Improving Indicators of the Quality of Science and Mathematics Education in Grades K-12 (1988) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix C: Summaries of Meetings with Representatives of State and Local Education Agencies
Appendix C: Summaries of Meetings with Representatives of State and Local Education Agencies
Pages 181-196
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 181... ...
The committee presented some preliminary ideas on six indicator areas and asked for reactions from the state representatives as well as discussion of additional concerns they wished to raise. Committee members summarized draft statements that had been circulated before the meeting on assessment of the quality of the curriculum, teacher effectiveness, student learning, investment of resources, student attitudes and motivation, and scientific literacy.
|
From page 182... ...
A national framework could have an important function in making possible comparisons and evaluations of the content of various state assessment tests and commercial achievement tests in specific subjects. South Carolina has developed a science curriculum framework for grades 1 through 8 that may be of use to the committee as an example and for comparison with other frameworks.
|
From page 183... ...
The impact of teacher tests on preservice and in-service education must be considered, analogous to the impact of student achievement tests on the school curriculum. The implication is not to do away with teacher testing, but to improve the tests so that they assess important rather than trivial knowledge and process skills, again analogous to the improvement needed in student tests.
|
From page 184... ...
is important. The difficulty of assessing this factor should not deter the committee from including it; rather, work on developing useful indicators of intellectual curiosity needs to be encouraged.
|
From page 185... ...
California uses matrix-sample testing and has obtained reliable school comparisons with testing 30 students per school. Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia have used matrix sampling of students with a regional study of eleventh grade reading that will produce state comparisons.
|
From page 186... ...
It is difficult to move away from such simple quantitative indicators as test scores or the "science dropout rater toward qualitative indicators that would report more information. One view expressed was that multiple test scores would be better than one score.
|
From page 187... ...
In any case, states prefer to let local school districts allocate funds by program, thus moving competition for funding to the local level. ~ Recent changes in state graduation requirements in science and mathematics are having important impacts on local resources.
|
From page 188... ...
188 APPENDIX C Participants: State Educatior~ Agencies Dale CarIson, Director, California Assessment Program, California Department of Education David Donovan, Assistant Superintendent for Technical Assistance, Michigan Department of Education Janice Earie, Maryland State Department of Education Gordon Ensign, Supervisor of Testing and Evaluation, Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction Pascal D Forgione, Jr., Office of Research and Evaluation, Connecticut Department of Education Steven Koffler, Bureau of Cognitive Skills, New Jersey Department of Education Windsor Lott, Director, Division of Education Testing, New York State Department of Education George Malo, Tennessee Department of Education Wayne Neuburger, Director, Assessment and Evaluation, Oregon State Department of Education Paul Prowar, Office of Research and Evaluation, Connecticut Department of Education Edward Roeber, Michigan Department of Education Paul Sandifer, South Carolina State Department of Education Ramsay Selden, Director, State Education Assessment Center, Council of Chief State School Officers Janice Smith, Assessment, Evaluation, and Testing, Florida Department of Education Zack Taylor, Science Unit, California Department of Education Suzanne Triplett, State Education Assessment Center, Council of Chief State School Officers Marvin Veselka, Assistant Commissioner of Assessment, Texas Education Agency
|
From page 189... ...
Committee members summarized draft statements that had been circulated before the meeting on assessment of teacher effectiveness, the quality of the curriculum, student learning, investment of resources, scientific literacy, and student attitudes and motivation. Following each presentation, the local representatives commented on the feasibility and desirability of the suggested indicators and proposed other indicators that might be considered.
|
From page 190... ...
Some local school districts prefer an outcomes-based mode] for measuring teacher effectiveness, as opposed to assessing teacher character~stics (e.g., intellectual curiosity)
|
From page 191... ...
Quality of curriculum Analogous to teacher effectiveness indicators, recommendations on assessing curriculum quality also need to be tied to assumptions about educational goals, i.e., the expected performance level of students in science and mathematics. Curricular frameworks cannot be constructed nor core concepts specified without knowing what level of knowledge is expected of students minimum competency, science literacy, or college preparation.
|
From page 192... ...
Local districts would like to be able to provide evaluative information of this kind for their curriculum specialists. Given the current state of curriculum development, frameworks are more applicable to the mathematics curriculum than the science curriculum.
|
From page 193... ...
NAEP is currently testing out some hands-on items. Many larger districts have developed their own criterionreferenced tests because sufficiently comprehensive item banks to allow choices to match curricula were not available.
|
From page 194... ...
A better description of the desired attribute might be to call for indicators that are "sensitive to change." The committee should consider defining scientific literacy, including aspects of technological literacy, from the perspective of employers. Opinions differ on what constitutes effective education for current and prospective job markets: one view emphasizes knowIedge and understanding of technology; another view holds that the basics of science and mathematics are more important, given the rapid changes in technology (e.g., the shift from transistors to microprocessors)
|
From page 195... ...
It is very important to learn more about the affective component of science and mathematics education. This is particularly important for local school districts at the present time as requirements for the number of science and mathematics courses are being raised in the face of demonstrated low student interest in these subjects.
|
From page 196... ...
Davidoff, Research and Evaluation, School District of Philadelphia Steven Frankel, Department of Educational Accountability, Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland Joy Frechtling, Department of Educational Accountability, Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland LaMarian Hayes-WalIace, Office of Research and Evaluation, Atlanta Public Schools Paul Hovsepian, Divisional Director, Mathematics and Science, Detroit Public Schools Sam Husk, Executive Director, The Council of Great City Schools Joseph P Linscomb, Office of Associate Superintendent of Instruction, Los Angeles Unified School District Joy Odom, Coordinator, Secondary Mathematics, Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland Joyce Pinkston, Coordinator of Curriculum Development, Memphis City Schools Harold Pratt, Science Coordinator, Jefferson County Public Schools, Colorado Kathy Pruett, Director, Research Services, Memphis City Schools Stuart C
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.