Comments on: Assessing the Common Core http://www.quickanded.com/2009/06/assessing-common-core.html The Quick and the Ed is an education blog published by Education Sector, an independent think tank in Washington D.C. The Quick and the Ed offers in-depth analysis on the latest in education policy and research. Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:30:44 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Monty Neill http://www.quickanded.com/2009/06/assessing-common-core.html/comment-page-1#comment-655 Monty Neill Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:21:08 +0000 http://www.quickanded.com/wordpress/?p=1628#comment-655 FairTest does not support a national test, and if this endeavor really proceeds that is likely to be the outcome, courtesy of pressure and bribes from the federal government. That would run counter to some of the criteria posed here.<br /><br />I'd add that as part of the innovation aspects, that the federal government should financially support state efforts (singly or in consortia) to develop balanced local and state systems with multiple components that rely primarily on performance tasks. For reasons why local is necssary, see my comments here: http://www.fairtest.org/fairtests-monty-neills-remarks-fairtestnea-confere .<br /><br />Yes, it doable. Reps Miller and McKeon recognized that when their2007 ESEA reauthorization discussion draft included a section (1225)to provide funding for up to 15 states to construct such systems. The report of the Expert Panel on Assessment of the Forum on Educational Accountability also pushes for this idea at http://www.edaccountability.org.)It relies in part on more technical reports prepared for CCSSO that explain how such comprehensive and balanced systems can be constructed to allow measurement of growth. <br /><br />Lots of work to be done to balance state and local, to create banks of high-quality tasks teachers can access for assignments and assessments, to find out the best ways to use new technologies. <br /><br />But in this case Andy and I agree, there needs to be real innovation and the states and feds should not simply replicate existing tests only make them harder to pass.<br /><br />Monty Neill<br />FairTest FairTest does not support a national test, and if this endeavor really proceeds that is likely to be the outcome, courtesy of pressure and bribes from the federal government. That would run counter to some of the criteria posed here.

I'd add that as part of the innovation aspects, that the federal government should financially support state efforts (singly or in consortia) to develop balanced local and state systems with multiple components that rely primarily on performance tasks. For reasons why local is necssary, see my comments here: http://www.fairtest.org/fairte.....ea-confere .

Yes, it doable. Reps Miller and McKeon recognized that when their2007 ESEA reauthorization discussion draft included a section (1225)to provide funding for up to 15 states to construct such systems. The report of the Expert Panel on Assessment of the Forum on Educational Accountability also pushes for this idea at http://www.edaccountability.org.)It relies in part on more technical reports prepared for CCSSO that explain how such comprehensive and balanced systems can be constructed to allow measurement of growth.

Lots of work to be done to balance state and local, to create banks of high-quality tasks teachers can access for assignments and assessments, to find out the best ways to use new technologies.

But in this case Andy and I agree, there needs to be real innovation and the states and feds should not simply replicate existing tests only make them harder to pass.

Monty Neill
FairTest

]]>