Comments on: Q & A: Jane Owens /2007/q-a-jane-owens/ less helpful Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:53:56 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.2 By: dan /2007/q-a-jane-owens/#comment-2118 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:12:31 +0000 /?p=190#comment-2118 Right, and I appreciate your caveat. Personally, I’m extremely contented with the depth and breadth demanded by the Cali Geometry standards. If they were inaccurate, too demanding, or demanding in the wrong ways (as you seem to think yours are) I’d be pushing back, though for standards improvement, not extinction.

Incidentally, it kinda seems like a lot of us are shaking down into our specific peeves, likes, and dislikes on the NCLB issue. Even more than pro- or con-, I feel like I have a handle on how everyone on my blogroll specifically feels.

]]> By: Eric Hoefler /2007/q-a-jane-owens/#comment-2113 Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:18:20 +0000 /?p=190#comment-2113 Quote: We became the bad guys when we circled the wagons around the mediocre among us, those who grew increasingly mediocre as our student populations grew increasingly diverse, technologically inclined, and understimulated.

Well-said. I often feel mediocre (by my own standards), and always want the opportunity to improve when I feel that way, but that’s not the same as plugging my ears against the demand to improve or insist that people stop demanding.

My only caveat, repeatedly, is that the (hopefully various forms of) assessments must be valid and appropriate to what they measure.

]]>