[
Author Prev][
Author Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Author Index][
Thread Index]
Fwd: lucrative ties
- To: CA Resisters <ca-resisters@interversity.org>
- Subject: Fwd: lucrative ties
- From: Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:45:50 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=igc.org; b=XDIsVmrp54tY/Uh+QXVdyqcVqtNJD6GBatABJelCbsu6zIIiv4jHdvtIMSc7FRrD; h=Received:Date:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:From:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Heres what I sent Bainbridge.
Susan
Begin forwarded message:
From: Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>
Date: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:41:00 AM US/Pacific
To: bainbridge@schoolmatch.com
Subject: lucrative ties
William Bainbridge—
I was away on vacation when your Florida Times-Union piece came out.
Its terrific; thanks from all of us out here fighting the tests,
external standards, and Bush complicity. The nepotism goes much
deeper, however. The people who wrote the NRP Report, which is
(mistakenly) taken to recommend certain programs (McGraws Open Court
primarily), sit on the Reading First panels that approve or deny
states proposals, and also wrote the programs. Self-serving? Criminal?
Investigate the U of Oregon folks and youll see what I mean.
One more area that the 4 publishers you mention control is the
professional conferences. None of the prof. organizations can afford
to put on their annual conferences with heavy publisher support. And
the pipers call the tunes that are played there. Eg, Patricia Polacco
was told what she could and couldnt say at her presentation last year
to (I forget: AERA or a reading conference). She declined the
invitation.
So the average teacher or school district person hears of the NRP that
it recommends Open Court and intense phonics, goes to a conference and
hears the same, and is told by the Reading First reviewers that only
Open Court will be approved for funding.
Impeach Now.
Susan Harman
Post a Message to ca-resisters:
