Nevadans Against Common Core (Nevada Academic Content Standards)

problems with cc (sbac and parcc) testing

Nevada is using the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) as the official 3rd - 8th grade state test.   

Some of the problems with the SBAC: 
THE TEST IS DESIGNED TO FAIL 2/3 OF STUDENTS, GRAPHS AT BOTTOM OF LINK
 
Way too much instructional time will be wasted preparing for an inappropriate test, i.e. it will take 10 hours over several days for 4th graders to complete the test.

IT WILL NOT BE GRADED AND RETURNED TO NEVADA UNTIL NEXT SCHOOL YEAR SO IT IS USELESS FOR TEACHERS PARENTS AND STUDENTS.

THE SBAC WILL ONLY BE USED BY 16 STATES (note only about half the CC states are still in CC testing SBAC or PARCC).  SINCE THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN ONE MORE STATE (WI) SAID THEY WILL NOT FUND THE SBAC. 

BEFORE WISCONSIN BACKED OUT OF SBAC TESTING THE TEST COST $33 PER STUDENT OR ABOUT $7 MILLION PER YEAR FOR NEVADA.  As of 2/22/15 we don't know if/when the cost will increase.

ON 2/24/15 MISSOURI'S MEMBERSHIP IN SBAC WAS FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL I GUESS THEY WILL BACK OUT OF SBAC TESTING. 

NORTH DAKOTA IS BEGINNING TO QUESTION IF THE SBAC IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT, THERE IS A VERY GOOD 9 MINUTE VIDEO WHERE A CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY MAKES THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SBAC IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  

If both MO and ND back out of SBAC there would only be 14 states using the SBAC.  One of the ways CC was sold is that we would be able to compare students to their peers in "all" the other states, at the moment the best we can hope for is we will be able to compare NV students to students in 15 other states, but it appears that number will decrease.

Hopefully  this will be the beginning of the end for SBAC testing in the remaining SBAC states.  For the record I, John Eppolito, told the Nevada State Board of Education about the law suit in MO immediately before they voted to use the SBAC test in Nevada.

BEFORE WISCONSIN BACKED OUT OF SBAC TESTING THE TEST COST $33 PER STUDENT OR ABOUT $7 MILLION PER YEAR FOR NEVADA.  As of 2/22/15 we don't know if/when the cost will increase.

It is a “secret” computer adaptive test.  Since parents, teachers, and administrators do not get to see the test we can only speculate as to what is on the actual test students take.  In states that are ahead of NV on implementing CC tests, the tests have created undo stress and anxiety on young children.  To fully understand how inappropriate these CC tests are watch the first 10 minute teacher video in link below.

Teachers are speaking up against CC testing, to hear from a teachers perspective how inappropriate CC testing is watch the 10 minute video below.  

TO HEAR FROM OTHER TEACHERS WHO OPPOSE CC TESTING CLICK HERE.

One of the biggest problems with CC testing, SBAC (NV) and PARCC, is intrusive and unprecedented collection, storage and sharing of student data (some personal.  It is the SBAC/PARCC who is, "REQUIRED TO 'PROVIDE TIMELY AND COMPLETE ACCESS TO ANY AND ALL DATA COLLECTED AT THE STATE LEVEL' TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOE, OR ITS DESIGNATED PROGRAM MONITORS, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDERS, OR RESEARCHER PARTNERS AND TO GAO, AND THE AUDITORS CONDUCTING THE AUDIT REQURIED..."

N – 6, Appendix F 5 – B,

The test is secret, in other words, no one can view the test except the student taking it.  It is off limits to teachers, administrators, and parents.  Some think the test is partly to evaluate student's values and character.  Any information the students provide on the test will be, made available to, "the world," that is everyone but the parents.  THERE IS AN ADDED PROBLEM IN NV BECAUSE PARENTS CAN NOT OPT THEIR CHILDREN OUT OF SBAC TESTING.

There are many other problems with CC testing.

The federal government paid $360,000,000 to two companies to write the CC assessments: 

1) Pearson Education – PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers)

2) McGraw Hill – SBAC (Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium)

These are also the two largest publishers writing CC curricula.

The proponents will frequently say CC is just standards not curriculum.  This isn't exactly true.

The largest private donor to CC, Bill Gates, told us in 2009

"IDENTIFYING COMMON STANDARDS IS JUST THE STARTING POINT.  WE'LL ONLY KNOW IF THIS EFFORT HAS SUCCEEDED WHEN THE CURRICULUM AND TESTS ARE LINED TO THESE STANDARDS.”

In addition, Bill Gates and Helmsley Charitable Trust will pay to REVIEW INSTRUCTIONAL MATERAL review instructional material to evaluate FIDELITY TO THE COMMON CORE.  Pearson and McGraw's math curriculum will be among the first to be reviewed.

Fair Test, National Center for Fair & Open Testing, wrote this article titled, Common Core Assessments: MORE TESTS BUT NOT MUCH BETTER.

The article states:

“Two multi-state consortia—the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)—won federal grants to develop tests to measure the new standards (Common Core). These tests will be in full use in the 2014-15 school year.  Since most states have joined a consortium, it is important to understand what the new exams will mean for our school children.  NCLB triggered an unprecedented testing explosion.  The Common Core will compound the problem. 

The new tests will only assess a narrow slice of what students need to know and be able to do.  Mostly administered by computer, the proposed tests will remain largely multiple-choice.

Under Race to the Top and NCLB waiver rules, states must use exam results to evaluate both schools and teachers. As a result, the Common Core tests will still control, distort and corrupt the curriculum….Under NCLB, control over teaching and learning largely passed from local districts to the federal government. Under the new tests, parents, communities and even states will lose even more power….The negative consequences land most heavily on low-income students, those of color or with a disability, and English language learners (FairTest, 2012).

The same old firms, including Pearson, Educational Testing Service and CTB/McGraw- Hill, will produce the tests.  These corporations have long histories of mistakes and incompetence.  The multi-national conglomerate Pearson, for example, has been responsible for poor-quality items, scoring errors, computer system crashes and missed deadlines.  Despite these failures, Pearson is sharing $23 million in contracts to design the first 18,000 items in the PARCC’s test bank (Gewertz, 2012).

Poor districts will have to cut instructional staff and other basic services to divert money to testing.  The move to new standards and tests sets the stage for a huge transfer of resources from cash-strapped schools to testing companies (Samtani, 2012). States and districts will have to invest in expensive new equipment, wiring and broadband. Costs will greatly exceed benefits. This money would be better spent on educational essentials such as teachers and books. Enormous amounts of time will be wasted. Too few computers are available in many schools. To accommodate all students, testing will have to go on for weeks.”

Valerie Strauss, from the Washington Post writes:

"THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THERE ARE TREMENDOUS FINANCIAL INTERESTS DRIVING THE AGENDA ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS — FROM TEST MAKERS, TO PUBLISHERS, TO DATA MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONS — ALL MAKING TREMENDOUS PROFITS FROM THE CHAOTIC CHANGE. WHEN THE SCORES DROP, THEY PROSPER. WHEN THE TESTS CHANGE, THEY PROSPER. WHEN SCHOOLS SCRAMBLE TO BUY MATERIALS TO RAISE SCORES, THEY PROSPER. THERE ARE CURRICULUM DEVELOPERS EARNING MILLIONS TO CREATED SCRIPTED LESSONS TO TURN TEACHERS INTO DELIVERERS OF MODULES IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMMON CORE..."

MY THOUGHTS:

I believe test makers are intentionally setting the baseline very low. From such a low starting point, test scores, not student learning, will likely improve. As test scores increase CC will be credited for the improvement.

In November 2012 Rick Hess education policy maven and writer for Education Week, predicts what will happen... "FIRST, POLITICIANS WILL ACTUALLY EMBRACE THE COMMON CORE ASSESSMENTS AND THEN WILL USE THEM TO SET CUT SCORES THAT SUGGEST HUGE NUMBERS OF SUBURBAN SCHOOLS ARE FAILING. THEN, PARENTS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO PREVIOUSLY LIKED THEIR SCHOOLS ARE GOING TO BELIEVE THE ASSESSMENT RESULTS RATHER THAN THEIR OWN LYING EYES…. FINALLY, NEWLY CONVINCED THAT THEIR SCHOOLS STINK, PARENTS AND VOTERS WILL EMBRACE ‘REFORM'."

In initial CC tests given in KY and NY “student proficiency” dropped dramatically.

In August 2013, Superintendent of Voorsheesville Central School District, in New York, Dr. Teresa Thayer Snyder, summarizes what is happening and why in her article titled, Commentary on Math & ELA Results.

Dr. Thayer Snyder writes:

“THESE TESTS WERE INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED TO OBTAIN PRECISELY THE OUTCOMES THAT WERE RENDERED….

IF YOU ESTABLISH A BASELINE THIS LOW, THE SUBSEQUENT GROWTH OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS WILL INDICATE THAT YOUR PLANS FOR ELEVATING THE OUTCOMES WERE NECESSARY. HOWEVER, IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT THE TEST DEVELOPERS CONTROL THE SCALED SCORES—INDEED THEY HAVE DEVELOPED A DRACONIAN STATISTICAL FORMULA THAT IS ELABORATE, IF INDECIPHERABLE, TO DETERMINE SCALED SCORES. I WOULD BET MY HOUSE ON THE FACT THAT OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS, SCORES WILL ‘IMPROVE’—NOT NECESSARILY STUDENT LEARNING, BUT SCORES.

THE TRAGIC PART OF THIS STORY IS THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE—THE LITTLE CHILDREN WHO WORKED SO HARD THIS YEAR, WHO ENDURED SO MANY DISTRESSING HOURS OF TESTING, WHO FAILED TO REACH PROFICIENCY, ALL BECAUSE OF THE MANIPULATION OF THE SCALING.”

New York State Senate public hearing on educations, September 2013.  THIS IS WHAT CC TESTING IS DOING TO CHILDREN.  Try to watch starting at 1:36:20 for 22 minutes without getting choked up as these two moms talk about the impact the CC tests are having on their children.  Then starting watching again at 4:29:00 for Dr. Dodge's intelligent and emotional testimony.  Dr. Dodge manages to sum up many of the problems with CC testing and the current education reform in about 9 minutes.

MY THOUGHTS:

It seems absurd that a majority of the teachers in our country will likely teach to these new, ill conceived, never tested, standards. In other words, everyone will be teaching to the same test. I don't see how this improves education in the United States!