(arthur Hu) Pass this on, in my opinion, this whole concept that you're supposed to be good enough to not require "remedial" education to get into college is just the wrong idea. When you're done with high school, you're done. If you need more math or english, there's nothing wrong with working up your skills in college. Admissions should be based on taking the best people who have passed hs diploma or ged at some MINIMAL level, not Tucker's "all will perform at the highest= 90% percentile OR ELSE" silliness. > From: "Bob & Barbara Tennison" > To: > Subject: CIM/CAM required for college > Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 22:10:01 -0800 > Dear All -- especially Oregon Loopies and ECC members > > Hot of the Press is new information that concerns the CIM and the CAM in > Oregon. There is a new 8 year implementation plan for the two Certificates > and the PASS program (Proficiency Based Assessment System in Higher ED) that > will require ALL students to have a CIM and a CAM prior to entering college. > > The following information is from a 60 page document authored by the School > Transformation Advisory Council. It is Oregon's Transformational Outcome > Based Education Plan. It is in place and all ready to implement. Our State > Department of Education no longer refers to education reform by that name, > they are now openly calling it EDUCATION TRANSFORMATION. This 60 page > document tells the entire story in all it's ugliness. > **************** > > CIM, CAM AND PASS Programs will be Phased in Over the Next Eight Years. > > CIM -- Phase-in of the standards is mandated by the ACT. As Table 10 > illustrates, the first CIMs will be awarded in English and mathematics in > the 1998-99 school year to students who achieve the necessary assessment > scores. In each succeeding year, CIM assessments and awards will be added > for science, social sciences, the arts, and second languages, until the CIM > is fully in place for all categories in the 2002-03 school year. > > CAM -- Full implementation of the CAM in all subjects by ALL (emphasis mine) > Oregon high schools is REQUIRED (emphasis mine) in the 2004-05 school year, > two years after the CIM is in place in ALL (emphasis mine) subjects. > > PASS -- PASS college proficiency standards will be implemented in step with > CIM timelines. To be admitted as first-time freshmen to OSSHE schools, > Oregon high school graduates who begin their studies in fall 2001 (two years > after the first CIM awards) will be expected to meet proficiencies in > English and Math. Each succeeding year through 2005 proficiency areas will > be added to reflect additional CIM requirements. Science will be added in > fall 2002; social studies in 2003; the arts 2004; and second language, 2005. > PASS standards will be fully in place beginning with admission in the fall > of 2005, concurrent with full implementation of the CAM. > > PREP -- Community colleges are selecting standards for PRoficiencies for > Entry into Programs. These standards will be published in advising materials > and catalogs in 1999-2000. They will continue to be refined as CIM, CAM and > PASS standards evolve. > > Authors of this document are: > > Jean Thorne, Governor's Office (Team Leader); Joanne Flint, Oregon > Department of Education(ODE); Judy Patterson, ODE, Michael Dalton, ODE; > Tanya Gross, ODE; Elaine Yandle-Roth, Office of Community College Services; > Dave Conely, Oregon System of Higher Education(OSSHE) - principal author of > the PASS program; Christine Tell, OSSHE; Ducan Wyse, Oregon Business Council > (OBC); Mimi Bushman, OBC; and John Svicarovich, Consulting Writer and > Editor. > > The "plan" was reviewed and approved for distribution by the School > Transformation Advisory Council. Among (but not all) the council members > were: Keith Thomson, Intel (Chair); Don Brown,Providence Health System; > Chris Dudley, Executive Director, Oregon School Boards Association; Jime > Harper, Wacker Siltronic Corporation; Dave Hauser, Eugene Area Chamber of > Commerce; Bill Thorndike, Jr., Medford Fabrication; Ducan Wyse, President, > Oregon Business Council; Judy Stiegler, Chair, State Board of Education; > Vicki Totten, Executive Director, Oregon Community College Association (also > a lawyer); numerous school teachers, curriculum directors, school > superintendents and I save the BEST for last. On the Council is none other > than Steve Swisher, Superintendent of Sisters School District. Steve > Swisher's claim to fame is that he brought OBE to the South Lane School > District and Cottage Grove. He is considered a GOD to the local school > board, excluding Teresa of course. > > So there you have it folks, required for entry to college in just 8 years > (or less), can required for a job be far behind? > > Barbara (BET) > > Bob & Barbara Tennison > 78612 Halderman Rd. > Cottage Grove, OR 97424 > (541)942-0703 > http://www.jb.com/~btennison > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > Here's my algebra file. Looks like national standard is algebra at the 9th grade, but some start in grade 8, and some standards put algebra-like strands all the way thru k-8. Asians are the most likely to start early. I think the idea of all students achieving at the highest levels is just bunk. Some students will do better than others, and that's OK. To expect every high school student to master calculus just because the top 5% can is just idiotic, but that's what passes for "innovation" these days. @@Algebra Algebra is normally where the college track starts, with 8th grade, but some districts don't think it's appropriate for 8th grade. About 1/4 of 8th graders took algebra in 1996, according to the NAEP, in California, eventually 44% take algebra, 25% geometry, 6% trig and calculus. In San Jose, Blacks and Hispanics are under-reprsented in algebra courses, but so are Whites, because of Asians, who get best scores and are twice as likely as whites to take the course in grade 8. Despite poverty, Asians are half as far ahead of whites in pass rates as blacks are behind. Blacks score better than the Hispanics in San Jose. Santa Rose also finds blacks and Latinos under, but Asians over-represented in 8th grade Algebra. %%Level From: JoanEB001 Date sent: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:07:34 EST To: fredb001@spectra.net Subject: Educrat Alphabet Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Rote learning is a four-letter word most of the time. However, special variances are given so that Educrats are sure to learn their basic ABCs before venturing out into the Real World. They must demonstrate the following song- and-dance capability before an audience of their peers, in order to obtain their Certificate of Educrat Mastery: THE EDUCRATS' ALPHABET A is for Always Assess (everything but our own mistakes) and also for Advance All PC Agendas B is for Build empires which are indestructible, and structures geared to short-term planned obsolescence C is for Control by Consensus and also for Choose Careers for ALL, as soon as we can lock it in D is for Demolish all opposition, by any means fair or foul E is for Endlessly reinventing the wheel in Endless reinventing conferences and seminars F is for Families which we are reinventing ; and also for Fooling the public more than that president we consigned to the dust bin said could be done G is for Grants, the primary purpose of education; and also for Gathering, which we are sworn to do frequently everywhere but in schools, and preferably far from our districts H is for Human Capital which we will move according to our whim, using capital which humans will provide I is for Innovations which roll spontaneously and simultaneously out of far- flung planning committees; also for Inside Track for annointed superintendents, commissioners, college presidents and consultants (especially consultants) K is for Keep dancing around any questions; a moving target is difficult to hit L is for License to change the rules -- even our own -- as soon as anyone spots loopholes we missed M is for Money-Money-Money, the trinity WE worship N is for Never, Never deviate from our intended path unless we define the deviation O is for Outcome Based Education in all its varied costumes; and also for Obfuscation of any explanations of what is involved and what is to be specifically achieved P is for our Pilot Programs and the Public Relations we generate to ensure their immediate, pre-planned "success" Q is for Quick; have the vote before "they" get to the meeting R is for the 4 R's we must never allow back in schools: Real 'readin'; Real 'writin'; Real 'rithmetic; and any Religion which objects to social agendas or promiscuous behaviors S is for the new 21st Century Paradigm: The Three S's: Sex Ed, Surveys and Snow Jobs T is for Tell politicians what they want to hear; Tell parents and taxpayers to get lost; and have students Tell all personal details they can dredge up about their home life. U is for Unless you cooperate, we'll label your kids "At Risk" V is for Visions of sugar candy perfection, dangled before every budget and bond vote, evaporated shortly after W is for Write reports and books for Royal We, not the peasants X is for marking the spot where we used to stand, after anyone deciphers our buzzwords Y is for You'll never find out where our expenses are buried or how much they really add up to Z is for Zilch in curriculum content, to ensure lifelong learning Second, Third, and Fourth Verses, same as the first. Remediate until demonstration is of quality necessary to include in their professional portfolios. [Had fun with this. Hope you enjoy! JOAN] From: JoanEB001 Date sent: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 17:05:38 EST To: fredb001@spectra.net Subject: Grant's Gobbledygook! Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) TO ALL: Continuation, as promised in yesterday's commentary subjects: Funding Application follows here. NY City Teacher Tests foolishness in another post to follow. My reaction to the Funding Application posting from Oregon: Funding increasingly is the primary impetus to improving education, not the improvements themselves. It's business as usual, with different letterheads -- or that is how it appears when Words Mean Things. Having seen many marketing proposals originate in an advertising agency, this one fits the usual plan to "just take the old proposal and make the necessary changes." All the buzzwords are there and it is openly acknowledged that this is a "change in course" from "administrating" "dozens of projects in the past" -- ALBEIT projects that advanced all the federally-funded junk flowing into schools up until now. At least the grant proposer is honest enough to admit that this is business, folks, just business -- so "how can we start our shift over into your camp?" If "philosophical commitment" requires a "change in course," were philosophical commitments swallowed prior to what looks like a sea change to take advantage of now that different selling might be profitable? The suggested grant proposal will undoubtedly sell -- no problem. It's filled with all the pre-requisite wording that grant-awarders look for: creating, demonstrating, institutionalizing research-basedą[If this research-based is, as stated, already "developed, evaluated, and validated over thirty years" how come it now is to be "created" with a different grant? How come it didn't fly up until now?] Other buzzwords jumping out: "increased parental involvement," "volunteerism in elementary schools," "innovative" [How can something be "innovative" if it has been under way for over thirty years?] "meaningful" [what does "meaningful" mean?] "community involvement in instructional process" [who is "community"]; "building local and statewide infrastructures" [i.e. further grant applications galore to finance the "building" and the "infrastructures"] "expanding project activities and growth [they warned you of future expenses; did you pick up on that?] "no-failure approach" [OBE in a different dress] "differs from other volunteer modelsąemphasizing rigorous, high-quality training for volunteer parents and community members" [Just like the rigorous, training funded so that site committees and school board members could be consensus-ed right into the fold?] "use of volunteers as skilled instructors and peer trainers" [what volunteers are already skilled? What ages are the "peer trainers" Is this like the peer sex ed and peer counselors and peer reading tutors of elementary age on up?] Note the extensive use of the word "cadre" throughout the proposed grant application! This is the identical concept that was funded and promoted for multicultural, peace studies, sexual orientation studies, and boosting of programs to give females extra advantages. Note summer training courses for "cadre" members, and how "cadre" members will be immersed in expanding cadre activities once back at the education factories. "colloquium" is another word guaranteed to make the grant awarders' eyes light up. Does no one ever just sit and discuss without a formal colloquium which needs funding?? Does anyone honestly think that with all the cadre selecting, all the infrastructure building, all the training sessions, and especially all the "dissemination/replication activities," articles for publications, project materials, and handbooks, etc., etc., it can possibly be had for $100,000 per year? Who pays the rest of the costs? And, is anything more going to be done than changing the words in all previous materials to accommodate the change in philosophy?? Who worries about the students while more/more/more pilot programs are reinvented? Another three or four years of "vamping until the money runs out"?? This all reads like "Just change the words (in the OBE, Mastery Learning, Child-Centered Learning, Quality Schools, Goals 2000 Tool Kits, etc., proposals) and send it in. And, don't forget to renew our lease on the office space and put our new ad in the yellow pages." Have educrats no shame at all? Everything in education, just as everything in politics, is little more than business-as-usual. Follow the money. Don't question who gets overlooked in the process, and keep your wardrobe hat-changing options open?? JOAN. From: sleeper@warwick.net Date sent: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:48:47 -0800 Send reply to: sleeper@warwick.net To: education-consumers@tricon.net Copies to: fredb001@spectra.net Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: List of URL's (LONG) Dear All: Below you will find a copy of a list of URL's that were sent out last year. I want all of you to take a very close look at this list. Pay special attention to all the different states listed, the different organizations listed, and all the 'specialized' sites for 'seperate interest'/concerns. Also notice that this list deals with ONLY EDUCATION. Bear with me, there is a reason behind my madness of resubmitting this list. Sincerely yours, Sleeper ********************************************************************* > > Dear All: > > Below is a list of URL's that I, with help, (The bottom portion was put > together by a list administrator for another list I belong to-Thanks > Fred!) put together for parents in my area (Upstate NEW YORK) that are > now questioning me about programs that are being implemented in my > daughter's school. > > You can visit these URL's to enhance your understanding of and receive > documentation of Educational programs that are being implemented in > schools all across the nation. The first part of the list (the letter > part) I set up as a pointer for (questioning parents) beginners to > familiarize people of just what OBE and STW are and their ramifications > on schools and school children. The second part (Thanks Fred) is a > listing of URL's sites. > > Have Fun and remember: The best type of person is an informed > person! > > Get Informed > Sleeper > > > > ********************************************************************* > The first place you should hit is Bob and Barbara Tennison's Home Page, > their school, Cottage Grove, Oregon, has been going through this for > awhile now, and they have a lot of information and documentation , - > http://www.jb.com/~btennison, then on to Diana Fessler's (Ohio State > Board of Education Member) Home Page - http://www.fessler.com/ , and > check out her video on her speech to congress, then Bill Bonville's > site for information on OBE, http://home.cdsnet.net/~bonville/ , then > Funderstanding! Commercial site; short but complete explanations of OBE > programs and links- http://www.funderstanding.com/ , then the Texas > Alternative Document Draftat, http://www.htcomp.net/tad , these are > what standards really should be. > Head over to Eagle Forum (this is a must, it puts alot of this > information in eazy-to-understand language)- http://www.eagleforum.org/ > , read the reports written by Phyllis Schlafly which includes a > curtique of HR 1385 which will pay for some of this 'education', and it > shows how teachers and local school districts will lose their power in > curriculums and school academics to businesses and governmental > agencies now called 'Workforce Development Boards'. Next is the > School-to-Work(STW) site(For all states) at, > http://www.stw.ed.gov/wwwsites.htm , make sure you check out the > examples for a real eye opener, and read NY States Initiative, next > stop is the Empire State Taskforce for Excellence in Educational > Methods (ESTEEM) - Read Aldo Bernardo's reports, a must read- > http://www.netcom.com/~efny/esteem.html , after that go to this > url- - National Right to Read Foundation: > http://www.jwor.com/nrrf/nrrf.htm - it has documented proof of the > detrimental effects of Whole-language and the unproven hypes about the > Reading Recovery Program, they also have an article called "When > Reading Instruction Flouts the Law" by Dr. Patrick Groff, it shows what > happened in California when the State legislated that no Whole-language > be taught in public schools and the teachers response. Next is The > National Center of Child Health and Development at: > http://www.greenwood.org/restea.html , check out their articles titled > "The Gap between research and practice" and "The missing foundation in > teacher training". > After that hit the (NCEE)National Center on Education and the Economy, > http://www.ncee.org/ , Marc Tucker's organization. This is the guy > that started it all with his report: "A Human Resource Development Plan > for the US." Get copies of ALL of these reports: "A Human Resource > Development Plan for the US.", "The Certificate of Initial Mastery: A > Primer.", "States Begin Developing the Certificate of Initial > Mastery.", and "Designing the New American High School." > > Good Luck! Have Fun! and Happy Reading!! > > Sleeper > > ******************************************************************** > The following is a list of web sites you might find interesting. The > first grouping consists of web sites owned and maintained by loop > members. This is followed by a lengthy series of general education > sites covering both ends of the educational spectrum. At the end are > some government sites and others. > From: Arthur Hu Date sent: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:48:36 -0800 To: arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com Subject: Critical Education Reform/Deform Web Ring Hi all, I'm adding a Web Ring feature to my ed re/deform web page to hook up all of the great anti-STW, OBE, performance/standards-based asessments etc. pages that we've got, but it takes at least 5 to start. One way that you can help is to contact the webmaster of your favorite 3 or 4 education sites, and ask them to go to http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/addring.htm or email me at arthurhu@halcyon.com to have their page added to my list. When it hits 5, then it will appear to the outside world. The idea is that it lets you look at the complete list, add new pages, or choose from a set of 5 links in sequence, or random, so it's a great way for newbies to hit a bunch of sites and see all of the great info that the press doesn't or won't cover. This should be a great improvement over fred's list, which is great, but not automated. BTW. don't forget my main ed reform /deform page: http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/edreform.htm the most complete a-z reference on dangerous buzzwords, and their antidotes. +- Views do not reflect any other organization or group--------------+ Arthur Hu Join my diversity mailing list or arthurhu@halcyon.com Check index and articles on web: Kirkland WA http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/ Date sent: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 11:14:44 -0500 To: joaneb001@aol.com From: Stewart Deuchar (by way of Fred Battey ) Subject: Copy of: Raising standards in Primary Schools ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: Stewart Deuchar, 106136,1714 TO: IFNEC, INTERNET:IFNEC@admin.humberc.on.ca DATE: 21/01/98 08:19 RE: Copy of: Raising standards in Primary Schools The government's campaign to raise standards of literacy and numeracy in Primary Schools is certainly getting headline coverage. I have just listened to the BBC's main news channel at 6am, in which plans to get teachers teaching basic Maths from the front of the class, including mental arithmetic and long division, for at least forty-five minutes a day, were the second item after events in Northern Ireland. So far there has been scarcely a peep of protest from the ideologues who have been preaching the exact opposite all these years. What needs explaining is how so many apparently intelligent and well-meaning people could have been so obviously wrong for so long and done so much damage to the life-chances of so many children. The idea that children should learn Maths by discovering it for themselves, and by working out their own ways of manipulating numbers, is so self-evidently crazy that one can only marvel that anybody had the gall to suggest it. Quite apart from any other consideration, it leaves the teacher powerless to explain to the child where he went wrong if he got the wrong answer. But that little difficulty was waved aside by pretentious talk about 'higher-order thinking skills'. Meanwhile the redoubtable Melanie Phillips, writing in last Sunday's Observer, has suggested that there should be a core curriculum consisting of English, Maths and (guess what) History. Yes, yes! But of course it would have to be real History, not the rubbish imposed on our children by the grey eminences of the so-called Historical Association. Blessings, Stewart Meanwhile From: "Bob & Barbara Tennison" To: "Fred Battey" Subject: Goals 2000 & beyond Date sent: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:25:03 -0800 Hot off the press, the U.S. Department of Education's Strategic Plan for 1998 -2002. Printed September 30, 1997. From their house to mine in just 5 short days. Folks it's a dozy. Only covers 4 of the 8 goals. Does that mean they have dropped 4 of the 8? Hummm, don't know but think I will ask. Here's a small sample of what you'll get. "The Department of Education is determined to help students from all backgrounds--regardless of race, national origin, color, disability, age, or gender -- to achieve excellence under the American education system. Where this plan states that "all" students are a focus of a particular objective, it means just that." Flexibility for States: Over 200 wavers have been granted to communities to provide greater flexibility in exchange for increased accountability for results under the first time ever waver authorities in Goals 2000, School-to-Work and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Twelve states have been granted board authority under Ed-Flex to waive a range of federal statutory or regulatory requirements in exchange for increased accountability for student progress. As of 1997, 49 states have submitted consolidated program plans covering several Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs and federal vocational education grants, instead of separate plans for each program. The strategic plan sets out four goals for the U.S. Department of Education: 1. Help all students reach challenging academic standards so that they are prepared for responsible citizenship further learning, and productive employment. 2. Build a solid foundation for learning for all children. 3. Ensure access to postsecondary education and life-long learning. 4. Make ED a high-performance organization by focusing on results, service quality, and customer satisfaction. Want to know more....you can... you may request your own personal copy by emailing: strategic_plan@ed.gov Just ask for the U.S. Department of Education Strategic Plan for 198-2002. This document can be dynamite in persuading folks in your community that you are not ready for the guys in white jackets to come take you away. Have fun, Barbara Bob & Barbara Tennison 78612 Halderman Rd. Cottage Grove, OR 97424 (541)942-0703 http://www.jb.com/~btennison EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE Date sent: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:31:11 -0500 To: joaneb001@aol.com From: Stewart Deuchar (by way of Fred Battey ) Subject: Fwd: Member Bio - Stewart Deuchar Dear Fred, Thanks for your warm welcome to Edloop. I am a retired smallholder living modestly in Buckinghamshire, England. I fought in World War Two. For the last eleven years I have been Vice-Chairman of the Campaign for Real Education (UK). I speak German and French (and Chinese) and have been cultivating links with people of similar views on the Continent of Europe, notably in Switzerland. Since November 1997, courtesy of David Warrick of Humber College, Toronto, two of us (Stefan Achermann of Aargau, Switzerland and myself) have been running an international email list called IFNEC (International Forum and Network for Educational Change) which now has fifty or so subscribers in different countries including Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Bulgaria, Bolivia and no doubt others of which I am unaware. We have many brave and doughty veterans of the education wars on the list. I am forwarding the text of the message I sent out this morning, as a sample of my timeless prose. Blessings to all, Stewart Date sent: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:34:56 -0500 To: joaneb001@aol.com From: sleeper@warwick.net (by way of Fred Battey ) Subject: EDUCATION+LABOR+HEALTH+ECONOMICS = TROUBLE, Part 2 January 20, 1998 Dear All: REPOST WITHIN A 48 HOUR TIME PERIOD, TO ALL CONCERNED LISTS, LOOPS, NEWSGROUPS, ETC., WITHIN THE RELATED FIELDS OF: EDUCATION, LABOR, HEALTH CARE, AND ECONOMICS. Print this out now. Glad to see you decided to stick around, Guess we lost all the 'others' that are afraid to put their ACTIONS where their mouths are. Now maybe we can get something done!. For those of you in a different country, then U.S. of America,(Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, Australia, etc.,), you know that the same thing is happening in your countries. Find your country's versions of the below mentioned legislations & acts. This can work on a national and internation level if done correctly and quickly with everyone concerned acting as 'one' united front. Just imagine the credibility you will finialy have when you show proof that this is not 'just happening' in your country, state, and at your local levels. ReCap: Three Major Points First: First Points: "The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965" and subsequent updates and rewritings, make it MANDATORY for 'school attendence' for all children up to age 16. All federal legislations enforcing/dealing with this ACT must be listed. All States have their seperate acts and legislations conforming/enforcing their ACT and the federal ACT, legislations, and policies. They must all be listed. Second Point: 'Goals 2000' combines: EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, & PARTIAL LABOR. "GOALS 2000 - 'Educate American Act' of 1994", all its subsequent federal acts and legislations conforming/enforcing this ACT must be listed. Almost all States now have their own seperate acts and legislations(or/and have rewritten their state's version of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act incorperate these mandates. - check very carefully for both) conforming/enforcing their ACT and the federal ACT, legislations, and policies. They must all be listed. Third Point: STW combines: EDUCATION, LABOR & LOCAL/NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. "The School-To-Work Opportunity Act of 1994", all its subsequent federal acts and legislations conforming/enforcing this ACT must be listed. Almost all States now have their own 'Initiatives' or/and their seperate acts and legislations conforming/enforcing their ACT and the federal ACT, legislations, and policies. They must all be listed. (Remember that STW advocates LOCAL TRAINING of SCHOOL children for their local communities, businesses be warned) These 3 Federal Acts successfully combine: YOUTH & ADULT EDUCATION/RE-EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, LABOR, AND LOCAL & NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. They require of EACH seperate individual State(s) (through acceptance of federal funding through EACH Seperate Act, and each individual State's own written acts, legislations and policies, conforming to the Federal Acts, etc.,) their adherence, through federal mandates, to the federal ACTS & Legislations, and all related bills, policies, etc,. PHWEE.....That was a mouth full. In other words we need to document ever and all pieces of legislations, policies, etc. on the books, that in any way deal with these 3 acts. You will not believe just how many there are in these 4 major sectors of our country's administrative agencies. OUR TARGETED PLAN OF ACTION WILL BE TO REPEL ALL 3 OF THESE ACTS AND EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION(acts,bills, etc.,)/RELATING TO AND/OR DEALING WITH THESE ACTS IN ANY MATTER, MANNER, WAY, OR FORM WHATSOEVER. The purpose is to give back control of these four sectors to the: Parents, Business Owners, Workers, and all People who receive health care, basically, to give CHOICE & RIGHTS back to the individual people(s). Now DO NOT get me wrong, I am not advocating an ending to 'Public Schools'(the most DIRECTLY effected by this). I am just stating that these acts have removed almost any/all control that PARENTS had over THEIR childrens education, career choices & health care responsibilities. (This is one of those 'little' sticky points that we just cannot put on hold in order to combine our information and act on that information.) If you are that worried about it, institute an 'emergency education plan', - we have some very GOOD 'representatives' on these lists that can do this, - that will guarentee funding of the public schools by paying only the teachers and janitors (?) through the money already collect at the state and federal levels, at the time of repelling of these acts, legislations, policies, etc. Now that that is out of the way lets pull up our sleves and get to work! 1. There are thousands upon thousands of us that are concerned about; education, labor, health care, local/national economic development, and all the 'new' legislations combining all these fields into one major administrative governmental agency. These people have amassed all the information that is needed to effectly fight and stop these ACTS and their related 'new(for our own good of course)national-based programs'. 2. Unfortunately, we are all worried about 'pushing' OUR ideas of what we believe to be the BEST ways, means, reasons, all based on different ideas of religious, cultural, ethnic, gender, ideology, philosophies, political affiliations, organizations, groups, etc., you get the idea by now, I hope. 3. Unfortunately we are all only acting on a REACTIONARY BASIS to those issues that affect OUR agenda. 4. Unfortunately when people bring up the fact that they ARE all connected most people still do not want to believe them either because they believe that "it could never happen in america" or they are to afraid to admit that it is happening because then they would have no excuse 'for not acting'. 5. Fortunately, ESEA, STW and Goals 2000 are so interconnected that they cannot survive without the 'other's' to help prop them up. 6. Unfortunately, ESEA, STW & Goals 2000 ARE 'Federal Acts' that ARE held up in each seperate state by that state's own versions of them. 7. Unfortunately whenever we try to stop one aspect of a new piece of legislation or policy, program, etc., they have 3 new ones waiting in the wings under different 'new' names that we do not always catch. 8. Unfortunately the 'establishment' is counting on the fact that all of our different groups and organizations will never get their act together, join forces and put a stop to this. SO FAR THEY HAVE BEEN PROVED CORRECT IN THIS THINKING. 9. Unfortunately the 'establishment' IS organized, HAS a well thought out plan of action, and IS implementing it in such a way - step-by-step, state-by-state - that as long as we remain seperate groups, fighting on local levels, on seperate programs, legislations, and policies, etc., we will never stop this juggernut before it devours each of our 'seperate', 'select', 'special interest', groups, fields or our local schools and states. 10. Fortunately, THERE IS a way to stop it. It will require the PARTICIPATION OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL ON EVERY LIST/GROUP that deals with: EDUCATION, LABOR, HEALTH CARE, & LOCAL/NATIONAL, ECONOMICS at any and all levels. 11. Jeanne came up with a great idea about the FACT Sheet. The only problem is that it cannot be limited to just STW and Education. We need to get EVERY SINGLE LIST that is concerned with: EDUCATION, LABOR, HEALTH CARE, ECONOMICS, & LOCAL/NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, to do their own FACT sheets. 12. Each list/group should put one person (List Manager?) in charge. They need to make sure that everything on that list is factual. That means nothing can be put on this list unless it can be VERIFIED! They can request hotlinks or whatever, from the informers(hehehehe) but NOTHING that cannot be verified is to be put on their lists. Make sure that you list ALL the REPRECUSSIONS that will ensue for your 'special interest' group. 13. These managers then sends their list of FACTS to all of the other 'RELATED SECTOR', i.e. Education - Labor - Health - Economics list managers. They compile a FACT SHEET(S) for just their SECTOR FIRST. This will be known as the Master FACT Sheet(s) for that sector. This Master sheet will then be distributed amoung ALL the other SECTORS and lists/groups/etc., and the list managers, who will ensure that everyone of their members get copies. 14. Now every seperate list/loop/group/etc., has a copy of all the 'others' Master FACT Sheets for all 4 sectors. We now can combine the information and see just where they overlap. Remember that these will be 'factual, verifiable', master fact sheets, proving how their 'special interest fields/groups' are being effected under ESEA, STW, Goals 2000 & all relating Acts, legislations, policies, etc., and proving how all our 'seperate' groups ARE being combined under these same ACTS, etc.,. It can no longer be denied. 15. These combined Master fact sheets become 4 or 5 MASTER FACT SHEET(S) PACKETS which will contain the most damaging of all the information collected. Each list will keep a copy of all 'master fact sheet Packets' on an accessible website(s) so ANY person can get access to them whenever they need them. We set a date for informing ALL publications, newspapers, televised media, etc... By this I mean, on a set date, every individual must send out, by either snail mail, electronic mail(which ever is cheaper for them) or both if they want, copies of a ONE PAGE LETTER that has listed on it JUST ONE piece of information, phrased in a question format, from each sector. This is so that we 'cause interest' on the part of the person receiving it. Something like this: Education: "Do I have to worry about MY Child being physically assulted during a SCHOOL EXAM? Example: E. Shrousburg PA. - 59, 6th Graders subjected to Genital Exams without (knowingly given) parental permission. Labor: Just HOW much money(payroll taxes) AM I, as a business owner, NOW going to have to pay once the 'funding' from the STW grant runs out? or What do you mean I HAVE TO hire only people with a CIM'S or CAM first? Example: [I am sure Barbara Tennison in Cottage Grove Oregon, and a 'few' others, knows the stat's on this since it is fully implemented in that State.] HealthCare: What other type of Health Care can I as an ADULT get at MY child's School? [Put information here about the 'One-stop-community health care clinics' for all community members soon coming to a local school near you] Economics: How much are MY taxes going to be RAISED to support all these new National Programs and their grants being handed out? Example: STW Grants, School-based Health Clinics Grants, Payroll taxes hike, etc. [OK all you economists do up the numbers, if you haven't already.] At the bottom of the 'letter', list some of the websits/homepages/etc., where the 'MASTER FACT SHEETS PACKETS' are located. REMEMBER THIS WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THE ONE PAGE LETTER SHEET. But you get the picture. The purpose of a SHORT LETTER listing only 1 topic from each sector is: We want the (5 LISTED BELOW) to contact any of our websites, where copies of ALL the MASTER FACT SHEETS WILL BE HOUSED, to get the REST OF THE INFORMATION. We cannot send it out enmass because it will be to much info for them to handle at one time. [to much info at once = trash basket of recipient] GET THEIR INTEREST AND HAVE THEM COME TO YOU FOR MORE FACTS! FIRST GRAB THEIR ATTENTION! THEN FEED THEM THE INFO! [standard marketing techniques] Send 1 copy of the Master Letter to the following: 1. 1 of THEIR local paper: editor & 'interest' staff writer. 2. 3 of THEIR major city papers: editor & 'interest' staff writer. 3. 3 of THEIR 'specific interest' publications: editor & 'interest' staff writer. 4. 1 to EACH of THEIR LOCAL, STATE, AND PARTY Affiliated, legislator(s)/representative(s)/congress member(s). 5. 1 to 2 seperate televised broadcast stations. Target 1 of your intersts, and any other type. CNN, CNBC, C-SPAN, EWTV, Channel 2,4,5,7, etc., whichever you wish. Remember that this is the minimum YOU MUST do. (The reason for the Editor and your 'special interest' Staff writer is so that 2 different people at 1 paper receive a copy of this 'letter'. Just put one e-mail, (editor's?,) address in the 'Mail To: line and the others, (staff writer?,) e-mail address in the Cc: line. Best thing about this, is that it is E-mail is still FREE. [And some of you wonder why they want to 'regulate' or 'charge access fees', to put it out of the average persons ability to 'pay' for it.] This must be timed to within 1 or 2 days. That means that on say, February 27th(this is just an arbitrary date, but it must be done soon - see next one below), every individual MUST do all 5 steps. We must BOMBARD ALL of the above listed organizations and people(s) at ONE single time with the same Master Letter. If the first onslought does not work, do it again every monday, from the first date sent, until it does work. After awhile they will get so tired of receiving the same letter that they will have to do something about it. But since this is THE SAME LETTER coming from 100's of THOUSANDS of people across the country they will be forced to ACT the way WE NEED them to act. By finding out what 'all the fuss is about'. Remember we want change, choice, and control over our's and our children's: local developments, businesses, health care, career choices, schools, etc.. 16. All of the information can be collected into 'FACT sheets' within a 3-week time period WITHIN each seperate sector. That is how well organized and documented each seperate list/loop/group/etc. is in it's own seperate interest fields. Add another 3 weeks for consolidation of each sector into a MASTER FACT SHEET for that sector. i.e. Master Education Fact Sheet, Master Labor Fact Sheet, etc... Add another 4-weeks for the consolidating of each sectors MASTER Fact sheet into 4 or 5 combined - showing overlapping - 'MASTER FACT SHEETS PACKETS', writing up the Master Letter, and we are talking about only a 10 week time period to collect, consolidate, post the packets on websits, and then mail out a copy of the 'MASTER Letter'. [ IMPORTANT: Remember that today's newspapers are being written on 'today's equivalent' of a 5th to 6th grade education level. You MUST do your 'MASTER FACT SHEETS' with that in mind. They will be useless if the 'average' person cannot understand what you are trying to tell them. Professional Writers Step in here to help. ] That's it. 10 weeks of HARD WORK and we finialy can get something accomplished. We can finialy get the nation to start realizing that this is a NATIONAL PROBLEM and not a 'localized' problem. That these programs are all national based and not local based. That these 'LOCAL' programs will be administered 'locally' ONLY with approval from the national level. 16. UNFORTUNATELY, The only way that this will work is if the bombardment consits of 100's of THOUSANDS of seperate people mailing their copy of the Master Letter, ALL at the same time. It will not work if only half the people participate. We must have a unified effort with all people participating. No; "this cannot work". NO; "so and so is doing it so I don't have to". NO EXCUSES OR REASONS WHY IT WON'T WORK. JUST DO IT!!!! ALL MUST PARTICIPATE, AND AT THE SAME TIME(S)! The choice is now all yours. Ask yourself: How serious are you to stop this? If you won't act NOW, you never will. If you are serious: List Managers, INFORM YOUR PEOPLE OF WHAT YOU WANT, NOW. Sincerely yours, Sleeper EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: sleeper@warwick.net Date sent: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:33:35 -0800 Send reply to: sleeper@warwick.net To: Jason Ferguson Copies to: education-consumers@tricon.net Subject: Re: HR 1385. or Re: What is S1186 Jason Ferguson wrote: > > Has anyone here heard anything new about this > dangerous bill? It was passed in the House earlier > last year. Dear Jason and All Do you remember the old saying: "If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, well then it must be a duck!!!!!! See Below, also do not neglect to go past the 'title' info. You need to check out the sec. I spotlight. Sincerely yours Sleeper ******************************************************************** S.1186 SPONSOR: Sen DeWine (introduced 09/17/97) TITLE(S): SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED: Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1997 Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1997 Tech-Prep Education Act Adult Education and Literacy Act SHORT TITLE(S) AS REPORTED TO SENATE: Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1997 Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1997 Tech-Prep Education Act Adult Education and Literacy Act Twenty-First Century Workforce Commission Act OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED: A bill to provide for education and training, and for other purposes. STATUS: Floor Actions 10/15/97 Reported to Senate from the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, amended, S. Rept. 105-109(10/20/97 CR S10858) STATUS: Detailed Legislative History Senate Actions Sep 17, 97: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Sep 24, 97: Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. Oct 15, 97: Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Jeffords under the authority of the order of Oct 9, 97 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 109. Additional views filed. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 214. ********************************************************************* Lets look at just one 'little' section shall we(below). Notice that they removed the terms "Human Resources" and Workforce Development Boards"? They are still there but with different names now. (guess those terms ticked off to many people with their forth rightness). Workforce Development Boards = "workforce investment areas", "Activities" and "Providers". Human Resources = "participants, youths, adults" DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE CHANGE IN ORIGINATING HOUSE, #, & TERMINOLOGY! You should really READ the WHOLE text very carefully. Sincerely yours Sleeper ************************************************************** (Sec. 307) Directs State Governors to designate local workforce investment areas in accordance with State plan requirements. Provides for automatic designations in the case of large local governments, counties, and other local political subdivisions. Allows any small State eligible for minimum allotments to be designated as single State local area. (Sec. 308) Requires that local workforce investment partnerships and youth partnerships be established in each local area of a State. (Sec. 309) Sets forth requirements for local plans. Chapter 3: Workforce Investment Activities and Providers - Authorizes the chief elected official and the local partnership to: (1) develop and implement operating agreements to appoint one-stop partners; (2) designate or certify one-stop customer service center operators; and (3) conduct oversight with respect to the one-stop customer service system in the local area. (Sec. 312) Requires certain State and local procedures for determination and identification of eligible providers of training services by program. (Sec. 313) Authorizes youth partnerships to identify eligible providers of youth activities. (Sec. 314) Sets forth both required and allowable statewide workforce investment activities, including mandatory statewide rapid response activities. (Sec. 315) Sets forth both required and permissible local employment and training activities. Requires establishment of a one- stop customer service system at the State level and one-stop customer service centers in each local area. Requires such centers to provide specified core services and required training services to participants. Gives priority to disadvantaged adults for receipt of limited local adult employment and training activities. Sets forth customer choice requirements. Authorizes local areas to use certain funds for additional permissible local activities, including intensive and customized services and supportive services for certain participants, and needs-related payments for dislocated workers. (Sec. 316) Sets forth certain required elements in the provision of local youth activities. Requires that at least 50 percent of funds for such youth activities be devoted to out-of-school youth. Chapter 4: General Provisions - Sets forth accountability requirements for: (1) State and local performance measures; (2) reports and information dissemination; (3) State program evaluation; and (4) fiscal and management accountability information systems. EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: brucec76@ix.netcom.com Date sent: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:06:28 -0800 To: ghoffman@bellatlantic.net Copies to: Educational Consumer Association Subject: Re: Math Problem/ NCTM Gloria, Regarding the CA Math Stds., you have to make sure which version you have. If the consultant says that they are similar to the NCTM's, it means one of two things. One, you probably have the final version that came out of the stds. committee. This received an 11th hour butchering of the version submitted by those who had developed it. Most specifically, the reformers added in some "integrated" pap. This version, in turn, had been "reformed" from the original version. The CA BOE basically rewrote the 7-12 stds. That was the source of the rancor you heard. The reformers were livid. The version modified by the BOE is the one finally adopted. I know of no NCTM stds. that look like the newly adopted CA stds. The closest thing to the latter is VA's math stds., but even so, there are some differences between the two. Two, the consultant is blowing smoke just to get you to accept the weaker stds, by trying to convince you that CA's and NCTM's are very similar. Go to Mathematically Correct's webpage. Paul Clopton, one of the founders of MC, addressed Rep. Goodling's cmte on national testing yesterday. The text of his address should be posted there by now. BC Gloria Hoffman wrote: > > The elementary supervisor and math consultant contacted me this morning > after I pointed out to our supereintendent that the math benchmarks were > not rigorous enough. I made my point by directing his attention to > the first grade not being required to master anything more than > recognizing a penny. I recently e-mailed California's math standards to > them. They all wanted to know where I found those standards because > they are similar to the National Council Of Teachers Of Mathematics. I > have a copy of the NCTM standards and do not think they are written > nearly as specific or are academically based. The copy of the standards > I have were presented by the learning consultant and are very vague and > fuzzy. Are there more specific standards written by them and listed > somewhere? > > Gloria Hoffman > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: Ann Mactier To: "bernie@binghamton.edu" , Eduction-Consumers , "'James Kilpatrick'" Copies to: "'mactier@webco.net'" Subject: RE: Fwd: GOP Education Plan To Get Spotlight Date sent: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:25:26 -0600 It is also important to eliminate the clause that requires keeping children in "decodable" texts through second grade. Systems that teach all 70 of the Orton phonograms effectively in the first semester and teach children how to use them to sound out words to read and spell them get the children into reading classic books ivery quickly because tyre have enough information in the code to figure out most of the words they use and understand. Good Spalding teachers do this, and so does Marva Collins. There is no point, then, in requiring that children be kept in simple, contrived texts limited as to what words can be used. Such books have little literary value and are not exactly exciting to read. The old fairy tales and legends are more challenging and more fun. Ann Mactier Date sent: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:01:04 -0500 To: education-consumers@tricon.net From: "J. E. Stone" Subject: MORE ON "TOO MUCH CLEARINGHOUSE MAIL" Here are some odds and ends about which I have had some questions. ***** What about ClearingHouse subscribers posting questions submitted by non-subscribers and forwarding responses to them off-list? I think is an awesome idea. It makes economic sense for consumers who have only occasional questions and I think it has the potential to greatly extend the reach and effectiveness of the ClearingHouse. Many ClearingHouse subscribers are already members or leaders of local parent groups or e-mail loops and many already forward selected ClearingHouse postings. It makes great sense to have an individual contact person for the group rather than have everyone receive everything. The only downside is that it would be some work and expense for the contact person but these expenses could be passed along or covered by a fee. There is another point worth considering with respect to ClearingHouse subscribers serving as contacts with larger groups: There is a practical limit on how much e-mail traffic the ClearingHouse can handle before everyone is swamped. Therefore, even though the presently contemplated subscriber and usage fees may help, we will have to cap subscribership at some point and eventually going to some kind of bulletin board. As we approach and reach that point, I would think that ClearingHouse subscriberships will become increasingly valuable. They could conceivably become like seats on an international education information exchange. Subscribers can act as brokers to individuals and groups needing consumer-friendly information and opinion. They can selectively forward ClearingHouse postings to their clients and transmit client questions to the ClearingHouse. My model for this pattern of organizational development is that of brokers participating in the Stock Exchange. Small and occasional users are able to access an exchange maintained by more active users. One other point to consider about the value of a ClearingHouse subscription. Subscribers will have a password access to a private hypermail archive. As the archive grows, so will the amount and value of the information to which the subscriber has access. ***** When might the changes under discussion be launched? I would say no earlier than March or April or later if necessary. I really don't want to do anything until I am satisfied that everyone has had a chance to think and that wrinkles have been worked out to everyone's satisfaction. I want an improved and more useful ClearingHouse, not one that no longer works for a bunch of people. ***** Free trial period? I had planned on a 30 day free trial period for new subscribers. ***** How much text is a k-byte? A kilobyte of text is about one-third of a typed 8.5 x 11 page. I have a Eudora mailer. It shows the size of every posting sent or received. The Post Office charges for communications by the ounce and the phone company by the minute. Internet providers charge for storage by the kilobyte. It makes sense to me. ***** What is the final word on user charges? By my most recent reckoning, we would have two levels of charges for posting : 15 cents per kb for "regular" subscribers and 30 cents per kb for "basic" subscribers. The first 10 kb are free. Some of you said that the user charge in my original proposal was so small that it would have little effect. Others were concerned that it might deter the kind of communication we want. I want users to be careful, not inhibited. Maybe it would be wise to start with a small charge--say 10 and 20 cents with the first 10 kb free--and adjust upward in 6 months or a year if we are still getting overwhelmed. I may need to do a survey about an appropriate level of user charges because we surely need to do something. Just today we had state board of education chairman request to unsubscribe (temporarily) because she had 700 unread posts. A university subscriber I talked with at the first of the month had a 1000. Last week, I had to unsubscribe about 10 people whose mailboxes were full. Shooting more information to people who are already overloaded only increases the likelihood that they will have to delete it all and start over. If this is happening in very many cases, the thought and effort we put into sending out things is an exercise in futility. In truth, I suspect there are large numbers of subscribers who have not seen this discussion about subscriptions and user fees because they have deleted the whole mess. I am open to suggestions that will solve this problem but let me say in advance that rules do no good unless they are enforced. I do not want something that will require me or anyone else to do a bunch of policing or reminding. E-mail is free but the time and attention of hundreds of busy and intelligent people is precious. We need to compose and format our postings like we were sending a memo to the boss. Well, maybe not that carefully. :-) ***** How would billing work? Until I am able to set up some more automated means, my plan is to ask that annual subscription checks be mailed to the ClearingHouse address: Education Consumers ClearingHouse P.O. Box 4411 Johnson City, TN 37602 Sender charges would be e-mailed to users every six months. Dates and size of messages would be shown. **************************************************** I know everyone is busy but please give me feedback if you can. At least give me an OK if it looks good. John EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE Date sent: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 02:24:22 -0500 From: Gloria Hoffman Send reply to: ghoffman@bellatlantic.net Organization: Education Consumers Association of Central PA To: Educational Consumer Association Subject: PTO Meeting Our superintendent attended our PTO meeting tonight. He began the meeting with a brief history of every superintendent that served before him. He mentioned the accomplishments of each and then stated he wanted to be known as the Academic Superintendent. I almost choked and had to really hold back a burst of laughter. He went on to tell parents how the district was going to build a $70 million high school. Some people have stated that our district will be $200 million dollars in debt when this building is completed. He went on to say how wonderful the district is doing. Actually, I was supposed to meet at the district office for a subcommittee meeting for the task force, but wanted to pay a surprise visit to the PTO. I think the administration intentionally scheduled the other meeting so I would not attend this meeting. I wanted to confront the super publically about the lousy program. We tried to call and get as many parents to come out for the meeting as possible, but only about 25 parents attended. He took questions and I was surprised that parents really blasted him first about the horrible busing situation in the district. He told them it was a question of money and we could not afford anymore buses. Then a parent asked him about the collaborative learning and stated that the kids just are not performing well. This parent then stated that she was told we were going to a whole math program and that the learning consultant stated that it is not as important for the kids to know the correct answer to the problem, but more important to learn the process. He said that was a lie and he doesn't support that theory. He said that the math program was a very rigorous program. I then stated I was glad he supports a rigorous math program. I asked him if the consultant used the new Houghton Mifflin Math program to write the benchmarks. I told him I certainly hope we expect our first graders to master more than the recognition of a penny. He stated he had not seen the benchmarks. He then stated he had been visiting the DAP classrooms and is satisified that we should continue with the program. So why have I been doing all of this work and attending meetings if the superintendent knew from the beginning he was going to keep this program. Another parent raised her hand and told him she was not willing to sacrifice another year of her child's life to this program. He told her he is satisfied with the progress of the children. I then asked him how he could be satisfied with the progress. Our test scores are only average at best and some schools are below average on both the state tests and the Stanford Achievement Tests. He said there are many variables to be taken into account. I said yes and I have heard all of the excuses, but those same excuses can be applied to every school district. I told him the fact remains that our test scores have never shown an increase or stayed the same, but only decreased, not by one or two points, but by ten and twenty points. I told him the scores on the Stanford have not dropped by months, but by one and two years. He then grabbed the testing report and told parents that the SAT scores have remained the same and have shown some increase in scores. I agreed with him, but stated those kids are in high school and have not been through the DAP program. I am trying to make certain that my child scores just as high as those kids. I asked him to assure me that my children will score well on that test too. He then went into a long story about how parents need to read to their children, take them to museums, take them to the library, not just drive them to the soccer games and back. He said being a soccer Mom does not make you a great mother. I told him my children have stopped all after school activities because we spend time working with our children after school to make certain they are learning things they will never learn in his schools. Two other mothers raised their hands and agreed with me. I told him that another parent and I visited a local parochial school and their kids are doing double digit multiplication. I also called other schools in the district and those kids are already learning basic multiplication facts. Our kids are doing subtraction facts. I told him my children will be competing with these children some day, not only for college, but for a job. I want them to be on the same playing field as every other child. The most depressing statement of the night though came from my daughter's principal. He told a parent that he thought the task force would be ready to write a report for the school board by March. This is after only five meetings. He said we have looked at all of the issues and we would be ready by then. They have not addressed one parent concern yet or answered parent's questions about the program. I just laughed and said I think not and I know for certain that other parents are not ready to write a report. The task force was supposed to see a movie showing this program in action with a class of 20 + students. They have not been able to find a movie with more than ten to fifteen kids. We were supposed to observe in classrooms and visit other school districts. Actually, I think they realize that some of the parents may have a change in attitude and think it best to end this while they are ahead. One of the parents asked why the district did not consider the Saxon Math program. My daughter's principal said he looked at Saxon and our kids would be bored with it. I told him they may be bored with it, but the parochial school that was using it scored in the 95th percentile on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. One mother raised her hand and then told the superintendent that her daughter comes home from school everyday nd states she is bored. She said her daugher asks why they do not have a class for the above average, average, and slow learners. She told the superintendent that she thinks the district has a big problem with the curriculum and a second grader was smart enough to notice. She asked him why he thought it was okay for kids to be bored, sitting and waiting for other kids to catch up. He said he didn't think the kids should be bored. The principal then ended the meeting by stating that there is alot of emotion in the room and for sure a lot of parents that love their kids. I really wish I would have stated "and a bunch of ignorant educators who either just are not smart enough to understand what the heck we are saying or absolutely do not care. " They just do not seem to understand that our kids are not learning. What happens after they write and present their report of all is well with the world to the board? Do the parents just fade away? How do we continue to fight this issue? Do we go to board meetings? A parent suggested today that we have someone come from outside the district to examine the problems with the curriculum? How do you find someone to do that? Gloria EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE Date sent: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:26:50 -0500 To: joaneb001@aol.com From: Fred Battey Subject: U.S. Department of Ed. Strategic Plan, 1998-2002 -- An overview -- Part 1 of 3 Subj: U.S. Department of Ed. Strategic Plan, 1998-2002 -- An overview -- Part 1 of 3 Date: 98-01-21 14:22:52 EST From: judihahn@iac.net (Judi Hahn) There are three sections -- I tried to do it in one, but it is just too long. Thanks. Loopies: What follows is an analysis of what is contained in the USDE Strategic Plan for 1998-2002. You can get your own by e-mailing your request to strategic_plan@ed.gov When I first started reading this booklet I was hard-pressed to find anything "alarming". I thought, "This isn't too bad." It really didn't contain anything I didn't already know, and continued with the same old, same old. No new "philosophical" stances were taken...that is, at the beginning. I kept in mind that "words mean something." I tried to find some "hidden" meaning in what was published in the first few pages. Of course, in the introduction I read about "all means all," (nothing new there, just be sure to remember that has to mean government as well as private/religious/home schools); the talk about "best practices" (with no definition to define what was meant by that phrase, which I assumed would follow); and talk about a commitment to children who "risk educational failure because of the disadvantages they face" (once again no definition of "risk", "educational failure", or "disadvantages"). The Plan was developed to "address critical issues" in American education; strengthen teaching and learning, prepare ALL citizens for lifelong learning; PAY FOR THE COSTS OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION; ensure nondiscrimination, and support statistics, research, development, evaluation, and dissemination of information to improve educational quality. SO FAR NOTHING NEW. I did read that of the $67.6 billion budget, $35.6 billion was set aside for postsecondary student loans. The plan brags on a "more coherent set of law" which enable the USDE to carry out its agenda; how well the agency is now streamlined with fewer separate programs (even though it now spends more than $10 billion more than in 1992); and how they have totally revamped their regulations by reinvention, elimination, or simplification. The Plan further brags on how 875 post-secondary institutions have "lost their eligilibility to participate in student financial aid programs." One has to wonder why (civil rights violations; religious violations; fraud, etc.) The Plan brags about "partnerships" but not with whom or what. Then I was stopped by the following line (and maybe you all won't think anything of it, but remember, words mean something): "There are ambitious goals that reflect areas in which the Department can influence outcomes, EVEN WHERE WE DO NOT HAVE DIRECT CONTROL." At this point the Plan goes through each of the Department's goals one by one with subsets of each plan describe, and how each subset will be implemented. Goal 1: Help ALL students reach challenging academic standards so that they are prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment. This will be accomplished by VOLUNTARY national assessments in reading, math, and OTHER subjects; by the showing of CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT (which at least in Ohio means collecting data and evaluating it over and over and over); by improving attendance and graduation rates among students with disabilities and those AT RISK OF SCHOOL FAILURE. (Do you understand -- and I want to SHOUT THIS! -- at risk of school failure means every child in this country? It has to. How can anyone know who is at risk of school failure, unless all are at risk. There are NO GUARANTEES that any one child will not fail for whatever reason. Think about that!) Goal 1 will also be accomplished by all states developing and implementing challenging standards and assessments for ALL students (remember ALL means ALL) and these will be monitored by "technical assistance and information sharing" by the departments "new, cross cutting monitoring teams." (SPIES?) There will be hefty advertising (brainwashing) to get communities to come on board. Further, each state will have a "STW system that increases student achievement, improves technical skills, and broadens career opportunities for ALL (remember all means all, and the word "all" is not followed by "students.") To accomplish this ALL employers will be HIGHLY satisfied with productivity and work-readiness skills of graduates from the STW systems (note the plural); two million youth will be in the program by the year 2000, and 30 percent of high schools will have STW system components in place by the year 2000. This will be accomplished by FINANCIAL SUPPORT (TAX $$$) for STW systems; interagency collaboration (with the US/State's Department of Labor); and involvement of COLLEGES and EMPLOYERS in building stronger STW systems. You see, it's not just the secondary schools (and of course elementary - preschools) that will be involved, it will be ALL schools for ALL students. Also included in Goal 1 (still on Goal 1 and there are 4 goals) -- is the "strong, safe, disciplined, and drug-free" (ssd&d)agenda. Remembering that words mean something, let's look at one indicator: Rates of alcohol and drug use IN school will slow and begin to fall by 2000. QUESTION: why is there any use of drug and alcohol in school? Is this for real? I assume it is. Isn't it comforting to know that we must spend money to keep kids from using drugs and alcohol IN schools -- which assumedly they are or there wouldn't be any need to iterate the need for a reduction of usage IN schools! To evaluate how well this SSD&D program is working, ALL states will conduct surveys and collect data on alcohol and drug use of students and incidents of crime and violence IN schools. (Once again the word IN). Also, reduce SSD&D in schools the percentage of teachers who are trained to DEAL WITH DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS will increase significantly by the year 2000. Now folks, when I was in teacher training, this was part of our "education psychology" classes, as well as part of our child behavior classes. It was assumed that anyone desiring to be a teacher would be trained to deal with discipline problems. Is this not done any more? Or, is this another ploy to get more money for more "professional development?" Come on, you can't teach anything if the class isn't disciplined. What do we hire teachers for, anyway? I could go on and on about how the "profession" has changed since I was trained and worked as a teacher, but I won't use this "bully pulpit" to go into it. I love the following statement (tongue in cheek) especially since I know why this has happened. "After more than a decade of declines (ed. note -- the 1980s, illegal drug use by American youth has increased significantly." Well, duh! What can one expect when the "powers that be" admit to drug usage (without inhaling, of course), when there is no real effort by those in power to do something about it (as there was in the 80s), etc. Once again, I digress (but that statement is in the plan). Another way to accomplish Goal 1 (yes, we're still on goal 1) would be to have a "talented and dedicated teacher in every classroom. A way to accomplish this would be to: (1) have secondary teachers have at least a minor in the subject they teach (this used to be standard -- you couldn't teach math without at least a minor in the subject, and a major was preferred), and (2) the percentage of qualified new teachers who leave the profession within the first three years will decrease (well, duh, all you have to say is that those who leave in the first three years aren't qualified and wah-lah, you have met the goal!). Still under Goal 1 -- Families and communites will be FULLY INVOLVED with schools and school improvement efforts. Some of the ways to achieve this objective used to be standard, such as: students have completed their homework (this is supposed to increase significantly over the next five years); the number of parents who meet with their child's teachers will increase significantly. NOW WE REALLY GET TO THE SCAREY STUFF!!!! BY THE YEAR 2002 THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN PARTICIPATING IN AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS WILL DOUBLE ... TO 3.4 MILLION CHILDREN -- LEGISLATION WILL BE NEEDED. If legislation is needed, then a LAW will be made regarding after school participation. What will be done with and by these children after school? We're not talking about sports here, are we? To change people's attitudes about family/community involvement the following strategies will be used: Public awareness campaigns in major newspapers will be used. The USDE plans to sign up 1,000 new members annualy to "partnership" for family involvement in education (these will become the "brown shirts" of the community -- my take, not stated in the plan). USDE will provide support for parental involvement by expanding parent assistance centers for every state, and implement 21st century learning centers. These strategies will be based on "the latest research findings." Regarding the new after-school programs: these will be to "support students and families" and to "extend learing time and promote safety" and will be accomplished by "expanding the role of Community Partners." LEGISLATION WILL BE NEEDED. Of course, technology for ALL students will improve education. The goal? A computer for every child, access to the Inernet, and the use of technology effectively. THUS ENDS GOAL 1. Goal 2 will follow in a separate posting. Sorry this is so long, but you all need to know what the USDE is planning for you and your children. Judi Hahn e-mail address: judihahn@iac.net snail mail: 2680 Saddleback Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45244 phone/fax: 513/232-5625 Date sent: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:29:20 -0500 To: joaneb001@aol.com From: Fred Battey Subject: USDE Strategic Plan 1998-2002, Part 2 Subj: USDE Strategic Plan 1998-2002, Part 2 Date: 98-01-21 14:23:08 EST From: judihahn@iac.net (Judi Hahn) Goal 2 is to build a solid foundation of learning for ALL children (remember all means all). I noticed that the USDE is not using the term: "world-class standards" any more. They are now using "world-class student performance." Keep that in mind. The USDE is focusing on three areas in this Goal: early learning and development (in collaboration with the USD of Health and Human Services); identifying what students will need to know and do; and meet the diverse needs of ALL students so they can receive the support they need to succeed. Goal 2 will rely on having "timely and accurate information withwhich to TRACK the preparation of YOUNG children FOR school and the progress of ALL Students." ALL children WILL enter school ready to learn (RTL). One way to accomplish this: teachers will report that K-1 students have entered school RTL reading and math; the disparity between high-income and low-income families whose children enter RTL will decrease; and the percentage of children from BIRTH to five years whose parents read to them or tell them stories will increase. "Recent research has highlighted the importance of the earliest years of life for children's later success." FOLKS THAT RESEARCH HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE THE 1950s. The strategies used to accomplish this goal will be to have teh USDHHS, USDA(agriculture) and the USDE support children at risk of EARLY SCHOOL FAILURE. (once again I believe that has to be ALL children, because there are no guarantees that any one child is not at risk of early school failure.) And now the village gets involved to "ensure that their (birth to five year olds) needs are met and to REDUCE THE BURDEN on families" [by these agencies]. Programs will be aimed at infants and toddlers and preschool children WITH disabilities OR at risk of developing disabling conditions." (Once again, that has to be ALL children, after all any and all children can be at risk of DEVELOPING a disabling condition -- there are no guarantees that a child won't be in an auto accident, or some other accident, get a high fever that causes some sort of disability, etc.). The USDE will "encourage the use of programs for young children that make use of ....early intervention and high quality nurturing." Notice the use of the word "programs" and not the word "parents". And finally, the USDE is going to develop core standards for use with preschoolers. In order to determine who is at risk of failing, the USDHHS (and other organizations) will develop indicators for school readiness. One has to assume that if a child does not meet these indicators, they will be remediated until they meet the indicators. Every child will read independently by the end of third grade. To accomplish this the USDE will get legislation passed to suport the president's America Reads Challenge corp. "As more and more jobs require better reading skills, many students will have to improve their reading skills." WELL, FORGET STW THEN AND TEACH THE KIDS TO READ!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whether this new ploy works or not will be assessed by new voluntary national tests! Communities will be drawn into PARTNERSHIPS, and the programs will be evaluated by new DATA SYSTEMS which will tell the world how well a community is doing in its PARTNERSHIP to get all children to read. (You know, all that was missing in Germany in the 30s was the computer!) All 8th graders will master challenging math, including the foundations of algebra and geometry. You know what? Way back when...(until the 70s) kids were grounded in arithmetic (as opposed to mathematics), and then went into high school and learned algebra and those higher math subjects. Our country became the best in the world based on that orderly system of learning math. To place the emphasis on algebra and geometry before a child even knows how to do basic arithmetic is such a fallacy, and is leading our nation to produce a bunch of incompetent kids who can't even count change. To say we need to produce children with higher order thinking skills, critical thinking, etc., is good promotional language, but they will never, never accomplish those skills unless and until they learn the basics! Of course, once again, we're reminded that this will be accmoplished by a VOLUNTARY national test. Use of this test will be a "means of ENCOURAGING schools to improve math curricula." (Blackmail?) Special populations will receive appropriate services and assessments. You see, "at risk children" (which is obviously all children)"need the same high quality schooling that is the goal for ALL students PLUS extra support to help them succeed." Support is translated by $$$$$$. This ends Goal 2. Best Practices Conference Center Welcome and thanks for stopping by! "Best Practices" is where parents, teachers, and community leaders focus on meeting the educational needs of today's children. Got a great illustration of what's working in your school? Inspire by example and share your thoughts and experience in the discussion area of your choice. Whole Math Debate Whole Math Debate Paul Sheppard 10/10/97 What are these things? Iris Rose 10/10/97 whole math/the basics Susan 10/15/97 PLEASE! Lori Puente 12/12/97 Thanks Iris 12/13/97 Glad to help Lori Puente 12/13/97 how to find out Paul Sheppard 10/14/97 Both Iris Rose 10/15/97 Whole Math Debra Langmeyer 10/17/97 Teaching to the whole class at once red 10/18/97 Post new message in this thread Date: October 10, 1997 05:17 PM Author: Paul Sheppard (psheppard@familyeducation.com) Subject: Whole Math Debate The whole math movement promises to bring a sense of discovery to math classes and to get students closer to real-life applications of mathematics. But critics say that a move away from math basics will mean a dumbing-down of math education. What do you think? (http://familyeducation.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=355&Message_ID=10564) Date: October 10, 1997 08:24 PM Author: Iris Rose (IrisRose@aol.com) Subject: What are these things? What is whole math? What are math basics? I think I know, but before offering an opinion in a compare and contrast question, I'd like to have more information. Thanks! Iris (http://familyeducation.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=355&Message_ID=10576) Date: October 15, 1997 12:20 PM Author: Susan (sfriedman@familyeducation.com) Subject: whole math/the basics In teaching whole math, the teacher acts as coach and sounding board instead of showing students procedures for getting right answers. The point is to try out ideas, test them to see if they work, and alter them accordingly. Rote learning is not emphasized. Critics of the new math defend the useful role rote learning and memorization play in establishing a strong foundation in basic skills. That's the crux of the math debate. I'm curious about how math is being taught at your child's school. I understand that a lot of schools are adopting the new whole math curriculum. -- Susan (http://familyeducation.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=355&Message_ID=10960) Date: December 12, 1997 04:21 PM Author: Lori Puente (thegang@erols.com) Subject: PLEASE! First of all, please understand that the debate about the whole math is very similar to the one about whole language which I spell "hole"! Mathematics is NOT the same as Arithmetic. Arithmetic is addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. That is, it is simply and ONLY a counting system. Addition counts forward, subtraction counts backwards, multiplication counts forward in multiples and division counts backwards in multiples. Mathematics is the study of relationships between numbers to find out answers to things. Mathematics utilizes arithmetic skills to do this effectively. The best way to learn arithmetic skills is by rote memorization. When using flashcards for instance, if the student doesn't know the answer VERY QUICKLY, don't make them figure it out, because then they will start using all kinds of vias and counting mechanisms that will encumber them later in the Mathematics phase of their learning. When you get to fractions utilizing multiple operations, and you don't have your arithmetic facts down cold, you will learn how to hate math real fast. I asked my husband, who is a telecommunications satellite engineer if it would be OK for him to follow all the protocols to link up a company to their offices in different countries but somehow he got the wrong satellite frequency specifications or the wrong pricing, but since he got the "basic concept" correct would that be OK with his company? He said without hesitation, "Nope! They'd get a new guy." Just like in HOLE language, one of the biggest downfalls to this approach is the teaching of really bad habits to our children. In HOLE language, kids learn how to guess read, go past words they don't know, not care how they are spelled in inventive spelling environments. Then when they get to 3rd, 4th and 5th grade, guess what? They don't think it matters if they have it exactly right, because it has been taught to them as an acceptable tool in learning. The educators will tell you, "well they're suppose to go back and look it up". Well, folks, they don't. They aren't that mature and educators don't often follow up very well on that point. The same pitfalls of HOLE language are going to bite parents in the backside with the HOLE math approach to Arithmetic skill development. Its very painful to watch. (http://familyeducation.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=355&Message_ID=14140) Date: December 13, 1997 05:34 AM Author: Iris Subject: Thanks Thanks for defining arithmetic and then for pointing out the distinction between arithmetic and math. I was never really clear on that. When I was in lower elementary school we didn't have "math." It was called simply Arithmetic. We used flash cards and other techniques for rote memorization. Now children are introduced to mathematics (as opposed to merely arithmetic) years sooner than they once were. Therefore lessons in which they must memorize facts and operations overlap with lessons in which grasping concepts and learning to reason mathematically are the goals. So more is demanded of the teacher in the way of teaching techniques - s/he must learn to vary. I wonder what the future teachers are being taught in their education courses now? The same is true of whole language. Encouraging young children to sound out words they want to write empowers them to write stories even in kindergarten. But a good foundation in phonics is a necessity for successful sounding out! In kindergarten the child spells any way that he himself can read. Often a child will start the year using only the first sound in each word, then begin to add more sounds as he learns them. If it's approached systematically and seriously, phonics can be covered in first grade. English spelling is so eccentric that it takes years of lessons and reading to master it; whole language permits younger children to use language beyond the few words they've learned to correctly spell. Both whole language and whole math are good techniques, but are not replacements for arithmetic, phonics, and spelling drill! (http://familyeducation.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=355&Message_ID=14152) Date: December 13, 1997 09:34 AM Author: Lori Puente (thegang@erols.com) Subject: Glad to help Yes, I agree with most of what you said. My son's 4th grade teacher was required to teach 30 math concepts in 36 weeks. Very little time for the children to adequately understand let alone master these concepts. She also had to squeeze in time to help children to learn their 3rd grade goals, like multiplication tables, since our county doesn't believe in memorizing anything. While I tudored a 5th grader who was very bright, I discovered the results of this trend in that while she understood lowest common denominators and greatest common factors, it took her forever to figure out the problems because she had never been taught her multiplication facts. So what do you do? You're sitting their with 30 problems due tomorrow and she doesn't know her multiplication facts. Its very rough on parents, students and teachers. And don't forget, we are 28th in the world on our math scores and 17th in the world overall. So I tend to be a bit suspicious of all the beneficial claims of the latest fad. In Thomas Sowell's book INSIDE AMERICAN EDUCATION he talks extensively about the Psycho-Theraputic Cirriculum trends of this country. This believe it or not, is another one of these trends, with a "feel good", "self-esteem" type outcome. He writes quite a bit about the math trends and compares them to student surveys and studies of other countries. My very strong belief is that "we" are forgeting about the discipline and habits that use to come with learning. The habits and attitudes that were developed and often hard won of years past. My husband has a very difficult time finding entry level electrical engineers to hire. He often asks them to "demonstrate on the board your senior class project." More often than not they cannot do this. They make a few squiggles and then start talking about it. He gently redirects them to the board to "demonstrate" it. He usually hires the first one who can. So while "understanding concepts" is very valuable, if the basics are out, this will never happen. The basics teach habits and discipline for life as well. (http://familyeducation.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=355&Message_ID=14160) Date: October 14, 1997 09:14 AM Author: Paul Sheppard (psheppard@familyeducation.com) Subject: how to find out A good starting place for finding out about whole math and the debate surrounding it is the FamilyEducation Network article "Have Math Fundamentals Gone Fuzzy?" You can find that article in the Learning@School channel or in the Best Practices channel in the Trends and Traditions section. The URL is: http://familyeducation.com/articlepage.asp?ch_no=11&it_no=3976 (http://familyeducation.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=355&Message_ID=10841) Date: October 15, 1997 12:51 PM Author: Iris Rose (IrisRose@aol.com) Subject: Both Children in other countries spend less time on math and yet do better - and observations have shown that it's the classroom stress on figuring out approaches to problem solving that makes the difference. That's apparently what "whole math" is doing. This doesn't necessarily conflict with using flash cards and other drill to memorize math facts, or learning and practicing computation techniques. Once the children have figured out by themselves how to find an average, they will still have to add and subtract and multiply and divide to solve the problem. (http://familyeducation.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=355&Message_ID=10967) Date: October 17, 1997 09:24 PM Author: Debra Langmeyer (langmeye@tps.k12.mi.us) Subject: Whole Math As an elementary principal of a K-4 building we are in our first year with a new whole math program called: Math Investigations. It is published by Dale Seymore Pubications. Most of my teachers are really enjoying teaching in more of an integrated applied approach. Students are really being taught to think mathematically. To opponents I would ask "Do you only want your child to get the answer right on tomorrows test?" Or do you want to lay the foundation so that your child thinks mathematically for a life time? Those few teachers who seem to be having difficulty are those that want to teach everything to the whole group at one time and expect all children to be at the same level. It is also less work for teachers to sit back and "drill and kill" rather than truly teach. (http://familyeducation.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=355&Message_ID=11161) Date: October 18, 1997 02:15 AM Author: red (red@n2everything.com) Subject: Teaching to the whole class at once Those few teachers who seem to be having difficulty are those that want to teach everything to the whole group at one time and expect all children to be at the same level. Why are so many teachers unwilling to try small group and individual instruction? How can they be persuaded and taught how to use these teaching methods? (http://familyeducation.com/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=355&Message_ID=11164) Your Quick-Link Directory Click on an icon below to join discussion group. Message Board ! Notify Moderator ! Forward THIS to the loop: Hows about - all children know the abcs and counting to 100 by kindergarten - all children know how how to sound out all words phonetically by 1st grade and memorize 1 digit addition tables to 10+10 - all teachers know that the bell curve is real and anyone who recites "all children can succeed" should be fired, shot or both. > Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 08:05:37 -0500 > To: joaneb001@aol.com > From: forusjf@ix.netcom.com (by way of Fred Battey ) > Subject: [Fwd: Update -- ED Initiatives (January 22, 1998)] > Fred, > > Please forward this to the loop if you feel that it is appropriate. > > Gary Kreep, > USJF. > From: Kirk_Winters@ed.gov (Kirk Winters) > To: "Information from & about the U.S. Department of Education > publications & more ." > Subject: Update -- ED Initiatives (January 22, 1998) > ************** > ED Initiatives... > ************************************************************* > A biweekly look at progress on the Secretary's priorities > ********************************************************* > January 22, 1998 > > > Helping All Children Read Well by the End of 3rd Grade > > Helping All Children Master the Foundations of Mathematics > by the End of 8th Grade > > All Classrooms Connected to the Internet; All Students > Technologically Literate > > Information Technology Workers in Demand > > Family Involvement in Children's Learning > > Year 2000 Webpage > > New Online > > ------------------------------------------------------ > HELPING ALL CHILDREN READ WELL BY THE END OF 3rd GRADE > ------------------------------------------------------ > More than 100 chapters of the Brandeis University National > Women's Committee are participating in the America Reads > Challenge by volunteering in various mentoring programs, > including... > > * The Literacy Coalition of Palm Beach County, where > members read year-round as partners with children > living in a migrant workers' community that was a > READ*WRITE*NOW! summer pilot site. > > * Stars for Children, a Retired Senior Volunteer Program > (RSVP) for children who need assistance in reading. > > * Rocking Readers, a program designed to encourage > students to read, obtain a library cards, and build > their own home libraries. > > ------------------------------------------- > HELPING ALL CHILDREN MASTER THE FOUNDATIONS > OF MATHEMATICS BY THE END OF 8th GRADE > ------------------------------------------- Secretary Riley > called on mathematics professors, teachers, & other > mathematics professionals to "make the importance of > mathematics for our nation clear, so that all teachers teach > better mathematics *and* teach mathematics better" in his > January 8 State of Mathematics Education address. He also > called for a cease-fire in the current "math wars" about how > & what math should be taught. The full text of his speech > is available at: http://www.ed.gov/inits.html#2 > > ----------------------------------------- > ALL CLASSROOMS CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET; > ALL STUDENTS TECHNOLOGICALLY LITERATE > ----------------------------------------- The Schools & > Libraries Corporation (SLC) announced last week that its E- > rate application website is now being tested with librarians > & educators. When operational, the website > (http://www.slcfund.org) will provide updates & allow > schools & libraries to file their Universal Service Program > forms electronically (for telecommunications discounts). > > Applicants' descriptions of required services will be posted > at the site so that providers can competitively bid for > them. The opening of the site will trigger a 75-day window > during which all applications received will be treated as if > they had arrived on the same day. Applications are > currently accepted via regular mail at: Schools & Libraries > Corporation, P.O. Box 4217, Iowa City, IA 52244-4217. > Application forms, frequently asked questions, & other > program information are available at: > http://www.neca.org > > A document designed to help schools & libraries develop > technology plans (in order to apply for E-rate discounts), > "Technology Policies & Procedures," is available by calling > the National Exchange Carrier Association at 888-203-8100. > Schools & libraries that already have an approved technology > plan -- including clear goals & realistic strategies for > integrating technology, professional development & > evaluation -- (such as plans developed for Goals 2000 or > state technology initiatives) need not create new plans. > > ---------------------------------------- > INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WORKERS IN DEMAND > ---------------------------------------- Last week Vice > President Gore announced a plan to help meet the growing > demand for computer scientists, engineers, system analysts & > technicians, which, according to Department of Labor > projections, will double over the next 10 years. Currently, > many employers report difficulty in finding workers with the > skills to fill these jobs. The plan includes... > > * up to $6 million in grants from the Departments of > Education & Labor to expand employer involvement in > school-to-work programs (see http://www.stw.ed.gov/). > > * $3 million in Department of Labor demonstration > projects, in partnership with employers & training > providers that train dislocated workers for high-tech > jobs. > > * 4 town hall meetings sponsored by the Department of > Commerce to showcase best practices & successful > models. > > For more information, please see: > http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/01-1998/wh-112.html > > ----------------------------------------- > FAMILY INVOLVEMENT IN CHILDREN'S LEARNING > ----------------------------------------- Strategies used by > 20 local Title I programs to overcome barriers to parent > involvement are featured in an idea book recently added to > our website, "Family Involvement in Children's Education: > Successful Local Approaches." Among the many approaches... > > * Ferguson Elementary, a schoolwide program in > Philadelphia (PA), uses Title I funds to compensate > teachers who conduct evening & weekend parent > workshops. Title I funds also support a parent > involvement coordinator & a school-community > coordinator who together operate a Parent Network that > helps teachers tell students & parents about upcoming > events. An open house drew 350 parents, compared with > 30 parents 6 years earlier. In addition, about 50 > parents volunteer as classroom aides each week. > > * At Buhrer Elementary, a schoolwide program in Cleveland > (OH), teachers hold parent conferences off-campus in > places that are closer to the homes of parents & > students. The school also sponsors Block Parent > Meetings for families who cannot attend school events > because they live on the outskirts of the community & > lack transportation. Block meetings are scheduled > every 2-3 months in a parent's home or a nearby > library, and they address parent concerns & offer an > opportunity to share school-related information. A > typical meeting attracts 18-20 parents, & the principal > reports a continuing increase in the number of block > parents attending school functions since the program > began. > > The full text of this 150-page idea book is at: > http://www.ed.gov/pubs/FamInvolve > > Note: A *schoolwide* program school may use Title > I funds combined with other federal education > funds to upgrade the school's entire educational > program rather than to deliver federally supported > services only to identified children. Under the > Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Title I > requires that schools & districts adopt specific > strategies for developing school-family > partnerships. > > ----------------- > YEAR 2000 WEBPAGE > ----------------- The Department has created a webpage on > the "Year 2000 problem" for use by Department customers & > the entire education community, all of whom can expect to be > affected. Information about what the Department is doing to > become Year 2000 compliant & what Department customers & > partners can do is provided at the site: > http://www.ed.gov/y2k/ Background: The Year 2000 problem > is caused by the fact that many computer applications & > systems were programmed with a 2-digit year (instead of a 4- > digit year). These applications & systems may stop working > or produce inaccurate data at the turn of the century. This > problem also affects personal computers, local area > networks, telecommunications systems, and other devices with > embedded technology (chips) such as heating & cooling > systems, safety alarms, building security systems, > elevators, and telephone switching equipment. > > ---------- > NEW ONLINE > ---------- > > The "Digest of Education Statistics 1997" (December 1997) is > a compilation of statistical information covering American > education from kindergarten through graduate school. It > includes statistical information on the numbers of schools & > colleges, teachers, enrollments, and graduates, in addition > to educational attainment, finances, federal funds for > education, employment and income of graduates, libraries, > international education, population trends, attitudes on > education, education characteristics of the labor force, > government finances, economic trends & more. The Digest is > produced by the National Center for Education Statistics > (NCES) & is currently available in PDF only (HTML to come). > http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/digest97/98015.html > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ED Initiatives is made possible by many contributors, > including Julie Anderson, Cindy Balmuth, Norris Dickard, > Diane B. Jones, Peter Kickbush, Mitch Laine, John Luczak, > Ollie Moles, Keith Stubbs, Carole Wacey & others. Please > send any comments to Kirk Winters in the Office of the Under > Secretary, U.S. Department of Education > (kirk_winters@ed.gov). > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > =========================================================== > To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) EDInfo, address an > email message to: listproc@inet.ed.gov Then write either > SUBSCRIBE EDINFO YOURFIRSTNAME YOURLASTNAME in the message, > or write UNSUBSCRIBE EDINFO (if you have a signature block, > please turn it off). Then send it! > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Past EDInfo messages: http://www.ed.gov/MailingLists/EDInfo/ > Search: http://www.ed.gov/MailingLists/EDInfo/search.html > Past ED Initiatives: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EDInitiatives/ > =========================================================== > > > Here's special ed rates by race for Seattle. Note that the Chinese rate is almost nonexistent, even though Seattle is where most of the area's "poor" chinese with parents who haven't made it past 6th grade live. All of us rich Chinese live in the suburbs. For the index, divide the rate by the white rate, and if <1.00, put on a minus sign and do a 1/x, so 2.00 is twice as good, and -2.00 is twice as bad. 3% for Lott is 3 times better than Seattle whites, even better than Asians ((but not as good as the Chinese....) Data: \doc\95\05\seadata.wk1 - Disproportionality in Seattle Schools Disproportionality in Seattle Schools Source: Data Profile, District Summary 1994, 1992 Seattle School District Analysis by Arthur Hu Rate Index Race 15.5% -1.55 Black 14.3% -1.43 Native Am 10.0% 1.00 White 10.0% 1.00 Total 9.1% 1.10 Hispanic 4.5% 2.22 Asian 1.7% 5.88 Samoan 0.2% 50.00 Chinese > From: LPinkham > Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 10:18:45 EST > To: education-consumers@tricon.net > Subject: Special Ed Programs > Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) > Can anyone offer any advice on bringing what has become a runaway program > under control? > > What % of students is a reasonable figure for special ed? A recent article on > Thaddeus Lott's schools in Houston, for example mentioned 10% city-wide, and > 3% for his schools. > > Can anyone confirm a recent report that a USDE study says that up to 80% of SE > kids are there because of failed basic programs, such as whole-language > instruction? > > Are such kids customarily mixed in with kids that have real physical needs, > for reporting puposes? > > Who qualifies these kids for SE designation, and who reports on their > progress? > > Is there any independent audit of these procedures? Or do local boards rely on > the reporting of "professionals" with an obvious agenda? > > Our SE budget now approaches 20%. > > Many thanks. I look forward to hearing your responses. > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > Date sent: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 19:49:24 -0500 From: "Melanie Fields P.M., LLSDL" Organization: Professional Mother, Life-long, Self-directed learner To: arthurhu@halcyon.com Subject: Re: reply to Arthur Arthur, So we don't bore :) the whole loop with this exchange, I've decided to reply to only you this time. If I may be blunt, you're sorta right and you're sorta wrong. The scripting of DISTAR is rightly hated by many educators. And yes, many on this loop are repulsed by DISTAR precisely because it borrows from operant conditioning, but will concede it is effective and even good for non normal kids. That aside, the key that is being missed here is that OBE/mastery learning relies on and must have: 1) A predetermined outcome. The outcome can be affective, progressive mush, or it can be an "academic" outcome. But ALL children will meet the outcome. Through this process, it is the children who are standardized and individual differences are not accounted for since they must all meet the predetermined outcome. (Individualized education is for the express purpose of moving the child towards that outcome. Through what means will this child meet the outcome?) 2) Continual assessment of the child. The Spady Grant says OBE maximizes learning by "determining instructional assignment directly through continuous assessment of student learning." (pg 3) That is pre-test and post-test. The testing measures: how far has the child come in meeting the predetermined behavioral goal? How far does he need to be moved in order to meet the predeterminded goal? What can be used to move the child to the outcome? Notice that the assignment is based on the assessment. It is a continual cycle of assignment, testing, evaluating, assignment, testing, evaluating......... If a child is sitting in a classroom using values clarification, and the goal of the program (though unstated) is some kind of attitudinal outcome, (multicultural ed for instance) he can waste away contemplating his navel and he is still being given a succession of stimuli designed to move him towards an attitudinal goal, AND, he will be repeatedly assessed on his progress towards that goal. In short the design of the classroom does not have to be scripted in order for the same Skinnerian method, a series of stimuli designed to move a child to a predetermined goal, to be in place. Be it affective or academic, the same process (method) can be at work. This is just off the top of my head.... Melanie Arthur Hu wrote: > Thanks, I'll add that to my OBE history files, but most > OBE > and reform-minded schools absolutely hate the scripted > DISTAR stuff. I believe other loopers aren't wild about > DISTAR Given a choice between a good reading normal program and DISTAR, I'll take a good reading program. But if nobody knows how to run a decent reading program with inner city underachievers, I'd be happy as peaches if their kids can beat suburban whites by using DISTAR. It's like you don't need school uniforms, but if the school is a jungle, it might help. These places are tough to teach in, and my National Review study shows it's pretty damn rare to ever get black kids to achieve at the same level as white kids without resorting to strong-armed acacemic nazi tactics. (like Asians impose on themselves all the time voluntarily) > Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 19:49:24 -0500 > From: "Melanie Fields P.M., LLSDL" > Organization: Professional Mother, Life-long, Self-directed learner > To: arthurhu@halcyon.com > Subject: Re: reply to Arthur > Arthur, > > So we don't bore :) the whole loop with this exchange, I've > decided to reply to only you this time. > > If I may be blunt, you're sorta right and you're sorta > wrong. The scripting of DISTAR is rightly hated by many > educators. And yes, many on this loop are repulsed by DISTAR > precisely because it borrows from operant conditioning, but > will concede it is effective and even good for non normal > kids. That aside, the key that is being missed here is that > OBE/mastery learning relies on and must have: > > 1) A predetermined outcome. The outcome can be affective, > progressive mush, or it can be an "academic" outcome. But > ALL children will meet the outcome. Through this process, it > is the children who are standardized and individual > differences are not accounted for since they must all meet > the predetermined outcome. (Individualized education is for > the express purpose of moving the child towards that > outcome. Through what means will this child meet the > outcome?) > > 2) Continual assessment of the child. The Spady Grant says > OBE maximizes learning by "determining instructional > assignment directly through continuous assessment of student > learning." (pg 3) That is pre-test and post-test. The > testing measures: how far has the child come in meeting the > predetermined behavioral goal? How far does he need to be > moved in order to meet the predeterminded goal? What can be > used to move the child to the outcome? Notice that the > assignment is based on the assessment. It is a continual > cycle of assignment, testing, evaluating, assignment, > testing, evaluating......... > > If a child is sitting in a classroom using values > clarification, and the goal of the program (though unstated) > is some kind of attitudinal outcome, (multicultural ed for > instance) he can waste away contemplating his navel and he > is still being given a succession of stimuli designed to > move him towards an attitudinal goal, AND, he will be > repeatedly assessed on his progress towards that goal. > > In short the design of the classroom does not have to be > scripted in order for the same Skinnerian method, a series > of stimuli designed to move a child to a predetermined goal, > to be in place. Be it affective or academic, the same > process (method) can be at work. > > This is just off the top of my head.... > > Melanie > > Date sent: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:52:33 -0500 To: bakkers2@aol.com From: Fred Battey Subject: Action: Please Add New Member All: Please add bakkers2@aol.com (Alyce Bakker) to your address lists. Alyce says about herself: I am a mother of 7 children. I am currently back in school studing for an Associate in Science , Bachelor's in Education. I am also homeschooling my 10 year old son who has an I.Q. of 160+. I need to make sure he is well grounded in the truth. All information will be put to good use! From: sleeper@warwick.net Date sent: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 17:47:18 -0800 Send reply to: sleeper@warwick.net To: education-consumers@tricon.net, fredb001@spectra.net, joaneb001@aol.com, ZorroFRR@aol.com, conserv-exceledu@listproc.bgsu.edu, riggs@riggsinst.org, eagle@eagleforum.org, judihahn@iac.net Subject: Re: EDUCATION+LABOR+HEALTH+ECONOMICS = TROUBLE, Part 2 Dear All: REPOST WITHIN A 48 HOUR TIME PERIOD, TO ALL CONCERNED LISTS, LOOPS, NEWSGROUPS, ETC., WITHIN THE RELATED FIELDS OF: EDUCATION, LABOR, HEALTH CARE, AND ECONOMICS. HELLO! 1. ALL MEMBERS: Please inform YOUR list AND list managers, that you want to do this (if you have not already) so that THEY KNOW you want this done. Thanks for letting me know. :) 2. LIST MANAGERS: Please e-mail me and let me know how many people are on your lists/loops/groups/etc... so that I can get a good estimated count of the numbers of people and the different types of lists/loops/groups/etc., involved. Sorry about that, but we were so involved with the 'PLAN OF ACTION', that we neglected to get the BASIC Starting information. It seems that some 'lists' think that they are doing this alone AGAIN. LET'S SHOW THEM THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER WORKING IT ALONE! So people, if you could let your list managers know, ASAP, then they can contact me so I can set up a Master sheet of all participating lists/loops/groups/etc.. As soon as that is done I will forward it to all the list managers so everyone will have a copy. ARE YOU HAVING FUN YET? 10 WEEKS AND COUNTING DOWN! Sincerely yours, Sleeper P.S. Education, Labor, & Economic's There is a bill in the senate that you need to be aware of: S. 1186 [105th congress] This combines all three sectors. Go to the library of congress(thomas) and pull up a summary. If really interested pull up the text version. EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: sleeper@warwick.net Date sent: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 21:20:07 -0800 Send reply to: sleeper@warwick.net To: MRS COLEEN C ARY by way of James Kilpatrick Copies to: education-consumers@tricon.net, fredb001@spectra.net Subject: Re: Fwd. LOOP: NATL TESTS put on hold! Dear All: Before you state jumping for joy, Take heed. See my comments placed in [ ] between. Sincerely yours, Sleeper > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Maybe this is partly due to the current scandal....? It is certainly > interesting timing. However, with such opposition as was expressed > at the first field hearing by the honorable Paul Clopton and company! > --Coleen > Washington Post, Friday, January 23, 1998; Page A04 > > ASSESSMENT BOARD DELAYS NATIONAL STUDENT TESTING [Does not say ended. Just DELAYS!] > > Associated Press > > National reading and math tests sought by > President Clinton should be delayed until after his second term, an > independent board decided yesterday, denying Clinton a key item on his > education agenda. [ "decided yesterday" - Most assuredly due to the 'scandal'.] > Congress may still decide whether the tests should go forward > at all. [Could be a perfect time to INFORM congress of our feelings in regards to national testing, their(tests & congress) influence over a national curriculum, and the fact that this SHOULD NOT be congress's decision. Site Kentucky] > But even if Congress allows the tests to proceed, the National > Assessment Governing Board determined that the tests should be given > no sooner than 2001. [So you see it is not over yet. Just put on 'hold'.] > Clinton had proposed in his State of the Union speech a year > ago > that the voluntary [Voluntary my foot. Anything that man does never means voluntary! Just ask the state of OREGON how 'voluntary' their STW program is Just ask you local school how 'voluntary' their Goals 2000 and STW mandates are.] > tests of fourth-grade reading and eighth-grade > math be given in 1999. Compromise legislation in the fall pushed the > earliest possible date back to 2000. [How do you like that. Compromise! What a term. In other words this is a Bipartisan COMPROMISE. Let's see, hum, according to my, *"Webster's Illustrated Dictionary" dated 1965 - Compromise = 1. A settlement by mutual concession. 2. A half-way thing or measure. Anyone see anything halfway about this compromise from the education reformers point of view? Think about that.] > But the 26-member, bipartisan board, which Congress gave authority > over test development as part of the compromise, [Again another BIPARTISAN board GIVEN authority by a BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE. Do you think this will end? Do you think that maybe even MORE bipartisan authorities and compromises will not be given and made?] > said it would be > technically impossible to have a test ready before 2001. It changed > the deadline by voting unanimously to modify the $13 million contract > for test development the Education Department awarded in August. [Gee, when did OUR congress give their approval? In a bipartisan compromising way of course.] > Education Secretary Richard W. Riley said he thought the delay was > unnecessary. [Of course he felt that way. You should see all the commitees he was/is affiliated with.] > "But we are pleased that we are on track to having the > first-ever national tests in basic skills and to giving parents and > communities the tools they need to make sure children master the > basics," he said. [Notice the "ON TRACK" part? Now I wonder what he MEANS by that? Just what does her consider 'Basic'? Just thought I would point that out.] > The decision pleased House Republicans, who had led the battle > against the tests, largely on grounds they would lead to a national > curriculum. [And of course they were so worried that they agreed to the bipartisan COMPROMISE of GIVING authority 'over test development' to a '26-member bipartisan board' AND a bipartisan COMPROMISE to the later date of 2000 instead of 2001. WHOOPIE.] > "We're happy to see any development that further delays any > national testing, because we've always seen this national test > proposal as a bad idea," said Jay Diskey, spokesman for the House > Education and the Workforce Committee. [If he felt that strongly why did he not 'MUSTER' all his political influence and allies, call in 'debts owned', and 'media' friends, and ORGANISE a massive publicity Campaign to inform the american public to the type of harm this would cause? Just curious.] > > © Copyright 1998 The Associated Press > But, these are just my opinions. Sincerely yours, Sleeper P.S. *You really should get a copy of this dictionary it starts off with a section in, get this, 'BRITISH SPELLING', 'SPELLING BY RULES THAT REMAIN VIVID' & SCIENTIFIC PHONETICS(this section is great, all about some movement afoot for 'simplified' style. (heheheheheheh) get this it states, in bold no less, and I quote: "Conventionalized spelling is an inescapable necessity". Also, this is my favorite quote from this section, here he is talking about a pamphlet he is holding devoted to propagation of the english spelling by changing the spelling of words such as, 'typewriter' to 'taipraitr', and 'resides' to 'rjzaidz'. Sound familiar? typing charcter for charcter: [Such wildly theoretic reform has never gained favor with the multitudes; it is impossible to believe it ever can. But many "reforms" have worked themselves out in the course of time and by natural processes. Such processes must ever supersede in effective influence all private reform enterprise and ever(could it be gained) legislative decree.] Poor man(don't know lost the cover) must be rolling in his grave. EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE To: "Conservatives for Excellence in Ed." , Eduction-Consumers From: "Donna Garner" (by way of Fred Battey ) (by way of James Kilpatrick) Subject: Reading -- TAD -- Date sent: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:57:45 -0600 The Texas Alternative Document (TAD) utilizes the NIH research which shows that children must be taught phonemic awareness before they can be led into phonics instruction. This is largely done in pre-K (targeted to Title 1 children and others from bilingual or language-impoverished homes) and K through listening/speaking strategies. Children are taught sentence patterns and vocabulary through listening to good literature (literary suggestions are listed at each grade level) and through hearing a wealth of oral communication. Of course, the children are also taught penmanship, alphabetic knowledge, print concepts, spelling, oral composition, and early literary skills and terms. In the schools of the past, students came to school having heard nursery rhymes, children's classics, etc. Most of the children had already developed the ability to hear the subsounds of the English language because they had heard so much alliteration and rhyme. Now our children are coming to school from homes that are language-impoverished. So many of the children never hear an involved conversation or hear any children's literature. They are given short, direct commands (many times in another language than English) and do not hear compound, compound-complex sentences which contain involved sentence structure. They are not taught cause and effect or sequencing skills. They have not heard sophisticated vocabulary. They have not developed a body of cultural literacy. In many instances, the English which they have heard has been gutteral, slurred, and not distinct. They have heard poor grammar spoken around them since birth, and a large percentage of our students must rely upon the schools to help them develop those good listening and phonemic awareness skills. The NIH research indicates that those teachers who jump right into the teaching of phonics without first helping children to develop phonemic awareness are going to miss a certain percentage of the children who come from these language-impoverished homes. The TAD document very carefully steps the teachers through the curriculum requirements. It helps kindergarten teachers spot the children by the end of the first semester of kindergarten who are going to need extra help in phonemic awareness. Then it carefully guides the teachers right into decoding skills (phonics) and helps them implement all the skills in a sequential manner. The TAD document sets curriculum requirements -- not curriculum. The TAD tells teachers, parents, and students exactly what content should be taught/learned at each grade level, but it does not tell teachers how to teach it. The "how" is left for teachers to determine. The TAD writers relied heavily on Spalding for Grades 1-3; however, the TAD does not prescribe Spalding curriculum because state standards by law are not supposed to endorse a certain curriculum. I believe that Spalding and other curriculum which implements a systematic approach to the teaching of phonics could very nicely "flesh out" the TAD curriculum requirements. Also, please remember that the TAD is more than just a document about beginning reading skills. It covers all the skills which need to be taught in Pre-K through Grade 12 in English / Language Arts / Reading. Hopefully I have helped to clarify the philosophy of the TAD since there seems to be some confusion as to its contents. Donna Garner dggarner@swbell.net http://www.htcomp.net/tad EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: brucec76@ix.netcom.com Date sent: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:19:25 -0800 To: Education-Consumers@tricon.net, JimmyK@tenet.edu Subject: Strike while the iron's hot ECC Subscribers, Loopsters, et al, Regardless of your political persuasions, and whether you think Clinton will survive this week's developments, I think the time is now to deconstruct and rescind those things done to/against education by the 103rd Congress. The administration won't have time to counter effects to kill ESEA, Carl Perkins, STW, etc. Strike while they're vulnerable. Gephardt will be too preoccupied trying to figure out what it means to his 2000 candidacy if Gore moves up a notch this summer. The Senate Dems will be preoccupied with how to block an impeachment, if it comes to that. They won't be able to wait to start strategizing, so they'll be apt to pay little attention to ed issues now. Think I'm going to be pumping out some e-mails and FAXes to DC this weekend. BC EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: JoanEB001 Date sent: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:55:52 EST To: Fredb001@aol.com Subject: Education/Day Care Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) TO ALL: After reading the following article, we received permission to post it on the loop, with the attribution information we promised to include. The article may not be used for any financial gain, but may be copied in its entirety for personal use if it includes source and subscription information. A number of articles of current interest were in the issue, but this one touches on schools and day care, of particular interest to our loop. The magazine website is: www.worldmag.com The publisher is Joel Belz, Editor is Marvin Olasky, and a number of well-known people contribute to the magazine. Hope you enjoy what others are saying about the same concerns many of us have. -- JOAN ****************************************** The following is from World, January 24, 1998 WORLD is published by God's World Publishing, Inc. PO Box 2330 Asheville, NC 28802 Subscriptions: $49.95 for 50 issues per year Backpedal on day care Even if the state's earlier work had been good, it's the wrong assignment By Joel Belz WORLD magazine, January 24, 1998 IT'S VERY HARD TO PUT THE TWO PIECES OF NEWS TOGETHER. One talks about the dreadful failure of government schools, where in Washington, D.C., eight high- school graduates out of 10 are functionally illiterate. The other news item tells about the government, right there in Washington, D.C., wanting to take over a larger role in education-this time in the day care of our very youngest children. Yet, disturbing as it may be for the federal government to be carving out a new jurisdiction where it can botch up still another educational assignment, such should not be our main objection to President Clinton's newest proposals for federal involvement in day-care operations. Even if the government were getting top grades for what it's doing in the field of education, it would still have no business moving into the care of small children or into preschool education. Shaping the minds and the value systems of our children is simply not the proper function of government-federal, state, or local. If such government education does a bad job of influencing our children, that is testimony enough that the state should get out of the task it carries off so incompetently. But there is something to fear much more than having the state do the job of education badly. The thing to fear is that the state might learn to do the job of education well. IF YOUR CHILD'S SCHOOL CHOOSES never to mention what Jesus calls "the first and great commandment" of life-to love the Lord our God with all that we have all the rest of that school's education is as hollow as it is shallow. Even worse is the effort, so often attempted by secular educators, to address some expression of the second great commandment-"loving your neighbor as yourself "-without having dealt seriously with the first one. The first puts a bone structure into the second. Society needs to understand, and so do evangelical Christians that the real problem with state education today (and with much private education as well) has nothing to do with teachers' salaries or funding levels or phonics or curriculum or how many months of the year or hours of the day children go to school. All those things have their significance and are worth discussing at the right time. But the right time to discuss such issues is always after settling what education is really about. That question is best resolved by focusing on three main themes: Where did we come from? What went wrong? How can the wrong be undone? Ultimately, those questions are what all good education is about. That is precisely, however, why government (at any level) shouldn't be involved in education. It has neither the right nor the competence to deal with such profound matters. SO WHAT DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE RECURRING proposals about federal involvement in day care? Simply that we should be vigilant not to get involved a third time with a mistake we've already made twice. Congress will be pressed hard in the weeks just ahead-and nearly all its choices will be bad ones. Nine years ago, in a similar debate, day-care facilities sponsored by churches and those operated under other religious sponsorship were targeted for exclusion from support. To be sure, inequities like that should be avoided. But what should really be avoided is any state encroachment of any kind in the field of day care for small children. If you can backpedal on a tricycle, now's a good time to shift into that particular gear. Date sent: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:05:25 -0500 To: joaneb001@aol.com From: LoisS41729 (by way of Fred Battey ) Subject: Fwd: School Study Now this is on education. I'd call it a monopoly on trashyed... For lack of a better word for it. :-) From: Emmilene Subject: School Study Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:01:30 EST A Study by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress "Reform must address the bureaucratic structure of educational institutional institutions which now serves school administrators better than it serves schoolchildren." This unfortunate circumstance is the direct result of a lack of competition. Teachers and administrators in the public schools have created a monopoy of "affordable" education that's not good. They are what Joan Crawford, in "Goodbye, My Fancy," called "educaterers," more concerned with holding on to powerful contracts than in serving nourishing food for thought. Expensive at the price. Why not put the parents in charge of choosing the best schools they can afford for their families, and kicking the educaterers out of the kitchen? It's an idea whose time is at hand. Suzanne Fields The Washington Times Jonathan Rauch in the New Repubic magazine argues that liberals have been wrong to give the voucher issue to Republicans. He attacks "the soccer moms and the latte drinkers" for overlooking children - all the time intoning pieties about 'saving' public education - worse than unsound public policy," he says. "Its repugnant policy." Date sent: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:35:44 -0500 To: Arthur Hu From: "J. E. Stone" Subject: Re: Instructivism Page At 07:46 PM 1/23/98 -0800, you wrote: > >Trolling for Thaddeus Lott and found a zinger that >pull together all of the inner city miracle stories >and ties them together under "Instructivism". >Education reformers all hate these guys. It's one >of the few anti-reform pages backed up by a >real conservative think tank, but their commmittee >combines Hirsch with Bush Goals 2000 and Scans >people too. Go figure. > Arthur, An excellent piece. I think it has been on their web site for some time. The apparent conflict in positions has occurred as Finn and others found their initiatives co-opted and undermined by the "blob" during implementation. Finn and Ravitch and others associated with Hudson now argue for doing essentially what we are trying to do at the ClearingHouse. Get consumers linked up with each other in a grassroots, self-help movement. Cheers, john Date sent: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 08:02:11 -0500 To: joaneb001@aol.com From: wardell@srv.net (by way of Fred Battey ) Subject: Albertson's Grant Shawna is the "non-member" who requested info last week. Thanks to all who responded. I will contact her regarding paragraph 2 regarding "who we are" if others will address further the other comments she makes. Thanks, Fred Fred and associates: Thanks for the responses on the information I asked for. A couple of months ago I asked Geoffory Botkin if he knew anything about William Daggett and the Albertsons grant. He told me your address and that it would be a good resource for finding out if there was any information out there. Please excuse my innept approach. That was the first e-mail I ever sent, and this is my second! I'm brand-new to the internet, a bit afraid of making a fool of myself, afraid of getting hooked on it, and a real novice. There's my excuses! Aside from that, I think this may be a great tool for research if I can get past my reservations. I'm not even sure who I've e-mailed! Would you tell me about your membership and what you do? I'm particularly interested in education issues and the reform trends of today and dealing with it our local school district, Shelley, Idaho. The local attitude by those in authority is, that as a recipient of an Albertson "Management of Change" Grant, we shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. I guess I'm not to cooperative in that respect! For those who are interested in this issue, all I have to offer is some information I picked up yesterday at our school district office. On the "Idaho Management of Change Project, TIME LINE", it states for June 15-19: "Summer Conference: Leadership teams reassemble in connection with the STATE SCHOOL TO WORK CONSORTIUM." (Emphasis added.) A note at the end states: "The Albertson's Foundation would like to form partnerships with schools or districts who have demonstrated a sincere effort to change their educational delivery systems. If we can show progress toward change, we may be leigible to form a partnership with the Albetson's foundation for follow-up support in our project." Our district does need to align its curriculum and get the teachers to teach the curriculum. The question is "HOW" it gets aligned and "WHAT" is put into the curriculum. As patrons, do we really have a say in what we want taught, or are we just being Shawna Wardell, Idaho Falls, Idaho Date sent: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 07:51:02 -0500 To: joaneb001@aol.com From: marjorie/gene malone (by way of Fred Battey ) Subject: yada, jada, jada! Bob and Loopies-gene I agree with Bob Tennison completely. The state of Oregon like Kentucky, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and most others are now under total seige by the federal managers of "TP (The Plan). I,too, am weary of the denial, half-efforts, and "front" groups/folks and the gossip mongers (a few) that play this national crisis as if it were the first stages of a checkers match. It is almost over-the takeover of our schools re. children all done by artificial law (without discussion or voting )-NOW. Wisconsin and Oregon, for that matter, are two typical OBE'd states that have fought, fought, fought, fought, fought with truth and courtesy for over 5 years and the OBE managers at the local/state/national level have lied, lied, lied, lied, lied, lied.... It is past time to put our heads together nationally to expose this mortal hoax against our country and constitution and our children. If you've noticed the news lately-we are living i/guided by lying leadership. We must expose these lies in unison-top down then bottom up-now with an action plan. National Testing is only being postponed because some states have not been OBE'd enough and have touch up to do on the process. The Republicans are already gearing to out-do the socialist (democrat) party to gain votes in support of national testing et. al. as they (GOP) are counting on state by state apathy and chitchat about phonics/group learning/which standards are best and all that. Yes, phonics is important, but it is not OBE. OBE is the centralized, management process for behavior/mind manipulation-that should be the primary target. All the other is "rotten education" that fits any society bent mediocrity. We /I must think how to stop this now/nationally-Time is very short and the deceivers use the advance of time to their credit. Some in Wisconsin are battle fatigued, broke, in ill health fighting this lying, socialist NP-National Plan. We are so because the other 99% could care less. I'm not complaining, exactly, just plain truth. Poor Oregon, Poor Wisconsin, Poor Oklahoma, Poor Kentucky ( I forget its complete takeover in the previous list.), Poor Pennsylvania (the folks lied to over and over),Poor Texas (the deceit in their standards process is not new to Wisconsin/Oregon), Poor Illinois, stuck in the lying process-no one knows or cares -there) and on and on as the states are conquered, already one-by one- while some on the loop and organizations criticize each other/me for the wrong use of the word "the". What have we come to? Is there no compassion out there in cyberspace for those who try and are not, yet perfect, by those who love to use the letters of the alphabet to express ego and arrogance and pride. None of us/nor I have any reason to be happy or congratulated until this treason /the Plan/ is exposed and all unite against it/not individuals. Why does no one use the Constitutional Argument to oppose and stop this hoax/plan out there in E-Mail land? Are there so few that have touched, read, studied, believed/believe in the famed document limiting tyranny. I would suggest all take time out and read it the first time starting with Article X of the U.S. Bill of Rights which prohibits nationalized education. Oh well... As I type, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, finally brought into the lying process (OBEet al) after Racine, Kenosha and the rest of Wisconsin, has 2 years to get into the process or else-the whole school system will be taken over and declared a comprehensive charter system. Governor Thompson ("conservative Republican") does his lying process by denial and executive orders. Our so-called new state-wide standards actually measure nothing-but says-"Students must understand"..that's all. After reading these 2O pages of nonsense/"standards" it was clear they could have been written for socialist/atheist children in a materialistic society as these "standards" were made of the things brick must be made of: no patriotism, no character, no life, no God, no human characteristics, no patriotism, no heroes, no real history, no biographies...A measured society/system is interested only in "things seen, useful to the State, work goals. Real people would die under this type of culture of brick/measurement. Too, in the reading section it said, the child would be given phonic clues...Well, that was the only reference to reading instruction. What a silly skill as in Kenosha and everywhere else in the NP guess/whole language is the government-approved method for institutional illiteracy and phonic clues are given when the fake instruction fails-called RE:RECOVERY. Just like Clinton's voluntary reading hordes he proposes to teach the whole-language children how to read will be done by volunteers who can not read or are almost illiterate by their own guess/reading methods. What foolish times in which we live. If Diogenes was looking for a literate child/adult today with his lantern-in most communities he would find none let along someone who cas concerned about the truth. Bob Tennison's letter made me mad concerning how slow we have been to stop TP as we've seen our states taken over one by one while our elected politicians retreated from the fight to save the Constitution they swore to defend. How pathetic we have become. I'm sick, now, just thinking about how we have let freedom die. Yes, in Kenosha, tomorrow is the last day (thankfully) of kindness week so declared by the folks giving us TP. Obviously, we need Outrage Week/Year to reclaim our gifts given us by those who thought/fought clearly/bravely before us. Now, the nit-picking begins,again rather that attacking the Plan via E-loop and elsewhere. Green Bay will obviously beat Denver Sunday Jan. 25th. A great sympathy is developing in Wisconsin for Elway (who needs a Super Bowl ring) as we are a fair/minded people, intelligent before the OBE virus/lying swept our state. Now there is this fuzzy thought called-let's be nice/fair and give the Broncos a chance-a tie-or keep the Green Bay winning score-close. Enough of that silly talk-Chicago Cub fans have lived and died withot ever seeing a World Series victory. Green Bay will win the old fashioned way-excellence/determination/character on to achievement. Rambling for freedom-gene Malone Freedom 2OOO/USA Box ll24 Kenosha,Wisc. 53l4l ph/fax k-4l4-658-475l The Wisconsin Front of the NP No white flags, please! From: Dave TNCLE Date sent: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 08:59:56 EST To: arthurhu@halcyon.com Subject: Re: Weekly Standard test should measure thinking, not what was t Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) In a message dated 98-01-17 16:05:59 EST, you write: << your test seems OK, except that it appears to be strictly criterion based with no provision for norm refernceing. >> Arthur, Did you ever get info from Bill Sanders re: the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System? Especially the Principals and Teachers Guide. If not, we've got a web-site coming up and I could give you the url for an advance peek. I bring this up because part of that document explains how TVAAS can use criterion-referenced or norm-referenced tests. I suppose a test could be so bad as to provide no useful data on student achievement and thus eliminate TVAAS' benefits. But, I also know from Bill Sanders that he has recently had the opportunity to apply the VAAS methodology to the results of different tests, some not nearly as discriminating as CTBS/4 which, through 1997, was the basis of our system. The results have been useful under a wide variety of circumstances. Dave Shearon, Nashville, TN Data? You want DATA? Hahahahahahahaha. The NTCM standards and math reform movement recommend explaining how you got the answer, but there is absolutely no evidence that it in any way aids in math ability. This all stems from people complaining about multiple choice tests being bad for minorities. So what do they do? They make math even harder! > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:30:25 -0800 (PST) > From: Caleb Burns > To: education-consumers@tricon.net > Subject: Early math instruction -- anything on need for explanations? > The new math program here for elementary school children requires them to > explain how they got the results they did -- even if the problem is quite > complicated and they are in the early grades. One elementary school > principal I was talking to said that this process discriminates against > boys, because boys are not as verbal as girls. > > At any rate, does anyone know of any data that indicate that having > elementary school children engage in a process of explaining their work in > detail necessarily leads to better math skills? (And I don't know how this > whole perspective got started.) Some children have been prevented from > going on to higher grades, because although they can do the math work, > they cannot explain it to the satisfaction of the powers that decide who > goes on and who stays back. > > Any help on this would be greatly appreciated!!! > > > This stuff is crazy, crazy, crazy! (But to many people, it sounds so > terrific.) > > > Yours, > > > Caleb Burns, Portland, Oregon > > For ideas in general to help people: > http://www.teleport.com/~calebb/ > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > Hello, For a couple of months now I've listened in on your group's exchange of comments. I understand much of what's going on but have not had any "original" thought worth sharing. This group seems to be well informed about what's happening within public education and I find myself nodding in agreement to a great many of the members' comments. I'm writing today because I feel this group might be able to offer some advice on an educational question which my wife and I are struggling with. The question concerns a decision we must soon make about where our son should go to high school next fall. We live in a rural community of 22,000, and our local public high school probably offers an average, or slightly better, high school education. The 40 percent of graduates who took the ACT last year had an average score of 21 which I'm told is also average for the country. The only serious alternative to our public high school is a small, college prepratory "all boys" boarding school, some 72 miles away (1 hr. 15 min.by car) where our son would stay 4-5 nights a week. Students at this school averaged 27 on the ACT with all of the students taking the exam. We have become familiar with the education offered there as well as the over all enviornment. We have not learned anything the least bit negative about this school. In fact, speaking for myself, it appears almost to good to be true. Our son who happens to have a rather high IQ, is inclined to give the school a try for at least a year. Aside from being fairly smart, our son is a rather typical kid for his age. School and education is not a big priority, although I find his open mindedness about a very challenging high school experience encouraging. While I've been promoting my son's interest in the boarding school, my wife has been equally negative. In her eyes such a move is simply too "out of the ordinary," and she worries greatly that our son's absence, and the demands of added travel, will adversely affect our family life. We have 4 children: a girl in the 9th grade who is an excellent student attending the public high school; the boy in question who's an 8th grader; another son in 2nd grade; and a girl in preschool. I feel v. strongly that from what we know, the probability is high that our son would be best served at the boarding school where the academic standards are high. However, what with my wife's worries, I'm afraid he'll never get the chance. I fear her negative attitude is giving him cold feet as decision time nears. The school only accepts qualified students who "want" to attend. I understand my wife's concerns, and I agree that such a change will place demands on our family which we'd not face with the high school education already provided locally. My wife and I do not differ on the superiority of the education offered at the boarding school. Our differences boil down to two key issues: 1) the long term value we place on a demanding education, and 2) the impact on our family of our son going to a school 75 minutes away, 4-5 nights per week. I'm asking interested readers to take a few moments to share their thoughts. Please send comments, suggestions or questions directly to me at the address shown below. If you know parents who've faced a similar decision, their experiences would be particularly helpful. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, bcurry@megavision.com From where I stand 27 ACT is pretty damn good, but there's the tradeoff in family life. Myself, we had a family of 7 Chinese Americans that went to a suburban school probably as good as your rural high school and we still sent everybody to MIT and Stanford. If we went to a private school (which we couldn't afford anyway on Dad's boeing salary), we might have gotten into Harvard instead of MIT, but we would have missed the suburban 50th percentile lifestyle that so many Americans enjoy. If the kid hates where he is, by all means send him to a challenging place, but I suspect he would still do well where he is. The average test score is how well your neighbors do, not how well your kid will do. From: "Sweet, Bob" To: "'Anders Julie'" , "'Anderson R'" , "'Atchison Bryan'" , "'Aulber Andrea'" , "'Avila Rosemarie'" , "'Barton David'" To: "'Bocchino Rebecca'" , "'Bristol Zeke'" , "'Cheney Lynne'" , "'Cloud Gayle'" , "'Coalitions for America'" , "'Conrad Roderick'" To: "'DeJarnette Robin'" , "'Deweese Tom'" , "'Domenich Doug'" , "'Garner Donna'" , "'Holmes John'" , "'Hoyt Martin'" To: "'Huggins Gary'" , "'Jarvis Charles'" , "'Kilpatrick Jimmy'" , "'Kris Ardizzone'" , "'Lyon Reid'" , "'MacLeod Laurel'" To: "'Marshall Jennifer'" , "'McKeown Mike'" , "'Meyers Amy'" , "'Muldrew Donna'" , "'Owens Megan'" , "'Pascara Lisa'" To: "'Petteway Roxanne'" , "'Project 21'" , "'Reynolds Jerry'" , "'Rutledge Ben'" , "'Shokraii Nina'" , "'Steidler Paul'" To: "'Stirrup Heidi'" , "'Taylor Jeff'" , "'Troutt Phil'" , "'Williams Natalie'" , "'Yecke Cheri'" Subject: FYI Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:34:22 -0500 Tomorrow, January 28, 1998, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will Mark-up H.R. 2846 at 2175 Rayburn HOB at 1:30 pm.. This bill will prohibit any federal test in reading or math unless "specifically and explicitly" authorized by Congress. Following is information on why this Mark-up is scheduled for tomorrow. Any letters of support for this bill would be greatly appreciated. You may FAX copies to: Congressman Bill Goodling, Chairman Committee on Education and the Workforce 2181 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 For more information on the testing issue, and other education "Hot Topics" please visit our WEB site at http//www.house.gov/eeo/ WHY ARE WE HAVING THE MARKUP OF H.R. 2846 ON JANUARY 28? * The President and this Administration continue to ignore Congress and proceed with their plans to develop a federal test and have national standards. We are holding this markup today to let the President and the Secretary of Education know that there will be no federal tests until Congress authorizes such an activity. * The FY 1998 Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations bill (PL 105-78) - which the President signed into law on November 13 - was supposed to be an agreement to stop this Administration from going forward with administering federal tests prior to any Congressional action or public input. * Yet, at the bill signing ceremony on November 13, 1997 for the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations bill, the President stated: "…This bill represents a genuine breakthrough in what is now quite a long effort by many people to achieve national academic standards in the United States. …And for the very first time, Congress has voted to support the development of voluntary national tests to measure performance in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math. The tests will be created by an independent, bipartisan organization and will be piloted in schools next October." * Further evidence that the President and his Administration are seeking to circumvent the legislative process can be found on the Department of Education's web site. The page states: "The bill [PL 105-78] provides full funding to proceed with immediate development of the first-ever voluntary national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math…The bill permits pilot testing to begin in Fall 1998." * More detailed information about testing provided on the Department of Education web site (updated after the President signed the Appropriations bill) notes: "The first pilot tests are scheduled for the fall of 1998 and the field tests in the spring of 1999. The voluntary national tests will first be officially administered in the spring of 2000." * In a December 2, 1997 press release, Mark Musick, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) NAGB, stated: "We will carry out the job Congress has asked us to do - develop an individualized version of the National Assessment of Educational Progress." The NAGB press release went on further to state: "The Board will seek to complete all preliminary development work by September 30, 1998, so there can be pilot testing and field testing later." * Secretary of Education Dick Riley sent a letter to the Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, Rep. Bill Goodling (R-PA) on January 20, 1998 asking him to reconsider this markup. He noted the Chairman's involvement in reaching a bipartisan agreement under the FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act on how to proceed with regard to Federal tests including the transfer of responsibilities to NAGB and the deadlines established for studies by the National Academy of Sciences. This agreement did not include language authorizing pilot testing, field testing or implementation of tests in FY 1999, as the Administration has asserted will occur. * A January 15, 1998 memo from William Randall, Chairman of the Special Committee to Review the Test Development Contract, to members of NAGB states the first pilot test will be "conducted in March of 1999, the field test in March of the year 2000, and the operational test in March of the year 2001." They clearly view their role as to develop and initiate a test as soon as possible after the September 30, 1998 expiration date for the ban on pilot testing included in PL 105-78. * To NAGB's credit, they determined that the Administration's plans and ill-conceived timetable for national tests were so flawed that NAGB decided to re-write the test development contract. It is clear the test specifications were developed in a rush so as to be administered prior to the end of the summer of the President's second term. Again, this shows that the Department's original work was done in a very haphazard manner, and provides even more reason for Congress to prohibit Federal testing without specific and explicit authority. Not all in once place, but check out my file on him (with photo) at http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/edreform#marctucker I've got lots of article pointers on how he started when NCEE was part of the carnegie foundation, he spun it off, got to the Rochester schools to experiment on, published a paper on teachers which everybody loved which lead to the high wages, high skills paper, and the rest is history. > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:19:39 -0600 > To: Education Consumers Clearinghouse > From: Jeanne Donovan > Subject: Marc Tucker resumé > Does anyone have an idea how to obtain Marc Tucker's resumé? Is it in any > public record? > > Jeanne Donovan > > The most important education we do is that which we do first at the primary > and secondary level - N. Donovan > > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:10:20 -0800 From: Bruce Crawford To: Arthur Hu Copies to: Education-Consumers@tricon.net Subject: Re: WA Bill to repeal Tucker Based Education Arthur and ECC Subscribers: I haven't had time to really digest this, but here are a few quick reactions to Section I,Part 1. Remember that I am a layperson, not an attorney. I just like to read political economics and philosophy. One, starting with subpart (a), there is technically no such thing as an unalienable right. Yes, the Declaration of Independence says that, but Jefferson wrote inalienable, the correct form of the word. The scribe who transferred the final approved draft from paper to parchment made the change. There was no time to rewrite it once the mistake was found. The wording, however, opens up huge opportunities for choice. An inalienable (or unalienable) right is a right so fundamental that no man can give it to another, and so important that no man can either take it away from another or forfeit it for himself. It is the crux of arguments for man-made laws prohibiting suicide, euthanasia and slavery. John Locke argued that freedom is an inalienable right, and therefore man did not even have the right to assent to being taken or sold into slavery, just as he did not have the right to take his own life. Therefore if the right to see to the education of one's own children is an unalienable right, the state cannot deny the parents that right. While it can facilitate the exercise of that right via public education, it almost certaily necessitates vouchers, tax credits, or some other form of choice subsidies. Otherwise one then has discriminatory practices against the exercise of an unalienable right. The state cannot subsidize for one man's exercise of an unalienable right via public education, while not doing similarly providing subsidies for all others to exercise their personal options, should they decline the state's, IMHO. Inalienable/unalienable rights are the bedrock of freedom. The state cannot be arbitrary or capricious here. Either someone is very clever, or they do not realize the import of this phraseology. I do not see how one can have a "natural legal duty" to anything. Duty is the flip side of rights. Natural rights are those with which one is born (life, liberty and property). Legal rights are granted by the state. Hence legal duties are those proscribed by the state complementary to legal rights. The state cannot give natural rights so the state's role in natural duties is unclear to me. The state can only protect one's ability to pursue natural rights. Does this imply that the state can choose to define natural duties, and what the consequences of not exercising those natural duties are? Problemmatic to me. Going to subpart (b), what does uniform mean? Is this the epitome of one-size fits all? The part I likes says that the state supt. has "sole responsibility" for "supervision over all matters pertaining to public schools . . .." It does not mention either private schools or homeschooling. "Sole" suggests that the supt. is then precluded since those avenues are not included in "sole responsibility (singular)." Maybe with all of the trouble that the WEA is in that they can't fight this one too hard without creating other exposures for themselves. BC Arthur Hu wrote: > > Text of bill to repeal 1983 reform act and get rid > of performance based testing, testimony friday morning. > > See, something IS happening. > > I'd rather see it just repeal the old act and not worry > about imposing new tests and methodologies. > Date sent: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:33:59 -0500 To: joaneb001@aol.com From: "Phillabaum, Keith" (by way of Fred Battey ) Subject: Member Bio - Request All: Please note Missy's request for assistance at the end. Fred You wanted to know a little about myself: Full name: Melissa "Missy" Phillabaum (please call me Missy) I'm a mother of three. Two of which are in public schools. 1st and 7th graders. My youngest will enter next year. I'm amazed at the crap my kids are bringing home. This week my 7th grader is spending two classes on anger and conflict resolution. The classes are supposed to be English and World Geography or was it Social Studies. Supposibly they are being prepared for living in a global world. Learning all sorts of preferred behavior having to do with what it means to be a good citizen. I've discussed the whole language approach to learning to read with my 1st graders teacher who shut me up up front informing me she is one of the biggest proponent for whole language and will never teach explicit phonics ever again. Didn't have any answers for my concerns that she was undoing all my hard work I had accomplished with my son over the summer months in breaking him of the nasty habit of sight reading, looking at the pictures for clues, and guessing. I spent the entire summer training him to look at the words and in two weeks time of the new school year she sabotaged my effort. It makes teaching him phonics very frustrating for us both cause I have to tell him not to do what his teacher tells him to do while we're reading at home. I wish I was in the situation to pull them both out and home school or private. Till then if ever, I watch what comes home and work with them where I can. My husband and I are having behavioral issues with the 7th grader we think directly related to the attitudes he's picking up from school. He came home Monday with a paper on his Teen Rights and Responsibilities. This comes from a community agency who runs groups for anger control and domestic violence. He listed what he feels is his teen rights as being able to look the way he wants listen to what he wants do what he wants etc. This is goes agaisnt everything we,'e been trying to get through to him. He thinks he is our equal and we have no right to tell him no to anything. This material might be fine for someone who seeks out this kind of help from the agency, but I object to them coming into the schools and getting into my sons head without my permission. I object to my son having to journal or write about his anger episodes. The source of my teenagers anger is of course from us(his parents). They are gettng information about my family our home and our attitudes that which they have no right to. I think the teachers who love this stuff think they really are doing some good, but it is sooo wrong. Why go through the hassle of illegal search of a families home when they can go in through my sons school work assignments? I haven't made a trip to the school yet to onbject to this latest in the head stuff. But I will. I'm anxious to find out if this in the head stuff is a part of my sons English, World Geography, or Social Studies grade. If anyone in the loop has anything I can arm myself with when I go to the school to object to this curriculum I'd appreciate it much. Missy When the new assessments force everybody to toss their curriculums and told tell people that they're assessing 7th and 10th grade level skills as measured by our own state benchmarks, then that's destructive when you try to feed the kids way too much than they can absorb or retain. > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:30:27 -0800 (PST) > From: Mike Lindblom > To: arthurhu@halcyon.com > Subject: Re: (Fwd) Social Studies in Washington Schools > Hi Arthur -- > > While the sorts of vague language in these standards disturb me, do any > teachers actually read this crap? If I'm teaching high school social > studies, I would just throw it into the recycle bin and design my own > lesson plans mixing great works, primary documents such as the > Constitution, Federalist Papers, and Declaration of Independence, and the > best available histories. > I wonder if these "Essential Learnings" goals actually translate into > destructive teaching methods. I also wonder whether they're a greater > threat to the pulp and paper supply than to children. > Good teachers are going to succeed regardless of whatever higher-level > bureaucrats publish, right? > > Mike Lindblom > > On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Arthur Hu wrote: > > > Uh oh, this sounds like NTCM and NTCE > > > > 4. It is delivered through methodologies that are informed by best > > practices as defined by professional organizations such as the and the > > National Council for the Social Studies. Examples of best practices > > include integrated curriculum, inquiry oriented teaching, and those > > practices that foster democratic citizenship. > > > > This sounds like a sales pitch for state education money > > > > The Washington State Council for the Social Studies desires to work > > with the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop > > a sample of a model program that would have the above characteristics. > > Such an effort must be well funded, Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:09:32 -0600 To: Arthur Hu From: Jeanne Donovan Subject: Re: WA Bill to repeal Tucker Based Education Arthur, This looked so good I sent it to our Texas legislators to review. Thanks. Jeanne The most important education we do is that which we do first at the primary and secondary level - N. Donovan Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:45:02 -0800 (PST) From: Caleb Burns To: LScheffers Copies to: education-consumers@tricon.net Subject: Re: Early math instruction -- anything on need for explanations? Lauren -- great points! As a psychologist, I test people all the time -- all day, pretty much every work day. The major IQ and achievement tests do not ask for explanations -- one is graded on whether one gets the answer correct. When someone puts blocks together, or tries some of the new tasks, I DO NOT refuse to give them credit if they cannot verbalize their decision steps. Also, it has struck me more and more that a major consideration is that of response cost -- really, the "hassle factor" of a response. This higher the response cost (in terms of effort, cost, etc.), the less people will do it. The point is that we want basic math and basic reading to be almost without response cost for youngsters -- that is, so they can automatically engage in the steps. (None of this 6 + 7 = 2 times 6 + 1 nonsense that your daughter experienced. And exactly who died and made the writer of that nonsense God that that person could determine the CORRECT way to lay out the problem?) Anyway, you and Coleen are absolutely correct about these points! Thanks so much for your help. (And I am going to forward Ms. Ary's letter to the school board here and ask them to respond.) Thanks again! Yours, Caleb On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, LScheffers wrote: > I asked the following question of a friend of mine and received the response > below. (Linda Silverman is the director of the Gifted Development Center in > Denver; I believe the URL is similar to the name.) > > Lauren > > << > Does any of the gifted literature deal with this? Visual-spatial learning? > Profoundly gifted being holistic learners? > >> > > Read the book "Right Brained Children in a Left Brained World" by Jeffrey > Freed, M.A.T. and Laurie Parsons. This book is about right brain aspects of > ADD but it also applies to many gifted children. In fact, this author worked > mostly with underachieving gifted before seeing the relationship of this > learning style with ADD children. I understand he may have worked with Linda > Silverman on visual spatial aspects of giftedness. Further, look at the > articles on Linda's gifted development world wide web site. For profoundly > gifted, I would recommend Miraca Gross's book "Exceptionally Gifted Children." > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > Yours, Caleb Burns, Portland, Oregon For ideas in general to help people: http://www.teleport.com/~calebb/ EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE To: arthurhu@halcyon.com From: "James Kilpatrick" Subject: Re: January 27, 1998 News Clips Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:38:01 -0600 Only thing Tucker will embrace his is wallet. Get a rope. Jimmy >Funny, the Germans and Japanese don't mind putting low >performers into different high schools, but you'll never hear >Tucker asking us to embrace tracking. Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:01:27 -0500 From: "Richard G. Innes" <70224.434@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: Florida repeats WA's test mistakes To: "INTERNET:arthurhu@halcyon.com" Arthur, <> I guess because we have advocacy journalism. George and I have data and have reached conclusions that are not politically correct. We are getting coverage now, fairly frequently, in the Kentucky papers. I even had an Op-Ed printed in the Birmingham News (in Alabama). The local paper up here even did a piece on me as an individual. I only cooperated because I thought they would refuse to print my letters to the editor. By the way, Ed Week has done a fair job of covering the problems with KIRIS. Since I had a small hand in identifying those, you could say I've had coverage. I really don't care if I get any personal notice, in any event. It is the concepts, ideas, and conclusions that count for the kids, not who is formulating them. <> Ah, you are perceptive. Pritchard *is* the local agent of the foundations, which are the ultimate funding source for Tucker, too. I don't think Pritchard intially started out to become a Tucker tool, but they were corrupted into this with a long series of grants. Pritchard gets big six-digit figures from Pew Charitable Trusts to go out and "tell the good tale" about Kentucky. By the way, I would like to hear EVERYTHING you are getting from Pritchard. They are very closed-mouth about what they say about Kentucky out of state. I can probably give you lots of counter-arguments. Be very careful about Pritchard data! <> There is only a little of this out, and I don't remember where I filed it, because it wasn't very exciting. Yes, Blacks (using the NCES definition here, not intending to offend anyone) do not do as well on KIRIS. We don't have any other significant minority populations in Kentucky. <> Blacks have complained about some aspects of the reform, but not very actively about KIRIS. The big complaints are coming from parents of kids with learning disabilities who all (with virtually no exceptions) must take KIRIS. Those discussions have been very heated. I have commented before about the fact that LD kids get help on the test, and the science grades for LD kids were actually higher than regular students on KIRIS. Still, overall, parents of LD kids are not happy. <<...on many of the WA questions, you can only get the "right" answer by making a guess - in some instances, you must chose between equally valid or nearly equally valid answers. There must be cases like this on the KIRIS test.>> Bingo. I just did another short study on the multiple choice examples that were posted in the Kentucky Department of Education's Web site. They were gross, and several didn't have correct answers. How do you teach kids to take that kind of test? By the way, I think I mentioned that it was a multiple choice question that got me started on education research. It was the wiring diagram question I sent you. It didn't have a correct answer to chose, either. <> I have not, but others are complaining loudly that KIRIS didn't follow our new Core Content, which was created specifically to guide the test writers. CC isn't a great document, anyway. I like Virginia's and Colorado's standards for science MUCH better. <> KIRIS started this way. The idea is to create a sense of crisis so the radical education changes seem warranted. It is a terrible way to do things. Very dishonorable, in my opinion. By the way, I talked to a grader from the first year of testing. She said they were directed to grade low so there would be room for "growth" in the future. Like I said, dishonorable. Dick From: Dabroch Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:14:25 EST To: arthurhu@halcyon.com Subject: RE:Rich white people imposing Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Arthur, I could not help but chuckle when I read your remarks because it is so true. The Texas test appears to be the best test that I've seen - it's literally a 4th or 10th grade level SAT test. Pass it on . > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:57:16 -0500 > To: dnc0654@iname.com, Cheri Pierson Yecke > From: "J. E. Stone" > Subject: Re: URGENT MESSAGE RE: NATIONAL TESTING > Cc: 4Education Consumers Clearhouse > Dave, > > I think it is an excellent suggestion. > > There are formidable difficulties in constructing and validating a new test. > Finding a credible existing test might be a much more manageable > proposition. I would bet there are states already using tests that would > serve the purpose. In fact, it seems to me that CA was or is in the process > of selecting an off-the-shelf for use in that state. Maybe VA already has > something suitable. > > John > > ******************************************************** > > > At 01:52 PM 1/27/98 -0800, dnc0654@iname.com wrote: > >Here is a suggestion for a fall-back position if, after fighting the > >good fight, the compromise in Washington is some variation of > >"voluntary" national testing. > > > >As a school board member, I know our Board and other Boards will find it > >difficult to explain to the public that we don't want to "volunteer" for > >the national test because we don't want to be forced to modify our > >curriculum to the type of curriculum that the Clintin DOE will be > >implicitly pushing with their test. > > > >However, if there were an alternate credible test developed based upon a > >more traditional curriculum, we could probably get away with > >volunteering for that alternative test. > > > >So here's the proposal -- get together a credible group to develop a > >"traditional" test and offer it as an alternative to the Clinton DOE > >test. Perhaps like-minded foundations would fund this. > > > >(Now, I know that some of you will say that all national testing is bad > >and let's strangle this idea in the cradle, but my guess is that > >something's coming, and it's always good to have a fallback.) > > > >Is this doable? > > > >Dave > >EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > > > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > From: dnc0654@iname.com Date sent: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:20:14 -0800 To: 4Education Consumers Clearhouse Subject: Reverse Course in Great Britain An interesting article in Monday's Christian Science Monitor suggests that, in an ironic twist, the Labor government is going to reverse course on many of the "progressive" education practices instituted and continued under the prior Tory party. Go figure. According to the article, entitled "Trash the Calculator, It's Back to Basics in Britain": In a "back to basics" campaign, Prime Minister Tony Blair has ordered sweeping changes to Britain's school curriculum that will require millions of children to spend at least two hours each day on the "three R's." "There has been a sharp decline in numeracy in recent years," Britain's Minister for Educational Standards Stephen Byers says, "and much the same is true of spelling, grammar, and syntax." He has ordered teachers to ensure that children memorize arithmetic tables and that reading and writing are taught using traditional methods. Calculators for children under 8, for example, have been banned. "Instead," Byers says, "pupils will be expected to be able to do calculations in their heads. Calculators can come later when the children can rely on their own mental skills." Schools also have been told to do more "whole class" teaching, with pupils facing the teacher instead of sitting around tables in small groups. In returning to a more traditional classroom philosophy, the government is acting on advice from educator David Reynolds of Newcastle University, head of a government-appointed task force. The full article is found at: http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/01/26/intl/intl.3.html If you follow the link to the actual proposal from the Department for Education and Employment (http://www.open.gov.uk/dfee/raising/summary.htm), there is a lot there to not like, but the article in the Monitor is pretty good. Dave EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE Date sent: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:58:05 -0600 To: arthurhu@halcyon.com From: Jeanne Donovan Subject: Re: WA Bill to repeal Tucker Based Education >God dang, this loop is great! >> Arthur, >> >> This looked so good I sent it to our Texas legislators to review. Thanks. >> >> Jeanne >> >> The most important education we do is that which we do first at the primary >> and secondary level - N. Donovan >> >> >> ARthur, One of our legislators wrote back--he's interested! Jeanne The most important education we do is that which we do first at the primary and secondary level - N. Donovan Date sent: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:37:13 -0500 To: education-consumers@tricon.net From: "J. E. Stone" Subject: Subscription options: Final draft proposal Dear ClearingHouse Subscribers, I have done my best to organize my thinking combine it with the various comments and suggestions that many of you were kind enough to send. I will seek additional comments between now and the end of January. Provided there are no major surprises or complications, I intend to post the final document on February 1, 1998. My thought is that current subscribers can choose a service option send an appropriate payment during the month of February. My intention is to begin subscriptions on February 1 but give all current subscribers a 13 month subscription for the first year. I will monitor posting charges for the month of February but institute actual charges for posting messages as of March 1. Anyone who wants to estimate how much their posting charges will be can check themselves out during February. My objectives have been to: A. Put the ClearingHouse on some kind of financial footing so as to at least begin freeing my time. I have been swamped with housekeeping leaving little time for education issues. As time becomes available, I intend to pursue several projects. A top priority will be to bring the ClearingHouse to the attention of board members. Board members are the parties who officially represent the consumer's interest. Another project will be to help those subscribers who are planning to publish some kind of ClearingHouse newsletter. I think it would help in building ECAs. My thought is that a newsletter addressed to an education issue of local interest--block scheduling, for example--might be a valuable recruiting tool for parents. Every year thousands of parents try to support good schooling by joining their local PTA. How much more effective would they be if they joined an ECA and put their time, energy, and contributions into an organization that was working for them instead of the school bureaucracy. B. Set some kind of incentive for more careful use of everyone's time. When a message is sent to the ClearingHouse, it goes all over U. S. and to places as distant as Australia and New Zealand. Picking through poorly edited messages is time consuming. The modest charges enumerated below are comparable to those for long distance telephone service. Instead of faxing an individual, however, the call goes to hundreds. I am suggesting that we go with the proposed schedule, recognizing that it may have to be adjusted at some point in the future. Eventually, I intend to set up a kind of Web-based bulletin board to which comments are posted. It will require everyone to have a Web browser but it will even more on the problem of e-mail overload. C. Reach objectives A and B above in way that minimizes interference with consumer access to ClearingHouse information The ClearingHouse is a business but it is one that serves customers who want something that is critical the future of the Nation--a good education for their children and grandchildren. Great advancements in history have been driven by market forces and I believe the free market will work here. The options below afford opportunities for everyone to be in touch and to participate. They also provide a ways in which all of us can contribute to the expansion of the ClearingHouse--through participation as a subscriber, through donations for scholarships, and through service as a distributor of ClearingHouse postings to non-subscribers. Here is the rundown of options as I see them now: 1. Regular subscription: $3.95/ month and 10 cents/kb posting (6 kb/month free). [One typewritten page is about 3 kb] For people who want all messages, password access to archive, and intend to post materials frequently. 2. Basic subscription: $2.95/month and 25 cents/kb posting (3 kb/month free) For people who want all messages, password access to archive, and intend to post materials infrequently. 3. Scholarship subscription: Free but limited availability and 25 cents/kb posting (3 kb/month free). For people who are interested in learning about issues. Receives all postings, access to archive, and intends to make only occasional comments or inquiries. Ordinarily limited to one year. 4. Trial subscription: Free for one month and 25 cents/kb posting. For people who want to see what the ClearingHouse is about. Receives all postings and posts infrequently. No access to archive. 5. Secondary recipient (receives some or all of ClearingHouse posts as they are redistributed by a subscriber) Can post messages only by having them forwarded through a subscriber. For people who like to read ClearingHouse postings but have little or no interest in contributing information or opinion or posting questions. Until I am able to set up some kind of automated billing, subscriptions will be invoiced annually. The regular subscription is $47.40 per year and the basic subscription is $35.40 per year. Payment is due within the first month of the subscription. The ClearingHouse P.O. address below. Posting charges will be invoiced every six months or when an individual's charges reach $35, whichever comes first. Given that a subscriber can redistribute mail, nothing prevents individuals from sharing the cost of a subscription. The individual subscribed, of course, will have to distribute the ECC postings and relay any comments, etc. to the ClearingHouse. Redistribution opens another possibility as well. If individuals are looking for postings on specific topics or areas of information, they could rely on a redistribution of postings from a particular subscriber who selectively sends out only those ClearingHouse materials pertaining to that topic. I am personally planning to set up a service for school board and board of education members that would focus on policy issues. Many of the board members now subscribed have told me that they find themselves inundated with material and unable to sort through it all. I await any additional feedback. Otherwise, I will post a schedule of rates and charges on Sunday February 1, 1998. Regards to all, John J. E. Stone, Ed.D. Education Consumers ClearingHouse P.O. Box 4411 Johnson City, TN 37602 phone & fax 423-282-6832 e-mail professor@tricon.net http://www.tricon.net/Comm/educon EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE Check out the soda bottle from hell, and the 4th grade project that requires " the assistance of a professional carpenter". Hell, it WAS done by a professional carpenter, what a joke. Parts list includes a nail gun, pre-sink drill bit. Hell, it's not even safe for 4th graders to play with this stuff, they could get killed, and THIS is the standard all 4th graders need to demonstrate before they can advance on to 5th grade????????? How about "write a 32 bit web browser" with the help of a professional software engineer. What a riot. New York City is commiting to these standards, along with the 25 books per year. Not picture books, Treasure Island, Call of the Wild, War and Peace, etc. Here's where I filed the sample tests from the New Standards http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/washtest.htm#sampnew http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/images/972/1216/Page0001.html New Standards ExamplesThese are extremely difficult, at least the WA test at the 7th grade level is straightforward. 12th grade require memorizing the formula for the volume of a sphere, the frustrum of a cone, drawing a side and top view dimensioned soda bottle, and computing the volume. > From: Chark2@ix.netcom.com > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:35:14 -0600 (CST) > To: education-consumers@tricon.net > Subject: Re: Marc Tucker resumé > > >http://www.ncee.org/WhoWeAre/whoPage.html > > > >Dianne > > > > Dianne- thanks for the above site ( complete with picture of Marc Tucker!) I had never reviewed > this site before. Has anyone looked at these so called "New Standards" that this guy is > touting? Did you look at the sample standard? Is the "paper towel" experiment really a > routine experiment performed in middle school? If so we are much worse off than I thought! I > have never seen such a collection of BS, and convoluted phraseology in my life. Someone values > this stuff? I found it to be nonsensical and sad. Charlene > > > > > > > > > > > > Charlene Kimmel > > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > From: Chark2@ix.netcom.com Date sent: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 08:03:50 -0600 (CST) To: arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com Subject: Re: New Standards From Hell On 01/28/98 12:49:32 you wrote: > >Here's where I filed the sample tests from the New Standards > > >> >> Thanks Arthur for the site! There is a wealth of info there including info on the Terra Nova which we are adopting this year state wide. I did not know this was a new test that had even been used by California. The only thing it means to me as a parent is that the 8 years of data we have ammassed statwide with our TCAP testing will be worthless now with the new test. No comparisons, trends, red-warning bells will be appropriate BECAUSE one cannot compare apples and oranges- I already hear the educrats saying it.......All of this- the testing, the "standards"- is extremely confusing for parents who only want good , content based, knowledge rich educations for their children! Most people I know just throw up their arms in disgust. The homeschool movement is gaining momentum here in Tennessee. Thanks for your information! Charlene>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Charlene Kimmel Please send this reply back to the loop - God I hate these test questions where they ask you something personal like "some adult you admire in your life" Right, like Chelsea Clinton is going to have just as good a topic as a kid in the projects whose idol is likely a dope dealer who's made a nice income for himself and his girls. New Standards sample book also has a question like this. Not as blatant as the CLAS test in Califronia, but this stuff should be banned. Everyone should have to write on the same topic. > Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 08:43:03 -0500 > To: joaneb001@aol.com > From: "Kimberly A. Fuga" (by way of Fred Battey ) > Subject: Michigan 5th Grade MEAP test > Last week and for the next two weeks the fifth graders of the State of > Michigan take their Science and Writing MEAP. I had a local Science > teacher call and share the following: > > The fifth grade science test includes a section in which the child is > tested about his/her fingerprints. The week prior (last week) to giving > the test, the teacher had each child put his fingerprints into a > "Fingerprint Investigative Journal." This journal would be used during > the test however, it would not be included with the test when it was > returned to the State. The teacher could do whatever he wished with the > fingerprint journals. Parents were not told that their child was being > fingerprinted for this test. > > Also the subject of our fifth grade writing meap was "Loss." Describe a > loss you've experienced in your life. > > Just a note: Although the fingerprint method was primative, lead with > some type of "scotch" tape type material, I can't help but believe that > this particual time there may be nothing "sinister" about fingerprinting > all Michigan fifth graders, however, it sure breaks down a child's > natural instinct to protect their "personal" property. > > There is a reporter supposedly interested in the story, however, our > difficulty is getting people to speak out for fear of it affecting their > child. > > Thanks. Kim Fuga/PROBE/Michigan > > > From: Redyarrow@aol.com Date sent: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 09:28:36 EST To: education-consumers@tricon.net Subject: Marc musings Like you, I am also interested in Marc Tucker since he seems to have the ear of the White House and as a result is currently shaping national policy in education. I paused long and hard before I posed this question (and John, you are right....if I had to pay for my words, this one wouldn't see the light of day.) However, I have always operated under the assumption that the more one knows about the psyche, the motivations, and the life of one's opponent, the more effective one can counter their tactics. And with that in mind, I ask this seemingly innocuous question......is Marc Tucker a Marc or a Marcus who shortened his name. One of my best friends back in high school was a male who at the height of the Gay Liberation Movement in college (early 70's) surprised all of us and jumped out of the closet with suddenly outrageous behavior, dress and anger at having engaged in a charade for many years. I never understood the person he became and his anger kept his old friends pushed away from the possibility of understanding. At our last high school reunion he attended before dying of AIDS four years later, he proudly trumpeted his new name change from Patrick to Patric. During a conversation when I asked what happened to the "K' , Patric told me that the name change was "code" and that he could go anywhere in the world and be recognized immediately by another gay man as soon as that person saw his written name. The name change was all a part of his new identity. As someone who dreamed of being in the FBI back when I was a kid before I realized how unsuited my temperment and fear-factor were for such a career, I found the revelation of this "signal" fascinating and have always noticed when someone uses it. I've noticed that this signalling - by making the actual name change- is usually only done by those like my old high school buddy whose lives have become defined by their gay liberation struggle. I've also wondered how those poor guys who hated their given name of "Marcus" and inadvertently shortened their name have put up with mixed signals. EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE Got him on the phone, but it was useless trying to get him to give a real answer to anything. His office staff says he's real good at email, but never answers my equestions. > From: cjo@ior.com > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:15:44 -0500 > To: arthurhu@halcyon.com > Subject: Re: Did you receive the packet yet? > Can't wait to hear his response. Please pass it on when he does. Have you > ever talked to Gordon in person? > > Cindy > > At 12:01 PM 1/28/98 -0800, you wrote: > >To Gordon Ensign, Commision on student learning > > > >Hello, have you received your copy of my packet on the assessment? jeff.estes@pnl.gov WA 4th grade test is from 7th and 10th grade benchmarks Hi, just heard your testimony from a realaudio playback from the state web site, I wonder how you'd like to know that you and everybody else has been fooled into thinking that it's a great, wonderful valid 4th grade test. Turns out, if you check the sample test against the state's own benchmark documents, over 1/3 of the questions clearly use skills out of the 7th and 10th grade benchmarks, just in basic skills and recall. Looks like you folks never had a chance to evaluate whether the questions were 4th grade material to start with, only ranking them from easy to hard, making it easy for people to pick tasks way the heck out of grade level. I can fax you a sample test with the benchmarks pasted into place for comparison, I think this test is a serious mistake, and folks like you should not be fooled. Phone - 425-557-1000 x4504 Date sent: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:27:45 -0500 From: Cheri Pierson Yecke To: Arthur Hu Subject: Re: Doug Carnine and WA Assessment testimony on audio Arthur: Thanks for the copy of legislation banning performance based testing. Please give us an update as to its fate, whne you find out how the vote went. Cheri From: DNC0654@iname.com Date sent: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:45:21 -0600 To: Redyarrow@aol.com Copies to: 4Education Consumers Clearhouse Subject: Re: My testimony on proposed national math assessment A hypothetical you might pose next time you encounter Dr. Dossey in a hearing: Under a performance-based test, a child answers all the math questions correctly and each time gives as his "strategy" the following -- "I prayed to the god Vishnu and he provided me with the answers". (No offense to the Christians on this loop, but I figured the "experts" would find it harder to dismiss out of hand a multicultural religious figure.) How would this be scored? On what basis would this strategy be rejected? Presumably, in a national test, strategies cannot be limited to the ones that were taught, since every district uses different teaching methods. Are all "successful" strategies supposed to be ok? If the student got all the answers right, wasn't his strategy successful? What if the student had been homeschooled and his parents say this WAS the strategy they taught? This performance-based testing appears to be quite a morass. Dave EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: JoanEB001@aol.com Date sent: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:54:56 EST To: Fredb001@aol.com Subject: Dot Connecting Trends TO ALL: Two disturbing posts to the loop this morning (the quick and elaborate 6th grade classroom role playing of a trial of the Clinton situation; and the horrific live sex act in the Texas classroom) need to be used as widely as possible to reinforce (reinforce, reinforce, reinforce!) two points that we have not been making often enough in places where the general public is not yet aware of what is going on in schools. Behavior Modification is at the root of both of these latest reported activities in classroom settings. WITHOUT a preliminary and steady effort to indoctrinate students to the idea that sexual activity is anything goes, any time, anywhere, with anyone, there would NEVER have been the slightest thought of acting out in a classroom what had been seen or heard for the first time this month in the news. THINK ABOUT THAT! What would have been the reaction of children to the news we have been hearing, ABSENT several years of forced exposure to "health classes" that left little to the imagination? Embarassment? Shock? Surely not what was reported from Texas! Now to the classroom trial. That is a little harder to link up for the average non-involved person -- but in its own way could be much more pernicious and insidious behavior modification in the long run. Several years ago, with little reaction at the time, a couple of us pointed out a "popular innovation" in Syracuse, NY area schools. Putting nursery rhyme characters on trial. Oh, why make a fuss. This was just a fun sort of thing. It's not like it is a trend. Well, it is now 1998. The trend is well established. It has gone from putting nursery rhyme characters on trial, to putting current event figures on trial. It also now includes setting up peer judges and juries for in-school infractions, real or imagined. Play-acting is behavior modification, and it is done in many ways, in school and in non-profit organization activities. NOW COMES THE VERY BAD AND PERHAPS ORIGINALLY INTENDED MODIFICATION OF BEHAVIOR: Children are being conditioned to the idea that trials are the purview of children, and that everything that takes place is justification for a KANGAROO COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WITH OR WITHOUT FULL POSSESSION OF FACTS. We just posted a week or so ago, the story of an area school widely praised for the very innovative idea of turning the whole school over to play-acting out a trial of Mother Goose. Innovation?? Or innovation increasing repeated over several years after the first few spontaneous innovations in schools in scattered locations around the country?? Play-acting puts words and actions into the minds of the participants as the only proper response to future situations which might seem similar. Trials staged by those who play-act are an even more dangerous course to endorse! JOAN From: "Donna Garner" To: "education consumers" Subject: Sex Act Reportedly Committed in Classroom -- Please send to Clearinghouse Date sent: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 06:52:47 -0600 It is with deep concern that I report an incident which was written up on the front page of the WacoTribune-Herald yesterday, January 29, 1998. Moody, Texas, is a little town outside Waco. Two Moody High School freshmen (16-year old boy and 15-year old girl) reportedly engaged in oral sex during their sixth-period English class on January 20. The students' teacher (a basketball coach) had left the classroom for a few minutes to make a telephone call regarding an upcoming basketball game. On a dare, the students performed the oral sex act in front of a classroom of 20 classmates. The article went on to say that both students have been suspended for three days, have been assigned to the district's alternative school, and could face misdemeanor public lewdness charges. What about the damage that has been done to all those children who viewed the incident? Who is going to fix that? This incident proves that we adults who trivialize immoral and unhealthy sexual activities are doing irreparable damage to the children of this nation. Someone on hearing of the incident said, "Gosh, I am glad the kids were not caught smoking." We are a sick nation when young people on a dare will commit such an act, but we adults had better stop and think who is really to blame. Donna Garner dggarner@swbell.net EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: Dabroch@aol.com Date sent: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:40:46 EST To: fredb001@spectra.net Copies to: education-consumers@tricon.net, derksen.allen@spuno.net Subject: ROCHESTER PARENT WEB SITE (INFO IS POWER) Loopies: CESG(Citizen Education Study Group) has finally completed its Web-site. The debut stuff is excellent. Parents fighting new reforms may want to view the article Rochester, A Decade In Decline. Also, there is an interesting piece called PEPPA which I believe contains the seeds for some legislation that will help protect learning from the cycle of "reform and fail". Block scheduling is another hot issue. You may be interested in the continent of the offical letter of request sent to our school officials, most of which could not be answered. The url is members.aol.com:/cesg. or click on CESG . EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE Date sent: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:24:40 -0500 To: education-consumers@tricon.net From: "J. E. Stone" Subject: No-cost options for ClearingHouse subscribers Over the past several weeks I proposed several plans about how the ClearingHouse might be reorganized so as to accommodate a continually growing number of subscribers and a sometime impossible volume of e-mail. Some of you read most or all of my proposals and responded with suggestions and comments. Many, however, probably did not see some or all of the previous because they were included in the avalanche of e-mail that has been coming from the ClearingHouse over the last 90 days. If you missed the 4 earlier posts and would like to read them, let me know. Since I posted a final draft of subscription and posting charges yesterday, I have received several replies and comments. First, I am proud to say that Donna Garner of "Texas Alternative Document" fame is my first official paid subscriber. Second, I want to assure the several folks who apparently think that they are going to be summarily cut off from the ClearingHouse that no such plans are in the works. Let me try to clarify the "no cost" options (numbers 3 and 5 of the draft that was circulated yesterday): 1. Scholarship subscription In response to my earlier request for donated scholarships, several of you pledged $35 to support a subscription for anyone who wanted to continue their current level of participation in the ClearingHouse but were not prepared to pay the $35/year for a basic subscription. In addition to these pledges, I have some hope that we may have some corporate contributions for that purpose. In effect, these contributions are a way of supporting the ClearingHouse beyond simply purchasing a subscription for one's own use. They will help financially and they enable the ClearingHouse to communicate with individuals who are mainly interested in listening and learning but who are not ready to jump in with both feet. The only cost to the participant will be whatever charges they choose to incur for posting messages to the ClearingHouse. Keep in mind that responses to ClearingHouse posts that are sent to individuals off-list are entirely free. If you intend to pledge a scholarship, please let me know. I feel confident we will have enough to meet the demand, but that remains to be seen. Your help will be much appreciated. 2. Secondary recipients Many people already receive some or all ClearingHouse posts via forwarding from a ClearingHouse subscriber. Jimmy Kilpatrick, for example, does a great job in forwarding selected items from the ClearingHouse to THE LOOP. There are other smaller e-mail loops that do the same. Anyone who now subscribes to the ClearingHouse but who is not prepared to purchase a subscription or to accept a scholarship can ask to be put on one of the existing forwarding lists and receive ClearingHouse posts by that means. Anyone who does not know who to ask may contact me for a link to such a mailing list. We have several subscribers who do such forwarding and depending on demand we may get some additional loops started. In the longer term, I hope that we can form special interest sub-loops that forward only those posts that deal with certain topics. Parent groups in a given area can form loops to circulate ClearingHouse mail to the local group. Since only one subscription is needed, the group can split the cost of a subscription and all of the posting done by members of the group can be done (through the subscribing member) at the 10 cents/kb rate. Again, keep in mind, replies to posts made through the ClearingHouse do not have to be sent back through the ClearingHouse. They can be made directly to the individual off-list. Minimizing Your Posting Costs Most of us can save on posting costs by just trimming the unnecessary clutter out of our posts. Re-sending long messages with only a line or two added is expensive and often makes the posting hard to read. Careful writing and editing will help too. Consider that billboard signature blocks eat up space also. If you want people to look at a document, write a synopsis and let people contact you or go to a Web site. If you have something that is not all that important to you but you think that someone else would want to post it, send it to them off-list and let them decide. They will post it at their expense if they think it is important. Conversely, if you are particularly interested in items posted by a given individual or items on a given topic, let the other person know on-list or off and let them send those materials to you. You can then post them if you think the documents are important. I know that some of you would rather not make any kind of changes in the ClearingHouse, but in my opinion something has to give. When mail volume reaches the levels we have been experiencing, we are kidding ourselves to think that any but the most dedicated subscribers are looking at it. Some may find it gratifying to continue shooting verbiage into cyberspace, but most people lose interest if they find no one even pays attention. Non-moderated lists tend to degenerate. They attract shouters, not listeners. What we are about in the ClearingHouse requires reasonable talk and sober minded listeners--both of which we now have. Keeping things on that track requires that I read virtually everything that is posted. Again, the changes I am proposing are intended to serve that purpose. Please let me hear your comments or questions. I feel confident that once we get this thing off the ground we will a much more inhabitable ClearingHouse. John EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: Redyarrow@aol.com Date sent: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:56:33 EST To: 71524.2205@COMPUSERVE.COM, 73633.2665@COMPUSERVE.COM, 75717.1715@COMPUSERVE.COM, aaabrown@juno.com, Abnhma@aol.com, alayton@icdc.com, afrank@psnw.com, AHANDFHAND@aol.com, ajandak@centuryinter.net, AGiacobbe@aol.com, alfields@hotmail.com, angus.alfie@msn.com, anneagle@htc.net, Anton2185@aol.com, apc@americanpolicy.org, armorgod@concentric.net, arthurhu@halcyon.com, BAGB17@aol.com, Bakkers2@aol.com, barb@pacifier.com, bcbnpne@nponline.net, BeeZBunny@aol.com, belindasm@usa.net, berit@best.com, bernie@binghamton.edu, Beverly@thnet.com, Bhowse@aol.com, bill_carlson@eee.org, blicht@flash.net, bmulert@pacifier.com, boyscout@colint.com, bonville@cdsnet.net, bpbethan@theramp.net, BreedF@aol.com, brucec76@ix.netcom.com, bra@hal-pc.org, BRYCEINMAN@aol.com, btennison@jb.com, BUGG242@aol.com, burdick@exis.net, carolh@serv2.fwi.com, cbaa@primenet.com, cchandler@usa.net, CHSCOKER@aol.com, chldcare@startext.net, claire@icdc.com, Celestcom@aol.com, Cghvnbound@aol.com, ch64858@navix.net, cjvonnohjr@juno.com, CKLITG8R@aol.com, CoachTB@aol.com, Compjrk@aol.com, conscience@netins.net, cpr@Eurekanet.com, criston@wworld.com, Curtannie@aol.com, CVK101@aol.com, CynMaui@metro.ne, Dabroch@aol.com, darb@taconic.net, DaveTNCLE@aol.com, daylor@swbell.net, dburns@ticz.com, deckert@norwich.edu, d.obrien@juno.com, diana@fessler.com, dibarnes@rust.net, djdavid@online.dct.com, davids@wdata.com, dino@drwebber.com, dlsmith@pe.net, donklick@flash.net, DonC101@aol.com, DortChrist@aol.com, dschultz@bright.net, dutchland@netstep.net, east5871@ix.netcom.com, educ8or43@qnet.com, EDUBABE@aol.com, Educ8ed1@aol.com, efox@road.emmaus.org, EJankoski@aol.com, ELittle1@aol.com, emu95@fls.infi.net, everett@suninternet.com, Ezekiel18@aol.com, FamilyR@aol.com, family@ptialaska.net, FFlavio@aol.com, fls@connectamerica.net, forusjf@ix.netcom.com, frank_l_ury@ccm.fmintel.com, fredb001@spectra.net, Funus65@aol.com, frodoleo@MO.net, frdm2000@wi.net, fwr@netins.net, fwatch@pei.edu, gemeert@scifac.indstate.edu, GGetup@aol.com, ghoffman@bellatlantic.net, glew.is1@stny.lrun.com, GLheur7893@aol.com, Gsiebert@intrnet.net, gygax@redstone.army.mil, handall1@hotmail.com, HARDENX@aol.com, hinman@pcmagic.net, hlustig@harborside.com, icemom@flash.net, ILCEE@aol.com, lslaforge@terraworld.net, IvoteGOP@aol.com, integrity@earthlink.net, Jeffrey828@aol.com, jjbecker@ctlnet.com, joymart@datastar.net, jdbarto@ix.netcom.com, JeniH80939@aol.com, job@beau.lib.la.us, jgilstad@netusa1.net, JGo241@aol.com, jlund@domainenergy.com, jhg@hoflink.com, jmboyes@whidbey.net, JoanneFB@aol.com, joem@bayou.com, JSSC79B@prodigy.com, jvinci@cybergate.net, jhoffm@ibm.net, jimmyk@new-murphey.tenet.edu, jimkeeffe@accessone.com, jslaughter@pnx.com, jmwr32a@prodigy.com, LizHupp@aol.com, kalawson@shentel.net, katytimes@fbtc.net, Kayou6@aol.com, KFay1220@aol.com, kaygill@juno.com, keith@sota-oh.com, kglover@sturgis.com, KGogots@aol.com, KHolg10296@aol.com, kimfuga@flash.net, kletts@jonesctr.org, KoreenB@aol.com, kwilmot@nde4.nde.state.ne.us, Kupisch@juno.com, kzb@ix.netcom.com, LAING6@aol.com, lammert@txdirect.net, ldobson@aldus.northnet.org, leontodd@execpc.com, Linda-SP@ix.netcom.com, LKFS43A@prodigy.com, linden@oregon.uoregon.edu, LoisS41729@aol.com, LScheffers@aol.com, ltwright@jps.net, lytk73a@prodigy.com, LZJOSHUA@aol.com, macihms@iquest.net, maranatha10@juno.com, martinangell@mymail.net, marksimpson@sprintmail.com, mcintyre@telcoweb.net, mcquillen@misslink.net, mcg1@idt.net, mikencathy@digitalexp.com, millace@hotmail.com, MickEwers@aol.com, michaeloliver@msn.com, mjacques@omnifest.uwm.edu, MJDRED@aol.com, mkfields@rma.edu, MonzoFolk@aol.com, Mothercita@aol.com, mpsjs.eagle@worldnet.att.net, mpoeppel@freenet.columbus.oh.us, MRSHORN@aol.com, Mr_Feathers@classic.msn.com, msiegel@theschool.com, nanbecky@classic.msn.com Copies to: ngjc52a@prodigy.com, nmillar@ix.netcom.com, OURPHONIC@aol.com, PACHY001@aol.com, paescc@wave.net, pathfinder@goodnewsnet.net, pcen@isat.com, philgraf@dsp.com, phonicslady@chipsnet.com, paul.peeters.jourdain@skynet.be, Quentin49@aol.com, QUCX72A@prodigy.com, ragsdale@intellisys.net, RCRMp@aol.com, Redyarrow@aol.com, REPUBLICAN@worldnet.att.net, RETLAWMAN@aol.com, Richshalvoy@prodigy.com, RMC328@aol.com, rneill@flash.net, RSS3528@aol.com, rwiseman@bright.net, sakcpa@sprynet.com, sakossor@voicenet.com, sammiek@midusa.net, sawhite@flash.net, SCOTT4SUE@aol.com, scwatson@bright.net, sepschool@psnw.com, sgluch@earthlink.net, sitler@plix.com, skurnow@ibm.net, SLEMH@aol.com, snyboyblu@webtv.net, sorock@mcs.com, srg@theriver.com, ssmith@chisp.ne, stewartdeuchar@COMPUSERVE.COM, SStewart12@aol.com, studio@intrepid.net, study@ionet.net, SusanH9876@aol.com, Suwkye@aol.com, SWHYNES@aol.com, TAWRIGHT@Wrightmark.com, TFRC@aol.com, theloop@adirondack.fidonet.org, thomsen@magiclink.com, TeresaSLSD@aol.com, thyde@cococo.net, TLOlive@aol.com, tomsml@en.com, townsend@netarrant.net, tkgrm@juno.com, tobefree@alaska.net, tseymour@ameritech.net, Tuckerd1@aol.com, txreadinst@earthlink.net, VLDZ64A@prodigy.com, VOCALIOWA@aol.com, waltnfay@sowega.net, ward@amath.com, warrior@norfolk-county.com, webjefe@electriciti.com, wakm1@ix.netcom.com, wardell@srv.net, willypete@juno.com, womack@grizzly.uwyo.edu, wstarr@shell.dialnet.net, yajn69d@prodigy.com, zip30@juno.com, ZorroFRR@aol.com Subject: Another case of "How Dumb Can They Be ." Mary, Here's a gem from the desert to share with everyone. This story appeared on the front page of the Arizona Daily Star this morning complete with two color photos and one black and white on a second page. Since I do not have a scanner I will summarize. Headline: Clinton trial has drama--all G rated Subheadline: Sixth-grade jury deadlocked on president's guilt. In a classic case of "how dumb can you be?" a sixth grade social studies teacher here in Tucson used precious class time that could have been devoted to actual learning to orchestrating a "mock trial" of President Clinton. The pupils at Booth-Fickett Magnet School "learned the whys and what-fors of the scandal, studied the players and auditioned for roles in a mock court that would decide the fate of the president." The reporter went on to say that "with roles assigned, speeches memorized and grown-up attire hanging loosely off pre-pubescent frames, the pupils got down to the task of deciding whether the president of the United States is a scoundrel or a saint." "Lee Parra, the teacher allowed the pupils to debate whether there was a relationship between Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, who was 21 when the alleged affair is said to have started. But to keep the proceedings from getting too salacious, the teacher barred any talk of sex between the two--or between Clinton and any other woman." [I am assuming the reporter means the students who played these roles in this wonderful example of "real-world" problem solving]. The reporter goes on to explain that "instead of R-rated talk of phone sex and late-night trysts, the trial focused on an audiotape of Lewinsky talking to her friend--transformed, to accommodate classroom acting skills, from Linda Tripp to Leonard Tripp. The reporter closes the story with this gem. "But despite the three-pieces suits, the grown-up vocabulary and the serious subject matter, this isn't the real world. It's the sixth grade. And here, deliberations don't drag on endlessly. They end when the bell rings." When I think of the valuable class time that was wasted on this drivel I want to cry. When I think of the innocent children who are subjected to the sex life of our President as their lesson plan for the week, I'm incensed. And, when I think of the teacher and administrator who called the newspaper to get publicity for this insanity [because it seemed to be seriously reported as "good news from the schools"], it's no wonder that the number parents out there who are angry, frightened, and troubled about what they see happening in the public schools is growing daily! Elaine K. McEwan-Adkins Date sent: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:07:29 -0500 To: joaneb001@aol.com From: Fred Battey Subject: Important Read: Planned Loop Changes The following information is being sent so that loop members are aware of some changes that are being planned for the near future. I stress that you are to take no action at this point as we want to work bugs out of the system so there is no interruption in loop operation. When we are set to go I will notify all members and provide instructions on how to proceed. During the changeover period and for a period after, until we get all members transferred over, I will continue the current system also. Basically the changes will take away the task of members maintaining address lists for the entire loop, eliminate much of the forwarding and make msg. sending faster. Earle Fox (efox@road.emmaus.org) has operated a rather extensive Bulletin Board Service for a couple of years or more. He has now expanded his system capability to include a list server as well, plus additional capability I will briefly mention later in this msg. He has offered our loop the list server capability plus additional services noted below for a very minimal voluntary donation of $5. per year per member. This is not a mandatory charge and is purely voluntary on the part of a member. He would, of course, I'm sure accept amounts in excess of that amount. :-) The money would go toward software expenses, upgrades and hardware. Putting it on a voluntary donation basis takes away considerable bookkeeping, follow up on delinquent members, and he feels he can operate on this basis. The $5. donation will cover the e-mail capability as well as the planned forum and libraries. He is offering this as a service and the e-mail list server would operate independently of his regular BBS system and the portions of his system devoted to his other activities. I will continue to administer (moderate) the system, albeit with extensive assistance from Earle initially. Essentially the e-mail portion of the system would function similarly to John Stone's ECC. Members would subscribe by sending a msg. with Subscribe in the Topic/Subject line and send the msg. to EdLoop@road.emmaus.org (Don't do this now.). I would review the request and subscribe the member (add them to the list), or seek further information. To send a msg. to a single member you would do as today, send it directly to their e-mail address. To send to the whole loop the msg. would be addressed to EdLoop@road.emmaus.org and would be automatically distributed to all members. A msg. that was to go to a member, and also the loop would have the member address in the To: and the list server address in the CC: This will eliminate the need for members to maintain address lists. I will maintain a master list which will determine distribution at EdLoop, and have a backup master here on my system. At this point I plan on members having the ability to get a list of loop members whenever they want. The capability is on the system and I prefer that the loop membership be available. ________________________________________ Planned for the future, following putting the list server/e-mail system on line, is a forum where msgs. up to 60 days old will be available to members. Thus if you lose a msg. or simply want to scan past msgs., a member will be able to go to the forum and do so. It is also planned that when msgs. come off the forum (after 60 days) they will be retained in one of a series of libraries, currently planned to be filed by subject matter. While the e-mail system operates essentially independently of Earle's bulletin board system, the forum and libraries will actually be a part of, although separate from the forums and libraries he currently has. That is, EdLoop materials will be in their own forum and libraries. Access to the forum and libraries will require that a member have internet access, and a Telnet program. Earle has an excellent PC Telnet program for free downloading on his web site. The details of access will all be defined later when we are ready to introduce those capabilities. Again, all members currently are equipped to function on the list server/e-mail system whether or not you have internet access. ________________________________________ If you have questions, comments or concerns re the above please contact me. I will either come up with an answer, pass it on to Earle for a response, or in the ways of Washington - hedge. :-) Fred Date sent: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 18:10:00 -0500 To: education-consumers@tricon.net From: "J. E. Stone" Subject: Subscription & posting options & EARLY BIRD BONUS Attention ClearingHouse Subscribers: The following subscription options are effective as of February 1, 1998. If you have not seen the several postings discussing subscription options, please contact me for copies and answers to your questions. They range from full "regular" subscriptions to paid scholarships and "no cost" forwardings for secondary subscribers. The primary purpose of changes being undertaken is to improve the value and usefulness of the ClearingHouse. Over the past several months the volume of e-mail coming from the ClearingHouse has become overwhelming. Far more was being sent than all but the most dedicated subscriber could read. Simply sorting through it in order to identify items of interest was becoming a major job. Senders were wasting their time posting quality material because there was little chance that it would be seen much less read. The following is intended for the benefit both readers and writers: Readers by affording fewer but more readable and significant messages; writers by affording access to an interested audience that is not swamped with e-mail. If you are interested in doing more than just talking about education, please choose the options that will make the ClearingHouse a commercial success. Nothing will speak louder to the rest of the world. Nothing will draw more education experts to the cause of parents and consumers. The court of public opinion is rather like a court of law. If you want to win, get a good attorney. Subscription options are outlined below. All subscriptions begun during the month of February 1998 will run for a period of 13 months ending March 1, 1999. EARLY BIRD BONUS: The first fifty regular or basic subscriptions requested by e-mail will receive 25 kb of posting free of charge (in addition to the monthly amount accompanying their subscription). EARLY BIRD SUBSCRIBERS WHOSE CHECK FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF THEIR SUBSCRIPTION ARRIVES BY MIDNIGHT, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1998 WILL HAVE THEIR FREE 25KB DOUBLED TO 50 KB. 1. Regular subscription: $3.95/ month ($47.40/year) -----Posting charge: 10 cents/kb (6 kb/month is free). Three kb is approximately one typewritten page. -----For subscribers who want all postings and intend to submit materials frequently. Especially appropriate for individuals who may be forwarding ClearingHouse materials to and from e-mail loops -----Password access to archive included. 2. Basic subscription: $2.95/month ($35.40/year) -----Posting charge: 25 cents/kb (3 kb/month free). -----For subscribers who want all postings and intend to submit materials infrequently. -----Password access to archive included. 3. Scholarship subscription: Free but limited availability -----Posting charge: 25 cents/kb (3 kb/month free). -----For subscribers who want all postings and intends to submit materials infrequently. Mainly interested in learning about issues. Ordinarily limited to one year. -----Password access to archive included. 4. Trial subscription: Free for one month -----Posting charge: 25 cents/kb (3kb free) -----For subscribers who want all postings and intends to post infrequently. Mainly newcomers who want to see what the ClearingHouse is about. 5. Secondary subscriber: Free. Receives ClearingHouse postings forwarded by a primary subscriber -----Posts messages to the ClearingHouse through a subscriber, otherwise responds off-list -----For individuals who want to read ClearingHouse postings but have little interest in contributing information or opinion or posting questions. *****In the interest of giving everyone an opportunity to adjust to the new system there will be no charges for posting during February 1998. If you want to check out your totals at the end of the month, keep your copies or call me. *****Posting charges will be invoiced 6 months following the start of your subscription or when you reach a total of $35, whichever comes first. *****Individuals desiring scholarship subscriptions, please contact me by e-mail. *****Individuals who subscribed to the ClearingHouse after January 1, 1998 will be carried as trial subscriptions until March 1, 1998. *****Individuals who desire to become secondary subscribers are asked to let me know of your interest. We are trying to form sub loops that will forward to people in certain areas or to individuals who have an interest in some particular topic. Numerous such loops comprised of friends or members of parent organizations or other such aggregations already exist. I will try to match you up or form a group that will fit your situation. Please send your check or money order to the address below. J. E. Stone, Ed.D. Education Consumers ClearingHouse P.O. Box 4411 Johnson City, TN 37602 phone & fax 423-282-6832 e-mail professor@tricon.net http://www.tricon.net/Comm/educon EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: JoanEB001@aol.com Date sent: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 11:30:14 EST To: Fredb001@aol.com Subject: Job Shadow Heads Up! TO ALL: Take a good look at the Job Shadowing Day Information posted by Lauren! TAKE A GOOD LOOK -- and begin to see the house of cards, Emperor's New Clothes, dumb-down marketing agendas driving us to the toppling line of dominoes being set in place, whether deliberately or accidentally. It used to be that "the business of America is business." Now the business of America is playing into the sandbox games mentality of educrats and worse. Rather than write a lengthy commentary here, I'll just make two points: First, why does business want unprepared and entertainment-happy "students" coming in to distrupt their business operations, at a cost of time and money just to get brownie points in public? Second, AND MOST IMPORTANT: Take a good look at the partial list of sponsors. (It says, "including," which is a way of saying the list is not complete.) I'll just pick a few. Others undoubtedly can pick others. American Medical Association -- Playing into the Clinton Socialized Health Care Plan, and managed care groups. Hospitals are overbuilding, overmedicating, raising rates -- and ALREADY LAYING OFF HANDS-ON CARE PERSONNEL AT THE SAME TIME THEY ARE TOUTING THE NEED FOR WORKERS. ATT & T: Just this week announced they would be cutting 19,000 from their workforce, to increase profitability and deal with the competition from other communications companies. Other communications companies are on the list also. CitiBank. Just this week read of a CitiBank v.p. who was arrested for embezzling millions of dollars. Hospitality Group: Restaurants, Hotels and Motels. Watch your local news. Restaurants and Hotels are overbuilding. Pay scale in these particular "growth industries" is minimal. Many colleges are pushing full-steam ahead on churning out more "career path" students for this going-nowhere-for-most- employees field. Motorola. Saw something recently where they WERE the last American manufacturer of TVs -- moving to overseas operations. International Paper. Selling off divisions. Here in our area, employees have been anxiously awaiting news of their fate -- will the local division be bought and continued, bought and cannibalized, bought and closed, or just plain closed by IP? Food companies: Many small announcements of closing out food processing plants, on a continual basis. Some already owned by foreign-based conglomerates, by the way. Just read down the list and see what besides looking for awards and citations for cooperating in the destruction of education, business and American taxpayers are offered? If you'll pardon some black humor, I notice that White House Fellows Assn. is last on the list. Send your daughter to work at the White House on Tuesday???? We know that today's students are ill-prepared for "the workplace." They will fit right in with all the pointy-headed go-along/get-along types buying into this nonsense. The money spent ballyhooing this charade would cover all the "needs of schools," and then some. The largest career-type shadowings on the list are GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. Who pays those salaries? Who is building Big Brother/Big Government? What kind of thinking comes up with the idea that APPARENTLY ALL STUDENTS WILL BE WORKING IN OFFICE SETTINGS IN THE FUTURE?? Final food for thought point: Rep. William Goodling, Chairman of the House Education Committee is first on the list of Representatives involved in this ridiculous event. If anyone listened to him on C-SPAN broadcasts of the CPAC speeches yesterday, they would have seen and heard a performance nearly equal to the administration dog and pony shows on education. He started off oh-so- concerned about all the bad things conservatives complain about in education. By the time he got through it was like a repeat of the Ron Silver comment at the first Clinton inauguration. "Oh, I forgot, these are OUR planes now." The agenda doesn't change, it's just the party affiliation that changes hats at the top. Some of the younger people on the CPAC panels yesterday emphasized over and over that legislators don't know what they are voting for, that they don't know what is going on -- and the only way that they can know is if people fill them in on details. On this job shadowing thing. Either people don't know what is afoot and need to be told -- or, as the pollsters keep telling us, they do know and don't care. Which is it?? JOAN To: The LOOP:; From: LScheffers@aol.com (by way of James Kilpatrick) Subject: Fwd: Goals 2000 Community Action Took Kit article Date sent: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:17:55 -0600 Subject: Goals 2000 Tool Kit Designed to Change Your Attitude From: jwdelano@hotmail.com (news hound) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:41:27 GMT The following excerpt came from an article titled, "Propaganda Kit 2000" located at this address: http://www.digitalsuccess.com/CyberRoute66/The Schoolhouse/kit2000.htm The National Education Goals Panel is now distributing a Community Action Tool Kit developed by the U.S. Department of Education in Washington and its network of Regional Education Laboratories. The 5-pound kit is chock full of brightly colored manuals for community organizing that are printed on spare-no-expense glossy paper. Even sign-up and reminder sheets for local Goals 2000 activists (whom the feds evidently assume to be too inept to draw up their own) are printed on the high-quality paper. "Only by changing the attitudes and behavior of community members," DOE's kit-makers state, "will it be possible to reach the National Education Goals." Most likely that's because of the hispanic population, in Germany, they have schools specfically for students who don't plan to take more than 9 years of education. We just call them failures. > Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 08:45:19 -0700 (PDT) > From: Charles L Hagopian > Subject: Re: Near final US vs. Germany STW CIM comparison > To: Arthur Hu > Arthur, > > In Sacramento 50% of our students drop out before graduating from HS. > > Marvi > From: cjo@ior.com Date sent: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:10:06 -0500 To: cjo@ior.com Subject: Statistics talks FYI gang, Cindy Omlin >Delivered-To: cjo@on-ramp.ior.com >Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:49:07 -0800 (PST) >From: Kurt Sahl >To: Wa-Math-Sci_List >Subject: Statistics talks >Sender: owner-wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu > >I realize this is quite a drive for many of you. If you are in the >Seattle area (or within an hour's drive), it might be a nice change of >pace. >Kurt Sahl > >**************************All headers stripped********************** > >STATISTICS IN THE SCHOOLS: WISDOM AND FOLLY >Speaker: David Moore >Date: Wednesday February 11 >Place: C-301 Padelford/ University of Washington >Time: 4:45 >Abstract: >Statistics in the schools is in fashion, encouraged by the NCTM >Standards and capped by the new Advanced Placement examination. This >talk will suggest why ``working with data and chance'' deserves to be >considered as a main strand in school mathematics and will offer some >practical suggestions and cautions for teachers. What should we teach >all students? Where are the pitfalls? Where are the NCTM Standards >unrealistic? What conceptual structure undergirds modern college >statistics and the AP exam? > >This is a short talk followed by discussion. School teachers will >receive first priority if the number of attendees must be limited to >allow an effective discussion. RSVP requested to Tim Hesterberg. > > >For further information visit > http://www.biostat.washington.edu/asa/ >or contact Tim Hesterberg . > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >David S. Moore is Shanti S. Gupta Distinguished Professor of Statistics >at Purdue University and 1998 President of the American Statistical >Association. He received his A.B. from Princeton and the Ph.D. from >Cornell, both in mathematics. He has written many research papers in >statistical theory and served on the editorial boards of several major >journals. Professor Moore is an elected fellow of the American >Statistical Association and of the Institute of Mathematical >Statistics, and an elected member of the International Statistical >Institute. He has served as program director for statistics and >probability at the National Science Foundation. > >In recent years, Professor Moore has devoted his attention to the >teaching of statistics. He was the content developer for the >Annenberg/Corporation for Public Broadcasting college-level telecourse >{Against All Odds: Inside Statistics} and other video series, and >is the author of influential articles on statistics education and of >several leading texts. Professor Moore has served as president of the >International Association for Statistical Education, and has received >the Mathematical Association of America's national award for >distinguished college or university teaching of mathematics. He is >currently a member of the National Research Council's Mathematical >Sciences Education Board. > >To request disability accommodations, contact the Office of the ADA >Coordinator ten days in advance of the event. 543-6450 (voice); >543-6452 (TDD); 685-3885 (FAX); access@u.washington.edu (email). > > > > > > > > Date sent: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 19:00:33 -0500 To: arthurhu@halcyon.com From: Fred Battey Subject: Re: Roland on 10th grade certificate Arthur - I just want to say that your continuing series that compares the U.S. system to the German system through your contacts there is really outstanding and very revealing. I only hope that people are reading them for all of the direct information as well as the nuances of meaning. I have been assuming that you are addressing your posts to the whole Edloop since you haven't asked for forwarding. Thanks again. Fred At 12:14 PM 1/31/98 +0000, you wrote: >Roland says that their 11th grade degree is just as good as our >12th grade one (likely their 13th grade is equal to 1 year of >college or junior college?) > To: arthurhu@halcyon.com From: "James Kilpatrick" Subject: Re: Roland on 10th grade certificate Date sent: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:29:33 -0600 Folks always want to defend the un-defendable. Jimmy >Roland says that their 11th grade degree is just as good as our >12th grade one (likely their 13th grade is equal to 1 year of >college or junior college?) > >Interesting he says that they have a middle ages system that >works, but we never had a middle ages, so maybe we don't need >one - tell THAT to Marc Tucker, that we're about to adopt a >system so advanced that it comes from the !@#$% MIDDLE >AGES!!!! And his essay tests are from 100 years ago, he >forgot that they were replaced by ... MULTIPLE CHOICE >TESTS! > >Tucker isn't taking us into the 21st century, he's taking us >back into the MIDDLE AGES! Date sent: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 11:32:17 -0500 To: education-consumers@tricon.net From: "J. E. Stone" Subject: Posting charges, Marilyn's concern, and quality Copies to: mkr@merle.acns.nwu.edu ClearingHouse Subscribers, Marilyn disapproves of my proposal to charge senders for posting material to the ClearingHouse. She believes that senders should be encouraged to send their often very enlightening materials, not charged for sending them. I agree that we want all of the informative and enlightening material we can get. The problem, however, is that the enlightening stuff is mixed in with bunches of posts that are not easy to read (i.e., they are cluttered or were hastily composed and not well edited) and others that are replies or comments that should have been directed to the sender and not to everyone. The posting charges I have proposed are intended as an incentive for careful use of sending privileges. My belief is that it will work the way long-distance charges do on phone service. As to the problem of encouraging posts of materials that are especially informative and enlightening, I urge everyone to contact any individual whose postings you find especially important or interesting and ask them to send you a copy of items they intend to write but may not post (presumably items addressing a given topic) and let them know that you would like to have the option of "publishing" their material for them. I would think that Marilyn's well stated and informative announcements on charter schooling would be an excellent example of the sort of posting that someone would want to "publish." As another possibility, you may want to announce to the ClearingHouse that you are interested in materials pertaining to a given topic and ask that anyone who has such information send it to you. You can then choose to send or not send it to the ClearingHouse if the originator of the information chooses not to post it. We would thereby have sponsors for postings in a given area of interest. The problem with communications among large numbers of subscribers is not the ease of sending messages, it is the problem of reading the messages. Of course, the information overload created by too many messages is directly related to the ease with which messages can be sent. Although I intend to eventually go to a bulletin board system as a means of cutting down on e-mail volume and overloaded mailboxes, the problem of insuring more readable and significant messages will still have to be addressed. A bulletin board with hundreds of messages still requires the reader to click on them and/or scroll through them and find the information of interest. Search engines can help but they are only as good as the searcher. I have done all I know to do to deal with the problem. I have made proposals and solicited alternatives and I feel like that which is now on the table will work. It will take time, however, for everyone to get used to a new arrangement and to see the results. One year from now, however, I think you will see a vastly more useful and informative ClearingHouse, i.e., one where postings that you send are likely to be read and not just deleted and one where postings that you receive will be more concise and readable than many of those you have seen in the past. Any messaging system that maintains quality will require someone's time and energy to insure quality control. If you want to see what discussion groups look like without quality control, check out some of the unmoderated news groups or listserves that are widely available. The ClearingHouse has numerous well informed subscribers and it affords access to consumer-friendly information from bona fide education experts--a combination that is, indeed, in short supply. Over the past two years we have acquired a fair amount of credibility. Policymakers, media, and the public pay attention when they see items forwarded from the Education Consumers ClearingHouse. I think our impact will grow as we build on that success. I hope that everyone will stick with us and give it a chance to work. Regards, John J. E. Stone, Ed.D. Education Consumers ClearingHouse P.O. Box 4411 Johnson City, TN 37602 phone & fax 423-282-6832 e-mail professor@tricon.net http://www.tricon.net/Comm/educon EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE --text follows this line-- Did some web surfing among the standards I have bookmarked, it appears about half of the standards do NOT explicitly require teaching of long division at all, most of the others are at G5, with the exception of WA's hardest 4th grade test in the world, which has at least 2 2 digit divisors. The TVW realaudio session shows that Terry Bergeson, our ed meister says that our test assumes that all students have mastered arithmetic by the 4th grade, even though most standards show students are still learning how to do multi-digit computations in the 5th and 6th grades. Do we have a great state supe or what? I've taken the basic division levels, and ranked them by grade level, and who's standard it is, I believe I amm the first person to ever attempt to compare by grade level, and who's standard it is, I believe I amm the first person to ever attempt to compare standards in this manner. The TVW realaudio is great, it's at: http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/98/02/ratest.htm Date sent: 2 Feb 1998 15:18:44 -0800 From: "Mike McKeown" Subject: Re: Calif. Professors Speak Out on Math To: arthurhu@halcyon.com RE>>Calif. Professors Speak Out on Math 2/2/98 We haven't looked specifically at this topic in all possible standards. This one was striking in the state's original draft because students were expected to do one digit divisors manually, and then, in the next grade they had "divide using an appropriate technique," in which calculator was one of the techniques. Long division may not be something we do all the time, but there are understandings of numbers and other issues that are built on being able to do this, and there are actually things in algebra that use long division. are understandings of numbers and other issues that are built on being able to do this, and there are actually things in algebra that use long division. You might check Texas. I think they do two digit, but no more, divisors. Mike -------------------------------------- Date: 2/2/98 3:09 PM To: Mike McKeown From: arthurhu@halcyon.com Do you have any other evidence of districts or states that have deliberately dropped long division? Myself, I don't think it's of much practical use anymore, I always use calculators for this now, but I would keep teaching it until we know it's a dead dino. Many standards only says "division" under their standards withoug specifying whether manual division by 2 or 3 digits is really meant. > To: The LOOP:; Thanks, I've posted this at http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/98/02/stwtran.txt so that everybody else can see it. Pass it on so that everybody else can book mark this. You got my summary on the fact that Germany has 3 different levels of graduation certificates, and he says the US is bad at tracking???? > Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 17:43:57 -0600 > To: arthurhu@halcyon.com This fellow was telling WA legislators to be wary of the goofy new reforms they've commited this state to. I still don't understand how Peggy Johnson can keep harping on getting rid of stuff that hasn't been backed by research when no research is just what this whole peformance-based Certificate of Mastery education reform program we're committed to is based on. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- To: The LOOP:; Subject: W. Raspberry on Carnine Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:34:12 -0600 Here's the link to the actual bill: \clip\98\02\s5890.txt http://leginfo.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/senate/5875-5899/5890_021897 S-1343.3 SENATE BILL 5890 Sen Zarelli bill to repeal education reform. Rep Joseph Zarelli Here's how to contact the sponsor for support and help: http://leginfo.leg.wa.gov/www/senate/members/senmem18.htm Legislative Office: 203 Institutions Building; P.O. Box 40482; Olympia, WA 98504-0482; Telephone: (360) 786-7634; Fax: (360) 786-7173; Toll-Free Legislative Hotline: 1-800-562-6000; zarelli_jo@leg.wa.gov It was funny to see all the parents showing up saying get rid of this junk, and teachers and educators pleading to save funding for their wonderful programs to "increase student learning" *buzz* *click* > Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:54:16 -0500 > To: joaneb001@aol.com > From: marjorie/gene malone (by way of Fred Battey ) > Subject: Ending OBE! > Message from Washington state on SB-58lO to end OBE in that state is > prepared. Write to the State Capitol-Olympia-Legislative Reference-for > copy of the bill. 985O1-Zip Code. Perhaps someone else on E-loop has > more complete information on this development. > > gene Malone > freedom 2OOO/USA Box ll24 Kenosha,Wisc. 53l4l ph/fax l-4l4-658-475l > Anyone from Washington state-help-more information. > > >