In a way I think that we should use standardized metrics to measure how
well schools do. But... It should measure how like students do against
like students in schools. My guess is that all of the middle and upper
middle class students in urban school districts, that attend public
schools, are doing as well as their suburban counterparts. Can the
suburban schools say the same thing about their non-English speaking
students? Can suburban schools make the claim that they teach their
children of parents with substance abuse? If they don't have any children
in these groups then they aren't measuring the same thing.
I think if suburban schools suddenly had to educate children with economic
and social disadvantages, that they would be recruiting like crazy from
the pool of teachers and administrators that they now say are no good.
Metrics only work if you are measuring the same things. Otherwise it is
like comparing 0 degrees Fahrenheit to 50 Miles per hour and saying that
50 MPH is better because it is a higher number.
Rich McMartin
Bryant Neighborhood.
> > Hello Mr. Wellstone, they are called standard measurements for a reason.
> > This is the same failed thinking that has been abolished by schools all over
> > the state. "We need more than one test because we don't look good enough by
> > the one that requires standard measurements".
>
> Yes, standard measurements, particularly minimum measurements, are important.
> Our kids need to meet a basic standard. But Wellstone--and presumably Carol
> Johnson--are also right. One standardized test does not a student measure.
