a*****g
发帖数: 19398 | 1 文章是给俺们教育工作者看的，不过家长看看也挺好。
I realize I'm risking a career I put my heart and soul into by expressing my
thoughts in this blog post. However, as an advocate, I've learned that
there are times when there's more of a risk in not expressing your thoughts.
I do this out of respect for my students and colleagues.
You may be aware that there is a new standardized test out there called
PARCC. In case you're not familiar with the acronym, it stands for
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career. Schools in
Illinois, as well as other states, are being mandated to give this test by
their State Boards of Education. What if your school district wants to opt
out? You can try, but your State Board of Education will threaten to
withhold some of your state aid. In a state like Illinois, where schools
are already receiving a fraction of what they are supposed to be receiving
in state aid, it's a risk that districts can't exactly afford.
Historically speaking, compulsory public education was created during the
second industrial revolution (late 19th Century). The concept was very
similar to that of the factory that made the widgets and cogs of the day in
that there were strict rules, structured time, and one way to manufacture
the commodity. Using scientific management, people who studied educational
theories believed this was the only solution to lifting the next generation
out of those urban tenements and into a better economic and social class.
And for a long time, it worked. Those days, however, are history.
As an educator, I realize that assessment is an important way to measure
student growth. Good teachers do assessments on a daily basis with a variety
of tools ranging anywhere from observation to actual paper/pencil tests. We
talk with students, encourage discussion, assist with project-based
learning, and use differentiated instruction as a means to gauge if students
"get it" when we're instructing. We also work with a variety of learning
levels in our classroom, and we can adapt instruction, activity, and
assessment to fit the need of all students in order to gain a fair
perspective of what a student understands. We know that education is not,
and cannot be, one-size fits all.
Recently, my colleagues and I took practice PARCC tests in order to preview
what our students would be experiencing. I have a Masters Degree in History
, and I was familiar with the readings in the first portion of the English
test, but I walked away from that experience feeling like the dumbest person
in the world. How is the Freshman student going to feel when he or she
takes that test? Many of us felt the same way, which led me to do a little
research on this test.
The PARCC was developed to test Common Core Standards by Pearson, a well
known textbook and testing company. I was interested to learn that Pearson
was the only company in the running for this test. I was also interested to
discover that, dating back to 2000, Pearson has been taken to court multiple
times on claims that they've distributed tests with errors, graded
standardized assessments inaccurately, and prevented students from
graduating. Additionally, Pearson has received a great deal of financial
backing with money from the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates
has spent the past several years focused on philanthropic pursuits,
including advocating for education reform. Bill Gates has been an outspoken
critic of America's education system and teachers during this time, and it
has been well documented that he has some very specific ideas for education
reform. It's interesting that someone with no formal education training as
a teacher, counselor or school administrator would be able to have such a
strong influence on education reform.
Education advocates, like Diane Ravitch, have been studying and writing for
years about ways to improve education and formal assessments like
standardized tests. She recently posted information about the findings of
an education analyst who compared reading passages in the PARCC to
readability formulas used by educators who are tasked with choosing age-
appropriate reading materials for their students. Specifically, Russ Walsh
used the Fry Readability Graph (Fry), the Raygor Readability Graph (RR), the
Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests (FK), the Flesch Reading Ease test (FRE)
and Lexile Framework for Reading. Against all readability formulas, the
PARCC passages tested two grade levels above the tested grade. In other
words, a fourth grade child will be reading passages he or she "should" be
able to understand at the end of his or her sixth grade year. Think about
what I mentioned earlier for the passages our ninth graders would be reading
. I struggled with material I'm familiar with and teach.
As I sat dumbstruck by the difference in reading levels, I dug a little
deeper into Pearson. In 2013, Pearson's net profit was $843.42 million. That
wasn't the surprising statistic. While looking at their Annual Income
Statement, I was more struck by the fact that the amount of money spent on "
Research and Development" in 2011, 2012, and 2013 was $0.00. I couldn't find
the AIS for 2014. But it's quite shocking that a company being paid by
State Boards of Education to test student growth hasn't done any research on
the feasibility of their own assessments.
As educators ponder ways to give this test and encourage our students to
give their best, all the while knowing it will bring some of them to anxiety
attacks and tears, I have to wonder the purpose of such an assessment. A
good teacher would not knowingly stack the deck against his or her students,
because our main goal is to push our students to exceed achievable
standards. Would a testing company knowingly stack the deck against students
? Or are they stacking the deck against teachers? Read this excerpt from the
FAQ page on the PARCC site:
PARCC looks at effective teaching practices and mirrors them in the
assessments. The questions you'll find on the PARCC state test look like
assignments teachers in effective classrooms give their students every day.
So there isn't anything special that students need to do. And we discourage
"prepping for the test."
So if (when) our students do poorly on the test, and they are discouraged
about education, the real culprit will be teachers since, according to PARCC
, the test will prove we aren't being effective in the classroom. Which
leads me to one irrevocable conclusion: It is despicable for a for-profit
organization like Pearson to work with not-for-profit entities like the Bill
and Malinda Gates Foundation or the U.S. Department of Education to use our
students in this way. Despicable.
BUT. Since I'm a 'don't come to me with a problem, come to me with a
solution' kind of person, allow me to throw out a suggestion. If we, as a
country, feel strongly that our students aren't prepared for the college and
career world, let's bring back programs like Jobs for Illinois Graduates (
JILG). Better yet, how about incorporating more Skills USA programs into our
communities. This program actually goes one step further than JILG in that
it partners with the industries our students will some day work in.
Therefore, as results are seen, funding from industries continues (unlike
JILG which was dependent on the state's economy). Let's do something
positive and concrete to prepare our students to take the reins some day,
rather than frustrate them into wanting to quit.
Don't want to take the word of some random educator? Mikkel Storaasli,
Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum at Leyden High School near Chicago
recently spoke in Springfield about the challenges of the PARCC from an
administrator's perspective. This link not only takes you to his blog, but
sends you to a link which gives you the opportunity to try out a test for
yourself. It's worth your time.
http://mikkelstoraasli.blogspot.com/2015/02/testifying-on-parcc
Author's Note: Sources are embedded in the text where referenced.
Further Information on Readability Factors:
"The Fry, Raygor and Flesch-Kincaid formulas yield a grade level readability
estimate. The Flesch Reading Ease test provides an estimate of the "ease of
reading" of a passage based on a child's age. Lexile measures are the
preferred readability measure of the whole corporate education reform
movement behind the Common Core and PA,RCC so it must be included here as
well. According to the Lexile Framework website "Lexile measures are the
gold standard for college and career readiness."
************************************************ | t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 2 这么长。。。要慢慢读。。。不过先问一下是不是文科生找了一千个理由不愿考数学？
。。。
my
thoughts.
【在 a*****g 的大作中提到】
: 文章是给俺们教育工作者看的，不过家长看看也挺好。
: I realize I'm risking a career I put my heart and soul into by expressing my
: thoughts in this blog post. However, as an advocate, I've learned that
: there are times when there's more of a risk in not expressing your thoughts.
: I do this out of respect for my students and colleagues.
: You may be aware that there is a new standardized test out there called
: PARCC. In case you're not familiar with the acronym, it stands for
: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career. Schools in
: Illinois, as well as other states, are being mandated to give this test by
: their State Boards of Education. What if your school district wants to opt
| n***p
发帖数: 7668 | 3 作为一个教育工作者，我觉得标准化考试是考核学生的一个非常好的手段。
my
thoughts.
【在 a*****g 的大作中提到】
: 文章是给俺们教育工作者看的，不过家长看看也挺好。
: I realize I'm risking a career I put my heart and soul into by expressing my
: thoughts in this blog post. However, as an advocate, I've learned that
: there are times when there's more of a risk in not expressing your thoughts.
: I do this out of respect for my students and colleagues.
: You may be aware that there is a new standardized test out there called
: PARCC. In case you're not familiar with the acronym, it stands for
: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career. Schools in
: Illinois, as well as other states, are being mandated to give this test by
: their State Boards of Education. What if your school district wants to opt
| l********u
发帖数: 823 | 4 有些意思。感觉这个历史硕士背景的老师觉得parcc整得有些难，比如reading高出实际
两个grade，会让学生丧失兴趣。这个，估计99%华裔孩子不觉得是问题，俺们1%的会觉
得。
lexile measure 是for-profit搞的吗？
my
thoughts.
【在 a*****g 的大作中提到】
: 文章是给俺们教育工作者看的，不过家长看看也挺好。
: I realize I'm risking a career I put my heart and soul into by expressing my
: thoughts in this blog post. However, as an advocate, I've learned that
: there are times when there's more of a risk in not expressing your thoughts.
: I do this out of respect for my students and colleagues.
: You may be aware that there is a new standardized test out there called
: PARCC. In case you're not familiar with the acronym, it stands for
: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career. Schools in
: Illinois, as well as other states, are being mandated to give this test by
: their State Boards of Education. What if your school district wants to opt
| l********u
发帖数: 823 | 5 有提数学吗？
【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 这么长。。。要慢慢读。。。不过先问一下是不是文科生找了一千个理由不愿考数学？
: 。。。
:
: my
: thoughts.
| l********u
发帖数: 823 | 6 这个email的作者虽然提到不可以one size fits all，但她也不是反对标准化，她只是
觉得不应该强制推行一种标准化考试，尤其是这个parcc她挺不认同的。估计，
optional，或者是用来给gifted学生，她可能不会这么反应激烈。
【在 n***p 的大作中提到】
: 作为一个教育工作者，我觉得标准化考试是考核学生的一个非常好的手段。
:
: my
: thoughts.
| a*****g
发帖数: 19398 | 7 我也是这个意思。
【在 n***p 的大作中提到】
: 作为一个教育工作者，我觉得标准化考试是考核学生的一个非常好的手段。
:
: my
: thoughts.
| a*****g
发帖数: 19398 | 8 一个事情，指望所有人甚至大部分人都去同意也是不可能的。
美国选个总统都有一小半人不乐意呢。
过分扯皮的过程，就是浪费学生们最宝贵的时间以及纳税人的钱。
【在 l********u 的大作中提到】
: 这个email的作者虽然提到不可以one size fits all，但她也不是反对标准化，她只是
: 觉得不应该强制推行一种标准化考试，尤其是这个parcc她挺不认同的。估计，
: optional，或者是用来给gifted学生，她可能不会这么反应激烈。
| t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 9 看完了，没提数学，核心是说 PARCC 太难了？
【在 l********u 的大作中提到】
: 有提数学吗？
| t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 10 PARCC 也能算 Gifted？那 AMC 算啥？
【在 l********u 的大作中提到】
: 这个email的作者虽然提到不可以one size fits all，但她也不是反对标准化，她只是
: 觉得不应该强制推行一种标准化考试，尤其是这个parcc她挺不认同的。估计，
: optional，或者是用来给gifted学生，她可能不会这么反应激烈。
| t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 11 其实我猜那个历史硕士老师的字里行间并不是说 reading 高出两个年级。。。俺觉得
历史硕士是觉得 non-fiction reading 太实在了，可测性太强了，一千个理由也混不
过去了。。。另外法学院硕士老师怎么看这个问题？。。。
lexile measure 是 for profit 搞的。
【在 l********u 的大作中提到】
: 有些意思。感觉这个历史硕士背景的老师觉得parcc整得有些难，比如reading高出实际
: 两个grade，会让学生丧失兴趣。这个，估计99%华裔孩子不觉得是问题，俺们1%的会觉
: 得。
: lexile measure 是for-profit搞的吗？
:
: my
: thoughts.
| l********u
发帖数: 823 | 12 我挺好奇，你们从事基础教育的内部人对这个历史硕士说的有什么反映？
【在 a*****g 的大作中提到】
: 我也是这个意思。
| l********u
发帖数: 823 | 13 我倒是觉得，短时间内扯扯皮，如果能定出来个模式，长久地惠及学生，难道不是节省
纳税人钱了吗？否则话语权被被少数人控制，就难说背后到底是什么在驱动了。
不过，扯皮能不能扯出来真正有益的东西，也难说。可能出来个折中的大杂烩也说不定。
再想想，我这些年有趋势从fan民主模式转到fan精英模式了。
【在 a*****g 的大作中提到】
: 一个事情，指望所有人甚至大部分人都去同意也是不可能的。
: 美国选个总统都有一小半人不乐意呢。
: 过分扯皮的过程，就是浪费学生们最宝贵的时间以及纳税人的钱。
| l********u
发帖数: 823 | 14 要lexile也是盈利性质，那她大段despicable那些，说服力就弱了。不过，本来用盈
利非盈利来说，就太间接，还把bill gates也扯上，说人不是教育行业的，这一看就是
思考能力有问题嘛。找几个参加parcc测试的学生，让那些学生说说自己的感觉，都更
有说服力些。
【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 其实我猜那个历史硕士老师的字里行间并不是说 reading 高出两个年级。。。俺觉得
: 历史硕士是觉得 non-fiction reading 太实在了，可测性太强了，一千个理由也混不
: 过去了。。。另外法学院硕士老师怎么看这个问题？。。。
: lexile measure 是 for profit 搞的。
|
|
