http://www.arthurhu.com/97/08/cotest3.txt
HOW COLORADO AND TENNESEE SET TEST STANDARDS</a>

From:             DaveTNCLE at aol
Date sent:        Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:25:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject:          Re: Not Colorado too?!! Brace for "low" test scores?

I can't find it right now, but Jimmy Kilpatrick recently sent some articles
that included on on Colorado.  As I recall, the tests in Colorado were
developed by CTB/McGraw Hill using groups of teachers (and community
persons?) who developed the questions, then they were field tested, then the
groups had each member mark where they thought the various breaks should fall
(mastery, proficient, etc.).  Then they showed the groups the results of
those breaks.  The groups were shocked, and did make some adjustments, but
they did not cave completely.  The resulting data was, I think, fairly
comparable to NAEP results.  It showed that not many 4th graders read well,
and many are struggling.  This is entirely consistent with the expectations
of those who have been criticising the whole-language movement and the lack
of proper reading training for most elementary teachers.

A similar phenomenon in testing occured in TN when our writing tests were
developed.  Groups of teachers developed them and set the standards, then
were shocked at how poorly their students performed.  The only two pieces of
correspondence about academics I received from my older son's elementary
school in 6 years were one at the beginning saying not to even think about
asking for a particular teacher, and a two page "excuse" when the writing
results came out.

Now, it looks like the evidence is mounting up.  Kids, some of whom start
behind, are falling even farther behind where they should be by the 4th
grade.  As one of the developers of the Colorado test said, they are now
measuring the kids against the mountain top, not against the other climbers.
 And the results aren't pretty.  But we make a great mistake if we attack the
results.  Good test results may be the salvation of public education.  What
we do need to be wary of, and here I agree with Arthur Hu, is the tendency by
the education community to use these to promote more of what we already have,
but which they claim we don't:  heterogenous grouping, cooperative learning,
a complete rejection of memorization (especially in math), a lack of
fundamentals (and drills), whole language, developmentally appropriate
practices, etc.  

Kids can be taught.  They can learn.  They will work.  But they have to be
taught (not facilitated).  They have to be tested, not only through
standardized accountability tests, but with in-class diagnostic tests and
with "authentic assessments" (great for the classroom, lousy for
accountability).  And they have to be required to work and allowed to fail if
they don't.  If we can get teachers to believe in these things, and
especially k-4 teachers, we'll get somewhere.  If we can't, we'll get what
we've been getting.  Period.

Dave Shearon
Nashville, TN