Reply #10: they set standards that all students have to meet (in terms of passing [View All]

[salin]

on a test) and they disaggregate the data by income, race, special education, etc. and each subgroup must meet that standard (say 62% of students pass the cut off that is supposed to prove "mastery" on a state test). So far so good, sounds reasonable. If any single subgroup does not meet the goal - the whole school fails. Now that wouldn't be bad in and of itself, becuase it would focus the school's improvement efforts on that area. BUT there are more and more consequences for the school. All that cost the school money.

Here is where it gets really bad. Each year the bar gets raised. So take a struggling urban elementary school where 33% passed the grade level test. They have to show a certain amount of progress in the first year - for each subgroup. The next year the bar gets raised higher and each group has to meet the higher mark.

Here is the doom and gloom part. In a number of years (can't remember when) ALL schools are supposed to have 100% of the students passing. Can't be done. In the consequences provisions things like schools giving "vouchers" to pay for kids to get tutoring. Later years schools have to allow students to transfer to better schools (even if, as in Chicago, there are no schools to take the kids).

Many believe it is a set up - that as it gets impossible the solution: Vouchers! or worse... Vouchers for ALL schools (eg disband all public schools go to an entirely privatized system) is introduced (and wins).