« Sol Stern and the SUTVA Shenanigans | Main | In NYC, Tis the Season for Sacrifice »

skoolboy wonders: Could a Parrot Pass the New York State ELA Exam?

| 23 Comments
spiffboy2.jpg
A few days ago, A Voice in the Wilderness broke the story that the retest for the New York State English Language Arts exam had a task that required students to write a position paper arguing that inexperienced people can provide leadership, after listening to a speech by Wendy Kopp, founder of Teach For America. Some were appalled by the one-sided nature of the task, likening it to propaganda. eduwonkette’s take was that the task would be more defensible if students were given information on both sides and then asked to choose a side to argue.

The scoring guide for the task is now available on line, and it leads me in a different direction. I’m not close enough to high school English classrooms to know what a realistic level of competency is.

Here’s the task. Students were told that they would listen to a speech about young people who have become leaders in their communities. They were provided with the following situation:

Your leadership group has been debating whether leaders should have experience in their chosen fields. As part of this debate, you have decided to write a position paper in which you argue that inexperienced people can provide leadership. In preparation for your paper, listen to a speech by Wendy Kopp. Then use relevant information from the speech to write your position paper.

Students were instructed to be sure to : Tell your audience what they need to know about why inexperienced people can provide leadership; Use specific, accurate, and relevant information from the speech to support your argument; use a tone and level of language appropriate for a position paper for members of your leadership group; Organize your ideas in a logical and coherent manner; Indicate any words taken directly from the speech by using quotation marks or by referring to the speaker; and Follow the conventions of standard written English.

The passage, reproduced below, is from Wendy Kopp’s commencement speech at the University of North Carolina in 2006.

Thinking back to my own senior year in college, I wasn’t intending to start something like Teach for America—or to start anything at all for that matter. As a college senior I was applying to two-year corporate training programs, seeking out political internships, and generally struggling in my search for something that I really wanted to do. My generation was dubbed the “Me Generation.” People thought all we wanted to do was focus on ourselves and make a lot of money. But that didn’t strike me as right. I felt as if thousands of us talented, driven graduating seniors were searching for a way to make a social impact but simply couldn’t find the opportunity to do so.

Well, during my senior fall, I helped organize a conference about education reform, where one of the topics was the shortage of qualified teachers in urban and rural communities. It was at that conference that I thought of an idea: Why doesn’t our country have a national teacher corps that recruits us to teach in low-income communities the same way we’re being recruited to work on Wall Street?

From that moment, I was possessed by this idea—I thought it would make a huge difference in kids’ lives, and that ultimately it could change the very consciousness of our country, by influencing the thinking and career paths of a generation of leaders.

So I did the obvious thing. I wrote a long and very passionate letter to the President of the United States suggesting he start this corps. That didn’t get very far—I received a job rejection letter in response. So in my undergraduate senior thesis, I declared that I would try to create such a corps myself, as a non-profit organization. When my thesis advisor looked at my budget, which showed that to recruit 500 new teachers into this corps during the first year would cost two-and-a-half million dollars, he asked me if I knew how hard it was to raise $2,500, let alone two-and-a-half million dollars. Aided by my inexperience, I was unphased by his question. When school district officials and potential funders laughed at the notion that the Me Generation would jump at the chance to teach in urban and rural communities, their concerns, too, went unheard.

That year 2,500 graduating seniors competed to enter Teach For America, in response to a grassroots recruitment campaign—flyers under doors since there was no email back then! And one year after I graduated, with two-and-a-half million dollars in hand from the corporate and foundation community, I was looking out on an auditorium full of 489 recent college graduates who had joined Teach For America’s first corps.

My very greatest asset in reaching this point was that I simply did not understand what was impossible. I would soon learn the value of experience, but Teach For America would not exist today were it not for my naivete.

I see this same phenomenon every day as I watch 23-year-olds walking into classrooms and setting goals for themselves and their students that most people believe to be entirely unrealistic. The conventional wisdom is that there is only so much schools can do to overcome the challenges of poverty and the lack of student motivation and parental involvement that is perceived to come with it. But then there’s Liam Honigsberg, a Teach For America corps member in Phoenix whom I met a couple of weeks ago. His school’s vice principal saw that he had a degree in cognitive neuroscience and, naturally, called him the day before school started to ask him to teach a math class wholly comprised of seniors who were in danger of not graduating because they had not been able to pass the math portion of the state’s exit exam. It was a daunting task. Liam’s students seemed to be entirely uninterested in math. Their performance levels ranged from not having passed algebra to not having passed geometry. But Liam determined that they could and would gain the skills to graduate. The Arizona Republic estimated last year that 5,000 students didn’t graduate in Arizona because they didn’t pass that exit exam, and yet thanks to Liam’s idealism, all of his students will walk across the stage this spring.

Just over 100 miles from here, Tammi Sutton and Caleb Dolan were teaching middle schoolers in Gaston County. Tammi and Caleb were just 25 years old when they decided that to truly ensure their students had the opportunities they deserved, they would have to actually go out and start a new school in their community—a school that would set their students up to go to college. This was a pretty radical idea in Gaston County and there were many skeptics. In spite of the many who said it could not be done, Tammi and Caleb designed a program with rigorous expectations that would run from 7:30 in the morning until 5 at night, on two Saturdays a month and three weeks during the summer.

There were many who said this could not be done. Yet now their 8th graders—students who came to them in 5th grade performing anywhere between the 1st to the 4th grade levels—are performing at a level that places their school among the state’s top 15 schools in reading, writing, and math.

Teach For America’s story, and Liam, Tammi and Caleb, show us that your inexperience is a real asset. I hope you will put it to good use.

Here’s the anchor paper, scored 4, the top score (in a scale from 1 to 4). Text verbatim.

As shown in Wendy Kopp’s speech, experience is not required to be a leader. I believe leaders can be anyone who has the drive and motivation to be seccessful in the task that is at hand. Experience is aquired through years of doing the same thing over and over again, leadership does not require that.

Wendy Kopp, the woman who stated Teach for America, was inexperienced when she started the program, yet she was very seccessful. She had the drive and motavation necessary to be a leader and never gave up. Many people believed her program would never be a success because her generation was dubbed the “me” generation. The “me” generation is a generation in which money and themselves are all that matter. However, peoples thoughts about how her program would never be a sucess did not stop her. Wendy Kopp started out by writing a letter to the president, this was unseccessful. She decided to write her undergraduate thesis on her idea for Teach for America and the teacher told her it was not possible, it required too much money. Wendy was still determined, so she went to buisnesses to asked for donations and she got laughed at. They believed she could not do it. She believed her generation had people who wanted to make a social impact. Urban and rural areas needed experienced teachers and her program was designed to help. Once she finally got the money, her program was a success, about 489 recent graduates joined her program.

Liam is a part of Teach for America. He was determined to make every senior in his class graduate, although, he did not have much support because many people thought they were hopless cases. Liam taught in Arizona, in a class of seniors who needed to pass a math exam to graduate. In Arizona about five thousand students did not graduate last year. Liam’s did.

Then there was Tammy and Caleb. They started a new school in Gaston County to teach children that were considered hopeless. Tammy and Caleb took 5th graders who were considered at the 1st to 4th grade level and made them model students by 8th grade. Thier school is now a top school.

Experience is not needed to be a effective leader. Motivation and determination is all that is necessary. Wendy Kopp is the proof of that.

The scoring commentary states the following:

Meaning: The response reveals an in-depth analysis of the text making clear and explicit connection between information and ideas in the text and the assigned task.

Development: The response develops ideas clearly and fully, making effective use of relevant and specific details from the text to argue that inexperienced, but determined, people can provide leadership.

Organization: The response maintains a clear and appropriate focus on how motivation and determination, rather than experience, are necessary for leadership. The response exhibits a logical and coherent structure through use of appropriate transitions.

Language Use: The response uses appropriate language, with some awareness of audience and purpose. The response occasionally makes effective use of sentence structure or length.

Conventions: The response demonstrates partial control of conventions, exhibiting occasional errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar that may hinder comprehension.

So readers, what do you think? Is the problem here the task, or what’s scored as an excellent response to it, or both?
23 Comments

My primary concern is that it is "product placement" pure and simple.

Thanks for digging out the scoring rubric, because it is vital to the discussion. Like several commenters on the previous post, the choice of Wendy Kopp's (not very good) speech as a model of evidence on the topic of the role of inexperience in providing leadership seems like obvious bait by test makers--obvious and unprofessionally designed assessment materials which might skew the metrics unless unbiased scorers could be located and trained. The fact that the prompt was so politically laden might have an impact on the validity of the scoring, or the reliability of the test.

However. Suppose the sample content piece was from Rosa Parks, writing about how a simple seamstress taking a principled stand over a bus seat could make a bigger impact than well-funded organizations, or law enforcement. Or how about using a letter from one of the North Carolina regulators to his wife, c. 1770, writing about the farmers' passion to establish freedom from unwarranted taxation and occupation by professional British soldiers? Neither of those would have raised eyebrows as a writing prompt.

I think there are two issues here: what's being assessed--and whether the prompt and assigned task is too politically loaded to be appropriate as a measurement instrument. Four of the five writing metrics have nothing to do with logic or argument, and "meaning" only seems to be measuring the students' ability to connect the text to the task. And the task is clear. What's being measured is skill in following directions and writing clearly. So, in essence, in order to score well, students must write a piece corroborating Wendy Kopp's assertions. And I think that's a problem.

If the students were asked to construct an argument for or against Kopp's ideas, and were scored on their ability to support their arguments, you would have a good prompt. (Even though Kopp herself is lacking in connecting her stories to causality and good outcomes.) All prompts which focus on construction of logic need to be carefully written however--do we want K-12 students debating: racism--OK or Not OK? I think not.

Somewhere, there's a test maker laughing up his sleeve. Nothing about this incident would lead anyone to more strongly support the role of testing in improving schools.

I agree--the problem is the prompt. By including a potentially political passage and then insisting on one particular point of view, the test makers invited a world of trouble.

The actual point of this task (one of four) on the test is really very simple: can you process information aurally, take accurate and useful notes on it, and use that information in your own writing to support an argument. That's all it's supposed to be about from an assessment point of view. Other tasks on the test get at other areas of comprehension and writing.

I don't like product placement ads any more than using Coke machine money to fund essential school services.

The question, however, is how much did Kopp pay for such a prime piece of subliminal advertizing? And could we get more if we sold out to the Republican Party or OPEC? Maybe Halliburton would pay enough for such prime product placement in order to fund arts programs that have been dumped to prep for NCLB testing.

I think maybe some folks are a bit too close to things. Perhaps this is a controversial subject for teachers, but very likely kids find it no more passion-inducing than arguing that rubber tires be required to reduce highway wear.

It is surprising, to be sure--and maybe a product placement. But, when I was preparing GED students to be able to produce a written response to a prompt, I strongly urged them not to worry about what they really thought or felt about the issue. Focus instead on making a strong introductory statement, supporting it with detail and summarizing adequately. The biggest thing that I stressed was that they were not going to be graded on what they thought--but on how well they could write.

The question is clearly not good for several of the reasons already stated. But isn't it a reasonable suggestion that this question was included by someone who thought that kids would think it was a "cool" topic to write about? I don't know that it was necessarily "product placement" as much as it was an attempt to get youth jazzed about writing on youth leadership. The attempt is probably a lame one, but I think this is much more likely an attempt at trying to find something students would be interested in writing about then "promoting" TFA.

The idea that the NYDOE (or perhaps more accurately whoever made the NY test) is trying to promote TFA seems too conspiracy-theoryish, especially when I think there is a simpler solution.

Though for the folks who think is indeed product placement - how do you envision it happened? Do you think that there are some psychometric supporters working for whoever wrote this test? Do you think the NY SEA said "we want to promote TFA, so write a question doing so?" Did Wendy open her checkbook, as John (facetiously I hope) suggested? If it's product placement, lay it out for me.

JE

I think you are right that someone lamely thought it would appeal to young people. But let's turn this into a proper research project. The testmakers could find some essay proposing that we eat the poor. We then use it for both an English Lit test and a nonfiction test. We see which test produces the higher scores. If the gap is greater than a standard deviation, we eat the lit majors.

Proposed title:

"A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Students of Less Experience in America from Shying Away from Attempting Great Things, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick"

So, I've been staying out of the commenting because I kind of feel like I started this, but I couldn't help it.
If you saw the test as it spanned over five days, I think you might see what I mean.
Most of my friends who teach in suburban schools have never even heard of the component exam. Why? Because most of their students pass the regular ELA Regents.

The students who take the component exam are very few in number in my school. For the most part, they possess very limited literacy skills. Many are recent immigrants.
Do you think that that the Board of Regents does not know this?
Over five days, these children were pitched everything from learning to enjoy a service job, to accepting inexperienced teachers, to why a visit to a MinuteClinic could solve their medical insurance problems.
I am sick over what I perceive to be a blatant manipulation.
I wrote about the test in its entirety :
http://avoicecriesout.com/?p=135
Perhaps I am overly protective of the children who take this exam, but shouldn't we all be?

I see problems with the prompt, reading passage, and rubric.

The prompt is inexcusably biased. I agree with eduwonkette and all others who say that the student should at the very least have been allowed to choose a side.

The reading passage grossly oversimplifies the issue of experience and achievement. It more or less prohibits any kind of sophisticated analysis. The anti-experience message is in some ways more troubling than the pro-TFA message.

The scoring rubric is so vague that the sample essay could just as easily have received a 2. This is a problem with rubrics. They are supposed to be "holistic" on the one hand and "precise" on the other. In practice they are neither. What scorers decided that this essay qualified as an "in-depth analysis"? That seems a bit of a stretch.

avoiceinthe wilderness,

I sure don't want you to feel bad over this. My jokes were meant in a good-natured way.

We have reached the point in this No Child Left Untested regime where rational arguments are beside the point. Unless we want to adopt the scorched earth tactics of BloomKlein and Rhee, we have to fight back with humor.

The voice of democracy is not all-fired sure that it has a monopoly on truth. We need jokes as an anecdote to ideologues who think they are on the side of angels.

In my inner city high school classes, we rag on each other nonstop. If its any help, you should see the abuse that's been showered on my B-ball game on a daily basis, and then when my kids tear into my spelling ...

Margo/Mom,

I don't even think this is a very controversial, or as others have said, "political" choice on the part of the ELA test designers. Notice that it only gets airtime on the blogs, and it started on the most conspiracy-laden blog out there. The much more rational Eduwonkette has said that the choice of the prompt is not the problem.

This tempest-in-a-blogosphere is clearly not symptomatic of an actual problem with the test, but of the mentality of the conspiracy nuts who can only find an audience online - these are the folks who nobody will make eye contact with in the teachers' lounge as they complain about...everything. So they descend to the basement of their Yonkers apartment to tap out daily manifestos to their legions of online buddies. Back in the real world, TFA is widely supported on both sides of the political aisle, and all but a handful of fringe activists are impressed by Wendy Kopp and the things that she and her corps members have achieved.

Let's look at the argument AVIW is constructing here. AVIW believes that whomever constructed this writing prompt and the prompt about the grocery bagger is nefariously attempting to manipulate the minds of what AVIW must believe are fairly easily-manipulated students - those who have not passed the regents.

First, the story of the grocery bagger is manipulating our feeble-minded youth into accepting their lot in life (indeed, that story is about a mentally-challenged student; surely our test-takers can relate!) so that Gristedes and WalMart can continue to have cheerful labor.

Next, the ELA test praises TFA so that our students accept it when they have an inexperienced teacher, rather than revolting and leading a protest on the steps of Tweed like they should.

Or, we could interpret this rationally. Both the story of the bagger and the story of the founding of TFA are inspiring stories of personal effectiveness and social conscience. The bagger makes other people's lives better through a positive attitude, and Wendy Kopp didn't let lack of experience or subject knowledge prevent her from starting a movement. AVIW sees our lowest-performing students as uncritical sheep who will read a writing prompt, of all things, and change who they become, the ELA test-makers try to promote stories of people making other people's lives better, no matter how little obvious ability to do so those people have. Rather than forcing our students to become worker bees, the ELA test, if it advocates anything, is advocating for our kids to become agents of change, whether changing one life at a time, or many.

Through AVIW's twisted logic, one could come to exactly the opposite conclusion that s/he does. If AVIW is saying that stories about grocery baggers make kids want to be baggers, then by the same logic, the story about TFA is telling our lowest-performing students that they too can go to an Ivy League school and become a teacher. Sounds like a noble ambition for our kids to hold.

One wonders what would have been the response of AVIW's ilk if Rosa Parks would have been the subject (teaching kids to be satisfied with public transportation because they'll never be able to afford a car!) or if it were Gandhi (instead of fighting the powers that be, starve yourself!), or Martin Luther King (don't worry, jail isn't so bad!). No, I wouldn't put too much stock in this conversation, it's only an indication that on the internet, you can't immediately tell if someone is writing from an office at a university or an underground bunker.

Margo/Mom, though I read your comments often, this is the first time I've actually responded. I find what you have said here disturbing.

"...when I was preparing GED students to be able to produce a written response to a prompt, I strongly urged them not to worry about what they really thought or felt about the issue. Focus instead on making a strong introductory statement, supporting it with detail and summarizing adequately."

That is a very telling statement. It seems to me that in a few words you have inadvertently managed to expose precisely what is WRONG with the standardization and accountability reign we are now under, which works to produce a huge pool of workers who may have learned the "CORRECT" way to respond to a writing prompt but have never learned to think for themselves and dig for the truth.

In my opinion, the writing prompt and reading passage are blatant propaganda.

Also, your first remarks (about teachers) are condescending. Public education, our national scapegoat, is truly under siege. Within the overall context of things, concerns about this writing prompt are quite legitimate.


I have two thought processes about this:

1.) Kopp's message reflects a sense of adolescent ego-centrism chosen probably because it reflects the author's understanding of his/her audience: academically struggling students who want to hear validation of themselves. Not doing well in school? ... don't listen to the adults who are putting you down, because your determination and motivation can make up for that.

2.) The politics of TFA aside, I think the biggest problem with this speech is its weak use of argument and langauge. For example, the pivotal term "inexperience" is not an accurate word for what Kopp found herself up against. What was she inexperienced in that prevented TFA from getting off the ground... the profession of teaching? the workings of school bureaucracies? the politics of non-profits? It's never clearly stated or explained. The examples we're given are people in positions of power who poohed-poohed her grand ideas. A more accurate way to describe that would be to say she was up against is "a lack of faith in idealism and change". If you change every reference of "inexperience" to "idealism," I think it would dampen the ire of most people (particularly teachers) who read it. Weak use of language that misconstrues and undercuts the message. Given all the inspirational texts out there with similar messages and stronger writing, I think the use of this text was a poor choice to use as a basis for a test prompt.

April, cleverly changing the language to "a lack of faith in idealism and change" makes it all the more Orwellian, in my view! The attempt to control remains.

Far better for students and democracy that they hear arguments from both sides and then be allowed to debate the issue.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Meaning: The response reveals an in-depth analysis of the text making clear and explicit connection between information and ideas in the text and the assigned task.

Development: The response develops ideas clearly and fully, making effective use of relevant and specific details from the text to argue that inexperienced, but determined, people can provide leadership.

Organization: The response maintains a clear and appropriate focus on how motivation and determination, rather than experience, are necessary for leadership. The response exhibits a logical and coherent structure through use of appropriate transitions.

Language Use: The response uses appropriate language, with some awareness of audience and purpose. The response occasionally makes effective use of sentence structure or length.

Conventions: The response demonstrates partial control of conventions, exhibiting occasional errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar that may hinder comprehension.


The lack of choice available to the test taker flies in the face of the democratic foundations of our educational system. If the components of the rubric above are the only skills assessed there is no reason the student should not be able to choose a position.

It is the fundamental lack of choice that turns my stomach.

Have complaints been lodged with SED? Has there been a response? Abrams, Mills, and directly to the Bd of Regents...

I don't know at what level this stuff crept in, but the lack of choice speaks to test designers who believe the stuff.

Even if SED does nothing, they should know that teachers are watching.

(and for those of you who did the component retesting, is there room in the return packet to Albany to include comments, like we have with the June regents?)

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and all I know about the New York State ELA is from trawling the web. I hope that others more knowledgeable will chime in here.

Andrew suggests that the controversial task we’ve been discussing is intended to assess just one of the four New York State ELA standards: Language for Information and Understanding. The standard is:

Students will listen, speak, read, and write for information and understanding. As listeners and readers, students will collect data, facts, and ideas; discover relationships, concepts, and generalizations; and use knowledge generated from oral, written, and electronically produced texts. As speakers and writers, they will use oral and written language that follows the accepted conventions of the English language to acquire, interpret, apply, and transmit information.

There are three other standards: Language for Literary Response and Expression; Language for Critical Analysis and Evaluation; and Language for Social Interaction. I’m kind of partial to Language for Critical Analysis and Evaluation, and see language for Information and Understanding as a prerequisite competency for this. I’d be pretty unhappy with a one-sided task to assess Language for Critical Analysis and Evaluation; but I think a one-sided task might be more defensible for Language for Information and Understanding. What people are mostly reacting to is the perceived political content of the prompt. Although it’s hard to imagine that any text could be totally divorced from politics, it does seem that the prompts in previous years were less likely to tout a controversial point of view.

Here are the prompts for the Component A Module 2 retests for the preceding five years:

2003: Your school science club is hosting a science conference. As an introduction to an exhibit about Galileo’s discoveries, you have chosen to write an essay that discusses Galileo’s pioneering spirit. In preparation for writing your essay, listen to an account about Galileo. Then use relevant information from the account to write your essay.

2004: Your school service club is looking for suggestions for potential service projects. You have decided to propose that the members train guide horses for the visually challenged. In preparation for writing your proposal, listen to an account by Dan Shaw. Then use relevant information from the account to write your proposal.

2005: Each year your school invites someone who is involved in research and development in technology as a guest lecturer for the entire student body. You have chosen to recommend Tim Berners-Lee [one of the founders of the Internet] to the committee of teachers and students making the selection. In preparation for writing your letter of recommendation, listen to an account by Marshall Brain. Then use relevant information from the account to write your letter.

2006: For an economics class assignment your teacher has asked each student to write a report about how to build a successful business. You have decided to write about the influence of Charles Cole on his son’s business decisions. In preparation for writing your report, listen to an account by Kenneth Cole. Then use relevant information from the account to write your report.

2007: Your business class has been discussing employees’ attitudes in the workplace. You have chosen to write an essay in which you explain how people’s attitudes can affect their job performance. In preparation for writing your essay, listen to an account by James Challenger. Then use relevant information from the account to write your essay.

A couple of other things I’d like to know:

Who develops these assessment tasks? I found a document on the NYSED website suggesting that the tasks are generated by teachers. Can anyone verify this? Also, this is a component of a retest. Just how many students take this component each year? Is it a very small fraction of the overall population of high school students taking the ELA exam?


Tauna:

I might throw in that not only did I teach my writing students to focus on writing skills rather whether they agreed with the task that they would be handed on a test, but I learned valuable critical skills in high school through participation on the debate team. I don't know if you have ever engaged in debate--but it is not about choosing the side with which you agree. Frequently it is about being able to construct a case for either side and to understand how to use facts/evidence to support that side. If you read the prompt, this is what students were being instructed to do--select evidence from the speech that supports an argument. In my book, this requires critical thinking.

Because I have earned a living for quite some time in jobs that put my writing, and thinking, skills to use, I can testify that it is frequently important to set aside self, bias and personal belief in using writing skills.

One key element in writing is to be aware of who your audience is. When writing for a test, it is important to put your mind on what the reader will be evaluating. Worrying about whether you agree is a distraction.

In my opinion, this is the age of PR. Ask NYC DOE how many pr persons are employed there and how much they are paid to spin. (for all those Friday evening news dumps). For that matter, ask politicians how much money they spend on elections and re-elections if they have not worked their way up in party politics. Especially ask Mayor Bloomberg why he had to spend equal or more money to be re-elected. Or better all our presential candidates why campaigns cost so much money! The corporations surely have their own big pr budget too. In this day and age it is difficult not to be skeptical of free information.(Not conspiracy theory, no cynicism). We even had our dear eduwonkette untangle the incestuous web of ed policy think tanks.

I am concerned about the rush to strip the test of controversial ideas and points of view that could offend (also being called product placement in these blogs. Text book companies gladly do this and we are left with disengaging banal and bland texts that do hold student interest. Controversial text is a good thing. It is a problem that the test makers limited the students' choice to only respond in the affirmative. However, it is likely because they have judged that essentially summarizing the text is all that the component test can expect of students.

Better to have two (interesting, real word with different points of view) and have students take a stand using evidence from either. That is slightly more difficult. However we do this successfully in middle school in some of the most challenged schools. It is a reasonable expectation.

Im really scared for the test=[

Im really scared for the test=[

Comments are now closed for this post.

Advertisement

Recent Comments

  • mina: Im really scared for the test=[ read more
  • mina: Im really scared for the test=[ read more
  • lynette guastaferro: I am concerned about the rush to strip the test read more
  • gp: In my opinion, this is the age of PR. Ask read more
  • Margo/Mom: Tauna: I might throw in that not only did I read more

Archives

Categories

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

Tags

8th grade retention
Fordham Foundation
The New Teacher Project
Tim Daly
absent teacher reserve
absent teacher reserve

accountability
accountability in Texas
accountability systems in education
achievement gap
achievement gap in New York City
acting white
admissions
AERA
AERA annual meetings
AERA conference
AERJ
Alexander Russo
Algebra II
American Association of University Women
American Education Research Associatio
American Education Research Association
American Educational Research Journal
American Federation of Teachers
Andrew Ho
Art Siebens
ATR
Baltimore City Public Schools
Barack Obama
Bill Ayers
black-white achievement gap
books
books on educational research
boy crisis
brain-based education
Brian Jacob
bubble kids
Building on the Basics
Cambridge Education
carnival of education
Caroline Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby charter schools
cell phone plan
charter schools
Checker Finn
Chicago
Chicago shooting
Chicago violence
Chris Cerf
class size
Coby Loup
college access
cool people you should know
credit recovery
curriculum narrowing
D3M
Dan Willingham
data driven
data-driven decision making
data-driven decision-making
David Cantor
DC
Dean Millot
demographics of schoolchildren
Department of Assessment and Accountability
Department of Education budget
desegregation
Diplomas Count
disadvantages of elite education
do schools matter
Doug Ready
Doug Staiger
dropout factories
dropout rate
dropouts
education books
education policy
education policy thinktanks
educational equity
educational research
educational triage
effects of neighborhoods on education
effects of No Child Left Behind
effects of schools
effects of Teach for America
elite education
ETS
Everyday Antiracism
excessed teachers
exit exams
experienced teachers
Fordham and Ogbu
Fordham Foundation
Frederick Douglass High School
Gates Foundation
gender
gender and education
gender and math
gender and science and mathematics
gifted and talented
gifted and talented admissions
gifted and talented program
gifted and talented programs in New York City
girls and math
good schools
graduate student union
graduation rate
graduation rates
guns in Chicago
health benefits for teachers
High Achievers
high school
high school dropouts
high school exit exams
high school graduates
high school graduation rate
high-stakes testing
high-stakes tests and science
higher ed
higher education
highly effective teachers
Houston Independent School District
how to choose a school
IES
incentives in education
Institute for Education Sciences
is teaching a profession?
is the No Child Left Behind Act working
Jay Greene
Jim Liebman
Joel Klein
John Merrow
Jonah Rockoff
Kevin Carey
KIPP
KIPP and boys
KIPP and gender
Lake Woebegon
Lars Lefgren
leaving teaching
Leonard Sax
Liam Julian

Marcus Winters
math achievement for girls
McGraw-Hill
meaning of high school diploma
Mica Pollock
Michael Bloomberg
Michelle Rhee
Michelle Rhee teacher contract
Mike Bloomberg
Mike Klonsky
Mike Petrilli
narrowing the curriculum
National Center for Education Statistics Condition of Education
NCLB
neuroscience
new teachers
New York City
New York City bonuses for principals
New York City budget
New York City budget cuts
New York City Budget cuts
New York City Department of Education
New York City Department of Education Truth Squad
New York City ELA and Math Results 2008
New York City gifted and talented
New York City Progress Report
New York City Quality Review
New York City school budget cuts
New York City school closing
New York City schools
New York City small schools
New York City social promotion
New York City teacher experiment
New York City teacher salaries
New York City teacher tenure
New York City Test scores 2008
New York City value-added
New York State ELA and Math 2008
New York State ELA and Math Results 2008
New York State ELA and Math Scores 2008
New York State ELA Exam
New York state ELA test
New York State Test scores
No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind Act
passing rates
Pearson
picking a school
press office
principal bonuses
proficiency scores
push outs
pushouts
qualitative educational research
qualitative research in education
quitting teaching
race and education
racial segregation in schools
Randall Reback
Randi Weingarten
Randy Reback
recovering credits in high school
Rick Hess
Robert Balfanz
Robert Pondiscio
Roland Fryer
Russ Whitehurst
Sarah Reckhow
school budget cuts in New York City
school choice
school effects
school integration
single sex education
skoolboy
small schools
small schools in New York City
social justice teaching
Sol Stern
SREE
Stefanie DeLuca
stereotype threat
talented and gifted
talking about race
talking about race in schools
Teach for America
teacher effectiveness
teacher effects
teacher quailty
teacher quality
teacher tenure
teachers
teachers and obesity
Teachers College
teachers versus doctors
teaching as career
teaching for social justice
teaching profession
test score inflation
test scores
test scores in New York City
testing
testing and accountability
Texas accountability
TFA
The No Child Left Behind Act
The Persistence of Teacher-Induced Learning Gains
thinktanks in educational research
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Tom Kane
Tweed
University of Iowa
Urban Institute study of Teach for America
Urban Institute Teach for America
value-addded
value-added
value-added assessment
Washington
Wendy Kopp
women and graduate school science and engineering
women and science
women in math and science
Woodrow Wilson High School