No, SAT and ACT aren't high stakes at all. Nothing like determining whether you're going to get into college or the degree program you want. Heck, there's nothing at all high stakes about a kid's future, right?

Not "high stakes" my ass. You have a pretty warped definition of "high stakes" if the only thing you care about is how it affects teacher evaluations, but then you obviously don't give a shit about kids' futures.

Again, totally different situations. SAT and ACT are optional tests. They are not required by the PUBLIC education system. They are not paid for with PUBLIC tax dollars. And, there are many colleges that do not require those in order to enter---so I don't think a kid's future won't be bright if they don't take them. Maybe in your exclusive, elite, DC world this is true. You are the one with the "warped" perspective.

High stakes is not just about teacher evaluations. It's also about how students are "placed" in school based on these tests. I have seen kids put in the wrong classes because of these scores. Of course you are going to say that is a LOCAL problem again. Sure, but it's a problem and it should not be swept under the rug either. It also affects schools as a whole to have scores out in public with no explanation of why the scores are the way they are except for some people like you saying that the teachers don't give a shit about kids' futures. It's really helpful to everyone to have a bunch of numbers that are hard to interpret in meaningful ways.

As for teacher evaluations, it's not clear that the tests are measuring the teachers at all. They are measuring all kinds of stuff and teachers are probably one of the smallest parts. There is no scientific research that links standardized test scores to teacher effectiveness.

I could care less about the linking of test scores to teacher evaluations. I care about what this is all doing to the kids and education. Most teachers are not in this profession for the money. If they had wanted to earn money, they would have gone into testing psychometrics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


And education has become way too politicized. It started with NCLB's testing mandate and it is getting worse. Race to the Top was a real high water mark for sure.


Education has BECOME way too politicized? It STARTED with NCLB?

Have you heard of Sputnik? Have you heard of segregated schools?

Segregated schools was a civil rights issue.

Sputnik increased low interest loans to college students in the sciences---the federal department of education did not even exist at that time---it didn't exist until Jimmy Carter (1980)

Those two things did not seek to "punish" schools and states by taking money away---they did not include "waivers" to keep getting money---you cannot compare NCLB to those things.

Civil rights are not a political issue?

And Sputnik did a lot more in education than just increasing low-interest loans to college students in the sciences -- which was the result of the National Defense Education Act, passed by Congress in 1958, i.e., a political issue.

http://www.nas.edu/sputnik/bybee2.htm

Anonymous wrote:


And education has become way too politicized. It started with NCLB's testing mandate and it is getting worse. Race to the Top was a real high water mark for sure.


Education has BECOME way too politicized? It STARTED with NCLB?

Have you heard of Sputnik? Have you heard of segregated schools?

Segregated schools was a civil rights issue.

Sputnik increased low interest loans to college students in the sciences---the federal department of education did not even exist at that time---it didn't exist until Jimmy Carter (1980)

Those two things did not seek to "punish" schools and states by taking money away---they did not include "waivers" to keep getting money---you cannot compare NCLB to those things.

Anonymous wrote:

But the Iowa, Stanford, etc. are not "high stakes" tests. There's a huge difference.

No, SAT and ACT aren't high stakes at all. Nothing like determining whether you're going to get into college or the degree program you want. Heck, there's nothing at all high stakes about a kid's future, right?

Not "high stakes" my ass. You have a pretty warped definition of "high stakes" if the only thing you care about is how it affects teacher evaluations, but then you obviously don't give a shit about kids' futures.

Anonymous wrote:

And education has become way too politicized. It started with NCLB's testing mandate and it is getting worse. Race to the Top was a real high water mark for sure.

Education has BECOME way too politicized? It STARTED with NCLB?

Have you heard of Sputnik? Have you heard of segregated schools?

And education has become way too politicized. It started with NCLB's testing mandate and it is getting worse. Race to the Top was a real high water mark for sure.

I don't care how many psychometricians you hire. The people paying them are the ones who matter.

But the Iowa, Stanford, etc. are not "high stakes" tests. There's a huge difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Here is an ETS paper on "cut scores". Their conclusion? (real science here)

Conclusion
It is impossible to prove that a cut score is correct.
Therefore, it is crucial to follow a process that is
appropriate and defensible. Ultimately, cut scores are based
on the opinions of a group of people. The best we can do is
choose the people wisely, train them well in an appropriate
method, give them relevant data, evaluate the results, and
be willing to start over if the expected benefits of using the
cut scores are outweighed by the negative consequences.

I'm sure the cut scores will change next year so that more students pass. Same old thing.


https://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/publication/2006/dbkw

No shit. And this is why testing companies like ETS and the PARCC/Smarter Balanced consortia hire professional psychometricians, who are trained and experienced in doing detailed analysis on the test result data to diagnose and validate questions as well as designing those processes for determining cut scores, or whether they should start over. And note, the article doesn't support the argument of just scrapping EVERYTHING based on nothing but a first field trial. We certainly didn't scrap Iowas, Stanfords, SATs and ACTs - despite the fact that not everyone universally accepts them, either, despite being around for years. Pretty sure I talked about all this stuff at least 4 or 5 times before.

Anonymous wrote:

Field test. You never heard of cut scores? Do you even know anything at all about test development processes? Sure doesn't seem like you do.

Yeah, I know about "cut scores". They can be manipulated to make kids pass or not. I'm sure next year's cut scores will be different so that we get more passes and everyone can say that the CC is working great.

Been there. Done that. Rinse and repeat. Flush tax money down the toilet again. Why? So the politicians can say they are doing wonderful things that people in the schools know are a bunch of BS.

It would be much better to use the Iowa or Stanford or SAT or ACT or anything else to measure whether we are doing "worse" in education. Those tests have a long and reputable history. No cut scores because there aren't "high stakes" involved. All signs point to the fact that we are doing well. We have more students than ever graduating and going to college. All this nonsense about how badly we are doing is just that . . . nonsense.

You need to come into a school and talk to kids. You will find plenty who know where the Pacific Ocean is (among other things).

"No cut scores?" LOL! You don't seem to understand how Iowa, Stanford, SAT and ACT work either.

http://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/publication/2006/dbkw

Here is an ETS paper on "cut scores". Their conclusion? (real science here)

Conclusion
It is impossible to prove that a cut score is correct.
Therefore, it is crucial to follow a process that is
appropriate and defensible. Ultimately, cut scores are based
on the opinions of a group of people. The best we can do is
choose the people wisely, train them well in an appropriate
method, give them relevant data, evaluate the results, and
be willing to start over if the expected benefits of using the
cut scores are outweighed by the negative consequences.

I'm sure the cut scores will change next year so that more students pass. Same old thing.


https://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/publication/2006/dbkw

Anonymous wrote:

Also, it is convenient to show the schools as failing so that the public will clamor for vouchers and more charter schools. Those changes have not been shown to improve test scores.

LMAO! That is just plain asinine and clueless. Don't you realize that charters are having kids using THE SAME STANDARDS and taking THE SAME TESTS?

I mean, just TOTALLY ASININE. Not even remotely logical or defensible.

Also, it is convenient to show the schools as failing so that the public will clamor for vouchers and more charter schools. Those changes have not been shown to improve test scores.

Field test. You never heard of cut scores? Do you even know anything at all about test development processes? Sure doesn't seem like you do.

Yeah, I know about "cut scores". They can be manipulated to make kids pass or not. I'm sure next year's cut scores will be different so that we get more passes and everyone can say that the CC is working great.

Been there. Done that. Rinse and repeat. Flush tax money down the toilet again. Why? So the politicians can say they are doing wonderful things that people in the schools know are a bunch of BS.

It would be much better to use the Iowa or Stanford or SAT or ACT or anything else to measure whether we are doing "worse" in education. Those tests have a long and reputable history. No cut scores because there aren't "high stakes" involved. All signs point to the fact that we are doing well. We have more students than ever graduating and going to college. All this nonsense about how badly we are doing is just that . . . nonsense.

You need to come into a school and talk to kids. You will find plenty who know where the Pacific Ocean is (among other things).

You're kidding right? Millions of kids graduating from school semiliterate, barely able to string together a coherent sentence, unable to make change, unable to find the Pacific Ocean on a world map, and you think that was perfectly good.



Listen, there are kids who are born with problems . . . we are keeping lots of babies alive who would not have lived in the past . . . through advances in medicine. Some of them are unable to do the things you are citing above and it has nothing to do with a teacher who can't build a chicken coop. And under NCLB they all have to be tested, even kids who are dying in hospitals. I think the chickens have flown your coop.


Dodges and deflections. We've been failing millions of kids who don't even have disabilities. You need to get out of your comfy little bubble of elementary school fantasy where everything is wonderful and we can just play with blocks with these kids and give them 2 or 3 years to come up to speed with the concept of a board book. You should try getting out into the real world and talking to employers, who are frusrated that they can't do much with many of these kids. Let alone college professors who need kids to go back for remedial writing instruction and math coursework that they should have already had in high school. Obviously you don't get out much to hear from the rest of the world.
[Report Post]

I teach high school. My husband is one of those employers you are talking about. And it's not a McDonald's.