Report Inappropriate Comments

If they were "teaching to the test" wouldn't the scores be higher? Since "teaching to the test" implies the students are being taught nothing but what they need to know for the test? Maybe the problem is that many of the kids and adults did not take the test seriously. With all the "back and forth" as to the validity of the tests, it's no wonder the students did not do well. Why is it Massachusetts managed to score 60% proficient overall? It was their first time using the PARCC, at least that is my understanding, and they did very well....compared to Rhode Island. We've known since 2009 that these tests were going to be used, why is it that our students weren't prepared? NECAP was also an epic failure, and according to popular opinion, the schools "taught to the test" in that instance as well. I do believe, we spend too much time on assessments and that hinders the time the teachers have to teach material relevant to the student's education. They don't have enough time to thoroughly instruct the students in the different areas of the curriculum, because the students are being given "assessments." It is endless. My daughter spoke before the school committee last winter and listed every assessment she had participated in, and every assessment she was going to be participating in for the remainder of the school year. It was an eyeopener. It was (and is) her contention that we cannot expect students to be ready for post-secondary school, and employment when the fundamentals of education are not being taught. She is 14.