Leaving the goggles behind
About our new report, a concerned reader writes:
I couldn’t help noticing that the cover of your report on the progress of high achieving students shows a student conducting a science experiment WITHOUT wearing safety glasses. This would be considered unacceptable by any responsible science teacher, and I was surprised to see it on your cover. Your report is otherwise excellent, but as a science teacher and scientist, my safety radar is always on.
It would be a fair point if the pupil in question were not a high-achieving student, which he most certainly is. High-achieving students are not those who slosh acidic amalgams, who pour with reckless motions, who generally irritate when they titrate. Those actions are the province of the low-achiever. Thankfully, as we show in our new report, students at the bottom of their science classes (those constantly huddled around the eyewash fountain) are making significant progress. One day, they, too, may shed their safety glasses.
Update: An acquaintance, who is employed at the National Institutes of Health, writes that perhaps our high-achiever is, in fact, merely “calibrating his glassware with deionized water.” Or maybe he’s mixing up a fresh batch of Tropical Punch Kool-Aid? Or brewing his own Belgian-style ale? The goggles-not-required possibilities really are endless.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.




June 19th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
This statement from the executive summary is oh, so true!!
Were Congress to accept teachers’ views about what it means to create a “just” education system—i.e., one that challenges all students to fulfill their potential, rather than just focus on raising the performance of students who have been “left behind”—then the next version of NCLB would be dramatically different than today’s.
Can we begin to focus on challenging ALL students to fulfill their potential?
Do we even know what that means?
Well, I’m afraid that it won’t happen as long as the vast majority of funding is funneled to those in “danger” of being “left behind”, and our standards are set so that those funds continue to flow.
Almost sounds like another entitlement program, doesn’t it?