TEACHERS TELL LEADERS TO LEAVE THE TEST,PARK THE PARCC

Members of the LTU Oppose PARCC Testing

October 14, 2015

Dear Senator McGee, Representatives Fennell and Crighton, Mayor Kennedy, members of the Lynn School Committee, and Superintendent Latham:

I am writing on behalf of Lynn Teachers Union to urge you to oppose the adoption of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) test in Massachusetts, and to voice that opposition to Governor Charlie Baker, Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester, and the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (the Board).

Massachusetts already leads the nation in academic achievement as measured by the esteemed National Assessment of Educational Progress.¹We do not need PARCC to maintain or build upon our proud and proven track record of success. In fact, the experience of Massachusetts and other states with PARCC to date suggests the adoption of PARCC would actually be detrimental to students and education in Massachusetts.

As you know, the Board—upon receiving Commissioner Chester’s recommendation—is expected to vote in late fall on whether to adopt PARCC as a replacement for the longstanding Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). The PARCC exam is a brand-new, computer-based assessment. It is purportedly aligned to the new Common Core State Standards and was developed with federal funds by a consortium of states and Pearson, the giant London-based educational corporation. PARCC supporters claim that PARCC is a better test than the MCAS.

Yet, while participation in the PARCC consortium was once as high as 24 states, only six states and the District of Columbia are now projected to administer PARCC in 2015-16, according to a July 2015 Education Weekarticle.²  Acknowledging this sharp reduction in participating states, the Boston Globe’s Joanna Weiss wrote in July that “PARCC is in what looks like a death spiral.”³  

Why have so many states left PARCC? Our trial run here in Massachusetts is revealing. Last spring, a little more than half of all districts in the state opted to administer PARCC in grades 3-8 as part of the state’s two-year “test drive” with the new assessment. Based on that experience, parents, educators, and students have repeatedly raised the same concerns about PARCC at hearings, in the press, and in other public venues:

• In contrast to the MCAS, PARCC was developed without meaningful input from Massachusetts educators and the general public. A cloud of secrecy shrouds the test, including restricted access to test items and the 2014 field-test results.

• Based on published sample tests and student feedback on actual tests, many PARCC test items are developmentally inappropriate for the various grade levels. Other test questions are vague, unnecessarily complicated, and poorly constructed. PARCC doesn’t add more “rigor” as proponents claim; it simply adds confusion.

• The administration of PARCC over two separate testing periods last spring (one in March/April and another in May) consumed dozens of hours, even more than MCAS, cutting into valuable teaching and learning time. Furthermore, the large deployment of staff required to administer PARCC and provide student accommodations diverted time and resources away from critical day-to-day student services, shortchanging special education students and English language learners in particular.

• The administration of PARCC requires a technology infrastructure that many districts do not have and cannot afford. PARCC’s reliance on technology also gives an unfair advantage to wealthier districts where students are more likely to have access to computers and tablets in schools and homes.

• The technology platform created by PARCC—including the math equation editor, screen scrolling functions, and keyboarding—is cumbersome, glitch-filled, and difficult for students to navigate.

Aside from the known problems of PARCC, there are additional unanswered questions:

• How will the test answers be scored and by whom? For example, the PARCC consortium and Pearson have expressed interest in having “robo-graders”—machines using algorithms—score students’ written essays.⁴  Is this something we want to see here in Massachusetts?

• How will PARCC be used as a high school graduation requirement and for college course placement? Education officials in Massachusetts have said that PARCC will be used for both purposes, but we actually know very little about the PARCC high school tests, as only 22,500 Massachusetts students took the PARCC grade 9 and/or 11 tests in spring 2015, and no 10^th grade test has been administered yet in Massachusetts.⁵

• Related to the above question, how will the PARCC consortium and Pearson set the “cut scores” that dictate the various performance levels on the test?  According to the PARCC website, all states must use the same performance levels (e.g., Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) in scoring and reporting student test results.⁶  These performance levels will presumably be used to drive high school graduation and college course placement determinations. Do we really want an outside group making these critical, life-shaping decisions for Massachusetts students?

• In addition to high school graduation and college course placement, what other high stakes will be attached to PARCC results? For example, state officials have indicated that PARCC scores will be used to rank and label schools; to make “accountability” decisions such as state takeovers and school closures; and to evaluate teachers by linking individual teachers to their students’ PARCC scores. We’ve already seen the numerous negative consequences of tying such decisions to the MCAS. Do we really want to exacerbate current problems by linking these decisions to the unproven and flawed PARCC assessment?

Perhaps the biggest strike against PARCC is that, as problems with the test inevitably arise, there will be no way to fix them easily. By being part of a multi-state consortium driven largely by Pearson, Massachusetts is essentially surrendering control over its home-grown, transparently developed state assessment system. Instead of being directly accountable to Massachusetts parents, taxpayers, and students, state officials will be held hostage to the political whims and fancies of other states and the raw power of Pearson. Why would we want to give up the autonomy we currently cherish when Massachusetts has long been a national leader in education?

For these reasons and others, I urge you to oppose the adoption of PARCC in Massachusetts. While we can and must re-examine the high stakes attached to the MCAS and the harmful impact of those stakes on teaching and learning, the MCAS has proven itself to be a more-than-adequate exam for two decades. If we need to make adjustments to the MCAS, we have the capacity and skill set within our Commonwealth to do so—and we can do it in a transparent and inclusive way that values the experience and input of educators, parents, and students.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,                                                        

Brant Duncan
President, Lynn Teachers Union

^{1 National Assessment of Educational Progress}

^{2 July 2015 Education Week article} 

^{3 Joanna Weiss Boston Globe July 2015}

^{4 Flunk the robo-graders}

^{5 Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for Colleges and Careers (Spring 2015 District Assessment Decision Update)}

^{6 PARCC Scoring Questions}