tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14707730.post8562143019477242842..comments2024-02-24T19:49:45.687-05:00Comments on Schools Matter: FairTest's Open Letter to the President-ElectJames Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04462754705431590571noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14707730.post-66439038341673437022009-01-23T15:24:00.000-05:002009-01-23T15:24:00.000-05:00Mr. Schutz,Looking at the Demo-Ad, you appear to b...Mr. Schutz,<BR/><BR/>Looking at the Demo-Ad, you appear to be yet another disaster-capitalist profiteer feeding upon the damage done by NCLB.<BR/><BR/>I have had much experience with companies such as yours appear to be--Action Learning, LearningFocused, Dataworks, ActiveBoard, etc etc<BR/><BR/>I have found most of the products to be "trendy"and of dubious lasting value;It all seems to be just another attempt to mold schools into a business model, AND MAKE A MINT OFF THE TAXPAYER <BR/>IN THE PROCESS.<BR/><BR/>(Funny, the American Business Model is struggling right now--Perhaps, it might not be such a good model after all;Perhaps Businesspeople ought to be overseen by Educators!).<BR/><BR/>Have you taken any taxpayer dollars yet, <BR/>Mr. Schutz?<BR/><BR/>How much?<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry,but you just appear to me to be a sympathizer of NCLB because you can profit <BR/>off it.<BR/><BR/>It just looks that way to me.<BR/><BR/>I still don't feel we are really on the same side as you characterize.<BR/><BR/>Please set me straight, and feel free to throw in an ad-hominem or 2.<BR/><BR/>I'll be honest--I have no love or sympathy for anyone who sees value in NCLB.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>-niktoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14707730.post-16997214599533780482009-01-23T12:13:00.000-05:002009-01-23T12:13:00.000-05:00Well, we are talking past each other Nitko. I agr...Well, we are talking past each other Nitko. I agree with everything you say, (ignoring the ad hominum asides you throw in.) My only departure would be to stop short of lumping all the services you list into an index. Each deserves acknowledgment and management.<BR/><BR/>Actually, I've worked with others to develop a prototype for how to go about doing this. It's accessible at:<BR/><BR/>www.3RsPlus.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14707730.post-47428946197466277172009-01-22T12:08:00.000-05:002009-01-22T12:08:00.000-05:00Mr. Schutz,After NCLB is eliminated, Public School...Mr. Schutz,<BR/><BR/>After NCLB is eliminated, Public Schools should be evaluated on a multi-faceted INDEX of the many things a Public school is impelled to do, such as:<BR/> Counseling services (beyond mere scheduling), tutoring, special classes, diverse curriculum, social services rendered, adult school, classes aimed at educating parents on their responsibilities, supplying books and materials to all kids, communicating with families in the community, employing businesses in the community in educational efforts, etc etc etc etc etc <BR/><BR/>This would take the place of using, in essence, ONE SIMPLE NUMBER to evaluate a whole, complex school.<BR/><BR/>A single critical number is NOT a person, nor is it a school.<BR/><BR/>And YOU seem confused about the difference between memorization of rote facts and actual, conceptual, learning.<BR/><BR/>Example: 1066-date of the Battle of Hastings.<BR/>Easily memorized, easily forgotten.<BR/><BR/>But the real issue is: What significance did the battle have on our history?<BR/>Multiple-choice tests often fail badly in areas<BR/>such as these.<BR/><BR/>Conceptual questions are best handled <BR/>in an essay.<BR/><BR/>Come on, Mr. Schutz you can't really be confused about that, can you?<BR/><BR/>NCLB is a disaster, period.<BR/><BR/>If you don't think so, then perhaps you are more worried about your future stock portfolio than the fate of Public Education, no?<BR/><BR/>Reforming something as ideologically cynical and toxic as NCLB is akin to reforming Nazism or the KKK philosophy.<BR/><BR/>Sorry to go all Godwin's Law on you, but...<BR/>Just how do you DO that?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I would have to say, with all due respect sir, that if you really have bought-in to all the politically-motivated NCLB claptrap, then I wish all YOUR children to be thoroughly educated in multiple-choice-type thinking and little else.<BR/><BR/>That would be wonderful, don't you think?<BR/><BR/>Please think harder about what you <BR/>are defending.<BR/><BR/>IMO, with all due respect, you are not doing that at this time.<BR/><BR/><BR/>-niktoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14707730.post-38304365878733094092009-01-20T19:07:00.000-05:002009-01-20T19:07:00.000-05:00Hmm, Nitko. You've fingered the wrong factor. Mu...Hmm, Nitko. You've fingered the wrong factor. Multiple choice questions CAN be used to evaluate a wide spectrum. (Your distinction between learning and achievement eludes me)<BR/><BR/>NCLB is about teaching all kids to read and to do math. There certainly are rational arguments for those aspirations.<BR/><BR/>My suggestion for accomplishing the aspirations is: apply the commonplace considerations:reliability of effects, time, and cost. <BR/><BR/>What are your suggestions after "putting NCLB out of its misery"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14707730.post-39567662461974227352009-01-20T12:52:00.000-05:002009-01-20T12:52:00.000-05:00That previous post appears quite lovely with impre...That previous post appears quite lovely with impressive-sounding technical jargon that actually say very little, but does provide a baffling cover for more BS arguments.<BR/><BR/>NCLB is a disaster because IT DEPENDS ON MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS TO EVALUATE A WIDE SPECTRUM OF LEARNING AND ACHIEVEMENT.<BR/><BR/>NCLB lacks ANY validity at all because of this.<BR/><BR/>NCLB cannot be repaired--It can only be put <BR/>out of its misery. <BR/><BR/>There is no rational defense of NCLB---ONLY dishonest, BS arguments that never stand <BR/>up to scrutiny.<BR/><BR/>-niktoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14707730.post-35666961367061754982009-01-19T10:54:00.000-05:002009-01-19T10:54:00.000-05:00The devil is in the details (DD) of the Fair Test ...The devil is in the details (DD) of the Fair Test Alliance (FTA) recommendations. (For space reasons, I’ll focus on reading, but the same logic is applicable to math:<BR/><BR/>FTA 1: “Replace the law's arbitrary proficiency targets with ambitious achievement targets based on rates of success actually achieved by the most effective public schools.”<BR/><BR/>DD 1: The commitment to teach all kids to read is achievable. But if this job is not delivered by Grade 3 at the latest, a child is almost irretrievably an instructional casualty. NCLB begins testing at that point. What is being measured is termed “comprehension” but the tests correlate as high with socioeconomic status as the reliability of the test allows.<BR/><BR/>FTA 2: “Allow states to measure progress by using students' growth in achievement as well as their performance in relation to pre-determined levels of academic proficiency.” <BR/><BR/>DD 2: NCLB mandates that achievement be reported in terms of “grade levels” that are defined only in terms of the test characteristics, not in transparent acquisition of reading expertise. “Proficiency” is reported using arbitrarily-set cut scores on an ungrounded statistical scale. Given DD 1, the only “growth” is error variance. The “progress” will track differences in SES census units as well as it will the acquisition of reading expertise.<BR/><BR/>FTA 3: “Ensure that states and school districts regularly report to the government and the public their progress in implementing systemic changes to enhance educator, family, and community capacity to improve student learning.”<BR/><BR/>DD 3: Schools are being paid to “improve student learning”—by teaching kids to read. No further eyewash is needed.<BR/><BR/>FTA 4: “Provide a comprehensive picture of students' and schools' performance by moving from an overwhelming reliance on standardized tests to using multiple indicators of student achievement in addition to these tests.”<BR/><BR/>DD 4: Add to the testing burden? Are you kidding? It’s simple to determine if a kid can read. You put a text containing words that are within the child’s spoken vocabulary in front of the kid, and say “Read this and tell me what it says.” A kid who can do this can read. The crux is what to do with kids who can’t read. But that’s a matter of instruction, not testing.<BR/><BR/>FTA 5: “Fund research and development of more effective accountability systems that better meet the goal of high academic achievement for all children.”<BR/><BR/>DD 5:”More research is needed” is the classical cop out in educational research. It’s pie in the sky, and this is now. <BR/><BR/>FTA 6: “Help states develop assessment systems that include district and school-based measures in order to provide better, more timely information about student learning.”<BR/><BR/>DD 6: Translation: After researchers have had their piece of the pie, cut another piece for state educrats.<BR/><BR/>FTA 7: “Strengthen enforcement of NCLB provisions requiring that assessments must:<BR/>• Be aligned with state content and achievement standards; <BR/>• Be used for purposes for which they are valid and reliable; <BR/>• Be consistent with nationally recognized professional and technical standards; <BR/>• Be of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under the Act; <BR/>• Provide multiple, up-to-date measures of student performance including measures that assess higher order thinking skills and understanding; and <BR/>• Provide useful diagnostic information to improve teaching and learning.” <BR/>DD 7: Empty “professional” piety.<BR/><BR/>FTA 8: “Decrease the testing burden on states, schools and districts by allowing states to assess students annually in selected grades in elementary, middle schools, and high schools.”<BR/><BR/>FTA 8: “Decrease the testing burden on states, schools and districts by allowing states to assess students annually in selected grades in elementary, middle schools, and high schools.”<BR/><BR/>DD 8 Play DD 1 and 4 again, Sam.<BR/><BR/>The rest of the FTA recs are combination of pork barrel and protect-your-ass provisions.<BR/><BR/>Can “150 national civil rights, education, religious, parent, labor, children’s, and civic organizations” be wrong? I’ll let the reader decide. “Wrong” is the wrong word, actually. It’s just that the statement doesn’t tell the President what the country will get if the recommendations were to be adopted. The statement is Alliance-serving, but not student, school, or citizenry serving.<BR/><BR/>More homework is needed. To improve the productivity of American el-hi schooling, the commonplace considerations are: reliability of effects, time, and cost. Applying these straightforward standards would indeed provide Change to accomplish the worthy aspirations of NCLB, in less time and at lower cost.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com