Re: "Growth Models" Alone are Insufficient NCLB Reform

[Csubstance@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/6/07 2:06:23 PM, bobschaeffer@earthlink.net writes:

<< "I see it as a valuable measure, but I do not see it as the measure," 

Woodruff said. >>

It's a Frankenstein montster, with as much profit potential for certain types 
of corporations as Reading First, SES, and NCLB itself. 

Obviously, no teacher could "assess" and then reduce the "difficulty" of 
questions "downward" immediately with present class sizes. That would be like 
working invidually with children, in small groups, and recognizing that there are 
differences within the groups, among children, and, say, between those 
students who have been in one school for all their years and the newcomers in a 
school that has large "mobility."

Only a computer can make those distinctions among children, not a teacher.

Doesn't it amaze you how these stories can be reported with a straight face, 
once the majority of people have accepted the fact that "proficience" is 
"grade level", that "grade level" exists, and that everyone can be at or above it 
in another seven or eight years.

Sort of like weapons of mass destruction. Once you believe, it doesn't matter 
anymore whether any of them really exist.

George Schmidt<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See 
what's new at http://www.aol.com</HTML>