| Author | Message | ||
     nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1088 Registered: 2-2001 |
Well, if you read the article on NYC's reading curriculum in today's NYT's, you have to ask yourself who's accountable and for what? I say, "Don't drink the Cool-Aid" -------------------------------------- January 7, 2004 For U.S. Aid, City Switches Reading Plan By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN Just four months after adopting a new citywide reading curriculum, New York City plans to abandon it in 49 troubled elementary schools so it can win $34 million in federal aid that is available only if the city uses a more structured program approved by New York State and the federal Department of Education. Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein has consistently argued that the city's choice of reading curriculum is superior to the more rigid programs endorsed by the Bush administration, and that the city needs a uniform approach to streamline teacher training and help students who move from school to school within the system. Yesterday, he continued to praise the city's curriculum but said that the $34 million was too much money to give up. "This is a significant amount of money for some of our really-highest-needs programs," Mr. Klein said in an interview. "It's a pragmatic decision." The chancellor also for the first time criticized federal education officials, saying they should be more flexible. He said that recent national testing data showed that New York, Boston and San Diego — cities that use a so-called balanced literacy approach — were making better progress than cities using programs preferred by Washington as "scientifically proven." "It's being done in the name of science," Mr. Klein said of Washington's restrictions. "And the question is: where's the science?" New York City's current balanced literacy curriculum uses books from classroom libraries instead of basic readers and encourages students to read and write on their own level. In its place, at the 49 schools, officials are proposing a more traditional program called Harcourt Trophies and a companion Spanish version called Trofeos. The $34 million that Mr. Klein hopes to win is part of $129 million in federal Reading First money awarded to New York State in September. Applications from individual school districts must be submitted to Albany by the end of this week. Other school systems using reading curriculums similar to New York City's have refused to bow to the federal mandates. San Diego did not apply for Reading First money and Boston's application was rejected because the city refused to fully abandon its existing reading program, even in a small number of schools. Boston is negotiating with Massachusetts officials to retain the core of its balanced literacy program and still qualify for Reading First money to be used in 10 of its 134 schools, said Thomas W. Payzant, the Boston schools superintendent. "We would have had to make changes that were so dramatic it would have tossed out everything we had been working on for four or five years," he said, adding, "You don't want to turn down dollars, but by the same token, you don't just put in a program and in a year expect to see magnificent results." In New York City, education officials declined to name the 49 schools that would get the new curriculum but said they were spread across the city. They said the schools all had extremely low test scores — in most cases less than 40 percent of students are reading at grade level. The schools also serve impoverished communities and many have large populations of non-English-speaking students. The Trophies program, published by Harcourt Education of Orlando, Fla., uses textbooks that include reading passages with built-in vocabulary and comprehension lessons and exercises. Mr. Klein and other city education officials insisted that the Trophies program was very closely aligned with a balanced literacy approach, using real children's literature for reading material and many similar teaching techniques as well as employing classroom libraries along with more traditional books known as basal readers. "The Harcourt Trophies program contains all the elements that our current comprehensive approach does," said Michele Cahill, the chancellor's senior counsel for educational policy. She did, however, note a major difference between the Trophies program and the citywide curriculum. "Our citywide approach does not have basal readers," she said. "We use the literature in the classroom libraries as readers." Privately, some education officials acknowledged that the department was bracing for criticism that it was somehow backing away from the citywide curriculum and that the chancellor's decision might have been pragmatic but it was also hypocritical. Dr. Payzant, who was an assistant secretary of education in the Clinton administration, said he agreed with Chancellor Klein that education officials in the Bush administration were too inflexible in their view of reading programs. "The irony is you have got a Republican administration that normally champions local control and opposes any kind of federal involvement in setting prescriptive curriculum for school districts to follow," he said. "There ought to be some flexibility in deciding what the best way is to get the results." Chris Doherty, the director of Reading First, defended the program. "We really don't feel the requirements are overly rigid at all," he said. "It's helping focus the funds on programs that have proven to work." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/education/07READ.html | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1089 Registered: 2-2001 |
Another letter to the times on NCLB: Published: January 9, 2004 New York Times To the Editor: Re "Some School Districts Challenge Bush's Signature Education Law" (front page, Jan. 2): Your article reflects the growing realization that the No Child Left Behind Act is a monumental bureaucratic monster unleashed by the political machinations of a president intent on a piece of signature legislation. The reality imposed at the local level is one of confusion, financial hardship and logistical turmoil. You cannot legislate academic success. DAVID CHARAK New York, Jan. 2, 2004 | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1091 Registered: 2-2001 |
Well, it seems everyday I come across another anti-NCLB petition. The other day I got an incendiary one from reading professionals that I will post soon. Here's another from the Maryland Humanities Council protesting a decrease in history and social studies in order raise test scores in Maryland. Previews of coming attractions. http://www.mdhc.org/documents/history_edu.html Highlights: An informal survey reveals that “No Child Left Behind” is already affecting several Maryland counties. Classroom instruction time for social studies in grades 1-5 has been reduced 33% in Anne Arundel County and 20% in Baltimore County. In Montgomery and Howard Counties, some elementary schools are reprioritizing the school day around reading and math. Social studies has been entirely eliminated in some Prince George’s County schools and dramatically reduced in others. Counties throughout Maryland are reporting that their social studies budgets have been significantly reduced. Surprisingly, many individuals and organizations that these changes may impact are unaware that they are occurring. The downgrading of history and social studies will have serious consequences for Maryland’s youth. These subjects inform students about our democratic form of government, develop critical thinking skills, and provide a context for examining our place in the world. They are indispensable to our nation’s future. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1098 Registered: 2-2001 |
Leave No Child with a Mind--Let's see what other programs George Bush wants to destroy: The Bush Attack on Head Start: "What This Initiative is Attempting to Do" by Gerald Coles, September 2003 Despite his numerous cameos in classrooms, where he puts on his compassionate conservative demeanor, George W. Bush's actions show a very different picture. As governor of Texas, for example, he used a surplus in state funds to give tax breaks to his oil-rich friends instead of using the money to provide health insurance for all poor children; his indifference to the poor contributed to ranking Texas second highest among states in percentage of hungry children. In the White House, his deep cuts in food stamps, child nutrition and foster care just scratch the surface of his pitiless legislation affecting the young. I have previously described Bush's actions as following the "W Principle," that is, in a compassionate conservative hierarchy, one rises to a maximum level of cruelty. In the relentless application of the W Principle to children, a recent example is Head Start, an imperfect program that has nonetheless a documented record of helping poor pre-school youngsters. Why, instead of taking readily-apparent steps that could increase the program's quality and outreach, does Bush want to go in the opposite direction and destroy it? Head Start Begun in 1965 during the Johnson administration, Head Start has been based on the premise that providing poor children with basic medical, educational, nutritional, and emotional assistance would contribute to their future academic achievement. . All areas are essential to early learning and school preparedness in this comprehensive model -- none is an "add-on." Nutrition, for example, is critical because, as Larry Brown of the Center on Hunger and Poverty stresses, national studies have shown that children from "food-deprived homes" have "compromised overall learning ability," have "higher levels of anxiety and irritability" and hence do "poorly academically." The benefits of this comprehensive approach have been supported by research showing that, compared with their peers, Head Start children are more likely to: --enter kindergarten ready to learn --have higher levels of achievement motivation when they begin school --be in the right grade for the right age and not in a special education class --have higher academic achievement --stay in school and complete high school -- have higher levels of self-esteem --be physically healthier --have fewer delinquency problems Additionally, because of another key area in Head Start's comprehensive approach, Head Start parents are more likely to be involved in their children's public school education and spend more time working with them on academics. This evidence of effectiveness does not mean Head Start is the perfect program for poor children. The above comparisons are heartening, but the children on average do less well academically than those from more affluent families. This difference should not be surprising because Head Start can, at best, be a necessary but not sufficient response to the many needs of poor children, and certainly cannot be a substitute for a full governmental policy answer for eliminating poverty and its consequences. Head Start successes and failures also need to be seen in relation to the insufficient resources allocated for its comprehensive approach. As Edward Ziegler, one of Head Start's founders, has observed, "the amount budgeted per child" [has always been] too little to allow for a quality educational program" so that excessive class size, low staff salaries, and constant staff turnover have been perennial concerns. Moreover, even now, nearly forty years after the program began, Head Start is available for only 50% to 60% of eligible children . Attacks on Head Start Although the Nixon administration attempted to undercut the program, the first major attack on it was led by Ronald Reagan who, in the early 1980s, tried to fold it into block grants to the states, which would have required Head Start to compete with other educational and social programs for a single amount of money insufficient to begin with and sure to be reduced continuously in subsequent years. Only considerable organizing and a great public outcry forced the administration to back down. Defeated, but unlike General George Custer, whom Reagan played in a movie, he quickly picked himself up and went to attack plan B: failing to eliminate a program, underfund it as much as possible. He successfully opposed all efforts to restore his cuts in staff-child ratios and class size, professional development, staff salaries, and a variety of quality improvements. George Bush (The First) continued Reagan's weakening of Head Start, so that across the two administrations, the program's real funding per child, adjusted for inflation, decreased 13 percent. In addition to reducing the quality of Head Start, the insufficient funds meant that millions of eligible children were kept out of the program. For example, during its nearly first three decades (1965 to 1992), 11 million poor children had been in program, but 50 million who qualified were left out. Not until 1996, during the Clinton administration, was funding boosted to return Head Start to the level of 1971 of real spending. Even so, these 1996 increases provided a Head Start program for only 36 percent of eligible children. On the other hand, given the Republican control of the House at the time and their 1994 "Contract With America" policies, at least there was movement toward half a loaf! "The Building Blocks" Which brings us to George W. Bush. Head Start is "working okay," he acknowledged when presenting his "School Readiness Act" -- the chief legislative instrument for killing the program -- to an audience of Head Start educators, but he wanted to make it "better than okay." Giving no more than lip service to Head Start's comprehensive approach and, as I shall discuss, actually taking legislative steps to enfeeble it, he insisted that the program had to put initial reading skills in the forefront in order to lay "the foundation for children to become good readers." "Let's get it right early," he asserted, "that's what this initiative is attempting to do." According to Bush, the need for this change was not whim but fact proven by "science"-- by "researchers" who have studied "how the brain works and spent a lot of time analyzing what works and what doesn't work." This "research based" skills curriculum would provide "the building blocks. And these building blocks need to be a part of Head Start programs all across America. That's the mission. That's the goal." The "research-based" evidence Bush alluded to is supposedly contained in the Report of the National Reading Panel (NRP), the document named as the gold standard research summary in the Reading First portion of Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation, and in the many studies funded by the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development, commonly known as "NICHD reading research." In two books I have reviewed all the evidence from both sources and have shown that there is no "research," as Bush maintains, that demonstrates the benefits of the so-called "building blocks" on later reading acquisition. None! Studies do show that children (poor, "at risk," or in several other categories) who are directly taught these skills do better on tests of these skills than do similar children who were not taught these skills, but that is as far as the benefit of skills teaching goes. When researchers have looked at how this building blocks training translated into advantages in tests of reading comprehension, the chief measure of reading acquisition, at the end of first or second grade, they found none. Furthermore, this research has never shown that poor children who focused extensively on these skills learned to read as well as did children from more affluent environments who, thanks to good material fortune, had the advantage of a wide range of written language experiences and opportunities at home and in preschool -- none of which included heavy skills training! Anyone actually reading this body of research would be amazed at how little of it has to do with claims made about it. The following is exemplary of building block studies found compelling in the NRP Report: In a four-day experiment on phonemic awareness (the ability to hear and distinguish word sounds) with preschool prereaders, one group was trained to segment four spoken syllables into their initial consonant and remaining portion of a word (e.g., hem is made of /h/ and /em/), while a control group was trained simply to repeat the syllables aloud. Both groups were then taught to do a task in which they learned words related or unrelated to the spoken syllables they had learned. The trained group made fewer mistakes in learning words related to the sound patterns they had practiced in training. A second part of the experiment used another form of phonemic awareness sounds training, and again the trained children made fewer mistakes learning words related to the sounds in which they had been trained. From this four day study, the researchers drew the slightly hyperbolic conclusion that "these results suggested a causal link between phonemic awareness abilities and the ability to benefit from spelling-sound relations in reading" (my emphasis). This hyperbole was amplified in the NRP Report, which calculated the effect on "reading" in this diminutive study to be between moderate and large! One of the best kept secrets in the "building blocks" research to which Bush constantly refers is that "reading" is almost never defined as comprehension of print. In contrast to spotlighting the building blocks evidence for changing Head Start, Bush has ignored the results of another body of work, that of successful pre-school programs. For example, High Scope, a well-researched preschool program for poor children, eschews direct training and drilling of building block skills and instead uses a holistic curriculum that immerses children in a "print-rich environment" which provides them "opportunities throughout the day" to "listen to stories, explore books and other print materials, and work with writing tools and materials.” High Scope research has documented the considerable effectiveness of this approach for providing the "foundation for later academic learning" (www.highscope.org). High Scope has been more successful than traditional Head Start programs because of both the curriculum and the greater per-child budget that provides the means for implementing that curriculum. Of course any social program that smacks of greater budget needs is beyond Bush’s policy scope. And why shouldn’t it be? He knows that "the good folks who are focusing on science" tell him all he wants to know. This research and the actual results are available in libraries for anyone to read and appraise, but since Bush and the educators who serve him can count on very few members of the public or media ever doing first-hand examinations for themselves, false information can readily be transformed into unquestionable truths. In a recent major article in the New York Times, for instance, education writer James Traub asserts: "Reading experts have coalesced around the principle that step-by-step phonics instruction works best, especially with children at risk of failure." Then, after quoting one such expert who laments the failure of educators to ''understand that there really is scientific evidence" for the heavy skills approach, Traub wonders aloud and critically whether, as these experts fear, some educators "take a dim view of the findings of educational research?" That is, don't they know their uninformed "dim view" is harming children they are charged to teach? Since Traub serves merely as an echo, one can assume he, like most of the media's education writers, has never gone beyond phoning the "experts" for their opinions, never taken on the role of investigative reporter who looks for himself at actual evidence. Building Blocks Testing Bush also proposes testing Head Start children "to tell us whether or not children are learning to read and write" so we will know if "every child has been given the tools necessary to be at the starting line at the same time." Given what I have just said about the lack of evidence that early attainment of building block "tools" benefit later reading, Bush's testing program simply increases pressure on programs to skew the curriculum toward a valueless path and away from more fruitful approaches. As child development expert Samuel Meisels has pointed out, this narrow skills testing omits much of what children learn in high-quality Head Start programs, "including appreciation for books and reading; comprehension; early writing; scientific knowledge, skills, and methods; social studies; the arts, and physical growth and development." In addition, Bush's statement ignores the adverse developmental issues that the testing can create. Requiring the children to measure up in tests disregards the research showing the great variability in the pace and ways in which young children learn, and the foolishness of trying to standardize and track development as if it should be or could be uniform among any group of 4-year-olds for any kind of learning. Meisels stresses that testing at this age can, first, have a "long-term impact on how children are viewed, stigmatized and tracked, and second, can make "a long-lasting impression on children's self-perceptions, estimates of their own abilities, and motivation and achievement." Reagan Reincarnated Reagan's attempt to eliminate Head Start reemerged in Bush's strategy of handing the program over to the states, with all the best of reasons, of course. According to Bush, the governors told him that by getting the money, they would then have "flexibility to be able to dovetail the Head Start program" into their preschool programs, thereby giving them "better control over whether or not the students are given the skills necessary so that when hold us to account we can achieve that which we want to achieve, which is excellence in the classroom" (n.b.: this is an exact quote). Despite the governors' enthusiasm, shortly after Bush floated the idea, the Republicans realized there would be too much Congressional resistance to it, even within their party, and decided to see if they could at least initiate the hand over by paring the number of states to eight. For these, as in the federal Head Start, building block skills would be the key curriculum ingredient. As for the rest of the program's comprehensive approach -- well, that would remain in name only. The School Readiness Act does mention performance standards for the various areas -- dental and medical screening and treatment, nutrition, etc. -- but the states could do what they wanted because the Bush plan would not require them to adhere to any guidelines for providing services within the comprehensive program. Fear that the transfer would destroy Head Start's comprehensive approach is supported by several research findings. One, among current state preschool programs, only three states --Delaware, Oregon, and Washington -- have duplicated the range of comprehensive services in the federal program. Another, in the last fiscal year, the 45 states with preschool programs have spent less than $2 billion on them compared with the $6.5 billion the federal government has spent on Head Start. A third, even this relatively smaller amount of state spending is misleading because most of spending was done in just 10 states. And a fourth, governors of states with ample funding of preschool programs cannot necessarily be counted on to be strong supporters of preschool and to use Head Start funds to expand preschool education. In New York, my home state, for example, only bipartisan opposition in the state assembly over the last several years has reversed Republican governor George Pataki's elimination of funds for universal pre-kindergarten from each of his budgets. If we place all these findings within the current budget crisis in states across the nation, the outcome is easily predictable: Head Start funding will decrease as states use the federal money to reduce or eliminate their previous contributions to preschool budgets, and Head Start will become a shadow of what it had been. Hardly a recipe for "excellence!" "A Noble Profession" "You're a part of a noble profession, an incredibly important profession for the future of this country," Bush told the Head Start teachers who heard him introduce his School Readiness Act. Stirring words to be backed up by legislation requiring all Head Start teachers to have at least an associate degree in early childhood by 2006 or to be on the way to obtaining it within three years. By 2008, at least 50 percent of Head Start teachers would be required to have bachelor's degrees in early childhood or a related field. Splendid goals -- unfortunately lacking some key components: not only are they unaccompanied by money for reaching any of them, the School Readiness Act proposes cutting resources for even basic professional development! Currently, Head Start must now allocate at least two percent of its budget for professional training and program technical assistance; many programs spend more. Under Bush's new legislation, programs could spend 1 percent but no more than two percent. "Why," we might wonder, "do only 28 percent of Head Start teachers have bachelor's degrees?," a question toward which Bush's cogitation never strays. Could it have something to do whether the average salary of about $25,000 for those teachers, compared with about $43,000 earned by kindergarten teachers holding the same degree? What would it take to make salaries competitive, thereby quickly reaching the 50 percent of fully credentialed teachers Bush says he wants? That would require adding about $2 billion to Head Start over the next five years. Not a lot of money, considering that it would equal about one week or less of current military spending in Iraq! But any such calculation is beyond the budgetary pale for Bush. Instead, he has proposed Head Start budgets over the next few years that would barely cover inflation increases. Bush's plans for the noble profession also include a surprise for many who apply for a position in a Head Start program. Head Start programs run by "faith-based" groups would no longer have to comply with non-discrimination hiring laws! Instead, a faith-based institution could reject a job candidate, regardless of the candidate's college degrees and teaching experience, if that candidate's religious beliefs did not match those of the institution! Bush's admiration for the "incredibly important profession" also did not extend to the profession's appraisal of his School Readiness Act. On May 8, right after Head Start program directors and teachers learned about the forthcoming legislation and began criticizing it, Windy Hill, Bush's Associate Commissioner of Health and Human Services (HHS) overseeing Head Start, sent a letter to local programs threatening to take legal action against any one who dared to speak out. As NHSA President Sarah Greene explained, HHS "threatened Head Start teachers and parents with civil action or even jail time if they spoke out against the Bush plan to dismantle" Head Start. Receiving no satisfactory reply from the Bush administration regarding "the Association's grave First Amendment free-speech concerns," on June 11th NHSA took HHS to court to stop the campaign of intimidation. On July 2, after a federal judge reviewed the case, recognized the assault on first amendment rights, and told HHS to write a letter reversing its campaign or face a court ruling, the Bush administration backed down. Hill explained in her letter that she had not intended to "discourage" anyone in Head Start from expressing their "political thoughts and concerns" to their Congressional representatives. Her intention was only to provide guidance, etc., etc., etc. The defeat of the Bush administration's "attempt to stifle free speech" led Greene to exclaim, "This is a great way for Head Start teachers and parents to be able to celebrate their 1st Amendment rights on a day - July 4th - that is all about free speech and other core rights that define what it is to be American. Saving Head Start Leading the effort to save Head Start once more has been the National Head Start Association (NHSA), begun in 1973 to combat Nixon's efforts to diminish the program. Combating the current Bush assault, NHSA has spearheaded a diverse coalition of over 100 organizations, including the Children's Defense Fund, United Way of America, National League of Cities, Service Employees International Union, and the National Council of Jewish Women. A letter writing and phoning "Save Head Start!" lobbying effort produced over 30,000 letters and emails to members of Congress and nearly succeeded in beating back the House version of the Bush legislation. All Democrats voted against it and received support from twelve Republicans for a 217-216 vote. Democrats attempted to revise the bill by eliminating the hand over to the eight states, increasing the budget, and adding salary increases and scholarship funds to help teachers attend college, but none of these nor similar improvement efforts were successful. About the same time the House voted, a Senate committee met for a hearing on very different Head Start legislation introduced by Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and co-sponsored by ten Democrats and Independent (former Republican) James Jeffords. Although the bill rejects the chief features of the House version and contains many proposals that would further improve Head Start, because the Republicans control the Senate and hence chair the committees, the hearing was stacked with educators supporting Bush's efforts. Not surprisingly, leading the "scientific" attack on Head Start was Reid Lyon, chair of the division of NICHD that has manufactured the research Bush has used to justify mandating a narrow skills training national reading curriculum for schools that receive funding through Reading First legislation. Dubbed by the Wall Street Journal "Bush's Reading Czar," Lyon was in the Senate hearing to convey one more sophisticated version of Bush's Building Blocks Big Lie. A curriculum of direct instruction on "phonological sensitivity" and similar "early literacy skills," Lyons explained, will help young children get an essential head start for later reading acquisition and, by themselves, provide the "pre-academic components" for "closing the achievement gap between children from higher and lower-income environments." A very pretty, though baseless, simple-fix measure, perfect for those in power who want to justify doing as little as possible for education, doing nothing to eliminate poverty and its effects, and doing as much as possible to promote the neo-conservative agenda of cutting social spending to a raw minimum. What the final version of the Head Start legislation will be is uncertain at this point. With enough pressure through a continued lobbying, letter writing and phoning campaign, the transfer of Head Start to the states and the other egregious parts of the School Readiness Act might be eliminated. Losing these, Bush will most likely still have sufficient support for standing firm on stand-still Head Start budget. In addition, he might still achieve a major victory through a bipartisan vote supporting the skills building blocks curriculum because in previous legislation (the Reading Excellence Act and Reading First/NCLB) the Democrats voted for the same kind of teaching in the early grades. If this part of the legislation is passed, besides skewing the curriculum, Head Start parents will be filled with false expectations whose tragic reality will not become apparent for several years. Whether or not the Bush legislation has been passed by the time this article is published, we can be certain that his attack on poor children's education will continue. Therefore, go to www.saveheadstart.org to see what you can do. As Bush said -- and this is the truth -- "We got a -- this is an opportunity that we better not miss." From: http://www.pipeline.com/~rgibson/rouge_forum/bushattackHS.htm | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1100 Registered: 2-2001 |
The National Education Association is coming out against NCLB big time. They are having a press conference tomorrow. Here are some videos on their website: NEA Video - Members Speak Out "No Child Left Behind" Despite the allure of its name, the so-called "No Child Left Behind" Act (the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) focuses on punishments rather than help, federal mandates rather than local flexibility, and privatization rather than teacher-led, family-oriented solutions. "No Child Left Behind" presents real obstacles to efforts by teachers and support professionals to help every student succeed. http://www.nea.org/video/membersspeak.html | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1101 Registered: 2-2001 |
Great letter from the Director of FairTest: Education Week American Education's Newspaper of Record January 14, 2004 Letters Stop the Name-Calling Defense of 'No Child' Act To the Editor: Some proponents of the No Child Left Behind Act are "playing the race card" in an effort to discredit critics of the law. Most recently, Andrew J. Rotherham of the Progressive Policy Institute said at a Washington forum that some Democratic candidates opposing the law "sound a little like [archsegregationist] Orval Faubus to me" ("Education Law Faces 2004 Challenges, Speakers Say," <http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?%0d%0aslug=15brt.h23> Dec. 10, 2003). Kati Haycock of the Education Trust said, "Too often, the critics imply that students from low-income families and students of color simply cannot be expected to be taught to high levels." U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige has consistently implied that those who oppose the legislation support the perpetuation of educational apartheid. And President Bush used the phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations" to imply that his critics preferred low expectations for poor children. This kind of name-calling is tragic because it avoids a desperately needed discussion about whether the law's approach is likely to improve or degrade education for students who have not been well served. The truth is that many critics of the No Child Left Behind Act share its stated goals of narrowing the achievement gap while improving education for all, but see substantial evidence that its approach will not work. The track record of high-stakes exams suggests that the legislation will encourage test preparation instead of real education. The result will narrow and dumb down education, while the overuse of tests will continue to drive many children out of school. These children will be mostly low-income, and disproportionately children of color, with limited English proficiency, or with special needs. The No Child Left Behind Act will cement in place a dual system: a decent to good education for the middle and upper classes, test preparation for low-income children. But all children can learn far more than the impoverished schooling diet being force-fed in the name of accountability and high standards. We recognize that many supporters of the law believe it will improve education. And we know that FairTest and many critics of the legislation, including African-American and Latino educators, civil rights groups, many black and Hispanic members of Congress, and the clear majority of educators who actually have to teach under this onerous law, believe that it is not the path to genuine educational improvement. The real issue is whether it will on balance improve education, particularly for groups who have not generally had access to such education. Such a consideration needs to acknowledge that there are approaches other than those mandated in the legislation that have been proven to be more effective. Past experience has shown that the law's test-and-punish approach will undermine both educational equity and school quality. Our hope is that we will not wait for the damage to occur before we look to better alternatives for reform and accountability and work to implement a new Elementary and Secondary Education Act so that the nation will, in fact, leave no child behind. Monty Neill Executive Director National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) Cambridge, Mass. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1104 Registered: 2-2001 |
Another good letter to the NYT's: To the editor From Published in New York Times (01/17/2004) Re "School Reform Left Behind" (editorial, Jan. 10): You correctly say "education reform will go nowhere unless students are taught by strong, qualified teachers." The way to keep good teachers is to give them better conditions — respect as professionals, time to plan, freedom to teach, smaller classes, adequate resources and fewer high-stakes tests. The No Child Left Behind law is the solution that H. L. Mencken called "neat, plausible and wrong." | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1105 Registered: 2-2001 |
More from the front lines of the NYC Reading Wars. Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Jan 16, 2004; Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page:9 Joel Klein: ‘Our Obligation Is Not to Ideology But to Our Students’ The Correct Curriculum Joel I. Klein Chancellor New York City Department of Education In attack after attack, writers in The New York Sun have seriously misrepresented the facts about the reading curriculum in most New York City elementary schools. For example, in a recent editorial, the Sun associated our reading curriculum with “progressive ideology,” and contended that we lacked the support of scientific research [“No Mayor Left Behind,” January 8, 2004]. And columnist Andrew Wolf has implied that we have abandoned phonics [“The Biggest Mistake,”Opinion,January 9,2004].In addition, he portrayed the recent choice of a new curriculum for 49 needy schools as a philosophical retreat. None of this is true. So let’s set the record straight. About one year ago, we introduced a new reading and writing curriculum to be used at most elementary schools in the city, which contained a phonics component. This program received applause from more than 100 highly respected academics and scholars in the field of education. “We recognize there is a tremendous diversity among the students New York City serves, and we celebrate your decision to steer clear of scripted, one-size-fits-all programs,” they wrote. Nonetheless, some argued for a more rigorous phonics program. Then something happened The Sun can’t seem to acknowledge: We introduced just such a program.The Voyager Passport Intervention program is widely known as rigorous and intensive. And some of our early critics of our program responded by praising our approach. For example,Joanna Uhry,a professor at Fordham who had been an initial critic,said on the record: “What they are trying to do is be far more comprehensive in their approach.… They are,” Ms. Uhry said, “taking the best of ‘whole language’ — the writing process, a studentcentered approach — and the best of good phonics instruction.” Voyager is now being used by 65,000 early-grade students based on careful assessment.Why is it that the Sun and Mr. Wolf insist on ignoring Voyager’s existence? Maybe it is because our choice of curriculum had nothing to do with ideology. It is a comprehensive approach that includes all five elements recommended by the National Reading Panel: phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. We assess all children in the early grades to determine whether they are mastering these essential elements and we tailor their learning to specific needs. In our program, children get phonics but they also get rich and varied reading instruction and reading opportunities through the use of classroom libraries. Mr. Wolf has been decrying the damaging effects of a progressive cabal in New York City education since before I arrived. In June, he wrote: “The Board of Education is heavily invested in many of these ‘progressive’ and ‘childcentered’ programs advanced by the University-Institutional Complex.” In fact, last year (before the introduction of a core curriculum), school districts had a wide array of programs. But most of our schools used a “balanced literacy”reading approach. And we strengthened the presence of phonics as a component in that approach introduced this year. The most complete comparison of the reading performance of large urban school districts shows that as Mr. Wolf was complaining, New York City was outperforming and scoring higher than almost every other major city. More remarkably, The National Assessment of Educational Progress released last month found that in 2003, in tests of grade four and grade eight students eligible to receive Title 1 funds — children of poverty — New Yorkers scored above children in every other city. Among all students, New York finished only behind Charlotte. And urban districts generally using “balanced literacy” approaches like Boston, San Diego and New York considerably outperformed other large cities using the type of scripted programs that Mr. Wolf favors. Officials in the federal and state governments have been putting pressure on districts to adopt a scripted approach to teaching literacy in the early grades. While we disagree with that approach, we recently applied for funding under the federal and state Reading First grant program for 49 of our lowest-performing schools.We did not want to lose these potential resources. We chose a program that is aligned with our balanced literacy approach but also met the federal and state requirements for the grant, therefore remaining true to our philosophy and our commitment to our students. Mr.Wolf can keep trumpeting his ideological call. But our obligation is not to ideology but to our students and to the facts. The NAEP scores show that we should keep moving in our present,pragmatic direction. ------------------------------ http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Typ e=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/01/16&ID=Ar00902 | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1112 Registered: 2-2001 |
This one has been making the rounds----- NO CHILD'S BEHIND LEFT The New Educational Eugenics in George Bush's State of the Union Wednesday, January 21, 2004 by Greg Palast Go ahead, George, and lie to me. Lie to my dog. Lie to my sister. But don't you ever lie to my kids. Deep into your State of the Siege lecture tonight, long after sensible adults had turned off the tube or kicked in the screen, you came after our children. "By passing the No Child Left Behind Act," you said, "We are regularly testing every child ... and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing." You said it ... and then that little tongue came out; that weird way you stick your tongue out between your lips like the little kid who knows he's fibbing. Like a snake licking a rat. I saw that snakey tongue dart out and I thought, "He knows." And what you know, Mr. Bush, is this: you've ordered this testing to hunt down, identify and target for destruction the hopes of millions of children you find too expensive, too heavy a burden, to educate. Here's how No Child Left Behind and your tests work in the classrooms of Houston and Chicago. Millions of 8 year olds are given lists of words and phrases. They try to read. Then they are graded, like USDA beef: some prime, some OK, many failed. Once the kids are stamped and sorted, the parents of the marked children ask for you to fulfill your tantalizing promise, to "make sure they have better options when schools are not performing." But there is no "better option," is there, Mr. Bush? Where's the money for the better schools to take in the kids getting crushed in cash-poor districts? Where's the open door to the suburban campuses with the big green lawns for the dark kids with the test-score mark of Cain? And if I bring up the race of the kids with the low score, don't get all snippy with me, telling me your program is color blind. We know the color of the kids left behind; and it's not the color of the kids you went to school with at Philips Andover Academy. You know and I know the testing is a con. There is no "better option" at the other end. The cash went to eliminate the inheritance tax, that special program to give every millionaire's son another million. But you'll tell me, you took tests as a youth. I know you did. And you scored on the Air Guard flight test 25 out of 100, one point above too dumb to fly. But you zoomed past the other would-be flyboys. They were stamped, "Ready for 'Nam." And you took a test to get into Yale. And though your pet rock scored a wee bit higher than you, your grandpa on the Yale board provided the "better option" which got you in. Here in New York City, your educational Taliban, led by Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has issued an edict to test third-graders. Winnow out the chaff - the kids stamped 'failed' - and throw them back, exactly where they started, to repeat the same failed program another year. The ugly little irony is this: the core of No Child Left Behind is that struggling children will be left behind another year. And another year and another year. You know and I know that this is not an educational opportunity program - because you offer no opportunities, no hope, no plan, no funding. Rather, it is the new Republican social Darwinism, educational eugenics: identify the nation's loser-class early on. Trap them, then train them cheap. No Child Left Behind is of one piece with the tax cuts for the rich, the energy laws for the insiders, the oil wars for the well-off. Someone has to care for the privileged. No society can have winners without lots and lots of losers. And so we have No Child Left Behind - to provide the new worker drones that will clean the toilets at the Yale Alumni Club, punch the cash registers color-coded for illiterates, and pamper the winner-class on the higher floors of the new economic order. Greg Palast is author of, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," which has returned this week to the New York Times bestseller list. View Palast's writings for Harper's, The Guardian (UK) and BBC television at www.GregPalast.com. http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=310 | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1115 Registered: 2-2001 |
Remember the nice pro-NCLB folks I introduced you in this post (scroll up to Jan 2) http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3130&post=186106#POST1861 06 in an article called: Critics Say Education Dept Is Favoring Political Right? Well, here are some more details on what our new friends are up to these days. Accountability? Just remember NCLB is all about holding schools accountable. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mismanagement charges rock school-reform group By George Archibald THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published January 23, 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Education Leaders Council (ELC), a pro-Bush administration group representing reform-minded chief state school officers, is in turmoil over findings of mismanagement and irregularities in documenting time spent on federal grant projects. The group's auditors questioned the propriety of Lisa Graham Keegan, working under a consultant contract as ELC's $235,000-a-year chief executive officer, sitting on the corporation's board and helping set policy. The auditors, Draper & McGinley of Frederick, said the arrangement conflicted with federal regulations. Billie Orr, who just resigned as ELC's $200,000-a-year president, also had worked under a similar automatically renewable contract arrangement. Mrs. Keegan said she arranged the consultant contracts for herself and Ms. Orr "for tax purposes" through their respective consulting firms in Arizona when she resigned as Arizona's state superintendent of public instruction. She arranged for the ELC board to hire John Schilling, her aide at the Arizona department, as ELC's $150,000-a-year chief of staff. Mr. Schilling, in turn, then signed the consultant contracts for Mrs. Keegan and Ms. Orr on behalf of ELC. The auditors also said the organization improperly had documented time spent by Mrs. Keegan, Ms. Orr and other ELC staff as a basis for charging two federal projects for a major portion of their salaries. The projects funded through the U.S. Department of Education are a $10 million computerized school-instructional program called Following the Leaders and the council's federal subcontract to help implement a $5 million-a-year alternative teacher-licensing program, the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE). ELC charged $732,022, or 61 percent of its total wages, to the two federal projects in 2003. Leaders of the centerpiece ABCTE project and National Council on Teacher Quality, its co-founder with ELC, last month severed ties with the state school officers group. "The issue is larger than ELC. If word gets out about any of this, my fear is that it will have several labels -- 'scandal' and 'incompetence' come to mind -- and will make ELC look like every other status quo incarnation of the existing [education establishment] cartel," board member Cheri Pierson Yecke, Minnesota's state education commissioner, wrote to other directors after they reviewed the audit report at their annual conference in Nashville last September. The Washington Times recently obtained internal board documents about turmoil still under way within ELC since that meeting. William J. Hume, a founding benefactor of ELC whose family helped propel Ronald Reagan and both George Bushes to the presidency, quit the council's board of directors after Mrs. Keegan and a majority of other directors rebuffed his request for a more detailed independent review of the group's finances and grant operations. Mr. Hume, who contributed $700,000 to "seed" ELC's expansion when Mrs. Keegan joined the group in June 2001, declined to comment on his departure. William J. Moloney, Colorado education commissioner, also stepped down as board chairman after clashing with Mrs. Keegan over his proposals to "rescue" the council from "procedural disarray." Mr. Moloney's main complaint was that Mrs. Keegan and Ms. Orr, who worked for her at the state Department of Education, remained in Arizona the past several years for personal and family reasons and ran the group's Washington office from there most of the time. "At the heart of it, you have someone who is charismatic, a wonderful public face, but a bad manager," Mr. Moloney said of Mrs. Keegan. "Her inability to manage was compounded by the fact that she never left Arizona." Mrs. Keegan defended her decision for the three top officials to remain in Arizona. "We are in 23 different states, I mean my job is on the road, so that's a given," she said. "The organization has been extremely honest and responsible in the way we have managed the things that we have been charged to do. But that does not mean it's been wildly efficient at all times. It doesn't mean that I've done a good job of managing staff, particularly after Billie left. Billie is a manager, and that's why she was here." Jim Horne, the new chairman and a certified public accountant, said ELC has taken steps to correct management deficiencies. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1121 Registered: 2-2001 |
Some people are calling this the "tipping point" blow. VA. SEEKS TO LEAVE BUSH LAW BEHIND Washington Post -- January 24, 2004 by Jo Becker and Rosalind Helderman Richmond, Jan. 23 -- The Republican-controlled Virginia House of Delegates sharply criticized President Bush's signature education program Friday, calling the No Child Left Behind Act an unfunded mandate that threatens to undermine the state's own efforts to improve students' performance. By a vote of 98 to 1, the House passed a resolution calling on Congress to exempt states like Virginia from the program's requirements. The law "represents the most sweeping intrusions into state and local control of education in the history of the United States," the resolution says, and will cost "literally millions of dollars that Virginia does not have." The federal law aims to improve the performance of students, teachers and schools with yearly tests and serious penalties for failure. In his State of the Union speech Tuesday, Bush said that "the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America's children." Officials in other states also have complained about the effects of the act, signed into law in 2002. But Friday's action in the Virginia House represents one of the strongest formal criticisms to date from a legislative chamber controlled by the president's own party. The House action came after months of complaints from local and state educators that the federal law conflicts with Virginia's Standards of Learning testing program, in place since 1998 and considered one of the toughest in the nation. No Republicans voted against the resolution, a fact that House Education Committee Chairman James H. Dillard II (R-Fairfax) said is proof that "the damn law is ludicrous." "I'm all in favor of accountability and higher standards, but Virginia already has a system in place," said Republican House Caucus Chairman R. Steven Landes (R-Augusta). "This could cost us more money than the money coming in from the federal government." Eugene W. Hickok, the acting deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, said his agency is working to provide states with more flexibility, but he added that money is not the issue. According to his agency, Virginia has $170 million in unspent federal education funds available, dating to 2000. "The resolution essentially says that if states feel like they have been doing a good job, we should give them the money and leave them alone. What state wouldn't say that?" he said. "This law is perhaps a challenge for us to implement, but it is the first comprehensive attempt to make sure that every child everywhere counts. To say no to that is a typical thing for the states to do." But the resolution reflects a growing concern among Republicans about the program. As a result of a Republican legislative initiative in Ohio, the state commissioned a study released this month that found the federal government had significantly underfunded No Child Left Behind. In North Dakota, a resolution sponsored by Democrats that stated the "cost to states of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is as yet unclear" was passed by both the Republican-controlled House and Senate. And the Republican legislature in Utah is considering legislation to forgo the federal money and opt out of the program entirely. "The Virginia resolution is the strongest-worded Republican-sponsored initiative to pass," said Scott Young, an education policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures. He also said that "there is definitely a bipartisan backlash in the states." Democrats, who plan to make the No Child Left Behind Act a major issue in this year's presidential and congressional elections, seized upon the Virginia House's action. "These Republicans realize what others have for quite a while, which is that No Child Left Behind is just a campaign slogan and it doesn't offer real hope for kids," said Tony Welch, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee. The only delegate to vote against the resolution was a Democrat, Lionell Spruill Sr. (Chesapeake). Under Virginia's system, students take the SOL exams in English, history, math and science in third, fifth and eighth grades and in high school. For a school to remain fully accredited by the state, 70 percent of its students must pass the exams. Starting this year, students also must pass six high school SOL exams to graduate. No Child Left Behind requires that every student be proficient in reading and math by the 2013-14 school year. If schools don't make "adequate yearly progress" toward that goal, they risk expensive consequences. Some might be forced to pay for their students to attend higher-performing schools elsewhere, while others would be forced to draw up detailed plans to improve. The problem, some educators say, is that the No Child Left Behind Act has introduced a different way of judging whether schools are succeeding. It is not enough for 70 percent of students to pass the test. The federal law requires that everyone -- including minorities, students from low-income homes and those with special needs -- meet the same annual goals. Many schools that have long gotten top marks from the state have now been told they are not making "adequate yearly progress," a confusing situation for parents, according to Virginia Board of Education President Thomas M. Jackson Jr. Educators nationwide have criticized the law for its testing requirements for students who are enrolled in special education classes and those who don't speak English. Virginia educators say they have found a better way, requiring special education students to take SOL tests only if their personalized education plan calls for them to do so and exempting immigrant children until they have learned English. "To expect a youngster newly arrived in this country to take and pass an exam in English, it's ridiculous," said Fairfax County School Superintendent Daniel A. Domenech. Hickok said a "surprising number of students" with special educational challenges in Virginia are not being tested, a situation that could skew the state results. He said he is working with Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) and officials in other states to shape better rules for students with limited English skills. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 280 Registered: 5-2001 |
As with the reading war material, I ask what is the relevance of the above to the SO-M situation. While agreeing with some of the complaints, the positives of the Act have resulted in the creation of data here upon which decisions on program effectiveness and budget allocations can be made in a more informed manner. But, at the risk of lengthening the life of this thread and exhibiting the same tendancies of which I complain, the thread's few followers may wish to consider the below contra-articles to those above. Much ado about No Child Left Behind this week. The National Education Association unveiled a slick, multi-million dollar public relations campaign, complete with radio and TV spots and backed by an NEA-commissioned poll that “reveals that the more voters learn about the real world impact of the two-year-old federal education law, the so-called ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act, the more they believe changes must be made.” Unfortunately for the NEA, that assertion is undercut by reporting in USA Today, which actually read the polling data closely and concluded precisely the opposite: that, as voters hear more about NCLB, the more they like it. As an internal NEA memo obtained by USA Today notes, “Once our opponents have an opportunity to provide voters with their descriptions of the content of the law, swaying them becomes increasingly difficult.” Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidates continue to trumpet their opposition to NCLB on the campaign trail. Into all this sturm und drang wades Education Secretary Rod Paige, who this week leveled a potentially explosive charge—that districts are not accurately and honestly reporting whether students are making adequate yearly progress—and announced that no wholesale legislative fixes to NCLB are envisioned (through “regulatory” tweaks may be in order). “Schools need more flexibility and funding to meet promise of “No Child Left Behind” law, NEA bipartisan poll shows,” National Education Association press release, January 14, 2004 “Members speak out,” NEA advertising campaign (Real Player required) “Voters optimistic on public schools,” by George Archibald, Washington Times, January 15, 2004 “Democrats attack school reforms at political peril,” USA Today editorial, January 12, 2004 “Bush education critics jab ineffectively,” by Chris Sheridan, Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 11, 2004 Note: The oft quoted education researcher, Gerald Bracey, is a long time employee of the NEA. | ||
| wharfrat Citizen Username: Wharfrat Post Number: 933 Registered: 6-2001 |
Into all this sturm und drang wades Education Secretary Rod Paige, who this week leveled a potentially explosive charge—that districts are not accurately and honestly reporting whether students are making adequate yearly progress—and announced that no wholesale legislative fixes to NCLB are envisioned (through “regulatory” tweaks may be in order) Is this the same Rod Paige who was superintendent in charge of the great Houston miracle? His school district was grossly underreporting dropout and violence rates, and he was asleep at the wheel claiming he knew nothing about it. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1123 Registered: 2-2001 |
How do you know how many followers this thread has? Obviously we had at least one that was reading it and keeping his feelings to himself for too long. I'm not surprised you wish to dowplay the relevance of national issues to those in our local schools. After all, it works to your advantage to have people believe that problems such as the achievement gap, debates on reading instruction and funding issues are entirely caused and perpetuated by local inept school administrators. I think that's called brainwashing or "manufactured consent" or some other term that excapes me right now. By the way, speaking of Rod Paige and the Texas Miracle, here's a "Public Opinion" from a Texas teacher on what it's really like in the schools there. Everyone criticizing our schools should read this and think twice about bringing that kind of "miracle" here: http://www.districtadministration.com/page.cfm?id=622 Finally-- Gerald Bracey was one of the first critics of NCLB, but even he has said that the desegregation of data is the one positive thing to come out of it. No one that I know of who is critical of the law is against that. Here is Gerald Bracey's bio: http://www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/gb.htm They don't mention his long-term employment at NEA, so please fill us in. I'm not sure how that would matter though, since the NEA criticism of NCLB is just one of many, many, many critics--no matter what USA Today has to say. I just heard the whole state of Utah is thinking of telling them to shove it. Shall I get you the details? | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1874 Registered: 1-2003  |
Hmm, I'm getting a grim picture. Sure, I can peel the onion a little and see that some good things are coming of this. But I suspect that the Republican party has found a convenient way to reduce education funding overall. And they can make themselves look good in the process. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 282 Registered: 5-2001 |
Are there any persons of color following this thread who would like to return to the pre-NCLB days of nondisaggregated data? How about special ed parents? Do these fall into the category mentioned in the NEA internal memo? While I don't share the same level of interest on this topic as others, it appears that some have a direct connection to Mr. Bracey. Perhaps he would provide a copy of the NEA memo in its entirety so we could judge for ourselves the extent of NEA's involvement in promoting this criticism. | ||
| sac Citizen Username: Sac Post Number: 900 Registered: 5-2001 |
A good friend of mine who is a teacher in Texas has very little good to say about what has happened there in education in the last few years. It is quite depressing. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 789 Registered: 8-2003 |
I'm sure that adjustments need to be made, but this is the first time we've been able to begin to quantify just how BAD some schools and teachers are. I say keep going. Arguing for the status quo and keeping everyone in the dark seems counter-productive. Republicans have a funny way of defunding education (and it's only 7% of the total from the federal level, I'm told). They do it by increasing funding. And this state of New Jersey -- spending more per student than any state in the union -- to call for even more funding as they have continually through the years is starting to approach the comic. 8 kids per classroom was suggested here. I'm not aware of any other country placing so much emphasis on small class size outside of the early, early grades. As for conspiracies, let it be noted that no one in the teacher unions has begun to give a thought to increased hiring of dues paying members. No...it's for the children, after all. I'm glad Head Start is starting to receive some scrutiny too. It was so '3rd rail' politically for way too long. | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1273 Registered: 6-2001 |
Being critical of NCLB is not the same as "Arguing for the status quo and keeping everyone in the dark ..." | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1891 Registered: 1-2003 |
cjc, did you see the table jfburch referred us to, where it shows that, when normalized for differences in income among different regions of the country, NJ does not spend more per child? In other words, salaries and cost of living are higher here, so spending should be higher. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing |
