Home Articles Reader Opinion Editorial Book Reviews Discussion Writers Guide About TCRecord
transparent 13
Topics
Discussion
Announcements
You Are Here: Read an Article > View All Posts for the Article > Read a Post
 
Read a Post for The Expansion of Federal Power and the Politics of Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act
 
Reply to this Post
 

Proficiency?--In a Test's Eye

Posted By: Dick Schutz on December 5, 2005
 
I stated "rest results [Ouch! Damn you, Spellchecker!] are commonly reported in terms of levels of proficiency....These designations do not reference student’s expertise. They are simply segments of the normalized distribution of the scores on sets of test items."

Well, whaddaya know. Illinois, as reported by the Chicago Tribune,

www.chicagotribune.com/business/content/education/chi-0512040414dec04,1,3560781.story?coll=chi-news-hed

inadvertently provided evidence to support the point. Turns out the State set the cut score for 5th Grade Reading at 156. But of course "156" is an arbitrary number that the
scale inadvertently omitted. As a result, 4342 kids across the state who scored 155 were designated “non-proficient” and 29 schools across the state were designated as “failing.” This could happen to any state, so it’s no blot on Illinois.

School people are not blind to these contingencies. The practice of focusing instruction on “bubble kids”—kids scoring very near the cut score—is becoming increasingly common. Kids needing the most help—way below the bubble-- are then ignored, as are kids reasonably far enough above the bubble to avoid regression below the cut score due to test unreliability.

The Trib article attributes the flaw to a “math miscue.” The glitch rather is a fatal flaw in the NCLB legislation and in the psychometric horse it rode in on.

Dick Schutz
3RsPlus@usinter.net
Thread Hierarchy
 "Fatal flaws" in NCLB Legislation by Dick Schutz on December 2, 2005
Member Center
In Print
This Month's Issue

Submit
EMAIL

Twitter

RSS