|
|
Re: Clear Creek TX sch. board resolution vs. high-stakes testing
Posted:
Mar 18, 2012 2:23 AM
|
|
In addition to my other post, know the truth before you continue to
dump on FL. There are other AP tests than calculus, you know.
"Florida kids see big leap on AP exams
Students rank fifth nationwide in taking, passing Advanced Placement tests"
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-02-10/news/os-ap-classes-fl-success-020910-20100210_1_trevor-packer-exams-advanced-placement
Quote:
"More Florida high school students than ever are taking Advanced
Placement classes and doing well on the exams, putting the state at
the top of the national pack when it comes to preparing students for
the rigors of college, according to a national report released this
morning.
More than 21 percent of the state's Class of 2009 took and passed at
least one AP exam while in high school, according to the report from
the College Board, the non-profit agency that administers the Advanced
Placement program. That compares to a national average of about 16
percent."
Like I said before, the number of people passing is going up, which
means that the percentage of the whole population that is passing is
going up, and that positive result is not something that happens in
broken systems.
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote:
> So you agree that AP is broken in Florida but your excuse is that since I didn't do the same analysis for every state then the rest of the nation is not broken. The rest of the states, at least the big ones (CA, NY and TX) look like FL Paul. Some schools do well in AP and some do very badly.
>
> And until they stop this fraud, the educational system in this country looks pretty much like the banks did and you can count on a continuing loss of support.
>
> Bob Hansen
>
> On Mar 17, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Paul Tanner <upprho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But your argument has nothing to back it up. Roughly 3 out of 5 pass
>> nationally. Where are your national data on the distribution of
>> passing rates? All you are doing is committing the fallacy of arguing
>> from anecdote or data covering only one state.
|
|
