DT>I am not convinced that public education has had a "marked" fall.  
DT>As a matter of interest, where is the information coming from that 
DT>tells us how poorly public schools are performing?
Standardized testing mostly, but to be frank, I can see it
all around me; in my classes, etc...
DT>We are after guided in education by research are we not?  
We SHOULD be, but, unfortunately, we're OFTEN guided simply
by whatever fad our superintendent attended over the summer.
DT>The Nation at Risk report (which I don't place much confidence, but 
DT>anyway) came out in 1983, right?  That means that students who 
DT>graduated in 1983 had to have entered kindergarten in 1965.  It is 
DT>probably true that the NAR report looked back several years to even 
DT>the beginning of the 1960,s.
An interesting point... I agree with you that the report
MUST have been targetted on students of the 70's.  Most
older (more "mature") teachers will, however, tell you
that this is where things started to go wrong....
DT>If kids cannot spell, as you and others here say, and if they cannot 
DT>write or read at grade level, the bigger question it seems to me is "How 
DT>were these kids taught?"
I think the bigger question is: Are these even the same kids
in terms of the population sample?  Certainly the attitudes
have changed... Maybe NOTHING is going to work well....
DT>Not one study of any kind has been made to show why California dropped 
DT>in scores and no where can you or anyone else find any evidence that is 
DT>*conclusive* and that "proves" a relationship between California's drop 
DT>in performance and early writing programs.  You are simply stating 
DT>conjecture.  California's educational problems were voluminous.
I think that it is safe to say that the problem, if it DOES
exist, is very complex in origin...
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * For a good time, call 1-800-3IBMOS2
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 2
---------------