Gary Hoover wrote: > David Brauer scribed, in part: > > >>>>> > For the "richer" schools, then, the AYP/NCLB list is more a marketing > stigma than a financial one. "Poorer" schools face tougher penalties. > > <<<<<
NCLB is designed to increase achievement, it is only reasonable that it focus attention on schools where success rates are lower. If we are discussing schools in Minneapolis then how are you defining richer and poorer? Class level? > I agree with that assessment. So, schools without adequate > resources find that they are further stigmatized and have more > resources withdrawn, leaving them to struggle on to do more with > less...... is that correct? I have heard or read that schools with lower income students actually receive more funding than schools with middle and upper middle class students. > Another fundamental flaw with NCLB as I understand it, is > that the plan stigmatizes schools without addressing the specific > learner populations served by schools, without taking specific > learner needs into account, and without taking into account any > long-term strategies to help bring learners from where they are > to where they need to be in terms "grade level achievement." > Various learners have various needs, and NCLB as a "one-size-fits-all" > scheme of testing and prescription seems to be a poor approach. As I've tried to explain, NCLB works at the school level not the student level. As I've also tried to explain it is highly improbable that any law passed by the Federal Government will be able to dictate specific educational interventions at the local level. I would hope that it would be otherwise, but it is a little too optimistic. Just look at your own hostility to a law that allows schools to determine their own interventions as long as they improve achievement levels. > Many Minneapolis schools have unique populations of students > who need a curriculum and plan tailored to their learning needs -- > whether because of language issues or issues related to poverty or > family troubles or even cultural issues. It seems to me that > while it is not cheap to address these issues, it is far better > in both the short and long runs to do whatever it takes to educate > all children well than to leave children with one or more > specific learning issues behind. Given that you say this, it is surprising you are opposed to NCLB, because, as I've said, it allows the schools to use whatever methods it prefers as long as they are effective. > While we are losing teachers due to a desire to be rid of > higher-paid folks with seniority, and losing schools due to > district "contraction," my perception is that NCLB will also > be another means to cut funding where it is needed the most. > My percetion is that poor students and minority students will > be hit the hardest, and hit the most often by what amounts to > a punitive plan. Am I wrong? I think you are wrong and I have yet to see anyone present any evidence that your perceptions are realistic. If you don't know the law well enough to identify the features of it that would create the consequences that you are predicting or if the "authorities" who have helps form your opinions can't then maybe you should reconsider your beliefs. > Do other list members have more familiarity with NCLB and how > it will actually impact Minneapolis Public Schools? I would like to hear more from opponents of NCLB who actually know more details about it. But, I believe that opponents don't want to delve into the finer points because they are not interested in the truth, only in biasing public opinion against a program that would force improvements and changes in the status quo. > Like most list members, I'm running to keep up with a variety > of demands as a parent, spouse, citizen, and working person -- I'd > appreciate more info and perspective as well. I remain deeply > concerned about NCLB, especially as the program was passed with > the promise of full funding, and then defunded at the federal level. > Doesn't that leave local folks holding the bag to fund the changes > forced by NCLB? If fewer of our federal tax dollars come back to > fund federally-mandated education changes in our district, > doesn't that mean we have to be taxed again at the local level just > to keep up? > > Still bewildered and deeply concerned about this..... As a member of a generation that repeatedly bought into false doctrines, I've realized that a certain amount of independent individual thought is necessary to see though rhetoric. I think that you should seriously consider the inability of the anti-NCLB folks to defend their position with little more than insinuations of conservative conspiracies. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
