(In reference to pre- and post-tests of a certain skill) If you raise the scores of lower performers while allowing scores of higher performers to stagnate, you've narrowed the achievement gap, and this is great!
This has been a real eye opener to me. If you hold back the top performers, then you have equalized the opportunity for all, and this is a good thing! I guess I can kind of understand the line of thinking....
I was gobsmacked. I had no idea the thinking was so extreme.
I was talking to two people about a classroom practice that claimed that narrowing the gap this way was great. Worse, the standard for "good students" was arbitrarily chosen and not even based on an objective measure.
I said, "But the good students didn't learn anything." One of the people I was talking to looked at me strangely and said, as though the point was obvious, "But they were
already proficient." As though it was perfectly okay to let a group of kids sit in a class learning nothing for months. I said, "Well, what about becoming better than proficient? What about becoming outstanding?" No answer. Silence. Then I mentioned the arbitrariness of the standard and got more blank looks.
I'll add something else that I learned yesterday. I've learned that in public middle schools in California, you aren't allowed to go past geometry. I was told that there's no (standardized?) middle school test for Algebra II, and even though a public school can
teach it, the student won't get
credit for it.
(I hope I'm wrong; CAMom or anyone else, please correct me if I am).
