| Author |
Message |
    
lah
Citizen
Username: Lah
Post Number: 323
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 8:13 am: | 
|
Five days of testing - 2 for LA, 2 for math, 1 for science (this schedule is for 4th graders). Anyone else think this is too much? |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2123
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 8:28 am: |
|
It's stressful. My views on the subject are highly unpopular. I've voiced them at NJEA conventions across a roomful of teachers and have had to make a quick getaway at the end of the meeting. I believe testing helps. I believe it is a valid indicator of a school's effectiveness and students' learning. Ages ago, when I was a student, as tense as testing was (and we had plenty even back in the '60s) I was often relieved to know there would be a record of how much I had learned, and how hard I had worked as a student. Maybe that's not the same for kids who haven't been able to learn as well, or haven't worked as hard, but it's always good to have some proof of knowledge and competence, in writing.
Think of it this way. You take your child to the doctor to have his height, weight, vision, hearing, and other indicators of health and illness measured. This testing is also a measurement. It is a calibration of your child's position on a scale of effectiveness of his learning and your teacher's teaching.
I always want to know how my children are doing.
It's a mother's right.
|
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 1905
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
lah, it is a lot but it is not ALL day. Most teachers give no homework during this week and many allow relaxing activities, movies, games, etc afterward each day. I believe at SB the school social worker does relaxation exercises with the kids each morning prior to the testing. This makes a lot of sense to me. Like tulip I had lots of days of standardized testing during these grades (my school system used the IOWAs at the time.) I always viewed them as a serious challenge, not a horror. But I went into them with a certain level of confidence.
In retrospect the testing was beneficial to me in that a teacher spoke to my parents when the results came back to tell them I was "college material." That was a revelation to my parents, one of whom had not graduated 8th grade and the other having dropped out in 10th, both for financial reasons. (This was back in the 1920s.) For me, this was a big help. But, like tulip, my experience may be colored as more positive because the scores were good. |
shh
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 2296
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
My third grader, who is an ok student (bright and creative, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if she tests well) has been totally not stressed before school and has been excited for the testing all week.
That in and of itself makes me proud. |
mim
Citizen
Username: Mim
Post Number: 423
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Obviously different children will react in different ways. Our older child was pretty preoccupied and anxious about the testing given in third grade, whereas our second has sailed through with hardly a qualm. It's partly their natures, but I'm sure that their teachers' projected attitudes also played a role in their reactions. This is 'high stakes testing,' after all, and teachers/school staff have their own very real anxieties about it, which they inevitably pass on to the kids. |
shestheone
Citizen
Username: Shestheone
Post Number: 124
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
mim,
would you please explain 'high stakes testing'
thank you. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 984
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
..my 3rd grader was just happy not to have homework for a few nights!
No apparent anxiety that I could tell
/p |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2125
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
shestheone:
NJASK is now given to third and fourth graders in NJ public schools, while Terra Nova or other national standardized test is given to second, fifth, sixth and up. These are yearly tests. Eventually, the plan is for NJASK to cover more and more grades, until every grade has a state test. NJASK was written for NJ children, which is significant, because our standards are, in many cases, higher than other states' standards for academic achievement. National tests such as the Terra Nova, also given every year, test the same skills and knowledge as NJASK, meaning, writing, reading, math computation, "number sense" (general math comprehension.) In reading, comprehension and word recognition (letter/sound correlations...phonetic knowledge) are tested.
These tests are called "high stakes" because the NCLB, teacher ratings in some schools, school performance for Adequate Yearly Peformance (No Child Left Behind) district statistics are all measured around these scores. Therefore, the tests are significant for everyone from realtors to principals to superintendents to parents to children, themselves.
They help in determining special needs as well, as strengths and weaknesses in various academic areas can be assessed. They help teachers, most of all, to see where each child needs assistance.
They run for a series of days, to ensure that all competencies are measured, as well as the fact that a child may do well one day and not the next, so to get a clearer picture of a child's true ability, it makes more sense to span a time period during the week.
This is a hasty summary, but I hope it helps. |
mjh
Citizen
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 61
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Tulip;
I'd like to hear more about your earlier post. Are the teachers you spoke of reacting more to the "high stakes" issue more than the testing itself? Even though I would agree that testing has value, I can't agree with test results being the sole indicator of a school or a teacher's performance. I guess the problem comes with comparing districts---e.g. comparing Westfield to M/SO and consequently criticizing our system for it's lower scores.
Plenty of people equate lower scores with lower quality schools, but do you feel this is completely fair? I guess as a Clinton parent, I want to argue against comparing our scores to Westfield, which seems like comparing apples to oranges in many respects.
I'm absolutely NOT arguing that Clinton and the rest of our district shouldn't do everything possible to raise the level of achievement and "close the gap", but we're not alone in having difficulty accomplishing this. Does that mean we shouldn't send our kids to Clinton? In thinking it over, I suppose I would pull my child out of the school pretty quickly (luckily, I have a choice) were my child not thriving, but we elect to remain at what I think is a good school because he's excelling there. Aren't teachers reacting to lower scores=bad teachers, which paints a pretty broad brush. I would suppose that teachers would like to see some more nuance, less cut/dry, good school=good scores, bad school=not so good. That's certainly what I'd like to see, based only upon our personal experiences with Clinton and time spent reading and thinking about it. I'm certainly not an expert in the field.
Geez, I need to get back to work!
Mary Jo |
finnegan
Supporter
Username: Finnegan
Post Number: 200
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Just a small rant: The thing that bugs me about this test is that my 5th grader is not getting Enrichment or Instrumental music today, presumably because 5th graders moving around the school for these activities might be disruptive to the classes being tested. And, of course, with next Friday off, they'll miss out on another week of both of these favorite activities. Oh, well. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2126
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
These test scores are absolutely not the whole picture. No quantitative measure is ever the whole picture. It's the way society uses the test results that blows them out of proportion, hence "high stakes" and irrationally hyped as the final word as to effectiveness of schools, districts, teachers, etc.,etc. Still, not wanting to toss the tests out because the results may be abused, we need the results for the reasons I mentioned. |
lah
Citizen
Username: Lah
Post Number: 324
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Frankly, I feel that two weeks have now been devoted to NJASK. Last week, it was IMHO "kill & drill". Every day I heard complaints about having to prepare for this exam. And last week, he was very keyed up and stressed out. Surprisingly, he has taken this week in stride (in terms of stress), but that was only after we have had numerous conversations where I basically said that I didn't care what score he got and that it really wouldn't affect anything big in his life (like where he'll go to college).
I recognize that they are 1/2 day exams, but it adds up to 2 1/2 days of testing. I am ok with testing, but even the SATs don't take that long. There has to be some cost/benefit to this. I see lots of costs (on many different fronts). What is the incremental benefit of such a long test vs. a short one? |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2127
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
1) Comprehensiveness
2) to find out strengths and weaknesses for each child
3) to develop effective educational programming and curriculum
It makes a map.
Sorry for the brevity. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2128
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
I must add, the timing of the test, to end as spring climbs over the hills, is making for some hysterical children at this moment in my neck of the woods!! |
mjh
Citizen
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 62
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Tulip: How does your point #2 work if the teacher never sees individual test results. I understood teachers don't get the results? |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2129
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
mjh:
I now have time to write a decent response.
To answer some of your questions, last one first to the best of my ability:
1)I was under the impression teachers would see individual test results. In our district they do, and as I recall, in SOMSD they do, as well, but maybe there's a new policy. I would be surprised if they weren't allowed to see results.
I am curious as to where you heard they would not see results. Maybe you are thinking about teachers being able to see evaluations..for special ed?
2) Many teachers are understandably frustrated with high stakes testing, because it could pin their very pay rate to the results of students' performance. They also don't like the fact that a few days of testing add up to an assessment of an entire year's work. All of this is totally understandable from my perspective, but I have been a teacher. So when I mentioned at the NJEA, notoriously not fond of high stakes testing, as a group, that I understand and appreciate why we do need test results, the statement was not joyously received.
In my line of work, as a learning consultant, I really need to see the results of this testing, because it gives me a starting point to see how the student fares in a regular education setting. How much has he learned? How much does he recall? Is there a pattern to his performance?
Also, Adequate Yearly Progress measures the effectiveness of the program in the school, and in the district, and is based on these scores. Even if No Child Left Behind were cancelled today, New Jersey would have an assessment for students to measure their learning. It's just needed, to put all students on the same measure, and see how well their schools are working. No, it's not the same as visiting the school, interviewing the students, gaining qualitative information on how effective their teachers are in imparting the love of learning and other immeasurable, yet essential elements of education. However, these tests are a start, as awkward and insufficient as it may be.
|
lah
Citizen
Username: Lah
Post Number: 325
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
|
What about parents? Can we see detailed results? Last year, we got some high level categories, but not detailed results. Really not helpful to me. If the teacher got detailed results, they certainly did not share them with parents, and did not indicate where we should focus our kids' efforts.
Again, I think that testing in general is a good thing, but I question how a college can determine a student's fate on less than one day's testing, yet our 4th graders need 2 1/2 full days. Seems out of proportion. Just not yet convinced that this amount of effort is worth it. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2130
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
lah, Excuse me, but how can you be so misinformed? Why don't you call your child's guidance counselor? You can see last year's results. Your children's files are supposed to be open to you. I know at MMS parents were able to see their children's scores. In fact, they are sent to parents in the mail in most districts. You mean Maplewood doesn't mail them to you?
By the way, results are specific to different skills involved in reading, writing and math. |
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1899
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:40 pm: |
|
This just in--- released by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
The Education Policy Studies Laboratory (EPSL)
The Inevitable Corruption of Indicators and Educators Through High-Stakes Testing
EAST LANSING, Mich. (Friday, March 18, 2005)—America’s public schools are
setting goals and making harmful, irreversible decisions based on test results that in an increasing number of cases can’t be trusted, said an independent study from the Education Policy Research Unit at Arizona State University.
The report, made possible by a grant from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, determined that the pressure of high-stakes tests is forcing school districts to take short cuts to avoid being labeled as failing for not meeting certain benchmarks. As a result, their scores are subject to corruption.
“Policy makers have oversold the public on the notion that high-stakes test scores are the best way to hold schools accountable,” said Teri Moblo, director of the Great Lakes Center. “Because of No Child Left Behind and other measures, school districts know that the results of one or two tests determine if they are considered successful. This creates enormous pressure on educators and their students, because long-term decisions are being made based on scores that can’t be trusted.”
David Berliner and Sharon Nichols, co-authors of the report, “The Inevitable Corruption of Indicators and Educators Through High-Stakes Testing,” point to examples of how unbridled pressure to reach unrealistic goals, whether in the boardroom, on the playing field, or in our own government, can inevitably lead to a “beat-the-system” mentality.
“Now we see this kind of mentality seeping into our schools, where future generations are training merely to beat the system,” Berliner said.“Learning subject matter in depth is no longer the goal of schools in high-stakes states. We are witnessing proof of a well-known social science law, which basically says the greater the pressure to perform at a certain level, the more likely people will find a way to distort and corrupt the system to achieve favorable results.”
Dr. Berliner suggests scrapping high-stakes tests and building an accountability system that is less inviting to cheating and distortions, and better measures students’ and schools’ achievement. A second report on high-stakes testing commissioned by the Great Lakes Center due out in the coming weeks will look at the relationship between the pressures to succeed on high-stakes tests in a particular state, and whether that pressure actually does improve student learning.
In this study, however, the researchers looked at other effects that high-stakes tests have on our nation’s school systems. Hundreds of news articles about high-stakes testing were examined. “Because it would be impossible to comprehensively catalogue every incident where high-stakes testing led to serious problems, our survey seems only to have uncovered the tip of the iceberg,” said Berliner.
Some of the findings included:
- Teachers’ and administrators’ inability to be flexible about test administration meant a 14-year-old student whose brother was recently murdered was not allowed to be excused from a test;
- Eighty percent of North Carolina’s elementary school teachers report they spent more than 20 percent of their total teaching time practicing for high-stakes tests;
- In New York, city school officials were accused of pushing thousands of students out of high school and into high school equivalency programs. Students who enrolled in such programs did not count as dropouts and didn’t have to pass the Regents’ exams necessary for a high school diploma; and
-A Georgia science teacher estimated 10 percent of the questions on the science section lacked a “best” answer because of errors in the information provided to students. State administrators acknowledged the errors even as some students failed to receive a high school diploma because they didn’t pass the tests.
“Teachers are desperate to help their students and schools succeed. We found example after example where teachers worked very hard to help students from challenged schools raise their scores, but in the end they were still labeled as failing,” said Berliner.
Drs. Berliner and Nichols identified 10 trends that outline the consequences of high-stakes testing, which ultimately all negatively impact the quality of education for our nation’s children. The trends are:
• Administrator and Teacher Cheating;
• Student Cheating;
• Exclusion of Low-Performance Students from Testing;
• Misrepresentation of Student Dropouts;
• Teaching to the Test;
• Narrowing the Curriculum;
• Conflicting Accountability Ratings;
• Questions about the Meaning of Proficiency;
• Declining Teacher Morale; and
• Score Reporting Errors.
The full report is available at www.greatlakescenter.org.
This document is also available on the web at:
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0503-101-EPRU.pdf
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2132
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 1:59 am: |
|
nan:
Anyone can find "research" supporting his or her view.
At least, teachers and parents have a rubric for educational progress for their children, whatever other catastrophes that having academic standards might bring. |
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1900
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 7:47 am: |
|
Tulip,
I agree with the basic notions of assessment, that I think you are referring to. Good teachers always assess children and then teach based on that and then assess again to see how learning has occurred. But, there is a big leap from useful classroom assessments to nonstop drill and kill and in real high stakes testing where children are not allowed to graduate to the next grade based on the outcome of a single test and whole school districts are labeled as failing.
In some states--reportedly Texas and California--all they do is test prep and if the kids don't get a specific score on the third grade test they don't get to go to fourth grade, no matter what their teacher might say. Kids should not be subjected to that kind of stress. Neither should school districts be told to either get 100% of the kids proficient or else. Standardized tests are never going to close the Achievement gap.
Standardized tests can provide some information about what students know and how they are doing on certain kinds of tasks. And there is nothing wrong with including that kind of short, bubble-in your answer and write quickly under the gun kind of skill as part of a child's learning experience. It's a useful thing to know how to do, and some seem to have a real knack it and enjoy it like the kind of pleasure you get from crossword puzzles. But, given the huge political stakes for communities and teachers, you have to wonder if it is worth all the time spent trying to game the system and how much real learning occurs.
I was relieved that my son did OK with all the test prep he had and seemed to feel confident about his ability to take the NJASK. But, I'm wondering how he's going to react next year in 4th grade when the same thing happens again and the novelty has worn off. I'm also disappointed that we got a notice saying that due to the NJASK's the Invention Convention was postponed and I'm wondering what else was cut out to make room for the all the drill and kill. I know he's not had a reading response journal in over a month and the Battle of the Books has been forgotten. I'd like to see what else my kid has missed before I decide that what he got was more valuable.
The narrowing of the curriculum for test prep is a national trend. What do you have say to schools that eliminate art, music, recess, etc., just to drill or those tests? That's standard operating procedure in many districts and could happen here, as well.
The tests themselves are also questionable and often contain material that is above grade level or poorly written or confusing. How does testing 3rd grade children with 4th+ grade material that they have not even learned yet tell you anything about children's abilities? That's something you find regularly on off-the-shelf tests. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 7:56 am: |
|
The tests are a great equalizer. When you're sitting at that table, no one cares what you look like, what your views are, how you behaved in class, or anything else. The are far more reliable than a teacher's assessment
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2133
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
nan: What I say is,
1)wait until you see the NJPass, which is coming on the horizon, and is much more difficult that the NJASK.
2)NJASK has open-ended writing tasks, which should be central to testing, if children in this country are going to be expected to write.
3) I hate to say it, but this is a means toward ensuring that NJ core curriculum goals are addressed in every classroom. Some teachers can tend to overlook certain academic objectives, or focus more on some than others, and this controls for that tendency.
4) How districts use testing, how they design their schedules around it, and how states allow the testing to fit in, or not, with other state educational goals, is determined at the state, county, local administrative levels. If administrators are going about it in an ineffective or awkward way, perhaps it is because they were never before tasked to this extent to produce verifiable results in as many children as possible, and they just can't figure out how to do it. What a sad commentary. Doesn't mean they shouldn't start figuring out how to do it.
5) No law states that art, music, recess, etc. have to be eliminated. That's a local choice. If, however, children are behind in reading, writing and math, choices need to be made. Replacement of one set of classes for others can be temporary, I would think.
In sum, maybe we can't provide Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Emile for every child in America. We have to provide the foundations for as many children as possible.
Have you read A Nation at Risk? If you go to the cite for NJ State Core Curriculum Content Standards, you will see a reference to this study, which found just how "backward" (for want of a better word) our entire nation is in basic reading, writing and math skills and knowledge. It's alarming, and on such a massive scale. Do you, nan, propose that we do nothing about it, in favor of music, art, recess? (I'm sure you wouldn't.)
The setting and schedule for state testing have to improve, obviously, for many states. Administrators and elected officials are not educators. Judges and magistrates are not educators. They don't necessarily understand the gravity of the problem, so maybe they create conflict where none needs to be, just to drive home their dissatisfaction with accountability in public education, who knows?
Ironically, "a thorough and efficient education" is a phrase from 19th century planners in New Jersey, who were readying the state for public education, and drawing a charter for it. This is where public education began:
Montagnard: Well, we agree again!!! And children being tested in this way have anonymity, so their evaluators don't know them, personally. It makes for much more objectivity in assessment.
|
lah
Citizen
Username: Lah
Post Number: 327
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Sorry, tulip. I didn't realize that my post last night would sound so harsh (although with a night's rest I realize it does). I guess I find it frustrating to find out that NJASK seems to provide teachers with more details than it does the parents and I'm not sure how parents are supposed to find this out (but thanks for letting us know). I will try to pursue this when I get the results back this year (although if I remember correctly, they'll come out just when we break for summer). |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2134
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
lah:
Actually, since children took this test in March, you may get results a little earlier than we do for Terra Novas, which came out in April. Your child's guidance counselor is the one to contact to tell you the schedule. They can, and often do, arrange for meetings with parents and teachers. |
mjh
Citizen
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 64
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
Tulip,
My son (3rd grade) told me his teacher said he never ever sees the results. It's certainly possible that he misunderstood, so I'll try to check it out next week. Thank you for your thoughtful replies (and Nan and others)....I've got to run for now, but I'm thinking it over.
Mary Jo |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2135
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:47 am: |
|
mjh:
Fascinating!! I suppose that's possible, but in several districts I know, results are kept in a "cumulative file" and if you make an appointment with guidance, ask for the teacher to be present, you could at least review the results.
I have no idea what your district is going to do with the results, in all honesty. |
lah
Citizen
Username: Lah
Post Number: 328
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
tulip, you've consulted in SOMA, right? Do we have guidance counselors in the elementary schools? (If so, they keep this fact a secret from the parents). I guess I can try calling the school to find out who this is. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2138
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Sorry, I don't think they have them in the elementary schools, just middle schools. I'd call the principal's secretary, and tell her that you want to discuss your child's test results. Ask her when they will be available, and with whom you should speak. If not, you can actually go to the main office and ask the secretary, or ask to speak to the principal. Your tax dollars pay for that school. Feel empowered to go there and ask your questions. They are all pretty nice people. |
suzanneng
Citizen
Username: Suzanneng
Post Number: 323
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Tulip is correct. The elementary schools do not have guidance counselors. |
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1903
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 9:16 pm: |
|
Montagnard wrote:
quote:The tests are a great equalizer. When you're sitting at that table, no one cares what you look like, what your views are, how you behaved in class, or anything else. The are far more reliable than a teacher's assessment.
First, what's wrong with a teacher's assessment taking into account what you look like, what your views are and how you behaved in class? That's what effective teachers do--they bond with and watch your kids closely and understand them in a deep, complex way that no standardized test ever could. (note-I know teachers may have preferences and prejedices but that's a different discussion than this one).
Teachers know how hard students work and how a task may be a huge accomplishment for one student and a slacking off for another. The test would rate them both the same for getting the answer correct.
If I had a choice between an evaluation from a skilled teacher and a standardized test, I'd pick the teacher every time.
Of course it's always good to get a second opinion and that that’s what standardized tests are designed for. But, that's not what they are being used for today, when they function primarily as comparisons of winners and loosers. They are not used to inform instruction-except for changing next year's test prep sessions. The results of the NJASK won't be available until the end of the school year. So, they are of diminished use to the teachers for planning instruction.
Also, you should know that despite what you might think standardized tests are NOT objective. The cut-off scores for levels such as proficient, or partially proficient are not based on any real marker of developmental progression or study or whatever. They are arbitrarily set and sometimes politically motivated as well. If you want everyone in your country to look like a genius you set the levels low. If you want to attack public schools as abject failures you set the levels very, very high. Then you can, with confidence, make claims that 40% of all American children can't read on a basic level.
Sound familiar?
It should--we are talking about the NAEP reading test, which is administered all over the country every few years to assess national reading levels. This test is notoriously corrupt, and its set levels have been called "fundamentally flawed" by the National Academy of Science, the National Academy of Education, and the Government Accounting Office.
But, last week that did not stop Diane Ratvich, who knows about these warnings, to declare in an NYTs editorial that our country’s ability to teach reading is a dire failure. It is always helpful to have that kind of evidence when you want to plaster your conservative agenda on to other people’s notions of common sense.
If our country was truly horrendous at teaching reading, then I'd like to know how we do so outstanding on international comparisons of reading levels. For example, one year the NEAP declared that only 32% of children were proficient in reading and we ranked second among 27 countries.
State scores are also not equal. You might be advanced proficient in one state and below proficient in another. Depends on if your Governor does not want to put any money into education and needs to pump up the scores or if your Governor wants to brag about how tough it is in his state at the next Business Roundtable meeting.
These tests are about politics, not children.
|
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1904
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 10:45 pm: |
|
Tulip,
I answered some of the 3rd grade NJASK prep materials and got them wrong.
There was one where you needed to count how many mice were in the excerpt and I came up with two. My son showed me how he arrived at the correct answer(verified by his teacher) and there were five. Now I think we both were wrong. I’m willing to bet that a question like that could keep a class of graduate philosophy students in discussion for a week.
Then there was another example where we were supposed to judge if the story was “serious” or “accepting” or something like that. I had no idea, although I’d narrowed it down to those two as had my son. We had an engaging debate while trying to figure it out, but I’d hate to think he’d be held back in 3rd grade on account of that question.
Of course we don’t know if the questions on the real test are like this and that’s part of the problem. How can you support a test as effective or useful if you can’t even see it or discuss what’s on it? What if the questions are all confusing? What if the material is above 3rd grade level? I’m asking you again--do you think 3rd graders should be held back because they were not proficient on tests continuing 4th grade + material?
I don’t see how a greater focus on NJ Core Curriculum goals is going to deal with this issue. What specifically do you mean by this? Do the goals show you how to answer poorly written or nonsense questions? Do the goals show 3rd graders how to do 4th grade math?
And why are you asking me if I’ve read “A Nation at Risk?” I've mentioned it on line at least 10 times and don't you remember the huge argument we got into over that document a while back?
Maybe this will jog your memory: Gerald Bracy’s critique (April Foolishness: The 20th Anniversary of A Nation at Risk: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0304bra.htm) which pointed out how that 1980's document was all propaganda. Bracey debunked the myth of correlating children’s test scores to national productivity rates.
I seem to recall that you took umbridge at the fact that Bracey credited Lawrence Cremin, your mentor at Columbia, with being one of the few in the 1980's to sniff out the BS on Nation at Risk. You did not believe that Cremin could have said such a thing about a document in which you profess so much faith.
Anyway, just to give an update, Bracy reused that Cremin quote again last week when debunking Bill Gate’s 2005 version of A Nation at Risk. I posted the whole piece on another thread, but I'll just stick the Cremin piece in here:
quote: "American economic competitiveness with Japan and other nations is to a considerable degree a function of monetary, trade, and industrial policy, and of decisions made by the President and Congress, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, and Labor. Therefore, to conclude that problems of international competitiveness can be solved by educational reform, especially educational reform defined solely as school reform, is not merely utopian and millennialist, it is at best a foolish and at worst a crass effort to direct attention away from those truly responsible for doing something about competitiveness and to lay the burden instead on the schools. It is a device that has been used repeatedly in the history of American education."
Lawrence Cremin
Popular Education and Its Discontents, 1989, p. 102-103.
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2142
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 1:05 am: |
|
You raise some excellent points. It's just that I have for a long time witnessed the efficiency and good predictive value of standardized tests other than NJASK, and even NJASK, to identify strengths and weaknesses in a child's skill base and comprehension. I tend to be somewhat linear in my thinking on this. If it works, use it.
Maybe there's a better instrument that NJASK. For now, let's try it.
PS, I wish Larry Cremin had been my "mentor," but he was certainly a force in the community.
I tend to agree with the statement you quoted. I am more interested in the information provided by the tests than I am with whether the long-term social dynamic that results from its use helps correct the "achievement gap." There's more than one definition of reform. I don't want to begin another verbal sparring match, so let this suffice. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2143
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Do the goals show 3rd graders how to do 4th grade math?
They present goals and objectives for 3rd and 4th grade math. Look at your website citation, and follow it to "math" and "goals for 3rd grade" then "goals for 4th grade."
They are very specific for each grade level, each academic area.
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1475
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 8:25 am: |
|
It's also important not to idealize teachers. From what I have observed in my own education and my children's education, only about half could be described as caring and competent, and some were downright destructive.
I would concede that the best teacher assessment is better than the best test, but in the practical world the test is more reliable. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page