Reading newspaper articles and op-ed pieces on education can be infuriating. This morning I read a Seattle Times Op-Ed that I couldn't make heads or tails of. At best I disagreed with her assessment that our kids are thriving in schools. At worst I was confused by comparing education to being science-based like medicine.
Personally I believe that education needs reform of some sort. Does it need to scrapped in favor of charter schools? I don't think so, particularly as the data comparing charters and public schools don't support the huge gains that charter school supporters champion. But I do believe that we need an education system that isn't a slave to assessment. Assessment should inform instruction, and help teachers target instruction at appropriate levels. I am not quite sure what is so science-based about education either. Perhaps it is the number of case studies that eventually lead to best practices. Then again, hasn't a case been made for virtually all of the "best practices" that have been in education, many of which competing against each other?
I think there are some great things happening at schools, but by no stretch of the imagination are they thriving. If they were thriving, and preparing all students for higher ed and the great beyond then we wouldn't have programs like Rainier Scholars. There was a great article about RS in the Seattle Times as well. What kills me are the comments, which show a complete lack of understanding for why a program like Rainier Scholars exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment