LETTERS.

Skeptical About Accountability, Too

Finally, someone has had the courage to tell it like it really is!

I could not possibly agree with Paul Houston more about the state of accountability in public education and was delighted to see someone of his stature take on this issue in his Executive Perspective column ("Skeptical About Our Nation's Accountability Agenda," November 1999).

Now, how do those of us in the public schools get this information out to families in our school districts and members of our communities? How do we do so without sounding as though we are whining and just making excuses? How do we counter the reporters, editorial writers and legislators who have only one purpose in mind--selling newspapers and making political hay at the expense of teachers and kids and public schools?

We are throwing money and time down a bottomless pit. I, for one, do not believe that our public school system is broken. As director of curriculum/personnel for a small district. I have watched my time and our limited budget be consumed chasing numbers and statistics that tell us really little if anything about the education of individual children. In order to provide the state-required reports, we have had to farm out several operations (at considerable cost) and I have had to divert my time from curriculum and instructional improvements to gathering and manipulating numbers.

Education is not a manufacturing process. If we're building a car or some other commodity, we can send back a part if it doesn't meet certain specifications or we can melt it down and start over. We cannot do this with children and their education.

If we are really serious about improving education in America, then we need to deal with the real issues--what Houston refers to as "the expensive, difficult problems"--such as childhood poverty and the readiness level of children when they first come to school.

I am most concerned about the narrowing of our curriculum. Granted there are a number of favorite units on whales or transportation that do not deal with the Stanford Achievement Test 9th Edition, but they often are the kinds of learning that motivate our kids to want to learn more.

TERRY WEATHERBY

Director of Curriculum and Personnel,

Mountain View School District,

Ontario, Calif.

I read Paul Houston's Executive Perspective column in November with great interest and agreement.

We in Kentucky have raised similar concerns to state-level education leaders and legislators. Our pleas have fallen on deaf ears. We are dismissed as whiners and malcontents.

As educators, we always have been held accountable by our communities, parents and students long before the advent of accountability assessment. Those who question our state's direction and offer alternative solutions are more in tune to what is happening among children. Unfortunately, as Houston noted in his column, those making the decisions and steering the ship are out of touch with the child in the classroom, leaving them unable to determine actual measures of achievement.

Common sense and research tell us that no one assessment can accurately judge a school or system any more than the score of one athletic contest can measure a team's value to an institution. No allowance is made for the human element, or affective areas, to enter into the accountability mix.

I send my thanks to Houston for reminding us there are those in our field who can see the light. As such, I believe there always will be hope for our children and for the future of measuring their (and our) achievement.

RICHARD W. WEBB

Superintendent,

Burgin Independent School District,

Burgin, Ky.

Paul Houston hit the nail on the head in his column about accountability.

The mandated fad known as standards-based education, formerly known as outcomes-based education, is being touted as the "silver bullet solution," yet it will drive us deeper into a hole no matter which special interest wins control of the standards/outcomes and assessments.

In reality, this reform serves to produce greater accountability to the bureaucrats and pads the pockets of education reformers. It does not bring greater accountability to the children and families that the public schools are supposed to serve.

My interest in education is solely as a mother. I am not affiliated with any special-interest group, political or otherwise.

NANCY HALL

Norwich, Vt.

Gearing Up for the Gifted

Your Editor's Note ("Sorting Out the Mixing Bowl," October 1999) regarding differentiated learning within the regular classroom is a subject dear to my heart. Gifted and talented students also need equity in education.

Our small rural elementary school cannot feasibly provide a pullout gifted education program for our exceptionally bright students nor do we believe in separating them. Our school board decided to give two teachers a mentorship for two years to study how to teach these students within the regular classroom. Then they were responsible for providing in-service training to all of our teachers and ongoing support for implementation and lesson plans.

We are now in our fourth year. Our teachers attend the California Association of the Gifted conference annually and are involved in studying multiple intelligences.

As with any new approach in education, success depends on teachers-their training, ability, willingness and enthusiasm for the program. Strategies for teaching the gifted and talented need to be internalized by teachers and included in all lesson plans.

Our program has been an outstanding success for those students whose teachers have fully implemented the strategies for differentiation, depth, complexity and sometimes compacting. The level of all students in these classrooms has risen.

Most colleges do not teach teachers the strategies needed to teach the gifted and talented. In-service programs for all teachers over an extended time by a mentor teacher, well trained in teaching the gifted, and continued support will raise the level of all students and provide for the special needs of the gifted and talented student.

CHERYL REYNOLDS

Member, Board of Education,

Pine Ridge Elementary School District, Prather, Calif.

Correction

The People page in December incorrectly reported Ronald Friedman's affiliation. He is superintendent in Elwood, N.Y., not Elmont, N.Y.