PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers)

PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers)
Name	PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers)
Formation	2010
Type	Consortium
Headquarters	United States
Region served	United States

Contents

PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) was a consortium of state government agencies, school districts, and education policy stakeholders formed to design standardized assessments aligning K–12 standards with postsecondary expectations. The consortium emerged in the context of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Common Core State Standards Initiative, and federal initiatives led by the United States Department of Education, engaging actors such as the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers in collaborative assessment development.

Background and Development

PARCC was organized after the adoption of the Common Core State Standards Initiative and during debates involving the Race to the Top competition, the United States Department of Education, and state-level offices including the New Jersey Department of Education and the Ohio Department of Education. Initial membership included states like New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Illinois, alongside organizations such as the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Governors Association, and assessment vendors with ties to the American Institutes for Research and Pearson PLC. Development phases intersected with policy milestones like legislative actions in Texas, litigation involving the State of Florida, and advocacy by groups linked to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation.

PARCC assessments targeted English language arts and mathematics across grades 3–11, constructed to reflect the Common Core State Standards Initiative and to provide indicators comparable to benchmarks used by institutions such as the College Board and the ACT, Inc.. Item development involved psychometric methodologies from entities like the Educational Testing Service and American Institutes for Research, drawing on stimulus texts by authors represented in the Library of Congress collections and mathematical tasks resembling problems found in curricula endorsed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Test blueprints incorporated performance-based tasks, computer-based item delivery influenced by technology platforms used by Google LLC, Microsoft, and Adobe Systems, and field testing coordinated with universities including Stanford University and Harvard University.

Operational rollout required procurement processes similar to contracts managed by New York State Education Department and California Department of Education, coordination with testing windows used by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, and integration with student information systems from vendors like PowerSchool and Infinite Campus. Implementation confronted state legislative oversight from bodies such as the New Jersey Legislature and the Illinois General Assembly, teacher collective bargaining concerns involving National Education Association locals, and logistical arrangements with school districts in Jefferson County Public Schools and Chicago Public Schools. Technology pilots were staged in districts partnering with corporations like Intel Corporation and Cisco Systems to address bandwidth and hardware disparities.

Scoring combined automated scoring engines developed by firms akin to Pearson PLC with rubric-based human scoring approaches used by contractors like the Educational Testing Service; results were reported to state education agencies including the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Maryland State Department of Education. Reporting mechanisms sought comparability across jurisdictions by aligning cut scores with college readiness benchmarks similar to those of the ACT, Inc. and the College Board, and by producing dashboards influenced by data visualization practices from SAS Institute and Tableau Software. Accountability reporting intersected with federal reporting requirements under the Every Student Succeeds Act and with state-level accountability frameworks in places like Ohio and Louisiana.

PARCC drew praise and criticism from a range of actors including state governors such as Andrew Cuomo and Rick Scott, national organizations like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, and advocacy groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council and FairTest. Critiques referenced concerns raised in litigation like cases filed in Florida and Indiana, public protests in districts including Wake County Public School System, and media coverage by outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. Supporters cited alignment with standards promoted by entities like the National Governors Association, while opponents invoked privacy and local control issues championed by legislators in Tennessee and North Carolina.

PARCC influenced assessment markets and state policy decisions, prompting some states to adopt or later withdraw participation in favor of alternatives such as the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium or state-specific instruments used by agencies like the Texas Education Agency and the Florida Department of Education. Outcomes included shifts in procurement practice observed in New York, professional development initiatives in partnership with institutions like Teach For America and National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and research studies conducted by universities including University of Michigan and Columbia University assessing impacts on instruction and college readiness. The consortium’s legacy persisted in debates over standardization, assessment technology, and accountability in policymaking forums such as the National Conference of State Legislatures and among civic organizations including the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation.