Return-Path: <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j72JTWG16259; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:29:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:29:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <2F90A208.5EC60A89.0A349A3F@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: AWilder106@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:1199] RE: high-stakes testing, state/federal X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 862 Lines: 11 I may be mangling people's definitions, but here goes. Standardized means comparable across cases, and outsiders want to know this--how one group performs relative to another group. Outsiders also want to know that teachers are taking their job seriously and know what they are doing. It seems unfair NOT to use a standardized test--the same measure for everyone. Back to Nancy's dilemma--for a CBO following ProLiteracy, judging what a person is doing, how they are doing--there are regular check-ups--standardized for ProLiteracy students. As to the individual quirks that make up a student's encounters with teaching and literacy-- for the outsider, those belong in the domain of the relationship between teacher and student. They might be useful indicators of ways to enhance program strengths. Andrea (an outsider for purposes of this email)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:52 EST