state.

*Among black and Hispanic students, the “pass” rate was less than 20%.

*Students in New York City almost matched the statewide average, but in the state’s five big cities, only 11% “passed.”

*Among English language learners, only 3.9% “passed” the ELA test. Appalling!

*Among students with disabilities, only 5.7% “passed.” Appalling!

*Achievement gaps between racial groups were unchanged over three years of testing and quite large.

The math scores were better than the ELA scores, but still only 38.1 “passed,” and nearly 62% “failed.” The corresponding scores for black and Hispanic students, English language learners and students with disabilities were far lower. Read the report.

Why are most students failing the Common Core tests in New York? In the past, a majority passed. Did the students get dumber? No. The developers of the Common Core tests decided to use a “cut score” or “passing mark” that was set beyond the capability of the students in each grade. They chose to align the passing mark with the National Assessment of Educational Progress’s achievement levels. (See here and here.)

That decision was made two years ago. At that time, Catherine Gewertz of Education Week wrote:

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.”

The NAEP “proficiency” level is not a pass-fail mark. It is not a “grade-level” mark. It is a level that represents solid academic achievement. I was on the National Assessment Governing Board for seven years, and I assure you that “proficient” represented work that I would consider to be an A or A- (the highest level, “advanced” is akin to an A+).

Please note that in no state other than Massachusetts has as much as 50% of students reached “proficient.” In no state have 60% reached the “proficient” level, and state scores have been calculated since 1992.

Thus, the developers of the Common Core tests chose a passing mark that they knew in advance would fail most students and would produce even higher failure rates among black and Hispanic students, as well as dismal passing rates for students with disabilities and English language learners. Based on NAEP, there is no evidence that harder tests and higher bars lead to smaller achievement gaps.

They set the bar so high that the tests are designed to fail most students. Do students feel motivated to work harder if they fail every year?

Parents figured this out, and they didn’t see why the state had adopted tests that most children were certain to fail.

And that is why there is an Opt Out movement. Parents do not want to participate in a system that is rigged against their children. They don’t want to be part of a system where their children’s test scores determine their teachers’ reputation, livelihood, and future. They want to bring that system crashing down and restore common sense to education.