LP>>Our fad in AZ is changing the tests, the type of test & which students
LP>>are tested every other year.  The last couple of Arizona Student
LP>>Assessment Program forms have contained cultural & linguistic biases
LP>>that caused the State Super. to toss out several versions of the test.
 CB> We're changing testing here as well.  For the most part we are
 CB> eliminating the minimum competency tests and replacing them with mastery
 CB> tests, but we are reducing the passing grade from 65 to 55.  Makes a lot
 CB> of sense, doesn't it?  Another one of the brilliant reforms is that we
As much sense as requiring "standardized" essay tests that grade on a
rubric, are graded by the students' own teachers & do not always require
correct spelling, proper grammar & acceptable syntax in order to earn a
maximum score.
 CB> are eliminating the "general education track" and demanding that all
 CB> students take Regents level courses (college entrance track) and we've
 CB> not put any safety nets in place for all of the kids who fail -but we
 CB> can't increase the dropout rate.
We're going the other way.  Our St. Super is talking about adding
different diplomas, testing students in 10th grade & sending the, ahem,
shall we say "not as academically inclined" into trade school or job
training courses for 11th & 12th grade.
Still want a national curriculum?  You don't sound happy with your
system, yet you want to export it West?
 CB> We need a national curriculum so that the idiots at the state level will
 CB> lose their ability to screw up the educational system every 5 years or
 CB> so.
Here, you & I differ.  We don't need a national curriculum because we
don't want the big states, CA, NY & TX, screwing up our educational
system as much as theirs is.  (heh heh heh.)
LP>>This sounds like *ripe* grounds for a lawsuit.
 CB> We have visions of the same scenario.
I understand that there is a glut of attorneys, but I don't think it's
our job to make work for them.  ;^)
LP>>But then we end up with the 17 year old 7th grader sitting next to the
LP>>12 year old 7th grader.  Unfortunately, not all districts have been able
LP>>to implement an alternative school or other solutions some urban areas
LP>>have been able to use.
 CB> I agree.  I still like the idea of a school/work program in which we
 CB> give the student who refuses to cooperate some basic skills while
 CB> working part of the day.  BUT, do not give them a diploma.
Or give them a diploma/certificate/whatever that states the eduspeak
equivalent of "took up space for X number of years at Such & Such a
School."
 CB> Here in New York the building principal has near absolute control over
 CB> who passes and who fails.  The principal can change a teacher's grades,
 CB> deny promotion to a child the teacher has passed or socially promote a
 CB> child the teacher has failed.  Our (retiring) principal does not allow
 CB> us to retain any kids that he feels might be a continuing discipline
 CB> problem - we are hoping for something better with the new guy.
I like our law better because it means we don't have to rely on the
principal (unless we don't have tenure!!!  I can see pressure being
brought to bear there.)  The teacher is considered to be the expert in
determining who should be promoted or retained.  Disciplinary
considerations should not bear on academic decisions.  Too bad this guy
is retiring, I'd like to have a little chat with him. :)
Leona Payne
... To the humor impaired NO joke is appropriate or correctly timed.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.3P SW12194
---------------