Re: Fw: draft essay/edited version

["gerald w. bracey" <gbracey@erols.com>]

Art:  States CAN set AYP for non Title I schools or states MUST?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Art Burke" <aburke@vansd.org>
To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: draft essay/edited version


> 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?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>