Not so fast…Trenton’s Fred Flintstone is still enamored with PARCC testing. Does this have to do with the fact that the owner/operator of PARCC, Pearson Publishing, is headquartered in New Jersey?
“The Governor did, however, [direct] DOE Commissioner Hespe to assemble a group of parents, teachers and educators to reevaluate the situation to come up with new state-centric standards, and he renewed his support for the controversial Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) exams. “We must continue to review and improve that test based on results, not fear or speculation,” Christie declared. “I will not permit New Jersey to risk losing vital federal education funds because some would prefer to let the perfect get in the way of the good.””
PARCC is neither perfect nor nor good. It is perfectly worthless and needs to be jettisoned along with Common Core. The two stem from the same rotten ideology.
April 10, 2015 Last updated: Friday, April 10, 2015, 12:31 AM
The Ridgewood News
To the Editor:
In a March 27, 2015 column in this paper, our Superintendent of Schools Dan Fishbein argued in support of “good digital citizenship,” a reprint of which all district parents received via email subsequently. In it, Dr. Fishbein told an amusing, cautionary tale about divulging one’s identity to vendors and its far-reaching consequences, a vexing aspect of modern life. He then related this experience to students posting about PARCC testing via social media.
I object to Dr. Fishbein’s column and email because I am worried that they minimize legitimate concerns about what appears to be an effort by private agents and public officials to squelch dissent to the new PARCC standardized tests.
It came to light the other week that Pearson, the testing giant, and the NJ Department of Education contracted with a security agent, Caveon, in order to trawl social media sites for mention of PARCC by students. This is ostensibly to protect PARCC test questions from breach and promote fairness, as well as to protect intellectual property. The identity of any student committing a so-called security breach is then reported to the NJ DOE, which has happened to at least one student in Watchung (as reported by its alarmed superintendent).
What used to be one of the few ways to wring value from a standardized test, namely discussing test questions and answers with peers and mentors after a test, is now illicit in this era of Big Standardized Testing.
Further, it is not just “security breaches” that are being swept up by corporate security agents working in tandem with state government. In practice, as Caveon has explained, it is casting an even wider net that may include mere mention of PARCC.
Yes, posting on social media is public and there should be no expectation of privacy. However, so is talking at a playground or on the phone in a pizza parlor. Are we just as comfortable with Pearson agents hiding at the outskirts of school grounds with microphones and cameras, or conducting surveillance through children’s smartphones?
Perhaps children should not be allowed to have social media accounts because they lack maturity and judgment about what to post and not post, an issue that’s come up in many contexts. I agree that we have to guide children in making good judgments in their digital lives.
However, more important than good digital citizens in my view is the raising of courageous citizens who are aware of their right to discuss, dissent, even to disparage ideas, institutions, their leaders. That is what makes American democracy unique and valuable.
If a child tweets that “some PARCC questions were dumb” or “PARCC stinks” or “I wish I could find out before next year how I did on the PARCC so I could learn something,” there should be no risk that that child’s identity will be reported to the state government or that he will incur a permanent black mark on his record.
>Charlie, you’re perspectives are reasonably well stated, but are unfortunately hopelessly outdated. I rarely derive much insight from your comments. Usually, you just come off sounding like a sycophant.
Years of stone-faced neglect and brainless posturing on the part of the Ridgewood district’s BOE have led us to the current curriculum crisis. In no small part, this is due to people, like yourself, who fail to take seriously the role a BOE trustee fills in seeing to it that the school district serves the interests of its residents and taxpayers, and those interests only.
The Ridgewood district does not exist to provide Assistant Superintendent Botsford with a big-budget playground to conduct her constructivist experiments, or to curry favor with Pearson Publishing, or to scoop up a fancy doctorate degree from Montclair State University, or to hold great sway when she jets down to the Big Easy to provide lectures to like-minded curriculum development administrators, as she plans to do next month.
There’s no question you have a right to speak your mind. And the fact that you tend to do so in complete sentences places you a cut above many who frequent this board. But for once, could you take a breather from your single minded support of the current BOE trustees? Even if they are comfortable having you as their sole defender in the Village of Ridgewood, which I tend to doubt, you should let them speak for themselves. In consideration of the upcoming election involving the seats currently held by Ms. Brogan and Mr. Bombace, I would much rather hear a straightforward defense/explanation of the BOE’s recent actions/inactions coming from the respective mouths of these two incumbents, or even from Ms. Brogan’s buddy Laurie Goodman, than to continue to be lectured by you.
