Ohio is moving to new standardized tests, the PARCC assessments, which are set to commence in spring 2015. These new and vastly different tests pose big challenges. For one, unlike the paper-and-pencil exams of the past, the PARCC is designed for online administration, leading to obvious questions about schools’ technical readiness to administer the exams.[1] In addition, as Cleveland’s Plain Dealer reported recently, PARCC test results may be released later than usual in 2015—likely delaying the release of school report cards. At the same time, no one knows exactly where PARCC will set its cut-scores for “proficiency” and other achievement levels.[2] Finally, expect political blowback, too, when lower test scores are reported under PARCC, perhaps even stronger than the ongoing skirmishes around Ohio’s new learning standards.
Despite these complications, Ohioans should give PARCC a chance. Ohio needs a higher-quality state assessment to replace its mostly rinky-dink tests of yesteryear. Take a look at PARCC’s test-item prototypes; they ask students to demonstrate solid analytical skills based on what they know in math and English language arts. The upshot: PARCC’s more-sophisticated approach to assessment could put an end to the “test-prep” instruction that has infiltrated too many American classrooms. As Laura Slover, CEO of PARCC, has argued:
The PARCC assessments mark the end of “test prep.” Good instruction will be the only way to truly prepare students for the assessments. Memorization, drill and test-taking strategies will no longer siphon time from instruction. As students work through well-constructed problems, they are asked to draw upon what they’ve learned and apply it to solve problems.
What can be done to help the implementation of PARCC in the coming days? Here are a few ideas:
1. Help people grasp changes to how achievement is reported. PARCC has stated its intent to set a cut-score designating whether a student is on-track for “college and career readiness.” This designation should become the new student-achievement standard, much in the way that “proficient” has been the standard in recent years. But with a more-stringent achievement standard coming into place, people should also brace for a fall in “proficiency” rates. Policymakers and school leaders must emphasize that the drop in proficiency does not mean that student achievement has collapsed overnight. Rather, drops in proficiency are a function of PARCC’s higher bar and expectations.
2. Underscore the importance of honest reporting of results. To its credit Ohio, along with other states, has shifted to a results-oriented approach to evaluating public schools. In fact, the Buckeye State has created one of the nation’s best school report cards, packed with information about school and student performance. The new assessments will build momentum toward a results-driven system by providing a more candid view of student performance (see point 1 above). In fact, under PARCC, all of Ohio’s communities will get a clear picture of how many students are actually on track for post-high school success. Even complacent middle-class communities, where state tests have been routinely ignored, might be stirred to more closely scrutinize their schools’ results. (Under the outgoing assessment and accountability system, 80–90 percent students in wealthier districts reached “proficient,” not exactly a feather in their cap.) The results from PARCC could jump-start productive discussions, in all areas of the state, about how to improve schooling.
3. Invest in technology, if needed. Public schools have been upgrading their technological infrastructure for the past few years. But it is still unclear whether these upgrades in broadband and hardware have been enough. Do all schools have the technology they need to ensure online access and test security? Do all students have access to a device they know how to use? And does the state have the information systems it needs to collect, process, and store test data in a timely and secure way? We’ve witnessed failures in schools’ deployment of technology and information systems. (For instance, John Deasy, Los Angeles public schools’ chief, is resigning in part due to high-profile technology flops.) The lesson: Technological implementation must not be taken for granted. The first couple years of online testing could prove difficult, technology-wise. State and local leaders should keep a close watch on the needs of schools—help should be given, and investments should be made, if needed.
4. Refrain from fiddling with state law regarding assessments. A recent bill was introduced in the Ohio House that seeks to restrict, at four hours, the time allotted to a particular grade-level test (House Bill 629). The problem with this provision is that PARCC allows students, if they need it, more than four hours total to complete the assessment. (The maximum allotted time varies across grades and subjects—typically between 4.5 to 6.0 hours. The entire assessment is divided into four or five testing blocks.) The proposal floated here could cause more problems than it solves. What happens to students who need the full time allotment; why should they be penalized? (Some students might be slower test-takers than others.[3]) Meanwhile, could this provision create undesirable side effects on the assessment design? Could it reduce the amount of essay writing or constructed-response items required of students under PARCC? Could it cause a relapse into multiple-choice tests in order to fit an arbitrary time constraint?
State lawmakers shouldn’t micromanage test administration, especially when the test hasn’t even been given. They could set off damaging, unintended consequences. Meanwhile, policymakers should be mindful that the time needed to take PARCC—roughly ten hours per year, in math and English language arts—is just a small fraction of a school year (around 2 percent).[4] Students, I suspect, spend at least that much time twiddling their thumbs in “study hall,” updating Facebook accounts in “computer lab,” or standing in the lunch line. Let’s straighten our priorities: Testing students’ knowledge and abilities, in math and English, is essential. And let’s be honest, too, there’s time in the school year to do it right.
***
Assessment is the drab side of schooling. Hardly a test was ever enjoyed by a student. And understandably, parents don’t want their children taking tests all day, every day. But high-quality assessments are crucial. Parents, educators, taxpayers, and policymakers need to know how students are faring against a tough standard on a challenging exam. To this end, Ohioans everywhere should give PARCC every opportunity to prove its worth in the days ahead.
[1] State policymakers have allowed for a paper-and-pencil option for the spring 2015 administration of PARCC.
[2] PARCC will set test-score thresholds (i.e., “cut scores”) for five achievement levels, not yet officially named, in the summer of 2015 after the full administration of the assessments. I use “proficiency” here assuming that PARCC will use this word—it may adopt a different one—to denote meeting the “college-and-career ready” benchmark for a grade-level test.
[3] The time-restriction would not apply to students with disabilities and English language learners who are typically granted more time to take state tests.
[4] State law requires a minimum school year of 910 hours in grades 1–6 and 1,001 hours in grades 7–12.
