Re: testing and opt-out rights

[aburke5054@aol.com]

Tests aren't perfect, but they don't have to be perfect to be useful, 
and they are better and more useful than you claim..  You falsely 
dichotomize the educational world into teachers who determine students' 
proficiency or tests that determine students' proficiency.  There is 
room for both.

I agree with you that teachers should determine the proficiency of 
their students.  But teachers are not all there is to public education. 
 One of the reasons that we put so much emphasis on testing is to spur 
public education to take responsibilitiy for students who have been 
overlooked and to make the changes in schools that need to be made.  
That's terribly important and that is exactly what we need public 
education to do.


Art

-----Original Message-----
From: monicalucido@comcast.net
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: [arn-l] testing and opt-out rights


It is not me that created the nonsense called standardized testing. 
Your own
ignorance blinds you from the truth. The set-up for both normed and 
criterion
referenced are the same with a small twist. Criterion-refrence tests 
are normed
at the ITEM level, so the entire test is still set up for a bell shaped 
curve.
It is not ever considered that a question that had too many right 
answers could
POSSIBLY mean that real learning happened, OR for that matter, if too 
many wrong
answers occurred that there were still skills that needed to be worked 
on.  The
test design itself is flawed in that it does not look for real 
learning, but
just a numerical array that satisfies some random, political 
psychometric
requirement.  In the zeal for being "objective" ( in which NOTHING is; 
opinion
is always at the bottom line of decision making ) by many NCLB 
supporters, the
use of this tool has greatly hindered the meaning of teaching and 
learning. The
focus is not on real mastery. There is very l
ittle
relevance of true student learning, and the cut  scores used by states 
to
support NCLB's demands of proficiency ( which in and of itself is 
unscientificly
supported as far as 'grade level' is concerned) corrupt the tests even 
further.
Quite frankly, I don't even think you have your figures right for the 
statement
that in "many states" more than half are "achieving". The TEACHER is 
the one
that should determine a student's proficency in anything within the 
scope of
their expertise. It is the right of our profession. I mean, well over 
90% of us
are now "highly qualified" , right? Or is that is just a big lie to 
satisfy the
media to take the spotlight off so we can continue to be pummeled by 
EdTrust and
friends?

Joe


-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: aburke5054@aol.com
> This is complete nonsense.  You are conflating norm-referenced
> mechanics scoring such as "average" or "grade-level" with
> criterion-referenced constructs such such as "proficiency."  Besides
> that, simply checking the results of state assessments should tell 
you
> that in many states more than half the students are achieving
> proficiency.  Still, I believe that reexamination of criteria for
> proficiency is always appropriate and I would like to see states 
doing
> that seriously instead of relying on confidence intervals, minimum
> groups sizes, and other statistical dodges to put happier faces on 
the
> results of their tests.
>
> Art
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: monicalucido@comcast.net
> To: arn-l@interversity.org
> Sent: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 6:00 pm
> Subject: Re: [arn-l] testing and opt-out rights
>
> How about this: students can't show their true mastery of a concept 
on
> a
> standardized test that is DESIGNED to have half the children fail.  
You
> can't
> determine their true knowledge, thus the numbers you so voiciferously
> fight for
> as a measuring stick are not valid. Sounds like a good place to start
> taking
> every state's assessments to task.
>
> Joe
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: aburke5054@aol.com
> > The social, educational, and testing landscapes have changed
> > dramatically since Florida sprung an off-the-shelf standardized 
test
> on
> > its students as a graduation requirement in the late 70s.  One of 
the
> > precedents that Debra P established was that a test could be used 
for
> > graduation purposes only if students had an opportunity to learn the
> > material that the test covers.  Today's state assessments are
> designed
> > to closely align with the curricular goals that all their schools 
are
> > supposed to address.  MALDEF challenged TAAS on the grounds that it
> had
> > "adverse impact" on minority students.  The Court ruled that the 
fact
> > that more minority students fail to pass the test than white 
students
> > is not itself illegal discrimination, particularly since the state
> > provided remedial help to students who did not pass the test and
> since
> > the test was part of an overall program for improving schools for 
all
> > children.  Whether today's state tests can be successfully 
challenged
> > in court I do not know, but challengers are going to have to come up
> > with different theories than the ones that courts have already
> rejected.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dorn, Sherman <SDorn@tempest.coedu.usf.edu>
> > To: arn-l@interversity.org
> > Sent: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 3:43 am
> > Subject: Re: [arn-l] testing and opt-out rights
> >
> >
> > In this case, Art Burke is factually correct: lawsuits challenging
> > graduation
> > tests usually fail. The general precedents to follow here are Debra
> P.
> > v.
> > Turlington (Florida) and the MALDEF lawsuit in Texas. In the case of
> > Florida,
> > the plaintiffs did convince the courts that imposing a graduation
> test
> > was not
> > defensible when substantial portions of the population had been
> victims
> > of
> > segregation, and the court delayed implementation in Florida until
> > after the
> > cohort of children who had entered school before the Swann (1971)
> > decision, a
> > Supreme Court case that pushed federal judges in Florida to rewrite
> > almost all
> > of the existing desegregation orders.
> >
> > For more information on graduation exams, see the Center on 
Education
> > Policy's
> > series of annual reports (http://cep-dc.org) and the High School 
Exit
> > Examination database (http://www.hsee.umn.edu/).
> >
> > Sherman Dorn
> >
> > 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:43:38 -0400
> > From: aburke5054@aol.com
> > To: arn-l@interversity.org
> > Subject: Re: testing and opt-out rights
> > Message-ID: <8C9B2E1F5AB8B7B-B74-7E8B@WEBMAIL-MA16.sysops.aol.com>
> >
> > I am not aware of any federal law granting general "opt-out" rights 
in
> > the context of achievement testing.
> >
> > Graduation tests have survived legal challenges - Arizona and
> > Massachusetts relatively recently....
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu>
> > To: LiteracyForAll@yahoogroups.com
> > Cc: arn-l@interversity.org; ca-resisters@interversity.org
> > Sent: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:46 am
> > Subject: [arn-l] testing and opt-out rights
> >
> > OK, here's a civil rights question.  Maybe somebody can consult a
> > friendly lawyer who specializes in federal education law...
> >
> > I thought that CA had the parental opt-out provision because such a
> > right is guaranteed to families by federal law....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________
> > Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL 
Mail!
> -
> > http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________
> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! 
-
> http://mail.aol.com
> ------------------------------------------------
> Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net







________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - 
http://mail.aol.com