One of the things you do with any evaluation in order to validate it is “Triangulate.” If two tests are supposed to measure the same thing. If they don’t agree when you apply them, then you have to ask whether or not your assumptions about what they measure are valid.
Statement by Secretary Margaret Spellings on the 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) Results
Although our nation’s 4th graders rank above the international average in reading performance on the PIRLS assessment, the U.S. score has not changed measurably from 2001. While we’re seeing progress under No Child Left Behind, we can do better. If we want to sustain America’s position as an economic power and innovative leader, our students must master the fundamentals.
PIRLS is not the first test that says student acheivement isn’t going up. If the US score hasn’t changed, but NCLB shows improvement, what does NCLB measure?
How effective schools are at gaming the system?
November 30th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
This statement makes absolutely no sense. Once again, it is a politically motivated statement to justify NCLB. I believe that we spend more time spinning the results than actually measuring what our students are doing and how they are learning. Don’t get me on my soapbox.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:13 pm
In order to have a true triangulation there should be a third set of data or information. So, maybe they should try asking teachers how their students perform. I’ll bet there’s a reason why they don’t do that.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I think that if they were to ask teachers they would be bias. Some teachers see only the good and feel that even they students are not performing that only if you believe in them then they will succeed. I agree to a degree, but I also know that you can only do so much, it is ulitmately up to the students. Other teachers think the opposite, that their are students that no matter how good they do they are never succssful.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
On a related note… after a recent department meeting where we hashed and rehashed the outcomes of “the test”, emphasis was put (once again) on the importance of reading for information. Ingredients lists. Medicine bottles. Short articles. It can be… disheartening? I’m not sure what magic goes on behind the scenes that indicate improvement without the improvement, but it’s hard to feel very invested in the results if you don’t feel strongly about what’s being tested in the first place.