[ad_1]
On Wednesday, the state board of education approved a new label to let families and teachers know how students are playing on the state’s standardized tests.
Student scores rank in one of four categories for California annual tests in mathematics, reading and science. The new categories are advanced, skilled, developed and minimal.
The old categories that will be exchanged are: Standard MET; Standards are almost met or standard not met.
On a 7-4 vote, the board majority rejected the label recommended by staff at the California Department of Education, which conducted a two-round focus group.
Rob Manwaring, part of a coalition of nine groups that raised concerns about the previous label, was cautiously optimistic.
He said he understands the value of providing information in a positive and encouraging way called the “asset-based approach,” but parents also need a plain understanding of where their children stand academically to communicate appropriate “urgent feelings.”
Manwaring, senior policy and financial advisor to children at the Auckland-based advocacy group, said:
The coalition had expressed strong concern about the labels of at least two groups proposed in November: two basic and consistent groups.
Edtrust West Asnu, California, Alliance for a Better Community, Teachplus, and the Alliance, including Children, said that basic and inconsistent terms would “make the data more confusing and misleading.”
The state board delayed the lawsuit in November after it was not given the opportunity to provide opinions to students, parents and rank and file educators. Staff reports show that focus groups in December and January strengthened basic and inconsistent opposition.
Instead, staff in the state education department changed direction and recommended Basic at two lower levels, and Basic or lower. These labels received the broadest range of support within the focus group of students, parents, teachers, test coordinators and advocates.
The complete set of recommended labels (advanced, skilled, basic, below basic) is also consistent with well-known national tests, national assessments of educational advancement, or national assessments of NAEPs, known as national report cards. The proposed label is also commonly used in tests in other states.
However, no appointed state committee members were lined up.
“Labels are important,” Francisco Escovedo said. “We see children as continuous learners,” he said, suggesting failure. “Appearance is a more appropriate word,” he noted that emerging is being used at the lowest level on state tests that assess students who are not English-speaking students are learning English.
But staff pushed back – they say the terminology that catches students just beginning to learn English is different from explaining their academic skills.
Other board members were not won by Escobedo’s proposed term. But they shared his concern about negativity.
“I also had an internal response to the word basic,” he added that students were using the word Basic as a slang shaming.
Board member Cynthia Glover Woods first suggested that minimal categories be listed as minimum. Another proposal has begun, brought to the lowest scorer.
Board members also slightly rephrased the expanded description of what became the label under development. He said he did not communicate that students at that level would likely need additional academic support.
Among those who voted no on the new label, board member Alison Yoshimoto Talley felt that the debate was being reduced unnecessary. Escovedo said the new labels remained too strict. Gabriela Orozco Gonzalez said the views of students and parents in the focus group should be respected.
Regardless of label, unfortunate score
Even if the board chose a NAEP style label, it would not have been interchangeable throughout the test.
In general, NAEP labels represent stricter grading standards and have higher thresholds to achieve skilled or advanced assessments. These higher levels are more difficult to achieve with NAEP than with California tests, and studies comparing state tests with national NAEP tests have concluded.
NAEP results remained low nationwide and in California, and generally failed to recover from pre-pandemic levels in 2019. Mathematics and English test scores for fourth and eighth graders have been largely stable or have declined nationwide over the past two years.
Not only are there a small number of students who have achieved a high or skilled score, but a few who have achieved a version of the NAEP’s basic rankings are falling at the next level.
For example, the most recent results from this test showed that 27% of LA students were skilled or scored more in mathematics in fourth grade. It was 35% in California.
In fourth grade reading, 25% of LA students tested them as either skilled or excellent. California’s rate was 29%.
While students are more proficient in California tests, there is a widespread pre-pandemic achievement levels that were considered unacceptable in their own right at the time.
Overall, state tests provide more accurate checks than NAEPs about what California students are learning. In contrast, the NAEP test tests a small sample of students to allow state-to-state comparisons.
[ad_2]Source link
