Re: FW: Open Letter

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

No, Art, the people running the programs I was referring to are the folks at the Department of Education in D.C. who are in charge of Reading First grants and who decide where the funding goes.  A number of people who have been in the driver's seat deciding which grants get money work for the publishing companies such as Voyager, CTB-McGraw Hill and DIBELS that are being forced on states.

And no, Art, I don't understand the provisions nor the implications of the law.  100% is 100%.  If schools attempt to waive testing of those students who clearly are incapable of testing, let alone proficiency, they are punished because they aren't meeting the 90% testing rule.  If out of all of the disaggregated groups of students, every single category but one is at proficiency, the school has not met AYP.  Most of the time it is the sped students, as well as the second language learners who prevent schools from making AYP so they are becoming creative at circumventing the rule or gaming because so much is at stake.

You are playing games with us and clearly are not interested in any sort of honest dialogue.  Play on, but without me...

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ABurke5054@aol.com<mailto:ABurke5054@aol.com> 
  To: arn-l@interversity.org<mailto:arn-l@interversity.org> 
  Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 8:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [arn-l] FW: Open Letter


  In a message dated 11/19/2006 3:03:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, pgutpgut@msn.com<mailto:pgutpgut@msn.com> writes:
    However, insisting on 100% proficiency, including all severe needs sped students which the law requires, is as you would put it ludicrous.  And to penalize schools because they cannot alter the cognitive functioning of certain students is also ludicrous.  
  ___________________________________________________________
  You completely misunderstand both the provisions and the implications of the law.  The goal of 100% proficiency is supposed to drive states to improve their schools, particularly schools that serve large numbers of poor children, minority children, and children from homes where English is not the first language and to improve all schools that serve children with special needs. The law requires states to improve their schools by providing sustained and intensive support.  There is nothing ludicrous about this -- in fact, it is in my opinion an enormous advancement in civil rights.  The notion that schools are being "penalized" is pure propaganda and this irresponsible claim is lamentably being spread by people within public education, as well as by out-to-lunch outfits like FairTest. 

    That's just one problematic area of the law.  Throw in the corruption that has led to unscrupulous  behavior from the top down to the classroom and you have a recipe for disaster. Making money off the backs of children is immoral.
  ________________________________________________
  There is corruption from the bottom up, too.  So far there are problems, but not a disaster.  Maybe increasing the choices available to parents and kids is to some degree an antidote.  Finally, I don't think that teachers are immoral for making money.

    Moreoever, accountability is a two way street.  If the people running the programs we are expected to implement are accountable to no one, how can we expect those in the classroom to be held accountable? 
  ______________________________________________
  If by "people running the programs" you mean school administrators, they are accountable to elected officials, who are accountable to the people.

  Art