[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: panel discussion in DC

Billee: I think I mentioned the work of Jay P. Heubert and Robert M. Hauser
(Eds.): "High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion and Graduation".
Personally, I have been seeking a historical context that might enlighten my
understanding of where we stand today. The paper was produced under the
auspices of the "Committee on Appropriate Test Use" (Board on Testing and
Assessment / Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education /
National Research Council. Published by the "National Academy Press",
Washington, D.C. 1999. I suspect these folks were charged with laying the
ground work for NCLB. What they intended and what "IS" are as different as
day and night. I can imagine, given a very loose intepretation of "intent",
one could somehow imply that teacher behavior would be scrutinized. Mike
Roberts (P/S This particular paper's 'Executive Summary' refutes many of the
practices that are being employed by the various states in contemporary
education. EXERPT (p.3): "Tests are not perfect. Test questions are a sample
of possible questions that could be asked in a given area. Moreover, a test
score is not an exact measure of a student's knowledge or skills. A
student's score can be expected to vary across different versions of a test
... as a funtion of the particular sample of questions asked and/or
transitory factors, such as the student's health on the day of the test.
STUDENT'S KNOWLEDGE". Then the politicians got involved.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bussardre@aol.com [mailto:Bussardre@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 11:54 AM
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: [arn-l] panel discussion in DC

In a message dated 11/8/2003 11:35:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
PAVURSOL@aol.com writes:

> Finn said that the testing was designed to change behavior of teachers.

Anyone know if Finn's contentions above have been stated anywhere by the
drafters of the NCLB?