Swift & Change Able - Latest comments on 100% Bull$#!% (Part 1)

In response to: 100% Bull$#!% (Part 1)

Art [Visitor] — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:43:28 +0000

Very important perspective in this article.

The NCLB "safe harbor" rule requires both a 10% reduction in the number of students not meeting standard and progress on at least one of the other indicators in addition to the state test

The "safe harbor" provision also existed in previous incarnations of ESEA, but in different form than NCLB. In earlier versions, the "safe harbor" was protection against reduction in the amount of Title 1 / Chapter 1 funds going to a school.

In response to: 100% Bull$#!% (Part 1)

Cheryl Sattler [Visitor] — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:08:31 +0000

Thanks,Charlie, for a coherent explanation of safe harbor - long overdue. To me, the questions at the heart of the reauth are much more difficult than differentiated accountability - i.e., what expectations are really reasonable for students with disabilities (once we get that group down to students who really belong there, not just kids who haven't been taught to read) - do we need more disaggregation inthis category - and how can we align what we know about how long it takes kids to learn academic English with accountability.

In response to: 100% Bull$#!% (Part 1)

Charlie [Member] — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:58:52 +0000

Who's outraged? Who said anything would "result"? 100% is a goal. Clinton had the same goal when he was Pres. Catch up on your history sometime and get back to me. And read my past posts and see if you don't think we spread praise and criticism equally around. Didn't your mom ever tell you: "measure twice and cut once". And always count to 10 before you spout off.

In response to: 100% Bull$#!% (Part 1)

David [Visitor] — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:22:32 +0000

If the percentages are true, how come you've never before called out the President, Secretary or members of Congress for similarly stating that NCLB will result in 100% proficiency in 2014. As you've shown here, only 61% of Penna. 3rd graders have to be proficient by 2014.

Where has your outrage and truth telling been as the administration disingenuously claimed what you knew to be false and incorrect numbers for years?

In response to: 100% Bull$#!% (Part 1)

Charlie [Member] — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:30:35 +0000

Judith - I think you missed the entire point of the piece. Was 100% Bull$#!% too subtle? 1) NCLB does no require 100%. 2) NCLB does give credit for growth through its "Safe Harbor" provision. Actually, it gives credit for very SMALL growth. I could go on and on but that is all for now. I leave you and John with the following quote from the late Bruce Lee: "I'm pointing at the moon and you're looking at my finger". You guys gotta get out of the NEA Matrix and see reality rather than the illusion.

In response to: 100% Bull$#!% (Part 1)

Judith [Visitor] — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:44:36 +0000

Safe Harbor is an important relief for many schools and districts but NCLB is flawed in many ways.

The major flaw with NCLB is that it is statistically impossible to meet 100% of any thing 100% of the time.

Another flaw is that it is not a value added model and does not give credit for growth (no matter how large) if it is not at the set target.

Benchmarks need to be set by the individual school based on where they are and who they are teaching.

I could go on and on but that is all for now.

In response to: 100% Bull$#!% (Part 1)

Charlie [Member] — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:52:07 +0000

Who said it was a loophole?

I helped write the provision, John.

This IS one of the reasons I support NCLB. It is much more reasonable than you and others seem to think. It gives credit for growth and sets reasonable interim goals. NCLB sets the minimum levels of performance. PA is free to set higher goals for Philadelphia schools. Do you think it should or shouldn't?

I would ask: Why do you oppose NCLB it if you know so little about how it really works? The safe harbor provision is six years old and no secret in the ed policy world.

Has it ever occurred to you that a lot of your frustration has more to do with the way your school and district are run, which from your reports seems to be less than satisfactorily to say the least, especially from the emails you send me that you ask me not to publish, than it has to do with NCLB and other federal laws?

In response to: 100% Bull$#!% (Part 1)

john thompson [Visitor] — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:39:31 +0000

Great analysis. I've always suspected that the real AYP would look something like your chart, but your graphic said it so well.

So again I have to ask. Why are you still so supportive of NCLB? You don't think that an NCLB II would produce the same type of loopholes?