GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

testing testing

City schools to act as pilot sites for new national standard tests

Students at 100 New York City schools will be among the first to take early versions of the new standardized tests being built with federal dollars.

The schools will test early versions of new third- through eleventh-grade exams that a consortium of 26 states — New York included — is creating. The same schools will get extra funding this year to pilot the new common core standards in their classrooms.

Because New York is a “governing state” in the consortium, its education officials have already agreed to begin using the new tests by the 2014 school year. It also means that New York officials, including city Deputy Chancellor Shael Polakow-Suransky, are helping design the new tests.

The PARCC group — Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers — won a $170 million federal grant yesterday, which it will use to build the tests.

The new exams will complement the new national education standards that New York has also agreed to take on. They will also completely overhaul the form that state standardized exams take, and when they’re given, Suransky said today.

Right now, New York students sit for state standardized tests once a year, and the state reports results months later, over the summer. The tests consist mainly of multiple-choice questions, along with several free-response questions.

The new state test will be designed with four separate parts that students take over the course of the full school year, Suransky said. The first two parts, which students will take earlier in the year, will be shorter assignments that cover material the students should have learned up to that point. The third assignment will be longer and more complex. The fourth will be a comprehensive exam measuring a year’s worth of learning and will be given at the end of the school year.

And the consortium intends to dispense with much of the multiple-choice testing that students currently sit through, Suransky said. Instead, the assessments might take the form of a research paper or long-form math problems, for example.

“Those kinds of assignments are actually closer to the kinds of tasks that teachers are using in classrooms anyway,” Suransky said. “These will function as a way to test some of the new, higher-order skills that are in the common core standards.”

Suransky and other test designers are trying to meet a federal goal to create tests that better reflect student learning. ”By far the number one complaint I’ve heard from teachers, from parents, from students themselves is that state bubble tests pressure teachers to teach to a test that doesn’t really measure what matters,” U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan told reporters yesterday when he announced the grant funds.

At the end of the year, students’ four test scores will be combined into a single score. And teachers will also receive reports of their students’ performance on each of the individual sections weeks after they take them, so that they can use the results to adjust their teaching over the course of the year.

In that way, the new tests are designed to replace both the annual state tests and the diagnostic tests that many city schools already give students over the course of the year to track their progress, Suransky said. Suransky and federal officials said the new exams could lessen or roughly equal the amount of time students currently spend hunched over exams.

“I would argue we actually over-test now, in many places, in ways that aren’t helpful to the child and to the school and to the teacher,” Duncan said.

There’s also the possibility that the consortium’s tests for high school students will eventually replace the state’s current Regents exams. The state’s Board of Regents have not made a decision on the fate of the high school exams yet, though Suransky said he expects them to take up the question in the next few years.

The consortium is currently in the earliest stages of designing the new tests and will likely evolve over the next three years as designers build the new exams and test their validity.

Read the PARCC Consortium’s full grant application, which lays out its plans for building the new assessments in detail, here. Section A(3), which begins on page 43, gives a good description of what the new tests will look like.

  • Diana Senechal

    I don’t understand. What national curriculum? The Common Core State Standards are not curriculum, though they make some gestures toward curriculum. How can there be tests based on a curriculum that doesn’t exist?

  • Winston

    170,000,000 Thats a lot of money to design a test. What background does Suransky have in designing exams?

  • BX teacher

    The Common Core State Standards are the guidelines for the curriculum; it will be up to each individual school to develop a curriculum to address the standards (as was the case with the old state standards).  
    I must say, as a teacher at one of the pilot schools, I’m optimistic that we are finally moving towards a solution that addresses on of the the major problems with NCLB; the failure to accurately measure student achievement.

  • Diana Senechal

    I understand that. My point is that the standards are not curriculum (as they make clear), and so the tests will not be based on curriculum. The tests will likely focus on skills, as before, and the actual works of literature will be treated as secondary. I hope I am wrong and that schools will have first-rate literature curricula.

  • http://www.classsizematters.org Leonie Haimson

    Students taking exams four times a year in each subject will shorten the time taking exams? You have to be kidding. And what experience or expertise does a guy like Suransky have in designing tests?

    This is NCLB on steroids.

  • Michael M.

    Isn’t Mr. Polakow-Suransky the gentleman who determined that 98% of the schools deserved A’s and B’s in an election year?

  • Michael M.

    Re ““Those kinds of assignments are actually closer to the kinds of tasks that teachers are using in classrooms anyway,” Suransky said. “These will function as a way to test some of the new, higher-order skills that are in the common core standards.””

    It’s called homework. And we used to trust teachers to grade it.

    Re LH above,

    When my kids are sick, will taking their temperature continuously speed their recovery?

  • http://www.nyfera.org B. Jason Brooks

    Great story on New York’s future assessment world. A few quick thoughts. We know that students who are behind in reading at third grade have an incredibly uphill challenge in arriving at proficiency by eighth grade. Shouldn’t we be assessing students earlier? Another consideration is that while it’s good that students will be assessed for more higher-order thinking and problem solving skills, the grading of resesarch papers and open-ended essay questions which will be part of these exams can be very subjective. Despite scoring rubrics and clearn scoring guidance, teachers from high-performing schools and those from chronically-underperforming schools are going to have far different expectations for what students should know and be able to do. Ideally, an independent scorer would be grading the exams, which would also remove the conflict of interest of teachers scoring their own students’ or schools’ exams which is not currently prohibited in New York State. And, with teacher evaluations now taking into consideration student performance on these exams, there is going to be an even greater temptation to inflate the results. More on high-quality state assessments and some of the steps that should be taken to strengthen New York’s assessment system may be found in the Foundation for Education Reform & Accountablity’s report “Grading Education: Making New York’s Schools More Accountable”.

  • http://www.classsizematters.org Leonie Haimson

    Wow! Jason, why not test these kids in utero while you’re add it?

    This system will be inconceivably expensive in terms of funding and time. For example, if all students in a grade are going to be tested simultaneously on computers, we will need to buy countless more computers and upgrade wiring in most schools. Moreover, the scoring of these tests presumably cannot be done by computer, unlike the earlier system of interim assessments, so that teachers or other professionals will have to either be paid overtime to score them; or will be taken out of their classes with substitutes hired to cover their classes, as occurs now. And instead of once a year, as now occurs with the state exams, this will now have to happen four times a year.

    I predict the entire system will end up costing NYC taxpayers hundreds of millions more than the feds are giving us; will lead to even less teaching and learning and more testing, and will further degrade the abysmal quality of our public schools in this city.

  • ATR

    Umm guys Mr. Polakow-Suransky went to Brown.  Isn’t that enough?

  • Special Ed. Teacher in S. Bronx

    I’m tentatively optimistic about these new assessments, given that they are a) on a computer; and b) supposedly more performance-based. My concerns, as a teacher of self-contained students, is that these assessments will not fix the major problems of our current testing system, which fails to maintain consistency across grade levels and thus fails to gauge true progress. Current standardized tests are useless in gauging the progress that my students have made according to their IEPs. If PARCC can design tests that demonstrate not only proficiency, but more importantly, progress longitudinally, that would be invaluable to teachers of students diagnosed with learning disabilities.

    As a teacher, I have no problems with being evaluated according to assessments. But those assessments must be created to accurately gauge student progress over time. Given the well-designed cross grade-level correlations of the Common Core State Standards, I am hopeful that these new assessments may be able to better perform that function.

  • Diana Senechal

    I see that the article has been edited since it first went up; it no longer refers to the standards as curriculum. That is good. The Common Core State Standards have many fine qualities, but they themselves make clear that they are not curriculum. I am concerned that the tests may set the curriculum to a great degree. The descriptions make them sound quite elaborate; it remains to be seen how they play out. I hope the test makers publish some sample tests for public review.

  • Smith

    Wasn’t Suransky the DOE guy who posted on this blog and then wouldn’t answer our questions?

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Word from Our Sponsor

Follow GothamSchools

RSS
Subscribe to the daily email digest:

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

0 comments so far today

Archives

May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031