The Reading (Pa.) Eagle has a smart editorial questioning the state’s rating system for schools. It seems that quite a few local schools did not make “adequate yearly progress.”
The editorialist wrote:
“…we do not believe this is a sign local districts suddenly are doing a poor job. It’s a sign of an incomprehensible system that sets up schools to fail and encourages an educational structure focused on getting high test scores rather than well-rounded learning.
“Only a bureaucrat could comprehend the regulations involved. Some schools on the warning list achieved higher scores than others that were judged to have met the standard…
“It is noble to say that schools should aim for every child to succeed, and they should, but the reality is that for a variety of reasons some students will not, regardless of what educators do. The current system of arbitrary benchmarks does not seem to recognize that.”
How remarkable that the Reading Eagle understands that the system itself is fundamentally flawed and that it sets up schools to fail? Sooner or later, the newspaper will realize that this predictable failure is part of someone’s business plan.
How is it possible that the Reading Eagle understands what is happening, while the influential New York Times stubbornly supports the metrics, no matter how absurd they are?
Maybe someone who writes for the Reading Eagle has children in the public schools. Maybe they have talked to real teachers.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Worse yet the NYTimes accepts the preposterous metrics the NY School system dreamed up that results in wild swings in performance from year to year… but then the Times didn’t think invading Iraq was a bad idea at first either….
Good editorial from the Reading Eagle. They understand that standardized testing does not definitively mean whether a school is good or bad. The NY Times, on the other hand, has to be getting some sort of benefit from stubbornly supporting the metrics. How else could they stand behind a flawed system when the evidence says that NCLB and its requirements do not work?
The Times, like other mainstream media, is primarily a vehicle for the conveyance and validation of official thinking.
Although many fine writers have worked there (some of them, such as Raymond Bonner, ill-treated by the company), and though it is an estimable institution in many ways, it seeks to establish the parameters of permitted debate. Its motto, “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” practically says as much.
On a local, NYC level, it is no surprise that the Times would stand by Bloomberg’s so-called reforms: its coverage of local issues has often belied its liberal reputation. That the Times editorial board would uncritically accept the narrative of corporate education reform, and that most of its reportage would reflect that, is to be expected. What surprises me is how the local NPR affiliate, WNYC, is such a loudspeaker for ed deform.
“The Times, like other mainstream media, is primarily a vehicle for the conveyance and validation of official thinking.”
Yes, this is the key, isn’t it? And so true in every state.