Skip to main content

Join the Community

or Close


Product Placement on State ELA Test?

Recently there has been a lot of criticism of the "gag rule" imposed on teachers in relation to standardized tests. I wrote about this last year (When Confidentiality Inhibits Problem-Solving) and in 2012 (Why Must We Keep Quiet About the Test?), and this year the AFT has asked Pearson to stop requiring teacher silence. While teachers might not be able to review and discuss the tests, it's near impossible to stop adolescents from criticizing something when they have a strong reaction. Remember when the students blew the whistle on the ridiculous use of the Pineapple story, posting on social media about it, to the point that the press and the state responded? Well, this year, my students shared with me their concerns over another unsettling, though less absurd matter: product placement in the reading passages.

After Day 1 of the NY state ELA test, I asked my first class of students how it had gone for them. This is a temperature check, a form of informal feedback for me. Students shared the usual variety of responses--it was easy, it was hard, it was too long, it was just fine, it was boring, it was not as boring as they expected...

Then one girl said, resolutely, "I thought it was disgusting."

Not about to let her off the hook with such a statement without explanation, I asked her what she meant. "It was full of advertisements," she elaborated, to my surprise.

"Was it?" I asked.

"Yes, the passages kept mentioning brand names like sodas and stuff. I couldn't believe it! It was totally disgusting." There was a murmur from other students.

Another student added, "Yeah, I noticed that too. It was weird. Why did they add all those brands?" I couldn't answer, of course.

This same complaint came up in three out of four of my classes. "I thought it was like a big advertisement," a student in the next class said, unprompted. Students offered details on the specific brands that were mentioned in the testing passages, which I won't repeat here.

I simply want to ask, what is going on?!

Who decided it was ethical to allow a for-profit company, already paid for their work, to shout out commercial brands to millions of children in our public schools through obligatory testing?

How do students benefit from that? Who, outside of Pearson, reviews these tests to make sure they are appropriate? If teachers cannot review and discuss the content of these tests--and I hope that changes soon--what checks and balances arein place to ensure the credibility of these assessments?


Brad Clark commented on April 28, 2014 at 10:09am:

We haven't had that issue in KY

That would be deeply disturbing.  And all that does is add more fuel to the ludricous fire.  Who makes these decisions?

Now I am clearly on the outside looking in, but it seems to me that NY's implementation of the various shifts in the education paradigm (which have been beyond fabulous in KY) have been a series of tragedies.  What gives?  Is my assessment accurate/fair?

Dana Dusbiber commented on April 30, 2014 at 12:47pm:

High School Reading and Writing

This is so timely...

I hope this comment reads as general enough that I don't call attention to my state, California, in a way that makes me guilty of violating the testing "agreement" I must sign to administer the California Standards Test...

While I find what is happening in New York to be alarming and unethical, I am equally dismayed by my own state's use of stale, out-dated and in many cases culturally irrelevant text passages to assess reading comprehension and language use.  It is gross that in the 25 years I have been administering state tests to students, my "progressive" state department of education has not once been inspired enough to actually design an instrument that includes contemporary text passages that the average teenager would want to read.  Imagine what might happen to scores if the tests were designed by people who really care about teenagers and what they are interested in reading!  As it stands, it is a complete scam that people get paid to write the garbage they pass off to us as tests.

Nancy commented on April 30, 2014 at 5:35pm:

We heard the same in NY

Regardless of where you come out on the CCSS, product placements are clearly unacceptable.  Read the quote from a Brooklyn principal (2/3 of the way through) about the use of Nike and Barbie.  Barbie!

Join the Conversation!

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Subscribe to Blogs by Ariel Sacks

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive the latest news and events through email!

Sign Up