From: aburke5054@aol.com
Reply-To: arn-l@interversity.org
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: Flagrant and Sustained Corruption of Reading First
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:09:40 -0500
Whoa. Only the terminally naive or the hopelessly deluded could take
Schiff's rant seriously. I'm not convinced that the misconduct documented
around RF, bad as it is, sinks to the level of "flagrant and sustained
corruption." In any event, NCLB does not fall because of that any more than
public education falls because some teachers and principals are cutting
corners and short changing kids. And what's this about a "ripple effect"?
The new standard is to sink to the lowest level out there?
Art
-----Original Message-----
From: pgutpgut@msn.com
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: Flagrant and Sustained Corruption of Reading
First
You mean to tell me that after everything the writer spoke of, this is
the most salient point you could make? That there was nothing else you
could address? You consistently rail on about the lofty goals of NCLB are
maligned by local area administrators and teachers but are virtually silent
about the shameful behavior of the the folks in charge of implementing NCLB
at the federal level. You ever hear of the ripple effect?
Priscilla Gutierrez
Outreach Specialist
New Mexico School for the Deaf
...change is inevitable, growth is optional...
>From: aburke5054@aol.com
>Reply-To: arn-l@interversity.org
>To: arn-l@interversity.org
>Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: Flagrant and Sustained Corruption of Reading
First
>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:40:48 -0500
>
> The last paragraph claims that misconduct by government is a victory
for >public education. That's a novel interpretation, to say the least.
>
> Art
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gbracey1@verizon.net
> To: arn-l@interversity.org
> Sent: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:39 PM
> Subject: [arn-l] Fw: Flagrant and Sustained Corruption of Reading First
>
> FYI
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Spuck" <jspuck@hotmail.com>
> To: <gbracey1@verizon.net>
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:27 AM
> Subject: Flagrant and Sustained Corruption of Reading First
>
> > BeyondChron: San Francisco's Online Alternative Daily
> >
> > School Beat: the Scandals of NCLB
> > by Lisa Schiff, 2007-03-01
> >
> > Other than its very existence, one of the biggest scandals regarding
No > > Child Left Behind (NCLB), our federal education legislation, has
been >the > Reading First program. Reading First is another one of NCLB's
>typically > myopic efforts to improve educational outcomes. In this
>instance, the > approach has been to promote mechanical solutions to the
>development of > literacy skills for K through 3rd graders through
programs >based on > "evidence-based research" and "scientific data."
> >
> > Having a sound basis for using a certain method makes sense, but the
> >absolute reliance on the ability to describe outcomes quantitatively is
> >suspect, since meaningful assessments of literacy skills require more
than > > that. As with some other programs NCLB has introduced, such as >
>supplementary tutoring, a primary purpose of the Reading First component
> >seems to have been to create a fast-track to funnel state dollars used
to > >purchase literacy education materials into the coffers of just a few
> >producers of those same materials. Language such as "scientific" and >
>"evidenced-based" simply served to provide the authoritative cover under
> >which to hide this intention.
> >
> > Many might argue that since NCLB is sufficiently scandalous in the
way >it > reduces education to standardized curricula and tests, narrows
the > >subjects taught and the pedagogical methods employed that there is
no need > > to look further. While there is a certain truth to this, the
flagrant >and > sustained corruption that occurred with Reading First is
particularly > > important to expose. The impropriety not only clearly
breached ethical > >norms, it serves as a clear example of the
privatization goals of NCLB and > > of the underlying philosophy that
profit making is of greater importance > > than educating our society's
kids.
> >
> > The Reading First debacle, though making few headlines outside of >
>education circles, has come to the fore again as the Department of >
>Education (DOE) has had its internal affairs exposed in two recent high >
>profile publications. The first was in the report by the Commission on >
>NCLB, which amid all the recommendations for even more standardized >
>testing and tracking of teachers gave a pro forma hand slapping to the
DOE > > and called for more measures to prevent internal bias from
occurring in > > the future (http://www.nclbcommission.org).
> >
> > The Office of the Inspector General, interestingly enough a unit
within > > the DOE itself, is the entity responsible for the second
publication, > >released just last week >
>(http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/a03g0006.pdf).
This > > report has received less attention than the Commission's report,
perhaps > > because of its more narrow focus on malfeasance as opposed to
the more > >"forward-looking" reauthorization.
> >
> > Despite the lack of notoriety and its in-house nature, this document
is > > surprisingly strong in formally identifying the problems with the
>Reading > First program and the dangerous terrain that NCLB has landed
the >education > community in with this push towards profit-oriented
solutions >to education > needs. While it does not question the underlying
premises of >the Reading > First approach, its attention to the
inappropriate >implementation of the > program is still important.
> >
> > The OIG report is the result of an audit the office conducted
reviewing >a > series of workshops for state implementers (called Reading
Leadership > >Academies or RLAs), handbooks provided at those workshops,
participant > >surveys, analysis of email messages regarding the organizing
of the > >workshops and similar programs, and the degree to which the DOE
complied > >with required efforts to reduce and eliminate potential bias by
promoting > >any given vendor of educational materials and services. The
report > >includes the findings, evidence in support of those findings, >
>recommendations, DOE responses to the findings and recommendations >
>(usually objecting to the findings), and OIG responses.
> >
> > Three major findings, accompanied by recommendations, came out of the
> >above analysis, most of which the DOE objected to, but to which the OIG
> >provided evidence-based (note the irony) rebuttals, often citing the
text > >of DOE originated email messages and evaluations from participants.
> >
> > First, the OIG found that the workshops intentionally or otherwise >
>promoted just a few specific programs (Direct Instruction and Open Court)
> >by including participants who exclusively used those programs on panels
> >throughout the series of RLAs despite feedback from participants that
it > >appeared as though a sales job was in progress. We know of course now
that > > that indeed was the case and that Direct Instruction and Open
Court > >programs have been widely adopted despite the fact that there are
other > >programs to choose from, not to mention the many concerns over
their > >respective approaches and quality.
> >
> > Second, the materials provided at the RLAs appeared to encourage the
>use > of one particular assessment tool, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic
>Early > Literacy Skills Assessment (DIBELS) by profiling it in an
extensive > > article, contrary to the requirement that no particular
materials should > > be recommended. Finally, and not surprisingly, the OIG
found that the >DOE > insufficiently tried (if at all it seems), to prevent
bias and >conflicts > of interest in identifying experts to provide
technical >assistance at > events related to Reading First.
> >
> > Learning the details regarding how kids and the programs that serve
>them > have been manipulated once again is always discouraging. But in
this >case > we may have some cause for hope as the OIA findings and the
>impressive > evidence they were able to pull together in support of those
>findings may > mean that not everyone at the DOE is on the profit-making,
>NCLB bandwagon.
> >
> > Smoking guns are hard to come by these days, and the OIG has handed
>public > education supporters a few. This is more evidence that NCLB is
not >really > about prioritizing the education of our nation's children,
>evidence that > we can use in our efforts to transform or replace NCLB
with >national > education policy that actually has the welfare of children
as >its core > intent. After all, there is a greater purpose here than
profits.
> >
> > Lisa Schiff is the parent of two children who attend McKinley
>Elementary > School in the San Francisco Unified School District and is a
>member of the > board of directors of Parents for Public Schools of San
>Francisco > (http://www.ppssf.org).
> >
> >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------
> Report list problems to listmom@interversity.net
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
>from AOL at AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.