Great to hear you quote things mostly remembered from GW Bush's unoriginal speeches. Interesting to see how wholly unfamiliar you are with the English Regents exam, which requires little in the way of original thought, let alone writing or reading skills. Love the way you casually stereotype low income districts. All this shines a light on your credibility, which borders on nil. I am sorely disappointed The Wire sees fit to publish your nonsense.
When I was in high school in the mid 1990s, we had the option of taking the Regents or not. It was called tracking: there was local/general, Regents and honors. I recall the Regents of those years (only since I looked them up out nostalgia) to be more challenging than the lowering of the Regents standard over the years. The History exams now require less a knowledge of history and more an understanding of reading comprehension. Which, I am not necessarily against, however, it makes the teaching of this course soul sucking when one is told in a dept meeting "content does not matter." Well, if content does not matter then do not come to when students wonder why they are not taught about a specific group of people.
I feel the easiest thing to do would be to revert to the old system. I don't know what this new standard will be, but, as I have worked in this system, it is hard to be optimistic. In the best case scenario, it could open up new avenues in the classroom since there would be less emphasis on test prep; in reality because the vast majority of schools lack an iota of vision, it will likely be something that resembles some sort of nonsense.
Great to hear you quote things mostly remembered from GW Bush's unoriginal speeches. Interesting to see how wholly unfamiliar you are with the English Regents exam, which requires little in the way of original thought, let alone writing or reading skills. Love the way you casually stereotype low income districts. All this shines a light on your credibility, which borders on nil. I am sorely disappointed The Wire sees fit to publish your nonsense.
When I was in high school in the mid 1990s, we had the option of taking the Regents or not. It was called tracking: there was local/general, Regents and honors. I recall the Regents of those years (only since I looked them up out nostalgia) to be more challenging than the lowering of the Regents standard over the years. The History exams now require less a knowledge of history and more an understanding of reading comprehension. Which, I am not necessarily against, however, it makes the teaching of this course soul sucking when one is told in a dept meeting "content does not matter." Well, if content does not matter then do not come to when students wonder why they are not taught about a specific group of people.
I feel the easiest thing to do would be to revert to the old system. I don't know what this new standard will be, but, as I have worked in this system, it is hard to be optimistic. In the best case scenario, it could open up new avenues in the classroom since there would be less emphasis on test prep; in reality because the vast majority of schools lack an iota of vision, it will likely be something that resembles some sort of nonsense.