 |
|
| LETTERS TO THE EDITOR |
|
Response to "Drawing Lines in the Sand: Two" (CA: February 26, 2004)
Dennis wrote: “NCLB’s vision is radically different. It asserts that the key variable in schooling is outcomes not inputs.”
Actually, it’s primarily about inputs, including so-called “highly qualified” teacher and instructional aide requirements, so called “research-based” instructional design requirements (as if there were any credible research within the education academy), etc.
Dennis also wrote: “The irony of NCLB and the Driscoll and Fleeter analysis is that both assume that performance standards lead ineluctably to standardization. Yet that is precisely what performance standards are meant to avoid.”
Actually, the devil is in the details. In my home state, many of our so-called standards do force a high degree of standardization. Our early grades reading standards, for example, presume that all schools use a particular brand of phonic-based reading instruction --which may be a great idea, but that’s not the point. Schools that don’t follow this particular instructional approach must either drop or adapt their instructional programs or face the consequences of apparently low performance on standardized tests aligned with the standards.
-Eric in CA.
|
|
|
