California test score labels get a makeover: advanced, competent, in development, minimal

On Wednesday, the State Board of Education approved new labels to inform families and teachers of the way students carry out standardized state tests, aimed at providing clear descriptions that will not demoralize more efficient students.

Student scores will be classified in one of the four categories on California annual tests in mathematics, reading and science. The new categories will be: advanced, competent, developing and minimum.

The old categories replaced are: the norm exceeded; Standard set; Standard almost respected or standard not respected.

During the 7 to 4 vote, the majority of the board of directors rejected the labels recommended by the staff of California DEPT. of Education, which had made two series of discussion groups.

Rob Manwaring, who was part of a coalition of nine groups that had raised concerns about previous labels, was carefully optimistic.

He said that he understood the value of providing information in a positive and encouraging way, which is called “asset -based approach”, but that parents also need a sober understanding of the place where their child is academically to transmit an appropriate “feeling of emergency”.

“I think that the labeling of the lowest and minimal level and the second level as a development seems to suggest this level of need,” said Manwaring, the senior policy advisor for the lawyer for Oakland Children Now.

The coalition had expressed a large concern concerning the labels for the two lowest groups which had been proposed in November: fundamental and incoherent.

The coalition – which included Edtrust -West, California Charter Schools Assn., Alliance for a Better Community, Teach Plus and Children Now – said that the fundamental and inconsistent terms “would make data more confused and misleading”.

The Council of State delayed the action in November, largely because the students, parents and basic educators did not have the opportunity to provide comments. The discussion groups in December and January strengthened objections to the fundamental and inconsistent basis, according to a staff report.

Instead, the staff of the State Education Department has changed their orientation and recommended basic and below the base for the two lower levels. These labels had the widest support in the discussion groups of students, parents, teachers, coordinators and test defenders.

The complete set of the recommended – advanced, competent, basic and lower labels at the base – also aligned with the labels used on a well -known national test, the national assessment of educational progress, or NAEP, which is often called the country’s bulletin. The labels offered are also common on tests in other states.

But the members of the designated Council of State are not online.

“The labels are important,” said Francisco Escobedo. “We consider our children as continuous learners.” Below, Basic suggests failure, he said. “Emergence is a more appropriate word.” He noted that emergence is used for a lowest level to a state test to assess how English -speaking students learn English.

But a staff member has rejected – saying that a term to capture a student who is starting to learn English is different from a description of a student’s academic skills.

Other members of the board of directors were not won over by the suggested mandate of Escobedo. But they shared his concern about negativity.

“I also had a visceral reaction to the word basic,” said Haydee Rodriguez, who added that students use the word Basic as an insult of Argot, a revelation that caused the chairman of the board of directors Linda Darling-Hammond to take a break.

Cynthia Glover Woods, a member of the board of directors, first suggested the minimum for the lowest category. Another suggestion presented for the best scorers was the start.

The members of the board of directors also slightly reformulated the extended description of what has become the development label – claiming that he did not transmit that a student at this level should need additional academic support.

Among those who voted not on the new labels, Alison Yoshimoto-Towery, member of the board of directors, said that the discussion was unnecessarily reduced. Escobedo said the new labels had remained too hard. Gabriela Orozco Gonzalez said that the opinions of students and parents in discussion groups should be respected – they apparently had no problem with the word Basic.

Disappointing scores, whatever the label

Even if the board of directors had opted for NAEP style labels, they would not have been interchangeable through the tests.

In general, NAEP labels represent a more rigorous classification standard, with a higher threshold to obtain a note of competence or progress. These higher levels are more difficult to reach on NAEP than on Californian tests have concluded that the research that has compared state tests with national NAEP exams.

The results of the NAEP remain low on a national level and in California and have generally failed to recover from the 2019 pre -countryic levels. The results of the tests in mathematics and in English students of the fourth and eighth year have been largely stable or have refused national scale in the last two years – of the roughly the same results in Los Angeles and California.

Not only do few students mark as advanced or competent, but less realize the version of NAEP of a basic classification, the following level down.

On the most recent results of this test, for example, the percentage of students from Los Angeles who marked as competent or better in fourth year mathematics was 27%. For California, it was 35%.

In fourth year reading, 25% of Los Angeles students were tested or better. The California rate was 29%.

On California’s tests, students’ competence rates are higher, but still largely levels of pre-countryic success which were themselves considered unacceptable at the time.

Overall, state tests offer more precise control than NAEP on what students in California are supposed to learn. The NAEP test, on the other hand, tests a small sample of students to allow state -based comparisons.