RE: [xmca] What new and interesting?

Emily:

Thank you for clarifying. I believe in Minnesota that cell size is 40.
Talk lately has been to change that to 20. I appreciate your research in
DA and hope it bears the fruit of change.

eric

      To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
      cc:
      bcc:
      Subject: RE: [xmca] What new and interesting?
"Duvall, Emily" <emily@uidaho.edu>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
03/31/2008 08:33 AM MST
Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <font
size=-1></font>

Just to clarify... under NCLB there are 10 'subgroups', not only
race-based, but poverty (free lunch based), migrant status limited
English proficiency and disability (per IDEA rather than ADA).
Furthermore, the decision as to the size of a subgroup is lead by each
state now. Size counts as a cut-off for being included in the
statistics.. So, say, 30 could mean that a school with a subgroup of 30
or less children who qualify as a subgroup - well their scores would not
be counted for AYP (adequate yearly progress of schools) - the big
marker under NCLB.

Some of my work concerns the transformation of state mandated,
standardized tests of reading/writing for elementary children with
learning disabilities into dynamic assessments of learning (actually
Dynamic Standards of Learning assessment). There are some of us in DA
who are interested in the transformation of such 'high stakes' tests
(including second language assessment) and are using work of Feuerstein,
but also the work of Brown, Ferrera, Campione, consideration of Guthke,
Budoff, Haywood, Lidz, Sternberg, Grigorenko, etc.

At any rate, I would offer that it is not always about tools, but the
constructs being 'measured'. My work builds on the notion that state
tests measure reading-test reading and writing-test writing rather than
reading and writing from aesthetic or even efferent stances. This, in
turn, argues a critical policy approach as we consider the consequential
validity of NCLB.
I'm hoping to present papers on both these topics at ISCAR and NCTE this
year... :-)

~ Em

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 7:45 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] What new and interesting?

The big push in american public schools is to "close the achievement
gap."
This means that there is a discrepancy in achievement when test scores
of
one racial group are compared with another racial group. What is it
that
we know about the cause of this and how many different answers have been
given in trying to explain it? Are we using the correct tool for
measuring
the achievement gap? We have Feuerstein's model, we have Freier's model
and then we have the NCLB model. Seeing as the first two models are
outside the circle of funding it is obvious what model will be provided
the
public schools in the U.S. My new and interesting thought is that
given
the reality of how public schools are funded and that NCLB will not go
away
any time soon, how can the 5th dimension research be expanded so it can
have influence on closing the achievement gap?

respectfully,

eric

P.S. Paula I hope you choose to introduce your new research soon.

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Mon Mar 31 08:50 PDT 2008