"A solemn Councel forthwith to be held / At Pandæmonium*"

There were a lot of articles on the MCAS circulating this week.
I can't say we're any the wiser.

I saw this one from Bay State Banner getting shared a good deal, with the quotes being pulled from it either being of the variety that asserted that the new MCAS showed we were going to definitely and for sure have a college ready kids or, on quite the other hand, that it showed that we truly have gone down a long wrong road in education. What I didn't see being shared was Paul Reville's blunt assertion that it's a higher bar, or anyone pointing out that it even straightforwardly is a different test.

Likewise, the Fox 25 coverage resisting the emphasis on MCAS was shared a good deal, approving of Superintendent Jackson's comments about deemphasizing test prep. I didn't see anyone link that to something like Holliston's demographics (7% economically disadvantaged, 3% ELL) and talk about what that meant in Hollison versus places where there might be a valid concern of state intervention or of kids not making it through. I suspect it's closer to what it looks like in Pentucket Regional, where the parents are citing a drop on schooldigger (and a reflection on property values) as a reason for concern.

Today, we had a Globe article, which somehow ascribed to parents and districts confusion the Globe itself had fostered in its coverage: comparing last year to this, speaking fearfully of a "drop" in scores, and lending little lucidity to an already fraught issue.

Two things I didn't see get as much attention were Acting Commissioner Wulfson's note (and I'd put money on that being him; it sounds like him) in yesterday's Weekly Update (note that the doe.gov website is down for the weekend) and an interview with Daniel Koretz, which, contrary to the boosts I largely saw it get, is more about putting standardized testing into perspective than getting rid of it entirely.

I saw a lot of assertions, a number of them false, and I didn't see a lot of attempts to grapple with making good public policy.

Asserting that a single round of a new test demonstrates much of anything other than it being a new test with new systems and materials on which students hadn't been tried is something of a fool's game. You can do it, but it really isn't any different than when I gave my students a test in a format they weren't accustomed to on material they weren't as familiar with.
And we knew we were going to see these results. We've known for months.
Thus I'm frustrated with the idea that, of itself, means much of anything. We can't know that these kids are any better prepared until we get them to whatever we're preparing them for: can they construct more logical arguments? can they reason through a problem? do they write any better than in the past? There are particular things we were told that this test is supposed to do better: does it? I don't think we know that yet.
By the same token, having a harder test itself is no slur against anything. If you as a teacher feel the assessment isn't accurately gauging where your students should be, you create a new one. What I'm not hearing asked enough is if this test is it. If it isn't, how? And what needs to be different?

I'm also deeply and profoundly frustrated by the ways in which the pandæmonium of the extremes is making it impossible to take advantage of openings for conversation. For example: right now, the state is in the process of working through the statewide history and social studies standards. At the end of that, we know, the state is going to implement a statewide history assessment. There have been a significant number of discussions at the Board of Ed that have opened to the door towards this NOT BEING AN EXAM LIKE MCAS. Wulfson and some members of the Board clearly agree that the best way of assessing actual knowledge and skills of social studies and civics is through community and project based knowledge. I have yet to hear or see anyone attempt to work with or on that. If that advantage isn't taken, there are absolutely those who want to see another "run it through the machine" exam, and if you don't think they're already talking, you're wrong. But that conversation is being drowned out by the shouting going on over the changes in the 3-8 ELA and math test.

There's also development a school report card going on, which includes, as ESSA opened the door to, a lot more things on it than test scores. What is that going to look like? What is going to be emphasized? How is the state and how are districts going to highlight that such that an actual variety (however meager in comparison to what we might like) of things are being evaluated? Is that, in other words, going to mean something now? Can we add things? And what is it going to look like to evaluate some schools that maybe are really good at narrow things being evaluated on a wider array of them?

And finally, is anyone, anywhere, going to attempt to have a conversation about what they're looking for in a new Commissioner? We don't hire them often. They have a significant amount of power. Are we just going to shrug and take whatever Chair Sagan and Secretary Peyser decide between them? Because they're absolutely the ones steering that ship.

Some of the above leads back to my perpetual call for better education coverage, yes. Some of it also points to a question of who is actually interested in making public policy versus staking out positions. Public policy means you don't get all your own way, and it means you have to pay attention to things like the $230 million a year we get in Title I funds (that's why we have a federal law to follow) and the 99% (and not shrinking) of kids who took the exam again in a year in which it "didn't count." It means you have to talk to people who disagree with you and maybe get to think they're at least well motivated if wrong.

If we don't do that, decisions are going to happen, anyway, and they're going to be made by those who have the ears of those in power and by those who show up to talk. And that isn't going to serve the kids nor the broad array of--

agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.

...all that well. Nor will it preserve our rights and our liberties.

_________________________________________
*lines 755-6, Book 1, Paradise Lost, John Milton
and yes, Milton is talking about Hell