Spur American progress through standards
Upon reading the article in The Times about nationwide academic standards, I found myself disturbed that an issue as important as this had been on hold for some time now [“Obama would dismantle No Child Left Behind law,” News, March 14]. By unifying the standards of schools around the country, the overall status of our schools would rise. I feel that because of this program we would see improvements in the development of the youth of this generation in regions of America where academic standards have fallen.
While reading this article I could not stop myself from comparing this program to the surge of math and science during the apex of the Cold War in the 1950s. During that time, our leaders understood that in order to beat the Soviets in the space race, the nation needed to jump-start America at its roots: the children.
The same applies today. Simply speaking, if we want our future to be prosperous as a nation, we must give the children of America a rigorous curriculum that puts them on the path for high academic achievements in the future.
— Andrew Laskowski, Seattle
Labeling schools as ‘failing’ deters teacher’s dedication
Last year I was working in a school with “academically successful” students and felt the need for a new challenge. I asked my school district for a transfer and happily agreed to move to our district’s only dual-language school.
Based on student assessments, my new school is considered a “failing” school, but I’m glad I’ve moved here. I’ve never worked with a staff that was more dedicated or competent. Walking through this school’s halls is magic — one hears Spanish, children’s voices singing along with a teacher’s guitar and staff members in the hall working with groups of students learning how to speak a second language.
There’s a wonderful energy here; it’s a dynamic place, alive with the celebration of learning. There are a lot of factors that affect students’ test scores, which teachers have no control over. But the things that my new school’s teachers can control — the instruction that they provide their students at school — is as good as it gets.
It would be a shame for teachers and students if experienced teachers had to think twice before moving from a “successful” school to a “failing” one because their pay depended on their students’ success on state assessments.
— Karen M. Terrell, Bow, Skagit County
Consolidating districts means smaller class sizes, overhead costs
The Times’ recent editorial “Consolidate smaller school districts” [Opinion, March 14] was spot on. In the online edition [comments section] I see that many readers are missing the point. This is not about consolidating schools but rather about consolidating school districts.
I grew up on Whidbey Island where there are three school districts. Why on one small island do we need three districts? One consolidated district would eliminate countless administrative overhead costs and could translate to smaller class sizes.
In the Coupeville School District alone there are 14 administrative and supervisory positions for just over 1,000 students. That is one staff — not teachers, custodians or cooks — for every 71 students.
— Gerald Shepherd, Bellevue