>BTW. Why isn't everyone buzzing over the Assessment Standards? I'm >particularly interested in the "Equity Standard" on pages 15 and 16. > >On page 15, "Assessments have too often ignored differences in students' >experiences, physical condition, gender, ethnic, cultural, and social >backgrounds in an effort to be fair. This practice has led to assessments >that do not take differences among students into account." > >Lovely. So standards to the NCTM really mean standards depending on not what >kind of mathematician you are, but rather what type of person you are.
Dan, I don't have a copy of the official assesment standards but I do have a pre-draft copy. On page 16 of this document(3rd paragraph) it talks about the need for multiple sources of assesment(it uses the term critical). It states an over-reliance on mult. choice items has created an equity problem. "Teachers with more than 60% minority students in their class, compared to teachers with less than 10% minority students, reported more relicance on mandated standardized tests for various uses, more test pressure, and more test preparation and influence on instructions"(Maddus, West, Harmon, Lomax, & Viator, 1992, p. 15). The document goes on to emphasize that mult. forms of assesments is the only way to truely asses any student. I really see no P.C. language here and wonder if maybe you are being a *little* bit paranoid. BTW, did you look at the end at norm referenced and standardized testing. Hmmmm. Maybe you should look at the scores on those reading tests in that light. Just a thought.
>And I was attacked when I suggested there was more than a tinge of political >correctness to the NCTM and its "Standards". > >Dan Hart > >LAUSD "Equity above Excellence"
Scott Powell University of Hawaii Lab school 1776 University Ave Honolulu, Hi 96822 email@example.com