>They don't care if they graduate; why should they care about one more test? Au contraire, They care very much about graduating. You should see the middle school graduations. They're incredibly big deals for most families.
> Perhaps part of the problem here is that we tend to teach (speaking generally here, not personally) inner-city kids the same way >we teach suburban, middle-class kids. The latter group typically comes >to school with at least some idea that they should try to succeed in school.
The problem is there aren't any tests that really count. As I've written before I read a book called "Class Action" which promoted multiple national curricula. Every curricula would have a national assessment to go with it.
So Saxon could have his standardized tests and perhaps Mike could develop a curricula where the assessment was more qualitative. Then each class grade would be accompanied by a national assessment score that would give the powers that be some objective criteria to judge a student's merits.
However, I disagree with the authors in that I think there should be some minimum competency exams given every three or four years with real things at stake.
But the NCTM Standards folk even seem to have a problem with this proposal. Standards that aren't close to being standards. I think I'll just push this one through the memory hole.
One of the amusing things about this forum is the complete lack of time spent by proponents of the Standards actually promoting them in a proactive fashion.
For instance, the NCTM recently released its Assessment Standards, which, in my opinion, is one of the most awesomely misguided documents I've ever read pertaining to education. (This should gain me a few more pejorative adjectives!!)But where's all the discussion about this document?
I think perhaps I'm the only one who's read it. (Or at least tried).