| Author | Message | ||
     R Wilson Citizen Username: Rwilson Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2005 |
The truth, the District doesn’t seem to think parents care to know about, since they never informed you of it, is that there is, and has been for all three years the NJAsk has been administered in this District, a monumental discrepancy between the number of students scoring in the advanced proficiency range on the Language Arts section as compared to those scoring in the advanced proficiency range in Math and Science. For example, on this year’s NJAsk 4 results, which are consistent with prior years, ONLY 4.5% OF THE STUDENTS SCORED IN THE ADVANCED PROFICIENCY RANGE, amounting to just 20 of 442 students district-wide. In contrast, 48.9% of the students scored in the advanced proficiency range on Math section, amounting to 216 of 442 students district-wide and 38.9% of the students scored in the advanced proficiency range on Science section, amounting to 172 of 442 students district-wide. I also learned that the NJAsk, unlike the TerraNova, is not a “norm-based” test, but a “criterion-based” test. A “norm-based” test, such as the TerraNova is designed to provide you with information about how your child’s abilities measure up to his peers. This was why my children’s TerraNova test results could tell me that my children had scored better than 99/98% of their peers. The NJAsk, however is a “criterion-based” test and as such it is specifically not intended to measure a child’s performance in comparison to his peers as the TerraNovas did. Instead it tests to determine mastery of whatever “criteria” is selected. As such, the selection of the “criteria” is what drives the results, not the test taker’s individual abilities in comparison to his peers. As such, no matter how smart a child is in comparison to his peers, if he hasn’t been taught the relevant criteria, he is not going to do well. So, in truth and fact, all the NJAsk really does is grade the District on how well it has taught the criteria it measures. In the case of Math and Science, very well. In the case of Language Arts, clearly not so good. That is all the results mean, nothing more and nothing less. So how did I learn this information if the District didn’t tell me (or any other parent)? After my son scored a 214 on the language arts section at the same time he scored a 283 on the science section and 281 on the math section, and despite its $1000 cost (at a time when I am extremely short of funds) I arranged for my son to have a full comprehensive evaluation for learning disabilities. Previously, based on his discrepant 2005 scores (224 Language Arts, 270 Math), I had expended $450 for an occupational therapy evaluation and treatment but the OT therapist found nothing other than he had bad handwriting. But fortunately, before the date arrived for the latest evaluation, someone to whom I had not actually shown my son’s NJAsk test report to, asked, “how did he do in comparison to his peers.” It was only then that I realized that despite the misleading implication in the report, and despite the implication of the District when it used the NJAsk scores to determine placement in the Enrichment program, the report said ZERO about what my son’s scores meant in comparison to other students. It was then that I remembered the NJ Department of Education website (http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc05/index.html) had test results, and it was only there that I found out the truth regarding the monumental discrepancy in the Language Arts results in comparison to the Math and Science results. So that is how I learned the truth. Not from Dr. Patricia Barker, Director of Special Services, Planning & Assessment for the school district, when I exchanged e-mails with her about my concerns regarding my son’s discrepant scores, and his need for disability testing because of that discrepancy. Nor from James G. Memoli, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum for the school district, when I exchanged e-mails with him in January of this year, about my concerns regarding my son’s discrepant NJAsk scores. Nor from any of the personnel at my son's school when I had an accommodation meeting with them specifically because of his discrepant NJAsk scores and sought time accommodations solely on the basis of those discrepant scores. Despite all those opportunities, not one district person thought I would want to know this crucial information. Instead, I had to dig down through page after page on the Department of Education Website and find it for myself. The DOE website doesn’t yet have this year’s scores, but after I threatened to sue the District for the information since they are required under federal law to provide it to parents, Dr. Barker had her assistant fax me the 2006 results earlier today (4th Grade only mentioned above). Even so, I didn’t get the sense Dr. Barker really wanted to give me them because she first tried to imply the District didn’t yet have them, and only admitted to having them after I questioned her as to why the Department of Education would have been reporting information about the scores to the media earlier this week, if the districts did not have the information. So now you too know this information. And if your child, like mine suffered terribly and needlessly because he or she thought they had failed when they didn’t do as well on the Language Arts section as they did in Math and Science, then make sure that you explain to them that the NJAsk test isn’t about them, it is about the District and if they didn’t do as well in Language Arts it is only because the District has utterly failed to teach the criteria the test measures. If there was a failure, it was the District’s failure, not theirs. And if you too needlessly expended funds for tutoring or disability evaluations, I suggest you send the bills to the District with a request to be reimbursed. As for all the district personnel who didn’t tell me this information when I clearly needed to know it, and wanted to know it, shame on you. Shame on you for making a really bright, sweet little boy suffer the humiliation of thinking he had failed despite all his hard, hard work and effort to do well on the Language Arts test. Shame on you all, what you all did was unconscionable. Unconscionable. | ||
| Monster© Supporter Username: Monster  Post Number: 4607 Registered: 7-2002  |
I knew that, I thought everyone did. I think I figured that out just by reading the information of both tests when sent to us by the school district before each test. | ||
| yabbadabbadoo Citizen Username: Yabbadabbadoo Post Number: 391 Registered: 11-2003  |
Ditto (what Monster said) FF | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12490 Registered: 5-2001 |
Back before the Education section here was changed into the monster it now is, and during the recent BOE elections poor elementary school test scores were discussed in great detail. I think this had something to do with the incumbent candidates for the BOE not being reelected. | ||
| mjh Supporter Username: Mjh Post Number: 763 Registered: 5-2001 |
If your son has a sense of failure, don't you think he got that from you? You are the one reacting to his scores. Yes, I knew this about the test. I also know it's overrated and overemphasized. I do think the LA curriculum is poorly supervised and uneven throughout the district, and that this is much more of a problem than the stupid test. Your son's classroom grades are also an important component of the eligibility for enrichment. You didn't mention how he actually performs in school. If he is performing well in school, why try to find a "disability" because he didn't test well? | ||
| breal Citizen Username: Breal Post Number: 998 Registered: 6-2002 |
I find it unacceptable that only 4.5% of our students scored in the advance proficient range on this test. We have so many "advantaged" students here, highly educable, ready to learn. Yes, we also have plenty of "disadvantaged" students. And yes, the district's focus is on helping more students become proficient after having been not proficient. I know all that stuff. I'm still just really taken aback by that 4.5% figure. Anybody know Montclair's figures? | ||
| Morrisa da Silva Citizen Username: Mod Post Number: 530 Registered: 12-2003 |
BTW It is not unusual for there to be discrepancies between Math/Science abilities and Language Arts Abilities, especially for boys. Many of these discrepancies disappear as the student matures. It sounds to me that R. Wilson jumped to some conclusions in looking for professional evaluations from O.T. and L.D. therapists. Whether the district can and should do better in it's LA curriculum delivery is another issue. | ||
| breal Citizen Username: Breal Post Number: 999 Registered: 6-2002 |
The problem is the curriculum itself, not the delivery of the curriculum. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 9184 Registered: 5-2001  |
As a kid, I was constantly sent for "evaluation" because of the discrepancy between my language arts/social science scores and math/science scores. I consistently tested higher than most other kids in the former and dismally in the latter. By 5th grade, I was pretty much convinced that I was stupid and that I would never be able to do math. My grades thru HS reflected that. Meanwhile, I placed out of Freshman English on the college boards and was given 10 college credits based on the AP exam. Coincidentally, I had learned to read very early and was reading at 8th grade level in 3rd grade. I loved to read; I would hide books behind my math book during class and pay no attention to the teacher. For all the testing and assessments, it was essentially a behavioral issue. In college, I took a statistics class (only because it was required). Something clicked and I found it fascinating. I had the best grades in my class and even tutored. I went on to get a grad degree in quantitative methodology and work as a researcher. I won't pretend that my math skills or interest ever caught up, but the expertise I developed in analytical skills have gotten me far in my career. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to figure out if the kids are interested or engaged in the topics, rather than make them fearful of the subject matter. No child is going to excel in everything. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1978 Registered: 10-2004  |
Yes. Yes. Yes. I have had 2 children pass through our elementary school system. I was terribly disappointed in the program in elementary school and I feel that it did a great diservice to my kids. In effect my kids had to play catch up with LA skills. I am no expert, certainly no where near as knowledgable about the LA programs here as many posters but it doesnt take a genious to figure out that there was a problem. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 3111 Registered: 9-2003  |
Not much better in middle school. I begin to think, though, that for all the brou-ha-ha about "The Curriculum" it's really the lack of supervision of how various teachers choose to teach LA, or The Curriculum that's the problem. I've seen outrageous differences even between 2 teachers teaching the same level. One is pretty rigorous, the other not, with respect to nature/number of writing assignments, quality expectations, etc. Not surprised at all if kids enter high school writing in a very mediocre fashion My least favorite aspect of our schools, but I mostly think we argue about the wrong aspect. I spend more time talking grammar, style, poetic form etc. than my kid gets in school. And this is level 4. | ||
| breal Citizen Username: Breal Post Number: 1000 Registered: 6-2002 |
The curricula are in the libraries of the elementary schools. Don't know about the middle schools. Have a look. | ||
| breal Citizen Username: Breal Post Number: 1001 Registered: 6-2002 |
P.S. Greenetree, I'm glad you posted something. The silence made me worried that things had got bad in Ohio. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 9210 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thanks, Breal. I've actually been posting in the more sedate sections all week. Things are holding steady in OH, which is a good thing. | ||
| doulamomma Citizen Username: Doulamomma Post Number: 1773 Registered: 3-2002 |
FYI, I happened to speak to the district ( Mr. Memoli's secretary) today re. LA enrichment & learned that the software they are using is new & may have a few bugs (she didn't indicate that this had been a problem that they knew about, however). Though they had his correct LA score, they had a zero score for my son on math, incorrectly indicating that he was not tested. Not a big deal - she was very nice and said she would follow up in the next day or so - I faxed over his scores & am not concerned. It might be worth a call to the district if you think your kid should have received an enrichment letter based on scores... | ||
| java Citizen Username: Ctantib Post Number: 2 Registered: 10-2004 |
I have a problem with the lack of information that our district can provide on the NJ ASK language scores. My child's scores on the language section have been significantly lower than on math, scoring proficient in language and advanced proficient in math. That sounds fine, except that by all other measures including the fact that she is an avid reader, she is better at language arts than math. All I want to know is if there is a weakness in one area of the language arts test (some specific writing or comprehension skill or test taking ability) that she needs to work on so that her score fairly represents her ability. I have been told by the administration'not to worry about it, the test is hard, her score is good' How can we improve our district's scores if kids can't get some feedback to acheive the best test scores they are capable of? Has anyone had a similar experience? | ||
| mim Citizen Username: Mim Post Number: 696 Registered: 5-2001 |
Java, I remember my older child, always a decent if not stellar student, describing how hard she found the test. I'm sure it was designed by professionals and is considered age-appropriate, but she described things on it which I knew she was not prepared to do -- to interpret poetry, for instance, which barely made sense to her. I doubted ANY child her age could have excelled at it. So yes, I am inclined to blame the test more than the kids or the system. | ||
| breal Citizen Username: Breal Post Number: 1004 Registered: 6-2002 |
Years ago I was told that our district's L.A. curriculum is not well aligned with the L.A. skills assessed on the NJASK. I suspect that is still the case, but my info is out of date. I also suspect the misalignment is greatest in the area of writing. When my kids were in elementary school, our writing program relied heavily on auto-pilot journaling and lit circles where fellow students, not a teacher, provided the feedback on written work. This was called differentiated instruction. Unfortunately, my kids were the type who tried harder at pieces that they knew a teacher was going to read and grade and whose due date was certain and SOON. They were a very bad fit for our teach-yourself program. I know it's the process that's important, but they didn't enter into it absent clear, specific assignments that weren't endless and pointless. They needed to be writing to a teacher, not to a fellow student or to themselves. They needed to be writing short answers to specific questions about the specific books/passages they were reading. Instead there was a lot of generic "relate text to self" that a teacher never read. Then, in fifth grade they were finally asked to do a book report. It had to be in the shape of a pizza, but still it was a real project and could be about a book that wasn't good for you and it had a real assignment sheet and a real due date and the teacher was really going to read it. Oldest kid crammed about 20,000 words about an Orson Scott Card book onto that pizza box (extra-large). Some slices had second and third pages underneath. This is the same kid who begrudgingly wrote one-sentence post-its "relating text to self" all year in her lit circle. It was wonderful to be reminded of her potential, but it also made me sad, because it was the only book report she'd ever been asked to write in elementary and she was clearly a book report type kid, not a journal-that-never-ends or post-it-that-nobody-reads kid. |
