|
Edited on Wed Jul-28-10 07:00 PM by YvonneCa
...on what this demonstrates:
1. This is another example of why we should not be judging teachers by student test scores. Even if one assumes that is a good idea (and I don't) we need to get a valid testing process, define 'improvement', get a valid teacher evaluation process and define 'effective teacher' first.
2. Arne Duncan often says we educators have been lying to students and parents. Maybe this is what he means:
New York City officials said that if the passing rates since 2006 were adjusted to match the new scoring standards, the city had shown substantial progress over all. But that explanation is likely to offer little consolation to teachers and parents who must now face the reality that just more than half of city students in the third through eighth grades are proficient in math, not four out of every five, as they were led to believe last year.
Maybe it's 'NY CITY Officials' that he meant.
3. Here's a thought that often gets left out of the debate:
The numbers suggest that thousands more city students should have been held back or required to attend summer school last year. The Bloomberg administration requires every student who scores a Level 1, the lowest possible level on the state exam, to attend summer school and later pass the test or repeat the grade the following year.
The truth is that there are TOO MANY students scoring too low...and no district, city or school system has the money or the space to either retain them or put them in summer school remedial programs. So...one reason for not having 'real' test scores could be that if they do that, then they HAVE to start addressing the money/space problem. Was it deliberate in NYC? Who knows.
|