What is PARCC testing? We tried to find out...

Testing for the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) begins this week in Colorado (and many other states). While students who are taking the PARCC exams will soon be familiar with the tests, we wanted to learn a little more about who and where these tests come from and what they actually contain.

PARCC is produced by the Pearson Corporation, a British company which sells education materials in the United States. For a basic summary of how we feel about the Pearson Corporation, check out the open letter we wrote about the CMAS tests last year. Pearson also produces Common Core textbooks, which are supposed to better prepare students for the PARCC exams. 

According to the PARCC website:

As such, PARCC engages with educators throughout the entire development and implementation process in a variety of ways to ensure the assessment system reflects the best practices and meets the needs of teachers, and to ensure educators have ongoing opportunities to give feedback on and understand the Common Core and PARCC assessments before they are fully implemented.

We tried to figure out how educators (and other people) could provide feedback on the PARCC tests. So far, we haven't come across anything. Perhaps that's because, as students, we aren't given the same level of access. However, if PARCC is really a tool for community engagement with education, we hope they'll make is easier to give feedback.

So how are the PARCC tests made? Well, according to this PDF from the PARCC website produced in December 2014:

PARCC state educators and experts are highly selective! Classroom teachers and other local educators are involved at every step, including test design. More than 30 educators and other experts review each item. The process of developing test questions is unprecedented for its level of rigor and inclusiveness.

Unfortunately the number of exclamation marks outweighs the amount of concrete information in that paragraph.  We weren't able to find anything about who makes PARCC tests, but we were able to find sample exams. Pearson's website contains sample PARCC exams in Language and Math for grades 3-11. If you're interested in taking the tests yourself, they are available here. If you're not interested, we took several of them and came to a few conclusions.

PARCC's language testing follows the same general format at all levels.  Students read a passage, or watch a video, and then answer questions pertaining to it. Sample questions include:

(The above sample comes from a 9th grade Language exam. Students had previously read a Robert Oppenheimer speech.)

Something else about the Language exams that was new and different: they included video.  (For the paper exams, students read a transcript of the video.) While we understand that the PARCC exams want to be new and different, the utility of including video is questionable, especially as it seems to pose more technology issues. Furthermore, students who take the computer test will have a slightly different experience than students who take the paper-and-pencil test, so comparing scores will be more difficult.

One of the first things we noticed about the PARCC math exams is they do not go higher than Algebra II.  Thus, some high schoolers would be testing-down.  Although this isn't the end of the world, if the PARCC tests are going to be used to gauge what students have learned during the previous school year, it won't actually be effective.

Another concern we with the math problems was the manner of the fill-in questions.  The PARCC math tests use a fill-in-the-grid system for some problems.  This system is the same system as the ACT and SAT, so high schoolers would be familiar with it, but it seems it could be confusing for third graders:

(Above is a screenshot of the 3rd grade math instructions.)

While plenty of the PARCC math problems were standard, PARCC also has an affinity for word problems.  This isn't inherently a criticism--word problems can be engaging and useful--but the phrasing of some of the word problems seems it could be a cause for confusion. For example, take this question, which was on the third-grade mathematics test:

One final issue with the math test: technology.  While the PARCC tests are supposed to be computer-based, a lot of schools don't have the technology to support this, so a paper-and-pencil option is available. However, a TI-84 is required for both the Geometry and Algebra II tests.  TI-84s run around $100, and most students don't need them until pre-calculus. So schools either need to find a way to get every student these calculators, or paper-and-pencil isn't an option.

Those are just a few of the issues we've run into. Based on that, we have three basic ideas about PARCC:

1) We'd like to see more transparency surrounding the test creation process. Who are experts making these exams? How can educators, parents, and student give feedback?

2) How do we know that PARCC testing actually provides meaningful data? If test questions are confusing, if the technology or format poses problems for students, and if the tests aren't aligned with students' current level, what makes policymakers and Pearson's supposed "experts" believe the tests will give meaningful feedback.

3) To what extent did corporate lobbies play a role in the adoption of PARCC? Pearson makes money selling Common Core textbooks, supposedly to improve students' PARCC performance. Pearson also notably made the PARCC exam more difficult than the previous CSAP and TCAP standards Colorado used. Is this really about our education?

Editor's note: We'll have more on PARCC later this month as the testing continues. If you have questions about this article (or anything else on our blog), feel free to say so in the comments, send an email to cmasprotest@gmail.com, or ask Jessica on twitter: @jpiper303. If you'd like to reuse/repost any contents of the blog, feel free, but please give us credit. If you're a student and you'd like to write stuff, contact us in any of the above ways.

A few shout-outs to student-led anti-PARCC movements

PARCC testing begins in Colorado as well as 11 other states this week.  With growing criticism surrounding the tests, we want to acknowledge several of the student-led anti-PARCC movements going on at this time:

-the Colorado-based anti-test movement is planning a protest in Denver on March 7
-students are reportedly walking out in Hobbs, New Mexico as well as Albuquerque
-students in Bloomington and Normal Illinois have organized an anti-PARCC union

the anti-test movement: against the privatization of our education

Shout-out to our allies at the anti-test movement. Check out their website, which includes a full manifesto with citations.

They are also organizing a protest on March 7.  Get the details here. Their aim is a public education system that focuses on students and teachers, not for-profit corporations. Here's a key quote:

Tests should be written by teachers in Colorado; they are, after all, the experts. Teachers  help set the standard of education and must design curriculum in order to teach to the standard. Therefore, they  should also be able to see the tests their students take. This way, teachers can give feedback as to how well the test assesses the standard which the students need to meet. This creates an open, constructive, and transparent dialogue regarding the standards in Colorado, and the tests that determine if they're being met. 

Why don't students "buy-in"?

Over the course of our involvement in the standardized testing debate, I've encountered some version of the following question: "The tests aren't that bad. Why don't you kids just suck it up and take them?" Obviously everyone has their own explanation. I don't want to claim to represent every student, but I want to provide a few of the reasons why students don't "buy into" standardized testing. I've also listed a few possible solutions that would address these concerns.  That said, I'm a high school student not a policymaker, so these are ideas not concrete plans.

-The tests don't feel relevant. Often students are tested on material years after they have taken the classes. Since the tests don't have any bearing on students' feature, most students lack motivation.

Possible solution: There are several ways to make testing more relevant for high schoolers. In order to align with curriculums, the state could administer standardized "exit exams" to test learning in a given year. Or they coudl adminster tests that were skill-based rather than content-based. (To see what this would look like, compare the ACT science, which is skill-based, with the CMAS science, which is mostly content-based.) The state could also utilize current tools, such as the ACT, which already help with college entrance, to measure student success.

-Colorado's testing seems redundant and ineffective, especially compared to other tests that we take. Supposedly the SAT and ACT measure literacy, math, and, in the case of the ACT, science achievement in the course of a few hours.  These tests provide feedback within a month whereas students don't receive results from the CMAS and PARCC exams until the following year. The ACT and SAT aren't a panacea. These tests have their problems too.  But from a students perspective, they seem much more effective than Colorado's current standardized testing system.

Possible solution: Utilize the ACT and/or SAT or come up with a way to test students that is less time-consuming.

-Students feel shorted and don't believe they owe the state anything.  Our original CMAS letter has all the numbers on state spending, but the short version is that education funding has decreased since the 2008 recession and students know this.  We've seen the consequences in the classrooms. Thus, students are angered to see large sums of money spent on standardized testing.

Possible solution: Increase funding for education in areas other than standardized testing. I don't really see any other way around it.

These are just a few of the issues.  Socially-conscious students have other concerns about the very strong correlation between standardized test scores and income.  Some kids have test anxiety.  I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

When students don't care about standardized testing, they seek other solutions. Some opt out. Some protest. Some schools coerce students into taking the tests. Some students fill in "A" for every bubble and write Taylor Swift lyrics for the essays.

My hope is that, as policymakers continue to discuss changes to Colorado's standardized testing system, they'll consider student concerns. Because the system will be so much more effective if students believe in it.  And, despite differences in opinions, an effective education system really is what everyone wants.

-Jessica Piper

The task force report & more...

The 1202 Task  Force presented its findings to the legislature's Join Education Committee last Wednesday. The full report can be read here.

This sentence really stood out to us:

[F]indings from research studies and public input made it clear that Colorado’s current system of State and local assessments has created far too many demands on time, logistics, and finances that are impacting the teaching and learning process in schools and undermining public support for the assessment system as a whole.

There are several positives that we take away from the report:

1) The Task Force recommended completely eliminating the state-mandated CMAS tests for 12th graders. They also recommended making the CMAS English and Math exams optional, to be decided upon by districts and schools.

2) Per the report, the Colorado legislature should "hold all schools and districts harmless from the consequences associated with School and District Performance accountability frameworks (including for low participation rates) through the 2015-2016 school year." Essentially, the Task Force recommends no punishment for schools and districts, such as our own, that failed to meet participation rates on standardized tests.

3) The Task Force recommends that schools be allowed  to administer paper-and-pencil versions of exams. This will help schools, such as our own, that find it difficult to have enough technology for every student.

However, the Task Force did not reach consensus on several key issues. In particular, they were split on whether state-mandated 9th grade Math and English exams and 4th and 7th grade Social Studies exams should be made optional.

We commend the Task Force for the work they have done, and we are thankful they have recognized the need to reduce standardized testing in Colorado.  That said, we believe there is more work to be done. The Task Force seemed to recognize this:

Task Force members recognize that the short-term actions recommended above neither fully address the depths of public concern about the current State and local assessment system nor fully capture the potential of a balanced and aligned system.

Testing, particularly in lower grades, it a still time-consuming and stressful process. Colorado students will still spend many days taking both the PARCC and CMAS exams in Math and English. School funding, including for technology, it still an issue at all levels.  We hope that education policymakers going forward will use the 1202 Task Force as a start point, but will also recognize that its recommendations are only a single step in the right direction to strike the balance between testing and education in Colorado.

Standardized testing, accountability, and student growth

As the Colorado legislature prepares to deal with standardized testing, questions arise surrounding the purpose of testing and its role in holding teachers, schools, and districts accountable.  This Sunday, the Denver Post editorial board presented their take on proposals that would reduce standardized testing:

Clearly, there are ways to slim down the testing volume for students, and such a task becomes less contentious and complex if those involved can agree on basic goals. 

One key goal should be the preservation of what is known as Colorado's growth model in assessing academic achievement. By measuring academic growth over time in addition to overall proficiency, the state can determine whether a district or school is moving students along as fast as their peers elsewhere in the state. 

It's a key measurement when it comes to questions of educational equity for low socio-economic students, and in measuring the relative success of schools in difficult environments. 

And while no one is talking about abolishing such a system — at least not publicly — that is what would happen if the state does not require a reasonable continuum of tests that can chart student progress over time.

Preserving Colorado's "Colorado's growth model in assessing academic achievement," sounds like an admirable goal, but as students who have supposedly been a part of this system, we question the idea that Colorado's current standardized testing system effectively monitors student growth.

Under the CSAP and TCAP testing system, students were monitored once per year, usually in March, in Reading, Writing, and Math.  Students also took science tests in 5th, 8th, and 10th grades.  Under the new PARCC system, students are tested in grades 3-11, with additional social studies and science tests in certain grades.  Furthermore, whereas students were previously tested solely in March, the PARCC tests occur in two separate segments, in March and in May. Proponents argue that this system ensures accountability: if students are tested every year, then the state should be able to track their progress. But we see several problems:

1) The standardized testing system doesn't provide feedback quickly enough for students, parents, or teachers. While school and district tests often provide immediate feedback, state-level testing does not. Students take standardized tests in March or May; schools don't receive the feedback until the next fall.  This gap makes it more difficult for schools and districts to utilize standardized testing.

2) Testing once per year doesn't measure progress in a manner which accounts for the income achievement gap.   Studies have repeatedly shown that the"achievement gap" that occurs as a result of socioeconomic differences is most pronounced over the summer. Consequently, a test designed to account for this gap would require testing students at the beginning and the end of the year.

3) The current standardized testing system doesn't always align with Colorado's curriculum. The high school CMAS science tests, for example, were aimed at 12th graders, but, per student testimony, required knowledge of physical and earth science, which are not  mandated high school courses.  This makes it difficult for schools to tell if students have fallen behind, or if they simply don't remember information from classes they haven't taken in years. 

4) The testing system takes too much time.  The PARCC testing requires students to take multiple math and English tests in both March and May; schools have to devote several weeks to administering these tests.  Are five English tests really better than one? From a student perspective, the answer is definitely no.

With so much focus on keeping teachers and schools accountable, we should make sure that Colorado's standardized tests are held accountable too.  And when the standardized system fails to account for "key goals," like measuring student growth, the state of Colorado owes it to the students to re-evaluate.  We hope this time they will.

Catching up on the 1202 Task Force and the 2015 Legislative Session

The Task Force created by House Bill 1202 has recommended reductions in standardized testing, particularly for high school students. According to the Denver Post:

Although it still must finalize a report to present to the legislature before month's end, the task force agreed to urge elimination of all testing for high school seniors and a reduction for juniors.

As high school seniors, we applaud this decision. We believe that the science and social studies testing that students face in eleventh in twelfth grade causes excessive stress for students, is expensive, and does not provide the state with valuable feedback.

Of course, the recommendations of the Task Force mean nothing if the Colorado legislature chooses not to act. That's why we were encouraged to see that standardized testing appears to be a core issue as the 2015 Colorado legislature session opens. Per Chalkbeat Colorado:

Senate Bill 15-073, sponsored by Sen. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, would require the state to cut testing to the so-called federal minimums and to ask federal authorities for a waiver that would allow use of the ACT test as the only assessment in high school. While such a request was pending, the ACT test would temporarily be eliminated.

Senate Bill 15-056 is a repeat of Sen. Andy Kerr’s unsuccessful attempt to trim social studies from the closing days of the 2014 session.

Both these pieces of legislation are a step in the right direction. While the details still need to be ironed out, we are grateful that the Colorado legislature has recognized the need for reductions in standardized testing. Measures such as using exclusively the ACT would substantially reduce testing burden on high school students, while also aiding the college admissions process.

That said, legislation thus far only targets high school students, and we believe over-testing is a problem for all grades in Colorado. However, we also recognize that the Colorado legislature is somewhat hamstrung by federal requirements. Once again, per the Denver Post,

Beyond that, Colorado has little choice but to follow federal law mandating third- through eighth-grade math and reading tests, and that high schoolers be tested at least once. Students also must be tested in science once each in elementary, middle and high school.

Regardless, we hope that logic can prevail over partisan politics and the Colorado legislature can reduce standardized testing wherever possible.