Is an Implicit Faith in IRT Warranted?

This “college level” math in 1769 is now the stuff of elementary school curricula everywhere in the world … can’t be explained by changes in genotype.

Does what we do in Mathematics Education Work? (Especially [including], for students experiencing difficulty)

What do these high correlations mean?

As an aside … these graphs do NOT depict the results of Regression Discontinuity Analyses

Are Our “Achievement” Tests Sensitive to Instruction? Implicates entry into RTI

2009 9th Grade TAKS, p. 28 … this intelligence includes the capacity to construct images in three dimensions, and to move and rotate these representations. Gardner pp How is this not IQ testing by another name?

Across Domains We’d Expect IRF to Look Like This

We Can Build Computational Models of “Real World” IRT Practices Question is: How much of the variance does this account for?

Graph of 2004 Math real world θ as a function of the model θ value (Fit Line: y = 0.945x, R 2 = 0.712) (Pham, 2009)

How is this NOT this?

There Are Alternatives !

RTI the response Theory practical Long division

Not well informed about what is being tested for and how. Mismatch in classification (IQ) and intervention (intensity of research-based intervention). Profound issues of bias. Likely to confound biological and cultural categories For “all” grows out of a special education model (not domain aware, individual, all but avoids cognitive issues and research literature esp. as related to domain learning. Extends pull-out model into classroom Much more work for teacher (separate classes, kids rotating in and out, acquire “identities” that reinforce expectations of difficulty. Ignores alternative “inclusive” models.