Re: Figures Don't Lie - Iowa Rules!

[Monty Neill <monty@FAIRTEST.ORG>]

I would not argue causation. Most lower-scoring states with more tests
and higher stakes are southern states with historically weaker education
systems. They moved to testing to "improve" schools on the cheap (and
had state-centralized systems, making it easier to implement), and in
some cases leveraged the tests for more money for schools. Improvements
have been marginal however, so the point is not that testing causes
lower scores in these states but that 1) it does not induce improvement,
and 2) why adopt an improvement strategy from states that have the worst
systems and can't show improvement on independent measures and have the
worst dropout rates?

Monty Neill

Laura VaN wrote:
>
> >From: Monty Neill <monty@FAIRTEST.ORG>
> >FairTest has also shown that states with less testing and lower stakes
> >also tend to make better progress on NAEP than state with more testing
> >and higher stakes. Monty Neill
>
> I wonder whether this is because they don't test, or because their
> population is such that they haven't felt the "crises" (real or imagined).
> Iowa (the example I know about) I believe still does test the students - and
> the test scores come out fairly well so that I wonder if they just haven't
> felt the need to attach high stakes to the tests.  MOre simply - is this
> causation or correlation?
>
> remember to speak out again the silencing of dissent
> goto http://angelfire.com/fl4/eca
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.