CSETMathGuru: THE Site for Single Subject Math
A Pass is a Pass, right?!
NES, the chaps that create and administer the CSET, does not divulge exact score one obtained in case of Pass, and all that the transcipt declares is: PASS. In the case of Fail, however, the score is revealed.
Apparently, a passing score implies that the candidate - in the opinion of the CCTC - has acquired the minimum subject matter knowledge to manage reasonably as a rookie teacher. Some have suggested that a person who passes with a high score doesn't necessarily know significantly more about the subject than someone who just scrapes by, particularly given different forms of the test, differences in how different individuals cope tests, and differences in how an individual copes with the test from one administration to the next. That the only thing that counts on CSET is passing it so that anyone who passes it is considered to have the minimum subject matter knowledge required to be successful as a beginning teacher. That this is all the test is designed to show.
First, with regards to test-coping, I imagine that would apply to any test, not merely the CSET. There aren't too many competent chaps that fall in the 'Oh,I know the material, I'm just a horrid test-taker' category. And if this ort of thing were widespread, how does one go about assessing subject matter proficiency?!
And with regards to different forms of the test it would be very safe to assume that these tests are reliable: a psychometry term indicating that in the long run, different editions of the test would yield similar results for the same individual, ceteris paribus.
That, after all, is a paramount goal of a good assessment instrument.
In the absence of additional information, I would be disposed to conclude that a chap in the top 5-10th percentile has significantly greater - not a colloquial expression but a statistical one - understanding and grasp of Math than one in the 65th-75th percentile...and in an administrative capacity, I'd readily employ such a fellow over another. Sorry, but I know quite a few Math teachers with abysmal conceptual knowledge and horrendous skills.
While the CSET establishes minimum standards of competence, it doesn't cut it for me and I should be loath to have anyone but the top scorers teach upper-level Math - the rest ought to take more Math classes and demonstrate soundness. [Yes, that would defeat the purpose of the CSETto be sure.... - I can imagine a fellow exclaiming: "Hmmph, I passed the bloody tests, confound you!" - but I earnestly do not believe Subtests I and III to be valid tests i.e. examinations designed to suitably and rigorously measure what they intend to.]
Since the CCTC does not require that NES reveal passing scores on the CSET, the absurd upshot of it all is: one might barely have passed all 3 Math Subtests...yet, be deemed qualified to teach Precalculus / Calculus! But clearly, to bestow classes as these on such a patently unprepared bloke would be an outrage upon hapless students. Now, I shall vouchsafe the point that no school is likely going to require a greenhorn to teach advanced Math courses, but several years of experience teaching Algebra 1 / Geometry does not automatically confer expertise in Precalculus and beyond. Again, a low score [as in the minimal standards being barely met: << 80th percentile] - for me - indicates insufficient mastery.
Qs? Call (Jay): 951-489-7665
OR email me: [email protected].
Especially with regards to Math, I just don't want the novice that 'squeaked through' with a Foundation Credential to be permitted to teach Algebra II [were this a possibility]; and one that barely managing to overcome Subtest III be assigned Precalculus / Calculus [were this a possibility].
Teacher performance is indeed a function of, both competence [tangible], and a certain nebulous je ne sais quoi of which even a subject-matter virtuoso may be impoverished [instances of PhD blokes and engineers being poor explicators, that sort of thing!].
But ceteris paribus, with regards to upper-level assignments, I'd prefer that a chap that excelled on Subject Matter Competency Exams - if such scores were unearthed... - instruct a ward of mine.
But between a capable teacher well over his/her head [what the deuce?!] because of insufficient grasp of advanced concepts and a miserable but well-qualified sod, um, I'd just sooner plant my footwear on their collective arses: neither has business being there! Both deficiencies, however, are rectifiable.
Finally, were it up to me, I'd require ALL prospective Math teachers - Math majors / otherwise - to take the Single Subject Math tests. Here's why: there are too many "Math majors" who can't prove a simple proposition in Geometry [no, really!], draw an exponential graph or find the roots of a polynomial function. Alas, I speak from experience with freshly-minted fellows!
Qs? Call (Jay): 951-489-7665
OR email me: [email protected].
NES, the chaps that create and administer the CSET, does not divulge exact score one obtained in case of Pass, and all that the transcipt declares is: PASS. In the case of Fail, however, the score is revealed.
Apparently, a passing score implies that the candidate - in the opinion of the CCTC - has acquired the minimum subject matter knowledge to manage reasonably as a rookie teacher. Some have suggested that a person who passes with a high score doesn't necessarily know significantly more about the subject than someone who just scrapes by, particularly given different forms of the test, differences in how different individuals cope tests, and differences in how an individual copes with the test from one administration to the next. That the only thing that counts on CSET is passing it so that anyone who passes it is considered to have the minimum subject matter knowledge required to be successful as a beginning teacher. That this is all the test is designed to show.
First, with regards to test-coping, I imagine that would apply to any test, not merely the CSET. There aren't too many competent chaps that fall in the 'Oh,I know the material, I'm just a horrid test-taker' category. And if this ort of thing were widespread, how does one go about assessing subject matter proficiency?!
And with regards to different forms of the test it would be very safe to assume that these tests are reliable: a psychometry term indicating that in the long run, different editions of the test would yield similar results for the same individual, ceteris paribus.
That, after all, is a paramount goal of a good assessment instrument.
In the absence of additional information, I would be disposed to conclude that a chap in the top 5-10th percentile has significantly greater - not a colloquial expression but a statistical one - understanding and grasp of Math than one in the 65th-75th percentile...and in an administrative capacity, I'd readily employ such a fellow over another. Sorry, but I know quite a few Math teachers with abysmal conceptual knowledge and horrendous skills.
While the CSET establishes minimum standards of competence, it doesn't cut it for me and I should be loath to have anyone but the top scorers teach upper-level Math - the rest ought to take more Math classes and demonstrate soundness. [Yes, that would defeat the purpose of the CSETto be sure.... - I can imagine a fellow exclaiming: "Hmmph, I passed the bloody tests, confound you!" - but I earnestly do not believe Subtests I and III to be valid tests i.e. examinations designed to suitably and rigorously measure what they intend to.]
Since the CCTC does not require that NES reveal passing scores on the CSET, the absurd upshot of it all is: one might barely have passed all 3 Math Subtests...yet, be deemed qualified to teach Precalculus / Calculus! But clearly, to bestow classes as these on such a patently unprepared bloke would be an outrage upon hapless students. Now, I shall vouchsafe the point that no school is likely going to require a greenhorn to teach advanced Math courses, but several years of experience teaching Algebra 1 / Geometry does not automatically confer expertise in Precalculus and beyond. Again, a low score [as in the minimal standards being barely met: << 80th percentile] - for me - indicates insufficient mastery.
Qs? Call (Jay): 951-489-7665
OR email me: [email protected].
Especially with regards to Math, I just don't want the novice that 'squeaked through' with a Foundation Credential to be permitted to teach Algebra II [were this a possibility]; and one that barely managing to overcome Subtest III be assigned Precalculus / Calculus [were this a possibility].
Teacher performance is indeed a function of, both competence [tangible], and a certain nebulous je ne sais quoi of which even a subject-matter virtuoso may be impoverished [instances of PhD blokes and engineers being poor explicators, that sort of thing!].
But ceteris paribus, with regards to upper-level assignments, I'd prefer that a chap that excelled on Subject Matter Competency Exams - if such scores were unearthed... - instruct a ward of mine.
But between a capable teacher well over his/her head [what the deuce?!] because of insufficient grasp of advanced concepts and a miserable but well-qualified sod, um, I'd just sooner plant my footwear on their collective arses: neither has business being there! Both deficiencies, however, are rectifiable.
Finally, were it up to me, I'd require ALL prospective Math teachers - Math majors / otherwise - to take the Single Subject Math tests. Here's why: there are too many "Math majors" who can't prove a simple proposition in Geometry [no, really!], draw an exponential graph or find the roots of a polynomial function. Alas, I speak from experience with freshly-minted fellows!
Qs? Call (Jay): 951-489-7665
OR email me: [email protected].