Reply to Shepherd Park

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "Shepherd Park "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Honest question for the previous posters; why should schools results be adjusted for demographics? We are measuring a deliverable pact between tearchers and studants. Yes some times it is the teachers failing and sometime it is the students failing but isn’t it failure nevertheless? The scores measure failure and successes.

The idea that it is a great school with great teachers and it is only the kids that are below standard seems..... like you are missing the point. I hate this modern push to measure different people differently while they scream treat us equally.

What would make people happy, declaring SP a great school because it tries hard regardless of results? At what point is it ok to measure people by just results?  Can we start spotting short players a couple of points in the NBA? [/quote]

+1[/quote]

Well, one major reason for disaggregating results by race is to uncover patterns of inequality within schools and school districts, relating to both achievement and resources. So if you have a diverse school but there's a lot of tracking that aligns racially (for lots of reasons besides malice) and those kids are sitting in classrooms with new or bad (less expensive) teachers and they're just wasting time while the beloved AP teacher who is excellent is only teaching white kids, disaggregating is a way to see that. As for measuring growth and not just "success," the point of caring about growth or other metrics beyond proficiency is to recognize teachers, students and schools who make progress even though kids don't all have the same starting line. This isn't just about schools that serve low income kids who might start school behind - in many cases (not all! the tests have gotten harder) "proficiency" is not that high a bar. By and large, if you get a bucket of rich white kids or really just rich kids from this area in your classroom, they're going to be "proficient" even if they peel potatoes all year. A growth score can expose those pockets of stagnation.

Also, a valid growth metric is a better test-based incentive/accountability measure for educators than proficiency because it rewards moving all kids forward. Proficiency can create a perverse incentive to focus on kids right under the bar, let kids above the bar stagnate and write off kids who are too far behind. Not that teachers would think that was good, but if you are going to use these metrics to evaluate people you have to be realistic about how they work.

A lot depends on what you really want a "good" school to do for your specific kid and what your goals are for their education and character development. More data is usually better. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics