Assessment Taskforce Speaks
According to the Seattle Times, the Assessment Taskforce is recommending that MAP not be mandatory for high schools...next year. But it will still be mandatory for K-8.
The Taskforce will deliver their report to the Superintendent on Monday and then have the full report available later in the week.
Here's what the Times says they said:
Among them: The MAP test alone should not be used to determine whether a student can enter a certain program; assessment results should be more clearly communicated to families; and teachers should be better trained to administer and understand assessment.
What the group didn’t address is how each school will determine optional use of the test, leaving that decision to each school’s leadership.
I want to read their report but this is a little wishy-washy. And, it puts the district in the great position of saying, "See the Taskforce said to continue to use it" and renewing the contract (which is now up).
I find it interesting that the Times wrote "whether a student can enter a certain program" - maybe that's how it was phrased - but we all know they are talking about Advanced Learning. I am grateful the Taskforce got that right.
I am also glad - and I hope this is pointed out in the report - that the district needs to provide better information to both parents and teachers (but this should have been done sooner and was not as stated by Michael Tolley).
The Taskforce will deliver their report to the Superintendent on Monday and then have the full report available later in the week.
Here's what the Times says they said:
Among them: The MAP test alone should not be used to determine whether a student can enter a certain program; assessment results should be more clearly communicated to families; and teachers should be better trained to administer and understand assessment.
What the group didn’t address is how each school will determine optional use of the test, leaving that decision to each school’s leadership.
I want to read their report but this is a little wishy-washy. And, it puts the district in the great position of saying, "See the Taskforce said to continue to use it" and renewing the contract (which is now up).
I find it interesting that the Times wrote "whether a student can enter a certain program" - maybe that's how it was phrased - but we all know they are talking about Advanced Learning. I am grateful the Taskforce got that right.
I am also glad - and I hope this is pointed out in the report - that the district needs to provide better information to both parents and teachers (but this should have been done sooner and was not as stated by Michael Tolley).
Comments
I will be interested to read the actual report. I am thinking of Bill Clinton now after reading about the task force committee findings. It all depends on what the meaning of "program" is.
I am sorry that they found value at all in the MAP test. I sure haven't.
-pickle
Emile
Is it a class? A course? A course of study? A curriculum?
The District intentionally creates a swirling chaos of words with fluid meanings, done specifically to combat accountability, discredit outsiders by making them appear un-informed, and negate rules.
The Board makes rules about programs, so the staff responds by re-defining programs as services to evade the rules.
The Board makes rules about curricula so the staff re-defines it as instructional materials.
The staff re-defines the word curricula and make sneering dismissals of teachers and activists who use the previous definition.
It's pretty obvious that it is also a way to avoid responsibility, since it's hard to track a service.
-sped parent