\doc\web\99\sayno.txt wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu/CC carlsona@destiny.esd105.wednet.edu, wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu, wa-ed-deform@egroups.com, education-consumers@lists.dundee.net Say No to Higher Standards, World Class Standards, Problem Solving Skills I don't understand how you folks can sit there and complain how hard the WASL G4 is, and then ignore me when I'm trying to tell the state that not only the test, but indeed most NCTM based reform math is based on content which was previously found only at G7 and G10 texts, if not post college computer science, even though the benchmarks are so wimpy that area = height x width is G7, as is ratio, proportionality, multiples, and algebra story problem were at grade 10, and the scale sorting problem is something they did not even asess for computer science students at MIT. The official position of the press, industry, OSPI, and Commission on Student Learning is that the test is consistent with NTCM guidelines, and is compliant with test benchmarks and specifications, and Terry Bergeson personally told me that they had a second look, and just because area = height x width is a g7 benchmark doesn't mean you can't ask kids to compare rectangles given their height and width in the G4 tests (??) The Boston Globe at least has raised the question by quoting students and teachers who were willing to state that their tests were entirely inappropriate for the grade levels. Unfortunately, the Seattle Times and other Washington press has consistently refused to air the opinion that the tests are not only very difficult, they are much TOO difficult. New "aligned" text books appear to cover about half of the material that was not covered in pre-1995 texts, but the "new" content does not appear to be standardized. It's very easy to come up with difficult problems that most students can't solve to "prove" the new skills that need to be taught for the 21st century. It is much more difficult to show that students can actually be taught to solve these problems at a 80% rate, which is the promise, yet in the whole NTCM process, no one has ever proved or shown a cross section of students who has actually been taught to "proficiency" at such a high rate. The other disturbing aspect about these tests, besides expecting and promising that "all will be above" average by promising that ALL students will rise above a pass point currrently set at the 80% percentile is that "90th percentile isn't good enough". The best school Somerset in Bellevue is a 99th percentile school, yet only 70% passed vs 80% state goal. These kids in the story below perform at 80-90% with Saxon math, but it doesn't matter because you could be proficient at 99% at traditional 4th grade math and still flunk WASL because half of the test assesses content which simply was not and still is largely not taught by any existing curriculum. That these poor minority kids were able to do so well with traditional content, yet do no better than other minority kids on WASL content proves that when you test for content that is not taught, the only kids that will pass are those from very high SES with very high IQ, or exposure to math from highly educated parents. Arthur Jensen in his book the G factor says it is widely known that poor minorities perform much WORSE on tests that require mental thinking than rote recall of material that was taught. This is precisely the opposite of the assumption of ed reform, that rote-learning is bad for minorities, but they will shine on "higher order thinking". In fact, the school below proves that minorities CAN be taught math skills to very high levels of proficiency, but they will lag even further on very difficult tests based on content which has not been taught. In fact the very NTCM philosiphy is that children should NOT be taught how to solve these problems, but use "problem solving" strategies instead of ratio, proportionality, statistics etc. For a review, please go to my reform testing page at http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/washtest.htm with sample test at http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/97/08/samptest.htm I have examples with solutions for most of the problems that were presented in the samples. I am also willing to give free "tutoring" to the first teachers, parents or students willing to sit through a walk-through of these examples, and why they correspond to G7, G10 or college level benchmarks, and the "correct" solutions compared to official solutions which are often incorrect or incomplete, or at least how one MIT graduate has been taught to solve them. My eve phone is 425-814-2183 in kirkland. I have not yet done a comparison on the writing side, but it is also my impression that they have moved middle school level expecations down to G4, my kindergartener was just given a homework assignment where they were supposed to read a 8 page (1 sentence per page) book, and then answer comprehesion questions with written answers. To answer what zipped up the tree, you'd have to seach the story to page 1 and then write "the squirell". The principal said that it was not intended for the parent to answer it for them. Since when was this kindergarten level??? My first grader was supposed to write sentences as home work his 2nd week. Freshmen at Skyline high in Issaquah are given college level assignements, yet are still given half Cs and Ds in the name of "higher standards" even though these students are in the top 5 high school test scores in greater seattle. Integrated math covers solving ax+bx=c in about a week instead of an entire year in traditional algebra one, filling the rest of the year with reading charts, statistics, pascal's triangle, and solving systems with matrix arithmetic on $100 graphic calculators that none of these kids will ever use on a real job. These higher standards are not a good idea. International standards are not a good idea when most nations essentially stop high school ed at grade 10. Higher order thinking is not a good idea when we know the poor can be taught basic skills, and they stumble even farther on tasks not related to explicitly taught curriculum. We will not be able to wrestle with reform until we can confront the fads and be willing to say no to higher standards, no to world class standards, no to "accountability", no to higher order thinking, and "yes" to high traditional standards like Bill Gates and I were expected to reach to get in to Harvard or MIT. These are standards that no child was ever expected to demonstrate at these grade levels. On 1999-04-11 wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu said: >CC: wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu >John-- >I live in Grandview---80% free and reduced lunch; 70+% Hispanic. I >don't think we can compete with the rest of the state. I also don't >think that much of the test is age appropriate. I'm all for raising >standards, and my kids are already doing things I never thought >they'd be able to do, but..... The District doubled our math score >last year--from 6 to 12%. In reading and writing we actually >scored worse. It's quite depressing because we are really working >hard, and the stress(especially on fourth grade teachers!) is >immense!! We have Saxon Math which I dearly love--even though many >outside of our District disagree. My kids scored about 38% last >year on CAT Reading test, but in the mid 80's on the Math CAT test >(with computation in the 90's on the average). That makes me >excited. Only about 30% of my kids passed the math WASL, but I've >seen tremendous growth in their abilities and understanding. I was >amazed last year that about 1/4 of the test was interpreting graphs. >I've looked for similar graphs to use with my kids and found a few. >Unfortunately they were in books for 6-8th grade with vocabulary to >match. I guess my advice to you is to hang in there, try to keep >that blood pressure under control, and realize that you certainly >are not out there alone!! I'm doing a 3-4 loop so am not under the >gun this year on the test. Good luck to you and yours!! >Alix Carlson >Grandview Arthur Hu "Fairness in Diversity" Kirkland WA http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/