[Winona Online Democracy]
I totally agree with what Craig is saying here. It seems it is always those
at either end of the bell curve who suffer--those at the low end from
hopelessness and at the high end from boredom--when the teaching is geared
toward the average. This is why my children attend Bluffview Montessori
where individual differences are "the norm."
It seems that teaching to a test might have some benefits for those at the
low end (e.g., the studies cited by Dr. Flynn which support that some low
income and minority students seem to increase reading and math skills as a
result of increased teacher expectations or efforts)
It horrifies me to think that bright students' enthusiasm for learning
could be lost as a consequence of teaching to these tests. I hope we can
find some answers for our children in 861.
Kathy Seifert
From: "Craig Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "onlinedemocracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Winona] Re: Standardized Tests
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:59:35 -0600
[Winona Online Democracy]
This is how the MMPI Personality Test was originally validated -- on
college sophomores - and look at how normal they are as a comparison
group. Understanding what normal means to testing and how the bell
curve drives the process is essential. When my oldest kids were in
grade school in the center city of St. Paul in the '70's, the school
program and expectations were driven toward the average. When we
moved to Winona that average was much different. A school must try to
focus on the individual. If it did, my children would not have seen
the great difference between the two elementary schools. The teachers
were equally trained. The buildings were in about the same shape.
The average level of the students was different. The programming was
driven to the average - even though the range of individual student
levels was the same. If the programming can be aimed at the
individual, we can benefit all rather than just those who sit atop
that ever changing bell curve.
Craig
<(���)>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Holron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 8:44 AM
Subject: [Winona] Re: Standardized Tests
> [Winona Online Democracy]
>
> > I agree with Paul Olberding and his illustrations are good. My
> > point is, why don't we make sure the tests that are given are
> > actually measuring what we want them to measure?
>
> This is called validity. What is the validity of current tests?
> I don't know. How are current tests validated? I don't know.
> Are current tests validated? I sure hope so. A typical approach
> is:
>
> 1. Pick a group of people considered competent in the subject you
> are validating.
> 2. Have these people take the test
> 3. Look at how well these people performed on the test.
>
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
