This is a very bad idea (if true; I can't watch the video right now). I emphasize with my colleagues, as often as I can, that if we're going to assess proficiency (ability to perform), we've got to do so fairly and apply the same standard. Joey's "proficient" can't be different from Pedro's "proficient," which can't be different from Tyrone's "proficient," which can't be different from Jin-Ha's "proficient."

This is not to say that the methods of instruction and assessment should not be different for different learners (they should be), but targets are targets, and achievement is achievement.

" Also lets hold some of these bad teachers feet to the fire, too many bad teachers in the system that should be removed. No more faking reports and letting things slide by."

Agree. Administrators too. Identify bad teaching (fairly and as objectively as possible, with serious observations, not five-minute drive-by observations), then set measurable improvement goals. Give those people specific goals and deadlines by which to improve within the school year, and can 'em if they don't measure up. (Can't be standardized test results only.) Approach unions with serious plans that meet these criteria, and partner with them even; get everyone on board, and start kickin' ass and takin' names.

4: Not Republican of me at all, just logical and honest. And valid. : )

And I thought you weren't a Republican; why are you praising me with a label you disdain? : )

"good afternoon prag."

And to you, sir.

"The impact that proactive parenting has on a child's education simply cannot be overstated."

Bingo! And I can tell that up here where I teach, where the population is 97% white (yes, really), I have a majority of students whose parents do not value education, either not at all or not in the ways that 'Stang and I do, as evidenced by our behavior with our own children. If all parents behaved as 'Stang describes, our students would sure as hell know a lot more and be able to do a lot more! (Yes, there is bad teaching, and yes, good teaching can sometimes offset unsupportive families, but the larger truth is what I just said.)

"It should be based upon poverty levels as opposed to race."

Okay, let's clarify. The article seems to talk about time targets, not what proficiency is, so my earlier post is a little off (the intent is right, but it's a tangent, not on point).

Here is what makes sense to me: those who have the farthest to go should have the most time to get there. If the idea is to get everyone to proficient, it's logical to recognize that a group (wait) that measures 48% proficient should have more time to get to, say, 90%, than a group that measures 72% should have. That said, why is it about race? Or about economics? It should be about specifically measured groups (standardized testing is the most common measure, sadly). That is, you test a school or a given population, not internal demographics, but the school as a whole. If Xavier Jorgensen High School averages 60% and Daniel O'Donnell High School averages 80%, then XJHS should have more time to rise to 90% than DOHS gets. Of course, there is also talk about disaggregation of data, but that's where you get into the questionable realm. (In the world in which I teach currently, it's not about race; it's about SES: socioeconomic status.)

But even if you're going to get into race, it's not (as I wrote upthread) that proficient should be different for Tyrone than for Jin-ha, but that maybe Tyrone (or the group of which he is a part within the school) gets more time to get to proficient than Jin-ha (or her group) does.

12: And Mats, you're bein' silly. Low information is all over the spectrum. And schools should teach a range of operating economic systems, not just capitalism. People need to be able to think critically, not to believe that one specific economic or political model is better than the others.

"Meanwhile, the Asians are beating academic ass & taking names."

Your BS trolling one-liners aside, why do you think this is?

"Prag, would you like the PC and propaganda answer or would you like a trolling answer?"

Neither. I'd like a real answer. I have a pretty well-developed theory, but I'd like Dean to offer a real response, if he can.

Pretty funny how you left lazy WHITE PEOPLE out of the equation, Dean.

I have an idea: How about ALL AMERICANS teach their kids to value education, to honor ideas (this would include capitalistas treating intellectual engagement with the same reverence with which they treat the mythic free market), to respect educators and elders of all kinds? I remember being raised to all of those things.

You who are so engaged in the idea of personal responsibility, maybe it should be extended to schooling. Take RESPONSIBILITY for your and your kids' education, no matter whether it's public, private, charter, or home.

"Parental expectations."

Ladeez an' gennelmun, we HAVE a winnah!

I can't tell you how many parents I know in lily-white middle-class New England who have no expectations.

"You should hear me do some of the classic Dr. Suess stories....my Lorax would make Danny Devito blush in shame and I'm dynamite with Fox-in-Socks' tongue twisters."

I refuse to watch the Lorax movie, or any Dr. Suess flick. I refuse to watch Where the Wild Things Are. The puppets look amazing, but still, no. But yes, 'Stang, read-aloud is a blast. My eight-year-old even has fun with voices now! (And has for about three years.)

Parents, if you really care, read to your kids from pretty much the womb. Every day. Do math with them in the car, at the dinner table, walking down the street. Ask them questions about the world around ("why" questions). Throw puzzlers of various kinds at them--logic, morals, whatever. Make them THINK. As often as possible. That's how they will succeed, not by how much money you have or what ethnic group you're from, but skill and more importantly, CURIOSITY.

Andrea, I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or pointing to a flaw in my point(s). : )

I do think you interpret "You didn't build that" in a way different from the way I do.

Fish, the report is about categories, not individuals.

"You tryin' to get Prag's goat? He'll get upset with you for that..."

Nah, it's an isolated incident.

"You tryin' to get MY goat? :-)"

I don't know. Did I? : )

Proficient and stupid are far from synonymous, Eliot. It's not a worthless goal for everyone to be capable. It's a laudable goal. What, you think everyone can be exceptional? Gee, wouldn't it be good if every citizen could read and understand the newspaper (never mind the Constitution) and could be capable of analysis and argumentation?

But you know, why am I arguing with a guy whose philosophy is based on Hunger Games and Idiocracy (pop culture)?

Are you high?

Of course, I want exceptional talent creating exceptional things. I also want the vast majority of citizens to be able to read and process and do math and be engaged. There isn't room in the world for all people to be exceptional. NCLB is [...], but aiming for the vast majority of students to be able to do work (read and write and figure) at a proficient level is a laudable aim. If the system does only that, it's not enough, of course.

Okay, you assume I don't know the Greeks. If you suppose that, sir, you, like the law, are a ass.

Try reading my posts again. Try thinking past your bias. Try not assigning positions to other people.

I teach kids to think. Try reading my posts again.

It's nice, though, that you can think past THG and Idiocracy.

Btw, Suzanne Collins attended public school. Mike Judge attended Catholic school (hm, possibly a place of indoctrination).

I'm not sure what Eliot is referring to. I'm not sure he is. Communism? In American schools? Weird.

And Reitze, I brought up where they went to school because you seem to have some bizarre adoration of them, or of their works, which really are just pop culture phenoms. I wanted to point you to the fact that one graduated HS from the system you're attacking with your bizarre brand of fundamentalism and that the other graduated from a school that's part of a system that many other humans think is an even worse indoctrinator.

"Tell me more about what you mean by where 'they went to school because'... "

You were suggesting that they have some important truth to offer, and you are bashing public schools as indoctrination centers ("use more text"==you've not yet explained what indoctrination, nor how it is achieved), but one of these "geniuses" attended public school and still managed to offer her important truth. They didn't indoctrinate thought out of her.

I thought that was pretty clear. Funny criticism coming from you: see parenthetical above. I'm not annoyed at you sharing ideas. I find your ideas unclear and sometimes offensive, particularly your snide remarks about philosophy.

"BTW, the indoctrination over education going on in our schools is not a new concept of my own... it does have strong communist roots - that's not weird. What's wierd is that the connection would be called weird by an actual skool teacher. Does that make you feel USED by Obama? Or did you drink so much coolaid you've lost the ability to think?"

Huh? Please show me the following:

1. communist indoctrination in schools

2. connection to Obama from anything I've said about school

Please note: Obama has zero impact on my school or on how I teach. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. But if you want to "use more text," maybe you can show me what you mean. And I have not drunk any Obama Kool-Aid, nor any other kind. Where you get that is beyond me. It's almost as if you've not read anything I've ever written.

"And I'm relating that concept to the indoctrination process in skools being an ABUSE for the smart children."

Please explain clearly what indoctrination process is going on, preferably with evidence other than your own mistreatment by a teacher or teachers. We've all met crappy teachers; that hardly means the entire system is built on advertising theory (something I know a little about because I'm a media educator who tries to open kids' minds to how they are being manipulated).