4 ms·

Consider a well designed test of an important curriculum. This means the topics are important for $REASONS, and the test is highly correlated with knowledge of

Consider a well designed test of an important curriculum. This means the topics are important for $REASONS, and the test is highly correlated with knowledge of the topics. If a student asks "why is this important", you can reply "$REASONS". And you can "teach to the test" secure in the knowledge that you are teaching useful materials. Now, if you believe the curriculum is poorly designed or the test is poorly correlated with it, I encourage you to make that argument. But explaining why "Know relative sizes of measurement units within one system of units including km, m, cm..." should not be part of the curriculum is a lot harder than making emotional pleas about "love of the subject". (I've skimmed parts of the common core on a few occasions. It looks pretty good to me. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/4/MD/ http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/4/MD/ )

VLM 12y ago
I can't speak for OP, although I basically agree with you and OP simultaneously. However, look at it as an optimization problem. CC testing standards and format may be ideal testing tools for 49 minutes 5th period after lunch 5 days a week in a 40 person classroom, performed in perfect lock step by all 40 students, only failure mode is repeating the entire class or developing a hatred of the topic, aka standard public school experience. However, what does "alignment" WRT KA mean when the educational experience has completely changed? Its analog, you can watch a video 50 times will you get it, jump back and forth, all that. I'd propose the "best" testing technique for that environment probably looks a lot like KA and not so much CC because you need instant feedback and simple questions. Its not quite as good as personal 1 on 1 tutoring, but its better than sitting in class, more importantly the experience is inherently different than sitting in class... The proposal in the linked article seems to be that KA epic fails, solely in "alignment", because it doesn't test like CC, which is trivial to test and prove and analyze statistically. Factually looks like a good study. Maybe it fails the relevance test because "alignment" is fuzzy to me (maybe it has a special jargon meaning among CC teachers?) I think MAYBE OP and I are concerned that KA aligns pretty well to a decent curriculum (CC) WRT topics and order of topics and presentation standards, and I hope KA doesn't ruin the KA assessment portion to better match CC assessments solely to get a checkbox somewhere. Maybe we can abstract out KA from the discussion. I'm tolerably good at math and have tutored people. If you define alignment with CC as slavishly following their assessment technique at all times even though I'm 1 on 1 in an ongoing human conversation, such that everything I speak must statistically match the CC assessment percentages in style, tone, and technique, that's ridiculous. If you defined alignment as I'm talking about sets of linear equations with infinite solution set the same general time, order, and way the CC talks about it, thats OK, even if I assess a tutored student the "wrong way" by asking the wrong type of questions (which may very well be the right question for that kid at that moment while also being on average the wrong way to teach all American Kids in a 40 person classroom) Its seems reasonably non controversial that CC curriculum and assessment are local maxima on society wide averages for teaching math. It seems reasonably non controversial that KAs assessment tools seem to be a local maxima for computerized delivery of help to kids that need extra help. I (and possibly OP) don't think it reasonable to trash talk KA because the local maxima of effectiveness for society as an average whole in a classroom setting doesn't necessarily match KAs local maxima of effectiveness for "kids who need help at home". The danger is screwing up KA enough to make it useless for the kids who need it after school, just to achieve a marketing checkmark.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  So from what little I've seen, KA is reasonably well aligned with common core already. Most decent curriculums do. Also, I think you are misunderstanding what CC is. CC is just a list of topics students should know - there is no "CC testing standards and format". If KA doesn't align with CC, it's because there is some particular topic that KA forgot about. E.g. maybe common core requires students to "Solve problems involving addition and subtraction of fractions by using information presented in line plots", but Khan forgot about that one. I also don't think it would be harmful if KA made sure it covered the basic topics of AIEEE or the IIT-JEE either (important Indian standardized exams). A lot of people want to pass those exams and it would be a marginal amount of extra work for KA to help them.
  - kennytilton 12y ago
    "there is no "CC testing standards and format"." I see two. One is called PARC, one is called Smarter Balanced. And they want to use them to close schools and fire teachers, so look for everyone to teach to whatever sample tests they can get their hands on.
    - jblad 12y ago
      PARC and SBAC are indeed tests intended to measure students against the Common Core State Standards. They are not from, or a part of, the CCSSI. People definitely do want to misuse these tests to punish schools and teachers, but none of this invalidates the Common Core. And while people will teach to the sample tests, that's on people who want to use these to destroy schools, not on the Common Core itself.
      - kennytilton 12y ago
        Ah, but if you check out the Common Core page they go on and on about student performance being comparable between states, which is why the two standardized tests in effect are inseparable from CCSS. btw, I know what you meant by the rhetorical "people...do not want", but the problem is precisely that "accountability" is the other dog whistle never far from any CCSS discussion. I am afraid your healthy view of CCSS is not widely shared, and the discussion would be much better if CC was offered purely as PD. Teachers love anything that works.
kennytilton 12y ago
You make a strong logical argument, but it relies critically on the tests being really great. Have you examined the sample questions as well as the standards? And even if the tests are great (they are not) do you have any idea how well this will play out in real classrooms? I ask because, as a veteran teacher, my guess is that CCSS will be great for the top two deciles and a disaster for the rest. The super worst thing is that no one knows because this top-to-bottom overhaul has not been tested/proven anywhere. That is just malpractice, on an enormous scale.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

VLM 12y ago

I can't speak for OP, although I basically agree with you and OP simultaneously. However, look at it as an optimization problem. CC testing standards and format may be ideal testing tools for 49 minutes 5th period after lunch 5 days a week in a 40 person classroom, performed in perfect lock step by all 40 students, only failure mode is repeating the entire class or developing a hatred of the topic, aka standard public school experience. However, what does "alignment" WRT KA mean when the educational experience has completely changed? Its analog, you can watch a video 50 times will you get it, jump back and forth, all that. I'd propose the "best" testing technique for that environment probably looks a lot like KA and not so much CC because you need instant feedback and simple questions. Its not quite as good as personal 1 on 1 tutoring, but its better than sitting in class, more importantly the experience is inherently different than sitting in class... The proposal in the linked article seems to be that KA epic fails, solely in "alignment", because it doesn't test like CC, which is trivial to test and prove and analyze statistically. Factually looks like a good study. Maybe it fails the relevance test because "alignment" is fuzzy to me (maybe it has a special jargon meaning among CC teachers?) I think MAYBE OP and I are concerned that KA aligns pretty well to a decent curriculum (CC) WRT topics and order of topics and presentation standards, and I hope KA doesn't ruin the KA assessment portion to better match CC assessments solely to get a checkbox somewhere. Maybe we can abstract out KA from the discussion. I'm tolerably good at math and have tutored people. If you define alignment with CC as slavishly following their assessment technique at all times even though I'm 1 on 1 in an ongoing human conversation, such that everything I speak must statistically match the CC assessment percentages in style, tone, and technique, that's ridiculous. If you defined alignment as I'm talking about sets of linear equations with infinite solution set the same general time, order, and way the CC talks about it, thats OK, even if I assess a tutored student the "wrong way" by asking the wrong type of questions (which may very well be the right question for that kid at that moment while also being on average the wrong way to teach all American Kids in a 40 person classroom) Its seems reasonably non controversial that CC curriculum and assessment are local maxima on society wide averages for teaching math. It seems reasonably non controversial that KAs assessment tools seem to be a local maxima for computerized delivery of help to kids that need extra help. I (and possibly OP) don't think it reasonable to trash talk KA because the local maxima of effectiveness for society as an average whole in a classroom setting doesn't necessarily match KAs local maxima of effectiveness for "kids who need help at home". The danger is screwing up KA enough to make it useless for the kids who need it after school, just to achieve a marketing checkmark.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
So from what little I've seen, KA is reasonably well aligned with common core already. Most decent curriculums do. Also, I think you are misunderstanding what CC is. CC is just a list of topics students should know - there is no "CC testing standards and format". If KA doesn't align with CC, it's because there is some particular topic that KA forgot about. E.g. maybe common core requires students to "Solve problems involving addition and subtraction of fractions by using information presented in line plots", but Khan forgot about that one. I also don't think it would be harmful if KA made sure it covered the basic topics of AIEEE or the IIT-JEE either (important Indian standardized exams). A lot of people want to pass those exams and it would be a marginal amount of extra work for KA to help them.
- kennytilton 12y ago
  "there is no "CC testing standards and format"." I see two. One is called PARC, one is called Smarter Balanced. And they want to use them to close schools and fire teachers, so look for everyone to teach to whatever sample tests they can get their hands on.
  - jblad 12y ago
    PARC and SBAC are indeed tests intended to measure students against the Common Core State Standards. They are not from, or a part of, the CCSSI. People definitely do want to misuse these tests to punish schools and teachers, but none of this invalidates the Common Core. And while people will teach to the sample tests, that's on people who want to use these to destroy schools, not on the Common Core itself.
    - kennytilton 12y ago
      Ah, but if you check out the Common Core page they go on and on about student performance being comparable between states, which is why the two standardized tests in effect are inseparable from CCSS. btw, I know what you meant by the rhetorical "people...do not want", but the problem is precisely that "accountability" is the other dog whistle never far from any CCSS discussion. I am afraid your healthy view of CCSS is not widely shared, and the discussion would be much better if CC was offered purely as PD. Teachers love anything that works.

kennytilton 12y ago

You make a strong logical argument, but it relies critically on the tests being really great. Have you examined the sample questions as well as the standards? And even if the tests are great (they are not) do you have any idea how well this will play out in real classrooms? I ask because, as a veteran teacher, my guess is that CCSS will be great for the top two deciles and a disaster for the rest. The super worst thing is that no one knows because this top-to-bottom overhaul has not been tested/proven anywhere. That is just malpractice, on an enormous scale.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]