This site contains responses (600+) to the all-new, CCSS-aligned ELA exam that Pearson gave this year in New York State. Given that Pearson is poised to compete with PARCC and Smarter Balanced as a provider of the new generation of national tests, I think you can look at these as responses to Pearson’s first iteration of that new test as a harbinger of what is to come your way unless someone calls out, ‘Wait! The Emperor has no clothes on.’

The test was unlike anything anyone here had ever seen. I don’t want to try to describe it to you because frankly, I wasn’t allowed to see it (and didn’t.) What I know about the test is largely harvested from these comments, and from people’s descriptions of the test. And that, I think, is the problem. How can it be that test-makers have created a whole new generation of tests and we are not allowed to see those tests, to talk-back to this first draft of them? How can legislators in my state vote that teachers will be hired and fired based on The Test when they haven’t, themselves, taken the test (and watched their sons and daughters, grandchildren, neighbors take the test?)

People who have reviewed this site are phoning–the Times, The Washington Post, the Huffington Post–and they ask if my conclusion is that we need a moratorium on testing so as to give kids the opportunity to learn that is their legal right. I answer that sure–a moratorium on testing would always be welcome–but that actually I think that the issue instead is that we all need to demand to see this new generation of tests and to be part of a conversation over whether they in fact match the Common Core, and whether they in fact represent a goal worth teaching towards. My sense is the test makers have aimed to devise a test that matches the Revised Publishers Criterion more than the Common Core, and given that those two documents are contradictory, I think people need to ask whether that’s the deal we signed on for. For instance, when we ratified the CCSS we agreed that children need to read more nonfiction – but did we agree they need to read nonfiction in the way the test suggests? Another way to say this is that I think the test makers are interpreting the standards, even for 9 and 10 year olds, to be all about ultra-ultra-law-school-literary-criticism-level-close analytic reading, asking ‘why did the author include (mean by) X in line y?’ and not at all about reading to acquire knowledge or to construct big ideas about a comprehensible story. How will a test like this alter reading and writing curriculum, and will that yield a generation of engaged, curious, thoughtful, knowledgeable readers and writers?

This is an important time. We are at a crossroads. Big changes could be brewing. I think it would help if you take some time to study these responses and add to them with specific troubles or insights. Please respond to them–you’ll see we’ve built a place for that–and you are welcome to write me off the site as well, if you’d like.

Thanks for your advocacy on behalf of children, and for the companionship as we all work, shoulder to shoulder, to make our schools the best they can be.
Lucy Calkins – TCRWP

After reading all these comments, and in light of the sample test items that were released by the state earlier, I believe that these tests were created in a very amateurish way, with little attempt to determine if they were actually appropriate for the grade levels they’re being used for. Instead, the items are constructed in a very narrow way, not from the standards themselves but from a narrow set of ideas – based on the Publisher’s Guidelines and statements from the architects of the standards – about close reading,finding evidence from text, and comparing texts to each other..
They’ll be able to create a bell curve from the results, but students’ scores in relation to those of other students are unlikely to provide much information about how well they’re actually achieving the standards, since they’re so unlike the real reading and writing that students do.
In the meantime, these horrible tests were administered without any attention to the predictable emotional effect that they would have on millions of children who were not only stressed but in many cases upset and crying because they felt that, despite their hard work, they were going to fail.
Given the disaster that these tests represent, they should be made fully available for review by the public and scholars. Given such a drastic and problematic change in testing, transparency and public comment need to trump test security.
I am a professor of curriculum and teaching at Hunter College, CUNY.
Sandra Wilde – Other

Hi Lucy,

First, thanks for this forum, it is deeply appreciated.

I am, however, genuinely confused by your argument that this test does not represent the CCSS. I don’t see how you can compare the CCSS to other standards and not reach the conclusion that they are intended to be narrowly focused on academic textual analysis, reaching all the way down to elementary school.

This is, of course, completely nuts, and it is why I have opposed these standards all along.

I’ve never felt it was fundamentally driven by pedagogy or philosophy (for good or ill), either. A certain kind of data was needed for RttT, a certain kind of “next generation” test was desired (computer adaptive, computer scoring of constructed responses, vertically aligned, etc.) the testing companies — the College Board and ACT — laid down the basic structure and CCRS to lock in this design despite the various tweaks made in the grade level standards. The CCSS was always a test specification.

I felt the Publisher’s Criteria followed logically from the standards themselves — moreso, I’d add, than the surrounding commentary published with the standards. To me there was a huge, and I thought intentionally misleading discrepancy, so maybe you are giving more weight to those texts. I always saw them as post-hoc political cover (to appease you AND E.D. Hirsch) that would be entirely ignored in implementation.

Anyhow, I’m not sure there’s a definitive answer here, because it depends on the generosity of one’s reading of the standards. When I read standard one, I see a standard very carefully worded to NOT require students to draw their own interpretations, just to be good at citing evidence. It can be read differently, of course, but I think my reading is the one intended by the (test designer) author for their primary (test designer) audience.
Tom Hoffman – Other

I feel like we, as teachers, are not heard. We need to organize a broader campaign that encompasses students, teachers, parents and other stakeholders, standing together against high-stakes testing. We need an expert, like Lucy Caulkins perhaps, to lead the charge. Maybe start a petition on Change.org? Gather millions of signatures of all who stand against this crazy educational practice, and advocate for some real change nationwide.
Anonymous – Teacher

Why was the listening part of the test removed? Why was it once important and now it isn’t? Listening is so important to learning and note taking techniques are part of the foundations of determining importance for our future learners.
Joan Jurgens – Teacher

I would like to hear about the experiences of other educators.
Cathy – Teacher, Parent

It is increasingly disheartening that high-stakes standardized tests are the single, ultimate definition of demonstrating progress for our children. I see friends who live in other states post pictures of their children’s wonderful school projects, activities, festivals, etc., and it further drives home the point that we’re only teaching the children of NYS to be accomplished test takers. At the rate we’re going, we are assuring that no future leaders, CEO’s or celebrated artists will hail from our state.
Monica Kalfur – Teacher, Parent