The Kind of Thing That Makes an Author's Day
Last updated: Wednesday - June 17, 2009
Professor Glass: I just finished reading your latest book, Fertilizers,
Pills, and Magnetic Strips. I found it to be: 1) riveting, in that it was
difficult to stop reading and work on other projects; 2) disturbing, in that my idealistic hopes that public policy makers are perhaps able to look beyond their personal views in making educational policy have been dealt a severe blow yet another time; and 3) compelling, in that your argument is built soundly on empirical data, research, and careful reasoning. In sum, I think that you have "got it right", and I have bought several copies of the book to give to colleagues and students. Well done.
Best, John Staver
____________________________________
Prof. John R. Staver, Co-Director of CRESME
Center for Research and Engagement in
Science and Mathematics Education
Purdue University

Another Charter School Success Story
Last updated: Monday - April 27, 2009
"In an Arizona study of charter schools, 43% of the charter students had returned to public schools within two years, again the data showed those who left were the low scoring children. Same finding in the Cleveland Voucher Study.
"Anyone can 'succeed' if they don't count their failures."

Michael T. Martin
Research Analyst
Arizona School Boards Association

Two Amazing Statistics
Last updated: Friday - April 17, 2009
Apropos of the Browning of America

“About 11% of everyone born in Mexico is currently living in the U.S” from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1191/mexican-immigrants-in-america-largest-group

And, approximately 70% of children born to undocumented Hispanics were born in the US, hence, they are US citizens.



Ruminations on NCLB from Gabe Della-Piana
Last updated: Thursday - March 26, 2009
Comment: Thanks for listening to your wife.

The "Tweaking" of NCLB

You give me hope for writing something that I have written about before but for a wider and contemporary audience. After surfing websites and the current literature on direct writing assessment I find that what is missing is any serious attention to "how to interpret a direct writing assessment six trait score when one also has a standardized test score on language for a student". With the "tweaking" of NCLB to use more than one test score, this becomes more important since it is assumed that will provide a solution to misuse. I will be brief in illustrating a key problem. Of course we know that validity of a score is in the inference made from the score. Not so simple though. I would trust the teachers I have observed and interviewed more than the guides to interpretation that mislead. And "high stakes" use is required for concern I take it. But for a student what is "high stakes" is the feedback on her writing day by day that has a strong and continuing influence on her sense of herself, her abilities, what is needed to compete in the world, and respect for adults (who do these people telling me this think they are).

What follows is not new information but it is not generally in use. The direct assessment writing scores on a 5-point scale may be for: Ideas, Organization, Voice, Word Choice, Sentence Fluency, Conventions, and Mode (e.g., Narrative in this case). For example, a score of 5 means you got credit for 5 of the 5 criteria in the scoring scheme. But in my old interviews with kids some of the top scorers stopped working with time left over. When asked why, they said something like, "We know how it is scored and we met all the criteria". Probably not something you want "writers" to do since real writers revise and revise. And teachers of writing typically get them to do that -- revise. Stopping because you met the criteria you are aware of is what leads to throw away endings. Like, " then I woke up from a dream". When I followed up with these students they were able to come up with considerably more detail (one of the criteria for organization) and better endings. Some practitioners began adding another score criterion which is something like: After you think you met the criteria, if you have more time, try to revise the work to be the best you can do or what you think a professional writer would do or so it does what you want it to do.

Also of course a score of 1 to 4 doesn't tell you which criteria were not met since there are 5 criteria and the scoring system doesn't identify which you met. So there is a heavy cognitive demand on the teacher and student for interpretation. I gather schools are encouraged to "work on it". Take Marie. She had a score by two raters of 1 and 2 on mechanics of writing. But she read her writing with perfect intonation and word recognition even of misspelled words (except for one word). With these skills she could be taught mechanics very simply by having her punctuate, spell, and capitalize a text with no punctuation and capitalization (and a few spelling errors with missing syllables) while listening to a very good oral tape reading of the text. And she was good on visual memory (look at word for 3 seconds, cover it up, and write it correctly) so spelling could improve rapidly. Another student with the same score but without those skills would need different instruction. So if you constrain interpretation the teacher misleads.

Marie had a score of 3 and 4 on her narrative which as far as I could tell could have used more detail but was a powerful story with all elements of character and narrative there. So when she said to the teacher that she told the story and was told she needed "more work" according to the scoring scheme, what was she to think of the teacher, of herself, of writing?

Well, I have many more bits of data that raise questions about current practice. Some showing that a teacher with a drama background conferenced with students on their writing differently than a teacher with a more standard literature background and grounded in "rubrics". But both got great results from students.

So, your book inspires me to listen to my wife at least on writing an article picking up on the current scene with "tweaking" of NCLB. So thanks.

Gabe Della-Piana, University of Texas-El Paso


Arizona Supreme Court Strikes Down Vouchers
Last updated: Thursday - March 26, 2009
On March 25th, the AZ Supreme Court struck down a 2006 voucher law passed by the Arizona Legislature. The law provided only handicapped or foster children vouchers that could be redeemed at public, private, or religious schools. Surprisingly--after the Court's decision in the AZ Tuition Tax Credit case--this cynical attempt to get the camel's nose under the tent was declared unconstitutional. The Governor called the decision "heartbreaking." The Superintendent of Public Instruction worried that AZ's reputation as a leader in school reform would be damaged. Some 470 pupils received vouchers this year.

---

Send a Message to the Author

Your Name:	Your Email:
Comments:

---

RSS