Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:13 AM
HiPointDem (20,729 posts)
Seattle times editorial board comes out against garfield HS teachers
Oh good grief! Tell the teachers to follow the rules. Remind them that when they don't like the rules, their responsibility is to act like professionals and turn to the many non-disruptive channels available - the biggest of which is collective bargaining. Why should he take a tougher approach? Because the scattered boycotts of MAP, which began at Garfield High School and have garnered sympathy from teachers at Ballard High, Orca K-8 and other schools, make for great gossiping on the Internet but they are sorely lacking in meaningful dialogue and targeted solutions.
Make no mistake,teachers make worthwhile points about the shortcomings of MAP, some outlined in this compelling OpEd. Equally compelling arguments made here and here underscore the test's value, especially in identifying academically advanced kids.
But here's the problem: leaders of the boycott offer nothing to take its place.
Nada. Zip. Zilch. Not even a vague notion of how to measure broadly the progress of academically struggling students while looking for a successor to MAP.
A teacher quoted in this story said she relies more on her classroom-based assessments than on the MAP. Can every teacher not only say the same, but prove it with a direct connection between their assessments, a plan of action for struggling learners and growth in student achievement? This is after all supposed to be a boycott inspired by concern about students.
As Banda told the Times Editorial Board this afternoon, "We owe it to our students to have assessments."
What a stupid editorial.
Yes, there are problems with the MAP tests (like, number one, they're not related to what the students are actually being taught, a minor detail) -- but we *owe* them assessment (like teachers can't do assessments, only corporations) -- so give them this useless assessment measure!!!
Up to the Times' usual standards...
Just a little note from the Gates crowd to pressure Banda...
0 replies, 419 views