Re: Fw: Flagrant and Sustained Corruption of Reading First

[aburke5054@aol.com]

 Was that a ripple-effect iceberg, or just a regular one? Art 
   
  -----Original Message-----
 From: pgutpgut@msn.com
 To: arn-l@interversity.org
 Sent: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 7:09 PM
 Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: Flagrant and Sustained Corruption of Reading First
 
  That just goes to show how little you really know about what is going on in education. You remind me of someone sequestered in an ivory tower who can pontificate about things but has no clue about what is going on in the kingdom, or the legislator who has never set foot in a classroom but doesn't hesitate to create legislation based on opinion rather than facts. The corruption she mentions is just the tip of the iceberg, Art. 
 
 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: 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. 
 
   
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.