🚀 go-pugleaf

In a message of <Nov 17 04:53>, ivler@mdcbbs.com (J.M. Ivler ivler@mdcbbs.com)
writes:

 >In the non-financial area, the State should establish minimum standards 
 >that 
 >are required befor a student can move into the following grades: 5th, 7th, 
 >9th and 11th. These standards would eliminate the passing on of 
 >unqualified 
 >students. It would take the wind out of the sails of parents who say that 
 >their 
 >children are being treated unfairly when being held back. It takes a 
 >subjective 
 >practice and makes it objective.

I've agreed with everything you have said up till here.  We have a daughter
who is dyslexic.  However, the district refused to acknowledge her dyslexia
and insisted that it was a maturation problem.  By the time we recognized the 
problem and started working on it was too late and she simply was not ready to 
go on to the next grade, she had to be held back.  However we are two years
down the road and she is slipping behind again and we can't afford the special 
tutoring she needs.  The district is being stubborn again and we're getting
very angry at their refusal to see the problem.

[BTW, please don't bombard me with messages about IEPs and SSTs.  We know all 
about those.]

My objection to what you have said above is that often times the district
plays a very substantial role in process of creating a failing student. 
Creating an objective measure implies that those we do the measuring are
objective.  My experience is that they are not.

--- Mark Perew  Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org
--- Mark's Information Repository and Funtime Emporium (1:103/208.201)


--- Squish v1.00