What’s “crucial” to improving education?
Jean DeLuca (education opinion Feb. 19) is a new face in the propaganda campaign of education reform. She might not know it but she is parroting the same old half-truth — “Only one-third of our students were proficient or advanced readers” on the 2015 NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress).
“Proficient” on NAEP correlates to an A or A- grade. So, is our goal to make all students “A” students? Isn’t that like having 100 percent proficient students by 2014 (the nonsensical goal of No Child Left Behind)?
Do we need to (truly) improve reading instruction? Yes, always, and in some places more than others (that’s the problem in need of solving). Does Idaho need to invest more money in education reform? Yes, but it is wasted money if it isn’t invested wisely.
The 30-year education reform song-and-dance — higher standards, better tests, new accountability systems, taxpayer-funded freedom of choice, and more ($$$ much, much, more $$$) technology — can never obtain the results that the crucially important (research-proven) Effective School Correlates produce in a real, true school improvement process.
You know what is really, really crucial? We need to quit doing the same things and expecting different results.
Victoria Young, Caldwell