From FindLaw: Stages of a Criminal Case
Arrest
Booking & Bail
Arraignment
Plea Bargain
Preliminary Hearing
Pre-Trial Motions
Trial
Sentencing
Appeals
How Bail Works from Apollo Bonds
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Monday, June 4, 2007
Standardized Testing
Continued from TT blog.
TT - Where to begin? Education isn't horse race; it's a process of learning and accomplishment. Testing is a tool that measures accomplishment. The National Report Card isn't a competition between states but a means of trying to curb the 30-year trend of dumbing down state tests to disguise lower expectations for students and hide the lack of classroom instruction.
Every excuse in the book has been used. For 30 years schools have complained that the problem was that poor students, students whose first language isn't English, or students who were victims of cultural deprivation were the reasons for turning out illiterates who then moved on to college and spent one year taking remedial classes just to perform at high school level. Only to drop out. It's been happening since the 1970s.
Educrats in every state asked for a pass so that special category students could be treated separately, but unequally, on tests catered to "their needs." As if the students were mentally unfit to learn. We weren't spending enough money. Classrooms were too crowded. Eubonics would help communicate better.
The influx of Asian immigrants in California and other states challenged that smugness. These students suffer from the same language deficiencies but perform at the top of their classes. Sites like GreatSchools.net show the average classroom sizes and, guess what? Schools with 12 students to a teacher are no more likely to test well than schools with 30 students. The money that the District of Columbia spends on education is the highest in the nation. Their failure rate is also the highest in the nation.
The District of Columbia spends a staggering $13,280 per student. The pupil/teacher ratio is 14.2 Their scores are abysmal. Unless you're an outright bigot and believe that blacks and Hispanics are incapable of learning, how do you explain such colossal and expensive failure?
Money isn't the answer. It's the problem.
We don't have Public Schools anymore. Public Schools were created to assimilate and teach immigrants to give them an opportunity for upward mobility. Public Schools taught children and were proud of their achievements and the achievements of their students. Public Schools hired professionals and established standards of conduct and performance that guaranteed teachers of impeccable character and purpose.
What we have now are Government Schools. Think DMV. Cause that's what we've got.
TT - Where to begin? Education isn't horse race; it's a process of learning and accomplishment. Testing is a tool that measures accomplishment. The National Report Card isn't a competition between states but a means of trying to curb the 30-year trend of dumbing down state tests to disguise lower expectations for students and hide the lack of classroom instruction.
Every excuse in the book has been used. For 30 years schools have complained that the problem was that poor students, students whose first language isn't English, or students who were victims of cultural deprivation were the reasons for turning out illiterates who then moved on to college and spent one year taking remedial classes just to perform at high school level. Only to drop out. It's been happening since the 1970s.
Educrats in every state asked for a pass so that special category students could be treated separately, but unequally, on tests catered to "their needs." As if the students were mentally unfit to learn. We weren't spending enough money. Classrooms were too crowded. Eubonics would help communicate better.
The influx of Asian immigrants in California and other states challenged that smugness. These students suffer from the same language deficiencies but perform at the top of their classes. Sites like GreatSchools.net show the average classroom sizes and, guess what? Schools with 12 students to a teacher are no more likely to test well than schools with 30 students. The money that the District of Columbia spends on education is the highest in the nation. Their failure rate is also the highest in the nation.
The District of Columbia spends a staggering $13,280 per student. The pupil/teacher ratio is 14.2 Their scores are abysmal. Unless you're an outright bigot and believe that blacks and Hispanics are incapable of learning, how do you explain such colossal and expensive failure?
Money isn't the answer. It's the problem.
We don't have Public Schools anymore. Public Schools were created to assimilate and teach immigrants to give them an opportunity for upward mobility. Public Schools taught children and were proud of their achievements and the achievements of their students. Public Schools hired professionals and established standards of conduct and performance that guaranteed teachers of impeccable character and purpose.
What we have now are Government Schools. Think DMV. Cause that's what we've got.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Standardized Testing
June 3, 2007 - The media campaign against standardized testing for high school graduation in Texas continues in the Dallas Morning News. "Analysis shows TAKS cheating rampant" is the first of three parts.
Part Two: At TEA, years of inquiry, few concrete results
Part Three: Common questions about analyzing tests for cheating
They base much of their opinion on an analysis by George Wesolowsky, a professor at McMaster University in Canada who studies cheating on multiple-choice tests like the TAKS. He is quoted as saying, "The evidence of substantial cheating is beyond any reasonable doubt."
Another Canadian, David Harpp, a professor at Montreal's McGill University who studies cheating and reviewed the analysis was also quoted. ""What we have here in many of the schools, particularly charter schools, is rampant cheating involving many students."
Both Canadian academics based their opinions on "statistical analysis." The Texas Education Agency (TEA), according to the Dallas Morning News, has cleared 98 percent of the schools in its recent round of investigations, in most cases because school officials did not volunteer knowledge of improprieties. Many of those schools were found to have widespread cheating in The News' analysis.
The newspaper also depended upon input from Caveon, a test security firm. Caveon markets their services of detecting, correcting, and preventing test fraud. As part of that they provide, in "conjunction with your in-house or contracted legal team, prepare basic admonitions; file and litigate suits." [No explanation, but the logical question is who is being sued?]
There are some obvious questions that come to mind.
If there is such widespread cheating as alleged, is Texas unique in the number of students who cheat? If there is widespread cheating and the problem is as big as they allege, doesn't it call for the collusion of test examiners? The example of 4-5 students having a cluster of answers would suggest actual conferences during test taking. Are monitors lax or deliberately sabotaging the tests?
Some schools, according to the article, have new rules about open doors during testing and roving monitors. This, again, indicates that test cheating is assisted by test monitors - teachers.
The stakes are high for schools who are found academically failing, not only for the student, but job security for teachers and administrators. There are substantial bonuses for schools and personnel for higher scores. And substantial penalities for failing, especially for charter schools.
But the biggest unaddressed question is, if students are unable or unwilling to pass 11th grade examinations, how can they expect to pass more rigorous examinations at the college level?
And why aren't monitors who proctor exams disciplined for abetting cheating?
New York state has had standardized testing in the form of Regents Examinations for decades. It is not now, nor ever has been, the political football that standardized testing is in Texas and other states that resist verification that the student actually learned something.
If a school or a teacher was found to have unacceptably high rates of failure on the Regents exams, it was assumed that the teacher wasn't following curriculum. It was assumed that the school was lax. Not that the exam was flawed. Not that the Regents were out of touch. Not that the students were liars and cheats. The monitor was fired and standards were established.
The debate should not be whether to abandon the exams, but who to blame? Those who write the tests or those who conduct them?
That last just never seems to occur to the media.
Part Two: At TEA, years of inquiry, few concrete results
Part Three: Common questions about analyzing tests for cheating
They base much of their opinion on an analysis by George Wesolowsky, a professor at McMaster University in Canada who studies cheating on multiple-choice tests like the TAKS. He is quoted as saying, "The evidence of substantial cheating is beyond any reasonable doubt."
Another Canadian, David Harpp, a professor at Montreal's McGill University who studies cheating and reviewed the analysis was also quoted. ""What we have here in many of the schools, particularly charter schools, is rampant cheating involving many students."
Both Canadian academics based their opinions on "statistical analysis." The Texas Education Agency (TEA), according to the Dallas Morning News, has cleared 98 percent of the schools in its recent round of investigations, in most cases because school officials did not volunteer knowledge of improprieties. Many of those schools were found to have widespread cheating in The News' analysis.
The newspaper also depended upon input from Caveon, a test security firm. Caveon markets their services of detecting, correcting, and preventing test fraud. As part of that they provide, in "conjunction with your in-house or contracted legal team, prepare basic admonitions; file and litigate suits." [No explanation, but the logical question is who is being sued?]
There are some obvious questions that come to mind.
If there is such widespread cheating as alleged, is Texas unique in the number of students who cheat? If there is widespread cheating and the problem is as big as they allege, doesn't it call for the collusion of test examiners? The example of 4-5 students having a cluster of answers would suggest actual conferences during test taking. Are monitors lax or deliberately sabotaging the tests?
Some schools, according to the article, have new rules about open doors during testing and roving monitors. This, again, indicates that test cheating is assisted by test monitors - teachers.
The stakes are high for schools who are found academically failing, not only for the student, but job security for teachers and administrators. There are substantial bonuses for schools and personnel for higher scores. And substantial penalities for failing, especially for charter schools.
But the biggest unaddressed question is, if students are unable or unwilling to pass 11th grade examinations, how can they expect to pass more rigorous examinations at the college level?
And why aren't monitors who proctor exams disciplined for abetting cheating?
New York state has had standardized testing in the form of Regents Examinations for decades. It is not now, nor ever has been, the political football that standardized testing is in Texas and other states that resist verification that the student actually learned something.
If a school or a teacher was found to have unacceptably high rates of failure on the Regents exams, it was assumed that the teacher wasn't following curriculum. It was assumed that the school was lax. Not that the exam was flawed. Not that the Regents were out of touch. Not that the students were liars and cheats. The monitor was fired and standards were established.
The debate should not be whether to abandon the exams, but who to blame? Those who write the tests or those who conduct them?
That last just never seems to occur to the media.
Arkansas Education
Arkansas State Board of Education website.
Arkansas employs 35,000 teachers.
Maintains a list of Arkansas colleges and universities that have been approved by the State Board of Education to offer teacher preparation programs.
Some Arkansas disciplinary decisions are in the monthly state Board of Education meeting minutes. They do not contain reasons for suspensions or revocations.
Some waivers state that a teacher is given a waiver for a previous conviction. Here Here Here
No online teacher code of ethics or guide. No statement of ethics in education.
Arkansas employs 35,000 teachers.
Maintains a list of Arkansas colleges and universities that have been approved by the State Board of Education to offer teacher preparation programs.
Some Arkansas disciplinary decisions are in the monthly state Board of Education meeting minutes. They do not contain reasons for suspensions or revocations.
Some waivers state that a teacher is given a waiver for a previous conviction. Here Here Here
No online teacher code of ethics or guide. No statement of ethics in education.