I received a great comment on my response to the LA Times editorial from an anonymous teacher. I tried to respond with a comment, but for some reason it didn't work, so here is my response with some of his/her original comment for context. I'll have to look at the comment replying problem.

I'm not sure whether we really disagree from your comments. You seem to be really upset over a very small part of what my post was about. My point was that schools who are focusing their efforts on just students slightly below proficiency are making a big mistake. My point was that the kids who are in GATE are already proficient. My experience is that they are generally self-motivated. My experience is that generally those kids have involved parents. My post was an attack on the effort to water down NCLB's accountability by adding the fluff of multiple measures.

However, that's only the case for the students who have ideal home environments. There are many children who have the intellectual and creative capacity to qualify for gifted services but are never noticed by those services because they lack a home environment that encourages that kind of development. Some of these kids, again due to environment, are substantially "below grade level" on tests, but are still highly intelligent and creative. Or do we think that only white, upper-to-middle-class students can be gifted (which is the vast majority of the demographic in those programs ... same with AP classes, etc.)? Where will help for those students come from? And the answer: "get them up to the basics, then they can be recognized and helped," shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what the "gifted" designation actually means.

Again, you're misunderstanding my point. My point was that educational triage focused only on the slightly below proficient students isn't fair and doesn't work because it isn't sustainable. If you assumed from my comment that I was trying to suggest that only rich white children can be in GATE, I apologize. That's obviously not true. If you read the rest of my posting, you saw that I'm a strong supporter of NCLB because it encourages schools to work on getting all students, including poor and ethnic minority students to grade-level proficiency. I believe the goal of getting all children to grade-level is the only correct one for public education.

Also, it's disappointing that the article (and many of your comments here and in other posts) seems to hold the assumption that teachers aren't really interested in helping students, but are, instead, only concerned with looking good--genuine progress be damned. However, for the majority of teachers I know and work with, this is not true. I see many teachers working harder than they're contracted to work, and much of that effort is to compensate for hindrances the "official system" puts in their way in the form of requirements originally designed to help the schools "look better." It's insulting to me as a professional and to my profession in general to hear the constant blanket-statement quips about "these teachers" that suggest teachers won't teach unless there's some outside authority whipping them into action and triple-checking their work. Are there some like that? Of course, in every profession (why do we expect teachers to be different from the general population, anyway?). But the majority of teachers I know, and the majority entering the teaching profession, want to help students learn. What all of them need is support, not insults.

I agree that the majority of teachers do want students to learn. No one becomes a teacher for the money or prestige. Unfortunately, my experience has been that many administrators and teachers don't believe that all students can learn. By promoting and supporting low expectations for poor children and children from ethnic minority subgroups, they create self-fulfilling prophecies of low achievement. By lowering expectations for these students and justifying their continued low academic achievement, they're limiting the educational opportunities for these children.

Are you a teacher, Dave? Do you work in the schools? I tried to find an "about" page, but didn't notice one. If you are a teacher, do you include yourself in those statements? Or are you somehow the exception?

No. Yes. I'm a recovering IT professional. I was a community college faculty member and then spent many years working in K-12 public education as an administrator working in instructional technology. I'm a parent of 8 children and a new school board member. If I were full-time K-12 teacher, no I wouldn't include myself in those statements. I believe that all children can learn and be at grade-level. Not everyone working in public education agrees with me however.

Perhaps if "these politicians and administrators" would leave the board room and step into the classroom more often, they'd find some helpful perspectives from students and build some helpful partnerships with teachers.

That's absolutely true. Perhaps if more teachers got outside their classroom only mentality and thought about what they'd want as a parent for their children, teachers could build some helpful partnerships with politicians, administrators and students. As a parent, I've noticed that some teachers seem to think they're the only ones whose opinions about public education matter. I think everyone is entitled to an opinion even if they don't work in that profession.