Browsing articles in "Assessments + Testing"
Oct 1, 2012
ELW

Education Liberty Watch Private School Choice Freedom Grading Scale Table

STATE

TYPE OF SCHOOL CHOICE

TYPE OF ACCOUNTABILITY TESTING IF ANY

ACCEPTED COMMON CORE?

FREEDOM GRADE

Arizona (2006) CSTC –  Means tested Nationally norm referenced test

Yes

B

Arizona (1997) ISTC None listed

Yes

A

Arizona (2009) CSTC-low income & foster children None listed

Yes

 

A

Arizona (2011) ESA – Children w/disabilities None listed

Yes

A

Colorado (2011) UV-  Douglas Co. State tests for  recipients

Yes

D

 

Florida (1999- expanded 2011) SNV (McKay) None Listed

Yes

A

Florida (2001 & expanded  2011 & 2012) CSTC Recipients must take either national norm-referenced  or state tests

Yes

C

Georgia (2001) SNV Schools must report recipients’ academic progress to parents and state

Yes

A+

Georgia (2008) CSTC & ISTC None listed

Yes

A

Indiana (2009) CSTC & ISTC State or NNRT

Yes

C

Indiana (2011) MTV Private schools must administer state tests

Yes

F

Iowa  (2006 & expanded in 2011) ISTC & CSTC None listed

Yes

A

Louisiana (2008) MTV/FSV in New Orleans Private schools must administer state tests to voucher recipients

Yes

D

Louisiana (2010) SNV None listed

Yes

A

Louisiana (2012) MTV/FSV – statewide State tests to recipients  & report to parents

Yes

D+

North Carolina (2011) ISTC – disabilities None listed

Yes

A

New Hampshire (2012) ISTC & CSTC None listed

Yes

A+

Ohio (1995) MTV –  Cleveland School District Private schools must administer state tests

Yes

F

Ohio (2003) SNV – autism None listed

Yes

A

Ohio (2005) FSV Private schools must administer state tests

Yes

F

Ohio (2011) SNV School must administer state tests unless student exempted due to IEP

Yes

D

Oklahoma (2010) SNV None listed

Yes

A

Oklahoma (2011) CSTC & ISTC NONE – Ensures academic accountability through regular progress reports to parents

Yes

A+

Pennsylvania (2001) CSTC None listed

Yes

A

Rhode Island (2006) CSTC None listed

Yes

A

Utah (2005) SNV Administer annual assessment of student’s academic progress and report results to the student’s parents

Yes

B

Virginia (2012) CSTC Private schools must administer NNRT annually, report results to parents, & aggregate results to state DOE

No

B+

Washington, DC (2004) MTV Administer NNRT & conduct  comparative evaluation  utilizing D.C. PublicSchools, Charter Schools, and OSP school testing data

Yes

B+

Wisconsin (1990) MTV –  Milwaukee district Administer state tests to scholarship recipients in grade 4, 8, & 10 & provide scores to School Choice DemonstrationProject

Yes

D+

Wisconsin (2011) MTV – Racine district Administer state tests to scholarship recipients in grades 4, 8, and 10

Yes

D+

FREEDOM GRADING SCALE:

A+ = No testing requirements and accountability only to parents

A = No testing requirements

B+ = Requires only a nationally norm-referenced test and reports results to parents

B = Requires only a nationally norm-referenced test  (Not currently tied to Common Core)

C = Requires the state tests or a nationally norm-referenced test

D+ = Requires private schools to give voucher recipients the state tests but reports results to an outside entity instead of the state

D = Requires private schools to give voucher/tax credit recipients the state tests

F = Requires private schools to give state tests to all students in a private school

ABBREVIATIONS:

CSTC = Corporate Scholarship Tax Credit

ESA = Education Savings Account

FSV = Failing School Voucher

ISTC = Individual Scholarship Tax Credit

MTV = Means Tested Voucher

NNRT = Nationally Norm-Referenced Test

SNV = Special Needs Voucher

UV = Universal Voucher

*Information, except for 2012 laws, adapted from Alliance for School Choice: School Choice Year Book 2011-12

Mar 19, 2011
ELW

Quotes and References Regarding the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment

THERE IS NO CRISIS

“The total percentage [3-10% for 2009] of students rated on average as not yet showing proficiency in each of the five developmental domains has remained consistent throughout the seven years of the study.” – 2009 Readiness Study Report, MDE, April 2010, p. 13

“The advocates sponsoring these ads base their claims on some early learning studies done by the Minnesota Education Department. But those studies did not draw dividing lines between children at different levels of development. They did not brand some students ready or not ready for kindergarten. The Education Department studies do show that between 2 percent and 11 percent of children do not yet demonstrate some skills or behaviors they need for success in school. Another group, about half, are in the process of acquiring those skills. They should succeed in schools that offer solid academic programs. The rest show full proficiency.  If the claims of the advertising campaign were true, it would certainly show up three years later in the third-grade Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment results for reading and math ability. In fact, in 2004, 74 percent of Minnesota third-graders achieved proficient scores in the reading assessment; 71 percent were proficient or better in math. Some of those successful students must have been in the group not fully prepared for kindergarten. – Commissioner Alice Seagren, Pioneer Press, February 5, 2006, emphasis added

LABELING CHILDREN CAN HAVE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

“Because children develop and grow along a continuum with great variability, the goal of these studies is to assess children s proficiency within and across these developmental domains and not establish whether or not children are ready for school with the use of a composite ready or not ready score. Young children develop rapidly and at varying rates across the domains, and an early, definitive determination of readiness can have unintended negative consequences” – 2006, Readiness Study Report, MDE, p.7,  emphasis added

 

Continue reading »

Oct 26, 2010
ELW

Kindergarten Readiness: A Useless and Dangerous Concept

The usual big government, control our children from birth crowd constantly harp at parents and policymakers that fifty percent of Minnesota children come to school not prepared or not fully prepared for kindergarten.  They say that only a massive expansion of government money and control will solve this “crisis.”

The Scholar’s Notebook blog reported on a candidate forum in Senate District 43 held on October 18th where early childhood issues were discussed.  I attended that forum and heard incumbent Democrat Rep. John Benson dutifully chanted that exact meme that 50% of Minnesota children were not prepared for kindergarten, that it is a crisis, and that the state needs to provide more funding for early childhood programs. Continue reading »

Apr 30, 2010
ELW

House Committee Rejects Common Core and Race to the Top

As the House education bill was being crafted and debated, EdWatch is extremely glad to announce that both major Republican gubernatorial candidates (Rep. Tom Emmer and Rep. Marty Seifert) understand the freedom priorities of sovereignty, local control, and academic excellence. Both have signed on to the bill authored by Rep. Gene Pelowski and Senator David Hann – HF 3677/SF 3181– to prohibit Minnesota’s involvement in Race to the Top.

In an ironic, complicated and mostly party line vote, a package of reforms from Governor Pawlenty that included adoption of the Common Core Standards without public comment that we warned about in our last alert and that was proposed to help strengthen Minnesota’s second round application for Race to the Top grants was rejected on April 28th by the House K-12 Finance Committee.  This vote occurred as the committee put together their final omnibus education finance and policy bill. Continue reading »

Pages:«12345»