Originally Posted by inky
Originally Posted by Grinity
But if we keep using our 'master teachers' in the same old way then how many can we have in any school? These folks are a limited resource.
There's a restricted supply of "certified" master teachers but there are a number of people who have this ability (like OHG smile ). I'd like to see rules change so that schools have an easier time getting rid of teachers who can't do this and bring in more folks who can. This would require getting away from the mindset that the traditional certification process is the only way to produce quality teachers. I see this as a big pro for charter schools.

OHG's story highlights this criticism of the AR program:
http://www.frankserafini.com/ShortArticles/ARstatement.htm
Quote
Misrepresentation of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): AR�s definition and use of the ZPD is blatantly misused and misrepresented. In their �research report� entitled ZPD Guidelines, they offer the following definition; �a student�s ZPD is the range of book readability levels that will result in optimal growth in reading ability.� This is just plain wrong. Vygotsky originated the theory of the Zone of Proximal Development, where he defined it as the level between what a child can do independently and what they can do with the help of capable others. Since no where in the AR program are readers allowed to work with capable, or even incapable others, how can they determine the upper bounds of the zone? The boundaries AR establishes for the ZPD are determined by a test score based on readability formulas. Vygotsky was quite clear that the ZPD cannot be determined by a test, but rather by assessments and observations done in the context of the learning event. In an effort to provide an essence of �science� in their brochures AR has inappropriately adopted the term ZPD, and has misunderstood and misrepresented the concept Vygotsky originated.

Oh my goodness! What a terrific article to express my position!

I have backed the AR program wholeheartedly up until last year. But last year, the use of the point goals started to be a hindrance to GS10's reading. I saw it as GS10 had matured to a more adult approach to reading; he'd sample books, find an author he liked and read everything by that author, he'd pick up anything from picture books, to Poe, to 'age appropriate' books, to adult non-fiction. That kind of reading is not easily tracked by AR, and does not contribute points so they're not as valued. But it was exactly that kind of reading this summer that gave a measurable response on the STAR assessment!

Inky, thanks for that link. I'm going to print it and use it to help make my point that GS10 will no longer have 150 points as a goal in one quarter(as he does this quarter!).