Re: FW: Open Letter

[ABurke5054@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/20/2006 8:36:24 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
pgutpgut@msn.com writes:

And no, Art, I don't understand the provisions nor the implications of  the 
law.  100% is 100%.  If schools attempt to waive testing of  those students who 
clearly are incapable of testing, let alone proficiency,  they are punished 
because they aren't meeting the 90% testing rule.  If  out of all of the 
disaggregated groups of students, every single category but  one is at proficiency, 
the school has not met AYP.  Most of the time  it is the sped students, as 
well as the second language learners who prevent  schools from making AYP so they 
are becoming creative at circumventing the  rule or gaming because so much is 
at stake.
 
You are playing games with us and clearly are not interested in any sort  of 
honest dialogue.  Play on, but without me...

 
_______________________________________________________________
 
"Honest dialogue" to you means agreeing with your opinions.  
 
 
You say that you don't understand the law.  What could be  clearer than that 
the goal of 100% proficiency is supposed to drive the  goal of improving 
schools?  That's the whole purpose of the AYP rule.   Setting lower goals for 
proficiency would lower the requirements for states to  improve their schools.  
That would leave kids behind, particularly kids  with the greatest educational 
needs. 
 
You speak of "high stakes" as if there are no stakes for parents and  
children.  Schools are gaming the system or otherwise "circumventing  the rule" 
because they are putting what they falsely believe to be their own  interests above 
the interests of parents and children.  How terribly sad  and terribly 
revealing that you think this is happening because NCLB makes  unreasonable demands 
and not because there is something wrong within public  education.  And if you 
fail to speak out about it you are part of the  problem.

Art