First, I have seen little evidence that the PARCC tests are effective assessments — and the PARCC consortium will not release any data any time soon to help me out. From looking closely at the practice tests, I believe the questions are badly written and developmentally inappropriate, as I have said elsewhere. I also believe the tests do not align to the standards, at least in my area of expertise, writing, where the test does not address four of ten standards. While some say the tests will get better, at this point, that’s speculation, and I have no interest in my child serving as a testing guinea pig.
Second, moving to the PARCC test will more than double the time most of our children spend testing in ELA and Math. The MCAS usually takes four days: two for Reading in March, two for Math in May (in 4th, 7th, and 10th grade, there is an additional day for the Long Composition). PARCC involves nine days of testing: five for ELA and Math in March and April, four in May. That’s five extra days of testing and five fewer days of instruction. Third graders will test for nine days. We will have to do this if Massachusetts adopts PARCC down the line, but why do it before we have to?
Third, Massachusetts will not decide whether to adopt PARCC until fall 2015, so if we shift now, we may end up subjecting our teachers and students to multiple testing regimes. I need to point out here that the Department of Education is making a highly biased and even unethical push for PARCC. They have offered an enormous bribe, telling districts that their test scores will be “held harmless” if they choose PARCC. This will make it very hard for districts with schools that are at risk NOT to choose PARCC, which, come fall 2015, will contribute to the impression that PARCC is inevitable. Why is this unethical? Because Commissioner Mitchell Chester is the chair of PARCC, which is a significant conflict of interest. What does it mean for Arlington? I think it means nothing. Our schools are not at risk, and we don’t need to succumb to this bribe.
Finally, it is not an overstatement to say that PARCC is a sinking ship. The consortium started out in 2010 with 23 states and the District of Columbia. With Arizona’s withdrawal last week, 12 states and DC remain. Do we really want to be among the last survivors on that ship?
One argument I have heard for moving to PARCC sooner is that, because it is computer-based, it will reduce administrative burdens — shuffling paper, getting data, etc. That’s reasonable, and there’s no question Massachusetts should and will move toward online testing. But is this a good enough reason to adopt a bad test?
The other argument I can come up with is that adopting the test early will give our students a chance to “practice” the tests, in case Massachusetts adopts PARCC in 2015. But if we have confidence in our Arlington teachers — which I do — we can be confident that our students will be prepared for whatever tests they encounter — and I am.
Thank you for your time and attention.
This viewpoint was published Friday, June 13, 2014.
