FRAUDULENT "BENCHMARK" TESTING IN AUSTRALIA TOO

And you can't give dyslectic kids special help. Why? Because it is wrong to "categorize" people. So therefore dyslexia does not exist! One wonders whether some of these educrats are really human beings. They certainly don't act it. Politically correct ideologues, Yes. Complete human beings, No.

Primary school children who can barely read are passing the Federal Government's national literacy benchmarks. The NSW Department of Education and Training says 92 per cent of the state's year 3, 5 and 7 students have passed the benchmarks. But this figure includes children who have been diagnosed with severe learning difficulties such as dyslexia.

For the first time NSW parents were told last year how their child performed in relation to the state average and the national benchmark. This was determined through the state-run Basic Skills Tests for year 3 and year 5 and the English Language and Literacy Assessment for year 7. One mother of a dyslexic boy was surprised to find he had met the national literacy benchmark for year 3 despite independent experts telling her he was 24 months behind his classmates in reading. The boy's Basic Skills Test report also showed he was in the bottom 17 per cent of the state and in need of "considerable assistance in literacy". The mother, who did not wish to be named, said her son had previously been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and language disability.

Sharryn Brownlee, the president of the Federation of Parents and Citizens' Associations of NSW, said the national benchmark was simply too low when compared with the NSW one. "We have these broad general benchmarks in some aspects of numeracy and literacy, and in fact some of the children meeting these benchmarks are barely literate. "We need to make sure they really can survive and have skills in the current workforce."

The national benchmarks are being investigated as part of an inquiry ordered by the Federal Government into the teaching of reading. The Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, said they represented "the minimum acceptable standard without which a student will have difficulty making sufficient progress at school". Moreover, the benchmarks had been developed with reference to current levels of achievement in national surveys and state assessment programs, he said, and had been tested in classrooms in all states and territories.

The NSW Education Department said it recognised that any student who recorded marks in the bottom of band 2 "clearly needs considerable help". But the mother of the dyslexic boy said her son was a victim of buckpassing. Her son is not be entitled to one of the 24,000 tutorial vouchers, worth $700 each, the Federal Government has promised to combat illiteracy. He also misses out on state-administered federal funding for disabled students because the NSW Education Department does not categorise dyslexic students as disabled. "I'm not allowed to use the word within the Education Department because they don't allow it," the mother said. "No one puts dyslexia down on these reports because they say there's no such thing." The department's director of disabilities programs, Brian Smyth-King, said dyslexia was not recognised as a diagnosed disability because the department preferred to take a "non-categorical approach"... "It is the issue about labelling that people get distressed about," he said. "For every one family that does want a label there is a whole pile of families that does not. Labelling can get fixed to that child's name ... for the rest of their school lives and they see that as detrimental." He said children with reading and language difficulties were absorbed into the department's learning assistance program, which cost $105 million a year and provided 1300 specialist teachers in schools across NSW.

The mother mentioned does not seem to think her child is being helped by the self-satisfied Mr Smyth-King's "learning assistance program"

Source




DEGRADING THE S.A.T.

A good comment from one of my readers in response to my post of 4th. about inflated educational achievement:

Is not the new SAT format also simply a politically correct attempt to "dumb-down" the exam so as to narrow the range of outcomes and reduce its ability to "discriminate" (in the good sense) among students of differing abilities? The new SAT exam eliminates "analogies" in the Critical Reading section and "quantitative comparisons" in the Math section and adds "short reading passages" to the existing longer reading passages in the Critical Reading section. It seems that the only purpose in eliminating the more difficult "analogies" and "quantitative comparisons" while adding the easier "short reading passages" is to assure that those students with lesser ability get scores closer to those with greater abilities. Is this not just a "backdoor" way of instituting "reverse discrimination" now that racial preferences and affirmative action in college admissions are coming under greater scrutiny and criticism?





HOW SURPRISING! CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS ARE THE PITS

They are blaming lack of funding of course -- despite evidence from elsewhere that shows no effect from more funding. How odd that bloated bureaucracy and the destruction of standards by political correctness do not get a mention!

California's public schools perform worse than most of their peers nationally on almost every standard, including academic achievement, class sizes and teacher pay, according to a study released Monday. The Santa Monica-based Rand Corp. said the 18-month, $300,000 study, funded by the Hewlett Foundation, is the first comprehensive look at California's public schools, showing how far they've fallen from the national prestige they enjoyed three decades ago. "The surprising thing was how bleak the situation was across the board,' said Stephen Carroll, the think tank's senior economist and lead author of the report, "California's K-12 Public Schools: How Are They Doing?' The study examined California's results on national standardized tests, facility construction, teacher preparedness and education funding. It showed, for example, that only students in Louisiana and Mississippi perform worse than those in the Golden State on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Rand researchers also found that the state's average ratio of nearly 21 students per teacher remains higher than the nationwide average of 16-to-1.

The decline of the state's education system was fueled, in part, by Proposition 13, which voters approved in 1978 with significantly reduced property-tax revenue for local schools. The study also said that Proposition 98, which sets a minimum level of state funding for public schools and community colleges, has stymied the system by becoming the maximum amount expended. In 1970, the study said, California spent about $400 above the national average of $3,500 per pupil. By 2000, it was allocating $600 below the national average of $6,500. In the mid-1970s, Californians spent about 4.5 percent of their income on public education, the study said. That dropped by 1.2 percentage points in the 1980s and still remains far below the national average.

Jack O'Connell, state superintendent of public instruction, issued a statement saying the study highlights the state's continued struggle to properly fund education. "It is time to thoroughly and thoughtfully evaluate our system of school financing to determine what constitutes adequate funding for an education system that prepares all students from all backgrounds to fulfill their academic potential,' he said. O'Connell added he expects the recently formed Quality Education Commission to help foster that discussion once the governor appoints its members.

Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which sponsored Proposition 13, said blaming the voter-approved measure for the decline of California's public schools is ridiculous. Rather, districts have been plagued by waste, mismanagement and a lack of competition, he said. "It sounds like the usual nonsense,' he said. "Proposition 13 is really a red herring that somebody needs to flog to get attention to their issue.'

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************