EDUCATIONAL ENGINEERING
Charles M. Richardson, B.S., M.S., P.E.,   cmr1234@aol.com
133 Lodge Avenue, Huntington Station, NY 11746-2808, 631-427-7058;
FAX 424-1039

December 8, 1999
Faso02.TXT

Hon. John Faso
NYS Assembly Minority Leader
LOB 933
Albany, NY 12248

Dear John:

Thank you for sending your Task Force report, "Raising the Bar."

I was astounded and upset to discover that your two Task Force
Vice-Chairmen completely overlooked inviting well-known education
activists living in their Districts to attend any of your meetings
or provide any of the information you are/were seeking.  I refer to
two officers of the grass-roots group, "ESTEEM" (Empire State
Taskforce for Excellence in Education Methods), which has been
monitoring education reform for nearly a decade.  They include
myself, chair of the Curriculum Committee and a constituent of Jim
Conte, and Dr. Aldo Bernardo who chairs the group and is a
constituent of Jay Dinga!

Both Dr. Bernardo and myself have had frequent conversations with
our Assemblymen on educational topics, both in district and in
Albany, and we are well known to Commissioner Mills, who has met
with the ESTEEM organization.

Yet, neither of us were made aware of the existence of your Task
Force that was actively seeking the kinds of information we live,
eat, sleep & breathe!!!

In a meeting with Jim about this last Thursday, he said the Task
Force was "not really holding public hearings" but rather "meeting
with teacher and parent groups at various locations around the
state."  Does not ESTEEM fit somehow into the above categories?
Please consider the following:

  >->     Educators within the system are so steeped in its
          philosophies and practices that they are unlikely to
          verbalize necessary critiques of defective ingrained
          practices (Achilles' heels? Sacred cows?)(I had 30 years
          of engineering experience before "converting" to
          education, and am appalled at the non-scientific
          mindlessness of the "system!"), and

  >->     Parents likely to be contacted through such educator
          channels are UN-likely to be critical activists who
          can/would identify cause-and-effect relationships which
          could improve your understanding so as to lead you to
          identify/evaluate strategies for solutions/improvements.


Though it's logical that you want input via the above channels, we
have learned that such input is usually biased, one-sided, and
fails to properly illuminate the tough issues in ways your Task
Force needs.  Securing a balanced view demands wider and more
rigorous probing.

Two years ago we delivered an 85-page curriculum document to
Commissioner Mills, and subsequently a detailed comparison of the
Sequential I Math Regents exams of 1990 and 1996, showing the
latter to be significantly EASIER than the former.  (We had hoped
to do the same for English & Social Studies.)  So far, the above
efforts have had no observable effect.

You would think that if NYSED "professionals" were sincere in
wanting better deals for the children, they would welcome input
from people like Aldo & myself. Instead, the late Assistant
Commissioner for Curriculum & Assessment, Ed Lalor, deliberately
forbade me to attend a committee working on new math exams!

As for the Task Force report, the upbeat tone is welcome -- but
expected:  Who can be against "raising standards" and "helping
every child reach his potential?"  Unfortunately, the document is
rife with contradictions and statements which reflect major
misunderstandings of the depth and degenerative effects of the non-
scientific experience of the troops, and the manipulative behaviors
of the "system experts" from the top down.  My allegation (in Nov.
7 letter) of "academic fraud at every level" is not made lightly.
All of this critique is not to denigrate the work of dedicated
local teachers, but to indicate the folly of their efforts in a
flawed system, in which they themselves are victimized.

On page five, for instance, paragraph two contains two glaring
inconsistencies:  Untrue hype about "finest anywhere," -- obviously
contradicted by the remainder of the page -- and the misconception
that "scholarship recognition and awards" are measures of general
quality in the schools.  Then in the fifth paragraph, the re-
evaluating of SAT score comparisons to "adjust for the high number
of students taking the test in NY" smacks of deceptive PR, harking
back to earlier educator claims that the cause of the "SAT sag" was
more students taking the tests, bringing down the averages.  Were
that a true picture, there would be at least as many HIGH scores as
ever.  BUT -- in 1972 the total (nationwide) number of verbal
scores over 750 was about 2800;  by 1988 that number had dropped
below 1300 -- a greater than 50% drop among our best and brightest!

Then in the last paragraph, the "slowly rising percentage of
students . . taking Regents . . exams" could be due to the exams
getting easier, as suggested by my analysis of Sequential I math
mentioned earlier.  The findings of the Business  Council reflect
similar complaints on Long Island, coupled with Community College
and business school reports of the majority of freshmen unable to
read, as continued on your page 6.

On page 12, no one seems to ask WHY there are so many students in
special  education, with the majority labeled "learning-disabled,"
mostly because of reading.  Some astute educators claim those kids
are "curriculum-disabled!"  Indeed, former Commissioner Thomas
Sobol admitted in a 1981 L.I. appearance that "Improving mainstream
reading programs would make for fewer kids in special education!!!"
Considering the source, that's an astounding statement!  That's an
admission that not all the problems reside in the children!  But it
is a fact that when a kid is "failing" the ONLY investigation is
aimed at him, his parents, etc., NEVER AT THE CURRICULUM.  And the
tests used to assign those pejorative labels have never been
validated for such purposes!  Leaving all those kids in those
predicaments -- INSTEAD OF FIXING THE READING PROGRAMS -- is
psychological child abuse, institutionalized, on a massive scale!
(Back in the '80's, I had two articles on this topic published in
the Journal of Learning Disabilities.)

Do you wonder that kids become violent?  But if they act out or
turn off out of their boredom or frustration they get put on
Ritalin, another can of worms, another issue for another
dialogue/communique.

I previously sent you an article (Solomon or Salami?) about the
effect of poor reading on mathematics.  Enclosed is one on science.
Please note the article's  call for drastic overhaul of teacher-
training college faculty.  Jim Conte says the next phase of your
Task Force will look at occupational ed, a good move in the light
of the spectre of the School-To-Work legislation (See enclosure.).
Please note the importance of "the basics" for EVERY student
entering the next century high-tech workplace with its accelerating
demand for CHANGE.  A worthy goal would be to triple the percentage
of students taking Physics.  By addressing that objective
scientifically, ALL students will benefit.

Your Task Force is going along too easily with the inefficient
"scoring rubrics" for the new tests.  With new electronic
capabilities, machine-scorable tests should be the goal.  "Part
credit for a good explanation of a wrong answer" is poor training
for a workplace that does not take kindly to wrong answers, and
where every day is a final exam.  The children are being led
astray.

The Task Force is to be commended for targeting teacher training,
but it doesn't go far enough:  Another subject for another day,
especially in the light of my study group's finding that current
teacher-ed programs have a NEGATIVE effect on a district's Regents
exam performance!  (See Science enclosure & 11/7 letter.)

An especially troubling example of the Task Force's weakness in
perspective is the admission (page 22) of "Reading Recovery" (RR)
as a cost-effective program.  RR by itself is NOT cost-effective.
(It comes out of the same bull-pen as Whole-Language.)  Only if the
teachers using it add in some phonics (which RR does NOT provide)
do the kids improve in reading.  The Williamsville procedures
should be examined closely before accepting Ms. Lewis' views about
RR.

The interest in districts "achieving success despite daunting
obstacles" is laudable, as far as it goes.  You need the report of
the recent "No-Excuses" conference hosted by the Heritage
Foundation, also to look at other high-performing schools known to
ESTEEM's circle of activists/researchers.

The problem of underachievement of minoritiues can be directly
traced to reading instruction, thence to the teacher-training
problem.  When you add in the connections to special-ed, A.D.D.,
violence, etc., improving reading gets to  look more and more like
the proverbial "silver bullet!"  Regarding school  violence
prevention, you need to look also at other curriculum strands,
information on which was provided to the Lt. Governor's Task Force,
but totally ignored in its recent report, "Safer Schools for the
21st Century."

All of these considerations will come up sooner or later if your
Task Force proceeds further on teacher-training and testing and
curriculum issues, as stated in the frontespiece of "Raising the
Bar."

Would it not make sense to include me on the Task Force, or at
least to  designate one of your staff as an education point person
through whom I and other ESTEEM members would communicate on a

regular basis?

Please be assured that we in ESTEEM value your past expressions of
interest and support your efforts to improve academics for New
York's children.  God bless!

Very truly yours,

Charles M. Richardson, P.E.

Encls: Scientific Literacy, STW Letter (Rohrer)

cc: A. Bernardo, J. Conte, ESTEEM Curriculum Committee