[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Too many poor kids and minority kids are way behind other kids.? That's the problem, not whether tests have too many multiple choice items or whether it's better to talk about "proficiency rates" or "grade levels" or "normal curve equivalents."? By the way, how is your strategy of attacking NCLB working out for you?


-----Original Message-----
From: Monty Neill <monty@fairtest.org>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 1:06 pm
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Is "Grade Level" A Load of Hooey?

No question 'grade level' is hooey (to be kind) and is disinformation that
is used to attack schools.?

I don't want to discourage action, creation of a video, etc. -- but I
encourage more thought on who the audience would be, how to reach them, what
the message is, what they should retain and take away, and anything you want
them to do.?

The other question is whether that is more valuable than, for example,
attacking NCLB, explaining how destructive it is to schools, and sending
folks to places to get ideas on what to do (actions, things to support to
replace NCLB, etc.).?

Maybe it is just me, but 'grade level' seems more of a tool for real
mischief than the key mischief itself. Exposing the fraudulent tool is
useful, but I'd encourage more discussion on how central it is, what
exposing the fraud would contribute to making change, and whether with
limited resources...?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Harman" <susanharman1@gmail.com>?

To: <arn-l@interversity.org>?

Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 3:54 PM?

Subject: Re: [arn-l] Is "Grade Level" A Load of Hooey??

> Yes! Im happy to contribute a little outrage to this project, if somebody
> else starts it.?

> Susan?


> On Apr 13, 2009, at 8:32 PM, Peter Campbell wrote:?



>> On Apr 12, 2009, at 8:48 PM, George K Cunningham wrote:?


>>> One other point about the ubiquity of norm-referenced assessment. The
>>> only statistical methods that exist for examining test scores are
>>> norm-referenced. There are no statistical techniques applicable to
>>> nonnorm-referenced tests.?


>>> Grade equivalents, the basis for grade level, are purely norm-
>>> referenced and the worst option when using norm-referenced methods.?


>> George - this is fabulous. Thanks.?


>> All - so WTF?? This seems to be one of the (if not THE) biggest Emperor
>> Has No Clothes elements of current education policy. So where's the
>> outrage? Where are the folks yelling, "He's naked! He's naked!" Is it
>> because it takes about an hour to lay down a foundation of understanding
>> that most people can grasp? If so, I invite the educators on this list
>> to come up with a "Grade Levels Are Naked" primer. What if we could
>> create a YouTube video -- 3 to 5 minutes -- that explains the basics and
>> then propagate it through Ye Olde Internette? If the FOUNDATION testing
>> and assessment is so egregiously, nakedly flawed, then we need to speak
>> up.?


>> I hate to sound dramatic, but silence still equals complicity.?


>> Peter-------------------------------------------------------?

>> ARN-L archives:?

>> http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/archives.html?

> ?