New York Times Education Article...

This New York Times article seems pretty similar to a lot of the education articles being written right now - an underperforming public school is either improving or getting worse, why? In this case, the school in Newark (which has failed to meet the federal benchmarks set out in No Child Left Behind for the past 7 years) seems to be doing better. The author seems to think that the (vaguely referred to) improvements come from the developing of a community at the school. Consequently, the article doesn't spend much of its three pages discussing exactly what the teachers are doing that is different (which is what I want to know!) Instead, it says that students now want to go to school instead of having to be pushed out the door, and that parents want to know why this is, but then it never really answers that question.

Anyway, one of the first things that struck me about this article is that the third graders are getting letter grades! This is true in my school as well, and I find it a strange practice. Why are we giving 8 year-olds letter grades in subjects when so much of what they are learning has to do with behavior and developing study skills. Wouldn't it be more useful to evaluate their interpersonal skills, their diligence, their consistency, their engagement? And particularly at underperforming schools - how does this third grader, who is below grade level in math and scores an average of 51% on her tests, feel about receiving an F on her report card? And is that really going to motivate her to do better next time? I would argue that such grades only decrease a child's motivation and confidence, making it more difficult for them to succeed in the classroom.