Comments on: Data details on worst schools due out

By: Gary Ravani

Gary Ravani — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 23:56:30 +0000

Let me guess. The criteria and process, once settled on, will identify a number of “failing schools” in Beverly Hills in the south state and Tiburon-Belvedere in the north. No? This identification of “failing schools” won’t include schools in extravagantly wealthy areas? It must be a coincidence. Right. Interestingly, Nicholas Kristoff has an article in the NYT (3/26) noting that since the mid-1970s the US has dropped the ball on getting people out of poverty. It has also dropped the ball on improving school achievement. Another coincidence? Right again. The revealed “wisdom” seems to be, take all the failed (see NAEP results) policies re standards, sanctions, high-stakes assessments, sanctions, data abuse, sanctions, standardized/prescriptive instruction, extravagant contracts for textbook/testing corporations, sanctions, demonstrably failed Chicago style “reforms,” and double down on the sanctions and some strange alchemy will occur that creates success. After all, we’ve only been trying these faith based school reforms for twenty years. The floggings will continue untill morale improves.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

By: David B. Cohen

David B. Cohen — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:16:45 +0000

With so much instability in staffing and such high turnover in students, plus the mind-numbing effects of NCLB-inspired curricular narrowing, it’s not surprising that some schools are persistently viewed as struggling or under-performing. But this whole approach reeks. The state and federal government have neglected these schools, teachers, and students for years, burdened them with stupid mandates, ignored the plight of the communities in which such schools are most often found, and now they’re punishing the staff and students for their failure to meet narrow and somewhat mysterious criteria.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

By: Doug McRae

Doug McRae — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:47:47 +0000

I would agree with Johathan. The federal guidance for this program was to use “current status” and “recent growth” for constructing a persistently low-achieving schools list. That was excellent well founded guidance. The screw-ups were in CA’s detailed implementation of that guidance, and the lack of vetting for CA’s detailed methodology by LEAs and the public compounded the methodological flaws. As John indicates, how to unring a bell and get a more realistic list is very problematic. Doug McRae, Retired Test Publisher, Monterey

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

By: Jonathon

Jonathon — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:53:56 +0000

This list has been particularly disturbing in Oakland where I live and work. Four out of the five schools that were identified in OUSD are small schools that have already underwent many of the suggested changes only a few years ago. They are doing substantially better than their large comprehensive predecessors, however, because each school only has 2-3 years of state they just missed reaching the 50 point API exemption. Furthermore, there are many schools in Oakland which have been persistently failing but were not identified due to other exemptions. These examples only prove how disconnected CA Dept of Ed is from schools and classrooms. A policy with the potential to create change for the students who need it most has, in my mind, been completely screwed up.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity