David Safier

by David Safier

Four TUSD schools that have received a D grade from the state two years in a row could be seeing a change of principals. If any of the schools' test scores show a significant improvement over last year's, those principals will probably keep their jobs. The District gets the scores in June, so right now everything is in limbo.

This is a complicated issue. I don't have enough information to know how capable the four principals are, but I do know the situation is filled with red flags.

All four schools have low income populations, and income is the single best predictor of student achievement. The schools also have lots of ELL students with language barriers that increase their educational difficulties. If the principals were working in schools with higher income — meaning higher achieving — students, their jobs would probably be secure. In a real sense, the principals are being punished for the socioeconomic makeup of their student bodies.

by David Safier UNIDOS has organized a "Community Call to Action" demonstration protesting the planned school closures. People will gather in front of the TUSD Adminstrative building, 1010 E. 10th St., at 5:30pm Tuesday, April 9. If you're concerned about the closures, you're invited to attend.

by David Safier

The NY Times has an article about essay grading software being given away free by EdX, a "nonprofit enterprise founded by Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to offer courses on the Internet." I rebel at the thought. Computers are, as someone said to me long ago, lightning fast idiots. In the time since I heard that line, the idiots have become far more sophisticated. They play terrific chess. They answer questions on my phone. They do a pretty good job on Jeopardy. But grading higher level thinking and the quality of someone's prose? I'm very, very skeptical.

Here's what happens. A student writes an essay on a computer and submits it to the program. Faster than you can say "Have you graded my essay yet?" the results are back, with the essay scored and corrections made. A student can improve the essay on the spot and resubmit it for a better grade and more suggestions.

The problem is, the computer isn't actually "reading" the essay the way a human being does. People have submitted lofty sounding gobbledygook to these programs and gotten high scores, because the software scans for certain traits in the essay which it uses for evaluation. It can't take in the essay's totality — its overall logic and subtlety of thought.

On the other hand . . . This kind of "artificial intelligence" is part of our future. Meanwhile, teachers are assigning less writing as their class loads increase (If you grade essays for 160 students giving yourself 5 minutes per essay, you'll be finished in 13 hours and 20 minutes! Been there, done that.). The question is, can this kind of computer grading be put to good use by good teachers? I think so.