, , ,

When 70% of the students are labeled as failures and not meeting grade level expectations, they should have received mandatory AIS.

This year, the rules were “relaxed” since most districts could not afford to provide the required academic intervention services (AIS).  Instead, students and their parents were told they would be “monitored”.

Last summer, most districts penned letters to their communities claiming they didn’t have time or the resources available and the test was not an indication of student performance- at least not yet.

With a 70% failure rate and a promise of incremental growth, we can expect student scores to follow the path of Kentucky (currently in year 3) with 3-5% growth.

In all likelihood, 65- 68% of students will still be labeled failures again this year.  With razor thin margins, there is no guarantee a student that passed last year will pass this year.  The only guarantee is a minimal gain overall.

In year 2, can districts hide behind the same excuses when the results come out?  Is any district strong enough to support the notion that 70% (or more) of their children are failures?

In an effort to preserve communities and education, districts need to take aim at high-stakes tests.

FIRE AWAY!!!!!!!!!

Lace to the Top