Re: Figures Don't Lie - Iowa Rules!

["Allen Flanigan." <Allen.Flanigan@USPTO.GOV>]

Joan can give you a lot more insight than I can.  Note the following comment
from the Education Week Report Card:

Compared with many states,
 Connecticut has generally resisted tying its
 testing system to high-stakes
 consequences for students or schools.
 Legislators last year tabled a discussion
 about instituting a new test that students
 would have to pass to graduate. And while
 the state published its first-ever list of
 low-performing schools, officials stressed
 that their aim was to help, not punish. The
 legislature increased aid for public schools,
 but rejected the governor's request to give
 parents a tax break on the cost of private
 school tuition.

 NOTES: *Some state grades changed this
 year because of changes in the
 methodology. For details, see "State of
 the States."

Here's the comment they are referring to:

Because the quality of state assessments is so pivotal for standards-based
                    reform to work, this year we changed our methodology to
focus more on
                    the details of state assessment systems. Specifically,
states get full credit
                    only if they use tests aligned with their standards in
all three grade
                    spans-elementary, middle, and high school-and offer the
tests in all
                    four core subjects: English, math, science, and social
studies.

                    In addition, it's important that tests go beyond
multiple- choice questions
                    to gauge students' knowledge and skills. Therefore,
Quality Counts 2001
                    gives more credit to states that also include
short-answer questions,
                    extended-response items (such as writing an essay), and
portfolios as part
                    of their testing systems. The more detailed analysis
caused many state
                    grades on "standards and accountability" to decline this
year.

So it's likely that CT's grade went up because of this change in methodology
.  It's encouraging that they are getting more careful in their analysis,
giving poor grades to states like Calif. who don't even bother to align
their assessments with their standards.  Geoge C. no doubt will be
disappointed to see they are giving extra credit for getting away from
strictly multiple choice.


Conn. does have demographics to die for as a state.  Lots of wealthy and
well educated parents.  The cities like Hartford and New Britain mirror
urban areas in other parts of the country

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GeoBear@GEOBOP.COM [SMTP:GeoBear@GEOBOP.COM]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 6:24 PM
> To:   ARN-L@listsrva.CUA.EDU
> Subject:      Re: Figures Don't Lie - Iowa Rules!
>
> At 06:13 PM 2/2/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>
>       What do you have to say about the data from CT?
>
>
> Hmmmm... Connecticut appears to be the exception that proves the rule -
> it's a state that boasts high scores IN SPITE of the fact that it sucks up
> to the high-stakes masters!
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.