Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
> 
>> I lasted just four days tutoring in the "No child left behind" effort.
>>
>> Personally, I've never looked back.
> 
> Hmmm. 'No child left behind' My wife was going on about all of the 
> paperwork she was required to file due to this act. I jokingly called it 
> the 'No Piece of Paper Left Behind' act.
> 
> She was telling me yesterday, that by some year (I think 4 years from 
> now, 2012) all students must pass standardized testing, or teachers 
> could lose their jobs. I replied by stating that it was asinine to think 
> that the teacher's performance should be judged by the student's 
> performance on a test. There are MANY more factors that go into the 
> performance of a child in addition to the teacher. You can't help those 
> who are not willing to be helped. Parents who refuse to be involved in 
> their child's education and well being are far more detrimental to that 
> child's ability to learn than a teacher who gave her best effort in the 
> classroom.

We went through the standardized testing during my last week on the job. 
  This is the Florida state test, and it is used not only to judge the 
performance of the school, but also to place the children during the 
following school year.

I do agree with placing the children according to their performance on 
the test, since there is really no better way of evaluating their level 
of learning, and it gives them a good incentive to do well on the test 
(otherwise they risk getting the stigma of placement in the remedial 
classes).  I do not agree with rating teachers and schools based on the 
results of these tests.

The only other thing to use the tests for is to identify the students 
who are performing above their demographic peers, and then identify the 
methods that are used by their teachers, and institute these methods in 
every applicable circumstance.

Our school does exceptionally well on these tests, and the 
administrators probably imagine that it's because of something they do. 
  What are far more likely causes are two factors that are unique to our 
school vs. the other public schools in the area.  Our school is a 
charter school, publicly funded, but operated under somewhat different 
rules.

Factor number one is the requirement that every student be the child of 
at least one person working for the private company that sponsored the 
establishment of the charter school, or for a company that is linked to 
this sponsoring company.  This means, among other things, that at least 
one person in the household works for a living.  This reduces an 
enormous range of social pathologies.

Second, attendance here is regarded as a privilege, not a right, and 
students can be sent packing for things that would be ignored in the 
other schools.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message