In the world of statistics, mathematics, scientific research and airplane flying, the 80/20 rule should have no place. Nonetheless, the 80/20 rule is how the statistician and educational researcher obtain their findings as regards to US and statewide criterion-referenced accountability tests-formerly WASL in my home state of Washington (each state has their own unique version. In Arizona it?s called AIMS). These smart educators and researchers report on alleged student achievement gaps in the U.S., between nations, within or across state boundaries or even in a classroom. The results of any particular criterion-reference test (as opposed to the SAT/norm-referenced tests) are almost always based on some variation of the statistician?s 80/20 rule. As such America is receiving at best incomplete data.
The Game of Exclusion
One hundred percent of students on a grade level-typically state criterion-referenced tests assess 3rd- 10th grade students, with the exception of severely handicapped students? medically or intellectually, must take the state criterion-referenced test.
In this case by law, only 2% of a district?s enrollment can exclude exceptionally handicapped students from testing. Students excepted are those with profound disorders such as cerebral-palsy, Downs Syndrome, mental/emotional conditions, etc. As a result, no less than 98% of a district?s enrolled students will be required to complete that state?s criterion-referenced test as mandated by No Child Left Behind, 2004.
At this point in this example, the eligible ?pool? of tested pupils is 98% of the total. Of that on average as little as 4% to as much as 12% of any district?s enrollment is eligible for special education services. Using a mid-point of 8%, the ?pool? of non-special education eligible students is nearing 90%; a full 10% less that what is implied by media reports that use the generic words ?all students? when reporting academic progress or lack thereof.
All otherwise eligible handicapped students must take the state?s criterion referenced test. By definition of their handicapping condition, their academic progress is ?handicapped? because of at least one significant factor, but not related to average or above average IQ. Such an eligible student may qualify for special education due to, but not an exclusive list: health impairment-asthma,; behavioral/emotional, ADD/ADHD; speech/language, or other learning disorders, etc. Nonetheless, the score that these non-exempt special education students earn is weighed in the formula for over-all school success along with non-eligible for special education learners.
The other major, but not excluded ?pool? is that of English-Language learners (ELL). Because of their recent immigration to the US (at testing time, no one is concerned with legal or illegal status), most likely do not comprehend a majority of spoken language much less written English as published in state testing manuals and answer sheets. Reading a test by an adult aloud in another language as an assist to the student is not a typically allowed accommodation.
While common-sense may suggest that a non-exempted special education or ELL student should not be expected to maintain yearly achievement progress throughout all of the grade level?s academic learning requirements, never the less they are included in each school?s total by No Child Left Behind legislation. Common sense can?t really be used when considering the effects of the 80/20 rule.
Layers of Confusion
The next layer of unintended or some would say, intended confusion is created by media and educators themselves: the testing procedures. Testing protocols utilize a sampling technique in order to determine how many items to include in each grade level?s test. Budgets also play a large part. Aside from just the printing and administrative costs, electronic scan scoring becomes a major factor in determining how many sample skill and knowledge mastery items to include. Additional costs are incurred as test publishers and scoring vendors may provide products and services that entities such as schools and districts use to analyze test results.
Finally, school staff spend hours reviewing each student?s answer booklet prior to submission in order to ensure stray marks and ?bubbles? conform to scoring requirements. Fraud is also a potential liability at this point. Affidavits are often times collected from so-called testing coordinators at each school.
In order to create the data sufficient to conclude and generalize student learning and achievement from the state required testing, while also managing costs and time of testing, only a sample of each grade level?s Essential Academic Learning Requirements (in Washington State, known as EALR?s) is measured. The key is to obtain a significant enough sample of items. An unusually large and statistically significant sample, is collected-wait for it?.of approximately 20% of the state mandated EALR?s for each particular grade level. For example, if there are approximately 80 objectives/sub-skills in the 8th grade Algebra content area that the state mandates are required to demonstrate ?mastery,? only 20% (16 items), will be included in each year?s test.
Teaching to the 20%
Teachers routinely claim they spend too much time teaching to the test. But in reality, out of all the time they spend, no more than 20% of the required state learning expectations will be actually include as test items. Their work is therefore somewhat like preparing for a skeet shooting match. They may know what the targets look like in general, but they have only clues as to from what direction, how many and from what elevation each skeet will be tossed. Some would say betting at Las Vegas craps has better odds.
Ironically, their claims that they spend too much time ?teaching to the test? are not a rational argument when considering the state?s mandated criterion-referenced test. The state adopts and publishes for public and professionals alike the required EALR?s at each grade level. The state department of education, in the writer?s home state, Washington OSPI, informs that the test of mastery (formerly WASL) will include a sampling (the 20% rule) of all those expectations. A teacher?s instruction had better focus on all the state required criterion items. To do otherwise is malfeasance at least. An attempt to assume or guess which 20% of EALR?s will be and then only teach those items is at least as fraudulent to students. Nevertheless, time allocated for instruction does not wholly exclude time for supplemental curriculum and content.
Supplemental curriculum and EALR?s compete for the allocated instructional time. As measured during any one week of school, students may be presented with such supplemental activities as assemblies, field trips and/or periodic emergency response drills. Depending on the grade level, teachers allow time for students to present oral book reports, oral story reading, show and tell, class games and movies, etc. While each of these to some degree may reinforce and supplement a child?s understanding or application of the EALR?s, in and of themselves, the supplemental activities may not bring much ?bang for the buck.?
By just using approximate figures from above, 75-90% of a child?s school day/week/year will most likely be spent on learning to master EALR?s. Of that, only a fraction of skills and knowledge will be assessed (20%). That pesky 80/20 rule pokes the reader again.
Summary-
Teachers, in sum, have a daunting task. Fundamentally, it is to ensure that ?all the students? can meet and/or exceed ?all? of the state required curriculum objectives across ?all? subject areas. Subject areas tested include: math, reading, arts, social studies and science per year. Some question whether those in fact are the appropriate content areas that should be tested.
Ironically, as the reader has learned, ?all students? means 75-90% and all of the state?s required grade level expectations means 20% of the EALR?s. In the case of this example-60 of 300 if just 8th grade algebra is considered.
Based on how the 75%-90% perform on the 20% of items, statements in the media and district offices are made about how well ?all students? are performing. In reality, the results cannot be generalized by citing typical research statistics that use the 80/20 rule. Nevertheless, that?s what is done each year.
The only true measure of progress is by examining each individual child?s score change from the beginning to the end of one contiguous year if enrolled in the same school. Another excluded group of students is those who moved in or out of the school during some part of the school year. This cohort, in some schools is upwards of 30%. Although these students will be tested regardless of where they attend, their scores are excluded from school-wide totals. This further limits generalizations about how ?all students? are performing.
At best, generalizations about student mastery of any state?s required basic curriculum is vague given the limits of state testing protocols, sampling of only 20% of EALR?s, and constraints of time and dollars. Further, intentionally excluded students due to handicaps, mobility and those students whose educational handicap limits their performance on mandated tests, together force downward pressure on score averages. These are profound but unrecognized limitations on generalizations of ?how students are performing. When matched with students from other states and more so, other nations that do exclude a greater portion of sub-groups, it is no surprise that findings of lower or at best flat-line student progress are concluded when viewed in a large population or even within a school.
Some variation of the 80/20 rule is at work within the generalized results used to answer the question, ?How are students performing?? Whether the rule is recognized or not by reviewers, the public or educators, its effects cannot be ignored. So, how are students doing? It depends on how much of the 80/20 rule is being allowed to function.
Keith Brown
Educational Administrator, Academic Director,
Consultant and Author
Puyallup, WA 98373
Source: http://cerebralpalsy.leadingtop.net/cerebral-palsy/the-80-20-rule-needs-to-be-abolished
greece commodity prices bloons tower defense 4 si belgian malinois bloxorz the beaver
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.