What it would take for state to reform education MyDesert.com The Desert Sun:
"Assemblyman Brian Nestande's blueprint for education reform (Valley Voice, Sept. 28) is flawed and has the potential for destroying public schools, meaning that education in the future will be reserved only for those who can afford it. Every argument he makes is based on false premises.
Using test results to evaluate teachers is not “necessary.” Parental involvement, public safety and language barriers are not within the control of teachers, so linking test scores and teacher evaluation does not measure what a teacher is doing in the classroom. If you've ever said, “I don't do well on tests” you acknowledge that a single test administered on a given day doesn't measure what a child has actually learned, in a single year or over a lifetime"
Test scores are not tied to promotion or graduation in any way, so unless a student is intrinsically motivated to perform at a high level, there is no motivation to do so. Excessive testing causes students to fill in bubbles on their answer sheets creating patterns or spelling out words.
Third-grade teachers must spend valuable instructional time teaching students how to fill in bubbles so responses will be recorded accurately. None of these measure student learning, thus cannot be a valid measure of teacher effectiveness.
The “enhanced accountability” model is archaic, deceptive and undemocratic. Successful school models encourage collaboration amongst teachers searching for best practices to increase student learning. Framing principal autocracy as “accountability” would allow teachers to be fired simply for disagreeing or clashing personally with a single supervisor. This would breed a culture of fear amongst teachers, so their focus would be on retaining their jobs instead of doing what's needed to help children learn.
"Assemblyman Brian Nestande's blueprint for education reform (Valley Voice, Sept. 28) is flawed and has the potential for destroying public schools, meaning that education in the future will be reserved only for those who can afford it. Every argument he makes is based on false premises.
Using test results to evaluate teachers is not “necessary.” Parental involvement, public safety and language barriers are not within the control of teachers, so linking test scores and teacher evaluation does not measure what a teacher is doing in the classroom. If you've ever said, “I don't do well on tests” you acknowledge that a single test administered on a given day doesn't measure what a child has actually learned, in a single year or over a lifetime"
Test scores are not tied to promotion or graduation in any way, so unless a student is intrinsically motivated to perform at a high level, there is no motivation to do so. Excessive testing causes students to fill in bubbles on their answer sheets creating patterns or spelling out words.
Third-grade teachers must spend valuable instructional time teaching students how to fill in bubbles so responses will be recorded accurately. None of these measure student learning, thus cannot be a valid measure of teacher effectiveness.
The “enhanced accountability” model is archaic, deceptive and undemocratic. Successful school models encourage collaboration amongst teachers searching for best practices to increase student learning. Framing principal autocracy as “accountability” would allow teachers to be fired simply for disagreeing or clashing personally with a single supervisor. This would breed a culture of fear amongst teachers, so their focus would be on retaining their jobs instead of doing what's needed to help children learn.