Why does Darryl Scott (D-Rodel) buy the BS peddled by the DEDOE? Seriously.

So, Carper brought us THE solution in DSTP

Then, Jack Markell and Lillian Lowery tout the DCAS as the test we need to have: https://milfordlive.com/2010/10/11/new-test-to-better-track-student-progress-toward-college-and-career-readiness-debuts-in-delaware-classrooms/

Then , the DOE tweets about how we have to REVERT to DSTP annual “growth” sensibilities here:

Just another goalpost move and another legislator standing on the precipice of action, only to reveal himself to be a spectator, or worse, just an enabler.

And all Darryl Scott can do is insinuate that I’m not trying to be part of the solution? Rep Scott, you need to READ stuff. Lots of it. Open your mind, get in classrooms. Talk WITH teachers. Were your ears plugged at Murphy’s disaster at the DSEA meeting last month?  Hello? McFly? Think, McFly! Think!

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Why does Darryl Scott (D-Rodel) buy the BS peddled by the DEDOE? Seriously.

  1. This is the best argument I’ve read against testing – that it is rooted in 1/4 of our ways of knowing and disconnected from the other ways is useless: Bell and Gardner, Dialogics of Critique “This brings us to Gadamer’s confrontation with the Enlightenment tradition of critical reason. He feels that the philosophical legacy of the Enlightenment is seriously flawed, because it insists on an abstract conception of ‘reason’ as the sole yardstick by which to measure all values and to provide the foundation for legitimate authority. This has led to the domination of a narrow form of technological rationality which represents an ‘inner longing in our society to find in science a substitute for lost origins’. Genuinely to regain such ‘lost origins’ —that is, to realize the Aristotelian ideal of the higher synthesis of technical reason [techne] with both theoretical [episteme] and practical-ethical knowledge [phronesis] — Gadamer asserts that we must re-engage the standards of rationality with the exigencies of lived, shared tradition if we wish to recover ‘authentic’ existence.13 Otherwise, reason will remain an impoverished and reified human capacity, lacking any practical relevance for our everyday moral and social conduct.”

Comments are closed.