Re: No Mas

[aburke5054@aol.com]

 I have no idea what challenge you think you are posing or what you are getting at with your distinction between "gradations" and "finite classifications." You talk as if you think there are some kind of Platonic essences out there that tests aren't getting at. More power to you. 
 
 Art 
    -----Original Message-----
 From: sdorn@tempest.coedu.usf.edu
 To: arn-l@interversity.org
 Sent: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 12:24 PM
 Subject: [arn-l] No Mas
 
  Art Burke wrote:

 

> As if 9 year-olds themselves can't tell if they know their multiplication 

> tables and as if making decisions about the proficiency of school children



> is a problem in unlocking the secrets of the universe.



I'll just note that this comes from someone who thinks we can't ask

9-year-olds themselves (because we must test them) and who obviously can't

meet the challenge I posed. Or let me put it this way: you pick the state

test and grade level. We'll take the state self-identification of

proficiency, since you're satisfied with that delegation. Then please tell

me what a child who has that score can do.  Concretely.  In front of you or

me.  Then show me the technical documentation for that generalization.



The point is you can't. Tests are designed for gradations, not finite

classifications. 



Sherman Dorn



------------------------------------------------

Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net
   
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.