In July 2010, the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) voted to adopt Common Core’s standards in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics in place of the state’s own standards in these two subjects. The vote was based largely on recommendations by Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester and then Secretary of Education Paul Reville, and on the conclusions in three studies comparing the state’s standards with Common Core’s, all financed directly or indirectly by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and all issued by organizations that are among the primary boosters of Common Core (Achieve, Inc., Thomas B. Fordham Institute, and Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).
Nevertheless, annual state testing for school and district accountability continued as part of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) mandated by the 1993 Massachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA). To accommodate the adoption of Common Core’s standards, tests were based on both the old standards and an annually increasing number of Common Core’s standards until 2015, when all of the pre-Common Core standards in ELA and mathematics were archived, and the MCAS tests were presumably only Common Core-based.
After the vote to adopt Common Core’s standards in 2010, the state joined the testing consortium called Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), funded by the United States Department of Education (USED) to develop common tests for its member states (about 25 initially), but with the costs for administering the tests to be borne by the states and local school districts. Since 2011, PARCC has been developing tests that BESE is expected to vote to adopt in the late fall of 2015 as the state’s official Common Core-based tests in place of Common Core-based MCAS tests. (Indeed, the commissioner of education and his staff at the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) have been implementing a transition to PARCC tests for several years.) BESE’s official vote will be guided, again, by the recommendations of the same commissioner of education (who now also chairs PARCC’s Governing Board), the current Secretary of Education James Peyser, and the conclusions reached in “external” studies comparing PARCC and MCAS tests as well as in about 20 studies directly authorized by PARCC.
Two of the external studies are listed in the state’s 2015 application to the USED for a waiver from No Child Left Behind Act requirements and are by organizations that had originally recommended adoption of Common Core. One, issued by the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education in February 2015, claims that PARCC tests predict college readiness better than MCAS tests did. A second, to be completed by the Fordham Institute and a partner, is to be issued in time for BESE’s vote. A third, issued in mid-October 2015 by Mathematica Policy Research (and requested by the state’s Executive Office of Education) claims both tests are equally predictive of college readiness, although its report has major shortcomings.
This White Paper will be a fourth external report on the question BESE’s vote will address; it is motivated by our interest in providing an analysis of how MCAS and PARCC assess reading and writing. Much less national attention has been paid to Common Core-based assessments of reading and writing than of mathematics, yet reading and writing skills are just as important to readiness for college and career as is mathematics.
At the order of Governor Charles Baker, BESE held five public hearings across the state in 2015 to enable the public to testify on whether it wants BESE to adopt the Common Core-based PARCC tests as the state’s official tests. The purpose for the hearings remains unclear; over two years ago, the commissioner of education told local superintendents that the state would be transitioning to PARCC anyway.
If BESE officially votes to adopt PARCC as the state’s testing system, it will automatically abandon the use of Common Core-based MCAS tests for K-12. (It is not clear if non-Common Core-based MCAS tests, such as those in science and history, would be prohibited as well.) It would also tie the state to joint decisions by the member states in the PARCC consortium (fewer than 10 at this writing) and to policies established by USED for new Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) grants to the states.
Congress rewrote ESEA in the summer of 2015, putting control of a state’s standards and tests, which are required for receipt of ESEA funds, in the hands of state commissioners, boards, and staffs of education, with no approval required by state legislatures, higher education teaching faculty in the arts and sciences, local school boards, or parents. (A reconciliation bill remains to be approved by Congress and signed by the president.) Approval of a state’s standards and tests is to be granted by USED based on the recommendations of those whom it chooses to review applications. In other words, federal control will remain intact, simply more indirect and hidden.
In a comparison of Common Core-based PARCC tests and pre-Common Core MCAS tests, this study identifies six major flaws in PARCC tests:
1. Most PARCC writing prompts do not elicit the kind of writing done in college or the real world of work.
2. PARCC uses a format for assessing word knowledge that is almost completely unsupported by research and seriously misleads teachers.
3. PARCC’s computerized testing system has not shown more effectiveness than a paper-and-pencil-based testing system or a return of useful information to the teachers of the students who took PARCC tests.
4. PARCC uses “innovative” item-types for which no evidence exists to support claims that they tap deeper thinking and reasoning in understanding a text.
5. PARCC tests require too many instructional hours to administer and prepare for. They also do not give enough information back to teachers or schools to justify the extra hours and costs
6. PARCC test-items do not use student-friendly language and its ELA reading selections do not look as if they were selected by secondary English teachers.
Central Recommendation
This White Paper’s central recommendation is that Massachusetts use a testing system for K-12 that is much less costly, more rigorous academically, and much more informative about individual student performance, and with much less instructional time spent on test preparation and administration, than the current PARCC tests. Both the PARCC tests and the current MCAS tests in grade 10 are weak, albeit for different reasons, and neither indicates eligibility for a high school diploma, college readiness, or career readiness. In essence, the authors recommend that BESE reject the PARCC assessment system and vote for the MCAS system but on the condition that the responsibility for developing and administering K-12 standards and tests be assigned to an organization in Massachusetts independent of DESE and the state’s education schools. This organization must focus squarely on providing the best possible content standards from disciplinary experts in the arts, sciences, and engineering throughout the state and be capable of providing oversight of high school standards and tests. If carried out, these recommendations would ensure the legacy and future promise of MERA.