The Times writes:
Sounding the alarm on consistently low test scores should result in more attention paid to struggling students. Contrary to what wary teachers unions believe, the issue is less about getting rid of teachers and more about catching flailing students before they drown.How thick are they?
How thick do they think we are?
If the use of value-added analysis were primarily to identify struggling students then why hasn't the District been using it for that purpose?
More to the point, if the use of value-added data were about students' education instead of teachers' jobs, then why is it in the teachers' contract? Why does it only appear in this context and no other?
Finally, what will the District do with these "flailing" students after they catch them?
Just when you think the Seattle Times cannot write anything more gullible, disingenuous, or stupid than what they have already written, they go and amaze you.