>
> |
Without any data to support my conclusion, I do believe that high school should be more challenging across the board. However, it's very hard to see where this "research brief" proves anything. Perhaps there is a full-length paper that makes the case better (of course, that would involve the detailed analysis that would make it virtually unreadable).
So, while I like the goal, here are things I don't like about this paper:
- It sure feels like the conclusion was written long before the research began.
- The fact that they say they've surveyed a wide array of schools isn't convincing. If one middle school is as little as 44%, but the next lowest percentage is, say, 80% white, they could still claim diversity of ethnic composition as they do. I don't know that they're being misleading, but it's presented as a hand-wave.
- They seem to be suggesting that many more students should be put in college prep classes, which seems simple enough. They go on, though, to call for more counseling and remedial help, and other things that require additional resources.
- The criterion of number of books read seems awfully arbitrary. Doesn't the type of book matter a lot? I think the variation in difficulty of book is much more significant than the quantity of books. In fact, students working with harder books might read fewer.
- I really don't like "good practice" mandated at the state level. Local control is a good thing. The state should set up objective metrics (I prefer market-based measures rather than survey-based results) so districts can learn from each other what is truly effective. States tend to mandate one-size-fits-all, which doesn't work for widely varying districts. Also, mandates prevent districts from doing NEW things, which might prove better.
-- DanK - 02 Aug 2005
|
