Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: more errors by Pearson; is it really possible?

Expand Messages
  • Ellen
    Carrie: I don t know if it s any help to you but one of my sons was tested for G/T as a 4 year old and was given an IQ score of 85. The same son was tested a
    Message 1 of 21 , May 13, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Carrie: I don't know if it's any help to you but one of my sons was tested for G/T as a 4 year old and was given an IQ score of 85. The same son was tested a year later.... we, the parents, did no test prep of any kind.....and he scored a 135.
      I could have accepted the first score, panicked and had him tested again right away for a developmental delay, but didn't.
      I could have accepted a number change from 85 to say 100, but not from 85 to 135. That's a 50 point spread.
      Administering these tests is hard. A personality conflict or a rushed approach or even just a bad hair day could influence a child's willingness to cooperate.
      He's four.
      He's not a spazz.
      He's a kid.


      --- In nyceducationnews@yahoogroups.com, carrie mclaren <brooklynite282@...> wrote:
      >
      > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Leonie Haimson <leonie@...> wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > > Actually in certain communities in the wealthier parts of Manhattan, 50%
      > > of the students tested "gifted" – to DOE, meaning in the top 90thpercentile or more. The whole concept is absurd – esp. as studies show that
      > > most of kids who test "gifted" at 4 no longer test "gifted' a few years
      > > later -- despite all the advantages of being in a gifted class.
      > >
      >
      >
      > For more on this, see:
      >
      > The New Child-Testing Craze
      > Alternatives to IQ tests are suddenly all the rage. But they're even worse
      > at predicting kids' futures.
      > (This piece STARTS with the premise that IQ tests for 4 year olds is
      > demonstrably absurd)
      > http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/17/the-new-child-testing-craze.html
      >
      > The Junior Meritocracy
      > Why kindergarten-admission tests are worthless, at best
      > http://nymag.com/news/features/63427/
      >
      > carrie
      > (whose spazzy 4 yo just bombed the gifted and talented test)
      >
      >
      >
      > <http://twitter.com/monkstrunk>
      >
    • ccssimath
      10% of all kids scoring in the 97th percentile or above is mathematically impossible, or more simply, it defies the definition of percentile. It s akin to
      Message 2 of 21 , May 13, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        10% of all kids scoring in the 97th percentile or above is mathematically impossible, or more simply, it defies the definition of percentile. It's akin to Lake Woebegone's children all being above average.
      • Rachel Paster
        something else that defies the definition of percentile is a kid scoring at the 90th percentile in both of the two sub-sections of the test, with a final score
        Message 3 of 21 , May 13, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          something else that defies the definition of percentile is a kid scoring at the 90th percentile in both of the two sub-sections of the test, with a final score of 92nd percentile.  but I'm not a mathematician, so maybe it's only highly improbable.


          On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM, ccssimath <ccssimath@...> wrote:
           

          10% of all kids scoring in the 97th percentile or above is mathematically impossible, or more simply, it defies the definition of percentile. It's akin to Lake Woebegone's children all being above average.


        • Kari Steeves
          Personally, I d rather have Pearson stick around and screw up over and over, in the hope that it makes people more angry that the fates of our children and
          Message 4 of 21 , May 13, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Personally, I'd rather have Pearson stick around and screw up over and over, in the hope that it makes people more angry that the fates of our children and schools hinge upon narrow and wobbly metrics.  But if we need to hire a new company and watch them screw up too, well then, whatever.  The underlying fallacy is that we can judge our educational system by a couple pieces of data on the bottom line.  Unlike a business model that looks only at profits (and gets away with it), the growth of a child cannot and should never be packaged so shallowly.


            Sat May 11, 2013 3:09 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

            "Rachel Paster" rzwiebach

            someone already has
            http://www.ipetitio ns.com/petition/ nys-cancel- pearsons- contracts- with-the- schools/signatur es

            Please recirculate!

            On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 6:07 PM, carrie mclaren <brooklynite282@ gmail.com>wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            > Someone should circulate a FIRE PEARSON petition. Strike while the iron's
            > hot, so to speak....
            >
            >
            > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Edith Baltazar <edith.baltazar@ gmail.com>wrote:
            >
            >> **
            >>
            >>
            >> Another article:
            >>
            >>
            >> http://online. wsj.com/article/ SB10001424127887 3242443045784753 21915976486. html?mod= WSJ_NY_LEFTTopSt ories
            >>
            > <http://twitter. com/monkstrunk>
            >

            >
          • Kari Steeves
            Breaking: a parent wrote the following to our neighborhood listserv: On a serious note though...what s really upsetting is that we were one of the 300 this
            Message 5 of 21 , May 13, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Breaking: a parent wrote the following to our neighborhood listserv:

              On a serious note though...what's really upsetting is that we were one of the 300 this time too and now the new (3rd) score result form is riddled with errors and patently incorrect numbers. Here goes another hour long call to the doe... 
            • ccssimath
              No, that s easily possible (not so unlikely). Percentiles from two sub-sections are not multiplied. You could even be in the 99th percentile overall if you
              Message 6 of 21 , May 14, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                No, that's easily possible (not so unlikely). Percentiles from two sub-sections are not multiplied. You could even be in the 99th percentile overall if you are in the 90th percentile for each of the two sub-sections.

                Say you start with 100 students. Student "Sandy" scores top 10 on both parts (90th percentile), but 49 of the remaining students do well on only part A and poorly on Part B, and the other 50 do well on Part B and poorly on Part A. Their overall scores are all middling, even for those 9 who score above Sandy in each sub-section (total 18)

                Sandy's overall score is #1 and that puts Sandy in the 99th percentile.

                Sorry for the math lesson.


                --- In nyceducationnews@yahoogroups.com, Rachel Paster <rpaster@...> wrote:
                >
                > something else that defies the definition of percentile is a kid scoring at
                > the 90th percentile in both of the two sub-sections of the test, with a
                > final score of 92nd percentile. but I'm not a mathematician, so maybe it's
                > only highly improbable.
                >
                >
                > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM, ccssimath <ccssimath@...> wrote:
                >
                > > **
                > >
                > >
                > > 10% of all kids scoring in the 97th percentile or above is mathematically
                > > impossible, or more simply, it defies the definition of percentile. It's
                > > akin to Lake Woebegone's children all being above average.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
              • Deborah Meier
                I can t imagine any way any test can measure soething called potential . First of all, potential for what? Good, evil? Making a difference for others?
                Message 7 of 21 , May 17, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  I can't imagine any way any test can measure soething called "potential".  First of all, potential for what?  Good, evil?  Making a difference for others?  Making a lot of money?   And if you decide which of these--what would you know at age 3 or 4 that could predict such???
                  -----
                  Deborah Meier

                  Note: latest book!! Playing For Keeps (TC Press) by D. Meier, Brenda Engel and Beth Taylor

                  NOTE: new e-mail address.  deborahmeier@...

                  For more information see website:  http://www.deborahmeier.com







                  On May 13, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Edith Baltazar wrote:

                   

                  Carrie, thank you for sharing the articles. We all have to be questioning these G&T tests--such high stakes,
                  yet it's treated as a parlor game--a kid could test really high and get no placement anywhere. 
                  So there is a huge problem with the content of these tests.

                  I say parents deserve a G&T after the debacle with the G&Ts.

                  Here is an opinion piece from today by the Daily News, no less!

                  http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/final-exam-article-1.1340975

                  On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:12 AM, carrie mclaren <brooklynite282@...> wrote:
                   

                  On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Leonie Haimson <leonie@...> wrote:
                   
                  Actually in certain communities in the wealthier parts of Manhattan, 50% of the students tested “gifted” – to DOE, meaning  in the top 90th percentile or more. The whole concept is absurd – esp. as studies show that most of kids who test “gifted” at 4 no longer test “gifted’ a few years later  -- despite all the advantages of being in a gifted class.

                   
                  For more on this, see:

                  The New Child-Testing Craze
                  Alternatives to IQ tests are suddenly all the rage. But they’re even worse at predicting kids’ futures.
                  (This piece STARTS with the premise that IQ tests for 4 year olds is demonstrably absurd)
                  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/17/the-new-child-testing-craze.html

                  The Junior Meritocracy
                  Why kindergarten-admission tests are worthless, at best
                  http://nymag.com/news/features/63427/

                  carrie
                  (whose spazzy 4 yo just bombed the gifted and talented test)







                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.