Re: Strong letter

[ABurke5054@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/3/2006 6:16:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
shays@ccwebster.net writes:

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.

________________________________________________________
You need to do your own homework about what section of NCLB says  what.  I'll 
respond to three of the issues your  raise.  
 
First, NCLB does not require states to supply ADDITIONAL (your emphasis)  
resources to their schools.  Baldly requiring that would essentially  be the feds 
taking over state government.  However, NCLB does  require states to provide 
additional help and resources to schools that are  identified for improvement. 
 How states sort that out is up to  them.   
 
Second, the Federal government applies no "sanctions" to schools or  
districts.  The responsibility for identifying schools and districts that  need 
improvement, for assessing needs in those schools and districts, for  developing 
plans to meet the needs of those schools and districts, for supplying  the 
necessary resources, and for monitoring the effectiveness of the extra help  and 
resources belongs to the states alone. So much for the "federal takeover" of  
public education that people on this list complain about.
 
Finally, as to your question about why states would accept NCLB money under  
these circumstances, the answer is that they accept it because they like  it.  
 
Art