Comments on: If the state tests are easier, how did they get that way? http://gothamschools.org/2009/10/14/if-the-state-tests-are-easier-how-did-they-get-that-way/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:04:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Michael M. http://gothamschools.org/2009/10/14/if-the-state-tests-are-easier-how-did-they-get-that-way/comment-page-1/#comment-208343 Michael M. Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:11:49 +0000 http://gothamschools.org/?p=25301#comment-208343 QP, If you're going to parse, let's really do it up and have a pretty petty parsing party. I would suggest the DOE's own web site page most applicable to this parsleymonious hair-splitting is the page re "Promotion Policy" (sans formatting): "Criteria for Promotion to the Next Grade" "Achieve at or above Proficiency Level 2" "Achieve at or above Proficiency Level 2" "Achieve at or above Proficiency Level 2" My keyboard's not stuck. That's as many times as that clause appears. "Levels" refer to relative "Proficiency." As to your nuance that the STATE assigned the Level score, but the wimpy CITY decided to promote anyway... please let me know what other cities hold kids back for scoring Level 2. All together now, WHAT Level do you need to get promoted to the next grade? The State is clear on what is proficient, though as we both know, even that ain't so clear. P.S. "City" goes with "its", not "their." Common mistake. But one glitch like that, and there goes your 4. QP,
If you’re going to parse, let’s really do it up and have a pretty petty parsing party.

I would suggest the DOE’s own web site page most applicable to this parsleymonious hair-splitting is the page re “Promotion Policy” (sans formatting):

“Criteria for Promotion to the Next Grade”
“Achieve at or above Proficiency Level 2″
“Achieve at or above Proficiency Level 2″
“Achieve at or above Proficiency Level 2″

My keyboard’s not stuck. That’s as many times as that clause appears.

“Levels” refer to relative “Proficiency.”

As to your nuance that the STATE assigned the Level score, but the wimpy CITY decided to promote anyway… please let me know what other cities hold kids back for scoring Level 2.

All together now, WHAT Level do you need to get promoted to the next grade?

The State is clear on what is proficient, though as we both know, even that ain’t so clear.

P.S. “City” goes with “its”, not “their.” Common mistake. But one glitch like that, and there goes your 4.

]]> By: QueensParent http://gothamschools.org/2009/10/14/if-the-state-tests-are-easier-how-did-they-get-that-way/comment-page-1/#comment-208027 QueensParent Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:05:50 +0000 http://gothamschools.org/?p=25301#comment-208027 Robert if your students considered a Level 2 passing then it is their parents' faults. The State is very clear about what is passing, even on the reports that they send out to each parent, and those reports clearly say the Level 2 is failing. It doesn't matter if the City undermines it with their promotion policy. Robert if your students considered a Level 2 passing then it is their parents’ faults. The State is very clear about what is passing, even on the reports that they send out to each parent, and those reports clearly say the Level 2 is failing. It doesn’t matter if the City undermines it with their promotion policy.

]]> By: Robert Pondiscio http://gothamschools.org/2009/10/14/if-the-state-tests-are-easier-how-did-they-get-that-way/comment-page-1/#comment-208012 Robert Pondiscio Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:38:27 +0000 http://gothamschools.org/?p=25301#comment-208012 I appreciate that, QP, but I'm not mincing words either. In fact, I'm disregarding them altogther. It matters not at all what we call something, but rather what actions the thing sets in motion. There's an amusing old Lincoln anecdtote wherein Abe asks "How many legs does a dog have if we call its tail a leg?" The answer is four, he said "because calling its tail a leg doesn't make it one." Same thing here. Calling a 2 a failing grade is meaningless unless it carries with it some manner of palapable response. My fifth graders considered a 2 a passing grade because it enabled them to pass to the 6th grade. Like Lincoln's dog's tail, calling it a failuring grade doesn't make it so. I appreciate that, QP, but I’m not mincing words either. In fact, I’m disregarding them altogther. It matters not at all what we call something, but rather what actions the thing sets in motion. There’s an amusing old Lincoln anecdtote wherein Abe asks “How many legs does a dog have if we call its tail a leg?” The answer is four, he said “because calling its tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” Same thing here. Calling a 2 a failing grade is meaningless unless it carries with it some manner of palapable response. My fifth graders considered a 2 a passing grade because it enabled them to pass to the 6th grade. Like Lincoln’s dog’s tail, calling it a failuring grade doesn’t make it so.

]]> By: Tom Carroll http://gothamschools.org/2009/10/14/if-the-state-tests-are-easier-how-did-they-get-that-way/comment-page-1/#comment-208010 Tom Carroll Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:34:13 +0000 http://gothamschools.org/?p=25301#comment-208010 Queens Parent is correct that a Level 3 indicates "proficiency" and Level 4 indicates "mastery." If the City is promoting students who score a Level 2, then it is promoting students who, by the state's standards, are not proficient in that subject. The lowering of the cut scores means that students who have not actually attained "proficiency" are being so labeled. Under either scenario, a Level 2 is not proficient. On a broader level, the number system is hopelessly confusing to parents, who can't remember if a Level 1 or Level 4 is better. How many people chant, "I'm Number 4." Personally, I prefer moving to a letter grading for the state accountability system. Would be more understandable for parents and thus aid transparency. Queens Parent is correct that a Level 3 indicates “proficiency” and Level 4 indicates “mastery.” If the City is promoting students who score a Level 2, then it is promoting students who, by the state’s standards, are not proficient in that subject. The lowering of the cut scores means that students who have not actually attained “proficiency” are being so labeled. Under either scenario, a Level 2 is not proficient.

On a broader level, the number system is hopelessly confusing to parents, who can’t remember if a Level 1 or Level 4 is better. How many people chant, “I’m Number 4.”

Personally, I prefer moving to a letter grading for the state accountability system. Would be more understandable for parents and thus aid transparency.

]]> By: QueensParent http://gothamschools.org/2009/10/14/if-the-state-tests-are-easier-how-did-they-get-that-way/comment-page-1/#comment-208000 QueensParent Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:28:08 +0000 http://gothamschools.org/?p=25301#comment-208000 Robert I'm not mincing words here. You are conflating two things, a passing standardized test score and the City's promotion policies, which use standardized tests. Only a Level 3 and 4 are considered to be passing by the State Education Department. This is how scores are reported throughout the state. Only students who score a Level 3/4 are reported as "proficient" for accountability purposes, including NCLB. So it's quite unfair to then say a student "passed" his state exam with a Level 2, even if the City's own promotion policy considered some kind of "high level 2" to be acceptable for promotion. It may be acceptable for grade promotion, but it is still not considered proficient academically by the State. Robert I’m not mincing words here. You are conflating two things, a passing standardized test score and the City’s promotion policies, which use standardized tests. Only a Level 3 and 4 are considered to be passing by the State Education Department. This is how scores are reported throughout the state. Only students who score a Level 3/4 are reported as “proficient” for accountability purposes, including NCLB. So it’s quite unfair to then say a student “passed” his state exam with a Level 2, even if the City’s own promotion policy considered some kind of “high level 2″ to be acceptable for promotion. It may be acceptable for grade promotion, but it is still not considered proficient academically by the State.

]]> By: Robert Pondiscio http://gothamschools.org/2009/10/14/if-the-state-tests-are-easier-how-did-they-get-that-way/comment-page-1/#comment-207983 Robert Pondiscio Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:03:42 +0000 http://gothamschools.org/?p=25301#comment-207983 Queens Parent, I have to disagree with your assertion that a Level 2 is not considered passing. It may not be *called* passing (the preferred term is "approaching grade level") but as a teacher, if my students score a level 2 on either the ELA or Math test, they were promoted to the next grade, no question, no discussion. They weren't even mandated to go to summer school. If that's not an operative definition of "passing" I don't know what is. Queens Parent, I have to disagree with your assertion that a Level 2 is not considered passing. It may not be *called* passing (the preferred term is “approaching grade level”) but as a teacher, if my students score a level 2 on either the ELA or Math test, they were promoted to the next grade, no question, no discussion. They weren’t even mandated to go to summer school. If that’s not an operative definition of “passing” I don’t know what is.

]]> By: Tom Carroll http://gothamschools.org/2009/10/14/if-the-state-tests-are-easier-how-did-they-get-that-way/comment-page-1/#comment-207959 Tom Carroll Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:09:00 +0000 http://gothamschools.org/?p=25301#comment-207959 The "cut scores" for what counted as a passing score on state ELA and mathematics exams were quietly lowered this year. Since many kids straddle the line between Level 2 and Level 3 (think of a standard fat-in-the-middle bell curve), even shifting the cut score by a point or two can shift the percentage of a school's students who are deemed "proficient" by 10-20 percentage points. This effect is independent of the level of difficulty of the questions. So, when lay people hear that the tests have been dumbed down, they assume the questions must be easier. This is not necessarily true. The same test, when paired with lower cut scores, will produce artifically high "proficiency" rates. Personally, I predicted that the cut scores would be lowered this past year because it was departing State Education Commissioner Rick Mills last year. Thus the Department had an incentive to show that scores had risen under his tenure. Similarly, excuse my cynicism, Steiner has an incentive to make next year's cut scores very tough, so that he has a very low baseline. The process of setting cut scores needs to be made much more transparent, which would help minimize this monkeying around. Plus, outside experts need to be brought in to determine the level of difficulty of the questions that comprise the assessments. The answer is not to get rid of predictability. In fact, we should want stable legitimate state standards and an entirely predictable level of high rigor on state assessments. If that goal is attained, you actually would want teachers to teach to the test. Right now, it's a joke. Lastly, we should move to a testing system that judges schools by gains from year to year, rather than a snapshot in time. But, a "growth" model only works if changes in outcomes from year to year are legitimate and not a function of gamesmanship at State Ed. The “cut scores” for what counted as a passing score on state ELA and mathematics exams were quietly lowered this year. Since many kids straddle the line between Level 2 and Level 3 (think of a standard fat-in-the-middle bell curve), even shifting the cut score by a point or two can shift the percentage of a school’s students who are deemed “proficient” by 10-20 percentage points.

This effect is independent of the level of difficulty of the questions.

So, when lay people hear that the tests have been dumbed down, they assume the questions must be easier. This is not necessarily true. The same test, when paired with lower cut scores, will produce artifically high “proficiency” rates.

Personally, I predicted that the cut scores would be lowered this past year because it was departing State Education Commissioner Rick Mills last year. Thus the Department had an incentive to show that scores had risen under his tenure. Similarly, excuse my cynicism, Steiner has an incentive to make next year’s cut scores very tough, so that he has a very low baseline.

The process of setting cut scores needs to be made much more transparent, which would help minimize this monkeying around. Plus, outside experts need to be brought in to determine the level of difficulty of the questions that comprise the assessments.

The answer is not to get rid of predictability. In fact, we should want stable legitimate state standards and an entirely predictable level of high rigor on state assessments. If that goal is attained, you actually would want teachers to teach to the test.

Right now, it’s a joke.

Lastly, we should move to a testing system that judges schools by gains from year to year, rather than a snapshot in time. But, a “growth” model only works if changes in outcomes from year to year are legitimate and not a function of gamesmanship at State Ed.

]]> By: QueensParent http://gothamschools.org/2009/10/14/if-the-state-tests-are-easier-how-did-they-get-that-way/comment-page-1/#comment-207940 QueensParent Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:15:20 +0000 http://gothamschools.org/?p=25301#comment-207940 Maura is this an attempt at journalism? You repeat the same lie that was true the first time it appeared in papers, that it is possible to pass state exams by guessing. Getting a level 2 on state tests is not considered passing. This really strikes me as the George Bush style of writing where if something's repeated enough times then it must be true. Before parroting previous articles you should at least check if they are true. Maura is this an attempt at journalism? You repeat the same lie that was true the first time it appeared in papers, that it is possible to pass state exams by guessing. Getting a level 2 on state tests is not considered passing. This really strikes me as the George Bush style of writing where if something’s repeated enough times then it must be true. Before parroting previous articles you should at least check if they are true.

]]> By: QueensParent http://gothamschools.org/2009/10/14/if-the-state-tests-are-easier-how-did-they-get-that-way/comment-page-1/#comment-207937 QueensParent Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:13:39 +0000 http://gothamschools.org/?p=25301#comment-207937 Maura is this an attempt at journalism? You repeat the same lie that was true the first time it appeared in papers, that it is possible to pass state exams by guessing. Getting a level 2 on state tests is not considered passing. This really strikes me as the George Bush style of writing where if something's repeated enough times then it must be true. Maura is this an attempt at journalism? You repeat the same lie that was true the first time it appeared in papers, that it is possible to pass state exams by guessing. Getting a level 2 on state tests is not considered passing. This really strikes me as the George Bush style of writing where if something’s repeated enough times then it must be true.

]]>