Re: FW: Open Letter

["PRISCILLA GUTIERREZ" <pgutpgut@msn.com>]

I am laughing as I write this because a) a typo on my part stated I do not understand the law when in fact I most certainly do; and b) you appear to think the 100% proficiency goal is a terrific motivator when in fact as I said, 100% is 100%, whether folks are motivated or not. It is interesting how you pick and choose what to address in not only my posts but in others as well.  You have yet to honestly address the FACT that sped students whose cognitive functioning will never permit them to reach proficiency, according to the letter and spirit of the law, MUST be proficient by 2014.  You have yet to address the FACT that these students who are being forced to take the test so that their school district will be in compliance with the 90% rule are preventing schools from making AYP. You have yet to address the FACT that lack of proficiency in even one category prevents a school from making AYP.  And you have yet to address the rampant gaming and corruption within the Reading First program at the Department of Ed.  Not convenient for you?

So how about it, Art?  I'd like to see you address these FACTS and see how you circumvent them in your next post.
Saying honest dialogue on my part means agreeing with me a) shows how little you know me (chuckle chuckel); and b) is like the pot calling the kettle black.  A little psychological transference going on here?
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ABurke5054@aol.com<mailto:ABurke5054@aol.com> 
  To: arn-l@interversity.org<mailto:arn-l@interversity.org> 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 8:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [arn-l] FW: Open Letter


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