LETTER: Framingham Superintendent on PARCC Assessment Experience

The following is a press release from Framingham Public Schools Superintendent Stacy Scott:

My recent note about PARCC expressed some of the updates and positives about the testing process thus far. I mentioned that there are also challenges and difficulties with the PARCC.

Allow me to elaborate on them in this second installment on the construction and experience of the assessment. I cannot promise this will be my last edition as there is much to discuss. I will continue to respond to the teachers and parents as they share their thoughts with me, for which I am grateful.

While I stand by my decision to go forward with the new assessment this year, it was a decision taken not without significant reservations. I do believe that our instructional models are moving in the direction of new assessments like PARCC. But, I recognize that the transition is still in progress and some of our students are just learning the skills that are called for on the test. I understand that not everyone approves of the curriculum changes that are occurring and the curriculum resources that are supporting the change. We do have choices on how we build our curriculum and teachers are our primary curriculum builders. I see a connection between the way PARCC assesses our students’ knowledge and the new ways we are building student capacity.

In the English Language Arts, students are asked to analyze multiple texts, take notes and synthesize information into essays or sentences to demonstrate their learning. In the classroom, students learn these steps incrementally and build capacity over time. On the assessment, students are asked to manage all these steps in rapid succession, constructing answers rapidly and synthesizing the information without the assistance and structures set up in the classroom to help them. This is one of the reasons why teachers feel that the assessment can be developmentally inappropriate. In class, students may get to use graphic organizers and notes that help them write. When the assessment comes in a form different from what is experienced in the classroom then students are at a disadvantage. Part of the feedback we will give to the state is that some of the questions used seem to be more than a grade or two above students current levels.

In math, students have talked about the additional challenge of multiple step questions. Some students get lost between the steps and are frustrated that they may not offer a final answer. Even though partial credit is gained, it still may increase frustration for students who feel they have left the test unfinished. In class, students may get to use calculators and resources that help them remember steps and formulas to work out their answers. Those students who need more time and resources feel rushed and pressured. The instructions on the math assessment confused some students who felt that the wording was tricky, perhaps intentionally. We all tend to feel like an assessment is unfair if we feel it is designed to trick us or to make it difficult to express what you know. For an English Language Learner, this is bound to be especially challenging since showing what you know in math is much harder if you are relying on a second language to understand the problems.

Assessments should be embedded into the daily activity of learning and they should mirror the learning process. There are students who have significant test anxiety before a standardized test. I understand that some students felt great anxiety about taking the PARCC assessments. Student test anxiety would decrease if students felt a closer relationship between learning and the assessment. Policymakers require assessment of learning to make decisions on a state level. I believe this can be managed by teachers at the classroom level and monitored at district and state levels for consistency and accuracy. The current direction of accountability and state assessment is toward more testing and at more levels. I agree that assessment should be ubiquitous but I also believe that it should be seamless and almost unnoticeable. PARCC is far from woven into the fabric of daily school life. In fact, teachers find that constant testing, not only with PARCC but with the many assessments students are asked to take, hardly leaves much time for learning. PARCC takes less time for some students but not those who have accommodations for more time. First of all, this seems unfair for those without accommodations. Second, the classroom does not get back to a normal flow of learning until all the students are done and so learning may be on hold until testing is done. Even though the students actual testing time may be decreased, the overall interruption from testing may last for the entire two week testing window. At times, special services are interrupted during testing as well. While this may not be new to PARCC, clearly frustration with this phenomenon has reached a boiling point.

From my perspective, getting started with PARCC this year was the best way to build district capacity to conquer this test. Some would prefer we object in principle and reject such assessments altogether, reject state and federal funding, and just let children learn.

Another approach is to advocate and lift a concerted voice to redirect or diminish the current emphasis on testing for accountability. I believe the best path is to advocate for moderation in the frequency, grade levels and style of assessments used to measure learning. Until we arrive at this next generation and more sensible administration of assessments, I prefer to prepare our students to master whatever the current assessment regime is. We know more about what to expect with PARCC for next year as a result of our experience.

I believe that Framingham gained by mastering MCAS in recent decades. It was not a perfect assessment but it demanded increased rigor, increased alignment of curriculum, improved responses to open ended questions and tougher math problems.

My concern with PARCC is not that it is different and more challenging but that it is not different enough in the right ways and perhaps not challenging enough at appropriate developmental levels.

When I first arrived in Framingham three years ago, one of the first comments teacher-leaders at the High School shared was that they were not as concerned about the fact that MCAS was changing but that they had little opportunity to prepare. They had mastered MCAS and knew they could master PARCC given the time. One of the benefits of the MCAS was the high volume of test items released so teachers could use them for instruction. PARCC is expected to offer formative assessments to use in class for practice and for connecting the standards to the assessment. This will happen only with time. Currently, some teachers are frustrated when more practice assessment items are not released so that they can debrief students after their test experience and ensure that they learn from their efforts in preparation for the next time.

Some of the frustrations teachers, parents and students are experiencing will give way to more exposure to the new assessment. Some problems will be refined through calibration of the test. But, other concerns we have with the assessment will require that we advocate and challenge the current notions about what the state requires to make policy decision and to meet federal accountability requirements. My hope is that in this period of debate that we will ask all the necessary questions such as how often is testing necessary - every grade and annually? Can we look to the horizon and begin to talk about a time when these tests will not be needed? Can we become a place where we pilot the next generation of better assessments?

In my conversations with teachers, we have decided to editorialize, testify and lobby to ensure our lawmakers and policy makers understand what student and teachers experience with standardized testing. We have done this in the past with other mandates. I confess that while MCAS or PARCC exist, I will seek to guide our students to gain the skills to demonstrate mastery as if they were gaining social currency itself because for many of them that is indeed what they are doing. Meanwhile, I hope Framingham can be one of those places that can show how accountability and assessment can be done in more meaningful and seamlessly integrated ways.