**this information**

**was not acquired as a scorer or as a proctor**, since I did not score the test this year, and I proctored the sixth grade exam, from which none of the examples below were taken. If parents think that the questions were ridiculous, let me tell you, that was nothing compared with how they are being graded.

I'll start with the least mathematically complex issues and work my way to the problems that need a bit more math knowledge. The first new scoring rule is that spelling counts; scorers were told to only count "reasonable" spellings, so many English language learners tried to phonetically spell some math terms, which they mangled. I still can't spell "glockenspiel", nor "schadenfreude", and I'm an amateur linguist married to a German. A child who answered "rektengoll" would get no credit for this answer, when any reasonable adult would know the intended meaning, especially since children are taught "invented spelling" in the early grades. Yes, thank you, early education researchers for telling teachers to tell kids to make up any old spelling, so that the rest of us must struggle to contradict this. Certainly this is the example containing the least math, since, last time I checked, spelling was another subject entirely. I have always told my students that spelling doesn't count, as long as you don't tell me that you misspelled "rectangle" as "parallelogram", but no longer. If it's comprehensible but not even close to spelled correctly, they take points off.

You could do math the hard way, but we teach kids the shortcuts |

Here's another way to get it wrong |

On the subject of the distributive property, apparently this is another topic that the Pearson scoring supervisors never learned, because scorers were asked to not give credit to children who multiplied using this property. For example, if, when needing to multiply 42 x 9, rather than using the traditional algorithm, a student broke the problem down to 40 x 9 + 2 x 9 (mental math), they were not given credit. Yet, this is a strategy that students are taught in Everyday Math! Insane!

Shall I continue? Without boring you with the details, I'll hit a couple more "mistakes" that would take points off in brief:

- Not including part-to-part or part-to-whole in the explanation.
- Answering "quadrilateral" for Part A of a "Name this shape" question (acceptable answer), but defining a quadrilateral when they needed to define a rectangle in the "How did you know what shape it was" follow-up question.
- "One child has $8 and his friend has the same amount. Can they buy a $6 comb and a $14 ice cream sundae?" If they said no, because 8 x 2 <> 20, they were not given credit.
- Spacing and bar width on graphs must be uniform.
- Conceptual errors get a zero for a two-point question.

*you*to get out and protest this nonsense. Get angry and make your voices heard. It is time to stop the high stakes, high stress charade.

## 0 comments:

## Post a Comment