text:
Illustrative Language for an RFP To Build Tests To Support Instruction and Accountability
Prepared By Members of the Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment
Convened ByAmerican Association of School Administrators
National Association of Elementary School Principals
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Education Association
National Middle School Association
October 2001
This report was prepared by the following members of the Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment. Commission members' affiliations do not denote institutional endorsement of this document.
David C. Berliner
Regents' Professor of Education
College of Education
Arizona State University
Carol Camp Yeakey
Professor of Urban Politics and Policy
Curry School of Education
University of Virginia
James W. Pellegrino Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Psychology
Distinguished Professor of Education
University of Illinois at Chicago
W. James Popham (Chair)
Professor Emeritus
Graduate School of Education and Information Studies
University of California, Los Angeles
Rachel F. Quenemoen
Senior Fellow for Technical Assistance and Research
National Center on Educational Outcomes
University of Minnesota
Flora V. Rodríguez-Brown
Professor of Curriculum and Instruction/Reading, Writing and Literacy
University of Illinois at Chicago
Paul D. Sandifer (Ret.)
Consultant to the Office of Assessment
South Carolina Department of Education
Stephen G. Sireci
Associate Professor
School of Education
Center for Educational Assessment
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Martha L. Thurlow
Senior Research Associate, Department of Educational Psychology
College of Education and Human Development
Director, National Center on Educational Achievement
University of Minnesota
In a separate report, Building Tests To Support Accountability and Instruction: A Guide for Policymakers1 the Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment identifies nine requirements that must be satisfied if statewide tests are to support both instruction and accountability:
|Requirement 1:
|A state's content standards must be prioritized to support effective instruction and assessment.
|Requirement 2:
|A state's high-priority content standards must be clearly and thoroughly described so that the knowledge and skills students need to demonstrate competence are evident.
|Requirement 3:
|The results of a state's assessment of high-priority content standards should be reported standard-by-standard for each student, school, and district.
|Requirement 4:
|The state must provide educators with optional classroom assessment procedures that can measure students' progress in attaining content standards not assessed by state tests.
|Requirement 5:
|A state must monitor the breadth of the curriculum to ensure that instructional attention is given to all the content standards and subject areas, including those that are not assessed by state tests.
|Requirement 6:
|A state must ensure that all students have the opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of state standards; consequently, it must provide well-designed assessments appropriate for a broad range of students, with accommodations and alternate methods of assessment available for students who need them.
|Requirement 7:
|A state must generally allow test developers a minimum of three years to produce statewide tests that satisfy Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and similar test-quality guidelines.
|Requirement 8:
|A state must ensure that educators receive professional development focused on how to optimize children's learning based on the results of instructionally supportive assessments.
|Requirement 9:
|A state should secure evidence that supports the ongoing improvement of its state assessments to ensure those assessments are (a) appropriate for the accountability purposes for which they are used, (b) appropriate for determining whether students have attained state standards, (c) appropriate for enhancing instruction, and (d) not the cause of negative consequences.
State policymakers might adopt various approaches to address these requirements; for example, by directing a state agency to do so. Many states, however, will likely seek the assistance of external contractors to undertake work related to one or more of the Commission's requirements. Typically, such support is solicited in the form of a request for proposals (RFP) issued to suitable agencies or individuals.
This report presents illustrative language that states might incorporate into RFPs they issue to satisfy the Commission's requirements. These RFPs may be addressed to test contractors, curriculum and instruction consultants, independent researchers, or other agencies depending on the nature of the requirement.
State personnel who write RFPs are encouraged to adapt the illustrative language; hence the report is available in html as well as PDF format. The Commission does not endorse particular procedures for satisfying its nine requirements, nor does it recommend the particular RFP language found in this report. Instead, the language is provided to assist states as they develop RFPs.
The illustrative language in this report focuses on one aspect of the RFPs that states might issue procedures to create, install, and evaluate assessments that meet both instructional and accountability purposes. Other than the tests themselves, states will not need to depart substantially from what is routinely included in RFPs that solicit bids for developing statewide tests (e.g., qualifications of the bidders, reporting requirements, payment schedules). Nor will states need to alter substantially many of the technical issues normally addressed in assessment-related RFPs (e.g., year-to-year equating of tests administered at certain grade-levels, establishing performance standards based on specific standard-setting procedures).
However, as a state moves toward assessments that fulfill both instructional and accountability purposes, and that are fully inclusive, some technical requirements will change to meet the expectation that all students are included in the assessments, and that reports of students' performance support instructional improvement. These changes are not addressed in this report; therefore, states will need to work with their contractors and stakeholders to ensure that the technical requirements of their RFPs are consistent with the purpose and function of the assessments described here.
Finally, before turning to illustrative RFP-language related to each of the Commission's nine requirements, states may wish to consider including introductory language in their RFP such as the following: "The procedures specified in this RFP represent an approach to accomplishing the required work. Bidders are invited, however, to propose alternative procedures provides those alternatives are cost-effective and supply the required services and deliverables."
Illustrative RFP Language
States may solicit proposals from a variety of contractors to conduct work related to the Commission's nine requirements. The illustrative language provided for Requirements 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 is appropriate for soliciting proposals from test developers. Work related to Requirement 1 also might be solicited from a vendor other than a testing firm. Requirements 5, 7, 8, and 9 specify data collection and evaluation tasks best completed by contractors other than testing firms.
Because Requirements 1, 2, 6 and 7 entail procedures with which architects of state-issued RFPs may be unfamiliar, detailed language is offered in this document. Less detailed language is suggested for Requirements 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9. And in some instances, such as Requirement 8 that deals with professional development programs for educators, the report offers limited language. Experienced staff developers in most states can provide expert assistance in that aspect of the RFP's preparation.
Throughout the report segments of the illustrative language are bracketed to remind readers to modify this text for specific state contexts. For instance, the illustrative RFP-language related to an item-review committee reads: "An item-review committee of [20] members will be assembled at [a site to be recommended by the bidder]." The size of the item-review committee and the site of its meeting are the decision of the individuals preparing the RFP.
In addition, the report includes examples of products or procedures that are described in the RFP language. These examples are presented in italicized text.
Requirement 1
A state's content standards must be prioritized to support effective instruction and assessment.
Illustrative RFP-Language
The tests that bidders develop in response to this RFP must accurately estimate the degree to which a student has attained state content standards2 that represent essential or high-priority skills and/or knowledge.
Therefore, bidders will need to carry out a defensible procedure for prioritizing the state's content standards in each of the subject areas/grade levels for which a state test is being developed. This procedure must be based primarily on preferences registered by committees of educators approved by the Department of Education (DOE). 3 Classroom teachers and curriculum specialists must be involved in prioritizing the content standards. Neither (DOE) staff nor the bidder's staff should take a substantive role in prioritizing content standards. It would, however, be appropriate for them to comment on any technical or practical difficulties likely to be encountered in assessing a given content standard.
Because prioritizing will reduce the number of content standards that will be assessed by state tests, it is important for each content standard assessed by the tests to represent an essential or significant skill and/or body of knowledge. It is unlikely that any of the content standards assessed by the test would deal exclusively with knowledge. Rather, it seems more likely that bodies of knowledge would be subsumed under content standards that focus on high-level cognitive skills.
Therefore, it may be necessary to reconfigure some current content standards so that they subsume other content standards. If reconfigurations of content standards result from prioritizing and are proposed, the bidder must provide a justification. In particular, bidders must provide evidence that any content standards subsumed under existing, or reconfigured, standards represent enabling sub-skills or knowledge for the essential skill/knowledge sought.
A useful illustration is represented by assessments of students' written composition skills in which students generate original writing samples. Written communication skill is a significant cognitive competency that embraces a number of sub skills (e.g., written mechanics, content organization) as well as knowledge of the topic addressed in the composition. But these enabling skills are subsumed by a single, powerful content standard. These are the kinds of high-import content standards that should be assessed on the state test(s).
To clarify the DOE's intent, a prioritizing procedure is described below. Bidders are free to modify this process or to use another procedure.
Example of A Procedure to Prioritize State Content Standards
The bidder will convene a panel [20-25 members], [identified in collaboration with DOE] to prioritize the state's content standard in [the subject areas/grade levels]. The panel [Curricular Prioritizing Panel (CPP)] shall be composed of equal numbers of classroom teachers, other educators, curriculum specialists from school districts, and representatives from institutions of higher education who specialize in the content area for which the test is being developed. Typically, different CPPs will be needed for tests in different content areas, although the same panel might prioritize content standards at different grade levels in the same content area.
The bidder will moderate at least one meeting among panel members. [DOE personnel will be present as observers.] Prior to the CPP meeting, the bidder will provide panel members with a set of the appropriate state content standards, a description of the procedures panel members will follow to prioritize the standards during the CPP meeting, and information on required preparation for the meeting. As important, bidders must tell CPP members about all the steps in the prioritization process so members understand how their ratings and rankings of content standards will be used to arrive at final sets of standards the bidder will provide DOE.
Each CPP member will be asked to review the content standards before the meeting. Panel members should be supplied with forms to rate the importance of each standard. The nature of this review will depend on the specific prioritizing process proposed by the bidder. To illustrate, one possible procedure would require panel members to rate each content standard using a rating system such as the following:
- essential (i.e., standards that are the most important for students to attain);
- very desirable, (i.e., standards that are extremely important for students to attain);
- desirable (i.e., standards that are somewhat important for students to attain;
- optional (i.e., standards that are least important for students to attain).
The bidder must describe the specific language and response categories they intend to use in securing per-standard ratings.
Bidders will compile CPP members' initial ratings into four groups (essential, very desirable, desirable, and optional) so that panel members can review and discuss their initial ratings at the panel meeting. The bidder must indicate decision-rules it employs to place the standards into these categories.
During the CPP meeting panel members will be asked to develop (1) a set of essential content standards ranked from most-to-least important and (2) a set of very desirable content standards ranked from most-to-least important. To expedite this process, the bidder could present panel members with the content standards they have rated individually as essential and very desirable, ask them to rank each set of standards from most to least important, discuss, and as needed, revise their ratings. The bidder may suggest more than one iteration of this process. During the meeting, panel members also might be asked to reformulate existing content standards to represent broad, significant outcomes. If DOE prefers, it could carry out this reformulation and provide these reconfigured standards to panel members for their consideration.
As a result of the CPP members' work, the bidder will provide DOE (1) a set of essential content standards ranked from most-to-least important and (2) a set of very desirable content standards ranked from most-to-least important.
Requirement 2
A state's high-priority content standards must be clearly and thoroughly described so that the knowledge and skills students need to demonstrate competence are evident.
Illustrative RFP-Language
So that educators understand clearly the skills and knowledge in the content standards that are assessed by state tests developed in response to this RFP, bidders must supply a short, clear, and concise assessment description for each standard. These assessment descriptions, which should not exceed three paragraphs, must describe the cognitive domains and cognitive demand(s) students are expected to meet. In addition, each assessment description must be accompanied by a minimum of [three] different illustrative item-types that might be used to assess the standard. [These sample items must be labeled as "Illustrative Item-Types."]
Each assessment description should focus on the nature of the cognitive demand(s) to which students are expected to respond. Educators who read the assessment description, and the content standard on which it is based, should be able to arrive at an accurate understanding of the intellectual operation(s) that the content standard requires of students. Moreover, if any enabling sub skills or bodies of knowledge are identified in the assessment description, educators will understand the nature and importance of these sub skills or bodies of knowledge.
Bidders must identify the kinds of personnel who will develop the assessment descriptions. The DOE strongly urges bidders to involve both instructional and measurement staff. In addition, educators, especially classroom teachers, must be involved in the generation and/or review of the assessment descriptions since they will be the important users of the descriptions.
All assessment descriptions should be pilot-tested with small groups of educators, and bidders should describe acceptable outcomes from these pilot tests as well as any decision-rules they will employ to determine a description's adequacy. Bidders also should indicate the kinds and numbers of educators who participate in the pilot-tests.
To assist bidders, an illustrative assessment description that shows one way of satisfying this section of the RFP is provided below.
Example of an Assessment Description
Overview: This assessment description and the illustrative tasks that follow it are intended for an eleventh- and twelfth-grade U.S. history course. If the skill in this assessment description is promoted at earlier grade levels in which U.S. history is taught, the language and cognitive complexity of the illustrative items will need to be simplified.
To measure this skill, the state must identify (and communicate to educators) eligible historical events for students to consider. As an example, the following historical events were identified as suitable by one district for its eleventh- and twelfth-grade U.S. history courses: Constitution, Territorial Expansion, Civil War, Reconstruction, Industrial Revolution, Imperialism, World War I, Depression, New Deal, World War II, Cold War, Civil Rights, Viet Nam, Communication Revolution.
Content Standard: Students will be able to draw upon historical lessons to deal with today's societal problems.
Assessment Description: Given a prose account of a real or fictitious current problem, as well as a proposed solution to that problem, students will be able to respond appropriately to any one or any combination of the following subtasks:
Subtask 1: Event Selection. Identify at least one significant historical event (such as the industrial revolution) that is, at least in part, germane to the problem and its proposed solution.
Subtask 2: Event Justification. Justify the relevance of the identified historical event(s) to the problem and its proposed solution.
Subtask 3: History-based Prediction. Make a defensible history-based prediction regarding the proposed solution's likely consequences.
Subtask 4: Defense of a Prediction. Support that prediction on the basis of parallels between the identified historical event(s) and the proposed problem-solution.
Students will be presented, orally or in writing, with a real or fictitious current day problem-situation along with a proposed solution to that problem. (See illustrative items below.) After they have had an opportunity to consider the problem and the proposed solution, they will be asked to supply written or oral responses to one or more of the four subtasks listed above.
Although they may be asked to supply responses to individual subtasks so that their mastery of those particular types of subtasks can be determined, all students will ultimately be required to respond to a comprehensive task such as the one illustrated below. When they respond to a comprehensive task, of course, they will be given a problem and proposed solution that are different from the ones used for individual subtasks.
Illustrative Tasks/Items. Directions: Read the fictitious problem described below as well as the proposed solution to that problem, then respond to each of the tasks indicated. (Note: These illustrative items would not be presented on the same test form.)
Nation A, a large, industrialized country whose population is almost 100,000,000, has ample resources, and is democratically governed. It also owns two groups of islands that, although distant, are rich in iron ore and petroleum.
Nation B, a country with far fewer natural resources and a population of only 40,000,000, is about one-third as large as Nation A. Although much less industrialized than Nation A, Nation B is as technologically advanced as Nation A. A three-member council of generals governs Nation B.
Recently, without any advance warning, Nation B ruthlessly attacked Nation A. As a consequence of this attack, more than half of Nation A's military equipment was destroyed. After its highly successful surprise attack, Nation B's rulers have proposed a "peace agreement" calling for Nation A to turn over its two groups of islands to Nation B. If Nation A does not concede the islands, Nation B's rulers have threatened all-out war.
Nation A's elected leaders are fearful of the consequences of the threatened war because their military equipment is now much weaker than that of Nation B. Nation A's leaders are faced with a choice between (1) peace obtained by giving up the islands or (2) war with a militarily stronger nation.
Nation A's leaders decide to declare that a state of war exists with Nation B. They believe that even though Nation B is now stronger, in the long term Nation A will prevail because of its greater industrial capability and richer natural resources.
|Task 1
|In an essay, drawing on your knowledge of American history, select one or more important historical events that are especially relevant to the fictitious situation described above. Then justify the relevance of your selection(s). Next, make a reasonable history-based prediction about the likely consequences of the decision by Nation A's leaders to go to war. Finally, defend your prediction based on the historical event(s) you have identified.
Note: The evaluation of a student's response to this four-step, comprehensive task will be based on the quality with which each of the following have been carried out: [1] event(s) selection, [2] event(s) justification, [3] history-based prediction, and [4] defense of prediction. Individual subtasks would, apart from the "War or Peace" illustration, require a different problem and proposed solution.
|Task 2
|In the spaces below, name one or more important events in American history that are particularly relevant to the problem and proposed solution described above.
|Task 3
|In an oral presentation of one-to-two minutes' duration, identify at least one important historical event that is especially pertinent to the situation described above, then justify why you believe this to be so.
|Task 4
|In the situation given in the above box, two fictitious nations are described. From the four choices below, choose the one answer presenting the two nations and the armed conflict most comparable to those described above.
- Nations: U.S. and Italy I; Conflict: World War I
- Nations: U.S. and North Korea; Conflict: Korean "Police Action"
- Nations: U.S. and Spain; Conflict: Spanish American War
- Nations: U.S. and Japan; Conflict: World War II
Requirement 3
The results of a state's assessment of high-priority content standards should be reported standard-by-standard for each student, school, and district.
Illustrative RFP-Language
Tasks that the successful bidder completes under Requirement 1 will result in a list of prioritized content standards. To satisfy this section of the RFP, bidders must provide DOE with strongly supported recommendations regarding which of the highest-priority content standards (see Requirement 2) will be assessed during the time available for testing [which the DOE addresses elsewhere in this RFP].
In addition, the tests that are developed in response to this RFP must enable the DOE and educators to make valid inferences about students' performance related to each content standard. Therefore, bidders must (a) specify the number of assessment items/tasks related to each standard, and (b) provide evidence that the tests they construct will yield accurate per-standard evidence of a student's performance.
Bidders also must provide the DOE with information on the probable accuracy of reporting test results standard-by-standard at various levels of aggregation. That is, bidders must supply estimates of the likely accuracy of per-standard reports of student performance at the state, district, school, and student levels. Similarly, bidders must provide probable accuracy-estimates at different reporting levels not only for total-group results, but also for disaggregated student groups (e.g., racial, disability, limited English proficiency, and gender subgroups). To ensure greater accuracy, bidders may choose to report results aggregated across standards in addition to per-standard reporting. If this is the case, the proposed procedures for such aggregation must be described.
At the same time, bidders must describe how per-standard test results will be reported to relevant constituencies, for example, to educators, parents, and students.
The DOE recognizes the technical problems associated with providing accurate estimates of individual student's performance on each content standard. Yet, it is our conviction that per-standard results, even results whose accuracy in certain instances will be somewhat reduced, will prove to be instructionally useful to educators who currently have no evidence about students' performance related to individual content standards.
Requirement 4
The state must provide educators with optional classroom assessment procedures that can measure students' progress in attaining content standards state tests do not assess.
Illustrative RFP-Language
As a consequence of prioritizing the state's content standards, many important standards will not be assessed by state tests that will be developed in response to this RFP. Nevertheless, these standards should be assessed. The DOE believes this can be done via classroom assessments that can either be developed by, or supplied to, educators. To this end, the DOE intends to make available optional classroom assessments the state's educators can use if they choose.
Therefore, bidders must describe how they would create assessment descriptions and build optional classroom assessments for the content standards that are not assessed on state tests. Each bidder's proposal must indicate awareness of the need to create (a) valid classroom assessments that busy educators are likely to use; and (b) reliable classroom assessments whose results schools and districts can report to the DOE for accountability purposes.
Bidders must describe the procedure they will use to choose the content standards designated for the generation of optional classroom assessments. DOE must approve the content standards finally selected for this activity.
For each content standard chosen, and at each grade level for which an optional classroom assessment is to be produced, bidders must create two forms of each assessment. This will provide educators more flexibility in how they use the assessments. For example, the assessments could be employed as instructional pretests and posttests. [Although these test do not need to be of equal difficulty psychometrically, bidders must create test forms that are reasonably similar in difficulty levels.]
Bidders must describe procedures they will employ to assess and provide the DOE with data on the optional classroom assessments' validity and reliability. To this end, bidders must describe how they have developed, piloted tested the assessments with students and educators, and revised and finalized the assessments. Each test form must be pilot-tested with students and educators. In addition, each test form should be pilot-tested on at least [six] students in a session in which students' reactions to the test are sought and documented after they complete the test form.
Because the costs associated with this activity will vary based on the number of tests produced, bidders should supply cost estimates for the assessments in [10-test] increments [(two forms per test)], that is, for [10] pairs of optional classroom assessments, [20] pairs of classroom assessments, etc.
The bidder must provide the DOE with recommendations for disseminating the optional classroom assessments to educators through online and print avenues. Any information educators need to administer, interpret, and/or score the assessments must be made available to the DOE at the time the classroom assessments are delivered. The assessments must be easy to use and easy to score.
Requirement 5
A state must monitor the breadth of the curriculum to ensure that instructional attention is given to all content standards and subject areas, including those that are not assessed by state tests.
Illustrative RFP-Language
State tests focused on high-priority content standards could inadvertently narrow curriculum coverage. Therefore, bidders must propose cost-effective methods that they will use to provide annual estimates of curricular coverage at the state, district, and school levels. These methods may reflect either qualitative or quantitative procedures, or a combination of both.
Bidders' proposed methods of monitoring curricular breadth should provide evidence regarding both the intended curriculum and the enacted curriculum. In other words, bidders must describe how they propose to monitor curricular aims as well as the curriculum that is actually implemented, which may or may not correspond closely with the intended curriculum. Bidders must make clear how their methods of monitoring curricular breadth would address this possibility.
In addition, bidders must propose a reasoned approach for reporting, and including in accountability processes, the results of local classroom assessments measuring standards that are not part of the state test (see Requirement 4). These local assessments must be an essential component of the monitoring of statewide curricular breadth.
Requirement 6
A state must ensure that all students have the opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of state standards; consequently, it must provide well-designed assessments appropriate for a broad range of students, with accommodations and alternate methods of assessment available for students who need them.
Illustrative RFP-Language
All students must have the opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of the same content standards. Therefore, to satisfy this section of the RFP, bidders must design state tests that allow the maximum number of students possible (and students with diverse characteristics) to take the same assessments without threat to the validity and comparability of the scores.
To this end, bidders must demonstrate how they will develop "universally designed assessments." Designed from the beginning to allow participation of the widest range of students, these assessments result in valid inferences about the performance of all students, including students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, and students with other special needs.
While universally designed assessments will not eliminate the need for all accommodations (e.g., tests in Braille or large print, extended time to take the test, individual test administration), they can significantly reduce the need for them. As important, universally designed assessments increase the variety of accommodations that can be used without threat to the validity and comparability of the scores. Overall, these assessments result in inclusive accountability measurement, and they provide instructionally supportive information across the full range of students.
Universal design processes do not change the definition of the construct measured by the assessment but focus instead on the following assessment-design characteristics that bidders should integrate into their test development procedures.
Test conceptualization. Bidders must define the construct(s) to be measured precisely and explicitly so tests measure the construct while minimizing the effects of irrelevant factors. Bidders also must include the full range of students in the definition of the target population that will take the assessments.
Test construction. Bidders must develop items that minimize the effects of extraneous factors (e.g., avoid unnecessary use of graphics that cannot be presented in Braille, use font size and white space appropriate for clarity and focus, avoid unnecessary linguistic complexity when it is not being assessed). Bidders also must provide for a full range of test performance to avoid ceiling or floor effects, and they must develop an item pool of sufficient size to permit the elimination of items that are not found to be universally appropriate during the test tryout and item analysis.
Test tryout, analysis, and revision. Bidders must include a full range of students in the tryout sample (e.g., students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, other students with special needs). Because there may be constraints in sampling due to the low numbers of students with specific characteristics, bidders may need to identify over-sampling strategies, (e.g., select groups of items for which additional sampling will occur). Bidders should include the use of accommodations during the test tryout.
As part of required test item analysis, bidders must analyze item characteristics to determine which items can be used with the full range of students and with accommodations. This includes examining items for evidence of disability bias and eliminating such items during test revision. Bidders must (a) include the full range of students and (b) use accommodations in any test administration conducted during tryout and revision.
Identification of other assessment methods. Bidders must describe how they will assist educators in devising alternative methods of assessing student progress (e.g., panel review, performance or portfolio assessment) for students who cannot take the universally designed state tests. Alternative methods must assess progress toward the same content standards and the same levels of performance that are assessed in the state tests. This requirement is in addition to any responsibility bidders must assume for developing federally required alternate assessments.
Requirement 7
A state must generally allow test developers a minimum of three years to produce statewide tests that satisfy Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and similar test-quality guidelines.
Illustrative RFP-Language
This RFP provides sufficient time (i.e., three years for a contractor to create new state tests) for bidders to meet the assessment profession's standards related to test construction. [The major timeline milestones set forth elsewhere in the RFP indicate the major deadlines with which bidders must comply.]
As described elsewhere in this RFP, bidders must describe how they intend to use the time provided to create state tests that satisfy the DOE's need for accountability evidence and also support educators' instructional efforts (see Requirements 2, 3, and 4). The DOE regards the precepts embodied in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing4as key to ensuring that state tests will be suitable for these purposes. Therefore, bidders must explain how they will comply with the Standards' stipulations (e.g., assembling compelling validity evidence).
Bidders also must describe any evaluative activities in which they will engage to ensure that the state tests and the optional classroom assessments (see Requirement 4) they produce, and any related deliverables or services, are of high quality. These evaluative activities might involve the use of "cognitive laboratories" in which small groups of students respond to test items and describe to members of a bidder's staff the nature of the intellectual operations that they have employed to complete the items. Bidders who choose to use such evaluative activities must describe the decision-rules they will employ to revise test items using evidence they have obtained from the activities.
If bidders plan to employ judgmental reviews of test items, the key elements of those reviews must be explicit. At a minimum, these reviews must address the item-quality issues embodied in the following four questions:
Standards congruence: Will students' responses to a test item help educators accurately determine whether students have demonstrated the knowledge and/or skill embodied in the designated content standard the item is intended to assess?
Out-of-school factors: Is the test item free of content that would make a student's likelihood of answering it correctly be dominantly influenced by factors other than what has been taught in school?
Instructional sensitivity: if a teacher has provided effective instruction related to this item's content standard, it is likely that most of the teacher's students will answer the item correctly?
Absence of bias: Is a test item essentially free of content that might offend or unfairly penalize students because of personal characteristics such as race, gender, religion, primary language, or disability?
Bidders who plan to use judgmental reviews of test items must describe the key elements of those reviews. To clarify the DOE's intent, a review process is described below. Bidders are free to modify this process or use another procedure.
Example of a Process to Review Assessment Descriptions and Test Items
Because well-formed assessment descriptions will play a pivotal role in the subsequent review of potential test items, it is important to refine all assessment descriptions as soon as possible. Therefore, the bidder will convene committees of experienced educators to review both the assessment descriptions (by mail) and the pool of proposed test items (in person).] These committees, one for each content area and grade level for which a test is being constructed and consisting of [20-30] members, can be described as [Materials Review Committees (MRCs)]. DOE personnel will designate the membership of each MRC, but most members will be classroom teachers or those who work closely with classroom teachers. The bidder will be responsible for recruiting members for the MRCs, although DOE will supply a list of potential invitees [plus suitable cover letters inviting participation in an MRC]. The bidder also will prepare an invitational letter for potential MRC participants. That letter, approved by DOE, will describe the state tests the bidder is developing and how the MRC's review of assessment descriptions and test items fits into test development.
As a first step in the review, the bidder will provide each MRC member with the prioritized content standards that the state test is designed to measure and will draft assessment descriptions for each standard. Each content standard and assessment description is intended to provide educators with clear descriptions of the cognitive skills assessed by the state test.
Bidders will ask reviewers to (a) read each content standard and its accompanying draft assessment description and (b) evaluate each description's usefulness in instructional planning and ease of use. Reviewers' judgments should be made in response to the following questions or to improved versions of these questions suggested by the bidder. [Abbreviated versions of these questions also could be provided to reviewers as they rate assessment descriptions.]
Usefulness for instructional planning: 1. After reading the content standard on which this assessment description is based, and the description itself, would educators have a sufficiently clear idea of the cognitive demands required of students to plan effective instruction for students related to the content being measured? (Reviewers would respond: definitely yes, probably yes, probably not, or definitely not.) 2. If you have suggestions for improving this assessment description's usefulness for instructional planning, please supply them below.
Ease of Use: Is the assessment description sufficiently understandable and concise so that most educators would find it easy to read and use? (Reviewers would respond: definitely yes, probably yes, probably not, or definitely not.) 2. If you have suggestions for making the assessment more useful to educators, please supply them below.
Bidders will supply MRC members with pre-stamped envelopes to return their reactions to the draft assessment descriptions. After those reactions have been considered, it is likely that some of the descriptions will need to be modified, thereby leading to another round of by-mail MRC reactions to any modified assessment descriptions. Appropriate DOE staff must approve all modifications. It is imperative that when the MRCs meet to review test items, they have assessment descriptions to work with that the vast majority of MRC members have judged to be easy for educators to use and useful in instructional planning.
As a second step in the review, bidders will convene members of the MRC to review test items under conditions that are carefully monitored by members of the bidder's staff. The bidder must describe in detail the security procedures it will employ during these item-review sessions. Moreover, the main elements of the item-review procedure should be described when bidders respond to this RFP. For example, the nature of any planned orientation the bidder will provide MRC members must be well described.
The bidder may choose to use an item-review process in which reviewers:
- Individually answer specified questions for each test item in a subset of items.
- As a group consider the subset of items to see if any need to be modified.
- Individually examine any test items that have been altered.
- As a group reconsider any altered items.
Bidders may propose other item-review procedures, which they must describe in detail. In addition to the test items, reviewers need the final assessment description for each content standard as well as the content standard. The review process suggested here is particularly useful if MRCs review items in subsets of [10-15] items. The individual/ group procedure continues until all items have been reviewed.
The item-review questions the MRC members answer must address, at least, the item-quality issues embodied in the following four questions:
Standards congruence: Will students' responses to a test item help educators accurately determine whether students have demonstrated the knowledge and/or skill embodied in the designated content standard the item is intended to assess?
Out-of-school factors: Is the test item free of content that would make a student's likelihood of answering it correctly dominantly influenced by factors other than what has been taught in school?
Instructional sensitivity: If a teacher has provided effective instruction related to this item's content standard, is it likely that most of the teacher's students will answer the item correctly?
Absence of bias: Is a test item essentially free of content that might offend or unfairly penalize students because of personal characteristics such as race, gender, religion, primary language, or disability?
Bidders may propose the use of additional item review questions. It should be noted that this suggested review process requires bidders to have indicated (at item-review time) the chief content standard that each item is intended to assess.
The length of time the MRC meets depends on the number of items to be reviewed. Based on experience in conducting item-review meetings, bidders should propose and defend the probable length of such meetings. [Bidders will be responsible for all travel-related expenses associated with the MRC meetings and for any stipends paid MRC members.]
At the conclusion of each MRC session, the bidder will summarize the review data on all evaluative dimensions employed (e.g., for each of four questions cited above). Then the bidder and the DOE will designate test items deemed suitable for field-testing. The vast majority of the items selected for field-testing will have received positive evaluations on all evaluative dimensions employed during the MRC sessions.
Bidders are to describe, in sufficient detail, the procedures they intend to employ to ensure item security. For example, if particular types of item-monitoring procedures are to be used in order to maintain security of the item pool, those procedures should be explicated in a bidder's proposal. Any type of confidentiality form that bidders will ask MRC members to sign should also be described.
Requirement 8
A state must ensure that educators receive professional development focused on how to optimize children's learning based on the results of instructionally supportive assessments.
Illustrative RFP-Language
This requirement, which ties professional development to the state's testing program, is intended to remind bidders that test information needs to be acted on, not left simply as a report to schools, school districts, and the state. The DOE intends for professional development to be an integral part of the state's testing program so that assessment results inform instructional improvement.
Suitable professional development involves educators in the design, implementation, and continuous improvement of a variety of strategies that result in building knowledge and skills to improve instruction in schools and classrooms. Therefore, the DOE anticipates development of an assessment-related professional development system that includes components such as: [e.g., linkages among practitioners within content or subject areas; best practice networks; collaborative analyses by educators of exemplary videotaped lessons; availability of training and support on a variety of effective instructional and assessment strategies.]
Although it will be the DOE's responsibility to coordinate these assessment-related professional development activities, the DOE fully expects bidders to cooperate in its conceptualization of these professional development activities. Moreover, the DOE expects the contractor to provide assessment-relevant insights about how to make the professional development program most effective.
Therefore, bidders must describe the kinds of contributions dealing with assessment and/or instruction that they plan to make to the development and, possibly, delivery of professional development activities to support the state and optional classroom assessments they are developing in response to this RFP.
Among the bidders' suggestions should be a demonstration of how educators can use disaggregated student performance data to design differentiated instructional strategies so that all subgroups of students are achieving at high levels. For example, bidders may demonstrate how reports of assessment results for districts, schools, and individual students can be used in instructional planning. Similarly, bidders may describe how they will develop a training package to assist educators in using assessment data for instructional decision making.
Requirement 9
A state should secure evidence that supports the ongoing improvement of its state assessments to ensure those assessments are (a) appropriate for the accountability purposes for which they are used, (b) appropriate for determining whether students have attained state standards, (c) appropriate for enhancing instruction, and (d) not the cause of negative consequences.
Illustrative RFP-Language
Because the requirements in this RFP specify state tests and optional classroom assessments that will change the nature of the state's assessment program, the DOE is interested in receiving bids from contractors to evaluate the assessment program.
Therefore, successful bidders must function independently from any test contractor(s) involved in the development of state tests and optional classroom assessments, and in the implementation of the assessment system. In addition, these independent evaluators must have expertise and experience in designing and conducting program evaluations, reporting results, and using results for program improvement. Bidders must describe the formative and summative evaluation procedures they will use to identify strategies for continually improving the state's assessment system.
The evaluative procedures bidders employ must provide the DOE with information about whether state assessments are:
- appropriate for the accountability purposes for which they are used;
- appropriate for determining students' attainment of the state's content standards;
- sensitive to instructional quality; and
- not the cause of negative consequences for students, educators, schools, and school districts.
To satisfy this section of the RFP, bidders must include in their proposals:
- initial evaluation questions linked to the primary four areas of interest above;
- initial data gathering strategies, including qualitative and quantitative strategies as appropriate;
- initial analysis strategies in each of the primary four areas of interest, including a description of stakeholder involvement as meaning is derived from the data; and
- proposed interim and final report formats and strategies for building consensus for recommendations to change the system.
In addition, because the evaluation activities will be conducted in collaboration with the DOE, bidders must describe the nature of any expectations regarding the DOE's participation in evaluation design and implementation.
A Final Reminder
This report is designed to assist states that may choose to issue RFPs that solicit contractors to assist in the development of state tests and optional classroom systems advocated by the Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment. The RFP-language provided here illustrates ways in which an RFP might be worded. It should not be concluded that the Commission's members, either individually or collectively, are recommending one way for states to proceed.
1Building Tests To Support Accountability and Instruction: A Guide for Policymakers, is available online from the associations that convened the Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment.
2States will need to make sure that any illustrative language in this report meshes with the manner in which their content standards have been developed and approved.
3Department of Education (DOE) is used throughout the report to designate the state agency responsible for issuing RFPs. Some states use different designations for this agency, or issue RFPs through another state agency.


text: Yet another Hallberg-Rassy victory in ARC The German Hallberg-Rassy 54 "Bluewater Mooney" is the winner of the ARC 2015, class D. She is the fastest boat in the category, both on actual time... Read more 21 December 2015 Hallberg-Rassy Calendar 2016 The 2016 calendar is here. For the 9th consecutive year, Hallberg-Rassy releases a calendar with only owner supplied photos from all over the globe.... Read more 20 December 2015 Hallberg-Rassy 54 category winner in ARC Plus The Swedish Hallberg-Rassy 54 "Anorak" has won her class in ARC+ from Cap Verde to the Caribbean. ARC+ is a rally over the Atlantic from Gran... Read more 12 December 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award to Germán Frers Hallberg-Rassy's Designer Germán Frers from Argentina, has received "Lifetime Achievement Award" by the British magazine Sailing Today. "Germán's... Read more 26 November 2015 New book about weather at sea A new book about weather at sea has been realeased by long time Hallberg-Rassy sailor and meteorologist Anders Ljungkvist. Anders has also held... Read more 25 November 2015 ARC party 2015 The traditional Hallberg-Rassy Party for all participating Hallberg-Rassy crews in the ARC has just been held. The party was very appreciated. 11... Read more 20 November 2015 Interview at Sittbrunnen.se There is an interview in Swedish on the sailing news web page Sittbrunnen.se: http://sittbrunnen.se/nyheter2/maenniskor/1471-magnus-rassy Read more 22 October 2015 Hallberg-Rassy 43 Mk III nominated for Boat of the Year We are happy to announce that the Hallberg-Rassy 43 Mk III has been nominated for the Boat of the Year 2016 by Cruising World magazine in the USA in... Read more 12 October 2015 PodCast interview on 59 degrees North There is a one hour 7 minutes podcast interview published by the popular and interesting web site 59 degrees North. Please follow the link below. h... Read more 11 October 2015 16th traditional Hallberg-Rassy owners meeting in Maryland, USA For the 16th time, Hallberg-Rassy dealer Free State Yachts in Maryland, USA, arranged a meeting for current and future Hallberg-Rassy owners in Deale.... Read more 09 October 2015 Page 1 of 4. 1 2 3 4 Next

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I've had a little delay, my camera's battery charger is on the fritz, I've been trying to take photos with it and couldn't figure out why i kept getting the low battery symbol. I tried several times over the past few weeks to charge it, but then I noticed (duh) that the little red light on the charger is not on. So I've been looking around, driven to several stores that should have this charger, but to no avail. I will be victorious and locate a charger (very determined). I haven't been able to post photos of my new adventures - SPINNING!!!!
So far I've done a little spindling (thought I would be more coordinated - maybe it will all come together very soon). I've sat at several spinning wheels and checked out the treadle on them. So far I have liked the Schacht Lady Bug and Ashford Joy, their treadle is comfortable for me. I was absolutely mesmerized by Majacrafts Little Gem and I hope to try it this Sunday, I LOVE the looks of this spinning wheel. I believe that spinning wheels must have some kinda pheromones that cast a spell on you!
Today was a gathering of spinners and knitters at the cutest place, the place is a store front on a main street in Long Beach that has been converted to a charming apartment, the bedroom is a loft space above and my new spinning friends were so charming welcoming me into their home and making me feel like we've been chums for a very long time. These wonderful gentlemen recently rescued two of the cutest dogs, one just two weeks ago was abandoned at a local dog park and came home with them (she is a darling little terrier they've named Lola and she totally captured me - I am putty in her little paws)
I want to thank Jan who has been the kindest of friends - she is full of life and it has been so much fun meeting all these new people. Guess it was time in my life to open the door and live a little larger! Love to you all. REALLY HOPE TO BE ABLE TO POST PHOTOS ASAP!!!!!
Read With Us: Wild Game Reminder - Hello friends! Dale and I are off to Boston this morning for an appointment with his orthopedic surgeon. Yesterday marked 13 weeks since his accident and t...
3 hours ago


text:
Guyer encouraged by X-ray results on thumb
ST. PETERSBURG -- Rays outfielder Brandon Guyer, who is on the 15-day disabled list with a fractured left thumb, got his cast off on Monday. He had his thumb X-rayed again, and it did not show a fracture.
"I kind of assumed when they re-X-rayed it, it would still show the fracture on the X-ray, but that it would be something I could work through," Guyer said. "The fact that it didn't show that was a great surprise."
Guyer, who also broke a finger last year with Triple-A Durham, said his thumb was stiff from being in a cast for two weeks, but he felt a lot better than he thought he would.
"I guess I didn't even think I'd be able to move it like I am right now, or that the first day out of the cast I'd be able to do tee work, so the fact that I was able to do that was a good positive," Guyer said.
Guyer hit off a tee Monday, and he also caught with a glove for the first time. He said he plans to do front-toss hitting on Tuesday, with coach-pitch batting practice likely to follow on Wednesday.
Guyer said he does not have a timetable for his return to game action, saying only that he hoped his original goal of mid-June was still realistic and that a couple of rehab outings would be enough to get his timing back down.
For now, Guyer has medical tape to wear on his thumb when he plays or does drills, and a splint to wear when he sleeps.
"[Guyer's] finger seems to be healing well," manager Joe Maddon said. "[Head athletic trainer Ron Porterfield] was very encouraged by what they saw on the X-ray, whatever they took today, and that he can be doing some active stuff by this weekend."


text:
Friday, February 15, 2013
Begging For Candy
6 comments:
- bean said...
I LOVE this one. So clever and funny.
- February 15, 2013 at 6:55 AM
- crudedoodle.com said...
ha. I definitely have that at work my boss is so mean. When she's finally nice, you catch yourself overreacting and laughing giddily/crazily because it feels so good.
Oh man...i really DO have it.
- February 15, 2013 at 7:32 AM
- Rot said...
Dude, that's HORRIBLE.
- February 15, 2013 at 8:25 AM
- Jay's Shadow said...
Ha! :D
I definitely don't have that. Especially at at my work. I have one of those bosses that likes to treat you stupid all the time, and then acts all nice to you.
Thats when I usually stare at him envisioning a favorite horror madman hacking away.....
- February 15, 2013 at 8:39 AM
- Wikkedmoon said...
I love starting off my Friday morning with a good laugh. All of y'all crack me up.
- February 15, 2013 at 10:28 AM
- Ragged Grin said...
I can't relate...but my goodness, leave....
I have a boss, I'm lucky that I'm at a point where they know I could easily leave and do well if not better. A situation like that, man I dunno, wish you luck.
- February 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM


text:
Just a few months after the launch of its first handsets, Finnish smartphone startup Jolla has announced that Sailfish OS, the Linux-derived operating system that powers its devices, has reached version 1.0.
What's more, the company says that Android users will soon be able to try out Sailfish OS on a wide range of devices.
Jolla's kit first went on sale in November via the web and in select retail stores in Finland. Since then, the company has shipped three major software updates for the devices, and Sailfish OS 1.0 will arrive as a fourth update in early March.
"We believe that Jolla now offers a truly viable option for all smartphone users," Jolla COO Marc Dillon said in a statement [PDF]. "Naturally we are not stopping here, as we continue to provide monthly software updates to Jolla devices and Sailfish OS."
Dillon is just one of several ex-Nokia execs who founded Jolla in 2012 to revive MeeGo, the mobile Linux variant that Nokia abandoned when its then-CEO Stephen Elop inked an exclusive deal with Microsoft to ship nothing but Windows Phone.
Under Jolla's care, MeeGo morphed into Sailfish OS, gaining a novel, gesture-based UI and an Android compatibility layer along the way.
Now the Finnish firm says the fruits of its efforts will soon become more broadly available to Android users, in the form of a set of OS images for popular smartphones and a downloadable Sailfish OS UI launcher app.
Sailfish OS ports have already been developed for several popular Samsung Galaxy, Google Nexus, and Sony Xperia phones, and Jolla plans to make them available for download during the first half of 2014.
"We see this as a huge volume opportunity for Sailfish OS as there are close to a billion Android users globally," said Jolla chairman Antti Saarnio. "Many of them are looking for new user experiences to freshen up their existing devices. Last year in China alone, about 100 million devices were re-flashed after the purchase with a new operating system."
Before it ships flashable Sailfish OS images, however, Jolla plans to first release an app that simulates the Sailfish OS user experience on Android devices. The company says it will make the app available from various Android app stores and Jolla.com, though it gave no firm timetable.
Jolla phones are currently selling for €399 to customers in EU countries, Switzerland, and Norway via Jolla's online store, and to Finnish customers through DNA retail shops. Jolla plans to demo its hardware and Sailfish OS 1.0 at the Mobile World Conference in Barcelona from February 24–27. ®
In the months since its public launch, Jolla has been lining up partnerships with companies to support its phones and Sailfish OS. F-Secure will soon offer Jolla customers gigabytes of cloud storage through its younited service, while Tieto will offer Sailfish OS integration services to OEMs. And on a lighter note, Jolla has teamed up with Finnish games maker Rovio to develop a The Other Half smart cover that will skin Jolla phones with unique graphics, sounds, and other content from its bestselling franchise, Angry Birds. Bet you can't wait for that one.


text:
Campaigning against the influence of creationism in the UK Science Classroom
Moderator: Moderators
ProfessorTertius wrote:I'm impressed by the speed, skill, and thoroughness of the rebuttals of Dr. Janis' posts from Frank & Co. since she posted on May 30.
And Cowardly Cowboy Bob's mastery of science in a wide variety of fields is being displayed on his Facebook pages and blogs on a daily basis. (I don't think scientists have yet catalogued the ever growing number of C.C. Bob websites. In the quality versus quantity category, I think it is safe to say that C.C. Bob has clearly made his choice of prefered strategies.)
No doubt in both the case of Frank and C.C. Bob, their well-known modesty has led them to hold back and ration their impressive displays of scientific knowledge and insightful thinking in order to avoid alienating the average reader who is gasping just to keep up with them.
This kind of "modesty" among science-denialists, especially the Young Earth Creationists like C.C. Bob, has been necessary because of the steady stream of professional and academic honors bestowed upon "creation science" advocates over the past half century. And even the relatively new Intelligent Design movement has the countless scientific discoveries of the aptly named "Discovery Institute" to reflect upon with pride. It is easy to see why they and their supporters have had to restrain their gloating whenever the achievements of their "scientists" are lauded in the press.
Yes, when the CVs and streams of scientific papers are so impressive, it is easy to see why they must make extra effort to appear humble. And how often has C. C. Bob demanded that readers become aware of the academic credentials of his opponents rather than his own? (One never sees any mention of Bob's academic and publishing accomplishments. Truly, if everyone followed Bob's example as a scientific pioneer and educator, the scientific world would be a very different place!) And who has not read C. C. Bob's websites while considering how well they model the meaning of truly Christ-like behavior and overwhelming love for even his enemies? I can honestly say that I've never read C. C. Bob's descriptions of me without feeling truly blessed and thankful. It often brings to mind the old saying, "There, but by the grace of God, go I." Yes, reading his carefully chosen words always leaves me feeling just a little better about my life's work. Thank you, C. C. Bob.
I also thank Frank for giving readers such clearly defined choices. I think it is safe to say that---thanks to Frank---the choices couldn't be any more clear.
"This clearly has nothing to do with science despite the unenforced rules of the forum."
This clearly has nothing to do with science despite the unenforced rules of the forum.
So why don't you post some science, Mr. Gordons? Tell you what: contacting my department chair, as you did recently in an email in an attempt to make trouble for me, would be appropriate here, as he might be able to teach you some science. Well, he might try, at any rate.
Attacking people instead of ideas is contrary to science but are common on this forum.
I quoted some of what was not related to science and did not belong in this thread. You made additional statements that are not science. Attacking people instead of ideas is contrary to science but are common on this forum.
Christine Janis wrote:Frank wrote:Whenever I describe the details of the functioning of the CV system, it shows how irrational evolution is and you cannot answer."
I guess my response to you here "whenever I describe how the CV system could have evolved, you switch the topic to the renal system, or the mammalian diaphragm" or something else because you have no response to science.
Christine Janis wrote:If only your buddy Bob was correct, and I were indeed a "pretend professor". Then I'd have oodles of time to pen a detailed response to you statements, which basically consist of describing the human CV system as if it was unique among organisms (which, of course, it is not). I will respond...
Christine Janis wrote:Frank wrote:1 If evolution were true, we'd expect that organisms would share some similar anatomical structures. (if p then q)
2 Organisms do share some similarity in their anatomical structures. (q)
3 Therefore, evolution is true. (therefore p)
No, Frank, that is not my argument, it's your parody of it.
Christine Janis wrote:Meanwhile, here is one example of the debates that I have had with you.
Frank. Evolution of the cardiovascular system is impossible because it would be impossible to have an animal that had a double circulatory system with a lung without a divided heart.
Me: Here is are examples of animals living today that have exactly that system. Basal ray-finned fish such as Polypterus (reed fish), Amia (bowfin), Lepisosteus (garpike), and many basal teleosts.
Frank: That's irrelevant because you can't explain how the lung evolved.
Christine Janis wrote:Frank wrote:It was pointed out that autonomic innervation involves receptors, neural processing, a preganglionic neuron, a ganglion, a postganglionic neuron, and signal transmission at chemical synapses via neurotransmitter molecules. Janis has failed to provide an evolutionary explanation for autonomic innervation of the CV system
It was pointed out to you that hagfish lack any kind of autonomic innervation of the heart, and that fish (over half the vertebrate species alive today) lack sympathetic innervation of the heart. Yet you persist in claiming that a heart cannot function without the type of innervation seen in humans. You are wrong.
Christine Janis wrote:Frank wrote:3. Fails to provide an evolutionary explanation for heart chambers, heart valves, endocardium, myocardium, epicardium, pericardium or cardiac conduction.
4. Fails to explain how the single circulation CV system supposedly evolved into the dual circulation CV system.
What I've done here is to provide anatomical descriptions of living vertebrates that possess the anatomical systems that you deem impossible.
Christine Janis wrote:I could indeed provide an evolutionary explanation for these structures. What would be the point, as you would then claim that I'm just '`waving my evolutionary wand"? Hence, I have been sticking to the anatomy, something that you, strangely, accuse me of avoiding.
Christine Janis wrote:But, in any case, it's clear to me that you lack the knowledge in comparative anatomy to understand any evolutionary description here that I could give.
Christine Janis wrote:...You're simply not equipped for a debate about this topic, as all you know about (or, at least, can copy and paste about) is the human condition.
Christine Janis wrote:Before making any other reply to Frank's revised set of posts claiming victory before I even replied to him (see at least an initial one below), I need to right a claim that he makes repeatedly about something that I said, which he uses as his main evidence that I don't understand the CV system.
In his first post (p. 1) he lists:1. Doesn't even understand how the CV system functions. Claims that the heart evolved in this sequence: myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction. The heart won't function without cardiac conduction, so the vertebrate would be dead.
This response from me was the result of his demanding that I tell him what order features of the heart evolved in (p.2)What was the order in which the following parts of the vertebrate cardiovascular system supposedly evolved in: myocardium, coronary arteries and veins, heart valves, cardiac conduction, erythrocytes, plasma proteins and a closed system of blood vessels?
To which I replied (also on p. 2).I believe it's clear from my writings here. Myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction and (likely, I'd need to look this up) plasma proteins are present in amphioxus, a non-vertebrate chordate. Erythrocytes are added in all vertebrates, and a completely closed system in all vertebrates above the level of the hagfish. Coronary vessels are acquired independently in teleost fish, mammals, and archosaurs.
Frank then later, claims several times (but I'm noting one in particular on p. 5) that I reveal that I know nothing about the CV system because I claim that myocardium and heart valves evolved before a cardiac conduction system.This is what you wrote previously about the sequence in the supposed evolution of the heart: "I believe it's clear from my writings here. Myocardium, valves, cardiac conduction...", so you did state that you believed that heart valves evolved before cardiac conduction, which is complete nonsense.
Now, I don't know whether this is Frank practicing the age-old creationist gambit of quote mining (as it is clear from my original writing, from the words after the ones he cites, that there is no order implied within those three words, and that the only contained order is in their order in the sentence), or whether he is simply incapable of understanding anything that I write. Neither option reflects well on him.
Christine Janis wrote:But the real problem here is that Frank simply doesn't understand how science works, or what science can tell us, as also revealed by his frequent reference to "origins" science and "operations" [sic] science...<snip>
Christine Janis wrote:...And, in actuality, evidence from the CV system could indeed pose a problem for evolution: if, for example, the hearts of mammals were completely different from, and non-homologous with (at the anatomical, developmental, and genetic levels) those of other vertebrates, then this could constitute falsification of evolution. <snip>
Christine Janis wrote:Frank wrote:Phylogenetics only shows nested hierarchies of biological characteristics. It depicts a simplistic view of the internal structure of living organisms and it fails to demonstrate evolution. An ancestor-descendant relationship could be imagined between a two-wheeled motorbike, a three-wheeled motorbike and a four-wheeled automobile, but it fails to demonstrate how one machine supposedly transformed itself into another.
Of course, a phylogeny doesn't depict anything about any nature of an organism, any more than the periodic table shows the nature of chemical reactions. <snip>
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


text:
Posts Tagged 'death penalty'
Why hate crime should never be mistaken for 'discussion'
Question: When is free speech not free speech?
Answer: When it's oppression.
Like a lot of you, I've been following the recent debate about homosexuality and the death penalty on BBC Africa's 'Have Your Say' forum with a curious mix of disgust and fascination.
I would never call myself a political kind of guy, and much as I don't want to launch into some long winded diatribe about what I deem to be right and wrong, I have to say my piece.
Seriously, BBC – what were you thinking? Since when did it become acceptable to debate whether genocide is a valid option because a few superstitious barbarian leaders are getting their knickers in a twist over the fact that sometimes boys like doing each other?
Perhaps even more sickening (and worrying) are some of the follow up comments on the forum:
"Totally agree. Ought to be imposed in the UK too, ASAP. Bring back some respectable family values. Why do we have to suffer 'gay pride' festivals?" asked Chris in Guildford.
Because of people like you, you insipid moron.
It's ironic that as an intelligent, well rounded gay man, I can't naturally have what I would imagine to be equally intelligent, well rounded kids, yet bigoted halfwits like you are able to breed freely.
People like you are the reason I march at Pride every year. Why I'm proud to stand up and be counted alongside my gay brethren. People like you are like fuel to me; the reason I refuse to be bowed or cower and hide who I am.
You don't like gay people? Well stop having gay babies, then.
Let's play devil's advocate for a minute.
The BBC (the people that brought you Nick Griffin on Question Time – enough said) wanted to provoke discussion ahead of the latest edition of 'Africa Have Your Say'. By creating such a sensation and publishing it as a forum, they've ensured the subsequent outcry takes the issue at hand and cleaves it into the public consciousness like an axe blow to the temple.
So let me put this one out there:
What if I took every instance of the word 'gay' or 'homosexual in that article and replaced it with 'Jew'? Would the BBC be so quick to allow free discussion? If the internet had been around in Hitler's time, would we not have seen something shockingly similar in a forum about the Jewish community?
If we go with this line of thinking, validating the execution of homosexuals technically means that we should also think of the Holocaust as a 'necessary measure'.
There are better ways of raising awareness. As my (straight) friend Simon so eloquently put it: "The fact that the BBC hosted this as discussion, rather than a straight condemnation of such an abhorrent and evil 'law' sickens me."
And to the people of Uganda – there are much, much bigger things in this world you need to worry about than men having sex with each other.
War and famine, for instance.
Perhaps President Yoweri Museveni should look a little closer to home to see where the real problem with his country lies…


text:
Now, it's time for White Sox fans to take notice of Rios. The center fielder has played Gold Glove-caliber defense in center. He leads the White Sox with a .315 average, while knocking out 11 home runs and driving in 27. Rios has fanned just 21 times in 178 at-bats, and with 16 stolen bases, he's on pace to become the franchise's first 30-30 man in a single season.
Yet, Rios sits on the outside looking in of the top 15 vote-getters among American League outfielders in the second round of online voting, with the results released on Tuesday.
Fans can cast their votes for starters up to 25 times at MLB.com and all 30 club sites using the 2010 All-Star Game MLB.com Ballot sponsored by Sprint until July 1 at 10:59 p.m. CT. Sprint subscribers can now vote on the go with select Sprint devices. They can learn more about how to vote on their smart phones at MLB.com/Sprint.
So go vote!


text:
Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more all for only $19.99...
The custom of burning the bodies of the dead dates back to very early times. The Pre-Canaanites practised it until the introduction of inhumation among them along with the civilization of the Semitic people about 2500 B.C. History reveals no trace of incineration among the Jewish people, except in extraordinary circumstances of war and pestilence. It was likewise unknown, in practice at least, to the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians; or to the inhabitants of Asia Minor the Carians, Lydians, and Phrygians. The Babylonians, according to Herodotus, embalmed their dead, and the Persians punished capitally such as attempted cremation, special regulations being followed in the purification of fire so desecrated. The Greeks and Romans varied in their practice according to their views of the after life; those who believed in a future existence analogous to the present buried their dead, even leaving food in the tomb for nourishment and enjoyment of the departed; such as, on the other hand, held the opinion that on the decay of the body life was continued in the shade or image, practised cremation, the more expeditiously to speed the dead to the land of shadows. But the practice of cremating never entirely superseded what Cicero tells us (De Leg., II, xxii) was the older rite among the Roman people. Indeed the Cornelian gens, one of the most cultured in Rome, had, with the single exception of Sulla, never permitted the burning of their dead. By the fifth century of the Christian Era, owing in great part to the rapid progress of Christianity, the practice of cremation had entirely ceased.
The Christians never burned their dead, but followed from earliest days the practice of the Semitic race and the personal example of their Divine Founder. It is recorded that in times of persecution many risked their lives to recover the bodies of martyrs for the holy rites of Christian burial. The pagans, to destroy faith in the resurrection of the body, often cast the corpses of martyred Christians into the flames, fondly believing thus to render impossible the resurrection of the body. What Christian faith has ever held in this regard is clearly put by the third-century writer Minucius Felix, in his dialogue "Octavius", refuting the assertion that cremation made this resurrection an impossibility: "Nor do we fear, as you suppose, any harm from the [mode of] sepulture, but we adhere to the old, and better, custom" ("Nec, ut creditis, ullum damnum sepulturae timemus sed veterem et meliorem consuetudinem humandi frequentamus" P.L., III, 362).
In all the legislation of the Church the placing of the body in the earth or tomb was a part of Christian burial. In the acts of the Council of Braga (Hardouin III, 352), in the year 563, while we read that bodies of the dead are by no means to be buried within the basilicas where rest the remains of Apostles and martyrs, we are told that they may be buried without the wall; and that if cities have long forbidden the interment of the dead within their walls, with much greater right should the reverence due the holy martyrs claim this privilege. The same may be seen in the canons of other councils e.g. of Nantes, between the seventh and ninth centuries; of Mainz, in the ninth century; of Tribur, in the ninth century. This legislation evidently supposes the long-standing custom of burial such as the Church practises today, and shows that in the sixth century, in other places than Rome, where even today the old law of the Twelve Tables exerts a moral influence, the Church had so far conquered the prejudice of the past as to have gained the privilege of burying her dead within the city walls and within the enclosure of the churchyard. Once in the course of the Middle Ages did there seem to be on the part of some a retrogression to the pagan ideals, and as a consequence Boniface VIII, on 21 February, 1300, in the sixth year of his pontificate, promulgated a law which was in substance as follows: They were ipso facto excommunicated who disembowelled bodies of the dead or inhumanly boiled them to separate the flesh from the bones, with a view to transportation for burial in their native land. "Detestandae feritatis abusum", he calls it, and it was practised in case of those of noble rank who had died outside of their own territory and had expressed a wish to be buried at their place of birth. He speaks of it as an abomination in the sight of God and horrifying to the minds of the faithful, decreeing that, thereafter, such bodies are either to be conveyed whole to the spot chosen or buried at the place of death until, in the course of nature, the bones can be removed for burial elsewhere. Those who were party to these enormities either as the cause or agent of their occurrence were to incur excommunication reserved to the Holy See, while the body thus inhumanly treated could not afterward be given ecclesiastical burial ("Extrav. Comm.", Lib. III, Tit. vi, c. i.).
This rigid adherence to the principles of the early teaching of the Church may be seen in the later decrees of the Roman Congregations. The Vicar Apostolic of Viznagapatam, in the year 1884, proposed the following difficulty to the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda: The bodies of two neophytes had been cremated, the parents testifying that there had been no idolatrous ceremonies. Should the missioners in such cases protest against what is considered a privilege of caste, or may the following present practice be tolerated? If a pagan seeks baptism at the hour of death, the missioner grants it, without questioning what mode of sepulture is to be given the body after death, persuaded that the pagan parents will make no account of his desire to be buried, not cremated. The answer was: "You must not approve of cremation, but remain passive in the matter and confer baptism; be careful also to instruct your people according to the principles which you set forth" (Cremationem approbare non debes, sed passive te habeas, collato semper baptismate, et populos instruendos cures juxta ea quae a te exponuntur). This was given on 27 September, 1884. In 1886 another decree forbade membership in cremation societies and declared the unlawfulness of demanding cremation for one's own body or that of another. On 15 December in the same year a third decree was issued of more or less the same tenor, and finally on 27 July, 1892, the Archbishop of Freiburg, among other questions, asked whether it was lawful to cooperate in the cremation of bodies either by command or counsel, or to take part as doctor, official, or labourer working in the crematory. It was answered that formal co-operation, the assent of the will to the deed, is never allowed, either by command or counsel. Material co-operation, the mere aiding in the physical act, may be tolerated on condition
The legislation of the Church in forbidding cremation rests on strong motives; for cremation in the majority of cases today is knit up with circumstances that make of it a public profession of irreligion and materialism. It was the Freemasons who first obtained official recognition of this practice from various governments. The campaign opened in Italy, the first attempts being made by Brunetti, at Padua, in 1873. Numerous societies were founded after this, at Dresden, Zurich, London, Paris. In the last city a crematory was established at Pere Lachaise, on the passing of the law of 1889 dealing with freedom of funeral rites. The Church has opposed from the beginning a practice which has been used chiefly by the enemies of the Christian Faith. Reasons based on the spirit of Christian charity and the plain interests of humanity have but strengthened her in her opposition. She holds it unseemly that the human body, once the living temple of God, the instrument of heavenly virtue, sanctified so often by the sacraments, should finally be subjected to a treatment that filial piety, conjugal and fraternal love, or even mere friendship seems to revolt against as inhuman. Another argument against cremation, and drawn from medico-legal sources, lies in this: That cremation destroys all signs of violence or traces of poison, and makes examination impossible, whereas a judicial autopsy is always possible after inhumation, even of some months.
Is cremation a sign of culture?
The report of the French Cremation Society of 1905 has the following: "There exist in Europe 90 crematories...and the number of incinerations is above 125,000." In France there are 3 crematories, in the United Stated 29, in Great Britain 12, in Italy 30, in Germany 9, in Switzerland 4, in Sweden 2, in Denmark, Canada, the Argentine Republic, Australia, one each. "Let us not number here the appliances of Tokio, let us not speak of the pyres raised in the Indies, in China, in Siam, in Cambogia, at all points of the Asiatic Continent, from time immemorial Asia has burned her dead." At first sight 125,000 seems a large number; but a glance at the Paris statistics will help us to realize its true value. From 1889 to 1905 there were 73,330 cremations in Paris. Only 3484 were by request; 37,082 were hospital debris; 32,757 were embryos. Of the requested cremations there were 216 in 1894, 354 in 1904 an increase in ten years of 138 not a large number, and it serves to prove than even Paris is progressing in the use of cremation very slowly indeed.
The arguments in favor of cremation may be reduced to a few heads:
In conclusion, it must be remembered that there is nothing directly opposed to any dogma of the Church in the practice of cremation, and that, if ever the leaders of this sinister movement so far control the governments of the world as to make this custom universal, it would not be a lapse in the faith confided to her were she obliged to conform.
In addition to the authorities cited in the body of this article, consult Corpus Juris Canonici; HARDOUIN, Coll. Conc., VI, 443; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium, III, 465; HOWE, Studies in the Civil Law, 302.
APA citation. (1908). Cremation. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04481c.htm
MLA citation. "Cremation." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04481c.htm>.
Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Thomas M. Barrett. Dedicated to Carol Hills & Rosie Wakefield.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.


text:
Virtually nothing can be heard as loud and clear as body language. Even if you keep your lips sealed, unconsciously you are sending hundreds of messages by the way you present yourself, the way your hold your arms, your posture — the list goes on and on. During a job interview or at a networking event, you may have rehearsed your elevator speech and practiced your answers to those grueling questions, but if you are "saying" the wrong things with your body language, you can do significant damage to your professional image. By reading and putting these suggestions into practice, you can be sure you make, rather than break, a deal.
My number 1 rule to starting out a good conversation or introduction is with a strong handshake. None of this wet noodle stuff. Your handshake should be firm but not inflict pain to the recipient. Make sure it is long enough so they know you aren't running for the door but short enough that a nervous sweat doesn't develop. (Gross)
When you are standing, keep your head held high, shoulders back, and back straight. This presents the image of confidence and ease in social situations. Slouching will give off the message of lacking self-confidence and laziness. The latter two examples do not work well when looking for a job or instilling a positive first impression.
Same advice goes for when you are sitting. Most likely, you will be sitting during a job interview or client meeting, so focus on nailing these points first. When addressing your interviewer or other person in conversation, keep your shoulders square on the person. You want them to know they have your full attention and you are not intimidated by their questions or approach. Men, keep your legs crossed or in front of you. Women, avoid crossing your legs. Instead keep your knees together and put one ankle behind the other for support.
Nodding in acknowledgement is also encouraged but refrain from becoming a life-sized bobble-head doll. The goal is to project understanding and agreement, not to attempt self-inflicted whiplash. Also, try your best to not to touch your face, play with your hair, focus on your hands, or pick at your fingernails (clean them ahead of time) during the conversation either.
Remember to smile! A pleasant expression on your face will send off messages that you are interested and welcoming of the conversation and discussion. It will relax the person you are talking with as well. But be sure it is a natural smile. Plastering a fake smile on your face can read as if you are just trying to be as tolerant as possible.
Hands are also a straight signal to how a person is feeling at the time. Fidgeting can send signals of uneasiness or aggression. If you are one who talks with your hands, be subtle and only use at appropriate times. When in doubt, put your hands by your sides while standing and folded in your lap while sitting.
As the old saying goes, your eyes are a window to your soul. Maintaining eye contact seems to be the hardest thing for people to do during an interview. Some feel uncomfortable just from the thought of it. It is important to keep eye contact with the other person who is speaking. This is a surefire way to show you are confident, attentive, and genuinely interested in what they are saying. All are great qualities you look for in an employee or potential business contact.
If you put these tips into your daily routine, they will become second nature. Practice them with your friends and family to get the hang of it, and once you are ready to put them to the test, try them out in the real world…then come here and tell me how they worked for you!
Forbes posted a great video with Christine Jahnke, author of The Well-Spoken Woman, discussing how to make a lasting impression through body language.
And a quote to round out this week's post, one which I love to think about when entering a room of strangers or going into a job interview, is one by Henry Ford that says: "Whether you think you can or think you can't – you are right."
Readers, what do you do to boost your confidence and portray the professional individual you are through body language? What have you noticed in what others do that have had a positive or negative effect on how you view them?
As always if you have a question for me, visit http://anitaclew.com/ask-anita/.
Best Wishes,


text:
Welcome to Stotler Archery, where the finest Longbows and Recurves on the market are made. We hope you find this website informative as you search for your next Longbow. Pricing is included on the order form, which can be found under the tab "Our Products." On the order form, there is a place for you to trace your hand, so we can build your next quality Longbow to have the perfect feel and grip for that next hunting trip. Please call us or email us with any questions. Thanks again for visiting and we hope to hear from you soon.
I've been shooting Stotler bows for 17 yrs. now. I have 7 different models both one piece and takedown. The main thing for me is that there is no difference in performance between the two. Probably the main reason for this is that all the take down models are made as a one piece bow and then cut to make a take down. So, the riser section and lams are all the from the same piece of wood, glass, or graphite. Some of the reasons why I like these bows:1. Flat bow design along with long riser and short limbs make for a "straight line" string follow. This makes for very forgiving shooting (something I need during the heat of the action). "Hay hook" released do not affect arrow flight with this design (as much as thin, whippy limbs).2. The radical reflex/deflex limbs produce better than normal speed3. The long riser, puts more physical weight in center of bow, making it more stable upon release. In fact, I like to use Winge, or Cocobola wood for risers since the wood is more dense (heavier).4. With the built up limb tips, I can shoot Fast Flight strings with no problem.5. I favor all models with Bamboo lams. This seems to produce a much smoother draw (quite noticable- If you have not shot one with Bamboo lams, DON'T, because it will spoil you.6. I have found the 63 " model to be a bit faster and the 66" model to be more stable. For hunting I normally stick with my 70 lb. 63" takedown (especially if I'm shooting from blinds- shorter limbs means less problem of contact with parts of blind). If you want to go to real heavy wt. bow (over 75 lbs.) I recommend the 66" model. For target shooting, I always go back to my 66"/60 lb./ One piece (I just love the way that bow shoots).7. One good thing about a "custom" bow is that you can make the handle any way you wish. I prefer to "palm" my bow (probably because I shoot heavy tackle and I seem to get more strength with a "broomstick" hand as vs. the "pistol grip"). I knew and worked with Bob Stotler before his death and can tell you that this ol gent knew what he was doing when he first came up with this design. Bob was the head bowyer for Howard Hill Co. for 27 yrs. Howard loved the way this design shot.A little hint, if you like to "tweak" things: Play around with the brace height a little. I think you will find a shorter brace height will give you a better "sweet spot". I also have my bow cut with very little shelf above my grip hand. I like to have the arrow as close to my thumb as possible (makes instinctive shots much more "natural").
Dennis KamstraDirector of MarketingMcDonald Pro-Hunting International


text:
Got stuff? Don't bring it with you
ADDRESS: 2521 Brunswick Road
NEIGHBORHOOD: Fry's Spring
SIZE: 1,798 fin. sq. ft.
LAND: 0.23 acres
CURB APPEAL: 7 out of 10
LISTED BY: Gail Mustoe, Real Estate III, 817-9300, 800-868-0025
Let's face it: everybody has too much stuff. Consignment shops, estate sales, "yard sale" signs on every corner and in column after column of classified ads– even eBay and its spin-offs– all testify to people's need to unload junk.
Folks who can't part with the flotsam rent "u-stor-it" units, build outbuildings, or cram attics, basements, and garages full of boxes they never open again.
Such people– if they also happen to be house-hunting– might consider this story-book place the answer to their prayers. While it's loaded with quaint charm, sits on a pretty landscaped lot just around the corner from Fry's Spring Beach Club, and offers quick access to the University, I-64, and 29 South, its storage space is minimal. Of the total of four closets, two (with miniature doors about five feet high) would be at home in Alice in Wonderland; another– under the roof off the master bedroom– is even smaller; and the one of reasonable size is downstairs, next to the kitchen.
To be fair, there's also a normal-size linen closet, an attic with pull-down stairs, a utility basement, and storage boxes under built-in seats beside the living room fireplace. A tiny backyard shed could hold garden implements, and a garage (with vinyl "parquet" on the floor) can also accommodate cast-offs. But overall, the house could be a dream come true for minimalists who don't accumulate baggage, or for junk junkies who need help trying to kick the habit.
Two unusual elements about the house caught our fancy: an inglenook under an arch in the living room, and a narrow butler's pantry between the kitchen and dining room. Built-in benches on either side of the recessed fireplace look like a perfect winter retreat to snuggle and watch snow flying outside the four large living room windows. It's an unusual element in the otherwise typical living room, with oak floors and an adjoining private screened-in porch.
The owner thinks the little pantry, with tiny sink, counters, and glass cabinets spanning an entire wall, was the spot where, back in the old days, the maid or butler would be waiting for a summons from a foot buzzer still visible in the middle of the dining room floor. While it's a bright, cozy room, it doesn't seem like it would have been a particularly comfortable spot to hang around waiting for the signal to run in with the Brunswick stew.
Imaginative kitchen renovations– new sink with enamel frieze, commercial Viking gas stove, and dropped ceiling with inset "tray" design– seem to be both appropriate to the '30s vibe and thoroughly modern. The kitchen, pantry, and dining room span the back of the house and seem larger because of the windows with views to the private backyard.
The owners have picked up on one design feature– bead board– to accentuate throughout the house. They added more to the original panels in the kitchen and pantry, and introduced it upstairs in a new bathroom created from one of the original four bedrooms. The result is mixed. While a second bathroom was obviously necessary, merely adding fixtures to a former (good-sized) bedroom does not a bathroom make. The room is too big to contain just a toilet, sink, and claw-foot tub– pretty bead board notwithstanding.
The other three bedrooms are likewise of generous proportions, and the original bathroom now in the master suite is an elegant space worthy of the classiest subdivision, with big glass-enclosed tiled shower, stacking washer/dryer, and tile floor.
The long backyard is fenced and private, with perennial gardens and many of the huge trees for which JPA is famous. On the side of the house, a mature rhododendron hedge shields the screened porch, and azaleas and a row of peonies bank the front windows.
This is an unusual house that will appeal to people bored by traditional brick ranchers and predictable floor plans. The fact that they'll have to have a yard sale or list most of their stuff on eBay before they move in may possibly be seen as an additional appeal.