HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force  Public Input Received for the period of October 24  – 30

HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th # Comment 171. Currently in Colorado in regards to standardized testing the tail is wagging the dog. Quick myopic fixes don't work yet that is what happens when Education gets caught up in politics. Education reforms—those based in ideology, not fact—have been oversold, yet have ultimately under delivered on their promise, When looking at standardized testing we need to ask ourselves: “Is it working? … Does it diagnose the problem correctly and offer the right cures?" While I feel that the idea to use tests to hold schools accountable is ok, the frequency and redundancy of standardized testing has gone too far. When we think about accountability testing, we must consider the impact we wish to have on the entire system—on the curriculum, on student morale, on teacher professionalism, etc. Our focus on standardized testing is actually killing the kind of independent thinking that fosters creative prowess. A far more worthy goal would be to create a system wherein the whole individual is addressed, developed, and encouraged to thrive in the pursuit of a better life. Kids need critical‐thinking and problem‐solving skills to succeed in our 21st‐century economy. Yet, so much time is wasted on test preparation rather than preparing students for college, careers, and citizenship. A rich menu of accountability indicators can be much more revealing, ethical, provocative and useful than simple counts of standardized test scores. Standardized assessments limit targeted outcomes to grades on standardized exams. We need to the broaden the definition of outcomes by looking at such things as Graduation Rates and College Readiness and the performance of ELLs and Special Needs in ways that can’t be shown on standardized assessments such as performance‐based assessment tasks (PBATs) In addition test should try tying the content of various disciplines together such as that of tying reading tests to specific curricular content. Instead of wasting hours of mind‐numbing test prep and reading‐strategy lessons of limited value, the best test‐taking strategy would be learning the material in the curriculum standards. For example, let's say a state's fourth‐grade science standards include the circulatory system, atoms and molecules, electricity, and Earth's geologic layers and weather; and social‐studies standards include world geography, Europe in the Middle Ages, the American Revolution, and the U.S. Constitution, among other domains. The state's reading tests should include not just fiction and poetry but nonfiction readings on those topics and others culled from those specific curriculum standards thereby putting the emphasizing domain‐specific knowledge. We know that accountability measures, thus far, have not caused our schools to improve in the ways hoped. An over‐reliance on standardized testing, which is an over‐
reliance on one measure of our students' growth, is not the answer. 172. I am a teacher of AP Calculus AB, and I am concerned about all the new state tests that will occur this year. I feel extra pressure to rush through curriculum so I can make sure my students are prepared for the AP Calculus Exam on May 5th. Each state test takes time away from the classroom. It doesn't matter how long the school year is, the AP calc AB exam is always at the start of May, and no matter how many days I have in the classroom with them, my students must be ready for the exam by that time. My students want to do well on the AP exam because it gives them a chance at college credit. They frequently ask me about the format of the test and how to write a good response. When I hear my seniors talking about the CMAS tests they are about to take in November, they sound uninterested in their performance because they don't gain anything from doing well and they don't lose anything from doing poorly. My students will have to take so many tests this year, that I worry about testing fatigue I think they would be happier if they took fewer tests and had more time in the classroom to learn. 173. I am the parent of a fifth grader at The Classical Academy, a charter school in Colorado Springs, Colorado. This email won’t be long; I’m just wanting to ask you to please stop pushing for more standardized tests. Enough is enough. Those tests, quite frankly, are a waste of our children’s time and our teachers’ time. I don’t know what happened to the educational approach that was focused on teaching the whole child—mental, emotional, physical. With so many standardized tests it seems like all we are concerned about is how well a child can answer questions written by some stranger. Being able to test well is in no way a measure of a child’s educational ability or an indicator of a child’s future success. If our education system wants to produce high‐performing adults who are engaged in their communities, able to interact with others in a positive way with good conflict resolution and problem HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th solving skills, and who can show compassion to those less fortunate, than I suggest we stop focusing on testing and start focusing on raising our children to be self‐thinkers, self‐starters and other‐oriented. There’s no way a test can accomplish that… 174. Colorado is almost last in school funding nationwide. I say focus on funding, stop spending money assessing the assessments. 175. While I don't have a problem with the tests themselves I am very concerned about the amount of time that these tests are requiring. The amount of tests per year and the amount of instruction lost for each assessment is very concerning as so much instructional time is lost. I have some Career and Tech classes that include students from 5 different districts. Because the testing window is so large and every school/district can choose their testing dates, for the upcoming CMAS testing our programs are losing 2 weeks of instruction. This is unacceptable. In addition, the fact that seniors need to take the CMAS test is absolutely ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing in it for them when by this time seniors have already been accepted to several colleges. It is a huge waste of time for them and takes away a significant amount of instruction. This must be re‐evaluated. This will significantly hurt district participation rates since seniors won't show up to take the test ‐and why should they? I have a senior and will encourage him to go but only because I work on a school district and don't want it penalized. Otherwise I would totally support him if he didn't want to go if I didn't work for a district. Thank you for looking into what changes could be made to reduce the amount of instructional time that is being lost. 176. Dr. Messenger sent a letter to parents of BVSD recently asking for feedback on the new assessment system being implemented this year. Specifically, he requested answers to the following questions. 1) What would an effective statewide assessment system include? I do believe having assessments at the beginning of the year and end of the year to determine improvements in performance make sense. Additionally, assessments at the beginning of the year also help teachers understand the distribution of students in their classroom who do not meet, meet or exceed the proficiency standards. My hope is that information can be used to teach more effectively for the class as a whole. However, as a parent of elementary aged students, I do not want assessments to be continuous and time consuming. I expect the majority of teacher time to be spent actually teaching skills and content to the students and teaching them how to find answers to questions. I have heard much concern expressed by other parents and teachers that the children need to be taught computer skills to learn how to take the new assessments. I firmly believe kids are very adaptable and will learn those skills fairly quickly albeit probably not the first couple of times they see it. I can understand the use of computers for reading and mathematics assessments. I do not, however, agree with writing assessments being done on a computer at the elementary grade level. Perhaps it has a place at the middle school and high school levels where formal typing skills have been taught. There are too many critical reading, math and writing fundamental concepts being taught at the elementary level. I do not want to see formal typing skills in elementary school. I am also convinced that the physical act of writing helps cement the concepts of writing (e.g. composition, structure, spelling) at an early age. Unless the schools are going to provide computers to every student to do all of their writing assignments and homework on the computer, it seems unfair to the students to test writing skills on a computer. 2) How could Colorado improve its assessment system? Please provide specific examples. I have not really seen the new assessment system in action. My oldest child is just entering 3rd grade. I do know that in parent teacher conferences this week, both my third grade and kindergarten teachers explained the results of the initial assessments and then explained they believed both my children were performing at higher levels in reality...they just did not understand how to take the test. As a parent, I do not really care about the numbers on elementary school assessment tests. If they help teachers make better decisions about how to approach teaching the curriculum, then I support the assessments. I want as much time as possible being focused on teaching and not on giving assessments. That is why I only support assessments at the beginning and end of the school year. The teachers know how their students are doing mid‐year and whether changes in the approach to teaching needs to occur. I see no need for any mid‐year assessments of the students. Keep the focus on learning! 177. As a public educator of twenty‐five years, I find many problems with the current climate in regards to standardized assessment but what concerns me is HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th that there is a PARCC representative on the task force. Why? To me, this is the same as having a task force on the effects of smoking yet allowing a representative from the tobacco industry. The politics in this situation are abysmally obvious and it sends a message that the task force is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It is designed to look like public concerns will be taken into consideration when in actuality they will not. 178. Task Force Representatives: How can CO improve assessment system? * With regard to assessing teacher effectiveness, there should be an opportunity for students and parents to evaluate the teacher's performance anonymously. Parents and students are the most directly in contact with and effected by teacher effectiveness. Therefore, measuring their effectiveness must necessarily include this data. * Using high stakes testing to measure teacher effectiveness will not give accurate information regarding teacher effectiveness because there are so many factors that influence test results. Many of these factors have nothing to do with teacher effectiveness and may also have nothing to do with student ability. For example, a poor quality teacher may be teaching a classroom of brilliant students. They will perform well on the assessments despite the poor quality of teaching. Vice versa, an excellent teacher may have a classroom of students who are severely academically challenged in this particular subject. They may do poorly on assessments despite the fact that the teacher was excellent. * Therefore it is my recommendation that the assessment system, specifically in regard to teacher effectiveness, be developed more along the lines of the military model used to evaluate their personnel. In the military, standardized performance evaluations are used to measure and track troop quality and job effectiveness. This is done based on a whole‐person concept. For example, military personnel are evaluated not only on academic performance, but also on other factors such as job knowledge (including advanced degrees & training accomplishment; having knowledge to perform duties effectively or strive to improve knowledge; applies knowledge to handle non‐routine situations); leadership skills (to include promoting a healthy organizational climate, sets and enforces standards; works well with others; fosters teamwork; displays initiative; self‐confident; motivates subordinates; has respect and confidence of subordinates; fair and consistent in evaluation of subordinates); professional qualities (exhibits loyalty, discipline, dedication, integrity, honesty, and good citizenship; adheres to standards; accepts personal responsibility; is fair and objective); organizational skills (plans, coordinates, schedules, and uses resources effectively; meets deadlines; schedules work for self and others equitably and effectively; anticipates and solves problems); judgment and decisions (makes timely and accurate decisions; emphasizes logic in decision making; retains composure in stressful situations; recognizes opportunities; adheres to safety and occupational health requirements; acts to take advantage of opportunities); problem solving; communication skills (listens, speaks, and writes effectively); and physical fitness (maintains healthy physical fitness standards). “What would an effective stateside assessment system include" * For the student assessment, especially in the elementary grades, I would recommend developing a standardized teacher portfolio process where the teachers and other personnel who have direct knowledge of and contact with the students can input grades, and other data so that schools can track growth and student mastery. This model best serves the best interests of the children. * High stakes testing (as the major factor) as an assessment to track student growth is unreliable and disproportionately disadvantageous to certain groups of students based on socio‐economic status, developmental aptitude, brain function (some highly gifted and able students do not test well just as many special education needs students do not test well). In addition, the format and meta data piece associated with many standardized tests necessarily violates the student's rights to privacy and compromises the integrity of the parent‐ teacher/school relationship. The fact that the federal government has entangled the State into legislating a requirement to divest the student of his/her privacy rights will not end well. "How could Colorado improve its assessment system, specifically?" HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th * The Colorado assessment model should focus first and foremost on the best interests of the children and should be developed from that vantage point and premise. The state of Colorado should create a model developed and based on its narrowly tailored job to educate the children in core curriculum and get out of the business of trying to shape the values, socio, and interpersonal belief structures (for example certain life styles are to be accepted and embraced while others are not...). * There should be no agendas or political platforms in schools; there should be a return to the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic. This would simplify the assessment model because assessments should measure student grade level achievement and subject mastery. * The fact that achievement tests have been replaced with assessments to measure and track numerous other psychometric data points, under the guise of a "college and career ready" mantra, is a disturbing trend exhibiting state intrusion on fundamental freedoms of thought including association, formation of personal value systems and fundamental beliefs about social rules of behavior that traditionally were not the purview of the Federal Government or state action to dictate or determine. The state should return to the basic model of benchmark achievement tests such as the old California Achievement Tests or the Stanford Assessments and get out of the attitudinal assessment model. Colorado should abandon the new psycho‐
social experiment that common core has inserted into education and is currently being measured by the recent versions of assessments over the last few years. * It is imperative, in developing our own assessments, that we take seriously the reality at hand. Primarily, we must accept the fact that any genuine assessment that does not play into politics has a very real chance of not meeting the approval of the requisite Federal Peer review. Government has a vested interest in controlling education from a political angle. This has the unfortunate consequence that there is no freedom for teachers and schools to pursue truth in education for the next generation because education must be filtered through the federal lens of what does or does not meet official government approval. (For example, global warming is taught as absolute undisputed scientific fact despite the fact that scientists do in fact dispute it as one theory among many.) The reality is, we can't develop honest academically sound assessments if we are willing to submit to the requirement that the Federal government has to approve them. As long as the state of Colorado is willing to bow to the Federal assertion that it has the authority to literally take over the local schools if they fail to conform to the Federal standard, then Colorado will not be truly able to develop an honest assessment model. * Therefore, the state of Colorado must invest its time and energy in developing a model that it intends to use out of consideration for the best interests of the children and the integrity of the education system, and not out of consideration of whether it will pass the political correctness peer review test. * Just as the state chose to take a stand against Federal law and legalize marijuana, it needs to legalize state/local control of education against unreasonable and ineffective Federal mandates. If the education system, in order to score well on the Federally approved assessments, results in the schools having to teach certain preordained sets of concepts, then there is no freedom of ideas, no freedom of expression, no freedom to pursue your own dreams because you control the future of our children by controlling what they learn. * The push back on assessments is in large part a result of parents realizing that, in these new assessments, the traditional "right" answer is no longer right. This is evidenced by the necessary "alignment" process in instruction. Schools that did not "align" to the mandated assessments are quickly discovering that their students cannot score well on the tests. If the assessments were a measure of traditional academic knowledge that was universally applicable in all Universities, Colleges and careers, this would not be the case. In the past, students not educated in California could take the California Achievement Test and be fairly scored according to their academic benchmark achievement knowledge. * Colorado needs to develop assessments that do not require an "alignment of instruction" in order to succeed on the test. This would protect the constitutional right of local control in education. This is nothing less than a battle over the freedom of thought. The Federal Government is using its control over assessments to unconstitutionally HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th infringe on the local control of education and the privacy of our children under the guise of "improving standards." * Legislating the violation of civil rights has never ended well in the history of this country. * A state that is willing to sell its citizens' freedoms for Federal tax dollars will also not end well. I pray that those who currently stand in leadership positions that can influence the flow of events in these matters will have the courage to err on the side of liberty and not tyranny by taking control of this snake by its head and taking back our autonomy over assessments. Thank you for all your efforts during this pivotal time, and may you find peace in your final decisions. 179. I am a parent of a gifted & talented student. I am against the frequency of the tcap tests. At max they should be tested once every 4 years. The present situation is teachers quit teaching for about 3 to 5 weeks prior to the tcap tests for review of the benefit of the slower students. Then the slower students are so saturated with review by the time the test comes around they either self medicate to destress themselves, or they rush through the tests just marking whatever to get done with it. While all the time the G&T students set in class getting bored. I am also against the costs of the mandated tests. (It is reported it costs 60 dollars per student per year). While many of the poorer school districts are limiting the number of photo copy's a student to no more than 5 per month. (5 copy's @ 10cents) That includes grades to parents. I have a relative that is a teacher & he has said that under the present situation teachers are trying to avoid classes that have a large number of slower students due to its affect on their performance evaluations. So many of those classes are being taught by beginning teachers. If you decide to continue with the performance ‐pay formula you should at least modify it to a student growth formula. It would be fairer for a teacher trying to teach a student that is at risk. Also good school districts would not be afraid to accept known slow students or those with a handicap. Thank you. 180. I teach 7th grade social studies at McAuliffe International School in the Denver Public School district. I wanted to write to let you know how valuable I feel that the newly‐established CMAS test is as a dedicated social studies teacher at the middle school level for the past seven years. As an effective assessment, which emphasizes concepts as opposed to content, CMAS is a test that provides valuable data for me to determine how to adjust my future instruction. Since this test is based directly on the Colorado Academic Standards for social studies, I know that this test truly does tell me whether I am effectively teaching my students, and what (if any) adjustments that I need for next year. As a social studies teacher, we are consistently losing classroom time for school picture day, career day, community service day, and the like. While the CMAS test does require a couple days of instructional time in order to complete, this is well worth the time that, as a valuable measure of academic progress, helps to determine my needs for effective instruction for the entire school year. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for your time. 181. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I have many concerns about testing in our schools and their potential negative impacts. I realize tests can give valuable information to students, parents and teachers, but this information can also be misused and have a lot of unintended consequences. Here are my major concerns: 1. Volume of testing takes away from instructional time‐‐potentially leading to poorer results because there is less time for teachers to be covering material, and less time for kids to be absorbing information. There has been a dampening effect on teacher creativity, I believe, because of the time lost to testing. 2. Testing scores not valid measure of teachers‐‐these snapshots in time cannot really measure teacher effectiveness. I think a better way to consider effectiveness is looking at growth from the beginning of the year to the end of the year, while still recognizing that a teacher cannot offset the impact of poverty, instability in the home, hunger, and other personal issues that affect learning. Over several years, I'm sure trends could be observed in individual classes, and assistance could be given to teachers who struggle. Also, children progress at different rates in different subjects‐‐so while there may be an "ideal" list of things kids should know at a particular age, biology and genetics doesn't always follow the rules. Bell curves occur naturally, and HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th I'm not convinced that even the greatest teachers can offset that. 3. Testing as a basis for tenure or merit pay‐‐I'm concerned that this will logically lead to "teaching to the test" because that's what any intelligent adult who has to make a living would do. Also, this formula completely discounts the contributions of teachers for areas that are not tested, like music, art and p.e., even though there is a lot of evidence that those specialties significantly improve student learning in core subjects. This also has the potential to change teaching from collaboration to competition, which is a horrible outcome in a field where having your creative and experienced teachers mentoring others is critical to our students. 4. Testing as a leveler. By having to worry so much about bringing the below proficient students up to a proficient level, it is almost inevitable that the gifted learners will suffer. A teacher with a diverse classroom will not have time to meet the needs of both ends of the spectrum, and the consequences for the teacher are more severe if they don't address the low achievers. This means the high‐achievers are likely to have their intelligence squandered, as they are not challenged by a curriculum designed for "average" growth. 5. Testing as a labeler. While I agree that a certain level of proficiency in reading, writing and math is necessary for "success" in this world, the laser focus on these areas sometimes blinds us to the gifts children have in other areas. It can lead these children to undervalue their strengths. I'm not a big proponent of worrying so much about self‐esteem that we give awards to everyone‐‐it is important to learn that in many subjects there are people who may be better than we are, and that's okay. But I do think that helping kids appreciate where they do excel, even if it's a social skill or a talent, rather than an intellectual data point, is important for shaping people who believe they can grow up and contribute to the world. I believe in testing being used appropriately‐‐to help the teacher and parents know where a child is struggling or excelling, so we can target interventions at home and at school to help the child. But I think teachers are able to give a lot of feedback on a child's progress through evaluating their daily schoolwork and classroom dialogue‐‐it does not all come down to how well they can answer multiple choice questions. Teaching and learning is more of an art than a science, and the quantitative data can assist, but not replace the creative component of excellent teaching. As you can see, I've been reading, thinking and discussing school testing quite a bit, so I hope that you will seriously consider my concerns 182. We are the parents of three children who have attended or are attending Boulder Valley Public Schools, and would like to share our concerns related to Colorado’s state‐mandated assessment program. First and foremost, the frequency and number of state assessments our children will take over the course of 13 years in school is staggering! We estimate that each of our children will take a minimum of 85 assessments in reading, writing, math, science and social studies – including early literacy assessments and ACT. This number does not account for the formative assessments administered by the district, school and/or individual teachers throughout each school year. We would argue that local assessments are far more important to a child’s academic growth and development than the state’s summative assessments, as the data is used in a timely manner to adjust instruction and provide “just in time” intervention and support. If the state assessments continue to be imposed in the current manner, districts and schools will be forced to abandon their most meaningful instructional assessments in order to comply with the state’s system. The state assessments offer little instructional support to teachers, as the results are delivered months after the current academic year has concluded. Further, the information and rhetoric about testing duration is disingenuous. While the testing duration may be in “hours”for individual students, the amount of time an individual school invests in preparing test books and computer labs, training proctors in test protocols, re‐arranging class schedules, re‐arranging classrooms, administering make‐
ups, and properly submitting testing materials, is weeks and weeks. This disruption is felt by every student and employee in the school. Instructional time suffers! Access to instructional technology to support instruction and student projects during these weeks/months is extremely limited. Next, we are tremendously concerned that the current testing environment will narrow the curriculum and learning opportunities for our children. As parents, we are not interested in having curriculum presented to our children at a breakneck speed to ensure appropriate coverage before test administration. We HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th want them to experience classrooms that are creative, inquiry‐based, and promote deep thinking and problem‐solving skills. We want our children exposed to Socratic seminars, the arts, engineering courses, field trips and outdoor education. None of these experiences or courses are tested, but all of them measure the success of a school in providing a well‐rounded education. When teachers and students live in “test and punish” learning environments in which scores are used for comparability, teacher evaluation, and school labeling, the inclination is to teach to the test. Who among us would not line up our practices to yield the best results when the stakes are so high? In the end, what will our schools have developed among this generation of students? Dare I say…better test‐takers? Finally, we would like to call out that requiring students to take more and more tests does absolutely nothing to close the achievement gap. For many students across Colorado, the achievement gap exists because of other gaps in their lives that we, as a state and nation, have failed to address: the readiness gap, the opportunity gap and the funding gap. Until we can provide the resources needed to support the most at‐risk students, and the teachers who work with them, there will be gaps in the test results. All of the testing, labeling and punishments in the world will not fix this. As a task force, we encourage you to continue to understand the issues and unintended consequences related to the current assessment framework, specially: ∙ The number of tests required over a 13‐year period; ∙ The impact of testing on instructional time, school‐wide; ∙ The impacts of narrowing of curriculum and a well‐rounded educational experience; ∙ The use of testing to compare and punish districts, schools and teachers; and, ∙ The lack of usefulness in state testing results to support individual student growth or to solve deeper achievement challenges in public education. 183. We further encourage the task force to find a balance for our children and the others in our state. Twenty years from now, what will our children remember about their education? As parents, we care deeply about the answer to this question. First, thank you for taking the time to hear the ideas of the stakeholders. As a parent, grandparent, educator and taxpayer, this issue has a tremendous impact on me, my children and grandchildren, and my students. In truth, the issue of Testing has a tremendous impact on Americans, but they may not realize it. The politics connected to Testing can not be dismissed. There is big money to be made from increased testing and naturally politicians are swayed by the power behind this money. In addition to that, liberals have seen Testing as a possible way to shine a light on poor schools, hoping more money will be funneled to the needy. Conservatives want Testing to provide accountability. And far right want Testing to prove that the existing public school system is failing. Together, we have created a perfect storm. I suggest no more than 2 (two) Standardized tests that begin in 3rd grade. One is Math; the other is a combined Social Studies/Science test. Rather than designing stand‐alone reading and writing tests, reading and writing should be embedded in the Social Studies and Science test. So, the heavy lifting is done by the people who design and analyze the tests, rather than by creating an exhaustive amount of tests for the students. Teachers pay should NOT be payed based on performance. Teachers should be encouraged to collaborate, and "pay for performance" discourages the type of collaboration that is good for schools, good for kids and good for communities. HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th 184. *Testing is important, but fewer tests, scheduled in a more compact way, would not impact learning/teaching as dramatically. *Planning and accommodating these tests takes huge amounts of time for administrators, office staff, and teachers. (The scheduling of tests and personnel impacts the whole building. 185. 186. 187. Students are missing important teaching and learning time with awesome teachers to take test after test. I am so disappointed in my daughter's testing experiences. She is only 5, and this has already taken so much valuable time. I thought people just liked to complain, but two months into her year, and I can't believe it. I have completed your survey, but I want to speak to some specifics of the current assessment system that I hope you will address through your work. First and foremost please do a complete cost/ benefit analysis of the state level assessment system. The benefits should be judged in relationship to the impact for kids and teachers and the learning taking place in schools. If the reason for the assessments is deemed to be primarily to meet federal requirements, then the cost / benefit analysis is related to the income vs requirements of the federal monies and mandates. I also ask if the expectations in place for state level assessments honors our state's commitment to being a local control state where the education of students in each district is deemed the responsibility of the local school board and administration. The state moved forward into the world of online assessment without first guaranteeing that the infrastructure to support that implementation was in place or could possible be put in place. An example is two of the districts in our AU do not yet have the bandwidth to support running the assessments. If you have knowledge of the EagleNet Project...it ran out of funding before getting this far. This is the case in other parts of the state as well. With the cuts in school funding, the hardware needed to adequately run the online assessments cannot be put in place without impacting other areas of the education budgets in many of the districts. The time committed to either the online or the paper assessments greatly impacts the time available for instruction, this aspect is not unique to the statewide online assessments. The complexity of the accommodations system associated with the assessments has not been given adequate and timely attention. Things are rolling out from the developer companies and the state in a helter skelter manner, making it very difficult to track what is available and what is needed for all students, much less the specifics of the students with special needs. The companies producing the state level assessments have not been held accountable for providing appropriate and adequate tools to allow students with disabilities to participate appropriately. The most agregious example is ACCESS not providing the assessment in Brialle, we were expected to duplicate efforts and Braille it locally for our students. The next level of agregious belongs to TCAP where alternative access to documents were not provided for visually impaired students so the assessment was so long and laborious to do it well required students and teachers to commit full days to the assessments. My staff spent 35% of their instructional time last year on assessments, not on teaching our students. The lack of understanding of the needs of students with hearing impairments in the administration of these assessments is also disconcerting and is becoming more of an issue with the online tests with number out verbal components. Planning, not implementation should be our watchword..... My bright 3rd grade son says he hates school because of all the testing that is done. He dreads school beginning Sunday evenings and is stressed most of the time. In addition, so much time is being devoted to testing at his school that there seems little time for actual instruction. It simply sucks the joy from learning. The situation is so bad we are considering pulling him from school on test days or home schooling him. He is not getting an education he is getting tested! As a special education teacher, I wish to share my impressions of the impacts of administering assessments to my students. I am not against all assessments. Indeed, assessmeent tools such as DRA‐2 and I‐Ready inform my instruction. I know the students' strengths and weaknesses, can see if instruction is having a positive impact or no impact, can share this information with parents. The Aimsweb probes, to a lesser extent, provide me with HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th information that informs instruction. My students (I currently have a caseload of 19) have been through an lengthy RTI process to receive Special Ed services. It has been shown through empiracal data that they are well below grade level and cannot access the grade level curriculum. Why on earth, then, are they put through the arduous task of being tested on grade level material (through TCAP, now PARCC, and other grade level instruments). They do not understand the concepts being asked of them, even though the questions are read to them aloud. They are exhausted, feel as if they are stupid (their term). The information the teacher and parents receive does not inform instruction. Moreover, as one of 2 resource teachers at my school, we calculated that we lost 5 weeks of instruction by administering the tests to all of the SPED students in our school. 5 weeks! These are the children who need more instruction, not less. We received absolutely no value from the scores. Students whose self‐concepts need building were instead subjected to another demeaning experience. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my impressions of assessments. 188. I am not a statistic. I am a 2nd year Middle School Social Studies teacher at a high performing Middle School in St. Vrain Valley School District. More than 20% of teachers quit in the first three years more than 50% quit in the first 5 years. Over 3 million teachers quit every year, which costs states up to 2 billion dollars every year. With students who have the least stability and need it the most in low income schools having the most turnover‐ more than 50% of their staff every three years. Its almost never about the students‐ unless the issue is that there are too many Time spent not teaching Lack of professional development provided in house, adds more work hours Feeling of being lost or bogged down in the sytesm Lack of resources‐spend more of our own money to make sure students are getting what they need Standardized testing creates a system of fear and competition rather that support and team work As a first year teacher you learn the very difficult lesson that something will fall through the cracks, there's too much to do and if you're lucky you have veteran teachers to lean on but they too are often overwhelmed and overworked. So the question is do I sacrifice my sanity, my health, my well being and that of my students for test scores? Should I blatently avoid this important teachable moment because it is not meeting an inherent standard? The way we were taught to teach and evaluate students is not the way we are evalutated as educators. If my principal knew that I was blatently creating questions to confuse my students, testing them on subjects they had no idea they would be tested on, and declaring students in my class failures based solely on summative assessments without providing further reteaching and feedback to students I would be considered an ineffective educator. Basing student achievement on singular test scores is like determining whether or not children will be athletic adults based on the age they can walk by, and saying that all kids who do not walk by 18 months will never be capable of being athletes. Grades are not based on summative efforts alone because education and brain research proves that there is so much more to learning and understanding that a score on an exam. Determining student effectiveness and teacher effectiveness on singular test scores or even test scores alone removes the most important part of education, the human part. Students are not just their ability to answer a math question, or write grammatically correct sentences and teachers are effective not because everyone gets a B or higher on a test, but because every student matters and is treated as such. Now the question is how do we fix it? We spend the billions of dollars currently spent on testing what students know and use it to support their needs with more supplies‐smaller classes‐more supportive staff members, we train teachers based on current leading research and we provide more opportunities for teachers to access training without sacrificing the little free time they do have, we must support teachers who are struggling with mentors and constructive feedback rather than punishing them, and we HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th finally start to treat students and teachers like human beings rather than political pawns and dollar amounts as a part of a bottom line. I am not a statistic, and I do not appreciate being treated like one 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. would include the percentage of young people finding work jobs and keeping work ‐ their ability/ies to commit to being the best they can and communicating it. I am the parent to a first grader at Louisville Elementary School . As my child draws closer to her state requirements for standardized testing, my husband and I are becoming increasingly concerned about the negative impact the preparation for such tests imposes on the children, teacher and administration of the school. Therefore, I am writing this email to encourage state legislature to consider altering the current testing schedule to allow for fewer tests, taken within a closer range of time, as opposed to testing over larger parts of the school year. I know many other parents feel as I do, too. And, I hope they take the time to speak up also. Thanks for your efforts regarding this very important issue. This note is to express my concern with the excessive amounts of testing proposed for my daughter, who is a Colorado 4th grader in the Boulder Valley School District. While I feel that some testing can guide instruction, too much testing will lead to destruction of my daughter’s love for school and her teachers' love for teaching. In other states such as Virginia, good teachers are leaving the profession because they are bombarded with the constant testing, retesting, and preparing for all the testing. I have a teacher friend in Virginia who won "teacher of the year" in her county, yet she was still written‐up because she did not teach to the test. What a shame to lose a great teacher! As it is now, I am starting for the first time to look into alternative forms of education for my elementary child including homeschooling, private school, and charter schools because I already see that some of the fun in learning has begun to ooze out. In addition, my child also has special learning needs so most tests won't accurately assess her knowledge anyway! I am considering opting out of all the testing and many of the other mom’s in my mom’s group are thinking of this as well. In Boulder Valley School District we have great teachers who do not need to be driven away because they are made to teach to tests that do less with guiding instruction. I want my child’s teacher”s time spent planning lessons that meet standards not wasted by organizing paperwork for testing and retesting. I am a parent who greatly cares about my child’s educational future. I am interested in mindful instruction not the testing destruction that is being proposed. Should I leave the public school system now? Please, do not side with those folks who profit from the testing. Please do not “Feed the HOG Why is a statewide assessment program even a goal? I think evaluating students is something that each district could handle on its own at less expense and with less complexity. In fact why is an assessment program even a goal? The emphasis on standardized tests in schools is a questionable approach to education, and is one that clearly deemphasizes critical thinking and creativity. The district should stop all of this nonsense and take a more individually oriented approach to education, one where each student can be taught in a way that makes sense for that student and one that empowers teachers to actually teach. Moreover, the district should reject federal money that demands it implement such measures. I started my teaching career in the early 1990's as the Middle School Philosophy was in it's development. I struggled, because it was thought that the adolescent brain was at a dormant stage and all they needed was love and to be part of a positive support group. Most of our day was spent on social emotional learning, SEL. I knew that these students were more curious than a baby and they had incredible insights into the world. Now I feel the pendulum has swung completely the other direction, we see teachers sacrificing SEL opportunities, to try to get students to score better on a test. I could write a multiple page response to why we should move from this high stakes testing environment, but I will just tell a story instead. We have the most incredible teacher I have every worked with. I nominated her for the Colorado Teacher of the Year and she made the finals. I would put her HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th dedication and teaching expertise up against any teacher. She had two students who came into her third grade class two years behind in reading, based on her formative assessments and MAPS. They were progress monitored and showed exceptional growth, in fact both made over two years growth by our Spring Maps and her formative assessments. They were very happy kids and the parents. Until we received our 3rd reading TCAP data. They were both unsatisfactory. Were they really, the teacher didn't think so, nor did the parents. They worked there rumps off and what do we have now, two kids who learned it doesnt matter how hard you work, just what you score on a test. We have worked with them and their parents trying to make sure they know that it really didn't matter what the test results were. I am all for accountability. But how is this accountability? Now I should use these results to evaluate that teacher? I for one, think we are chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I have not read any literature that supports the use of high stakes testing, improves learning. In fact I would argue the other side, with so much focus on testing data, we are not creating students who can think critically, work with other people or resolve conflicts. Our entire system is flawed and until we face that fact and are willing to accept the fact that as a state we have a great opportunity to step back and create a system where students enjoy the learning experience and want to learn for the joy of learning, we are doomed to a system that creates mediocrity at best. 194. I am very much of the mindset that we are over‐testing our students. To focus on the hardest‐hit, let’s track the testing imposed upon 11th grade students during the last 12 weeks of school: ‐ PARCC testing – 4 days ‐ ACT – 1 day. ‐ End of Year testing – 3 days ‐ AP testing – 10 days (most of my students will test 3‐5 of those days, though some will test as many as 7 days). ‐ Three days of final exams. Most students will also be tested on 4‐6 Saturdays in this period: ‐ Most will take the ACT again on the weekend in order to apply to schools that require the written component of the exam. ‐ Most will take the SAT general exam. ‐ SAT subject area tests, many of which largely mimic AP Exams, are best taken toward the end of the associated course. ‐ Students applying to highly selective colleges will sit for 3‐4 exams, most at the end of their Junior year, also on Saturdays. HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th This all ignores whatever assessments I give them as the classroom teacher – to include unit exams and a practice AP Exam (so they can self‐diagnose before the “real thing” in May) in all of their 6 or 7 classes. Those poor kids! I understand that I’m working with the highest‐raking students we have, but it just doesn’t seem fair to tax their poor brains in a way that tests them this much in such a short period of time. From another perspective, the Grade 12 CMAS test is poorly implemented. In science, students are required to recall information from as much a 3 ¼ academic years earlier. The only comparable experience that I can think of is a PhD dissertation defense. I know we’ve yet to see what this exam looks like, but it seems unfair to expect a 17 year old student to recall information they were taught when they were 14 years old and have largely not used since. I don’t think it would be fair to ask an adult to complete the same task. To me it would make more sense to require that one test be given at the end of the 9th, 10thand 11th grade years so that at least the exam would focus on the current course content. I believe an effective assessment system at the high school level includes only the ACT series of exams. Especially with the redesign and the written components, these exams test a child’s ability to read and think critically in the context of a variety of content. Isn’t that all we really care about? What else are we trying to gain from this? If you feel that social studies must be assessed (since it’s not represented on these exams), then possibly 1 exam for that content would be appropriate. These local tests are meaningless. The don’t provide value at the high school level, and the tests that do provide value (ACT, AP, SAT) to students are those that the students have to do in addition to state testing. It just doesn’t make sense. We are wasting so much time and money and gaining nothing for it. 195. The testing for 2014 is scheduled for may. I currently have a junior at Boulder High. I will be opting my child out of the testing due to the poor scheduling. The spring semester of the junior year is a time filled with exams. An ACT test in April, SAT in May and AP exams the first weeks of May. That is entirely too much testing and too much stress during a very busy time in most teenagers lives. The spring of junior year and fall of senior year should be devoted to class work towards excellent grades and college entrance tests. 196. I am in support of reducing the amount of assessment days and testing days for our BVSD schools. Planning and accommodating these tests takes a tremendous amount of time for teachers, administrators and all staff. Testing is important to a certain degree, but fewer tests, scheduled in a more compact way would not impact learning and teaching as dramatically. 197. As a Jeffco Parent, I am extremely concerned with the increase in the amount of testing. I fear that my daughter will be attending school only to learn how to pass a standardized test or to be quiet because there is testing occurring AGAIN in the building. I agree with Nicholas Gledich, superintendent of District 11 in Colorado Springs, CO, comments 'We need to test less but test right...' Colorado Springs superintendent asks for three‐year moratorium on testing, challenging Colorado Springs's participation in PARCC The superintendent of one of the largest school districts in Colorado, Dr. Nicholas Gledich of Colorado Springs, has asked the school board of Colorado Springs to put a three‐year moratorium on the PARCC tests and to develop a local system that restores the classroom, teachers, and children to the center of the district's work. "It is not the test score that should excite us each year. The excitement is the day‐to‐day interaction and engagement of students acquiring new knowledge and skills..." the superintendent told his school board in a lengthy memo on August 22, 2014. The entire statement is copied and pasted below: From: GLEDICH, NICHOLAS M. Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 1:45 PM To: Good morning, Colorado Springs D11 Board of Education's summer schedule did not permit the Board to talk as a Board on the proposed waiver. Board members individually support my thoughts and thinking on the subject. However, we work as a board, and did not have a board conversation. If this was HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th going to be a request of the Board to submit a waiver, we need board conversation. The Board has no action to take at this time. I believe the conversation regarding testing needs to begin. The thinking shared during the summer with the board members individually was not a moratorium on PARCC and CMAS. It was as follows: 1. I will ask the Board of Education to request a waiver from the state. The request is: a) To discontinue Partnerships for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) as they are currently administered for a three year period of time b) To replace the administration of PARCC and CMAS with a random sample of students in District 11 adhering to the current testing structure from the State over a course of three years. c) To fully implement within the three year period of time an annual assessment that is based on the next generation graduate this is developed through collaboration with District 11 staff and community with support from experts in the field of assessment and instruction. After learning that the State Task Force was formed based on the House Bill 14–1202, I decided that it would be in the best interest to work through the task force created through legislation. To my knowledge, no venue exists at this time for the District to request such a waiver. District 11 will do it's best to connect with the established statewide task force. The state concerns being addressed by the task force are the same concerns of District 11. I believe it is best to work within the vehicle established by the state. 2. To fully implement within the three year period of time an annual assessment that is based on the next generation graduate and is developed through collaboration with District 11 staff and community with support from experts in the field of assessment and instruction. Thus creating what the D11 community would define as a meaningful and relevant alternative to the current state assessment tool and process. ∙ We need to test less but test right. ∙ We need to move from test accountability to instructional accountability in our minds and in our actions. ∙ We need to honor our current work on development of graduation requirements that has led to the need for a comprehensive view and assessment of the “whole child”. ∙ Our focus is on building a successful instructional model and assessment framework. The intention is to build a system that defines the essential components of District 11 learning inclusive of: an environment that promotes academic preparedness, cultural competency, the development of highly skilled team members, innovative thinkers and problem solvers, efficient and effective users of information technology, civic responsibility and effective communicators. o This model will be learner‐centered, applicable to all classrooms, have a focus on research‐based practices, while upholding a teacher’s creativity and ability to apply the “art of teaching.” We will promote engagement, critical thinking, and student achievement in relation to Postsecondary and HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th Workforce Readiness. ∙ The potential alternative could lead to a K‐12 Next Generation Portfolio based on the D11 Achieve Graduate components or a myriad of components including but not inclusive of the current ICAP components. The district 11 Board of Education and I believe that our students deserve the very best. Thank you for reaching out to me. Additional Thoughts Shared. I have asked teachers and principals to shift from assessment accountability to instructional accountability. This means by honing our craft, we will strike a balance. A balance of appropriate progress monitoring and benchmarking will assist our children with the acquisition of knowledge and result with higher achievement. Through these actions, we need to continue to balance the attention to the “whole child”. While assessment is foundational to knowing what a student has learned, we need to test less, but test right. Assessment needs to evolve to help establish progress toward “whole child” development. 2. It is not the test score that should excite us each year. The excitement is the day‐to‐day interaction and engagement of students acquiring new knowledge and skills. The moment when students cross the stage we are sealing the deal highlighting our commitment to learning and achieving from prekindergarten through 12th grade. Our purpose is to increase the value of the congratulatory handshake while being accountable for the “whole child”. My worry is adding a student performance component on all teacher evaluations needs more thought. 3. Every classroom, every school, every department within the district plays a role with this success ‐ a graduate ready for continued learning, the work force, and life. We need to commit to the development of the “whole child” and be less concerned about the time taken from direct instruction of tested areas and be equally concerned about embracing extracurricular activities, elective classes and special area subjects as they contribute to the foundation of the tested areas and support the development of the “whole child”. 4. We need to commit to the Colorado Academic Standards. We need to test what is most important, test right and use observations from our progress monitoring and benchmarking to guide our instruction. We need to accept the accountability that goes along with the congratulatory handshake – sealing the deal for our students when they cross the stage and graduate. Nick Gledich, Superintendent, Colorado Springs School District 11 Nicholas M. Gledich, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Colorado Springs School District 11 HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th 198. As usual, parents have no vote. I don't like standardized tests. I prefer my kids be assessed by a portfolio of their work since that's the best way to see personal growth. I don't care about comparing them to other students in their school, the state, the nation or the world. Great ideas come from collaboration not competition. Technology soared in the USduring my generation. Our country had unprecedented entrepreneurship and innovation in technology and it was done without standardized testing and Common Core. Colorado is in a pickle thanks to Governor Hickenlooper and Commissioner Hammond. We took Race to the Top money and the NCLB waiver and got stuck with Common Core. How do we get out? If we can't give it all back; take the money and run but stop excessively testing our kids and stop stressing and ruining their educational experience. Learning should be fun, creative and interesting. Stop collecting data without parental consent. Stop federal intrusion in state education. Start listening to parents and teachers. I want the task force to do something more than rename or rebrand Common Core; get rid of it and do a study on what might really work. Start with addressing poverty in our state. Put money into public schools areas of the state which need it the most; the current dollar per student plan doesn't work. Get rid of excessive testing and go back to the NAEP. Stop wasting education tax dollars and valuable instruction time on nonsensical excessive testing. You've wasted the only free education my child will get teaching to the test. Shame on you all. 199. Below are our responses for the questions that the task force listed as being particularly interested in. Please contact me if you need further information or clarification. Thank you. An effective state wide assessment system would include: 


No more unfunded mandates. School Readiness in particular is a huge burden on districts even when the subscriptions are paid for initially for students, it does not include the time burden, staffing and schedule structure considerations we need to look at. A snapshot of assessments for accountability purposes to the public is fine. (PARCC and CMAS) However, when you also add in the requirements for English Language Learners (ACCESS), Special Education students (CoAlt, DLM, 11th grade Alternate and Alternate ACCESS), READ Act (DIBELS Next three times a year) and School Readiness (Teaching GOLD) as well as the assessments we need to do for progress monitoring the Unified Improvement Plan, we have gone too far. It does feel like for staff and students that we are assessing all of the time. Some assessments are valuable and give us information; however the timeline hasn't given us a chance to adjust how we address this to do well ‐ training, time, and staffing are essential to consider as a burden on districts. Improvement of state system: 



Drop School Readiness requirements unless funding for full day kindergarten is included and districts receive money to also supply additional staffing to address this initiative. Only do End of Year assessments for PARCC ‐ one in March and one again in May is too close to affect any real instructional changes for staff with Spring Break, CMAS and READ requirements all happening within the same time frame. Only require one assessment for our students with severe needs. DLM addresses reading and math and seems the most appropriate, but when you add the other three (CoAlt for Science and Social Studies, 11th grade alternate and Alternate ACCESS) for some of our students, it's too much. Reduce the number of READ Act assessments to twice a year. The end of the year is significantly impacted and we have dropped most of our HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th benchmarking assessments to twice a year. Doing this for READ Act would also enable us to use PARCC end of year as a body of evidence for students with potential READ plans.  Legislation often has good intentions; however, the impact on districts isn't often addressed or known and left to CDE to implement. On their own, most of these assessments are valuable, but when we look at the system as a whole, it is overwhelming for districts to do well without significant investments in staffing, training and time that are again a financial burden on districts. Local Assessment familiarity: 
200. 201. 202. Some of our local assessments are valuable to staff because they are more closely aligned with instructional timing as well as the type of reports teachers are given in order to affect instruction. However, these often are vendor‐based and costly because districts are unable to provide significant professional development on assessment literacy to staff nor is it included in most teacher training programs to develop quality assessments. This again takes time and training to do well. I have suggestions for improving the Colorado assessment program. I am a fourth grade teacher and have been teaching for 8 years. Last year, my students completed 12 days of testing (9 days of TCAP and 3 days of CMAS). The testing session is about one hour per day, but the testing affects a month of the school year. That means one‐ninth of my instruction is disrupted by testing during the school year. During the 3 weeks of TCAP (2 weeks of testing and 1 week of make‐ups), instruction is very limited. The testing consumes the entire morning, and students are mentally exhausted and unable to participate in rigorous academic work for the rest of the day. This means 3 weeks of teaching is lost due to TCAP. During CMAS testing, we could only have one class test at one time due to technology availability. Because fourth graders were testing all day for a full week, our schedule was disrupted and we could not hold our math block. Thus, math instruction was put on hold for a week. One week of math instruction could be the difference between mastery of a standard or not. As you can see, testing affects an entire month of school, not just 12‐15 hours of it. If I am expected to provide instruction for mastery of grade‐level standards, I need a full school year to do so. In my experience, nine‐year‐old children struggle to focus and do their best work on 12 days of testing. They are not developmentally prepared for that amount of testing. Therefore, I suggest that the Colorado assessment program reduces the amount of testing for elementary students. I suggest elementary students take standardized tests for a maximum of 3 days or sessions. That way, only one week of instruction will be disrupted. If you give me more time to teach and I spend less time administering assessments, my students will grow and learn more! Thank you for your opinions on testing and your support for our valleys teachers. Unfortunately I can not be at today's meeting to discuss mandatory testing. But if it's worth anything, I would appreciate a reduction in testing. I feel the data gained is outweighing what our kiddos loose; more time in the class room with their teacher. I would prefer the teacher have the ability to pace the class on the children's learning, not on "this has to get covered by x time because they are going to be tested". Also, what about the "cost" if all this testing. Wouldn't that money be better spent on our teachers and their classrooms? Thank you for your commitment to our teachers. Letting our teachers do their job is in the best interest of our children. Whether the state thinks so or not. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my thoughts regarding assessments in CO. Most of my comments below pertain to mainly to PARCC/CMAS. What would an effective statewide assessment system include? HB14‐1202 Standards and Assessment Task Force Public Input Received for the period of October 24th – 30th I value a snapshot of data collection from PARCC/CMAS that can be compared to other schools. I think the tests that we need to get this information can be given in a portion of the sessions that we current hold. I think one test in writing, math, social studies, and science at the state level would be sufficient. We have multiple test for each subject, adding too many hours of online testing. I would like to remind the committee that schools are given various assessments throughout the year, some at the district level and many at the state level. I would love to have more autonomy as a district to manage assessments at the district level verses the state level. I think we should also learn more about testing on electronic devices. There is a new study out that states that students who test on a desktop, with a standard keyboard and monitor outperform students who test on smaller, portable devices like a chromebook. Should we start collecting data on the devices that students are using while testing? This would give us some information in the future. • How could Colorado improve its assessment system? Please provide specific examples. As a school administrator who is also the School Assessment Coordinator (SAC), I feel that the current schedule for testing is too cumbersome. We are forced to allocate all computer labs and chrome books toward testing for months at a time. Our teachers integrate technology in their daily lessons, so removing these devices for months at a time has a huge impact on the learning. Being at a K‐
8, the overall testing impact on our school is huge because we are testing from grades 3‐8. We are still trying to be creative to develop a schedule to get all students testing in the window provided. Overall, online testing is embraced in our school, but the total number of tests and the time to complete the tests are too overwhelming to complete. We believe in using data to instruct instruction, yet it takes almost 1/2 of a year to get data, even longer for CMAS. If we could get the results in a timely manner, that data would have more value to teachers. With the capability of online testing, we should take advantage of the intelligent technology that provides questions to student, then progressively get harder and harder, or easier and easier. This would provide a much more accurate representation of student growth if the student is given questions at their level. For example, if we have 5th grade student with a learning disability who is currently given a 5th grade test that is too difficult for him to access. We are not able to see growth since this student's reading level is at the 3rd grade level and is presented with text that he is not able to access. If he was given text at his level, we would be able to see growth over time at his level. On the flip side, if a student at the 5th grade level performs in an 8th grade level, this student can show her academic level through accessing harder, more advanced questions. We are currently using a program with similar capabilities, iReady, for literacy, and this program offers much more relevant data to teachers than a grade level specific instrument. The online test that are used with students show be developed for students. The CMAS test that were given to students last year felt like it was built for adults. The students can logout at any time, answer questions without accessing all of the information (some information tabs were missed because the design was not obvious for students), and technical issues can us constant interruptions ( when students would be typing, at least one student per session, would get bumped out of the test). The online test did have some aspects that were far more appealing to the students than the paper pencil test: The ability to click and drag images on the screen was effective, the animations of science experiments captured the student's attention, and the ability to type verses handwrite is preferred by most students. All and all, online testing is the way of the world today. I would love if we find a well‐developed testing platform that supports all students that is reliable, valid, and appropriate for a K‐12 environment. Please see attached--A 147 page TCAP Test Prep Packet - that my NINE YEAR OLD was required to do over
SPRING BREAK. (My child did not complete the packet, hence was required, along with any other child who
did not complete the packet, to stay in for recess the entire week after spring break.)
All Fourth Graders in this school completed this packet, and they were not alone. Other grades in the school
had test prep homework. Classroom test prep (teaching kids what kind of questions will be on the test,
practicing how to answer the questions...."Do it this way on the test" ) generally starts in December and
continues all the way up to the test in March and April. Parents in other schools, other districts have similar
accounts.
This is what teaching to the test looks like.
Don't put blame on the teacher or the school. Blame belongs on tying teacher evaluation to a High Stakes
Test. Put your concern more on what these children are being pressured to do, for a summative test that does
not inform instruction/does not measure their learning. These kids won't get a do-over; they are only 9 years
old once. Sure, they are learning to be excellent test takers, for grades 3-12, but at what cost?
PARCC taken TWICE a year is adding fuel to this fire.
Please, discuss this, find a way to evaluate teachers that does not involve a High Stakes Standardized test like
PARCC. It is not a child's job to evaluate a teacher. Tying teacher evaluations to HST does not work. (see
article and research references below).
Rather than throw your hands up in the air and say you cannot do anything about it (SB-191), if it is hurting
kids, (and teachers) suggest a better way to fire bad teachers and reward the good teachers--but let's not put
this on the shoulders of children. PARCC is unproven, expensive, drives curriculum and takes away valuable
class time, both time wasted on test prep and also shuffling schedules to fit online testing. PARCC does
nothing to help a child.
Uncouple teacher evaluation to the test. Colorado is a local control state and as such, local school boards
should be allowed to design and decide their own assessments. I find it suspect and coercive that U.S. Sec of
Ed. Arne Duncan and PARCC CEO Laura Slover, are publishing in our Colorado papers, urging us to continue
with their PARCC agenda.
Colorado can do better than PARCC.
TCAP Practice/Review
4th grade has compiled a hefty set of practice tests for your students. The purpose of this packet is to help
students be prepared for TCAP and be aware of what to expect on the 4th grade assessment. There is one
practice session for each actual session ofTCAP. Students are encouraged to finish as much as possible during
spring break. We will review one test per day starting Monday, March 25. Students who were unable to
complete the session for that day will be provided class time to work on that session. The students who have the
session of the day already completed will be rewarded with additional free time/recess.
We understand that spring break is a break. Students may be involved with a lot including mps or many other
things. We ask that they do as much as they can, even if it's after spring break, tojust be ahead of our class
schedule. The allotment of class time is because we know there may be circumstances where this is not
possible.
Due Dates/Schedule:
Practice Session
Writing Session 1
Reading Session 1
Reading Session 2
Writing Session 2 & 3
Reading Session 3
Math Session 1
Math Session 2
Math Session 3
Date Session Will be Reviewed in Class
Monday, March 25
Tuesday, March 26
Wednesday, March 27
Thursday, March 28
Friday, March 29
Monday, April 1
Tuesday, April 2
Wednesday, April 3
Pa es
1-7
8-27
28-50
51-82
83-102
103-117
118-131
132-147
Helpful Information:
l
*Go in order as described above, this
r
wil{be the order of TCAP, as well as the order it will be reviewed in class.
* Students will only be given 1 hour during actual tesing. Keep this in mind and try to help students with time
management while they practice.
*Feel free to review the session or any questions with your child as further preparation for the assessment. Please try to do
this only after they have tried on their own.
*Finished or not, it is very important that students bring their packet to school every day to be able to go over it