SCASD evaluates individual students to determine their math placement using a test called a “curriculum-based assessment” or CBA. Here’s a description of what makes an assessment “curriculum-based” (from Kelley et al., Assessment for Effective Intervention 33:250-6, 2008):
First, CBM ["curriculum-based measurement"] must be aligned with the curriculum. Therefore, one element of CBM technical adequacy is summarized in terms of evidence that skills sampled come directly from the curriculum. CBM items look similar to the items presented in instructional materials and assignments. Also, the students respond by giving the same types of responses expected on instructional materials and assignments.
The idea that we use an assessment tailored to the curriculum seems strange to me. If “Investigations” focus on explanation is a means to improving math understanding, skills, and abilities, then shouldn’t we be testing those outcomes rather than students’ abilities to explain their answers? I think this applies whether we are determining placements for individual students or evaluating the effectiveness of the curriculum as a whole.
Here is one parent’s experience with CBA in the District:
At the beginning of grade 4, my daughter completed the district’s curriculum-based assessment and we were told that she was “right where she should be”. She did the 4th grade Investigations-2 and was bored silly, so over the summer I had her skills assessed using a standardized, nationally normed diagnostic measure (KeyMath3) and she scored in the 99.5th percentile. (Despite the overall strong results, substantial gaps in her knowledge were noted in several areas, including math conventions and measurement. Neither her strengths nor her relative weaknesses were mentioned in our CBA feedback.) Since then, she completed a non-Investigations, alternative 5th-grade curriculum from a highly respected institution in less than 3 months, and is now working on 6th grade material outside the classroom environment. I am gravely disappointed with the district’s CBA, and feel she wasted a full year on material that progressed at a snail’s pace and was much too easy for her. I strongly suggest other parents obtain formal, standardized assessments of their child’s strengths and weaknesses, and don’t rely solely on the district’s CBA results.
Good point! I am in the same situation, but my child is in 1st grade. Came in public school from charter school kindergarten. I strongly agree with everything that is said about education and CBA. I also think, that it is disappointing that usually five years are wasted (starting from first grade).
Both writers forget to mention that the CBA is highly biased, being that it is administered by the math people in the district, who obviously have some thing to prove.