OT- Commercial complaining about a test. What is it about?

[Extra Point]

I have seen a commercial many times now, that features either a teacher or student actor complaining about a test they don't want to take. They say it only benefits the company making the test. To me it actually comes off as that the students are to dumb to pass the test. What is this test they are talking about? Anyone know what commercials I am talking about?

 

[Terry_2426]

I think it's about the standardized student testing that takes place every spring. They say it's basically turned into teaching to the test instead of teaching their regular curriculum.

 

[HPNJRUfan]

I have seen a commercial many times now, that features either a teacher or student actor complaining about a test they don't want to take. They say it only benefits the company making the test. To me it actually comes off as that the students are to dumb to pass the test. What is this test they are talking about? Anyone know what commercials I am talking about?

The "PARCC" standardized test. I don't know the details - but it sounds like a bunch of whining to me too. We had to take the ESPA, GEPA, HSPA, and a slew of other standardized tests when I was in grade school. Whats the big deal?

 

[T2Kplus10]

A bunch of whiners. Take the stupid test and move on. Not a big deal.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

We all took standardized tests. None of those tests determined placement or drove the curriculum.

Anyone who says, "just shut up and take the test" doesn't have school aged children.

 

[Upstream]

We all took standardized tests. None of those tests determined placement or drove the curriculum.

Anyone who says, "just shut up and take the test" doesn't have school aged children.

I don't have school-aged children. Why is this standardized test being treated differently than any of the other standardized tests that have been given over the past 50 years? What has changed? I really don't understand the controversy.

 

[RU4Real]

We all took standardized tests. None of those tests determined placement or drove the curriculum.

Anyone who says, "just shut up and take the test" doesn't have school aged children.

Actually. that was location dependent. In Sayreville in the 1970s standardized testing very much drove placement. They were very upfront about it. It's how I graduated high school with 550 kids and never met 500 of them.

 

[wasiman]

Teacher's are afraid because if their class does poorly it reflects on them.

 

[Blueblood4eva]

Commercial likely funded by the teacher's union. They hate being measured by the performance of their students. You will hear all kinds of very well orchestrated excuses and reasoning but this is the bottom line.

 

[motorb54]

Commercial likely funded by the teacher's union. They hate being measured by the performance of their students. You will hear all kinds of very well orchestrated excuses and reasoning but this is the bottom line.

The union has millions to spend to influence politicians
and make commercials. I think each member pays over $600/year
to the NJEA.

The union also spends heavily to send several items each month to their members
telling them how they are underpaid, how it is unfair that they should contribute to their benefits
...etc...

The worst one is the Dad talking about his first grader:
"What are we doing to our kids?"
Do first graders even take this test?
If the first grader is so stressed about this test
that he has never taken
it means the teacher is causing the stress.

 

[RutgersUnion]

In NYS we had to take regents in high school. Our textbook for almost every class for all 4 years was a red regents prep book by Barron's. All class and homework came directly out of these books. We had to buy a new 1 every semester for every class because we were told they updated the practice tests in the book.
We hated it then and kids hate it now but for some reason this hasn't been brought up at all in these local debates.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Standardized tests didn't ALONE drive placement was my point--which I didn't make clearly.

Secondly, the test is computer driven now as well as timed (as it was for us). They aren't drawing bubbles with #2 pencils. The test in the 3rd grade rewards a student's ability to have mastered the keyboard, more than any real skills. You can know the answer and not be able to input it correctly.

Third, the test is poorly constructed. As of now, neither classroom teachers nor parents get results back. There is no feedback on what kids know or don't know. When I was a kid, we took the CAT (California Achievement tests). Those tests were returned with a complete assessment battery. PARCC doesn't do that. Yet, the test has evaluation (for teachers) and potential placement value (for students).

Fourth, PARCC goes hand in hand with Common Core. Opponents of Common Core (which there are enough to have the entire thing on the ropes) have waged a war on PARCC as a strategy.

Fifth, it does take a lot of time away from traditional classroom learning. I've never much complained about "teaching to the test," but we are really noticing it now. My 2nd grader has "keyboarding" instruction, test taking tip instruction, etc. It's pretty absurd.

Last, yes the NJEA union is behind the commercials you see. The hand wringing over kids coming home and crying is likely exaggerated and overblown. It is a commercial after all. And I don't have any sympathy for the arguments about teachers being unfairly evaluated. So, I don't necessarily condone or support the ads. That said, both PARCC and Common Core need to go. They are a good idea completely ineptly implemented. And they will be gone. The groundswell against them is too high at this point.

 

[DJ Spanky]

Fifth, it does take a lot of time away from traditional classroom learning. I've never much complained about "teaching to the test," but we are really noticing it now. My 2nd grader has "keyboarding" instruction, test taking tip instruction, etc. It's pretty absurd..

We noticed this both in NJ and VA, with NJ being far worse than VA in terms of preparing for the test.

 

[mdk01]

Standardized tests didn't ALONE drive placement was my point--which I didn't make clearly.

Secondly, the test is computer driven now as well as timed (as it was for us). They aren't drawing bubbles with #2 pencils. The test in the 3rd grade rewards a student's ability to have mastered the keyboard, more than any real skills. You can know the answer and not be able to input it correctly.

Third, the test is poorly constructed. As of now, neither classroom teachers nor parents get results back. There is no feedback on what kids know or don't know. When I was a kid, we took the CAT (California Achievement tests). Those tests were returned with a complete assessment battery. PARCC doesn't do that. Yet, the test has evaluation (for teachers) and potential placement value (for students).

Fourth, PARCC goes hand in hand with Common Core. Opponents of Common Core (which there are enough to have the entire thing on the ropes) have waged a war on PARCC as a strategy.

Fifth, it does take a lot of time away from traditional classroom learning. I've never much complained about "teaching to the test," but we are really noticing it now. My 2nd grader has "keyboarding" instruction, test taking tip instruction, etc. It's pretty absurd.

Last, yes the NJEA union is behind the commercials you see. The hand wringing over kids coming home and crying is likely exaggerated and overblown. It is a commercial after all. And I don't have any sympathy for the arguments about teachers being unfairly evaluated. So, I don't necessarily condone or support the ads. That said, both PARCC and Common Core need to go. They are a good idea completely ineptly implemented. And they will be gone. The groundswell against them is too high at this point.

1. If you don't think standardized tests were the overwhelming factor in placement as far back as 50+ years you're kidding yourself.

2. If there are complaints about the structure of the test then complain about the structure. The commercials are a lobbying effort against the existence of testing.

3. While test scores should not be the sole factor in teacher evaluations, elimination of test scores is essentially an NJEA attempt at guaranteed tenure regardless of competence.

 

[BellyFullOfWhiteDogCrap]

The testing has caused teachers to fall behind in their required curriculum.

Most schools are not equipped with enough computers to serve all students so the testing drags out for weeks to accommodate all grade levels. During this time, students and teachers being relocated into different classrooms.
Parents have forced the schools to implement a "no homework" policy during the weeks of testing.
Time needs to be taken out of regular lessons to prepare for the test...practice tests online, keyboarding lessons. As a result, the quality of education has suffered, and this is NOT the fault of the teachers. An activity that may take 3 days to properly teach, now has to be crammed into 1 or 2. Science and social studies are being neglected big time because of the emphasis on math and language arts.

Those saying "shut up and take the test" have no idea what's going on. I have no problem with standardized testing, but this in much, different from what I did in school 20 years ago.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Teacher's are afraid because if their class does poorly it reflects on them.

As well it damn should.

 

[RUMBA-JK]

The actual execution of the test has been a fiasco - computers crashing / test sections scheduled for 4 hours - when the test took only 45 minutes - so the kids have to sit in the test room for another 3 hours & 15 minutes - with nothing to do because the could not bring in/pull out other materials during the testing session /

It is moronically simplistic and truly worthless tool to use for accurate teacher evaluation - (and I'm not saying that out of sympathy for the teachers) - it is flawed & primitive and can not avoid leading to a screwing up of priorities & a high potential for gaming the system. Those who will be judged to be the "best" teachers will be those who have classes with the best students - and who reconfigure their class content to be one extended prep session for the test. Nobody but a martyr would willingly take a class full of 'challenging' (not talking about special ed) students and attempt to be innovative in reaching them - because the success rate would not measure up - by standardized test standards.

 

[T2Kplus10]

We all took standardized tests. None of those tests determined placement or drove the curriculum.

Anyone who says, "just shut up and take the test" doesn't have school aged children.

Our daughter is only 3, but we are avoiding all of this silly nonsense via private school.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

1. If you don't think standardized tests were the overwhelming factor in placement as far back as 50+ years you're kidding yourself.

2. If there are complaints about the structure of the test then complain about the structure. The commercials are a lobbying effort against the existence of testing.

3. While test scores should not be the sole factor in teacher evaluations, elimination of test scores is essentially an NJEA attempt at guaranteed tenure regardless of competence.

I didn't have a single standardized test drive my placement. My mother has been an educator for 35 years, including time spent as chair of the curriculum committee of her district, and said that never in the history of the state, have tests had the potential to drive placement like they do with PARCC.

It is also worth noting that we're not talking about testing high schoolers here. We're talking about testing 3rd graders and up. Should 20-30+% of a 2nd grader's (when they start to prepare them) classroom time be dedicated to preparing for a standardized test? That has almost zero transferable value?

People are not going to bother fixing the structure of the test. There is nothing salvageable.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Our daughter is only 3, but we are avoiding all of this silly nonsense via private school.

Nobody here is a bigger private school proponent than I am. But that wasn't the point of the OP. And we live in a Blue Ribbon district and our sending school is fantastic in nearly every way. I wouldn't consider sending my kids to the public middle or high schools. But it makes no sense to send them to private elementary school, which there isn't one in my town which introduces a host of other logistics issues, because of a standardized test.

My kid will take the test and do fine on it. He does fine in that environment. However, I'm totally onboard with those advocating against it. It's a waste of time and perhaps equally important, a huge financial burden on the districts.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Nobody here is a bigger private school proponent than I am. But that wasn't the point of the OP. And we live in a Blue Ribbon district and our sending school is fantastic in nearly every way. I wouldn't consider sending my kids to the public middle or high schools. But it makes no sense to send them to private elementary school, which there isn't one in my town which introduces a host of other logistics issues, because of a standardized test.

My kid will take the test and do fine on it. He does fine in that environment. However, I'm totally onboard with those advocating against it. It's a waste of time and perhaps equally important, a huge financial burden on the districts.

Do you have any studies or data on this - i.e., the value of private school in the lower grades. I have heard this a few times. We probably will just go the whole 9 yards in private for simplicity, but it's something to think about. My school district does K-2 in one school, so a lot of families move kids to the Princeton privates in 3rd grade.

 

[robcac26]

Can someone explain to me what common core actually is? All I've seen about it is a technique to do addition in your head, which is the same way I learned 20 years ago, but people on facebook make these sensationalist posts about it saying it makes no sense with no explanation of what the purpose is.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

I only say that private elementary school makes no sense to me because of our situation. Our school is excellent and my son is doing well there. It's a financial decision for now. To go pay $8-10k for k-6, doesn't make financial sense to me. Plus, he is with his friends, etc. The math and science programs are good, he plays sports, he enjoys the school. Are there things that I would appreciate in a private school? Of Course. But nothing I can't--and don't already--instill at home.

Very generally speaking, Common Core was the "answer" to the never ending "problem" of our youngsters testing much lower than their Asian peers at the college years. There is a school of thought that our kids are not creative thinkers because so much of early elementary education is by rote. Memorize these math facts. Memorize these phonics sounds. Memorize these spelling rules. Common Core (and its more than just math) seeks to make them creative thinkers by teaching them strategic ways to approach problem solving.

Take a simple math problem...

38+54

All of us here--over the age of 14..lol--would say, 8+4=12, carry the one, etc.

They are now taught to group the numbers...so they round 38 up to 40 and 54 up to 60, and then count down to get the "difference." In theory, this allows them to have a strategy to deal with much larger and complex problems as they progress.

that is one very simplistic example. There are lots of word problems, for example.

My son does very well in Math, but is bored by reading and spelling. He is in enrichment math, so I don't have a lot of the frustration that many parents do, when their kids don't get it. The parents can't really help them because we've never learned it this way.

My big issue is that very little time is actually spent on the rote memorization that comes with needing to be a functioning adult in the world. You just need to know that 8x7=56...not approach it with some grouping strategy. As well as my son does in math, he doesn't know the basic math facts at a level that I think he should for 2nd grade.

Also, in order for Common Core standards to be met, there isn't enough time in the day. Other stuff gets cut--whether it be art, music, an extra period of gym, computer lab, library, etc. And I don't believe in that at this age. They should be learning about music, and taking languages, etc. Our school gave up all language instruction to dedicate the class time to Common Core and gave the Kids a Rosetta Stone log-in instead. It's dumb.

 

[derleider]

Can someone explain to me what common core actually is? All I've seen about it is a technique to do addition in your head, which is the same way I learned 20 years ago, but people on Facebook make these sensationalist posts about it saying it makes no sense with no explanation of what the purpose is.

Common Core is a set of national standards for math and English. Instead of each of the 50 states coming up with their own standards, the federal government encouraged them to get on board with a single set of standards. Those standards are not radically different than whatever the state had before, its just that they are now uniform. About 43 states signed up to those standards (for one thing - its a money saver - you no longer have to pay to develop your own standards, nor the tests and texts to address those specific standards. The flip is that you cede control - which is probably not a huge deal in math and English - they are pretty politically neutral).

Its become a political hot button mostly because conservatives see it as federal intrusion into a state matter (education).

PARCC is a test that is being given in a dozen of those, including MD and NJ, addressing those standards. There are lots of complaints. Some are just generically against the idea of high stakes testing, or federalized standards, or whatever. They would basically apply to any test that was given. Others are more specific to the implementation of the est - it takes up too much time. its too expensive. It eats up space (for all of the computers), teacher time (to administer and teach to it), and student time.

I think hudson is wrong - standards have driven curriculum at least since No Child Left Behind.

I'm not familiar with how NJ or any other state is going to use the test to determine tracking for students - but if its not the sole measure, I dont see why its a bad idea. Other nations certainly do that - in fact at a much more stringent level. Im pretty sure in MD, being in Gifted and Talented in middle school or high school was based on a test score at some point, although that was a long time ago, so I can't guarantee that.

ive never gotten the idea that not being creative is why we do worse than Asian/Europeans on math and science. Ive always been of the notion that being creative is the American educations strength, and that the Asian nations excel on these exams because they do alot of rote stuff, not wacky word problems.

 

[zwick99]

I have seen a commercial many times now, that features either a teacher or student actor complaining about a test they don't want to take. They say it only benefits the company making the test. To me it actually comes off as that the students are to dumb to pass the test. What is this test they are talking about? Anyone know what commercials I am talking about?

It is about a teacher's union who wants more money. Teachers think if you get rid of testing the money that goes to testing will go to the the teachers.

The inner city DEms are also against testing because their kids play video games/basketball instead of doing homework so most of their kids can't read.

 

[zwick99]

I think it's about the standardized student testing that takes place every spring. They say it's basically turned into teaching to the test instead of teaching their regular curriculum.

Can anyone list ANY education system where violent thugs from single parent homes who don't care about education are successful?

 

[zwick99]

Also, in order for Common Core standards to be met, there isn't enough time in the day. Other stuff gets cut--whether it be art, music, an extra period of gym, computer lab, library, etc. And I don't believe in that at this age. They should be learning about music, and taking languages, etc. Our school gave up all language instruction to dedicate the class time to Common Core and gave the Kids a Rosetta Stone log-in instead. It's dumb.

Asians and suburban whites don't have any problems meeting common core. I say let the inner city kids opt out and go to schools that don't test. The schools that test will suddenly improve and get safer.

The funny thing is the inner city DEms marched and protested to attend the schools with testing and now the Dems are against the testing because their kids can't compete.

 

[charliem24]

Asians and suburban whites don't have any problems meeting common core. I say let the inner city kids opt out and go to schools that don't test. The schools that test will suddenly improve and get safer.

The funny thing is the inner city DEms marched and protested to attend the schools with testing and now the Dems are against the testing because their kids can't compete.

The anti testing or more accurately, the anti PARCC movement among parents is far more prevalent in affluent areas than it is in inner cities.

Any most other industrialized countries that do well on international tests , test far less than the US, BUT, the tests they do take, usually in late middle school have much higher stakes for students.

 

[FanuSanu52]

Can anyone list ANY education system where violent thugs from single parent homes who don't care about education are successful?

Doesn't look like you did too well in school, either. Can't even navigate your way to the CE forum as an adult.

 

[mdk01]

I didn't have a single standardized test drive my placement. My mother has been an educator for 35 years, including time spent as chair of the curriculum committee of her district, and said that never in the history of the state, have tests had the potential to drive placement like they do with PARCC.

It is also worth noting that we're not talking about testing high schoolers here. We're talking about testing 3rd graders and up. Should 20-30+% of a 2nd grader's (when they start to prepare them) classroom time be dedicated to preparing for a standardized test? That has almost zero transferable value?

People are not going to bother fixing the structure of the test. There is nothing salvageable.

In New Jersey, in the late 50's early 60's, in public schools, I (and my brother and sister) took the Iowa tests every year starting in 3rd or 4th grade. And given the way kids in each grade level were placed in classes, it obviously played a major part. Now we didn't have to worry about a keyboard (your criticism sounds valid in that regard), but I don't remember ever being taught to the test. If the teacher did a good job, apparently the assumption was that that would take care of itself. Your mother (who, if she grew up in New Jersey, probably took the Iowa tests as well) says PARCC has the "potential" to drive placement like nothing before it. Well, isn't it up to the school district to see that it's given it's proper weight in the decisions making process?

No testing is simply the NJEA's path to lifetime tenure upon hire.

 

[RUfinal4]

There are good points on both sides of the argument. Teachers want to teach and not teach to a test. Districts want to make sure their kids are learning at the appropriate rate.

Teachers Union - is strong where teachers for the most part don't get reviewed the same way people do in the for profit corporate world. When doing a job in the corporate world you may have external dependencies affecting your job performance you may get let go because of them. Teachers don't want to be rated basedon passing rate because the kids are not studying or the parents are not providing the kids a good home learning environment.

Parents - don't want their kids to be reviewed where it may show that their kids are not doing as well as they thought. Or that their higher income school district is not performing well where top colleges may not accept as many of the kids from their district as in the past.

Districts - want a fair way to assess how they are doing. This can be used as a tool to make corrections if students are underperforming.

 

[RC1991]

Disclaimer: I am not a teacher but simply a parent who has a daughter in 4th grade. The PARCC is not only a very poorly written and administered test, but the company that provides the test (Pearson) managed to get their foot in the door and is the exclusive provider of the test. They are grade specific but the quality control has been abysmal in that some sections of the tests administered to 3rd graders were actually meant for the 5th or 6th grade test....so clearly it was material that the 3rd graders hadn't learned yet. They also are administering the test online so the kids are taking the test via laptop or tablet. Probably not a huge deal to the high school kids but to elementary school kids who previously "filled in the circles" it was and there was no real prep for that. These things are just tip of the iceberg....yet they wanted to have the test results count for part of the teacher evaluations....but have no idea how to score the test. As far as taking time away from real instruction that was also greatly underestimated by the powers that be and Pearson....because many districts including our don't have the infrastructure to administer to 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade at the same time 3 weeks were required to get through all of the elementary testing. That also involved having teachers from other classes come in to proctor the exam to avoid cheating (which has happened in our district)...of course the people implicated were suspended with pay and allowed to retire....but that's another story. The result of the 3 weeks of testing was no instruction during the week in which our child's grade was tested because after the half day of testing they watched movies....same at all of the other elementary schools in our district. The other 2 weeks when they weren't testing there was further disruption due to shuffling of teachers. Now the district superintendent is saying the test won't count anyway so don't worry - we won't use it for placement like we did the NJ ASK....at least not yet. So it's not about shutting up and taking the test...we had our daughter take it for the experience....it's about the implementation and being prepared to administer the test as a district....and quality control in ensuring that if you are going to give this test make damn well sure it's gone though some sort of QC before rolling it out and make sure you have the necessary tools to do it right. And I should add that I am all for teachers being evaluated and ensuring that our kids get the best possible education and if necessary weeding out the bad ones....I think tenure for an elementary or secondary school teacher is ridiculous in fact - they are not teaching a college curriculum that requires protection for academic freedom....but I don't think this particular test is going to provide a fair evaluation.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

In New Jersey, in the late 50's early 60's, in public schools, I (and my brother and sister) took the Iowa tests every year starting in 3rd or 4th grade. And given the way kids in each grade level were placed in classes, it obviously played a major part. Now we didn't have to worry about a keyboard (your criticism sounds valid in that regard), but I don't remember ever being taught to the test. If the teacher did a good job, apparently the assumption was that that would take care of itself. Your mother (who, if she grew up in New Jersey, probably took the Iowa tests as well) says PARCC has the "potential" to drive placement like nothing before it. Well, isn't it up to the school district to see that it's given it's proper weight in the decisions making process?

No testing is simply the NJEA's path to lifetime tenure upon hire.

No, it isn't up to the district, as long as they want to continue to receive state funding.

Districts aren't even allowed to make their own attendance rules anymore because of state funding issues.

Make teacher's accountable in other ways. There are several thousands suggestions on how to do that.

As usual, derleider simplifies and speaks in generalizations, but that is like saying water is wet.

We all took standardized tests. At the end of the year, you went to school and for 2-3 days, were handed "standardized tests." A few weeks later, you were handed your results. Very little else was done with those results. If you want to argue that kids who were in honors classes, or did well in school, ALSO tested well, then thanks for that nugget of enlightenment. What you will have a much harder time proving was the direct link between your results as a 3rd and 4th grader and whether or not you were afforded the opportunity to take enrichment classes, regardless of your actual in class performance or your teacher's recommendation.

I'm in no way anti corporate or conspiratorial. However, if you don't see the link between PARCC, Pearson and the Department of Education at the federal level, you just aren't informed on the issue.

And yes, ceding control to the federal Department of Anything rarely results in a solution that works at a local level.

And yes again...this is not an urban v. suburban issue. Urban parents probably don't care. The constituency driving this bus is upper middle class, educated, involved parents in districts who are seeing the breadth of their child's education scrapped, in order to teach to a flawed test.

The link you are all failing to make is our standardized tests were a once a year event. We were told, "here, take this." Under the current "high stakes" method, THE TEST is talked about nearly every day. It has dramatically--NOT insignificantly--altered the way elementary schools are run on a daily basis.

 

[RC1991]

No, it isn't up to the district, as long as they want to continue to receive state funding.

Districts aren't even allowed to make their own attendance rules anymore because of state funding issues.

Make teacher's accountable in other ways. There are several thousands suggestions on how to do that.

As usual, derleider simplifies and speaks in generalizations, but that is like saying water is wet.

We all took standardized tests. At the end of the year, you went to school and for 2-3 days, were handed "standardized tests." A few weeks later, you were handed your results. Very little else was done with those results. If you want to argue that kids who were in honors classes, or did well in school, ALSO tested well, then thanks for that nugget of enlightenment. What you will have a much harder time proving was the direct link between your results as a 3rd and 4th grader and whether or not you were afforded the opportunity to take enrichment classes, regardless of your actual in class performance or your teacher's recommendation.

I'm in no way anti corporate or conspiratorial. However, if you don't see the link between PARCC, Pearson and the Department of Education at the federal level, you just aren't informed on the issue.

And yes, ceding control to the federal Department of Anything rarely results in a solution that works at a local level.

And yes again...this is not an urban v. suburban issue. Urban parents probably don't care. The constituency driving this bus is upper middle class, educated, involved parents in districts who are seeing the breadth of their child's education scrapped, in order to teach to a flawed test.

The link you are all failing to make is our standardized tests were a once a year event. We were told, "here, take this." Under the current "high stakes" method, THE TEST is talked about nearly every day. It has dramatically--NOT insignificantly--altered the way elementary schools are run on a daily basis.

You posted right before I did and explained things way better than I!!

 

[zwick99]

The anti testing or more accurately, the anti PARCC movement among parents is far more prevalent in affluent areas than it is in inner cities.

Any most other industrialized countries that do well on international tests , test far less than the US, BUT, the tests they do take, usually in late middle school have much higher stakes for students.

You mean areas with strong teachers unions.

Notice how all the commercials are paid for by teachers unions?

 

[ruhudsonfan]

There are good points on both sides of the argument. Teachers want to teach and not teach to a test. Districts want to make sure their kids are learning at the appropriate rate.

Teachers Union - is strong where teachers for the most part don't get reviewed the same way people do in the for profit corporate world. When doing a job in the corporate world you may have external dependencies affecting your job performance you may get let go because of them. Teachers don't want to be rated basedon passing rate because the kids are not studying or the parents are not providing the kids a good home learning environment.

Parents - don't want their kids to be reviewed where it may show that their kids are not doing as well as they thought. Or that their higher income school district is not performing well where top colleges may not accept as many of the kids from their district as in the past.

Districts - want a fair way to assess how they are doing. This can be used as a tool to make corrections if students are underperforming.

Underperforming what? That is sorta the point. Currently, the results are not shared. How do you take corrective measures if you don't know which questions little Johnny and Janey got wrong?

Make an analogy for the teacher in a traditional performance review setting. If your boss said to you, "you're underperforming," would your first reply be to ask where? why? what? how? followed up with How can I do better? If he/she shrugged and said, I cant share that with you, just know that you are underperforming, would that be actionable information?

 

[Queztastic]

Can someone explain to me what common core actually is? All I've seen about it is a technique to do addition in your head, which is the same way I learned 20 years ago, but people on facebook make these sensationalist posts about it saying it makes no sense with no explanation of what the purpose is.

I don't understand either, but the way they teach math now is completely different. Its like they don't want the kids to do anything in their heads. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[mdk01]

When we took the Iowa tes

No, it isn't up to the district, as long as they want to continue to receive state funding.

Districts aren't even allowed to make their own attendance rules anymore because of state funding issues.

Make teacher's accountable in other ways. There are several thousands suggestions on how to do that.

As usual, derleider simplifies and speaks in generalizations, but that is like saying water is wet.

We all took standardized tests. At the end of the year, you went to school and for 2-3 days, were handed "standardized tests." A few weeks later, you were handed your results. Very little else was done with those results. If you want to argue that kids who were in honors classes, or did well in school, ALSO tested well, then thanks for that nugget of enlightenment. What you will have a much harder time proving was the direct link between your results as a 3rd and 4th grader and whether or not you were afforded the opportunity to take enrichment classes, regardless of your actual in class performance or your teacher's recommendation.

I'm in no way anti corporate or conspiratorial. However, if you don't see the link between PARCC, Pearson and the Department of Education at the federal level, you just aren't informed on the issue.

And yes, ceding control to the federal Department of Anything rarely results in a solution that works at a local level.

And yes again...this is not an urban v. suburban issue. Urban parents probably don't care. The constituency driving this bus is upper middle class, educated, involved parents in districts who are seeing the breadth of their child's education scrapped, in order to teach to a flawed test.

The link you are all failing to make is our standardized tests were a once a year event. We were told, "here, take this." Under the current "high stakes" method, THE TEST is talked about nearly every day. It has dramatically--NOT insignificantly--altered the way elementary schools are run on a daily basis.

We took the Iowa tests DURING the year, not 2 or 3 days in late June And if your parents showed up on Parent's Night the results were discussed with them. So is the way the elementary schools are run on a daily basis the result of testing or the teacher's fear of testing?

 

[zwick99]

Doesn't look like you did too well in school, either. Can't even navigate your way to the CE forum as an adult.

CAn you tell us ANY system where the inner city lower class are successful?

I have an offer. YOU pick ANY system you want. The only conditions are you take full ownership for the results from here on and also give up welfare. According to DEms, education is the key to success. We will let you pick ANY system and you can stop making excuses for your failures.

We have pretty much already given you everything you wanted. The only thing we have not done for you is the actual work and that is why your kids still fail. We gave you an opportunity, mo money, mo inner city teachers, mo money, mo inner city administrators, mo money, school choice, mo money, busing, mo money, diversity, charters, free programs, free breakfast, free lunch, NCLB(supported by Kennedy), eliminate NCLB, and so on and so on. The reality is YOU are the problem. YOur kids failed BEFORE NCLB, during and they will fail after.

 

[RUfinal4]

Underperforming what? That is sorta the point. Currently, the results are not shared. How do you take corrective measures if you don't know which questions little Johnny and Janey got wrong?

Make an analogy for the teacher in a traditional performance review setting. If your boss said to you, "you're underperforming," would your first reply be to ask where? why? what? how? followed up with How can I do better? If he/she shrugged and said, I cant share that with you, just know that you are underperforming, would that be actionable information?

For underperforming:
If the results are available you can say: your class passed at a 65% rate while the state average was 75%.