When is a test not a test? Sure, there’s an easy answer—“When it doesn’t send opt-out parents running for their torches and pitchforks”—but that’s not what we’re looking for. Give up? It’s when the test is a “locally driven performance assessment.” An article in Education Week explains the rise of these specially designed student tasks in eight New Hampshire school districts, which have been granted authority by the Education Department to employ them as alternatives to standardized tests. The districts will work with the state and one another to develop Performance Assessment of Competency Education (PACE), a series of individual and group queries that allow students to exhibit mastery over a subject without filling in bubbles. The challenges (which include the design of a forty-five-thousand-cubic-foot water tower to show proficiency in geometry) sound stimulating, and the Granite State’s record in competency-based education is extensive. It’s not hard to see why such an option would be attractive to state and local officials, especially when testing has become roughly as popular there as a leaf-peeping tax. What remains to be seen is whether this approach to assessment captures the same vital data as traditional measures.
Of course, some folks will never give up on the venerable paper assessment. For those happy few, who doubtless spend their evenings sharpening Number 2 pencils and reviewing the various and contradictory meanings of the word “sanction,” the Gadfly has a treat this week: The PARCC consortium has released hundreds of questions from its 2015 round of Common Core-aligned exams. The problems demonstrate both rigor and clarity, requiring that students explain their mathematical rationales and compare multiple texts. The release will hopefully demystify the new tests for parents, many of whom have felt alienated by unfamiliar question construction. Now they can determine once and for all whether they’re smarter than a fifth grader.
Finally, California administrators are evidently facing a far more difficult test than anything PARCC or New Hampshire educators could have dreamt up. It’s the assignment of restoring the Los Angeles Unified School District to fiscal sustainability, and if last week’s Los Angeles Times scoop is any indication, the challenge has thus far proven insurmountable. According to a panel of budget experts assembled by Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines, the district is presently facing a $333 million deficit for the 2017–18 school year, which will nearly double in the next two years. As is often the case, the shortfall is driven predominantly by swiftly accumulating pension costs. But the crisis is further aggravated by sinking enrollment in public schools as families embrace the city’s charter options. Local officials, as well as anyone with an interest in keeping our school system out of the red, would be well advised to consult Fordham’s own report on insolvent school districts for more on the subject.
