Parent Perspective: State Assessments Under ESSA

About state assessment results, parents have said they want to know and understand:

• How does this information help me and help teachers to provide a better learning environment for my child?
• What does this mean? Is she doing well or not doing well? 
• How will teachers get the information they need?

(Note to DESE: Look at, and think about, what you're going to say to parents!)

One of the things ESSA has done is give States more flexibility* in education governance. It's not a perfect system; it's a series of trade-offs and choices.

Those trade-offs and choices begin with the question: What do you want the test to do? If one thing is to spend less time on testing, are we trading-off on content coverage, which may result in less reliable data than a longer test. How well is the assessment aligned to state's standards? Both questions are striking, given Massachusetts is in the midst of developing its 2.0 test.

(I'm told every testing vendor, if asked, can give an analysis of how well the questions line up with state standards. Note to self!) 

B: Align to Standards (ELA/Literacy) Criteria (L) & Evidence (R)

Also important is to understand what a high-quality assessment is. CCSSO criteria outlines principles for assessing a high-quality test, including testing for "depth of knowledge" (B4). Constructing a response, writing, or doing a performance assessment - all of these types of responses are considered high-quality assessments. (They also take more time and cost more money to score hence, the trade-offs!)

It seems obvious to state this, but apparently it's something frequently overlooked until quite late in the development process: To ensure a test is actually assessing higher order thinking skills, some questions should ask students to do the kinds of things we actually want them to do in classrooms.

Questions this parent still has:

• What information will be reported?
• How will information be reported?
• When will assessment results be shared with parents, teachers, and policymakers? (If teachers don't get info on how their students did until November, it really isn't going to do them any good in terms of making changes to their practice or lesson plans.)
• How transparent and accessible will those results be?
• Are we monitoring everything we're doing?
• How?
• Do we understand the capacity of our local districts?
• Do they have enough computers/devices?
• Is there sufficient bandwidth? (Many times parents feel as though the testing sessions go on for weeks and weeks, even though it's not happening to every kid; the perception is no other learning is taking place in the school).

• Is DESE ready for new reporting requirements by subgroup ("N-size") to include military students?

Upshot: Where state assessments are concerned, DESE can't do it all and can't do it all well. Test developers' decisions are made on which content standards are being prioritized (and the Board didn't establish a list of content standard priorities). Given the fact that state assessments are going to continue, and that the test represents the particular skills and knowledge the test developer has chosen to assess, I'll be referring to the above questions as the Board considers its ESSA decisions concurrent with the development of the MCAS 2.0
-----
*ESSA also provides for additional flexibility under the Innovative Assessment Pilot, but Massachusetts isn't taking this on at this time.

US Department of Education (July 2016): ESSA Assessment Fact Sheet

NASBE (January 2016): The State Education Standard

Ensuring Equity in ESSA: The Role of N-Size in Subgroup Accountability

Stakeholder Perceptions on Assessments

Under ESSA, State Boards of Ed are responsible for engaging stakeholders as part of the work to take place to ensure understanding of the new law.

A really interesting report released this summer from Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) who partnered with Gallup on a stakeholder study on assessments. NWEA had planned their survey well before ESEA was reauthorized.

This study engaged five key stakeholder groups: Teachers, Parents, Principals, Superintendents, and Students.

Theory of Change: Information about all students and individual students inform policymakers, teachers, parents to know and make decisions about change (policymakers), practice (teachers), schools and districts (parents).

"Perception is reality": Stakeholders were asked about the changing role of assessment. Some key findings, especially from parents:

• Everyone is concerned about lack of understanding of purpose of assessments, especially state policymakers.

• 32% of fathers felt that state assessments improve their child's learning

• 21% of mothers felt that state assessments don't improve their child's learning

• Parents felt there was a lack of communication from teachers about their child's performance on the state assessment

• Teachers do not feel comfortable about interpreting and communicating state testing results to parents

• 61% of parents said child's teacher rarely or never communicated with them about state assessment results

Key Findings from the study overall:

1. Education stakeholders value assessments broadly, but views vary by assessment type and purpose.
2. Parents need more information about assessments.
3. Administrators are still getting to know ESSA, but superintendents are optimistic about its impact.
4. Gaps in understanding of the purpose of assessments remain:
• Most teachers, principals, and superintendents do not believe that state and federal policymakers understand the purpose of different types of assessments, highlighting the need for dialogue around ESSA implementation
• Teachers are largely doubtful that parents understand formative or interim assessments--the diagnostic tools and practices teachers frequently use to gauge student understanding and adapt the instruction process
• Parents are skeptical that state tests improve the quality of teaching
5. Teachers need additional training to maximize the power of assessment data to inform instructional practices

Recommendations:

1. Get ESSA implementation "right" - foster dialogue with stakeholders
2. Involve students in assessment planning processes - what students gain in understanding them is applied to their personal academic/educational goals
3. Support ongoing assessment education for teachers - with particular focus on teacher preparation
4. Change the national dialogue - provide assessment literacy resources for all stakeholders

- - - - - - -
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) and Gallup Study: Make Assessments Work for All Students: Multiple Measures Matter

Intro to ESSA

At nearly 400 pages the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, the new iteration of ESEA/NCLB) intends to recalibrate the federal-state relationship (thrown out of whack with NCLB) and continues the commitment of the federal government to "quality and equality in the education that is offered to our young people". The law brings with it several key changes in policy for states and districts, including:

• State Assessment Programs support high-quality assessments through state and district assessment flexibility, federal funding, and a new pilot program to encourage innovation. Still in: the provision that at least 95% of students and 95% of each group of traditionally underserved students will participate in statewide assessments (grades 3-8, once in high school, in ELA & maths).

• State Accountability Systems focus resources on low-performing schools and traditionally underserved students who consistently demonstrate low academic performance. State goals and accountability systems must establish long-term goals for, at minimum:
• student achievement, high school graduation rates, and English language proficiency with measurements of interim progress.
• For the lowest-performing 5% of Title I schools and high schools with graduation rates at or below 67%, comprehensive, locally-determined, evidence-based intervention and targeted support and improvement will increase with need.

• Improving Teacher and School Leader Quality and Effectiveness: States and districts are responsible for improving quality and effectiveness of teacher/principal/other school leaders for increased student academic achievement, especially for students from "low-income families" and "students of color". ESSA eliminates the "highly qualified teacher" (HQT) provision (in NCLB), replacing with:
• School districts must describe how they will identify and address any disparities that result in students from low-income families and students of color being taught by ineffective, inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates than other students.*
• States must collect and publicly report data on these disparities.*
• State plans must describe how students from low-income families and students of color will not be served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers.*
• School districts must have mechanisms to notify parents regarding the professional qualifications of their child's teacher.
• States may use federal professional development funds to increase access to effective teachers for students from low-income families and students of color.
• Professional development (PD) - ESSA authorizes federal funding for states and districts to provide PD activities that support school leader effectiveness.
• Teacher and leader evaluations - States may (and are not required) use federal PD funds to implement teacher and leader eveluation systems based on student achievement, growth, and multiple measures of performance - and to inform PD.

*Note that this does not apply to students with disabilities and English language learners. COPAA (Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates) testified before the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Early Education, K-12, and Higher Education first hearing on implementing ESSA. Ms. Selene Almazan, Esq. testified on the "vital role" of ED in implementing ESSA to ensure high expectations of teachers and leaders for achievement of students with disabilities, students of color, and students who are English language learners. A letter by organizations representing parents, teachers, and state and local leaders, expressed strong support for and commitment to putting students first.

• Supporting and Improving the Quality of Low-performing High Schools: States and districts are responsible for supporting and improving the quality of low-performing high schools:
• High school graduation rate goals - for all students and student subgroups.
• Low-graduation-rate high schools - at least once every 3 years, states must identify high schools with graduation rates at or below 67% for comprehensive, locally-determined, evidence-based intervention.
• Funding for high schools - ESSA allows districts to target Title I funds to high schools.
• High school program - ESSA eliminates the High School Graduation Initiative (HSGI) included in NCLB and creates a new grant program for states and districts called the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant program.
• State and district plans must describe how the state will work with districts to provide for the effective transition of students from middle school to high school and from high school to post-secondary education, including integrating AP, IB, CTE and work-based learning, dual enrollment, and coordination with institutions of higher education and employers.

(Emphasis throughout mine).

"Negotiated rulemaking" and its role in ESSA

In addition to releasing guidance on assessments (my previous post), the US Department of Education (ED) announced last week that it will engage in "negotiated rulemaking" for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Negotiated rulemaking is a process where ED appoints people to serve on a committee to help develop regulations, as opposed to "regular rulemaking" which is undertaken by ED staff. Negotiated rulemaking is intended to increase the likelihood that regulations will be accepted by all interested parties, in part by having them at the table during regulation development.

ESSA requires ED to use negotiated rulemaking in the areas of:

• assessments,
• standards, and
• the "supplement not supplant" provision (which involves funding).

Individuals appointed to the Negotiating Committee will represent a broad range of constituencies, including state and local educators, administrators, civil rights organizations, parents, students, the business community, and more. The negotiators selected to serve on the committee will convene for up to 3 multi-day meetings that will conclude by the end of April.

The committee will address several issues related to assessments, including:

• district flexibility to use a locally selected assessment in high schools for accountability purposes instead of the statewide assessment;

• inclusion of students with disabilities in academic assessments, including alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities;

• inclusion of learners of English in academic assessments and English language proficiency assessment;

• computer-adaptive assessments.

It's interesting to note that even though ED has the authority to use negotiated rulemaking to regulate on academic standards, the issue is not included within the announcement - could this, perhaps, be a signal that ED is unlikely to regulate in this area?

For the other provisions under ESSA, such as accountability, ED will go through the regular rulemaking process (which does not include a negotiating committee), most likely this spring.

ED will take nominations for members of the Negotiating Committee until February 25 and will only consider nominations from those individuals or organizations that responded to last month's request for information (RFI) on ESSA regulations.

More information on the negotiated rulemaking process may be found HERE (beginning in middle of second column).

ED releases guidance to states on assessments under ESSA

Last week the US Department of Education (ED) released guidance to Chief State School Officers on assessments under the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

The guidance document builds on President Obama's Testing Action Plan released last October, which included a set of principles for encouraging assessments that promote learning and equity, while scaling back on those practices that haven't served students - or educators - well.

Through new assessment flexibility, funding, and a new pilot program under ESSA, states are supported in their implementation of high quality assessments. While the law eliminates federal mandates for test-based teacher evaluation, states are still required to administer an annual assessment of students in grades 3-8 and once in high school in ELA and maths. With release of the guidance, states and districts are offered specific examples of ways to use federal funds to:

1. Conduct assessment audits to help eliminate low-quality or redundant assessments (outlining that federal dollars may be used to reduce the number and improve the quality of tests);
2. Facilitate educator professional development on using assessment results to improve instruction;
3. Increase timeliness and transparency of assessment information for parents and students; and
4. Improve the quality of assessments, including through replacing low-quality tests with performance assessments.

ED's guidance document may be accessed HERE.

FYI: A link within the cover letter leads to an ED blog highlighting promising practices from states. The John J. Doran Community School in Fall River was highlighted (September 30, 2015) for its approach to addressing non-academic barriers to learning.

Some reflections on the Board's vote for a new statewide test

I don’t know about you, but I’m a little burned out on arguments about statewide assessments. I accept that we need them, but we’re spending way too much time on them just because students from other countries are "out-performing" students in the US on standardized tests.

It bothers me that we've been angsting over these assessments for so long when there are many other areas in need of our attention and dollars. Plus, I’m more interested in the larger educational context that is our vision and our plan for learners. (I'm not going to call it "21st c learning" because, 2015...!)

Across the discussion of “how to do tests in Massachusetts", I’ve observed a tension between what, on the one hand, is essential for child/student well-being and learning and what, on the other hand, strikes us as essential for the future economy. I will argue that until and unless we are dedicated and accountable to child/student well-being, teaching and learning may have little relevance for many children, thus we contribute to a problem we're trying to solve while putting students at risk of being unprepared - not only for their role in the future economy, but for their lives. Education is more than a talent pipeline for employers, after all, it's an end in itself.*

Beleaguered by the political morass, teachers and learners are losing ground. The teacher/learner relationship is the most essential and everything Principals, District Leaders, School Committees - and State Boards of Education - do must be to support that primal relationship in the learning environment, and build capacity for that relationship to thrive for effective teaching and learning. 

We're seeing how education must be personalized for each student no matter who they are, where they live, what language they speak, or how they present. The skills and dispositions they must possess require a multi-dimensional approach of the kind not undertaken before in K-12 education. A lift of this magnitude requires resources in the form of educational and economic investment from federal, state, and local partners in government, as well as deep and sustained alignment with all components of our educational eco-system, including true partnership with families and communities.

To be truly effective (and more than a blunt instrument of accountability), assessment might be part of a wholly supported, integrated system that's realigned with structures not only for technology and education, but also organizational development and capacity, school climate and culture, budgets, and School Committee policies. Why place the standardized assessment ahead of our needs for high quality professional development, student-family-community engagement, social-emotional learning, and teaching and learning? How can we move forward with an assessment system that's not critically aligned with these in partnership with local districts?

We’re already working from a technology deficit because we lack effective technology in every classroom, in every school, in every district across the Commonwealth. Where that technology isn't present or aligned as part of a strategic framework for educational transformation, it hasn't been identified as a priority and/or committing scarce dollars is a reality. Some business and education leaders suggest that getting online assessments in place first will, therefore, leverage meeting our compelling technological needs.

This thinking isn't correct.

Technology is a part of realizing our vision for learning and student success, not apart from it. Partnering with districts to move toward digital learning environments is more than having the requisite test-taking technology. We're absent a grounding vision that not only supports the learning eco-system, but sustains it with time for learning, teaching, collaboration, and reflection.

Fewer than 25% of people living in communities are families with children in schools. Education, progressive in that it's always moving into the future, should be a source of pride in all communities. These are our schools, our children, our future and we all need a voice in shaping them.

The mission of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education is to strengthen the Commonwealth's public education system so that every student is prepared to succeed in post-secondary education, compete in the global economy, and understand the rights and responsibilities of American citizens, and in so doing, to close all proficiency gaps.

How will the Board achieve its stated mission? How do we set up the right conditions for all learners and educators? It's not with a standardized test. Standardized tests have not driven us to higher achievement. They've driven us to higher test scores, but not to higher achievement.

And therein lies the rub.

Many children do very well by these tests, and will continue to do well with the new test, especially if they're white and from affluent families, but not all children and schools are well served by them. Poor children do much less well.

The decision the Board has made is tiny compared to its mission and to the other important things I've mentioned.

I agreed with 6 of my Board colleagues who voted (7-4) to support a two year "hold harmless" provision for districts while a new test is developed, but I prefer that we go further.**

Whether we're in a knowledge economy, an innovation economy, or a purpose-driven economy, learning is life-long. There's a lot to be done to prepare our students for life and the future, including knowing exactly what part assessments are to play to inform instruction and improve learning with their timely data and feedback to skilled, knowledgeable professionals with the people, financial, and technological resources to identify learning gaps, modify curriculum, and adjust instruction for whole child and student success.

- - -
Notes, Quotes, Posts, tweets
* A reference to John Dewey's 1893 essay, "Self-Realization as the Moral Ideal". (The Philosophical Review, Vol. 2, No.6 (Nov., 1893), pp.652-664; Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review; DOI: 102307/2176020; Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2176020). The embedded link in the above post should lead directly to page 660 of the journal - which provides the context for the oft quoted, "Education is not preparation for life but life itself."

** I support bill H.340 of Rep. Marjorie Decker's calling for a 3-year moratorium on the high-stakes punitive nature of testing in Massachusetts.

If you pass a test, didn't you learn something?

Sustaining Improvements in Urban Schools

You wanna fly, you got to give up the shit that weighs you down.
~ Toni Morrison, from Song of Solomon

So much of our work depends on taking time away from students to be the best teachers possible.
~ The JLV

Is Education broken? - @stevewheeler interviews @AudreyWatters http://t.co/y5xHc2NyZv

— Edumorfosis (@edumorfosis) October 15, 2015

What's Behind Door #3? [PARCC::Part II]

We've been reading (for example, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE, among other places, like HERE, HERE, and HERE) that a recommendation is pending from Commissioner Chester to the Board of ESE about how to move forward with statewide assessments in ELA and maths. He's been floating around his idea for a third way since October 19th's Board meeting, sharing his change of view and describing his process for how he will inform the Board of his recommendation. We assume said recommendation will be similar to what we've been reading and hearing about. Time will tell.

At October's meetings, the Board learned that tech upgrades to infrastructure were estimated to be $3.1 million; another $12.3 million estimated for additional technology in schools. Many schools may be ready for computer-based testing but very many more are not at all equipped with equitable, effective digital learning environments.

Acknowledging our tech deficit across the Commonwealth in this regard, I'm concerned that technology for learning is being driven with an eye to test-taking instead of blending future focused, student-centered, content-rich interactive curricula. What's the plan to align and effectively integrate those environments, while ensuring great teaching and learning?

• How are we supporting practitioner-led professional development that's framework-aligned and tech-integrated? 

• Are all educators in regular and frequent conversations with the rest of the team? Is the instructional technology team part of grade-, course- and/or department-level PLCs?

• How are school staff collaborating with families and community partners to connect students and families to expanded learning opportunities and community services in order to support achievement and civic participation? 

• Is the organization developed sufficiently with integrated tools and resources, including non-cognitive supports for all learners, no matter the language he speaks or where she lives?

• Do educators have what they need when they need it to support all students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds?

To live in a media-rich, technology-driven environment, the entire educational enterprise must have command of the essential skills of collaboration, communication, problem-solving, critical thinking, and reflection through the integration and effective use of technology.

The point is this: no test ensures great teaching and learning. Teachers in the learning environment are the true catalysts for change. A more effective statewide assessment system in 2015 might be focused on seamless integration with its complementary parts, not on the sturm und drang over the standardized assessment tool.

Educators are skilled professionals - practitioners working to inform their practice so they can nimbly respond to a learner's needs, modify curriculum, and improve instruction. The urgency isn't about getting everyone in a 1:1 relationship with a device for test-taking. It's about remaining focused on great teaching and learning for our digital age, providing opportunities and time for reflection and collaboration, aligned with a vision that holds student-learning at the center of all decisions.

- - -
Resources, quotes, tweets
See HERE, HERE, and HERE for the Department's vision and support for digital learning in MA K-12 schools.

Great read on the Obama administration's changing views on standardized testing.

Those bills in the Massachusetts Legislature calling for a moratorium on testing and on other accountability measures.

Read and heard elsewhere: recent references to "door number three thinking":

• An article about the Lawrence receivership that ran in CommonWealth Magazine on October 12, 2015

• The Secret History of Thoughts - Dark Thoughts that aired on The Invisibilia Podcast on January 9, 2015, rebroadcast on WGBH-FM, November 2, 2015, which is when I heard it

PARCC::Part I

Note: The Board will hold a final public comment session on PARCC -->Door #3 (?) Monday, November 16, 4:00-7:00 PM at Malden High School auditorium (in lieu of Public Comments at Tuesday morning's regular BESE meeting, 8:30 AM).

Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.
~ Albert Einstein

A great obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge.
~ Daniel Boorstin

Our best measures of educational performance are cognitive because that's what's easiest to test. If the things that are harder to test matter more, that presents something of a conundrum for people trying to formulate educational policy.
~ Megan McArdle in Bloomberg View (Note that Ms. McArdle's article describes key takeaways of an experiment in parent engagement undertaken by Roland Fryer, Stephen Levitt, and John List; Roland Fryer is now a member of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education).

Great ed leaders inspire others with vision and hope not pressure and fear.

— Pedro Noguera (@PedroANoguera) September 1, 2015

American schools are modeled after factories and treat students like widgets. Right? Wrong. http://t.co/A1FyhOL6Yl

— Jack Schneider (@Edu_Historian) October 10, 2015

Welcome to my World [PARCC::Part I]

The Board has convened five Public Hearings on PARCC. I attended three (in Fitchburg, Lynn, and Springfield) and I'm in the process of reviewing public testimony from all of the hearings.

I appreciate that educators from schools and districts with first-hand experience of the Commonwealth's unique two-year testing trial shared their insights at these public hearings. From educator testimony the Board has heard, some concerns stand out for me, including:

• developmental appropriateness of some ELA questions, especially in the 4th grade test;
• the chaotic nature of administering a new test format [online] and challenges in scheduling the computer-based test;
• appropriate accommodations, such as extended time for all students, including students in special education and ELL;
• lack of equity with regard to technology in all buildings;
• lack of planning time for districts [for funding and professional development]

In a PARCC Position Paper*, MASS Superintendents expressed their preference for an "...implementation process that is regarded as ongoing in nature with frequent opportunities for feedback regarding the success of our efforts..." and shared their thoughts about:

• what constitutes a high quality assessment;
• ensuring the new generation of assessment supports teaching and learning, paying particular attention to
• frequency and timing
• necessary conditions
• logistical considerations
• critical roll out 

Some members of the public noted that some parents and community members were unable to get to venues in time to sign-up for live testimony due to work and/or family schedules. Parents who were able to give live testimony noted:

• excessive time for standardized test-taking;
• a narrowed curriculum, especially in the days and weeks before testing days;
• equity concerns between the paper-based test and the computer-based test;
• questions about the validity of the new test
• lack of clarity about what they wanted to know about the new test and what they would be responsible for if schools and classrooms shift to online learning and testing;  

I've taken several practice maths, finding it challenging at times to "drag and drop" parts of equations into the answer box, often located on a different part of the screen that is unseen when answering the problem. "Screen freeze" was frequent and work not "saved" when this occurred. These might be frustrating for some students (results of a student survey state that 32% of students found this to be true), but perhaps issues such as these could be ameliorated over time.

Questions I still have about the PARCC:

• Is this the right test? Rather, is there such a thing as a "right" test?
• If implemented, how much autonomy and control will Massachusetts have regarding specific testing features?
• What is our vision for 21st c learning?
• What do families need to know? What is the outreach to all families about the changing educational landscape?
• If PARCC represents "next-gen" assessments, what's the implementation process to ensure districts, schools, and classrooms are also next-gen, with instruction, professional development, and technology aligned?
• What resources do teachers and teams need to access high quality training? How much time is necessary with peers to collaborate, brainstorm, and share best practices?
• Are resources for professional development adequate? Do they ensure great instruction for every child no matter who they are, where they live, what language they speak, or how they present?
• Which is more important for students: to be engaged in their careers or to be work ready for their careers?

- - -
Notes, Quotes, tweets
* To read the PARCC Position Paper referenced above, it's currently posted on the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents website: go to Professional Development and scroll down to "Conditions and Considerations for a New Generation of Student Assessment in Massachusetts".

Note that a final public comment session will be held at Malden High School auditorium Monday, November 16 from 4:00-7:00 PM - this is in lieu of a public comment period at the regular Board meeting Tuesday, November 17 beginning at 8:30 AM.

If we teach today's students as we did yesterday's, we rob them of tomorrow.
~ John Dewey

I think the most important thing that young people should be taught at school is how they can decide what they're being taught is true.
~ Harold Kroto, 1996 Nobel Prize recipient

Looking forward to @karinchenoweth's series with educators on using data to improve: http://t.co/6R7QRi6eSX via @HuffPostEd #eddata #k12

— Carnegie Foundation (@CarnegieFdn) October 2, 2015

Complicating MCAS vs. #PARCC decision in MA, new study shows two tests equally good at predicting college readiness. http://t.co/xqOjasdEkr

— Michael Jonas (@bostonjonas) October 13, 2015

Public Testimony

My written testimony

On June 11, 2015, Massachusetts Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on several bills related to testing in K-12 public schools. I was unable to attend the hearing in person, but did submit testimony in support of H.340: An Act relative to a moratorium on high stakes testing and PARCC.

A panel assembled to speak in opposition of the bill included representatives from the Executive Office, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and Board of ESE, in the persons of: Secretary of Education Jim Peyser, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell Chester, Board of ESE Chair Paul Sagan, and a former Board of ESE member Jeff Howard. (Where available, I've linked each person's name to their testimony).

Note that at no time before or after the public hearing did BESE discuss any of the bills.

My testimony below.

Members of the Joint Committee on Education

The Honorable Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz, co-chair

The Honorable Representative Alice Hanlon Peisch, co-chair

Sate House Public Hearing on Assessments

Room A-2 [the hearing was subsequently moved to the Gardner Auditorium in order to accommodate the high number of people who turned out for the hearing]

June 11, 2015

Dear Legislators,

My name is Mary Ann Stewart and I'm a parent of a high school student and two college graduates. Though I am a member of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, I am speaking for myself and not as a Board member; my comments are my own.

I have been following, with interest, mounting concern being expressed about the impact high-stakes standardized testing and test preparation is having on our public school students, their schools and districts, and educators who teach and work in them. Leaders in every level of government, along with folks in neighborhoods across the state and country, are expressing a range of views stemming from a concern about these tests and their impact: On narrowing curriculum (especially in the weeks leading up to testing dates); on educator evaluation; on the increased time and money spent to administer them; on the over-reliance of high stakes accountability measures on schools and districts for state and federal dollars.

In many states, the concern rises because the impact of these tests coincides with the increased use/availability of technology and also the implementation of new frameworks for educator evaluation, a condition for many who hoped for federal RTTT dollars. In Massachusetts, in addition to the educator evaluation implementation, high stakes accountability measures intersect with the development of district determined measures, the RETELL initiative, and soon, perhaps, the PARCC assessment (or MCAS 2.0). These concerns impact schools, families, students, and districts in the toniest communities, but students in low-income communities of color are hit the hardest - and at a time when we are trying to close gaps.

We are working against our future best interests if allowed to continue with the current testing regime. We want our students to be excited about their future. We want our schools to truly impart a love and joy for learning. We want creativity in teaching - and so much more.

Before we launch the next generation of assessments in Massachusetts, let's not just keep doing what we've been doing since we ushered in the MCAS.

It's time to call for a moratorium on the high-stakes standardized testing era so that we can work together with our communities, schools, educators, policymakers and legislators to re-evaluate with an eye to improving our schools from the inside out, not from the top down.

Thank you for your consideration, courage, and commitment to our children,

Mary Ann Stewart

Lexington MA

This testimony has also been posted to the Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance website.

Public Hearing on PARCC

The Board of ESE will hold it's fifth and final Public Hearing on PARCC - I look forward to attending:

Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Springfield Technical Community College
Top of Our City Conference Center
4:00-7:00 PM

If you have not had a chance to attend and comment in person, or to offer written testimony, please consider doing so. I am grateful to all who have submitted their thoughtful commentary, written and oral. Over the Summer I will be reflecting on all of the comments received.

Resources about PARCC have been posted to the Department's website.