This live blog is OVER


Comments

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Comments Policy

The goal of the comments section on EdSource is to facilitate thoughtful conversation about content published on our website. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

Expand Comments
Collapse Comments
  1. Don 9 months ago9 months ago

    I'm curious about these achievement level descriptors which seem to be messing with the English language. They are - exceeded, met, nearly met and not met. If one nearly met a standard it is in fact not met. Perhaps the test people are using Common Core standards in their thinking such as 2 + 2 = 3. Show your work! The student who is on the lower end of 'nearly met' is doing rather … Read More

    I’m curious about these achievement level descriptors which seem to be messing with the English language. They are – exceeded, met, nearly met and not met. If one nearly met a standard it is in fact not met. Perhaps the test people are using Common Core standards in their thinking such as 2 + 2 = 3. Show your work! The student who is on the lower end of ‘nearly met’ is doing rather poorly. This is bald-faced attempt to muck up the test results to make them appear better for public consumption?

    Replies

    • Don 9 months ago9 months ago

      Correction for the grammar police – The people who ARE on…

  2. Don 9 months ago9 months ago

    Regarding the SFUSD results we have Superintendent Carranza tell a fib. If you adjust for the Asian population in SF which is about 4 times the statewide population in percentage terms, SF is not doing well. SFUSD tells this lie ( that they are the best) every year and every year people believe them because they cannot see any further than the headline.

  3. el 9 months ago9 months ago

    These tests are so different from what kids have been asked to do, from what adults are all used to experiencing, that I don’t think adults can sensibly or responsibly evaluate these data without sitting down and taking some version of these tests themselves, in all their computery glory, at full length. As far as I know, this is not available to the public.

    Replies

    • Don 9 months ago9 months ago

      El, the technological requirements of the SBAC are a watershed event in the history of modern public education. The shift from pencil and paper to computers is huge in every respect including the nature of the test questions, the forms of response and the preparation and costs associated with training students and staff - to name a few. The changes required for these standardized tests have themselves not been standardized. That results in very … Read More

      El, the technological requirements of the SBAC are a watershed event in the history of modern public education. The shift from pencil and paper to computers is huge in every respect including the nature of the test questions, the forms of response and the preparation and costs associated with training students and staff – to name a few. The changes required for these standardized tests have themselves not been standardized. That results in very uneven implementation and, consequently, uneven results, though these inconsistencies between districts, schools, teachers and students are not accounted for in the results and are basically ignored. Rather than building capacity from the ground up, the planners inserted the requirements in the SBAC and forced district to scramble to comply so as to not come up short. Just as CCSS was delivered to states as a kind of emboldened though not entirely secret Trojan Horse, so the SBAC was insinuated upon ill-prepared districts. So the question is why? Imagine who benefits from the nation’s single largest build-out of technological infrastructure and the software development and training that it requires?

Template last modified: