![]() |
![]() |
[Assessment 238] Re: Thoughts on apples and orangesGopalakrishnan, Ajit Ajit.Gopalakrishnan at ct.govWed Mar 15 09:48:11 EST 2006
My comments on some of the issues are below. Thanks. Ajit Ajit Gopalakrishnan Connecticut Department of Education 25 Industrial Park Road Middletown, CT 06457 Phone: (860) 807-2125 Fax: (860) 807-2062 Email: ajit.gopalakrishnan at ct.gov ________________________________ From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Marie Cora Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 11:14 AM To: assessment at nifl.gov Subject: [Assessment 234] Thoughts on apples and oranges Hi everyone, I'm going to pick up where the discussion left off last week - we were exploring some of the frustrations with standards, reported data, and goals. Several of you noted that because of the lack of national standards, it's tough or next to impossible to compare performance across programs or states. Actually, I think that the NRS accomplishes just that by outlining a nationally agreed upon set of skill levels and level descriptors. The NRS does not prescribe what standards a state has to use. It simply tries to compare the performance outcomes resulting from whatever standards the state is using. Yet part of what the federal system does is compare states to one another in terms of identifying recipients of things like incentive grants and so forth. I believe the federal system does not compare states to each other to determine incentive awards. That determination is based on a state's performance relative to its own performance targets. There is some level of state-to-state comparison in the process of establishing performance targets. States are required to report on how they are able to show gain via pre and post test scores - but as Andrea and Susan pointed out in their posts, there is no standardized method for showing this gain - each state creates its own benchmarks. I don't believe this statement is correct. The NRS benchmarks don't vary by state. The standardized method for showing gain is the NRS which requires the use of approved standardized assessments. What can we do about this? We need a national set of standards. But before that? Jane noted that state standards should be indicated within the submitted data - do any states do this? (probably not because they are not required). Would this help? Let's think this possibility through a little..... Susan described several scenarios for us in which one aspect necessarily must suffer in order for another aspect to be recognized (feel familiar to you?). I hear this lament constantly: 'so as a program director, do I make sure my numbers work so I can continue to get funded to run my program, or do I not compromise the integrity of the teaching/learning process but run the risk of not showing good data?' (and then my program loses its funding, so integrity becomes a moot point). However, we must have an accountability system; I really don't believe anyone wants to throw around money without real proof that it's not being wasted. One of you noted that reform then, must happen at the root - at the NRS - what would that look like? I have not read the original scenarios but have heard similar feelings expressed by some practitioners. This tends to be a no-win situation for those practitioners. My feeling is that state and local administrators need to be completely committed to maximizing the value of standardized assessments, and using data for decision making (not just data about test scores but also data relative to recruitment, retention, attendance, goal setting, etc. and data that might sometimes be very unflattering). Varshna - you asked if the NRS/DOE requirements included data validation as does DOLs requirements - not to my knowledge - but can anyone speak to this question? It's a good one. Varshna - do you believe that such data validation helps with the "apples/oranges" issue? How so? The NRS does require an extensive data validation checklist that looks at data structures, data systems, policy requirements, edit checks, and professional development. States submit this checklist along with their end-of-year data submission. Finally, Katrina - you brought up the 'gaps in data' issue and cited the "unanticipated" goals situation as an example. This is also something we need to address: if a student changes a goal or achieves a goal that was not specifically set at the outset of the learning process - this happens all the time actually and is normal behavior: shifting and changing your goals based on your experience and progress can logically happen during a learning process. But often, these goals can get lost or don't get counted or cannot be counted because our system does not give us a way to show increments for example. Yes, currently only goal-based outcomes relative to employment, postsecondary and diploma are of the greatest importance for NRS reporting. States can establish accountability systems that reward (monetary or otherwise) other outcomes if they so choose. What do we need? National standards? Is that the most important thing that will help combat these issues? A different way to capture learning? What would that look like? Remember that the needs of the funder and public are quite different than the needs of the teacher and student - and both are legitimate needs. What are your thoughts on these issues? Thanks, marie cora Assessment Discussion List Moderator marie.cora at hotspurpartners.com <mailto:Marie.cora at hotsurpartners.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20060315/2eb6725b/attachment.html
More information about the Assessment mailing list |