Red Pill Sentinel
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact

“A fool with a tool is still a fool.  A fool with a powerful tool, is a dangerous fool.” Remember This In Connection With Common Core

6/2/2014

0 Comments

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/29/the-scary-way-common-core-test-cut-scores-are-selected/

This is more than an academic argument, because what is happening right now affects children. Whether it is the “hammer” of accountability or the “drill” associated with standardized testing, our children are not benefiting from the tools of Race to the Top reform.

Among the more powerful tools is the “buzzsaw” — the Common Core tests’ cut scores — which classify and sort students by test performance.  These cut scores, sometimes designed to produce high rates of failure, create an urgency that undermines local control and forcefully imposes unproven reforms across states and the nation.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in New York State.

Let’s review how New York’s Common Core test cut scores came to be.

State Education Commissioner John King asked the College Board to “replicate research” to determine what PSAT and SAT scores predict first-year success in four-year colleges. The College Board was asked to correlate SAT scores with college grades to create probabilities of college success. You can read the report here.

Keep in mind that research shows that the SAT’s predictive power is only 22 percent. High school grades are a far better predictor of college success. The lack of validity of scores, without the context of grades, was not taken into consideration.

The New York study chose the following “probabilities” as the definition of college success:

* English Language Arts:  a 75 percent probability of obtaining a B- or better in a first-year college English course in a four-year college.

* Math: a 60 percent  probability of obtaining a C+ or better in a first-year math course in a four-year college.

Below is the rationale for choosing different criteria for the two courses, as stated in the report:

“Generally speaking, it is much easier to obtain a higher grade in first‐year credit‐bearing ELA courses than in first‐year credit‐bearing math courses”

Both the conclusions and the rationale raise serious questions. First, for which college math courses are we predicting success?  Some students begin with college algebra. Others begin with advanced calculus. Still others take courses in statistics. There are all kinds of college math courses of varying difficulty that serve as the first math course for students.  Second, is the State Education Department implying that we should have lower math cut scores because math college professors are tougher graders?  I think the 75 percent/B- probability was not used for math because, according to the College Board study, it is associated with a score of 710. That is a score that only 6 percent of all college bound seniors obtain.

Why did they choose the higher standard in ELA? If they had chosen the scores associated with 60 percent/C+ in Reading and Writing on the SAT (380, 360), the scores would have included nearly all test takers. That is how irrational the results of the study were.


Ever heard of "cut scores"? Read the article to understand this and why the scoring is so irrational.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Writers

    Yvonne Burton...there is no collection of writers...it's just me.

    ​And then there were two....meet my brother Lewis

    Picture
    Picture

    Archives

    August 2021
    April 2021
    December 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014

    Alternative Media
    Ace of Spades
    Gateway Pundit
    Instapundit
    Powerline
    The Conservative Treehouse
    Zerohedge

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly