Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home

NCLB Outrages

FCAT fiasco points up failures at the top

There are lots of comments and most of them are not by cranks. Here are a few.

Reader Comment: IF we are going to say that the pinnacle achievement of 13 years of schooling is to pass a test, and base everything on that- from students' course options to teacher pay to whether a school is a success or a failure, if so, then shouldn't teachers teach to the test? The entirety of the system is set up in such a way that a teacher simply cannot avoid teaching to the test. Not if they want to continue teaching.

Reader Comment: The truth is the FCAT is flawed. This year they raised the passing grade and increased the grading requirements. One of these two items would be fine, but with two they found out it does not. The education leaders in the state warned the DOE this was going to happen and they did not listen to those that know about education.

Florida 4th grades students are 10th in the nation in Reading and above the nationial average in Math.

Millions wasted on test record profits for these companies. The complete cost of the FCAT was $11 in 2000 we now pay more just to the testing companies. We have had a 270% increase in FCAT cost since 2000.

In 2008 only 38 percent of 10th-graders passed the FCAT. Yet other tests show the average 10th-grader in Florida ranks in the 71st percentile nationally in reading.

Reader Comment: To all Representatives;
It is time to stop the FCAT, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. This test has caused more problems than it has ever solved and continues to do so. It needs to end today no phasing out or wait to replace it. It needs to go now.
I am a grandfather of students in school now, and a previous father of students. What you folks have done with this test is to destroy the community based education, which is more important than somebodyâs profits from it.
Letâs face it this test was developed to create profit for someone and ââ¦we the peopleâ¦â are tired of you folks assisting big business in this matter. The FCAT really stands for âFat-CATSâ.

Bob Schaeffer Comment: Floridians who are fed up with FCAT overuse and misuse should sign the Resolution on High-Stakes Testing


The Florida Board of Education was in crisis mode Tuesday, holding an emergency meeting by telephone to change on the fly the illogical scoring of this year's FCAT writing test. Public anger at the overuse of high-stakes standardized tests finally boiled over, as more than 800 people listened in to the conference call and queued up to question how this mess happened â and what it means for their children and their schools. What it means is that there is too much emphasis on standardized tests and that the state's manipulation of the rules render the test scores meaningless.

Faced with an uprising, the board had little choice but to control the damage and essentially grade on the curve to improve the results. It dropped the passing score to 3 (out of 6) instead of keeping it at a 4. That makes the results look more plausible and avoids the inaccurate perception that student performance dropped off a cliff overnight. But that answer is only a stopgap, and it raises significant issues about the meaning and the value of the FCAT, which affects everything from school grades to teacher bonuses. Those are issues that the board and Education Commission Gerard Robinson need to revisit if Florida's accountability system is to retain any of its quickly collapsing credibility. Robinson's failure to anticipate this mess also erodes confidence in his ability to chart a clear path for education in this state.

The FCAT writing exam itself didn't change. Administered to fourth-, eighth- and 10th-graders, it remains a 45-minute test that begins with a "prompt" that spurs a student to start writing. But two things about the grading changed. Punctuation, spelling and grammar, as well as supporting details, were graded harder, which meant that a passing grade of 4 was more difficult to earn. And each test was marked by two graders instead of one. That's actually an improvement, but it meant that when graders disagreed, they would split the difference and give half-point grades. That effectively lowered the number of passing tests as well.

Then came the fallout. For example, 81 percent of last year's fourth-graders scored 4 or higher. This year, under the tougher rules, only 27 percent did. As the education commissioner admitted, he knew there was a problem because "students didn't overnight become bad writers."

Indeed they didn't. The past two years, the vast majority of students scored right in the middle, in the 3- to 4-point range â 72 percent of fourth-graders last year versus 73 percent this year, for example. While there were more 3's and fewer 4's this year, as one would expect from tougher standards, that's not a sea change. But the scoring rules â which are subjective â made it seem like one. The subjectivity is obvious this year by the number of 3.5's awarded â every one of them represents a disagreement between the two graders. More than one in five fourth-graders got one.

This debacle should reinforce that a school's letter grade is made up of lots of elements that are far from objective measures and may ultimately say little that is meaningful about a school. It's a stew of calculations that results in a simplistic rating that doesn't begin to give parents and students enough information.

As the state moves to common nationally based assessments and appropriate end-of-course exams that test the material that should have been learned in the classroom, officials should be chastened by this fiasco. Schools should be held accountable for student performance, but the measurement needs to be scaled appropriately.

— Editorial
Tampa Bay Times


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.