PARCC Scores released by District/School/Grade
jfburch said:
The majority of middle schoolers are fairly well prepared, and it does look like there's some trouble at the HS level.
Did you see the Village Green article on the district's presentation to the BOE? The chief information officer said PARCC participation at Columbia was an evidence-defying 33 percent. It was the first I could recall hearing it was that low.
http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/board-ed-discusses-2015-parcc-results-increasing-participation-2016/
The PARCC is an expensive train-wreck. The testing was tasked with doing too much (evaluating progress, evaluation teachers, evaluation students) and is a miserable failure. Many students opted out. Many teachers told their students that the test was a waste of time. Many students who did take the test didn't make much of an effort.
And if we put too much emphasis on the PARCC and prepping for the test, then all of our curriculum will become like AP courses - prepping for the test as opposed to really learning the material.
And I say this because when I asked my college junior the difference between AP courses and the same course in college, she said that in college, you really have to learn the material.
Ooof, Dave, I missed that--could explain some of the falloff the scores show in upper grades.
In the high school, I am thinking that of the 33% that showed up to take it, the vast majority just wrote their name on the test sheet. How else to explain all the level 1 results.
Also, as an aside, above someone said this:
"And I say this
[it is all teaching to the test] because when I asked my college junior the difference between AP courses and the same course in college, she said that in college, you really have to learn the material."
Teaching to the test, unfortunately is what happens -- look at the SAT, it isn't about what you know, but how you can beat the test. I would never discourage a capable student from taking an AP class by claiming they will learn more in a college class. Even if true, which I doubt, first year math & science classes, are extra hard because they are trying to weed out students from a pre-Med track. Tons of kids have skipped those classes with AP credit -- with no ill effect and plenty of advantage, because they could do better in their other classes since they did not have to take those weeding out classes. AP teachers want every student to be successful. Not so in college when they are trying to weed out students (a stupid goal IMHO).
RobinM2 said:
Not so in college when they are trying to weed out students (a stupid goal IMHO).
Which college is this? Colleges are much more supportive of a broader range of students than they were 20 or 30 years ago.
Anyway, I am neither for nor against AP courses although it seems a bit like of jumping through hoops for the kids. I was just pointing out that if you are planning to study engineering, you probably still want to take college calculus even if you received AP credit for calculus.
I wonder how many APUSH grads can sit down and have a deep, knowledgeable discussion about major events in U.S. history.
tjohn said:
I wonder how many APUSH grads can sit down and have a deep, knowledgeable discussion about major events in U.S. history.
Mine certainly can--and didn't have that knowledge going into it. Even gets to explain some stuff to me....
With the 2 year sequence, year one isn't much test focused at all, and year 2 works it in with plenty of deep content.
(yeah, data point of 1.....)
That's good to hear. My college student who generally has a positive view of most things is mildly skeptical of the value of AP courses because of the prepping for the test aspect.
jfburch said:
tjohn said:
I wonder how many APUSH grads can sit down and have a deep, knowledgeable discussion about major events in U.S. history.
Mine certainly can--and didn't have that knowledge going into it. Even gets to explain some stuff to me....
With the 2 year sequence, year one isn't much test focused at all, and year 2 works it in with plenty of deep content.
(yeah, data point of 1.....)
jfburch said:
tjohn said:
I wonder how many APUSH grads can sit down and have a deep, knowledgeable discussion about major events in U.S. history.
Mine certainly can--and didn't have that knowledge going into it. Even gets to explain some stuff to me....
With the 2 year sequence, year one isn't much test focused at all, and year 2 works it in with plenty of deep content.
(yeah, data point of 1.....)
My experience is similar to jfburch. My student learned note taking and synthesis of a lot of information. Very useful for College and beyond. There was deep content delivered and As far as test-taking goes there is value in handling high stake tests that goes well beyond College. Think Praxis exams, Bar exams, and licensing and certification exams like Series 7, 23 etc.
mod said:
My student learned note taking and synthesis of a lot of information. Very useful for College and beyond.
Presumably students in all classes are learning how to learn (the bold-faced activities) and not just in AP courses. Because if that is not true, that is the problem and AP courses are just a sideshow. I don't have much recollection of what I learned in high school, but I do very clearly remember that I learned how to learn so that I was able to survive and prosper during my first semester of college.
tjohn said:
mod said:
My student learned note taking and synthesis of a lot of information. Very useful for College and beyond.
Presumably students in all classes are learning how to learn (the bold-faced activities) and not just in AP courses. Because if that is not true, that is the problem and AP courses are just a sideshow. I don't have much recollection of what I learned in high school, but I do very clearly remember that I learned how to learn so that I was able to survive and prosper during my first semester of college.
The skills were honed in APUSH even if introduced earlier.
I think there was some conscious sabotage of the test in HS. My child told me he didn't bother filling most of it in because it was a waste of time. I was not happy about this at all. He didn't even receive a score for the Lang Arts section, probably because he wrote snarky answers. We never said anything negative at home about the test, but he heard it all somewhere and lots of his peers opted out.
NizhoniGrrrl said:
I think there was some conscious sabotage of the test in HS. My child told me he didn't bother filling most of it in because it was a waste of time. I was not happy about this at all. He didn't even receive a score for the Lang Arts section, probably because he wrote snarky answers. We never said anything negative at home about the test, but he heard it all somewhere and lots of his peers opted out.
I would say there was wholesale sabotage of the test by parents and by teachers. And once students figured out that the test was a joke, results were predictable. I might be getting jaded, but my second student is not a big fan of jumping through flaming hoops for the circus trainers (politicians, mostly) nor am I.
The PARCC is for politicians so that they can have numbers to twist and distort as they see fit.
Meanwhile, we know there is an achievement gap. We know some of the causes. But the commitment to the huge costs to remedy the problem isn't really there. And more rigorous tests aren't going to change this.
There's a lot of hysteria and hyperbole about the PARCC and people objecting to it for not helping their individual children. I don't think it is "high stakes" or helps or harms individual students, but rather is for the benefit of the school district. As stated by Dr. Roth in the Village Green article above: "Roth defended the ongoing use of large-scale accountability assessment testing saying that such tools were “helpful in identifying general areas in need of improvement” and in framing questions such as: how can we use PARCC to identify strengths and weaknesses? how to use data to inform conversations with (not about) teachers? and what additional resources are needed to meet the learning needs of all students?"
chalmers said:
There's a lot of hysteria and hyperbole about the PARCC and people objecting to it for not helping their individual children. I don't think it is "high stakes" or helps or harms individual students, but rather is for the benefit of the school district. As stated by Dr. Roth in the Village Green article above: "Roth defended the ongoing use of large-scale accountability assessment testing saying that such tools were “helpful in identifying general areas in need of improvement” and in framing questions such as: how can we use PARCC to identify strengths and weaknesses? how to use data to inform conversations with (not about) teachers? and what additional resources are needed to meet the learning needs of all students?"
What significant new information is being revealed by the PARCC other than the surprise revelation that if you role out a test which doesn't count and is undercut by teachers and parents, then the results will be garbage?
We seem to be big fans of second opinions in education. It costs less to get a second opinion than to treat the problems.
tjohn said:
chalmers said:
There's a lot of hysteria and hyperbole about the PARCC and people objecting to it for not helping their individual children. I don't think it is "high stakes" or helps or harms individual students, but rather is for the benefit of the school district. As stated by Dr. Roth in the Village Green article above: "Roth defended the ongoing use of large-scale accountability assessment testing saying that such tools were “helpful in identifying general areas in need of improvement” and in framing questions such as: how can we use PARCC to identify strengths and weaknesses? how to use data to inform conversations with (not about) teachers? and what additional resources are needed to meet the learning needs of all students?"
What significant new information is being revealed by the PARCC other than the surprise revelation that if you role out a test which doesn't count and is undercut by teachers and parents, then the results will be garbage?
We seem to be big fans of second opinions in education. It costs less to get a second opinion than to treat the problems.
You seem to think we know what the problems are.
chalmers said:
There's a lot of hysteria and hyperbole about the PARCC and people objecting to it for not helping their individual children. I don't think it is "high stakes" or helps or harms individual students, but rather is for the benefit of the school district. As stated by Dr. Roth in the Village Green article above: "Roth defended the ongoing use of large-scale accountability assessment testing saying that such tools were “helpful in identifying general areas in need of improvement” and in framing questions such as: how can we use PARCC to identify strengths and weaknesses? how to use data to inform conversations with (not about) teachers? and what additional resources are needed to meet the learning needs of all students?"
The big assumption here is that PARCC is an accurate and detailed assessment tool in the uses outlined by Roth. And where is the evidence that supports this assumption?
chalmers said:
There's a lot of hysteria and hyperbole about the PARCC and people objecting to it for not helping their individual children. I don't think it is "high stakes" or helps or harms individual students, but rather is for the benefit of the school district. As stated by Dr. Roth in the Village Green article above: "Roth defended the ongoing use of large-scale accountability assessment testing saying that such tools were “helpful in identifying general areas in need of improvement” and in framing questions such as: how can we use PARCC to identify strengths and weaknesses? how to use data to inform conversations with (not about) teachers? and what additional resources are needed to meet the learning needs of all students?"
I agree. I think the PARCC standards are actually pretty good (though a bit steep at the lower elementary level, and sometimes more minutely detailed than is necessary). I don't have enough info or sense about the test, though in the context of an over-testing education culture, it's certainly something to pay attention to.
But honestly, I think a large scale boycott of NCLB testing might have made more sense--given the unattainable goals it set , and the significant increase to yearly testing that it ushered in--without any oversight or standards as to what proficiency even was, and wide variation from state to state.
You should be pleased your son is such a discerning young man, and able to see when his time is being wasted.
NizhoniGrrrl said:
I think there was some conscious sabotage of the test in HS. My child told me he didn't bother filling most of it in because it was a waste of time. I was not happy about this at all. He didn't even receive a score for the Lang Arts section, probably because he wrote snarky answers. We never said anything negative at home about the test, but he heard it all somewhere and lots of his peers opted out.
parcc is an evolving test. We are going to have tests, like it or not. Why on earth do people teach their kids to skip hard or inconvenient things? Take the test. Put forth your best effort, but don't stress over the results as the test evolves. Life is full of this stuff.
NAh. Too easy. Must fight the evil political and corporate machinery here furthering their own agendas, and their own nefarious goals. You want to use kids as pawns? Well so can we!! Take that, nasty testing people!
kenboy said:
You should be pleased your son is such a discerning young man, and able to see when his time is being wasted.
Then again, the time was the same, irrespective of the snark invested in the answers.
tjohn said:
What significant new information is being revealed by the PARCC...
I just took a quick glance, and there seem to be some interesting results. For example, it appears that Clinton Elementary is scoring on-par with its non-Title I peer SOMSD elementary schools in Reading in Grade 3... which I believe is a relatively new outcome, and seems even more interesting since Clinton is the district's elementary school for English Language Learners.
The district could use this data to explore questions such as:
(a) Has any change in curriculum occurred that is reflected in these relative results?
(b) Have there been any changing demographics relative to changes in results? (e.g., did changes in Clinton's results seem to be related or unrelated to changes in enrollment, such as changes in percentages of low-SES students?)
(c) In the future, I expect substantial changes will be made to the current Seth Boyden districting/magnet school approach and/or their funding. What measures should they use to determine success?
It strikes me as helpful to have a standardized test as one of the measures to examine the academic impact of district policy and curriculum changes on our students relative to other students in their schools, the district, in the state, and across time. Otherwise, we may be relying on anecdotal evidence that 'the changes worked' as justification for policies.
Students were counted in their zoned schools--not the schools they attend. This had the biggest effect at Seth Boyden, but ELL students zoned for other schools would not be counted as Clinton students and that could skew the results.
jfburch said:
Students were counted in their zoned schools--not the schools they attend. This had the biggest effect at Seth Boyden, but ELL students zoned for other schools would not be counted as Clinton students and that could skew the results.
Oh, interesting.
Is there a way to see subgroup results yet?
jfburch said:
Students were counted in their zoned schools--not the schools they attend. This had the biggest effect at Seth Boyden, but ELL students zoned for other schools would not be counted as Clinton students and that could skew the results.
That's ridiculous.
Right? Apparently they are fixing for next year.
Again, see the Village Green article--the presentation pdf is at the end of the article and has those details and more.
ctrzaska said:
tjohn said:
chalmers said:
There's a lot of hysteria and hyperbole about the PARCC and people objecting to it for not helping their individual children. I don't think it is "high stakes" or helps or harms individual students, but rather is for the benefit of the school district. As stated by Dr. Roth in the Village Green article above: "Roth defended the ongoing use of large-scale accountability assessment testing saying that such tools were “helpful in identifying general areas in need of improvement” and in framing questions such as: how can we use PARCC to identify strengths and weaknesses? how to use data to inform conversations with (not about) teachers? and what additional resources are needed to meet the learning needs of all students?"
What significant new information is being revealed by the PARCC other than the surprise revelation that if you role out a test which doesn't count and is undercut by teachers and parents, then the results will be garbage?
We seem to be big fans of second opinions in education. It costs less to get a second opinion than to treat the problems.
You seem to think we know what the problems are.
The causes of the achievement gap are well-understood. Some factors are within the control of schools and some are not. Addressing any of the causes requires spending for incremental improvement. Just Google "causes of academic achievement gap" and you will find a lot of information.
The reason I favor the PARCC is that it allows us to do more research and gather more information at a lower cost than actually addressing the causes of the achievement gap. It's kind of like when I was a climate-change denier saying that we needed more information.
Just read the VillageGreen article, and it looks like SOMSD is planning to try to keep the High School using PARCC as the assessment, despite the high student opt-out rate.
Some other states are moving towards using the SAT or ACT in place of the PARCC/Smarter Balanced for 11th grade. There are drawbacks (e.g., fewer available accommodations, may result in additional costs), but it likely fulfills the standardized test's assessment purpose, increases the number of students who would then complete a college entrance exam, and reduces testing burden of high school students:
e.g., Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire:
http://ctmirror.org/2015/05/28/debate-swap-the-sat-for-the-smarter-balanced-test/
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/high_school_and_beyond/2016/01/delaware_chooses_sat_over_smarter_balanced_for_high_school_tests.htm
The SAT is such a different test, it makes no sense. ACT a little less so, but more content than skill based.
That was one thing wrong with NCLB--states made and scored their tests to get the results they wanted or needed. It will take a while for things to shake out, and PARCC may not be the way to go, but just swapping things around is not very helpful either. Plus, constant churn means you really can't track long term results. (Again, one of the things that is valuable about the NAEP.)
Not on the NJDOE site yet, but NJ.com has them:
http://www.nj.com/education/2016/02/parcc_2015_test_results_see_how_your_nj_school_sco.html
Doesn't seem to be complete, and there is no prior reference point as this is a new test, so this year is the baseline.
Also, even without a prior baseline, the district has for several years been getting ready for this.
Only had a quick glance, but it does look like there may be evidence of some year over year improvement at the elementary level (even allowing for cohort variations). The majority of middle schoolers are fairly well prepared, and it does look like there's some trouble at the HS level.
-----
One very interesting note for folks working on math curriculum: at the statewide level, 72% of kids taking Algebra in 8th grade meet or exceed expectations (over 90% of more accelerated kids do). But ONLY 18% of kids taking it in 9th grade do.
Some of that may be differences in the students who take it at those two levels, but the gap is so large that it suggests to me that something happens to classes and curriculum for those students that really shouldn't. Some kids may not be ready for Algebra until 9th grade (or later--where the results are even worse), but when they are ready, they should get full-on, real and rigorous Algebra--just like their peers got the year before. Too often, I think they don't.