Re: The choice of standardized tests as an historical question

[aburke5054@aol.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: Monty Neill <monty@fairtest.org>
To: ARN-L <arn-l@interversity.org>
Sent: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:27:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [arn-l] The choice of standardized tests as an historical 
question

... NCLB of course added expectations all experts agree cannot be met, 
more than doubled the required testing, added science testing, required 
disaggregated data, and imposed stiff sanctions that either have 
nothing to do with improving schools or at a minimum had no evidence of 
effectiveness (tho has now produced some effort at figuring out 
interventions that might actually help...
 _________________________________________________
NCLB requires states to improve schools until all children are 
achieving at high levels.  NCLB sets aa timetable for improvement, but 
leaves how to do it entirely up to the states.  If discussion is 
finally coming around to figuring out interventions that actually help, 
the question isn't "What's wrong with NCLB?", it's "Why did it take so 
long?" and "Why don't we have better ideas about what to do to improve 
schools?"  One reason clearly lies within the education profession - 
the tendency to disrupt itself with fruitless debates like "phonics vs 
whole language," or the meaning of "authentic accountability," or the 
"corporate attack on public education."  Kids and parents first, what's 
so hard about that?

Art
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email 
and IM. All on demand. Always Free.