Re: Strong letter

[Scott Hays <shays@ccwebster.net>]

On Nov 3, 2006, at 3:21 AM, ABurke5054@aol.com wrote:

> There are continuing issues around the assessment of students with  
> special
> needs.  However, this letter reflects profound misunderstanding  
> (or  perhaps
> willful distortion) of what the AYP rules are supposed to   
> accomplish.  NCLB
> requires states to provide additional help and resources  to  
> schools that do not
> make AYP.  A school that serves large numbers of  students with  
> special needs
> should be pressing its state to provide the extra  help and  
> resources that are
> needed.  Simply arguing for lowered  standards or stretched  
> deadlines is not
> in the best interests of  parents and kids.

I think I am beginning to understand the point you are trying to  
make, Art ... but I think you are mistaken in it.  I could be wrong,  
so let me walk through what I think is your reasoning, if I may, and  
then stand aside as you explain to me why I am wrong.  You say that  
NCLB "requires STATES to provide additional help and resources ...",  
an agreement that the states have entered into with the Federal  
government in exchange for receiving Title I money; money that  
they ... in turn ... distribute to districts.  Title I money, if I  
have this right, was always designed as a supplemental funding  
source, allocated to support specially identified classes of students  
that the states sort of let slide through the cracks due a variety of  
benign and not-so-benign practices.  Given increasing state funding  
crises, shortfalls and other budgetary woes (in no small part a  
direct result of anti-tax sentiments amongst significant sectors of  
the taxpaying public), Title I money has sort of become a defacto  
central funding source for many districts, not the supplemental  
source it was intended to be.  But now, according to your  
interpretation, if the states accept Title I money (and all do,  
because of the fiscal reasons cited, above), they have promised to  
allocate ADDITIONAL funding/resources to districts or schools that do  
not meet their AYP.  If the states do not (or cannot) do this, or if  
they do find a way to provide the additional resources but the  
schools still do not improve (whatever the cause), then the Federal  
government begins to apply the incrementally severe sanctions on the  
schools and districts that do not show improvement.

I guess my question is this ... why would the states sign up for the  
supplemental money (Title I), necessary because of their own  
budgetary shortfalls, if they knew that they would have to come up  
with additional money (which they already knew they didn't have and  
is why they needed the Title I money) when (not if ... I don't recall  
a single person actually involved with a school ever saying 100%  
proficiency was a realistic goal) schools began missing their AYP  
targets?  I don't think this is how the law is written, but would  
certainly appreciate you citing the section number so I can check for  
myself.  If it IS how the law is written, how could so many states,  
and so many federal representatives of the states, have fallen for  
such an obviously impossible policy?


Scott Hays
shays@ccwebster.net

"Wrinkles only go where the smiles have been."
- - Jimmy Buffett