NYC standardized tests -- formative or not?

See Test Industry Split Over 'Formative' Assessment, in Education Week, about how standardized testing companies are selling their products as “formative” assessments, even though, according to most experts, formative assessments are diagnostic tools that are supposed to be classroom-based and designed by teachers themselves.

The Princeton Review described their much-derided NYC interim assessments as “formative” --the tests that DOE paid millions for and later rejected. See this Princeton Review presentation:

“Interim Assessment with Instructional Impact: How to use the formative, low-stakes testing system to support teaching and learning in New York City. …. We have a 20+ year history of using formative testing to support teaching and learning.

The subsequently renamed “periodic assessments” that the Accountability office under James Liebman contracted out to McGraw-Hill at $22 million annually, also known as “Acuity,” are commonly characterized as “formative” by Liebman et. al. See this recent pdf document from the DOE Accountability office:

Periodic Assessments support schools by providing …. formative, instructionally valuable feedback to support differentiation of instruction, determination of professional development needs, and selection of instructional resources.”

See the long list of periodic assessments now required in all NYC public schools in the chart above.

The EdWeek article quotes James Popham, professor emeritus at UCLA and former President of the American Educational Research Association: “When test companies sell things and call them formative...these vendors are being disingenuous—we used to call it lying.”

Unfortunately, they appear to be lying to a very eager clientele at the DOE.