Submitted by Kathryn, Nov 29, 2006 08:50

I find it ironic that the author dedicates pages to reporting standardized test scores to demonstrate that students are "at risk of scientific illiteracy" (What does it mean? Read it literary or figuratively and try to decipher it? I will assume the author means students are not achieving in science--at least as demonstrated on a specific standardized achievement test) but then she states, "Students are not progressing because the department is committed solely to test scores and not to learning." Simply put, she cites nothing other than test scores to make her point and then chastises school districts for doing the same. Further, making generalized statements like, "Tests can tell us where we need to improve instruction and focus our energies. But tests are no substitute for a coherent curriculum and well-prepared teachers" does nothing to specifically describe what the author recommends as a method of reform. What are the elements of a "coherent curriculum"..what research supports those as elements that advance student learning? The same questions apply to "well-prepared teachers." Further the author states that in NYC, the current emphasis on reading showed an initial jump in achievement scores, but then those increases flattened (regression toward the mean or another statistical explanation might account for that phenomena--I'd like the author to at least address other possible explanations). I'd like to know on what the author bases her statement, "Students are not progressing because the department is committed solely to test scores and not to learning." Please tell us what the $3.5 million funded. Was the curriculum revised? Were more reading specialists employed, what what what. My intuition tells me that the school district did more than simply pour $3.5 million into testing. If not, at least the author could and should provide the readers with that information too. Help me here, but after reading this article I am left thinking..."okay so kids are not doing well in science, we are using tests to determine that, but the author says focusing on tests is the problem. And she focuses on tests to show us that kids are not achieving in science. So now what?" This article lacks details and support as well as offering any innovative ideas for change. And it is offensive for an author to expect the us (the general public) to simply take her word for things by not offering support or details.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.