Better late than never
Let me be the last (probably) to congratulate Joanne Jacobs on her excellent criticism of the anti-testing New York Times - and the apparently inability of its reporters to do basic research. As she notes, a May 21st NYT article claims that children who flunk the third-grade FCAT must repeat the grade. A simple web search, however, turns up an Orlando Sentinel article which clearly states that children may be promoted with flunking FCAT scores if the student's teacher, principal and superintendent all verify that the child is reading at grade level. This judgment may be based on the child's work on a portfolio, in summer school, or on an alternative test. This is the law, and it's very easy to find information about this online.
Is this "loophole" subject to abuse? Are portfolios notoriously unreliable measurement instruments? Yes, and yes. But that's not the point. The NYT author, Michael Winerip, believes that holding children back a grade has no academic benefits. I believe the NYT should insist that their journalists know how to use Google.
Update: Reader ESS was under the impression that all NYT reporters can access "all the Nexis they can eat, along with straight access to wire services." So what's the conclusion? Was Mr. Winerip being lazy in his failure to report the facts? Or did his anti-testing, anti-retention agenda cause him to ignore the facts?