At 09:56 PM 7/31/00 -0400, Michael Paul Goldenberg wrote:
>I'm truly curious: have the proponents of standardized tests, especially >those under discussion (of sorts) here, actually familiar with any one or >more of the critical books that have been published about them?
> Thank you, Michael, but, in order to accurately judge the situation, > rational people need not read even one of the many books available > with a "scientific" perspective that would support the Kansas BoE > decision to pull evolution out of their science standards. The same > is true of Tony Ralston, Berliner and Biddle, most anything written by > Gerald Bracey, etc. Those who deny the validity of the tests,
Rational people can provide evidence for the validity of their measuremnts. Where is it, Wayne? Not claims. Not smoke and mirrors. *Evidence*. You are the one making the claims, and yours is the burden of proof. I suggest that you read Sacks, if only so that you will know what you are up against. He argues too much by anecdote, but he also presents convincing evidence. You present *none*.
> or of > data-free education assessment in general,
Wouldn't you say that your touching faith in undocumented validity is "data-free"?
> are certainly free under > the constitution to speak and (somewhat regrettably) to vote. They > should not, however, be encouraged, nor even allowed, to proselytize > for their religion on compony time.
Does this mean you're going to shut up? Or will you finally put up? Where is the evidence that you assert exists, Wayne? Why should anyone believe you if you can't produce?
> > Again, here are a few districts that are doing surprisingly well and > the pressure is mounting on others to follow their lead. Some leaders > will go to their graves believing that the numbers are meaningless, > but the evidence is solid.
Solidly absent, I think you mean. *Show us*.
> > The CA math adoption cycle is is underway again, a fairly rigid > process...
Yes. Rigidity is certainly the MC way, isn't it?
> I assume the philosophy is that it is better to pretend that the > standards are met, to vulnerable parents and teachers or chauvinistic > decision-makers, and fund some other way, than to have on record, > "Rejected by California."
There *are* other explanations. Maybe they're thinking "Why should we go into the toilet with California?"