Re: No Mas

[Scott Hays <shays@ccwebster.net>]

Okay ... I can't sit around and watch this anymore without at least  
making one more effort to try to persuade Art to see the error in his  
thinking.  Art, I don't hold out much hope ... and you should know  
that in the beginning ... but your most recent message actually  
suggests an effort to converse, and the time to try is now.

On Aug 10, 2006, at 3:21 AM, aburke5054@aol.com wrote:

> I'm still not clear about this "real performance" that you think is  
> so out
>
> there and so clear and that maybe the tests are missing.  Still  
> seems to me like you're
>
> chasing Platonic essences.  You're in Florida?  See the Florida DOE
>
> "Assessment and Accountability Briefing Book" and if you ask me a  
> more specific
>
> question, I'll try to respond.

There are no Platonic essences in the original question.  The  
question simply wants you to point to or describe any specific thing  
that a kid who scores 345 on FCAT can do that a kid who scores 344  
can't.  And it doesn't have to be FCAT ... that was quite obviously  
selected as a random example ... you have been invited to select ANY  
state, ANY test, and any standard and explain how a score on the test  
translates to performance.

> .... And if the proficiency levels were set totally
>
> arbitrarily, and, say, if kids who scored below proficient on the  
> FCAT were proficient
>
> or above on another test, that would call the FCAT proficiency  
> level into question,
>
> wouldn't it?  What is unreasonable about asking for evidence along  
> those lines?

Or it might call the proficiency levels of the "other" test into  
question, mightn't it?  It might call into question the content of  
one (or both) tests ... or how the questions were structured.  It  
might call into question the mental state of the kid at the time of  
taking one (or both) tests ... or the fact that two separate somewhat  
challenging (and stressful) tests have been administered in a short  
period of time ... or how much time elapsed between administration of  
both tests.  These are not small matters, and all serve to call into  
question the meaning of test results in the first place.

> You completely misunderstand NCLB.  NCLB leaves what to teach, how  
> to teach,
>
> how to assess, and how to go about improving schools completely up  
> to the states.
>
> What do you want out of NCLB or out of any federal education  
> legislation?  If you
>
> don't like what the states are doing, get on their case, not on NCLB.

NCLB may not dictate "what to teach, how to teach, how to assess, or  
how to to about improving schools" ... as you say.  But, states must  
submit their standards, their assessment plan, and their improvement  
plan to the Department of Education for "approval".  They must  
demonstrate that they are using "research-based" instructional  
materials and methods ... as defined by the Department of Ed.  They  
must additionally define "highly qualified" in a way that satisfies  
the federal government, as well as the avenues for identifying  
teachers in terms of their level of qualification.  The Department of  
Ed has rejected many of these plans, forcing states to rethink and  
redesign what you claim is "completely" up to them.  This is sort of  
a funny definition of "complete", if you ask me.

"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all- 
powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers  
control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because  
they love their servitude."

                       Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

Scott Hays
shays@ccwebster.net