Concerns Regarding SB 1797 By Clark Jolley of the Senate and HB2762 By Lee Denney of the House
The bill changes the name of the Education Oversight Board (EOB) to the
Commission for Education, InstructionQuality and Accountability
(CEIQA).NOBODY knows how much PARCC tests will cost ($30-50/student?).NOBODY knows what PARCC tests look like.PARCC tests must be administered on computer
–
HOW MUCH WILL TECHNOLOGY COST THE STATE?NOBODY knows what the performance descriptors for the test are.NOBODY knows the cut scores.DOES ANYBODY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE TESTS OTHER THAN WHAT ACHIEVE, PEARSON, COMMON CORESTATE STANDARDS INITIATVE, ARNE DUNCAN AND PRESIDENT OBAMA ARE SAYING ABOUT THEM?
OVERVIEW
:1.
Reorganizes the EOB into a new commission of 6 appointed members and the Secretary of Education (7) from 5appointed members and two elected officials (7)2.
The majority of the seven members are members of the BUSINESS community (4) - persons from the businesscommunity will oversee nearly all law pertaining to teachers and schools
o
2 appointed members from higher ed or public schools (added since introduction)
o
Accountability for AYP, letter grading of schools, etc. is laudable, but, how can businessmen who mostlikely know nothing about education practices really be objective?
o
Ignorance can be an impediment to objectivity.
o
Is business so overrepresented because they are considered “stakeholders” in public education –
IsOklahoma public education being remade to churn out workers for businesses (as is done in China) sowe must make public education accountable to the business sector?
o
A bill similar to this was proposed in Indiana. Members of PEARSON were placed on the board.
http://btownerrant.com/2012/02/16/lessons-learned-pearson-royals-aided-by-indiana-arnolds/ 3.
Reorganizes the EOB into a new commission that oversees another appointed office (Office of Education Quality& Accountability) also containing no elected officials.
o
What does this buy Oklahoma? How is this true consolidation? What is this purpose?4.
Reorganizes the EOB into a new commission authorized to enter into contracts with private vendors
o
The DOE is supposed to enter into contracts with vendors for services.
o
Why usurp DOE authority in the name of accountability when there is a school board which is to provideaccountability?5.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: Part C REMOVES NAEP
as the baseline for performance level descriptors and changes itto the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers - PARCC
o
The State Superintendent entered Oklahoma as a governing state of PARCC early into her tenure inorder to
have a “seat at the table” for producing the assessments for the Common Core State Standards
she favors.
o
PARCC is a nationalized test with costs that have not been identified or budgeted for our state.
o
NAEP already has TESTED performance descriptors that Oklahoma has used for years. PARCC has NONE
–
they are still in development!
o
By removing NAEP and inserting PARCC in this legislation, the descriptors will ONLY apply to the PARCCtests. This means we'll HAVE to
use
the PARCC tests and the PARCC tests are set to measure theCommon Core State Standards.PARCC performance level descriptors -----> PARCC tests -------> Common Core State Standards
WHY IS NAEP REMOVEAL IMPORTANT?
1.
PARCC ASSESSMENTS ARE GENERALLY UNTESTED
!a.
“One of the biggest problems I’ve seen with state assessments and national assessments is they are
typically not done on a budget and a timeline that allow people to go out and do the pilot testing andtryouts that you would like
,” said Mark D. Rec
kase, a professor of measurement and quantitative
methods at the University of Michigan. “Experts See Hurdles Ahead For Common Core Tests”, Sarah D.
Sparks, EdWeek, April, 2011http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/04/12/28aera.h30.html?tkn=UPOFcmH8A3r0yI7V24Ln%2FSE7SKR6Bu7TcRC8&cmp=clp-edweek b.
Very little is known about the assessments!
“A Primer on the Common Assessments”, Catherine
Gewertz, EdWeek, Nov, 2011http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2011/11/a_primer_on_the_common_assessm.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2 c.
Tests were devised BEFORE Curricula
so teachers MUST teach to the test. “Curriculum Should PrecedeAssessments”, Diana Senechal, Core Knowledge Foundation, September, 2010,
HOW MUCH (Common Core) ASSESSMENTS WILL COST?
a.
State Superintendent Janet Barresi has provided NO figure for the cost of PARCC assessments,saying instead, she
“anticipates” low costs
. “State Education department spokesman: Barresianticipates low costs for implementing “Common Core”. Patrick McGuigan, CapitolBeatOK.com,
While jointly developing tests was intended to save states money, the grants do not include moneyfor administering the new assessments long-term, and it will be harder to make adjustments to thetests once they are completed, because so many states will need to sign off on changes.
“The costmakes me the most anxious,” Mr. Norton said. “In today’s world if we have a
[testing] cost problem,we own that:
If we get into a test we can’t afford, we’re really left holding the bag
.” “Experts SeeHurdles Ahead For Common Core Tests”, Sarah D. Sparks, EdWeek, April, 2011
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/04/12/28aera.h30.html?tkn=UPOFcmH8A3r0yI7V24Ln%2FSE7SKR6Bu7TcRC8&cmp=clp-edweek c.
Chester Finn of the Fordham Institute (supports Common Core)
said the cost per student forassessments in PARCC ranges from $30-$50.
“
Assessing the Common Core
”
Oklahoma already has a 16.7 million dollar contract with Pearson for student testing which has beenthe source of GREAT concern.
“
Oklahoma Education Department Reviews Contracts in the wake of
standardized testing errors”, Me
gan Rolland, Newsok.com, Sept., 1011http://newsok.com/oklahoma-education-department-reviews-contracts-in-wake-of-standardized-testing-errors/article/3601417?custom_click=headlines_widget e.
How much will it cost to buy NEW EQUIPMENT to deliver tests?
Michael Russell, director of theNimble Innovation lab at assessment company Measured Progress in Dover, New Hampshire, alsowarned the consortia that it might not be possible to deliver tests the same way on a tabletcomputer as a desktop "without measurement effects." That lack of flexibility is likely to increasepressure on districts to base technology purchases on test compatibility rather than a morecomprehensive consideration of student and teacher needs. A major concern is whether schooldistricts have the technological capacity to handle large-scale computer-based testing.
“
CommonCore Tests
Ahead”, Education Reporter, May, 2011
“
Brainchild Launches next generation iPad assessment app for schools
”
, eSchool News, Jan. 2012http://www.eschoolnews.com/2012/01/05/brainchild-launches-next-generation-ipad-assessment-app-for-schools/ g.
“
The Hidden Costs of the National Standards Push
”
, Lindsey Burke, The Heritage Foundationhttp://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/09/the-hidden-costs-of-the-national-standards-push/ h.
“Common Core State Standards Aren’t Cheap”
, Education Reporter, January 2012,http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2012/jan12/common-core-standards.html
2.
PARCC tests
are “performance based tests
”
a.
Let me quote from the federal Office of Research and Education Improvement (OERI): "Performanceassessment is part of a model of schooling which emphasizes a constructivist approach to teachingand learning [that's Whole Language and Whole Math] and cooperative and collaborative learning[that's group learning]." The same document also states, "Performance tests will drive teachers to
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
UPDATED! 2/23/12 Concerns Regarding SB 1797 by Clark Jolley
333
Reads
1
Readcasts
682
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
