Re: FW: Open Letter

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

Thanks for posting this.  As usual, Marion asks the right questions.  And I'm sure dutiful Stepford Secretary 
Spellings will continue to "stay the course" on NCLB's 99.9% purity.  It's so easy to blame the teachers for gaming the system rather than look to the actual causes.  It's so easy to blame the teachers when a one-size-fits all curriculum doesn't work.  And it's so easy to manipulate the numbers to make it seem like NCLB is a resounding success.

I can't wait to see Art's response to this.  I'm sure he'll call me a knucklehead. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Peter Majoy<mailto:pwmjoy@earthlink.net> 
  To: arn-l<mailto:arn-l@interversity.org> 
  Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 2:25 PM
  Subject: [arn-l] FW: Open Letter




  Peter Majoy
  pwmjoy@earthlink.net<mailto:pwmjoy@earthlink.net>
  Why Wait?  Move to EarthLink.


  > [Original Message]
  > From: Marion Brady <mbrady22@CFL.RR.COM<mailto:mbrady22@CFL.RR.COM>>
  > To: <CESNEWS@listserv.brown.edu<mailto:CESNEWS@listserv.brown.edu>>
  > Date: 11/18/2006 12:43:34 PM
  > Subject: Open Letter
  >
  > An Open Letter to Margaret Spellings and Congress
  >
  > "Human history," said H. G. Wells, is "a race between education and 
  > catastrophe." If we stay the course with No Child Left Behind,
  catastrophe 
  > is a sure bet.
  >
  > You'll soon be deciding the fate of this well-meant but appallingly 
  > simplistic piece of legislation. Continued failure to answer the
  legitimate 
  > questions of those you expect to carry out your mandates will further
  erode 
  > trust in your leadership.
  >
  > Here are some of those questions:
  >
  > 1. NCLB reflects the views primarily of leaders of business and industry 
  > rather than of active, working educators. Does this make sense?
  >
  > 2. Did at least some of those who originally helped shape NCLB hope to 
  > discredit public education as a step toward privatizing the institution?
  >
  > 3. On critical, instruction-related questions, NCLB removes local
  educators 
  > and school boards from the decision-making loop. Does the history of 
  > top-down, centralized control of complex institutions suggest this change 
  > strategy works?
  >
  > 4. Will manipulating the curriculum to "maintain America's competitive 
  > position in world trade" be more likely to ensure America's future 
  > well-being than helping the young come to love learning because it allows 
  > them to pursue their abilities and interests?
  >
  > 5. Management experts say that poor institutional performance almost
  always 
  > indicates a "system" problem. NCLB blames poor performance not on "the 
  > system" but on the people in the system. Are the management experts wrong?
  >
  > 6. NCLB relies on market forces to improve schools. Does this mean that 
  > learning is unnatural and won't take place unless teachers and students
  are 
  > threatened or bribed?
  >
  > 7. Do NCLB-mandated subject-matter standards, based as they are on an
  1892 
  > curriculum design, adequately address present and future individual and 
  > societal needs?
  >
  > 8. If there are problems with the present, same-thing-for-every-student 
  > curriculum, don't "raising the bar" and "rigor" make them worse?
  >
  > 9. NCLB is rapidly pushing "frills" out of the curriculum. Has research
  now 
  > established that art, music, physical activity and so on have nothing to
  do 
  > with scientific and mathematical reasoning ability and workforce skills?
  >
  > 10. Nationwide, hundreds of thousands of students are being held back 
  > because of poor reading and math skills. Is the ability to interpret
  written 
  > symbols the only way the young learn, and therefore sufficient reason to 
  > retain them in grade?
  >
  > 11. Education is supposed to teach kids to think for themselves, not
  merely 
  > recall what they've been ordered to remember. Are the centerpieces of
  NCLB 
  > (corporately produced, machine-scored tests) able to judge the quality of 
  > complex thought processes?
  >
  > 12. Should life-changing decisions for the young hinge on the results of
  a 
  > single test?
  >
  > 13. Attempting to avoid the "failing" label, schools use myriad
  strategies 
  > to "game" the system. For example, knowing which students are likely to
  fail 
  > and which will succeed on high-stakes tests, schools give "marginals" the 
  > most attention. Is it possible to anticipate and counter all such 
  > strategies?
  >
  > 14. Has provision been made for coping with NCLB's unintended
  consequences - 
  > increased drop-out rate, loss of teacher autonomy and professionalism, 
  > negative student reaction to excessive rote instruction and drill,
  increased 
  > costs of testing and test-related materials, the destructiveness of the 
  > "failure" label - (just to begin a list)?
  >
  > 15. Are NCLB-related contracts entirely free of conflicts of interest?
  >
  > [This post may be reproduced, forwarded, or otherwise used for the
  purpose 
  > for which it is obviously intended without the express permission of the 
  > author.]
  >
  > Marion Brady Cocoa, Florida 11/18/2006
  >
  >
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  -----------------------
  > Text inserted by Panda Platinum 2005 Internet Security:
  >
  >  This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail
  (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it:
  http://127.0.0.1:6083/Panda?ID=pav_50034&SPAM=true<http://127.0.0.1:6083/Panda?ID=pav_50034&SPAM=true>
  >
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  -----------------------



  -------------------------------------------------------
  Subscribe ARN-L:
  http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html<http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html>