> At 04:10 PM 7/29/00 -0700, Rebecca wrote: > > >I'm not sure what you mean by committed districts or those getting with the > >standards (as if you could possibly know what goes on in all 1,000 > >districts). > > Roughly the same way we tell if some lady is or is not pregnant, does > or does not have cancer; etc.; look at the test results.
The main difference being, of course, that a pregnancy test or a cancer test has been scientifically validated: We know exactly what it measures, how it measures what it measures, and why what it measures supports the conclusions we draw from it. We know these things objectively. Moreover, we know what kinds of errors the tests make and how to compensate for them. None of these things can be said of the test results we obtain in education.
> >Moreover, every one knows the standards don't match the > >SAT-9 in the first place. > > Not everyone, at least if you take a semi-liberal interpretation of > what it means to match. I know they match. Nancy Ichinaga of > Bennett-Kew fame, and now of the SBE, knows they match.
Here we go again. Wayne, who *knows*, may "take a semi-liberal interpretation" of meaning. Not so for those who don't agree with him. Must be because they don't *know*. After all, if they did, they'd agree with him.
> Forgive them. They know not what they do.
A neat rhetorical trick, Wayne. Does it make you feel like a savior?