Re: test misuse: Here we go again

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

I'm saying that in the contract (which as you know if you are an armchair
lawyer is a legal instrument whose terms both parties are obligated to
follow until such time as it is legally dissolved or rescinded) there are
stipulations.  This is what HEM will do; and we represent our tests will do
thus and thus for Virginia.  Contingent upon their representation that the
tests will provide useful educational information, this is what Virginia
must do to ensure proper use of the tests.  You can ask Roxie, but I doubt
very much the contract had an alternative clause stating that "if the State
wishes, they may abandon the use of the modified Angoff method for a method
of their own choosing to set cut scores, and the other stipulations
regarding the validity and usefulness of these tests will still be in
force".

-----Original Message-----
From: aburke@VANSD.ORG [mailto:aburke@VANSD.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 7:17 PM
To: ARN-L@listsrva.CUA.EDU
Subject: Re: test misuse: Here we go again


I'm no lady, but I'm confused.  You seem to be saying that Virginia
contracted with HEM to have HEM set cut scores but then Virginia decided to
set different cut scores.  What's wrong with that?

The practice of promoting or retaining students solely on their ITBS or SAT9
scores is outrageous.

Art

>>> Allen.Flanigan@USPTO.GOV 09/06 3:21 PM >>>
Deanna,

As Shakespeare wrote, "methinks the lady doth protest too much."

Since you have been posting on ARN since 1998, and have presumably been
reading posts since then as well, it could hardly have escaped your notice
that Roxie Grossman of Parents Across Virginia has in at least one message
pointed to explicit evidence of misuse, i.e. violations of a state contract
(Virginia) with HEM.  The contract (which Roxie obtained after repeated FOIA
requests) called for the use of the modified Angoff method to set cut
scores, but this procedure was not followed by the state, as she reported.
To me, this constitutes clear evidence of test misuse (failure to follow the
provisions of a testing contract).  I repeated this information in the
infamous "fig leaf of objectivity and professionalism" posting this past
summer in response to a query from Juanita.

Of course, you could maintain that since you yourself have not read the HEM
contract with Virginia, you have not actually seen evidence of test misuse,
but in my opinion this would be tantamount to calling Roxie a liar.

I believe other instances of deliberate misuse (such as Monty's pointing out
in April 1999 how Chicago's use of ITBS scores to retain students violated
the plain language of Riverside's Interpretive Guide for the ITBS which
indicates that "a test score from an achievement batter should not be used
alone in [deciding] to retain students at grade level", and California's
similar practice using Stanford 9 results despite Harcourt's similar warning
regarding the Stanford 9 that "another misuse of standardized achievement
test scores is making promotion and retention decisions for individual
students solely on the basis of these scores") have also been demonstrated
in postings on the ARN since you began participating.

No disrespect intended, but I can only conclude that Karen's assertion that
you suffer from selective memory loss in insisting that you have no
knowledge of any instances of test misuse is accurate.  Either that, or you
take the position that unless you witness actual instances of children being
retained and actually have these contracts and guidelines waved under your
nose, such violations have not been proven to your satisfaction.  The third
possibility is you concur with Riverside's self-serving interpretation of
the guideline language (they pointed out that other circumstances, such as
poor attendance, could trigger a "retention event") and ignore the fact
that, as the Fairtest Examiner article (Spring 1999) reported, "for
thousands of Chicago school children test scores are the sole factor used
'to decide to retain students at grade level.'" Thus is the previously
mentioned "fig leaf of professionalism" maintained so that the profits may
continue to flow.

What other conclusion besides these three is possible?




Historical Note:  In the Watergate era, the salient term was "plausible
deniability".


-----Original Message-----
From: Ddeliberto@AOL.COM [mailto:Ddeliberto@AOL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 3:24 PM
To: ARN-L@listsrva.CUA.EDU
Subject: Re: test misuse


Karen,

Your response to my sincere request for evidence of misuse in Chicago can
only be characterized as sheer rudeness.  That is exactly the response I
expected and it is very typical that whenever anyone on this list is asked
to
provide evidence to support their claims, there is dead silence.  Reminds me
of the 2001 AERA Session conducted by some members on this list--accusation
but no evidence.  There can only be but one explanation--that none of you
have any evidence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.