Close, yet so far
California has come up with a remarkable idea: Let parents know how their children are doing on state assessments. The Sacramento Bee reports:
In reality, I shouldn't mock; sending out 6 million reports is a fairly monumental logistical task. One of my favorite things about NCLB is that it's finally forcing states to develop the data systems and infrastructure they should have had years ago -- after all, 19 states (CA included) currently don't have longitudinal student databases, or, in lay terms, 19 states currently can't keep track of their students from one grade to the next. Happily, 15 of those 19 are working on them.
Here's what worries me: Parents have to take it on faith that their kids' test scores are legitimate. Teachers are at least engaged in the literal activity of education, so they can put a kid's inflated passing score on Texas' TAKS or Arizona's AIMS in context.
California's actually pretty decent when it comes to the legitimacy and rigor of their California Standards Test; they rate a "B" on Peterson and Hess' ranking, and only 40-50% of 4th graders generally pass the reading test (Aside: how sad is it that the lower the pass rate, the more likely it is to be legitimate?). But the fact remains that parents have no way to know the rigor of the questions, the cut-scores, the content standards, etc. The numbers are just that -- numbers. If a 4th grader is "proficient" in reading, what does that mean? The percentage of questions answered correctly is equally crude; getting 20% of extremely hard questions correct is very good while getting 80% of extremely easy questions correct isn't. And while the numbers can be compared with other numbers, that relative measure is hardly a declaration of where the student is in terms of reaching absolute proficiency, which must always be the goal.
The Bee reports that the score reports go so far as to assign the students a reading level based on their performance on the CST and offer a list of level-appropriate books. I suppose this may be the crux of it: Parents should be invested in their children's education to the point that they don't need a pretty piece of paper to tell them how well their son or daughter can read. That's idealistic, I know; parents don't always have the time nor ability to engage as much as they would like -- they can likely tell broadly if their kid can read or not, but how many immigrants and non-native English speakers know the difference between a 5th grade reading level and 6th grade reading level? So if score reports must be the supplement (and for the moment, there's nothing better; don't get me wrong, this is a positive development), then it's time we consider that parents might be willing to work their minds to truly understand where their son or daughter stands and how best to help them.
According to the Bee, "Officials at the state Department of Education say they worked with graphic designers, educators and parents to design something devoid of 'educationalese' that would be easy to read for all parents." That's fine. But it can't be something devoid of necessary substance. With a measure as imprecise, ambiguous and malleable as test scores, that substance goes beyond simple numbers and percentages.
School districts across the state are sending out the one-page STAR Student Report to the homes of the state's estimated 6 million public school students. Educators see the reports, all of which should be mailed by the end of this month, as a road map to improving each student's performance.
[...]
The multicolored report, printed on both sides of a single sheet of paper, includes a bar graph indicating a child's score on each subject-related test taken - English language arts, math, science and history-social science - and where that score falls on the proficiency scale: far below basic, below basic, basic, proficiency and advanced.
The state's goal is for all students to be proficient or advanced in all subjects.
On the back page, each subject is broken down, with the percent of questions answered correctly by a child compared to the percent correct of students statewide. The percentages listed by each subject area give parents and teachers a chance to tailor their efforts to help the child.
In reality, I shouldn't mock; sending out 6 million reports is a fairly monumental logistical task. One of my favorite things about NCLB is that it's finally forcing states to develop the data systems and infrastructure they should have had years ago -- after all, 19 states (CA included) currently don't have longitudinal student databases, or, in lay terms, 19 states currently can't keep track of their students from one grade to the next. Happily, 15 of those 19 are working on them.
Here's what worries me: Parents have to take it on faith that their kids' test scores are legitimate. Teachers are at least engaged in the literal activity of education, so they can put a kid's inflated passing score on Texas' TAKS or Arizona's AIMS in context.
California's actually pretty decent when it comes to the legitimacy and rigor of their California Standards Test; they rate a "B" on Peterson and Hess' ranking, and only 40-50% of 4th graders generally pass the reading test (Aside: how sad is it that the lower the pass rate, the more likely it is to be legitimate?). But the fact remains that parents have no way to know the rigor of the questions, the cut-scores, the content standards, etc. The numbers are just that -- numbers. If a 4th grader is "proficient" in reading, what does that mean? The percentage of questions answered correctly is equally crude; getting 20% of extremely hard questions correct is very good while getting 80% of extremely easy questions correct isn't. And while the numbers can be compared with other numbers, that relative measure is hardly a declaration of where the student is in terms of reaching absolute proficiency, which must always be the goal.
The Bee reports that the score reports go so far as to assign the students a reading level based on their performance on the CST and offer a list of level-appropriate books. I suppose this may be the crux of it: Parents should be invested in their children's education to the point that they don't need a pretty piece of paper to tell them how well their son or daughter can read. That's idealistic, I know; parents don't always have the time nor ability to engage as much as they would like -- they can likely tell broadly if their kid can read or not, but how many immigrants and non-native English speakers know the difference between a 5th grade reading level and 6th grade reading level? So if score reports must be the supplement (and for the moment, there's nothing better; don't get me wrong, this is a positive development), then it's time we consider that parents might be willing to work their minds to truly understand where their son or daughter stands and how best to help them.
According to the Bee, "Officials at the state Department of Education say they worked with graphic designers, educators and parents to design something devoid of 'educationalese' that would be easy to read for all parents." That's fine. But it can't be something devoid of necessary substance. With a measure as imprecise, ambiguous and malleable as test scores, that substance goes beyond simple numbers and percentages.
This entry was posted
on Friday, September 16, 2005 at 1:53 PM.
|
