(This article concerns the law right when it came out, this article is an excellent representation of how the law was greeted by educators and administrators.)
This news source specifically geared towards educators and school administrators takes a neutral side to the law, seeing its pros and cons. A spokesperson for a teachers' union does see how now a teacher is accountable for the performance of their students, but trying to make sure that a school can scape up the money and time to certify teachers to not get caught red-handed by the government is time-consuming. When it comes to the assessments for yearly improvement, there is a metaphor that it is similar to getting a a physical exam, a check-up to catch academic struggles sooner. Low test scores equal lowered federal funding, and to raise the scores better teaching strategies must be installed, which are "scientifically based". However, the strategies that are available are for teaching reading/phonics; math, science, and other subjects have no official sponsorship from the government. The tests scores can also very by demographics and environments, like how in rural areas, where there are less students in a school, as little as three or two can completely throw off the balance of the school's test scores.
Questions I ask myself:
1. How has this law been changed to close the loopholes and exceptions?
2. Are the "scientifically proven" methods still being added, and where can I find them?
3. Has the performance of students improved from the yearly assessments?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment