DEAR EDITOR:
Ronald Reagan was standing at a presidential debate. In response
to his opponent’s statement, he lowered his head and shook it
slightly. Half laughing he said,
”
There you go again.
”
DEAR EDITOR:
Ronald Reagan was standing at a presidential debate. In response to his opponent’s statement, he lowered his head and shook it slightly. Half laughing he said, “There you go again.”
Doug Meier has once again blessed the readership with incomplete data analysis regarding SAT and AP scores. For the sake of discussion I will forget the fact that analyzing SAT and AP data violates many of the basic tenets of statistics. I will forget that Mr. Meier’s examination of the data may be incomplete or misleading. Assuming that the analysis of the data is valid and accurate, what makes Mr. Meier so sure that “below-grade-level curriculums” are the cause of the problem?
There are hundreds of variables that affect test scores. Some of the variables for which correlations have been suggested include: parent education, family income, marital status of parents, quantity and quality of words spoken to a preschool child, teacher experience, teacher pay, teacher education level, school attendance etc. With all of the possible variables, how can one be so certain that the curricula are the primary cause of problems or differences? With the number of variables in play, such an insistence is impossible.
School Board Vice President T. J. Owens words regarding the SAT were somewhat oversimplified but essentially correct. SAT scores will probably drop, at least initially, as the pool of students taking the test increases. SAT scores are becoming less of a factor in college admissions. The truly “misguided” and “worrisome” aspect of this debate is not Mr. Owens’ statement about the SAT but rather that another self-appointed educational expert has deemed himself omniscient in educational improvement. Mr. Meier also criticizes with an overly broad brush. Which curricula are weak? How are they weak? How do you know the curricula are weak?
GUSD has problems. Everyone has a part in identifying and fixing those problems. Those who step beyond their knowledge and ability facilitate making matters worse. Doug Meier has stepped beyond his knowledge.
As for Cynthia Walker’s latest attempted personal broadside, I am amused that Ms. Walker knows more about my words and their intent than I do. I wonder if she uses similar approaches with her “hapless” family, students and friends.
My words and explained intent will speak for themselves. Ms. Walker’s quoting me out of context and comments about a “lie of omission” and “your hapless math students” are the impishly inane prattle of one who knows they lack an effective counterpoint. The pathetically childish tactics in Ms. Walker’s May 14 column are unworthy of additional time or effort.
Wayne Scott, Gilroy High math teacher
Submitted Saturday, May 15 to ed****@****ic.com
