I'm back -- and, Winerip on test fakery
I've returned from haitus and I'm rip-roarin' and ready to get back in the thick of things. Posting should resume a regular schedule from here on out.
It's been an interesting but sparse week in terms of education news, with the NYC Teachers Union contract the major event. There was, however, an article that caught my attention in the New York Times today. Mike Winerip, one of my favorite education beat writers, has a great piece on the "coincidental" combination of an easier reading test and higher test scores:
It's been an interesting but sparse week in terms of education news, with the NYC Teachers Union contract the major event. There was, however, an article that caught my attention in the New York Times today. Mike Winerip, one of my favorite education beat writers, has a great piece on the "coincidental" combination of an easier reading test and higher test scores:
Take Frances Rosenstein, a respected veteran principal of Public School 159 in the Bronx. Ms. Rosenstein has every right to brag about her school's 2005 test scores. The percentage of her fourth graders who were at grade level in English was 40 points higher than in 2004.Now it certainly looks like the 2004 test had some unfair parts to it, but this is just another notch in the belt of those who subscribe to the Fudge It theory of test scores.How did she do it? New teachers? No, same teachers. New curriculum? No, same dual-language curriculum for a student body that is 96 percent Hispanic and poor (100 percent free lunches). New resources? Same.
So? "The state test was easier," she said. Ms. Rosenstein, who has been principal 13 years and began teaching in 1974, says the 2005 state English test was unusually easy and the 2004 test unusually hard. "I knew it the minute I opened the test booklets," she said.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 at 11:48 PM.
|
