NYC Educator: Remediating the Remediators

NYC Educator: Remediating the Remediators:

 Remediating the Remediators

Rockville Centre Principal Carol Burris has a whole series of pieces in the Washington Post, one better than the next. In her latest, she examines the odd formulas for figuring whether or not students need remediation. One is perhaps better than the next, but none appear to be anything worth jumping up and down about. Then she says this:

 Two studies found that student GPAs were a far more accurate predictor—reducing severe placement errors by about half. Another study of remediation found that nearly 25 percent (math) and over 33 percent (English) of remedial course placements in one urban system were “severe under-placements” due to the COMPASS test. In short, lots of kids get placed into remediation who really do not need it.

Teacher judgments are more accurate than the various standardized test-based formulas that were dreamed up by the various geniuses who dream up such things. And this is valid even now, in an era where teachers are pressured to pass as many kids as possible in order to avoid the draconian high stakes attached to student failure.

There's an underlying belief that we are dishonest, that we are worthless, that our judgment is clouded, and that belief is underlined by the stupid Regents-induced law stating we can't grade our own students on standardized tests. Clearly I will just pass everyone for no reason, and consider myself a genius for having done so. And so will you, of course. We are all worthless dogs. The law says so.

Sometimes when we complain about the junk science evaluation system, UFT leaders say, "But it's NYC Educator: Remediating the Remediators: