Re: Strong letter

[ABurke5054@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/4/2006 8:05:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
shays@ccwebster.net writes:

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.,,,
____________________________________________________________________
A "wonk" is usually thought to be someone who immerses himself or herself  in 
policy issues at an analytical or theoretical level. - so "stupid  eduwonk" 
strikes me as oxymoronish, kind of like "clumsy  neurosurgeon."  
 
I am astonished that you know so little about NCLB.  You  have complained 
about NCLB in here for a long time.  Now you  say you really don't know what NCLB 
says or even how to find the sections  relevant to your concerns.  For more 
than 40 years the "Title I /  Chapter I" sections of ESEA (of which NCLB is the 
latest incarnation) have  represented the largest federal investment in 
education and represent  national policy about improving education for economically 
and educationally  disadvantaged students.  If you work in pubic education 
how could you not  know about this?  
 
NCLB does not require states to raise additional resources for their  
schools.  (How could it?  That would essentially be the feds taking  over state 
government).  Nor does NCLB fully fund states' improvement  plans. (How could it 
without dictating to the states what they have to do  to improve their schools?) 
 NCLB does require states and districts to  allocate NCLB money to schools 
that need improvement and proivdes general  guidelines for how that money should 
be allocated.  
 
But here's the boat I think a lot of people are missing.  Section  1117(a) 
says, " Each State shall establish a statewide system of  intensive and 
sustained support and improvement for local educational agencies  and schools 
receiving funds under this part, in order to increase the  opportunity for all 
students served by those agencies and schools to meet the  State's academic content 
standards and student academic achievement  standards."  It seems to me that 
educators and others should be  pressing their states states to meet their 
responsibilities for "intensive  and sustained support and improvement" and that 
educators should be taking  the lead in defining the precise nature of what is 
needed.  
 
Art