Re: FW: Open Letter

["Joseph Bottini" <jpbottini@adelphia.net>]

To All:

 

Thanks to Art and Priscilla I am enjoying my confusion with NCLB.

 

Thank you both for taking the time to be open and straightforward in voicing
your opinions.

 

Joe Bo

 

  _____  

From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org [mailto:arn-l-owner@interversity.org] On
Behalf Of PRISCILLA GUTIERREZ
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:00 AM
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: [arn-l] FW: Open Letter

 

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 

To: 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 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