Re: FW: Open Letter

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

While you may doubt that Reading First mandates phonics testing for deaf children, that is indeed the case, Art.  The authors of DIBELS are the very folks who decide whether RF grants get funded or not and invariably if DIBELS isn't part of the grant application it gets denied.  The same is true of the scripted reading programs that are being passed off as scientifically based - the authors of the programs are on the committees that decide funding.  At least a dozen states require DIBELS testing for their deaf students because their RF grant applications require it. Since the majority of deaf children are in mainstreamed programs, they are hit with a double whammy - they are expected to learn to read using phonics and their success in reading is gauged by a phonics test.  You may not know what the best way to teach deaf children to read is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a child who cannot hear should not be forced into phonics-based reading programs or that their progress in reading should be monitored via a phonics test.  

And while my 30 IQ student is a hypothetical extreme example, there are hundreds of thousands of special ed students with IQ's of 80, students who are autistic, among others who should not be tested in the same manner as their normally functioning peers.  Moreover, districts should not get "dinged" because of their sped scores.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: aburke5054@aol.com<mailto:aburke5054@aol.com> 
  To: arn-l@interversity.org<mailto:arn-l@interversity.org> 
  Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [arn-l] FW: Open Letter


  I look at these issues involving students with special needs this way.  At one time the schools were not as open to these children as they are now.  It took a great deal of pleading by parents of children with special needs to get federal legislation that opened up the schools to them and set standards for educating them that the schools were expected to meet.  Now NCLB comes along and takes the rights of these children one step further - it says that schools should help them achieve the same standards as other children.  This is a wonderful and noble development, particularly the requirement that schools take the same responsibility for improving services to these children as they take for other children.  But as you point out, there is clearly a tension here.    

  I do not know what is reasonable for a child with an IQ of 30.  I do know that there are very, very few of these children in the public schools, so I wonder what point you are trying to make with this extreme case.   Nor do I know what are the best strategies for teaching deaf children to read.  I very much doubt that RF mandates what you claim it does for deaf children.  I have never been in a RF classroom, but I know people who spend a lot of time in them and they report seeing both good and bad educational practices in them.

  The purpose of sanctions is not to motivate people, the purpose of sanctions is to remove problems and replace them with solutions.  Sanctions are only one of the responses prescribed under NCLB.  Remember that NCLB requires states and districts to provide intensive and sustained support to schools that are identified as needing improvement.

  I can understand some of your concerns about being put on the spot because of the nature of the challenges facing the children you appear to be working with.  Some issues around childen with special needs are still being worked with.  But if you think NCLB is some kind of enormous "gotcha" game, either things haven't been expalined to you very well, or you misunderstand them, or people are making really bad decisions concerning your students.

  Art


   
  -----Original Message-----
  From: pgutpgut@msn.com
  To: arn-l@interversity.org
  Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:20 AM
  Subject: Re: [arn-l] FW: Open Letter


  So, if I understand you correctly, you feel that it's reasonable to expect that a child with an IQ of 30 should take a grade level test in algebra along with their normally functioning peers; and that if they don't reach proficiency it's the fault of the teachers?  Or that sanctions against the teachers or their schools will "motivate" them to alter the cognitive functioning of that student??????

  And that when the corrupt officials in Reading First mandate that all students including deaf children must use a scripted phonics program even though they cannot hear a thing, or that a phonics test that is invalid  for deaf children but is the approved measure by which their proficiency in reading will be determined has nothing to do with a school's ability to make AYP?

  And here's a final question for you - when was the last time you were in a Reading First classroom for any extended period of time?

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: ABurke5054@aol.com<javascript:parent.ComposeTo('ABurke5054@aol.com',%20'');> 
    To: arn-l@interversity.org<javascript:parent.ComposeTo('arn-l@interversity.org',%20'');> 
    Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 9:11 AM
    Subject: Re: [arn-l] FW: Open Letter


    In a message dated 11/21/2006 8:00:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, pgutpgut@msn.com<javascript:parent.ComposeTo('pgutpgut@msn.com',%20'');> writes:
      ...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?...
    ____________________________________________
    I don't know what "addressing the FACT" means to you.  Leave no child behind means leave no child behind.  NCLB says that states, districts, and schools should test all their students and should work for improvement when children with special needs are not achieving the same standards as other children.  Those are indeed the facts.  Whether you are motivated by these facts to work for improvement or motivated by them to oppose NCLB or have other motivation is up to you.  It seems to me that you choose to see floors when you should be looking for ceilings.  What am I supposed to say about the "rampant gaming and corruption within RF/DOE" beyond that it's wrong and that is has nothing to do with schools not making AYP because of students with special needs?


    By the way, you misunderstand "transference."  

    Art 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Check out the new AOL<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol>. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.