Wrong way...

STAMFORD, Conn. — Sixth graders at Cloonan Middle School here are assigned numbers based on their previous year’s standardized test scores — zeros indicate the highest performers, ones the middle, twos the lowest — that determine their academic classes for the next three years.

Ok...that makes sense. You want to group students of similar learning potential so that the curriculum can be adjusted for interest and aptitude. Otherwise, the most able students are going to get bored and slack. They will not be pushed to their potential.

But this longstanding system for tracking children by academic ability for more effective teaching evolved into an uncomfortable caste system in which students were largely segregated by race and socioeconomic background, both inside and outside classrooms. Black and Hispanic students, for example, make up 46 percent of this year’s sixth grade, but are 78 percent of the twos and 7 percent of the zeros.

So in an unusual experiment, Cloonan mixed up its sixth-grade science and social studies classes last month, combining zeros and ones with twos. These mixed-ability classes have reported fewer behavior problems and better grades for struggling students, but have also drawn complaints of boredom from some high-performing students who say they are not learning as much.

Good grief!!! You're kidding me. Guess what? There is a caste system in everything you do. Some students are smarter than others. Some employees are more valuable than others. Some atheletes are more talented than others. Some folks are better public speakers. Some people are more motivated. Some just care more.

So, instead of facing reality and teaching students on their selected comprehension levels, this school idiocy has decided to hold back those with the most potential so as not to hurt the feelings of those students who make up the bottom percentile. This is all predicated on ethnicity. FOOLS!!!!

I'm curious...everyone seems to be ignoring the two ton pink elephant in the room. Why is it that the "minorities" make up a larger percentage of lower level students in terms of standarized test scores? I'll bet that there are a significant number of half-wits out there who would call me a racist just for asking the question, and then try to float an answer that just wouldn't track.

Why are we always catering to those on the bottom? Why are we rewarding their poor behavior and performance? Probably the same reason we are bailing out those mortgage holders who didn't take the time to understand the legal contract. For some reason it's trendy to do this nonsense. The Liberal mentality is all about feeling good and massaging their self-imposed guilt. It makes no difference who they damage in the process. In this case, it is students who value education, and excel at it.

NEA needs a tutor...

The president of the 3.2 million-member National Education Association, Dennis Van Roekel said, "President Obama always says he will do it with educators, not to them."

"That is a wonderful feeling, for the president of the United States to acknowledge and respect the professional knowledge and skills that those educators bring to every job in the school," van Roekel said.

Van Roekel insisted that Obama's call for teacher performance pay does not necessarily mean raises or bonuses would be tied to student test scores. It could mean more pay for board-certified teachers or for those who work in high-poverty, hard-to-staff schools, he said.

However, administration officials said later they do mean higher pay based on student achievement, among other things.

This is a wonderful microcosm of the mentality brought forth by the Obama Brigades.

The Administration has just unwrapped their education goals for all to see. Obviously, and expectedly, it was a lot of rhetorical fantasyland type goals. However, the "teacher merit pay" based on student performance highlights this package.

When George W. Bush attempted to fund teacher merit pay based on performance, this is what the sitting National Education President (Reg Weaver) had to say.

Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association, recently said the setup "is nothing more than a merit-pay system, and merit pay hasn't worked wherever it has been tried, for the most part."

Far from spurring teachers on to greater effectiveness, extra bonuses for some and not others simply "creates tension" between teachers and kills any teamwork, he said.

"It doesn't work and it's not going to do anything to attract and retain quality teachers," Mr. Weaver said. What will work is getting teachers involved in the decision-making process, giving them a safe and orderly school and a decent salary, he said.

The NEA head today stated (as posted above).

Van Roekel insisted that Obama's call for teacher performance pay does not necessarily mean raises or bonuses would be tied to student test scores.

So first...we have denial. Van Roekel can't believe that "The One" would present such a travesty...so he chose to suggest that the words must mean something entirely different.

But:

However, administration officials said later they do mean higher pay based on student achievement, among other things.

And, of course, water carrier Associated Press fails to follow up with President Van Roekel to secure his feelings on the fact that he misinterpreted "The One's" position...and since the NEA was severely against merit pay when the previous president presented it, what would the NEA's current position be on the issue.

Once again, I am holding my breath like Michael Hutchence in wait of the follow-up report from the AP and the remedial reading tutor to arrive at Van Roekel's office.