[Mpls] Standardized test requirements (Was RE: Dr. Peebles)

[David Brauer]

Michael writes:

> It's my
> suspicion that the MPS use additional tests just for CYA. NCLB
> left the details of test design up to the States (a big mistake in
> my opinion), so the content and type of test is flexible.

Suspicions are dangerous (witness the previous contention blaming the
Minneapolis district for tests the state and feds turn out to be responsible
for).

On a related matter: it's unfair, I think, to salute testing in one post and
then because the Minneapolis district has used one to label it "CYA." In
truth, the district has used NALT for years as an accountability measure ...
in some ways, providing more accountability than NCLB. That's because the
district has used NALT to track individual student progress, which NCLB
doesn't require.

(This is a major flaw in NCLB that even supporters are trying to remedy. The
problem is if a school sees a lot of in-migration of say, new immigrants,
its results can look bad even though the true culprit is the changing makeup
of the class. NALT shows how much each student has advanced per school year
- say a grade level per year, or more, in the case of remedial "catching
up." If you measure individual student learning, you can control for kids
whom you haven't taught for long, yet still show how your district is
advancing him or her and still aggregate results to fulfill NCLB's purpose.
)

Another reason why Minneapolis is sticking with NALT is that they've been
giving the test for years, and as any statistician knows, longitudinal data
is hard to come by (you only get it by testing over a long period of time).

In any event, Chuck Holtman's original point was that federal requirements
have added to the testing burden. If you add the friendly amendment to read
"state and feds," he seems to be pretty right on. It IS fair to say
Minneapolis should drop NALT, but it appears to be the tail on this dog -
and not a useless tail at that.

David Brauer
Kingfield