Even the NYTimes

by rrusczyk, Aug 29, 2009, 2:46 AM

realizes that equal outcome in educational testing is a stupid goal.

3 Comments

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.

This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.

So that program for poor underserved students from yesterday isn't a worthy goal anymore?

Equal outcomes are a strawman, and not really the point of that editorial. It's just saying that NCLB is doing exactly what it was meant to, and focusing resources toward the bottom brings up the bottom without really affecting the top.
I'm not sure whether reducing inequality is inherently a worthy goal, but in practice it usually comes down to counteracting biases in favor of the already successful.

by jmerry, Aug 29, 2009, 9:34 PM

Report

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.

This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.

That aritle was so true No Child Left Behind is making it harder for for kids to really learn, all standardized test do is create deadlines for learning and give less time to really understand topics. But when the tests are over have nothing you to teach beside what they want you to teach next year.

by monkeygirl13, Aug 29, 2009, 10:02 PM

Report

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.

This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.

I'm not sure what you mean by calling "equal outcomes" a strawman, jmerry -- "reducing inequality" is the stated goal of many educational programs, and I haven't seen "inequality" measured in any way other than test scores. So, maybe I'm overstating saying the goal is "equal outcomes", but I'd say that "reducing inequality" is just as stupid a goal. "Improving absolute outcomes" should be the goal, and it appears that for some segments of the population, NCLB might even be contributing to that.

I think that the editorial is specifically stating that the studies that say "bottom moving up, top moving up too" are misleading, and saying that even if "top not moving" is the outcome, it's an outcome that still leaves a lot to be desired. That is, the article is saying that reducing inequality is a stupid goal.

I wasn't pointing out this article to bash NCLB. I have mixed feelings about NCLB. At the very least, it's a beachhead for evaluating teachers and schools. I'm just saying that it's nice to see someone at the NYT, traditionally not an outlet that cares about the top getting better at anything, say that we have to worry about what's happening to top students in addition to what's happening with students at the bottom.

by rrusczyk, Aug 30, 2009, 12:59 AM