For those who suport NCLB..take a hard look at this cartoon

[shel90]

It is a norm referenced test designed to assess for language delay and disorders. Don't you get it?

people who adminster these kinds of tests to deaf and hoh children are just looking at their ability to speak or understand English in the spoken form. VERY biased and VERY unreliable!

 

[FireTiger]

As an educator I hate NCLB, I hate Standrided test being used for anything other then entrance/exit to see if learning (and in what areas learning) was accomplished.

As a tutor I spend hours 'teaching' methods to students whose parents want them to become better 'test takers' ... and I hate that kind of busy work... it's not interesting to teach, so it's not interesting to learn.

1) Read the answers
2) Read the Question
3) Understand what the question 'wants'
4) Repeat above if necessary...
5) Omit obvious trap/funny/stupid answers
6) Choose the best answer- the penalty for guessing incorrectly is less harmful the lack of points for the question (often the penalty is (-1/4) point, 0 points award or deducted for a skipped question, (+1) point for a correct answer) so getting one of four questions right is still a net gain (+1/4 point) for educated guessing).

BLAGRH

 

[jillio]

people who adminster these kinds of tests to deaf and hoh children are just looking at their ability to speak or understand English in the spoken form. VERY biased and VERY unreliable!

Exactly. Exceptionally so because scoring is all objective. That is why interrater reliability is such a concern.

 

[jillio]

As an educator I hate NCLB, I hate Standrided test being used for anything other then entrance/exit to see if learning (and in what areas learning) was accomplished.

As a tutor I spend hours 'teaching' methods to students whose parents want them to become better 'test takers' ... and I hate that kind of busy work... it's not interesting to teach, so it's not interesting to learn.

1) Read the answers
2) Read the Question
3) Understand what the question 'wants'
4) Repeat above if necessary...
5) Omit obvious trap/funny/stupid answers
6) Choose the best answer- the penalty for guessing incorrectly is less harmful the lack of points for the question (often the penalty is (-1/4) point, 0 points award or deducted for a skipped question, (+1) point for a correct answer) so getting one of four questions right is still a net gain (+1/4 point) for educated guessing).

BLAGRH

And a very, very poor estimate of actual knowlege or functioning.

 

[KristinaB]

I know with my home schooling, I would use the Spectrum series of "Standardized Tests" for my kids. Big problem was, when I asked about testing for LD children, they laughed and said there was no such thing. When I asked about testing for advanced children, they said "do I high grade level". Well, needless to say, I gave up doing the testing on my kids. I made up my own tests to check their progress and was told by one of the home school co-op groups, that they would like copies of what I did as they were so much better than what they had from the people they got their curriculum from.

That to me was a little scary. When my son was going back to public school from home school in the 6th grade, they gave him some "Entrance" test for their school as mandated by Missouri standards. Well, this test starts on a 1st grade level and goes up to 12th grade level. IT covers all subjects, math, language (grammar), reading (literature), history (world & American) and science (space, biology, Earth Science, Chemistry). Son completed and aced the whole exam up to 12th grade level. Technically, he should have been placed in 7th or 8th grade with students his age. They claimed that since he was home schooled (at that point, only 2 years) he was only "socially" ready for the 6th grade. That tells me they did not use his test scores at all.

 

[Buffalo]

One of the problems with NCLB is that it enables certified teachers to teach courses for which they are not qualified. I am halfway through helping a friend write his research paper over NCLB and its numerous downside, and have learned a lot of dismaying facts, so many I needed to take a week-long break before tackling the other half. He taught ASL in a hearing high school rather recently until his position was eliminated eue to budget cuts. A French teacher also had one of her classes cut, and in order to become a full time teacher again, she opted to take my friend's class, and she has absolutely no knowledge of it. He is seething over it and I do not blame him. He feels that a teacher must be certified to teach ASL, but that is not the way it is now.

Could you tell us what you have learned, either in this thread or your new thread? I have a lot to learn about the education. Thanks!

 

[Frisky Feline]

deafguy?

 

[FireTiger]

Usually who can or cannot teach specific areas of study is covered under the school broad for that district/county.

It is usually (but not always) more stringent then 'having a teaching degree (and or) teaching certification up to date'.

Checking with the school board or teachers' union would likely be the best bet for that kind of issue.

 

[jillio]

For those that keep bringing up the low achievement scores of deaf students, this is the nation's HEARING students:

Just a little more than one-third of the students are proficient or higher in reading. In math, 40 percent of the fourth-graders and 35 percent of the eighth-graders reached that level.

Best-ever US math scores not good enough? - US news - Life - msnbc.com

And that is an improvement over 2009 scores. Looks like the deaf kids are on par with the hearing kids.

Once again, thank you NCLB!:roll:

 

[posts from hell]

For those that keep bringing up the low achievement scores of deaf students, this is the nation's HEARING students:

Just a little more than one-third of the students are proficient or higher in reading. In math, 40 percent of the fourth-graders and 35 percent of the eighth-graders reached that level.

Best-ever US math scores not good enough? - US news - Life - msnbc.com

And that is an improvement over 2009 scores. Looks like the deaf kids are on par with the hearing kids.

Once again, thank you NCLB!:roll:

Hmmmmm

 

[Berry]

One of the problems with NCLB is that it enables certified teachers to teach courses for which they are not qualified. I am halfway through helping a friend write his research paper over NCLB and its numerous downside, and have learned a lot of dismaying facts, so many I needed to take a week-long break before tackling the other half. He taught ASL in a hearing high school rather recently until his position was eliminated eue to budget cuts. A French teacher also had one of her classes cut, and in order to become a full time teacher again, she opted to take my friend's class, and she has absolutely no knowledge of it. He is seething over it and I do not blame him. He feels that a teacher must be certified to teach ASL, but that is not the way it is now.

Given the choice I would prefer the person who knows the subject and knows how to communicate their knowledge -- Certification or Non Certification be damned.

 

[Speedy Hawk]

Actually did you know that they scam the system? They have 5% of kids "off limits" for test scores, so that low scorers don't drag the test scores down...and the low scorers tend to be sped kids....sigh.

Makes me wonder what about UK?

When I was in year 6 (11 years old) in primary school and it final year before move to high school. All year 6 all over England have to take SAT test on English, Maths and Science.

I remember clearly that I was given Science SAT paper and I couldn't understand 1st page and teacher took paper away only 5 minutes away and told me forget about SAT tests. So I spend time playing games with one of teachers in other room. That was at mainstream school.

 

[jillio]

Makes me wonder what about UK?

When I was in year 6 (11 years old) in primary school and it final year before move to high school. All year 6 all over England have to take SAT test on English, Maths and Science.

I remember clearly that I was given Science SAT paper and I couldn't understand 1st page and teacher took paper away only 5 minutes away and told me forget about SAT tests. So I spend time playing games with one of teachers in other room. That was at mainstream school.

Well, what happens is, the deaf student (you in this case) does not have their scores reported, but still they are included when the reports of the hearing students' scores are reported. They are considered to be part of the entire population of that particular school. So no matter how the deaf student is managing in the mainstream, their progress is not being judged on their true scores, but on the scores of the hearing students around them. Sad, huh?

 

[GrendelQ]

The figures you tend to see on deaf/HOH student performance aren't compared with the ideal proficiency, but with the actual scores of hearing students. So, let's say you see that deaf 11th graders in a study are scoring at the level of the average 4th graders in the study ( or at the mean level, with 50% below 4th grade, 50% above). If the average for 4th graders is down at 3rd or even second grade proficiency, that means deaf 11th graders are actually averaging at 2nd or 3rd grade proficiency levels.

So, that's not just abysmal news for hearing students, but for deaf students as well.

For those that keep bringing up the low achievement scores of deaf students, this is the nation's HEARING students:

Just a little more than one-third of the students are proficient or higher in reading. In math, 40 percent of the fourth-graders and 35 percent of the eighth-graders reached that level.

Best-ever US math scores not good enough? - US news - Life - msnbc.com

And that is an improvement over 2009 scores. Looks like the deaf kids are on par with the hearing kids.

Once again, thank you NCLB!:roll:

 

[posts from hell]

The figures you tend to see on deaf/HOH student performance aren't compared with the ideal proficiency, but with the actual scores of hearing students. So, let's say you see that deaf 11th graders in a study are scoring at the level of the average 4th graders in the study ( or at the mean level, with 50% below 4th grade, 50% above). If the average for 4th graders is down at 3rd or even second grade proficiency, that means deaf 11th graders are actually averaging at 2nd or 3rd grade proficiency levels.

So, that's not just abysmal news for hearing students, but for deaf students as well.

If you have any sources for this, I'd like to see it.

 

[Speedy Hawk]

Well, what happens is, the deaf student (you in this case) does not have their scores reported, but still they are included when the reports of the hearing students' scores are reported. They are considered to be part of the entire population of that particular school. So no matter how the deaf student is managing in the mainstream, their progress is not being judged on their true scores, but on the scores of the hearing students around them. Sad, huh?

Yeah that sad. That makes school results not accurate. Would be more accurate if deaf students scores reported separately from hearing students. Then can see how well or badly they really doing.

 

[GrendelQ]

If you have any sources for this, I'd like to see it.

I was quoting Jillio -- you'd need to ask what sources she was using to support her interpretation of the article in this way: "Looks like the deaf kids are on par with the hearing kids." I don't see anything in that article that slices data to show results for deaf kids and support that.

If she's using the "4th grade" reading levels statistics put out by Gallaudet some years ago and comparing those apples with the latest test results for all kids to find them to be "on par", you can find sources for that data in Gallaudet's research on literacy section. A few other articles you can start with:

Holt, Judith A., Traxler, Carol B., and Allen, Thomas E. 1997. Interpreting the Scores: A User's Guide to the 9th Edition Stanford Achievement Test for Educators of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. Gallaudet Research Institute Technical Report 97-1. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Gallaudet Research Institute. 1996. Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition, Form S, Norms Booklet for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. (Including Conversions of Raw Score to Scaled Score & Grade Equivalent and Age-based Percentile Ranks for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students.) Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

 

[posts from hell]

I was quoting Jillio -- you'd need to ask what sources she was using to support her interpretation of the article in this way: "Looks like the deaf kids are on par with the hearing kids." I don't see anything in that article that slices data to show results for deaf kids and support that.

If she's using the "4th grade" reading levels statistics put out by Gallaudet some years ago and comparing those apples with the latest test results for all kids to find them to be "on par", you can find sources for that data in Gallaudet's research on literacy section. A few other articles you can start with:

Holt, Judith A., Traxler, Carol B., and Allen, Thomas E. 1997. Interpreting the Scores: A User's Guide to the 9th Edition Stanford Achievement Test for Educators of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. Gallaudet Research Institute Technical Report 97-1. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Gallaudet Research Institute. 1996. Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition, Form S, Norms Booklet for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. (Including Conversions of Raw Score to Scaled Score & Grade Equivalent and Age-based Percentile Ranks for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students.) Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Alright, since you feel that way, I have to ask you this question.

Is mainstream placement ideal for the deaf population?

 

[jillio]

The figures you tend to see on deaf/HOH student performance aren't compared with the ideal proficiency, but with the actual scores of hearing students. So, let's say you see that deaf 11th graders in a study are scoring at the level of the average 4th graders in the study ( or at the mean level, with 50% below 4th grade, 50% above). If the average for 4th graders is down at 3rd or even second grade proficiency, that means deaf 11th graders are actually averaging at 2nd or 3rd grade proficiency levels.

So, that's not just abysmal news for hearing students, but for deaf students as well.

Bit of a misinterpretation regarding grade level test score meanings...for both hearing and deaf kids.

 

[jillio]

I was quoting Jillio -- you'd need to ask what sources she was using to support her interpretation of the article in this way: "Looks like the deaf kids are on par with the hearing kids." I don't see anything in that article that slices data to show results for deaf kids and support that.

If she's using the "4th grade" reading levels statistics put out by Gallaudet some years ago and comparing those apples with the latest test results for all kids to find them to be "on par", you can find sources for that data in Gallaudet's research on literacy section. A few other articles you can start with:

Holt, Judith A., Traxler, Carol B., and Allen, Thomas E. 1997. Interpreting the Scores: A User's Guide to the 9th Edition Stanford Achievement Test for Educators of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. Gallaudet Research Institute Technical Report 97-1. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Gallaudet Research Institute. 1996. Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition, Form S, Norms Booklet for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. (Including Conversions of Raw Score to Scaled Score & Grade Equivalent and Age-based Percentile Ranks for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students.) Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Nope, that isn't what I am doing, but you are still misinterpreting the meaning of age level test scores. Keep trying.

Age level scores are age level scores. They are obtained the same way. You seem to think that they imply something that they don't.