Griff, I don't think I'm in major disagreement with you,
but there does seem to be a lot of "anxiety" over CC.
Change of any sort is a magnificent generator of anxiety,
so I feel it takes support and leadership from the teachers
for any improvement (aka "change") in the system.

Let me first ask you to expand on two of your remarks in the OP...

Aren't students with IEP's generally those students many laymen would refer
to as "Developmentally Disabled" or "Special Ed" or other such terms de jour.
If so, is it the number (7%) that concerns you, i.e., the expectation that
this number should be higher / lower / or is completely irrelevant ?

And, how do you feel the children's civil rights are being violated by having "national standards",
or is it the testing that is the problem, or is it the use/misuse of any such number as in (a) above ?

Yes, children with IEPs are receiving special education services. The point is they are still required to take these tests, even though only 7% may be expected to pass them, and failing the test (or to a lesser degree, fighting to be allowed to opt out of it) leads to very real consequences for both the students and their teachers.

Standardized testing is not the only way, but it is currently the default way to have national standards. But the testing itself very much gets in the way of actual learning, and then when the children aren't doing well the justification is that we need stricter standards, and more frequent testing. All of which is designed and sold to the state by corporations, not actual teachers.

Carol Burris and Diane Ravich were both supporters of improved national standards but withdrew support due to the way CC was implemented and doubts about age appropriateness.


a) I'm not sure what an acceptable percentage would be only that 7% seems really low. Children with IEPs vary drastically in capacity. A child could have an IEP and appear anywhere on the IQ Bell Curve but may have limitations in areas physical or intellectual that make standardized testing invalid for assessing anything but taking tests. Ravitch discusses cut scores on her blog.

b) Standards are not a violation of civil rights. Hours of mandatory testing, which in the end doesn't lead to a real diploma could very well be a rights violation. Education in the US is mandatory, the Common Core's standardized assessments are intended in the long run to be mandatory, but what if those tests don't actually measure a students knowledge of the material? If a child is capable of high school and college (or tech school) work but incapable of earning a high school diploma because they can't get through the bubble test filter wouldn't forcing that child to sit through those exams be a rights violation? By law American children with disabilities are guaranteed a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance, including federal funds. Section 504 provides that: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . .”1

Another area of inquiry could be, "What is the purpose of education?"

We got a letter sent home with our son last week asking for us to consent to having him take the state standardized tests a second time if his scores are unsatisfactory. (He hasn't taken the test a first time yet.) The form explained that this pre-approval would allow a swifter response time and enable him to retake the test as soon as the scores come back instead of waiting to get our permission and retaking the test a day or two later.

At his age, passing the test is not required for the student to be promoted to the next grade level. So while his test results will be interesting, they mean nothing to us.

Generally speaking, we think there are too many tests, and too much class time focused on preparation for the test, so the last thing we are going to do is sign some form so he can retake the damn thing when he hasn't even taken it a first time.

WTF

Why don't the teachers just walk around the class and look over everyone's shoulder, and say things like "Miniglatt, you chose B on number 7, do you feel good about that answer? Are there other choices you might pick?"

Perhaps you're being flip/ironic/sarcastic/funny/etc and I just don't get it. But if you're being earnest, here's one answer to your question. Because retaking the test isn't cheating, unlike your suggestion, and that kind of cheating has consequences.

Jail Terms Handed To Most Atlanta Teachers Convicted In Cheating Scandal

wss

Griff, I haven't drifted away. I've been reading your links and the links of your links and...

I'd like to quote various things I've read, but it's become a maze or haze of this and that.

In reading the websites of Common Core, and the procedures they say they have followed,
and who they used as sources, and how they went about "standardizing",
and how they went about setting "cutoff levels" of the proposed assessments,
I am having a very hard time equating all of that with the furor and anxieties this process has generated.

My first assumption is that some state, some school districts, some schools,
and (yes) some teachers are not doing all they should be doing for their students,
and therefore some sort of nation-wide standards probably are needed.
If someone disagrees with that notion, to me the burden of justification lies with them, not Common Core.

I understand the "anxieties" over the testing of NCLB, and can believe it went too far.
But given that recommendations and testing of other programs (NAEB) seem
to have been accepted by the profession and teachers,
I don't see the justification of denigrating the participants who participated
in generating CCSS or the subsequent assessments.

To me, most of the negative blogs and comments I read would fall
in the arena of politics and almost a low level of fear-mongering.
And so far in my reading, what seems ironic is that there is so little change involved in CCSS.

Obviously, children with IEP's are, almost by definition, not expected to perform as well on CC assessments,
but I see no reason for teachers to use this as a fear for their jobs.

I ended up with a web site that described the process Oregon is following to implement the CC standards.

Here is the link to that 51 page pdf

It's much the same as followed by the national process.
That is, teachers from many different school districts gathered to compare
CC standards with Oregon's current state standards, to prioritize them,
and to develop ways for individual teachers at all grade levels to review the elements of CC,
and decide how their own teaching methods achieve those outcomes.

All in all, I'm not seeing the reason for all the politics and anxieties that are whirling around this effort.

V, my point was, what is measured when there's this "sudden do-over" encouraged to happen just minutes after the first test?

Sign here and your kid gets a mulligan.

Is it because some kids just blow the first one entirely, because they're not up for this huge big testing and get all anxious? Or they use the wrong number pad and lose ten points? Or they have to pee and just keep hitting "A-B-A-B" until the software lets them go?

Geez Griff, you have to look at the big picture, the good of the nation, we can't be bothered by little things... like children. :rolleyes:

Whs

Sorry Clod, but you may have made it sound as if non-standized testing
could be better than standardized testing. I doubt that is what you mean.
Or do you feel there is an alternative to tests and/or grading students ?
I know I'm liberal, but that sounds a bit progressive, even for me.

I fail to see the argument that tests (necessarily ?) interfers with actual learning.
Of course there will be always be testing of some sort,
just as there will be grades on report cards because
parents want some indication of how their kids are doing in school.
Likewise, citizens want to know how their well their school system
is doing as compared with others in the city/state/nation.

And even more importantly, if students are graduating high school and
are not actually prepared for "college or career" in terms of being able
to understand and communicate at the expected levels, then they are missing
their basic right to an education.

And, while I certainly want to limit the power and monopolies of corporations,
I think it is quite misleading to say "actual teachers" are not involved.
From all I've read on CC, it looks to me as though "actual teachers"
are involved at all levels, and that CC goes out of it's way to assure
that teachers are not being told how or what to teach.

I am not trying to be an advocate of Common Core, but it appears more and more
that a great deal of politics is unnecessarily entering the national discussion about it.

Trust me, there are only so many hours in a day, only so many school days in a year. Every single class has to be shut down for the duration of every test, and they become longer and more onerous the older the children are.

Every child has to complete the test, which means any off ill have to be supervised separately, taking a Teaching Assistant out of her role.

Nothing else can be done during these times, not marking, hearing readers, lesson planning. Everyone is required and needs to be vigilant.
And in fact if there are any staff absences (teachers genuinely do get ill too!) it messes up the whole school in terms of cover.

I'm not able to suggest anything more positive, just wanted to put my two pennies worth in from the school side. All the staff hated the tests as much as the children. And some children used to have crying fits from the pressure.

According to the Virginia department of education press release on this:

There is, at the heart of this issue an inherent tension between two fundamental truths of education.

The first is that children learn in different ways and at different speeds; they develop at different paces,both physically and mentally and that development is often not uniform in one child let alone across a cohort - it is perfectly normal for a child to have an understanding of English that sits comfortably in the expected range for their age, whilst having a lower or higher understanding of mathematics, or vice versa. This is further complicated by the attempt to set several very distinct skills together - we teach reading and writing almost simultaneously, when they are fundamentally different skills.

In tension with that is the need for any state to ensure parity of educational opportunity. Quality control is an essential component of delivering on the promise of education for all children. It is not acceptable that a child schooled in one town gets a lesser education than a child in the neighbouring town. Nor is it acceptable for adult carers or educators to stunt children's development and future opportunities by withholding important elements of education to which they have a right.

I think both the US and the UK have the balance wrong right now. Measurability is over-emphasised to an alarming degree in education policy.