KIRIS WAS DESIGNED TO BE 1ST YEAR GRADUATE LEVEL, BUT IT'S WORSE z46\doc\web\2000\10\kiris.txt George Cunningham about KIRIS "I know no professors that could achieve proficient on all parts of the test, I know I couldn't. The designer of the test said that it was intended to require first year of graduate school level performance for every student, but it is much more difficult than that." See below. > -----Original Message----- > From: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List > [mailto:ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU]On Behalf Of Erwin Morton > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 8:21 PM > To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU > Subject: Re: Efficacy: All Students are Born to do Calculus (really!) > > > George Cunningham wrote: > > > Of course all children can learn. Even > > single-celled organisms can learn. > > > What most states assert directly or > > imply indirectly is that all students > > can learn at a high level i.e., they > > can all learn subjects like calculus. > > Does this view have a research basis? An ideological > basis? An empirical basis? Even an anecdotal basis? > Who, specifically, asserts that *all* children can learn > calculus? (States don't make assertions. People make > assertions.) What and where is the evidence for this? > And what definition of "all" is being used here? > > I see the assertion being used more or less as follows: > if all children *can* learn calculus, but not all children > *do* learn calculus, then someone must be to blame-- > "held accountable". It might be the children (who may > lack the proper Protestant Work Ethic), their parents > (who do not discipline their children properly), or, > more likely, their teachers (who are variously > characterized as lazy, ignorant, prejudiced, or simply > lacking in the belief that their students can learn). > In case my sensibilities aren't clear, I'll simply state > that I don't believe the blame game will help us make > real progress. > > But even if we buy the statement that "all children can > learn [calculus]", and if we postulate that for every child > there exists a teacher capable of imparting calculus > skills/concepts/understanding to that child, we will > still be unable to conclude that we know how to create > a *system* capable of imparting calculus to *all* students, > or that we have the necessary resources. > > > > This issue has a long complex history. > > Historically this was a view espoused > > by conservatives, while progressivists > > believed that students differed in > > their ability. > > George, I do not have a doctorate in education, and I > am not an expert in the research literature or in the > political history of education. But I do wish someone > would help me understand how it is possible to work > with students and come away believing that students do > *not* differ in ability. I have never met any two students > with identical abilities. Perhaps I'm not using the > correct definition of "ability"--and I mean that > seriously, not in any way sarcastically or rhetorically. > Does it have a technical meaning that differs from its > ordinary day-to-day usage? Am I missing something > obvious? > > --Erwin Morton > emorton@bigfoot.com Erwin, In my state, Kentucky, the Kentucky Education Reform Act, which is the basis for the assessment and accountability program is unequivocally based on the assumption that all students can learn at the same high level. Most state content and performance standards make the same assertion. The test used in Kentucky is called the CATS test. It was previously called the KIRIS test, but it was believed that in basketball crazy Kentucky, if it was called CATS just like the Kentucky Wildcats who had just won the NCAA basketball championship in 1998, people would like it better. It is a mostly constructed response test based on Kentucky's content standards. It is an unbelievably difficult test. Students are scored as Novice, Apprentice, Proficient, or Distinguished. Very few students achieve Proficient in most subjects. In my son's middle school, in the advanced program, students who scored apprentice got their pictures placed in stars and put on the wall because they were the high scoring stars. By the year 2014, every student, including special education students, in every school, must be proficient or dire consequences will befall the school. I know no professors that could achieve proficient on all parts of the test, I know I couldn't. The designer of the test said that it was intended to require first year of graduate school level performance for every student, but it is much more difficult than that. The assertion that all students can perform at the same high level, is a dogma that is challenged at one's peril. I have been at legislative meeting where someone meekly suggested that this was a tiny bit optimistic was attacked in the most vicious way. A principal who does not buy into this will have a difficult time holding his or her job. You asked if their was evidence to support this. Of course not, there is a 100 years of research demonstrating variability in student performance along most dimensions. Don't ever say that around most state departments of education, though. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.