All I'm saying is the TAKS test is all common sense. I looked over it and laughed seeing as it was really easy. They give you the formula in the front page. Everything you need to pass is on the test.
In case anyone doubts this is true, here is a link to actual previous TAKS tests that have been released by the Texas Education Agency. Released TAKS Tests See for yourselves.
2nd graders don't really make sense out of formulas. At 6 or 7 years old that doesn't help. Depending on the way the questions are asked the test may be unfair.
Which test(s) are you talking about? Which subject, which grade? Do you mean the test for 3rd graders? Of course they are easy or should be easy if you have already passed 3rd grade. The formula on the front page for some Math tests are there because they don't want to just test you on memorizing the unit conversions. You still have to read, understand the question, reason, apply the formula, and do the math.
The tests are designed to make students dumber. Rushing through the test, I easily scored around 92 or above. Taking my time on every question, I scored 100s or 98s. These standardized tests are a lame excuse to show our tax dollars are not being wasted. Then they slap kids in the face with the SAT and all of a sudden they are way below average/not good enough for college.
I took the High School exit level test(11th grade) I was really easy a lot of the test was common knowlage a freshmen in high school should already know. It was basic Alg.
The 2nd Grade ones are even easier there're no formulas but its basic math and if you understand english it's easy. Example: I have a kat. What correction should be made
I'm not saying this standardized test but some of them are unfair. For instance in a story about Settlers it may ask a comprehension question about why the settlers were gathering extra furs for the winter. A 2nd or 3rd grader who has lived in Southern California or Hawaii all of their life may associate winter with rainfall more than cold. This could cause them to get questions like that wrong. If the skill the test is supposed to be assessing at that point is reading comprehension, then it isn't reading comprehension that is causing that student to miss the question. It would be a poorly worded question from students from certain cultures. I see it all the time. Even in Hawaii or SoCal, it won't throw all students off, depending on their experiences. But it will skew the numbers overall. Until the tests are shown to be fair then care needs to be done before making general statements about the results.
I don't see the inconsistency here. The TAKS/etc are designed to test minimum proficiency for passing out of individual grades or high school. The SAT is designed to test for qualification for college. All the people who are high-school proficient but not college ready *should* be getting the results you suggest.
1st off, my credentials. -Bachelors of Science-Kinesiology with a minor in English, provisional lifetime certification to teach secondary English and secondary Phys. Ed. -Recently completed graduate studies to receive my Masters in Education--Teacher Leadership. -I have been teaching English since 1993 in the public school system in the Rio Grande Valley, with the last 12 years teaching English at Los Fresnos High School. As far back as TAKS began, my overall student groups have achieved over an 85% pass rate each year. -The last 4 years, I have been teaching sophomore English and have met AYP each year. My first sophomore group passed at 86%...2nd group at 88%, 3rd group at 90%, and last year, the students passed ELA TAKS at 95% pass rate. -This is my 1st year at a new freshman campus and my benchmarks are at 78% passing with remedial students (2 classes) and 100% with the regular English I kids. I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I do have some insight into the system. You all do realize that high school TAKS is coming to an end soon and will be replaced by end of course exams within the next three years IIRC. If they adopts this stance, they will be reinventing the wheel when EOC transitions in. Your hard earned tax dollars at work! When comparing public to private school experiences, I have seen both sides of the coin...children that were ahead of the public school curriculum, but unfortunately, most were behind the public school curriculum and needed a lot of help to catch up. Home schooled are the absolute worst, but my experiences with private school students coming into public schools is pretty dissapointing to say the least. I'm not saying all transfers are like this, as a member here has experienced the opposite. I'm just saying that not all transfer experiences are the same. Now for the policy of firing teachers for testing scores. While I have had good results from my students, I feel this is a terrible idea. The way these kids get grouped will have major implications on score results. I have seen first hand how some teachers will "hand pick" their classes by running off high risk students. I have seen first hand how the teachers that can "deal" with these high risk students get classes full of them because nobody else wants to deal with them. I have seen new teachers with the remedial classes, because the veteran teachers and hoity toity teachers feel they have put in their time and only want the "good" kids. Personally, I feel that there are many teachers that are better than me in my own department. I'm not being modest either. I feel other teachers have better ideas and presentation than I do. However, the scores do not always reflect this. How can a teacher be held accountable for student's performance on a one shot high stakes test? Teachers should be getting walkthroughs and formal evaluations. That is what should be taken into consideration. Not a singular high stakes test.
I appreciate your insight to the subject. I agree with everything you said. I'd like to point out though, I believe the idea is to hold teachers accountable for students' improvement, not an absolute score of a single test. I imagine if you start with a student with a 60 avg, and you can help bring it up to 70, you will have done a tremendous job. Better than if you help him to bring it from 90 to 91. BTW, I agree, End Of Course exams is a step backward in the evolution chain.
I took the 7th grade one last night. 13/14 year old students need to be challenged more. No, I did great on the SATs. This place is full of assumptions and racism.
IThe original post indicated it's based on student's improvement compared to their own past performance not to the other students. The 78% passing rate of the remedial students would not be compared to the 100% passing rate of the other English students. It would be compared to past performance of the individual students. Here's a snip from the chronicle article from the original post. [RQUOTER] The so-called value-added method measures whether a teacher's students scored better or worse than expected on standardized tests. The formula, developed by North Carolina statistician William Sanders, projects how each child should score based on that child's past performance. Teachers whose students significantly exceed expectations are deemed the most effective. [/RQUOTER] The remedial students with 78% could have improved greatly. Let's say, the remedial class had declining performance on average for each year. They have given up on school and have fallen behind every semester, until your class. 2006 70% 2007 60% 2008 50% 2009 78%(actual) (40% expected) Based on declining past performance, they would be expected to make 40% in 2009. It would show FANTASTIC progress by students and that you were an AMAZING educator, because the students exceeded expectations! That's the exciting part, the child's growth. While the 100% passing English students have always performed well, it may not matter who the teacher was. As you indicated, the veteran teachers will handpick the "good kids" and run off the "high risk" students. 2006 95% 2007 100% 2008 95% 2009 100% The "good" kids met expectations, because they have always done well. By basing it on a student progress instead of a student's performance compared to other students, it evens the playing field between the new teachers with remedial classes and the hoity toity teachers that only want the "good" kids.
You make a very valid point, and at the elementary and even middle schools, those projections should be spot on, but once students get to high school, turnarounds can be drastic. Students discover their identities and many rebel and fight the system. There are many kids with good projections pull a 180 and simply don't try. It's not a perfect system, and I don't think any teachers job should be based on the students performance. These kids will get smart and use these high stakes tests as a weapon to get rid of teachers they don't like. Can it be used as one of many indicators to evaluate a teacher. Maybe, but it should not be used as judge, jury, and executioner.
I hate that the system sympathizes for the students and not the teacher. Low test scores are almost always blamed on the teachers, "The student hasn't failed, the teacher has failed you". Etc. Etc. Teachers aren't motivators, if kids don't pay attention test scores are going to be low, nothing the teacher can really do about that.
