Re: Fw: draft essay/edited version

["Art Burke" <aburke@vansd.org>]

Yes, it is true that the states can set AYP requirements for their
schools, whether or not the schools receive Title I funds.  Art  

>>> gbracey@erols.com 06/26/03 05:36PM >>>
The note that follows says that schools get hit with failing to make
AYP
even if they do not receive Title I funds.  Anyone up enough on the
details
of NCLB to know if this is really true?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kracke, Nancy" <KrackeN@district112.org>
To: "gerald w. bracey" <gbracey@erols.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:13 PM
Subject: RE: draft essay/edited version


Jerry, I've been asking for a source on that Arizona case...can't find
one.
But, I did get this answer from our own Department of Ed here in
Minnesota.
They said that because AYP is a STATE designation, it is a state
program. So
all of Minnesota's public schools have to participate, even if they do
not
get Title I funds. Their names would appear in the paper on the "needs
improvement" list, just like a school that accepts Title I funds.
They'll be
included in the state and individual district report cards, too. What
DOES
NOT happen is the five year consequences...the busing children to
another
school, supplemental support requirements, etc. That's because those
are
Federal consequences.

So, that's how a district could not accept Title I funds and still get
dinged by this law.
Not exactly what I thought to begin with, but interesting, I think.
Nancy

-----Original Message-----
From: gerald w. bracey [mailto:gbracey@erols.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 3:05 PM
To: Kracke, Nancy
Subject: Re: draft essay/edited version


My knowledge of NCLB is hardly exhaustive, but I don't know how this
would
be possible.

Let me know if you track the story down.


Jerry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kracke, Nancy" <KrackeN@district112.org>
To: "gerald w. bracey" <gbracey@erols.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:01 PM
Subject: RE: draft essay/edited version


Jerry, thank you for your permission to re-print your article. I will
call
PDK today.

In regard to the attached article, I have been told that Arizona tried
to
say no, but found it could not. Even if they rejected the funding, they
were

liable for at least a part of the NCLB requirements. I have only heard
this
second hand...have not way to corroborate it. Can you set me straight?
Nancy

-----Original Message-----
From: gerald w. bracey [mailto:gbracey@erols.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:52 AM
To: Kracke, Nancy
Subject: Fw: draft essay/edited version


Forgot to attach, but here's the edited version from Memphis.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kushma, David" <Kushma@gomemphis.com>
To: "'gerald w. bracey'" <gbracey@erols.com>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 6:06 PM
Subject: draft essay/edited version


> Dr. Bracey:
>
> Per our telephone conversation, here is the (lightly) edited version
of
your
> draft, which we will publish in our Sunday Viewpoint section. Please
read
it
> over at your earliest convenience and respond to this E-mail message
or
call
> me at (901) 529-2788 to sign off or propose changes.
>
> If you make changes to this file, please mark them in capital
letters.
> Ignore the question marks at the end of some lines; that's just a
quirk of
> the E-mail program. Please see question at the end of the file.
>
> You can send the color hed shot to:
>
> David Kushma
> Editorial Page Editor
> The Commercial Appeal
> 495 Union Ave.
> Memphis, TN  38103
>
> Our FedEx account number is 1916-7083-3.
>
> Thanks for your cooperation.
>
> Dave Kushma
>
>
>
> The Bush administration has an
> Orwellian knack for giving its pro-
> grams names that are the opposite
> of what they intend. "Operation
> Clear Skies," for example, really
> means more air pollution.
>
> So it is that "No Child Left Behind"
> (NCLB) really means No School Left
> Standing. The NCLB law will accel-
> erate the use of vouchers and school
> privatization to destroy the public
> school system and replace it with
> private, for-profit schools.
>
> On its face, NCLB appears to con-
> tradict other administration policy
> thrusts that advance corporate in-
> terests. These include rolling back
> anti-pollution regulations, search-
> ing for oil in Alaska, opening pro-
> tected wetlands to development,
> privatizing federal jobs, passing tax
> cuts for corporations and the
> wealthy, and pursuing a weak-dollar
> policy (while denying it) that makes
> it easier for American businesses to
> sell overseas but makes consumers
> pay more for foreign goods.
>
> Yet the administration presents
> NCLB as an enormous new federal
> investment in public schools. Why
> would an administration that seems
> bent on destroying every govern-
> ment social service created since
> the New Deal expand its efforts in
> education? Why would an anti-reg-
> ulation administration impose on
> public schools an 1,100-page law fil-?
> led with harsh, straitjacket rules?
>
> It wouldn't - unless it had an ul-?
> terior motive. Which it has.
>
> To understand NCLB as a weapon
> of mass destruction aimed at public
> schools, consider the most visible of
> the law's many impossible-to-meet
> provisions, "Adequate Yearly Prog-
> ress" (AYP). Schools must test all
> students in grades three through
> eight every year in reading, math
> and, in two years, science.
>
> Those tests must show acceptable
> progress not only for the school as a
> whole, but also separately for all
> major ethnic and socioeconomic
> groups, special education students,
> and English Language Learners.
> The law requires all students to
> score at the "proficient" level on
> these tests by 2014. If any group fails
> to make AYP in any year, the entire
> school fails.
>
> How reasonable is the AYP provi-
> sion? The University of Colorado's
> Robert Linn offers these figures:
> Given the progress we have made in
> the past decade, we can anticipate
> reaching the proficiency target for
> all kids somewhere between 2057
> and 2166, depending on grade.
>
> Conversely, to meet the law's
> deadline of 2014, we must acceler-
> ate our progress by a factor of four
> to twelve, again depending on
> grade. To borrow words House Ma-
> jority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
> used about a tax benefit for poor
> kids: It ain't going to happen.
>
> Schools that fail to meet AYP are
> officially labeled "needing improve-
> ment." Everyone has already, right-?
> ly, translated this as "failing."
>
> In the great tradition of the-beat-
> ings-will-continue-until-morale-
> improves, these failing schools will
> suffer increasing and increasingly
> punitive sanctions. The National
> Conference of State Legislatures
> and the Council of Chief State
> School Officers have independently
> estimated that 85 to 90 percent of all
> public schools will fail.
>
> Of what possible use is a law that
> fails 90 percent of all schools while
> providing no guidelines on how to
> succeed (the law just says, do it or
> else)? Surveys show middle-class
> parents are rightly satisfied with
> their schools. But if 90 percent of all
> schools fail, a lot of failures will
> show up in the suburbs, not just in
> money-starved rural areas and cit-
> ies.
>
> NCLB's real intent is to increase
> parental anxiety, to make parents
> think that those good schools are
> cheating their kids. Then the school
> privatizers will declare open season
> on the publics.
>
> They will shout: "The public
> school system as we know it has
> proven it cannot reform itself. It is
> an ossified government monopoly."
> Voucher advocate and former Van-?
> derbilt professor Chester E. Finn, Jr.
> shouted precisely those words in
> The Wall Street Journal.
>
> Former secretary of Education
> William Bennett, with funds from
> former junk bond king Michael
> Milken, has cranked up online "vir-
> tual academies" to take kids out of
> the public schools. Tennessee na-
> tive Chris Whittle will offer (at a
> price) the services of his Edison
> Schools through the "supplementa-
> ry education services" provisions of
> the NCLB law.
>
> If you want to preserve public
> schools, there is a way out. The
> NCLB law is contingent - if you
> take the money, then you must fol-?
> low the law's provisions. If you don't,
> the law is powerless and irrelevant.
>
> States that are in their worst fiscal
> shape since the Great Depression
> have thus far found it hard to turn
> the lucre down. That's a penny-wise,
> pound-foolish stance because
> NCLB will cost the states much
> more than it offers.
>
> The law appropriated $1.4 billion
> in new money for fiscal 2003. Vari-
> ous analyses estimate that the law
> will cost states between $88 billion
> and $148 billion. States should bor-
> row a line from Ronald Reagan and
> just say "no."
>
> Guest columnist Gerald W. Bracey
> is an independent education re-
> searcher based in Fairfax, Va. CAN WE MAKE THIS TAGLINE SOMEWHAT
MORE
> PRECISE WITHOUT MAKING IT CONSIDERABLY LONGER?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>