Two great tools made specifically for educators this week!!
Teach Collaborative Revision with Google Docs: I have long been a fan of Google docs to create documents with my colleagues. This site uses the same tool to help teachers work with students on revision - and often dreaded element of writing. Partnering with Weekly Reader's Writing for Teens magazine, this page shares a tutorial on Google docs and several writing activities. Check it out for an easy way to incorporate technology tools into the writing classroom!
PageFlakes Teacher Edition: When looking for a simple site to share RSS feeds that was not blocked by school districts, I stumbled upon PageFlakes. They have now added a "teacher edition" that is still simple to use but includes things like a "to do" list, a schedule tracker and even a grade keeper!! A nice homepage for the busy teacher!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give us a rating on the tips for this week in your comments!!
5 - WOW! What would I ever do without you? I'll be back every Tuesday!
3 - Interesting reading but I wouldn't use these tips!
1 - Please stop blogging!
Two for Tuesday
I thought I would borrow an idea from a new blogger I am reading who is really pushing my thinking. Every Tuesday, she posts about two technology tools that she has found that she believes she can integrate into her work. I am thinking that since the purpose of Grand Rounds is not just technology - but really learning and teaching - our "Two for Tuesday" might be technology (as it is this week) or might be articles on a topic, strategies for the classroom or other things. As always - Jenn and I look for additional contributions so if you have ideas that might fit - let us know and we can make you guest authors!!!
So - for this week:
1. Zotero : This is a new bibliographic software (think EndNote) that is actually a Firefox extension (in other words - FREE!!) Billed as being built by researchers for researchers, it has some pretty powerful capabilities that even this non-PhD candidate finds interesting: drag and drop use, works with online tools like Google Docs and it integrates your annotations and notes. Another cool feature?
"[O]ne of the distinctive features of the system is its ability to detect and extract bibliographic information for a range of sources during research. When Zotero senses information on a page you are viewing—a book, a journal article, a filmstrip, a newspaper, or whatever kind of item the system senses—it places a small icon in the location bar of your Firefox browser. When you click the icon in your location bar, Zotero captures the bibliographic information on the page and saves it in your Zotero database. You can then organize the items you capture through the Zotero pane, which you open by clicking on the Zotero logo in the bottom right corner of your browser window. From the Zotero pane, you can organize these items into collections, you can tag them, search them, sort them, annotate and highlight them, take notes, and drag and drop attachments like images and audio and video files onto them."
Thanks to Innovate for the "heads up" on this tool.
2. LiveScribe : This is a "paper based computer platform" (say that three times fast) which includes a a smartpen, paper, and software applications. This tool will record the lecture as you are taking notes - and you can listen to them when tapping on the note page!! You can send the file (including the audio) to classmates via email or post on the web. It also looks like this tool might have ELL applications as it will translate a word or phrase that is written and with the play-back, students can practice their pronunciations. Cost? The pen will be under $200 and the paper will cost about as much as other computing paper products.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give us a rating on the tips for this week in your comments!!
5 - WOW! What would I ever do without you? I'll be back every Tuesday!
3 - Interesting reading but I wouldn't use these tips!
1 - Please stop blogging!
So - for this week:
1. Zotero : This is a new bibliographic software (think EndNote) that is actually a Firefox extension (in other words - FREE!!) Billed as being built by researchers for researchers, it has some pretty powerful capabilities that even this non-PhD candidate finds interesting: drag and drop use, works with online tools like Google Docs and it integrates your annotations and notes. Another cool feature?
"[O]ne of the distinctive features of the system is its ability to detect and extract bibliographic information for a range of sources during research. When Zotero senses information on a page you are viewing—a book, a journal article, a filmstrip, a newspaper, or whatever kind of item the system senses—it places a small icon in the location bar of your Firefox browser. When you click the icon in your location bar, Zotero captures the bibliographic information on the page and saves it in your Zotero database. You can then organize the items you capture through the Zotero pane, which you open by clicking on the Zotero logo in the bottom right corner of your browser window. From the Zotero pane, you can organize these items into collections, you can tag them, search them, sort them, annotate and highlight them, take notes, and drag and drop attachments like images and audio and video files onto them."
Thanks to Innovate for the "heads up" on this tool.
2. LiveScribe : This is a "paper based computer platform" (say that three times fast) which includes a a smartpen, paper, and software applications. This tool will record the lecture as you are taking notes - and you can listen to them when tapping on the note page!! You can send the file (including the audio) to classmates via email or post on the web. It also looks like this tool might have ELL applications as it will translate a word or phrase that is written and with the play-back, students can practice their pronunciations. Cost? The pen will be under $200 and the paper will cost about as much as other computing paper products.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give us a rating on the tips for this week in your comments!!
5 - WOW! What would I ever do without you? I'll be back every Tuesday!
3 - Interesting reading but I wouldn't use these tips!
1 - Please stop blogging!
What if....
Sitting inside a conference venue in Dallas, Texas during the NSDC conference the following point was made (my notes):
"The power of a meta-analysis is that we can take a bunch of smaller studies and draw richer and more valid conclusions from them because the "n" is larger. When I was getting my PhD, my dissertation involved research using the perceptions and work of 45 teachers. I made determinations or found some trends "inconclusive" because I didn't have enough data. But when we combine research studies - we have a richer base to draw more accurate conclusions."
In this world of collaboration and creation via Web 2.0 tools - why can't we have doctoral dissertations (done on a small scale) become compiled as a meta-analysis in order to draw better conclusions? What are the roadblocks to this happening?
"The power of a meta-analysis is that we can take a bunch of smaller studies and draw richer and more valid conclusions from them because the "n" is larger. When I was getting my PhD, my dissertation involved research using the perceptions and work of 45 teachers. I made determinations or found some trends "inconclusive" because I didn't have enough data. But when we combine research studies - we have a richer base to draw more accurate conclusions."
In this world of collaboration and creation via Web 2.0 tools - why can't we have doctoral dissertations (done on a small scale) become compiled as a meta-analysis in order to draw better conclusions? What are the roadblocks to this happening?
What constitutes educational research?
For a change of pace, I thought today I'd revisit our original purpose around educational research as it's the content of my class tonight. The course is Critical Review of Research and the professor has asked us: What constitutes research?
We've started with the idea of "cherry picking" research. As a way of framing the conversation, a connection is made between researchers picking the data they want and people using quotes from the Bible to support an argument. As often happens in courses, we've meandered over the idea of the quality of research. Consider - is everything ASCD publishes high quality? Do they review content for books around ethical issues? Do they look for evidence behind a book (excluding Marzano, of course) before publishing it. Let's ignore for a moment all of the discussion about the federal policy around quality research. Are educators even taught how to be effective discriminators of research? Is that what curriculum coordinators and Associate Superintendents are for?
How about you? Do you feel you were/are prepared to filter through research? Do you seek out research to inform your practice?
We've started with the idea of "cherry picking" research. As a way of framing the conversation, a connection is made between researchers picking the data they want and people using quotes from the Bible to support an argument. As often happens in courses, we've meandered over the idea of the quality of research. Consider - is everything ASCD publishes high quality? Do they review content for books around ethical issues? Do they look for evidence behind a book (excluding Marzano, of course) before publishing it. Let's ignore for a moment all of the discussion about the federal policy around quality research. Are educators even taught how to be effective discriminators of research? Is that what curriculum coordinators and Associate Superintendents are for?
How about you? Do you feel you were/are prepared to filter through research? Do you seek out research to inform your practice?
What would Dylan say?
I posted this for response from my C4L Fellows but anyone, anyone, can join in!!
Parallels
It amazes me sometimes how Jenn and I can be miles apart yet so common in thought. On Monday, while Jenn was hoping to never grow old, I was listening to Will Richardson and Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach speak to regional educators to kick off a year long "virtual learning community."
Will reminded us that education seems to move at 5 mph while other professions move at 75-90-100 miles an hour when adapting to change. He wasn't criticizing teaching, but had a point that we are doing a great job at educating kids for today, but what about tomorrow?
Kids have these tools, they use these tools. It is up to us, as educators, as parents, as aunts - to help them leverage these tools. Like it or not - as Jenn pointed out in her post - we can't dismiss things like Second Life or (gulp!) Twitter. I don't get them - but I can't really figure them out if I don't do more than tip my toe into the technology waters. And I certainly can't prepare students for tomorrow without them.
Jenn talks about getting old - I'm not sure it's an age thing but a lack of awareness and "common sense". Just watch this video of Larry Lessig (creator of Creative Commons)and you'll see what I mean. As Larry says, we made mix tapes, our kids are making mash-ups; we watched tv, our kids are creating tv. The Internet is not just for information anymore - it is for creating, publishing, collaborating. What are you afraid of?
Will reminded us that education seems to move at 5 mph while other professions move at 75-90-100 miles an hour when adapting to change. He wasn't criticizing teaching, but had a point that we are doing a great job at educating kids for today, but what about tomorrow?
Kids have these tools, they use these tools. It is up to us, as educators, as parents, as aunts - to help them leverage these tools. Like it or not - as Jenn pointed out in her post - we can't dismiss things like Second Life or (gulp!) Twitter. I don't get them - but I can't really figure them out if I don't do more than tip my toe into the technology waters. And I certainly can't prepare students for tomorrow without them.
Jenn talks about getting old - I'm not sure it's an age thing but a lack of awareness and "common sense". Just watch this video of Larry Lessig (creator of Creative Commons)and you'll see what I mean. As Larry says, we made mix tapes, our kids are making mash-ups; we watched tv, our kids are creating tv. The Internet is not just for information anymore - it is for creating, publishing, collaborating. What are you afraid of?
Bah Humbug!
A few weeks ago, I saw this video and like many educators was deeply moved by the statements the students were making. It reminded me why I should bite the bullet and step into Second Life, why we need to take risks and explore technology, even when it seems frivolous or non-educational related. I saw it as a video that put into meaningful images what it means to be a student growing up a time when CD's have ALWAYS existed, Jay Leno has ALWAYS been on TV, and the Berlin Wall was torn down before you were born. I'm not a spring chicken. There are times when I feel old and am now asking all of my friends and loved ones. If I ever badmouth technology, beat me with a printer cable. So, yes, I suppose I'm calling this guy old. Not clever, not witty, but I have lost my capacity for articulate speech.
I re-read his commentary, looking for a quote to respond to and I can't force myself to highlight and copy anything he's written. I can't even find anything reasonable in his argument that makes me question why I adore this video so much. So we're not all fans of the phrase Web 2.0 but calling the professor incompetent? Bashing our profession? That's what he saw? Wow. Wow. Really, that's the extent of my vocabulary right now.
I saw an ad on the NYC subway last week that made me grin. Do we get old when we stop eating peanut butter or do we get old because we stop eating peanut butter? Don't know what it was for (I'll assume peanut butter) but it came to mind when I finally took a deep breath after reading his post.
Are we officially old when we see an articulation of technology that has emerged among the generation after us and bad-mouth the users rather than investigate the possibilities?
I really, really, really hope I never get old.
I re-read his commentary, looking for a quote to respond to and I can't force myself to highlight and copy anything he's written. I can't even find anything reasonable in his argument that makes me question why I adore this video so much. So we're not all fans of the phrase Web 2.0 but calling the professor incompetent? Bashing our profession? That's what he saw? Wow. Wow. Really, that's the extent of my vocabulary right now.
I saw an ad on the NYC subway last week that made me grin. Do we get old when we stop eating peanut butter or do we get old because we stop eating peanut butter? Don't know what it was for (I'll assume peanut butter) but it came to mind when I finally took a deep breath after reading his post.
Are we officially old when we see an articulation of technology that has emerged among the generation after us and bad-mouth the users rather than investigate the possibilities?
I really, really, really hope I never get old.
Larry Ainsworth - Day Two (aka Better Late Than Never)
Life interupted work and blogging for me this past week. You never realize how you are missed until folks say "Hey - where is Day 2 of that workshop?" or send you volumes of emails wondering why you didn't respond to one!!
But I digress!! Larry Ainsworth on Day 2 was just as great as Day 1 but absolutely more of a work session. For folks with a strong background in item writing, rubrics, and the like - it was light on content and heavy on work. For others - it was heavy on content. I am still surprised at the number of educators who don't know what a rubric is!!
Since our Power Social Studies team (my name, not theirs) had already unwrapped our standard and our fearless leader had already culled all the questions that applied to that standard from previous NYS Assessments - we were ready to roll. We thought...
Turns out that the questions that NYS asks on this standard didn't exactly match the content and skills we had unwrapped!!
Now - before there is tremendous shock and outrage - as we talked it through, we realized in part that it is due to the data format. When we selected a Power Standard to unwrap - we selected an upcoming unit for our lead teacher and one that we knew kids had a hard time understanding. It was a standard that is covered frequently on the NYS Assessments (so it met the power standard requirement) but the standard alone (from the core curriculum) did not give us sufficient information to do a good job in unwrapping it!
Here is how we modified the process:
1. After unwrapping the standard for content/skills, we looked at all the test questions that "matched" that standard.
2. We developed a list of "key vocabulary" (which included not only terms but events and people).
3. We redefined the "skills" we had unwrapped to include any from the questions that were not already there (i.e. recognizing point of view in a political cartoon)
4. We created a secondary set of "essential questions" for the unit - that had an answer and were not quite as broad as the ones we created initially (so should probably be called "guiding" questions).
As we moved on to creating our "assessments" we used the old questions for multiple choice (no sense re-creating the wheel) but developed our own DBQ to answer one of our larger essential questions.
The template that guided our work was helpful - but as I said, we took some libterties with it. Particularly in Social Studies - I think we will need to do this in order to get around the breadth vs. depth issues.
Our end product isn't posted for the world to see yet - Erie 1 BOCES is trying to work out some copyright issues - once it is there, I'll be able to share more. And maybe once I have had more than 3 hours sleep - I'll post more!
But I digress!! Larry Ainsworth on Day 2 was just as great as Day 1 but absolutely more of a work session. For folks with a strong background in item writing, rubrics, and the like - it was light on content and heavy on work. For others - it was heavy on content. I am still surprised at the number of educators who don't know what a rubric is!!
Since our Power Social Studies team (my name, not theirs) had already unwrapped our standard and our fearless leader had already culled all the questions that applied to that standard from previous NYS Assessments - we were ready to roll. We thought...
Turns out that the questions that NYS asks on this standard didn't exactly match the content and skills we had unwrapped!!
Now - before there is tremendous shock and outrage - as we talked it through, we realized in part that it is due to the data format. When we selected a Power Standard to unwrap - we selected an upcoming unit for our lead teacher and one that we knew kids had a hard time understanding. It was a standard that is covered frequently on the NYS Assessments (so it met the power standard requirement) but the standard alone (from the core curriculum) did not give us sufficient information to do a good job in unwrapping it!
Here is how we modified the process:
1. After unwrapping the standard for content/skills, we looked at all the test questions that "matched" that standard.
2. We developed a list of "key vocabulary" (which included not only terms but events and people).
3. We redefined the "skills" we had unwrapped to include any from the questions that were not already there (i.e. recognizing point of view in a political cartoon)
4. We created a secondary set of "essential questions" for the unit - that had an answer and were not quite as broad as the ones we created initially (so should probably be called "guiding" questions).
As we moved on to creating our "assessments" we used the old questions for multiple choice (no sense re-creating the wheel) but developed our own DBQ to answer one of our larger essential questions.
The template that guided our work was helpful - but as I said, we took some libterties with it. Particularly in Social Studies - I think we will need to do this in order to get around the breadth vs. depth issues.
Our end product isn't posted for the world to see yet - Erie 1 BOCES is trying to work out some copyright issues - once it is there, I'll be able to share more. And maybe once I have had more than 3 hours sleep - I'll post more!
Common Formative Assessments - Part 1
Attending a two-day conference with Larry Ainsworth on developing common formative assessments. The room is packed with 160 teachers and leaders from the region - it is a pretty diverse group. Larry Ainsworth does a remarkable job in working with the crowd and in reminding the leaders in the group that they need to participate as well.
The structure of the day is such that we have an input session, then work in small groups, input session, work in small groups. The goal at the end of two days is that we will have "unwrapped" standards for an upcoming topic/unit and used a template to create some formative assessments.
Some take-aways from Day 1:
- Evaluating your current assessment system can be a simple, but eye-opening exercise. After listing all the assessments we use, we then ranked and coded them to indicate those that make the greatest impact on instruction and student learning, those that aligned to "power standards," those that emphasize literacy/numeracy and others. The purpose? Are we getting the biggest bang for our buck when it comes to assessment?
- We are over testing and under assessing.
- The revised Blooms are back!! The final cognitive piece of create is critical - being able to assess the cognitive load of standards/state assessments in critical to ensure alignment of our formative assessments. (Why ask a "remember" level question if the standards/assessment require "analysis"?)
- If the standards are asking for "lower level" Blooms and our expectations are higher - raise them up! Just notate them as "teacher added" so that someone who reads them afterwards understands. (This happened after it was observed by more than one group that the NYS Social Studies standards are fairly low level.)
- Under this model - essential questions and "big ideas" are not identical to the UbD model. They apply more to the individual units or learning goals - not quite as lofty.
- "Big Ideas" are those things that at the end of the learning activities, we would be happy that kids could articulate in their own language. "Essential Questions" are the questions that would get us the "Big Idea" answer.
Tomorrow - we write assessments!
The structure of the day is such that we have an input session, then work in small groups, input session, work in small groups. The goal at the end of two days is that we will have "unwrapped" standards for an upcoming topic/unit and used a template to create some formative assessments.
Some take-aways from Day 1:
- Evaluating your current assessment system can be a simple, but eye-opening exercise. After listing all the assessments we use, we then ranked and coded them to indicate those that make the greatest impact on instruction and student learning, those that aligned to "power standards," those that emphasize literacy/numeracy and others. The purpose? Are we getting the biggest bang for our buck when it comes to assessment?
- We are over testing and under assessing.
- The revised Blooms are back!! The final cognitive piece of create is critical - being able to assess the cognitive load of standards/state assessments in critical to ensure alignment of our formative assessments. (Why ask a "remember" level question if the standards/assessment require "analysis"?)
- If the standards are asking for "lower level" Blooms and our expectations are higher - raise them up! Just notate them as "teacher added" so that someone who reads them afterwards understands. (This happened after it was observed by more than one group that the NYS Social Studies standards are fairly low level.)
- Under this model - essential questions and "big ideas" are not identical to the UbD model. They apply more to the individual units or learning goals - not quite as lofty.
- "Big Ideas" are those things that at the end of the learning activities, we would be happy that kids could articulate in their own language. "Essential Questions" are the questions that would get us the "Big Idea" answer.
Tomorrow - we write assessments!
Information Revolution
While I have been using technology for the past year and a half to work with teachers, Jenn is more intuitively techie than I. Often - I wait to see what Jenn had discovered and then ride her wake to make it applicable to what I do.
I count it as a major triumph that we led a Skype revolution this past week - getting virtually all of our C4L Fellows ready to go and my one colleague who doesn't necessarily have her laptop glued to her fingertips at all times seeing its power.
But in working with teachers on using technology, I bring up the three roadblocks that I continue to encounter:
1. Lack of technology comfort - note, I didn't say knowledge. We know how to do these things - the new technology tools are extremely logical. It is our comfort level with the tools, clicking on a button with confidence that we will not change the course of history, that seems to be a bigger issue.
2. Lack of school support - I can't tell you how many trainings I am asked to do where I have to email my list of links a week in advance to get them "temporarily" unblocked for the training, only to have the teachers then not be able to access the tools they were trained on a mere 24 hours later. If you want the training, trust the teachers!!
3. Lack of transparency - in other words, we don't want to publish our work, our questions, our classrooms. While we will talk about it with colleagues in the abstract, putting ourselves "out there" will make us transparent - and open to comment, critique, criticism. Who wants that?
We do!! Jenn showed in the previous post the tools that our students are using and asked (begged? pleaded? implored?) you to try at least one. Did you? Why not? If her post didn't compel you to do so - maybe this video will:
How will you find information in the future if you can't use these tools?
I count it as a major triumph that we led a Skype revolution this past week - getting virtually all of our C4L Fellows ready to go and my one colleague who doesn't necessarily have her laptop glued to her fingertips at all times seeing its power.
But in working with teachers on using technology, I bring up the three roadblocks that I continue to encounter:
1. Lack of technology comfort - note, I didn't say knowledge. We know how to do these things - the new technology tools are extremely logical. It is our comfort level with the tools, clicking on a button with confidence that we will not change the course of history, that seems to be a bigger issue.
2. Lack of school support - I can't tell you how many trainings I am asked to do where I have to email my list of links a week in advance to get them "temporarily" unblocked for the training, only to have the teachers then not be able to access the tools they were trained on a mere 24 hours later. If you want the training, trust the teachers!!
3. Lack of transparency - in other words, we don't want to publish our work, our questions, our classrooms. While we will talk about it with colleagues in the abstract, putting ourselves "out there" will make us transparent - and open to comment, critique, criticism. Who wants that?
We do!! Jenn showed in the previous post the tools that our students are using and asked (begged? pleaded? implored?) you to try at least one. Did you? Why not? If her post didn't compel you to do so - maybe this video will:
How will you find information in the future if you can't use these tools?
A reminder why we do this. . .
After two days of technology frustration, I wasn't ready to throw out my laptop, but I was ready to give it a stern talking to. Then I saw this. And I remembered why it is imperative that educators ride the wave with the students - not drown in their wake. I ask you to watch this and then commit to mastering one thing that is mentioned in the video. Exploring one idea or tool or thread that will make one of the students in this video bump into you in the sea that is the Web 2.0 and say "welcome, glad you're here." Please.
Blogging DATAG meeting October 5, 2007
Before leaving for DATAG, this posting on G-Town Talks came up on my feed and I was immediately inspired. One of the other attendees at DATAG also uses Skype and I would have liked to explored Skyping during a meeting as a means of processing the content but it was hard enough to follow David, much less type up notes and follow a Sype conversation.
Below are the notes I took during David Abrams' speech this morning. Any misquotes or misunderstandings are my fault.
There are more people in attendance today than I think I’ve ever seen here. David Abrams is our first speaker – as the Assistant Commissioner for all things testing related, he’s the top of the food chain.
So – before we get started. . . I’m wondering:
Will the rest of the state adopt the model being used by NYC? (3 part report cards based on value-added, parent surveys, and school walk-throughs)
When are they going to pitch NYStart out the window and start again? (Note: 10 mins into his presentation, David said it was no longer his cross to bear. That answers that question.)
Introduction from Brian Preston – yup, it’s the largest attendance. More than the summer conference. Our theme is “state assessment and future models”. Sexy!
Background on David Abrams – Original member of DATAG (from his time in Albany). He was a high school English teacher and I think this shows in his presentation style.
Recognition from David for the work of DATAG (wow – he talks really fast), especially during the changes in testing programs. Apparently, he gets letters from across the state that leads him to believe that not everyone understands the system and reason for the changes. (Good plug for DIG’s – getting people involved in local groups with a more relaxed environment).
For the irrelevant portion of the program – David advised us all to join DATAG so we can “get on the listserv and bitch”. There hasn’t been a lot of that lately but point taken.
It’s official – there is a next generation of the accountability system and is in development.
David’s PowerPoint is pulled together from the Commissioner’s PowerPoints and will highlight the data points that David find interesting. Starting with English. There’s been movement over the last few years in a positive direction. Some discussion about the area of Reading as its own focus (as opposed to literary or reading in the content areas). The idea of students as independent readers emerges in middle school. David is interested in exploring the concept of a middle level literacy profile. Getting those struggling middle level readers what they need. The reality is that there are very few reading teachers at the middle school or high school level.
Comment about tests being built form two primary languages – primary verbal language and primary math language – but I’m not sure what he meant by that. He’s used the phrase not happening "at scale" twice now. This issue of discrepancy of data use and understanding across the state is apparently an issue.
Ah – the testing policy for the ELLs. As a data person, David wasn’t freaked out by the changes in the ELL policy. He wanted the ELA data as an additional data point. He shared he was asked to present at hearings in DC but didn’t want to share what he stance he took. His previous statement leads me to believe that he supported testing of ELL in English after one year, rather than 3.
Native born students – came into system in K or grade 1. District should be getting these kids at grade level by Grade 3.
Newly arrived – some discussion about the role of literacy in Language 1 and the impact on education. Clearly, David has spent a lot of time thinking about this issue. All of his comments make sense in the large scale sense of the testing program. He has the ultimate view of aggregate data.
Students with Interrupted Formal Education – missed the point he was making here but he used the words heterogonous and homogenous about six times in the same sentence.
Test was designed to “get in and get out” – tests have 20-30 MC items but everyone knows “that one item can really make a difference for Level 4’s”. There is a need to refine the tails of the test in order to get better data for the Level 1’s and Level 4’s.
Discussion about Students with Disabilities. Raised the point that diagnosis patterns are not consistent across districts. Mindset about testing SWD has changed but more work is needed around who is being identified and who is not.
Interesting political point – David just referred to the reauthorization of Title 1 “which was called No Child Left Behind”. He said he’s trying to break the habit of calling it NCLB. Hum. . .
So – to summarize the first half an hour. David is a proponent of longer tests that get better data and are more specific at the tails. He’s aware of issues for SWD and ELLs.
Another use of the phrase “at scale” – take a drink of Diet Pepsi.
Just got confirmation the state tests are not designed to tell Mrs. Jones and Apple School how her kids are doing. It’s to assess how New York State schools are doing in implementing the NYS Learning Standards. It is always powerful to hear him say that and I wish he’d said it a little slower.
HS Math. Ok – this year is a baseline of math standards – all together now, “at scale”. The number of students at Level 1 in grade 8 is scary and has major implications for HS programs. Schools should really take a look at the Grade 9 math program. Every HS principal should be looking at how students are being taught math in Grade 9.
70% of LEP population in NYS speaks Spanish. Wow. Students can take the math test in their dominate language so there are minimal ELL issues, but there are still gaps between Hispanic/Black and White/Asian students. Expects we’ll move into incremental movements on the math test.
Continued issue of item density at the tails. The break between Low 2 and High 1 is narrow. Need to identify who is “floating” right above standard cut points. Commissioner won’t talk about Standard Error because it will “break the brains of the press” (ha!) but districts need to be aware of those issues. He just flew through an example of a thermometer in the sun or in the shade but I lost the context, sorry.
Just got confirmation that David supports formative assessment and multiple measures. He said: some districts are buying formative assessment programs and using them as a summative program. This is bad. (I’m paraphrasing)
Review of standard setting process for Integrated Algebra test – I think there was some really important stuff there about pre-equating, post-equating, open-ended and closed responses but I wasn’t able to catch all of it and when I re-read what I did write, it made no sense. So, I’ll infer that David wants a dense test, not long and wants to make sure it’s done right. He just challenged people to prove that the Regents don’t test higher order skills – he can prove that they do. Any takers?
He said “fat data set” when describing data collected during the standard setting process. I'm totally stealing that.
Sample test for the Integrated Algebra will be out by Halloween. He would recommend that every High School in New York State pull together all math teachers and break apart the sampler. What is the range of difficult? What are the standards? DO NOT DROP THE SAMPLER ON A KID’S DESK AND SAY “TAKE IT.” Teach the curriculum. The value of the sampler is for the instructional staff. Have meetings with Grade 8 math teachers. Don’t look at it in isolation. Consider the curriculum, consider the core standards document.
David has been arguing with SED about test design, psychometrics, and protecting the integrity of the test for the students. He confessed that he is scared by the fact that he is extracting measurement from children. Live human children. His job is to protect the individual rights of the individual students. Aww!
The most stable data set for setting a standard is the operational data. David has spent a long time and asked a lot of people about the best way to do standard setting. Unlike 3-8, when your standard setting six tests at a time, David is confident that they can do standard setting within one week for the math test. The entire testing program has been audited and peer review by the USDOE. Arguments that the test is not aligned or unfair do not hold water. Conversion chart should be up by the morning of June 26th.
David confessed that he can’t sit still. Not a surprise.
He went to Pearson and gave them the “hairy death eye” on behalf of NYS. He reviewed their scoring procedures, see their scanning center, and meet with everyone who will be working on NYS assessments. He came out of the trip with several ideas on how to make things go smoothly in June.
He’s drafting a logistic memo that will be release by November. It will say “here are the rules, here’s what will happen, here’s what everything will look like.” This is to cut off (he actually used the phrase CYA) anyone who says they didn’t get notification in time.
Will do a full formal dry run in the Spring to vet any IT problems. Wants to make sure that files are accessible and can be viewed by all BOCES. Don’t worry about structure and format, as he’s given his work that the file formats will be compatible.
Information about the new tests will be posted at: www.emsc.nysed.gov/osa/new-math.htm
Accountability Update: Status versus Growth
Status Model: takes a snapshot of a subgroup’s or school’s level of student proficiency at one point in time and often compares that proficiency level with an establish target. New cohort each time.
Growth: Variation on status. Take a snapshot at each consecutive year and compare to previous year. Lots of different approaches. Lots of discussion and issues of standard error.
Real issue is tension between governance and school improvement.
David likes the New York Yankees. Dislikes Red Sox.
Likes Lobster. Dislikes Liver.
These do not impact his judgment.
He does not like or dislike value- or growth-added. His job to find out what works best and which is the most sound.
The goal is to build from status to growth. What are they doing? He won’t tell us. But he will tell us what he’s exploring.
Growth is not allowed. NYS is not in model because we started a year too late. Other states started a year before NYS.
David has been meeting with USDOE around the NYS model. He shared the name of several places that do models – it’s all about growth NOT value-added.
There is tension in the next generation because people want the system to inform decisions at the school level. “The best way to inform school decisions is through a multiple-measure system of assessment.” However, this system needs a standard “spine”.
David is scared by Margaret Spelling. I wonder if that’s a like or dislike?
NYS is researching if we can build a full vertical scale. No time for discussion today. His PowerPoint at this point summarizes most of his monologue. Note that the new model will start in 08-09. I wonder if this will change after the federal election?
Transparent does not mean easily understandable. A system this complex cannot be easily understood. It’s is rocket science. I think that was a little shout-out to the Geeks in the room.
OK – here’s a question. He said growth NOT value but the slide he just showed that the design is destined to align to value-added in 2010-11. I asked my question aloud – not sure I know the difference between the two. What I got from his response was that one is related to large-scale accountability, one isn’t. Social Studies was used as an example but I’m sure how it fits into my question. I’m hoping the next session will explain the difference between value-added and growth-added at a slower pace.
David will forward four references to the listserv about large-scale assessment. Thung at Michigan State is a recommended author as well as some folks at UCLA.
Lunch break and then value-added.
Below are the notes I took during David Abrams' speech this morning. Any misquotes or misunderstandings are my fault.
There are more people in attendance today than I think I’ve ever seen here. David Abrams is our first speaker – as the Assistant Commissioner for all things testing related, he’s the top of the food chain.
So – before we get started. . . I’m wondering:
Will the rest of the state adopt the model being used by NYC? (3 part report cards based on value-added, parent surveys, and school walk-throughs)
When are they going to pitch NYStart out the window and start again? (Note: 10 mins into his presentation, David said it was no longer his cross to bear. That answers that question.)
Introduction from Brian Preston – yup, it’s the largest attendance. More than the summer conference. Our theme is “state assessment and future models”. Sexy!
Background on David Abrams – Original member of DATAG (from his time in Albany). He was a high school English teacher and I think this shows in his presentation style.
Recognition from David for the work of DATAG (wow – he talks really fast), especially during the changes in testing programs. Apparently, he gets letters from across the state that leads him to believe that not everyone understands the system and reason for the changes. (Good plug for DIG’s – getting people involved in local groups with a more relaxed environment).
For the irrelevant portion of the program – David advised us all to join DATAG so we can “get on the listserv and bitch”. There hasn’t been a lot of that lately but point taken.
It’s official – there is a next generation of the accountability system and is in development.
David’s PowerPoint is pulled together from the Commissioner’s PowerPoints and will highlight the data points that David find interesting. Starting with English. There’s been movement over the last few years in a positive direction. Some discussion about the area of Reading as its own focus (as opposed to literary or reading in the content areas). The idea of students as independent readers emerges in middle school. David is interested in exploring the concept of a middle level literacy profile. Getting those struggling middle level readers what they need. The reality is that there are very few reading teachers at the middle school or high school level.
Comment about tests being built form two primary languages – primary verbal language and primary math language – but I’m not sure what he meant by that. He’s used the phrase not happening "at scale" twice now. This issue of discrepancy of data use and understanding across the state is apparently an issue.
Ah – the testing policy for the ELLs. As a data person, David wasn’t freaked out by the changes in the ELL policy. He wanted the ELA data as an additional data point. He shared he was asked to present at hearings in DC but didn’t want to share what he stance he took. His previous statement leads me to believe that he supported testing of ELL in English after one year, rather than 3.
Native born students – came into system in K or grade 1. District should be getting these kids at grade level by Grade 3.
Newly arrived – some discussion about the role of literacy in Language 1 and the impact on education. Clearly, David has spent a lot of time thinking about this issue. All of his comments make sense in the large scale sense of the testing program. He has the ultimate view of aggregate data.
Students with Interrupted Formal Education – missed the point he was making here but he used the words heterogonous and homogenous about six times in the same sentence.
Test was designed to “get in and get out” – tests have 20-30 MC items but everyone knows “that one item can really make a difference for Level 4’s”. There is a need to refine the tails of the test in order to get better data for the Level 1’s and Level 4’s.
Discussion about Students with Disabilities. Raised the point that diagnosis patterns are not consistent across districts. Mindset about testing SWD has changed but more work is needed around who is being identified and who is not.
Interesting political point – David just referred to the reauthorization of Title 1 “which was called No Child Left Behind”. He said he’s trying to break the habit of calling it NCLB. Hum. . .
So – to summarize the first half an hour. David is a proponent of longer tests that get better data and are more specific at the tails. He’s aware of issues for SWD and ELLs.
Another use of the phrase “at scale” – take a drink of Diet Pepsi.
Just got confirmation the state tests are not designed to tell Mrs. Jones and Apple School how her kids are doing. It’s to assess how New York State schools are doing in implementing the NYS Learning Standards. It is always powerful to hear him say that and I wish he’d said it a little slower.
HS Math. Ok – this year is a baseline of math standards – all together now, “at scale”. The number of students at Level 1 in grade 8 is scary and has major implications for HS programs. Schools should really take a look at the Grade 9 math program. Every HS principal should be looking at how students are being taught math in Grade 9.
70% of LEP population in NYS speaks Spanish. Wow. Students can take the math test in their dominate language so there are minimal ELL issues, but there are still gaps between Hispanic/Black and White/Asian students. Expects we’ll move into incremental movements on the math test.
Continued issue of item density at the tails. The break between Low 2 and High 1 is narrow. Need to identify who is “floating” right above standard cut points. Commissioner won’t talk about Standard Error because it will “break the brains of the press” (ha!) but districts need to be aware of those issues. He just flew through an example of a thermometer in the sun or in the shade but I lost the context, sorry.
Just got confirmation that David supports formative assessment and multiple measures. He said: some districts are buying formative assessment programs and using them as a summative program. This is bad. (I’m paraphrasing)
Review of standard setting process for Integrated Algebra test – I think there was some really important stuff there about pre-equating, post-equating, open-ended and closed responses but I wasn’t able to catch all of it and when I re-read what I did write, it made no sense. So, I’ll infer that David wants a dense test, not long and wants to make sure it’s done right. He just challenged people to prove that the Regents don’t test higher order skills – he can prove that they do. Any takers?
He said “fat data set” when describing data collected during the standard setting process. I'm totally stealing that.
Sample test for the Integrated Algebra will be out by Halloween. He would recommend that every High School in New York State pull together all math teachers and break apart the sampler. What is the range of difficult? What are the standards? DO NOT DROP THE SAMPLER ON A KID’S DESK AND SAY “TAKE IT.” Teach the curriculum. The value of the sampler is for the instructional staff. Have meetings with Grade 8 math teachers. Don’t look at it in isolation. Consider the curriculum, consider the core standards document.
David has been arguing with SED about test design, psychometrics, and protecting the integrity of the test for the students. He confessed that he is scared by the fact that he is extracting measurement from children. Live human children. His job is to protect the individual rights of the individual students. Aww!
The most stable data set for setting a standard is the operational data. David has spent a long time and asked a lot of people about the best way to do standard setting. Unlike 3-8, when your standard setting six tests at a time, David is confident that they can do standard setting within one week for the math test. The entire testing program has been audited and peer review by the USDOE. Arguments that the test is not aligned or unfair do not hold water. Conversion chart should be up by the morning of June 26th.
David confessed that he can’t sit still. Not a surprise.
He went to Pearson and gave them the “hairy death eye” on behalf of NYS. He reviewed their scoring procedures, see their scanning center, and meet with everyone who will be working on NYS assessments. He came out of the trip with several ideas on how to make things go smoothly in June.
He’s drafting a logistic memo that will be release by November. It will say “here are the rules, here’s what will happen, here’s what everything will look like.” This is to cut off (he actually used the phrase CYA) anyone who says they didn’t get notification in time.
Will do a full formal dry run in the Spring to vet any IT problems. Wants to make sure that files are accessible and can be viewed by all BOCES. Don’t worry about structure and format, as he’s given his work that the file formats will be compatible.
Information about the new tests will be posted at: www.emsc.nysed.gov/osa/new-math.htm
Accountability Update: Status versus Growth
Status Model: takes a snapshot of a subgroup’s or school’s level of student proficiency at one point in time and often compares that proficiency level with an establish target. New cohort each time.
Growth: Variation on status. Take a snapshot at each consecutive year and compare to previous year. Lots of different approaches. Lots of discussion and issues of standard error.
Real issue is tension between governance and school improvement.
David likes the New York Yankees. Dislikes Red Sox.
Likes Lobster. Dislikes Liver.
These do not impact his judgment.
He does not like or dislike value- or growth-added. His job to find out what works best and which is the most sound.
The goal is to build from status to growth. What are they doing? He won’t tell us. But he will tell us what he’s exploring.
Growth is not allowed. NYS is not in model because we started a year too late. Other states started a year before NYS.
David has been meeting with USDOE around the NYS model. He shared the name of several places that do models – it’s all about growth NOT value-added.
There is tension in the next generation because people want the system to inform decisions at the school level. “The best way to inform school decisions is through a multiple-measure system of assessment.” However, this system needs a standard “spine”.
David is scared by Margaret Spelling. I wonder if that’s a like or dislike?
NYS is researching if we can build a full vertical scale. No time for discussion today. His PowerPoint at this point summarizes most of his monologue. Note that the new model will start in 08-09. I wonder if this will change after the federal election?
Transparent does not mean easily understandable. A system this complex cannot be easily understood. It’s is rocket science. I think that was a little shout-out to the Geeks in the room.
OK – here’s a question. He said growth NOT value but the slide he just showed that the design is destined to align to value-added in 2010-11. I asked my question aloud – not sure I know the difference between the two. What I got from his response was that one is related to large-scale accountability, one isn’t. Social Studies was used as an example but I’m sure how it fits into my question. I’m hoping the next session will explain the difference between value-added and growth-added at a slower pace.
David will forward four references to the listserv about large-scale assessment. Thung at Michigan State is a recommended author as well as some folks at UCLA.
Lunch break and then value-added.
Can I Get an AMEN!?
From the Miami Sun-Sentinel:
Now how about for ALL kids?
"...board members on Tuesday told Notter to create a committee of teachers, administrators, parents and students to figure out how to prepare students for the state's high stakes test without hurting other classroom lessons. Notter also was instructed to reduce FCAT hoopla, meaning the pep rallies, banners and T-shirts, and cut back on test preparation for middle and high school students who already perform well on the exams."
Now how about for ALL kids?
Change or Die!
A scary premise - but a thought provoking one. I just finished this book by Alan Deutschman which begins:
Now - aside from having an extremely powerful lead that will make its way into many of my writing workshops - the entire book caused me to actually stop, put it down, and THINK about change. So - it took me longer to read than some other books I have picked up lately.
The author indiates that there are three "keys" to change:
1. Relate - you form a new, emotional relationship with a person or community that inspires and sustains hope.
2. Repeat - the new relationship helps you learn, practice, and master the new habits and skills you'll need.
3. Reframe - the new relationship helps you learn new ways of thinking about your situation and your life.
Now - before I lead you astray, let me warn you that there is one, itsy-bitsy piece of this book that directly relates to education. Instead - I found myself reframing the contents of the book to my experiences in education to test the "keys." But I found that in the instances when I have made a real change to my practice, the keys absolutely hold true.
Let's take my adventures into Web 2.0 tools. Summer 2006, I was a participant the High School's New Face conference put on by our regional BOCES. While I was a participant in the Engaging Students strand with Richard Strong and Harvey Silver, we also had the opportunity to have Will Richardson share his experiences at keynote speeches. Meeting and learning from these folks for three days in a retreat-like setting created the new relationship for me. We are not on a first name basis but hearing these folks speak and being able to interact with them and reflect upon my work and practice created that emotional relationship that provided me with hope again - that I really could make a difference. (If you doubt this - ask my colleagues who had to suffer through some pretty emotional bouts in the weeks following the conference.)
After that - I began to investigate the use of blogs and wikis as ways to engage teachers so that they, in turn, could engage their students. Many of the lessons from Richard and Harvey found their way into the tools that were shared by Will. I began to reach out and read other blogs, to cautiously post on the blogs of others, to share my thoughts and practice with teachers. It has been over a year now - and I can honestly say that my practice has changed to the point where I immediately see Web 2.0 connections to practice when I learn something new.
This has caused me to reframe my personal thoughts about learning and about building community. I work hard to share what I have created in the hopes of creating that same type of relationship with others. I think differently about the workshops that I offer and how they are developed. I am constantly driven by the question of what this means in educating our students for the new, flatter world and how it can be used to help build connections. Most importantly, it has helped me to find a personal center and to work to develop my writing skills.
I could think back upon my introduction to Communities for Learning (formerly known as CSETL) as another example of change in my practice that has followed the three keys. And my decision to no longer practice law and enter education. And the first time that I lost weight and became really, truly, physically fit (which has caused me to think about what I need to do differently to once again lose weight!) The keys make sense to me.
Which now leads me to these questions: If I am a teacher/leaders who wants to create the conditions for change, what am I doing to create relationships that inspire and sustain hope? How am I providing opportunities for others to learn and practice the skills they need? How I have supported others who are seeking to "reframe?"
"What if you were given that choice? For real. What if it weren't just the hyperbolic rhetoric that conflates corporate perfomrance with life or death? Not the overblown exhortations of a rabid boss, or a maniacal coach, or a slick motivational speaker, or a self-dramatizing chief executive officer or political leader. We're talking actual life or death now. Your own life and death. What if a well-informed, trusted authority figure said you had to make difficult and enduring changes in the way you think, act, feel, and act? If you didn't, your time would end soon - a lot sooner than it had to. Could you change when change really mattered? When it mattered most?"
Now - aside from having an extremely powerful lead that will make its way into many of my writing workshops - the entire book caused me to actually stop, put it down, and THINK about change. So - it took me longer to read than some other books I have picked up lately.
The author indiates that there are three "keys" to change:
1. Relate - you form a new, emotional relationship with a person or community that inspires and sustains hope.
2. Repeat - the new relationship helps you learn, practice, and master the new habits and skills you'll need.
3. Reframe - the new relationship helps you learn new ways of thinking about your situation and your life.
Now - before I lead you astray, let me warn you that there is one, itsy-bitsy piece of this book that directly relates to education. Instead - I found myself reframing the contents of the book to my experiences in education to test the "keys." But I found that in the instances when I have made a real change to my practice, the keys absolutely hold true.
Let's take my adventures into Web 2.0 tools. Summer 2006, I was a participant the High School's New Face conference put on by our regional BOCES. While I was a participant in the Engaging Students strand with Richard Strong and Harvey Silver, we also had the opportunity to have Will Richardson share his experiences at keynote speeches. Meeting and learning from these folks for three days in a retreat-like setting created the new relationship for me. We are not on a first name basis but hearing these folks speak and being able to interact with them and reflect upon my work and practice created that emotional relationship that provided me with hope again - that I really could make a difference. (If you doubt this - ask my colleagues who had to suffer through some pretty emotional bouts in the weeks following the conference.)
After that - I began to investigate the use of blogs and wikis as ways to engage teachers so that they, in turn, could engage their students. Many of the lessons from Richard and Harvey found their way into the tools that were shared by Will. I began to reach out and read other blogs, to cautiously post on the blogs of others, to share my thoughts and practice with teachers. It has been over a year now - and I can honestly say that my practice has changed to the point where I immediately see Web 2.0 connections to practice when I learn something new.
This has caused me to reframe my personal thoughts about learning and about building community. I work hard to share what I have created in the hopes of creating that same type of relationship with others. I think differently about the workshops that I offer and how they are developed. I am constantly driven by the question of what this means in educating our students for the new, flatter world and how it can be used to help build connections. Most importantly, it has helped me to find a personal center and to work to develop my writing skills.
I could think back upon my introduction to Communities for Learning (formerly known as CSETL) as another example of change in my practice that has followed the three keys. And my decision to no longer practice law and enter education. And the first time that I lost weight and became really, truly, physically fit (which has caused me to think about what I need to do differently to once again lose weight!) The keys make sense to me.
Which now leads me to these questions: If I am a teacher/leaders who wants to create the conditions for change, what am I doing to create relationships that inspire and sustain hope? How am I providing opportunities for others to learn and practice the skills they need? How I have supported others who are seeking to "reframe?"
Visual Empathy
Since Jenn seems to be in a visual display kind of mood lately (and I guess I am also over on Writing Frameworks) - I thought I would share an interesting concept in presentations. "Death by PowerPoint" is a phrase that rings true for me lately. In teaching a graduate level course on Curriculum Design, we ask the students to do Board of Education presentations to lend a touch of authenticity to the course. They have been so painful in the past, that I have taken to doing really bad presentations using PowerPoint to show what they should not do. I don't need to do my gig anymore as I have found this video that is far more entertaining.
But I am intrigued by a Daniel Pink article in Wired about Pecha Kutcha. Japanese for "chatter," Pecha Kutcha is an innovation of two architects which applies a simple set of rules to presentations: 20 slides, 20 seconds each. After that - no more, you're done.
It is an interesting concept and certainly causes the presenter to maximize what they put on a slide visually while minimizing the accompanying chatter. I really like this video by Pink, which attempts the Pecha Kutcha format, and also speaks about the power of empathy in the signs around us:
But I am intrigued by a Daniel Pink article in Wired about Pecha Kutcha. Japanese for "chatter," Pecha Kutcha is an innovation of two architects which applies a simple set of rules to presentations: 20 slides, 20 seconds each. After that - no more, you're done.
It is an interesting concept and certainly causes the presenter to maximize what they put on a slide visually while minimizing the accompanying chatter. I really like this video by Pink, which attempts the Pecha Kutcha format, and also speaks about the power of empathy in the signs around us:
Data Dislay Tidbit
This came up on my RSS feed today and I've now watched parts of it three times - not because I'm really all that interested in GDPs and population, but because 1. I cannot get over how amazing the data display is, 2. I completely understand the guy's excitement and 3. he comes dangerously close to "Chicken, chicken" but just when he's about to go there, he deftly avoids it by making a personal connection. His presentation is very powerful and I do feel like I have a better understanding of micro-loans and how we can address poverty around the world. I love how he shared the disconnect between goals and means - simple, clear and how can you not love someone who says "the seemingly impossible is possible", although I'm not planning on ending any data sessions the way he ends his.
I want to figure out how we can make educational data tell such a compelling story. Take out environmental factors and add educational variables - picture student work samples on the GDP scale in place of the homes in India. Wow. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it!
I want to figure out how we can make educational data tell such a compelling story. Take out environmental factors and add educational variables - picture student work samples on the GDP scale in place of the homes in India. Wow. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it!
ASCD + New York Daily News - sound research = Cranky Jennifer
My husband walked in the door after a full day of technology troubleshooting and making scheduling changes at his school and had to listen to me to rant about an article I read today via the ASCD SmartBrief. Mid-rant, he lovingly reminded me that I have access to a blog. Now you, gentle reader, shall get to enjoy the full wrath of my rant. Because if you can't rant on your own blog, where can you?
Background: every day, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) sends out an e-mail called SmartBrief. According to ASCD's website:
ASCD SmartBrief brings you the K-12 education news that really matters. Our editors handpick key articles from hundreds of publications, do a brief summary of each and provide links back to the original sources. In other words, we do all the research...and you get the news you need, without the fluff.This statement implies someone trolled the web looking for articles related to education. They ten pick key articles and e-mail a summary and link to a lot of educators (couldn't find the exact number on the ASCD site, please forgive my use of vague qualitative data to prove a point) The article that was picked as the lucky above-the-scroll article on September 7, 2007 is called: Daily News exam finds math scores up when difficulty rating went down. In fact, a version of the article title appeared in the subject line on the SmartBrief.
Let's set aside for the moment the difference between causation and correlation. Let's ignore for a moment that the author is discrediting increases in scores that came about because of improvement in instruction and curriculum. I can even forgive Erin Einhorn for misidentifying p-value (it’s the percent of students who responded correctly to a question NOT “The easy score - called a Probability-value”) or assuring the reader that her conclusions are valid because . . . well, she say it is.
Three experts said The News' findings were valid.34 kids were given the 2002 and 2005 test. They did better on the 2005 test. Therefore, it's an easier test. I think I'm going to try that approach in my dissertation. The paragraph following the quote above contains a statement from one statistician who talks about the significance of their study. The other two apparently wanted to remain confidential sources or anonymous statisticians. I just got a really big chuckle at the idea of statisticians skulking about in the shadows with copies of SPSS tucked furtively under their coats. Admit it. It’s funny.
What deflects my anger away from the author, besides silently sulking statisticians, is that in a link below the article, the author quotes a researcher who candidly admits that p-value isn’t a good measure of the quality of a test. The author appears to have done some research. In the link, but not the main article, she correctly defines p-value and gives a solid example. Though, I’m baffled why she insists on calling p-value an “easy score”, state assessment "quizzes", and ignores completely the concept of standard setting when she writes:
Kids in New York get the same number of points for correct answers regardless of whether a question is rated easy or difficult. One way testmakers equalize exams is by requiring more correct answers on easier tests. If the 2005 test was easier than the 2002 test, that wasn't done. Kids needed 40 points to pass the 2002 test but only 39 points to pass in 2005.All of the above transgressions can be forgiven. Quantifying learning is a messy business. Even our state education department acknowledges that standardizing testing has unintended consequences. Einhorn didn’t do a very thorough job exploring the whole picture (i.e. raw to scale conversion, standard setting) and has several glaring errors but Erin doesn’t write for a professional journal. She is writing for her fellow New Yorkers and answering questions (albeit incorrectly) for her readers and raising some powerful questions for us to ponder on the role of evaluation in education. So, Erin can be forgiven. She doesn’t speak for, or represent educators.
That honor, however, does belong to the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. My wrath, which has tempered into crankiness, goes out into the blue void at the person who picked this article to be first. I have nothing personal against ASCD. I’m sure the organization is staffed by lovely people. I enjoy their books and journals. I haven’t been a conference yet but I look forward to attending one soon.
I am angry because a professional organization in my field sent its members to an article that is incorrect and misleading. If ASCD wants us draw our collective attention to current news on standardized testing, on the same day that the article was published in the New York Daily News, Gerald Bracey wrote a piece in Education Week reminding educators to look at the bigger picture. (As the author of a book about statistics in education, I’d be curious about his response to Erin’s article.)
What would I have wanted instead? I would have been thrilled to pieces if that editor at SmartBrief had tagged the Daily News article and followed up a few days later to see the impact of the article – and trust me, there has been one. The editor would have found a response from an angry parent, a blogger pleased that the conspiracy was finally being uncovered, a radio show dedicated to the topic, even Bloomberg and Spitzer got in on the discussion, and on the following day, another article from Erin herself calling for a massive external audit of our testing program. I have posted a link to the article on a data listserv that I belong to and am eager to see how people respond.
Edited to add: My anger completed dissolved to resignation when I re-read Erin’s follow-up article. I will sadly point toward the previously mentioned issue on correlation and causation (this time with a British accent) and consider sending Erin an article about standard setting and post-equating but instead I think I’m going to grab my copy of SPSS and go sulk.
Edit #2: Now ELA is under fire. *Sigh*
October 15 is Blog Action Day!
Hum. . . how to connect professional development and the enviornment? Any suggestions?
Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself
No - I am not talking about Jenn's book reading/blogging binge. Grins! I am very jealous that (1) she was able to get through those professional books and (2) was able to post about them. Sadly- I am ready to make another Amazon book order and can only choose one.....
Instead - I am talking about something that has been the topic of recent posts from me lately, only I have never been brave enough to label what I was talking about here as "fear." Jeff Utecht does though - and offers a great challenge in a recent post:
Fear is a pretty strong word - but I think it nicely summarizes what we feel with these new technologies. And it isn't just the fear of having your computer explode in front of you or of losing all your data. It is the fear that you might be held accountable in some way for what you have written. I have read blog posts where folks have pulled their blogs and made them private because they did not have tenure or their administration did not like what they were writing and they could never be completely anonymous. And blogs where folks change their taglines to include a disclaimer that the thoughts contained do not reflect those of the district (although after reflection that tag was changed.) And at a recent workshop - a teacher asked how to word a disclaimer on a wiki that the sites they sent them to might lead to other sites that might not be "appropriate."
We work so hard in our region to take down the classroom doors, to promote reflection and collaboration, to learn and grow from the wisdom and experience of our colleagues. Technology seems to be the perfect fit for this - yet it also seems to be a tremendous barrier. Or is it?
Instead - I am talking about something that has been the topic of recent posts from me lately, only I have never been brave enough to label what I was talking about here as "fear." Jeff Utecht does though - and offers a great challenge in a recent post:
"I have two more trainings coming up this next week, and the first thing I am going to ask all my teachers to do is to click on something they have always wondered about, always thought “What would happen if….”. I will be in the room to pull them out of the way if their computer explodes. But I want to try and bring them to a place that allows them to explore their machines, allows them for just a minute to be supported as they explore their new technology. We don’t explore enough, we know the programs we know and that’s what we know. As Educational Technology Leaders we must support teachers, parents, and students to expand there thinking on what computers can do. To, like this father, hold them up and all them to bang away for away and see what happens. Without the support they will never do it, they do not know this tool the way a 10 year old does, we are immigrants in a foreign land. We go where we are comfortable, where others like us go to gather: Word, Excel, Publisher." (Bolded text was done by me.)
Fear is a pretty strong word - but I think it nicely summarizes what we feel with these new technologies. And it isn't just the fear of having your computer explode in front of you or of losing all your data. It is the fear that you might be held accountable in some way for what you have written. I have read blog posts where folks have pulled their blogs and made them private because they did not have tenure or their administration did not like what they were writing and they could never be completely anonymous. And blogs where folks change their taglines to include a disclaimer that the thoughts contained do not reflect those of the district (although after reflection that tag was changed.) And at a recent workshop - a teacher asked how to word a disclaimer on a wiki that the sites they sent them to might lead to other sites that might not be "appropriate."
We work so hard in our region to take down the classroom doors, to promote reflection and collaboration, to learn and grow from the wisdom and experience of our colleagues. Technology seems to be the perfect fit for this - yet it also seems to be a tremendous barrier. Or is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)