Visions, Reality Collide in Common Tests

Angela Brugioni

CA - Curriculum Assessment CA - Common Core Assessments

Sawchuk, S. (2014). Vision, Reality Collide in Common Tests. (cover story). Education Week, 33(29), S8-S12.

This article examines the progress and obstacles that have been helping and hindering the development of assessments for the Common Core by two main coalitions, the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). When these two coalitions won the government bid (of 360 million) to develop assessments they committed to significant design criterion. Some of the original goals that are being met include the use of technology in testing. In the future most students will not be filling in bubbles with No. 2 pencils but will instead be using computers. Also big on the list is the inclusion of more and better performance testing, which means writing essays using one or more (preferably original) resources, analyzing data, explaining mathematical reasoning, and conducting research. Both consortia undertook to create assessments that could be scored artificially, however this has proven difficult when scoring performance based tests, so as of now some pieces will need to be evaluated by trained professionals. Part of the difficulty is due to the short time table of development. Tests are scheduled for release by 2014-15, but the complexity and novelty of this type of assessment design demands more time. Also a concern is the use of technology in testing. Some districts simply may not have the capacity or capability to test with technology.


I welcome a change to the STAR test, I celebrate it. The new assessments may have snags and need some work, but it’s sorely needed in my opinion. A main objective of these redesigned assessments is to provide teachers with timely information and “tools and resources that would help teachers translate year-end testing targets into instructional units.” Tests should be designed to improve and advance instruction to the benefit of learners. One thing I found interesting is that for-profit (and to be fair, some not-for-profit) vendors are waiting in the sidelines for these new tests to fail so they can push their own product. This is a theme I’m finding in many of the articles I’ve reviewed. There is a fear of expensive and questionable test design from third party sources. I guess it’s not surprising that companies are looking to make a profit on the educational system (textbooks, I’m looking at you), but I feel like this would sway the balance of fairness in schools as ultimately those with enough money can buy the best design and those with no funds are left without.