Showing posts with label assessments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assessments. Show all posts

Saturday, May 7, 2016

How you can help unmask the Common Core by asking your Commissioner about computer scoring of the PARCC/SBAC exams

Please take a look at my piece on computer scoring of the PARCC and SBAC exams in a special report of the Network for Public Education; also posted at the Washington Post AnswerSheet.

To summarize: neither Pearson, in charge of administering and scoring  the PARCC exams, nor AIR in charge of the SBAC exams, have publicly told parents that their standard contracts call for half or more of their children's writing responses to be graded exclusively by robo-scorers, and never to be seen by a human being.  Yet these states also have the option to have the exams scored by humans at an extra charge.

Why is this important?  No computer program has so far been shown to have the ability to distinguish total nonsense from coherent prose.  Instead, robo-scorers grade prose according to its length and how much abstruse vocabulary is used.  As Les Perelman has warned, an expert on computer scoring, the inability of machines to identify gibberish from substance may lead teachers and test prep companies to train students to game the system by writing verbose and nonsensical prose -- the opposite of what the Common Core standards are supposed to encourage.

This reality unmasks the claims of its proponents that the Common Core and its allied assessments are really aimed at encouraging critical thinking and more advanced skills.  Instead as I conclude, "the primary objective of Bill Gates and many of those promoting the Common Core and allied exams is to standardize both instruction and assessment and to outsource them to reductionist algorithms and machines, in the effort to make them more efficient. Essentially, the point of this grandiose project imposed upon our nation’s schools is to eliminate the human element in education as much as possible."

One correction to the piece: Instead of my implication that ETS  uses computers exclusively to score  writing on the GRE exams, the company informed us that a trained human reader and a computer scores  every writing sample. If the human and the computer scores closely agree, the average of the two scores is used . If they disagree, a second human being is asked to assess the sample, and the final score is the average of the two human scores.

We wrote every Commissioner from the PARCC and SBAC states to ask them if they were using automated scoring, and only those from the following states responded: Oregon, Massachusetts, Nevada, and West Virginia. These officials informed us that their states were not using automated scoring at this time.

Wyoming Superintendent Jillian Balow also replied to our letter that she shared our concerns about automated scoring and that her state was no longer using the SBAC exam. Colorado Commissioner Richard Crandall responded to a parent activist in his state,that the state was using the standard PARCC method of having the writing samples scored by a computer two thirds of the time, with only ten percent of those re-checked by a human being, and argued this was necessary to maximize "efficiency."    (If you'd like to read them, their responses in full are linked to from my report.)

Though Rhode Island Commissioner Ken Wagner, formerly NY Deputy Commissioner, did not respond to our letter, the same day he  made the astonishing claim in a public forum that  his state was also using computers to score two thirds of the writing samples on the PARCC exam, because research has shown that "computers did a better job scoring than even expert trained teachers."  He also added that “SAT, GRE, GMA, those kinds of programs have been doing this stuff for a very long time.

Yet as mentioned above,  every writing sample on the GRE is scored by both a computer and a human being, and the College Board uses trained human scorers exclusively on writing samples for the SAT and AP exams.

The following 18 states and districts have failed to respond to our letter as to whether they are using computers to score writing samples on their PARCC or SBAC exams: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, ID, IL, LA, MD, MI, MT, NH, NJ, NM, ND, SD, VT, and WA.

If you are a parent, teacher or advocate in one of these states, please send your Commissioner of Education these questions:
  • What percentage of the ELA exams in our state are being scored by machines this year, and how many of these exams will then be re-scored by a human being?
  • What happens if the machine score varies significantly from the score given by the human being?
  • Will parents have the opportunity to learn whether their children’s ELA exam was scored by a human being or a machine?
Their email addresses are posted here.  And please let us know if you get a response by emailing us at info@studentprivacymatters.org and/or posting their reply below.  Thanks!  

Thursday, January 20, 2011

My statement to Cathie Black last night

See video below of last night at the Panel for Educational Policy, my statement to the new Chancellor Cathie Black.

To address the need to reduce overcrowding and class size, she should immediately call a halt to all co-locations and school closings, which only lead to conflict, bitterness and more overcrowding. Each new school sharing space with an existing school sacrifices about 10% of precious classroom space to create administrative and cluster rooms.

And she should immediately re-allocate the $1 billion to be spent on new technology next year in the capital plan to building and leasing more schools. These are not "Sophie's choices" -- these are choices that would benefit all our kids.



For more on the $1 billion extra the DOE wants to spend on new technology, see today's NY Post. Typically, the city wants to blame this on the state and the feds mandating online assessments. This doesn't fly; nowhere else in the country are they spending these kind of dollars for this purpose. Instead, the real reason is they want to expand online learning and further degrade the opportunity for our children to receive instruction from a real live teacher.

Another excuse by the DOE and another way in which they are evading their own accountability for the massive waste that will result.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Another way in which Joel Klein's misguided policies are hurting NYC kids

From Confirmed: testing = teaching, the blog of a 2nd grade reading teacher:

Meanwhile, ... poor Azul has taken to hanging around the desk where I am conferencing with other students, wearing his best puppy dog face, clutching his B books and saying, "When you teach me? I want be C!" Hmm, does anyone know how to say, "I'm sorry, Azul, but I can't work with you individually to give you the help that you need in English and in reading because my bosses at this school just told me I need to listen to your classmates read long lists of high-frequency words for the second time in two months even though it's highly unlikely that their skills have improved in that time because I haven't gotten the chance to actually teach them anything" in Arabic?