Another issue is growth is just where they start versus were they end so it's pretty easy. In my state, proficiency was decided when they created the cut scores AFTER the students took the state test and they were graded. The cut scores were then created to make sure that a certain subset of students would be below proficiency. There was no way to know what the cut score would be because they changed every year and were not released until the results of the tests were released. This is why Franken doesn't like proficiency measures because they are arbitrary.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Betsy DeVos doesn't know the difference between growth and proficiency
- Thread starter Socivol
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Another issue is growth is just where they start versus were they end so it's pretty easy. In my state, proficiency was decided when they created the cut scores AFTER the students took the state test and they were graded. The cut scores were then created to make sure that a certain subset of students would be below proficiency. There was no way to know what the cut score would be because they changed every year and were not released until the results of the tests were released. This is why Franken doesn't like proficiency measures because they are arbitrary.
So I can add United States Secretary of Education to the list of jobs I'm qualified for. Cool.
Do you want to expand God's kingdom?
Red Arremer
Member
So like..those who don't know... anyone care to explain it in layman's terms?
Proficiency means that there are standardized tests based on score, for which each student is measured upon - if they meet the standard, they pass, if not, they fail. The biggest drawbacks here are that it is pretty much entirely arbitrary how these measurements are calculated, and how low/high you set the bar of standards, as well as being extremely rigid in regards to supporting both under- and overperformance among students. Proficiency is the standard education scoring method in most places.
Growth means that you investigate the learning progress of each student individually, measuring between 2 points in time. This is a lot more individual and obviously requires more work, but it also is a lot better. Because with the proficiency system, if you have say a math standard of scoring 51 points to pass, Timmy, who improved his math in the past semester from 20 to 40 points would still fail, despite the fact he now is twice as good at maths than he was before, and his improvement would not get recognized, while Bonnie, dropping her math score from 90 to 60 would still succeed within the proficiency system, despite the fact her maths skill has degraded.
ShironRedshift
Member
I don't know how to do open heart surgery. But guess I should be a surgeon anyway, since plenty of people don't know how to do it since apparently that's what matters and not the actual requirements and expectations of the position itself. That's the logic you're using here. The fact that you and I may not know that doesn't change the fact that people who have this position are supposed to know that. That's the whole point--to have people who are qualified in these positions to be calling the shots. This is just pure nonsense and not even a slight attempt to argue in good faith.Big deal. I don't either.
Uhh, good? Send them back to 3rd grade if they're at a 3rd grade level. That's literally what "grade level" means.
Can't just send my 5th Graders down to Kindergarten and make them redo the past four years because they're at a Kindergarten reading level. That kind of makes no sense.
Big deal. I don't either.
Dumbest post on NeoGAF today. I hope it's sarcasm.
You dont want 6th graders in a 3rd grade classUhh, good? Send them back to 3rd grade if they're at a 3rd grade level. That's literally what "grade level" means.
No parent would
So I can add United States Secretary of Education to the list of jobs I'm qualified for. Cool.
Have you donated millions to the Republican candidate?
If no, then you're unqualified.
Earthstrike
Member
So, I read the thread title and thought to myself "You know I'm not in education, Maybe I don't know. My intuition that proficiency was how well someone does something, and that growth was improvement is just a guess"
Turns out it really is that fucking simple. It's so simply it's literally what the words actually mean. Yet the republican nominee for secretary of education doesn't know that. Unreal.
Turns out it really is that fucking simple. It's so simply it's literally what the words actually mean. Yet the republican nominee for secretary of education doesn't know that. Unreal.
Sounds like it's the same shit Prezbo went through in The Wire. Trying to establish some level of growth and establish potential for students woefully behind, while being pressed into "teaching to the test" to ensure a uniform proficiency.
Another reason institutions are scary and really only good at protecting themselves. I'm sure Betsy is fine with proficiency metrics because it's the easiest way to establish baseline proficiency of private schools and cash their checks.
Another reason institutions are scary and really only good at protecting themselves. I'm sure Betsy is fine with proficiency metrics because it's the easiest way to establish baseline proficiency of private schools and cash their checks.
Because he's vindictive. Their sole purpose is to punish liberals. Competency for the job doesn't factor in.How did Trump manage to pick the least qualified people for each of his potential cabinet members?
cpp_is_king
Member
Franken actually explained it pretty simply.
How do you measure the progress of a gifted student who is already rated above proficiency? What do you do about those students who aren't capable of reaching proficiency?
You need to measure their growth.
If underperforming students are in the same classroom with gifted students, then you already are fighting a losing battle. How can you effectively teach both sets of students in the same classroom and expect both of them to improve? Anything at the level of the gifted students would be like quantum physics to the slower students, and the gifted students would just sleep through anything at the level of the underperformers.
So you have to split them up into separate classrooms (or higher / lower grade levels). And once you've done that, you can simply measure proficiency.
cpp_is_king
Member
You dont want 6th graders in a 3rd grade class
No parent would
If there was actually a non-zero risk of failing a grade, kids would try their damndest to pass. I knew a lot of kids who got held back when i was a kid. But I can assure you one thing, it *never* happened more than once, because they learned their lesson.
Sounds like growth to be successful, it would require smaller classes and teachers who truly care. Sounds like a tough proposition with the way k-12 education has been going for the past so many years.
You can have a ton of student growth even without small class sizes. I taught in an urban area in the south and had the tons of students that made 100+% growth from the year before and my smallest class was 26 kids. Those same students also had really high proficiency scores that year too. I think you just have to figure out how to teach each specific group of kids and you can be (mostly) successful.
So, I read the thread title and thought to myself "You know I'm not in education, Maybe I don't know. My intuition that proficiency was how well someone does something, and that growth was improvement is just a guess"
Turns out it really is that fucking simple. It's so simply it's literally what the words actually mean. Yet the republican nominee for secretary of education doesn't know that. Unreal.
The topic title is kinda shit because she did know the difference in the same way you did. The issue is that she wasn't aware of the debate between the two different metrics of evaluating a student and was instead on the most basic step of parsing what the terms mean. She tried to bullshit her way through and ended up exposing her ignorance.
spazchicken
Member
Uhh, good? Send them back to 3rd grade if they're at a 3rd grade level. That's literally what "grade level" means.
They'll eventually get pushed through or drop out anyway.
The end result is the same. The only difference is the shame of being held back, on their shoulders along the way.
The topic title is kinda shit because she did know the difference in the same way you did. The issue is that she wasn't aware of the debate between the two different metrics of evaluating a student and was instead on the most basic step of parsing what the words terms mean.
No she didn't. She was talking about proficiency measuring from a baseline of where they started. He had to correct her. That's why she prefaced it with something like, "Let me make sure I understand..." Don't feel like watching the video again to grab the correct quote.
They'll eventually get pushed through or drop out anyway.
The end result is the same. The only difference is the shame on their shoulders along the way.
Not to mention social ramifications for the 6th grader in the 3rd grade classroom, the 3rd graders distraction with 6th graders in their classroom.. in addition to the increased dislike of school and likelihood of dropping out, among many other more nuanced reasons why any teacher would say this is impractical. The idea that all students that are held back are a result of a lack of effort is also comical.
If underperforming students are in the same classroom with gifted students, then you already are fighting a losing battle. How can you effectively teach both sets of students in the same classroom and expect both of them to improve? Anything at the level of the gifted students would be like quantum physics to the slower students, and the gifted students would just sleep through anything at the level of the underperformers.
So you have to split them up into separate classrooms (or higher / lower grade levels). And once you've done that, you can simply measure proficiency.
That's not how inclusion classrooms work. You're talking about a fantasy land school that can't exist because all students do actually learn at different rates.
So this seems to be specific American educational jargon, I googled around and found what I think may be the correct definitions.
http://www.jaxpef.org/news/whats-new-growth-vs-proficiency/
I've been out of school for a long time, never attended school in the US, and don't have kids, so I get why I don't know this, but really, my God, what are Al Franken's qualifications to suggest he should know this stuff -but he does. How can someone vie for secretary of education and not be familiar with the working terms?
Trump is president. He's not qualified to do jack shit.
theignoramus
Member
This is so problematic. As a former public school teacher this is something that you learn very quickly....like within a month. The fact that she has no clue is really troubling. https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/821508778948444160
Damn. That was a cross examination level execution.
When Bernie asked her if she thought that if her family wasn't a billionaire family and hadn't donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the GOP, if she thought that she would be where she was today and she said "yes", I literally laughed out loud.
Every single cabinet member is a joke.
Every single cabinet member is a joke.
When Bernie asked her if she thought that if her family wasn't a billionaire family and hadn't donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the GOP, if she thought that she would be where she was today and she said "yes", I literally laughed out loud.
Every single cabinet member is a joke.
If it wasn't inherited money and buying interest, it would clearly be the usual answers these kooks propose.
God put her there.
A literal Law of Attraction towards madness and buffoonery.
whyamihere
Banned
Tim Kaine is also doing a really good job now.
Everyone has been. But she's 100% getting confirmed.
Everyone has been. But she's 100% getting confirmed.
If underperforming students are in the same classroom with gifted students, then you already are fighting a losing battle. How can you effectively teach both sets of students in the same classroom and expect both of them to improve? Anything at the level of the gifted students would be like quantum physics to the slower students, and the gifted students would just sleep through anything at the level of the underperformers.
So you have to split them up into separate classrooms (or higher / lower grade levels). And once you've done that, you can simply measure proficiency.
That's actually the WORST thing to do. You can differentiate your instruction so your all of your students grow. Every single subset of my students grew every single year. It's possible you just have to work a bit harder.
So, despite her apparent incompetence she'll still be confirmed for Trump's cabinet. Right?
Possibly, yes. The GOP is mostly concerned about getting the ball going and proceeding with their plans. They don't care how incompetent they are, just that they'll have people in these positions.
There are ways to differentiate within a classroom. Small group instruction, help from peer partners (a great way to learn is to teach), differentiated homework, differentiated class work, letting students take a pre test so if they know it they can do enhancement assignments or projects, etc. If that is the focus, a teacher can help all students make growth towards their target. The problem is that if a teacher is being measured on how many students reach 80%, the easy A students are going to be ignored, the F students are going to be ignored, and 99% of attention will go towards the B and C students.
jack_package_200
Banned
If I have learned anything at all from life, its that all the money in the world can't buy you intelligence. She is a dumb as Dear Leader Donald.
Because he's vindictive. Their sole purpose is to punish liberals. Competency for the job doesn't factor in.
It has nothing to do with being vindictive, it's about who donated the most money and didn't disparage Trump during the election, 100% pay to play. But her emails!
If there was actually a non-zero risk of failing a grade, kids would try their damndest to pass. I knew a lot of kids who got held back when i was a kid. But I can assure you one thing, it *never* happened more than once, because they learned their lesson.
You are trying to argue something using anecdotes and sense you are making in your head instead of research.
That's a poor move.
bobbychalkers
Member
America has a horrible attention span.Fuck it, confirm them all. Let these morons try to run the government. As long as we all survive the long term damage of having this cabinet of incompetents ruin the country for 4 years will have on the GOP will be worth it. They won't win another election.
I am a school teacher in a tested area. This is terrifying to me. Especially since I teach science and she wants to expand God's kingdom. Can't wait to have to teach intelligent design and how evolution is "just a theory"
Don't worry. She'll likely privatize schools so much that only the whites get the advancement to God's kingdom.
I'm sure light may be white in her plan. Or maybe white paved with green, I dunno...
There are ways to differentiate within a classroom. If that is the focus, a teacher can help all students make growth towards their target. The problem is that if a teacher is being measured on how many students reach 80%, the easy A students are going to be ignored, the F students are going to be ignored, and 99% of attention will go towards the B and C students.
This is exactly what's going on now. I'm being told to focus on my "bubble" students who are the ones most likely to impact the test data instead of focusing on all of my students. You're gifted? Fuck off, you won't move the needle! You're low? Fuck off, you'll never meet the standards!
cpp_is_king
Member
That's actually the WORST thing to do. You can differentiate your instruction so your all of your students grow. Every single subset of my students grew every single year. It's possible you just have to work a bit harder.
Why would creating separate classrooms where all students are roughly at the same level so they can obtain the maximum growth possibly be a bad thing?
There are ways to differentiate within a classroom. If that is the focus, a teacher can help all students make growth towards their target. The problem is that if a teacher is being measured on how many students reach 80%, the easy A students are going to be ignored, the F students are going to be ignored, and 99% of attention will go towards the B and C students.
This is true. In my state would could pick whichever measure was higher (growth or proficiency). I would have all my students growth so much that both would be the same score in the end but growth typically favors lower level students and proficiency favors the higher ones.
I hated the logic of teaching "to the middle" so I would just challenge all of my students and provide the additional supports they needed to meet those challenges. It was a lot of extra work, but my kids were so proud of themselves each year by the end.
WiiredShawn
Member
Poor Betsy. Failed by the private education system she so earnestly worships.
RustyNails
Member
Al Franken is just one of the best senators in our lifetime. So happy you guys up there got him in.
Count Dookkake
Member
Lol. What a dummy.
Having never considered the subject before, I could probably bullshit for 10 minutes just by knowing what each word means in a general sense and then applying it to the context of education.
Having never considered the subject before, I could probably bullshit for 10 minutes just by knowing what each word means in a general sense and then applying it to the context of education.
No she didn't. She was talking about proficiency measuring from a baseline of where they started. He had to correct her. That's why she prefaced it with something like, "Let me make sure I understand..." Don't feel like watching the video again to grab the correct quote.
Eh, she said proficiency was about reaching pre-defined levels of competency and that's what most would be able to suss out when they first hear the question. That it's the first time she was made aware of the question is the troubling part.
Why would creating separate classrooms where all students are roughly at the same level so they can obtain the maximum growth possibly be a bad thing?
This was my situation my first year of teaching and it was hell. One of the things my district was really big on was student collaboration....when they are all low they can't really help each other or collaborate independently. Having students of a variety of levels also would help motivate the others. If they would see someone completing something challenging they would be more likely to try to accomplish the same goal. I hated teaching students on the same level. One year I had all of the honor students and enjoyed my class with missed proficiency levels much more.
Lol. What a dummy.
Having never considered the subject before, I could probably bullshit for 10 minutes just by knowing what each word means in a general sense and then applying it to the context of education.
Yeah. I'm not really sure what is more alarming: Her not being passionate about one side of the debate or the other, or the fact that she couldn't take those two words and use context to figure out what Al was talking about.
If underperforming students are in the same classroom with gifted students, then you already are fighting a losing battle. How can you effectively teach both sets of students in the same classroom and expect both of them to improve? Anything at the level of the gifted students would be like quantum physics to the slower students, and the gifted students would just sleep through anything at the level of the underperformers.
So you have to split them up into separate classrooms (or higher / lower grade levels). And once you've done that, you can simply measure proficiency.
It isn't "easy" but it isn't hard either. The best classes I have had are heterogeneous mixes of students across ability levels. You design activities, projects, labs, etc. and team students of various ability levels and students will guide each other. I have taught at both traditional "high level/low level" classes and inclusion settings. I had better results by far in the inclusion school. Students didn't have preconceived notions already if they were dumb or smart, they felt like equals, and weren't afraid to get involved because they were with a "smart" kid.
I personally hate tracking because then the "smart" kids tend to stop pushing themselves and the "dumb" group tends to give up and resign them self to being in the lower track. Then you get teachers that develop self fulfilling prophecies about their lower tracked classes and don't give them the opportunities to grow that they should.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs sets this up perfectly. Makes for really unique, and fun classes. And not only are my test scores higher (which are garbage numbers anyway) but I can tell my students are learning actual real skills that will benefit them regardless of career post high school.
That is the quick version. If you want to know more just ask! I know why you feel that way, at quick glance it may def. appear that separating and focusing on different levels on their own is best, but the data shows otherwise.
Dynamite Shikoku
Congratulations, you really deserve it!
who needs words or numbers anyway. less talk, more progress.
Eh, she said proficiency was about reaching pre-defined levels of competency and that's what most would be able to suss out when they first hear the question. That it's the first time she was made aware of the question is the troubling part.
She was trying to cover her bases. She started to define proficiency correctly, "correlate it to competency and mastery", and then ended with "so that each student is measured according to the advancement that they're making in each subject area".
It's like when you're taking a test in high school and just throw everything into an essay question hoping something sticks.
Why would creating separate classrooms where all students are roughly at the same level so they can obtain the maximum growth possibly be a bad thing?
Because they don't get the maximum growth that way.
Maybe Americans are different but, in Australia, mixed capability classrooms are beneficial for students with weaker skills since more proficient students can mentor lower skilled students. You just have to design activities that all students can participate in.
Anecdotally and from experience in tutoring secondary school subjects during university, this is the single best way to remember and understand material past a mere ROTE surface level.
KernelPanic
Member
Remember, her goal for education is to "enhance God's Kingdom."
Look into that as you will...
Dominion Theology. It's going to be the Theocratic States of America in the future.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.