States Dumping PARRC Is An ORCHESTRATED Event - NOT "STATE LED"!

I had to write this blog after receiving this letter to Superintendents from Georgia Superintendent John D. Barge, Ed.D.  I will add the exact link to the letter as soon as I am able to find it, but for now, I am copying the entirety of the letter here below, followed by the letter Janet Barresi sent to Superintendents in Oklahoma.

My thesis; Achieve has figured out Common Core opponents have a case for federal involvement in testing with the argument that PARCC received federal funding to create the tests and now the feds want to 'help' decide what will be on the tests.   

What's the best way to nullify the argument?  Have states leave PARCC and 'develop their own state standards'.   

Okay but who will they use for Common Core tests then?  McGraw Hill?  Pearson? Both companies are part of the Common Core machine - both SELL Common Core tests - both are private organizations not having received money from ARRA but that have massive lobbying efforts across the nation.  As I've said before; THIS IS A SHELL GAME and the American public is being played.  When you look at the letters from TWO SEPARATE state superintendents in TWO SEPARATE states and they are so similar you can pick out common themes and wording?  You have an orchestrated event, most probably from Achieve - which has an entire website called the Future Ready Project to help states 'sell' the standards.  States get pushback on the Core, and instead of governors and/or state superintendents meeting the arguments head on in their own states - locally - they go to Achieve to get propaganda to 'sell' their citizenry on their education 'reform' measures (Common Core/Testing/TLE).  The term "state led" is meant to mean "local", but as is obvious, Common Core is not a local phenomena, but a nationally coordinated event geared toward promulgating progressive education and crony capitalism by providing more clients for the private corporations pushing the standards.

Dear Superintendents,

Earlier today, I, along with Governor Deal and our State Board Chair, Barbara Hampton, advised the leadership of the PARCC Governing Board that the state of Georgia is withdrawing from the consortium and as such, we will not administer the PARCC assessments in 2014-2015. Georgia will be pursuing other options for developing our own state assessments in English language arts and math at the elementary, middle and high school levels.  We will continue to work with Georgia educators, as we have in the past, to reconfigure and/or redevelop our state assessments to reflect the instructional focus and expectations inherent in our rigorous state standards in language arts and math.  This is not a suspension of the implementation of the CCGPS in language arts and math.

After talking with district superintendents, administrators, teachers, parents, lawmakers, and members of many communities, I believe this is the best decision for Georgia’s students.  Relative to assessment, our paramount goal is to deliver high-quality instruments.  It is critical that these instruments provide key information about student learning and contribute to the ongoing work of improving the educational opportunities for each student. 

The Georgia Department of Education estimates that several million dollars in savings will be realized, annually, by developing our own assessments. The cost estimates for PARCC will be released later today, and these costs far exceed what Georgia can afford.

As we have discussed the technology requirements for PARCC, we have realized that a majority of our districts are not ready for full-scale, online assessments across all grades.  The state does not currently have the technology infrastructure or sufficient hardware to handle the test administration demands of PARCC, which include technology- enhanced test items.

While any new test Georgia develops will require greater capacity, allowing for online administration, we will be in the position to work with districts to establish the timeline.  This is important, as many districts need greater bandwidth, improved connectivity, and more devices (i.e., hardware) to handle not only assessment administration but day to day instructional requirements.

Developing our own assessments also will allow Georgia to determine the amount of time our students spend testing.  Based on current estimates, PARCC anticipates up to 10 hours of student engagement, through multiple test sessions conducted across two testing windows in language arts and mathematics alone.  I am optimistic that Georgia’s tests will require significantly less time for these two content areas, within a single window, and still provide high-quality information about student learning.

Finally, and arguably the most important consideration, adopting the PARCC assessment would limit the ability of Georgia to make adjustments or changes to our standards as we see fit.  If Georgia educators determine that certain standards need to be shifted or revised, we would run the risk of no longer being aligned with the PARCC assessment.  Such misalignment would put our students at a disadvantage. 

As we begin to build new assessments, please note that our Georgia assessments:

·         will be aligned to the math and English language arts CCGPS;

·         will be of high-quality and rigorous;

·         will be developed for students in grades 3 through 8 and high school;

·         will be reviewed by Georgia teachers;

·         will require significantly less time to administer than the PARCC assessments;

·         will be administered within a single testing window;

·         will be offered in both computer- and paper-based formats; and

·         will include a variety of item types, such as performance-based and multiple-choice items.

I am confident that Georgia can use the information learned from our involvement in PARCC as we develop new tests.  We are grateful to Georgia educators who have worked hard to help develop our standards and assessments.  We look forward to continuing to work with them to develop a new assessment system for our state.

As we continue to prepare our students to be college and career ready by the time they graduate from high school, I believe this approach will benefit them greatly.  As the work continues, I will keep you informed.  In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.  

John D. Barge, Ed.D.

State School Superintendent

Georgia Department of Education

2066 Twin Towers East

205 Jesse Hill Jr. Dr. SE

Atlanta, GA 30334

Ofc:  404-657-6165

Fax:  404-651-8737

johnbarge@doe.k12.ga.us

www.gadoe.org

Follow us on Twitter: @gadoenews and @drjohnbarge

Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gadoe

"Making Education Work for All Georgians"

Now, here is the letter written to Superintendents by Janet Barresi.  No, the wording is not exact - let's not split hairs - but please tell me that not only the formatting, but the message are NOT the same.

MEMORANDUM

TO: District Superintendents

FROM: State Superintendent Janet Barresi

DATE: July 1, 2013

RE: Issuing RFP to Develop Oklahoma Assessments in Math and English Language Arts

Last week, I advised the leadership of the PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers) Governing Board that the state of Oklahoma will not be participating in the spring 2015 administration of the PARCC Assessment. Oklahoma will be issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop our own state assessments in English language arts and math for grades 3 through 8. We will work with our current testing vendor to align high school end-of-instruction exams to reflect the significant instructional shifts and the new rigorous state standards in English, math and social studies. I want to be clear; this is not a suspension of the implementation timeframe for the Oklahoma Academic Standards that include the Common Core State Standards for English and math.

After talking with and listening to district superintendents, teachers and parents, I believe this is the best decision for Oklahoma's children. Our first priority was to deliver a very high-quality assessment that would provide the type of information our teachers, administrators, parents, the legislature and the public need to continue to support ongoing work in improving educational opportunities for each child. In addition, developing our own assessments will reduce the amount of time children are testing, reduce the risk of technology problems and save money.

The State Department of Education estimates that upwards of $2 million a year in savings will be realized by developing our own assessments. The PARCC cost estimates for the exams will be released at a later date. Those cost estimates will not include formative assessments for teachers or multiple retakes of high school end-of-instruction exams. The Oklahoma assessments will include at least two formative assessments teachers may use on a voluntary basis each year and opportunities for students to retake the EOIs.

The Office of Instructional Technology conducted a speed test in April to determine our technology readiness. The study revealed 85 percent of the districts were not ready for online learning opportunities. The state does not currently have the technological infrastructure to handle the amount of time on task for students as well as the enhanced test items as required by PARCC.

These Oklahoma tests still will require students to fill in the blanks, drag and drop items, and manipulate objects on the screen, and this requires a higher level of technology. Many districts still need more bandwidth to handle these requirements, better connectivity and more devices for taking the examination. I am continuing to work with the governor and legislative leadership to find funding and viable options to increase technological capacity across the state.

The final reason for this decision is the time on task issue. As you know, the PARCC recommendations will call for up to 10 hours of student engagement on test items over two testing windows. Our RFP is calling for about half that amount over one window.

The 2014-2015 Oklahoma assessments:
• Will be aligned to the new math and English language arts Oklahoma Academic Standards that include the Common Core
• Will be reviewed by Oklahoma teachers
• Will require about half of the time on task as the PARCC assessments and will be administered over one testing window.
• Will be developed for students in grades 3 through 12 but only computerized for grades 6 through 12 as has been in the past
• Will offer paper and pencil tests throughout the duration of the contract as opposed to PARCC only allowing paper and pencil for one year
• Will be high-quality and display the same rigor as well as the same type of test items as the PARCC exams are expected to have
• Will have performance based items as well as some multiple choice, although fewer multiple choice items than in the past

Lastly, I am pleased the new testing vendor, when chosen, will be able to use the information we learned from participating in PARCC as we commission the new Oklahoma tests. We are grateful to the Oklahoma Educator Leader Cadre that has worked so hard to help prepare educators for the new standards and assessments. We will continue to work with them to support the development of the new Oklahoma assessments.

I look forward to going down this new road of developing Oklahoma assessments for Oklahoma children. As we continue to work to prepare our children to be college, career and citizen ready by the time they graduate, these new Oklahoma grown assessments will greatly benefit them.

As the RFP process continues, I will keep you informed. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you.

Janet C. Barresi

Common Core Testing Needs "Assessing"

Today, KRMG released its interview with Janet Barresi about the Common Core State Standards after being inundated with questions from listeners on the issue.  Here is the full text of the article.

I have chosen to go head to head - arguing each of her points in this article, as this information is exceptionally important for parents to know.  Sadly, this interview contains the same kind of behavior we have witnessed Janet Barresi exhibiting since she became our Superintendent - waving away opposition as if those of us who pay her salary are just peons to be ignored.  It infuriates me anytime I hear this because it is so elitist - so big government Republican.  She never really seems to give credibility to any concerns emanating from the public, but continues with the rhetoric spawned by the supporters and defenders of the Standards.

Please read the article so you can follow my points, although I will paste the quotes from the article upon which I will comment.

"The old assessments were simply questions that were memory tests. That's all they tested, was a child's ability to recall. These new assessments are testing their full knowledge of foundational information, and then more importantly, they're assessing their ability to think about those items and to apply those items," she told KRMG in an exclusive interview.

She talks about the tests as though she knows what the tests say...PARCC doesn't even know what the tests say!  All they've released are sample questions.  In fact, the tests will not be fully ready for use until 2014 AND our superintendent has already gone to our legislature to ask them to approve money for INTERIM tests because our children are going to fail the PARCC tests when they are ready (SB447 - comment made by Senator Clark Jolley at a Senate Education Committee Meeting on 2/5).  So these tests are all that and a bag of chips but our kids are going to fail them and we need to cough up more money for other tests until kids can pass them?  That's comforting and, well, confusing.   

Look at the speech Secretary Arne Duncan gave at a gathering of Achieve (one of the Players in the Common Core scheme)  lauding the 'new generation' ASSESSMENTS!  See if Dr. Barresi is not simply parroting Arne Duncan nearly word for word.

How about them apples for "testing their full knowledge of foundational information"?  Yup, you got it!  Kids are supposed to show their thinking about math!  How exciting.  Very creative though.

How about the fact that numerous different studies have shown technology as more a bane than a boon to student learning and attention spans in the face of more and greater technologies that allow escapism and instant gratification?   Okay, so let's make the computer one of the biggest things in the life of a student.  Cognitive dissonance much?

How about the fact that these new tests could potentially have partial credit answers?  Where's the line in the sand?  How do you determine what a kid really knows when you're granting him partial credit answers?  But then, I guess it's important to have every point you can get when the test results go into determining the school's A-F grade and schools that get a D or an F can be taken over and run by a contractor for the State Department of Education!  Look also at that link provided for this test.  Look at the jargon written on the page.  Have you not seen these terms used over and over and over with the Common Core?  So much so in fact, that I wrote a blog about it way back in late 2011, two in 2012 (and here) and another in 2013.  Frankly, it seems to me there is more time spent 'messaging' about the Common Core than actually 'teaching' the Common Core.  Look at the number of articles I found online showing states how to "MESSAGE" about Common Core.

Messaging Toolkit - from the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) - one of the two private, trade organizations responsible for the Common Core.

Common Core State Standards Communication and Outreach - Achieve

Common Core, We'd Better Get The Message Out - Jeb Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education

Realizing the Potential:  How Governor's Can Lead Effective Implementation of the Common Core State Standards - National Governor's Association (NGA) the other organization responsible for creating the Common Core

What to Tell Your Teachers To Help Them Implement The Common Core Standards; Messaging is Key To Common Core Implementation (among other choices) - from the School Improvement Network

Why in the world are these organizations so invested in this effort that they devote so much energy to selling it?  If the standards and tests are so good, why in the world do you have to work so hard to sell them?  (Answer:  Money - they are all invested in selling schools programs/books/software/etc. to support the Common Core).

Maybe there's so much 'selling' going on of the Common Core and PARCC tests because this is the way in which the state and the federal government will collect data point after data point of personal information on your child.  Since the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1964, provisions have been made in the law for collecting 'educational data' on students.  This troubled ROPE so badly that we researched this situation and produced a paper for an interim study on the topic of student privacy last October for the Oklahoma House.

Many readers have no doubt seen Glenn Beck talk more than once about the intrusive nature of the data 'mining' occurring within schools today.  This is just one page from the National Center for Education Statistics including the type of data they collect on students.

Note Blood Type and Birthmark in the 1st column 5 and 6 down!

Recently, while trolling around for information on other issues, I found something called the Tripod Project.  Of course it's founded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - a serious major underwriter of all this new education 'reform' - or should I say data collection?  Just this page on their Foundation website shows that the Gates apparently have quite the interest in 'assessments' and data collection.  The Tripod 'project' provides,

"...a suite of multi-item indicators that capture students’ academic and social behaviors, goals, beliefs and feelings. Student engagement and achievement are conceptually and empirically predicted by seven multi-item measures covering key domains of teaching effectiveness referred to as the 7Cs."

What?  Feelings?  Beliefs?  What in the world does that have to do with my kids' education?  Well, in order for teachers to be effectively teaching students, schools need to know about their Grit Tenacity and Perseverance and the only way to do that is to monitor them electronically with as many gadgets as possible and then collect and store that data in a database in order to more fully evaluate the child.  Apparently, teachers are too stupid to figure out how a student is responding in their classroom, so that student must be hooked up to an electronic instrument of some kind and data collected on his 'engagement' and 'behaviors' in the classroom.  But what about feelings?  How do we measure these?  On tests apparently, where we 'assess' just these things.  After all, "to assess" means to pass judgement - something that's a subjective state, not an objective state such as a right or wrong answer to a deliberately posed and specific question.

Just recently, our friend Howard Houchen posted an exchange he had with one of his son's friends over their recent writing tests on ROPE'S Facebook page.  As Howard puts it:

He said he noticed a "transition" in the "writing tests" from others he had taken. He didn't like the "how does this make you feel" and the "how do you feel about this" questions in the "pre-tests". Now, keep in mind these "tests" are now called OCCT (Oklahoma Common Core Test) and not CRT. This kid mentioned that to me during his letting me know about the "transition" he noticed. Close to the end of our conversation, and these are the words he spoke that STICK...he said: "yeh, these pre-tests make you feel like your talking to a psychiatrist or something". A Common Core Writing Pre-Test that makes a kid uncomfortable...like they are spilling their feelings out to a psychiatrist??? This, at the very least, is NOT acceptable!

McGraw/Hill - the testing company identified by Senator Jolley during the Senate Education Committee meeting as providing interim Common Core tests, ALSO does psychometric testing.  Gosh, that's handy.

We identified a similar situation last year with the 21 Century Skills After School Program where we were able to show that Behavioral Response tests (psychological tests) were given to students without parental permission, so this is undeniably occurring, though the extent is unknown.

Having administered several state tests over the course of my teaching career, I can tell you without hesitation that test security is a HUGE issue.  Why?  Because if the test questions get out it costs the testing company more money to create additional test questions and allegations of cheating can be leveled against the school if security protocols are not followed.  What better place to put psychological test questions but on a test that has ZERO scrutiny outside the testing company and its graders and the child taking the test who has not enough life experience to know the questions he/she is answering can lead to the creation of a psychological profile of their own making?

For years Dr. Barresi has taken pride in saying that these standards are "state led" (another talking point) and that the federal government is not involved.  In fact, the Daily Oklahoma created an editorial calling us Conspiracy Theorists for our assertion that the Common Core is federally led!  Let's think....if the two consortia creating the tests were given FEDERAL dollars (Race to the Top) grants and are now saying they the consortia need to undergo a 'federal review process'  how NOT federal is that?  We won't get started on the standards themselves...

The interview goes on:

[Dr. Barresi] says those who say it will mean 40 days of testing a year are simply misstating the facts.  "It is generously timed so children can actually think and formulate an answer. So, it is not 40 days. There are two 20-day testing windows. Children are not involved in testing for the full 40 days all day. That is simply not accurate."

Okay, well no one ever said kids would be tested for 20 days.  I have no idea where that came from.  Our concern was that teachers were literally going to have to spend 40 days a semester getting their kids ready to take tests lasting 8-10 hours.  Here's the document.  Isn't that what it says?

Here she makes a concession about the fact that this Common Core stuff is all an UNFUNDED mandate, but who cares, really, because all schools will have to have all this technology anyway.

She does admit that many schools will have to make major upgrades in terms of broadband Internet access, computer equipment, and software.  But, she firmly believes that's something that would have to happen regardless of whether Oklahoma instituted the new testing system or not.  "This is something that is absolutely critical. This is not a nice to have kind of thing -- this is an essential tool. This is as important as pencil and paper."

Hmmm...so we want kids to think critically and be able to write, but only if we use the computer as a crutch to do so.  Not only does this not make sense, but I don't know how much sense it makes to taxpayers to see their property taxes (and others) increase because the school can't afford the technology necessary to administer tests for a set of standards that were never generally agreed upon, studied or even seen before put into law.  But then, I guess that doesn't really matter if we can keep the state from studying the actual costs associated with the Common Core by killing bills and holding the media at arms length with platitudes like, "We anticipate low costs".

Dr. Barresi also explains that...once people learn more about what's called "common core" education, they get on board.

"I know industry is excited about being here, I know the governor is focused on making sure we have a work force that's ready for the 21st Century, and we're doing our part at the State Department of Education and all the great educators throughout the state are working their hearts out."

Wow.  It just shocks me that she continues on the Communist Party line here.  WE DON'T EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN FOR THE WORKFORCE we educate them so they can decide what they want to do with their lives when they are able to make those decisions for themselves.  The Oklahoma and National Chambers of Commerce, however, do not believe in such folly, however.  The top two issues of the Oklahoma State Chamber (under the heading of 'workforce') are

• Prioritize education funding for programs and reforms designed to enhance access to current and future Oklahoma workforce needs.
• Protect Common Education reforms designed to enhance growth, learning and proficiencies needed to ensure students are career or college ready.

The National Chamber of Commerce supports "A Competitive Workforce" by:

• Requiring a Quality, Rigorous, and Well-Rounded K–12 Educational System:
  • Promoting the use of student data for accountability.
  • Supporting college and career ready standards, including the common core, that prepare all students.
  • Providing real choices and options for students and parents.

I guess Dr. Barresi is right on this!  Industry is excited about this.  I wonder why she doesn't understand, however, that America doesn't educate its children to be members of the states' workforce - CHINA DOES!

Of course, she is correct that Governor Fallin is all behind these education 'reforms'!  Of course she is - she's Vice-Chair of the National Governor's Association and on her way to the highly touted Chair position!  It wouldn't look good for her political aspirations if her state rejected Common Core, would it?  Damn the parents/kids/voters!  Full speed ahead she cries as she forgets for whom she works and to whom she owes her position.

In closing, Dr. Barresi has this to say,

"we are going in this state from driving an old broken down 1980s car that's burning oil to a Prius."

What a metaphor!  Isn't it that broken down old 1980's car that PUT A MAN ON THE MOON?  Oh, but the Prius has been a shining example of JAPANESE engineering though most hybrid owners wouldn't own another.  Maybe she's got that backward?  Maybe she just doesn't know what the heck she's saying!

To Heck With Diamonds, Common Core is Forever

ROPE has been closely following the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) cost issue, since NO ONE in charge of public education in Oklahoma – including the purse string holders at the state legislature – have been able to tell Oklahomans what the Common Core will cost Oklahoma taxpayers. 

I wrote an article last month that was published in the American Thinker titled “The Ed Tech Scam”, to shed light on the fact that the CCSS have become an unfunded state mandate – specifically in the area of technology requirements.

Yes, the CCSS lovers say, 

“Adopting new materials isn’t really a cost of the Common Core, it’s just a cost in education of providing relevant materials to students that are there anyway.” 

However, when you have at least one Oklahoma Superintendent honestly reporting (to a national education magazine) how pinched he is to get technology in place prior to the roll out of the Common Core tests, we are inclined to suspend belief.

"Once you get into a testing situation, you have to be able to support it without interruption," said Mr. Kitchens, who added: "I do not think this is going to be a cheap exercise at all."

As we’ve reported previously, legislators cemented the Common Core State Standards into Oklahoma law in order to get Race to the Top funds without even a cursory review of draft forms of the standards as there were none available at that time.  This would seem a clear violation of the public trust. 

Legislators to taxpayers, 

“Hey guys, you’re responsible for funding these, but we have no idea exactly what’s in them or how much they’ll cost the state or what they’ll do to Oklahoma education, but trust us.”

Obviously the trust wasn’t warranted.  Currently, fourteen states have some form of legislation against the CCSS.  Clearly all is not well in CCSS-land.

Indiana recently threw out their Chief For Change (Jeb Bush/Foundation for Educational Excellence) state Superintendent Tony Bennett in favor of relatively unknown candidate Glenda Ritz, mainly because of flap over the cost and effectiveness of the Common Core State Standards.  Directly on the heels of this upset comes legislation to force the Indiana state legislature to examine the cost of the Common Core before continuing their implementation.

Tony Bennett has not left the building, however.   He now presides over the Florida State Department of Education, where, interestingly, the Florida state Board of Education is questioning whether or not the Florida education juggernaut is ready to roll out and administer the PARCC tests because of their cost.

"One hundred million won't get done everything we need to get done," Barbara Jenkins, superintendent of Orange County schools, told the board.

Hoosiers have already caught on to the fact that their former State Supe has gone to another state and told Floridians they just can’t afford the reform measures he was deposed for pushing inside their borders.  I’m not sure how this could inspire confidence in any Common Core state.

 

Then there’s the fact that so much of today’s ‘education reform’ efforts have been tied to private funding by Bill Gates. 

In a clear, well-researched article written for the Heartland Institute on this topic, Joy Pullman quotes Betty Peters’ (Alabama State School Board member) concerns,

“A lot of private foundations are making decisions that would normally be left up to a public institution that would be accountable to the taxpayers.”

As often as we have heard the word “accountability” from our Oklahoma State Department of Education, this should be an eye-opener.  How in the world can the Council of Chief State School Officers or the National Governor’s Association (architects of the Common Core State Standards, funded in part by the Gates Foundation) be held accountable to Oklahoma taxpayers for education ‘reform’ efforts such as the CCSS?  They are all copyrighted so they can’t be modified yet the CCSSO and the NGA have a disclaimer;

“NGA Center and CCSSO do not warrant, endorse, approve or certify the information on this site, nor do they make any representation as to the accuracy, completeness, efficacy, or timeliness of such information. Use of such information is voluntary on your part. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process or service does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation or favoring by NGA Center and CCSSO."

Then there is the Jeb Bush factor.  As information trickles into the public domain reporting the methods in which the Foundation for Educational Excellence writes educational policy through Janet Barresi and other Chiefs for Change, jaws should drop.  Why should Oklahoma taxpayers be supporting Florida education reforms – especially those shown not to be as successful as first advertised?  
 

This session in Oklahoma, Senator Clark Jolley has drafted a bill (SB447) which will usher in yet another new education ‘reform’ measure.  MORE new tests!  Yes, Oklahoma has chosen to believe the CCSSO’s verdict that most students will fail the PARCC ‘assessments’ when they are to be instituted in 2014.  

Certainly, Oklahoma’s public school students cannot fail these tests with so much riding on them (the A-F school designation for one).  Consequently, not only is Senator Jolley advocating that we must buy another set of tests (formative tests) to be given up to four times per year before the summative PARCC tests come on line, but that we should support this plan by cementing it into law – as with all other Race to the Top education reforms Oklahoma is currently implementing – without RTT funds.   

Why must these tests be written into law?  Every teacher gives (or should give) formative tests over content taught – something akin to chapter tests.  These allow teachers to see whether or not students are ‘getting it’ in time to re-teach or re-direct learning to improve concept understanding.  Certainly, this type of testing is better than summative (high stakes) type testing, but why should Oklahoma teachers have another law to follow?  

Oklahoma teachers have enough on their plate without being mandated to follow another type of test.  Even formative tests can be misused in such a way as to force teachers to teach to the test and isn’t that all PARCC tests are doing?

It has come to my attention this week that a company called Bellwether Education Partners supplies this type of “transitional national achievement test”.  I did a little research on Bellwether and found they work with such organizations as Chiefs for Change and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  We know Dr. Barresi is a Chief for Change.  One must wonder if there is a connection here as with the other education ‘reforms’ to which she’s been linked.  Again, Oklahoma should not be implementing education ‘reforms’ simply because they are being done elsewhere or because another foundation is willing to ‘help’ Oklahoma with their implementation.

From what source is the money going to materialize to pay for these new tests?  We haven’t even figured out how to pay for the PARCC tests.  It must be taxpayer funded – all government is.   Maybe that’s why Dr. Barresi has asked for a whopping $75 to $100 million in extra funding for next year.  The press release sent out by her office lauding Senator Halligan and Senator Ford – from whom the funding requests were submitted – quotes Senator Ford as saying,

“We have three areas in education we must address, including statutory requirements to fund programs such as medical benefits, additional appropriations to pay for reforms we’ve already enacted, and additional funding at the local level that school boards can use to address specific needs in their individual districts,” said Ford, R-Bartlesville.

Why are you asking taxpayers to fund these reforms AFTER you enacted them into LAW Senator Ford?  Why should taxpayers be jumping up and down to fund ‘reforms we’ve already enacted’ when they haven’t originated in Oklahoma, were never read by those who enacted them, never had any functional testing demonstrating their efficacy and have been shown not to work in Florida from where they did originate?  Certainly, taxpayers deserve an answer to that question. 

 

In closing, several interesting polls have come out recently regarding the Common Core.

Whiteboard Advisors, Education Insider 

“conducts an anonymous survey of a small group of key education influential (policymakers, though leaders, and association heads) to get their thoughts and commentary about the context of the current debate and possible outcomes.”   

Their survey for February 2013 that polled ‘insiders’ on the Common Core show that support for PARCC testing is falling.  In addition, 87% of respondents say they expect more states to drop out of the Common Core Assessment Consortia (like Alabama and Utah),

“as they start to get a fuller picture for the implementation costs of assessments and professional development and get very unhappy about what they have signed up for in a budget constrained environment.” 

77% of respondents believe schools will not have enough bandwidth to meet the Consortia’s recommended specifications in time for the tests to come on line.

The 2013 MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, shows that only a maximum of 24% of teachers and principals either believed the Common Core would improve student achievement or prepare students for college and the workforce (page 76).   

So why are we doing this ed 'reform' thing again?

I get the sneaky suspicion it’s not about kids…