3rd grade testing: should I be afraid?

[SKL]

A nearby teacher, who is normally very level-headed and positive about school stuff, posted on facebook that we should be very worried about the testing that is coming in 3rd grade (presumably linked to common core?).  That many kids are going to fail and it's going to be devastating.  That parents are going to be blindsided because they don't realize what the "reading guarantee" means.  What is she talking about?  Do I need to freak out if my kid is happily reading kiddy chapter books and learning fractions at the end of 2nd grade?  I thought I was done remediating....

[wapiti]

The only standardized tests I worry about are tests that have consequences, e.g., (1) the high school admissions test and (2) the SAT/SAT2/ACT/AP tests

[vonfirmath]

We don't have Common Core, but there's a lot of push back here in Texas for the new STAAR tests because some of the tests at 5th and 8th grade ARE going to keep the kids from progressing.

 

[73349]

In my state, there is now a law that kids can't go to 4th grade unless they can read. Here's the link from my district: http://www.wcpss.net/parents/guides/read-to-achieve/

 

The problem is that the schools cannot usually get more than 80% of kids on grade level. Low-income schools run more like 50%. It is going to be a huge expense to retain that many kids, and it's a huge stress on teachers.

 

If your kids are on grade level, don't worry about it. Kids are not supposed to be retained based on a single test. For parents of weak readers, it's kind of lose-lose (retention often does not result in much improvement, and passing kids along when they're not ready means they may never catch up) and I'd encourage them to seek tutoring or work with a strong program themselves rather than leaving remediation to the overworked teacher.

[Arcadia]

That parents are going to be blindsided because they don't realize what the "reading guarantee" means.  What is she talking about? 

 

This is what it says about "reading guarantee" for Ohio and I agree that parents would be upset that they cannot opt their kids out of retention. 

 

"What happens if a parent refuses interventions or retention required by the Third Grade Reading Guarantee?
 

The law does not provide parents or guardians the right to refuse retention according to the Third Grade Reading Guarantee mandate"

 

This is what it says for Ohio

 

"Advancing to Fourth Grade

Except for students with special circumstances, students must meet a minimum score on the state reading test to move on to the fourth grade.  In 2013-2014, the minimum score for advancement is 392.  This score must be attained either in the Fall or Spring administration of the state reading test.

If the student remains in the third grade, the school must provide a high-performing reading teacher and 90 minutes of reading instruction each school day.

A student can still take fourth grade classes in all other subjects, if the student is ready.

Schools can move students to the fourth grade in the middle of the year, if the student's reading improves."

 

ETA:

This article didn't list the 15 states

"Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have strict retention policies on third grade reading, which often call for schools to help students who are struggling before they reach third grade, according to Emily Workman, a policy analyst for the Education Commission of the States.

Many of the states followed the path of Florida, where reading scores jumped after 2003, when the state started requiring third graders who did not meet reading benchmarks to be held back"

[SKL]

Wow.  Now I am wondering what a score of 392 looks like.  And they say the kids must pass it in the fall OR spring - so if they are tested in the fall of 3rd grade, even if they could have improved in the ensuing months, they have to flunk and then get extra assistance the following year, or that's what it sounds like.  I hope I'm reading it wrong.  If that's the case, I can see why my teacher friend is upset.

 

And, I don't know if it applies to non-public schools.

 

Ugh.

[Arcadia]

 

And, I don't know if it applies to non-public schools.

 

According to the NPR article, the Ohio reading guarantee is only for public schools  and excludes kids who received state vouchers to attend private schools.

"Educational advocates are pointing out an alleged discrepancy in the laws that lay out Ohio’s Third Grade Reading Guarantee. 

Third graders who have a voucher to attend a private school won’t get held back the way most public school students would if they earn fewer than 392 points on the state reading test."

[SKL]

Well, here you CAN refuse to allow your kid to be tested.  Don't know if that is true everywhere.  I think that is what I'd do because the whole thing sounds pretty stupid and chaotic.

 

Yeah, it's pretty crazy because young kids can have an off day.  Like last year when both of mine got the flu during standardized testing.  I can't imagine flunking a kid over one moment in time.  And if the kid is on an upward trend, why set her back a whole year?

I still don't know what a 392 score means, though.  If it's really low like 2.0, vs. mid-3rd grade, obviously that would make a difference.

[Dmmetler]

In my state, the kids have to pass the reading test to move to 4th, but they have a chance in March, usually one in May, and then in my local district, 6 weeks of intensive summer school and another chance in August before school starts.

 

They also do enough pre-tests early in the year that they know which kids are at risk and are working with them pretty intensively.

 

And I don't think it applied at all to non-public schools. In fact, most of the non-public schools I know here use the SAT-10, not the state test.

 

[vonfirmath]

Yeah, it's pretty crazy because young kids can have an off day.  Like last year when both of mine got the flu during standardized testing.  I can't imagine flunking a kid over one moment in time.  And if the kid is on an upward trend, why set her back a whole year?

I still don't know what a 392 score means, though.  If it's really low like 2.0, vs. mid-3rd grade, obviously that would make a difference.

 

That's probably why they test twice -- fall and spring. To give them two chances to pass.

 

I know for the 5th grade STAAR tests they have two chances to pass and, after a summer session, a THIRD chance to pass the test before actually being held back from 6th grade.

 

[SKL]

That's probably why they test twice -- fall and spring. To give them two chances to pass.

 

I know for the 5th grade STAAR tests they have two chances to pass and, after a summer session, a THIRD chance to pass the test before actually being held back from 6th grade.

 

I'm getting conflicting info though on whether they will actually be giving the kids more than one chance.

 

I hope so, but even if so, what if the child is a poor test taker or just a late bloomer?  It just seems so arbitrary to fail a child over one indicator, even if it is administered multiple times.

 

It also bugs me that the main efforts at remediation don't come into play until after the retention is a done deal.  Seems more reasonable to offer more assists before the Test of Doom.

 

Some of the big cities here have less than a 50% pass rate.  I predict that this is going to get ugly.

 

Anyhoo, I determined that it does not apply to my kids (they are not in public school), but it still bothers me.
 

[kiwik]

The remediation sounds very expensive. That would discourage a private school from failing very many. But surely they would test in fall, remediate those that fail then test them again in spring?

[vonfirmath]

Poor test taker: They need to learn test taking strategies. (And, evidently, there might be a way in Texas for a district to allow a percentage to "pass" based on portfolio if there is egregious harm being done.)

 

Late bloomer: If they are THAT late of a bloomer, maybe it is kinder to hold them back so they don't continue to fall behind as they are expected to have already mastered this work?  I don't know what the solution is to this in the context of how schools are set up. But we've spent a generation, it seems, passing along kids that don't have the basics they need and they don't suddenly "pick it up" at later grades. They end up dropping out of school or graduating and community colleges or employees having to pick up with the education the schools failed at.

 

When the 5th graders fail twice, and before the third test, there is remediation offered -- the special summer school. So BEFORE they are kept back there are many efforts made to get the kid to the point of being able to pass. I suspect between the first and second tests there would be work done on the weak areas as well.

 

I know its popular to complain about the tests. And I don't like how its gotten teachers to teach to the test. But I also know that what we had before wasn't working. After hearing more about our states tests, I am at least cautiously optimistic. (Though I wish they'd rolled them out slower. Only making them applicable at first to the youngest kids who were getting the new education from the beginning, etc. because it doesn't seem very fair to expect high schoolers who have been struggling with stuff they never learned in 5th grade in the first place to ALSO be able to pass all the stuff they are supposed to be learning in high school as well)

[SKL]

I would be OK with it if it is a basic level that is required, but "proficient," I really don't know what that means.  From what I've read, it sounds like "on" grade level.  It seems obvious that not all kids can be "on" grade level in reading (especially in a district where many families are unable to help at home).

 

From what I've read, failing children does not lead to better success for those individual children.  Many of them fail again and/or become dropouts.  I thought the research showed that keeping them with their grade led to better results for those kids.  Granted, if you flunk them then the grade-level stats for the class / school might improve, but which is more important?

 

I think some folks are ignoring the importance of the stigma of failing.  I think that's a mistake.

 

I also think this is yet another way to bully people into holding back younger kids before they go to 1st grade.

 

ETA:  I have a homeschooler friend who said, "my 3rd grade daughter can certainly read, but she gets such anxiety that she would probably fail a reading test if she thought passing was so critical."

[vonfirmath]

I realize there is a stigma to failing. But we have a long history of seeing what happens when you DON'T fail the kids and that isn't pretty either.