tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1877797756505533141.post5745764816798264370..comments2008-11-19T08:27:04.524-08:00JBinAZnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1877797756505533141.post-90380383413236412402008-11-18T20:05:00.000-08:002008-11-18T20:05:00.000-08:00Whether or not intervention is provided online, data must be collected to determine if the intervention is working. Certainly, if the intervention is conducted online, then it will be that much easier to collect and analyze assessment data regarding the effectiveness of the intervention in a timely fashion.<BR/><BR/>But, I have another related topic for discussion. With so much online data now being available through formative assessments and benchmark assessments, I see that many districts are becoming more and more inclined to use this data not as a means to inform instruction, but rather as a means to put grades on report cards and to determine retention and promotion. Is this wise? Suddenly the purpose of the assessments shifts entirely, does it not? The assessments become summative in nature. For example, one district I know of has the requirement for promotion in grades 2-8 that students "pass" two out of three reading benchmark assessments (given about 10 weeks apart during the school year prior to state testing). Having read your recent white paper, it is clear that although there is a high risk of not passing the AIMS (state test) for students who only “met” (passed) one out of three benchmarks, a significant number of students do go on to pass the AIMS. And, in fact, if the one benchmark that a student passed was the third benchmark, their risk of not passing the AIMS drops considerably. So, it seems unwise to tie promotion or retention to a simple 2 out of 3 benchmark pass rate. Intervention yes, but punitive measures no. Anyone’s thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com