« InTrade fee structure discourages selling the tails? | Main | Purpose and Pragmatism »

November 25, 2007


I think a lot of us privileged folk shudder at the idea of "teaching to the test," because we went to schools were everyone was so far above the standard that this would have been dull and stunting.

Um... that seems rather implausible. I went to perfectly normal and average schools, and they were already dull and stunting without "teaching to the test".

You just written a lot of words, it could be better to write a substract or bolden your main sentences

Caledonian, if I understand Holden correctly, he's just arguing that many people here may have had an untypical educational experience.

Both my parents are veteran educators (teachers, then administrators) in a tough urban school district in the Midwest, and they both laud No Child Left Behind not because it helps children directly, but because it's the only "objective" information available that can be politically wielded to attack known underperforming schools and employees. Administrators are often too well aware how terrible their schools, teachers, and students are, and NCLB testing doesn't tell them anything that they didn't already know. Instead, the tests are acceptable "objective measurements" to blame to make decisions that the administration knew had to be made anyway. That way, it's "the test's fault" instead of the fault of the administrator. Before NCLB, there was nothing to blame, and so hard decisions couldn't be made because it was politically impossible to do so.

As some guy once said, small is beautiful.


The comments to this entry are closed.

Less Wrong (sister site)

May 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30