Previous | Next
214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252 of 763
Now, that doesn't mean “below norm. “Well below norm, you”
know -- below it.
Now, no one can tell me that this is not indicative of
a criminal default and inefficiency on the part of the personnel
charged with the responsibility of teaching. You don't have, in
any normal group of children, any random sample of children, nearly
90 percent of them below norm -- an incapacity to learn. When
you see their achievement at that level, or their lack of achievement
at that level, you know it is there because they're not
being taught. Minimally.
Now, this is associated with examinations and degrees in
-- and what not -- that some individuals or groups are better able
to have, or to pass, on than others, but not associated with any
indications of educational effectiveness.
So, I argued for what I call performance certification --
that you certify and evaluate teachers on the basis of their actual
performance, as reflected in the achievement of their children --
and consternation, you know. The organized teachers' groups don't
want to be evaluated on the basis of their performance. They don't
want to be held accountable, in terms of children. It's just tough,
that these inner city children are illiterate.
Weren't there performance evaluations at one time?
I guess so.
Or was it kind of informal, the school superintendent, etc?
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help