Re: Strong letter

[Scott Hays <shays@ccwebster.net>]

On Nov 4, 2006, at 3:22 AM, ABurke5054@aol.com wrote:

First, thank you for not calling me a stupid eduwonk for posting my  
questions/interpretation.  I hope your spirit of enlightenment will  
continue for at least one more message.

> You need to do your own homework about what section of NCLB says   
> what.  I'll
> respond to three of the issues your  raise.

Which is why I asked you to cite the sections that are relevant  
(emphasizing that you don't need to actually write them out,  
interpret them, or do any other work that I can do myself) -- I just  
don't know where in that massive pile of legaleze I should focus in  
order to find the claims that you are making.  Bu
> 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.

I fail to see the distinction between "requiring states to supply  
ADDITIONAL resources" (my words) and "requiring states to provide  
additional help and resources" (your words).  Is it in the "to  
schools that are identified for improvement", a phrase I omitted?  Or  
is it the word "help" that I also omitted?  And if schools are  
required to provide additional help, but are left to their own  
devices to "sort it out", how does that contradict the budget  
shortfall scenario that I described?

> 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.

Maybe we are defining "sanctions" differently.  It seems if a school  
fails to meet its AYP for three years, it MUST provide additional  
resources to help students succeed (after-school tutoring, private  
tutoring, etc.), an expense NOT in state budget shortfall budgets and  
certainly not in local school budgets, and expenses which will have  
to be covered by transferring funds from some other program and/or  
necessary expense line-item.  Granted, the states define what  
constitutes AYP (and the rest), but the Feds approve these plans, and  
use the power of approval to pretty much dictate what the states do  
(or at least include in their plans).  In succeeding years, if  
schools do not show improvement (and, of course, the bar for  
improvement gets higher each year), additional "resources" must be  
added -- kids can transfer to other schools that are meeting AYP (at  
an additional expense to the home school or district), schools can be  
restructured and continue to strive for improvement, schools can be  
taken over and operated by the state (in your opinion, not the best  
of operators) or by operators designated by the state.  These "steps  
towards improvement" sound like sanctions to me, feel like sanctions,  
look like sanctions, and even smell sanctimonious.  Are you arguing  
because it is the STATES that are applying them, not the Feds, that  
makes this a state issue and not a federal one (even if the state  
does so in compliance with the federal guidelines it must follow in  
order to receive the Title I money)?  You will have to walk me  
through these distinctions a little more carefully, please ... I fail  
to see how there is a difference other than symantical.

> 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.

Which brings us back to the original question -- why do they like  
it?  Temporarily dismissing the notion that it is just an additional  
source of funding with which to fleece taxpayers (and line layer upon  
layer of sponging providers of services, administrators, publishers  
and the like) -- a degree of which certainly exists -- and focusing  
on the larger picture, isn't it because to be able to adequately do  
the things that are expected and required, any additional source of  
funding makes it more possible?


Scott Hays
shays@ccwebster.net

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