"The goal in California is to have all students perform at the proficient or advanced level."
As in, not at basic or below basic. Because being only at a basic level would be bad, you know. Because average is, well, average. I mean let's not try to explain statistics to the state superintendent of public instruction, in which we tell him that no matter where the bell curve sits on the proficiency meter, HALF of all kids are going to be below average. OK, so what he said was that they should be above basic proficiency not above average, but isn't basic... doesn't that say "average" to you? Doesn't that say, "you should at least know this much," not, "you should know more than this much because a C.... dang, that's like failing and you're a loser, you poor, pathetic SECOND GRADER." Sorry. Getting worked up here.
We just got a letter with DS1's STAR (standardized) test results. DS1 is advanced, luckily, since he's the one that spaces out instead of working hard in class. So sometimes he's coasting, but at least he's coasting at a decent level. The lowest percent correct he achieved in the test in all the subsets of English and Math was 92% in measurement and geometry. Lots of 100%, yes, even in English, because even though he hates to write, he loves to read.
So this is a mish-mash of brag post and rant.
Oh, and standardized tests "help us understand how well are schools are doing and how we might do better in the most important job of all - preparing students to succeed in school and beyond."
Does this include the autistic boy in DS1's class last year? Or the boy who has ADHD? Who might or might not have taken much of the test, depending on where they were in their heads and bodies during the whole week of learning that they lost to this test? More than a week, since they were taking mock tests and essentially studying for the test. And how about the kids who probably freaked out over the test because they couldn't get the answers right during the mock tests and so figured they were stupid going into it?
I always did well on standardized tests, too. I did really well on my SATs and ACTs, too. Got good grades, kept my nose clean. And the only long-term job I have ever held was sort of a loser position and I quit over 10 years ago and have never established any sort of career other than mom. I guess if I had ever had to find a career, if I hadn't derailed myself by moving out of the country where I wasn't allowed to have a job and then staying home with the kids, maybe I would be rich by now. But I've never been driven. Maybe I am coasting, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Be proud of your choices. You have made good choices; just look at your children. You get to choose how to define success. Obviously, your hallmark is NOT a high salary and a stable job. And to that, I say, good for you.
Congrats on DS1's test scores. I had forgotten those were coming soon. Having bright kids is a blessing and it's always nice to get state-approval on their smarts. However . . . you are so right on the purpose/meaning/power/problems with standardized testing. Thankfully, Ruth has always done well and hopefully Gage will too. More importantly, my school as a whole does well and that is so important to us -- not for funding but for keeping the state control at bay. School were the state takes over control are the ones I really worry about . . . add to your autistic and adhd kids those kids who don't speak English and you really have a mess. The autisitic and adhd kids can get help taking their tests if they are receiving services for their issues. English language learners are at a real disadvantage here in California.
And, thanks for recognizing what I've wondered about too . . . how can ALL the kids be proficient -- even the ones with learning disabilities, language difficulties, crummy homelives, and any other problem. I mean, come on, this is Minnesota here, it's just California.
Post a Comment