At 09:10 PM 8/28/96 -0700, Phyllis Ryder wrote:
> The problem--as may be expected--is that the portfolio placement
>system is about 5 times as expensive as the current placement system (a
>timed 30-minute written exam).
it seems to refer back to the discussion of standardized testing -- how much
money is spent *by* ETS and related companies to develop tests, spent by
students and their families *to* ETS, to groups like Kaplan, Princeton
Review, and even stuff like cliff's notes and monarch notes? with all the
apperatii of testing implicated, is portfolio grading still three or five or
ten times the price?
there's a culture of testing and an economy of the exam. perhaps looking
deeper into the context surrounding testing will yield new arguments that
can be used to alter the perception of the *expense* of the portfolio. of
course, if we were to try to make such an argument, we would expand the
ranks of teachers -- but we would be competing with businesses that believe
there is only one means of evaluation -- the test. how can we begin to make
effective arguments to reveal the "expensive" foundations of the testing
culture?
mike