Re: assessment, lang. arts
KEN GOODMAN (kgoodman who-is-at CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU)
Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:42:58 -0700 (MST)
Judy, The reason for my surprise at your qualifiers about Language arts
assessment. Is that once again assessment, particularly in reading and
language is being highly politicised. In both California and Arizona
immediately afte the November election innovative criterion referenced
assessments where thrown out and are in the process of being replaced by
norm referrenced traditional tests. The issue of what constitutes
"rigorous test data" and what "well researched" means is being used to
beat the brains out innovative teachers and programs. Particularly the
National Assessment of Educational Progress of 1992 (mysterioously delayed
in reporting in 1994) is being used in the press to proclaim the failure
of whole language. There are the basic paradigm differences underlying
some of this but it is much more. Assessment is a means of attacking
public education in general. On NPR tonight I heard the minimum wage
raise attacked by a Harvard economist who said tha today's high school
graduates just aren't worth any more because they are so incompetent in
literacy- far less than those of 15 years ago. The Business Investor's
Daily ran a front page story last month that blaimed juvenile crime on
whole language and the illiteracy it is causing as reflected in the
abysmal test scores.
Tell your colleague that deciding in this political atmosphere which are
"well researched" language arts assessments needs to be done very carefully.
Ken Goodman
When I find mysself being quoted in articles where my views and Phylis
Schafly's are being treated as equally valid in the area of assessment
you may understand ny concern.