3 ms·

* * face-palm * * Do these people actually understand any maths at all? In tests of fourth-grade reading from 2000 to 2007, for instance, the scores of the lo

* * face-palm * * Do these people actually understand any maths at all? In tests of fourth-grade reading from 2000 to 2007, for instance, the scores of the lowest-achieving students increased by 16 points on a 280-point scale, compared with a gain of three points for top-achieving students, according to the study Riiight...and the point behind this policy is to get EXACTLY THIS RESULT. Assuming ideal tests (har, har), the goal is that top students should continue to move up, but the bottom end start to close the gap. I mean, there may be other, objective reasons to suspect that the top achievers are being short-changed - and the American HS system is sufficiently screwed up that I'd readily believe it. But if you adopt a policy of narrowing the gap is adopted (but letting the top students continue to improve), and then you get figures showing that the gap is indeed narrowing (but the top students continue to improve)... what the hell are you doing pointing and yelling "failure"? On the evidence they supply, they're talking bullshit. On a pogo stick.

Alex3917 18y ago
"...since the law made it a goal to reduce the gap separating low-scoring, poor and minority students from higher-scoring white students." I'm pretty sure that the article is just misleading here. IIRC, the NCLB mandates that the average test scores of the school improve each year or else the school loses funding. The schools then turn around and only teach the lowest scoring students since they show the biggest returns in points per dollar spent. When the NYT says that the goal of the NCLB is to reduce the gap, I think they mean it's one of the ideological goals rather than an actual funding trigger. And the argument is that while it would be nice to reduce the gap between high- and low-scoring students, only teaching the bottom quartile because it's the easiest way to game the system is the wrong way to go about it. I haven't actually read the text of the final law, but that's at least what educational theorists were saying was going to happen based on the draft text before the bill was enacted.
xlnt 18y ago
Plus, the higher your test score, the harder it is to eek out the last few points. Especially once you hit 100%

Alex3917 18y ago

"...since the law made it a goal to reduce the gap separating low-scoring, poor and minority students from higher-scoring white students." I'm pretty sure that the article is just misleading here. IIRC, the NCLB mandates that the average test scores of the school improve each year or else the school loses funding. The schools then turn around and only teach the lowest scoring students since they show the biggest returns in points per dollar spent. When the NYT says that the goal of the NCLB is to reduce the gap, I think they mean it's one of the ideological goals rather than an actual funding trigger. And the argument is that while it would be nice to reduce the gap between high- and low-scoring students, only teaching the bottom quartile because it's the easiest way to game the system is the wrong way to go about it. I haven't actually read the text of the final law, but that's at least what educational theorists were saying was going to happen based on the draft text before the bill was enacted.

xlnt 18y ago

Plus, the higher your test score, the harder it is to eek out the last few points. Especially once you hit 100%