Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Carlton
From my limited knowledge, it's far more than a simple test. If the children don't make the required test scores, it's the responsibility of the district to put in whatever remedial training is required to improve those scores. It's an expensive proposition if you've got 20% of the class failing to meet the numbers.
|
If that's it, that makes sense. It's not the test-taking portion but the resulting expense of bringing those below acceptable level up to it. Although the CT Mastery Tests would also require that on the state level.
Something I hear often from teachers here, but never have wanted to call them on it in public settings, is that they have to "teach to the test" (for both CMT and NAEP) rather than going with their usual curriculum. I would think they would both be grade specific and something the kids ought to be able to do already.
I've got kids on both end of the spectrum. My oldest son (11) and daughter (9) tested on the high end of the "Proficient" category (near perfect in all categories) and then I have son #2 with DS (6) who will obviously have testing issues. We've been generally very pleased with their school catering to our widely varying needs and having a student with Special Needs I'm well aware of the extra resources he takes, so I tend not to question them too much. The terms seem to get parroted from the politicians to the teachers to the parents who oppose NCLB so it just got me wondering what the reason behind it was.
Thanks, Brian and Peter.