Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Common Core in the news

A few of the reasons why many find the nationalized standardized tests more objectionable than the earlier hodge-podge of individual State tests have been recently mentioned in this thread:
1) Many have said that the frequency and duration of standardized testing has increased, teaching to the test has increased. This becomes a kind of censorship as it fosters a belief that if it's not on the test students don't need to know it.
2)... reduce student learning to neat little numbers, and standardized tests make that easy.
3) use for teacher evaluations
4) involvement of "the feds" (Education is a State issue, not a Federal issue.)

A different form of the question you posed might be:
In what way are nationalized standardized tests more valuable than state-specific standardized tests? A clarifying question might be - "More valuable to whom?"

Another form of the question you posed might be:
What makes nationalized standardized tests worth all the money being spent on them?

Yet another form of the question might be:
From the perspective of student learning, does a change in assessments yield the greatest return on investment when subject to cost/benefit analysis?

Worded another way:
Are there other educational programs or other educational reforms which would yield greater benefits, for this amount of investment?
For example, on many forums, parents discuss the lack of appropriate gifted programming, and in doing so do not seem to propose a change in standardized tests as any part of a solution.

Which is another way of asking:
What specific educational problem is nationalized standardized testing addressing/fixing?

More about standardized testing in this article -

Why reports of progress on No Child Left Behind rewrite may not be a good sign
March 12, 2015
Valerie Strauss
Washington Post

What do you see?
1) Less local control?
2) Continued federal encroachment into education? (Powers over education not granted to the federal government by the constitution, therefore reserved to the States or to individuals themselves.)

How might this impact gifted students?

Orwellian Nightmare Unleashed on Schoolkids

Has anyone seen this article?

I'm wondering if the Apps mentioned will be something that will be beneficial in identifying kids who hide their abilities.

(I'm especially curious about (former) Gov. Kitzhaber's task force because we are in Oregon and don't have the greatest services for gifted!)

Okay, this last one is kind of funny to me, actually, as the first app listed in the article is something I've actually used, in an earlier version. It's not something you can automatically set up to observe all the students. You need an actual human being to operate it, and you can only watch one kid at a time (and a reference child). It's just a convenience tool. I do exactly the same thing using a stopwatch and a pencil and paper. Plus my brain, for calculating percentage of time on-task/off-task, etc.

Most of these apps are behavioral in nature, and intended for use with individual children who have already been referred for some kind of behavioral or social skills challenge. It's highly unlikely that anyone is using them broadly, or without some level of parental consent, as they are way too labor-intensive to implement on random children.

In terms of identifying children who hide their abilities, adaptive software probably has a better chance of doing that. E.g., Scholastics SRI reading comprehension, properly used NWEA MAP (although we've extensively discussed some of their limitations elsewhere), and the like.

Thanks for that insight, aeh. I thought the article sounded alarmist, but did wonder about the extent of app use and whether or not qualified professionals would be called to analyze any data collected on a child. I certainly would not want a teacher doing an "armchair" analysis on my kid that would result in data sent out without my permission.

Pearson monitoring social media for security breaches during PARCC testing
Valerie Strauss
March 14, 2015
Washington Post

It seems that one day after school, a student posted a tweet which referenced a test item... this was picked up by Pearson monitoring social media and referred to the state's Department of Education.

What agreements are proactively in place to alert students not to reference test items when they talk about their day?

Last year, my child had to sign a strictly worded agreement not to talk about test items. Let's emphasize the word CHILD here. She was 10.

I don't like the secrecy here. The testing is so silly anyway. My kid has had 8 standardized tests so far this year. What's the point? Not a single thing has changed based on testing.

Something has changed: data has been gathered and stored. This data may have various uses going forward. Several planed uses have already been announced, but once the data is amassed, it may be used in any number of unforeseen ways as well.

Collected performance data from standardized tests may be used to evaluate teachers. The data may be given or sold to various researchers. It may be used to limit opportunities in high-performing areas in order to achieve uniform outcomes desired by common core. The data may be used against your child in future attempts at advanced education and/or career choices and/or specific jobs.

A general sketch of data collection requirements may be seen at the links in this old post.

Families have reported difficulty in accessing and correcting/amending their children's data. Inability of parents to see and/or correct the data stored on their children has been covered in several news stories, including
1) http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/13/price-for-nevada-dad-to-see-state-school-files-on-children-10g/
2) http://nevadajournal.com/2014/04/24/dad-told-seeing-states-records-his-kids-will-cost-him-10-grand/.

I think it would be great if lots of standardized test scores were available to employers when job applicants gave them permission. College largely serves to certify a certain level of IQ and academic achievement. If this could be done with standardized tests, young people could save tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars and start their careers after high school.