Re: NY Regent's Exam

[James Powell <jepowell@JPS.NET>]

Gerald,

I am interested in the Popham article you mentioned, but I am unable to access
it with the web address you cited.  Is there an error in that address?

Jim Powell
jepowell@jps.net

Gerald W. Bracey wrote:

> You're right.  Some of us will say those CAT scores are meaningless.  For a
> reason why, you
> can start with Jim Popham's article in the March, 1999 issue of Educational
> Leadership,
> "Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality."  Now Jim is not
> your usual
> anti-test hothead; he was a professor of testing at UCLA for many years and
> President of, I think
> both the American Educational Research Association and the National Council
> for
> Measurement in Education.
>
> The article is available online at
>
> www.ascd.org/pubs/el/mar99/extpopham.htma.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nancy Hall <Nanny714@AOL.COM>
> To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 7:37 PM
> Subject: Re: NY Regent's Exam
>
> > In a message dated 11/6/99 6:07:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > gbracey@EROLS.COM writes:
> >
> > << The portfolio system in
> >  Vermont has been derided in some quarters because different teachers give
> >  different marks (something that has been noted at least since the Starch
> and
> >  Elliot studies of 1912). >>
> >
> > The Vermont portfolio system not only was found ineffective as a widescale
> > measure, it has been extremely expensive to the citizens of this tiny
> state
> > who are already overtaxed. It's really sad to see our farm land subdivided
> > due to our farmers inability to keep up with soaring educational costs and
> > taxes. Further, since portfolios are  used conjointly as an "assessment"
> and
> > "instructional tool," its impact on the mathematical achievement level of
> the
> > children has and continues to be negative and harmful!!
> >
> > The first and most outspoken opponent of portfolios was/is a very brave
> > native Vermont Language Arts teacher named Peter Berger. But of course
> Peter,
> > who didn't have the deep pockets or the political clout to stop this bogus
> > initiative foisted on the state he grew up in failed in his attempts to
> > expose the fallacy.
> >
> > Relative to our town's "pioneering effort" in the mathematics portfolios
> for
> > the state of Vermont, here's what happened to our math scores. We started
> > pioneering math portfolios for the state of Vermont in 1990. The
> California
> > Achievement Test (CAT) is given in the fall of each year. Therefore, 1991
> > scores are reflective of what took place in 1990. Here's what happened as
> > measured by the CAT score summaries for sixth graders. The CAT is a norm
> > referenced test:
> >
> > Math Computation
> > (national percentile):
> > 1989:    67%
> > 1990:    72%
> > 1991:    41%
> > 1992:    50%
> > 1993:    49%
> > 1994:    44%
> > 1995:    49%
> > 1996:    49%
> >
> > Math Computation
> > (percent scoring in the lowest quartile; <25 percentile)
> > 1989:     9%
> > 1990:    (missing)
> > 1991:    25%
> > 1992:    24%
> > 1993:    31%
> > 1994:    27%
> > 1995:    28%
> > 1996:    28%
> >
> > Total Battery
> > (national percentile):
> > 1989:    77%
> > 1990:    85%
> > 1991:    75%
> > 1992:    82%
> > 1993:    81%
> > 1994:    76%
> > 1995:    78%
> > 1996:    79%
> >
> > Difference Between Total Battery and
> > Math Computation:
> > 1989:    -10%
> > 1990:    -13%
> > 1991:    -34%
> > 1992:    -32%
> > 1993:    -32%
> > 1994:    -32%
> > 1995:    -29%
> > 1996:    -30%
> >
> > There was no significant impact in the category of "Math Consepts &
> > Applications."
> >
> > Some of you will probably have the comeback of: "Those CAT test scores are
> > meaningless" What I say to you is that I'm the mother of three children
> who
> > attended the school during the pioneering years and payed taxes to fund
> the
> > porfolios and those scores "mean" something to me! They "mean" something
> to
> > teacher Peter Berger too! They mean something to my friends and neighbors
> in
> > this town whose children were affected. They "mean" something to other
> > parents, teachers, and taxpayers who know the fallacy of the reform.  I
> know
> > the negative impact and I'm not alone. I experience it every day with my
> two
> > youngest as they struggle to make up for classroom time lost on pioneering
> > mathematics portfolios.
> >
> > All your theorizing and one-up-manship is what is truly "meanigless."
> Engage
> > in it until the cows come home for all I care. But. . .  when what you're
> > pushing in the tiny state of Vermont starts to impact negatively on my
> > children, my friends children, and my relatives children, and my neighbors
> > children we will not tolerate it! You can blow all the smoke you want
> about
> > "portfolios" and their impact on the tiny state of Vermont but how do you
> > know. You don't even live here! What do you care! Those of us in this
> state
> > who have "real life children" who were and continue to be harmed through
> > being subjected to this half-baked costly initiative know the truth.
> >
> > Take your egos, your theories, your half-baked reforms and go home. We
> were
> > doing just fine years ago before we were targeted as a perfect "test site"
> > for half-baked educational theories brought to us by people who could care
> > less about the citizens of Vermont and our kids.
> >
> > Nancy Hall
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.

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