Who is refusing Common Core tests for 3rd-8th graders?

[nugov2]

Here are some good synonyms for angry. Upset is not one of them. I personally think being upset is different from being angry, and angry is a synonym for cross. If that's a "good" example, I would hate to see a "bad" one.

: irate, mad, annoyed, cross, vexed, irritated, indignant, irked;
furious, enraged, infuriated, in a temper, incensed, raging, fuming,seething, beside oneself, choleric, outraged;
livid, apoplectic;
informalhot under the collar, up in arms, in high dudgeon, foaming at the mouth, doing a slow burn, steamed up, in a lather, fit to be tied, seeing red;
sore, bent out of shape, ticked off, teed off, pissed off, PO'd;
literarywrathful;

That is fine, again I am not arguing that these tests are the best thing ever and could not use tweaking. Just not different from what was there for our area. If you look up cross it sometimes list angry and sometimes does not as a synonym so I think there is room for interpretation. As a teacher I think kids of that age would choose the correct answer easily. Again, my point is why not spend your time working to change things in your district that can be changed. Wiping testing out of schools is going to be a huge mountain to climb, so why not start with some issues that can be immediately worked on. I don't think fighting the district is going to help and I think a lot of good can be done when a community works together to help their schools.

 

[JanaDee]

That is fine, again I am not arguing that these tests are the best thing ever and could not use tweaking. Just not different from what was there for our area. If you look up cross it sometimes list angry and sometimes does not as a synonym so I think there is room for interpretation. As a teacher I think kids of that age would choose the correct answer easily. Again, my point is why not spend your time working to change things in your district that can be changed. Wiping testing out of schools is going to be a huge mountain to climb, so why not start with some issues that can be immediately worked on. I don't think fighting the district is going to help and I think a lot of good can be done when a community works together to help their schools.

The district has little say in what happens. It is the state gov, not individual districts that set curriculum.

 

[nugov2]

The district has little say in what happens. It is the state gov, not individual districts that set curriculum.

That is completely inaccurate. The state sets the standards the district sets the curriculum, they very much have a say in their curriculum as I have worked on and developed curriculum for school districts. Many districts write their own while other buy it premade.

 

[Happy Snowman]

I don't have kids but I have to wonder why would parents opt kids out in elementary and middle school. I mean if you HAVE to take the tests in high school and have to pass to graduate I would think you would want your kids to take them to get used to them before they got to high school.

This reminds me of a math teacher in high school that used to have a rule that if you got over a 96 in any marking period in her class she would exempt you from the final. Students loved this, one less final at the end of the year and it generally meant getting done with school sooner. Then someone pointed out to her that the kids that got this high of a score were the ones that were going to be going to college and most need the practice of cumulative final exams. Unfortunately that year was the year I had her and I had to take the final due to this... but they were right because yeah I had classes that had only 3-4 grades and where all of those grades were tests in college. Even one like common core where the math department head made a single calculus test for each course (calc 1, 2 and 3) and everyone took the same test no matter which class you were in.


I was out of school before common core became big but Massachusetts actually did a similar high stakes testing thing when I was in school I was the second year of kids that had to pass it to graduate. There was alot of protesting and anxiety about it then too. Alot of practice questions and endless talk about the test. That was the worst part. I liked the part where we started moving faster through the curriculum. I know many say they hate the teachers don't have the option to slow down and make sure the slower kids really get a concept... but you do realize that means that the kids that do get it are now bored and getting a worse education because now the class isn't going to get to some things they should have gotten to? I liked that we would move on and get to new things. I went from being bored 80% of the time in class to only about 50% of the time.

Honestly the problem above on do you slow down for the kids that need it or go fast for the ones that can will not be solved until people realize that everyone isn't equal all kids do not learn at the same pace and allow schools to divide up classes based on ability. Then everyone can be in a class that moves at a speed appropriate for them.

Why parents opt out..easy, because somewhere they read that "testing is bad" and they jump on a bandwagon because for whatever reason they think they are better parents that way. There is a general assumption that the schools are out to get them and that there is no possible way the teachers or administration know more than they do. They jump on buzzwords like 'teaching to the test" and all of the sudden their children are learning NOTHING but how to fill in little circles all day. They totally disregard that the skills for which they are tested in 3rd grade, lay the basis for skills they will need in 7th grade or 9th grade or in college. Schools are darned if they do, darned if they don't because if kids can't pass these tests, which are geared at grade level, which is pretty low standards for most students, and these kids are held back, holy heck will break loose because my snowflake shouldn't be judged on one test, but then holy heck breaks loose because all of these kids are graduating from high school and can't read beyond a 3rd grade level....hummmmm

Yes, there are some really bad schools out there...but somewhere, somehow, schools nationally are educating kids that are going off to college and doing very well and getting jobs and so far society hasn't collapsed because Johnny had to take a standardized test in 3rd grade.

 

[Happy Snowman]

The district has little say in what happens. It is the state gov, not individual districts that set curriculum.

Maybe in your district, but none of the districts we've been involved with have been like this. Most states have basic standards that schools/students have to meet, like having 4 years of English, 4 years of Math, etc. but individual curriculum decisions happen at the district or school level.

 

[JanaDee]

That is completely inaccurate. The state sets the standards the district sets the curriculum, they very much have a say in their curriculum as I have worked on and developed curriculum for school districts. Many districts write their own while other buy it premade.

Yes, I misspoke. Each state gov sets the standards.

 

[Colleen27]

That's sad that your district spends that much time teaching to the test. As I and others have posted not all districts share that philosophy. I would be working on changing that. Speak to parents and get a group together to speak at board meetings about the benefits to not teaching to the test. The district I taught in and the district my children are in do not spend much time at all teaching to the test. Just a little review right before the testing days. If you have a strong curriculum you do not need to teach to the tests.

But that's another facet of this testing push that doesn't get much discussion - it widens the gulf between good districts with the resources to develop a from-scratch curriculum that addresses all the tested material without overly focusing on the test itself and the struggling districts that lack the budget and staff resources necessary to do so. And what we're ending up with is "good" implementation for kids whose parents can afford to live in the best districts, and "bad" implementation for everyone else.

Someone upthread said something to the effect of "If my district was doing it that way, I'd just move"... Well, what about the kids whose parents can't afford that option? I certainly know of districts that are unconcerned with test prep, confident in their curriculum and demographics to ensure success, but most people can't afford homes in those affluent communities and their methods can't readily be duplicated within the budget constraints facing districts in blue collar and poor communities.

 

[Poohbug]

I do not opt out of testing because the school district/state is going to do what it wants. However, I do ignore the testing results. For my children, I have found that the test results in no way reflect what my children know or have learned. I have one son who just does not test well. He knows the information but that knowledge is not reflected on his tests. Hopefully he will realize that tests are nothing to be afraid of if he keeps taking them. I have another son who just knows math. He can get the answer in two seconds but does not want to take the time to write everything out. He is not in testing range yet but I am going to assume that he will not test well either. I am not happy with the curriculum at school as it is, if it gets much worse I will be trying online courses anyway.

 

[IDoDis]

I know how to find a lexile score and those tests for 4th grade are not 6th grade lexile scores on the PARCC website, so that is a huge exaggeration by the person score the passage. Most of your links are invalid besides the first two, but they aren't links to the PARCC test or any samples that I have seen, so who knows where the passages came from. I don't love the test and think it is long and unnecessary. I just don't find opting out a good option because I feel it doesn't do any good.(IMO). The district is still writing their own curriculum and deciding what ones to adopt. The state decides the standards and the testing. So your statement is not entirely true. Many of these school districts could be doing a lot better than they are.

Our students were allowed no more on this test then the previous tests(paper/pencil/crayon). My point isn't that the tests are great, but that they aren't all that different(at least in our district) other than in length of time then what I was giving to my students. There were still those who didn't like it, but this armchair movement wasn't the "in" thing so everyone took the tests, so why opt out now when you didn't in the past?(and this is a general question not at you Idodis). They could buy the paper and pencil test at $3-4 more a child, which yes is more, but better than buying a bunch of computers. Again, for this area the cost of the test is still comparable to what was given in the past, so they had a budget for the previous one so I'd imagine it wouldn't be that difficult to pay for this test(if you subtract the technology upgrade). I get that many of these districts are strapped for cash, but why not help the districts instead of fighting against them, when they have to administer these tests. Even if PARCC goes away a new or the old test will take it's place, so I just feel like it is fighting the wrong fight. Obviously YMMV. I'd rather know that my time and effort is making a difference for all the students.

The tests will ALL be on computers, just not THIS year. I am not going to waste my time trying to convince people that this is wrong. You don't know if you aren't in the trenches. If you are fine with corporate takeover of public schools, so be it. I'd like to have this same conversation with you in 2 years. People are going to be shocked when they finally realize what this is all about and angry when their snowflake who they thought was very bright fails the test and it counts against them graduating with a diploma. It is happening here and it will happen in other states that don't pull out of these tests. It's not about just taking a test. It goes way deeper beyond that which most people don't get YET.

 

[Happy Snowman]

But that's another facet of this testing push that doesn't get much discussion - it widens the gulf between good districts with the resources to develop a from-scratch curriculum that addresses all the tested material without overly focusing on the test itself and the struggling districts that lack the budget and staff resources necessary to do so. And what we're ending up with is "good" implementation for kids whose parents can afford to live in the best districts, and "bad" implementation for everyone else.

Someone upthread said something to the effect of "If my district was doing it that way, I'd just move"... Well, what about the kids whose parents can't afford that option? I certainly know of districts that are unconcerned with test prep, confident in their curriculum and demographics to ensure success, but most people can't afford homes in those affluent communities and their methods can't readily be duplicated within the budget constraints facing districts in blue collar and poor communities.

Don't confuse districts with a large low income population with a district that doesn't have any money to fund programs. Often these districts spend much more per pupil then "wealthy" districts, get additional funding from state and federal programs and in some cases, from wealthier school districts around their states. Underperforming school districts rarely have too few funds (well, no district has all the money they want). These districts have other social problems that lead to their lack of success.

 

[undertheradar]

In California it was all about STAR testing. Now residing in the Midwest, all is geared towards the ACT. Schools simply cannot win. With reduced funding, growing populations, ever increasing ESL students, IEP students, there simply aren't enough resources to go around.

Our current school district spends $8025 per student, not including special ed. Factor in special ed, we have an extensive program for both school age and adult, and that spending swells to $17625 per student. According to our budget, we receive $811,000 federal funding district wide. We receive $4,511,000 from special ed co-op. Our district does not provide a per student cost for special ed or a total enrollment number for special ed. Like the majority of states, we are facing a future of increased costs versus decreased funding.

 

[Happy Snowman]

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/29/how-states-are-spending-money-in-education

You will see that the worst districts nationally generally spend the most money...Washington DC schools are a prime example...

 

[soccerdad72]

Fortunately, my kids go to private school, so they're not bound by Common Core. They take a standardized text towards the end of each school year (ERB), but I don't put a lot of stock in them.

 

[nugov2]

But that's another facet of this testing push that doesn't get much discussion - it widens the gulf between good districts with the resources to develop a from-scratch curriculum that addresses all the tested material without overly focusing on the test itself and the struggling districts that lack the budget and staff resources necessary to do so. And what we're ending up with is "good" implementation for kids whose parents can afford to live in the best districts, and "bad" implementation for everyone else.

Someone upthread said something to the effect of "If my district was doing it that way, I'd just move"... Well, what about the kids whose parents can't afford that option? I certainly know of districts that are unconcerned with test prep, confident in their curriculum and demographics to ensure success, but most people can't afford homes in those affluent communities and their methods can't readily be duplicated within the budget constraints facing districts in blue collar and poor communities.

I agree with you 100%, but what is the answer for us as parents? Opting out of testing is IMO a waste of effort, so why not instead rally together your community to improve your situation. I just think that the effort all these people are spending forming groups, petitions etc for what is in reality a very small percentage of people there time would be better spent finding ways to raise funds for their district. There are millions of dollars that go unused in grant money every year. Most of which are for at risk districts. I along with other parents busted our butts to get even a small percentage of this money(but b/c we are not title 1 or high risk didn't qualify for most of the grants) to better our schools. We can't sit back and blame, blame, blame if we don't put our money where our mouth is. Complaining does nothing, opting out does nothing.

The tests will ALL be on computers, just not THIS year. I am not going to waste my time trying to convince people that this is wrong. You don't know if you aren't in the trenches. If you are fine with corporate takeover of public schools, so be it. I'd like to have this same conversation with you in 2 years. People are going to be shocked when they finally realize what this is all about and angry when their snowflake who they thought was very bright fails the test and it counts against them graduating with a diploma. It is happening here and it will happen in other states that don't pull out of these tests. It's not about just taking a test. It goes way deeper beyond that which most people don't get YET.

You know nothing about me. I am in the trenches. You also are putting words in my mouth as I have never said I was fine with corporate takeover of public schools, but people singing the praises of charter/private schools also have a vast majority of those run by big business. The Archdiocese is a big power house, many charter schools are backed by big business as well. I'd be happy to revisit in 2 years as I feel even if 90% of students fail parcc the only thing that will change in this area will be the specific test, not the method. If this test is so impossible to pass what do you think they will do when like everyone says almost nobody can pass b/c it is 2 grade levels above their level? Will all of our little snowflakes fail? Nope, they will do something to fix it and put another equally crappy, just easier test in front of our students. I'm a realist and this is the way of education for the long term so I choose to work within the parameters I am given and devote lots of my time better the education for all the kids in my district. I just don't give this one test that much weight b/c again I ask when the test is the disaster being predicted will they fail 70, 80 or even 90% of the population??

Don't confuse districts with a large low income population with a district that doesn't have any money to fund programs. Often these districts spend much more per pupil then "wealthy" districts, get additional funding from state and federal programs and in some cases, from wealthier school districts around their states. Underperforming school districts rarely have too few funds (well, no district has all the money they want). These districts have other social problems that lead to their lack of success.

Truth! Our district(a top performing district) spends $3,000 less per pupil than the lowest district in our state. Now sadly many poor areas have buildings that are in disrepair and other obstacles that are huge, but my stance still remains how do you fix and area where the parents just don't care? If they vast majority cared, I guarantee that we'd see huge strides. The teachers in our lowest performing inner city schools also get paid on average $76,000 so it isn't that there aren't some attractive salary options(even though the immense struggles those teachers face make it less than desirable to work there). There are many changes that need to take place in this country when it comes to education, I think testing our students is one of the lower rungs though when there is so much more that needs to be done.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I agree with you 100%, but what is the answer for us as parents? Opting out of testing is IMO a waste of effort,

Especially if your student would be proficient or advanced if he or she took the test. You are effectively bringing down your district's score, increasing their risk of takeover by the state and/or a loss of funding. If your child's issue is test-anxiety related, that's one thing. If you have some kind of philosophical issue with the entire system, you are shooting yourself in the foot. It would be better to write your state representatives.

 

[Colleen27]

Don't confuse districts with a large low income population with a district that doesn't have any money to fund programs. Often these districts spend much more per pupil then "wealthy" districts, get additional funding from state and federal programs and in some cases, from wealthier school districts around their states. Underperforming school districts rarely have too few funds (well, no district has all the money they want). These districts have other social problems that lead to their lack of success.

That is true if you look only at large, inner city districts and there are some good reasons for that - those districts generally have much higher costs for utilities and maintenance of older, inefficient facilities, as well as the higher legacy costs of much larger pools of retirees. As an example, Detroit schools spend $12K per pupil, only $6800 of it on educational expenses. West Bloomfield, a very affluent district, spends $14K per pupil, but a full $10K of that goes to education.

But I'm not talking just about the inner city poor. In my state, school funding is an inverted bell curve - the very poor and very wealthy areas have high funding, for very different reasons, and the districts in the middle get the least. Those are the districts hurt the worst by the loss of local control and cost of complying with all these federal mandates - not the inner city districts that get targeted funding and grant money to try to reach high-risk kids, but the schools that enjoy neither that extra support nor the higher funding and lower basic-skills need that come from serving an affluent community.

 

[jrmasm]

Why parents opt out..easy, because somewhere they read that "testing is bad" and they jump on a bandwagon because for whatever reason they think they are better parents that way. There is a general assumption that the schools are out to get them and that there is no possible way the teachers or administration know more than they do. They jump on buzzwords like 'teaching to the test" and all of the sudden their children are learning NOTHING but how to fill in little circles all day. They totally disregard that the skills for which they are tested in 3rd grade, lay the basis for skills they will need in 7th grade or 9th grade or in college. Schools are darned if they do, darned if they don't because if kids can't pass these tests, which are geared at grade level, which is pretty low standards for most students, and these kids are held back, holy heck will break loose because my snowflake shouldn't be judged on one test, but then holy heck breaks loose because all of these kids are graduating from high school and can't read beyond a 3rd grade level....hummmmm

Yes, there are some really bad schools out there...but somewhere, somehow, schools nationally are educating kids that are going off to college and doing very well and getting jobs and so far society hasn't collapsed because Johnny had to take a standardized test in 3rd grade.

It truly amazes me that you know what every parent is thinking that objects to the test. Thanks for the laugh!!

 

[Colleen27]

I agree with you 100%, but what is the answer for us as parents? Opting out of testing is IMO a waste of effort, so why not instead rally together your community to improve your situation. I just think that the effort all these people are spending forming groups, petitions etc for what is in reality a very small percentage of people there time would be better spent finding ways to raise funds for their district. There are millions of dollars that go unused in grant money every year. Most of which are for at risk districts. I along with other parents busted our butts to get even a small percentage of this money(but b/c we are not title 1 or high risk didn't qualify for most of the grants) to better our schools. We can't sit back and blame, blame, blame if we don't put our money where our mouth is. Complaining does nothing, opting out does nothing.

Every parent needs to find their own answer, based on their circumstances. For us it was private school. For someone else that might not be possible, so opting out may be the only way they have to express their dissatisfaction.

Opting out (hopefully) sends a message. I'm not saying it is the best or only way to take action and I would hope parents opting their kids out of testing for principled reasons are also getting involved in efforts to improve the situation, but while trying to make other changes opting the kids out of testing sends an immediate message about how unacceptable this testing craze has become and calls attention to the issue in a way that behind the scenes work doesn't.

 

[scoutie]

My school tried to PARCC test today (we are doing them on the computer), and Pearson's servers and our district's servers crashed. After an hour and a half of trying, the kids were sent back to class. This is an enormous nightmare for teachers. Due to the way the kids were scheduled (600 kids...four computer labs), we were only going to see certain kids on certain days, and planned accordingly. Now, that's all out the window. The kids were already losing a full week of curriculum (teachers had to plan mini lessons since we would only see some of our kids...and NONE of the kids with IEP's or 504's), and now the kids are losing an extra day because of this.

 

[Tiggeroo]

Happened here too