Reader Laura H. Chapman shares this exchange with a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution about the Common Core:
I had a brief email exchange with Darrell West of the
Brookings about the CCSS. He wants the CCSS to be standardized so
that test scores will provide “big data” for his real interest,
which is an automated system of tellin students what they need to
do in order to master CCSS content. He wants to ensure that that no
one is messing around with what he regards as a perfected agenda
for tests that will product lots of data.
He is absolutely clueless about who
developed the standards, who paid for them, or the role of the CCSS
in the enterprise of K-12 edcuation. He ASSUMES that these
standards can and should function in the same capacity as ISO
standards function for quality control in engineering–think
elaborate checklists for compliance–or as instruments for quality
control for entering professions such as law and medicine. He is a
complete slave to the spin thrown out by the promoters of the
CCSS. He is another in a long line of
economists who are in love with the idea of getting their algoritms
to munch on the big data forthcoming from tests of the
CCSS. Since he was hooked on the idea that the
CCSS standard-setting process settled everything that mattered (to
him), I did let him know that the CCSS did not meet the minimal
criteria for “setting standards” set forth by the The American
National Standards organization for designing and judging any
standard-setting process: These
are: 1. Seeks consensus from and through a
group that is open to representatives from all interested
parties 2. Solicits broad-based public review
and comment on draft standards 3. Gives
careful consideration to comments and offers a public response to
these comments 4. Incorporates changes that
meet the same consensus requirements as the draft
standards 5. Makes available an appeal process
for any participant alleging that these principles were not
respected during the standards-development process.
The Brookings has really gone over the hill with a bunch
of reports on education that are free of any moral compass or
academic integrity.
A comment by a reader:
We are parents of 3 children in MA.
Since March 5th when I joined 6 moms from my town to attend a Northboro forum to hear Sandra Stotsky & Jamie Gass (www. pioneerinstitute.org), we have been learning everything we can about PARCC/CCSS.
On Feb 24, we learned our 3rd grader “won” the PARCC ELA lottery “mandating” 5 additional days of research of “test the test” research. Here was my letter to her principal today – .
This is our formal notice requesting that our daughter not participate in the upcoming PARCC Pilot ELA assessment on April 1-3.
We have every intent to send our child to school – and more than willing to work with you and XYZ teacher. Our preference is to send her as usual to school on the bus. Please advise otherwise.
This is neither an easy or welcomed position to take as a parent.
Please know this decision has been made only after extensive reading, attendance at the district PARCC Pilot info session and finally, attendance at the DESE’s regional PARCC meeting with Bob Bickerton at Framingham State on Tuesday night.
It is unfortunate the DESE and Commissioner Chester have effectively ABANDONED administrators and teachers – and most importantly, OUR KIDS, with their much delayed response to the numerous requests calling for a formal “Opt Out” provision from districts and parents across our state.
Thanks in advance for your support of our decision.
This afternoon we received a response honoring this request.
Massachusetts officials say parents can’t opt out of state tests. Several local school districts are opting out anyway. Just do it. The children belong to their family, not the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Ask yourself:
What would Henry David Thoreau do?
What would Ralph Waldo Emerson do?
Testing is rapidly becoming radioactive. No one likes it, yet Congress can’t bring itself to drive a stake through the withered, lifeless heart of NCLB, nor call a halt to Race to the Top’s promotion of even more testing.
Jason Stanford says a new film called “Divergent” shows how standardized testing is harming students, determining their future, and inspiring rebellions against it. It will debut on March 21.
He writes:
“Because of its resourceful and tough female protagonist, Divergent will draw comparisons to The Hunger Games franchise. But the popular Jennifer Lawrence movies are all about income inequality and poverty whereas the new film, based on the 2012 bestseller by Veronica Roth, questions whether our children can still determine their own futures.
“The central feature of Divergent is that children are given aptitude tests that sort them by virtues, sometimes separating them from their families. These sorting tests are nothing new in popular young adult fiction. Harry Potter had the Sorting Hat that grouped students based on their innate traits. The Hunger Games held a lottery to single out a boy and a girl for ritualized murder. And in the Percy Jackson novels, only genetics—not skill, talents, or knowledge—could get a child into Camp Half Blood.
“But Divergent, intentionally or not, puts high-stakes testing at the center of the educational dystopia it portrays. As in present-day reality, testing takes time away from classroom instruction and occurs on a single day. The Divergent tests measure aptitude, not comprehension, and serve mainly to sort students according to immutable traits into one of five factions “to determine who we are and where we belong.” In schools, we use standardized tests to figure out whether someone is “college or career ready.”
Who decided that the testing corporations would become the gatekeepers of social and economic privilege?
Fred Smith is a testing expert in New York City who has been advising parent organizations about their rights and explaining the technicalities of the tests to laymen.
He writes here:
“There are many reasons to refuse to participate in the field tests. They are summarized here–concerning New York State’s stealthy field testing practices, but having wider application to field testing, in general.
“It all comes down to parents becoming informed about when the tests are coming–where, what schools are involved–and acting in the best interests of their children’s education. Parents must insist on having this knowledge, as a simple matter of transparency. Then, it is THEIR choice alone on whether to allow their children to spend time taking field tests.
“As I see it, neither the state nor local educational entities have any legitimate authority in a matter that is entirely up to parents to decide on. Field testing carries no mandate demanding compliance. By arrogating to themselves the right to dictate actions that are in all ways voluntary (and must, at least, require informed consent) officials are simply usurping power to which they have no claim.
Fred Smith”
Although Mayor Joe Petty lobbied hard to reverse the school committee’s decision to allow parents to opt out, the school committee stuck with their original decision. Parents mounted a “say no to Joe” campaign, and the school committee agreed with the parents who elected them. Parents are free to opt their children out of PARCC Common Core field testing.
A teacher in California sent me the latest state testing guidelines and was disturbed to see the large number of forbidden topics.
I was not surprised because in 2003, I published a book called “The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn.” I reported that testing and textbook publishers, the federal government and state education agencies collectively adhere to a long list of banned words, topics, and graphics (Do Not Show a Rainbow! Do Not Show a Female in a Tank Top! Do Not Show the Sole of a Shoe! Do Not Show a Cow with Udders! Do Not Even Mention Sex, Poverty, Religion,Violence, War, Witches, or Evolution!)
Actually, the only new addition to the list of banned topics is “complex discussions of sports,” and I assume this was added on the assumption that boys are likely to know more about sports than girls. So the topic is gender biased.
You might well wonder what material is permissible on the state tests once all if the below has been deleted. Me too. Maybe a discussion of the healthfulness of grains and vegetables?
Here are the current guidelines, no different from what I wrote about in 2003:
“To keep the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) free from potentially biased, sensitive, or controversial content, the following topics are avoided on the examination:
“Violence (including guns, other weapons, and graphic animal violence)
“Dying, death, disease, hunger, famine
War
“Natural disasters with loss of life
“Drugs (including prescription drugs), alcohol, tobacco, smoking
“Junk food
“Abuse, poverty, running away
“Divorce
“Socio-economic advantages (e.g., video games, swimming pools, computers in the home, expensive vacations)
“Sex
“Religion
“Complex discussions of sports
“Slavery
“Evolution, prehistoric times, age of solar system, dinosaurs
“Rap music, rock concerts
“Extrasensory perception, witchcraft
Halloween, religious holidays
“Anything disrespectful, demeaning, moralistic, chauvinistic
“Children coping with adult situations or decisions; young people challenging or questioning authority
“Mention of individuals who may be associated with drug use or with advertising of substances such as cigarettes or alcohol
“Losing a job, home, or pets
“Rats, roaches, lice, spiders
Dieting, other concerns with self-image
Political issues
“Any topic that is likely to upset students and affect their performance on the rest of the test.
“It is important to note that these guidelines are applied in the context of the purpose of the test as well as the overall passage or item. For example, some topics (e.g., the socio-economic advantages) may be mentioned in a text, although an entire passage would not focus on these topics.”
![]()
|
Only days before Arne Duncan hailed North Carolina as one of the stars of the Race to the Top, Bill McDiarmid, dean of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, warned that public education was in dire peril in the state.
Although North Carolina was once renowned as the most forward-looking state in the south, known for fundings its schools and for promoting statewide early childhood education under previous governors, the current governor and legislature seem determined to obliterate the common schools of North Carolina. The mantra of the legislature–echoing Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, and the rest of the false reformers, is that “our schools are broken.”
Their solution: charters and vouchers; Teach for America; flunking third graders who don’t pass a reading test, and other punitive actions. At the same time, they enacted generous corporate tax breaks. The shift of public funds away from public schools to the private sector will exacerbate racial segregation. When the radical extremists took control of the legislature, they made sure to gerrymander their own districts to maintain a majority.
McDiarmid writes:
Concerns about the direction of education in the state are widely shared. Researchers at UNC-Wilmington recently conducted a poll of 2,350 state residents. They found that 94 percent of the respondents believe that education is now headed in the wrong direction in the state. Large majorities disagreed with recent policy decisions: 85 percent disapprove of vouchers for students to attend private schools; 81 percent believe that the state should provide scholarships to talented high school students to attract them to teaching via the Teaching Fellows Program; 96 percent disagree with cutting the salary incentive for teachers to pursue master’s degrees; and 75 percent disagree with eliminating tenure. In sum, probably a very significant majority of North Carolinians disagrees with the current policy direction.
The bad news for those concerned about where we are headed is that a number of key folks in the General Assembly are in “safe seats.” This tends to make legislators less responsive to the concerns of the public. These lawmakers are highly unlikely to be turned out this fall — or perhaps for several elections to come. In 2010, the Republican majority in the Legislature controlled redistricting. They were able to create for themselves election districts that virtually ensured their re-elections and the dominance of their party throughout the decade. Certainly, a number of these folks in the majority are open to conversation and debate about educational policy and attend to non-partisan research. Some who hold key leadership posts appear committed, however, to an agenda intent on replacing public schools with private schools.
Equally discouraging are the changes to the tax code. The majority passed legislation rolling back corporate and individual taxes. A flat 5.8 percent tax on incomes replaced the almost century-old graduated tax schedule. The cost to the state of these changes? Over $1 billion annually. At this rate, North Carolina is well on its way to meeting Grover Norquist’s goal of shrinking the size of government to “where it can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” As the largest expenditure category in the state budget, education is already fighting for air.
Absent from much of the debate about the move toward privatization is attention to the role of public schooling in a democratic society. Our schools trace their origins back to 19th century public school advocates. Recognizing that an educated citizenry is essential to maintaining a democracy, they believed that mixing of children from all social classes in free “common schools” would lead to a stronger sense of shared civic purpose.
Due to persistent residential segregation, North Carolina failed to achieve the goal of schools where all our children – regardless of social class, race, or family circumstances – learn together. Yet, for many children, school remains the one place where they rub shoulders with others who differ from themselves socially, linguistically, and culturally. Like it or not, they must learn to get along with these “others” – arguably a critical attitude in a diverse democratic society such as ours.
Gerri K. Songer of the Illinois Township High School, District 214, conducted a Lexile analysis of the PARCC assessment and what she found was very alarming. The reading levels embedded in the assessment are absurdly high. Many young people will fail the PARCC test because it is developmentally inappropriate for high school students.
What exactly is the point of writing a test at a level that large numbers of students are guaranteed to fail? What will be the consequences for their teachers, who will be rated ineffective based on a test that is not written for high school students? As Songer writes: “Efforts can be made by educators to raise the level of reading comprehension, yet there is not much teachers can do to change the natural development of the human brain.” If she is right in her analysis, then PARCC is not only developmentally inappropriate but is designed to fail large numbers of students who will not be able to graduate, to go to college, or to enter a career.
Passage 2 Abigail Adams Braintree March 31,1776_1130L (Ind Rdg 1230L)
Passage 3 John Adams July 03, 1776_1370L (Ind Rdg 1470L)
Sample Item #1—Part A_1020L (Ind Rdg 1120L)
Sample Item #1—Part B_1540L (Ind Rdg 1640L)
Sample Item #2—Part A_730L (Ind Rdg 830L)
Sample Item #2—Part B_1920L (Ind Rdg 2020L)
Sample Item #3—Part A_2140L (Ind Rdg 2240L)
Sample Item #3—Part B_1070L (Ind Rdg 1170L)
Federal Tax Form 1260L
Aetna Health Care Discount Form 1360L
GM Protection Plan 1150L
Medical Insurance Benefit Package 1280L
Application for Student Loan 1270L
CD-DVD Player Instructions 1080L
Installing Child Safety Seat 1170L
Microsoft Windows User Manual 1150L
Drivers’ Manual 1220L
Labor 1000L
Service 1050L
Construction 1080L
Craftsman 1100L
Clerk 1110L
Foreman 1200L
Secretary 1250L
Sales 1270L
Supervisor 1270L
Nurse 1310L
Executive 1320L
Teacher 1340L
Accountant 1400L
Scientist 1450L
Education (11–12) 1130L
Work 1260L
Community College 1295L
University 1395L

