Mass. "High Stakes Testing"
 
  Mass. Parents Organization

  S-1568 Appropriations for Supt. Budget

                THE  EXITING  STANDARDS  DEBATE
                                                                   3/22/2000
Today on the House floor, S-1568, the Superintendent's Budget was passed.  In it included a $100,000 appropriation for the Exiting Standards  Commission, and a $500,000 appropriation for the development of testing and assessments on the Exiting Standards. Now it goes to the Governor they got their money, or at least some of it.

Here is a recap of today's action and the vote:
S 1568 was read the third time at length, section by section, and placed
before the Senate for final consideration. Senator Ingram arose as sponsor
of the bill and opened the debate. The question being, "Shall the bill
pass?"

Roll call resulted as follows:

S1568............................................................by FINANCE
APPROPRIATIONS - EDUCATION DEPARTMENT - Appropriates $123,966,200 to the
Superintendent of Public Instruction/State Department of Education for
fiscal year 2001; limits the number of full-time equivalent positions to
113; provides legislative intent that $1,000 may be used to assist in
defraying expenses relating to the discharge of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction's official duties; and reappropriates unexpended and
unencumbered moneys to be used for development of exiting standards. ($500,000)

 1. Exiting Standards Commission                0.00       100,00          0            0                 100,000
  2. Idaho Advanced Records System          0.00         75,000        0            0                  75,000
  3. Test Development-Exiting Standards      0.00       500,000        0            0                500,000
  4. Adult Basic Education                            0.00       500,000        0            0                500,000
 
03/14    Senate intro - 1st rdg - to printing
03/15    Rpt prt - to Fin
03/15    Rpt out - rec d/p - to 2nd rdg
03/16    2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg
03/20    3rd rdg - PASSED - 24-11-0
      AYES--Andreason, Boatright, Branch, Bunderson, Burtenshaw, Cameron,
      Danielson, Darrington, Davis, Deide, Geddes, Ingram, Ipsen,
      King-Barrutia, Lee, McLaughlin, Parry, Richardson, Risch, Sandy,
      Sorensen, Stegner, Thorne, Williams

      NAYS--Crow, Dunklin, Frasure, Hawkins, Keough, Noh, Riggs, Schroeder,
      Stennett, Wheeler, Whitworth   (GOOD GUYS)
      Absent and excused--None
    Floor Sponsor - Ingram
    Title apvd - to House
03/21    House intro - 1st rdg - to 2nd rdg
03/22    2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg
03/22    Rules susp - PASSED - 59-6-5
      AYES -- Barraclough, Bell, Bieter, Black, Boe, Bruneel, Callister,
      Campbell, Chase, Cheirrett, Clark, Crow, Cuddy, Deal, Denney,
      Ellsworth, Field(13), Field(20), Gagner, Gould, Hadley, Hammond,
      Hansen(29), Henbest, Hornbeck, Jaquet, Jones, Judd, Kellogg, Kempton,
      Kendell, Kunz, Lake, Linford, Loertscher, Mader, Marley, Meyer,
      Montgomery, Mortensen, Moss, Moyle, Pearce, Pischner, Pomeroy,
      Reynolds, Ridinger, Ringo, Robison, Sellman, Shepherd, Smith, Smylie,
      Stevenson, Stoicheff, Stone, Tilman, Wood, Zimmermann
 
      NAYS -- Alltus, Barrett, McKague, Sali, Schaefer, Taylor  (GOOD GUYS)

      Absent and excused -- Geddes, Hansen(23), Trail, Wheeler, Mr Speaker (THIS IS
      CALLED “TAKING A WALK” OR MAYBE COWARD)
       Floor Sponsor - Pomeroy
 
03/23    To enrol
03/24    Rpt enrol - Pres signed
03/27    Sp signed by Gov.
 
 The Joint Finance Committee funded $500,000.  After a tie vote to "0" fund failed, 10-10.

Those voting for "0" funding were: Parry, Hawkins, Boatright, Geddes, Wood, Bell, Clark, Lee, McLaughlin, Pischner (good guys)

Those voting against "0" funding were:  Pomeroy, Field, Hansen, Robison, Marley, Richardson, Bunderson, Cameron, Andreason, &  Ingram  (bad guys)

The fascinating phenomenon of the political process was once again observed in the vote on the
exiting standards.

After five days of testimony, that  expressed concern about the exiting standards, they were
unanimously adopted by the House and Senate Education Committees. Three in the House voted
“no.”  The only favorable testimony came from those on the commission that worked on the
standards.  Most all of those who voted for the adoption of the standards expressed their concern
about where they were going to take Idaho Education.

The next frontier for those of us that are known as “push-backs,” is to stop the funding for the
testing component. The Joint Finance committee will be making that funding decision. During the presentations of the State Board Budget, and the State Dept. of  Ed. Budget the Joint Finance committee, asked a lot of “hard questions.” Both the State Board and the Department asked for $1.15 million and $1.5 million of your tax dollars to develop the same test.  A test that a student would have to get a passing grade on to graduate from high school. There were many concerns about the existence of one single test that would negate twelves years of testing and credits accumulated.
The Joint Finance Committee funded $500,000.  After a tie vote to -0- fund failed 10-10.

 The question of national success was asked.  There doesn’t seem to be any state in the country
that has had a positive experience with the exiting standards concept. Texas is the national
poster child for this concept. In Texas this concept has had many bumps in the courts, as well as
in the classroom.  In the first years of testing the failure rate was so high, especially among
minorities, that discrimination suits were filed. The result was a dumbing down of the test to a
seventh grade level.  The testing has also faced a constitutional challenge. None of the states that
have moved forward into this program have been willing to tally the cost of the program.  It has
been hard to track the cost, due to the fact that there are many departments and commission that
have been created, and have received funding for their states project. It has been reported that
Oregon has spent 6 Billion dollars on their efforts.  Florida has tallied and spent 26 million so
far. According to the Fordham Foundation Texas rates number three in the national achievement.. But according tho the National Assessment of Educational Progress, Texas rates dead last. Point of interest, Fordham Foundation served the same purpose in Texas that Albertsons did in Idaho. MMMMM

 The obvious questions are; What is wrong with the standards we already have? A student takes a class, passes the tests, gets the credit, and with enough credits, gets the diploma. Is there any assurance from anyone that Exiting Standards will stop the social promotion that plagues our school system?  Another question is, since Idaho has a Statewide Testing Program we're already paying for, which includes the SAT, ACT, ITBS and the Direct Writing and Math assessment, why do we need to spend $2.65 million ($1.15+$1.50 million=$2.65million) on another test  If these national tests are not good enough, then why does there grade get students their scholarships in college?  Why are State Health Standards included, when our law says IF we have a program, it will be developed at the local level?  And by the way, do Idahoans really want to throw more good money after bad and continue to fund  a programs we don't have confidence in?   MMMMM.
 
 
 

          The Massachusetts
               M.C.A.S.
The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System
is a test given to students in the 4th, 8th, and 10th grades.
Starting with the class of 2003, all Massachusetts students
will be required to pass the 10th grade test to receive their
high school graduation diplomas.

® Special Ed., bilingual, and vocational students are also
required pass the same test to graduate. However, private,
parochial, and home-schooled students are exempt from
taking the test.

® The MCAS is a test based on high standards, but it is
being used as a minimum competency test.

® A 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences
concluded that "no single test score can be considered a
definitive measure of a student's knowledge," and that "an
educational decision that will have a major impact on a
test-taker should not be made solely or automatically on
the basis of a single test score."

® Testing takes between 13 and 17 hours. This is longer
than the Mass. Bar exam!

® The use of the MCAS as the sole means for student
evaluation violates the Massachusetts Education Reform
Act of 1993, which called for multiple means of assessing
students.

® The MCAS does not test communication skills, critical
thinking, and artistic, vocational, and athletic abilities.

® According to a report issued by the Board of Education
on the validity of the MCAS, students who outperformed
50% to 75% of their peers on nationwide standardized
tests received a "needs improvement" on the MCAS.

® By July 1999, Massachusetts had spent over $50
million on the MCAS. This number does not include
many of the costs incurred by individual districts and
schools.

® The Department of Education is planning to contract a
new company to create and grade the MCAS from
2000-2004, because it underbid the current contractor and
claims it can release scores a month earlier. In August,
this company was fined by the California BOE for making
mistakes counting and scoring the tests of more than 10%
of the 4.2 million students tested statewide.