Jul 7, 2015 by

Subjective scoring

Subjective scoring

“Open Letter to Congressmen”

RE: ESEA Reauthorization

From:  Donna Garner

Date:  7.6.15



Dear Congressman, as you know I have many concerns over the ESEA reauthorization; and I have sent you many of those concerns already.  However, in today’s Wash. Post, I found many other concerns that I need to explain.


First, notice the direction in the ESEA reauthorization toward subjectively scored assessments, portfolios, and project-based learning.  These are all terrible ideas to be placed in federal law because they open the door to the Type #2 philosophy of education found in the Common Core.  Short and simple: Type #1 is objective; Type #2 is subjective.


CHART – TYPE #1 vs. TYPE #2 PHILOSOPHIES OF EDUCATION — http://www.educationviews.org/comparison-types-education-type-1-traditional-vs-type-2-cscope-common-core/


Basic principle: Anything scored subjectively means the evaluator determines the score based upon the value system of the scorer.  Of course, some subjective scoring is necessary in a classroom such as the scoring of essays and hands-on projects.  However, in the local classroom, the teacher has worked with the student day in and day out, knows his strengths and weaknesses, and recognizes when the student needs encouragement and/or correction.


At the state or federal level, subjective scoring leads to dependence upon the scorer’s personal opinions and beliefs.  If, for instance, the scorer is a left-wing liberal, then he is going to grade more harshly a conservative student’s products. If there is not an emphasis on fact-based, right-or-wrong answers, then all sorts of gimmicks can be played; and scorers who hold to political correctness, multiculturalism, the social justice agenda, and environmental extremism can control the assessment scores.


The scoring of portfolios and group projects at the state or federal level is extremely subjective. It is a bogus argument for people to say that these types of assessments can be scored objectively – simply cannot be done when human scorers are concerned.


Please vote against any ESEA reauthorization bills. We can live with NCLB for two more years until we get a conservative President and larger numbers of conservative Congressmen into office.  Now is not the time to vote for any omnibus bills where hanky-panky regulations can easily be concealed in those thousands of pages!




7.6.15 – Washington Post





Finally, Congress to start debate on No Child Left Behind rewrite


By Valerie Strauss 


Excerpts from this article:

Each state would design its own accountability system, which would include student test scores, graduation rates, and at least one other indicator selected by the state. States would decide how much weight to assign each component and the balance between assistance and sanctions.

It would allow states to build systems focused on portfolios and projects that could replace statewide exams for accountability purposes. The systems could include locally designed assessments that vary across schools and districts, provided they produce comparable results across the state. The bill also explicitly allows all states to incorporate performance assessments.

allows some states to design performance assessment systems


Donna Garner


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.