Re: Commentary

[aburke5054@aol.com]

Some people don't like RF, but many people do.

The current Edweek reports a study by the Center on Education Policy 
that found that state and local education officials believe RF helped 
improve reading instruction and reading achievement, even in schools 
that do not directly participate in RF.

Senator Kennedy and Representative Miller released a press report 
following the February 2007 GAO report on RF that included the 
following:

In addition, GAO found improvements and changes under Reading First:
• Nearly 70 percent of states reported that reading instruction has 
improved greatly or very greatly since the implementation of Reading 
First.
• At least 39 states reported that Reading First schools incorporated 
all five components of effective reading instruction into curricula to 
a great or very great degree.
• Most states reported that use of assessments has changed and improved 
under Reading First. 45 states have approved the Dynamic Indicators of 
Basic Early Literacy Skills assessment.
• Every state reported improvements in professional development because 
of Reading First, and at least 41 states reported that professional 
development improved greatly or very greatly in five key instructional 
areas. Many states also reported increased resources for professional 
development.
• In selecting reading programs, 22 states have created a 
state-approved list of programs. The other 29 states require districts 
to choose programs and determine that they meet the law¹s requirements. 
Of these 29 states, 25 provided guidance to districts and schools to 
identify core reading programs.


Source:  
http://edlabor.house.gov/committee/publications/KennedyMillerRFGAOReport.pdf


-----Original Message-----
From: monicalucido@comcast.net
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 8:54 pm
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Commentary


Well said, Priscilla.

Thanks,
Joe Lucido
Educator Roundtable
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: PRISCILLA GUTIERREZ <pgutpgut@msn.com>
> I sent the following in to the Santa Fe New Mexican asking it be 
printed as a
> guest commentary.  Will let you if they decide to print it...
>
> No Child Left Behind:  Limiting Students Instead of Advancing Them
>
>
>
> With the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) looming in 
the near
> future, legislators and school administrators would do well to sort 
through
the
> myths and facts being bandied about by its proponents as well as 
consider some

> important issues that are quite frankly missing from the debate.   
Recently,
the
> U.S. Department of Education touted the impressive gains on the 
National
> Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as proof that NCLB is 
working.
> Missing from this rosy picture is the fact that the impressive gains 
on NAEP
> were made prior to the implementation of NCLB.  Actual data from NAEP 
scores
> post-NCLB demonstrate that reading ability in students remains flat 
and that
the
> achievement gap between minorities and the majority population is 
increasing.

>   Given the high-stakes surrounding the mandated testing under NCLB 
and
> the sanctions for districts who do not meet Adequate Yearly Progress 
(AYP),
more
> and more states are opting to lower the cut-off scores for proficient 
status.

> Thus, states who tout rising proficiency levels are in fact lowering 
the bar
in
> order to make AYP.  The disparity between NAEP scores and state test 
scores
> bears this out.  Moreover, increasingly the content of standardized 
testing is

> becoming the school curriculum – pushing out of education any subject 
that
isn’t
> tested under NCLB.
>
>   Finland, the country that consistently ranks as one of the highest
> achieving in the world, focuses primarily on local assessment which 
includes
> research projects, science investigations and mathematical models.  
Their
> curriculum focuses on the development of critical thinking skills and 
the
> ability to apply knowledge to real life situations.    Virtually all 
high
> achieving countries prohibit the use of assessment to punish schools 
or rank
> students.  Rather, the data is used to evaluate curricula, design 
professional

> development for teachers, and to HELP schools improve – a far cry 
from the
> punish-and-destroy approach of NCLB.
>
>   Recent scandals surrounding the Department of Education’s Reading 
First
> Program further illustrate how off-base education is in the U.S. as 
well as
how
> complacent we’ve become.  In order to receive funding to purchase 
reading
> programs, states have to apply for grants from Reading First.  
Officials
> responsible for approving grants were found by the Government 
Accountability
> Office to be pressuring states to adopt particular curricula in the 
name of
> scientifically based approaches.  Disturbingly, the officials who 
were
deciding
> whether grants would be approved were in fact the authors of the 
reading
> programs or had financial ties to the programs being forced on 
states.
> Moreover, said officials also had ties to the multi-billion dollar 
testing
> industry tied to NCLB, specifically the DIBELS test which was also 
forced onto

> most states.  Teachers who are required to give this test will tell 
you what a

> monumental waste of time it is and how little valuable information is 
gleaned
> from having students spit out nonsense words at a fast pace or bark 
out sight
> words as an indicator of comprehension ability.  Yet, DIBELS is still 
being
used
> to determine the failure or success of a student’s reading ability.
>
>   If we want to reclaim our position as the leader of the free world, 
we
> had better start asking some hard questions about what the purpose of
education
> is and how we can do a better job of preparing our students to be key 
players
in
> the future.  We need to look towards other countries who are making 
impressive

> headway and ask how we can incorporate some of their approaches into 
our own
> educational system. The narrow path NCLB is taking us down clearly is 
not the
> answer and will push us further back than we already are.
>
>
>
> Priscilla Gutierrez
> Outreach Specialist
> New Mexico School for the Deaf
>
> ...change is inevitable, growth is optional...

------------------------------------------------
Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net






________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - 
http://mail.aol.com