This article appeared in the business section of the New York Times.
Author James B. Stewart decided to try to answer a sample question that is supposedly representative of the admissions test that students in New York City take to get into a handful of elite high schools. He found the question confusing. He got the wrong answer. He sent it to a legendary editor at the New Yorker magazine. She found it confusing. She got the wrong answer. I tried the question. I got the wrong answer. Pearson said it was a sample question, and no one actually had to see it on an exam. They revised the question. It was as confusing as the original.
This is the question.
“In the passage below, which of these is the most precise revision for the words “talked to some people who did the best in the contest?”
“During a nightly news-segment about a cooking contest, a reporter talked to some people who did the best in the contest.”
A. Conversed with some of the people who won the contest.
B. Spoke to the three contestants who did well.
C. Discussed the contest with some of the winners.
D. Interviewed the top three contestants.”
Stewart writes:
“The question didn’t say how many people the reporter interviewed, and a reader has no way of knowing. So an accurate revision would need to be equally vague. Any revision that specified “three contestants” is not an accurate reproduction of the original, but an embellishment. That eliminated answers B and D.
“Answer C refers to “some of the winners,” but doesn’t say winners of what. The original is explicit: “the contest.” And C embellishes “talked”: “discussed the contest.” The original doesn’t say what the reporter talked to the winners about. So C failed on two counts.
“That left A, which is both vague and explicit in the same way the original is, and thus the most “precise revision.” I chose it and pushed the “submit” button and got an immediate response.
“Wrong!“
So he tried the question on a language expert:
“So I sent the question to Mary Norris, author of “Between You and Me: Confessions of a Comma Queen” and a legendary copy editor at The New Yorker. If anyone understands revisions of English prose, it’s she. I didn’t tell her anything about my experience and asked her to answer the question and tell me what she thought.”
She thought the question was confusing.
“She said she was stumped immediately by the reference to “people” who “did the best in the contest.” Can multiple people be the “best?” Can there be more than one “winner”? What kind of “contest” would that be? “To say there are three people adds information that isn’t in the original,” she said. “And we have no way of knowing if that’s accurate.”
“C was tempting. “It’s nice and vague, and in this context, vague equals precise,” she said. Nonetheless, she picked answer B. “At least it doesn’t say ‘winner,’” she reasoned.
“Wrong again!
“The “correct” answer, according to the New York City Department of Education, is D. “The top three” in that answer is more specific than “some people who did the best” in the original.
“I would never have picked D,” Ms. Norris said.”
Back to the Education Department and Pearson:
“Will Mantell, a spokesman for the New York City Department of Education, said Pearson investigates “any items with problematic or unusual results.”
“If an error is found,” he added, “the item is not scored.”
“The risk of erroneous answers is reduced if students can take a test multiple times, as they can with the standard college admissions test. But students can take the SHSAT only once, except in unusual circumstances.”
Stewart says that this ambiguous and confusing question shows the risk of using one test score to determine admission.
It’s worse than that.
Pearson and its stupid and confusing questions and answers have turned me into a skeptic of standardized tests. There is nothing “standardized” about the question, and nothing “standardized” about the answer. They are both subject to human error amd completely subjective.
No student’s destiny should be determined by such a flawed instrument.

Love your last sentence, Diane.
Needs to be repeated: “No student’s destiny should be determined by such a flawed instrument.”
AMEN.
LikeLike
I would also add that NO TEACHER should be evaluated by students’ scores on those FLAWED tests.
LikeLike
No student’s destiny should be determined by such a flawed instrument and no teacher’s destiny should be linked the score a student was given from this flawed instrument.
LikeLike
The fact that the question was a sample is irrelevant. Presumably, the samples are representative of the actual items or the sample would be useless. This question fails the test of face validity. How did it even get through initial stages of item development. If this got through, we have no assurances that the items that made it to the test are any better. That there is a constant stream of flawed items that alarmingly (or embarrassingly) come to public attention reveals a thoroughly compromises development process, particularly when the results are so consequential.
LikeLike
A friend of mine with a doctorate was working on getting a standardized ESL test validated. I helped her with part of the process. One of the criteria for the removal of an item was any question deemed misleading or vague. The CCSS tests were never analyzed for construct validity. We are simply assuming the results have value. Why are states subjecting students to invalid tests in the name of “accountability?”
LikeLike
Simple, admittedly glib, answer is to undermine confidence in public education to have the way for privatization. That was always the underlying intent of NCLB.
LikeLike
Of course the answer is D since it is more precise and requires no knowledge of grammar, no thought, no sense. It is just precise like all standardized tests that are precisely what the designers think the answer should be.
LikeLike
It’s A. Can’t you see it? It’s sooooo obvious. No need to change the tests. Just the designers. 😂😂😂
LikeLike
GregB: No, the correct answer is C. That’s what I picked. I never make a mistake.
LikeLike
Just change the right answer.
Maybe the right answer is in the eye of the beholder.
LikeLike
I agree with you, GregB. I can see it. Why can’t others see it? Give all here who read Diane’s blog a question (that’s the test for us to see it the way you do, because you wrote the question and you score it!). I will attempt:
The question: Are there any answers?
How vague is that?
Provide 4 choices to that question.
Call the Ghostbusters? Maybe call Noam Chomsky? Ask the President of your country for the answer? Ask your parents? Figure it out for yourself? But you will be told (scored) that you are wrong.
We all know, as Diane comments, “Just change the right answer.” What a LOADED comment to comment on as the answer!!! But I agree. I like it. WE WILL ALL TOGETHER change – the “right answer” – to a “righter” answer.
But in the end, there are no answers. Only questions.
We behold life through our experiences.
The “eyes” of this beholder have many tears……………
LikeLike
This is a perfect example of why Pearson and company should not be in the education business. Pearson claimed to have revised the question. The question and answers are so dumb one must ask if there is any intelligence in the Pearson company at all.
LikeLike
From Pearson’s viewpoint the test is perfect. Students need to take the test many times. Do the students pay a fee each time?
Proud of my answer agreeing with Ms Norris. Made my day. Diane, I would have been proud to agree with you, too.
LikeLike
Okay, I got the wrong answer also. Glad nothing in my future depends upon stupid tests like this.
LikeLike
The SHSAT? Sounds more like the SHAT. Past tense of a familiar substance. Why do they even need a test to see who can get into a program desired by a student? Should we not make specific programs available for those who want them. Maybe it would be better to starve Pearson and feed the children instead of the reverse.
LikeLike
The problem with all standardized testing is highlighted by your concerns with Pearson or ETS or any other company you choose. The test items are flawed and must be continually refined. If you know research, then you know that the role of error in test construction (and with all standardized measures) is always present. Unfortunately, when the test results are interpreted, the margin of error is largely ignored, leaving people to think that the measure is valid, i. e., accurate. The abuse of standardized testing results has lead to the dumbing down of American education. Accountability should depend on much more than standardized testing.
LikeLike
The reality is that the more ambiguous the question is, the more “failure” the test results will yield. It is part of the privatization game of chess.
LikeLike
I kept B and D because some could mean three, they are both specific-unlike A and C, and D would win because it is most concise. I guess I am lucky my brain is in sync with the test writer. However, you are correct in your critique of its overall quality. People who don’t think like English teacher me – and I am an odd duck who teaches diagramming because I like the mathematics of language- might do exactly as you and others did.
Test scores do not indicate teacher quality. The research has proven that out. Even Gates has seen the light.
LikeLike
Starr,
I loved diagramming sentences back in the day and gave that game credit for my love of grammar and syntax, but I still picked the wrong answer.
LikeLike
Agree about diagramming sentences. It helped me more clearly understand the words in combination with the other words in the sentence. Didn’t help my run-on sentences at all but then I never diagrammed one of my many run-on sentences. Why we got away from diagramming sentences is one of the mysteries of modern American life that I don’t understand.
LikeLike
We mee to start a me too like movement for those who liked diagraming of sentences. I was one of those.
LikeLike
The sentence in Answer D reads better.
But the problem is that the reason it sounds better is because it included a fact that the student has no way of knowing is true. How can they revise a sentence to say that an interviewer talked to the top three contestants when nothing in the original sentence leads them to know whether that sentence is true. When you copy edit an article, you don’t simply add specific facts that you invented because it makes the sentence sound “better”.
I guess if the purpose of the SHSAT is to find the students most likely to believe Trump’s sentences are “more precise” because Trump adds all sorts of specific facts and it doesn’t matter whether they are true, then the SHSAT is a great exam.
LikeLike
As someone who has spent myriad hours writing, critiquing, editing, and analyzing questions to go on widely distributed tests, that question is an embarrassment. What is that question supposedly testing? Whatever it is, it is not testing what they thought it was testing.
Such questions are put through trials. The frequency with which each repose is chosen is compared with the writer’s expectations. Any of the “distractors” that do not draw well need to be replaced. If you think you wrote a very difficult question and 80+% of the testers answer it correctly, you did not write such a question, you wrote an easy one. All of these things have been worked out decades ago, so why are these tests so bad? Is Pearson not making enough money?
LikeLike
This question is, unfortunately, quite representative of the questions on the current state tests and on the newCCSS-based SAT. That this is so should be a national scandal.
LikeLike
” in this context, vague equals precise.”
Analagous to alt-facts.
The test item was conjured by Trump or one of his many proxies.
LikeLike
I would have picked D. It was the answer which “flowed” the best, the other three being somewhat awkward. However, from information gleaned from reading passage, this answer made the least sense.
Then again, I’ve proctored these exams and intuitively know what they are looking for – throwing all my prior knowledge as well as any sense of logic out the window.
LikeLike
which of these is the most precise revision for the words “talked to some nitwits who did their best to destroy public education in America
A.
“During a nightly news-segment about utterly stupid ways to reform American schools, a reporter talked to Betsy Devos, Arne Duncan and Bill Gates”
B.Conversed with some Deformers about their best ideas for reforming schools
C. Spoke to the three think tank wankers who specialize in standardized education BS
D. Discussed education with a bunch of feducators (fake educators)
E. Interviewed Michelle Rhee, Eva Moskowhips and Campbell Brown about the best way to throw a monkey wrench into the American education system
F. All of the above
Of course, the answer is F, which is also the grade they receive
LikeLike
Yes, Poet. And that you are. You revise (change) the words of the very question! That is why we love your input here and everywhere. But the “testers” of the children of the future, who will determine the “success” of their futures and that of the planet – well – they just want money. Good thing, that those of us who can read and even comment here, have the resources to do it. Very many voices are not heard. Thank you, Diane, for the forum.
LikeLike
Touché.
Along the same lines of Moskowhips, may I also propose Campbell Brownknows?
LikeLike
How about Campbell BrowNose?
LikeLike
Both are duly noted and immortalized in verse
Campbell Brownknows knows
Where hedgefund money goes
The BrowNose lows
Are under toes
Where Brown ooze ever flows
LikeLike
Remember, the people who defend the SHSAT say that a student who picks answer D is far more worthy of a seat in a specialized high school than a student who, like the legendary New Yorker copy editor, understands that you can’t add a number that may or may not be true to a sentence to make it more “precise”.
Remember that people who defend the SHSAT say that you will ruin the eduction at all specialized high schools if students who understand sentence revision like the legendary New Yorker copy editor are allowed to have seats when there are students who pick answer D who deserve to have those seats instead. And those defenders of the SHSAT claim that students who pick answer D easily would be brought down if they had to sit next to a student who understood that answer D is not more “precise” because it added a fact that may not be true. How dare those smart letter D choosers have to sit next to the unworthy students who understand why letter D is not correct! The entire 4 years of high school for those smart “letter D choosers” would be ruined because the curriculum would have to be “dumbed down” for the students who weren’t as smart as they were and therefore didn’t pick letter D.
Remember that people say the solution is to test prep poor kids endlessly so that they too can learn how to ignore their own higher reasoning abilities and choose letter D just like the kids who wouldn’t even notice the issues with that question. Because it is the students who would not even notice the issues with that question are much, much smarter than the New Yorker copy editor and the students who are intelligent enough to notice that there is no good answer to that question.
And if we don’t spend lots and lots of money teaching those intelligent students to choose answer D even if it is wrong, in order to prove that they are as worthy of a seat in a specialized high school as the students who don’t even notice what is wrong with the question, then what is education all about, anyway?
LikeLike
YES! NYC public school parent! Parents arise!
Remember! Remember! Remember! (3 paragraphs starting with the word!).
I’ll revise, or edit, or DEFINE your word into 2 – NEVER FORGET!
But we have heard that before.
There is a WAR going on as we blog. A Holocaust on the future of real people.
I wonder – if those children of the future are reading this blog.
The little ones are not even aware yet. Continually being born. They may never get the education we did.
Unless we try to make sure they do.
But then there’s that 1% who control even us.
There’s those “corporations” who yes you know are made up of people. There’s those banks. There’s those people. Those people who control – your abilities, your income, your future (however longer that may be).
We are educators.
It is difficult for us to let others “dumb us down”.
LikeLike
Pearson involvement in education represents the height of the Age of Deception….like asking students to ride bicycles as corporate America gently lifts the rear tire, encouraging the rider to pedal harder…perhaps publicly funded fans can be placed in front of students, and as they pedal harder, the fans can be turned up to really enhance the rigor…those who pedal the hardest can be rated 4’s, and those who struggle rated 1’s, as more public tax dollars are thrown to enhance the privatization process…
…compliments of billionaires reinventing the role of human beings, all for profit and control.
LikeLike
For complex reasons that I won’t go into here, the items on the tests are purposefully this convoluted. Again, this question is quite representative of the garbage on these tests these days. Add to the idiotic DESIGN of these tests the extraordinarily shoddy editing done by the grifter testing companies, and as a cherry on top, the secrecy that ensures that almost no one knows the contest of these products for which states pay billions, and you have what you have: a massive fraud. And it just goes on and on. No accountability for the hucksters selling accountability.
LikeLike
The question is, as you say, rather confusing. One would think though that people who set exams would subject the questions to extensive field tests so they can properly decide if questions are causing problems.
LikeLike
They supposedly field test questions. But even incoherent ones get through.
They were obviously proud of this absurd question with its nonsensical answers. Pearson offered it to the public as an exemplar.
Just imagine what we did not see? All the other questions.
LikeLike
This really isn’t that bad a test item. If a student understands the meaning of a “precise” [exact] revision”, they would answer “D” because “interviewed” is a more precise term than “talked to” AND “top three contestants” is more precise than “some people who did best in the contest”.
Re-read and re-think and you will see that any elite student would have little trouble identifying the correct response to this item.
Here are the distractors. They are all plausible, witness how some readers responded incorrectly. If a distractor is not plausible it becomes too easy to eliminate as a possible correct answer. Parallel construction is also maintained. And no negative phrasing in the item stem (“In the passage below, which of these is NOT a precise revision for the words “talked to some people who did the best in the contest?” )
A. Conversed with some of the people who won the contest.
B. Spoke to the three contestants who did well.
C. Discussed the contest with some of the winners.
Examples of implausible (silly or illogical) distratcors:
A. texted the really bad bakers
B. more fake news
C. because the reporter wanted a promotion
D. interviewed the top three contestants.”
Examples of distractors in non-parallel construction.
Too easy to eliminate incorrect responses?
A. the losers
B. the winners
C. the reporter
D. interviewed the top three contestants.”
LikeLike
The distinctions you cite are fairly fine grained. That may or may not be OK. It’s hard to judge without knowing the construct the items was designed to measure and to know if the distractors represent well-known student misconceptions or if they represent points along an established learning progress. Also, it’s arguable that since adult experts had difficulty answered the question, it might be inappropriate for students.
LikeLike
Sorry, there is no arguing that “D” is the most precise revision.
LikeLike
Don’t forget, this is not a test of basic language literacy. It is designed to identify the top 5% of 8th graders. These are elite students who go on to top tier colleges and universities. It is not the Common Core test required for all NYS schools.
LikeLike
Ooops
Sorry, there is no arguing that “D” is NOT the most precise revision.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course there is arguing that!
Are you saying that “elite” students are supposed to accept without question that it’s fine to revise a sentence by adding a specific fact that may or may not be true?
I’d argue just the opposite. Those are exactly the students who would have a problem with answer D.
LikeLike
precise” is indeed the key word and it is very ironic that the question is actually ambiguous — the opposite of precise — precisely as a result of the double meaning of precise ,(a double irony)
Precise can be used in two ways.
One can use it to mean “specific”. For example, one can ask “precisely how many contestants were there?”. That’s presumably the usage the test makers assumed.
But, as others have noted, in normal usage, precise can also mean “as close as possible to the meaning of the original”. This use of precise would be synonymous with “accurate” and precision would mean accuracy or fidelity. (In science, precision and accuracy are NOT the same, but the point about using precise language is still relevant)
Assuming the second meaning of precise would mitigate against D as an answer because D adds information which was not part of the original.
D is actually an inaccurate/imprecise rendering of the original precisely because it is more specific (more precise!!) than is warranted.
LikeLike
A reasonably well constructed science item:
Which animal is classified by biologists as an amphibian?
A. painted turtle
B. copperhead snake
C. spotted salamander
D. collared lizard
A poorly constructed science item:
Which animal is classified by biologists as a bird?
A. whitetail deer
B. largemouth bass
C. spotted salamander
D. bald eagle
LikeLike
Somehow I am missing your point about test questions in general and whether you are serious in this particular post. Educate me.
LikeLike
Agree Roy. Right over my head on what ever distinction Rager is trying to make.
Tell us the difference Rager, please!
LikeLike
RageAgainstTheTestocracy,
I disagree. It is the elite students who would have the most trouble with this. The slightly above average students would agree with your thinking.
The smartest students would recognize what the legendary New Yorker copy editor recognized — that you can’t make a sentence more precise by adding facts that may not be true.
It isn’t about distractors and falling for them. It is about being intelligent enough to recognize the big flaw in the premise. Those students would immediately throw out answer D knowing that only someone without logical reasoning skills would think that it is perfectly fine to revise a sentence using a random number of people interviewed without knowing whether that random number is correct.
If the question started with a paragraph that gave the facts — including the fact that the reporter talked to the contestants that finished 1, 2 and 3 — and then offered up a sentence for revision, those elite students would choose answer D. But expecting students to choose answer D when they know that the reporter may have interviewed 2 contestants or 4 contestants seems like a test designed to reward students who are lacking logical reasoning skills.
LikeLike
You cannot possibly argue that options A, B, or C are more “precise revisions” than option D. Simply not debatable if you have a technical grasp of the English language.
On the other hand here is the type of test item typically found on Common Core (3 to 80 assessments. These are the academic “death trap” items.
Which tone is established by the author in the sentence below, selected from the reading passage,
“A Walk in the Woods”
“The hike had been pleasant, but rather uneventful until suddenly, the unmistakable sound of a snake’s warning rattle pierced the quiet forest air.”
A. fear
B. concern
C. anxiety
D. surprise
LikeLiked by 1 person
You cannot possibly argue that a student can revise something to be “more precise” by adding a specific fact he knows might very well be false.
And yet that is what you are doing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
bingo
LikeLike
^^by the way, I am no fan of those common core questions my kid has to answer either.
In the case of “A Walk in the Wood” excerpt that you used, the questions are usually this:
“What word in in the passage best helps the reader understand the feelings of the hiker?”
a. sudden
b. warning
c. pierced
d. rattle
LikeLike
I went with D, because although none of them were supportable based on the facts in the original sentence, D was at least “precise.”
LikeLike
FLERP! – D was not the “least precise”. It stated a number which is very precise, which was not stated in the question to revise: “talked to some people who did the best in the contest.” “Some” is not precise. Are you guessing that “some” means” 3, is “precise”? Some is a word.
NYC public school parent consistently states the argument. And I do not want to argue, nor do I want to take up guns and fight. But this post and the comments intrigue me. Yes, they interest me and have sparked more curiosity (as Diane’s posts often do) from within myself as to how people (and myself) interpret written (and spoken) language.
In the end, it will affect your life, and those that you love. Put your estate plan in “precise” legal language.
Communication is a very important thing.
Please give me, here, the MOST PRECISE REVISION of my statement. “Revise” my “vague” statement about communication. You can have more than 4 multiple choices. I will give that to you as a gift. I will not score you. It doesn’t matter. Unless I am on a team to grant a student a score to qualify them for the help they need (no, the help I think they need).
Do YOU “qualify”? Are YOU “eligible”?
WHO gets to decide?
LikeLike
I didn’t say it was “the least precise.” I said it was “at least,” i.e. at a minimum, precise. Not following the rest of your comments.
LikeLike
Mary Norris (legendary New Yorker copyeditor) says: “To say there are three people adds information that isn’t in the original,” she said. “And we have no way of knowing if that’s accurate.”
I realize we live in the new Trumpian reality in which the definition of “precise” means “sharply defined” and whether or not it is accurate is irrelevant. And certainly I understand that many defenders of the SHSAT would argue that a student who understands that revising a sentence to be more “precise” by adding erroneous facts that could be absolutely wrong should be recognized as more worthy of a specialized high school seat than a student who would question that revision as “more precise”.
But I would argue with anyone who claimed that the student who believed adding a fact that is not true makes something more “precise” is more prepared to do the work at a specialized high school than the student who believed that by adding an invented fact, that revision could not be deemed “more precise”. I believe those students with excellent high school GPAs and state test scores who believed that “precise” did not mean adding a fact that could be false would do perfectly fine in specialized high schools. Perhaps even better than their classmates who keeps insisting on revising her papers by adding invented facts and doesn’t understand why her teacher isn’t giving her As.
LikeLike
Accuracy is neither here nor there. The item does not ask for accuracy it asks the student to identify “precise” language.
Really sharp thinking students get this right for this reason.
LikeLike
It is a very misleading question.
LikeLike
“interviewed” is a precise form of “talking”.
“top three contestants” is more precise than “some people who did best”
Hope this keeps your head intact.
LikeLike
Also a top tier student infers that if it was a cooking contest worthy of a news piece, that there would be many contestants and the “top three” is a very common way to place finishers. So selecting “three” as a precise answer makes perfect sense.
LikeLike
“Really sharp students” – lol!
So your argument is that it takes a “really sharp student” to be able to answer this question correctly? And people like Mary Norris and the NY Times writer and Diane Ravitch just don’t cut it?
It takes a really sharp student to notice that the “revision” is assuming facts not in evidence that might be false.
I agree with you about “interviewed” and “talking”. But the problem isn’t with that but with the word “three”. And you made the mistake of poor readers! You claimed that the question “asks the student to identify “precise” language.”
But you are wrong. The question asked “which of these is the most precise revision”?
It did not ask for the most precise language — it asked for the most precise revision.
Even the test makers themselves noted that their wording was flawed. They did not insist – as you did — that the elite students would be sure to answer correctly this perfectly designed question.
“Which revision uses the most precise language for the words “talked to some people who did the best in the contest”?
That’s what not very elite thinkers assumed the original question was asking because they didn’t read very carefully and notice the ambiguity of the question.
LikeLike
^^By the way, the way to revise a sentence to make it more precise is to use more precise language that means the same thing. That is what “sharp thinking students” (and adults) understand. “interviewed” instead of “talking” in the context of a reporter doing a news story makes sense. The problem is with adding “three” to the revised sentence.
Answer D should have read: “Interviewed the top performing contestants.”
There was no reason for the test-makes to add “three” and the students who chose D for its “preciseness” because they believed adding the number “three” was allowed are no more “elite” nor “sharp thinking” than the students who understand the flaw in that thinking.
LikeLike
WOW FLERP. I put the quotation marks around “least precise”. Should be “…least ‘precise’.” Punctuation error that disqualifies me from any answer to a question I might ask you. So you’re adding a fact that I misquoted you because of punctuation and the difference between “at” and “the”. OK. That’s what I mean.
Choose the lesser of 2 evils. Vote.
LikeLike
Stiegem, you’re not understanding what I wrote, and I’m following what you’re trying to say you even less this time than before.
LikeLike
Precisely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s only precise (at least) if one assumes “specific” as the meaning of precise.
If one assumes the other meaning — accurate — D is actually not at all precise.
Precise (ie, accurate) use of words involves saying exactly what you mean, no more and no less. As pointed out by others, D says more than one can legitimately conclude from the original statement and, worst of all, may actually be adding FALSE i nformation.
If the meaning of a question is subject to interpretation based on which usage of a word one assumes, it’s not at all a good question and certainly not itself precise!
LikeLike
That’s a fair point. I can imagine that a conscientious reader would be concerned with both specificity and accuracy. I can imagine that because I was concerned with both those things when confronting this question. But I think the reader concerned with accuracy should soon see that all of the choices have information that is either not in the original text. And seeing that, the reader should focus on specificity.
For example, “some of the people who won the contest” and “some of the winners” each imply that there were multiple winners, and also that there were other winners that the reporter did not speak to — neither of those assumptions are grounded in the original text. “The three contestants who did well” incorrectly implies that no other contestants could have “done well.” None of those choices are “precise” in the sense of “accurate.”
“Interviewed” is the most precise/specific verb to express the kind of interaction a reporter has with the people she covers. “The top three contestants” is a more precise expression than the alternatives. “Some of the people” and “some of the winners” are both numerically imprecise. “The three contestants who did well” is numerically precise, but it’s imprecise with respect to how the contestants performed. “The top three contestants” is the only option that is precise both numerically and with respect to the contestants’ performance.
I’m not saying this is a great question. But I don’t think it’s as self-evidently horrible as most of the commenters here seem to believe. Even if a “legendary editor” — or even a legendary education historian — got the wrong answer.
LikeLike
Forgive the usual typos and stray words in my comment. I type this out on my phone, usually with poor results.
LikeLike
So, what they are really looking for is not the “most precise” answer, but “least imprecise” answer?
With precision such as this, who needs imprecision?
I think if we have to go this far down the rabbit hole it indicates that there is a major problem with the question.
I’m with Duane Swaker on this: up, down, backwards, forwards or sideways. It’s mental mathturbation any way you look at it.
LikeLike
The least imprecise thing is always the most precise thing.
LikeLike
It was a joke, FLERP!
More seriously (as serious as I can get about such BS as this) how does one decide which question is “most precise” or “least imprecise”?
In the end it is a subjective call. There is no way of quantifying the things you point out and using them to rank the precision or imprecision.
This debate is best left to rabbits.
LikeLike
Or maybe lawyers😀
LikeLike
FLERP! says:
“I think the reader concerned with accuracy should soon see that all of the choices have information that is either not in the original text.”
Not true.
Original text:
“During a nightly news-segment about a cooking contest, a reporter talked to some people who did the best in the contest.”
A. Conversed with some of the people who won the contest.
Choice A. while awkwardly written, adds no information that is not in the original text. In the context of a contest, “did the best” = “won”. Just like in the context of a reporter writing a story, “talked to” = “interviewed”. Those “revisions” are very different from “some people” = “three” because “some” can be two, three, four, or another number. Imagine it from a copywriter’s point of view. The first two corrections can be made without consulting the writer for more information. But in order to change “some” to “three”, the copywriter would have to go back and check with the reporter to see if the number three was accurate. But there is no need to talk to the reporter to change “some people who did the best in the contest” to “some of the people who won the contest”. And some of the brightest students — and adults like Diane Ravitch and the copywriter — understand the distinction.
The answer to D. should have been:
D. Interviewed the top contestants.
Putting in the number three when it was unnecessary, seemed to be designed to weed out the most logical students and the most careful readers and reward the careless and less logical readers. There are plenty of students who will say “three” is more specific than “some” so that must be right.” In fact, in the old SHSAT there were logical reasoning questions that would catch students who made those kind of assumptions of information that COULD be true that they assumed WAS true.
I certainly understand why you would choose D. And I also understand why very smart and capable people like the New Yorker copyeditor and Diane Ravitch would know that D could not be the correct answer because it added information not in the original.
Which gets us back to the original point – that the students who choose D are not going to do better in an advanced math or science or humanities class than a student who understand why D is not the correct answer. Yet people are arguing that the SHSAT is such a great exam that those students who miss this question have shown that they don’t belong and could not handle the work.
LikeLike
No way of quantifying if one assumes the accurate definition for precise, at least.
And yes, I realize that 3 is more specific than some, before you argue that angle.
LikeLike
You know, this is precisely why I never liked standardized tests like SAT and GRE.
They have a bunch of imprecise answers, none of which is good.
LikeLike
“D says more than one can legitimately conclude from the original statement and, worst of all, may actually be adding FALSE information.”
You are completely missing the point of the test item. The original was meant to be imprecise, inexact, and lacking in detail so that the test taker could improve it by selecting the revised sentence that includes more exact (precise) and specific information.
“In the passage below, which of these is the most precise revision for the words “talked to some people who did the best in the contest?”
“During a nightly news-segment about a cooking contest, a reporter talked to some people who did the best in the contest.”
A. Conversed with some of the people who won the contest.
B. Spoke to the three contestants who did well.
C. Discussed the contest with some of the winners.
D. Interviewed the top three contestants.”
“TALKED TO”
A. conversed with
B. Spoke to
C. discussed
D, interviewed
D. “INTERVIEWED” is the common term used to describe the specific type of discussion or conversation that reporters engage in when covering news stories.
No false information, just a proper and accurate inference.
“SOME PEOPLE WHO DID THE BEST IN THE CONTEST”
A. some of the people who won
B. three contestants who did well
C. some of the winners
D. top three contestants
D. “TOP THREE CONTESTANTS” is by far the most exact or precise description. Options A and C are nearly identical and really not much different than the original. B and D both contain the specificity of quantification; that is “three” is much more precise than “some”
however, “top contestants” is more exact or precise than “did well”
A contestant could finish anywhere in the top 10 in a contest including 200 contestants and be considered having “done well”
We now have a much more precise revision that tells the reader that A reporter INTERVIEWED the TOP THREE CONTESTANTS in a cooking contest for a nightly news segment.
No false information, just a reasonable inference as it is very common for contests to have first, second, and third place finishers,
(e.g. Bronze, Silver, Gold or Win, Place, Show) It is also reasonable to assume or infer that if the cooking contest was worthy of a nightly, TV news segment that it would have a fairly large number of contestants; certainly more than two.
A and C both include the somewhat illogical conclusion that a cooking contest had multiple winners. Second and third placings do not constitute a win (horse racing and Olympic events again as examples)
These two options say more than one can legitimately conclude and may actually be adding false information (multiple winners)
FLERP’s analysis is spot on.
I teach science writing and place a continual emphasis on precision of writing, It is not uncommon to have students write responses on lab reports such as, “It changed.” when any science teacher wants, “The water temperature in beaker A decreased from 100 C to 20 C.”
It was an interesting debate, hope you saw the light.
LikeLike
“talked to” (when a reporter does it for a story) means “interviewed”. There is no instance when a reporter who talks to someone for a news story cannot also be said to “interview” the person. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to revise the phrase “talked to” with “interviewed”.
“Some” (no matter who uses it) does not mean “three”. There are myriads of instances when “some” does not mean “three”. Therefore, substituting the word “three” for “some” when you have no idea whether “three” is how many “some” is, would not be a precise revision. That is why it is perfectly reasonable NOT to revise “some” with “three”. One could even argue that revising “some” with “three” when you have no idea whether “three” is even accurate would be unquestionably wrong.
RageAgainstTheTestocracy says:
“It is not uncommon to have students write responses on lab reports such as, “It changed.” when any science teacher wants, “The water temperature in beaker A decreased from 100 C to 20 C.”
Think about what that says in the context of this question. Two students work on a report together and write “the water temperature changed.” You tell them to revise it. But the students have absolutely no idea how much the water temperature changed.
One student comes back to you with two invented temperatures that seemed pretty close to what he believed maybe could have been the change that happened since he believes that your big concern is having two “precise” numbers of change and he believes that you don’t care whether the numbers in his report are accurate or just invented.
The other student comes back to you and says “I have no idea how much the water temperature has changed and I am not able to revise my lab report to include “precise” numbers unless I invent numbers that may or may not be true. Or unless I get additional information that I do not have at this time.”
The students who do not pick answer D are the ones who would not invent specific temperatures to put into a lab report because they know the teacher will give them a high grade if there IS a temperature and they believe that their teacher doesn’t care at all whether the temperatures included were accurate or simply made up.
And I believe the students who do not pick answer D because they understand that inventing numbers that may be false does not make something more “precise” will do very well in specialized high schools. I can’t say the same about a student who thinks it is fine to revise a lab report adding invented “precise” numbers without having any idea whether they are accurate.
It’s all how you look at this very ambiguous question. A student who chooses letter D does so for one reason. A student who does NOT choose letter D does so for another reason.
Both those reasons are quite valid. What astonishes me is that you seem to be arguing that the student who chooses letter D is the superior thinker and that is absurd.
LikeLike
The original was meant to be imprecise, inexact, and lacking in detail so that the test taker could improve it by selecting the revised sentence that includes more exact (precise) and specific information.
It’s interesting that you have assumed what you are trying to show.
Of course, if you assume that precise means specific or detailed then it follows that D is the best answer.
But unfortunately, as I and others have indicated above, that’s NOT the only possible meaning/interpretation of precise.
Allow me to give an example of what I am referring to.
It is well established that electrons behave like waves in some cases and behave like particles in other cases
However, while claiming that electrons ARE waves in some cases and ARE particles in other cases might SEEM to be a more precise statement because it provides more detail about what electrons supposedly ARE as opposed to simply how they behave, as you undoubtedly know, it is NOT a more precise statement because electrons are really neither particles NOR waves. (String theorists actually believe they are vibrating strings, incidentally)
The second statement(electrons ARE waves in some cases…) would simply not be an accurate characterization of electrons and therefor not a precise revision of the original statement.
A revision of the original statement that actually is precise (accurate) would be along the lines of the following: electrons behave like waves in some experiments and behave like particles in other experiments,
Now, neither I nor anyone else claimed that D was necessarily false, but instead simply that it MIGHT be (there is no way to tell from the information given and assuming that it is true is just that, an assumption) which throws into question whether it is an accurate (ie, precise) revision of the original question.
I know you believe D is clearly the only possible answer (because you have said so) but the mere fact that intelligent people disagree tells me that there is most likely something wrong/ambiguous with the test question.
And though I actually have no dog in this hunt, I can at least understand the possible reason for the disagreement: the two different common meanings for precise.
LikeLike
The sad thing is that the students who invent the water temperatures may actually do quite well at the specialized high school and beyond (at elite universities) as long as they do not get caught.
Make no mistake. Though it may sound quite benign, what you describe is scientific fraud which (along with plagiarism) has become a significant problem in research at the highest levels in some scientific disciplines.
I suspect that a contributing factor may be that it is not treated sufficiently seriously early on at some of our educational institutions (including elite high schools and universities)
LikeLike
Those defending this question seem to believe the following:
precise means specific or detailed WITHOUT REGARD TO ACCURACY
The people defending this definition of “precise” believe that letter D is the correct answer.
It’s hard for me to imagine that a high school of students trained to believe that accuracy is not important in writing is the ideal.
LikeLike
Answer “D” does not contain any inaccuracies, just proper and reasonable inferences. INTERVIEWING the THREE TOP CONTESTANTS is the most precise option available. This isn’t even a subjective test item. If you want head spinning subjective MC items go to PARRC, SBAC, Pearson, and Questar and you’ll see so-calle right answers that author’s of the passages don’t agree to.
This has been an interesting thread and I think you are looking at this item from the wrong perspective. Kids that are good test takers would not get this wrong. They know what the test writer is looking for and it isn’t hard to find.
A and C are identical, therefore neither can be correct. And neither A or C is at all precise. And both A and C contain unreasonable inferences: multiple winners. Nothing in the original suggests more than one winner which would have to mean more than one cooking category. That’s adding inaccuracies.
Go on the SHSAT website and you will see that they do not use specific learning standards to develop their test. Here is an excerpt:
“What is on the test?
The SHSAT assesses knowledge and skills. These skills consist of the ability to comprehend English prose, to demonstrate understanding of revising and editing skills central to writing in English, and to use problem-solving skills in mathematics. The test measures knowledge and skills students have gained over the course of their education. Keeping up with schoolwork throughout the year is the best possible preparation.”
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-life/learning/testing/specialized-high-school-admissions-test
LikeLike
You have no idea whether Answer D contains inaccuracies. And that is why students with excellent logical reasoning skills get this wrong.
Using the specific words “top three” when it is POSSIBLE that a different number was interviewed is not correct. Because POSSIBLE or even LIKELY is not the same as ALWAYS.
In fact, the SHSAT used to have a logical reasoning question where not as smart students always fell for those kinds of questions.
“Did the best” CAN mean three. Does that mean that the phrase “did the best” ALWAYS means three?
According to students who don’t understand logic, yes, one can ALWAYS substitute the exact number “three” for “did the best”. And they will choose D and insist that there is no possible way for anyone to assume that the number is not three because three ALWAYS is an more “precise” way of saying “did the best”.
Those students would be admitted to Stuy over a student who understands that “did the best” does not ALWAYS mean “three” even if it OFTEN means “three” and therefore is not a precise revision since it invents a number that COULD be absolutely false.
LikeLike
I got it right, but my head will explode if you require that I explain my reasoning, because thinking through it again and again is giving me a terrible headache. Plus I know it’s not an ideal answer, so I’m doubting myself –in which case, if I was really taking a test, I might not do too well on the questions that follow…
It’s often not enough for students to get the right answer these days, so even on standardized tests –which are timed– they might be required to show their work. The cynic in me thinks that’s to catch them being bad, as it were, because that is consistent with the political/corporate agenda to see the negative in education. It helps explain why standardized tests are intentionally written to trip up students –to show off their frailties, rather than reveal their strengths and demonstrate how students shine. Failing test scores are precisely what’s needed to keep up the manufactured crisis in education and myth of failing schools, in order to feed the privatization scheme.
LikeLike
All the banter of the supposed correct answer just proves the point that it’s all a bunch of mental masturbation. . .
. . . unfortunately we violate the children in our charge by forcing them to suffer through such mental masturbation in taking these tests.
LikeLike
What you describe so crudely is physically impossible
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Mental masturbation”
Duane is quite precise
In saying it’s absurd
And “masturbate” is nice
For lack of better word
LikeLiked by 1 person
To understand all the complete invalidities involved in the standards and testing regime all educators should be required (hey, I get to have a fantasy every now and again) to read and understand what Noel Wilson told us over two decades ago in his never refuted nor rebutted treatise. Don’t just read my less than complete summary below. Download and read the whole thing:
“Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other words all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
LikeLike
Thanks for the Wilson rant, Duane! And to add to that, I’ll do my part to tell new blog readers (& remind those oldies but goodies here, who have not as yet) to read Todd Farley’s book, “Making the Grades: My Misadventures in the Standardized Testing Industry.”
It came out in 2009 (!!!) & NOTHING has changed.
In fact, this whole testing industry (esp.Pear$on Publi$hing, what w/their practically having a monopoly on K-12 AND teacher education AND the G.E.D. tests) is nothing but smoke & mirrors–for them to make $$$$ & an excuse to close public schools based on their test “failure” rate when, w/questions like the one cited here (&, again, nothing has changed since the “Pineapple ?” & I believe that was in 2011–?)
Forget about holding public schools “accountable” & deeming them “failures” when, in fact, there is none–& has NEVER been–any quality control (nor anyone to account to which should have been state school boards & superintendents–they’re the ones who wasted all the taxpayers’ money/education funds–for the lousy tests).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Farley’s book is also a must read!
LikeLike
Duane: …if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy…In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say…
……..
I feel for the large number of students who year after year after year are told that they are failures. I can’t imagine a worse thing to totally deplete any desire to continue attending school. How many actually do well on these expensive worthless tests? Not enough to justify this waste of human capital.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree, except that I refuse to refer to children, or any other human being as “human capital”. That is a term of exploitation if I’ve ever come across one. Don’t give a damn about “human capital”, I give a damn about human beings, especially the children that have to suffer that labeling and internalization. I’ve written before of people in the 60s-70s with whom I’ve spoken that bore the brunt of that labeling for many years, well into their adulthood.
And we continue that educational malpractice to no end. . .
. . . yet. . .
Someday, someday, maybe. . . .
LikeLike
Duane: thanks for posting this yet again. The last remark referencing Foucault (my auto correct could not spell it until the final t was ready for placement) actually changed my attitude some years ago. Let me explain.
I used to feel that I had a responsibility in my role as teacher to two major groups. The first was the group containing honest practioners of the field. I was a math teacher for 29 years, and I felt an obligation to those who used mathematics to make sure that no student was given credit who did not deserve it because of his understanding. I wrestle mightily with this as people above me on the feeding chain of education began to define understanding more and more distantly from my student’s ability.
The second group was an odd group. It did not exist, at least not yet. It was the children, future children, of course, of the students themselves. This may seem odd, but I have never felt I could really influence a person to want to use math to become an engineer or, now that I teach history, use history to understand the world. I could, however, use my time with he kids wisely to make them more accepting of the subject of my classes. That way, when their child was bitten by the math bug or the history bug, they could understand why their child felt that way.
These two ideas pulled at each other in my teaching and grading for years until I came to the conclusion that the second idea was more important. Part of that decision was your Foucault (this time spell check got it after the C) reference and your comment after it on this post. I now do not see my role as a guardian of the field as an important role. I do feel a need to point out to my students that history is an endless road, and there will be time for a lot of revision of their thoughts based on factual information that comes to light after the story has gone on. So in this way I am true to the profession.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bourdieu:
“The pedagogic work which produces the habitus . . . produces
misrecognition of the limitations implied by this system, so that the
efficacy of the ethical and logical programming it produces is
enhanced by misrecognition of the inherent limits of this
programming . . . The agents produced by pedagogic work would
not be so totally the prisoners of the limitations which the cultural
arbitrary imposes on their thought and practice, were it not that,
contained within these limits by the self-discipline and
self-censorship ( the more unconscious to the extent that their
principles have been internalized) they live out their thought and
practice in the illusion of freedom and universality.”
Albert Camus:
“What better way to enslave a man then to give him a vote
and tell him he is free…”
Tell them “They own the plantation” (of/by/for)…
Jockey they will, for positions in the “house” or the “fields”,
the enslavement continues…
Rob Urie:
“A more perfect formula for social disolution has rarely been
conceived. Focusing on social divisions rather than class
SOLIDARITY, is a gift to the ruling class.”
Damn what’s his name, ruskies, charters, and testing…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was disabused of the value of standardized tests a long time ago: 1970 to be precise. The first course I took in graduate school was on testing and the first assignment in that course was to read chapter one of the text and then find five flawed questions on the standardized test whose aggregate scores were used to “rank” the effectiveness of individual schools in the city (back then an education professor could get copies of the test to use in class). While that seemed like a daunting task, it turned out that 20% of the questions on the test had some kind of flaw.
It seems that the SHSAT is better than the test used to “measure” Philadelphia schools in the early 1970s, but it still has some poorly conceived questions… which is not at all unexpected. As one of the quotes from Stewart’s article notes:
“Daniel Koretz, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, the author of “Measuring Up” and “The Testing Charade,” and one of the country’s foremost experts on standardized tests, agreed that the question is, at best, ambiguous. “Problematic items do sometimes occur even in good tests, and that is one more reason it is never acceptable to make a consequential decision based on a single test score,”
Mr. Koretz’ protests notwithstanding, my grandson who is entering 8th grade in Brooklyn will be taking the SHSAT along with thousands of his classmates across the city and their results will be VERY consequential. With any luck, his younger cousin entering first grade might be able to attend his neighborhood high school and not have his future decided by a standardized test.
LikeLike
What are they saying, does anyone speak Pearson jive?
LikeLike
If I might offer a precise revision of your question
“Pears-eyes-ly what are they saying?”
LikeLike
OK. Here’s what happened. The geniuses who run the testing companies decided that the new state tests based on the Common Core should use easily scored multiple-choice questions to test higher-order thinking–a bad idea from the start. All the test makers informed their writers that the incorrect answers should be “plausible,” but that one of the answers should be better than the rest. Writers and editors working under very tight schedules and for very little pay for testing companies concerned with maximizing profits attempted to meet these ridiculous guidelines but made a complete mess of this. So almost every question on every state ELA exam is an utter mess. I’ve done analyses of a great many sample release questions, and for almost all of them, more than one answer is arguably correct or none of the answers is, arguably, correct, GIVEN THE POOR WORDING OF THE QUESTION. But security on the tests is such that the makers of these are completely unaccountable. Every administrator and test proctor and student must sign an agreement not to discuss the test questions. Every administrator and test proctor must agree not to look at the test questions. And penalties for doing these things are severe. So very few people know just how really shoddy these tests are. States spend billions on utter crap, and the testing companies laugh their way to the bank.
And inevitably, despite the enforced silence, after the test students are so incensed by the absurdity of the questions that they cannot contain themselves but go back to their classes and talk loudly with one another about the theatre of the absurd that they’ve just been forced to endure.
And idiots at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and other shill operations for the Gates Foundation and the CCSS issue their whitepapers and prepare their podcasts about the importance of the data we’re receiving, and after twenty years of this testing and accountability scam, in which NO IMPROVEMENT WHATSOEVER has resulted, they call for more of the same.
LikeLike
Bob
The top secrecy surrounding the tests makes the quote from the article very funny, inan absurd sort of way
“Will Mantell, a spokesman for the New York City Department of Education, said Pearson investigates “any items with problematic or unusual results.”
“If an error is found,” he added, “the item is not scored.”
///// End of quote
Do people like Mantell even realize how dumb they sound when they say things like that?
I kind of doubt it. They seem completely oblivious.
LikeLike
Thanks. Your description of what happened precisely describes my experience, admittedly limited, with the creation of test questions. I once was a part of an online group meant to proof questions. I managed to write long explanations as to why I did not consider many of the questions legitimate. Exasperated correspondents made it obvious to me that they were just interested in getting done.
Obviously, an evaluation is no better than the test. Since good test questions are a matter of opinion, evaluating students is really a matter of opinion. Evaluation of teachers using things that are a matter of opinion is suspect at best. If the test is flawed, we should err on the side of caution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“after twenty years of this testing and accountability scam, in which NO IMPROVEMENT WHATSOEVER has resulted, they call for more of the same.”
Using the classic definition of “insanity”, reformers continue to prove that they are point blank crazy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. Except for all those who are simply grifters, sucking at the Gates Foundation teat.
LikeLike
SHSAT = Dreck; ELA Test = Dreck; Pearson = Dreck.
Geometry teaches the following: Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
LikeLike
Transitivity or the substitution principle.
LikeLike
Why is Pearson still in charge of this B*#%S&@?! Didn’t we at the very least force them to rebrand as Queststar or something else owned by Robert Mercer?!
LikeLike
Don’t give them any idea$, Cindy (unless I detect sarcasm, here).
Rebranding is what every corporate villain does–e.g., Monsanto is now Bayer.
(Do those Bayer aspirins–protection against heart attacks!–now have weed {& people} killing chemicals in them?
Hmmm…yet another way to get rid of the middle class & the poor…
LikeLike
ETS rebranded as Questar
“Corporation rebranding”
When corps rebrand
It’s on our skin
It’s on our hand
And lungs within
It’s on our brain
And other spot
When corps rebrand
It’s searing hot
LikeLike
Or maybe Questar rebranded as ETS
LikeLike
The Pearson garbage patch in the ocean of intellectual progress.
LikeLike
In part, a possible solution, because it hasn’t been tried: students across the country need to stage massive walk-outs (not just piecemeal opt-outs) on day(s) the test(s) are given. Of course, they should opt-out as well, but being seen & out & carrying signs (such as : Pear$on Te$t$= Child Abu$e; Call DCFS!” {& put the # on the signs}). Next, parents SHOULD call their state DCFS–flood the lines!!
&–for the younger kiddos: PARENTS: organize the protests & WALK YOUR KIDS OUT.
This is the ONLY way to grab the nation’s attention (such as the Parkland students did so well). Then, once that attention is “got,” implement further steps…
LikeLike
A previous Pearson test for sixth graders had reading “comprehension” questions about a (stupid) article about a “plinth of space”
If the idea of empty “space” acting as a plinth to support something makes you scratch your head (or your behind), you are not alone.
“A plinth of space”
A plinth of space
Is Pearson test
An empty base
On which to rest
LikeLike
“Pearson Boardroom Banter”
We beat them with a test!
With not a bullet fired!
Completed is the quest
That King George once desired
“The Pros and Cons of Testing”
Pearson are the pros
At conning bureaucrat
And what do you $uppo$e
They u$e to pull off that?
“Bowdlerdash”
The Pearson tests are bowdlerdash
Ephemeral nimbus plinths
Precisely: an insufferable hash
Enough to make you wince
LikeLike
And I would add, ‘No teacher’s destiny should be determined either’ because some states use this test as part of a teacher score/name for their annual evaluation. Many teachers morale is hurt while some leave the profession because of it.
LikeLike
I chose C… boy am I dumb!
LikeLike
Susan: So did I. We are NOT dumb!!!!
LikeLike
I didn’t bother to answer the question/s. I despise these types of tests and the only thing I want to do with them is to burn them. They aren’t even good for-last chance toilet paper.
LikeLike
“They aren’t even good for-last chance toilet paper.”
Given that they are probably administered by computer… Sorry, Lloyd, I couldn’t resist. 🙂
LikeLike
Imagine the damage caused when using a computer in place of toilet paper.
LikeLike
The Best of the worst
The Best of the Worst
Is Pearson Inc
The test is a curse
For those who think
LikeLike
This isn’t about testing but it is something important. No Guns In Schools!
…….
Subject: I just signed this petition to keep Betsy DeVos from weaponizing schools – will you?
Click here to join me in signing the petition:
https://act.credoaction.com/sign/DeVos_Guns?sp_ref=440425568.4.190657.e.614933.2&referring_akid=29810.1912996.xvi37e&source=mailto_sp
LikeLike
Writing test questions is difficult. Pearson may not be aware of how difficult.
L. A. U. S. D. had to eliminate a prompt that was used for a writing assessment because the rubic for writing a police report would have expected creative writing. Writing police reports demands “just the facts.”
LikeLike