Why doesn't Utah just opt out altogether? Or is that illegal?

Opting out leaves the money on the table from the feds.

Of course the feds were going to deny this. We must have a comparison to see how different the effectiveness of the two would be. That is true science, not trying to fool everyone.

My only positive of Obama winning is we might finally get rid of NCLB.

We can then start EBLB

Every Bush Left Behind.

Of course they denied it!! Without the summative (end of year) testing, we cannot tell if students are achieving mastery compared with the state standards. Formative (throughout the year, as you go) testing is important and good, but it doesn't replace summative testing.

Additionally, the USOE wants to drop the Iowa Test, which is given to 3rd, 5th, 8th and 11th graders. This is the only way we currently have of knowing how our students do when compared with students in other states which is vitally important as it is those students ours will be competing with for college entrance and jobs. We must have a nationally normed test administration each year.

I just wish the state would support NCLB - it has done so much good in making things transparent (go online to the USOE website and look up your school report card!)and in helping minority and disadvantaged children get the education they deserve.

I visited a Colorado school last week that is using the NWEA. When asked their view, they said - it is a good tool, but we continually question its validity. (This from an award-winning school that is data-intensive). We need to be wise!

The feds were correct on this decision. The computer adaptive test may be many things, and it may provide valuable data, but as a test that holds special education students up to the same standards as general ed kids, it fails miserably. It is simply discriminatory to hold special ed kids up to a separate, usually lesser standard.

Imagine if Utah was planning to use this test just for minority kids or just female kids -- there would be outrage.

Special Ed kids need to have their learning measured against the same standard as general ed, non-disabled kids. If they aren't scoring as well, then the state, as well as the kids and their parents, need to know that. Using a test like this to say a special ed kid "passed" their No Child Left Behind AYP test is doing the kid NO FAVORS. But it is doing the state dept of ed and the school district a favor when it allows the state and school to count the special ed kid as meeting standard when in all likelihood the kid is NOT.

The NCLB was set up to make sure that each student improves his/her skills in school. The test the state wants to pilot tests each student according to his or her ability. As a student takes the test, if he/she answers a question wrong, the test automatically gives an easier question. If the student answers a question correctly, the test automatically gives a harder question. When the student finishes the test the grade level of the student is more accurately calculated.

With the regular tests all students get the same questions, not questions selected to show the student's individual level. Hence, with the new test, student�s scores show a closer individual grade level. Advanced student's scores show their grade level as what it really is. Students who are behind have their individual grade level shown also. Then each student can be more accurately assessed.

Parents of children enrolled in Spec Ed classes already know that their children are academically behind their peers. Having these students take a test that confirms their inability to compete with their peers contributes to low self-esteem, increased drop-out rates, and inappropriate behaviours.

The Iowa test tests the students on material they will be learning during that school year. How is this relevant in determining how well our students are mastering their curriculum? Testing students on information they have not learned, hmmm, let's just shoot ourselves in the foot.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with testing students to check mastery of material taught during the schoolyear, however, we need the information to be more accurate. Students should be given the CRT twice as pre- and post- tests. This would accurately determine what the students have learned. Currently CRTs are used to show AYP and NCLB by comparing/contrasting last year's students to this year's students. Apples vs oranges.

I've used the test and I stand behind it. What we are measuring is a student's growth as well, and we as teachers are accountable to show growth on every student. Otherwise, half of our kids come to us already being able to pass the test, and we wouldn't have to teach those kids a thing. With the NWEA test, we need to work hard to show growth on our high achievers, as well. Right now, the majority of teachers and schools' time, effort and money goes to the few low achievers, trying to bring them up to the grade level standards. I would think that once parents and everyone else really knew what this test is all about, they would back this test 100% because it forces the teacher and the educational system to put effort into every student-especially our high achievers. Let's face it--they are the future leaders of America.

A charter school teacher,

We already test every two weeks. I am surprised that more educators don't.