Reply to comment

It seems the two anonymous commenters misunderstand where I am coming from. I am not against the ideas of accountability and determining how well schools are doing, which is the goal of NCLB, but I am objecting to the implementation, which creates an incentive not to teach reading and math but rather to teach techniques that will enable students to do better on a particular flavor of standardized test.

The Urban Scientist has it right when he expresses concern about what will happen to science when standardized testing takes over there. Science is best learned experientially, and it is not a collection of facts.

As far as how best to learn to read and do math, I would argue that they are not skills to be learned without context. Sure, it is important to be able to decode words, but it is more important to understand the nuances of what you are reading. Likewise, you might learn how to do arithmetic and algebra, but applying them in real-world circumstances give meaning to the skills.

In short, spending time developing critical thinking in science and social studies is one of the best ways I know to teach reading and math.

What's the good of learning to walk if you never go anywhere? What's the good of learning to talk if you never have a substantive conversation? That, in essence, is my point.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)