Re: monty neill op ed on overhauling nclb

[aburke5054@aol.com]

 If this doesn't define double-talk, I don't know what does.? Art





 



-----Original Message-----

From: Monty Neill <monty@fairtest.org>

To: arn-l@interversity.org

Sent: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:00 am

Subject: Re: [arn-l] monty neill op ed on overhauling nclb












Indeed there is a possible real world flaw in the proposal, but it is not 
necessarily that all children will be above average (depending on a. where 
proficient is defined). That said, whether slower-improving Title I schools 
can in fact accelerate improvement, or to what extent, is not really 
empirically known. The FEA proposal allows 5 years to catch up to that rate. 
It also approaches much of the law very differently, focusing on assistance 
rather than punishments. Our goal is also multiple indicators and 
assessments, not just standardized tests. But the key reason for the rate of 
increase approach was to get away from the destructive idiocy that all 
children will score proficient by 2014. There are some other comparable 
approaches being considered, but mostly Congress appears unwilling to remove 
a provision they know cannot be met - due they say to the fear of being 
called out on 'which child would you leave behind' -- as if the law will 
actually induce the result in the first place. BTW, there is no evidence any 
pol will lose votes over this, but they are fearful (aside from those who 
want lots of failures).?

?


FairTest does not oppose some expectations for improvement provided 
resources to actually do so are provided. What those expectations ought to 
be should be grounded empirically - rational, reasonable - and improvement 
should not be reduced to test scores. FairTest agrees with the FEA position 
that the rate of improvement model is much superior to the current model, 
tho we expect it will need further work, hopefully within a context in which 
accountability is not supposed to control education. That hope might be 
realized, but certainly not this year. If reauth is delayed until 09, 
maybe - we should make a reconceptualization of the federal role an explicit 
issue in any event. That means a) having an answer beyond saying no, and b) 
going beyond FEA, which if taken fully would tremendously alter the law and 
the situation for the better but does not move sufficiently beyond an 
accountability framework. In that case, accountability ought to be a 
component, but not the control device it now is. What a new federal role 
should be therefore should become an essential conversation among educators, 
civil rights groups, etc etc.?

?


Monty?

?



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Sheridan" <learn@jps.net>?


To: <arn-l@interversity.org>?


Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:49 AM?


Subject: Re: [arn-l] monty neill op ed on overhauling nclb?

?



> This sounds like another way of saying everyone should be above average.?


>?


> All schools should improve as fast as the school whose rate of improvement 
> is next in line to be in the top third.?


>?


> At 09:08 PM 10/15/2007 -0400, you wrote:?


>>"..wiithin five years all Title I schools should reach the?


>>rate of improvement now reached by the Title I school now at the 65th?


>>percentile when ranked by rate of improvement."?


>?


>?


>?


> George Sheridan?


> -------------------------------------------------------?


> Subscribe ARN-L:?


> http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html?


> ?


-------------------------------------------------------?


Subscribe ARN-L:?


http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html?





 


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