Re: Is "Grade Level" A Load of Hooey?

[Peter Campbell <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:20 PM, gerald bracey wrote:

> Peter is right that "grade level" has traditionally been defined
> as the score of the average child in a given grade on a norm- 
> referenced test
> (NRT).  It is thus a floating standard and might be great or  
> awful.  But
> virtually no one uses NRT's anymore so that def. is not available.   
> Paige
> and Spellings changed the word "proficiency" in NCLB to "grade level"
> thereby giving us 50 definitions of grade level--grade level is  
> whatever a
> state defines as proficient--and since everyone must be proficient  
> by 2014,
> it is attainable by all (theoretically).

Jerry - I've read in different places that criterion-referenced  
tests/ standards-based tests are just NRT's in sheep's clothing. Any  
validity to that claim? With NRT's, my understanding is the results  
are distributed along a normalized curve. So there's the the usual  
distribution of scores, i.e, half above and half below grade level.  
But then the cut score is decided upon after the results of the tests  
come in. So you have, on the one hand, a methodology in the creation  
of the tests that assures a normalized distribution, but then a  
little statistical trickery after the fact that assures a higher  
passing rate above the cut score. I'd appreciate getting some clarity  
on this. It's still muddy to me.

> On the other hand, given some of the scenarios Linda Perlstein  
> describes in
> Tested: One American School Struggles to Make the Grade, it is hard  
> to argue
> that these kids are on a "continuum" of any kind.  They not only  
> don't know
> the words associated with the images they're expected to respond to in
> Dibels, many don't have a clue about what reading involves.  I  
> agree, Peter,
> that "they are where they are" but it's not as simple as the  
> concept of a
> continuum would make it seem.  "Managing a class means making a  
> constant
> stream of decisions about which misbehaviors to address and which  
> to ignore"
> (p. 111).  If you read her chapter where she goes to a nearby  
> wealthy school
> (she spent over a year in the poor one), you come away thinking  
> "different
> worlds", not continuum.

Well, it's still where they are, isn't it? I've read Perlstein's book  
and was struck by what the school did to the kids that were "behind."  
In reading this book, I was saddened, enraged, and disgusted. After  
being exposed to a constant regimen of "BCR's" (brief constructed  
responses), decoding drills, and endless test prep, it would be  
surprising if these kids ever wanted to read anything ever again.  
Thus my point: let's not employ punitive pedagogy that makes the  
situation even worse than it already is.


> I don't think there is a press that "ALL kids have to be equally  
> good at
> reading."  Even NCLB doesn't require that.

NCLB requires that all kids be proficient/at grade level by 2014.

> It is hard to know what reading
> level is sufficient to cope with the real world because reading is  
> only one
> way adults gather the information they need.  That's probably why  
> people who
> don't score high in adult literacy tests (which have many flaws) don't
> report that their reading level causes them real life  
> difficulties.  Still,
> the average black 12th grader scored 267 in 2005 compared to 293  
> for whites.
>  That's about a 2 1/2 year difference as NAEP goes and slightly  
> below the
> 271 of white 8th graders.  It's hard to think of that as "slightly  
> better"
> for whites.

I don't get it. You usually bash NAEP data, Jerry. But now you're  
using NAEP data uncritically to make a point? Even so, what do we do  
about this? If these kids really are "behind," then what actions do  
we take to help them? Do we take away art and music and recess and  
load them up on phonics drills and worksheets? Or do we do something  
else? Of course, the "something else" is open for debate. But what  
we're doing now is not working. Period.

Peter